Who is really dividing the U.S. based on race in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict?

The President of the United States rarely if ever now delivers remarks without the assistance of his teleprompter, and when his teleprompter malfunctions, as it did in Germany, things get ugly, and he starts to sweat, and it’s just…well, it’s lackluster at best.

You might remember this awkward encounter from last month when his teleprompters went down.

VIDEO

President Obama: I want to thank everybody who’s here. I think there’s only one problem, and that is that my remarks are not sitting here. People?

He turns to thank the people that are standing there, and he looks at the teleprompter and –

VIDEO

President Obama: I’m going to answer a question at the end of the remarks, but I want to make sure that we get the remarks up. People?

So smooth, nobody would’ve noticed that there was a problem. He’s slick, isn’t he? Now, that’s the way the president is without a teleprompter. We have talked to people who have met with him actually in the Cabinet Room where he had to have a teleprompter with eight people in the room.

But on the flipside of that, just hours last week after the Zimmerman not guilty verdict, the president made a surprise appearance in the White House briefing room and gave a controversial yet well-polished speech on race, and this time, he did it without the aid of his trusted teleprompter.

Now, why does this matter? Well, because out of all of the issues that you would want the President of the United States to be fluent in – economics, jobs, foreign policy, individual liberty, the Constitution, any of that, this president cannot speak off the cuff without any kind of teleprompter or notes in front of him. But when it comes to the police acting stupidly or anything to do with identity politics, this man is ready to roll for hours. It’s his lifelong passion.

The man who was supposed to unite the United States of America is an expert on the most divisive form of politics in existence today that pits people against other people, placing them in little boxes and then convincing those people that you’re only in that box because of those people over there. They’re the cause of all of your problems.

Now, the press, many even on the right, are calling this speech that he gave one of the most important in his presidency. They’re singing his praises. What’s new? Even though the Zimmerman trial had nothing to do with race, and that’s not me saying that; that’s both the prosecution and the defense. Both sides said this has nothing to do with race. Still, the president is using this opportunity to further divide us.

He said the outcome of the case could have been different if Martin were white.

VIDEO

President Obama: If a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario that from top to bottom both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

Okay, so is he saying that Zimmerman was guilty, and somehow or another the system broke down? Because I haven’t heard that. I haven’t heard that the system broke down with any kind of specifics. And once again, he places himself square in the middle of the story.

VIDEO

President Obama: You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot, I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me.

I just want you to know, that’s not another way of saying that could have been my son by saying it could have been me. Listen to this.

VIDEO

President Obama: There’s a lot of pain around what happened here. I think it’s important to recognize that the African-American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

Okay, got it. He said a couple of important things here. The African-American community is looking at this situation through the lens of history and experiences and pain. Okay, well that’s why justice is blind. That’s why we don’t have people involved making the decisions, because you might look at it differently, either with rose-colored glasses or a tainted view from something that went on with your own personal life. That’s why you’re not involved, to keep the verdict pure.

But then you also say that that pain just doesn’t go away. Mr. President, may I humbly suggest that you need the atoning power of Jesus Christ if that’s not going away. What’s happening in your life, Mr. President, where pain does not go away? And why is that pain not going away? Who’s perpetrating this myth that there is still the same amount of experiences for African-Americans today as there was in the 1960s?

And by the way, if the word “myth” sounds harsh, in the same speech, here’s the president:

VIDEO

President Obama: As difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better.

I don’t think he believes that, but he’s right. The reality is there are still problems, but believe it or not, even with all of the stuff that’s going on, race relations in America, they are getting better. But Al Sharpton doesn’t let you know that. Jesse Jackson doesn’t let you know that. Anybody on MSNBC or Harry Reid, they don’t let you know that, otherwise, they’d be out of a job.

They’d be out of a few more voters, you know, if they weren’t told to vote for a Republican, I mean, if you voted for a Republican, it’d be like returning to the Jim Crow days. That would put these people out of power. Jackson, Sharpton, and the president have all used their pulpits to make the Zimmerman trial about race.

