Glenn Beck: Montana here we come


Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer

Glenn: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. Hello, you sick, twisted freak. Welcome to the program. I'm glad you're here. I told you last week that Montana, somebody was drawing up a bill or -- I don't know if it has been introduced into the Capitol yet, but this is not a movement of secession. This is a movement that says if the Supreme Court says that gun ownership is a collective right, it would violate the State's compact with the United States government and Montana wouldn't have to be a state anymore. It would declare their status as a state as null and void because it would be a violation of the contract that they made when they came into the union.

Now, I talked about this and I got more mail on this than anything I've talked about in I don't know how long and I'm telling you, if this would be true -- and I don't if it -- we'll find out in a second -- if this would be true, profit values in Montana will sky rocket because it will be known as a state that takes the Constitution seriously. This is also the state where we've talked to the governor of couple of times and they want to move coal to oil but he says the United States government is blocking their way. The governor is on with us now. Governor Schweitzer, how are you?

Governor Schweitzer: I'm all right. Listen, gun control in Montana means hitting what you've been shooting at. I'm endorsed by the ERA and I own more guns than I need and fewer than I want.

Glenn: You're a governor at my own heart when it comes to guns. So, have you heard about this?

Governor Schweitzer: Oh, yeah. You people get to lawyering -- as soon as some words come up, you've got lawyers coming out of the woodwork. We're not interested in secession here in Montana. The bottom line is --

Glenn: Wait a minute. You're lowering the property values.

Governor Schweitzer: You know, we've got too many big shots coming here, like you, from the East Coast and West Coast. All right. We're just trying to take care of the beautiful state on the planet.

Glenn: So, in other words, you don't want people like me living in your state?

Governor Schweitzer: Well, if you cozy up to me, I might get you a ranch and fix it up with a few goats and chickens.

Glenn: Because I have to tell you, my family, we are looking at Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, and Utah. We're looking at possibly find, someplace in that part of the country and when I heard about the gun -- when I heard that Montana would actually take the government taking away gun rights as a serious offense and say, do you know what? We're not playing that game, you know, it was No. 1 on my list and a lot of people's list of saying, wait a minute. There's a state after my own heart.

Governor Schweitzer: Well, we're not going to lose our gun rights in Montana. You can bet on that, but I can assure you of this: Montana will continue to take the lead to make America energy independent. We're not going to allow dictators to push us around anymore. We have an infinite supply of energy in this country. We just have a finite supply of resolve to get it right.

Glenn: So, Governor, they are today debating cap and trade and all three of the presidential candidates want cap and trade. You know and I know EPA estimate says it will increase gas by $1.50 a gallon. Two weeks ago Congress decided they were going to put the polar bear or the administration decided to put the polar bear and threatened species list. They're not doing anything. They're not doing anything to help on this energy front.

Governor Schweitzer: We're already giving $2 a gallon to dictators who are trying to destroy our way of life. Look, I support the concerns that people world have with carbon dioxide but we have the technology right now to produce all of our energy domestically, to drive all of your cars, run of all trains and plains, light all of your light bulbs without importing oil from them and we can sequester our CO2.

Glenn: Governor, we're not doing it. What are you -- what are we to do? The people are looking for someone to lead. So, what is it that we can do because we're with you?

Governor Schweitzer: Here's what I'd say to you. We don't ask much from Congress and they don't deliver much. Most of us as governors are building our own energy proposals. We're putting together our own energy independence because God help us if Congress was the only ones responsible to save this country. Here's a couple of things that we would need from Congress. There are some certain things that have to be passed at a Federal level. Otherwise, you create problems with competition between states in a bad way. In other words, people will just run over the border to do something because you can't do it in another state.

Glenn: Sure.

Governor Schweitzer: So, a couple of things. Now, just give me two minutes and I'll explain how we'll do it. No. 1, Congress passes two pieces of legislation. The first one would be a 15 percent tax credit for any consumer that buys a plug in hybrid car SUV or pickup that gets a minimum of 40 miles on a charge and runs on electricity for the first 40 miles. Let me tell you what that would do. Pacific Northwest Labs, a primary contractor of the Department of Energy, has already studied this. They found that we could decrease the consumption of oil in all of our transportation fleet by 83 percent if we had plug-in hybrids the first 40 miles. 93 percent of all the cars in America drive less than 40 miles a day. That means we could run the whole fleet on electricity 93 percent of the time.


