Pierre Poilievre may be taking a page from Donald Trump’s playbook. For American audiences, Poilievre is Canada’s Conservative leader and top challenger for prime minister — a sharp-tongued critic of liberal governance who has fused free-market economics with a populist political style.Trump’s appearance on "The Joe Rogan Experience" podcast was widely credited — fairly or not — with helping him connect with voters outside the traditional media bubble. Now, with his own poll numbers tightening, Poilievre has stepped onto the same stage, betting that a long-form, unfiltered conversation can do what scripted interviews often cannot.Poilievre didn’t just avoid the risks his critics predicted; he made the format work for him. Like Trump before him, he used Rogan's show not as a gauntlet, but as a platform.If that was the strategy, it worked.Worth the riskIt’s hard to pinpoint the high point of Poilievre’s appearance on Rogan's show. There were several.Before the interview — recorded, not live — Canada’s media class warned that it was a risk. Two-plus hours with Rogan, they suggested, could expose Poilievre to awkward questions or even embarrassment on the world’s most popular podcast, which also commands a massive Canadian audience.There was little reason for concern. Rogan opened by praising Poilievre as “a very reasonable, intelligent person” — a rarity in politics, he added — before launching into a broad critique of Canada’s recent direction. It set the tone: friendly, expansive, and largely unhostile.They quickly turned to the now-famous “apple video,” a viral exchange between Poilievre and a British Columbia reporter that has become political folklore. What began as a would-be “gotcha” ended with Poilievre — casually eating an apple — deflecting accusations of populism and comparisons to Donald Trump. The clip circulated widely, hailed by supporters as a small master class in message discipline.Poilievre told Rogan he hadn’t thought much of the moment at the time and didn’t even realize he was being recorded, assuming it was a routine print interview. The footage, captured by his own staff, was initially posted online without much notice before suddenly going viral weeks later, turning the exchange into an unlikely political talking point.Mind your own businessOver two and a half hours, the conversation ranged widely — from martial arts to Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying program.On euthanasia, Poilievre struck a more serious tone, arguing that public policy should emphasize helping people endure hardship rather than steering them toward death. He suggested the system should be oriented toward preserving life and ensuring that vulnerable people are not nudged toward assisted suicide as a default outcome.He also revived a theme he has largely shelved since 2023: the idea of a “mind your own business” approach to government.Poilievre framed the role of Parliament as limiting state power while expanding individual freedom — focusing government on core responsibilities like infrastructure, defense, and public safety while otherwise leaving people alone to live their lives. He added that if he were to build a party from scratch, it would embody that philosophy.RELATED: ‘I couldn’t believe it’: BC tribunal orders ex-school trustee to pay $750K over trans 'hate' David Krayden | NurPhoto/Getty ImagesFight clubAt one point, the dynamic flipped. During a discussion of the UFC and martial arts, Poilievre began quizzing Rogan on his own background, demonstrating an unexpected fluency in the subject — and even offering details about Bruce Lee that appeared to catch Rogan off guard.The performance was confident, relaxed, and at times surprisingly deft.Poilievre didn’t just avoid the risks his critics predicted; he made the format work for him. Like Trump before him, he used Rogan's show not as a gauntlet, but as a platform.It’s the kind of appearance he may wish he had done sooner — and one he’ll likely repeat as he continues his bid to become Canada’s next prime minister.

After years of a media-driven pressure campaign over pay and treatment, WNBA players have secured a significant salary increase. On March 18, the league and its players' union (WNBPA) announced their verbal/tentative agreement on a new collective bargaining deal that will dramatically increase player salaries by tying pay to revenue shares.But given that the WNBA has long been financially propped up by the NBA and has only recently started generating enough revenue to trigger player revenue sharing (and potentially turn profitable), Jason Whitlock sees the league’s new deal as undeserved welfare disguised as earned success.“Nothing that happened with the WNBA and their CBA agreement had anything to do with proper business or these women getting what they're owed or what they've earned or what they deserve. This is being given to them to execute an agenda,” he says.On this episode of “Fearless,” Whitlock exposes the corruption behind this new WNBA agreement and calls out ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith for pandering to the “alphabet agenda.” “They want the next group of leaders to all be in support of the alphabet movement, the disruption of the nuclear family, the destruction of the nuclear family, the destruction of a Christian culture, and so they are making alphabet mafia soldiers the heroes and leaders for your kids,” says Whitlock. “That's what this is all about.”He pokes fun at ESPN's Stephen A. Smith for enthusiastically celebrating the landmark deal on a recent episode of “First Take,” during which he praised Nneka Ogwumike (Seattle Storm forward and president of the players' union) for her leadership, telling her sister Chiney Ogwumike that Nneka "has set a standard," "deserves to be applauded," and that the agreement is "a damn good deal.”But the truth, says Whitlock, is that this deal had nothing to do with Nneka Ogwumike or any genuine achievement.“Two things are responsible for them getting overpaid: Caitlin Clark and the alphabet agenda," he says.“We just gave the welfare sport more welfare money. The WNBA is a welfare sport. It's no different than women's soccer. That was a welfare sport for 40 or 50 years,” Whitlock continues, exposing the pattern of “take money away from men, give it to women” to create “more lesbian feminist leadership.”He accuses Smith of pandering to the WNBA: “He’s applauding it out of arrogance, foolishness, the desire to remain in power, the desire to remain in the good graces of the feminist and the alphabet mafia people that actually control his salary, control his platform.”“This is what selling out looks like.”To hear more of Whitlock’s commentary, watch the video above.Want more from Jason Whitlock?To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Frank Meyer’s fusionism combined free-market libertarianism and religion-friendly traditionalism to create the modern conservative movement. As a political alliance against the threat of communism, the movement served its purpose. But the principles that undergirded Meyer’s synthesis were not an adequate basis for attaining and sustaining national power.The difference between the defeated Barry Goldwater faction and the victorious Ronald Reagan coalition was the vote of white Catholic Democrats alienated from their former party by its anti-anti-Communism and embrace of the three A’s: amnesty (for draft evaders), acid, and abortion. We need a clearer, more uncompromising articulation of a pure MAGA doctrine that distinguishes our agenda from the libertarians and so-called principled conservatives.Those former Democrats did not want smaller government, so Reagan preserved, for them and the country, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, along with generating ever-larger deficits.Meyer’s synthesis, however, was not as new as is often claimed: In important respects, it represented 19th-century Bourbon Democracy spruced up for the post-World War II era. What distinguished the Bourbons from the Republicans (and from the populist Democrats) was their commitment to smaller government, free trade, and cheap labor. That meant unfree labor in the 1850s and more-or-less free labor once the South was successfully “redeemed” from Republican rule and black civil rights enforcement after the Civil War.What America needs today instead is fissionism. We need a clearer, more uncompromising articulation of a pure MAGA doctrine that distinguishes our agenda from the libertarians and so-called principled conservatives.MAGA in foreign and security matters means using American power to secure American interests. Foreign policy is not the application of abstract principles, which are worse than useless in international relations. What were Franklin Roosevelt’s principles or Andrew Jackson’s or Teddy Roosevelt’s? Their guiding star in foreign policy was not principle but the ruthless pursuit of results. As for draining the swamp, the trench warfare over DOGE and U.S. attorney appointments proves that deconstructing the administrative state requires a pro-Trump Senate. But the current Senate remains beholden to the uniparty. If you are happy with your “principled conservative” senator obstructing the president, then you are on the other side.Against those screaming for lower taxes and less government at all costs, protective tariffs are core to MAGA — and for that matter, core to the Republican Party before it was taken over by Reagan, a former Democrat and fusionist. MAGA demands an economic policy geared toward national greatness. It means an end to regulations engineered to cripple the U.S. economy in the name of DEI, apocalyptic climate alarmism, or the latest elite neurosis.Targeted regulations and tariffs to onshore our supply chains and rebuild the American industrial base? Absolutely. That has been Donald Trump’s consistent agenda since he first started commenting on public affairs in the 1980s. If the “principled conservatives” fail to recognize this, that exposes their own ideological blindness, not a flaw in the MAGA platform.RELATED: Will Republicans fight for the SAVE Act — or fold again? Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP via Getty ImagesFundamentally, “principled conservatives” don’t want America to be stronger and freer if it means traditional Republican governance. They prefer Bourbon Democracy: small government, cheap goods, cheap labor (citizens and noncitizens alike), and dependence on others — once Britain or the North, now China — for industry, including vital defense-related manufacturing. As for the world, China can do what it wants. Anything else would require the old guard conservatives to compromise their precious “principles.”People who don’t want the United States to be reliant on China, as Mississippi was on Manchester in 1850, or Manchester, New Hampshire, in 1890, should see “principled conservatives” as political opponents — allies of the Democrats. They are helping to destroy Trump and everything the president stands for.Does drawing clearer partisan lines mean shedding potential support required for electoral victory? That is a very real risk. The compensating benefit is that once we know what we want, we can accurately identify our allies and band together to address the crises of our time.A “principled conservative” administration would have preferred Big Pharma to RFK Jr. and MAHA. A “principled conservative” administration would make no room for a Tulsi Gabbard, an Elon Musk, or any other heterodox defector who wants to restore American foreign and security policy and advance American power, national honor, and national freedom.Fissionism means drawing clear battle lines, dividing what was once the “conservative movement.” The “principled conservatives” can keep their pristine — and currently useless — “principles.” I am on the side of America, which means the side of Trump.Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Millions recently read about normal-guy Paul Conyngham’s resourcefulness when it was revealed he did what doctors couldn’t in creating an effective, customized vaccine for his dog stricken with terminal illness, but far fewer caught the later-revealed fact that while ChatGPT was credited as the AI model Conyngham used to navigate the labyrinth of mRNA vaccine creation, it was actually Grok that produced the final, winning design.Perhaps “normal guy” is an understatement. Conyngham is an Australian tech entrepreneur. When his adopted dog Rosie was diagnosed with terminal cancer, he paid a lab $3,000 to perform DNA sequencing analysis on both Rosie and the precise cancer Rosie was fighting. Then, he used AI tools such as AlphaFold to process the sequencing analysis. Finally, he deployed Grok to design the bespoke mRNA vaccine, which was ultimately produced by university partners (evidently available for consult or perhaps inspired by Conyngham’s devotion to his dog). What are the odds that this is all just going to spontaneously work out?Despite his unusual skills and network, however, Conyngham didn’t go viral for those. Rather, his story resonated because his can-do sense of initiative is something anyone can tap into, with potentially lifesaving results. At the time of this writing, despite doctors’ predictions, Rosie the dog is alive and thriving. Her illness has not entirely abated, but her owner’s ingenuity and persistence, combined with his layman’s agility around LLMs, has reduced the most life-threatening tumors by 75%. How then, from this straightforward set of events, did ChatGPT wind up taking the credit until the record was corrected weeks later? When I asked Grok (which, being made up of timelines, is pretty reliable in accessing and reassessing events), I got the rather noncommittal suggestion that the misattribution was due to institutional inertia. Perhaps. Hungry for more, I dug into a much deeper human analysis of the man-saves-dog episode. Jordan Hall, another tech entrepreneur-turned-philosopher, posted a series of viral X articles addressing the economic shift to a total, global AI underlayer to the economy (and thus, every aspect of human life). In his second installment, “The Great Transition: The Divine Economy,” Hall sketches his vision for a coherent implementation of AI into this overarching position of importance. RELATED: Use an anonymous account online? AI can now reveal your identity. Photo Credit Olga Novikova/Getty Images Readers are strongly encouraged to read Hall’s series of articles in its entirety. It’s fascinating and endlessly ponderable. All told, in anticipation of a global upheaval of biblical proportions — yes, we’ve heard this for years; despite the wait, it’s coming — Hall suggests we’ll turn the wheel over to the Church.