Canada's solution to reliance on US? Increasing commitments in Europe



If Donald Trump's "51st state" cracks have gotten under Mark Carney's skin, he wasn't showing it when he kicked off the G7 summit Monday.

Sitting next to the American president, Canada's prime minister played the consummate host, with conciliatory remarks stressing how much the participant nations have in common.

'We are actively seeking to strengthen transatlantic security, particularly by becoming a participant in rearming Europe.'

"All of us around this table are reinforcing our militaries and security services for the new world," he said. "But we all know that there can be no security without economic prosperity, and no prosperity without resilience. And ... that resilience comes from cooperation, cooperation that starts around this table."

Two-percenter

Still, Carney has lately made it clear that he'd like to place some distance between him and his tablemate. Last week, he pledged that the country would boost defense spending to the tune of an additional $9.3 billion this year in order to be less "reliant" on the protection of its big brother to the south.

Carney's increase would bring Canada's defense spending in line with NATO's benchmark of 2% of GDP for the first time since NATO established the benchmark in 2006. In the last two decades, Canada has rarely exceeded 1.5% and has usually hovered around 1%.

The last time Canada's defense spending met the 2% threshold was in 1987, when former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney sought to rebuild Canada’s military. At the height of the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s, Canada was spending well over 4% of its GDP on national defense.

But will Canadians actually benefit from Carney’s spending spree?

RELATED: Listen up, America: Everything you've been told about Canada is a lie

Lillian Suwanrumpha/Dave Chan/Toronto Star/NurPhoto/Bloomberg/André Ringuette/Douglas Elbinger/Getty Images

'Deep decline'

In his announcement last Monday, Carney was typically vague about where the money will go, while hinting that Canada is on the market for new military allies and relationships:

Canada can work towards a new international set of partnerships that are more secure, prosperous, just, and free. We can pursue deeper alliances with stable democracies who share our interests, values, principles, and history, and we can help create a new era of integration between like-minded partners that maximizes mutual support over mutual dependency.

On one point, Carney was blunt: The Canadian Armed Forces are a military in deep decline. "Our military infrastructure and equipment have aged, hindering our military preparedness,” he said. “I'll give an example or two: Only one of our four submarines is seaworthy. Less than half our maritime fleet and land vehicles are operational."

Continental affair

So where are these "like-minded partners" who will help Canada get back into fighting shape? Not on this side of the Atlantic. Carney has openly mused about Canada becoming a member of the European Union and contributing to its defense force, and this looks like a big step in that direction.

Does this mean that Carney will join European leaders like U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in providing missiles to Ukraine for its war with Russia? Is that how he plans to spend Canadian tax dollars? It might not seem like a good deal to Canadians.

Last month, however, Carney expressed his intention for Canada to join ReArm Europe, a major European defense buildup. He has also continued his predecessor Justin Trudeau's policy of sending billions of dollars in military and civil aid to Ukraine, even though the country is on the brink of defeat.

Carney said:

We are actively seeking to strengthen transatlantic security, particularly by becoming a participant in ReArm Europe. This will help diversify our military suppliers with reliable European partners and integrate the Canadian defense industry as full participants in 150 billion euros of Europe's rearmament program.

To these ends, the Canada EU summit later this month will be more important than ever, and Canada will arrive at this summit with a plan to lead with new investments to build our strength in service of our values. This will include our support for new NATO defense industrial pledge, which will be negotiated at the NATO summit.

'Blank check' from Pierre

At a news conference on Monday, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre essentially gave Carney a blank check and promised his support to help the liberals achieve the military spending target.

“After a decade of liberal cuts, mismanagement, and back-office bureaucracy of boondoggles and wasted money on bungled projects, our military has never been weaker," said Poilievre.

"Now, more than ever, we need a strong military that will reassert our sovereignty in the north, take back control of our Arctic waters," Poilevre added, noting that he wanted to fight the increasingly woke policies that have infected Canada’s military and bring back the “warrior culture.”

But he stood shoulder to shoulder with Carney on spending. “We support getting back to the 2% target as soon as possible, and we will support additional money for our military,” Poilievre said, even as he promised to ferret out “waste in bureaucracy, consultants, foreign aid, corporate welfare, and other areas.”

Despite his tough talk, Poilievre admitted he had yet to see the Liberal government's budget for the increased spending.

