Are We Fighting World War III With Currency?

Financial expert Chris Martenson with PeakProsperity.com joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to discuss what Glenn calls the largest currency war in the history of mankind.

"I believe we are in a global currency war, the Third World War of currency. First World War, currency war, was World War I then World War II, and this has been going back and forth with Jina since Ronald Reagan. But now Donald Trump is talking about trade barriers and specifically taking on China as the biggest manipulator of currency, which historically, they have been," Glenn said.

Instead of dealing with reality, we've decided to play the money game. What will it look like when the chickens come home to roost?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• Who is the biggest manipulator of currency?

• What's the impact of regulations and workplace safety laws in the US?

• What's the one thing credit bubbles can't stand?

• Did Italy do a Brexit this weekend?

• What's the real game being played right now?

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

GLENN: Hello, America. And welcome to the program. We are in, what I believe is the largest currency war in the history of mankind. And it's the most wonderful time of the year. So this is all good stuff.

Chris Martenson, our currency guru is joining us to talk about what this means for your finance. Put things that you're hearing in the news like tweets about Jina, what does that actually mean to you? We begin there, right now.

(music)

GLENN: Beginning of next year, and throughout the year, I want to give you a handle on what I believe is coming, just as a student of history.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. And I believe we are in a global currency war, the third world war of currency. First world war, currency war, was World War I. Then World War II. And this has been going back and forth with Jina since Ronald Reagan. But now Donald Trump is talking about trade barriers and specifically taking on China as the biggest manipulator of currency, which historically, they have been.

But we have decided to play the game all of these years for a reason.

You may want to stop playing the game. But I want you to understand what that means so you don't go in and then when the whole world falls apart, you go, "Well, why the hell didn't someone tell me this?" We have Chris Martenson on with us. Our guru from peakprosperity.com. Welcome, Chris. How are you?

CHRIS: Oh, I'm doing very well today. Thanks, Glenn.

GLENN: Can you put into perspective the -- the Taiwan and China talk about being the manipulator of -- the largest manipulator of currency?

First of all, is it true, or are we the biggest manipulator of currency?

(chuckling)

CHRIS: I think the answer is yes. Everybody is manipulating their currencies at all times. And there's a good reason for it, if you can keep your currency weak or low, relative to your trading partners, it makes your goods more attractive. So if somebody has a widget to sell and you can keep your currency nice and low, well, you can sell more of them. China has been on an absolute industrial tear. They've been exporting like mad. So the thinking would be, in a normal world, their currency should rise in value, relative to other currencies, and that hasn't been happening. And so the charge is leveled that China is manipulating its currency to keep it low, to give it an unfair advantage, to give its manufacturers an unfair advantage. That's what Trump is talking about.

GLENN: So, I mean, really, we have to cut ourselves a break. The reason why America doesn't make the world's goods anymore is partly because our currency was always so strong that the rest of the world couldn't afford to buy our stuff. And we bought everybody else's stuff because it was good or good enough. And it was really cheap. We couldn't compete because of the value of their currency.

CHRIS: Well, indeed. That's part of the story, and the other part is that we give ourselves lots and lots of tasty regulations and workplace safety laws.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

CHRIS: And all sorts of things like that.

GLENN: Correct.

CHRIS: And China doesn't burden itself in quite the same way. So they can compete.

GLENN: Correct.

CHRIS: So, yes, they have cheaper labor. But that's just part of the story. The rest of the story is, yes, they are keeping their currency nice and low. And so this has worked out really well for the United States. Sometimes people say, "Chris, the United States doesn't really export anymore." And it's not true.

We export a lot of dollars. We run a trade deficit, that if it was its own economy, would be around the eighth or the ninth largest in the world. It's an astonishing number that the United States imports more than we export. When we do that, it means basically we're exporting those dollars, and we're counting on places like China to hold on to those dollars and not send them back home.

GLENN: Why is that important?

CHRIS: Well, so what they have to do, if they're holding the dollars, what do they do with them?

