Michael Medved Part I: Divine Providence and the American Miracle

Author and radio talk show host Michael Medved joined Glenn on radio Tuesday for a fascinating look at the role divine providence has played in the history of America. It's the subject of his latest book, The American Miracle: Divine Providence in the Rise of the Republic, available in bookstores everywhere.

"We live in a time where we keep having this argument whether we're a Christian nation or not. People are trying to denigrate the role of God in America. And here you are, writing The American Miracle, which is phenomenal and great proof of God's existence and his critical role in bringing about America," Glenn said.

Medved agreed that believing in divine providence has united great leaders across every partisan divide and America's entire history.

"As you very well know, people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were religiously unconventional. They weren't orthodox Christians. But they believed very firmly, as it says in the Declaration, and as you, Glenn, emphasized time and again, a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Even these people, some of whom didn't go to church, understood that there was a design in American history. It didn't just result from a series of random occurrences, from a pattern of happy accidents," Medved said.

In The American Miracle, Medved makes the case that even a pattern of happy accidents is still a pattern --- and gives evidence of design.

"A lot of people would say, Sure, well, that design was from these very smart Founders. The problem for that argument is that the Founders themselves insisted that they weren't the designers. They were the instruments of the designer," Medved said.

The American Miracle recounts how at moments of crisis, when the odds against success seemed overwhelming and disaster looked imminent, fate intervened to provide deliverance and success. Historians may categorize these incidents as happy accidents, but the most notable leaders of the past four hundred years have identified this good fortune as something else entirely --- a reflection of God's divine providence.

Listen to Part I of this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Michael Medved joins us now. Hello, Michael, how are you?

MICHAEL: I'm very well indeed, Glenn. Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to you.

GLENN: Thank you very much. Happy Hanukkah.

Let me ask you, Michael, before we get into the book, a couple of questions.

You are a Yale-trained attorney. And then you went from there to being a very good and credible movie reviewer. And then you went to talk radio. I can't make your career work. How have you done this?

I mean, you -- how did that happen?

MICHAEL: I'm not sure I made it work either. But --

GLENN: Yes, you have.

MICHAEL: Basically, I -- first of all, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an attorney. I went to law school once upon a time.

GLENN: Okay.

MICHAEL: And it is true. I will plead guilty. I went to law school together with Bill and Hillary Clinton. And you can ask me later whether they inhaled.

GLENN: Right. I think I know the answer.

MICHAEL: I think you probably do too, Glenn.

GLENN: Yeah.

MICHAEL: But the truth of the matter is, I've always been consumingly interested in history and politics, since my dad who was the son of immigrants under miraculous circumstances that allowed them to come to America.

We grew up in Philadelphia. And my dad used to take me around to historical sights. Independence Hall. Valley Forge.

And even though my dad was not at that stage in his life, until later in life when he moved to Israel, at that stage of his life, my dad was not a deeply religious guy, but he understood that God had a role in this miracle known as America. And I majored in American history at Yale. It's what I studied. What I always cared about. And then I started writing about it.

And then because of some of the books that I had written were about movies. I sort of drifted into commenting about movies, during the time I was writing about history. So -- and all of it, as you know, comes together in talk radio.

GLENN: Yeah.

MICHAEL: Because we have this great gift, from God, I believe of being able to talk about whatever is on our heart or in our mind.

GLENN: Yeah.

Michael, you are an Orthodox Jew. And a lover of America and American history.

We live in a time where we keep having this argument whether we're a Christian nation or not. People trying to denigrate the role of God in -- in America. And here you are, writing the American miracle, which is phenomenal and -- and a great proof of God's existence and his critical role in being -- in bringing about America.

MICHAEL: Well, that's exactly right.

And it is the one thing that has been able to unite great leaders across every partisan divide. Across our entire history.

I mean, it's true. As you very well know that people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were religiously unconventional. They weren't orthodox Christians. But they believed very firmly, as it says in the Declaration, and as you, Glenn, emphasized time and again, a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Even these people some of whom didn't go to church, understood that there was a design in American history. It didn't just result from a series of random occurrences, from a pattern of happy accidents.

