Glenn talks with Andrew McCarthy




Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad


by Andrew C. McCarthy

RELATED ARTICLE:


No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen


GLENN: Andrew McCarthy is a guy I had on last night. Andrew McCarthy was the lead prosecutor for the '93 World Trade Center bombing. This guy has been -- I mean, he's been going after bad guys for quite some time and he's got an incredible article out about the company that he keeps on Barack Obama. And we started in on this conversation and I had, like, three and a half minutes with him last night. Started in on this conversation and there's just not enough time because the pieces of the puzzle on Barack Obama, you have to put them together yourself. And there are so many pieces out there that give us a very different picture. A disturbing picture on who Barack Obama really is based on the company that he keeps. Andrew, how are you?

McCARTHY: Glenn, I'm great, how are you?

GLENN: Very good. I want to get right to Barack Obama and the company he keeps. Before we get into it, tell me why it matters. Some people say, "Oh, you can't judge him by the people that are around him or that he's had contact with."

McCARTHY: Yeah, I used to hear that when I was a prosecutor, too, you know. They used to say you can't -- that's just guilt by association to which, you know, usually before people got convicted, I would say, well, you know, try proving conspiracy without association, you know. I mean, it's sort of an element that's of some importance. And obviously we don't condemn somebody simply because of who he associates with but, you know, people are drawn to each other for a reason, and I think there's a theme that runs through all of these troublesome connections that Obama has and frankly he's somewhat lucky, I think, even though you -- if that's a strange way to put it, that so much of this analysis has been infected by the racial element of right because I think the racial component is actually the least important of the things that strings this altogether.

GLENN: Well, the racial element is the first tip-off that this guy has Marxist tendencies.

McCARTHY: Yeah, that's exactly right. And the racial element, if you dig a little bit deeper into it, this liberation theology, this Black Liberation Theology is just really a sort of a parrot of the leftist liberation theology that was -- you know, that came to our attention so powerfully in the Sixties and Seventies in South and Central America.

GLENN: Well, I mean, here's -- I love this from your article, from the church's own mission statement that he goes to. "We are African people and we remain true to our native land, the mother continent and the cradle of civilization." The one that you would remain true to, your native land, I mean, most people that go to that church, I would imagine their native land is America.

McCARTHY: Yeah, you would hope that. I don't think that you can uncouple that with some of the, not only the fact that Obama stayed in that church for so long and, you know, had Wright marry him and baptize his children, but some of the things Michelle Obama has said hook up to this a little bit too uncomfortably for me. For example, this business in her thesis and, you know, I know we all don't want to be tagged with our college usings but again, you know, we're trying to put these pieces together. But she actually argues in the thesis that a separatist would understand the black community and the black experience in America better than one of these sort of benighted integrationists because only the separatist really understands the authentic experience and can touch that. And I just, when I hear that sort of stuff, I hear the very echoes of the part of the mission statement that you're talking about here.

GLENN: All right. So let me -- let's start at the beginning because I think Michelle Obama is the key to understanding Barack Obama. I think, you know, her statements that people dismiss on, oh, America is just downright mean or some of the stuff she just said in a speech last night that was absolutely incredible about how, you know, she went to Harvard and Princeton but people tried to keep her down there and she barely makes it and she's an anomaly and, gosh, now they're trying to take the presidency away from her husband. I mean, it's amazing stuff, but let's get to her through two other really important pieces and that is let's start with William Ayers.

McCARTHY: Right.

GLENN: William Ayers, you told me last night on television you need to read the September 11th article on William Ayers, member of the Weather Underground. Last night we posted it up on our website. I bet it's probably still there. America, you should read this. When I read it, Andrew -- I was amazed at this guy that he is allowed to be -- or that he's, not allowed, that he's so accepted by the people in Barack Obama's company.

McCARTHY: You know, Glenn, and the thing I asked you yesterday and I'm sure now that you've taken a look at it, it resonates even more. Common sense question for people. Ask yourself, could you talk to this guy for 30 seconds and not know where he was coming from.

GLENN: No.

McCARTHY: Then if the answer's no, then ask yourself if you're a person of Barack Obama's sophistication and education, is it conceivable that you could be around this guy -- and he spent quite a bit of time around him -- and not know precisely where he was coming from and how he wanted to quote/unquote change America?

GLENN: Well, it makes -- when you start to look into who his friends are, it makes a couple of things, like the flag lapel pin makes sense, that he won't wear a flag lapel pin. There is a very famous picture that we posted on the website a few months ago where he was on the phone at a campaign headquarters with a Che Guevara flag behind him.

McCARTHY: Right.

GLENN: And I thought to myself what candidate would sit in there and have that picture taken with a Che flag behind him. Well, I know exactly what candidate, a guy who would associate with William Ayers. Tell everybody about William Ayers. Take it a little deeper than what we know as member of the Weather Underground, bombed the Pentagon.

McCARTHY: Right, bombed the Pentagon, bombed other U.S. targets including the capitol, banks, U.S. headquarters, et cetera. Now, Obama waves at all that and says all that stuff happened 40 years ago, how can you blame me for stuff that happened 40 years ago. I don't want to quibble with dates, it doesn't quite happen more than 40 years ago. But more to the point, he has associated with this guy in the here and now, and that interview that we talked about a couple of minutes ago was actually published by the New York Times on sent 11th.

GLENN: Yeah, the article is entitled "No regrets For a Love of Explosions, in a memoir of sorts, he talks with life of the weatherman and he is not ashamed of it. In fact, in a very creepy way he talks about his love for and the beauty of explosions.

