Disturbing Details in the Flimsy Case Against Mother Amy Fabbrini

The case of Amy Fabbrini, an Oregon mother whose children were taken away after the state declared her IQ was too low to parent effectively, has touched Glenn deeply.

“It's just so outrageous what is happening,” Glenn said.

Jason Buttrill, head researcher and writer for The Glenn Beck Program, met with Glenn last week to “get down to the absolute nuts and bolts” on what exactly is going on with this case.

The state has alleged that Fabbrini and Ziegler aren’t fit, even though there is no evidence of abuse or neglect. According to court documents, Oregon has alleged that Fabbrini doesn’t understand the basic needs of her children and can’t be a safe parent.

After hearing from a listener who works for CPS and digging deep into the court case of Fabbrini, it turns out the case is even worse than they originally thought.

“We have seen all of the documents,” Glenn said.

Buttrill discovered that Fabbrini, along with the child’s father, both graduated in the middle of their class. Beyond that, there are actual quotes from case workers claiming that Fabbrini is “lazy, dirty and retarded.” There is even speculation that one of their children might be diagnosed with autism, therefore the court is hoping to give the child to a family with more means that is better able to take the child to a specialized school.

“This cannot stand,” declared Glenn. “The state cannot take children away because of low IQ. They cannot take children away because of a possible diagnosis in the future.”

GLENN: There is a story out of Oregon we've been telling you about all last week of Amy Fabbrini and her children. They have been taken away from a girl who we have been told, the state says is -- has too low of an IQ to be able to take care of her own children. The more we get into this case, the more we are, like, something is just not right here. And last Friday, I had a meeting with Jason Buttrill, who is with me now, and he's our lead researcher on the Glenn Beck Program, and we had a kind of come to Jesus meeting on Friday because we all had concerns. And we were, like. Okay. We have to get down to the absolute nuts and bolts on this. We need to go up. We need to see everything. We need to meet everybody. We need to know for sure before we go any further on this. Because it's just so outrageous what is happening.

So they were working on that over the weekend, and I get this forwarded to me from Jeffy. Do you know this guy, Jeffy? Or is he just reaching out to you?

JEFFY: No, he was just reaching out.

GLENN: So he's a guy, he wrote, like, five or six pages. I'm just going to give you a couple of highlights. He wrote five or six pages and said, look, I work for child protective services.

PAT: He's an attorney for them.

GLENN: Yeah, and he said I've seen this from the inside and, you know, don't jump on any bandwagons.

So here is word of caution. I want to just take you through this because what he points out were exactly my questions on Friday. And we have an update for you, and it's a pretty stunning update.

He says word of caution. Glenn, I understand your gut reaction is to defend parental rights and be wary of the state, and this is wise. However, the statements you make, the overgeneralizations, and your assumptions are alienated to a whole group of people that have a horrible job.

First of all, I want you to know if you work for CPS, I don't think you're a horrible person. I think you have a horrible job. I really do. I don't know how I would do it. But I want you to know I would bet 95 being probably overgenerous on the other direction, 95 percent of cases that CPS deal with, they probably get right. But when they get those 5 percent wrong, we should all be concerned. This is like death penalty stuff. It's not, like, hey, the electric chair works 95 percent of the chair. 95 percent of the people, they, you know, they were rightly accused and rightly judged and rightly killed.

Yeah, it's that 5 percent that is concerning because this is a death sentence for a family. But I don't think that C PS, the people the people are bad. I've worked in both rural and metropolitan areas as an attorney in child cases. All the sex abuse, domestic abuse, blah, blah, we do not have time -- now, listen to this because he underlined it. We do not have time to worry if someone has a low IQ or wants to teach their children at home. We deal with parents who are the worst of the worst. We try to save those people from terrible circumstances, including sex trafficking, as you do. There are thousands of us who get up every day to save children in horrible situations. Please stop overgeneralizing.

Well, I don't believe I have overgeneralized. I do not like CPS because of the 5 percent of cases that we have dealt with. The -- when there is a problem, it is devastating. Most of us aren't out to get your kids. I don't think you are either. Just like most people are not out to take my guns. But there are those with that agenda, and that is disturbing.

