Glenn Beck: Fannie and Freddie

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. I am so glad that you're here today. We're actually in Los Angeles, California for the week. I'm going to go down to KFMB on San Diego on Friday. We're doing a show. You can find out all the details on KFMB's website. But the first time I'm going to be in San Diego with KFMB and I can't wait. We were out Friday in Phoenix for an event with KTAR. What an incredible radio station KTAR is and first time we were in Phoenix and had a great time with a sold out crowd there on Friday.

Now, I've been doing some I've been doing homework on Freddie and Fannie for I don't know how long and I've been waiting for this day because I knew that if I presented this three, four months ago, nobody would really pay attention to it because everyone was denying that Freddie and Fannie were going to fall apart. Still everybody is in somewhat denial, everybody is saying, oh, this is only going to cost the American taxpayers you $200 billion. That is a lie. It's going to cost you a whole lot more than that. Some say up to $1.6 trillion. To give you some idea of how much money that is, the original remember, "Oh, my gosh, all of a sudden we are having problems with our financial sector." The original panic was that the banks might have to write down as much as $200 billion. That's what we're writing a check for today for Freddie and Fannie, out of your pocket.

I told you at the time when everyone said, oh, it's going to be $200 billion. No, it's not. It's going to be in the trillions, it will at least start with $1 trillion. Now we are approaching a trillion dollars in the regular financial markets and this is going to cost you a trillion dollars. This one is costing you. Now, I want to know where is the outrage. I want to know where is the outrage from the press. Where is the outrage from congress. I'm going to ask three questions and then I'm going to give you the answers, and I ask you just to pay attention here for just a second because when you know the real story behind Freddie and Fannie, blood is going to shoot out of your eyes.

Here are the questions. Question one: Why aren't the CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac going to jail? Do you remember the name Ken Lay? Why aren't the CEOs and corporate executives required to give back, at the very minimum, give back the millions of dollars they put into their pockets while they inflated the results to meet their bonus triggers? I want to explain something here. What they did, what Freddie and Fannie did is they have these CEOs that said, oh, we're going to meet our budget. And if they met their budget, they get these big bonuses. Well, they would say that they met their budget and then they would get the bonuses but then they wouldn't meet their budget and they would come back later and say, oh, we had to readjust. No one, no one questioned them. I'm sorry. Members of the press like the Wall Street Journal questioned them. We had questioned them. But nobody else had questioned them. The question I have now is, why. Why. I'll explain in a second when I introduce you to the players. I won't even have to explain. You are going to say, oh, my gosh, you're kidding me.

Question number two: Why aren't the shareholders wiped out? Why is the federal government protecting the shareholders of Fannie and Freddie today? This isn't capitalism.

Question number three: Where's the end game? You know everybody always says in congress, especially the Democrats, "We want an end game. How come, you know, if you're going to go in for a war, you've got to know how to get out. Where's the strategy here? Where's the end game? What does victory look like?" I can tell you what victory looks like but nobody else is going to tell you this. They will all deny it, but it is not a coincidence today that they put a 15 month, pretty much just a 15 month Band Aid on this. What they've done is save these problems for the next congress and the next President. Why? I'll explain hopefully later on here. We'll get into a chance to do that but I'll explain in great detail on tomorrow's program and show you what congress is actually doing right now. They are setting us up right now.

Okay. First of all, first question: Where are the regulators? Where is everybody? Why isn't anyone going after this? This is from an article in The Wall Street Journal, 2004: For years mortgage giant Fannie Mae has produced smooth growing earnings and for years observers have wondered how Fannie could possibly manage its inherently risky portfolio without a whiff of volatility. Now thanks to Fannie's regulator, we now know the answer. The company was cooking the books big time. In 2004 the SEC began an investigation into Fannie Mae which led to restating of previously reported profits to the tune of $6.3 trillion. What happened when the regulators stepped in? $6.3 trillion. I'll give you a perspective on that here in a second.

