Glenn Beck drops 20 brutal proofs Canada is no longer a free nation



In a truly free nation, 10 things must be present, says Glenn Beck: “rule of law,” “free, fair, and regular elections,” “protection of individual rights,” “separation of powers,” “independent judiciary,” “a free press and open information,” “civilian control of the military,” “protection of minority rights,” “economic freedom and property rights,” and “a culture that values freedom.”

When weighed against these standards, Canada, he argues, is the opposite of free.

To prove his case, he lists 20 recent examples of how Canada has abandoned these core pillars of freedom.

1. Lab scandal cover-up

In 2021, Canadian Parliament learned that a top-security lab scientist had sent live Ebola samples to the Wuhan Institute of Virology and worked with the Chinese military on biological weapons research. Parliament demanded the documents four times, but the Liberal Party repeatedly blocked access, sued to prevent disclosure, delayed, and even triggered a snap election to shut down the probe.

“That's rule of law being violated and separation of powers being violated,” says Glenn.

2. Corruption shielded

Three years after the lab scandal, the auditor general uncovered roughly $400 million in clear corruption. The Liberals in Parliament immediately shut down further investigation and discussion.

“Accountability, independent oversight — violated,” Glenn notes.

3. Rule by executive fiat

Following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation in 2025, a tiny elite group (just 0.33% of Canadians) installed Mark Carney as prime minister. During this period, the House of Commons suspended operations for eight months, leaving the country ruled entirely by executive orders with zero parliamentary debate, votes, or oversight.

“No oversight, no debate, no votes. Where's your representation? Separation of powers? That's not a democracy. That's ruled by fiat,” Glenn warns.

4. Foreign election interference ignored

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service confirmed that China interfered in both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections by financially backing 11 candidates. Trudeau was informed but took no action.

“That's free and fair elections out the window,” he states.

5. Unequal justice

A Liberal member of Parliament publicly encouraged people to claim a Chinese Communist Party bounty placed on a Conservative candidate. No charges or consequences followed.

“Equal application of the law — violated,” says Glenn.

6. Democracy by manipulation

In subsequent voting, 121 mail-in ballots were left uncounted, Elections Canada printed incorrect postal codes on envelopes (creating a 327-vote swing favoring the Liberals in one riding), and data errors distorted results. Additionally, five MPs switched to the Liberal Party within five months, conveniently giving the Liberals a two-seat majority.

“Democracy by design, or is it democracy by manipulation?” he asks.

7. Crushing peaceful protests

The government invoked the Emergencies Act against the 2022 Freedom Convoy truckers’ protest. They froze bank accounts of participants and their financial supporters nationwide. Two federal courts, including the Court of Appeal, unanimously ruled the action unjustified, illegal, and a direct breach of charter rights. The government continues to appeal despite the court rulings.

“That's a silencing of free speech and assembly and property rights” as well as an abandonment of “judicial authority and rule of law,” Glenn emphasizes.

8. Government control of news

Bill C-18 (Online News Act) required Google and Meta to pay Canadian news outlets for simply linking to their content. Meta responded by blocking all news on Facebook and Instagram for Canadian users. This gave the government indirect control over what information reaches the public.

“Free press, information flow — controlled,” he asserts.

9. State regulation of culture and speech

Bill C-11 (Online Streaming Act) placed platforms like Netflix, YouTube, and Spotify under federal regulation, imposing Canadian content quotas and DEI requirements. This allows the state to influence what people watch, listen to, and create.

“That's [violating] speech” and “cultural expression influenced by the state,” Glenn declares.

10. Ignoring the public will

The government maintained the carbon tax even though two-thirds of Canadians opposed further increases. They removed the visible consumer tax but quietly kept hidden regulations and industrial carbon taxes that raised fuel prices. They also attempted an outright 100% electric vehicle sales mandate by 2035 before switching to indirect emissions rules that achieve the same goal.

“Transparency? There's none there,” he observes.

“Property rights? Optional.”

11. Seizure of private land

Ontario’s Bill 212 gives the provincial government power to fast-track highway projects, override local bylaws, and quickly remove property owners from their land.

“No property rights,” Glenn reiterates.

12. Secret land grab

In Waterloo, authorities used confidential NDAs and threats of forced expropriation to seize 770 acres of prime farmland for an undisclosed “mega site.” Local farmers only learned about it after the deal was done.

Glenn calls it yet another violation of property rights.

13. Politicized justice

In New Brunswick, a judge deliberately shortened a convicted criminal’s sentence to prevent his deportation, prioritizing the man’s skills over proper enforcement of immigration law.

It’s a clear violation of “equal justice,” he argues.

