Evan McMullin Will Be on the Ballot in Potentially 45 States

Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin joined Glenn on radio Thursday for a compelling interview about the state of the election.

McMullin's campaign has experienced a notable surge in Utah, and the Independent Party candidate is already on the ballot in 34 states. By Election Day, that number could soar to 45.

RELATED: Evan McMullin: We Must Seek Honest, Wise Leaders, Not Merely Those the Party Gave Us

Glenn and McMullin discussed the 13 principles outlined in his document Principles for New American Leadership and serious issues like Russia, ISIS, border control and the economy.

Read below or listen to this segment for answers to these questions:

• What qualifications does McMullin have to handle the economic crisis?

• How will McMullin's CIA experience help with fighting ISIS?

• What are McMullin's positions on personal and business taxes?

• Will McMullin force companies to return to the U.S.?

• Where did McMullin earn his MBA?

Listen to Part 2 of Glenn's most recent interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: We are talking to Evan McMullin, candidate for president. He is a candidate -- will be a candidate in 50 -- or, 45 states by the time this is over.

Let me give you a couple things, Evan, to talk about. Because, you know, people don't really know who you are. And we are facing some really bad scenarios coming our way. One, Russia has said in several different ways in the last few weeks that they are rattling the saber, saying that we're on the edge of nuclear war.

I don't know how much of that is true. But I do know that Putin -- do you know how who Dugin is? Aleksandr Dugin. Are you familiar with him?

EVAN: I'm not.

GLENN: Okay. Aleksandr Dugin is one of the advisers of Putin, a really dangerous guy. He has his fingers in the alt-right here in America and all throughout Europe.

EVAN: Oh, yes.

GLENN: So we have that brewing. We have Islamic jihad brewing.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: We have an open border situation where we don't know who is in this country.

EVAN: Right.

GLENN: And then today we have this: HSBC, the head of the technical analyst department for HSBC has said we are now on red alert for an immanent selloff in stocks, given the price over the past few weeks. He says the pattern shows that we are headed for something at least as bad as 1987.

What experience do you have -- we know you have now CIA experience, global foreign relations experience, but what experience do you have on the economy and finance?

EVAN: Well, you know, I attended the Wharton school, earned an MBA there, and then went on to work in finance at Goldman Sachs. A -- a bank that, you know, is very --

GLENN: Oh.

EVAN: -- is very controversial. But I'll tell you what I did and what I learned, which I think are lessons that all presidents should know. And that is what it takes for companies to thrive in this global marketplace in a way that they can create jobs here in the United States, good-paying jobs. I worked with leaders in industrial companies. Companies that make airplanes and airplane parts here in the United States. I worked with technology companies. I was in California, San Francisco. I worked with companies and consumer package products, in health care. But I learned so much about so many different industries during my time there. And they all have different needs. And they all face different challenges.

But presidents should know these things. Presidents should know that we need government, for example, to get out of the way in order for our economy to thrive.

You know, the number one thing I heard from business leaders when I was working with him in that role is that they had a lot of capital on the sidelines, they would say, that they couldn't or didn't feel comfortable investing in new jobs and new equipment, because they were worried about regulatory uncertainty or a regulatory burden, even if there wasn't uncertainty, just the burden of regulations.

So that's a huge problem we have. I mean, there's so many others -- the corporate tax rate and others. But, you know, we've got to have a president who will signal to the business community that this company -- this country is going to be open for business, that companies are going to be able to thrive.

And part of it, also, Glenn, I just have to say this is that we've lost sight of promoting a truly open market. We've got way too much crony capitalism. I saw it with my own eyes, when I was the chief policy director for the House Republicans.

You know, we have a government that's sort of geared towards helping big corporations. But -- but that -- you know, but advances policies that stifle the small- and medium-sized company, that can't deal with these regulations. And so why is that such a bad thing?

It's a bad thing because it harms competition. And because of that, it harms innovation. And innovation is the lifeblood, one of the lifebloods of our country. We need a more open economy. We need to get rid of crony capitalism. It's a huge problem. But we will not thrive unless we make some of these changes or all of them.

PAT: We're speaking to Evan McMullin, independent candidate for president.

Evan, this is Pat. You know, in addition to going to Wharton -- whatever, but you also attended BYU. Right? And I saw you last week or a week and a half ago at the game. And, you know --

GLENN: We have 40 minutes with the presidential candidate and you're going --

PAT: And being a Cougar fan is one of his most impressive attributes.

GLENN: Right. Do you have a real question?

PAT: But you also have been -- you've worked really closely -- like you said, you were the chief policy adviser for the House. And so what are your -- what's your position on taxes, in a business and personal taxes?

EVAN: Oh, on businesses, I think we need to lower the corporate tax rate. I said 20 percent. The reason that's important is we need our businesses to be able to reinvest in technology and in equipment and in jobs. That will make our workers more productive, which will mean their salaries will go up, which will mean other companies will want to be here because --

PAT: So you're saying you're going to force companies to come back to the United States of America.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: What do you think of that idea, Evan? What do you think of that idea, forcing companies, government forcing companies to come back?

EVAN: Well, so let's take a look at Donald Trump's idea, right? So he says, okay. Company X moves to Mexico and starts producing its wages there. So he's going to put a tariff on widgets that come from that company into the United States.

Guess what's going to happen? That country -- or, that company is just going to go to another country where those tariffs don't exist and produce the widgets there. I mean, that's -- it's just so ridiculous. What we want to do is have an open economy that attracts people, companies willingly to come here. That's how we've thrived in the past. That's what we need in the future.

STU: Evan, it's Stu again.

I had an interesting thought or realization the other day, I think, which was, we had this really big debate. We all fought about it in 2009, over this -- Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan. We all thought it was a terrible idea. And 787 billion, you can remember it because we said it so many times, it was such a big number.

We have Hillary Clinton now proposing a new $275 billion stimulus, which no one has talked about at all, and probably because Donald Trump has promised to more than double it, over $550 billion.

He also proposed this new child care and family leave situation, paid for maternity leave and things like that paid for by the government, that the new estimate that just came out from a right-leaning think tank was $680 billion in cost.

We fought so hard against the $787 billion stimulus, but no one is thinking about these sorts of things anymore.

What is your approach on government spending to stimulate the economy and for new entitlement programs?

EVAN: Oh, my goodness. Well, listen, on stimulating the economy, I just have so much faith in the ingenuity of the American, in the -- just the grit that Americans have to create and to build. And that's the strength of our economy. It doesn't come from the government. And the more we think it does and the more we use entitlements and other programs to try to spur economic growth through the government, the less free our economy is. The less open it is. The less competition we have. The less innovation we have. So, look, it's just a fundamental thing.

In order to thrive, we've got to -- we've got to create an environment where people will take risks, where people will innovate. And we can't do that if we're growing the size of government. Therefore, taxing people more. Therefore, depriving people of their economic liberty, which is just liberty. And all of these things are connected.

So new entitlement programs, no, thank you. We need to reform the ones that we have. We do have some important programs that form an important safety net. But they're on autopilot. Congress doesn't even review this spending on an annual basis, if ever. Hardly ever they do.

And right now, it's over -- entitlement programs and our interest on debt that we pay every year is over two-thirds of the budget. If we do nothing, if we stay on our current path, it will be 78 percent of the budget in ten years.

And so we've got to make reforms. And we can do that so that we keep our obligations to people who are retired now and who are retiring soon.

But for people like me who have got decades more of work, let's -- you know, we're going to live longer. Let's increase the retirement age gradually, let's phase it in. And I think we need to do means testing too -- if I'm super wealthy, which I'm not, but if I were, I wouldn't need to collect Social Security. Let's make sure that we have that safety net for people who really need it. Let's just be smarter with our entitlements so we don't burden the American people with an overwhelming -- an overwhelming amount of debt and taxes.