Again, both sides say that it’s not about race. And they feign outrage. I know this guy. He feigns outrage. But where is the outrage at the dropout factories that are inner-city public schools? How about the churning out of generation after generation of doomed children, slaves? If you can’t read, you’re a slave.

Where is the outrage at the failure of massive government programs, progressive governments, like Detroit, that have left citizens begging for politicians just to give ’em a few more crumbs or begging for the police to show up? Where is the outrage at the Planned Parenthood abortion mills whose founder wanted to eliminate the undesirables of society which were the blacks?

Where is the outrage at the other American war zone, Chicago, where four more were gunned down just this weekend and nine others injured in yet another shootout? Where is the outrage? Where’s the outrage at the mind-boggling and tragic black-on-black crime rates? You don’t hear about it.

According to the Bureau of Justice, approximately 8,000 blacks are murdered annually, every single year, 8,000 killed. That accounts for 49% of all of the murders in America – 49%. Twelve percent of the population is 49% of all of the murders? About 93% of black homicide victims were murdered by someone in their own race, so 93%, black on black.

Now, here’s the most shocking statistic. The murder rate among blacks in America is an astonishing 19.5 per 100,000 people. So you have an idea of how astonishing that number is, that’s a tick under Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. That’s a nation mired in constant civil war – again, a city so mired in murder that the murder rates among blacks is 19.5 per 100,000 people. That number is nearly 5 times higher than the murder rate in the Palestinian territories. That’s a real problem.

Now, why isn’t any politician standing up and saying that? Why isn’t anybody saying that? Well, because those are real problems. Those are real problems. They’re undisputed facts. And real problems are going to have to be solved, but to solve them, you need some answers and answers that empower people.

If you want to empower yourself, you’re going to have to manufacture some problems like the Zimmerman trial. It’s not about race, yet half of America thinks it is. Why? Because of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and the President of the United States just told them so. And then he has the gall to blame the racial tension in the aftermath of the verdict on that racist jury.

I’m sorry, but I’ve never seen a leader behave this way, ever. Leaders do not blame people. Leaders don’t lie for their own personal gain. Crooks, crooks do. Leaders tell you the truth, the hard truth, and then, just when you think you’re at your lowest, a leader doesn’t lean down to you and say “and you know what, you’ll never, ever make it without me.” They never do that.

They inspire you to reach higher than you ever thought you could. That’s what a leader does but not socialist leaders. Che is a big hero. Che is the leader, of course, you know, with the communist revolution, but who was Che really? Che championed that blacks weren’t doing enough for the revolution. He referred to them as lazy and unwilling to do anything to help.

He said about blacks, “The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; The European has a tradition of work and saving…” Well, that sounds racist to me, but you’ve never heard anybody on the left called Che a racist, have you? Every town in America now has a Cesar Chavez Boulevard. Well, what’s his story? Well, he was standing up for the little people. He was standing up for the workers. Was he? Was he?

Do you know that Cesar Chavez blamed the labor woes on immigrants? He was so upset that he said that there had to be a wet line on the border. The UFW, the United Farm Workers Union, they sent their thugs out, and they physically beat any illegal immigrant trying to cross the line. Now, that’s not a story that you hear today, is it? No, but these are the truths about the leftist icons, and they have a lot in common with the leftist icons of today.

Leftist icons generally inspire people to do what, to stand up on their own two feet, pull themselves up, or to riot, to fight, to burn, destroy, to hate, eventually kill people? Che didn’t free people; Che killed people. Martin Luther King, he freed people. He led people towards the promised land, and he did it without playing the blame game.

Quote, Martin Luther King, “A group of ten thousand marching in anger against a police station and cussing out the police chief will do very little to bring respect, dignity, and unbiased law enforcement.” He also said, “We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust.”

If Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and yes, Barack Obama, lifted people up instead of pointing fingers, perhaps we’d be closer to that promised land that MLK talked about and that we all know exists. It’s hard not to believe that the Sharptons of the world really don’t want to get to any kind of promised land. They’d rather remain in power, or in the president’s case, want to be your parent, because see, that’s what Progressives do.