14. Government competing against citizens

Toronto city council approved government-operated grocery stores that would avoid paying the same taxes as private businesses, allowing them to undercut regular competitors.

“Fair market violation,” Glenn notes.

15. Crushing local taxpayers

In rural New Brunswick, forced municipal mergers led to sudden property tax increases of 50% to 60% on homeowners.

16. Permission-based economy

British Columbia is shifting toward a permission-based economy where residents must obtain government approval for routine activities (such as selling eggs or offering riding lessons) or face fines up to $50,000 per day.

“Economic freedom? Gone,” Glenn concludes.

17. Gun confiscation

The government banned approximately 2,500 types of firearms previously owned legally. The buyback program was labeled “voluntary,” but citizens were warned they could face jail time for keeping their lawfully purchased guns past the deadline.

“[Are] there any property rights?” he asks.

18. Death as health care solution

Medical Assistance in Dying was introduced in 2016, and safeguards were removed in 2021. By 2024, over 22,500 people requested it and nearly 16,500 received it — accounting for 5.1% of all deaths that year. Since legalization, more than 76,000 Canadians have died through the program. It is now the fourth leading cause of death among adults and is increasingly offered for treatable conditions like back pain or mental health issues, while patients wait an average of 28 weeks for regular medical care.

“When the state controls your health care and offers death as a solution to its own failures, you're no longer a citizen. You're a cost center,” Glenn warns.

19. Criminalizing dissent

The “Combating Hate” bill (C-9) is advancing in Parliament. It introduces vague new criminal penalties for “hate” that could potentially outlaw religious beliefs, peaceful protests, and political dissent.

“There's no freedom of speech there,” he stresses.

20. Exit tax on citizens

A former Google executive proposed a $500,000 “exit tax” on educated Canadians who choose to leave the country, effectively charging people for the right to emigrate.

“Isn’t that a Berlin wall of sorts?” asks Glenn.

All considered, Canada is no longer a free nation; and it’s no democracy either. “It's a managed oligarchy with democratic trappings,” he warns.

And if America isn’t careful, she will fall into the same dystopia.

“Now recognize America, this is your future,” says Glenn. “We are already letting unelected bureaucrats and activists and judges rewrite the rules.”

“If we allow and tolerate foreign interference and media capture; if we accept that the government can freeze your bank account for protesting, seize your farm for progress; if we trade liberty for equity, safety, and Canadian content, we're going to wake up in the morning in exactly the same place.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

National Popular Vote Hands Control To States With Worst Election Security

Americans in every state should recognize the compact for what it is: a coastal elite power grab masquerading as democracy.

Foul-mouthed Democrat congresswoman doubles down on now-deleted profane tirade



Democrat Rep. Susie Lee of Nevada took to social media earlier this week to post an ill-tempered tirade filled with profanity.

Lee let out a flurry of F-words in response to an article detailing President Donald Trump's plans to attend the Supreme Court's oral arguments on a landmark birthright citizenship case. Notably, Lee's profile banner on X brands her as "America' #1 Most Bipartisan Member of Congress."

'Clearly my language touched a nerve.'

"So f**king f**ked up," Lee said in a now-deleted post with a timestamp of 1:03 a.m. Wednesday. "I'll pray they f**k him to his face. Sorry, I say f**k a lot these days."

Rather than apologizing for her low impulse control, Lee doubled down and defended her incoherent rant, claiming Trump has violated the Constitution and its separation of powers.

RELATED: SCOTUS asks pointed questions as fate of Trump's birthright citizenship order hangs in the balance

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

"Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers," Lee said in a post later that morning. "I took an oath to protect and defend it."

Administration officials and allies of the president mocked Lee's lack of professionalism, insinuating she has a drinking problem that contributed to her lack of online inhibition.

Brandon Herrera, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, piled on to the ratio on Lee's childish follow-up post.

"I’m gonna need you to take an oath to stop swearing until you get good at it," Herrera said in a post on X. "Currently you sound like a 9 year old trying to impress the older kids."

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

Why I support ICE as the son of an immigrant



You’re the son of an immigrant. How could you support ICE?

Someone recently asked me this question. This same person also felt that I should be supporting the No Kings protest. It showed me how effective the Democratic Party has been at framing these issues to Democrats' advantage.

It is naïve to think that those who are willing to skip the process to come here illegally will automatically follow the laws once they arrive.

I lovingly and jokingly say my mother is a fresh-off-the-boat immigrant. She met my father in the Philippines during the Vietnam War. They fell in love and got married in the United States.

