Blog
LatestArticlesVideos
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcasts
The Glenn Beck ProgramThe Glenn Beck PodcastThe Beck Story
Fine Art
Real Estate
More
AboutCharityBooksSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2024 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn's Show Prep

Rand Paul responds to hit piece over his "audit The Fed" stance

February 19, 2015
Wilson

Writer

Earlier this week, Politico published a hit piece on Senator Rand Paul over his push to audit the Federal Reserve. The article claims that Sen. Paul isn't telling the truth and this is just a calculated way for him to energize the Libertarian base. Glenn invited Sen. Paul onto the radio show today to respond to the attacks one by one.

Below is a rush transcript of the interview

GLENN: Welcome to the program. Senator Rand Paul is joining us. We're excited to have him on. He was supposed to be on yesterday. There was a scheduling conflict. Misunderstanding. We missed him yesterday. We're glad to have him on today to respond to an article that was in Politico that I think was a massive hatchet job on him on -- in many ways. But they -- they bring up a lot of points that, unless you're really well-versed in The Fed, you might look at this and say, well, gosh, I don't know who to believe because this all makes sense. Maybe Rand Paul is lying. But they bring up very specific points that he should be able to answer. And if he can't answer them, then we know that it was an absolute hatchet job and it only makes his case stronger and we see the game that is being played.

Welcome to the program, Senator Rand Paul. How are you, sir?

SENATOR PAUL: Good morning, Glenn. Thanks for having me.

GLENN: You bet. So, Senator, I want to talk to you about the Politico article. But I really want -- how much time do we have with you?

SENATOR RAND: Oh, a couple hours. Whatever you need.

[laughter]

GLENN: So I want to just kind of go over exactly what they said so you can explain it. Because you're an expert on The Fed. I mean, you know, relatively speaking. And they bring up a lot of points that somebody like me looks at and says, well, gee, that kind of makes sense. What's Rand talking about? So let's go over these point-by-point. They say, The Fed has $4.5 trillion in assets, mostly treasury bonds, mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by the federal government. It only has 57 billion in equity because it spends -- sends most of its profits to the US treasury, a total of around 500 billion over the past decade. So it actually has no leverage in the traditional sense of the word, meaning debt, because it doesn't borrow money like Lehman Brothers before it went bankrupt.

SENATOR PAUL: It kind of makes me laugh, a little bit, Glenn. They don't borrow money, they just create it. So they bought during the last several years, they bought trillions of dollars of assets. And you say, well, an asset should be good. Right? To have an asset. Well, they create the money to buy the asset. So on the liability side of the ledger, they have almost the same amount of liabilities. But they didn't borrow money from someone. They didn't go out and work and earn it. They just created a computer entry to pay the banks for these assets.

And the point I've been making is, who did they buy these things from, and what did they pay for them? So for example, let's say I'm the chairman of The Fed and my brother owns the bank, shouldn't the American public know if I buy my brother's bank and I pay 100 percent value when maybe it was only worth 10 percent? The whole idea during this crisis was that they forced private industry to mark to market. Meaning you had to immediately discount what your company was worth if it was losing value, whether you were selling it or not. The Fed doesn't do the same thing. The Fed has 4.5 trillion dollars' worth of so-called assets. We don't know what they are. We don't know what they're worth, what they paid for them. And are they marking them to market? And what would happen to The Fed and to the country if they were to mark them to market?

GLENN: They said in your op-ed, you claimed that The Fed has $4.5 trillion in liabilities, not assets, and $57 billion in equity. Donald Kohn, the former vice chair said, there's essentially no credit risk on the Federal Reserve's balance sheet right now. I don't know of any institution in the United States that is subject to more oversight than The Fed.

SENATOR PAUL: When they say there's no credit risk, they created four and a half trillion dollars to buy these bad mortgages. So is there no risk in creating it? If it's a great thing -- they brag they made 500 billion or whatever they made in interest over the last 10 years. Well, if it's good, why not create more money?

So if they bought 400 trillion dollars' worth of asset by printing up money or by computer entry, why not create, oh, I don't know, 9 trillion worth, and they can double their so-called profit. See, it's like the emperor has no clothes when people finally discover, yeah, they have a profit, but their profit is made by creating money out of thin air, or creating a computer entry and buying stuff. But then there's a whole question of favoritism. Is there any conflict of interest? Are any of these assets, so-called assets, which are sometimes bad car loans, bad home loans, are any of these assets owned by friends of theirs? You know, for about the last two decades, there's been a revolving door between the fed, the Treasury, and Wall Street again. And I frankly live and fly over America, and I'm tired of paying for it. I'm tired of bailing out these big banks when they make bad decisions.

