Who is Pope Francis?

Updated 3/21/13:

First, a story that we covered last week, but we didn’t cover it like the rest of the media. We didn’t cover it wall-to-wall. They covered it wall-to-wall, but it was only about an inch deep. The media was making a spectacle out of the pope last week. No one really talked about what this really means for you if you are a Christian and somebody who believes in self-government, maximum liberty, and maximum responsibility. What does the pope – what side is he on?

If you’re somebody who believes in charity but not charity as defined by a government where they force you through taxes, if you know the meaning of liberation theology and you don’t want social justice as it was practiced when it was trying to overthrow the church in South America in the way Jim Wallis means it. Who is he?

This guy at this time is either going to be John Paul, who helped free the world from Communism, or he could be, and I hate to use this example because I don’t necessarily agree with what people say but, Pius XII, who some say collaborated with the Fascists and the Nazis. Which one is he? Because it would probably be one or the other because of the time that we live in now.

Well, the media took their usual tact of just hitting only their hot-button issues. The white smoke had barely cleared, and then they began defining the new pope as vigorously against gay marriage, fervently anti-choice, and I love this one, but he’s also “less energetic, however, when it came to standing up against Argentina’s military dictatorship during the 1970s.” Oh, and I love this one, too – he also testified on “the military junta’s systematic kidnapping of children, a subject he was also accused of knowing about but failing to prevent.”

Now, the media also told us within five minutes that he has something to do with liberation theology, and I love this quote, “the unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin” and real problems. Oh, no. Which is it? I mean, because I don’t know. The pope’s all one of these two things. Pope Francis is either a conservative bigot who four decades ago loved dictatorship so much, he only loved that slightly less than the systematic kidnapping of children, or Pope Francis is a Marxist radical who was in on subverting the church through liberation theology.

You know, I watched TV last week and I thought, Boy, you know what we need? We need a network that would, I don’t know, wait, do their homework, and then give us the truth. That’s what TheBlaze is going to do tonight, give you the truth. We waited. We did our homework, and we have lined up a few people that can actually tell us what all of this means.

Pope Francis was dubbed the “Pope of Hope” on Twitter, and that is exactly what the world needs now, because the world is on fire or about to be. There is going to be a new Axis and new Allied powers. Do you remember the old alignment from World War II? That was the Axis power, the evil power, and then this was the ones that fought against it in World War II.

I will tell you that – make this prediction out loud – in the next five years, there will be a country in Europe that is run by the Nazis. Five years ago, I said that, Hey, the Nazis were going to come up. That was crazy. Now I will tell you within five years, and I think it will be sooner than that, a country will be a part of this again.

The new lines have not been drawn yet, but we’re working on the show, I think for next week or the week after, where we’ll show you exactly what’s growing, where it’s growing, but you know about the radicals Islamists, the Muslim Brotherhood. Sharia law is spreading throughout the Middle East, but up in Europe, politicians have lost credibility on all sides. Europeans are now throwing their support behind the Nazis we’ve told you, the Golden Dawn Party, gaining more seats in Parliament. It now is, I believe, up to 28% approval rating, and those two things will be the new Axis power, anyone who is anti the Western way of life, the free market, capitalism, anti-Israel. And it will be supposedly pro-democracy and social justice. Okay, but who’s on the other side?

Start with social justice here. I know social justice quite well. Remember, those are the two words that brought down the wrath of almost every church on the planet when I said on the radio, social justice, you better find what that means and run. Let me make the same statement that the media never reported on the first day that I said that, and that is Social justice as practiced by Jim Wallis and Jeremiah Wright is dangerous. Social justice as practiced by most Catholics, most Baptists, and most people of religion, where it is connecting with your heart and choosing as an individual to help those in need, that’s good. But which one does the new pope practice?

First, let me dive deeper into the difference between the two. Social justice can be used, and liberation, and all of this stuff, can be used for good and bad. Hitler actually, believe it or not, rode into power on social justice. It’s a classic tactic for the extreme left – you stir the masses, you get the bottom to rise up so the top can come crashing down. Hitler was actually talking about Jesus before he was elected, but he was only doing it because everything was out of control, and then as soon as that happened, then that Jesus thing – That guy was an atheist if not just out and out a Satanist.

It’s the oldest Marxist trick – you come in on something that means something good and you pervert it, and by the time people figure out what it is, it’s too late. It was perfected in South America, where it really becomes insidious because it merged with religion to overthrow the religion. You’ve heard me talk about black liberation theology, and that’s what Obama’s Pastor Reverend Wright preaches and just about everybody he surrounds himself with. It is Marxism poorly veiled as religion. That was born out of liberation theology which began back in 1968 at a Latin America Bishops’ Conference – think of this – where they proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus Christ with the teachings of Karl Marx.

Now, you often hear leftist politicians quote Jesus to support massive government redistribution of wealth programs, right? It puts the focus on the faith. You don’t focus on the saving grace of Jesus; instead, you focus on the way the government can fix liberating people from unjust economic or political or social conditions, social justice, a decidedly Marxist principle and evil. This happened in South America, exactly where the new pope is from, and so when you hear the words “social justice,” when you hear the words “equality,” “economic justice,” “fairness,” “income inequality,” “labor,” “struggle,” “redistribution of wealth,” all of these things, if you know what they mean can absolutely be Marxist or Communist in nature.

