Glenn's latest economy theory




Crash-Proof: How to Profit From the Coming Economic Collapse


GLENN: Putting the radio back into Radio City, from Rockefeller Plaza in Midtown Manhattan, this is the third most listened to show in all of America. Let me go right to Peter Schiff here because I want to talk to him about -- well, you know what? Let me start with this. I have to tell you something. I told you now for a while, I've told you since August specifically that nobody's telling you the truth on the economy and I told you that we had a very, very delegate financial system and that nobody really knew the extent of the problem because everything has changed. The rules have changed. And I said if we have any significant downward pressure on this, this whole thing could collapse. Well, I think you can see how delicate our financial system is and how close we came to collapse and, you know, collapse may still happen. It may not. We may be past it. I don't think we are. I just think there's just too many things, there are too many things going on. But there's a lot of stuff in the news that I don't even begin to understand and there are several questions, and I thought Peter Schiff could come on and kind of answer some of these questions for me.

Hi, Peter, how are you?

SCHIFF: I'm well, how are you, Glenn?

GLENN: I'm good. I hate to just hit you out of the blue with some things that, you know, you don't have any idea what I'm going to ask you and, you know, it's not a quiz but I thought you might be able to be the guy who could help me on this. There's a story today in The Wall Street Journal, Fed weighs its options in easing crunch. Did you see this?

SCHIFF: I listened to that, I think it was -- yeah, I did read the article, as a matter of fact. I have it on my desk right now. Greg Ip's piece?

GLENN: I don't even know what some of these things are. I can't even figure out what their options are.

SCHIFF: It's really easy. It boils down to one word. Inflation. That's what they are contemplating, printing money and buying up mortgages. You know, we talk about, you know, the economic collapse. Our economy has to collapse because it was phony. At one time we had all these Internet companies that were in business but they were losing money. Eventually they all collapsed because they weren't viable. The same thing goes with our economy. It's not that there was a problem in sub prime. We had a bubble and subprime was the pin that predicted it but the problem is that our economy is phony because it's based on consumption. It's based on borrowing. It's based on Americans borrowing trillions of dollars from abroad and doing nothing with the money but spending it on consumer goods. And now we're up to our eyeballs in debt. We can't pay it back. We have these phony asset prices, home prices that people used for collateral for these loans. They are collapsing in value and there's nothing the Government can do to stop it and they should stop trying. They have to let it happen.

GLENN: So let me just go -- it's always like a day of sunshine and a walk on the beach when we talk. Go over a couple of these things. The Fed and treasury have discussed that the most likely option is for the treasury -- this one kills me if I understand it right. The treasury will issue more debt than it needs to fund government operations and the extra cash would be left undeposited at the Fed. So basically what we're saying is we'll go over to China, borrow more money than we need for the national debt and then leave it with a private entity, the Fed?

SCHIFF: We're not going to leave that money. We're going to spend that money in circulation. The Fed's going to buy up mortgages. That's what they are trying to do. They are trying to prevent money on people who used real estate collateral from going broke. Why? We used to criticize the Chinese with phony capitalism. We used to say the duty of our economy is we let free markets work, we let people work, we let people pay for their mistakes. What happened to that? Why does the Government have to bail everybody out? Why can't we let people who make bad loans lose money?

GLENN: Okay. So the argument would be on that, "Well, you can't do that because if these, if these groups collapse -- I mean, here, I've got a couple of stories right here. Citigroup Wells Fargo may loan less after downgrades. I've got another one that the IMF now is saying -- the IMF says financial losses may swell to almost $1 trillion. It was $200 billion. Then it was $400, then it was $600. Now they are saying $1 trillion in losses.

SCHIFF: But those are real losses. The Government can't prevent them. All the Government can do is turn them into inflation. So they can say, look, we won't let you lose money. We'll let you get your money back but when you get it back, it's going to lose value. The Government can't do anything. Yes, it's going to be terrible. We're in for one hell of a recession. But you know what? That's the price we have to pay. We're in this mess because in 2001 and 2002 the government tried to help. They didn't want to allow the recession that would normally result in the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble which the Fed also created. So in terms of trying to save us, in trying to prevent us to live through a recession, we blew up this housing bubble. We encouraged trillions of dollars of reckless lending and now we have to pay the price for that. We can't afford to pay the price of another government bailout. It's just too expensive.

GLENN: Okay. But the other idea is that it's too expensive not to do it. That's the argument I always hear.

SCHIFF: No.

GLENN: It's too expensive. You can't let these giant groups fail because then the whole system goes into failure.

