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

Is There a Moral Way to Kill a Zombie?

November 14, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The latest season of The Walking Dead has dominated watercooler talk for weeks. People just can't seem to make peace with the new level of violence in the show. The early seasons, it seems, got rid of those pesky zombies in just the right way.

RELATED: #WerkPerks: ‘The Walking Dead’ Readies Jeffy for a Zombie Apocalypse

"It wasn't inhumane. They were just killing them quickly. They weren't torturing or playing games with them or anything like that. They were just killing them," he said.

So if Glenn can't stomach The Walking Dead any longer, just what is he watching?

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these questions:

• Is hacksawing a zombie a responsible way to kill?

• What does Stu think about the new movie Arrival?

• What does Glenn call the greatest war movie he's ever seen?

• How many times has Glenn seen Schindler's List?

• Are there spoilers below?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Andrew Hertzog says that The Walking Dead has officially jumped the shark.

PAT: Well, is he talking about the first episode? Because he's right about that. That was out of control. That was out of control.

JEFFY: No.

PAT: That was ugly. And -- but now Jeffy's told me last night's was out of control as well.

JEFFY: Well, I mean, it was. Last night was way out of control.

PAT: As much or more than the first one?

STU: Wait. So the apocalyptic zombie series was a little too violent for your tastes?

PAT: Well, seriously --

GLENN: Oh, no, Stu. It got to the point I stopped watching it.

PAT: It's gotten ridiculous.

GLENN: Yeah, it's like crazy. It's man's inhumanity to man now.

JEFFY: We're definitely at that now.

PAT: So is this worse than the opening episode?

JEFFY: Well, violence-wise, no.

PAT: Okay.

GLENN: Inhumanity?

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: This Negan thing is ugly.

GLENN: Ugly.

JEFFY: And our love of Rick --

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: I mean, I haven't -- I haven't recorded my talking Walking Dead podcast yet. You'll be able to hear that later this afternoon on TheBlaze Radio.

PAT: Don't ruin it for people.

JEFFY: But this whole -- the Rick that we love --

PAT: Uh-huh.

JEFFY: -- needs to come back. Because the -- the Rick that Negan has developed --

PAT: Uh-huh. Not good.

JEFFY: Is bad. Is bad. Bad.

STU: There's not much you can give away obviously. I'm just surprised --

JEFFY: You don't want to. You don't want to on this show.

STU: I can understand not liking a certain amount of violence in your show. I get that. But I'm surprised that that's some line for you guys. This is a series.

GLENN: Because it was different. It was different because there are zombies. So it wasn't -- it was almost like it wasn't real.

PAT: It wasn't real.

GLENN: Yeah. But it wasn't -- you know -- and it wasn't inhumane. They were just killing them quickly. They weren't torturing or playing games with them or anything like that. They were just killing them. Not all of them.

PAT: This has definitely changed.

GLENN: Yeah. And now it's man's inhumanity to man. So it's different. And I don't like that. I don't like watching, you know, men do things to other people for sport, for entertainment. I just don't like it. It bothers me.

Did you see -- did anybody see The Arrival this weekend?

STU: I did. I did.

PAT: No.

GLENN: And what did you think?

STU: I thought it was good. You know, I thought it was good. I did not see it -- it's in the mid-90s in Rotten Tomatoes, which I did not see it as that.

GLENN: I think it's the best alien movie -- the best -- the most tense alien movie I've seen in a long time without it being, you know, something is falling from the ceiling. You know, without it being alien.

STU: You said it the most tense movie that really did not --

GLENN: I thought it was a great sci-fi movie, one I haven't seen like it ever before. And I really loved it.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: The ending -- it's just very cerebral. It's one that you'll walk out of going, "Okay. I think I get it. I'm not sure if I get it."

STU: That's kind of how -- they're supposedly -- they keep promoting it as having a big twist ending.

GLENN: Oh, stop it.

STU: I didn't think it did really.

GLENN: Because you were walking in, thinking it's going to have a twist.

STU: Yeah, that always ruins it.

Again, why I always talk about spoiler alerts and why I will be very careful here as I speak about this. Because it does ruin your experience. If you go in there expecting something, then it comes and it's not a big deal. And that might have been what happened to me. I didn't think it was that great, to be perfectly honest. I thought it was well done. It was interesting. It was one of those movies, I was like, wow, I'm going to figure out something big coming up soon. Where is it? Where is it? And then, oh, okay. See you later. Like, it was just like kind of a letdown, I felt like. But it was well done. It was well done.

GLENN: Yeah, it was really well done.

STU: Yeah. She's great.

GLENN: Mini spoiler here. Turn down the radio, just a mini spoiler --

STU: Oh, gee, come on, why can't you --

GLENN: No, no. It's not going to --

PAT: Don't. Don't.

STU: Why?

GLENN: Turn the radio down. Turn your headphone --

PAT: We can't turn the radio down.

STU: We work with you.

GLENN: Jeez, for the love of Pete.

PAT: Don't do it. Don't.

JEFFY: Go ahead. Stop it. It's not going to ruin anything.

GLENN: You guys are weak and pathetic. Pathetic.

JEFFY: It's not going to ruin anything.

STU: I mean, I wouldn't -- knowing -- you know, this is in retrospect, but knowing what I know about the movie, I don't know that I would go to it.

GLENN: Oh, I would.

STU: It's certainly not worth a second viewing for me.

GLENN: Oh, I would like to see it again.