They are your parent. They know better. That’s the whole theory behind Progressivism, somebody else knows better for the collective. Now, let’s just assume for a second that that is the right thing for them to do. So who do we have now as our parent in the Oval Office? Who do we have? Are they a good parent? Well, yes, he cares about – okay.

May I ask you, did your parent or any – if you had a good parent – or any good parent that you ever witnessed or you know, Bill Cosby, anybody, any good parent, any mom or dad, did they ever tell you to focus on the past? Did they ever encourage you to take from others because you didn’t get your fair share? Did your mom or dad ever tell you you’re not going to make it? Did they ever continually pick at old wounds and tell you that they’ll never heal?

Now, maybe I’m the only kid that wasn’t raised by Frank Marshall Davis or Bill Ayers, but my parents always told me that it doesn’t matter what others do; it’s what you do that counts. My parents always told me that life wasn’t fair and never would be fair and to get over it. But see, if you have a parent that does that, then they have to follow it with you stay focused on what you know to be true, who you are, where you came from, and that requires you to look at facts.

So let’s look at some more facts. There are racists in America, both black and white. Yep, that’s it, both left and right. Our job, I guess, is to figure out who’s who. Everybody calls each other racist now. Oh, you’re a racist because you – really? Okay, great. But there are racists. How do we tell? Well, somebody who’s trying to use race to gain power, I think, and will only tell the stories that are good for them.

For instance, why isn’t Al Sharpton talking about this story? Why isn’t the president talking about this 76-year-old man in Milwaukee? He shot and killed this little kid here, 13-year-old black kid. He comes out, and he’s got a gun. Now, look at the kid backing up. This is clearly, this is clearly not self defense.

Eventually, the mom comes out and says hey, hey, hey, what’s going on? And he says, you want to know what’s going on? You want me to stop your kid from stealing? I’ll teach your kid. Any points a gun right to the kid’s chest, shoots him. The kid starts running down the street. He shoots him again. He misses, but it’s already too late. The kid collapses and dies in the hospital a couple of hours later. Why is nobody talking about this?

This is a racist guy, right? How about the 29-year-old mentally disabled Hispanic in Arizona that was walking the dog in the parking lot at a Taco Bell? He was shot dead by a black man. Where were the calls for the justice for Daniel? Or in Chicago, Leslie Freeman, her 22-month-old son, Demonte, gunned down as she was sitting with her child in the lap in a van. She was sitting there with a van, a car full of people.

The child was shot. Just last year, Leslie lost her son, Deon, shot by a gang member. Where’s Sharpton on that one? Or the white baby that was shot in a stroller in Atlanta by two black teens? Why aren’t they talking about that one? I’ll tell you why. Nobody wants to talk about any of those because they know that both black and white agree, and whether it’s for power or for ratings, when everybody agrees, there’s just really nothing there.

They choose carefully the stories that they know divide America. It gives you ratings. It gives you power. That’s what it is. It makes you honestly into a bully. No one in the media is talking about the black guy that shot the white kid or the white guy who shot the black kid or the black teens that shot the baby, but that’s where we need to focus as Americans. We need to find the big issues that bring us together, because there’s a lot more of those stories than of Zimmerman stories.

But we’re just focusing on the Zimmerman story when the real story of all the murder and all the death is going by us at a high speed, and we just ignore that one. We can’t as a people – look, we’re not going to be able to convince everybody, and it doesn’t really matter, but here’s what we have to do. We have to find out the real facts, know what’s going on, and then without anger – and that’s the hard part, without anger – stand up to bullies.

We need to identify first who the bullies are and then stop giving them so much power over us. The Zimmerman trial should have never ever happened. The only reason why it did is because the President of the United States and his Justice Department and the wound pickers like Al Sharpton applied mob justice. I’ve never met a black man yet who actually thinks that Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson actually speaks for them.

The Reverend Jackson is out there producing love children, and Reverend Al has literally made things up. I don’t know how he sleeps at night, but he does. He makes things up to promote his own career. Jackson rushed to defend the black stripper who made the rape allegations against the members of the Duke lacrosse team which was completely false. He said his Rainbow PUSH Coalition would pay for her college tuition. It turned out to be false, and he was wrong, but there was no outcry there.

