Matt Kibbe on Meteors, Millennials and How the Election Is Really Rigged

Staunch libertarian and freedom-lover Matt Kibbe joined The Glenn Beck Program on Friday for a rousing discussion about the 2016 presidential election and the future of American politics. Formerly President of FreedomWorks, Kibbe is currently President and Chief Community Organizer for Free the People, a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting libertarian ideals. According to Kibbe, disenchanted young people don't believe in our corrupt political system, so reaching them with a non-political, pop culture-oriented approach is critical. The ultimate goal of Free the People is to permanently shift power away from political insiders and Washington cronies and back to local communities.

RELATED: Death by Meteor Polls High With Millennial Voters

Kibbe, along with Glenn, is also featured in the new documentary Rigged, which takes a deep look into how the political system is intentionally set up to give citizens two false choices.

"The rigging of the system goes to the presidential commission alone, which is touched on in the film. This is a nonprofit controlled by the two-party cartel that shockingly decides that they don't want other parties involved in their debates," Kibbe said.

View the trailer for Rigged below. The full documentary can be seen for free until October 30 at Rigged2016.com or on TheBlaze TV November 2, 5 and 6.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these thought-provoking questions:

• Is Gary Johnson running the campaign Kibbe expected?

• Would Gary have won the millennial vote against a meteor strike?

• Do Hillary's pantsuits come from the Chairman Mao collection?

• What was Kibbe's Donald Trump moment?

• How did we miss the boat in 2016?

• Does Donald Trump own the word "rigged?"

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Welcome to our dope smoking hippie friend, Matt Kibbe, who is -- who is a Libertarian. And are you working for the campaign?

MATT: I run a Gary Johnson super PAC.

GLENN: Okay.

MATT: So we're not allowed to coordinate. As you know these rules, and it's very complicated.

GLENN: Yeah. I know.

so is he running the campaign you expected him to run?

MATT: Honestly, I didn't have any deeply held expectations about how he'd run a campaign. Libertarians are famously disorganized.

GLENN: That's a problem, when you're trying to win a presidency.

MATT: I think there's something going on there. But I think he's -- I love the fact that I'm supporting Gary Johnson right now because he's a sane alternative. I don't want to actually die by meteor, so I'm going with Gary Johnson's side.

GLENN: Really?

MATT: Yeah, those two choices --

GLENN: Yeah, I guess, I mean, if it was meteor or Gary Johnson, I probably would go for Gary Johnson.

STU: Yeah, to be fair to Gary Johnson, he was not included in that particular poll.

GLENN: Yeah, he wasn't.

STU: It was either just the two main parties and the meteor, which I think we'd all choose meteor.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: If it was those two and just a meteor, and those are your only choices --

GLENN: Well, is the meteor, is it going to drag out? Are we going to know about it? Are we going to see it coming? Are we going to have to panic? And then like, oh, which child do I have to, you know, say goodbye to, because I don't have time to say goodbye to all of them? Or it's a strike and it's over? Because if it's just a strike and it's over, I think I'm for the meteor.

MATT: I think Gary could have beat the meteor.

STU: I think so too.

MATT: This is just another example of media bias. They didn't include Gary against the meteor. The corruption --

(laughter)

GLENN: It actually is. This was for millennials. This was taken for millennials. Why they wouldn't include the Libertarian candidate is --

MATT: And, by the way, the most vicious attacks against Gary are coming from Hillary Clinton apparatchiks because Gary is drawing a significant portion of the millennial vote, and Hillary is just not -- the kids aren't cool with Hillary. They don't like here that much.

GLENN: No! I really liked that pantsuit that she was wearing the other day. That was nice.

STU: Shocking!

PAT: It's from the Chairman Mao collection.

GLENN: It really is.

PAT: It was adorable.

JEFFY: That was the excuse that they used bringing in Al Gore, right? To bring in some of the millennials.

