Glenn talks with Bob Barr


Bob Bar 2008

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. Bob Barr used to be a Republican. Now he's a libertarian and he's running for President of the United States with the libertarian party. But the convention is happening this weekend, right, Bob?

BARR: That's correct, Glenn. We'll have our nominee decided on by Sunday.

GLENN: What are the odds that you're going to be the --

BARR: Very good. We don't take it for granted. The libertarian party is very diverse, it's very active. There are other candidates, but we've got a great team here and we're very confident that we'll get the nomination come Sunday.

GLENN: Okay. Now, Bob, I spent about a half hour with you on television and I'd like to have you back for an hour on television at some point if you do get the nomination because you seem like a fairly reasonable guy, but you have some things that I just, I just don't understand and I'd like to get into some of those here today because I think Americans are just so disenfranchised, they are so done with the Republicans, they are so done with the Democrats that they would like somebody to deal with issues. So let's deal with some of the issues right off the top of the bat. What's the problem with oil right now? Congress asked the oil executives yesterday, why are we paying so much for gas. If you're President of the United States, why are we paying so much for gas and what are we going to do about it?

BARR: Well, we'll paying for gas primarily because it's a very precious limited resource. It's very difficult with the logistics of getting it out of the ground, refining it, shipping it halfway around the world and then distributing it in a way that is cheap. It's not going to happen. It is a very expensive commodity. What we need to be doing, and there's no short-term solution to this. There have been -- you know, we've had decades of government regulation that have gotten us to this point where we have a failing refining capacity, diminishing refining capacity. We're not developing new sources. What we need to do is we need to free up businesses, free up free enterprise so they can get out there and start tapping into the huge offshore reserves that we know are there. The reserves in Alaska, the reserves in the western mountain states with shale oil, and we have to start removing the impediments to oil companies increasing refining capacity.

GLENN: The governor of Alaska is saying that she's going to fight the designation of the polar bear as threatened on the endangered species list. Would you back that fight?

BARR: Absolutely. I mean, this is perhaps the most recent example of government nonsense. It's like they're operating in a Alice in Wonderland world. Every piece of evidence indicates that the polar bears have made a remarkable recovery over the last two decades. Their numbers are way up and yet what is the federal government do in the light of that? They say, well, gee, maybe they are an endangered species; we're going to completely ignore the scientific evidence, we're going to completely ignore common sense and put it on the endangered species list. And what that does, of course, that opens the door to more government restrictions to make it even more difficult to get at the oil in those areas where somebody thinks that there might be a polar bear lurking around.

GLENN: Do you believe in manmade global warming and to what extent will you try to correct it, if you do believe in manmade global warming?

BARR: Mankind has done a lot of good in the world. They have done a lot of bad as well, but change in the climate is not one of them. I've seen no legitimate scientific evidence that indicates that the cyclical -- and they are very much cyclical -- you know, increases and drops in global temperatures over the decades and over the centuries is the result of, you know, mankind.

GLENN: So how would you explain? Why the big push for global warming and cap and trade and everything else with both parties?

BARR: Two things. Because much public policy in America these days and even in the Western world generally is based on notions that sound good. It sounds good to people that there's something wrong out there and we can do something about it. It becomes a rallying cry and you have the Hollywood elites that have bought into this, you have the political elites like Al Gore that make money in this. You have it being pushed and rammed down our throats by the United Nations, you know, which, they may make really nice Christmas cards but that's about all the good they do in the world. But they're pushing this, forcing this down our throats. And I tell you, Glenn, the cleverest people in all this are the Chinese. They exempt themselves from things like the Kyoto protocol which would saddle U.S. and European governments and businesses with trillions of dollars of costs and drive down the ability of the Western world to increase and change its economy. Meanwhile the Chinese are surging and they are not bound by these same regulations that the international bodies are trying to force on us.

GLENN: Tell me about the role of the Fed and the depreciation of the dollar and what you would do about all of this.

BARR: If I could wave a magic wand and the Federal Reserve Bank would disappear tomorrow, I would do so. It's a group of unelected governors that are not answerable to or accountable to the people of this country and yet they wield considerable influence over the economy by basically setting rates at which banks and other financial institutions can loan money. And they have built up, you know, huge reserves themselves that they can then dole out as they're doing -- as they did recently with Bear Stearns to prop up as failing, what they see as failing investment houses, for example.

What we're on the verge of right now, Glenn, through this federal government monkeying around with the mortgage business, both directly and indirectly, is to have the federal government now set a "One size fits all" mortgage criteria for the country. That would be disastrous. It would stifle risk-taking, it would stifle the independence of small mortgage houses and mortgage banks and would simply create further problems down the road. What we need to be doing is tackling government spending. That is the root of all evil, so to speak. We need to get a handle on federal spending, we need to start reducing the economic footprint and, you know, all the other footprints of the federal government if we want to talk about them, and get the federal government out of running our economy. It was never intended to be the job of the federal government to run the economy.

GLENN: Speaking of evil, will you call the philosophy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad evil and can you explain the role that the theology of the 12th Imam plays in his foreign policy and his kind of thinking?

BARR: Anybody, whether it's Ahmadinejad or other leaders who call for the extinction of any country or any people or who call, as he very clearly has done for the murder of many thousands, if not millions of law-abiding citizens of other countries clearly is evil. No doubt about it. That does not mean that we go and invade the country, though. There is a lot more to it than that. But any movement that has, as its avowed goal, the destruction of the United States or attacks on the United States is certainly one that ought to be very, very high on our radar list. We ought to be prepared to defend ourselves as aggressively as we need to against steps that they might take against us.

BARR: Bob, you were the guy -- and I was cheering for you in congress when you said -- when we got on the PATRIOT Act, it's got to have sunsets. I don't want my government to have any power without a sunset on it, especially the kinds of things that we're talking about the PATRIOT Act, and you're the guy who got the sunsets attached to it, which to me makes the PATRIOT Act okay. If it didn't have a sunset, I would have a real problem with it.

BARR: The problem that I have with it, Glenn, and thanks for remembering that and recalling that for your listeners. The real problem in the PATRIOT Act was -- well, there were several problems. But along the line of sunset, the problem was that we weren't able to secure an overall sunset. There were only about a dozen and a half specific provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act that we were able to get sunsetted. That at least, though, did give us an opportunity in 2005 and 2006 to have a real national debate in which I engaged with groups from across the etiological spectrum, from the American conservative union to the ACLU to the NRA, the eagle forum and so forth. That at least gave us that opportunity. At the close of the day in early 2006 unfortunately, those provisions that were sunsetted were re-upped. But at least we opened the eyes of the American people and continue to do so with other information that's come out and to the abuses in the PATRIOT Act that's being used far more aggressively than congress intended or that it should be to go after -- to conduct investigations and prosecutions of matters that have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

GLENN: Tell me the places in the PATRIOT Act, because every time it comes up for review, we look for it. Tell me the cases where people's rights have been trampled.

BARR: It's very difficult to point to specific cases because it's done in secret. There have been court cases, Glenn, where institutions and individuals have tried to bring cases and the courts won't allow it because they won't allow them to get the information to prove their case. There have been some. We had the case, for example, of Brandon Mayfield, the attorney out in, I think it was Portland, Oregon, who was arrested and detained incommunicado for weeks in, I think it was either 2004 or 2005 because he was completely erroneously linked to some suspects in the Madrid train bombing. Taking somebody, a U.S. citizen and holding them incommunicado without charges being brought against them on the flimsiest of evidence, evidence that in that particular case was told to the FBI by the Spanish authorities was wrong is in itself a very clear abuse of not just the PATRIOT Act but the fundamental constitutional liberties in this country.

GLENN: Wasn't it corrected?

BARR: Well, it was corrected later on, but --

GLENN: Okay, not --

BARR: But I dare say -- and the federal government wound up having to pay him a couple of million dollars because they abused his rights.