The Return of Peace Through Strength

“Two months ago,” Donald Trump posted Friday morning, “I gave Iran a 60 day ultimatum to ‘make a deal.’ They should have done it! Today is day 61.” That deadline was firmer than the mullahs realized. Thursday night, Israeli operatives in Iran released swarms of drones and other precision munitions while Israeli aircraft rained down strikes from above. Within hours, they killed the commander of Iran’s military, his deputy, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the head of the terrorist Quds Force, and several top nuclear scientists. The Israelis lured nearly all of the Revolutionary Guard's aerial leadership into a bunker and then destroyed it. As one reporter put it, “the senior chain of command has collapsed.”

The post The Return of Peace Through Strength appeared first on .

Glenn Beck answers 'Is Brigitte Macron a man?'



Just as the rumors surrounding French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife began to fade into the archives of the internet, a viral video reignited the debate surrounding the truth about Brigitte Macron.

The video, published by the Sun, shows Macron as he was exiting his presidential jet, when a hand believed to be Brigitte’s reached out and appeared to shove him in the face.

Now, one question is back on the tip of everyone’s tongues: Is Brigitte Macron actually a man?

“I think it’s so funny when people are like, ‘It’s a man, man.’ Uh, no, I think she’s just a hideous human being. I mean, she was 39 and he was 14 when she started coming on to him,” Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck tells BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”


“She was a teacher, and she just thought he was brilliant. She started coming on to him. They started having a relationship by the time he was 15. Sixteen, the parents find out, and they’re like, ‘Whoa, wait, I thought you were having a relationship with the teacher’s daughter,’” Glenn continues.

“I mean, why isn’t she in jail? She’s clearly somebody who has abused this boy forever. One way or another, that is mental abuse. And anybody who has gone through that with a 41-year-old and you’re 16, there’s something mentally missing from you,” he adds.

Wheeler agrees that it’s “predatory behavior.”

“Imagine for a second — I think this is actually an apropos time to make this comparison — if a 41-year-old man began a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl, do you think it would have just been brushed under the rug like this?” Wheeler asks.

“No, not even in France, it wouldn’t have been,” Glenn responds. “It’s really disgusting. And so I think this guy has set himself up for being her whatever for a very long time.”

As for whether or not Brigitte Macron is actually a man, Wheeler isn’t sure.

“People ask me all the time if I think that Brigitte Macron is a man, and my answer is ‘I don’t know. I have no idea.’ I do know — what we know for a fact is that this person is a predator, man or woman,” Wheeler says.

“I personally think that’s more important,” she adds.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Macron's office initially denies authenticity of video showing French president's manhandling by his geriatric wife



Video went viral early Monday appearing to show 72-year-old Brigitte Macron manhandling her former student and now husband, French President Emmanuel Macron, just before they deplaned in Hanoi, Vietnam. The president's office initially denied the video's authenticity.

The footage has not only prompted an evolving explanation from the French president but also debate online both over what qualifies as abuse and over the nature of the Macrons' controversial relationship.

In the video, captured by the Associated Press, the 47-year-old president can be seen in the open doorway of the landed plane speaking to his wife. Mrs. Macron seemingly throws her hands into the president's face, impressing upon him a momentary look of shock. Realizing he is in full view of the public below, Mr. Macron smiles, steadies himself, and waves.

After getting his bearings, Mr. Macron turns to exit the plane, offering his elderly wife his arm. She elects instead to rely on the railing, then descends the stairs beside her husband.

'It was a moment of togetherness.'

Macron's office initially denied the authenticity of the images, but when it became clear that denial was a losing strategy, Mr. Macron told reporters that the altercation was all in fun, reported Le Monde.

"My wife and I were squabbling, we were rather joking, and I was taken by surprise,," said Mr. Macron, adding that the physicality was overblown and it has now "become a kind of planetary catastrophe, and some are even coming up with theories."

He suggested further that this was the latest of a number of videos that have been misinterpreted online.

"For three weeks ... there are people who have watched videos and think I shared a bag of cocaine, that I had a fight with the Turkish president, and that now I'm having a domestic dispute with my wife," said Macron. "None of these are true."

RELATED: Florida teacher accused of 'disturbing' sexual misconduct against student — including in classroom just hours before arrest

Photo by LUDOVIC MARIN/AFP via Getty Images

One of the videos to which Mr. Macron was likely referring showed him tucking away a white object while seated next to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz while en route to Kyiv, Ukraine, on May 9. Critics concluded that the white object was a bag of cocaine. French officials suggested it was just a crumpled tissue.

