Glenn Beck: Food Shortage




GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. Third most listened to show in all of America. My name is Glenn Beck. Here's the headline. "Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World." It's from the New York Sun today. Mountain View, California is the dateline. Many parts of America long considered to be the breadbasket of the world are now confronted phenomenon food rationing. Major retailers in New York and areas of New England and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice and cooking oil as demand outstrips supply. There's also anecdotal reports that some consumers are hoarding grain stocks. No, they don't know anybody who's hoarding it. I do know people who have prepared. I do know people who, you know, right now might be going, hmmm, maybe I should stock up on some food. And then there are people like Stu who still say they are crazy.

STU: I have plenty of food.

GLENN: I know you do. You can last -- you said you can last --

STU: We had a big argument about this last week.

GLENN: Stu said, I can live a day just on ketchup and jelly. And I'm like, you could, you could probably last a little longer than that. Kids, it's time for ketchup.

STU: This is such a bizarre argument out of you. You talking about going to survival mode, yet you are planning your food out like you are eating at an American buffet.

GLENN: No, not in survival -- I get into survival mode, I personally get into -- by the way, I have counted extras because I know there are dopes like you that haven't done it.

STU: Like me? It will be me.

GLENN: No, I won't be you. Lisa will be welcome at my house. You will be eating all of those ketchup, ketchup packages that we have. You'll be saying, oh, look who got duck sauce again.

STU: I'm just saying that's a last resort.

GLENN: No, it's not.

STU: I'm saying ketchup should count as calories that you have. Although I would say for me it's a last resort, it would take a long time for me to get to ketchup.

GLENN: At a Costco Warehouse in Mountain View, California yesterday, shoppers grew frustrated and occasionally uttered expletives as they searched in vain for the large sacks of rice they usually buy. Where's the rice, said an engineer from Palo Alto. You should be able to buy something like rice. This is ridiculous.


The bustling store in the heart of Silicon Valley usually sells four or five varieties of rice to a clientele largely of Asian immigrants, but only about half a pallet of Indian-grown Basmati rice was left in stock. A 20-pound bag was selling for $15.99. You can't eat that every day. It's just too heavy, said a healthcare executive from Palo Alto who grumbled as his son loaded two sacks of the rice into his shopping cart. We only need one bag but I'm getting two in case a neighbor or a friend needs it. They seem to be headed for disappointment as most Costco members were only being allowed to buy one bag. Moments earlier a clerk dropped two sacks back on the stack after taking them from another customer who tried to exceed the one bag cap. "Due to the limited availability of rice, we are limiting rice purchases based on your prior purchasing history," a sign above the dwindling supply said.


Shoppers said the limits had been in place for a few days, and that rice supplies had been spotty for a few weeks. A store manager referred questions to officials at Costco headquarters near Seattle, who did not return calls or e-mail messages yesterday. An employee at Costco store in Queens said there were no restrictions on rice buying but limits were being imposed on purchases of oil and flour. Internet postings attributed some of the shortages at the retail level to bakery owners who flocked to warehouse stores when the price of flour went up from commercial suppliers. The price doubled is what it did. The curbs and shortages are being tracked with concern by survivalists who view the phenomenon as a harbinger of more serious trouble to come. It's sporadic, it's not every store but it is becoming more commonplace, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

An intelligence, a former army intelligence officer -- is that his only credit? Why is he in the story? There have been many stories about worldwide shortages that encourage people to stock up. What most people don't realize that supply chains have been changed so inventories are very short. But even if people increased their purchasing by 20%, all of the store shelves would be wiped out.

This is why I said don't panic. There's no need to panic. If you just know what's coming up, I said earlier on the program, on February 11th I told you, February 11th this year I said wheat prices and all these prices have not gone up yet but they're going to because futures have gone up 40% and there are shortages that are going to be felt all around the world. And soon they will be felt here. Well, now here we are. What is it, April 21st. And what I told you on February 11th has now happened. And it's most likely only going to get worse from here. So don't panic. Don't go out and buy, you know, everything you can get your hands on. Just go and stock up on food or ketchup packages.

