New York Times Forced to Issue Correction for Rewriting History

June 15, 2017

WRITER

Hell must have frozen over. The New York Times actually issued a correction for linking the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords to Sarah Palin, a claim soundly debunked six years ago. The outrageous rehashing was included in an editorial regarding the attempted slaughter of House Republicans at a baseball practice yesterday morning.

"It's quite unusual . . . I mean, they do issue corrections, a lot of times on kind of meaningless stuff, but one of the main points they were making is pretty freaking significant," co-host Stu Burguiere said.

Prior to the correction being issued, Glenn made the point that conservatives have plenty of reasons to claim incitement --- although he urged them to take the high road rather than retaliate in kind.

"Incitement? How about holding a picture of Donald Trump's bloody head? Incitement? How about a play this week in New York City making Caesar look like Donald Trump and having a bloody assassination in Central Park, so much so that the sponsor . . . Bank of America pulls out?" Glenn questioned.

The New York Times must have felt the heat from their blatant hypocrisy, not to mention the rewriting of history. The publication issued this correction on June 15, 2017:

An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

Again, before the correction came out, Glenn urged Americans to document the truth.

"Write a diary, because your children have absolutely zero chance of reading the truth," Glenn said.

In point of fact, the Tea Party was the biggest American populist movement in which grassroots efforts changed the course of an election in two years.

"That wasn't even put in TIME Magazine's year in review. Why? Because they don't want records of it. Why put a record of that so we have a hard time diminishing the impact and telling the truth of what really happened. This is a writing and rewriting of American history in realtime," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Today is the New York Times was full-fledged New York Times. Today, the New York Times today MSNBC, today, CNN, they're back to their old tricks. It didn't take them long before they started blaming this on the left -- I'm sorry. On the right. Before they started blaming this on Donald Trump.

Now, if we remember, they blamed the right and Sarah Palin for Gabby Giffords, because she had released something about districts that needed to be targeted. "She used the word 'targeted.' In this atmosphere, with what they're saying, of course that's going to drive -- well, the person who used the gun to shoot Gabby Giffords was a lefty -- and nuts! Was not on the Sarah Palin email list. Let's just put it that way. Didn't see the targeting stuff. It wasn't Sarah Palin. And yet, the New York Times wrote this.

Conservative and right-wing media were quick on Wednesday to man forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals.

They're right. Though there's no sign of incitement, as direct as in the Giffords' attack, liberals should, of course, hold themselves to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right. But there is no sign of incitement.

Okay. Somebody puts out a political piece and says, "We have to target these districts." That's incitement. But Kathy Giffords -- Griffin. What is her name?

STU: Griffin. Griffin.

PAT: Yeah, it's Griffin.

GLENN: Sorry. She was never a star in my world. I don't know what she did to think she was a star. But she'll never get her career back of that one gig a night --

PAT: Once a year.

GLENN: On CNN.

Anyway, incitement. How about holding a picture of Donald Trump's bloody head? Incitement, how about a play that week in New York City making Caesar look like Donald Trump and having a bloody assassination in Central Park, so much so, that the sponsor -- what was it, Bank of America?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Pulls out. Unsolicited, pulls out and says, "This is over the top." So much so, that even the New York Times' critic says, "This is over the line."

But there's no incitement there. No, no, no. Nothing as strong as, "We need to target these districts."

STU: And that is legitimately the quote. This is from New York Times, not in 2011, but today. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin's political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other --

PAT: Unbelievable!

STU: -- Democrats under stylized crosshairs.

This has literally been disproved and debunked for six years, and today they're still writing it.

GLENN: It doesn't matter. Those -- those elites -- those in the newspaper -- this is why I've asked you for years, write a diary. Write a diary. Because your children have absolutely zero chance of reading the truth.

Remember, the Tea Party, the biggest American movement of -- of -- of a populist movement. A movement where grassroots takes over and changes the course of an election in two years, the Tea Party, that wasn't even put in TIME Magazine's year in review. Why?

Because they don't want records of it. Why put a record of that so we have a hard time diminishing the impact and telling the truth of what really happened.

This is a writing and rewriting of American history, in realtime, as historians go back.

But I will tell you, I've learned more from the lost diaries of the German people, than I have from any history book on what really happened in Germany.

Keep a diary.

So here's the New York Times saying this today and saying there's no link. Write in your diary and cut out any posts that you have, and make sure it's on paper. Cut on any post that you have, and make sure that you have the Kathy Griffin -- Griffith -- Grifford -- that one.

STU: Grifford, that's it. Kathy Grifford.

PAT: It is.