SCHIFF: So the result -- so the alternative is we kill the value of our money? I mean, if the Fed does what they are contemplating, we're going to have hyperinflation in this country. The dollar is not going to lose just some value. It's going to lose most of its value and it might even lose all of its value. And believe me, the type of chaos that that's going to unleash, much worse than allowing some people on Wall Street to go broke. And you know what? If it means that Americans can't borrow money anymore to buy television sets or to buy cars, fine. They shouldn't be borrowing money to do that in the first place. We should not be lending people money to consume. People should -- businesses should borrow money to invest, to produce. If you want to consume something, you can save up until you can afford it.

GLENN: So Peter, why is the price of gold then kind of just going up and down but pretty much hanging out around where it is if --

SCHIFF: Well, I don't know. I mean, gold's up 10 bucks today, silver's up 60 cents. Gold's at $920 an ounce. Of course, gold prices have already tripled, at a time when stocks have actually gone flat and the NASDAQ has gone up in value. So we've already seen a pretty big move in gold but this is just the beginning. I don't know when gold goes (inaudible), it will go through $2,000, it will go through $3,000. I don't know exactly the dates that it's going to happen but, you know, markets don't move all at once. But believe me one of these days gold's just going to explode. I think it might happen in conjunction with a big drop in the value of the dollar when Asian countries and China and other gulf region countries really depeg from the dollars. Read the stories. Inflation is going throughout the world. You have the highest rates of inflation. People are rioting in the streets and the reason there's so much inflation us because he have been is printing money to prevent the dollar from going down. The supply is going the most rapid pace in history. Everybody is printing and it's all because of the Fed. Everybody's looking at the dollar as reserve current is I and it is wreaking monetary havoc around the world. Eventually the world is going to revolt, they are going to debunk the dollar, they are going to stop the inflation and the dollar's going to fall through the floor.

GLENN: This is so frustrating because your phone keeps cutting out. Let me go over that again. Wait a minute. Why do people -- why are other countries printing more currency? How does that help the dollar?

SCHIFF: Well, here's what happens. We won these huge trade deficits, about $60 billion a month. So Americans pay $60 billion and spend them abroad to buy products. When the companies that make those products get those dollars, you know, there's nothing to do with them. We don't have any products that they want to buy. So they end up, the central banks buy all those dollars from exporters and they buy those dollars by printing their own currency. So because we send all these unneeded dollars out, you know, abroad, foreign governments have to print them up. And they are doing that. Otherwise the dollar would sink. And what they're trying to do is protect the export market into the United States. Nobody wants their currency to be too strong against the dollar. So they keep intervening and buying up all these dollars. That's where all these funds have come from. The reason these countries have trillions is because of all the currency intervention and now these dollars, they are trying to think of something to do with these dollars other than recycle them back to us by buying our treasuries and buying our mortgage-backed securities. But they're going to stop doing that. They have to. They can't keep, you know, causing their own people to suffer. They can't keep transferring purchasing power to America and asking their own citizens to suffer. Because the rest of the world is actually being productive. They are producing things. You know, why shouldn't they get to consume what they produce. Why should Americans be extended that privilege at the expense of everybody else? So I think it's coming to a point where the world's going to pull the plug. And then we're going to be in serious trouble because when we can't borrow from the Chinese and the Saudis, who are we going to borrow from? Americans don't have any money. And we have to --

GLENN: Go ahead.

SCHIFF: If we have to buy products that we're going to produce, what are we going to buy? What's going to be on the shelves at Wal-Mart if it's not product coming in from China?

GLENN: What is the thing that you think will be the catalyst? What are the precursors of unpegging from the dollar? I know yesterday Iran said to the gulf region, unpeg from the dollar. Right now unpeg from the dollar. And there's real pressure from Iran to try to get everybody else to unpeg from the dollar. But I don't think that's going to happen. What are the precursors that you will see in the market that will say --

SCHIFF: I think we're already seeing them. I mean, I think that's already happening. You've got former Fed chief Paul Volcker quoted we're already in a dollar crisis. So I think the crisis has already begun and the fact that inflation is running so high and countries like China are imposing wage to price controls which we know won't work. You know, it already has reached a tipping point and the more, you know, the Fed continues to monetize this whole mess, and basically what the government is trying to say is we need to have like a resolution trust for this problem but we don't want to raise taxes. We want to finance this through inflation. We want to debase the value of the dollar. And so when people around the world realize that they are going to be the scapegoats, they are going to be the ones left holding the dog and asked to suffer trillions of dollars of loss of purchasing power because the government's trying to socialize these losses in the dollar, they are going to have to run from it. They are going to have to realize we no longer have a real viable economy with a sound currency. You know, we're running the same type of monetary policy as Zimbabwe and now it takes 50 million Zimbabwe dollars to buy one dollar. The world's figuring this out.

