Glenn Beck: Time to drill!!




Congressman John E. Peterson


Pennsylvania's 5th District

GLENN: Let's go to Congressman Peterson. Congressman John Peterson is the guy who brought this bill in front of the subcommittee and, jeez, why do you hate the polar bears so much, John?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: This has nothing to do with polar bears, but it's --

GLENN: I'm sorry, you're right. Why do you hate the manatee so much?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, where we produce energy offshore, and that's not just Florida. It's the whole East Coast, it's the whole West Coast, and it's another part of the gulf. Less than half the Gulf's actually been producing the oil. All the energy we've gotten from the gulf has been from (inaudible). So we're the only country in the world, only country, you know, countries like Canada and Great Britain and Norway and Sweden and Ireland and New Zealand and Australia all produce offshore. In fact, everybody gives Brazil high marks for being energy independent, and they are. 15% of that's ethanol. 85% of it is they went offshore and found huge amounts of energy and they are self-sufficient. They don't import anymore. It would take us a while to get there, but we are currently importing 2/3 of our oil, 1/3 from friends, Canada, Mexico and other friendly countries and 1/3 from OPEC. Every year we're increasing our dependence by about 2% and, of course, we know what we've done to price. There's a shortage in the world. Historically we've had about 8 million barrels of oil available in the world and if Country A couldn't produce today or they had a problem, Country B can produce it. Today we have about a million barrels of oil surplus and so if any major country suddenly can't produce, we don't have energy available.

GLENN: Imagine what happens to the world if, God forbid something happens with Iran, God forbid Israel strikes Iran. The price of oil just on the fear of that thing breaking out and spreading, the price of oil will go through the roof. So tell me, Congressman Peterson, what the heck is going on?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, you know, I've been working this issue for almost a decade. I can debate it with anybody. I know the issue upside down. And I really had high hopes that with today's prices and the pressure, and we're about 88 to 90% of Republicans historically vote for production. We have 20 or 20 something that won't in the aggregate. But in our last bill we had 40 something Democrats help us. In '06 we passed a good offshore bill but the Senate wouldn't do anything with it, they wouldn't deal with it. But we lost it. We're trying to do it again but I thought we would not have a partisan -- there are members on the interior committee -- we're marginal there as far as votes for it, but I thought we would win. But we didn't have one Democrat. We've always had some. So it appears, it appears -- we'll know next Wednesday when we do it again in full committee. Now, that will be probably 80 something members of congress instead of a small -- in the teens. We had 15 members of congress, but it will be a much larger group. If they lock up again, then we'll know that this is a Pelosi plan to stop offshore production of energy.

GLENN: Okay. So here's what I want to do. Could I have you back for a good chunk of time to explain this issue both on radio and television, maybe Monday or Tuesday. I would also encourage you, we have a newsletter that goes out daily and it reaches hundreds of thousands of people. I would encourage you to write, you know, a piece for that explaining how this works, why it's important, et cetera, et cetera, let me mail it out next week and if people want to call for or against their congressmen and say, look, vote for or against it, will you do that?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Absolutely. I can't do it Monday night but I'll be in --

GLENN: Well, Tuesday would probably be better because it will come up on Tuesday, right?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: No, it's Wednesday.

GLENN: It will come up on Tuesday. So Tuesday night would be better.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: I'd like to make one more point if I can because this is the most misunderstood. Even worse than oil prices in America, the threat to our economy is natural gas. See, natural gas is not a world price. Unfortunately a lot of members of congress still don't understand that. We are approaching $13 for gas. Just a few years ago it was $2. Last year at this time, which is the time of year we don't use much gas because we're not heating and cooling much, we were between $6.50 and $7.50. But right now we're approaching -- we were $12.80 something yesterday. I haven't seen the market this morning but it was $12.80 and rising all day yesterday pennies per hour. Those natural gas prices will drive every major corporation that uses natural gas, the petrochemical industry, the polymers, plastics, fertilizer, people who make glass. I predict if we don't deal with the natural gas issue that all our bricks and glass, bulk commodities that are usually made in our neighborhoods because you can't haul them very far, they will be made in Trinidad, South America where gas is $1 something. They are building plants. Dow Chemical's energy bill for gas in '02 was $8 billion annually. It's now $8 billion quarterly. In '02 they were 60% onshore production. They wanted to stay onshore. They are now 30% onshore here. They had to move to all the countries where there's cheap gas because that's the only way they can sell their products in the world market.