GLENN: That one. Whatever her name is, make sure you have the picture of her holding the bloody head two weeks before this shooting. Make sure you have the story of Shakespeare In the Park, one week, days before this shooting. And then I want you to write this: These things did not cause this crazy lunatic to shoot. It wasn't -- make sure you put that he was a Bernie Sanders volunteer. But then I want you to make sure that you put Bernie Sanders and what he said yesterday. Here's what he said yesterday.

BERNIE: Madam president, I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice this morning is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign.

I am sickened by this despicable act. And let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society. And I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.

GLENN: Stop. I'm asking you one question -- I want you to listen to this one question and only answer this question. Do you believe that he believes what he just said? Pat.

PAT: Yeah. Uh-huh.

GLENN: Jeffy, do you believe that he believes what he just said? That he condemns violence.

JEFFY: I'm not sure.

GLENN: Wow. Stu.

STU: I mean, his actions from last time this happened --

GLENN: That's not the question.

STU: That's not the doubt. The literal words he says, yes. He does not want violence. He condemns it.

GLENN: He has a long history of condemning violence. However, question number two, is he a political human being? Pat.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Jeffy.

JEFFY: Yes.

GLENN: Stu.

STU: 100 percent.

GLENN: Which explains what he said after Kathy -- after --

STU: Kathy Grifford.

GLENN: Whatever. After what he said about the other shooter.

STU: Yeah, Jared Lee Loughner. He raised money off of it. He said he blamed it on right-wing reactionaries: This horrendous act of violence is not some kind of strange aberration for this area, where it appears threats and acts of violence are part of the political climate. Nobody can honestly express surprise that such a tragedy finally occurred.

GLENN: Okay. Stop.

I believe -- I believe that yesterday Bernie Sanders, when he found out that this was one of his guys that was a campaign volunteer, I believe he was horrified that somebody could say that -- not for political reasons. I believe Bernie Sanders would not want somebody shooting at Congress members.

STU: Of course.

GLENN: Period.

Now, we don't get that respect from the press. We don't get that respect. They won't give that to us. They're still relitigating a false claim of -- of a shooting that happened by a crazy person on the left. They're still blaming that on Sarah Palin. And relitigating that today. They're, still, on MSNBC -- there was a tweet that went out and said, "Donald Trump is responsible for this."

I'm going to give you two answers to the question on who is responsible: Who is responsible? I'm going to give you two answers. And both of them are absolutely true. But both of them are separate and apart from each other.

You want to belly up to the big boy table? You want to hear things that -- that everybody will tell you today, to make you feel good, that you should tune to another show -- if you want to hear the truth stick around. I'll share it, next.

Continued in hour 3

GLENN: Hey, before we get into -- before we get into what we can do, could -- I think it's important to start with the correction of the New York Times today. The New York Times has issued a correction to what they had printed about Gabby Giffords. Do you want to go over that? This is unusual and remarkable, I think.

STU: Yeah. I mean, it's quite unusual, especially from -- because, I mean, they do issue corrections, a lot of times on kind of meaningless stuff. You know, details -- they do issue a lot of -- to correct one of their editorials, one of the main points they were making is pretty freaking significant. Here's what the correction reads: An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.

GLENN: That's amazing.

STU: I don't know how it gets to print. I don't know how they don't that know before they put the actual editorial up.

PAT: Wow. Yeah.

STU: But I'm glad they corrected it. And it is important. There is absolutely zero evidence -- in fact, it is proveable that this had nothing to do with it. You know, to the point of, he was obsessing about Gabby Giffords three years before the ad came out. And, you know, there's -- if he had any leaning, as we said -- an acquaintance called him a liberal. But it was not a political assassination. It was not that.

I mean, this is a guy who believed grammar was a conspiracy.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: It's almost incomprehensible what --

GLENN: Yesterday, it was a political assassination attempt. Yesterday, it was about politics. But it had nothing to do with Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders rhetoric or anything else. This guy was nuts. This guy believed what he believed, and he's the one who loaded the gun, got the gun. Lived in his van for two weeks. I mean, the guy was nuts, period.

It was politically motivated. Who had anything to do with that? Did Rachel Maddow wind him up?

STU: No, she -- he tweeted about Rachel Maddow. He tweeted about Ed Schultz. He tweeted about all these shows.

GLENN: I will tell you this, if you buy into that, then you better check his Facebook and what he tweeted and what he Facebooked about. A lot of stories from Russia Today.

STU: Yeah, Russia Today is another one.

GLENN: So was he wound up by the Russians?

STU: And I don't know if this was been widely reported, but he was also pretty much -- he was very pro-Sanders. Anti-Clinton, right? Like he was that left-wing socialist, wants Bernie, but not Hillary type of guy.