We work with parents to get their kids back. We're overworked and have too little resources. We know this is a system that is only a Band-Aid against greater moral and social problems.

Two. I'm sure that there are state workers who are everything you expect them to be. The Fabbrini situation may be the one where you're right. And if you are, I stand beside you denouncing it. However, there are a few red flags that I noticed.

Listen to these carefully. One, this story lies on a conspiracy, the CPS, state, court, the parents' attorneys, possibly the children's attorneys if they were appointed, all know that Fabbrini can care for the children, but simply think she's not smart enough. Is this possible? Yes. However, highly suspicious, even in small town. Maybe this town is rotten to the core and completely corrupt. Again, I don't think so. Being skeptical, how did you know all the individuals are corrupt and Fabbrini aren't being honest? Two, Fabbrini and her friend worked for the state and fired are the ones telling you their children were taken away because their IQ. My guess is you've never seen the filed against her. I would imagine that you have no proof that the state worker was fired for simply standing up for Ms. Fabbrini, unless you have your only getting one side of the story. She may be totally honest in this matter and the can state may state she has a notice IQ but the state has no evidence it affects her ability to parent. I have never heard of such a case. I have had many cases where parents lie about the abuse and neglect, and I must remain silent as to what the true combinations are and the evidence I have against them.

I have doubts, three that Ms. Fabbrini does sound completely coherent. Ms. Fabbrini claims the state won't let her have her kids because of low IQ. She is clearly coherent and articulate. So the premise of her story is that there was never any danger to her children but the state got ahold of her IQ and claimed that based on her IQ alone, she could not care for the children. The court. CPS, state, and attorney then ignored the fact that she is intelligent, articulate, and coherent. Internal Revenue time she brought forward proof just by showing up, they would go back to the IQ. Glenn, this is either absolute evil or ridiculous.

You may hate CPS, but this story is absurd. I may be wrong. I can tell you that in impersonal, there must be more to this story. I would ask you another question. Ms. Fabbrini's story is absolutely true. Why she has not sued the state. Can you imagine the state? State takes be able because fully capable home has IQ over 70. If it was motivate of self interest. Please note that I am just being skeptical. I do not deny that this could happen. We should be wary of a state having too much power. Just don't demonize all of us, blah, blah, blah, this state makes all of us who try to protect children look bad.

STU: That's a great e-mail, by the way. A great listener who is looking out for the show and trying to give us a broader picture. That's --

GLENN: And it's exactly what we were talking about on Friday. Because I said the same thing. Guys, that just doesn't happen. Until I see it with my own eyes, I need to see what's going on. And I need to -- I need to talk to everybody going on.

Jason, I have now seen the documents. Can I read this? Summarize this?

JASON: I would paraphrase.

GLENN: Paraphrase this. They are -- there are four conditions the state of Oregon is going after these child.

JASON: This is their case.

GLENN: This is their case. This is the documents that we have seen from the court.

One, the dad has limited cognitive abilities. Two, the mother is unwilling or unable to be a custodial resource.

Three, the mother has limited cognitive abilities. Four, the mother doesn't understand the basic needs of her child and lacks the skills necessary to be a safe parent.

That's the case. That's the case. So what this guy just said, you know, he's never -- well, you have now. We have seen all of the documents. That is the case, and I'm going to go a step further in a minute. But first, can you go through those four things with us, Jason?

JASON: Yeah, and I -- just like you said. I had the same reservations. I was, like, there's got to be something we're missing. You know, what's being reported is obviously not the story, so I want to go in to see the actual court documents that basically say, no, this is what happened. I'm assuming as soon as we see that, we're going to see some kind of crazy incident that happened. And that's the real basis of the case.

Well, we did some digging around after that meeting, we had a source come forward, and we've seen everything. I mean, everything. We've seen everything from their IQ levels, we've seen transcripts of past educational facilities, we've seen everything.

GLENN: Yeah. Just so you know, they graduated -- both of them graduated in the middle of their class.