JEFFY: Yeah. Which was like, he's --

GLENN: No, he's -- no, the kids love Al Gore. Kids love him.

JEFFY: Right.

MATT: But like Bernie can't get the kids to switch because he missed the point of his own revolution.

GLENN: Yes.

MATT: It wasn't about Bernie. It was about an authentic system of values outside of the political machine. And I think one of the things that Gary is doing is he's talking to young progressives. And it upsets you guys sometimes with some of his language, but I think --

GLENN: Yeah.

MATT: I think the new liberty coalition is going to be young progressives and young conservatives who don't want to shop in the two-party --

GLENN: So here's the thing -- here's the thing because I think that's great in theory, but a progressive by nature -- like, I have no problem with a liberal.

MATT: Right.

GLENN: I could live next to the grateful dead. I don't care. I don't care. I mean, as long as they're not doing it on the lawn when the kids are out.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: But a progressive by nature believes in big government.

MATT: Right.

GLENN: So how does a Libertarian and a progressive get along?

MATT: Well, I think, you look at young Democratic socialists, and they don't -- they don't know what the word "progressive" means the way you and I think about it. It's a very authoritarian philosophy. It's very racist. We know that history, but they think it means progress. And they think socialism means people working together to solve problems.

PAT: Uh-huh.

MATT: And I'm thinking, "That's really what a Libertarian's about. We believe in voluntary cooperation and people coming together to do things that they can't do alone, and we believe in a robust community. We don't want the government involved in that stuff because it really corrupts really important institutions." And so I think -- I think if you get past the labels of progressive, liberal Democrat --

GLENN: Okay. So I'm totally -- Matt, I am totally willing to go down that road. Do you have any research that backs that up?

MATT: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. Good. Don't even have to tell me about it, I'm on board.

(chuckling)

Here's the problem though, with Gary is --

STU: That was a good fact-check there.

GLENN: No. I'm -- meteor. Okay?

STU: Yeah, okay.

MATT: It was my Donald Trump moment. Yes!

GLENN: Right.

STU: Believe me.

GLENN: Believe me.

(laughter)

It's the most beautiful research you've seen.

The problem we have with Gary is not that he's reaching out to people at all, it's the fact that he -- he doesn't seem to have any time to try to reach out to people like us.

PAT: Us. Yeah.

GLENN: And when Weld was in this week, I mean, we all walked away -- now, he said afterward, "That's not what I said." But we all heard him say, "I want to repeal and replace Obamacare and, you know, we're going to -- we're going to make it better." Well, no.

PAT: Yeah, he said -- they wanted to fix it. They wanted to fix Obamacare. His problem wasn't the big government program of Obamacare. His problem was that it's not working the way a big government program should.

Since when is that a Libertarian position? That's what we can't figure out.

GLENN: Now, is this a wink, wink kind of thing, that we're all supposed to know? Because it's not working for the conservative.

MATT: You're not going to make me defend Bill Weld, are you?

GLENN: Okay. Good. I'm in. I'm in again.

(laughter)

MATT: No, I think it's -- I have no idea what he said, and I don't want to defend that. The Libertarian position doesn't think that government-run health care is good for people and that it shouldn't be in the health care business. That's it. That's it.

GLENN: Right. Right.

MATT: Now, I do think that there's always interesting questions about -- and the reason we fought Obamacare so much is that we knew, once it was in place, it would be virtually impossible to dismantle a new entitlement --

GLENN: Look at it now. It's collapsing. They knew it would collapse.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: Remember, we said, "This is designed to collapse. It is going to collapse. There's no way this math works for the next ten years."

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: And now it's collapsing. And everybody's talking about, "Oh, well, but we're going to fix it." Now that they got it in, now they're going to just soup it up.

MATT: Now, all the pollsters tell Republicans that you have to talk about fixing it. You can't talk about repealing it.

So maybe it's just political rhetoric. But I do think it's an interesting question for Libertarians and constitutional conservatives: How do you get out of this horrible entitlement state that is making poor people poorer, that's screwing young people? How do you do that in a way that's politically conceivable?

GLENN: Yes.

MATT: And I think somebody in politics needs to explain how to do that. But it's probably not what you would get from a typical Libertarian at a Libertarian convention, where they say, "If I had a button, I would abolish the entitlement state today." It doesn't mean anything. Right? Yeah.

GLENN: No, it's got to be reverse progressivism. Yeah, it's got to be reverse progressivism. You have to go slowly. Penn and I have talked about this at length. He said, "Glenn, 30 years down the road, when we're in a nursing home, that's when we'll be talking about, you know, the really big stuff that you and I aren't going to agree on."

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: But it's going to take you 30 years to get there, to slowly reverse this, and to do the common sense -- you know, the things that we agree on. That's the kind of stuff to me that we can make real progress on.

MATT: Yeah. And the answer to all this stuff is more choice, more freedom, particularly for young people. Not -- not creating a new big redesign of health care, but actually giving them the choice as to whether or not they want to be part of that system. And I think you will see new free market solutions that we can't even conceive of emerge in health care and retirement and everything else, if people are just given a choice.

GLENN: Well, I know -- we've been talking this week a lot about millennials. And how that -- that's the hero generation. That's the greatest American generation, the next one. The one to come now.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: And it's people our age. I don't even know how old you are. How old are you?

MATT: Fifty-three.

GLENN: Ooh, old man. So it's people our age --

MATT: I just hope I never get as old as you.

GLENN: Fifty-one, buddy.

MATT: I know.

GLENN: Our job is to reach out to the -- the generation that went before us, this -- the older generation, the Trump generation, and say, "Okay. Stop. Stop. That doesn't work, and you need to let it go." And we have to now reach to the young generation and say, "You need to step up, and you need to know what did work, and don't throw the entire system out. Find out what did work, and pick it up and now design and move forward."

We're supposed to -- I think, we're supposed to be the ones -- we're the latchkey generation. We're always the one that didn't -- we were left at home, we were the ones that were forgotten. We were the middle kid. And we'll be the middle kid again. We're just -- the hippies are doing their thing now. And the millennials are coming up. We're the middle kid that is just going, "Can we make -- we got to make peace here. You got to take less up at the top. You got to stop doing all these things."

And the millennials, it's time for you to stand up and be who you are. Be the hero generation that you are.

MATT: Do you remember when George W. Bush was trying to reform Social Security, the Democrats critique -- he had this tiny little retirement account that would give people more choices.

GLENN: Yes.

MATT: I think there were three choices in that system. And the Democrats' response was, "You can't give people that many choices. They can't handle it."

GLENN: Three.

MATT: Three. And a young person --

GLENN: Because I know when it was television, ABC, NBC, CBS, it was too many choices.

MATT: Right. Yeah.

GLENN: It was like, I don't know what to watch. There's too many things to watch on those three networks.

MATT: And as it turns out, they're all the same anyway.

GLENN: Yes, exactly right.

MATT: It didn't matter. But, you know, young people, they carry everything, and they live in this wild Libertarian world where they choose their friends, they choose their music, and they're never overwhelmed by too many choices. They're only turned off when somebody dictates their choices for them. And I think that -- that has to be like the biggest opportunity we've ever had.

GLENN: I have to tell you, Matt, I watched the debate. I don't know if you felt the same way. But I watched the debate the other night, and it -- I was overwhelmed with, "This is the biggest lost opportunity in possibly our nation's history, political speaking, where someone that could actually explain to two boobs on television common sense and constitutional principles and simple economics would have rode into a brand-new dawn of America."

MATT: Yeah. Well, we saw the linked DNC memo where they talked about Pied Piper candidates like Donald Trump, people that would lead the party right over the cliff. And I was reminded -- they listed Rand Paul and Scott Walker and Marco Rubio as candidates that they were scared to death of.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

MATT: Because they knew that those candidates could beat Hillary Clinton. And so, yes, we missed it.

