International
Trump ignites tensions with Trudeau after joking Canada should become 51st US state

From LifeSiteNews
Trump’s previous statements about Trudeau as ‘weak’ and a ‘far-left lunatic’ place his recent jibe about Canada becoming the 51st US state into context, thus appearing more like a deliberate humiliation of the Canadian leader.
President-Elect Donald Trump’s second term has not yet begun, but he has already inaugurated hostilities with Justin Trudeau.
In a bid to head off Trump’s threat of massive tariffs, Trudeau flew to Mar-a-Lago last month to kiss the ring; during their dinner, Trump reportedly joked that Canada should become America’s 51st state. He was apparently taken with the jibe – and, in all likelihood, the Canada press reaction to it – and reiterated as much during a Sunday interview on NBC, as well as in a social media post.
“It was a pleasure to have dinner the other night with Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada,” Trump wrote. “I look forward to seeing the Governor again soon so that we may continue our in depth talks on Tariffs and Trade, the results of which will be truly spectacular for all!”
This is signature Trump trolling – an obvious joke with a sting in the tail. There are several likely reasons for it. First, this is simply how Trump does business: he throws his weight around, and he intimidates. It is a power play. Trudeau showed up at Mar-a-Lago, hat in hand, and Trump unsubtly reminded him that he holds most of the cards.
No doubt the jibe was (and is) aggravating, and it is intended to be – more so because Trudeau and his team have to publicly pretend that it is not. Many Canadians see it as a put-down; Trudeau’s team has to insist that it is evidence of “mutual respect and warmth.”
There is probably an element of revenge to this, as well. One of Trudeau’s signature smears when attacking socially conservative Canadians – such as parental rights protestors – is to insist that they are either bigots, or victims of “far-right American disinformation.” Trudeau has also gone to great lengths to label federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and Conservative MPs as “MAGA conservatives” – and he doesn’t mean it as a compliment. Using Trump’s signature phrase as an insult likely did not endear Trudeau to the MAGA team heading to the White House.
Indeed, in the context of Trump’s previous statements about Trudeau, his jokes seem like a deliberate humiliation. He has previously referred to Trudeau – respectfully and warmly, his team will no doubt insist – as “weak” and a “far-left lunatic.” Trump was also likely unenthused by Trudeau’s comment that he and other world leaders had “managed Mr. Trump” during his first term. There will be no “managing” him in his second term, which is likely to outlast Trudeau’s tenure in 24 Sussex. Fortunately for everyone – Canadians especially – we are likely to have a new prime minister sometime next year.
This tense relationship puts conservative Canadians in an interesting position. Some, of course, are experiencing some schadenfreude at seeing Trudeau being put in his place, especially after the prime minister tactfully used “MAGA conservative” as a pejorative for the past several years. Watching him eat his words and swallow hard is amusing.
Trudeau’s unearned arrogance is famously iron-clad, and watching Trump push him around is satisfying for some. At the same time, the threatened tariffs would be devastating for Canada, and patriotic Canadians are fully justified in finding Trump’s jokes about a “51st state” demeaning and distasteful. Calling Trudeau a “far-left lunatic” is one thing. Threatening to tank the Canadian economy is another.
Reactionary anti-Americanism is a longstanding and politically-cultivated Canadian trait, borne mostly of the insecurity that comes from living alongside the world’s reigning military and cultural superpower. Thus, there are some conservatives who may feel that Trudeau deserves their support simply for standing up for Canada. This may seem like an obvious point to make, but we must remember that Justin Trudeau is the problem here, not the solution.
Trudeau is uniquely unfit to defend Canadian interests in Washington, D.C., and not only because he has deliberately created a toxic relationship with the incoming president by essentially campaigning against him north of the border and attempting to constantly tie his ideological opponents to Trump’s MAGA movement. He is also unfit because he has denied that Canada has any core identity whatsoever: in 2015, he insisted that Canada is the first “post-national state.”
Trudeau created this looming crisis, and he did so deliberately. Patriotic Canadians owe him no loyalty whatsoever.
Dr. Robert Malone
WHO and G20 Exaggerate the Risk and Economic Impact of Outbreaks