She grew up in abject poverty and had an idealistic view of the United States while growing up. Her country, the Philippines, was liberated by the United States twice: once in the late 1800s from Spanish colonial rule, and again during World War II from imperial Japanese rule.

She has more pride in being American than almost any other American I know.

She understands that the United States offers more than any other country in the world. It is something that the children and grandchildren of immigrants often forget. Thankfully, her children didn’t. She supports ICE and President Trump, and I think I can explain why.

For legal immigrants, the rule of law is incredibly important. Many of them come here for the simple reason that the rule of law in their countries broke down. Money misspent, officials and law enforcement taking open bribes, and government tyranny are some of the many reasons an immigrant would decide to come here.

Others in her family followed my mother’s journey, but they followed the legal process. Some had to wait years before coming. To them, seeing someone skip the process, skip the interviews, and skip the sponsorship requirements to come here while others they know are still patiently waiting is an insult.

ICE prioritizes removing convicted criminals, gang members, and repeat offenders. This is common-sense protection for our communities and families. It is naïve to think that those who are willing to skip the process to come here illegally will automatically follow the laws once they arrive.

Not everyone in the world likes us. Some openly call for our death and destruction. Some are motivated to hate by their religion, some by strict adherence to an economic or social ideology.

Immigrants can understand the importance of examining those who wish to live here, for those may bring the evils they hoped to escape.

Illegal immigration places downward pressure on wages. Many legal immigrants take jobs in sectors such as construction, hospitality, and caregiving. Enforcement of immigration laws helps those who came here legally and comply with our laws to earn a fair wage.

What about the costs of housing and health? If you know the basic economics of supply and demand, you understand the negative impact illegal immigration can have.

Legal immigrants also understand that illegal immigration brings bad actors who can negatively taint the positives of immigration and turn a populace against those who followed our process.

RELATED: Memo to Trump: Stop negotiating and ramp up deportations

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Unfortunately, failing to enforce immigration laws leads to the bias of lumping all immigrants in the illegal category. Recent immigrants value the long-term viability of the American dream. Many feel a duty to support the laws that made their success possible. For them, supporting ICE is a natural and easy thing to do.

For the same reasons, supporting the No Kings protests is silly. Let’s start with the obvious: We don’t live under a king, and Trump was democratically elected. The executive branch is constitutional, and checks and balances still exist. Even though an immigrant and the son of an immigrant may disagree with these No Kings protests, we understand that people are allowed to protest, and the fact that protests are allowed is incredibly important. We did not see anyone stopping them from speaking out or deplatforming them on social media.

Perhaps we should be unhappy with the president’s foreign policy decisions? I think I’ll defer to the majority of the Venezuelans and Iranians living here. I can also not overlook the checkered and violent tyrannical past of a theocratic government that openly chants “Death to America.”

The United State has elections, and these protesters might be surprised at the results. Their protests reminded many immigrants of the importance of voting.

The Fed’s independence has become a constitutional absurdity



The independence of the Federal Reserve System has become a major source of public controversy. As political leaders signal dissatisfaction with monetary policy, officials and commentators rush to defend the central bank’s insulation from democratic pressure. We are told, as if it were self-evident, that central bank independence is a pillar of sound economic governance.

But this confidence is misplaced. The economic case for central bank independence is far weaker than its defenders suggest. And the constitutional case is weaker still.

Officials entrusted with such consequential authority must ultimately answer to elected leadership.

Start with economics. The standard argument is that independent central banks deliver low and stable inflation because they are insulated from short-term political incentives. Elected officials, facing electoral pressures, might be tempted to juice the economy with artificially loose monetary policy. By contrast, independent technocrats can take the long view.

Early empirical studies did show that countries with independent central banks experienced lower inflation. Yet more recent research has cast doubt on this relationship. The correlation is sensitive to different samples and methods. In many cases, the supposed benefits of independence disappear entirely.

A more plausible explanation has emerged. Countries that enjoy low and stable inflation share deeper institutional characteristics: respect for the rule of law, stable political systems, and credible commitments to property rights. These are the real foundations of sound money. Central bank independence accompanies these basic governance norms, but its stand-alone effect is debatable.

This matters for a free-enterprise economy. Monetary policy is not a neutral technocratic exercise. Interest rates are prices: the price of time, risk, and capital. When insulated officials tinker with those prices at their discretion, the result is distorted market signals. Cheap credit can mislead investors, encourage unsustainable projects, and redistribute wealth in opaque ways. Independence does not eliminate politics. It simply hides politics behind a veil of expertise.