But he loved a lot of these left-wing shows. Is it their fault? No. Of course not. It is not their fault at all. It's not Rachel Maddow's fault. It's nobody on MSNBC's fault.

GLENN: You could make the case that the uber, uber left, just like the uber, uber right, they do want revolution. And he may have been a supporter of the Antifa movement, I don't know.

STU: There are groups certainly that advocate for violence.

GLENN: That want revolution.

PAT: Wouldn't it be refreshing if the left did the same thing we're doing right now?

STU: Wouldn't it be?

PAT: Wouldn't that be great? Give it -- a balanced look at it. A fair and balanced -- since Fox just dropped that, we can take it from them. We got a fair and balanced look at --

GLENN: Did they say what they were replacing it with?

PAT: I think most watched, most trusted.

GLENN: Isn't the most trusted name in news, isn't that the CNN most trusted --

PAT: I don't know. But Fox has actually won every poll along those lines for years now. So maybe they're going to take it from them. I don't know.

STU: And there were some examples today -- for example, of the Jared Lee Loughner thing, you said, wouldn't it be nice?

GLENN: Yeah, there are.

STU: Chris Hayes, for example, on MSNBC, when that out, people on the right were criticizing. How can you tie this?

And he said, yeah, I'll step up here and say that's completely nuts.

PAT: Wow.

STU: These are tough examples. It's hard to do that when you're on the left in a moment like this, and those people should be given credit. We should also criticize the people who don't -- who don't do that, and who break the -- you know, who create a double standard for themselves and blame the right for 2011 and don't do it here. When here it actually -- there's at least a tie.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Jared Lee Loughner didn't support Sarah Palin. There is an absolute -- that is provable. Here we have a situation where this person did support all these left-wing causes. But that still doesn't make them responsible. That is not the way this works.

GLENN: Right. So it is really easy -- it's really easy on the left to do what the New York Times did at first. It's really hard for them to issue the correction.

It is really hard for people on MSNBC to come out and say, look. Just like with Gabby Giffords, it was crazy then, it's crazy now.

It's really hard for people on the right to say that. And not throw stones. Because everything depends on clicks now. Everything depends on ratings.

I mean, it was really interesting to listen to Bill O'Reilly talk about ratings earlier this week. He's on with us tomorrow, by the way. But when he was on with us, he talked about ratings and how everything is done for ratings.

Well, how do you get ratings? You get ratings by dividing people. You get ratings by calling out a bogeyman. Because that's what -- that's what people want. They want the red meat. So who are we going to be able to work with? Who can we -- who can we trust to give us the news and give it to us straight? Well, people like Jake Tapper, who were consistent then and are consistent now.

Those are the things -- these are the times that we can learn, who is trustworthy? Who is going to say it, when it was tough?

STU: Let me give you a little flashback here, which is perhaps maybe the best example of this. We haven't even discussed since this whole terrible tragedy happened.

This is back in 2010. A couple hosts on the program, Pat Gray, Stu Burguiere, filling in for Mr. Glenn Beck that particular day. And there was a shooting, eight people killed at a workplace. And we talked about it. I said, a guy like that, who is a little bit unstable anyway, can't help but react to the constant pressure of Keith Olbermann on the air on MSNBC, talking about all the racism there is out there. Because that was his complaint.

And then we said, Keith Olbermann was responsible. Keith Olbermann was responsible for the shooting. And Media Matters did a big report about how we --

PAT: That's right.

STU: We -- blaming Keith Olbermann for the shooting. What an unbelievable charge. How dare you.

Of course, they cut out the next paragraph and next few seconds where I said, "Obviously we're making a point here." Let's move that to the case of the Tea Party members. They're constantly convinced the government is after them, and they're going to come take their guns. Well, who is always talking about that? Glenn Beck. So, therefore, he's responsible every time anyone does anything. They actually had to issue a correction because they --

GLENN: Media Matters.

STU: Media Matters issued a correction. Because what we were saying at that time, when it was hard for us, was, you know what, Keith Olbermann is not responsible for a murder. He can say anything he wants in a political context, outside of actually saying specifically go murder people. And it has nothing to do with the shooter.

Media Matters intentionally cut that off and later got caught and had to issue a correction about it. And here we are, years later, where the same crap happens, from many of the same people, and, you know, we have to choose whether -- you know, what kind of people we want to be. Do we want to be the people who actually stand up and say -- and can live with ourselves and sleep at night, knowing that we have consistent principles, or do we just want to throw around the same crappy accusations the other side does in those moments?

Shocking Christian massacres unveiled

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep