Glenn Talks With Libertarian VP Candidate Bill Weld About Amendments and Aleppo

Libertarian vice presidential candidate and former governor of Massachusetts Bill Weld stopped by The Glenn Beck Program on Monday to discuss the issues and the state of the Libertarian Party in the 2016 election.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these questions:

• How you get to a balanced budget in 100 days?

• Which president since 1900 would Bill Weld like to be like?

• What does Bill Weld recommend Donald Trump read instead of The Art of the Deal?

• Would Bill Weld and Gary Johnson audit the Federal Reserve?

• What must great nations and great men do?

Listen to these segments from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: We've had Gary Johnson on several times, and it has never gone as planned, never gone as well as we would hope. And I think that's because he has always seemed to be playing more towards a -- a leftist approach than the right. The thing I like about Libertarianism, when it's true, is you can have -- you can have whatever opinion you want.

BILL: Right. Right.

GLENN: It's about freedom.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: And so I want to talk to you a little bit about the state and the role that the state plays in all of our lives.

I was thinking last night how much time we've wasted over the last eight or ten years arguing over who's in Washington. If we only applied that energy to something else, what we could have done.

Let's start with, what are the first things that you and Gary would do walked into office? Day one.

BILL: Oh, I think priority number one would have to be the budget and spending levels. It's the first things we did in our states when we were elected. And both Gary and I were rated the most conservative -- fiscally conservative governor in the United States at various times during the 1990s. We actually served together. My second term overlapped with his first term in the mid/late '90s.

So, you know, we've said we would file a balanced budget within 100 days, I think.

GLENN: What does that mean?

BILL: Well, it means you send a budget to Congress.

GLENN: No, no, hang on.

What does that mean? To the average person, a balanced budget at this point, what is their life going to look like?

BILL: Well, it's going to look a lot better if we can balance that budget. Right now, the federal government doesn't do what every homeowner does and balance their checkbook at the end of the month. They borrow money to fill in the gap. So they spend more money than they have. Because the people in Washington, the senators, the representatives, think that if they just turn that government printing press around and green stuff comes out the other end, they think that's free money, you know.

And my favorite maxim when I was in office is, there's no such thing as government money. There's only taxpayers' money. So it would take some cuts to the budget to make it come out balanced. Because it's not balanced right now, the way they do it in DC.

GLENN: Right. And so what does that mean? I know if Washington ever got serious about it and we looked stable, it would mean a lot to the world, and business would start to come back. Et cetera, et cetera.

BILL: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: But what does it look -- because most people don't realize how much they get from the government already.

BILL: Yeah, well, this would create tens of millions of dollars if we're able to make it stick. And I've been, you know, campaigning for a balanced federal budget, constitutional amendment to the last 20 years.

You know, I've almost given up hope on the guys in Washington. They're so hyper-partisan. So hyper-gerrymandered. Those two parties in DC really seem to exist for the purpose of killing each other.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: And I think the only silver bullet to get them to take a common sense approach to the budget really would be term limits. You know, there were two things I was national chair of when I was in office, one was US term limits with my friend Howie Rich from Philadelphia, who ran the show, and the other was privatization council, because I think there's a lot of activities that could be better done, either in the private sector or in a partnership between public and private sectors.

Those are -- those are seminal ideas, whose time has come and gone and come again.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah. Couldn't everything be done better, really in the private sector? I mean, even the military is doing stuff in the private sector.

BILL: Yeah, no, I'm a big privatization buff. I've never met a layer of spending in government at any level, federal, state, local, that I didn't think honestly could do with a ten to 20 percent cut. Really, it's no such thing.

GLENN: Sure. So tell me about the cuts that you would have to make. Where would you start cutting?

BILL: Well, I think the goal would be 20 percent total. I don't believe in across-the-board cuts. I think what you do is zero-based budget. Which means you take every account and say, "How was it last year?" Now in DC, they say, "How was it last year? Let's add 5 percent. Anything less than that, we're going to scream bloody murder, that's a cut." Well, that's crazy.

And what you should do is examine each spending head. Let's say there's a preventive health spending item in the health care sector that produces just scores of millions of wonderful outcomes and avoids spending costs and makes people better without a great expense. You might take that appropriation and multiply that by 12 because it's doing a great job.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And then you get a bigger one, the next one creates some bureaucracy that lives somewhere between the Justice Department and the Treasury Department and the Homeland Security Department and the Commerce Department. And nobody can tell you quite what it does, except it allows a lot of people to talk to each other, and it's just very murky. That one might go to zero, frankly.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

BILL: And I don't agree with people who say, "I'm going to cut, you know, ten or 20 percent of the budget just by rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse." That's just a tag line. Slogan.

And it's usually people who don't know much about the budget who say that. And the problem is not that there's an even ten percent of waste, fraud, and abuse in everything. The problem is that there are government problems that are ill-advised and shouldn't be there in the first place. That's how you get to a balanced budget in 100 days.

GLENN: So how are two men who are Libertarian, lean liberal on many issues, that the conservatives would be afraid of on other issues, the liberals would be afraid of on some issues, how are you going to get everybody to say, "Hey, let's cut these programs?"

BILL: Well, we have the power to file the budget that then goes to the Hill. And I'm sure they would scream bloody murder and say, no, we can't do this. And we would say, well, yeah, actually we can do this.

The Pentagon, for example, they say they have 20 percent more bases than they need. So, you know, they go to the Hill. And the Hill says, "Oh, no, we're not going along with that. Even though you're the military and this is what you say you need, we are obsessed with getting reelected. And so we don't want one penny to be cut from anywhere in the budget."

And it would be ugly. I mean, it would be an ugly conversation for a while. But, you know, if it came back with, you know, ten times more than we had sent them, then the veto pen comes out, and at least we'd be pressing it from the side of the angels, from the right side.

GLENN: Since 1900, who is the president you and Gary would say I want to be more like?

BILL: Oh, I don't know. I kind of like Teddy Roosevelt. A lot of energy there. You know, Eisenhower got a lot of good stuff done. Reagan -- I worked for Reagan for seven years, he got a lot of good stuff done.

GLENN: Okay. Tell me -- tell me your stance on the fed.

First of all, what's -- what's coming our way? What do you think is coming our way if we stay on this course economically?

BILL: I don't think the news is good. I mean, I think the most important thing we have to do is cinch in our belt on the budget and stop spending money that we don't have. And, as you know, unless we do that, the huge national debt will go up. And Mr. Obama is going to leave office now with 20 trillion, with a T, national debt. Half of that came in on his watch.

GLENN: It can't be. Because that was un-American. That's what he said about George Bush. It was un-American, so he couldn't have spent more than George Bush.

BILL: No, I think that if you got the Democrats in, given the promises that they've made in this campaign season, if they followed through on all of those, then after two terms of Democrats, the national debt would probably be $50 trillion.

And then on the other side, you got a guy, Mr. Trump, who says, "Well, I'll talk to the Chinese, and I'll just strike a better deal."

You know, the United States Constitution says -- and I quote from Section 4 of the Fourteenth Article of the amendment, the validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned.

That's kind of sunk in there in the Constitution. And I keep -- I keep saying that the Donald -- you know, tomorrow, instead of taking out The Art of the Deal and re-reading it for the 400th time, maybe you should take out a copy of the Constitution. It's not that long. It's very well written.

GLENN: And read it once.

BILL: Read it for the first time.

GLENN: Right. Yeah.

PAT: It would be nice.

BILL: No, Gary and I do take it out and read it. And it's a good read. It's a very good read. It's very well drafted. Spare language.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: We haven't been following it for how long?

BILL: The Constitution?

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: Oh, I think we kind of cut loose from that when the necessary and proper clause in Article I, Section 8, was interpreted by the courts and Congress to mean anything is necessary and proper. And Congress' power to legislate, which extends to items necessary and proper to carry into execution, its laws. It's been stretched beyond.

GLENN: So the fed. Where do you stand on the fed?

BILL: I guess the current question there is, do we like that it has the employment objective as well as just the currency objective? And the purists say, "No, we don't want the employment objective, so just go back to being in charge of the currency." I'm not deeply into that. That's good enough for me. Leaving the employment is good enough for me.

GLENN: So you wouldn't change the fed at all?

BILL: I think Gary would. I think Gary would. We had a conversation.

GLENN: You guys haven't had that conversation?

BILL: Yeah, I think he's skeptical about the employment objective for the fed.

GLENN: Okay. So would you audit the fed?

BILL: That's the first thing. Big audit of the fed. And Gary is very strong on that one.

GLENN: Okay.

STU: One of the things we're always seeing from the fed and various spending programs in general is the idea that we can spend our way into prosperity. That you can find a government stimulus, for example, we have one candidate saying they want a $275 billion stimulus -- that's Hillary Clinton. Another one, Trump, who is saying $550 billion-plus. He's saying -- he's promised to more than double it.

