A Misguided Debate on Free Speech

Marco Rubio’s interview with Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation” CBS on February 16, 2025.

“Face the Nation” provided yet another arena for the clash of ideas, where Secretary of State Marco Rubio, amidst his travels through Europe and the Middle East, found himself at the center of a contentious debate with the show’s host, Margaret Brennan.

The interview took place against the backdrop of Rubio’s recent visit to Jerusalem, but the conversation pivoted to a more heated topic. Brennan, with her characteristic incisiveness, began to question Rubio about Vice President JD Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference.

Brennan stated, referencing Vance’s meeting with a far-right party leader in Germany.

“Well, he was standing in a country where Free Speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide, and he met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that, that the censorship was specifically about the right.”

Rubio, not one to shy away from defending core principles, retorted with,

“Well, I have to disagree with you. Free speech was not used to conduct a genocide. The genocide was conducted by an authoritarian Nazi regime that happened to also be genocidal because they hated Jews and they hated minorities and they hated those that they- they had a list of people they hated, but primarily the Jews. There was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none. There was also no opposition in Nazi Germany, they were a sole and only party that governed that country. So that’s not an accurate reflection of history.”

But Brennan’s assertion that free speech could be ‘weaponized’ in such a manner was not only historically inaccurate but also fundamentally misunderstood the essence of free speech. Free speech, as Rubio pointed out, is not about granting freedom to propagate hate or enact violence; it’s about the right to express opinions, even controversial ones, in a society that values democracy and open debate.

Rubio continued, emphasizing the importance of free expression,

“Why would our allies or anybody be irritated by free speech and by someone giving their opinion? We are after all democracies. The Munich security conference is largely a conference of democracies in which one of the things that we cherish and value is the ability to speak really and provide your opinions. So I think if anyone’s angry about his word they don’t have to agree with him but to be angry about it I think actually makes his point.”

Brennan’s argument seemed to conflate the misuse of speech by authoritarian regimes for state propaganda with the concept of free speech in democratic societies. Rubio further clarified,

“I thought it was actually a pretty historic speech whether you agree with him or not. I think the valid points he’s making to Europe is we are concerned that the True Values that we share, the values that bind us together with Europe, are things like free speech and democracy… these are the values that we shared in common and in that cold war we fought against things like censorship and oppression.”

The crux of the matter is that free speech isn’t about endorsing or protecting hate speech; it’s about ensuring that no government or entity can silence dissenting voices or control the narrative. Brennan’s perspective, while perhaps well-intentioned in highlighting the dangers of extreme ideologies, missed the point that the antidote to bad speech isn’t censorship but more speech—countering misinformation with truth, hate with tolerance, and ignorance with education.

As Rubio concluded on “Face the Nation,”

“I also think it’s wrong again… the point of his speech was basically that there is an erosion in free speech and intolerance for opposing points of view within Europe, and that’s of concern because that is eroding… that’s an erosion of the actual values that bind us together in this transatlantic Union that everybody talks about.”

In the end, this exchange on “Face the Nation” served as a reminder of the delicate balance democracies must strike in protecting free speech while promoting a society where all voices can be heard, debated, and, if necessary, challenged—not silenced.

Historical Context and Facts:

The claim that “free speech caused World War II” is an oversimplification and misrepresentation of the complex causes that led to the war. Here’s a breakdown to debunk this assertion:

1. Historical Context:

Rise of Totalitarianism: The 1930s saw the rise of totalitarian regimes in Germany (Nazis under Hitler), Italy (Fascists under Mussolini), and Japan (militarists). These regimes suppressed free speech, using propaganda and censorship to control narratives and eliminate dissent. The very essence of Hitler’s control was the suppression of any form of free expression, with the Nazis outlawing all opposition parties by 1933, controlling all media, and using propaganda to maintain power.

2. Causation of WWII:

Treaty of Versailles: The harsh terms imposed on Germany after WWI led to economic instability and resentment, setting the stage for political upheaval.
Economic Depression: The Great Depression of the 1930s exacerbated economic conditions, leading to social unrest and increased support for extremist parties promising change.
Aggressive Expansionism: Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 directly precipitated WWII, driven by Hitler’s expansionist ideology and military strategy, not by free speech.
Appeasement and Diplomacy Failures: The policy of appeasement by Western powers, notably the Munich Agreement, allowed Hitler to annex parts of Czechoslovakia without war, emboldening further aggression.
Alliances and Pacts: The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union allowed for the partition of Poland and gave Hitler a free hand in the West.

3. Misuse of Free Speech:

While free speech might have allowed for the spread of Nazi ideology in the early stages, the Nazi regime itself quickly abolished free speech in Germany once in power. The restriction of free speech was a tool used by the Nazis to consolidate power, not a cause of the war. This is evident in the “Enabling Act” of 1933, which effectively ended democracy in Germany by giving Hitler dictatorial powers.

4. Propaganda vs. Free Speech:

The Nazi regime used propaganda to manipulate public opinion, which is distinctly different from free speech. Propaganda under totalitarian regimes is about control and disinformation, not the open exchange of ideas that characterizes true free speech. Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda was dedicated to this task.

5. International Dynamics:

The war was also about global power dynamics, colonial ambitions, and the failure of the League of Nations to maintain peace. Free speech in democratic countries like the UK, France, or the US was not a significant factor in these dynamics but rather was curtailed where fascist regimes took hold.

6. Post-War Reflections:

After WWII, the importance of free speech was recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), highlighting its value in preventing the kind of oppression that led to the war, rather than causing it.

