Glenn Beck: Movement to Drill now


Related Story


Rep. Peterson: Congress needs to wake-up and Increase Domestic Energy Production

GLENN: Congressman John Peterson was on this program, I believe it was on Friday. Congressman, welcome to the program, sir. How are you?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Thanks for having us on.

GLENN: Sure. Now, you are the guy that last week proposed a bill that would open up the outer continental shelf.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: That's right. 50 miles out, oil and gas, tremendous resources. In fact, the current calculation they are approaching $11 trillion worth of oil out there alone.

GLENN: Wait, $11 trillion or 11 trillion barrels?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: $11 trillion worth of oil.

GLENN: Okay. And the outer continental shelf alone, that makes us energy independent if we would pull this out for how long?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, now, I don't know that it makes us energy independent. It makes us less dependent. It's going to take -- natural gas we can be totally self-sufficient because we have lots of natural gas out there. But on oil it's helpful. We also need to do the shale oil and we need to do Alaska, we need to do coal-to-liquids, coal-to-gas. We need to do more nuclear. We need to do everything, all the renewables and conservation so that we can compete in the economy in the future.

GLENN: Yeah. Unfortunately none of that is happening in congress. Tell us what happened last week when you introduced this bill.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, surprise. In a subcommittee they don't like amendments and they talked the other amendments out. I decided we need to start this today and that's what we've done. Across the country. And now we're approaching 70% of the American public who support offshore production of energy and only 18% oppose and 15% are undecided. And I predict that when the rest of that 15% listen to the facts, we're going to be close to 85% support of energy offshore. Because Americans, you know, what America doesn't know yet is that natural gas yesterday was $12.93. That's approaching $13. If that continues to climb in the next month or two, we'll have a doubling of natural gas costs to heat homes this winter. We're putting that $12.93 gas in the ground to heat homes because we start in the summer and then we burn it in the winter when it's cold. And last year at this time it was $6.50 to $7. It wouldn't take long to figure out we're soon going to be doubling natural gas prices and when that happens, I don't know how the middle class and poor in this country are going to drive their car and heat their homes.

GLENN: Barack Obama will tax the rich and then give it to the poor.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: That's right. Our original bill, we take money, you know, the amount of royalty on this kind of wealth would be huge. And that's money the government doesn't have now and we would like to take a portion of that. So we have the money to support renewable and do all the research for solar and wind and hydrogen and electric cars and all this stuff, do all the research that's needed to make it happen. But also to do the -- we're going to have to help poor people this winter. If we go offshore, we could take a small piece of the royalties for helping people insulate their homes and to pay for energy until we get affordable energy.

GLENN: Well, let me play devil's advocate here with you, congressman. You know, we are so very far behind the rest of the world when it comes to global warming. We are just -- the rest of the world looks at us in awe and says, goodness, I wish the United States would wake up and start to get on board with global warming. So name, if you will, congressman, all of the countries that have banned offshore oil exploration.

CALLER: Zero, nobody. Everybody in the world, you know, everybody gives Brazil credit for ethanol and being energy independent. Well, 15% of their energy's ethanol. The rest is offshore.

GLENN: No, you didn't understand the question. Because everybody else cares about global warming and they want to get off oil. The question was name the countries that have banned offshore oil. Because there must be a lot of them.

CALLER: No, there's not any. Because only the leaders, you know, the Gore-ites that are voting this global warming theory, the number one issue facing America, affordable energy, global warming is still a theory. It's computer models to say that there's a problem. The real facts do not prove that. And it's time the American public -- and I had a gentleman on a plane last week say to me, they talk like this global warming debate's over. He said, did I miss it? He said, I'm a pretty informed citizen. I don't know how we had the debate and I didn't know about it, he said, because I'm not convinced that's our number one issue. Our number one issue is available affordable energy.

GLENN: Clearly. Is there anyone in Washington that you know of that has ever run a business? I mean, it is so apparent to me that the clowns in Washington have no idea what it takes to run a household or what it takes to run a business because energy -- if we don't have energy -- and they all pretend like, oh, well, we're just, next week we're just going to have more energy. We don't have it.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: China, China's increasing their use by about 15% a year. They are soon going to surpass us. And, you know, they are building a coal plant every five days, a nuclear plant a month, hydro dams, they are doing wind, solar, they are doing everything. We should do everything. There's nothing we shouldn't be doing that would give us more energy.

GLENN: Right. Do you believe in today's world we could actually build hydroelectric dam?

CALLER: No, but we have a lot of dams that have water coming out of them that could be harnessed for hydropower that we wouldn't build a dam. We have a lot of dams. Our government owns them.

GLENN: Right. But what I'm asking you is in today's America, if we wanted to go with the cleanest energy possible, you don't believe we could even build that?

CALLER: Absolutely not. We could not build a dam in this country, no. In fact, you know, they are trying to blame the oil companies for not building the refineries. Well, it's almost impossible. The refineries -- the oil companies are expanding existing refineries because they already have a permit. They don't think they can get through the permit process. I think there's one. I'm trying to think of the company. There's one coming online that's soon going to be built I think here in the near future but that's one.

GLENN: Are you thinking of one in South Dakota?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: I think so.