Al Sharpton, he lied about Tawana Brawley. He didn’t care about the truth. He cares about himself. I can’t think of anything more damning than proclaiming to be a reverend, a preacher, and then to use that power and that platform for personal gain. I’ll never forget when I sat down at CNN, and I did an interview with Al Sharpton. And I said “nice watch, Al,” right before we went on the air – nice watch. It was a Rolex. He suddenly became very self conscious. I don’t even…somebody gave that to me as a gift, and he covered it.

Judgment Day…Judgment Day is already scary enough, but I think anybody who claims to speak with the power of the Lord’s words are going to receive kind of a stricter punishment. There are a lot of people that think I fall into this category, and maybe I do. I try, but maybe I do in the end.

I know there are many things that I have done and I’ve said over the years that I regret now, and I think there’s a lot of people out in America that think I shouldn’t be successful. Whatever, I mean, okay, I get it. I understand. Life isn’t fair. I get that, but rest assured, if you’re right about me, justice for me will be swift and severe in the afterlife. It will be; however, if I’m right, the same will be said for Sharpton and Jackson and Wallis and President Obama.

The president is going way out of his way to comment on a single trial, and in doing so, he is – what is that commandment – oh, bearing false witness, and he’s doing it by using race. This isn’t about race. It’s not my job or your job to judge a man’s heart, but it is our job to look at the tree and then look at the fruit of that tree. What is that tree producing? Is it producing good fruit or bad fruit?

This tree is producing lies and anger, division, unrest, violence, poverty, and suffering. When will Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or the president rise up at the injustice to blacks and women that has happened in progressive cities like Detroit or currently happening in Philadelphia? Or are they just going to continue to turn a blind eye to the truth in favor of their own political and personal agendas?

And if we continue to be quiet, if we continue just to take it because what am I going to do about it anyway, where do those personal agendas take us as a nation?

Top THREE reasons we NEED the Panama Canal

Justin Sullivan / Staff | Getty Images

Is Trump seriously planning a military conquest of the Panama Canal?

In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Donald Trump launched the Panama Canal into the national spotlight. The canal is one of the most important passages in the world, and its continued operation has been critical for both the U.S. military and economy since its construction.

Since America relinquished sovereignty of the canal, China has asserted its authority in the region. The Chinese Communist Party has been growing its influence in Panama and neighboring Latin American countries, convincing them to join their "Belt and Road Initiative," an effort to poise China as the main economic power in developing nations across the world. Panama in particular is quickly becoming a Chinese puppet state. There are currently over 200,000 Chinese living in Panama, a Chinese company runs two of the canal's five major ports, and another Chinese company provides telecommunication service for a large portion of the canal. The government of Panama has even gone as far as cutting diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

It's clear that the Panama Canal is under serious threat of falling into Chinese hands, but President Trump doesn't intend to let them move in. Here are the top three reasons we need the Panama Canal:

1. The canal was built by the U.S.

Hulton Archive / Stringer | Getty Images

Without the United States, neither Panama nor the Panama Canal would exist. In 1903, after Colombia refused to allow the U.S. to build a canal across the isthmus of Panama, President Teddy Roosevelt devised a controversial plan. He supported a Panamanian independence movement, which swiftly overthrew the local Colombian government. Meanwhile, he stationed a U.S. warship off the coast, preventing Colombia from sending military forces to retake Panama.

The moment Panama declared its independence, the U.S. recognized it and struck a deal with the new government: the U.S. would control the Canal Zone, while Panama would receive $10 million and an annual payment of $250,000. Construction of the canal took over a decade, cost $375 million, and resulted in thousands of American casualties, making it the most expensive U.S. construction project of its time.