Macron's office said of the incident on the plane in a statement obtained by CNN, "It was a moment when the president and his wife were unwinding one last time before the trip began, playfully teasing each other. It was a moment of togetherness."

'He preferred to spend his time talking with the teachers.'

Even though Mr. Macron and his office ultimately confirmed that the footage was genuine, CNN still insinuated it was being misinterpreted for the purposes of "disinformation."

Some critics online discussed whether the incident was indicative of a toxic or abusive relationship.

Normalcy advocate Robby Starbuck, for instance, suggested that "if you're in a relationship where someone puts hands on you, LEAVE. It's not normal and there's no excuse for it. People who love and respect you don't hit you."

Other critics suggested the incident might be just the latest insight into a relationship that started in 1993 when then-Brigitte Auziere, a 39-year-old high school teacher, fell for a 15-year-old boy who was a classmate of her daughter Laurence. Auziere supervised the drama club the boy was a member of.

Mr. Macron's former sports teacher told Bloomberg, "At 15, Macron had the maturity of a 25-year-old," adding, "He preferred to spend his time talking with the teachers rather than his classmates."

Mrs. Macron's family discovered her affair with the minor in 1994, prompting disgust and fury.

The age of consent in France is 15.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Zelenskyy miscalculated — and Trump won’t budge



During last week’s Oval Office confrontation with President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy received a stark reality check — and Europe is now scrambling to preserve its influence over Ukraine’s future.

First, we must establish a crucial fact: Those who wish to continue the endless war want you to believe that Ukraine must join NATO to ensure its ongoing security in a ceasefire deal. The opposite is true. Russia lost, and it did so without NATO involvement. Russia failed to achieve its primary objective — taking full control of Ukraine. The notion that Russia is poised to invade Poland or other NATO countries is unfounded. Without NATO involvement, Moscow has already demonstrated its limitations.

Will Zelenskyy take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?

This is critical when examining the exchange at the White House between Trump and Zelenskyy. This was not a routine diplomatic meeting — it was an unvarnished display of power dynamics.

Contrary to prevailing narratives, Trump did not instigate the tension. The viral clips circulating on social media omit the preceding 20 minutes, during which Trump consistently offered Zelenskyy an off-ramp.

Trump repeatedly cautioned him, signaling that he should reconsider his stance. Yet Zelenskyy persisted, prompting Trump’s firm response: “Don’t tell us what we’re going to feel. We’re trying to solve a problem!”

Zelenskyy had just been publicly put in his place. He came to Washington thinking he could dictate terms. He thought he could guilt America into another blank check. Trump made it clear: Those days are over. At that moment, Zelenskyy grasped reality. He was no longer dealing with an American leader willing to be pressured into indefinite financial and military commitments. He hastily returned to Europe seeking reinforcement.

Zelenskyy returns, tail between his legs

Within hours, European leaders — including British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other heads of state — gathered in London. Their objective was to craft an alternative peace framework that would circumvent Trump’s influence. Their true concern is not Russia’s next move but the prospect of an American president who prioritizes U.S. interests over European demands.

In response, the U.K. pledged an additional aid package to Ukraine worth over $4 billion, including a $2 billion loan and another $2 billion for air defense systems. Macron floated the idea of a “coalition of the willing,” which is a euphemism for “If America won’t send troops, maybe we will.”

This approach raises fundamental questions. Are European nations prepared to deploy their own troops? More importantly, are Americans willing to send their sons and daughters to fight in Ukraine? The answer, for many, is a resounding no.

Europe’s power play

The ongoing crisis is less about defending democracy and more about geopolitical maneuvering. European elites are striving to maintain their strategic leverage, and Trump’s economic-based approach threatens to upend their plans.

Trump’s proposal to Ukraine is straightforward: Accept economic investment in rare-earth minerals, or receive no further assistance.It prioritizes economic cooperation over endless war. Ukraine holds vast mineral resources essential to modern technology, and American investors are prepared to help rebuild the nation. The plan represents a mutually beneficial alternative to prolonged warfare. However, Zelenskyy initially rejected it. After reconsidering, he returned to the United States, only to attempt a renegotiation in front of the media. Trump, unwilling to entertain such posturing, dismissed him outright.

