What really happened to the German gold housed in the United States?

Last January, Glenn covered the story that the German Central Bank was planning to repatriate its gold reserves from the United States and France. Ultimately, it was agreed upon that Germany would only actually take a fraction of its holdings back. Why the sudden change of heart? Glenn opened Wednesday's Glenn Beck Program with a disturbing report about what really happened when the Germany Central Bank decided to repatriate its gold reserves.

Tonight, I want to start here, and this is probably something that we’re going to have to talk about several times because it’s really hard to understand. But we’ve talked about it once before over several months, but I think things have gotten significantly worse, and let me explain. Last January, Germany started asking if they could just come into the Federal Reserve and look at their stash of gold.

This is the gold that the Feds supposedly hold, and the Fed said no. Germany was like I’m sorry, what? Huh? Well, not surprisingly, Germany announced soon after that they wanted their gold back. Because they weren’t even allowed to see their gold, that got them a little nervous. They said we want to repatriate our gold from the Fed.

VIDEO

Bundesbank to bring gold home, plans to hold 50% of gold reserves in Frankfurt by 2020, so 300 tons are going to leave New York, 374 tons from Paris. Well, not quite clear why.

It’s German politics.

Is that what it is?

They want to have it, right? They moved it out of Germany because of the Cold War, right, the threat the Russians would take it? It’s just the same reason most of the gold is sitting in the basement of the New York Fed. In World War II, Europeans moved their gold over here to avoid the war, and now they’re moving back.

What a bunch of bull crap. This is the biggest bunch of bull crap I’ve ever heard. Why does anybody watch these guys? I have no idea. The reason why they moved the gold over to the United States is because we said we would be the gold standard. Yes, they wanted to move the gold over here for security reasons, etc., etc., but we promised them that we would never go off the gold standard, and we didn’t until the 1970s.

Why do they want to move them over? Well, there’s something to tangible gold. Well, no, not if you believe in this. What’s the difference? But if you say hey, can I get into that bank and see my money, and the bank says no, huh uh, I don’t think so, don’t you say I want to take my money out of that bank, and I’m going to store it someplace else?

So the gold supposedly has been sitting in the vaults since the 1950s, and you know, it shouldn’t take any more than a little bit of Swiffering before you send it back. But the Fed said that it’s going to take until 2020 before they can return that gold, seven years. Now, why would it take seven years to dust something off and ship it out? I mean, we have FedEx. I know you’re not going to send FedEx, but we have cargo planes.

Now, that’s what they said last year. They were going to make their first payment on that over the holidays, and they did, but something happened along the way. Apparently we had to melt their gold bars down. The Fed claims that about 6,700 tons of gold from Germany is in their vaults. What Germany is asking to get back is 300 tons, 5% of their stack, shouldn’t be a problem.

It’s been a year since they requested, and the U.S. has just sent back 37.5 tons. That’s 50 tons short of what we need to send each year to meet Germany’s request by the deadline. We didn’t even hit the first payment. Okay, if I’m German, that makes me nervous. Wait a minute, you promised you’d send all of the first year, and you only sent half of it. What’s the problem here?

And here’s the disturbing part, even more disturbing. The reports that are coming out now is that the gold we sent them over the holidays was melted down and recast. This is important. It begs the question why? I can think of several reasons, but none of them really make sense, except the situation is worse than even I thought it was when I talked to you about rehypothecation.

I think there’s a good chance that there’s not a lot of that gold left. But how did that happen? I mean, do we have another Sandy Berger loose, you know, stashing gold bricks in his socks? No, the answer is partially rehypothecation. Now, this is something we talked about on this program before, if you remember.

VIDEO

Glenn: It’s why when they’re taking the gold, and Germany says, I want the gold, return our gold, it’s ours, the Federal Reserve says, Okay, but we’ll return 10% in seven years. Well, how hard is it to return our gold? It’s got the German Republic stamped on it. Give us our gold. The reason why – this is my theory – the reason why they’re not returning that for seven years is because a little phone call came in, and they said to the Germans, hey, rehypothecation dude. If you take your gold, there’s not enough gold here.

We were playing a game. There’s only so many assets, and so we just keep building on those assets in a bogus way. So once people demand their hard asset back, the entire thing collapses, and that’s the last phase of what we’re headed for. Rehypothecation, learn it.

Okay, that’s really important. Let’s start at the basics. The Federal Reserve is a collection of banks. We don’t know whose banks they are. We’re not allowed to look at their books or anything else. They’re the ones that we put the gold in, and then they give us this instead. They print our money. But we’re not allowed to see…we just gave them all that gold? Yes, that unfortunately is the way it works. It sounds like a scam already, doesn’t it?