Fast forward to 1964 when tensions between the U.S. and Panama over the canal erupted into a riot. President Lyndon B. Johnson decided it was time to transfer control of the canal to Panama. However, this proved more complicated than expected. In 1968, General Omar Torrijos, a known ally of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, seized control of Panama in a coup. Negotiations over the Canal stalled, as many Americans opposed giving such an important asset to a controversial figure. It wasn’t until 1999, following the deployment of 27,000 U.S. troops to facilitate yet another change in power, that the Canal was officially handed over to Panama.

2. The canal is vital for the U.S. economy

IVAN PISARENKO / Contributor | Getty Images

The U.S. relies heavily on the Panama Canal for commercial shipping. Between 13 and 14 thousand ships use the Panama Canal every year, which is roughly 40 percent of the global cargo ship traffic. Additionally, 72 percent of ships traversing the canal are either heading toward or leaving a U.S. port.

The time ships save using the Panama Canal reduces shipping costs massively. For example, when the canal first opened in 1922, it was estimated that a ship’s journey from Oregon to the UK, was shortened by 42 percent, reducing costs by 31 percent. If the Panama Canal was blocked or destroyed, or if American merchant vessels were denied passage, the effects on the U.S. economy would be tremendous.

3. The canal is a key defense point for the U.S. military

Historical / Contributor | Getty Images

Similarly, the canal is key to the U.S. military and national security. The canal shaves off approximately 8,000 miles of the voyage between the Pacific and the Atlantic. If U.S. Navy ships were denied access in a time of crisis, the extra time required to bypass the canal would be disastrous. Conversely, if the U.S. can keep the Panama Canal from being used by foreign aggressors, it would provide a massive advantage in future conflicts.

A foreign enemy could easily exploit the canal's current vulnerability. This was proven in 2021 when a cargo ship accidentally blocked the Suez Canal for a week, paralyzing global trade. Imagine China intentionally sabotaging the Panama Canal, considering it controls ports on both ends, owns a bridge that spans the Canal, provides its telecom services, and has the second-largest fleet of ships using the route.

TOP 5 takeaways from JD Vance's 'Face the Nation' interview

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

After an eventful first week in office, JD Vance wrapped the week up with a bang of an interview on "Face the Nation."

Last weekend, Vice President Vance joined "Face the Nation" host Margaret Brennan, who drilled Vance on everything from the economy to immigration. Vance clapped back with polite yet cutting responses, and he defended Trump against some of her more accusatory queries.

If there was any lingering doubt that JD Vance wasn't vice presidential (or presidential) material, they have just been blown away. Here are the major takeaways from his electricinterview on Sunday:

1. J.D. Vance defends Trump's cabinet picks

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Brennan opened the interview with a barrage of questions that brought up concerns surrounding some of Trump's cabinet picks, specifically Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Brennan began by questioning how effective Pete Hegseth could be as Secretary of Defence, given that he was confirmed with a tie in the Senate that VP Vance broke. Vance responded with a quick breakdown of all of the issues the military is currently facing. Vance argued that Hegseth's unpopularity in the Senate results from his being a disruptor.

Brennan also attacked Tulsi Gabbard, calling her unfit for the title of "Director of National Intelligence." Vance defended Gabbard, citing her formidable resume and strong character. Vance also discussed the corruption of our intelligence services, which out-of-control bureaucrats have weaponized against the interests of the American people. He expressed his belief that Gabbard would be the right person to reign in the corruption and return the National Intelligence Service to its intended purpose.

2. J.D. Vance explains how Trump's economic policies will lower consumer prices

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan pushed Vance on the economy, specifically questioning when prices for consumer goods would begin to fall. Vance explained that within the plethora of executive orders issued by Trump during his first week in office, many were aimed at bringing more jobs back into America, which will raise wages and lower prices. Other orders will boost energy production, which will reduce energy costs and decrease the costs of goods.

3. J.D. Vance sheds light on needed FEMA reforms

ROBYN BECK / Staff | Getty Images

Brennan drilled Vance on President Trump's proposed FEMA reforms, specifically regarding Trump's suggestion to send states a percentage of federal disaster relief funds so that they can quickly distribute aid rather than wait on federal action. While Brennen argued that FEMA has specialists and resources that states would not have access to, leaving people without aid, Vance argued that recent disasters, like Hurricane Helene, have proven that FEMA's current bureaucratic red tape deprived Americans of immediate aid when they needed it most.