McCARTHY: Yep. It really is creepy is precisely the right word for it. But the reason I think it has very -- it's very important in the here and now is that it's a fresh statement, it's an indication by him that far from any regret over what he did, he actually says that he wishes that he had done more. And when he's challenged a little bit and, you know, this is the "New York Times," so he wasn't going to be challenged that much. But when he's challenged a bit on some of the things he's saying, he talks about, you know, how can you talk about America as a great country; it still makes me want to puke. Every ounce of his being --

GLENN: This is recent stuff.

McCARTHY: I'm sorry?

GLENN: This is recent stuff. This is not 1970. That's recent.

McCARTHY: No, and it's not only recent stuff, it's stuff that was vintage of the time that he was sitting on the Woods board, a left wing charitable organization, sitting on that board with Barack Obama and making appearances with him on, you know, college panels, one of which at least was arranged by Michelle when she was an associate dean at the University of Chicago.

GLENN: But it also doesn't go just to sitting on boards with him and college panels. His wife was also a, you know, 1970s terrorist activist and when Barack Obama first started launching campaigns, didn't he launch at the Ayers home?

McCARTHY: Well, that's exactly right. His coming out party was at the home of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, his wife that you just alluded to a second ago. You know, I have some stuff in the piece about Bernardine Dohrn as well who was quite a character in her own right.

GLENN: You can't leave it -- I mean, when Sharon Tate was killed, she came out and said, "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim's stomach, wild."

McCARTHY: Yeah, wild, that's what she said. You know, and that, again I suppose you could dismiss some of this as the youthful exuberance of a youthful terrorist but, you know, if there weren't -- if it wasn't so obvious that there was a freshness to it in the sense of their lack of remorse over it and Ayers, of course, saying that he wishes they had done more and, you know, one of the things I think you can't dismiss out of all of this is, you know, I'm a counterterrorism guy. So I guess maybe that's my prism for looking at a lot of this stuff. But, you know, with respect to jihadism we have both a hard jihad and a soft jihad, you know. We have people who blow up the buildings and then the people who engage in the extortion, you know, just like you pay the Gambino money man.

GLENN: Right.

McCARTHY: Because you know what the wages of resistance are. And what I fear with these characters, Ayers and Dohrn in particular, is they haven't changed where they're coming from. They haven't changed a bit the thing, the ideology that motivates them. What they've changed is their methodology. They are not blowing up buildings anymore. They are, you know, shaping mines.

GLENN: Yeah, they have been institutionalized.

McCARTHY: Exactly.

GLENN: Not in the way I would like them institutionalized. Then if you can tie into Rashid Khalidi.

McCARTHY: Well, when Dohrn -- I'm sorry, when Ayers and Obama were on the Woods board together, they were -- the board was in charge of deciding who got the largess from this organization. One place that got some money from them, a decent bit of money was the -- was Wright's church, Reverend Wright's church was awarded money as basically as an homage to Obama for his service on the board which again shows how identified to people who knew them, how identified Obama was with Wright and with that whole church.

GLENN: Sure.

McCARTHY: The other recipient I talk about is Rashid Khalidi who is a long time apologist for Yasser Arafat. Now, there's been some reporting that he was actually an official member of the PLO, that he was their spokesman. He denies that that was true, but certainly doesn't and I don't think could deny that he was a very pro-Arafat character and that he has been a supporter at least of terrorist attacks directed at Israel soldiers which he denies as resistance, not terrorism.

GLENN: This guy is tied in with Barack Obama and William Ayers in what way?

McCARTHY: Well, in two ways. Number one, when they were on the Woods board together, they voted to donate $75,000 to an outfit that he started in Chicago called the Arab American Action Network. It was co-founded by him, by Khalidi and Khalidi's wife. And then Khalidi moves on from Chicago to go to Columbia to actually take over the Edwards Said chair and become a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University which has become, I think notorious, and I say this as a Columbia graduate, has become notorious as a real hotbed of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic passion I would say. When he moved on, from when Khalidi moved on from Chicago and Columbia, they had a big dinner for him, a farewell dinner, and there were Obama and Ayers together again, you know, paying tribute to him on his way out the door from Chicago to Columbia.

GLENN: It is amazing to me that all of the pieces are here. Everything we need, Andrew, is here to judge who these people are and yet nobody in the media wants to tie it together. Nobody wants to tell the truth. And even when you do see all of these pieces, people are dismissing it.

McCARTHY: Well, you know, I think they dismiss it, Glenn, because it means either of two things and both of them are unpleasant, especially for this almost cult-like infatuation that people have had for Obama. I personally think Obama's candidacy has been more about us than it is about him. I think he's been almost an empty vessel where his supporters have projected their hopes and dreams on him as if that was, you know, what he was actually about and as if he didn't have a personality of his own that we needed to be concerned about.

GLENN: Right.

McCARTHY: But what this means is either of two things: Obama continues to say, you know, I didn't know this about Wright or I didn't know that about Ayers or you can't, you know, blame me for what these people say or think. If that's true, he's got no business being President. I don't think we want a President who, you know, could spend all this time around people who are five-alarm anti-Americans and say, you know, he wasn't true enough to know who they are, who they were and what they were about. The alternative is that he knew exactly what they were and what they were about and he was totally comfortable with that and I don't think, you know, that does him much good, either.

GLENN: This is -- you are hearing Andrew McCarthy. Andrew is the prosecutor responsible for leading the investigation of the blind Sheikh in the '93 World Trade Center bombing. He's got a new book out called Willful Blindness, a Memoir of the Jihad, how we're not paying attention to the 800-pound gorilla that is sitting in the room. Andrew, I'd like to have you back to talk about what you learned in that trial and in that whole process trying to put the blind sheikh behind the bars. May we have you back?

McCARTHY: Oh, I'd be delighted, Glenn, thank you.

GLENN: Thanks lot, Andrew.

McCARTHY: Thank you.


 

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.