If the economic case for independence is overstated, the constitutional case is entirely bunk. The Constitution is clear: Congress holds the power “to coin Money” and “regulate the Value thereof.” Monetary authority, like all legislative power, originates with the people’s representatives. Congress may delegate certain functions to administrative bodies, including by creating a central bank. But delegation is not abdication.

Those who exercise delegated authority remain accountable to the laws Congress passes and, ultimately, to the chief executive charged with enforcing them.

Yet the modern Fed operates as if our constitutional framework were irrelevant. Its leaders enjoy significant protection from removal. Its decisions (targeting interest rates, allocating credit, regulating banks, etc.) have sweeping consequences for the entire economy. If this does not constitute the exercise of executive power, it is hard to say what does.

The Supreme Court has recently emphasized that administrative agencies cannot be insulated from presidential oversight simply because they possess technical expertise. The separation of powers does not yield to convenience, nor to the promise of better policy outcomes. Yet when it comes to the Federal Reserve, the court has signaled a willingness to tolerate precisely such insulation — a “special case” for the most powerful economic institution in the country.

This exception is indefensible. Appeals to history or prudence, however well grounded, are not constitutional arguments. An agency that wields executive power must answer to the chief executive. Concerns about how that works in practice does not justify ignoring the Constitution.

The truth is that central bank independence persists not because it is firmly grounded in law or economics, but because the alternative unsettles us. We worry, not without reason, that elected officials might misuse monetary policy for short-term gain.

But the Constitution does not permit us to resolve that fear by concentrating vast economic power in the hands of unaccountable experts. A free and self-governing people must confront the difficult task of designing institutions that combine competence with accountability.

RELATED: If Congress can’t oversee the FBI, who can?

Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg/Getty Images

That begins with Congress. There are several legislative reforms that can restore the rule of law to monetary policy. First, lawmakers should narrow the Federal Reserve’s mandate to a single, clear objective — price stability — rather than the vague and conflicting goals it currently pursues. A simpler mandate would make it easier to evaluate performance and hold policymakers responsible when they fail.

Second, Congress should revisit the legal protections that shield senior Fed officials from removal. Freedom of judgment is one thing; freedom from oversight is another. Officials entrusted with such consequential authority must ultimately answer to elected leadership. Legislators ought to make it easier to fire central bankers.

Finally, the president should take a more active role in ensuring that the Fed operates within its statutory and constitutional bounds. This does not mean dictating day-to-day interest rate decisions. Instead, it means recognizing that monetary policy, like all exercises of government power, must remain subject to democratic control.

President Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed chairman is a good start. The two must work together to restore the Fed’s ordinary day-to-day operations, something missing since the 2007-08 financial crisis.

Economic stability is obviously desirable. But we cannot purchase it at the cost of self-government. Republican principles require officials to be answerable to the people. If we are serious about preserving the constitutional order and free enterprise, we must abandon the comforting myths of central bank independence and restore accountability to the Federal Reserve.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Here Are 10 Great Justice Scalia Quotes To Mark A Decade Since His Passing

Here are some of Justice Scalia's best moments in remembrance of the 10-year anniversary of his passing.

46 House Republicans Help Democrats Defeat Measure Defunding ‘Activist’ Judges Boasberg, Boardman

Forty-six House Republicans joined their Democrat colleagues on Wednesday in defeating a bill amendment that would have stripped funding from two activist judges and the D.C. federal courts. Proposed by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, as an amendment to an appropriations package considered by the House for the 2026 fiscal year, the measure sought to cut […]

The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen



One of the most consequential developments of 2025 has received far less scrutiny than it deserves: the steady surrender of executive authority to an unelected judiciary.

President Trump was elected to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, yet his administration increasingly behaves as if federal judges hold final authority over every major policy decision — including those squarely within the president’s constitutional and statutory powers.

Judicial supremacy thrives on abdication. It advances because presidents comply, lawmakers defer, and voters are told this arrangement is normal.

By backing down whenever district courts issue sweeping injunctions, the administration is reinforcing a dangerous precedent: that no executive action is legitimate until the judiciary permits it. That assumption has no basis in the Constitution, but it is rapidly becoming the governing norm.

The problem became unmistakable when federal judges began granting standing to abstract plaintiffs challenging Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to protect ICE agents under attack. Many assumed such cases would collapse on appeal. Instead, the Supreme Court last week declined to lift an injunction blocking the Guard’s deployment in Illinois, signaling that the judiciary now claims authority to second-guess core commander-in-chief decisions.

Over the dissent of Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, the court allowed the Seventh Circuit’s decision to stand. That ruling held that violent attacks on ICE agents in Chicago did not amount to a “danger of rebellion” sufficient to justify Guard deployment and did not “significantly impede” the execution of federal immigration law.