STU: I think you're being rude to Lehman Brothers by comparing them to Lehman Brothers.

GLENN: Okay. So here's Politico. Problem number one. They say problems with your bill. Problem number one. The article says the bank's finances are already subject to an audit by the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Inspector General and outside audit firms.

SENATOR PAUL: There's a really great exchange, and your staff can find this. There was a committee hearing, and the congressman asked the auditor if he brought the auditor before the committee, he asked the auditor, during the crisis, you know, it was like four or five, six, $7 trillion had changed hands. I think the question and the point was: Do you know what was purchased with the $2 trillion?

And the auditor said, oh, we're not allowed to audit Federal Bank Reserve activities. So the auditor has no idea what they purchased. So really, I don't think that's a real audit. We have a bunch of fake audits. And the fake audits don't reveal any of the information we want to know. We want to know: Who are they buying the stuff from. What are they paying for it? Are they paying a fair market rate or because it's someone's brother-in-law, they're actually paying more for something than it's actually worth.

If your home is worth 150,000, that's the mortgage on it, but the market drops off by a third, shouldn't the Federal Reserve be able to buy that at 150,000? And what if it's their brother-in-law or cousin? We don't know any of that. So we don't really have an audit. It's appalling that something Congress creates is such an enormous creature -- a creature that creates its own money is now lobbying government. They should be forbidden from lobbying government and forbidden from trying to influence legislation. I think it's appalling that they're trying to stop any oversight of the Federal Reserve.

GLENN: Well, they're saying, again, back to the article, those interested in what is on the Fed's balance sheet can actually find out. Down to the individual bond on the website of the New York Federal Reserve.

SENATOR PAUL: I think that that's true and untrue at the same time. There are lists of what their assets are. But they aren't individualized. You can't tell who they bought them from or whether they were bought at fair market price or whether they were bought at a haircut and whether or not there were any conflicts of interests in the buying and selling. I mean, Bear Stearns is bailed out, Lehman Brothers isn't. Does that have anything to do with who runs the bank or who owned the banks? I mean, these are questions -- the bank was created by Congress. So they talk about independence from Congress. Well, no, Congress created the bank. Congress should be the one overseeing the bank. The independence we need is independence from the executive branch. The executive branch is always meddling in The Fed. And I frankly think that we need to break up some of the -- you know -- of the I guess intermingling of policy between Treasury and Fed and have more congressional oversight on what's going on.

GLENN: Let me -- this kind of goes right into problem number three, they say. Critics of the bill say that it's aimed much more directly at repealing a 1978 law establishing Fed independence on monetary policy decision. Paul's Bill, though vaguely written, would likely allow the GAO to investigate monetary policy actions and report back to Congress immediately.

SENATOR PAUL: You know, it's just a lookback provision. It's actually a one-time audit that looks back at the end of the year. And we think it would be a good idea. And basically what the bill does, it reveals prohibitions against auditing. So when they say there are being audited, there are four prohibitions that prevent full audits from occurring. All we do is repeal the prohibitions on full audits. And I think most American people have a little worry. We went to where people making $100 million a year on Wall Street ran their banks into the ground by poor decisions, buying derivatives and doing all this crazy trading, and what happens, those people don't miss a beat, and the next year they're making $100 million. But there's a lot of us living in middle America who are struggling. When we talk about the middle class still struggling, the rich getting richer, some of us want to know what the Federal Reserve is doing and whether they're bailing out their wealthy friends or -- and what are the consequences for the rest of us in middle America.

GLENN: Just off the subject here for a second. Have you seen the documentary, Money for Nothing?

SENATOR PAUL: I think so, or I've seen bits of it.

GLENN: It's really good. If you happen to be listening and want to know the history of The Fed and what some of the things is that senator Rand Paul is talked about. Watch this. You can find it on Netflix. It's from Liberty Streets Films. It's called Money for Nothing. And it's about The Fed and, quite honestly, many of the problems that they've caused. And part of it is because of this 1978 bill where they were also charged with -- and this to me makes so much sense, they were charged with also worrying now not just about inflation, but the unemployment numbers. And so now the balance is, do we care -- do the people care more about inflation, or do the people care more about the unemployment numbers? And so it's become wildly politicized. And you can't serve both of those masters. And right now, we're printing up the money because they're not concerned about inflation, and the pressure is, get the economy moving, get the jobs created. And they'll destroy our monetary base.

