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 stands against Patriot Act: "We're doing it now. We're shutting it down"

June 01, 2015
Wilson

Writer

So Congress finally did something right! Key provisions of the Patriot Act expired Sunday, including the bulk collection of phone metadata. The man who has made this happen and who is still fighting the fight, Sen. Rand Paul, joined Glenn on radio Monday.

Related: Check out Rand Paul's new book, Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America.

GLENN: Rand Paul is going to be joining us in just a few minutes. Today is a very busy day for him. He's fighting off John McCain and all the Republicans who are coming after him. A lot of people are really upset at him because it sounds like he is blaming us for terror. And that's what I've heard from several people. I happen to be a little more reflective on that. And I think that, you know, our policies have led to a lot of our problems today. We're not responsible for terror. Islam as it is understood -- the Islamists, I should say, are responsible for the terror. But we do play a role in our own demise here.

Last night, the Patriot Act was suspended. And at least provisions in the Patriot Act. Which I think is a very good thing. Now, whether they actually stop spying on us and what this new bill coming out of the House actually does, Rand Paul says it's actually perhaps a bit worse than the Patriot Act. We have yet to see. Rand Paul is with us now. Hello, Senator, how are you, sir?

RAND: Good. Good morning, Glenn, thanks for having me.

GLENN: Let's address first things first. What has been suspended on the Patriot Act?

RAND: There are three provisions. One of them is the provision that says that the government can collect records that are relevant to an investigation. The problem here is that the government has used that provision to collect all the phone records from all Americans. And the court has said that this is illegal because, how could they be relevant if you're not just getting some of them? If you're getting all of them, how could you say that every record in America is relevant to an investigation investigation? So the court sent them to legal. I don't trust this president to be looking at all the phone records of every American.

They haven't been very trustworthy with the IRS or with religious groups or Tea Party groups. I don't really want this president having all of our phone records. But the good news is that in this battle, the one thing that will come out of this week is that the government will no longer be collecting, in bulk, your phone records. Now, there is a question whether or not the replacement will actually work because I think it will still allow the phone companies to have mass collection of -- and sorting through all the American phone records. So I'm still concerned about it, but I think it will be a step forward.

GLENN: Okay. And I know you mean this as well. I'm concerned with any president having this capability. I don't want anybody having this capability. When it comes to a private business, the phone company, you know, storing all of the records, et cetera, et cetera, as long as they can only use it -- or, give it to the government with a specific warrant, do you have a problem with that?

RAND: No. And, in fact, that's the whole argument. I want to look at more records of terrorists. I just don't want to look at records of all Americans for whom no suspicion for example, the Boston bomber. If you had came to me a year before the bombing and said, well, and let's say I'm a judge. And you ask me, well, the Russians have tipped us off. And we have some evidence that he's going to fly -- he flew back to Chechnya. Would you let us tap his phone? I would say absolutely without a heartbeat. And they say, well, he called 100 people, and five of them live in Chechnya. Can we trace their phone call too? Absolutely.

All I'm asking for is not to collect everybody's records indiscriminately. I want more time spent -- in fact, I told them last night, I would take the billions we're spending collecting all American's records, and I would hire 1,000 new FBI agents to specifically go after the jihadists. The FBI said this week, they don't have enough manpower. Let's hire more, but let's quit indiscriminately looking at American's records.

STU: Creating jobs already. Look at that.

GLENN: So why are people like John McCain so dead-set against this? You know, he's doing exactly what they did to Ted Cruz, you know, with the government shutdown. Except you are responsible for this one. Where Cruz wasn't responsible for that.

RAND: It's an argument for term limits. You know, some people get there and they stay too long. People become out of touch with America. I tell people get outside the Beltway more. Go visit America. I've been traveling America. I've been out there in town halls. Fifty, 200 people, they're coming out in large numbers saying they don't want President Obama collecting their phone records. They don't trust him. And the people up here defending President Obama's collection, which has now been determined illegal by the courts, I don't know. I think if they went home, they might hear a different story.