The central bank starts to accumulate them in China. And so they can't just hold on to dollars. So they hold on to treasuries instead. And because they're buying our treasuries in the United States, what happens next is that keeps our interest rates low.

So if China suddenly decided to reverse this policy -- let's say Trump comes out and labels them a currency manipulator, goes after them hard, China could just turn around and decide to start selling all of those treasuries. And if they do that, our interest rates will rise.

Well, you want to talk about World War I, World War II, where are we in this story? We're in the middle of the largest credit bubble in all of human history. One thing credit bubbles really can't stand is rising rates of interest. That's what would result if China started selling its treasuries.

GLENN: Chris, over the next few weeks -- and I would like to bring you in so we could spend a day before we talk about this on the air. But I am more and more convinced that -- first of all, do you believe we're in a World War III scenario of just a currency war?

CHRIS: Well, we are -- everybody -- all the central banks are doing everything they can to try and keep this whole thing stitched together. And as they do that, Glenn. They're creating larger and larger imbalances. The imbalances in Europe are large enough to tear it apart. They're very afraid of the rise of populism over there. They've seen this story before.

The difference between what is happening with the Chinese, the Japanese, the United States central banks, all these enormous imbalances are building up. And nobody has a plan for how to resolve them. If we don't, there's a good chance they resolve chaotically, which is just a fancy way of saying, "Stuff just breaks down, and then we see what happens."

GLENN: Yeah. What does it mean for Italy this weekend? Italy had the opportunity to solve things, if you will, or at least still keep playing the game. They kind of did a Trump or a Brexit this weekend and said, "No," to the plan of their Prime Minister over there. So now he is stepping down. And it looks like it's, again, another Brexit.

What does this mean?

CHRIS: This -- you know, a lot of people -- I've seen a lot of ink written already that says, "Well, this is just people not understanding the bigger issues. And maybe they're a little bit racist or more like Trump or something or something."

But the truth is, Glenn, that the people of Italy have been suffering for a long time. The average people have been suffering for a long time. I think it's been since 1998 since their economy has been growing. And the people of Italy have had to endure with less and less and less. And they've just been getting squeezed. So I view this again -- they call it pop, like I say, this or that. Really, it's just economics. When people find their daily lives getting harder and harder, it creates social tension.

This was another opportunity for the elites this time in Italy, to figure out how they're going to start listening to their people.

Renzi was deciding not to do that. And the people of Italy, very convincingly -- nearly 60 percent, I think, is the last number I saw, said, "No, it's time for us to be part of this story as well." That's really what's going on here. And the bigger picture, the thing we can talk about over the coming weeks is, the only question that has to be answered at this stage of the credit bubble is: Who is going to eat the losses?

GLENN: Explain that.

CHRIS: Well, when something can't be paid back, it won't be. And so the banks are always trying to figure out how they don't get to eat the losses. They're always looking for a bailout in some form, or in this case in Europe, now bail-ins. But somebody's going to have to take the losses.

So in the case of Italy, their banks have 360 billion euros of non-performing loans. Those are loans that aren't being paid. That's 20 percent of Italian GDP. There's no possible way that they can cover that.

GLENN: Oh, my gosh.

CHRIS: So the question now is: Who is going to eat the losses? And the politicians would love that to be the taxpayers. They create inflation, which is a stealth way of stealing that from all the people. Sometimes they just do the bailout and make the taxpayers pay directly. But the people are starting to say, "No. This is unfair. We don't like this. And the losses should actually belong to the people who made the bad decisions. Maybe that's the banks. Maybe that's the politicians." So this is the real game that's being played right now.

GLENN: But how do they pay for it? How do the banks and the politicians pay for that? They can't. How are you going to give that to the politicians?

CHRIS: Well, they're going to have to suffer with austerity so that the government is going to have to say, "Look, we can't just dip into the coffers for this. We're going to have to tighten our belts." Guess what, every one of the politicians who was involved in that gets swept out of office. It's a real career killer when you have to tell people, "It's time to pay for all of the bad decisions."

