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

What Good Is the GOP Without a Full Repeal of Obamacare?

February 23, 2017
Staff

WRITER

Matt Kibbe, president and chief community organizer for FreeThePeople.org, joined The Glenn Beck Progra from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), taking place this week in Washington, D.C. Kibbe gave a boots-on-the-ground report about what he's seeing firsthand.

"It's definitely a more nationalist crowd here. And you may have noticed that none of the Liberty Republicans, except for Ted Cruz, are even attending this year. There's no Rand Paul. There's no Justin Amash. There's no Thomas Massie. Mike Lee is not going this year," Kibbe said.

In fact, a vibrant group of freedom-loving students in attendance at CPAC --- International Students For Liberty --- doesn't feel welcome.

"I would suggest [CPAC] fix that, but I don't know if they're interested in doing that," Kibbe added.

Both Glenn and Kibbe expressed concern over the GOP's willingness --- even with full control of the House, Senate and White House --- to pass legislation mandated by the people, like repealing Obamacare.

"I want to see a commitment to repealing and replacing Obamacare. I mean, Rand Paul has put an idea on the table, and if you don't like that idea, you better come up a better one. Because just loving America is not enough," Kibbe said

Is the GOP up to the test?

"I'm worried about it. I don't think there's a commitment to it, and I think we're going to have to push it from the bottom up," Kibbe said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: Matt Kibbe, president and chief community organizer for freethepeople.org.

Matt, did you know Alan Colmes?

MATT: I did. (muffled) I think I debated him a few times over the years. And, yeah, he was sort of an old-school liberal in the sense that he loved to debate. He was honest. And I really sort of respected that civility, even though on things like crossfire, he would mix it up with the best of them.

GLENN: Yeah. Could I ask you, are you on Alexander Graham Bell's first telephone?

(chuckling)

JEFFY: Are you in a pool?

GLENN: I don't know what kind of old-timey phone? It's quaint. But what kind of cheap ass phone are you calling from?

MATT: It's actually a tomato can. They told me it would be awesome.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Right. No, it doesn't sound awesome.

Matt, you're --

MATT: I am moving -- I am moving in the office to see if it can get any better.

GLENN: I doubt it.

Buy yourself a phone from -- I don't know. Try the '90s. Is it one of the phones with the big, huge battery pack that you also had to carry with the other hand?

MATT: It's -- I have no defense. It's an Apple phone.

GLENN: Is it really? Wow. Strange. Okay.

MATT: The latest.

GLENN: So, Matt, you're in Washington, DC. You're at CPAC.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: Let's start with the controversy.

This is a really strange thing. Conservatives are defending Milo. And not on the -- the pedophilia stuff. But on everything else. Even though this guy is not a conservative. He's just not a conservative. He even says that.

And there's this strange love affair with him. And people are saying, "You know, he's bringing millennials to the conservative party." Well, how? He's not a conservative.

So what is the mood there with -- with what happened with Milo?

MATT: Well, I got to tell you, you look at the entire agenda at CPAC, and the nationalists -- the Trump's make America great guys have really taken over. And I've always thought of Milo as kind of a troll, a cuter Ann Coulter. Someone that says things just to be provocative. Just to stir up a fight.

GLENN: Yeah.

MATT: And, you know, that's interesting for a comedian. But for someone that tries to represent, A, conservative values. And, you know, on Bill Maher, he said he's a Libertarian, even though he specifically told me that he's not a Libertarian. I think he loves to say things that pisses people off. But that's different than representing a worldview, a philosophy. And it sort of breaks my heart that we're attracted to these provocateurs that don't seem to have any basis on reality. It's just the Twitter world has redefined us.

GLENN: Yeah, I think we're just looking to win. I think we're just looking for someone on our side to be able to tell people to shut up. Because so many times we've been called names and told to shut up and sit down. And I think people are tired of it. So they look for somebody who is -- you know, in some ways, a bigger bully that can get people to shut up and leave us alone.

MATT: Yeah. And I think -- I mean, there are things that we can learn from Milo and Donald Trump about -- about pushing back when people try to mischaracterize your points of view. But it has to be based in a philosophy. And you need to be willing to say that you're wrong. And you need to listen to other people. If we could combine those two things, I think that's what's going to work in the social media world. Yes, be provocative. Yes, be interesting. But why not stand for something that doesn't change from day to day. Because I think he just loves saying things just to see people's reaction. But he'll say the opposite thing tomorrow. And so there's no learning. There's no teaching. And, again, it sort of breaks my heart that young people find that attractive somehow.

GLENN: So we are now looking at a conservative movement that is becoming much more nationalist, much more populist, and much more socialist in some ways. Is that the feeling that you're getting there on the ground at CPAC?

MATT: It's definitely a more nationalist crowd here. And you may have noticed that none of the Liberty Republicans, except for Ted Cruz, are even attending this year. There's no Rand Paul. There's no Justin Amash. There's no Thomas Massie. Mike Lee is not going this year.

And to me, that --

GLENN: Now, is that -- wait, wait. Is that because they refused to come or were not asked? Because I was asked to come and speak, and I couldn't because I'm on my way to Thailand.