That conclusion alone should alarm anyone who still believes in separation of powers.

No individual plaintiff alleged personal injury by a Guardsman. No constitutional rights were violated. The plaintiff was the state of Illinois itself, objecting to a political determination made by the president under statutory authority granted by Congress. Courts are not empowered to adjudicate such abstract disputes over executive judgment.

Even if judges disagree with the president’s assessment of the threat environment, their opinion carries no greater constitutional weight than his. The commander in chief is charged with executing the laws and protecting federal personnel. Courts are not.

If judges can decide who has standing, define the scope of their own authority, and then determine the limits of executive power, constitutional separation of powers collapses entirely. What remains is not judicial review but judicial supremacy.

And that is precisely what we are witnessing.

Courts now routinely insert themselves into immigration enforcement, national security decisions, tariff policy, federal grants, personnel disputes, and even the content of government websites. The unelected, life-tenured branch increasingly functions as a super-legislature and shadow executive, vetoing or mandating policy at will.

RELATED: Judges break the law to stop Trump from enforcing it

Cemile Bingol via iStock/Getty Images

What, then, remains for the people acting through elections?

If judges control immigration, spending, enforcement priorities, and foreign policy, why bother holding congressional or presidential elections at all? The Constitution’s framers never intended courts to serve as the ultimate policymakers. They were designed to be the weakest branch, confined to resolving concrete cases involving actual injuries.

Trump’s defenders often argue that patience and compliance will eventually produce favorable rulings. That belief is not only naïve — it is destructive.

For every narrow win Trump secures on appeal, the so-called institutionalist bloc on the court — Chief Justice John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — uses it to justify adverse outcomes elsewhere. Worse, because lower courts enjoin nearly every significant action, the administration rarely reaches the Supreme Court on clean constitutional grounds. The damage is done long before review occurs.

Consider the clearest example of all: the power of the purse.

Congress passed a budget reconciliation bill explicitly defunding Planned Parenthood. The bill cleared both chambers and was signed into law. Under the Constitution, appropriations decisions belong exclusively to Congress.

Yet multiple federal judges have enjoined that provision, effectively ordering the executive branch to continue sending taxpayer dollars to abortion providers in defiance of enacted law. Courts have not merely interpreted the statute; they have overridden it.

That raises an unavoidable question: Does the president have a duty to enforce the laws of Congress — or to obey judicial demands that contradict them?

Continuing to fund Planned Parenthood after Congress prohibited it is not neutrality. It is executive acquiescence to judicial nullification of legislative power.

The same pattern appears elsewhere.

Security clearances fall squarely within executive authority, yet the first Muslim federal judge recently attempted to block the president from denying clearance to a politically connected lawyer. Immigration, long recognized as a sovereign prerogative, has been transformed by courts into a maze of invented rights for noncitizens — including a supposed First Amendment right to remain in the country while promoting Hamas.

States fare no better. When West Virginia sought to ban artificial dyes from its food supply, an Obama-appointed federal judge intervened. When states enact laws complementing federal immigration enforcement, courts strike them down. But sanctuary laws that obstruct federal authority often receive judicial protection.

Heads, illegal aliens win. Tails, the people lose.

RELATED: The imperial judiciary strikes back

Moor Studio via iStock/Getty Images

What we are witnessing is adverse possession — squatter’s rights — of constitutional power. As Congress passes fewer laws and the executive hesitates to assert its authority, courts eagerly fill the vacuum. In 2025, Congress enacted fewer laws than in any year since at least 1989. Meanwhile, judges effectively “passed” nationwide policies affecting millions of Americans.

This did not happen overnight. Judicial supremacy thrives on abdication. It advances because presidents comply, lawmakers defer, and voters are told this arrangement is normal.

It is not.

Trump cannot comply his way out of this crisis. No president can. A system in which courts claim final authority over every function of government is incompatible with republican self-rule.

The Constitution does not enforce itself. Separation of powers exists only if each branch is willing to defend its role.

Right now, the presidency is failing that test.

Media Pout That SCOTUS Could Put The Kibosh On Bureaucratic Sabotage Of GOP Presidents

If you read and watched nothing but legacy media coverage of the Supreme Court this week, you’d come away thinking that a majority of justices are prepared to anoint Donald Trump as king of America. Naturally, it’s all complete garbage. This hyperbolic hullabaloo centers around a case heard by the high court earlier this week […]

Justice Gorsuch Exposes Attorney’s Illogical Defense Of Unchecked Bureaucracy

'[T]here is no such thing in our constitutional order as a fourth branch of government that's quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative,' said Justice Gorsuch.