Second, every utility in America, they must buy electricity from anybody on the system that they sell electricity to, so that when you drive home from work, you plug your car in, you walk in, you turn on your light and the electricity comes from the charge power in your car. You make your meal with your battery in your car and in the middle of the night when we have excess electricity three times as much electricity grid capacity as we actually need because we build this grid for today, your car recharges. The next day, if you don't need a full 40 miles, you start selling electricity right back into the grid for three or four times what you paid for it. We make every consumer a better consumer, a bar capitalist. We couldn't have to put up one copper wire. Northwest, this same lab, they found that we have the grid capacity to level the electrons and then, with coal gasification, places like Montana, with wind power, solar power, we can tell the dictators to boil in their own oil.

Glenn: Okay. Here's the thing. You are sitting there on a butt load of coal. Cap and trade, if it doesn't pass this time, which it won't, it's going to pass the next time because there is $3 trillion -- I'm sorry -- $7 trillion in spending that the Congress wants to do according to the "New York Times" and $3 trillion in gravy on cap and trade that the Congress can't wait to get their hands on. So, they're going to do it. What's happening on this is states like yours, which will be producing energy through coal, estates like West Virginia, Utah, and -- will be paying butt loads of money in cap and trade costs. Meanwhile, states that don't produce their own energy, like California, will be living off the fat of the land. They will -- you guys will be taking your money and transferring it to California. How are you going to produce electricity when the government won't allow you to use the coal that we have?

Governor Schweitzer: Here's the deal. I don't agree with cap and trade. I have a better idea, one that's better for this country, better for the world, and it's simply this: I wouldn't give another nickel to the Federal government because they'll find some play to pee it away. What I would do is I would say instead of a cap and trade system, folks, I want you to understand what cap and trade means. If you're a big utility that's been using coal over the last 100 years, Congress is going to franchise you to produce that quantity of CO2. You could turn around and sell out of the business and put a trillion dollars in your pocket. What we're doing is we're shifting wealth from the population as a whole to a few utilities and it's not going to do a dang thing about developing new technology. Here's what I would do: Those of us who produce carbon dioxide, I would put a technology fee of $12.50 per ton. I would use 100 percent of that money as a technology fee. I wouldn't give it to the Federal government. We would create a quasi-private corporation that would do all the research and development. Those of us who pay in will own the intellectual property and we'll be able to sell this technology all over the world in China, in India, and other places that are producing great quantities of CO2 and the consumer, the consumer will not see their energy prices go up because that $12.50 a ton, we can start decreasing the carbon dioxide emissions by at least 5 percent per year. It won't increase the cost of your energy, and we'll develop the technologies that the be giving the greatest boom to America's industry since the industrial revolution. What's wrong with that?

Glenn: By the way, in case you don't know, Governor Schweitzer is a Democrat. Governor, that sounds great, but nobody will do that because nobody in Washington will be able to get fat off of it. It doesn't give them a dividend.

Governor Schweitzer: There's 60 politicians in Washington DC and their job is to keep their front feet and nose in the feed trough. What we need is people to rise up and say we've had enough. We're in an oil war. I don't want my kids to go to another one. There is no reason we ought to be dependent on a fuel that we can't produce in this country. Enough is enough and we need a change.

Glenn: Here's the thing. Germany now plans to build 27 coal fired stations by 2020. Did you catch that? 27 coal fire electrical plants by 2020. They are building them again in Europe because they know that they're in trouble with oil. The people who invented coal to oil are doing it again and they're going to start burning coal.

Governor Schweitzer: You've got it wrong. We don't burn coil when we use that technology.

Glenn: No, but they are. They are.