GLENN: You've said this twice. And it concerns me. Because now you've used this -- and you've heard this from constituents. They don't want Obama doing it. Have we learned enough that we don't want the Bushes doing it or we don't want President Rand Paul doing it. Have we learned enough?

RAND: And that's sort of the problem. When you have Republicans in power, Republican Congresses have given more power to Republicans. When you have Democrats in power, Democrats give more power. And over the past 100 years, probably the number one problem we have in our country is, we used to have coequal branches. But now the presidency has become so large. The bureaucracy is so large that the presidency is probably 100 times more powerful than Congress now. And often the lowliest bureaucrat in the administration has more power than your congressman.

GLENN: So let's turn to something that I -- that has been said about you. In fact, where was it? It was on the Face the Nation or one of those crappy shows, where one of those guys was saying -- a fellow Republican.

PAT: It was Bobby Jindal.

GLENN: Bobby Jindal who I really respect and like. But he took you on and said you're blaming the Republicans for ISIS. Is that true?

RAND: I think it's quite the opposite. I think the only party responsible for terrorism are terrorists. ISIS are a bunch of thugs and terrorists. It's an aberration. It's a barbarity that's been just alarming. And I've been one who actually said we should declare war against ISIS. We have to do something about ISIS. But I've also been one that says, we have to look at our foreign policy and see if it works or not. I've said for two years now, maybe three years, that giving arms to the Islamic rebels in Syria might allow ISIS to grow stronger. And I said the great irony is, we'll be back fighting against our own weapons. And sure enough, most of the weapons that ISIS had came from us, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. We were supportive of all those weapons flowing into there. We thought, well, these people may be al-Qaeda, but they hate HEP Assad. So we'll choose al-Qaeda over Assad. And that was a big mistake.

Even our ambassador at the time, they asked him in the Foreign Relations Committee, they said, will some of these people be fighting alongside al-Qaeda? And he said, it is inevitable that the weapons we give to people, that these people will fight alongside al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and ultimately beside ISIS. But it turned out ISIS was stronger than everybody else. ISIS grabbed up all the money and the weapons. So the money is ours and the weapons are ours. It's foolish to not have a discussion whether that was a good idea or not.

GLENN: So here's the one complaint that -- and, by the way, I talked to a guy who is probably ten years older than I am. Really deeply conservative. Deeply religious. And I said to him. So who do you think you'll vote for? Without a doubt, quick as -- I just couldn't believe it. Because he's not the stereotypically Libertarian guy. And he said Rand Paul. And I said, really? How come? And he said, because he's standing and saying the things that I want to say and he's standing for the same principles that I have.

So I think that there is -- I think there's a surprise coming for a lot of people when it comes to you. Let me --

RAND: The interesting thing about the debate up here too is it's lopsided. It almost seems like a dog pile some days on me. When you go outside the Beltway, it's a lot different. These people misunderstand the American people. I think the vast majority of Republicans don't want -- and it may not be intellectual enough to say all presidents, but they particularly don't want this president collecting their phone records. And so the people up here championing, allowing President Obama to collect all of our phone records, I just think they're out of step. And if they got home, they would find out that the people want otherwise.

GLENN: What I want to say to you -- and you've kind of touched on this and I want you to go further on it. The one thing I'm not comfortable with it and it's only because we haven't discussed it. And I hear this about you and Libertarians. And they say, well, I don't know if he's the guy to really go for. Because what will he do in the Middle East? You just touched on it. You said you would declare war on ISIS. What does that mean to you?

RAND: Well, see, I would have done things completely different. Last summer when they became active and they marched and took Mosul in one clean sweep, I said that had I been president, I would have come before a joint session of Congress in August. I would have brought everybody back from recess. And I would have said, these are the reasons why ISIS is now a threat to our consulate in Irbile HEP, the same way Benghazi was threatened. This is the way our embassy in Baghdad is threatened. This is the way American interests are threatened. And this is the way that Americans have been killed by ISIS. And I'm asking you for permission to declare war on ISIS.