Is there anything to that? Should we be thinking about spending?

BILL: No, no. You can spend your way into bankruptcy a heck of a lot easier than you can into prosperity.

When I took office in the '90s, the head of Administration and Finance for Governor Dukakis, who I directly succeeded, said the state is bankrupt. And it was. The state could not pay its bills as they do.

So if I hadn't come in, in February, or the year where I came into office, in January, with the balanced budget, we would have just not been paying our bills.

States can't do that. Great nations like great men must keep their word, as Justice Robert Jackson said.

GLENN: And so you did that in a very liberal state.

BILL: Yeah. I mean, we were flat on our back. Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in 1991, were the two states hardest hit by the recession. '90, '91. So everybody was scared. And I think I was able to get stuff through, as a fiscal conservative. Narrowly, they would have laughed me out of town, but people were literally scared. So they said, "Let's give the red-headed kid enough rope to --

GLENN: What's it going to take to scare America?

BILL: You know, I think America should be -- should be scared right now, in terms of --

GLENN: You look at this election, it's pretty scary.

BILL: The election is scary, but the projection of the economy is scary.

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: And I think it's tens of millions of dollars. I strongly agree with what you said. This is not -- this stuff about the debt and the budget, it's not just a ledger entry. It's our economy, which means tens of millions of jobs. Even more than that.

GLENN: Yeah. I think we're headed for a -- a Depression unlike we have seen. And possibly throughout the entire western world.

What are we doing with Deutsche Bank, with seemingly trying to punish Deutsche Bank when they are flat on their back? And what happens?

BILL: Yeah. Yeah. There's a lot of difficult scary stuff out there. The Brexit vote. People are just unsettled. I remember what it was like after 9/11. I was then in the investment business. Nobody would talk to you. All -- you know, all flights were cancelled for six months. All meetings were cancelled. Everyone just went frigid. And we could be reaching another one of those moments.

GLENN: And was Brexit a good thing or a bad thing?

BILL: I tend to think it's a bad thing. That might be the right answer in this context here, in this beautiful living room.

GLENN: No. We don't want the right answer. We want the real answer.

BILL: No, I think the real answer is that it's going to upset a lot of stuff that was kind of baked into the international economy.

GLENN: So is -- but is -- do people have a point of, I don't want this, you know, international body ruling me? I want my own -- I want my own country.

BILL: No, they do. There's something in that.

A lot of the Brexit vote, I think, was kind of a protest vote, like a lot of the vote on the FARC treaty that President Santos in Columbia did with the rebels. That was supposed to pass with 65 percent of the vote. You know, stay was supposed to pass with 60-plus percent of the vote in Britain. And people voted with their votes, not with their feet.

GLENN: I want to tell you -- when we come back, I want to talk to you a little bit about the protectionist stance that the right seems to be taking now. Also want to talk to you -- we went into Mosul this weekend. ISIS, Russia, and cyber warfare.

Gary Johnson's running mate, Governor Weld is with us. And more in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: Governor Weld is with us from Johnson and Weld.

Governor, one thing conservatives are concerned about with Libertarians is a -- is leaving a vacuum in the world. It's taken us 100 years -- 120 years to get to this position, to where we're in everyone's business. You can't just pull out and leave a vacuum. We have to reverse-engineer this to some degree. Faster or slower, I don't know. But we can't just one day there, one day gone.

We're seeing Mosul being taken. This is going to cause a lot of displacement and a lot of new refugees. And it's ugly.

ISIS is horrible. Russia is saber-rattling. Where do you stand on world affairs?

BILL: Well, I think it's no secret Gary and I -- and he has influenced me in this area over the course of the last six months or so. We're somewhat less inclined to rush in with American military to effectuate a regime change than probably either of the other establishment.

GLENN: Will you go as far as saying -- because I think I'm there. We're not in the regime change business.

BILL: No, no. We're not in the regime-changing business. We think Iraq was a mistake. We think Libya and Syria, which was squarely within the Obama and Clinton regime are mistakes.

GLENN: Huge mistake. Yes.

BILL: And as Governor Johnson likes to say, wars have unintended consequences. Sometimes they're military -- like we back the rebels. They lose. So all the arms that we've given to the rebels -- this is in Syria -- end up in the hands of ISIS. That's an unintended military consequence. It could be moral. I spent a lot of time traveling abroad the last dozen years, and that would include after the 2003 Iraq invasion, the United States paid a moral price for that around the world. And, I mean, I mean all around the world. Asia, Africa, not just western Europe.