GLENN: I know.

So when we come back, I want to ask you about one missed opportunity that the Libertarians had and just get your thoughts on that. We'll do it here in a second. By the way, Rigged is a new movie about the third party candidate. Rigged2016.com. We're airing it on Wednesday, November 2nd, at 8:00 p.m. Then again, an encore presentation on Saturday and Sunday at 8:00 p.m.

It's Rigged 2016. I'm in it. A lot of other big Libertarians are in it. And it's worth seeing. Behind the scenes on the campaign trail as well. Rigged 2016. You can find out more information at Rigged2016.com.

[break]

GLENN: Matt Kibbe is with us. He runs a super PAC for Gary Johnson. He's also involved with the movie Rigged 2016. You can find that at Rigged2016.com.

Do you think that if Rand Paul would have let go of his Republican suit and said, "I want to run as a Libertarian," do you believe he would have won?

MATT: Yes, I do. And I wish he or someone like Justin Amash --

STU: Yes!

MATT: -- would have taken that leap.

PAT: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: Why didn't, why didn't either one of them?

MATT: I don't know. And as someone who was also involved in a Rand Paul super PAC, I wasn't allowed to encourage him to do that. There was a window there. And I think the potential was huge.

GLENN: Hmm. I think this was biggest missed opportunity.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: You look at it and you think, "Nobody -- nobody likes -- I've never seen any election like this in my lifetime."

MATT: Yeah.

PAT: Well, that's for sure. And I know he's your guy, Matt. But he is terrible with conservatives. I mean, absolutely terrible. He's -- he has, it almost feels like contempt for conservatives.

GLENN: Well, for Christians.

When he was on with us -- it was interesting. It was almost as if he had more trust in the government than he did for Christians.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And it was bizarre. It was really bizarre.

PAT: Well, it was that whole thing, would you make a Nazi cake? And I think his answer was yes, right?

GLENN: Yes. And he said, "You have to do it."

PAT: Yeah. So the government --

GLENN: And Bill Weld came in --

PAT: -- is going to force a private business owner to do something against their faith. How is that Libertarian? I've never understood it. His policy on the border is really difficult to get your head around too. But I know Libertarians are not as border sensitive as --

GLENN: You know what, it's weird because Libertarians are all over the map.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: The point is -- that's what I was saying about the -- but not on the cake thing. And really, the border, as long as -- if he gives it to the states, then it's up to the states. But the Libertarian -- and this is the one thing that I like about it, is that you don't have to be in a cookie-cutter. You don't have to believe same thing as the party does, except on control.

PAT: Yeah.

MATT: Yep. You know, I think the question of the border and explaining a lot of Libertarian things is -- is something that we need to figure out how to do better. And Gary obviously is not the ultimate explainer of things.

PAT: No, he's not.

(laughter)

MATT: On anything.

PAT: Not the ultimate explainer on Aleppo and the Syrian situation either.

GLENN: No, he's had a bad run.

MATT: No. But he has a way of talking about things that sometimes you think you heard the opposite of what he was trying to say.

GLENN: He is the --

(laughter)

PAT: Which is problematic.

GLENN: That's a problem. That's a problem.

We were talking about we think he's one of the most painfully honest guys we've seen in politics, when it comes to critiquing himself.

MATT: Right.

PAT: Almost to a fault.

GLENN: You know, that Aleppo thing -- we were on the air going, "Stop apologizing, man. Stop it. Stop."

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: He was just so -- look, I should have known it. No, you should have. But, no, no, no. Shh.

MATT: No, he feels that way. And I think one of the most compelling things about him -- I mean, first of all, he is a successful business guy. He's a successful governor from a blue state. That alone makes him really attractive in this cycle to me.

GLENN: Yes.

MATT: But his honesty and his -- he's got this goofy honest persona.

PAT: He does.

MATT: And I don't think this guy would lie to you. And this election again is a really refreshing thing, given the binary choice that we have. If I could go back and re-create it, I would love for Rand Paul or Justin Amash to be up there. But that didn't happen. And they didn't take that leap.

GLENN: So why should somebody who doesn't necessarily think they agree with Gary Johnson but they don't want to vote for the other two, why should they vote for Gary Johnson? Because somebody said -- now, the music is starting, so we're going to have to come back for the answer. But Stu, I think, said yesterday that he wants to send a message to the Libertarians and make sure that they have a space. But I think it was Pat who said, "I don't want to send the message to the Libertarians that that's the kind of guy that we want."

PAT: That we're looking for.

GLENN: So will you answer that when we come back? Rigged2016.com. Movie. You should check it out. It's happening next Wednesday, 8:00 p.m.

[break]

GLENN: We're with Matt Kibbe. And he's with a super PAC that's with Johnson and Weld. Johnson and Weld.

Why should somebody who doesn't agree with Gary Johnson vote for him? Can you make a compelling case for that?

MATT: Yeah, so one of the challenges for the Libertarian Party, any third party, is that all the rules are stacked against -- there are barriers to entry that keep third parties out. If the Libertarian candidate breaks 5 percent in the polls, the Libertarian Party will be on a more equal footing, going into the next presidential cycle. The two-party duopoly keeps changing the rules for ballot access. It's harder to raise money, as an outsider. And it shouldn't be shocking to anybody that the two parties in charge make it impossible for anybody else to get in. But I think the only way to fix where we're at is competition.

GLENN: Yeah, it is.

MATT: Maybe it's the Libertarian Party, but there's so many barriers to entry to a fourth party. And, you know, let's call it the constitutional conservative party. I would rather they were both in there to be honest with you. I want people to see who they really are.

GLENN: Choices, yeah.

STU: Isn't this a -- a good sell for this too is that if you're in a state that's not competitive -- I mean, if you're in New York or you're in Connecticut voting, where the state is going to be a 30, 40-point margin for Hillary Clinton, you can vote for Donald Trump if you want. But, I mean, probably -- because this -- if I understand the rules correctly, it's a popular vote measure.

MATT: Yeah.

STU: So your vote, where you can't possibly win an electoral vote, necessarily, in that state, it goes towards that 5 percent. And that's a nationwide popular vote measure. Correct?

MATT: Yeah, yeah, very much so. But, again, I'm choosing Gary Johnson. I'm just fully in for Gary Johnson based on the other two choices I have, not on choices that I would like to have. And that's really what presidential politics is. You're stuck with these three choices. And Gary is the only person I believe running that actually represents a Constitution, who also happens to be on at 50 state ballots. There may be other candidates that are attractive on issues to you guys, but the reality is, there's only one candidate that's on all the ballots, who is actually polling quite well in some Western states, who actually believes the president is not a king.

And to me, that's pretty compelling.

GLENN: Tell me -- tell me why you made Rigged 2016.

MATT: So I didn't make Rigged 2016.

GLENN: It's part of your --

MATT: I got involved pretty late. And Patrick Byrne from overstock.com actually financed it. And the producer and the director really wanted to tap into that anxiety and frustration that people have with the two-party cartel.

GLENN: You've obviously seen it. You've seen the finished product.

MATT: Yes. Yes.

GLENN: It's really compelling. There's a story of a guy -- they tell many different stories of people that were in the system. They tell a story of a guy -- I don't even know what his job was. But he was -- he was like a campaign manager or something.

MATT: He was a political consultant. Yeah.

