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

DNC Wants Radical 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist as Its Chair — Where Is the MSM?

November 17, 2016
Lori Hanes

Writer

The media has accused Glenn over and over of being a conspiracy theorist. There's just one problem with that. Conspiracies are based on speculation, not fact.

Take the Muslim Brotherhood, for example. Glenn has reported on the radical group's plan to take over America. This is a fact based on a document called The Project, found in Germany by the U.S. government after 9/11. It outlines how to infiltrate the United States government, businesses and turn Americans against Americans.

"When you say something like the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over America, that sounds crazy. But once you look into the sources and you see what it is, well then, it's a different story," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Now take Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the man that Democratic Party leadership want as their next chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Rep. Ellison has been tied to the Nation of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood and holds radical left-wing policy positions. He's also said very troubling things about 9/11.

"A conspiracy theory, to me, is what Keith Ellison said in 2007," Glenn said.

In 2007, Ellison compared 9/11 to the Reichstag fire, an arson attack used by the Nazi Party to further its agenda. The insinuation being that 9/11 was blamed on a specific group so the U.S. government could get citizens riled up and fearful, and pass laws like the Patriot Act.

"Keith Ellison is making the charge that Bush was the one who benefited from 9/11," Glenn said. "Yet, the mainstream media are pretending as if none of that is the least bit controversial."

And that is exactly why Republicans and conservatives don't trust the press.

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

• Do people believe the Nazis started the Reichstag fire?

• Why was the Patriot Act written before 9/11?

• When did Donald Trump realize he might win the presidency?

• Why did Democrats lose so many elected positions at all levels?

• Should we have a plan to invade Iceland?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 41:04, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to talk to the media here for a second. The media has made me into a conspiracy theorist. And they will say, "Made you into one? You made yourself into one." By saying things like the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over America. Yes, it's called The Project. It was found by the US government in, I believe, Germany right after September 11th. It outlines how to infiltrate the United States government, how to infiltrate businesses, how to turn us against ourselves here in America. It's called The Project. You can look it up. It didn't come from me. It came from the United States government. That's who found it. You don't cover those things.

So when you say something like the Muslim Brotherhood has a plan to take over America, that sounds crazy. But once you look into the sources and you see what it is, well, then, it's a different story.

Well, the latest was you're a conspiracy theorist because you've said that George Soros paid for protests.

PAT: I've read story after story on that.

GLENN: Story after story after story on that. That is out there.

Now, I don't remember which protests he paid for. But his organization does that. We know that in other countries absolutely positively, he's on the record saying he does that.

PAT: He's proud of it. Proud of it.

GLENN: He's proud of it. Okay. So it's not a conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theory, to me, is what Keith Ellison said in 2007.

Listen to the man that may be the head of the DNC and what he said about 9/11.

KEITH: Because remember 9/11, right? You never had all this discrimination against religious minorities but for 9/11. You know, you had it, but you didn't have it to the degree that we have it now.

9/11 is this juggernaut event in American history. It allows -- I mean, it's almost like -- you know, the Reichstag fire kind of reminds me of that. Does anybody know what I'm talking about?

VOICE: Yeah. Who benefited from 9/11?

KEITH: Well, I mean, like you and I both know.

VOICE: Yeah, Bush.

GLENN: Bush.

KEITH: But the thing is, after the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the communist for it. And it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted.

GLENN: Okay. So Keith Ellison is making the charge that Bush was the one who benefited from 9/11.

PAT: So he could bring about religious discrimination?

GLENN: And the Patriot Act and everything else.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: Now, you can say that the Patriot Act was there before there was a 9/11, but that doesn't mean that the Patriot Act -- that 9/11 happened to pass the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act was written before 9/11. And it was going nowhere. Nobody wanted to do it. It was written in Virginia. Do you remember that? Stu, look that up. This is a really old fact from the deep reassesses and cobwebs of my mind. When we were arguing it, we looked back and it was written in Virginia by a couple of guys in Virginia. And they wanted pieces of the Patriot Act. And it didn't go anywhere.

I think Joe Biden was even part of that. So the argument is, is that he's making the argument that 9/11 was blamed on somebody so they could go religious discrimination and they could soup everybody up and make them afraid. Well, that's a conspiracy theory.

Show me the evidence of that. Now, if the press wants to have any credibility, you have called people on the right hateful conspiracy theorists.

Will you call out the person who is now going to be the head of the Democratic National Committee? Will you call him a conspiracy theorist?

No.

PAT: Not in a million years.

GLENN: And if they don't, it, again, will just play into more resentment and more dissent and more -- Donald Trump did not beat Hillary Clinton. He beat the press. He was running against the press. That's what he said.