So, you know, we'd want to think twice. Having said all that, I do believe -- I think Gary believes in cultural diplomacy and constructive engagement, not just saying we're out of here.

But militarily, yeah. I mean, those 8400 troops in Afghanistan, should they come home now? Yeah.

Why? Because there's no reason for them to be there. No reason it won't be there in 20 years. You know, come back in 20 years, and if they're still there, people will say, you can't take those 8400 troops out of Afghanistan because the Taliban will come in and there will be a big slaughter.

All right. So maybe we need to bite that bullet squarely and bite it now. And if there has to be amnesty, a refugee, where the top 250 people who have been helping us against the Taliban, maybe they have to come to the United States. Maybe we have to protect them somehow. But that's going to be true whenever those troops come home.

GLENN: Yeah. Real quick, because I have to go to a break, do you know where Aleppo is?

BILL: I do.

GLENN: Okay. Good, we got that. All right. Back in just a second.

(OUT AT 9:31AM)

GLENN: Former Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld is with us from Johnson and Weld. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Bill Weld is the vice presidential nominee.

Our audience is quite concerned about gun control. It's a very constitutional audience. And they're concerned about grabbing guns, mainly from Clinton's side. What are your thoughts on --

BILL: Well, you know, the Second Amendment says the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, except in times of a standing militia. You know, there are no qualifiers there.

I like to say, if you look back through history, when governments have persuaded people to lay down their arms because that will make the government better able to protect them, it's generally resulted in them very quickly losing all of their liberties. So it's not a pretty sight.

So, you know, we think the right of the people to bear arms has to be sustained against allcomers, period. No qualifiers.

GLENN: Is there any common sense legislation that you're for?

BILL: You mean in the direction of more control of guns?

GLENN: Yes.

BILL: No, no, I don't think so. No.

GLENN: Okay.

The New York Times, at the time when you were governor -- let me just read this: Voters increasingly fearful of gunfire on the streets.

It's Massachusetts, we have to remember.

Governor William Weld, Massachusetts, reversed this -- proposed some of the most stringent gun control laws in the country. A Republican who will run for reelection next year called for a statewide ban on assault weapons.

BILL: You know, I don't think I did. I know that Mike Usino (phonetic), who is head of Gun Owners Action League, who had endorsed me when I ran was very upset with some legislation that was kicking around. But I never --

GLENN: Yeah, it says here you opposed that during your campaign.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: As well as a waiting period for buying handguns and a prohibition on handgun ownership by anyone under 21.

You proposed legislation that would limit the number of handguns an individual could buy and impose tougher penalties for illegal gun sales and gun-related crimes.

BILL: It may be legislation was kicking around, but it was not with the full weight of the shoulder of William F. Weld behind it.

GLENN: Okay. All right. Tell me about cyber security. We keep hearing in the debates about -- Donald Trump is very aware of the cyber.

(chuckling)

BILL: Yeah. Yeah. He's in the room.

GLENN: Yeah.

BILL: You know what they say in corporate big deals, if you're not in the room, you're not in the deal. He's in the deal. That means he's in the room.

GLENN: Yeah, yeah. He's in the room. And he knows all about the cyber. He says he doesn't think the cyber can be fixed. I don't even know what that means.

Cyber security -- we -- Russia says that they are at war with us, with digits, ones, and zeros. We have said last week or week before last that we were going to respond to their hacking into our systems. Where does this go, and how do we solve this?

BILL: Well, you know, I think the top US intelligence services unanimously have said the Russians are behind this. They're using -- they can identify the services that are hacking in. And it is the Russians. And we haven't really seen convincing denials out of the Russians. So I'm persuaded it is the Russians.

President Obama is talking about openly about what he's going to do to get back at the Russians. You know, restrained reaction or some other reaction. Sanctions. Yada, yada. But it seems to be clear that it is the Russians hacking into the electoral system of the United States. That's very scary.

GLENN: Wouldn't that have been --

BILL: What if they get into voter lists.

GLENN: Right. At any other time, wouldn't that have been an act of war in our country?

BILL: Pretty close. Pretty close.

GLENN: So what is the answer there?

BILL: Well, I guess that's what they're talking about in the White House right now, is what to do about it.