Governor Schweitzer: You put the coal in a pressurized chamber. You remove the gas, the CH4. The CO2 can be pumped right back into the earth. It's zero pollution. The methane case will be used to make recollect, even fertilizer out of it and we have enough coal in this country to fuel all of America for 200 years.

Glenn: All right. Governor, be straight. Why hasn't this happened?

Governor Schweitzer: Insecurity in the energy business. Here's what -- if you're in the business of building these plants or you own the coal and you've got Congress back there in Washington DC deciding who's going to pay and who's going to get and it hasn't been determined who's the getters and the who's the givers, if it hasn't been decided whether you're going to get screwed by this technology or you're going to be the one who profits, I can't move forward. Everybody wants certainty. Do you know what? Even if they pass a bad CO2 law, we're going to start building these plants all across the Rocky Mountain west but we need some kind of certainty. You know, when they pass laws in Washington DC something that started out as an easy proposition one paragraph long, suddenly it's 7,000 pages long. What we need in the energy business is certainly. I want a level playing field. We can beat the rest of the world here in Montana with wind four, can cowl gas fix. With solar power. We've just got to know what the rules are.

Glenn: Do you think you're going to get any rules?

Governor Schweitzer: Not this year. Hell, nothing is going to happen between now and the political election but a lot of talk.

Glenn: You're closer to the people than most politicians. Those in Washington don't get it. What are you paying in your state for gasoline?

Governor Schweitzer: $3.87 for regular. Worse yet, keys sell is $4.58 a gallon.

Glenn: How much longer do you think the people of F your state are going to set around with these politicians doing?

Governor Schweitzer: We're not going to take it any longer. That's why we're developing wind power. We just discovered the biggest onshore oil government in the last 20 years in Montana and western North Dakota. We could produce the energy in this country. Infinite possibilities, finite ideas.

Glenn: This is exactly why I called you about the gun thing, because people are tired of it and they just want to go -- did you read Atlas Shrug by any chance?

Governor Schweitzer: No.

Glenn: You should read at lag shrug. People are at the point of atlas shrug. They want to find a place where they can be unleashed. I talked to a guy about an hour ago in Seattle. He said, Glenn, I love my country. I can't take it anymore. I've been offered a job to go build house over in Russia and I'm going to take it because I'm a contractor and I can't do my work here gym.

Governor Schweitzer: Glenn, let me tell you something. The Federal government told us, all 50 states, that you have to have an identification program so that it's a Federal ID that's issued by every state. It will have a data street on the back of it so when you get on the plane, they swipe that, they know where weather when you got on the plane, where you went and how you got home. 46 governors sent a letter to home land security that said, oh, yeah, we agree. We're going to do it. Four of us told them to go to hell. In fact, we are not in Montana. We will never implement the real ID. We will never allow the Federal government to possess the data that tells them where we've been, how we got there, who we visited with, and how we got home. In Montana we live free.

Glenn: So, if they say that guns are a collective right and not an individual, what Montana do?

Governor Schweitzer: I'm not a lawyer, but we're not going to allow the Federal government or anybody else to come in here and infringe on our second amendment rights. Everybody in Montana has a gun. Every one of us like guns and we don't think the Federal government has the right. We believe the Constitution is very clear and we're just not going to allow the government toe come in here and force us to register our guns or tell us we have to get an insurance policy if you own a pistol.

Glenn: .

Glenn: Property values will sky rocket, if they are wishy-washy on the gun rights and you really mean that in Montana, you will see your property values sky rocket because there are people all over the country that are sick and tired of the Federal government telling them how to live.

Governor Schweitzer: Oh, Glenn. I make a living owning ranches. You're a guy that talks on the radio.

Glenn: You watch. Governor, bye bye. I don't think he understands. I don't think he gets that they're going to sky rocket, not go down.

Stu: He's saying they're fine as they are. You know, I mean, when you're in Montana, you don't want lots of people coming in there.

Glenn: No, you don't.

Stu: You want to maintain the second amendment rights but not tell anyone.

Glenn: Yeah, you do. You want to say -- you want a sign on the border that says, we believe in the second amendment. I would turn around if I were you.

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.