JASON: With average grades.

GLENN: Yeah, average grades middle of the class. So if you're too stupid, then why did they get a diploma -- what does that say about all the other kids that will eventually be parents?

Okay.

JASON: So the limited cognitive abilities right off the bat. That's two of their main cases and actually their main case on this is completely out the window. If you're basing it off of their IQ, which some psychologists that tested them just gave them this number. I mean,ios how that's admissible in the court, and I also see that it's completely refuted because they graduated in the middle of the class, just like I graduated in the middle of my class. Am I a case worker at this place as alleged to have said, am I retarded? Can I not care for my children?

GLENN: So imagine a case worker, and we have the actual quotes. Imagine the case worker saying this person is lazy, this person is a mess. What was the second one?

JASON: Lazy, dirty.

GLENN: Dirty.

JASON: Retarded.

GLENN: And f'ing retard. Now, imagine, that's the case worker who's writing this up. And followed it up with quote I will never -- I will never let this person have their child. I will never allow them to have their child. Okay? After calling somebody an f'ing retard, I will never allow them -- and, by the way, when that was said, Jason, what else was happening with the case worker? What was he doing?

JASON: He was outlining for the parents, setting up -- so, yeah. And I just want to add in that this -- what this was said is potentially very explosive. It's an alleged statement, and we're actually following up to get more background on this specific person and his statements. But at the same time, this allegedly was said, he or she is putting out a plan, like he's supposed to do by the state, to give them their kids back. So the statement is "I will never let this person have Eric have his kids. But at the same time, he's saying, well, look, complete this class, complete this class, have these visits, and we will reunify your children with you."

GLENN: Now, the reason why he says that's explosive is because this person has allegedly, we have -- this isn't allegedly, but we have not gone into their cases yet. But we have had others step up who happen to have the same case worker who are saying I am not willing to go on the record, unless you guys are seriously going to finish this because this guy will never let us have our children. We have the same kinds of problems with this case worker.

Several parents, several people going through it, same exact case worker. They didn't know who the case worker was. We do. They don't.

JASON: So that points -- those are the biggest points. One and two. So basically your worst fears about this case, it just couldn't be about IQ. No, we're looking at the documents right now. We can tell you that is their case.

Now, point three, which I noticed you did give me a look on one of them. She's unwilling or.

GLENN: Unable to have custodial resources.

JASON: I thought that was odd, so I made a follow-up call on that. That stems from the interview where the case worker said that Amy wanted to put the kids up for adoption. But that is refuted, and it's very obvious now that she's not willing to put the kids up for adoption. She's not willing. She's fighting.

GLENN: So then there's this:

The mother does not understand the basic needs of her child and lacks the parenting skills necessary to safely parent the child.

Now, this is marked new allegation.

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Can we talk about this?

JASON: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Go ahead.

JASON: This is the most frightening thing in the case, in my opinion.

GLENN: Terrifying.

JASON: This was added in as a new allegation, and it says in the documents new allegation in parentheses. They have no cases to stand on at this point. So now they're prolonging this out. It has been four years that he's been with the foster care parent. So this goes to -- they had some doctor say that the kid -- and I think this is brand-new information that he might be diagnosed with autism.

GLENN: Might.

JASON: Might. They're not sure because he's still so young, they won't be able to really tell for another couple of years. So they don't really know. But he might. So in that case, because of the means of the family, they're not the richest family. Because of that, they think that, well, he'll be better off with a family with more means. That has the means to send them to, you know --

GLENN: A special school.

JASON: So he can develop at a faster rate. It's an allegation. It's alleged. None of this is -- I cannot believe this is even in a court Doc.

GLENN: And since when have we turned into a country that says a parent has to give up their child, even if they do have autism and give that child with autism with a wealthier family because they'll be able to provide. I feel horrible for the foster parents. I feel horrible for the foster parents because they've done the right thing, and now they've bonded with this child. I feel horrible for the child. But this cannot stand. The state cannot take children away because of low IQ. They cannot take children away because of a possible diagnosis in the future

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.