GLENN: Peter, I read something and you'll have to excuse my ignorance on this because, you know, I'm not like you. You know this stuff. I'm just trying to figure it out as a regular Schmo. And I read something. It was like 2:00 in the morning last week and I haven't had a chance to do more research on it but it's our -- to me it is the explanation of, I've been wondering. You know, I talk to smart people and I say action wait a minute, if I can figure this out and I'm a recovering alcoholic deejay, I mean, certainly these guys can. So what is it? You know, is it intentional? Are they just stupid? What is it? And I believe it's arrogance. Explain, if I'm right, the policy that the Government has is something that, what is it, the WS2 or something like that policy which is -- what is it, Stu? BW2, which is Bretton Woods 2 which is basically the world needs us; we can borrow; it doesn't matter how much we'll borrow because the world will never disconnect from the world's consumers.

SCHIFF: Yeah. I mean, that is the height of arrogance and basic misunderstanding of economics thinking that the world needs us because we consume and we borrow. We've got it backwards. We need the world because they produce and save. You know, we're not doing the world a favor. They're supporting us. You know, they can succeed very well without Americans. They can consume their own goods. I mean, consumption is the fun part. The hard part is to actually make stuff and produce and to sacrifice and save. That's what the rest of the world is doing. They are buying it for free. The sooner they realize that, I use the analogy Tom Sawyer. We convince the world to paint their fence. Meanwhile their own fences are running out because they are using all their energy to paint ours. But eventually they are going to look around and realize that, you know, they have got their own fences to paint and we're going to be stuck. It's going to happen but, you know, Washington politicians have a vested interest in sunny news. This he want to pretend that they can help out. I mean, that's what all these new hearings are. They want to prevent the problems on Wall Street from spilling over into Main Street. Well, that's impossible. That's the very reason that Wall Street has problems is because it's Main Street that can't afford to make their mortgage payment. They are the ones that are leveraged up over their hilt for years and years of reckless borrowing and consumption. The bills have come due and can't afford to pay it. But politicians don't want to tell the public they are going to have to suffer. They want to pretend they can make all the problem go away and they can't. Now, why Wall Street can't figure it out, I mean, sure, they have got a vested interest and they sell more stocks and bonds when people are optimistic than when they're pessimistic but it's the simple stuff. I mean, a lot of people can figure it out. I mean, my book, people have read my book. It's basic. All this stuff that people are saying came out of left field, I mean, I laid it out, you know, in "Crash Proof" two years ago and it's happening exactly the way I said. Yet, you know, they are having hearings right now in congress about what the Government should or should not do. Do you think they would invite me? No.

GLENN: No. Peter, one last thing. I just need -- this just doesn't seem right to me but maybe it is just what it is on the surface. The IMF has approved eventual sale of more than 400 tons of gold. They are trying to sell -- that's about $11 billion worth of gold and they are saying, well, they are just doing it because now gold is at such a high, et cetera, et cetera. I got a couple of questions. A, do you believe that, that that's why they're selling all this gold. B, if what you say is true, why would they sell the gold; it will be worth more. And C, why does the IMF even have 400 tons of gold?

SCHIFF: Well, I think they have the gold, you know, they get involved in various economies that are in trouble and they want to be able to extend aid and they need gold to be able to do that and I think it backs -- they have these special (inaudible) that are backed by gold.

GLENN: But they use your money or other countries' money. It's not like their own money needs to be backed.

SCHIFF: No, they issue what are called special drawing rights which is like currency and they have to have some backing behind it and it's gold. I mean, all central banks, central banks have gold. Gold is real money. Paper is just a money substitute. But, you know, they are doing the exact wrong thing. I mean, the IMF just stated now that we've got a trillion dollar losses coming and there's a serious recession. When six months ago the IMF was saying that the sub prime was contained and it wasn't even a big deal. But given that, no, they should be buying gold. In fact, I'm sure the Chinese are licking their chops waiting to get their hands on this IMF gold. They are going to buy it up as soon as it hits the market. Central banks sold half their gold under $300 an ounce. I bet they wish they had that gold back.

GLENN: Right. Best thing we can do is buy the gold, right?

SCHIFF: Well, good. I mean, anybody should buy it. It's going up. It holds its value. In an inflationary time period, when the Fed has basically told you they are going to plug the dollar into oblivion, Ben Bernanke already testified that he doesn't think American citizens lose when the dollar goes down. He says it's no big deal what the dollar is worth. This is crazy. This guy's a lunatic.

GLENN: All right.

SCHIFF: So people have to realize that money's going to lose value and gold won't, or paper money, and gold will retain its value and people are going to buy, foreign central banks are going to buy it.

GLENN: The name of the book is Crash Proof.

SCHIFF: You bet. Bye-bye.

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.