“The Church has always been an economic institution,” he argues, “whether it acknowledged it or not. Mutual aid, vocational, formation, capital pooling, trust networks — these are ancient practices. What changes now is that AI collapses the constraints that made those practices uncompetitive against industrial-scale consolidation. On Earth as it is in Heaven.” In the case of Rosie and her owner, just a few questions illustrate the complexity and potential for malfeasance in our AI age. Who owns the Grok-derived vaccine recipe? Who owns Rosie’s DNA? Can it be sold? Who should benefit? If DNA data is “scraped” in some manner similar to how novels, television shows, and musical recordings are more or less pilfered, what are the limits of DNA and data ownership, if any? Can it be simply destroyed, in the same way the owner of a patch of grass can burn it should he so desire? Hall’s analysis implies that, in the end, these are spiritual questions that can only be answered spiritually — and people hungry for fast answers they can trust will turn to the place where such answers have been on offer for thousands of years. For now, Rosie’s owner was able to slip through the cracks of institutional, veterinary, and judicial red tape using wit and, let’s face it, the collective human affection for dogs. Hall predicts a situation where the collective, decentralized power of human faculties — made hyper-potent via leveraging AI and functioning on the timeless spiritual foundation of the Church — robustly addresses the AI age’s vast issues of greed, misallocation, misuse, and abuse of resources. Restricted to the secular level, discussions about these problems almost always find themselves mired in the dialectic between Marx and Smith, communism versus capitalism. Unable to innovate our way out of the impasse, will our eyes turn at last to the divine economy? If a few years pass, the AI compactor consolidating everything into data will likely squeeze out new, perhaps unimaginable forms of computational power. The fight to capture and control that power is raging right now. Looking at the brokers, politicians, and players, accounting for history and human nature, what are the odds that this is all just going to spontaneously work out — such that good-willed efforts like those of Conyngham continue freely, without surveillance or exploitation? We’ll soon see if we’re willing to adopt the forms of social organization it takes to keep cyberspace so free, open, and fruitful.

President Donald Trump has his own solution to solve the stalemate in Congress that is causing a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.Democrats sparked the partial shutdown on February 14, refusing to pass the FY2026 DHS appropriations bill while calling for reform at Immigration and Customs Enforcement.'They will do Security like no one has ever seen before.'The reform demands are a protest of the deaths of anti-ICE activists Alex Pretti and Renee Good, but they ignore the fact that ICE is already funded through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed in 2025.Still, Democrats have rejected a DHS funding bill (for the fifth time on Friday), withholding funds from TSA and FEMA.With many TSA workers not being paid during the partial shutdown, the lack of staffing has had a trickle-down effect to travelers. For example, at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, passengers faced screening wait times of up to two hours this week, according to CNN. All the turmoil has President Trump brainstorming possible solutions, and on Saturday afternoon he suggested throwing ICE into the mix."If the Radical Left Democrats don't immediately sign an agreement to let our Country, in particular, our Airports, be FREE and SAFE again, I will move our brilliant and patriotic ICE Agents to the Airports where they will do Security like no one has ever seen before," Trump wrote on Truth Social.RELATED: 'Moral failure': Pressure mounts as Congress prepares to leave town despite urgent DHS stalemate Trump said placing ICE agents at airports will also mean that they will conduct "the immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country," pinpointing one nationality in particular.There would be "heavy emphasis on those from Somalia," the president wrote. He added that Somalians have "totally destroyed, with the approval of a corrupt Governor, Attorney General, and Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, the once Great State of Minnesota.""I look forward to seeing ICE in action at our Airports," Trump concluded.RELATED: White House offers concessions to end DHS shutdown — but Dems still choose illegal aliens over unpaid American TSA agents Photo by Elijah Nouvelage/Bloomberg via Getty Images According to Politico, lawmakers will remain in D.C. with a district work week looming from March 30 until April 10. This means DHS personnel could go unpaid for another three weeks if Congress does not quickly come to an agreement.With over 61,000 TSA employees affected by the partial shutdown, at least 366 officers have quit, with many working unpaid. This has led to a record high 10.22% absentee rate set on Monday, according to CNN.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!