SENATOR PAUL: Here's another thing, Glenn. In the crisis of 2008, there are reports that The Fed bought 3 trillion dollars' worth of foreign bank securities. Really, we now have a bank created by Congress that is actually buying foreign banks and buying foreign debt. And that's really concerning, that this all goes on in secret, even after the fact. They don't want to tell us after the fact what they did. And it's very concerning. And it's too much power to have gravitated into one sort of secretive bank. And I think most Americans would like to see it audited. If you look at polling on it or look at the votes, in the House, every Republican voted for this. And 100 Democrats. 350 votes in the House twice now. And yet, now The Fed has come all out onslaught push against this. It should worry people that an individual bank that has the monopoly privilege granted to it by Congress is able to print money to be able to lobby against legislation that would cause more oversight. That should worry all of us.

GLENN: Real quick, two other things that need a quick comment on. One of them was kind of a smear on you. The whole piece was a smear. This one they just talked about how you were on my show on 2011. You said, I worry about the Weimar Republic. I worry about 1923 in Germany when they destroyed the currency when they elected Hitler. I don't want something like that to happen in our country. They're trying to make you sound like a nut job by saying that we could have hyperinflation. Do you stand by that worry?

SENATOR PAUL: Well, I think the question they have to answer to the American people is that, if create a computer entry for four and a half trillion dollars and you buy a bunch of stuff with it, is it really -- it's like the emperor has no clothes. They go around the world saying we're such a great and productive bank. We have all this profit. We created four and a half trillion dollars' worth of money. We bought some assets that bear interest. So we're making money. It's like, wow, that's great. Make more money then. Is there no limit? This is the question we should ask. Is there no limit to the amount of money that The Fed can create? And is there -- at some point, is there some ramifications? In Germany, it was hyperinflation. Right now, some of what they're doing worries people in the opposite direction because all this money that's being created, The Fed buys stuffs for the banks, distressed assets often, from the banks, but then the banks put it back in The Fed, and it doesn't get out into the system. And then The Fed pays them interest, which is a relatively new phenomenon. But as a consequence, there's enormous amount of money piling up. The banks are getting richer. Who are making -- you know, they're only making a quarter of a point of interest. But if you give some banks billions of dollars for assets that weren't worth much and then they're able to make easy money on it, is that really fair to the rest of the country that's struggling?

GLENN: The last point in the article, they say, this is only you. You don't believe any of this. You are smarter than this. You know that anybody can see, there's no use to the audit, and you're just playing to a dumb conservative or Libertarian base.

SENATOR PAUL: Well, that sounds like the people who call us Flyover America. They discount any knowledge. But they also discount any true belief and worry about our country. I think the one sincere thing that came out of the Tea Party movement and that still exists in the country is that there are millions of us that are worried about the future of the country. We're worried about the enormous death debt we're incurring. We're worried about the ramifications of the Federal Reserve simply creating money to pay for that debt. And, yeah, I'm very sincere in this. I do none of this for gamesmanship. I'm very concerned about the future of our country. Does that mean I think that it will end tomorrow in a Weimar Republic-type inflation? No one knows the future and when things will happen or if it will happen. But I am concerned about a bank that creates trillions of dollars of money, buys up distressed assets, and then says, hey, look how profitable we are.

GLENN: Last question on a different topic. The FCC net neutrality. We are so against net neutrality. There is a lot of confusion on this. A lot of people that just I think don't know what they're doing and don't know they're in bed with Marxists. I think this is a killer of the economy and a killer of freedom of speech. Is it going to pass?

SENATOR PAUL: You know, I think it won't get through the legislature. Like everything else, the president is doing it by executive Fiat. This is the biggest worry in our country right now, the president's usurpation of power. The checks and balances that our founders gave us, net neutrality is one example. Amending Obamacare is another. Immigration is another. Even going to war without Congress voting. All of these things are leading to an extraordinarily strong president and that's bad fort republic.

GLENN: Can you stop net neutrality if the FCC takes it on? Will you stop net neutrality?

SENATOR PAUL: Actually we might be able to. We couldn't when the Democrats were in charge, but there is a special rule called the Congressional Review Act. By a simple majority in the House or the Senate, we can overturn regulation when it comes forward. The only downside is that it would still have to be signed by the president. But I think we can actually in both houses turn enough numbers to overcome any terrible regulations that he does now. But the difficulty will be is that it still has to be signed by him, which he is unlikely to do.

GLENN: Senator Rand Paul, thank you so much. Thanks for clearing this up. I stand by, I think this was a bad smear job. By desperate, desperate people. And we wish you all the best.

SENATOR PAUL: Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Senator Rand Paul.

Featured image courtesy of the AP

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.