JEFFY: Oh, so, Glenn, give us the spoiler. Oh, my gosh.

GLENN: No, I'm not going to -- it's not a spoiler. It's not a spoiler. It's really not a spoiler. You wouldn't understand it until after it happened anyway. But I'm not going to give it. I'm not going to give it.

STU: Good.

GLENN: All right. So anybody see -- anybody see the Mel Gibson movie? Rex Reed just said it's the best war movie since Saving Private Ryan.

STU: Spoiler alert it's a war movie. Oh, come on.

GLENN: I 100 percent agree.

JEFFY: What did People magazine give it?

GLENN: I think that is just an outrageously great show -- or, movie.

JEFFY: Movie.

GLENN: Best war movie I've seen.

STU: Wow.

GLENN: Really, really --

STU: There's been some good ones.

PAT: Is it better than like 13 Hours and American Sniper?

GLENN: Yes. Yes. It's really good. Really good.

PAT: Really? Because I thought American Sniper was tremendous. And 13 Hours. Both of those --

GLENN: It is. They both are very, very good.

PAT: And you like this better?

GLENN: This one -- yeah, I do. I like this better because I've -- I've just never seen a war movie like this. I've never seen one like this. Never seen the heroism. I mean, American Sniper, you know, you're looking at a hero. And, you know -- you know, the lone survivor. You're looking at a hero, not like this. Nothing like this. I've never seen a hero movie like this before. And this is true.

JEFFY: And they replicate the horrors of war really well.

GLENN: Like you won't believe.

JEFFY: And it's really, really good. But you don't want to watch The Walking Dead because it's too violent?

GLENN: It's like -- for instance, I have no problem watching Schindler's List once. I don't need to see that for entertainment. I wanted to see that for history's sake. But I don't need to see that for entertainment. So I don't want to watch a movie about Mengele. Hey, let's watch a show about Mengele and how creepy and icky he was. No. No, thank you. No, uh-uh. Not for entertainment purposes, no.

Nobody else has that line? Just me?

STU: Well, I think the line is sensible, that you don't watch hard-core violence so television. I mean, if that's your thing, that's your thing.

GLENN: No. It's not even hard-core violence. It's really not hard-core violence. Like, for instance, I took Raphe to Hacksaw Ridge. I saw it in advance. There's no swear words in it. It's a great message. The only thing -- there's no sex. There's no swear words. There's nothing.

The only thing in this movie is violence. But it is real violence. It's not gratuitous. It's a real depiction of war. And my son sat in the seat next to me. And, you know, he'll watch anything. And he's like Jeffy. He's just dead inside when it comes to playing video games and zombie stuff. The Walking Dead, not the man's inhumanity to man, but some of The Walking Dead wouldn't faze him. This fazed him. And I was glad to see it.

And he was like -- he reeled back a couple of times, like, "Whoa. Whoa. Whoa, Dad." I'm like, yeah, intense.

And he said, "This is what it's like?" And I'm like, "Yep, that's what war is like." It takes all the fun and games out of war.

STU: Which is positive.

GLENN: Very positive. Very positive.

STU: You do realize that.

So you're just saying you like -- you like when it's real and not when it's fake.

GLENN: Not that I want to watch snuff films, no.

STU: For example -- well, I mean, I -- to me, I would have almost, I think, the opposite line. Like, if it's just a -- you know, it's -- it's -- like I'll watch horror movies. I'll watch, you know --

GLENN: Well, that's what I looked at for like, for instance, The Walking Dead. But it wasn't hacksawing people, just regular people. It was hacksawing the zombies. And so I didn't have so much of a problem because it's really inhumane.

JEFFY: And they're telling us how to survive.

GLENN: I don't know. It's a weird line. I can watch an alien movie. And you can blow all the aliens up, and that's fine. Once you cross over into people and they're just regular people, no, I don't want to see that. I don't want to see that.

STU: Unless it really happened.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: Unless those people actually went through those real things, then you want to see it.

GLENN: Or unless it's like West World, which I'm thoroughly enjoying.

STU: Oh, I gave up on it. It's boring.

JEFFY: I watched the first two, and I'm almost with you.

GLENN: Oh, I don't think so.

JEFFY: After the second episode, I'm almost with you.

GLENN: Maybe that's why I like it, because there's so much going on. And you want -- at least for me, I want to know what the heck is happening with the park. This is -- it's like Jurassic Park on steroids, except the people are the fakes. And you can go there and you can vacation and you can be whatever you want.

JEFFY: I love the idea of it.

GLENN: Oh, it's fantastic. And you can be a good guy, you can be a bad guy. You can be whatever you want. And you can do whatever you want because the people can't kill you, but you can kill them.

And so some people go with their families, and they have a nice little outing in the old wild west. Blah, blah. But the farther you get away from the town, the more violent and risky it becomes.

And they can't kill you, but you can kill them. And it's pretty amazing. Because there's -- because Anthony Hopkins plays this role that is just really good.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: The concept is really interesting. The execution to me has been --

GLENN: I like it.

STU: -- dull. I mean, that's my own personal opinion. But there's a lot -- I mean, there's a lot of good stuff out there to watch. You can lose yourself in the world of entertainment, which I've had to do many times over the past year and half or so.

GLENN: Me too. I've watched more television -- I didn't watch television up until last year. I had no connection to television at all until last year. Now, I'm like, I can't turn it off.

Featured Image: Image from season 7 of The Walking Dead.

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.