When regulators stepped in, they fined them $400 million for that. Okay, let me give you the players. First one, Franklin Raines. Served as Clinton's director for the U.S. Management and Budget. He is now the CEO of Fannie Mae or I'm sorry, he was CEO until 2004. He served as the CEO from '99 to 2004. He took an early retirement while the SEC was investigating Fannie for accounting irregularities. Can you imagine if, while they were doing the investigation on Enron, if Ken Lay took an early retirement? Do you think anyone would have gotten up off of him?

They overstated under this guy, Franklin Raines, they overstated their earnings by $6.3 billion. Perspective: Do you remember how horrible things were with Enron? They overstated their earnings, Enron did, $567 million. Half a billion dollars as compared to $6.3 billion. The wheels of justice turn pretty slowly, but eventually they do turn. This year Franklin Raines settled a government lawsuit against him and, boy, we taught him a lesson. Listen to what we taught him. The headlines read that Rains agreed to $24.7 million settlement to have all of the charges dismissed, okay? So in other words, you can get out of it if you pay a penalty. You don't have to go to jail. You don't even have to have your name wrecked. Nobody even knows the name Franklin Raines. Nobody even knows he's one of the guys who caused all of this.

He got off for $24.7 in a settlement. However, we looked into the settlement. The agreement includes forfeiting stock options worth $15.6 million at the time they were issued. At the time they were issued, they were worth $77.10. He could buy the options allowed him to buy shares for $77. The stock is at $9 a share. He's not even he wouldn't exercise those options. Why would you buy $9 stock for $77? It's ridiculous. But we punished him. He can no longer buy that $9 stock for $77. Then he had to also pay $2 million to the federal government. Okay, so we get $2 million out of the guy, right? No, no, no, no. The $2 million, again if you look into it, is paid by you. It is paid by Fannie Mae's insurance policy for something like this. So you've been paying for the insurance policy so this guy doesn't have to pay the $2 million to the government.

Now, he also had to give up another $1.8 million in stock. It's going to be donated to programs aimed at assisting financially strapped homeowners. So this is you know, $1.8 million that he has in stock, the only thing he's got left, $1.8 million in stock and we're going to give that now to people who are financially strapped. Unfortunately again if you read the fine print and care to do your homework on this, that $1.8 million of stock, he doesn't even own. He was suing Fannie Mae for the $1.8. He said that's mine. They said, no, it's not. Yes, it is. No, it's not, yes, it is. All right, you got me, I'm going to say no, it's not. He didn't even own the $1.8. Now we're also told that he has agreed to part with $5.3 million in other unspecified benefits. I'd like to specify those. Could we get anyone in congress, can anyone on Capitol Hill? It's my money! Can anyone on Capitol Hill ask Mr. Reins, could you specify that for me, please?

Then we have James Johnson, former CEO of Fannie Mae. You know, this guy, because he was selected by Obama to head the vice presidential search committee when the news broke that he may have received preferential loan rates for his personal loans through Countrywide. That's another scandal. By the way, Obama threw this guy under the bus. What you may not have known is Mr. Johnson was the former chief of staff to vice president Walter Mondale and during his tenure accounting results were manipulated so that executives could earn larger bonuses. The accounting manipulation of 98 resulted in the maximum payoffs and payouts to Fannie Mae's senior executives. He personally got $1.9 million. So in other words, what happened was they cooked the books under this guy again, so that way they could get the maximum bonuses. If you look back and we did. If you look back at the bonus charts, these guys never, ever missed a bonus. But there's some way you never ever hit the bonus. They got the money but they never actually accomplished anything. Your government tax dollars at work. By the way, Franklin Raines, he is entitled to his monthly pension and he is taking his monthly pension from you of $114,393 for the rest of his life and for the life of his spouse, should she survive him. Fantastic.

