'American Sniper' co-author discusses the real Chris Kyle, criticism from Michael Moore

On radio today, 'American Sniper' co-author Jim DeFelice joined the radio show to talk about the incredible success of the 'American Sniper' movie, the Chris Kyle he knew, and the criticism coming from the progressive voices in Hollywood.

Below is a rough transcript of the segment:

GLENN: Jim DeFelice is the coauthor of the book. He wrote it with Chris Kyle. He is with us now.

Jim, how are you, sir?

JIM: I'm great, guys. And, you know, you guys can just keep going.

[laughter]

GLENN: First of all, in your wildest dreams, you or Chris when you were writing this that it would be this huge?

JIM: No way. No way. I remember one afternoon Chris and I we were a little tired from -- we kind of kicked back a bit. We were sitting around and having a couple of beers. So Chris asked me how I though the book would do. I knew it was a great story, and I knew that it would resonate. I hoped, I should say, that it would do well. You know, you don't know. He asked me would it sell a lot? And I said, I hope so. I think it's a great story.

He goes, well, if it sells a couple, I don't really care. I've done my part. Thanks a lot, dude. It's just been phenomenal.

GLENN: So, Jim, how do you -- I mean, how are you making sense of the -- of the vitriol that is coming out about this movie now from the left?

JIM: Here's the thing. There's been a lot of criticism really since the book was first published. The problem is -- listen, you know, we're American. I love the fact that people can say what they think. It's our privilege. And, you know, we live --

GLENN: And our responsibility.

JIM: And our responsibility. And I'm cool with it. You can say whatever you want. The only thing I would wish is that when you voice an opinion, I think it would be useful, you know, work with some facts. Read the book, for crying out loud. You know, most of the people who have problems with either the book or the movie, a lot of them haven't read the book. I can tell three words out of their mouth, and I can tell. You know, if you read the book and you've seen the movie or whatever, and you want to discuss it intellectually and intelligently, hey, listen, that's cool. That's fine. But please have some facts behind you. Or I'm not going to listen to you.

GLENN: Let's go off this. Page 324. In the end I was all right with being scheduled for another deployment, I still loved war. That's the kind of thing that they're seizing on.

PAT: The fact he said it was fun and he loved war. Can you clarify those?

JIM: Do you want a soldier who do not like what he does? I don't know. Do you live what you do? In my job, I love what I do. That's what gets me up in the morning every day. Listen --

GLENN: Everybody I've met that's good at their job. They don't love killing.

JIM: Right.

GLENN: I shouldn't say that. I do believe they love killing the bad guys. They don't mind killing the bad guys. And I don't think any of them take it lightly. As you watched the movie, I thought that Bradley Cooper did a really good job of showing, he was not into killing for killing. Every time he squeezed that trigger when he was not sure, it bother him deeply.

JIM: First of all, Bradley Cooper did a phenomenal job. The other thing I have to say, the rules of engagement were so tight. The requirements so strict. And, you know, Chris was always being -- you know, there was always somebody there. That's how we know the real number of the people he killed. He never had a doubt when he squeezed that trigger. He always knew that the guy that he was fighting was -- was a terrorist. Was either trying to kill him or trying to kill an Iraqi.

He actually -- the truth is that he was more protecting -- he was certainly protecting fellow Americans, but the bulk of the people that he was protecting over the course of those four deployments were Iraqis. You know, whether they were being attacked directly or they were IEDs going off or whatever. That was actually Chris' job.

If it weren't just for not just Chris, actually, you know, for all Americans who were there, the Iraqis would never have been able to form their government. They wouldn't have even been able to go to school or what have you. And you see what ISIS is doing now. Well, that's what -- a lot of those people, they're involved in ISIS, in Mosul and some of the other places, are actually the old, you know, [inaudible word] that the Americans had chased or quieted down. They've come back out of the woodwork.

GLENN: You know the scene where they're -- they're trying to get the guy, you know, who is drilling people. And they go in and they're across the street, you know, in the upstairs room with, you know -- with one of the bad guys. And they go across, and they're in this torture chamber. They come out and they're chasing the bad guys through a tunnel. And all of a sudden, you see this crowd of Iraqis carrying the dead in the street. Here's a torture chamber, of not Americans, but anybody who stands against these guys. There's a torture chamber, and these guys are standing in the streets and shouting down the Americans.

And Chris and everyone was just really cool said, let's go. This thing is falling apart. Let's go.

I will tell you that my visceral reaction in watching that was, shoot them. Kill them all. They're all animals. Shoot them all. I was impressed and I think anybody who was honest if you were into this movie, you were impressed that the American shoulders had so much restraint and they didn't just shoot them. After walking through a torture chamber and seeing what you saw, that just screws you up. Did you ever -- did you ever talk to him about the restraint that it took to not just at times see people as animals and not just shoot them?

JIM: Sure, absolutely. From Chris' perspective, that's what his training was all about. And, you know, the ROEs they're all about -- obviously, it's very difficult to make yourself a professional and to get into that role and say, well, okay, this is what I have to do. I don't necessarily like it, but I have to follow just these rules.