But social justice can be good. Equality is great. Economic justice – okay, maybe. Fairness, income inequality – maybe. Labor – you should work. Struggle – yes. It builds us. Redistribution of wealth – no, no. Redistribution of wealth and Capitalism, they’re one or the other. Capitalism – I believe redistribution of wealth is really only Marxist, and Capitalism can only be used, true Capitalism, not Statism, Capitalism, it can fall into the hands of evil, but it also can lift people out of poverty and squalor. It’s like jihad – it’s either evil or it’s about a struggle to make things better.

You have to investigate these words, and that’s what we’ve done. We’ve spent the last week really looking into this pope and looking into these words. And we’ve assembled a couple of people here, three or four people that I think can help you understand is he a good guy or a bad guy, and I think you’re going to like the message here. The media looked at this pope and within ten minutes saw things like lack of equality, social justice, why he’s just like us. Uh huh.

We need to know exactly what he means by those things. We need to know, does he practice what he preaches? That’s an important one. It’s really not too hard to spot a fraud on things, because a real leader will lead by example. Progressives don’t. Dictators don’t. They tell you how to live your life, and then they do something different. Let me give you an American example – in fact I’ll give you three of them. President Obama told the American people that we are in a time of crisis, and so we all have to tighten our belts. Do you remember?

VIDEO

President Obama: When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you’re trying to save for college. You prioritize.

Got it? Prioritize. Prioritize and tighten your belt. Now, he shut down the student White House tours and threatened to cancel the White House Easter egg hunt because of the sequester cuts. That’s him tightening his belt. Quite honestly, you can keep the White House closed forever and the White House Easter egg hunts I could care less about, but that’s how he’s tightening his belt. But is he really living it? Is he concerned about saving every penny of taxpayer money he can? And is he walking the walk himself? He’s telling us we have to as families – don’t go to Vegas, yet his family keeps going on very lavish vacations with and without him.

Taxpayers last year spent $1.4 billion on the Obama family, $1.4 billion, and I get it, he needs security, but is it too much to ask to at least have him vacation with his own family at the same place at the same time? I mean, Michelle is in Spain. Their daughter is in Mexico on spring break, and he’s spending millions of bucks, you know, golfing with Tiger Woods. That golf game a couple of weeks ago cost $1 million in your hard-earned money.

It is so blatant that even his adoring fans in the press have recently questioned him about his lavish lifestyle.

VIDEO

Report: How does the president justify lavish vacations and a golf trip to Florida at taxpayer expense, and does he plan to cut back on his travel?

Jay Carney: I can tell you that this president is focused everyday—

Okay, stop. What he can say is, Do as he says, not as he does. Same thing for Michael Bloomberg. He passed strict idling laws. We told you about ’em this week. Next three months, he paraded around New York City with a fleet of SUVs that idled for hours at a time, all the time, and when confronted, his solution was to have people strap an air-conditioning unit to the outside of his car. He can get around it, but you cannot.

Same thing with Al Gore. He tells everybody cut back for the sake of the earth, yet he owns multiple energy-consuming mansions, yes, mansions. This green warrior has a 20 – look at these mansions that Al Gore lives in. Really? His father was a senator, and then he was a senator and a vice president. How does he have this? One of his mansions consumes 20 times the energy of the average American home. Now, his response when confronted with irrefutable fact that he is a hypocritical energy hog, he says, “I think what you’re seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They’ve completely lost the debate on the issue so now they’re just attacking their most effective opponent.” No, no, Al, no.

Pretty sweet mansions for a guy who by the way has also been accused of just getting rich off of this global warming scheme, but he says, remember, I am putting every penny, every penny I have into nonprofits.

VIDEO

Al Gore: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, The Alliance for Climate Protection.

Okay, so it’s all for a nonprofit, and maybe he’s telling the truth, I don’t know. I haven’t looked at his taxes. And you know, maybe he’s just buying all of those houses, you know, with the money he earns from, I don’t know, selling TV networks to the sworn enemy of America. Anyway, the point is on those three examples is a strongman, a dictator, a Fascist, an Uber-Progressive, will always fail to live the life and practice what he preaches.

So how does the pope live? Where does this pope stand? Which side of social justice is he on? Does he see liberation theology as a goal or a problem? How about Capitalism? Does he see wealth inequality as something caused by rich not paying their fair share, or that people all around the world have lacked the heart now to see the need for charity, personal charity, so their hearts are going to need to be changed? Is he a guy who says the rich just isn’t paying their fair share while he dresses in only the finest Italian tailor-made clothes and shoes, and lives in a palace?

Let me tell you, we’ve been planning this show for a while, and I’ll tell you, one of my first glimmers of hope was this picture that came out on Saturday. Look at his shoes. Now I know he wasn’t the pope, but I think they could’ve gotten him a new pair of shoes if he wanted one. These are real shoes. These are people shoes. These are not pope shoes. Does this pope see Jesus as someone who believed big government was the answer, or does he believe as I do and I think you do that Jesus was a radical transformationalist and the radical transformation was of the individual?

Bible-quoting leftist like Jim Wallis will twist the Scripture to fit their Marxist ideology, but that’s where Communism and liberation theology go wrong every time. Jesus came to change hearts, not government laws.

If the pope believes in collective salvation, if he worries about the collective and fails to speak about the individual salvation, individual empowerment, individual responsibility, individual potential, then there is trouble. But if he recognizes the individual and then leads by example and demonstrates how you change the world not through a big government but you change the world by being more kind, more gentle, more humble, we will see one of the best popes, I believe, in the Catholic Church’s history, and we just might see a man who’s not on our side but on God’s side. Tonight, the perspective I don’t think you’re going to see anywhere else but on this network, TheBlaze.

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.