GLENN: Political consultant. And he -- a guy came to him and said, "Hey, I want to run for Congress or Senate or something." And he said, "Okay. Well, tell me about your family." And he's like, "I don't have any family." And he's like, "What do you mean? You have to have a family story and everything else." The guy came back to him and put down on the table a bunch of people. And he said, "Okay. Here's my family." And a bunch of pictures and stuff. And he said, "Oh, okay. I thought you said you didn't have any family." Well, these are from friends. Like this grandfather, this is not my grandfather. This is my friend's grandfather. This is my neighbor's, you know, cousin. Right?

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: It was crazy. And he said, "For some reason, I said, okay. I'll represent you." And he went and represented -- and the guy won. And he said, "I just realized, what am I doing?" And he was just in the system. And he's like, "It's so corrupt, and it's so full of lies." And he said, "His child was born, and that's what changed him. He had his first child, and his child was born. And looked at his child and was like, 'Oh, my gosh, your father is a very bad man, and I'm building really bad stuff in Washington.'" And got out.

I mean, it's -- it's compelling. The movie is really compelling.

STU: Are you concerned that -- my understanding is that Donald Trump owns the word "rigged." So he could sue you at any moment.

MATT: Well, he's corrupted the word "rigged" --

STU: He has.

MATT: Because he's actually a product of the rigged political system and was propped up by the media cartel. But the rigging of the system is far more fundamental than the fact that Donald Trump thinks he's losing at the moment.

The rigging of the system goes to the presidential commission alone, which is touched on in the film. This is a nonprofit controlled by the two-party cartel that shockingly decides that they don't want other parties involved in their debates.

STU: That's a really --

MATT: It's a perfect way to strangle third parties, but it's the clash between people are all these choices and all this power, when it comes to every aspect of their life, except when it comes to politics. And when you get to the political marketplace and particularly presidential, you feel like you're shopping in a mall in Caracas, right? There's nothing there. And that's the clash. It's a class between people that are more free and more educated and more able to decide things for themselves, versus this old backfilled room, two-party cartel that's propped up the most -- the two most unpopular candidates in the history of the universe.

GLENN: What do you think 2020 looks like? Because Hillary Clinton -- another four years of these -- this kind of corruption and lies, the millennials -- you know, that's a 30-year-old today.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: So somebody 35 years old going in to vote next time and everybody underneath, they're not buying into this. Another four years of just the death rate of the Baby Boomers --

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: -- the demographics are shifting. And the Republicans don't have anything. The -- but they're in better shape -- well, they were until Donald Trump. The Democrats, you look at Hillary Clinton, and there's just -- there's no millennial I know that would relate to either one of the parties right now.

So what happens in four years?

MATT: Well, the upside of this train wreck is that it breaks something in a way that you're not going to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. And I think young people are the solution to this. Because they see it for the fraud that it is. The rest of us grew up in this system where we only had two choices. We might not recognize it that way. But that to me is the liberty opportunity. You know, can you find common language? Can you find a candidate that sort of represents those broader values? Someone like a Justin Amash be the entrepreneur and bet everything on that. Maybe there's somebody that we don't yet. But I think it needs to be somebody that can credibly say, "I've run a campaign." Somebody that can credibly say, "I've done something with my life."

And, you know, the problem with some of our young candidates is that they haven't sort of past that qualification threshold yet. And I don't know if that's going to be a Libertarian Party candidate. Is it going to be a fourth candidate? Remember that the Tea Party kept breaking all of the rules, right? There's no way that Mike Lee was going to win. It couldn't happen. And then it did. There's no way that Rand Paul could win. And then it did. And they were using the social media and technology to raise money outside the system to organize outside the system to break the rules of politics. Eventually, a presidential candidate can do that.

GLENN: Yeah.

MATT: And I think we could have done it this time, but it didn't come together. So...

GLENN: Me too. Who do you think wins?

MATT: I mean, I think Hillary is going to win. But I say that with great humility from being wrong so many times in this cycle.

GLENN: Donald Trump, yeah.