GLENN: You know, I've been reading a lot about the -- the gold standard and -- and how we kind of got off it. And it's really much more complex. And the trade balance is so complex, and yet elegant in the way it kept everything balanced. But we don't do that anymore.

When the Weimar Republic had hyperinflation and they inflated their way out of things, first of all, they didn't inflate their way out of the reparations that they were supposed to. A lot of people think, I believe, that, oh, we're just -- the world is going to forgive America of this big debt. I don't think so.

Chris Martenson, do you believe they will?

CHRIS: No. How could they?

GLENN: Yeah.

CHRIS: The world isn't an entity. When we say, you know, there's $7 trillion of US money out overseas, it's not just in a spot in some central bank where they can flick a pen. It's sitting in a French pension. It's sitting in the endowment for a small school. It's in people's 401(k)s and retirement accounts. It's parked all over the place.

So either everybody has to agree to forgive that, or we get back to the prime question, which is: Who eats the losses in this story? And the governments always want to try and inflate it away. That seems the simplest. It spreads the pain over a great many people.

But what your listeners need to know is that this is a game. This is a game that's been played for a very long time. And it's basically heads we win, tails you lose. And that's what's creating the populist backlash. People are starting to figure it out. We have information now that we can access and go, "Oh, is that the game." Right?

It's not like it was in the '50s, when you only had one newspaper. Now, we can go to other sources of information and say, "Oh, I see what they're doing here. This really isn't fair." And so that's what we're getting down to is that when people experience deep unfairness in their lives, they don't like it. And that's really, I think, a better explanation of what's happening than, you know, simple ignorance or something like that.

GLENN: Okay. So, Chris, when you -- we'll have you back. And I want to talk to you about the way the Weimar Republic stabilized their economy after hyperinflation. They attached it to land.

Can you tell me at all, when you come back, about what a scenario like that would mean. Does that mean the government takes the land? Do they do that with just the public land that they hold? Would they take our mortgages? How does that work? How did it work before? Because I'm more and more convinced -- and I'd love to hear your opinion on this now, that the central banks and the central planners actually thought the lessons from World War I, the Weimar Republic, and World War II, they think those actually worked. Didn't they?

CHRIS: Well, they kind of did. And this is a really important topic. It will take a little while to explain. But it's summarized like this: If you read all the accounts of what happened in the Weimar Republic, all the popular books and all the stuff in the library says, "Wow, there was a lot of wealth destruction. Look at all these middle class, upper middle class people. They lost everything."

When you really look at what happened though, no wealth was actually destroyed. Because real wealth are the factories, the farms, the streets, the cars -- it's the real productive wealth of the nation. That didn't go away. What happened? It got transferred.

GLENN: Yes.

CHRIS: And this happened in the 1920s and '30s in the United States as well. All these people owned farms. They went bust because the mortgages all went bust on them.

And when the dust settled, if you watched carefully, who owned the farms changed hands. So that's what I'm trying to alert people to, that this idea of what we're facing is not so much of a wealth destruction. It's a wealth transfer. But first, you got to understand what the real wealth is. And it's not the paper.

GLENN: Okay.

Let's start there next time you're on. Chris Martenson from Peak Prosperity. Thank you so much. Appreciate it, sir.

CHRIS: You're welcome. My pleasure.

GLENN: You bet.

Featured Image: Fake US Dollar and Turkish Lira currency often used as a novelty gift is seen for sale at a tobacco shop in a market on December 5, 2016 in Istanbul, Turkey. As the Turkish Lira plunged to record lows in past weeks, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a speech Saturday said his political enemies were trying to sabotage the economy and urged citizens to convert their foreign currency savings into lira or gold. Borsa Istanbul, Turkey's main stock exchange, became the first institution to act on the presidents call, converting all it's cash assets to liras. Some local businesses in a show of support began offering incentives to customers who had proof of changing foreign currency to lira, with rewards such as free restaurant meals, free gifts and discounts on purchases and one funeral owner in the province of Bursa promised to give free tombstones to people who had protected their lira. (Photo by Chris McGrath/Getty Images)

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.