Natural gas this year at home heating season which, you know, the people that are paying their high driving bills now will get a -- last year those who were on propane and home heating oil paid enormous prices. Those will be up another 50% or more this year. And last year they couldn't afford them. But this year the majority of Americans heat their homes with natural gas. They will have somewhere between a 50 and 100% increase on natural gas prices.

GLENN: Holy cow.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: And that's when the economy's going to stop. Now, there are a lot of companies that I don't think can afford $130 oil, a lot of businesses could absorb that. And I know these natural gas prices. I mean, we for eight years have had the highest natural gas price in the productive world.

GLENN: Don't we have more natural gas than --

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: We have more natural gas, we could be self-sufficient for the next 70 to 80 years. It's everywhere. Now, we're producing more onshore but again, offshore is the best. It's close to our markets, it's close to the cities where we use it. Every time we have zero weather in the wintertime, the New York City gate -- that's what people in New York pay, if they use more than normal, will run up to $20 to $30 a thousand in a few days' time because there's not enough capacity to get it into New York.

GLENN: So tell me, Congressman, again why is this happening? I just had a guy call me a little while ago and said, Glenn, you can figure it out, I can figure it out, all my neighbors can figure it out; we need to do these things. Congress is working against it. His exact quote was, "If my house is on fire and my neighbors are starting to bring gasoline, they've got an ulterior motive."

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: That's correct.

GLENN: And that's exactly what we're starting to look at congress as, what is the ulterior motive. What is going on?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, the members on the Republican side that don't vote with us on production are usually very close to Greenpeace and Sierra Club and those groups and enjoy a rating from them. In my view, not all, there were 40 something people that I find in the Democratic party. But the majority of the Democratic party is in lockstep. Everybody's talking about the same things now. They are saying it takes 10 years to get; there's no point in doing it, 10 years to get it. There are saying there's 68 million acres leased; that's enough, we don't have the right land leased, we have old tired fields that no longer produce or they never became productive, so they are not being. And they have all these same talking points, there are so many thousand leases, they don't need more. The Democrat members are all using the same talking points and those all come from the environmental community. I've seen them for years. They are the same talking points that have been out there for years. And they are claiming that 82% of available energy in the world is already leased. That's just a lie. That's just not a fact. But they have been using that for years, too. So their talking points, everybody's using them. Norm Dicks used them in the meeting. A young Democrat from Ohio used them on one of the television network shows last night. They use the exact same talking points and they're not factual, but it appears that they have chosen that they are not going to be pro energy, production.

GLENN: But see, this doesn't make sense.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: I'm for all renewables.

GLENN: Look, we all are. You want to put up windmills and solar panels and clean energy, let's do that. But you can't shut down the economy. And these people, are they just this stupid that they don't understand? I mean, I get the 10-year thing, but do we all have an appointment? Are we all supposed to be some place in 10 years that I don't know about?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, the thing we don't know -- now, I heard a talking person last night say that the volatility in the market's 50%. I don't believe that. I think there may be a 20 to 25% volatility in the market that I asked two top oil people what they thought would happen at a House hearing, I just walked up, two CEOs. I don't even know them, I never met them. I said, if we would open up the outer continental shelf, what would it do to the market? They said it would take the fear out of the market, that we knew that's going to be soon available, some areas quicker than others, but the process could start. He said it could take 20 to 25% off the price. That was their opinion. So I think if we open up some major areas, if we would say, all right, we're going to do shale oil in the west instead of trying to block it. We have legislation constantly trying to block it. If we're going to do ANWR and offshore and we're going to have a major initiative for coal-to-liquids and coal-to-gas and -- you know, what America needs to have is a plan to be OPEC-free, and we need to tell OPEC that. And we're going to buddy up with Canada, we're going to work closely with Mexico who has lots of energy but don't have the ability to produce it and have a North American agreement where we work together and push the renewables, push coal-to-liquids, push coal-to-gas, hydrogen if it will work, anything that will work. You know, biofuels is what everybody's talking about, but they're minor. And they hit the wall with corn over $7 yesterday.