GLENN: Here's what I'm asking. There's no -- there is absolutely no institution, there's nothing that is perfect that will never make a mistake. And are you telling me that -- I mean, the mistake that you just -- I asked you for an example. The one you just gave me was corrected and he received damages. That doesn't make it right by any stretch of the imagination, but it's not an abuse that just was swept under the rug and nothing ever happened and he died in prison. What I'm asking you is, if it makes us safer, isn't there some -- isn't there some way to make the PATRIOT Act have the sunsets that we need, make sure there are some checks and balances? There is no system -- people who are against the PATRIOT Act to me, it always makes me feel like, well, okay, there are people on death row that shouldn't be on death row. "Well, then we should just stop the court system." No, we should refine it. We should do everything we can to make sure it works the best it can knowing that it will never be perfect. But make it the best we can.

BARR: And that's certainly my goal, also. I start, however, Glenn, from the premise that when you look at the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we had on the books at that time already over 4,000 federal criminal laws, to say nothing of all of our state laws. We had opportunity to have stopped those terrorists at every step of the way.

GLENN: Yes.

BARR: Everything they did was already illegal. We didn't need more laws, more invasive laws. I have no problem at all with the government taking legitimate evidence that somebody is committing or might commit or is about to commit a terrorist act and investigating them to the full extent possible. But when you have, as we now have in the USA PATRIOT Act enshrined now in U.S. law the power of the federal government to initiate an investigation and gain private records on any person in this country without any evidence whatsoever that they have done anything wrong, that to me is going too far. And that's the problem that we see in a number of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act.

GLENN: But wait a minute. I believe that's a mischaracterization. They can do that, but they have to then go back to a judge to be able to show their cause after the fact. They were trying to speed it up. So they have to go to the judge. And if the judge says, what the hell are you doing, then they're in trouble.

BARR: No, a lot of this is done, Glenn, through what are called national security letters which, many of which never find their way to a judge. These are documents that are signed off on by an FBI field agent or a supervisor at an FBI field office and don't go before a judge.

GLENN: After you left -- well, first of all, why did you leave the Republican party?

BARR: I left the Republican party for the same reason that President Reagan decades before me left the Democrat party. It left him. The Republican party has veered, Glenn, so sharply from its individual liberty roots and government policies that there's no relation to the party that I proudly served with for so many years.

GLENN: And I agree with you. The Republicans have left the Republicans and the Democratic party have left the Democrats. And that's why I would consider you. But there's a couple of things that interest me. After you left congress, you went to work for the ACLU which I think is the biggest leftist affront organization I've ever seen. I mean, the only thing that has done more damage to the United States of America than the ACLU is the McCain/Feingold bill.

BARR: You hit that nail on the head, that's for sure. The ACLU and I had many disagreements. I was in battle with them when I went to congress, before I went to congress and I continue to have serious disagreements with them but look at just one issue that we were just talking about and that is the USA PATRIOT Act. They have been out there arguing the exact same things that you and I are supportive of here with regard to the PATRIOT Act since it was enacted and if it weren't for their work really leading the effort along with a number of other conservative organizations to bring to bear the light of, you know, public awareness on the abuses of the PATRIOT Act, it wouldn't have happened.

GLENN: So why not go to work for one of those conservative organizations as opposed to one that will --

BARR: I do -- I do.

GLENN: Wait a minute, one that will fight for footbaths for Muslim prayer rituals in public buildings but will fight against anything to do with Christianity in a public building? Why not, why not -- why go to work for them at all?

BARR: Well, first of all, I didn't work for them. I wasn't a member of it. I mean, I did consulting work for them, but I did work for the American conservative union at the same time. Basically what I was doing, and I would do it again today, is to work with any of these legitimate organizations that have an interest in protecting our fundamental right to privacy in this instance. We'll disagree on all sorts of other things but if we don't pull together all of these different groups from the right, the left and the middle to work with those fundamental constitutional liberties that we agree with, then the government is simply going to be able to continue to divide and conquer and we won't get anywhere.

GLENN: We're talking to Bob Barr. He is the libertarian candidate. Their convention is happening this weekend, for President of the United States. Bob, if you don't mind holding on for just a few minutes. We'll come back. I want to talk about the borders, I want to talk about Jack Bauer, I want to talk a little bit about the war on terror, I want to talk about income tax. We'll do those with Bob Barr coming up in just a second.


 

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.