That's the way it was done originally. The Constitution said that Congress declares war. They're closer to the people. And it was supposed to be a big debate. We've now been at war for nine months, but had no debate and no vote. So I would go all in. I would also say that we should arm the best fighters and those truest to the cause, and that would be the Kurds. I wouldn't send it through the Shiite government in Baghdad. I would load up as many aircraft of weapons from Afghanistan where they're no longer being used, I'd put them on big transport planes and I would land them directly in Kurdistan. And I would tell the Kurds: You fight hard for your country. And when you end, it will be yours. It will be Kurdistan up there. And I would talk to the Turks. And I would say: Look, the Kurds are going to give up their pretensions to wanting any Turkish territory, but you need to fight too. You're our NATO ally. You need to come in and fight.

And I think ultimately if we could get our allies there on the ground, ISIS could be wiped out. But it won't just be wiped out by Americans. It will take Arab boots on the ground to get it done.

GLENN: So we're in this really weird situation where I don't think Americans want to fight war anymore. Because we don't even know what it's about anymore. And even the hawkish of the hawks. I mean, when September 11th came around, you know, I was put a boot up their ass and let's move on. But even me now, I am -- I am, you know, let's pull back. Let's not do all of this. We can't be these kinds of people. You said, you know, I would have done things differently. And that's what President Obama said for the first four years when he had power. And I understand that you're not the president. And you didn't have the power now. But when you get in, you know how bad it is. Can the president still move in a Libertarian way and reduce our presence and yet still have a very hard stick?

RAND: Yeah. And I think this was a lot of how Reagan operated. And a lot of this is misinterpreted about Reagan. Reagan believed in a strong national defense. So do I. I'm a Reagan conservative. Met him when I was 15 years old. Supported him from the time I was a teenager. Reagan believed in a strong national defense. Unparalleled. Undefeatable. But he also was wise about the use of it.

We had a couple little skirmishes. But for the most part, he didn't invade the Warsaw Pact. He negotiated with the Russians, but from a position of strength. And so nobody doubted that Reagan would use force if he had to. And so force is the mighty stick that backs up diplomacy. But it doesn't mean you don't talk with your enemies. It means you negotiate from a position of strength. And the thing is, for example, with the Iranians, I would still negotiate with the Iranians, but I would tell them, they have to give up terrorism. They have to give up their ballistic missile system, and they have to give up any pretension to a nuclear weapon. And if they're tweeting out crap saying that they won't adhere to the agreement and saying the agreement doesn't mean anything, then they're not serious. But I would still continue to negotiate, but I wouldn't accept an agreement that I didn't believe they would adhere to.

GLENN: Talking to Rand Paul running for president of the United States. The guy responsible for the Patriot Act being suspended today. Also, author of a new book, Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America.

Senator, we were talking before we came on the air, as much as I would like to believe they shut it down yesterday, they started shutting it down at 3:57 p.m. I think that's a bunch of bullcrap. Do you actually believe they've actually stopped collecting information today?

RAND: You have to be careful how they parse their words. They might have stopped one program, but they probably have ten others doing the same thing. They have an executive order called 123333. Under that executive order, we really don't know everything they're doing. But they're doing bulk collection under that. They may well be doing more bulk collection under that than they are under the phone collection program.

So they also told us and informed us that in the previous Patriot Act, there's a provision in there saying that they continue any investigation that was already ongoing. So my guess is that since the bulk so-called investigation was collecting everybody's records, they could simply say, well, we started doing that before so that's an ongoing investigation.

So are they stopping it? I don't know. I mean, that's the whole problem with trust here on this. The president's number one man over there, Clapper, lied to us and told us the program didn't even exist. Now we're supposed to accept that they're telling us that the world will end and the sky will fall if it ends. We're doing it now. We're shutting it down.

And I don't know. There's a certain lack of trust I have for this administration.

GLENN: I just want you to know. As we're speaking, Lindsey Graham is announcing his candidacy. So look out.

[laughter]

Best of luck to you, Senator. Thank you so much. Thank you for the hard stand. Rand Paul. Taking a Stand is the name of the book.

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.