And listen, the SEALs that's why they're selected. They go through a process to find -- it's not just physical. They want to find the guys that can mentally do those things. We're talking about the evil in Iraq. And, look, people don't have to take my word for it or Chris Kyle's word for it. I happened to be very privileged to work with an Iraqi, you know, who worked with American forces as well as Iraqi forces. And can, you know, talk -- he lays out -- not everything, but some of the things that the terrorists, both Sunni and Shia were doing. "Code Name: Johnny Walker." You know, go to your library or even better, buy it, and find out when an Iraqi thinks of that war and thinks of Americans like Chris Kyle.

STU: It was amazing watching some of the reaction from people like Seth Rogen comparing the movie and the book to Nazi propaganda. First reaction to that.

JIM: You know -- I'll tell you something, if you don't know a lot about World War II and you don't know a lot about Nazi propaganda, I guess you can say anything you want.

GLENN: How about Michael Moore who said, you know, my uncle or somebody was killed by a sniper. And snipers are cowards.

JIM: First of all, I appreciate his uncle having fought in that war. Because of his uncle and many men like him you and I enjoy our freedoms today. So, you know, I thank Mr. Moore's uncle and the entire family. But, you know, snipers today, I think this is a common misunderstanding of what snipers did in Iraq.

You know, World War II unfortunately when we were trying to liberate France, Italy, Germany, a lot of countries, to get the enemy, we would blow up a building, you know, where there were some soldiers, and unfortunately blow up -- whole villages were wiped out and towns and parts of cities. That's no longer -- we don't want to do that. That's bad. We're killing innocent civilians. We're causing collateral damage. Even if we're not killing innocent people, we're destroying their buildings.

The whole idea of snipers, the thing they did in the Iraq war, is they were highly trained. Given precision weapons and equipment and very strict rules of engagement so that the people they were killing were only terrorists and insurgents who were trying to kill other Iraqis and trying to kill Americans.

So it's kind of ironic that people say, oh, this guy was, you know, whatever they say. When what he was really doing was trying to, you know, not harm civilians. But, you know, I guess you can say whatever you want if you don't have the facts.

STU: We're talking to Jim DeFelice. He was the coauthor of "American Sniper" with Chris Kyle.

And one of the things you did both -- in telling the story in the book and, of course, to the movie, that I thought was really impressive was the price that Chris and his family paid for what he did. He thought this was so vitally important to the country that he was willing on to pay the price of putting himself in an impossible situation, watching his best friends die and really ripping his family apart almost to the point where it couldn't be repaired.

JIM: Absolutely. And that's -- actually every veteran, everybody that serves in service is in the military, is giving, you know -- is giving you and me a blank check on their lives. But at the same time, they're also giving a blank check on the lives of their loved ones and their families.

And one of the things I think -- one of the reasons I think the people reacted to "American Sniper" the book and now the movie, so favorably is because we were able to talk about what Taya Kyle went through. A little bit about what the kids and the family went through. And getting her voice into "American Sniper" -- you know, if you want to and me what I'm most proud of in that book, was being able to do that because she's a remarkable woman.

As remarkable as she is, she is no different than the wives and mothers and the daughters of every service person that really is protecting our freedom today.

PAT: Jim, can you discuss a little bit the incident that Chris had with Jesse Ventura?

JIM: You know, that's the one thing I've been told not to talk about. The case is under appeal. Look, I was deposed for an entire day. Eight or nine hours, whatever it was. I testified for an hour. I'm on record a lot about it. There were a lot of guys who testified to it. At the end of the day, the jury does what the jury does.

PAT: It's an unbelievable decision.

STU: I will say, I was interested in the story. I love Chris Kyle. At least 20 percent of the reason I went to the movie was to piss off Jesse Ventura.

JIM: I will tell you one thing, whatever the differences were, Chris always honored Mr. Ventura's service. Whatever the circumstance, he was -- to the effect, you know, he did serve in the military. I'm proud of that. I honor that. Whatever else -- and I'm sure there was a lot of else in some of those sentences, but whatever else, that was still valuable to him. Still important to him, no matter who it was.

GLENN: So let me just ask one quick question. The thing that bothered me. I have someone on my team that is on my protective detail that served with Chris' brother. And he said, that was not Chris' brother.

JIM: Yeah, that's not Jeff. I don't know. I didn't write the screenplay. I wasn't on the set. You know, sometimes people have -- you know, they have to -- it's a movie. It's not real life. I can tell you, Jeff Kyle is -- change of circumstances in Jeff would be, you know, Chris. He's a great guy. He's a brave marine. He's a marine recon.

GLENN: He's not a guy who is --

PAT: Oh, he was in recon? I didn't -- wow. He was not presented as marine recon.

JIM: Jeff is so low-key. He's just under the radar. That's cool with him. That's who he is. He's really a hero in his own right.

GLENN: I thought it was important to correct the record here. If you saw the movie, that is not who he is.

JIM: Yeah. It's an actor. And they have roles they have to do.

GLENN: I know.

JIM: Cram a whole life in two hours, that's pretty hard.

GLENN: I know. Thank you so much for being there for Chris and writing this story and being a part of the true American history.

I was struck a couple of weeks ago when the president came out and spoke about the ESPN anchor that died. He came out and did a big deal about him, but has never said anything about an American hero, Chris Kyle. And I'm glad that the American people are now speaking in the sales of the books and in the movie, to show that we do honor him, his family, and the service of all those who fight for us. Thank you so much.

JIM: Oh, I am honored to be part of it.

GLENN: God bless you. Thanks a lot. We'll talk again.

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.