STU: Don't make fun of me after that story.

GLENN: Ketchup packages, you could make soup out of those. A little water and ketchup package and you've got soup. Sounds good, doesn't it, Dan?

STU: I wasn't going to try to call you out on this but you brought it back to the ketchup packets. You are talking about they give the -- the evidence in this story, unless there's more that you didn't give, is a store, a Costco that will only let you buy one type of rice and only -- and a guy who wants to buy two because he might need to give it to someone and then they are saying that the stocking, the problem with the stocking comes from people who are buying more than they need, which is what you are telling people to do.

GLENN: No, no, no. No, no.

STU: That's the evidence you've given us.

GLENN: No, it's not. No, it's not.

STU: And not to mention only in America will we be hearing stories about, oh, we only have one of the four types of rice in 20-pound bags that we usually have and we can only buy one 20-pound bag at a time.

GLENN: I'm not saying that -- you can relax. I'm not saying that you are going to have to break out the ketchup packets.

STU: I've got all the ketchup I need. I'm totally relaxed.

GLENN: I know that, and I'm not saying that you are going to have to do that. Why did I say a year ago or whenever it was, six months ago to buy shoes? If you happened to go and you see shoes for your kids and you know you are going to have to buy shoes every year because their feet grow and everything else and you happen to see them on sale, why did I say go buy shoes for the next couple of years? Why did I say that? Come on, Mr. Ketchup man.

STU: Insanity?

GLENN: No. I said because inflation is coming. Deflation of your dollar and inflation is coming. So it will be harder. Right now you see something on sale, grab it. Grab that coat for next year if it's on sale, go grab that coat and buy it because next year not only will you have to get the nonsale price but your dollar will most likely be less and inflation is going to go up. So you are going to be able to protect yourself by buying things in advance before things get really bad. This is just another sign of things getting more expensive and harder to find.

STU: Your premise isn't necessarily bad here. I'm just going to argue with the fact that that article is not a sign of --

GLENN: No, no, it's not just --

STU: It's anecdotal -- to me it is.

GLENN: Yes and no. If it was just that -- if this was the only thing, yes. But let me give you this one that just came out from Ghana. The UN chief warned Sunday that the world must urgently increase food production to ease skyrocketing prices and set up a task force threatening to destabilize the developing nations. There is a serious rice shortage and a serious wheat shortage all around the west of the world.

STU: I'm not buying stock in really well fed people in Ghana, that's for sure.

GLENN: No, hang on, Stu.

STU: That's not my investment strategy.

GLENN: Why did I bring this up on February 11th? Do you remember what that story was? That was on the front page of the New York Times and it was not anecdotal. What was that story?

STU: Wheat futures.

GLENN: It was wheat futures, yes.

STU: It was wheat futures.

GLENN: Yes, it was. The story was for the first time -- you are right. The story was wheat futures. Buried in the story was the fact that for the very first time the United States was going to import wheat. That's the first time we've ever done that.

STU: Yeah, and that's something that we agree on, bad policies.

GLENN: So if we're importing wheat to feed our own people here, that's not good if the rest of the world is now starving and scrambling for wheat. China is scrambling for wheat and rice. It's happening in the Middle East as well. It's happening in Africa. If everybody is scrambling for wheat and we ourselves have to import wheat to be able to survive, we're the breadbasket. There's a significant problem coming our way because as the rest of the world needs wheat, the demand will go up, the prices of wheat will go up. That's why -- and I know it's anecdotal in this one story -- that's why when the price of flour doubled, bakeries went out. Because I grew up in a bakery. I mean, that's exactly what the bakers are doing. They are like, oh, jeez, the price of wheat is going up, the price of flour is going to go through the roof. I don't think any baker is actually thinking there's going to be a shortage of it. What they are thinking is I'm not going to be able -- nobody's going to buy my muffins if they are muffins because wheat is so expensive. So they go out and they buy a bunch of wheat so they don't have to incur the cost. That's exactly what I'm telling people to do now. Don't go out and panic. Don't go out and say, "We're all going to starve to death." Go out and buy food now at this cost. Don't go out and buy like crazy. Don't put yourself in debt. You should have been doing this over the last few months or years of just slowly buying a little more than you need. But now I believe the clock is ticking, things are speeding up, the price of things are going to go up. And if you don't -- if it's not because of wheat, it will just be because of what -- and this is one thing that you and I both agree on the economy. Inflation must go up.