GLENN: That's not going online anytime soon. The opponents say they have plenty in their bag of tricks to keep it tied up in court for years.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, that's the trouble. The ability to do unlimited, just presents so many things from happening. And that's how the liberals have won is turn the trial lawyers loose to sue every little --

GLENN: So why is natural gas going up?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, it's because we're using so much of it now. See, just 12 years ago we only made 7% of our electricity with natural gas. We only allowed it to be used for peak power, morning and evening, when we use that extra surge because a gas generator, you can just turn it on, turn it off. So it backs up wind, it backs up everything. So now we're 23% of our electricity's with natural gas and over the last six months we've turned down, our PUCs at the state level, the state environmental agencies have turned down between 50 and 70 coal plants. Those will all become natural gas plants because that's our only option.

GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. Why did we ban them in the first place? Why did we say we could only use them at peak times? If we have so much gas?

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Originally people thought gas was too good a fuel, it was a poor use of natural gas. When you make electricity, you only use a small percentage of the BTU value. If you make your electricity in the middle of a city where you use the hot water to heat your city, then you use a lot of it. But unfortunately most of our power plants, we chill the water and put it back in the river or do something with it and we only use a small part of the energy. So making electricity out of natural gas -- see, natural gas is a commodity that 55% of petrochemicals is natural gas. But 60 to 70% of fertilizer is natural gas. Polymers and plastics, 45% of the cost of making them is natural gas because it's an ingredient. See, it's a substance that we use to make almost everything. And so being it's such an important product, they didn't think we should make electric out of it. Now we're making electric out of it. But we haven't opened up supply and there's -- you know, we cannot change world oil prices. We can only change dependence. But when we produce natural gas, we can change our price. We only import 17% of our natural gas, 15% from Canada and 2% from other foreign countries. But natural gas is the one that's really biting us because Dow Chemical spent $8 billion in '02 for natural gas a year and they are now spending $8 billion a quarter and they were 60% on shore. They are now 34% on shore. They had to go where gas was cheaper because we use so much of it.

GLENN: You know, on this program I warned a year ago about ethanol and how crazy that was.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Yes.

GLENN: Then before anybody else was talking about the price of food, I told people -- and everybody said I was crazy. I said, store up on food just as an investment because it is going to go up at such a high rate, you will gain money. It is a good investment, probably the best investment you can make is just putting food downstairs for your family just to offset the cost. I warned at the time, you haven't seen anything yet. God forbid our crops are wiped out in any way.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: Well, we got $7.50 for corn yesterday. That's the world record. And we have, I think someone said 40% of the corn's in trouble with water.

GLENN: We were looking at just the price of corn yesterday is the equivalent of going from $80 a barrel oil to $320 a barrel. They are talking now about rationing, et cetera, et cetera. Now, I've been warning the same thing about fuel and gas, that you think it's bad now. Buckle up because God forbid we have a hurricane or the war heats up or Iran gets nasty.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: There's three issues that can spike prices overnight. One is a terroristic attack, when you have lines that are vulnerable. The Iraqi pipeline goes right by Iran. If they blew up our sending station in a major country like Saudi Arabia, oil prices would double. So if we have terroristic attacks, a storm in the Gulf. In the last two years are the first years on record in a row that we had no major storm in the Gulf. Major storms in the Gulf can displace 20, 30, to 40% of our energy for several months. And that's energy we never get then because you produce energy, you know, 24/7. So you don't ever get that energy. Everybody's predicting a terrible storm this year for hurricane. We have a bad hurricane season, the Gulf gets hit, that will spike prices. And if you have any one of the sending countries, have a problem governmental-wise that all dictatorships, that one of them would topple and they are having civil war there for a period of time and instead of producing 8 million barrels, they are only producing 2 or 3, the system cannot stand those kind of oil losses. We're down to where there's only about a million barrels a day of extra and so if Country A produces 2 million barrels, that means we don't have enough that day. So that's why the price is so vulnerable. Some oil company executives -- and I don't talk to them often but I talked to them in a hearing in the house where I just asked them a simple question. I said, if we don't (inaudible), what would that do for prices? He said, well, it would take the fear out of the market because down the road we know we're going to have ample supply because we know there's lots out there and we can start moving towards. It will just take the fear factor out of it.

GLENN: Which takes the speculators down, which everybody's blaming speculators.

CONGRESSMAN PETERSON: That's right. And whenever the rumor goes out that China's going to buy scrap, scrap prices go through the roof. I mean, whatever is in short supply, the speculators make money on. That's always been our system. I don't know how you change that, but some want to. But that's stockpiling the problem. What takes it off the table is ample supply. So you have to produce. We have to conserve and produce, conserve and produce.

GLENN: I want to take a break here and then I want to come back. I want to ask you, what does the country look like in a year from now with none of those things happening. We're not gaining any ground on finding new energy. We're just at a stalemate here. But none of the bad things also happen. What does the price of everything look like a year from now. And what happens, what happens to the country if one of those things do hit us? What does that mean? What does the price of oil and energy and everything else look like? And then I want to talk to you about, okay, great, now what does the average person do besides grab a fork and a pitchfork. We'll be with you just a second. It's Congressman John Peterson from Pennsylvania. He is the guy who said last week, drill in the outer continental shelf and congress said no. He is reintroducing it tomorrow and your support is needed if you're interested in this. I can't imagine how you're not.

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.