Glenn: Here's the truth on Benghazi

Tonight I want to cover two scandals and in these two scandals – Benghazi and the IRS – remember that timing is everything. Just last week, it was a week ago Saturday, the president was speaking to graduating students and of all of the messages that he could deliver to people, here’s the one he thought was the important message.

VIDEO

President Obama Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.

This is one of the most incredible things. Okay, I can’t take his voice anymore. To actually hear this guy, this is exactly the opposite of George Washington, this is the opposite of Kennedy, for the love of Pete. No president ever says Don’t worry about government tyranny. Are you kidding me? That’s what has made us America and it is something really bizarre for the most powerful man on the planet to say. It kind of wreaks of Hey, here’s my license and registration, Officer. And by the way, there’s nothing absolutely of interest in the trunk, so you shouldn’t look.

The definition of Tyranny: “Cruel or oppressive government rule.” Oppressive Rule: “The unjust exercise of authority.” Now, what would that mean, “the unjust exercise of authority”? Well, you’re looking for tyranny, I don’t have to explain it. Let me have the guys this morning on MSNBC explain it.

VIDEO – Morning Joe Show MSNBC

Man: One other point to make, there’s been many overblown claims of tyranny and abuse of power from the government over the last few years. We’ve had those, “we’re coming for your guns,” that kind of thing. This is tyranny.

Man: This is.

Man: If this is a government, a non-partisan agency coming after specific groups, this time it’s real.

This time, this time it’s real. I hope “this time” it’s not too late. We’re going to get to the IRS scandal here in a minute, but we need to lead with the thing that I think, I hope, or I think the people in the administration are hoping will just go away, because I hope all of the people in Washington are terrified of the news media actually on this story – Benghazi.

Why would they be terrified? Well, because of the one thing that no one really is reporting on yet and it is the truth, what’s really going on with Benghazi. The government is running guns and aid to our enemies: the Muslim Brotherhood, they go into the hands of al Qaeda, other Islamic radical groups and what they’re doing is fomenting revolutionary democracy. They’re running guns.

Ambassador Stevens was the point man for the exchange of guns. When it comes to what happened on September 11, they had forewarning. It came under attack by terrorists. The administration knew it, they watched it happen in real-time, they stopped the military from intervening and they are covering up and have done so by validating the radical Islamist excuse of Islamophobia in an attempt for sympathy and leniency on their murderous attacks. The Pentagon, the CIA, the White House and the State Department, they’re all involved.

And the scariest part is, it continues today. No one will speak out about this yet, but it’s coming. I believe this to be the worst scandal and worst cover up in our nation’s history and we’ve had some bad, bad scandals. The president wants you to look away from this, but we mustn’t as a country. If we don’t solve this problem this time around, God help us, because the administration will be completely out of control.

On September 11, 2012, the president was informed of an ongoing attack in Benghazi. He then decided, strangely, to announce to the world two days later that he just turned in for the night and he said You just tell me what happens in the morning. That should have been the media’s first red flag. Wait a minute, the guy is running for reelection, in the middle of a campaign, there’s an ambassador that’s killed, why would he come out and say Yeah, I was a little sleepy. I went to sleep. They were protecting him. They’re saying, Mr. President, if this ever gets out, you couldn’t be in the room. That was the first red flag, but let’s review on what they said.

First of all, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and the president said that the best intelligence suggested that Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous protest gone bad.

VIDEO

Hillary Clinton: We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.

VIDEO – Meet the Press

Susan Rice: What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous, uh, reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, uh, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

VIDEO – Face the Nation

Susan Rice: It began spontaneously in Benghazi uh as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: We saw no evidence to back up claims by others that this was a preplanned or premeditated attack. That it was, we saw evidence that it was sparked by uh the reaction to this video.

VIDEO

President Obama: This was a crude and disgusting video that sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world.

This is a really important time. This September 25, really important time, because the president said today, he said he released somebody to go up to Capitol Hill and say it was an attack. Yet two or three days later, he said this, so which is it, Mr. President? It’s only getting worse for them. Every day that goes by, the more they’re on the record, the worse it gets.

They said there was no indication that what happened in Libya was terrorism.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: I’m simply saying that based on the information of what we initially had available and have available, we do not have any indication at this point of premeditation or preplanned attacks.

Okay, here’s the truth – No protest ever took place.

VIDEO

Congressman Trey Gowdy: When Ambassador Stevens talked to you, perhaps minutes before he died, as a dying declaration, what precisely did he say to you?

Greg Hicks: He said, “Greg, we’re under attack.”

Congressman Trey Gowdy: Would a highly decorated, career diplomat have told you or Washington had there been a demonstration outside his facility that day?

Greg Hicks: Yes, sir, he would have.

Congressman Trey Gowdy: Did he mention one word about a protest or a demonstration?

Greg Hicks: No, sir. He did not.

No intelligence report, phone call, evidence or anything ever suggested otherwise. In fact, every report from the ground indicated this was clearly a coordinated terror attack planned by a group – not an act of terror by angry protestors. When caught in that lie, the White House tried to shuffle the blame on to the CIA saying the Benghazi talking points that blamed the video were put together by the Intelligence community.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: Those talking points originated from the Intelligence community. They reflected the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.

Right. Here’s the truth. There was an extensive amount of input from the State Department, specifically Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson concerning the edits.

VIDEO

Reporter: I have obtained 12 different versions of those talking points that shows that they were dramatically edited by the administration.

Dramatically. Jay Carney said the administration made one change to the talking points – one.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: And the only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the CIA was a change from uh, referring to the, the facility that was attacked in Benghazi from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post.” I think I had referred to it as a diplomatic facility, I think it may have been diplomatic post.

That is incredibly specific. But here’s the truth, there were 12 major revisions that went beyond stylistic. Jay Carney said the edits didn’t change the substance of the talking points.

VIDEO

Jay Carney: But the point being, it was a matter of uh, uh, non-substantive, factual correction.

Right. Anybody watch, anybody watch last week? Buck Sexton was on and he had it all on the chalkboard, all of the changes. The truth is, the State Department edits deleted all reference to the al-Qaeda affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia as well as references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack. The edits prove the administration knew from day one that this was a planned terror attack and specifically went out of their way to provide cover for the terror groups involved in the attack.

Why? And then why would you instead direct the blame on America and American freedom and a filmmaker? It proves that Hillary Clinton lied in the face of families of the fallen Americans while she gave that speech when she said, “We are going to do everything we can to make sure that the guy who made this video goes to jail.” And they put him in jail. Hillary Clinton also said there was no advanced intelligence that warned of an attack.

VIDEO

Hillary Clinton: And with all of our missions overseas in advance of September 11th, as is done every year, we did an evaluation on threat streams. And the Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.

Key word – actionable. I’ll get to that in a second, but here’s the truth. September 8th, three days before the attack, a local security official met with American diplomats in the city and he warned them about the deteriorating security. He told the U.S. officials, “The situation is frightening. It scares us….” And Gregory Hicks said this.

VIDEO

Greg Hicks: In Bahrain, my Shia opposition contacts gave me advanced warning of impending attacks on our embassy and anti-American demonstrations, allowing us to prepare and avoid injuries to staff.

Okay. We received a quote from one our sources, “Everyone in the Intelligence community knew this attack was coming.” This bolsters Hicks’ account and further proves Hillary Clinton was lying when she said there was no advanced intelligence or warning of any pending attacks. However, she used “actionable.”

Well, if you want to excuse her by using the word “actionable,” then we have to know the answer to this question: why were you confused, why did you swear you were going to arrest a filmmaker, because you did have intelligence. Maybe it wasn’t actionable at the time, but once it broke, you knew.

Just a few hours ago, about noon, the president again talked about the video. Here’s what he said today.

VIDEO

President Obama: Immediately after this event happened, we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had been, uh, how it had occurred, what the motivations were. It happened at the same time as we had seen uh, attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film.

Unbelievable. But here’s the truth, there was no protest in Benghazi. It was an attack. The protests in Egypt weren’t about the video either. He’s lying again. We know that the 9/12 Egypt protests were about the imprisonment of the Blind Sheik; a terrorist serving a life sentence in the States for his role in the ’93 World Trade Center bombings. So he’s making this up yet again!

No one even knew this video existed. There were no media reports prior to September 11, 2012. It had virtually no views. People weren’t even motivated to email it, let alone protest and kill somebody over it. It is a mountain of lies.

Let me give you a flashback from the debates.

VIDEO

President Obama: And the suggestion that anybody on my team, whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team would play politics or mislead when we’ve lost four of our own, governor, is offensive.

Oh, well, I want the president to know, I’m not only suggesting it, I’m declaring it and I agree, it is offensive. It’s sick. And so why would this administration do it and then lie? Well, a few reasons. One, it fits with their political correctness theme; their embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood’s goals. It also provides political cover for the administration’s lie that al-Qaeda was defeated.

But it goes deeper than that, and this is the one thing that you’re not going to get the Republicans to talk about either. And believe me, believe me, at the highest levels, they know. It goes back to the original theory that we broadcast here on this network just a few days after Libya, and on Friday Geraldo Rivera reported on that very thing, about what we talked about days after Benghazi he said he’s now hearing from his sources – arming the Syrian rebels. Watch.

VIDEO

Geraldo Rivera: I believe and my sources tell me they were there to round up those shoulder-fire surface to air missiles, they were going to hand those missiles over to the Turks and the Turks were going to give them to the rebels in Syria. It was like Iran Contra. I think that it merits gigantic investigations. It will all become clear—

Okay, this is really interesting, because FOX News should either discredit Gerald Rivera and make it clear that his sources were wrong, or they should follow that story up. We made the same prediction on September 17th. We’re a scrappy little media group. I don’t have the global resources of Fox or ABC or CBS, but we’re still breaking ground on this story.

Why is it the big networks, with all of those resources have nothing? Well, actually they do. CBS News has spiked a couple of stories on this. Yet, the problem is, is that the head of CBS News, he has a brother and his brother happens to be the guy who changed all the talking points on Benghazi – David Rhodes. Now this is the head of ABC. This is Ben Sherwood. I actually like the guy. He’s a friend, but he’s wrong here. Give him credit, they did break the story on Friday and they were the ones that broke the damn, but his brother is President Barack Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications, no, that’s this person. Ben’s is his sister. His sister is Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood. She is the Special Assistant to the President. And then you have Jay Carney. Well, Jay Carney is married to somebody, she just happens to be the Senior National Correspondent, Claire Shipman.

Let’s see, CBS, ABC, NBC. Hello! NBC spiked the story this weekend – Gregory Hicks, the whistleblower – they spiked it. The story is a Democrat, a Democrat that voted for Hillary Clinton. But NBC didn’t think that that was important. Maybe the president mocked the idea of tyranny lurking around the corner, because it’s not around the corner. It’s already here. It’s not only here with Benghazi, it is also here with the IRS. And please, Dear God, pray that your neighbors open their eyes, because the IRS becomes the healthcare enforcer in just a few months. And we’ll show you what the press has finally recognized that the IRS has been doing for the last couple of years, next.

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.