Monthly, $114,000. He gets free medical and dental coverage for the rest of his life, for his wife, too, and his children until the age of 21. He gets free life insurance in the amount of $5 million until the age 60 and then $2.5 million after that. It's unclear how much of these benefits, if any of them, are in those unspecified damages.

James Johnson, post employment inflation consulting contract of $390,500 that began in 2002. He also gets two employees and a chauffeur, office space at the Watergate Hotel. He even began work at an investment firm that gave him his own office. It's been reported that Johnson was supposed to reimburse the company for 50% of the chauffeur's time, but that didn't apply to the time spent waiting for him or driving his wife around. He has, by the way, reimbursed Fannie for about 15% of that cost. On March 17th, 2005, Fannie Mae was engulfed in an accounting scandal. Johnson contacted board member Steven B. Ashley and said, "I should do my part to assist Fannie Mae's efforts to reduce spent tours at this difficult time." He temporarily reduced his consulting fees, which he had increased to $600,000 a year, and he decided to end his support staff and driver. No update on whether he's rescinded that deal and is getting by the way, who else works for Fannie Mae? How about this one, Jack Quinn, Esquire. Clinton appointee, he's a board member. He was the attorney working for the pardon for Mark Rich. How about Jamie Gorelick, Janet Reno's Justice Department who served on 9/11 commission. Gorelick, Gorelick, Gorelick, oh, she's the one who built the wall between the CIA and the FBI so they couldn't communicate. Remember her from 9/11? The compensation packages for Enron executives like Andy Fastow were similar to the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the CEO Franklin Raines bonuses. Fastow raked in $37 million. Do you remember what an evil dude he was? According to Business Week, Fannie had paid its top 20 executives combined $245 million in bonuses. Rains made $25.6 million in incentive pay, including stock options. $37 million for Fastow. $25 million for Rains. One is evil. One should be in prison for the rest of their life. One destroyed grandma and grandpa's savings. The other is is not that bad. You probably don't even know his name.

By the way, during all of this, when all of this was when the mortgage meltdown began, the total compensation package comes in at $18 million for Freddie Mac. The CEOs total compensation comes in at over $11 million for Fannie Mae. That's why all of this, that's why all of this is happening.

Now, let me ask the media. Where are you on this? Where are you? We did an LexisNexis search. 3,000 hits on Enron from the time the story first broke and that goes through the following nine months. 3,000 stories. During that nine month time period, Enron disclosed that it had overstated its earnings by $567 since 1997, that key several figures in the embattled company testified under congress under subpoena. A similar LexisNexis search we have done with the term Fannie Mae, for those same media outlets, from the day the story broke in the following nine months. The results? 3,000 hits for Enron. 37 for Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae was asked by its regulator to revamp its accounting, key executives resigned, and $11 billion in accounting errors were revealed. $11 billion as opposed to $567 million. Why were there only 37 matches for Enron's 3,000? Broadcast news wall to wall coverage of the endless commas and zeroes behind the Enron collapse. Fannie Mae's staggers problems and the resignation of six top executives including the CEO, Chief Financial Officer, no virtually no TV coverage. Where's the media? Where was the media then? Where was the media today?

Do you remember Enron with all the stories about the employees and the stockholders that lost everything, they couldn't retire anymore, they had to get a second job, all the people who had Enron stock in their 401(k), they are never going to be able to retire? Fannie and Freddie? Fannie and Freddie have lost almost all of their stock value. At the time we put this piece together, we started putting this piece together about two months ago, they had lost 70% of their value over the last year. Where is the media concern now? It doesn't fit their agenda. "We don't like to talk about these new little organization attentions that merge capitalism with the government. We don't like that. We don't want to think that anybody in the government, you know, is not capable of running an airline or a healthcare system or oil companies." God forbid we ever see the incompetence, God forbid we ever see how much money has been stolen from us in the middle of the night, except they didn't have to do it in the middle of the night. They do it in broad daylight. All of the facts and figures are all there. For some reason, though, nobody wants to look at it.

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.