GLENN: Yeah, let me ask you this. Why isn't anybody, with corn prices climbing as much as it did yesterday, why isn't congress calling for an investigation there? Why didn't the corn companies build more for capacity? Why didn't they invest the record profits in producing more corn? I mean, don't blame the floods or the increased demand. Big corn is to blame, isn't it? I mean, if we're going to blame big oil --

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Let me say this. There's a lot of people in congress who started as a county sheriff or some political office locally, have never run a business, don't understand the economic systems, must have flubbed through economics class in college because they don't understand economics. But wouldn't talk that way. You know, when you tax something, you get less of it. When you make regulations tougher, you are going to get less of it. If you want to, you are for all the renewables, but they have not renewed. So how do people invest in wind and solar and geothermal and all these renewables if we don't have a five- to ten-year opportunity to recoup their investment. So they are not adequately funding the renewable side, let alone being pro production. You're 86% fossil fuel dependent, 8% nuclear and that's declining because, you know, until we get some new plants out there, we're soon going to be a smaller percentage nuclear.

GLENN: Right.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: And, you know, 50 to 60 coal plants have been turned down by states because of the fear of the carbon tax. I hear the number one issue in the Senate is the carbon tax. The carbon tax, carbon credits or carbon is going to raise energy prices another 20 to 30%. But then there are those who are scared.

I had a member ask me the other day if we opened up to Australia, would energy get cheap and I said no. He said, why would you ask that? He said, we can't afford to have it get cheap again.

GLENN: Oh, that's Barack Obama. Barack Obama said the same thing. I mean, Barack --

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Because now you and I are forced to change. We are forced to change. The American public better be tightening up their houses, they better be fixing their windows and doors and insulating their ceilings. They better be doing everything they can do to not use energy this year because I'm going to tell you it's coming, higher prices.

GLENN: Norm Dicks said, his office said to one of our callers that called in, he said -- his office said that energy companies, he's done some -- he's seen some research from a government study that shows that the oil companies, you know, they don't really want this anyway. They don't want the offshore drilling because it won't really -- they won't really benefit from it, either.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: I don't know what he means by that. Big energy, big oil companies, the top five big ones basically were pushed out of this country because we locked up. You know, George Bush I looked up our continental shelf along with legislators from Florida and California 28 years ago. That's been in place for that length of time. But we've also locked up, you know, the part of ANWR we haven't been able to produce was actually set aside by previous administrations for energy and, of course, everything that looks productive in the West, there's a bill moving to lock it up, lock it up. So if you are an energy company, you are going to go where it's easy to produce energy.

Now, they've also had the problem where they are being -- I see right now another one of the oil companies is being pushed out of Nigeria but what's happening in the world with no surplus in the system, more and more of these countries are now, they have all nationalized them, they are all running them by government and, you know, how well does the government run a business. And they are stealing the money personally and they are -- you know, Mexico is not producing oil anywhere near where they used to but they have great fields but it's because they were running it, they won't let big oil of any country in. And so, you know, almost -- and the high 70% of the oil today is actually owned by governments. And over half of those are governments that are not Democratic. And they are not -- you know, if either one of them topple -- you know, what really is scary is we have these prices of both gas. Natural gas is more vital than oil even. It's more harmful. We have these prices without having had a storm in the Gulf for two years that always disrupts supply, we've not had a terroristic attack on the energy system, and that could happen tomorrow, could happen today, and we haven't had a major country where the Government have a coup and the government top he would, and when that happens, you are going to have war within for a while, you are not going to to produce as much energy. With no surplus, we could be at $200 oil in a week or so.

GLENN: Congressman John Peterson, we will have you back on the program next week. We'll put you on television as well. The vote comes back up again next Wednesday. We'll have you write something for our newsletter so you can lay out what America's facing, what the choices are and we'll get the word out. Thank you very much, congressman.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, thank you for giving us the opportunity.

GLENN: You bet.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: God bless.

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.