Now, you guys haven't even addressed why Hillary Clinton lost. I haven't seen one autopsy on Hillary Clinton and why she was the worst candidate of all time. The Republicans have known this for a long time. She was the most beatable candidate you could have run.

PAT: Which is what we said from the beginning. That was the one thing during this election cycle we were right, was how bad Hillary --

GLENN: Yes. Yeah, anyone -- I said my shoe could beat Hillary Clinton.

PAT: Yes. Yeah.

GLENN: She was the most beatable candidate. I haven't heard that from the media. They're not doing the autopsy there. All they're doing is they're talked about Donald Trump and what a horrible disarray his cabinet picks are. First of all, he's ahead of every other president in his cabinet picks.

It, of course, is messy. Can you imagine how many picks you have to make in, what? Sixty days? Yes, it's a mess. I'm sure it is. He didn't expect to be president -- and I have this on good authority -- until I think it was 4:30 in the afternoon.

They thought they were going to lose. And at 4:30, somebody came to him and said, "You know what, things are actually in play." He didn't believe it, until North Carolina came in and Florida. And when North Carolina and Florida came in and they were waiting so long on Connecticut and Pennsylvania, he looked at one of his aides and said, "We might win."

They weren't -- they were putting the -- the -- the pathway down for Trump TV, not the presidency. And he's still ahead of every other president, appointing their cabinet members now. And what is the press doing? All they're saying is what a disarray it's in.

What are you talking about? What are you talking about?

Why don't you talk at all about the disarray the Democrats are in? What are the Democrats going to do? The Democrats have lost so many people in local, state, and federal locations, they've lost so much power because the popularity was Barack Obama, not his policies. They also -- even people who voted for Hillary Clinton, 34 percent of those who voted for Hillary Clinton don't believe the press. They think the press was in the bag for Hillary Clinton. And they don't like it. Seventy-four percent of the American people don't trust the press.

PAT: The only thing left Democrats have is Richard Gephardt. That's all they've got left.

STU: Wow. That's what America has left.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: For 2020, we look forward to Richard Gephardt. And what is he going to be? Eighty-nine? 106?

JEFFY: That's not important.

PAT: It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. That's what we have left.

STU: By the way, yeah, there's a -- so Biden wrote something after his -- after the Oklahoma City bombing that had several of the pieces that would later go into the Patriot Act. It was a 1995 bill. CNET referred to it as its cousin. The Patriot Act's cousin. So it was similar.

GLENN: And this was the one that was written in Virginia with a group of governors or something like that?

STU: I don't -- I was looking for the Biden part. I don't have that. Whatever.

GLENN: Okay. So there was -- and I'm not saying it was the same one.

STU: Right. And that makes sense, right?

GLENN: But there was the framework of the Patriot Act, ready to go.

STU: Right. You have --

GLENN: That doesn't -- that doesn't mean that they were like, let's blow something up so we can get this through.

STU: Right. Which is where a lot of people take that.

GLENN: Correct.

STU: It means that they had a terrorist attack. They thought of a way to address it. They didn't necessarily get that through. But when another terrorist attack had, they had the framework.

GLENN: Yeah. And they said, "Let's try this now."

STU: Yeah, "Let's try it now. It would work."

GLENN: Yes.

STU: That's not a nefarious conspiracy.

GLENN: FDR did not trust the Japanese. He did not trust the Japanese.

He sent people out to find out if we needed to do internment camps before December 7th. Do we need to do internment camps for the Japanese? Find out.

The general came back and said, "Nope. They're good Americans. We don't need to do it."

He didn't have the political capital to do it. September -- I mean, December 7th, 1941, that gave him the political capital to be able to say, "We're going to do this because of that," even though he had that idea before December 7th.

Was it a conspiracy that December 7th -- yeah, there are those people who say, "See, he caused it. He knew it was going to happen." No, he didn't

PAT: Well, he may have known it was going to happen, but I don't know that he -- he let it happen --

GLENN: Yeah. He knew a strike --

PAT: -- for internment camps --

GLENN: He knew a strike was coming.

PAT: Yeah, he did.

GLENN: He didn't know and say, "Everybody look over here."

PAT: Yeah.

STU: And in a way --

GLENN: And neither did --

STU: -- this can be a positive, right? You wouldn't necessarily want a tragedy to happen and then just say, "All right. Let's start thinking of new ideas right now in the midst of this and pass them." You would want it to be a little bit more thought out than that. You would hope that --

GLENN: It is their job. It is their job.