This response sent shock waves through European leadership. If Trump’s strategy prevails, the war will conclude, military aid will cease, and Ukraine will transition to an economic recovery model. Such a resolution would strip Europe of its ability to dictate terms while simultaneously disrupting China’s control over global supply chains — an outcome Beijing strongly opposes.

The bigger picture

Connecting these dots reveals a broader reality: European leaders are not advocating for peace — they are maneuvering to retain influence. Their fear is not that Ukraine will fall to Russia but rather that Trump will broker a settlement that excludes them from the decision-making process.

Zelenskyy’s tantrum in the Oval Office was not merely a diplomatic miscalculation — it was the reaction of a leader recognizing that U.S. policy is shifting away from blank-check commitments. The crucial question now is whether Ukraine will seize the opportunity to rebuild through economic engagement or persist in a conflict that serves the interests of European power brokers more than its own people. Will he take the deal, or will he keep dragging his countrymen through a war they can’t win?

“America First” isn’t about abandoning allies but about ensuring we’re not being played. Last week, Trump made it clear: The game is over.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Boobs in space?

Donald Trump met with Emmanuel Macron at the White House this week, and told the French president to say hello to his "beautiful wife" Brigitte. The Washington Free Beacon is committed to holding our president accountable regardless of party, so we decided to fact check Trump's claim in the interest of halting the spread of potentially dangerous misinformation.

The post Boobs in space? appeared first on .

FACT CHECK: Did Trump Fail To Greet Macron At The White House?

A post shared on X claims President Donald Trump failed to greet French President Emmanuel Macron. French President Macron arrived at the White House and President Trump didn’t greet him Macron is in trouble and he knows it pic.twitter.com/FhaxX42w4n — DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) February 24, 2025 Verdict: False Trump greeted Macron. Fact Check: Macron met with Trump […]

Migrating Mona Lisa and a $50 van Gogh: Two controversies that have the art world in hysterics



Two controversies have just flipped the art world on its head: The “Mona Lisa” is apparently leaving the Louvre in Paris, France, and a long-lost van Gogh painting has experts at odds.

Pat Gray and the “Unleashed” team unpack the reports.

The Louvre — once “the most famous, most exclusive art museum in the world” — has apparently become “a run-down dump,” says Pat. “Paint is peeling off the walls; the temperature control system isn’t working … which can ruin the art.”

France’s President Emmanuel Macron has announced that renovations are under way, with a special space being created for da Vinci’s masterpiece.

However, Francesca Caruso, the regional assessor for culture of Italy’s Lombardy region, has since suggested that the painting be returned to its original home in Italy.

“Leonardo represents Italian genius. Milan would be an ideal location to display the work,” she wrote, noting that the Winter Olympics, which Milan will host, is just a year away and is sure to elevate tourism.

On the other hand, a French king — Francis I — purchased the “Mona Lisa” in 1519. It has been hanging in France’s Louvre for over 200 years.

Regardless of who ends up with one of the art world's greatest treasures, it’s likely that this tug-of-war wouldn’t be happening if France were a thriving nation — that is, it did not open its borders and implement socialism.

“You open the door to socialist policies, you put your country in a position to pay for everything, you don't have a big enough tax base for this utopia, so … you have to import cheap labor from third-world countries, and here they come from North Africa and the Middle East, and what do you got? You got an entire continent that's been overrun,” says Keith Malinak.

The second controversy that’s shaking up the art world involves a long-lost van Gogh painting that was purchased for $50 in 2016 at a garage sale in Minnesota. It took expert analysts at the New York-based LMI group years and $30,000 to verify its authenticity, but their recently released 450-page report has declared that it is indeed a product of the Dutch Post-Impressionist master.

Titled “Elimar” after an inscription on the front of the canvas, the work is believed by the art data science firm to belong to Saint-Rémy, now called Clinique van Gogh — a collection of paintings van Gogh made during his year-long stint at Saint-Paul sanitarium, during which he was a self-admitted patient.

However, the Van Gogh Museum, the ultimate authority on van Gogh paintings, has denied the attribution to the Post-Impressionist painter, deeming the LMI group’s report insufficient.

The painting is “thought to be worth over $15 million” and will soon be up for auction, says Pat, calling the entire ordeal “bizarre.”

To hear more on these two art controversies, watch the clip above.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Notre Dame’s reopening calls for celebration — and reflection



After five years of renovation and repair following the devastating fire in 2019, the bells of Notre Dame are tolling once again. Tourists can now visit the iconic Gothic cathedral, and the few practicing Catholics in Paris can once again attend Mass there. President-elect Donald Trump was among those present during its reopening weekend.