MATT: And also understanding that, you know, all of these races that we won for liberty Republicans, the experts told us we couldn't win. And then we did. So something was going on. So I think it's going to be closer than people think. And I think Trump could win. But my bet today is Hillary.

GLENN: What happens to Donald Trump's constituents?

MATT: We should talk to them. Because I think it's a mistake to lump some of the -- I can't stand Donald Trump. I disliked him even before you did, I think.

GLENN: I've not liked him for a long, long time.

(chuckling)

STU: Don't challenge us on this one.

JEFFY: We disliked him first, Matt.

MATT: Oh, yeah.

GLENN: We were mocking him as he came down the escalator. Because we had not liked him for years before that.

MATT: Okay. You might have beat me then. Because I wasn't even paying attention at that point.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

MATT: But I would -- I view Donald Trump supporters the same way that I view Bernie Sanders supporters, and there's a lot of similarities there. There's economic anxiety.

GLENN: Yes.

MATT: There's belief that the system is screwing them. And I agree with them on those things. And I think we need -- I think we need to talk to people --

GLENN: I agree with you. There's maybe 10 percent -- and a lot of them are the -- and probably -- yeah, probably just 10 percent that were there at the beginning. And out of those who were there at the beginning, maybe 10 percent of those were there from the beginning because they were hearing what they perceived to be dog whistles of neo-Nazi kind of scary stuff.

MATT: Yeah.

GLENN: You know what I mean? But that's 10 percent that have that authoritarian lean. I saw a poll of Donald Trump supporters. 48 percent, it said, believed that Putin is a friend of the United States. Does that number surprise you?

MATT: No. No. And there was a new poll by the Heritage Foundation, saying that -- that showed that a lot of young people didn't know who Mao Zedong was.

GLENN: Yeah. They thought Bush killed more people than Mao.

MATT: So I think people don't know a lot of history, and they don't spend a lot of time focusing on politics. And I wouldn't call that ignorance. I would call that normal life where your families and your jobs matter more than -- like, do you even know who Putin is?

GLENN: Yeah.

MATT: And I suspect that most Americans, until Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton started talking about him, didn't even know who he was.

GLENN: Well, I always thought war was just God's way of teaching us geography.

MATT: Right.

GLENN: Who knew where Vietnam was until we went to Vietnam? Who knew where Iraq really was until we invaded Iraq?

PAT: Grenada. Come on. We thought it was a car from Ford.

GLENN: That's right. Exactly.

MATT: And if we had a more humble Libertarian foreign policy, we wouldn't need to know where Aleppo is.

STU: That's a great answer.

GLENN: Very good. How can people get involved with you? Do you have anything to push or not?

MATT: My new organization is Free the People. And I want to talk to young people. And I'm trying to get out of politics and into popular culture. Check out freethepeople.org. And check out some of the videos we're doing on socialism. We're trying to --

GLENN: Your series on socialism is fantastic. It really is.

MATT: And it does well. Like the heavy stuff, the stuff that is really asking people to get into history and philosophy and economics.

GLENN: Yeah. Yeah.

MATT: It does better than the click-bait of the day stuff.

GLENN: People are -- I think people are hungry. We saw it when we were at Fox. We see it now. When you have something to teach that they don't know, they're hungry for it. They really are. People treat people like morons. There are morons, Jeffy. But, you know, not everybody is a moron.

STU: Jeffy.

GLENN: And, by the way, you can check out Rigged 2016. Go to Rigged2016.com. You can watch the film there. All you have to do is just -- you know, just sign in. Or you can watch it on TheBlaze, Wednesday, November 2nd, at 8:00 p.m. Saturday the 5th, and Sunday the 6th at 8:00 p.m. only on TheBlaze TV.

Matt, thank you so much.

MATT: Good to be here.

GLENN: Good to see you.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton shakes hands with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump as Moderator Lester Holt looks on during the Presidential Debate at Hofstra University on September 26, 2016 in Hempstead, New York. (Photo by Joe Raedle/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.