4. J.D. Vance defends Trump's mass deportations

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

Vance defended Trump's decision to allow ICE to conduct raids into churches and schools against Brennen's criticisms, arguing that law enforcement should remove a dangerous criminal from a school or church, regardless of their immigration status. He also advocated for Trump's proposed changes to birthright citizenship to prevent illegal immigrants from abusing the constitutional amendment by having "anchor babies" on U.S. soil.

Vance also took a hard stance supporting Trump suspension of admitting Afghan refugees. Brennan argued that Afghan refugees were going through a thorough vetting process and were now being abandoned by the U.S. However, Vance cited the foiled terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during Trump's 2024 campaign that was orchestrated by an Afghan refugee, who was allegedly vetted by federal agents. The vetting process is clearly flawed, and it was a prudent decision to halt the admission of these refugees until further notice.

5. J.D. Vance insists that Trump will still reign in Big Tech

PIERRE-PHILIPPE MARCOU / Contributor | Getty Images

To wrap up the interview, Brennan questioned the Trump administration's stance on Big Tech given the attendance of the industry's biggest names at Trump's inauguration, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. Vance assured Brennan that Trump is still resolved to curb the power and influence of Big Tech.

Top THREE reasons the U.S. NEEDS Greenland

EMIL STACH / Contributor | Getty Images

Are Trump's repeated promises to claim Greenland for the U.S. just belligerent imperialism or a deft move to secure the future of America?

During his patriotic inaugural address, President Trump reiterated his campaign promise to expand American territories, including securing U.S. control over Greenland. This is not a new idea despite what the mainstream media may claim.

The idea of buying Greenland was originally introduced by progressive hero Woodrow Wilson in 1917 as an attempt to secure the homeland as America was gearing up to enter the First World War. The second attempt came after World War II when President Truman tried to buy the island from Denmark in another attempt to shore up national security, this time against the Soviets. Since then, Trump floated the idea in 2019, which was met with much the same ridicule as now.

The truth is that the acquisition of Greenland represents far more than just an outlet for repressed imperialist desires. It would be one of America's best investments in a long time, which is why we've been eyeballing it for so long. Here are three reasons the U.S. needs Greenland:

Strategic Military Position

THOMAS TRAASDAHL / Contributor | Getty Images

For the majority of the 20th century, Europe was the region from which a foreign attack on American soil could be launched: the Germans for the first half of the century, and the Russians for the second half. On both occasions, Greenland stood between our foreign enemies and the United States.

After the World War II, America was the official military defender of Greenland, per an agreement with Denmark. Under this agreement, the U.S. built Pituffik Air Force Base, a remote base 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Due to its location, approximately halfway between D.C. and Moscow, the Pentagon still views Pituffik as a vital component of America's nuclear defense.

The U.S. also built a secret base within the ice cap known as Camp Century. Camp Century was part scientific outpost, part nuclear-tipped ballistic missile silo built in the ice to withstand a direct atomic strike. The nearly two miles of icy tunnels were powered by a nuclear reactor and were designed to survive a nuclear first strike, and return fire. Although abandoned in 1967, Camp Century still symbolizes the strategic importance of Greenland for U.S. security.

Untapped Resources

OLIVIER MORIN / Contributor | Getty Images

While Greenland's population is a mere 56,000, the island has a total landmass nearly three times the size of Texas. According to a 2009 geological assessment, a whopping 30 percent of the Earth's undiscovered natural gas, and 13 percent of its undiscovered oil is locked away beneath Greenland's icy ground. There are also untapped deposits of valuable rare earth metals including copper, graphite, and lithium.

Neither Greenland nor Denmark have any real plans to tap into this immense wealth trapped beneath the ice, but it could prove crucial for ending the West's dependency on China. China has the global market cornered on rare earth minerals- including America. We acquire 72 percent of our rare earth mineral imports from China, making us entirely dependent on them for the manufacturing of many essential goods. Tapping Greenland's natural resources would help free America, and the West, from China's yolk.