The money has to be backed by something. It needs to be backed by gold, so we put all of our gold into the Federal Reserve, just a giant bank, and they gave us a stack of cash. And then we said okay, this is the cash the Federal Reserve has. Remember, it’s all backed by gold. Then we convinced that the entire world, not just the U.S. but the rest of the West. Germany gave it to us, Japan, the UK. Everybody gave us their gold to hold like in a safety deposit box for the entire world, okay? Safety deposit box, let me stop there for a second.

I want you to think of the vaults down at the basement of the Federal Reserve in Manhattan as a safety deposit box. You go in. Say you have jewelry, I have my wedding ring. It’s my anniversary today. This is the ring we had made for me. It’s the Klimt, The Kiss on it, and it’s special to me. And if I go to a safety deposit box, I put it in there with all the other, you know, lovely plastic jewelry that I have, and I bring it to the bank. And I say I want to put this in a safety deposit box.

They give me a receipt. They give me a key. I go in, and I put it all into the safety deposit box. I see it the whole way. Anytime I can walk in and say I want to see my stuff in my safety deposit. Yes sir, Mr. Beck. Do you have your key? Yes, I do. We both unlock it. There we have it. We each have a key, and I can see it anytime.

Now, at some point if I go back and I say I want my wedding ring back, and I want all my jewelry, they say, oh, I can’t let you see that – wait a minute, what? What do you mean I can’t see that? And then if they give me not this ring, but they give me another wedding ring, might weigh exactly the same, but it’s not my wedding ring, wouldn’t you ask some questions?

Let me explain rehypothecation one time and then back to what happened to Germany. Why I said originally they weren’t going to give their money back to them for seven years is because rehypothecation is exactly what happened to our housing crisis, and it’s happening to our gold because everybody got greedy. Everybody was greedy in the housing market, not necessarily you but the banks.

Here’s what happened: Let’s say these were just houses. Jeremy here wanted to buy a house. I was a bank. I said okay, I’m going to need your house as collateral. You continue to pay for that, but I’m holding that collateral. But then me as the bank, I need a loan, so I go over here to Germany. And I say hey, Germany, I have this house over here. If you’ll just give me some money for this house, then we’ll be square, but if I don’t pay you, then you can take this house.

Well, wait a minute, I can’t really do that because then he becomes the owner of this house, but I’m the owner of this house as well. And then he says he needs some money, so he sells this same house to Japan and then to England. And we keep selling everything to each other over and over again. There’s no real asset. If he defaults and doesn’t pay me, I default. And because I default, he says I’m going to default, and he says give me the house.

Well, I’m sitting for the house. I need it from him. He needs it from me, but he needs it from him. And he needs it from him, and it goes back around. It doesn’t work. This is what’s happening with gold. I believe rehypothecation, the West wanted a fat and sassy lifestyle that none of us could afford, so the Federal Reserve and the central banks all around the world sold our gold over and over and over again.

We took our gold, and we said okay, we’ve already printed all that money for United States, what the heck, Japan, how much do you need? We’re going to take, and you’re going to make a loan on this gold for Japan. And then Japan said okay, Germany needs some money, and we’ll give it on America’s gold and then England. It’s happening over and over again. That’s rehypothecation. That’s a Ponzi scheme that I believe happened at the Federal Reserve, and it’s starting to fall apart.

Now, picture this deal happening over and over and over again since 1950, hundreds and thousands of times. Subprime crisis, do you remember that? Imagine that crash on a global scale and instead of houses, it’s gold which backs all of our money and gold that is not really owned by anyone. Our money becomes worthless. Not a good Ponzi scheme, right? Everything collapses.

The Fed’s no different right now, but I believe it’s worse than this. I believe not only did they rehypothecate all of the gold, but they also said you know what, I’m going to sell this to somebody else because I as the bank also want that money. Oh, and I’m going to take the German money, this gold, and I’m going to sell this one to somebody else too because I as a bank need some money.

Forget about the countries. We’ve already sold the gold to each other over and over again, but then they just started taking the gold and selling it themselves. Wait a minute, the Federal Reserve, remember what got me here is the Federal Reserve cannot pay Germany back a relatively little sum that happens, a little sum, not this big box, just a little box of their gold. They can’t do it. And when they start asking for it, they stall.

And then something weird happens, nobody’s allowed to peek into the vault. Do you remember Geraldo at Al Capone’s vault when nothing was there, and it was kind of a letdown? This time it won’t be a letdown if nothing’s there. A German reporter with over three decades of experience in financial reporting asked on December 27 Germany’s Bundesbank, their central bank, why the Federal Reserve melted down the gold that was returned.

