From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

During last night’s Liberal leadership debate, candidate Chrystia Freeland called for ‘democratic’ countries to ‘build a New World Order’ to combat Trump and his threat of making Canada the 51st U.S. state.

Former finance minister and deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland has called on “democratic” countries to “build a New World Order” to combat U.S. President Donald Trump.    

During the February 25 English-language Liberal Party leadership debate, Freeland, who is running for party leadership to replace Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, declared that Canada and its allies must “build a New World Order” to protect against U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to turn the nation into the 51st U.S. state.

“We need to recognize President Trump has said dozens of times he wants us to be the 51st state,” Freeland stated around the 36 minute mark of last night’s debate. “I don’t think any of us wants to be the leader who was asleep at the wheel and didn’t get Canada defended, did not work with our democratic allies to protect our borders.”

“They want to work with us it’s time for us to step up at home to urgently reach out to them and build a New World Order where democracy and Canadian sovereignty is protected,” she declared. 

Media outlets have long described talk of a “New World Order” as a conspiracy theory, but globalist organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) continue to give credence to the concept, by publicly calling for and working towards a worldwide “Great Reset” or other similarly named agendas.

To that end, former WEF chairman Klaus Schwab has insisted for decades that “stakeholder capitalism” is the optimal form of global  governance  in a “reset” world, allowing the biggest corporations to partner with political leaders in deciding key policy agendas, and relegating the governments’  voice to “one among many, without always being the final arbiter.”  

Freeland is not the only politician to admit that plans to establish the New World Order are underway. As LifeSiteNews reported in 2021, during the height of the COVID “pandemic,” a senior Australian health officer said that authorities will consider what contact tracing looks like “in the New World Order.” The term has also been used by former U.S. President Joe Biden, former Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki and others.

Freeland’s comments caused a stir on social media, with many accusing the mainstream political sphere of hypocrisy for labelling the term “New World Order” a “conspiracy theory” while actively advocating for it.  

“Liberals: ‘A New World Order is a conspiracy theory. Stop spreading misinformation,’” one user posted on X. “Also Liberals: ‘We need a new world order to protect ourselves from Donald Trump.’” 

Liberal Party ties to the WEF and ‘New World Order’ ideology

During the last few years, during which time Freeland served as deputy prime minister and finance minister, the Liberal Party has routinely come under fire for its ties to globalist organizations like the World Economic Forum.

In fact, Freeland’s own ties to the WEF seem extensive, with her receiving a personal commendation from former WEF leader Klaus Schwab.  

Others have also pointed out that right around the time she announced her bid for Liberal leader, the WEF’s profile on Freeland disappeared from the group’s website. 

Another Liberal leadership candidate, Mark Carney, also has ties to the WEF, as does outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

MxM News

Quick Hit:

CNN has raised alarms about potential risks to national security if President Donald Trump moves forward with plans to reduce staffing in intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA. The report suggests that disgruntled employees could be tempted to sell state secrets if they are fired, highlighting the delicate balance between maintaining national security and trimming government bureaucracy.

Key Details:

• CNN’s report warns that mass firings at the CIA could make dismissed employees prime targets for foreign intelligence recruitment.
• The article relies heavily on anonymous sources, raising concerns about credibility and journalistic standards.
• Critics argue that if employees are willing to sell secrets out of resentment, they shouldn’t be trusted with sensitive information in the first place.

Diving Deeper:

CNN’s recent article, “How Trump’s Government-Cutting Moves Risk Exposing the CIA’s Secrets,” suggests that reducing the workforce at the CIA could have severe national security implications. According to the report, current and former intelligence officials are concerned that dismissed employees may become vulnerable to recruitment by foreign adversaries such as China or Russia. The article implies that financially stressed or bitter former employees could sell classified information to the highest bidder, potentially jeopardizing U.S. intelligence operations.

The report, written by Katie Bo Lillis, Phil Mattingly, Natasha Bertrand, and Zachary Cohen, relies heavily on unnamed sources, citing “current and former US officials familiar with internal deliberations.” Critics have pointed out that the extensive use of anonymous sourcing raises questions about the report’s reliability and objectivity. In fact, CNN uses unnamed sources 18 times throughout the article, only once attributing a quote to a named individual, Joseph Gioeli of the Fiscal Service.

This narrative raises an uncomfortable question: If intelligence personnel are indeed likely to betray their country over job loss, why are they entrusted with national secrets in the first place? Beth Brelje, writing for The Federalist, argues that if employees have such weak loyalty, they should be removed from sensitive positions immediately. “Those with too little integrity to exit with grace should not be employed in jobs with access to sensitive information,” Brelje writes, highlighting the paradox in CNN’s portrayal of these individuals as both valuable assets and potential security threats.

Critics also suggest that CNN’s coverage reflects a broader media agenda to undermine Trump’s efforts to reform government agencies. By framing standard budget cuts and workforce reductions as national security risks, the narrative portrays Trump’s cost-cutting measures as reckless rather than fiscally responsible. This perspective aligns with concerns that the media is attempting to protect entrenched bureaucracies that have historically served as sources for politically charged leaks.

The implications of this report are significant. If CNN’s warnings are accurate, then the integrity and loyalty of the nation’s intelligence community must be questioned. On the other hand, if the article is merely speculative propaganda, it raises concerns about the media’s role in shaping public perception with anonymous claims and vague threats. As President Trump continues to implement government reforms, the question remains: Who truly poses the greater risk to national security — the whistleblowers or the bureaucrats they expose?