GLENN: But if you're in the White House with Gary, what's your advice to the president on what the appropriate response would be?

BILL: Well, I would want to talk to the technical people about some maximum crypto system that could, you know, keep us from having the stuff hacked in by ordinary intelligence agencies of a hostile foreign power.

If that can't be done, then you've got to think of a whole different way of classifying your information or keeping your information. Make it so that there's nothing so precious there, that if they can get into the system, that we're up the creek without a paddle.

GLENN: We're not even -- they can get into our power grid. They can get into our banking system. I mean, we're in real trouble right now.

BILL: Well, it's probably the case that we're up to being able to do anything that they're able to do.

GLENN: Yes, I would agree with that.

BILL: You wouldn't want to see all the power grids in the world go down. That would not be good for the economy.

GLENN: Right. Right.

STU: Or my Netflix queue, which is vital.

GLENN: That's very important.

STU: The most important thing, yeah.

You guys actually spent some time -- and I really appreciate this. We did a show on my show, my stupid little show on this network asking questions from the conservative perspective that's considering a vote for you guys. And I am. I am in that boat. I cannot vote for any of these top two candidates. And you spent time this weekend. And I appreciate that. We're going to post the results online today.

I think it's interesting to note, a lot of people ask, "Well, look, this is an uphill battle for you guys. It's hard for third parties to win. And while you're doing better than, you know, really any third party since Ross Perot, it's going to be a difficult chance for you guys to actually win.

What -- a vote for Johnson/Weld, if you don't think you can win in your state, what does that do? Is there something that can benefit you guys outside of the actual obvious end goal?

BILL: Well, you know, I think we have the best ticket. I think we have winning arguments. If you look at the national polls, are you, you know, fiscally responsible? Yes, 60 percent. Are you socially inclusive, as opposed to wanting to impose your view of social issues on other people? Yes, 60 percent.

So 60 percent of the country kind of agrees with us on the bedrock issues. You know, when I talked to the Republican convention -- national convention once upon a time, I had just a minute to talk, I said I want the government out of your pocketbook and out of your bedroom. That's pretty much where it is. And that's a 60 percent issue.

So, yeah, I know it looks like a very long put. Things happen in the last 20, 30 days of an election. And it may be that if the country focuses with huge clarity and intensity on the three choices, that we would do a lot better than people are expecting now. I think if we get into the 20s at any point in the month of October, we would be dangerous to the other parties because we would have momentum.

But, you know, we don't hesitate to keep pressing the argument because we think we've got the better of the argument.

STU: And there's ballot access issues, right? Is it 3 percent ballot access for the next time, if you were to get that?

BILL: Yeah. You don't have to worry about the ballot access. So the Libertarian should be there in all 50 states.

STU: That's big.

BILL: And probably you could attract big feet to the banner, given that.

STU: Sure. And then 5 percent is matching funds. Right? So, I mean, that's another big hurdle -- so there are reasons, you know, for that vote. That vote can mean something outside of even who wins.

BILL: That's right. That's exactly right.

GLENN: Do you believe in global warming, man-made global warming?

BILL: I think man-made activity contributes to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sure, that's hard to deny.

GLENN: Yeah. Is that directly related to a warming or --

BILL: It has some impact in the up direction for warming. But so does non-point source pollution, which is cows.

PAT: Yep.

BILL: Cows put a lot of gas into the atmosphere.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Real question is: Should we spend $10 trillion dealing with the problem?

GLENN: Right. Is there regulation that we should be doing for global warming?

BILL: You know, I think it's going to depend on technology going forward. If you could solve the carbon capture and sequestration issue so that CO2 could be stored in the ocean without risk of leaking -- and, believe me, everybody in the world is working on this -- you would take enormous amount of pressure off the regulations aimed straight at CO2 and methane.

GLENN: In 2008 and I think '12, you endorsed Barack Obama.

BILL: Oh, no. I didn't endorse him in '12. I was Romney all the way.

GLENN: In '12. Okay. In '8, you did?

BILL: I endorsed him in '8 because my guy Romney lost the primary and I thought -- and I liked Senator McCain a lot. But he was making no bones about the fact that he didn't really care about the economy. He cared about military and foreign policy. And I thought Obama had some interesting ideas. I think he had kind of a disappointing first --

GLENN: What were the interesting ideas?

BILL: He said, we have to get away from organizing our settlement patterns over the internal combustion engine, going forward.

He was talking about mega-zoning and driverless cars, the wave of the future. He was kind of a futurist. Interesting, as I say.