MATT: Yeah, I don't -- I don't know if they were asked. And I don't know if they refused. But either way, there's no -- there's no representation of that Liberty wing of the conservative movement.

GLENN: Wow.

MATT: And to me, that's -- I was just at International Students For Liberty last weekend, and I got to tell you, that movement's more vibrant than ever. But they don't feel welcome at CPAC. And I would suggest they fix that, but I don't know if they're interested in doing that.

GLENN: Here we are sitting with a full G.O.P. House, a G.O.P. Senate, a G.O.P. president, a president who can tell everybody to shut up and sit down, a president who is used to winning -- he's going to win so much, we're all going to be sick of it, except when it comes to health care.

No repeal of Obamacare. That's what they're now saying, in Washington, that the G.O.P. will not bring us a full repeal of Obamacare.

What good is the G.O.P.?

MATT: You know, it's been almost 20 years since the G.O.P. had an opportunity to offer a freedom-based, choice-based alternative to Hillarycare. And now Obamacare.

And they've always struggled to do it. Obviously, Rand Paul has stepped into that breach.

But the G.O.P. today is divided into three groups: There's that small Liberty policy reform people who understand how health care could actually work. And that's maybe optimistically a third of House Republicans. There's a third that sort of liked Obamacare. You know, they liked Romneycare. And they would sort of redesign it to be the same thing.

And then there's a third that are just afraid of their own shadows and are going to do whatever they're told to do. And, right now, they're being told in these townhall meetings that Obamacare is a great thing.

So it's inertia --

GLENN: Are those real? I mean, who are those people? The G.O.P. people that are coming out for these town hall meetings. Are those G.O.P., or are those Democrats?

MATT: Oh, I think they're progressives and Democrats. I think there's very few Republicans. But I do think they're real.

GLENN: Yeah, I think they're real too.

MATT: Yeah. Obviously, there's professional community organizers working on this stuff because that's what they do. But by and large, those crowds are real -- real people, frustrated people, people that seem primarily just angry that their guy didn't win. And I think that's your Achilles' heel. They're angry about so many things, the first being the outcome of the election. It's different than the Tea Party in that sense. We had a binding philosophy and a specific policy agenda that we were trying to accomplish.

GLENN: There's a guy you need to meet. His name is Jonathan Haidt. He's a professor up in NYU. And he's written about the immoral theory foundation, where he's identified five moral foundations. And these -- these foundations are what keep us apart, but also what bring us together.

And there is a real opportunity. And we were talking on the radio yesterday that I believe the future is going to split off -- there's going to be a third party. And I don't know whether -- you know, the Republicans or the Democrats survive this. But I'm sensing, in talking to a lot of really powerful liberal people, that they are done with the -- the nonsense of Keith Ellison and the socialist and the Marxist and the radicals. Now that Obama is gone, it's almost as if scales have come off their eyes. And they no longer see the -- you know, the great hope of Barack Obama. They see what's left. And they realize, these are all radicals, Marxists, anti- -- you know, anti-Israel kind of people, and they don't like it.

And they don't know where to go because they can't go to the G.O.P. And then at the same time, I think there's a lot of people in the G.O.P. who, if Donald Trump just continues to do all great things, they may be fine. But there is this classic liberal, this classic constitutionalist that is just leave alone and can we all get together and just stop all this nonsense? I think there's a growing core of America on both left and right that could slip right between these two bogus parties.

Do you see that as a possibility of happening, Matt?

MATT: Oh, definitely. And that's why we started Free the People in the first place. Because I saw this sort of disintermediation, people using technology to discover that they're not just like everybody else. They don't belong to team A or team B. And they know that most politicians are lying to them. And I'm not even sure it's a third party. It may be multiple parties. Because when it really gets down to it, we're all very different. We come from different places and we have different goals and dreams.

GLENN: Sure. I don't mean to say a party. I mean a movement.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: There is a real movement out that is dislodged now from both parties. And they're growing increasingly angry with those two parties.

MATT: Oh, definitely. There's more registered independents than there are Republicans and Democrats. And that's particularly pronounced with young people. They choose everything a la carte. They're not really interested in someone telling them that they have to be either a Republican or Democrat, or even a conservative or liberal.

I think people are more complicated than that. And the beauty of what you're calling classical liberalism, Libertarianism, small government conservatism, is that it believes in a simple set of rules. It treats everybody the same under the government rules. But otherwise, you're sort of free to be yourself, as long as you don't hurt people and take their stuff.

GLENN: Right.

MATT: I think we have the only answer to this very complex community we call America.

GLENN: I agree. I agree. So, Matt, just real quick before you go, what is the main thing that we should be looking for, from afar, and the main thing you're looking for at CPAC?

MATT: I want to see a commitment to repealing and replacing Obamacare. I mean, Rand Paul has put an idea on the table. And if you don't like that idea, you better come up a better one. Because just loving America is not enough. You have this opportunity to do stuff. And you promised you would -- you would get rid of Obamacare and replace it with choice and legalize freedom and health care. This is the test. And I'm worried about it. I don't think there's a commitment to it. And I think we're going to have to push it from the bottom up.

GLENN: Thank you very much, man. I appreciate it. President and chief community organizer of freethepeople.org. I love the fact that he has just embraced community organizer. Matt Kibbe.

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.