From Malone News
Poor quality modeling is being used by WHO and a G20 panel to project our risk of infectious disease pandemics and the financial requirements to address them.
Previously considered a once in a century event, major pandemics are now predicted to occur every 20 to 40 years.
Global authorities view this as an existential threat, and have called for a coordinated international response led by the World Health Organization or the WHO…but not everyone agrees with this perspective.
Researchers from the University of Leeds, including policy experts, Professor Garrett Brown and Dr David Bell, are challenging the assumptions behind these dire warnings. They question whether the massive resources being allocated to pandemic preparedness are truly supported by the evidence.
One of their critiques centers on a chart frequently cited by the WHO, which appears to show a dramatic increase in the outbreaks over the past two decades. Brown and Bell say the chart omits crucial historical context and misrepresents today’s health threats.
Long-standing diseases like yellow fever, influenza, cholera, and the plague have been steadily brought under control, and outbreaks of diseases like monkey pox or natural coronaviruses have likely remained consistent over time, but what has changed, they say, is our improved diagnostic technology enabling us to distinguish diseases more readily than ever before.
Essentially, as surveillance increases, so does the likelihood of finding diseases that may have existed but previously went unnoticed.
In reality, mortality from infectious diseases has been declining for decades, thanks to advances in hygiene, nutrition, medical treatments and reduced poverty, even with COVID 2020, to 2021, mortality remained below 2010 levels.
The WHO has identified nine priority diseases for research and development, yet five of these diseases have never caused more than 1000 recorded deaths in history, aside from COVID 19, whose origins remain a topic of debate, the rest of the diseases are largely confined to specific regions, primarily in parts of Africa.
On the list the WHO also includes a hypothetical outbreak that they call disease X – it’s a placeholder for an unknown outbreak that could emerge in the future.
And while it’s intended to promote vigilance, its severity is entirely speculative and can encourage modelers to use catastrophic scenarios to estimate future risk, causing governments to make fear-based policy decisions based on little evidence.
Brown and Bell are concerned that so much focus on speculative pandemic preparedness is diverting critical resources away from urgent health issues such as tuberculosis and malaria.
Tuberculosis alone kills 1.3 million people annually, while malaria accounts for over 600,000 deaths, mostly among children.
Although testing and treatment for these diseases is relatively inexpensive, their funding could be at risk as more resources are directed towards hypothetical future threats in 2022 a high level, independent panel was convened by the G20 to review our risk of pandemics and the financial requirements to address it.
But again, the two main pieces of evidence the panel relied on to draw its conclusions grossly exaggerated the actual risk of a pandemic.
The first report provided by the G20 panel analysed the major outbreaks of the past two decades, and it was poorly referenced, excluding Covid-19 and the 2009 swine flu, which caused fewer deaths than seasonal flu, the total number of deaths from these events over the last 20 years was under 26,000 a relatively insignificant figure in the context of global disease burdens.
The second report was from Metabiota, a former private. US based corporation, the two graphs provided appear to show an exponential increase in recorded outbreaks. Yet the researchers point out that this trend aligns with the development of modern diagnostic technologies, which naturally increase the detection of previously unnoticed diseases, indeed, the absence of recorded disease outbreaks in the 60s coincides with a lack of technology and communication systems needed to document them.
Metabiota report also included data from an article published in the British Medical Journal in 2023 it shows the rise in mortality outbreaks over the last decade is almost entirely due to Ebola outbreaks – and when these Ebola deaths are excluded from Metabiota data – the mortality trend over the last two decades shows a clear decline – a finding that contradicts the narrative of increasing pandemic risk, the financial demands of the pandemic agenda are another concern.
The G20 panel relied on a report released by the World Bank and the WHO in 2022, which sought $31.1 billion in funding, and an additional World Bank report, using poorly supportive data, sought another 10 to 11 billion annually.
On top this report referenced a 2020 study by Maryanne, which also claimed to show an increase in the frequency of disease outbreaks, but closer inspection reveals the opposite, a sharp decline in disease outbreaks between 2010 and 2020 – and like the Metabiota report – this World Bank report overlooks the fact that the development of new diagnostic tests could account for any observed increase In disease outbreaks since 1960.
Finally, the WHO report exaggerates the economic impact of outbreaks by including extraordinary costs of actions, such as stimulus packages, while downplaying the costs of endemic diseases used for comparison.
This creates a false impression that these relatively low fatality outbreaks were costlier than other diseases, and that such costs could be fully avoided while preparing for pandemics is undoubtedly important.
Brown and Bell argue that the narrative of escalating pandemic threats is misleading. They suggest that the risk from naturally occurring disease outbreaks may actually be decreasing with the rise in detected outbreaks, primarily a result of better diagnostic tools.
Researchers warn that essential global priorities such as cancer, tuberculosis, malaria and nutrition support could be neglected. For example, funding for nutrition development dropped 10% in 2020 and has yet to return to pre pandemic levels.
If resources continue to be diverted towards speculative future scenarios, proven efforts to combat the world’s deadliest diseases may be overshadowed and ultimately cause more harm than good.
Business
CDC stops $11 billion in COVID ’emergency’ funding to health departments, NGOs

Fr0m LifeSiteNews
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has been providing massive funds in the name of COVID despite the fact that Joe Biden admitted the ‘pandemic’ was over by 2022.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is withdrawing $11.4 billion in COVID funding to state and local health departments, non-government groups, and international recipients about two years after the U.S. government declared the COVID-19 “national emergency” over.
“The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago,” HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon said in a statement, NBC News reported.
“HHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President Trump’s mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again.“
Despite the fact that former President Joe Biden admitted in 2022 that the COVID “pandemic” was over, Health and Human Services (HHS) has been continuing to allocate funds for COVID testing, “vaccines,” and “global COVID projects,” according to CDC talking points.
The funding cut comes as millions of dollars for other initiatives, including vaccine hesitancy research and HIV prevention, are slashed under new HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
HHS has made the greatest funding cutbacks government-wide, according to the Department of Government Efficiency’s website.
Dr. Robert Malone argued in 2023 that the only reason the Biden administration decided to end the national COVID “emergency” when it did is because of the congressional legislation seeking that end.
“The bottom line is that the imperial U.S. administrative state will never give up these unconstitutional powers until forced to do so,” Malone wrote.
-
Alberta2 days ago
Federal emissions plan will cost Albertans dearly
-
International23 hours ago
Europe Can’t Survive Without America
-
Business2 days ago
Possible Criminal Charges for US Institute for Peace Officials who barricade office in effort to thwart DOGE
-
Business15 hours ago
Why a domestic economy upgrade trumps diversification
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Canadian construction worker goes viral for saying he refused to shake Mark Carney’s hand
-
Health1 day ago
Dr. Pierre Kory Exposes the Truth About the Texas ‘Measles Death’ Hoax
-
Business9 hours ago
DOGE discovered $330M in Small Business loans awarded to children under 11
-
Business1 day ago
28 energy leaders call for eliminating ALL energy subsidies—even ones they benefit from