GLENN: Right. Has there been anything that Barack Obama has done that you think, "That was really good, and that was really bad."

BILL: You know, I think he's behaved with dignity, which is important. And I think probably his low point was the red line in Syria in the first term. But, you know, he's --

PAT: What about Obamacare?

BILL: You know, I think a lot about what Gary and I would do if we get there. And it does lie in my mind that in the old days, which means when people were civil to each other in Washington -- in other words, more than ten or 15 years ago, you know, the Congress had passed a big bill, and they would come back two or four years later and say, "What can we do to fix this and make it work a little bit better?" And the, you know, Republican candidates for Congress, who, you know, don't really know a lot about what's in the bill say, "The first thing I'm going to do is I'm going to repeal Obamacare."

And so then the question is, "Well, what are you going to replace it with?" And the answer is, "I don't know because I don't really even know what Obamacare is." I mean, Obamacare did add 20 million people to their roles, which is good from a point of cost containment, because you want to have a big denominator of people, to spread cost around. It also created an enormous amount of government bureaucracy. Don't get me started on bureaucracy. That's a very bad thing.

More deeply, I think the issue with Obamacare is that the decisions now are being made by a combination of government and the insurance companies. And that's -- if all you're thinking about is controlling costs, yeah, okay, maybe you could get there. But it's not the only aim of health care organization. The quality of care in this country is equally important, if not more important. And the doctors and the patients, they're major stakeholders. They don't even seem to have a seat at the table, in terms of decision-making.

So I think for openers, you'd want to change the mandate, so it's applying only to catastrophic. That would cut the cost by a large amount. And then let people -- willing buyer, willing seller contract for other health care that they want to be on, the catastrophic. That would empower the consumer.

STU: You brought up Romney quickly. Romney came out and said straight out that if he were at the top of the ticket, he would endorse you.

BILL: Mitt and I are good friends.

STU: Yeah. I mean, that's a big deal obviously for a third party. He's the most recent Republican nominee. He has not come out, however, and endorsed the ticket you're on. Have you had conversations with him?

BILL: Many.

(laughter)

GLENN: Why won't he endorse? What is it about Gary that's stopping him?

BILL: I don't know. I mean, Mitt and I know each other well. It's a big thing for him to say he would vote -- or, he would endorse somebody for president. So I took that as a big thing. He doesn't know Gary as well. Gary and I sat with him. So it's not like they haven't met.

But he doesn't have the shared experience with Gary that he does with me. I was the first of four Republican governors in a row in Massachusetts -- we had been out for 20 years until I got in, and Mitt was the fourth. And we lived very near each other in Massachusetts. I see him in Salt Lake. I see him in New Hampshire. It's a close relationship.

GLENN: Is he going to endorse somebody?

BILL: I don't know. I don't know.

GLENN: What do you think happens to the Republican Party? Are they over?

BILL: I think -- and I've been saying this since the get-go, that the Republican Party is going to have some kind of schism, some kind of split. Either this year, around this election, or at the very latest the next cycle. And I think Donald Trump agrees with me. Because he says he sees a very different Republican Party in five years.

GLENN: Oh, he does.

BILL: And that would be the Trump faction, which would be exactly analogous to the old know-nothings of the 1850s. You know, we hate immigrants. We have violent rallies. We espouse conspiracy theories. It's the no-nothings. So that part of the party will be identifiable. And then the rest of the part of the party -- I don't know what you call it, the Romney/Bush, everybody else --

GLENN: What happens to the constitutionalists?

BILL: Well, I hope they would wind up in the other part of the party because they're not being well served by the Trump part of the party.

And then, you know, ideally, if history repeats itself, the other part of the party, no matter what it's called, could be called Republicans, could be called something else, they elect Abraham Lincoln three years later.

GLENN: Yeah. Governor Bill Weld and Gary Johnson, the Libertarian ticket.

How do people get involved in your campaign?

BILL: JohnsonWeld.com.

GLENN: JohnsonWeld.com. You can go there now if you want to volunteer, you want to support, you want to find out more, JohnsonWeld.com. Thank you very much, Governor. I appreciate it.

BILL: Thank you, Glenn. Pleasure.

Featured Image: Libertarian vice-presidential candidate William Weld speaks at a rally Saturday, September 10, 2016 in New York. / AFP / Bryan R. Smith (Photo credit should read BRYAN R. SMITH/AFP/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.