This is undoubtedly a moment of celebration for believers and nonbelievers alike. When news of the fire broke, many commentators, including myself, saw it not only as the destruction of a historic monument but also as a reflection of the cultural decline it symbolized. For millennia, France and the West upheld the true faith, fostered beauty, and pushed the boundaries of human achievement. Today, they have descended into mediocrity, marked by government entitlements, cultural erosion, and mass consumerism.

If people in the 21st century want to rebuild monuments like the Notre Dame cathedral, they need to start rebuilding the very spirit of these monuments in their souls.

Yet like the resurrected Christ, Notre Dame has re-emerged triumphant. It now draws even larger crowds, who appreciate it more deeply after nearly losing it. If the fire symbolized the West’s decline, then surely the cathedral's reopening must symbolize the West’s restoration — right?

As appealing as that narrative may be, we have little evidence to support it. In fact, a cursory look at the current state of Christianity in the West reveals a situation worse than it was five years ago. In France, a news channel faced severe penalties for factually reporting that abortion is the leading cause of death worldwide. Across the channel, England has legalized assisted suicide.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the Supreme Court has been forced to weigh in on whether states may outlaw genital mutilation and hormone treatments for minors. During this time, Pope Francis and his cardinals have spent years debating the meaning of synodality without resolution.

Rather than finding false solace in Notre Dame’s reopening, it would be more prudent to re-examine the cathedral’s fire with the benefit of hindsight.

For those who remember, the cause of the fire was initially unclear. French authorities attributed it to a random accident, while some “truthers” speculated it was an act of arson by a radical Muslim. Their suspicion stemmed from reports of Islamists celebrating the burning of Notre Dame and a wave of church-burnings across France at the time.

Elites vs. non-elites

From Emmanuel Macron’s perspective and that of the French government, blaming a Muslim fanatic for the fire was nearly as convenient as attributing it to stray cigarette embers. This explanation aligned with an anti-immigration narrative that blamed many of the West’s problems on unassimilated Muslim migrants. Framing the fire as a threat to Christian civilization posed by Muslim newcomers conveniently avoided challenging the political and economic status quo.

Recent history casts doubt on this framing. When examining all the details, the fire symbolized not a global clash between Christian and Muslim civilizations but an ongoing struggle between elites and non-elites.

If the fire had been solely a matter of Muslim non-Westerners resisting French culture, the French populace would have responded decisively. They might have voted for politicians and policies aimed at blocking and deporting North African and Middle Eastern migrants. And they might have re-evaluated their spiritual commitments, recognizing the importance of attending church and rejecting the hollow propaganda of French secular nationalism, known as “laïcité.”

Instead, the French remain as secular as ever, if not more so due to COVID-19 closures. They continue to vote for liberal politicians like Macron, who welcome ever more immigrants. This context makes it plausible that the fire was either directly or indirectly caused by French authorities seeking to gain sympathy, secure billions of euros for maintaining famous tourist sites, and distract the population to retain power. It’s reasonable to assume the reopening of Notre Dame will serve a similar purpose.

Without belief, everything shrinks

Those pointing to the recent collapse of the French legislature as evidence of a populist takeover and the end of elite secular dominance should temper their optimism. “Put not your trust in princes,” as the psalmist says. As I wrote a few years ago, the leaders of French populism are essentially no different from the French elites, aside from their opposition to immigration. If burning down a famous Gothic cathedral served their cause and helped them gain power, they would exploit the opportunity just as willingly.

Christians, populist conservatives, and self-proclaimed guardians of Western civilization should take a new lesson from the fire and reconstruction of Notre Dame Cathedral: a genuine revival of Christendom and Western civilization demands nothing less than a complete spiritual conversion.

It’s not enough to mourn the potential loss of a famous building. Humanity must refocus on first things. The ultimate reason Notre Dame burned is that the West abandoned belief — and everyone knows it. Without belief, everything shrinks, and the transcendence that enables the creation of beautiful churches and advanced societies vanishes. As a result, many in France and across the West now embody Nietzsche’s “Last Man” — oblivious dullards who seek only “little pleasures” and stupidly blink at the idea of pursuing anything meaningful or great.

If people in the 21st century want to rebuild monuments like the Notre Dame cathedral, they need to start rebuilding the very spirit of these monuments in their souls.