In the book, I make the case that a pattern of happy accidents is still a pattern. And it gives evidence of design.

A lot of people would say, "Sure, well, that design was from these very smart Founders." The problem for that argument is that the Founders themselves insisted that they weren't the designers. They were the instruments of the designer.

GLENN: Right. How much of that, Michael -- this is the case that would be made, is that they were just using the language of the time. That that's the way people spoke. Even you just said, you know, Thomas Jefferson wasn't conventional. I believe he was. I mean, in his own writings, he talks about Jesus. And he is -- he's very Christian, if you looked at him as a man today. But very not Christian -- because I think he had a problem with the churches in some ways.

MICHAEL: Exactly right. Exactly right.

GLENN: The dogma was the problem.

MICHAEL: Right. The dogma and the organizations and the corruption of some of the organizations.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

MICHAEL: But today, all of these people would be viewed as Christian fanatics.


MICHAEL: Because they had -- including, by the way, Franklin Roosevelt, for goodness' sake.


MICHAEL: Including Theodore Roosevelt, certainly. I mean, the people that -- that were way over on the left.

If you listen to Roosevelt's D-Day's prayer, Franklin Roosevelt in 1944, he says that America is fighting for Christianity. Right?

Can you imagine if someone said that today?

I mean, the -- the ACLU would be calling for impeachment.

GLENN: So, Michael, so go back to my question. In doing your research for this book, The American Miracle, tell me how you separate and convince people today that are being taught that this is all nonsense, that they weren't just using the language of the day, that they actually believed these things.

PAT: It's very simple. They stake their lives on it. They stake their lives on the belief.

And the truth of the matter is -- and this is the core argument of the book. And it's become the core argument of my life. You have to do something to explain the extraordinary nature of the emergence of the United States. No one who was alive in the year 1600 would ever have predicted that the dominant civilization in the world would emerge in North America. But it did. Against all odds.

And okay. You can say it emerged because America was this brutal, horrible, exploitative, rapacious place. The problem is other powers, Spain, Portugal, France, were more brutal. If brutality and exploitation and slavery and genocide against the natives -- if that was the secret of America's strength, then there are these other powers that would have been much stronger because they were much more cruel. So that's out.

Then you come to this question about a pattern of happy accidents. But a pattern of happy accidents, still a pattern. And then the question is, "What does that pattern mean?" And the founders were smart people. And they all believed that it meant not special privileges for this country, but special responsibilities.

GLENN: Uh-huh.

MICHAEL: And that's precisely why people on the left and people in the secular side are very reluctant to endorse the idea of providential protection.

GLENN: Well, isn't it -- I mean, this is -- I think, Michael, that we -- the Founders, if they would have lived to 1850, I don't think they would have recognized us really as America, for this one reason: By 1830, we changed Divine Providence to man if he is destiny. And there is a huge difference.

And I really believe that the -- the problem is, there are a lot of people on the religious right that don't know the difference between the two, and that's what is scaring people on the left. This idea that once I get power, I'm on a mission from God, and I'll tell you exactly what to do. That's not who our Founders were.

MICHAEL: No. Not at all. Because one of the stories that I tell in the book has to do with believing that God is entangled with your affairs, doesn't mean that you can do anything you want. It means that you have a special obligation to try to discern the divine will.

I actually quote the German chancellor, who created modern Germany, Otto von Bismarck, two amazing quotes that you will love, Glenn.

He says that on the one hand that it is the job of the statesman to simply try to hear God's footsteps in history and then grab hold of his coattails and follow.

And then on another occasion, Bismarck said that the God Almighty has special protection for imbeciles, drunkards, lost dogs, and the United States of America.


GLENN: Back with Michael Medved here in just a second. The new book that he has just put out is The American Miracle: Divine Providence in the Rise of the Republic. This is one of those books that I think everyone -- everyone should have because there is a real problem in this country being taught that God had anything to do, especially with the founding of our nation. And I believe God is not a watchmaker. He does live. And he was instrumental in our founding.

And so Michael is making this case. The American Miracle.