STU: Right. It's their job. It's the same thing with the Iraq War. They're like, "Well, they drew up plans for the Iraq War before 9/11." It's like, well, yeah, they should have a plan to invade everywhere, just in case the idea comes up and they need to put it into effect.

GLENN: It's their job.

PAT: Especially countries that are shooting at our aircraft.

GLENN: Should we have a plan to invade Canada? No. If I find out there's a plan to invade Canada for no reason, well, no. But the minute Canada becomes hostile to us, is there a plan to say, "What do we do in case the border becomes a place of unrest?"

PAT: There better be.

GLENN: Okay. There better be something there. Because that's a possibility.

PAT: What about just taking care of the curling problem? What about just --

STU: You got to stop --

GLENN: You got to stop curling.

PAT: Stop the curling problem.

GLENN: Yeah. It's a stone and ice. Get over it. And it's a broom. Stop it.

PAT: And sweeping the ice. Stop it.

STU: But with the military budget we have, I would argue that there should be, I don't know, a few people sitting around thinking about, "What if we have to invade Iceland?" We should have that plan somewhere in a drawer just in case we have to do it. Why -- we have the resources for that.

PAT: That might be our biggest problem that nobody talks about.

GLENN: I will tell you, there's not a plan to invade Iceland. But I can tell you, there's an expert on Iceland whose job is to only think about Iceland, that he would be the first one we would call if something happened. And he would be like, "You know what, that's crazy. I've been thinking about this. I've been thinking about this." Because that's all you do, you're just focused on Iceland.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: That's what should happen. This is not what Keith Ellison is saying.

STU: No. He seems to be thinking that -- it's weird. Because he doesn't -- he's smart enough to know that he's in front of a bunch of people. So he doesn't actually --

GLENN: Plat it again.

PAT: However, he walked up to that line many times. It wasn't just this time.

GLENN: Play that again.

KEITH: Because remember 9/11. Right? You never had all these discrimination against religious minorities but for 9/11. I mean, you know, you had it, but you didn't have it to the degree that we have it now.

9/11 is this juggernaut event in American history. It allows -- I mean, it's almost like, you know, the Reichstag fire -- kind of reminds me of that. Does anybody know what I'm talking about?

VOICE: Yeah. Benefited --

GLENN: So 9/11 is the Reichstag fire. Well, if you know anything about the Reichstag fire -- and he's about to explain that -- that was a total setup. The Reichstag fire, we believe, was started by the Nazis.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Of course. Yeah, that's what he's obviously insinuating.

GLENN: That's what he's insinuating.

STU: I mean, he would probably argue, what I was trying to say is they took advantage of it like the Nazis took advantage of that. Not necessarily that they caused it.

GLENN: Right. Do we think -- so what you're saying is -- you want to talk about a conspiracy theory, what you're saying is replace Bush with Obama. That a tragedy happened and Barack Obama said, "I can finally get control of everybody's email. I can finally get control of everybody's phone calls. I can get rid of warrants, where I don't want to. I can stop dropping drones on people. I'll have control of everything. I'll be able to take the NSA." That -- you think the press would accept someone saying that about Barack Obama?

STU: No.

GLENN: You would be the biggest conspiracy theorist on the planet. And this isn't just a commentator. This is the guy they want to run the DNC.

STU: Yes.

PAT: He's a US congressman.

STU: Uh-huh. And to be fair to Keith Ellison, to give him a little bit of a break here, the man is saying things that were mainstream Democrat positions at that time.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: You go back to polling through that era, you'll find 40, 50 percent of Democrats believed just that. And sometimes the majority of Democrats believed those things, that Bush did 9/11, and he was responsible for it. Or at the very least overlooked it.

GLENN: Right.

STU: Katrina, took advantage of it. Didn't care. He hates black people.

There were a million of these conspiracies that were mainstream Democratic positions for the typical voter. And while he might be a little bit out of step with what they want in the press at that time, he was not out of step with the people who were voting for him.

GLENN: Now, the -- the press wonders why Republicans and conservatives don't trust them and feel the way we feel. Because of that. And this is why I said, we have a third time at bat. First time happened with George Bush. And the Democrats went off the rails. And we stopped listening to them. And then, Barack Obama got in. And we went off the rails. And they stopped listening to us.

It's time to get it right this time. It's time to get it right. But you must call each play equally. If you don't, it's going to get much worse.

Featured Image: Keith Ellison (D-MN) holds a news conference about what he calls 'the rhetorice attacking Muslims and the Islamophobia' in the 2016 presidential election at the National Press Club May 24, 2016 in Washington, DC. Highlighting remarks by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Ellison and fellow Muslim Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) said the issue of Islamophobia is not isolated to just one candidate or one election. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

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.