Congress members care more about their PORTFOLIOS than their constituents

April 13, 2024

Anna Moneymaker / Staff, Bill Clark / Contributor, Ethan Miller / Staff | Getty Images

CEO/Founder

Editor's note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

American families are struggling more today than they have in a very long time, but guess whose portfolios are not struggling? Members of Congress. Is that fair? Is that why we sent them to Washington?

Wealth redistribution is a con. Money doesn’t flow from the billionaires to people in the middle and lower classes. It flows to the people writing the laws.

The newest Blaze Originals documentary, “Bought and Paid For: How Politicians Get Filthy Rich,” debuted on Tuesday, and I am still shocked that we are the only ones addressing this topic head-on. You should watch it. This is something that we need to fix because the soul of our country is being tainted. Our members of Congress have been compromised, and they are voting on policies that prefer their portfolios over their constituents.

The term “redistribution of wealth” has been the rallying cry of radical leftists for more than a century. From Karl Marx to the Bolsheviks and Mao, they all stated, in their own ways, that they wanted to take money from one group of people and give it to another group of people. The popular campaign catchphrase paraded by the left, “An economy for everyone,” is the utopian — or dystopian — end goal of this wealth redistribution. But who did leftists actually mean by “everyone”? Where was all the money going?

In the Soviet Union, members of the working class didn't improve their station in life. It was the political class that got rich and reaped all the rewards. Mao, while millions were starving to death, had his own indoor swimming pool. “An economy for everyone!” That phrase is now being used as the rallying cry by some of the most powerful political institutions and elected officials in the country right now.

We wonder why people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi stay in office for 927 years. Why leave? There’s too much money to be made.

Hillary Clinton campaigned on creating an “economy that works for everyone.” The country's largest progressive think tank, American Progress, has a policy plan for “building an economy for all.” Moreover, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wants us all to know that “congressional Democrats will build an economy that works for everyone, not just the elites.”

But who are these elites they keep talking about? Every time this rhetoric has been used in the past, whether that be in Russia, China, Cuba, or Venezuela, the elites became the people writing the laws. They were the ones that got rich.

History has shown that the redistribution of wealth is a con. Money doesn’t flow from the billionaires to people in the middle and lower classes. It flows to the people writing the laws.

How did you do at the stock market last year? The S&P 500 did well, closing out the year with a 24% gain. Though you can’t actually invest in the S&P 500 as a whole, you can invest in an exchange traded fund called SPY. SPY tracks the overall S&P 500 performance, so most of the people like you and me, if you invested, saw a 24% return last year.

There are experts who track the S&P 500 and the SPY ETF for a living. According to public records, however, certain individuals “out-experted” the experts. One of these supposed financial geniuses saw a 238% return last year and beat out the experts at the SPY EFT by 200%. How is that even possible? What is this person's secret?

Others in this select group of trading gurus out-traded the SPY EFT by 40% at a minimum. Who are these financial gurus? Because I want to find out their secret. They must be a collection of financial geniuses doing crazy nerdy calculations.

It turns out that these financial geniuses are none other than Brian Higgings (D-N.Y.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) among other members of Congress. I know they hold the power of the purse, but I don’t think this is quite what the framers had in mind.

How is Dan Crenshaw destroying the SPY EFT’s performance? Did they teach advanced stock trading during Hell Week in SEAL training? Members of Congress have gotten so good at picking stocks that people are now following their moves rather than hiring a professional stockbroker. You can find websites like this one that monitor Nancy Pelosi's purchases. Who needs a professional anymore? Just copy the financial genius of your local congressman.

It is no secret why members of Congress suddenly become financial whiz kids once they get elected. I'm not directly pointing the finger at anyone and saying they did anything illegal, but two words sum up all this behavior: insider trading.

ABC News in 2011 exposed how Visa attempted to bribe Nancy Pelosi as critical credit card legislation was being debated in Congress. It noted how Visa offered her an IPO while the bill was making its way through Congress.

Lawmakers, as it now stands, can hold private meetings with corporate representatives whilelegislation is being debated that could help or hurt them, giving lawmakers the opportunity to turn around and make stock moves based on that information. According to the same ABC News story, “This form of insider trading is one of the reasons why there are so many wealthy members of Congress.”

None of this is a secret, even though both Republicans and Democrats try to downplay it in the public eye. What makes this even crazier is that if you or I did that we’d go to jail. But Congress has a loophole. According to Loyola University:

If you are a member of Congress, there is a loophole. … There isn’t a limit on lawmakers trading stocks based on classified information nor is there oversight regarding the trades that lawmakers are allowed to make based on other information they are privy to as part of their job.

Is this how Congress is beating the market? Members know all the chess moves before anyone else does. They’ve read the other team's playbook before the game was played. But you and I are not allowed to.

We wonder why people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi stay in office for 927 years. Why leave? There’s too much money to be made — but not for the average American.

We wonder why our country is kept in a constant state of war. Is there any incentive for Congress to stop forever wars when it's allowed to invest in military industrial complex corporations like Lockheed and Raytheon?

We wonder why the government wants more control of health care and why they’re doing such a hasty transition to unreliable energy. But how many congresspeople currently hold medical and green energy stocks?

While people like Nancy Pelosi scream about the top 1% and how the rich need to redistribute to the poor, this is the system they really care about. This is the “economy for everyone.”

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep