What if The President is telling the truth?

It’s been painfully obvious the administration is distorting the truth and even outright lying when it comes to the scandals plaguing the White House. But what if the story the White House is spinning is actually true - that the President, Holder, Hillary and other top officials don’t know anything about anything. What does that say about the administration? Glenn had more on radio today.

I want to go over something I went over last night on the TV show. It's a really simple question, really simple question. With these scandals that are going on around the White House, it's time for the American people to use some logic and ask themselves this question: What if the president and the top officials in his administration are actually telling the truth? Let's take the man at his word, and it's really hard to do seeing that this ‑‑ the truth keeps shifting six or seven times just in the last few days. It makes it quite a leap of faith to believe anything that they say. But today I really want you to take him at his word and let's say they really didn't know about any of these scandals. The story line the administration wants you to believe, and they want you to believe it because that somehow or another is better for them. If it's really the truth, does it matter? It's really hard to believe that this is the truth, but I'm going to give it to you just as they have laid it out and then ask you if you believe it and then ask you to believe it for a second and ask what does it say. Where does it leave us? What does it say about the future of our country? What does it say about this president? Are we headed in the right direction? Will we and our children be more safe or less safe? Let's follow their lead. Let's take them at their word. The mantra of this administration in the face of all three of these scandals is "We don't know, we weren't aware, I don't ‑‑ I don't know exactly, I certainly didn't know anything and there certainly was no knowledge at the White House." Those are all quotes. So pull back and think about those things. Three huge scandals and no one in the White House or around the president knew. That's what they're asking you to believe. But I want to ask you to believe it for a second. What does that mean if it actually is the truth? On the IRS the president wants you to believe that even though the IRS commission visited ‑‑ the commissioner visited the White House 118 times and the IRS commissioner knew about the scandal for over a year, that most of his senior White House staff knew of the scandal for over a year, the media was reporting on the targeting, TheBlaze had broken the news in 2012. And I want you to know we know for a fact. We know for a fact that this president is very aware of the things that we say. We know for a fact because we know people who have been in rooms. We know for a fact that this president discusses the things that we discuss on this program. So despite the fact that not only us but the media was reporting on the targeting in February 2012, this president had no idea. The charges were brought up at a congressional hearing last year. He always seems to find out things from the news. That was in the news. No one told him. He didn't ask. His own team was debating internally at the White House with IRS officials on how to manage the public relations fallout, and somehow or another he didn't know. Despite all of this swirling around, despite the fact that a president is also a political animal, politics matter, no one went and cracked open his door and said, "Mr. President, we have a problem." No one asked him anything. He still doesn't know anything. Carney has said "We weren't aware of any activity or any review." Really? The president has said "I can assure you I certainly didn't know anything."

It's virtually impossible for the president to have not known anything about this scandal. It's virtually impossible... unless he is completely isolated. There are millions of ways he could have found out: The news, his staff, 118 visits, little coffee klatches, actually listening to people. But he didn't know. Let's take him at his word. What does that mean? That means that this president, the IRS commissioner reports directly to the president. The IRS commissioner was meeting at the White House 118 times. It's under the treasury. He meets with the treasury. It is literally down the hallway. You've got to go downstairs and through a hallway underground and you're in the treasury building. The treasury is next door to the White House. It's not across town. They report directly to the president, and he didn't know. The only way that's true is he's out of the loop, he's disengaged, he's not in charge of his people, he has said "I'm going golfing; you guys take care of it." He is more his wife who says she hates the White House, she hates politics and she doesn't want anything to do with it. It's ‑‑ he's really asking us to believe that golf is ahead of knowing what's going on. If that is true, if it is true that he doesn't know, why? How can he effectively govern if he doesn't know? And if he's not the one being informed and updated, if he's not the one setting the course, who is? Because we elected him to oversee. We elected him to get to the bottom of it. We elected him, not somebody else. He appoints all of these people. Did he give them carte blanche and do whatever they want and then don't call me about it; I don't want to know. I'm busy golfing. What is the story?

Being that our government is made up of elected representatives, the American people have the right to know who's calling the shots. Is it the president or is it not? And if it's not, fine; just tell us who is calling the shots. Is keeping the president out of the loop, is that intentional? I mean, remember with the Iran contra thing, the problem was they intentionally kept the president out of the loop. That was one scandal. This seems to be everything in his administration. This president doesn't know what's going on.

If the president president's story line is accurate, either he's not in charge or big government is failing... or, you know, the other, of course, we won't accept for the purpose of this monologue as being true: He's lying. The Associated Press, this thing shifts so fast, I don't know how you can figure out what they're saying to you. But the Associated Press and Fox News and CBS scandals where they're wiretapping, they were wiretapping the phones of journalists. Once again, the White House just doesn't have a clue, other than ‑‑ and this is a quote ‑‑ from hearing the press reports. Wow. Why even have an executive summary in the morning? Just pop on the TV. The man in charge of the DOJ, the attorney general, Eric Holder, doesn't have a clue. He claimed he didn't know anything about the AP, yet today we can report that he is now, new information, the guy who ordered the hit on Fox. But for the AP, Holder said he certainly didn't alert the White House. Really? The reason why he did the AP is because he said it was the third biggest leak, one of the top three biggest leaks he's ever seen, since 1973. It was vital to the nation's interest and one of the most dangerous internal leaks he's ever seen.

Now, I don't know about you, but if we're ‑‑ if we have dangerous leaks and one of the top three and the guy who reports directly to me ‑‑ remember, Eric Holder's boss is the president. There's nobody in between him and the president. Eric Holder's boss is the president, and he never decides to go over in all of his meetings and crack the door and say, "Mr. President, we have the most ‑‑ one of the top three most dangerous leaks I've ever seen." He never briefs the president on it? Not once? What does that mean? If the president didn't really know, was your life put in harm's way because they didn't alert the president? He called this one of the most serious leaks of all time. If it was such a serious threat to national security, you didn't alert the president of the United States as to what was happening? Americans were in danger and this president wants us to believe that for some reason, I don't know what yet, but for some reason he was so detached from the office of the presidency, either campaigning or campaigning for gun control or playing golf or going on vacation or planning another party at the White House, that he didn't even know a serious leak, one of the top three, was actually threatening American lives. If the president is not informed on serious threats to national security like this, who is being informed of these things? Who is calling the shot? Who does Eric Holder actually report to? What other security threats is he not being informed about? What else is he missing? What else doesn't he know? Does it make America less or more safe? What does it mean for free speech that the president, who's the one who lifted his hand and said to protect and defend the Constitution of America, what does it mean? Does the president's indifference and disconnection from the issue promote free speech or stifle it? Does it keep the government in check? What message does it send if the president shows no interest in the stopping of the systematic targeting of whistleblowers and members of the press? Will it cause more people or less people to risk their livelihoods in order to keep government accountable and tell the truth? If less people are willing to speak out against the government, does that increase or decrease government power is this does it increase or decrease government abuses of that power? Is it good for you and your family if there are no whistleblowers?

On Benghazi, on top of ‑‑ on top of all of these things, the top officials in the White House had no earthly idea that trouble was on the horizon in Benghazi. All of them have said they didn't have any intelligence prior to, but the facts now show they had plenty of intelligence on it. The president said he didn't know that there were requests. He was, quote, personally not aware of any requests. No one in the administration knew. They weren't told that they wanted more security. Well, who was? Who was? If the administration could miss all of the intelligence warnings that came in advance of the Benghazi attacks for September 11th, the day of any day we have to be more prepared and they weren't aware of those attacks, they didn't hear the voices crying out from the desert in the most dangerous place, if they couldn't hear that, how did they miss that? If the president and the secretary of state didn't have any information, any connection or apparent interest in the safety precautions for Benghazi at that time on September 11th, are public servants less safe or more safe today? Is America less safe or more safe? If they're willing to go against the intelligence reports and concoct a bogus story about a video while claiming it was the best available intelligence, which it wasn't, we now know, but they say they ‑‑ that's all they saw, well, don't you think we need to find out who put that bogus intelligence in and then claim to the president that's the best we have? Shouldn't we be firing that person right now? Shouldn't the president be smoked beyond belief? Let's just say that he still doesn't get it. If he still doesn't get it and he really didn't know and he's not really interested in finding the person that really put that bogus intelligence in there and then said that that was the best intelligence available, what else is this president being fed lies about that he's gullible enough to believe?

For the purpose of this monologue, what else is he willing to be ‑‑ to believe because he's just so disengaged? And in seeing that they haven't been outraged by the YouTube video lies and haven't fired the people responsible, does that make it more or less reasonable that they understand the security of the United States of America and your family the way you do? Seeing that the leaders around the world, including the president of Libya, came out on television the very next day and said "This is ridiculous; this was obviously a terrorist attack" and then we send Rice all across the television to tell the lies, the president did from the rose garden. Will the rest of the world trust us and our vision and our common sense more or less? And if the president laid out, you know, went to bed, as Leon Panetta said, had a quick briefing with him at 5:00 and then went to bed and then never heard any ‑‑ never heard a peep from the president or the White House, nobody contacted to find out what the Pentagon was doing. The Pentagon made all of the calls; the president was uninvolved; does that make you comfortable? Let me ask the left: That means the military industrial complex is not being watched over a guy you elected. That means the president of the United States said, "You just take care of it. Whatever you want." Really? You're comfortable with that? Because even a hawk like me, I'm not comfortable with that.

The president exercised his executive privilege and claimed Eric Holder was not aware. He and Eric Holder of Fast and Furious, he says he has complete confidence in that. Now here's ‑‑ this is a gun‑running operation. Really? Help me out with that. Help me out. What does it mean? The president of the United States and the top man at the DOJ have no earthly idea that their own people are literally arming drug cartels with thousands of guns. Does that make Americans and our neighbors in Mexico less safe or more safe? If some rogue government underlings can get away with arming deadly drug cartels with guns and escape the notice of the management of the United States, what other dangerous activity are they engaging in that they don't know about? How can the president lead if the president doesn't have a clue on what's happening around him? He doesn't know what's going on at the IRS; Americans become victims. He doesn't know what's going on at the DOJ, and both American citizens and members of the American press become victims. He doesn't know what's going overseas and Americans are victims, murdered in cold blood. He doesn't know what's going on with Fast and Furious and American border patrol agents like Brian Terry become victims, murdered, and people across the border are killed by the guns that were run by the DOJ.

This is the scenario that our president is asking you, hoping that you will believe, a scenario where through their incompetence and indifference Americans suffer as they get to the bottom of it. But they haven't gotten to the bottom of it. There's been celebrity parties and vacations. There's been campaigning against the Second Amendment, and there's been a lot of golf. You tell me. If that's what they want you to believe, how bad is the truth?

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.