Polar Silk Road

mark peterson / Contributor | Getty Images

In 2018 China launched an ambitious project that aimed to cut the travel time of cargo vessels between its ports and European markets in half. China, in collaboration with Russia, plans on developing new shipping routes through the Arctic Ocean. This bold new strategy, dubbed the "Polar Silk Road," has been made possible thanks to new tech, including a fleet of Russian, nuclear-powered icebreakers, the latest of which is capable of breaking through nearly 10 feet of ice.

With clear waterways from eastern China and Northern Europe, it won't be long before the first cargo ships brave the frigid sea and China looks to the next leg of the journey: the Northwest Passage. The Northwest Passage is the area of sea between Canada and the North Pole that would be an optimal shipping route between America's East Coast and Asia if it wasn't frozen over most of the year. But with new technology, we may be able to overcome the challenges of the ice and open the passage to commercial traffic, and Greenland is positioned directly on the passage's easternmost mouth.

Greenland would quickly become a key location along the Northwestern Passage, acting as a sentinel of the east, with the ability to control traffic through the trade route. If China or Russia were to take control of Greenland, they would dominate the Northwestern Passage, along with the rest of the new northern trade routes.

Is Romania squashing its own 'Trump' candidate?

DANIEL MIHAILESCU / Contributor | Getty Images

This week the streets of Bucharest, the capital of Romania, erupted in protest after the Constitutional Courts annulled the recent first round of the presidential election after the "far-right" candidate won.

The government is lying to you. If you have been listening to Glenn for a long time you already know that, and you also know that if you try to call attention to the lies you get labeled a conspiracy theorist or "far-right." This is not only true in America but across the world. Politicians cheat, steal, and grab power, then lie about all of it. This is the root of countless issues across every government on the planet, and recently Romania has become the latest example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

But what is really happening in Romania? Was this an actual attempt to stamp out someone who would shed light on lies and corruption? Or did the Romanian government put a stop to a genuine bad actor?

The Election

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

On December 6th, 2024, the Romanian Constitutional Court canceled the second round of the presidential election amid claims of Russian interference. The second round of the election would have seen right-wing candidate, Calin Georgescu face off against pro-European centrist Elena Lasconi.

The trouble surrounds Georgescu, who stands accused of using Russian aid to run an unprecedented social media campaign that helped him win an election pollsters claimed he stood no chance of winning. Georgescu's rapid rise in popularity on social media does raise some eyebrows, and to add to the suspicion he declared he had zero campaign spending. On the other hand, Georgescu's supporters claim that his quick rise to stardom and underdog victory is due to the growing resentment for the ever-out-of-touch political elite.

Georgescu's Platform

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

Georgescu rose to prominence on a platform many of his detractors have labeled "far-right," "pro-Russian," and "populist" (sound familiar?). His positions include supporting Romanian farmers, increasing Romanian self-reliance, and increasing local energy production. Georgescu has been lauded for his message of hope and vision for the future and his dedication to truth, freedom, and sovereignty.

Georgescu is also a vocal Christian and a supporter of the Romanian Orthodox Church. He has questioned the climate change and COVID-19 narrative as well as NATO and the war in Ukraine, which is how he earned his "Pro-Russian" monicker. Georgescu promised to respect and honor its obligations to the EU and NATO, but only to the extent that they respect Romania and its interests.

What Happens Next?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

After Georgescu's unexpected victory, the Romanian Constitutional Courts annulled the election's first round and scheduled it to restart on May 4th. As of now, it is unclear whether Georgescu will be allowed to participate in the new election. This act by the Constitutional Courts triggered mass protests in the capital, Bucharest, and has caused many Romainians to question the state of democracy within their country.

Many of the protesters are calling what happened a coup and are demanding the election be allowed to continue to the second round. They are also calling for the resignation of current President Klaus Iohannis, who has maintained power thanks to the incomplete elections. Georgescu has officially challenged the court's decision and even made a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, but it is unclear if his appeal will make any difference.