Let's see if you remember this conversation because I think I remember it and I think you agreed with me. The lower you make the interest rate, at some point you have to do it on the other side because you've so debased the money -- this is what Paul Volcker did in the 1980s. You so debase your money that at some point you have to drive that interest rate up to be able to balance it back out. That's what the Fed does. They lower it and raise it to fight, okay? So they are going to have to raise that interest rate.

So when that happens, money is going to become very, very scarce and it's because of inflation going up. So you're going to have high interest rates and high inflation. Well, that's not going to help things.

STU: But if you raise the interest rates, the point of that is to lower inflation.

GLENN: Yes. But you have to do it dramatically. And one of the problems that we're having right now is that there's not enough money out there for the banks because the banks are holding onto it.

You also have the other thing. Forget about the fact that we're making ethanol. Forget about the fact that we have $1.8 billion every year that our tax dollars are going to to stop farmers from farming on land. Forget about that. How do you expect to grow wheat when everybody's growing corn? How do you expect to grow these things when farmers have to spend so much money on the tractors because of oil? I'm anxious to see who we have on tonight because I said this morning when I got up and I saw that oil was $118 a barrel, where -- at what point do we start to see the real effects like we're seeing in the airline industry? Right now everybody's saying, oh, the airlines are going to be fine, the airlines are going to be fine. Well, I talked to an expert on the airline industry last week, week before last. Guy who's been studying it forever. And he said, you know, a lot of people don't understand these jets were never designed to be profitable at $100 a barrel of oil. They can't make a profit at $100 a barrel of oil. That's not what these jets were designed to do. These jets were designed in 1960s and 1970s. This isn't what -- they weren't designed for $100 a barrel. So at what point do the airlines have to say, okay, we've really got to jack up rates? At what point and how high does that rate have to get? And at what point do you say, well, it's not worth me flying anymore because I can't afford to do it? And what does that do to the economy? What does that do to the airlines? What does that do to shipping? What does that do to the truckers? We already have truckers who have been in Washington who have been saying we're going to go out on strike. Well, the reason why the truckers haven't gone out on strike us because most of them can't afford to do it because they are barely holding their head above water. Truckers, you tell me. How much does fuel have to cost before your system collapses? How much does it -- how high does oil have to get before the airlines say we can no longer afford to stay in business? How long before these things spiral out of control before the government says, well, the airline is too important to go out of business? The truckers, it's too important for them to not go out of business. And the government rushes in yet again to save the day. How long before they say the farms are too important to go out of business? They've already done it, but they've been playing it the other direction.

Remember, the reason why there was such a food shortage during the Great Depression is because of the policies of the federal government getting into the food business. We burned crops. We destroyed crops trying to keep food prices high, high enough so people could grow it. And what did we create? Starvation and bread lines. What are we doing today? We're working on global frickin' warming with ethanol that doesn't work and we're the first in our -- in the history of the world to burn our food supply, to the point to where we're importing wheat. It's a giant cycle. It's a giant circle that you can't find the beginning and you can't find the end and if you can't find the beginning or the end, you don't know where the exit is. You know what? There's no need to hoard food, there's no need to panic. All you have to do is be aware and see what's coming, and you can see all of the signs now starting to fall into place. Go out and make sure that your family has enough ketchup packages to survive anything that might come.

STU: Don't forget about the importance of relish.

GLENN: And you know what, don't forget about your dog, either. Don't forget about -- I mean, you dog can't live on ketchup packages.

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.