GLENN: We're back with Michael Medved. The American Miracle: The Divine Providence and the Rise of the Republic.

In this, you make the case, Michael, about the California gold -- I have never heard this tied to Divine Providence. Do you want to -- do you want to talk about that a bit?

MICHAEL: Sure. It's one of those things, if you simply look at a calendar, it sort of jumps out at you as it did to people at the time.

The -- the California gold rush began when gold was discovered at the end of January in 1848.

And originally it was kept a secret. Then it became known. And it produced a huge impact on the American economy because we all of a sudden had the leading gold reserves of any country in the world. Because they had discovered gold in the hills of California.

Here's what leaps out to you in the contract: The very moment that James Marshall, who was an itinerate carpenter from New Jersey all of a sudden notices these flecks in a millrace near Sacramento in the middle of nowhere, that same day, 1600 miles away, in Mexico City, a rebellious clerk defies the president of the United States and risks arrest to sign America onto a probably illegal paper that deeds California and this real estate with all the gold in it to the United States of America.

In other words, people at the time asked, "How is it that God hid the existence of this huge load of gold from all of humanity until that precise moment that America was having California handed directly to us?"

GLENN: Signed on the same day?

MICHAEL: It could be the same day. We don't know the exact day --

JEFFY: That's amazing.

MICHAEL: -- that gold was discovered. We know within a week. It was 100 percent the same week.

GLENN: That's unbelievable.

MICHAEL: It is. And people at the time said so. See, what's so amazing to me, Glenn, is that people living through this history said, "Wait a minute. This is not us. This is some bigger power."

George Washington, who you write about so beautifully, I mean, George Washington understood that he is one of 70 British officers at the Battle of Monongahela, in the French and Indian war.

Seventy British officers ride out into battle on horseback. Sixty-nine of the 70 are either wounded or killed. George Washington has the hat out shot out from over his head. He has two different mounts shot out from under him. He has bullet holes in his cloak. Nothing touches him.

It was so striking that he's a 23-year-old officer at the time in the British Army, in the actually Virginia Militia. And Samuel Davies, who later became president of Princeton University, delivers a sermon about this 23-year-old guy and says, "No doubt, God has raised up this magnificent youth to help to save and perform a signal purpose for his people."

GLENN: God still doing this with America, Michael?

MICHAEL: I hope so. I hope so. But this is another aspect to this, Glenn, is that American patriots have always feared that we were breaking the bargain.

And the bargain again is not that we have special privileges. It's that we have special burdens. That because all of our forefathers -- all of our ancestors and foremothers, to be politically correct, they all recognized that America was no accident. That was actually one of the titles I was playing with for this book: America's No Accident. It didn't just happen. It happened for a purpose. If we lose sight of that purpose, our leaders have always believed that we will -- we will lose the special protection.

GLENN: I believe that 100 percent. Have we lost that? And what evidence do you have that we haven't lost that?

MICHAEL: Well, I know that there are some people -- you and I share something else, which is great skepticism about the president-elect. But the fact that he is president-elect seems so unexpected --

GLENN: Unlikely.

MICHAEL: -- and so bizarre in so many ways --

GLENN: Yeah.

MICHAEL: And the appointment of this new Secretary of State candidate, all of it is so astonishing and unusual, that you have to think that there must be some message here, that there must be some challenge here. There must be. Or maybe some of our colleagues and friends are correct, that this is actually redemptive. It actually may be taking unusual instruments and using it for God's purpose.

I tell the story of Lincoln in that regard. And this is not -- let me make clear to compare Trump to Lincoln.

GLENN: Hang on. I want you to make this. I don't want you to be interrupted. So hang on just a second. And then I want to come back and talk to you about Sam Houston in your book. The American Miracle: The Divine Providence in the Rise of the Republic by Michael Medved. Grab this book. It makes a great Christmas gift for somebody. Back with Michael Medved.

Featured Image: John Trumbull’s painting, Declaration of Independence, depicting the five-man drafting committee of the Declaration of Independence presenting their work to the Congress. The painting can be found on the back of the U.S. $2 bill. The original hangs in the US Capitol rotunda.

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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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.