In conclusion, while free speech might have allowed for some initial dissemination of extremist views in the Weimar Republic, it was the suppression of free speech and democratic principles under totalitarian regimes, combined with international political failures and economic conditions, that directly contributed to the outbreak of WWII. Free speech, as a democratic value, aims to promote open debate and prevent the kind of authoritarian control that characterized the Axis powers. Therefore, claiming that free speech caused WWII is both historically inaccurate and misleading. Rubio’s defense of free speech in his interview with Brennan was not only a rebuttal but was also backed by historical facts that clearly demonstrate the opposite of Brennan’s assertion.

Interview with Călin Georgescu, the Man Denied Romania’s Presidency

Interviewer: Mario Nawfal
Interviewee: Călin Georgescu
Interview Released: February 19, 2025
Interview Links: YouTube | X Post

Introduction

In this explosive interview, Călin Georgescu, the Romanian politician who was leading the 2024 presidential election, speaks out about the fraudulent cancellation of the election, foreign interference, and deep-state manipulation within Romania. The discussion reveals the illegitimate removal of democratic processes, the weaponization of institutions, and the globalist agenda working against Romania’s sovereignty.

1. The Election Scandal: How Romania’s Presidential Election Was Canceled

Georgescu was a grassroots candidate running a zero-budget campaign. His unexpected success terrified the establishment, leading them to cancel the election on December 6, 2024, just as the second round of voting began.

The Timeline of the Fraudulent Election Cancellation:

Round 1: Georgescu unexpectedly won with 23% of the vote, despite early predictions that he would not exceed 5%.
Round 2 (December 6, 2024): Voting began, and in the first 50,000 ballots counted, Georgescu led with 70% of the vote.
Authorities immediately stopped the election and declared it invalid, citing Russian interference—a claim Georgescu calls a blatant lie.
The election cancellation was orchestrated by a group of 10 people—nine constitutional judges and former President Klaus Iohannis.
Even Georgescu’s political rival, Elena Udrea, admitted publicly that there was a “political intervention” to block his presidency.

The Aftermath of the Election Cancellation:

Authorities raided the homes of Georgescu’s supporters and campaign staff, including his campaign manager, just two days before the interview.
The police have been used as a weapon against Georgescu’s movement, raiding even his friend’s house where the interview took place.
Authorities are now working to disqualify him from the new elections scheduled for May 2025, though a final decision has not yet been made.

2. Foreign Interference: U.S., EU, and Soros Networks’ Role in the Coup

Georgescu directly blames the United States (Biden administration), the European Union, and Soros-funded NGOs for interfering in Romania’s election.

Evidence of Foreign Meddling:

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a public statement falsely accusing Russia of election interference in Romania.
The EU and U.S. had a vested interest in stopping Georgescu because he opposes globalist control over Romania and promotes economic nationalism.
Soros-funded organizations have played a major role in eroding Romanian sovereignty, controlling civil society groups, media, and education.
The Romanian deep state, with support from foreign actors, has weaponized the courts to ensure Georgescu never takes office.

The Role of the Soros Network in Romania:

Soros-funded NGOs have controlled Romanian civil society since 1990, pushing policies that weaken Romanian culture and national identity.
Georgescu vows to ban the Soros Network immediately upon taking office.
He blames Soros-backed NGOs for promoting cancel culture, suppressing nationalist values, and manipulating education to weaken Romania’s sovereignty.

3. Parallels to Trump & Globalist Strategies to Silence Nationalist Leaders

Georgescu draws strong comparisons between what happened in Romania and what has been done to Donald Trump, Jair Bolsonaro, Imran Khan, and other nationalist leaders.

Similarities Between Trump and Georgescu’s Persecution:

Tactic	Trump (U.S.)	Georgescu (Romania)
Accusations of Russian Collusion	2016: Media & FBI falsely accused Trump	2024: Romanian media & EU claimed Georgescu was a Russian agent
Media Smears & Propaganda	Non-stop media attacks	All mainstream Romanian media called him a Russian puppet
Lawfare & Weaponization of Institutions	FBI investigations, impeachments	Raids, police harassment, attempts to block him from running
Deep-State Interference	Washington elites tried to block Trump	Romanian oligarchs & EU canceled Georgescu’s election
Public Support Despite Attacks	Trump gained more popularity	Georgescu now has 80% public support

4. The Resistance Movement: Romanians Are Fighting Back

Georgescu reports that millions of Romanians are outraged and have been protesting non-stop.
He predicts that if he is officially disqualified, the protests will explode into a national revolution.
He emphasizes that Romanians have awakened to the reality that their democracy has been an illusion for 35 years.

5. What’s Next? The Global Stakes of Romania’s Political Crisis

Georgescu expects the EU and Romanian elites to escalate their attacks against him.
The deep state will likely fabricate criminal charges to block his candidacy.
If they permanently ban him from running, he believes millions of Romanians will take to the streets and force change.
He warns that Romania is a testing ground for future globalist takeovers of European elections.
He calls on Trump, Elon Musk, and the global nationalist movement to stand with Romania against the deep state.

Final Message: The Fight for Freedom and Democracy

Georgescu declares that Romania’s corrupt elites have already lost, even if they don’t realize it yet.
He says the next few months will be critical as his movement continues to expose the deep state and fight for the Romanian people.
His final words: “The truth is like oil in water. It always rises to the top. The people will win.”

This interview is a wake-up call for anyone watching. It highlights how democracy is under attack, how globalist forces manipulate elections, and how outsider leaders like Georgescu and Trump threaten their power.

Politics