GLENN: Okay. So, Evan, are you available tomorrow at about this time? Do you know? Can you make yourself available?

EVAN: I'll have to check with my team. But I would love --

GLENN: See if you can make yourself available. Here's what I'd like -- because here's what I've heard from you. I've heard a lot of great things, but I've heard your resume. And I can think like the person at home. And they -- what they've heard is, wow, okay. He's got some great background stuff. But on the flip side, you are former CIA, which can mean I'm for foreign involvement everywhere, entanglements, war, yada, yada. Continuation of what we've already done. Two, I used to work at Goldman Sachs, which means to some people I'm for the bank bailouts and cronyism and Wall Street and the fed.

EVAN: I'm not.

GLENN: I know. I know. I'm just -- but this is what I think your resume screams.

And then the last one is, I also was with the House. Well, the House was for stimulus and the bailouts. And they didn't repeal Obamacare. A lot of people in the G.O.P. despise the American -- you know, the average American. And so what I would like to do, because I don't think it's fair to ask you -- to throw that on you and then say, can you give me a two-minute answer.

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: Can you come back tomorrow and tell me what sets you apart in foreign policy from the -- the entanglements that have caused this mess --

EVAN: Yes.

GLENN: The Goldman Sachs that are for the cronyism and the bank bailouts and the Federal Reserve just being -- running unchecked, and the House Republicans, what sets you apart from those three things that we hear in your resume? Would you do that?

EVAN: Well, I would love to come back. I just -- because, you know, Glenn, I don't control my schedule.

GLENN: I know. I know.

EVAN: But I will check with my team. I would love to come back. Chances are, we'll do it because this is an important, you know, discussion to have.

But very briefly, I'll just say, on foreign policy, I have said that I think the Iraq War was a mistake. I believe we do need to lead in the world. But I believe we can do it with less blood and treasure. And we can talk about that. I'm happy to talk about that.

With regard to my time at Goldman Sachs, look, I'm not here to represent Goldman Sachs. But I struggled -- I was raised in a lower middle class family. You know, we couldn't turn the heat on in the winter. We worked very, very hard. Parents worked three jobs. I know what it's like out there. And, you know, I'm not wealthy. I've worked hard for everything I have. And I had an opportunity to work at Goldman Sachs. And I learned a ton. I'm not here to defend Goldman Sachs in any way or the bank bailout, which I opposed and all of that.

GLENN: Sure.

EVAN: But I will say that I learned things there that every president should know, period.

As far as my time in the House, look, I was asked to come back and serve. I answered that with a yes, and I did come back and I served. I fought unauthorized spending. I fought mandatory spending. I fought to reform the VA's health care system.

You know, you got to engage. And, you know, that's what I've done. And I've served for most of my life this country.

GLENN: Okay. So tomorrow, if you can, and if not, we'll schedule it some other time, but if you can, I'd like you to focus -- we'll spend the same amount of time, and I'd like to focus on those three things: Foreign entanglements, the cronyism of capitalism and Goldman Sachs kind of image, and where you differ from the House Republicans, which we have -- I feel this audience has fought those guys perhaps harder than we had to fight the Obama administration. And we'll continue the conversation.

EVAN: Yeah, yeah. All right. Looking forward to it.

GLENN: What's your website? Evan, what's your website?

EVAN: Yes. Yes. It's EvanMcMullin.com. And if you want to go to that principled document, which I hope you will, go to EvanMcMullin.com/principles. And you spell McMullin with an I-N at the end, not an E-N. EvanMcMullin.com.

GLENN: Okay. Thank you very much, Evan. I appreciate it. You should buy the E-N domain name too. You should get EggMcMuffin.com

PAT: Have them all. Yes.

GLENN: You should have them all. Anyway, now, this.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin talks to to the media after announcing his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

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.