Here is his e-mail: “Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I am an independent financial journalist. In connection with the transfer of 37 tons of Bundesbank gold from New York to Germany, I came across the news that the bars were a melted before the transfer. May I kindly ask you the following information: Why were the bars melted at all? And why couldn’t that wait until the bars arrived in Frankfurt? Kind regards, Lars Schall.” Great question, Lars.

The bank’s answer wasn’t really an answer at all. They explained that they have a new storage concept to ensure that certain specifications are met. They claimed the bars had to be melted to meet these specifications – uh huh. Why in the world would you need to melt it down before it got to Germany? Have you ever seen the movie The Italian Job? What’s on that bar? It’s stamped with a dancer, right?

Now, I don’t know what Germany’s has on it. I don’t know, maybe a big beer stein or something, but they’re all stamped. And why are gold bars stamped like that? Do you remember in the movie? What did they say? Everybody knew. Remember, that’s why the one guy got it in the head because he was like oh, this is – BOOM! Everybody knew who owned that gold. That’s why every country stamps it, to authenticate the weight and the purity.

Let’s talk about purity for a second. A few years ago, several years ago, the Fed had to respond to reports that damage had happened to Britain’s gold when Britain asked for some of its gold back and left it with a purity of just 91%. What does that mean? Again, I go to the bank, I give them this, and then I say what’s the purity of this? It was 99.9% pure when I gave it. If it’s 91% pure, there’s a problem.

When you melt down these bars and send them back, you negate the authenticity. We’re not able to send them the right amount of gold at all. We’re not able to send them their actual bars of gold. That’s a red flag to me, and it should have every American and every press organization up in arms asking questions. I believe what’s happening is far worse than rehypothecation.

Not only were the Feds playing the Ponzi scheme of rehypothecation, a game on each other over and over and they all knew it, all the central banks, but I believe they’re also physically selling everyone’s gold. And now they can’t reproduce the stamp, and so they’re coming up with whatever they can.

Remember, when Britain complained that their money was repatriated gold, it was returned with a small piece of impurity. Well, when you have access to that much gold, skimming it becomes quite tempting. Does anybody have a quarter on them? Nobody actually carries any cash anymore. If you think about a quarter or a dollar, you know, an actual coin – you have a quarter? Somebody actually uses the drink machine.

When you think about a quarter, I want you just to think about the thin part for just a second, this part. Pull in as tight as you can, this part, the edge. Is it smooth, or does it have ridges like Ruffles? It’s ridgy, right? Why? Why are those ridges there? Because if you skim it, it becomes less valuable. Think of it like the scene from Indiana Jones. Do you remember this scene? Do we have this? Yeah, remember?

This is the most ridiculous thing because you know how heavy that would be if it was pure gold? But anyway, he takes the sand. It’s not quite enough, so he has to pour a little bit out. Now, what people used to do is they would skim a little bit. This is a very old coin. This is from the time of Christ. This is from the year of the crucifixion. This is a piece of silver.

If you look at this coin, you can see – pull in as tight as you can. If you look at this coin, you can see that it is uneven. Pull in. There you go. It is uneven, and parts of it are cut off. The back is even better to see. Parts of the stamping have been cut off. Why? Because over 2,000 years because it’s solid silver, people would take a little bit and just shave a little bit off. That’s why those ridges are on the quarter, they shaved just a little bit off.

That’s what happened to England when they got 92%. They just shaved a little bit. The world needs to demand accountability from the Federal Reserve. I don’t think it’s going to end well when we do. In fact, I think it ends horribly for everyone but better face the facts right now. The world needs to demand to see proof that America still has its gold, and we still stand for something.

Now, maybe this is just a giant mix-up, and all of it can easily be explained by coincidence. I can’t think of a way it does. My gut tells me that’s not the case. It tells me the more likely scenario is the Fed is playing games, more specifically stealing through a massive Ponzi scheme, and when the rest of the world who has been in on part of that, the rehypothecation, realizes that the Fed and U.S. government perhaps has been taking the gold, not just theirs, yours as well, to fund their addiction to spending or to give the banks more money, there is nothing of value in those vaults, and there is nothing that anyone will put any trust in. The chickens come home to roost.

We have never seen theft like this before. How would you feel if you went to the bank, and they couldn’t give you back anything, your wedding ring, or any of your other valuables? When you got back, they handed you this, except it really was plastic, but it wasn’t plastic when you gave it to them. That’s what’s happening, I think, right now, and it’s happening to Germany. And it will at some point happen when people all over the world and hopefully our country start demanding to see the vaults and the gold.

When the people busted down the doors only to find nothing, what happens to those bankers? What happens to Americans? You will be blamed for stealing the world’s treasure. America is the globe’s banker, and it is only a matter of time before all of the world and the rest of us as well find out we’ve got nothing. Who does?

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.