Glenn Beck - Senator DeMint: 'Very much against' the bailout


Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina

GLENN: Senator DeMint from Washington, D.C. Last week I talked to you, Senator, you were against the bailout. I was for a bailout but I am certainly not for this one. Have we switched places?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, no, I am very much against it. It's curious if you look at really what happened. You know, Paulson introduced a plan and then congress added a whole lot of boogiemen to it, or bad things, and now they've come back and taken out a lot of the boogiemen in saying we've accomplished something and that it's better. The fact is it's pretty much the Paulson plan, yet it's a little bit worse because it not only allows Paulson to go out and buy mortgage assets but any assets he deems necessary.

GLENN: How about this one. Section 103, the Treasury can buy from counties and cities that may have suffered significant loss or markets in turmoil. Protecting the retirement security of Americans by purchasing troubled assets held by or on behalf of an eligible retirement plan. This means the secretary of the treasury suddenly can now buy retirement plans.

SENATOR DeMINT: Exactly. A lot of these pension funds and retirement plans for, you know, state employees as well as for individuals contained these securitized mortgages which have lost value. I mean, this is, you know, a rabbit hole we'll be going down for decades trying to chase down any asset that's lost value. This is just an incredible power grab by the federal government. You know, we've created the problem by our own bad policy and now we've created a panic by our irresponsible rhetoric and our promises to fix it, and

GLENN: Look. Hang on just a second, Senator. The irresponsible rhetoric, I have not heard irresponsible rhetoric because I haven't heard I have yet to hear someone step up and say, "America, don't talk to me about recession. America, we are headed toward 1929 economic crash, quite possibly some of the worst stuff that we've ever seen, and this bailout, it will make it right and we won't have that." I have not heard anyone say that. I haven't even they are still talking, some people are saying, "Well, it might be a very deep recession." What?

SENATOR DeMINT: It is being said here and whether or not it's being reported in the news or not but they are trying to say this would be even worse than the Great Depression if we don't do this. And then there are people who are saying if we do this, it could make it even worse.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: That the market needs to correct and if we try to inject ourselves in some kind of central planning model, we're likely to make it much, much worse. And the problem running alongside this, Glenn, is we've got such a huge national debt that companies like Goldman Sachs and others have been involved with actually helping to buy our debt and sell it to other countries and this is just kind of an insidious model here. If we are not able to borrow money here as a country, we default on our loans very quickly because we're in debt and we're creating more debt. And so that's our big problem. If we could get on a pathway to balance the budget here as a country and begin over 50 years to start paying down our debt, it would create a whole lot of faith in our dollar. But right now the value of the dollar's going to continue to drop because I think countries are seeing we're not able to pay our debt.

GLENN: Senator, have you ever seen more public involvement on the phone and the switch boards before?

SENATOR DeMINT: No. I didn't think we could ever top the illegal immigration/amnesty debate but last year we got over 1,000 calls, it was 9 1 against the bailout. I think the ones were the bankers. But a lot of bankers don't want to do this. They know it will get the Feds in their business. BB&T has said don't do this. They have had kind of a responsible loan policy and they know that this is bringing the federal government into a business that in effect they'll be having to compete with the federal government.

GLENN: So how are we even and I understand that we're a republic and not a democracy and this is exactly what we hire you guys for.

SENATOR DeMINT: Right.

GLENN: To represent us, and I know you can go against public opinion, but I have to tell you, Senator, have you heard anyone on Capitol Hill say "If I vote for this at 9 1 against the American people and these things that we're predicting happen after we've done this program, I'm a dead man. I mean, I can't go back to the people and say, hey, I need one more handout."



SENATOR DeMINT: Yes.

GLENN: And that's what's going to happen.

SENATOR DeMINT: It is because they are not even telling us this is going to fix the problem.

GLENN: Thank you, thank you.

SENATOR DeMINT: And the problem I have is we're not telling Americans the truth about why this happened and that it was really bad policy over many years and it was the intrusion of the government into the private markets that caused the failure. The private markets have not failed us. And it's not like we've learned from our mistakes and we're saying we're going to fix the things that caused the problem and we're going to implement some real good free market principles of lower taxes and get rid of Sarbanes Oxley and fix some accounting things that are hurt, but we're not doing any of that, Glenn. All we're doing is this trillion dollar Band Aid and

GLENN: You are going to have I mean, Newt Gingrich said to me today if he were in the House, he would vote for it only because he couldn't sleep at night knowing he could do everything he could. And I said, but you are dismantling the free market system with this bill. You can't dismantle the free market system. That's what he even said, before the election three or four times more the government will have to come and bail people out. The people will go crazy if that happens.

SENATOR DeMINT: Yeah, we're going to have some pain regardless because of years of just bad policy. I mean, you can just the thing that's the plainest is like our energy policy. I mean, we've starved ourselves of energy. We're sending $700 billion of our dollars overseas every year. We're paying through the nose. It's just sucking the life out of our economy. But we still won't fix it, for heaven sake.

GLENN: No, Senator, no, Senator, please pass this on to all of your friends because I you know what? I said this about the economy a year and a half ago I was talking about, and I said the Great Depression could be around the corner; look out, this is unstable. Nobody would listen. A year and a half ago I started saying something else: Politicians, please, I'm begging of you, you are read the Declaration of Independence. This is the way the American people feel. And if these guys go and are not clear with the American people and they do this bailout against our wishes, when you have to come a second and a third or a fourth time, the people will not stand for it. We are at a breaking point. A breaking point, Senator. And not me. I am so afraid of what some people in this country are willing to do because they feel they have been betrayed.

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, I really do think this government has betrayed the people and, you know, we swear an oath to the Constitution and there is no respect for the constitutional boundaries of the things we spend money on, of local projects. I mean, these things are not in the Constitution, and the Constitution certainly does not give the government the ability to go in and buy parts of businesses. And so it's like we're setting aside our Constitution and our free market principles in order to get through this crisis, and everyone's saying we've got to do something. We're not willing to do the right things. So we've got to do this thing because it's something. And, you know and then they are saying, well, if you don't do this wrong thing, it's going to just be terrible. So it's just a dysfunctional congress that has caused the problem, now says they are going to solve it. You know, and people like I mean, I don't know what to do except I'm going to say you guys don't know what you're doing, you haven't been right this year and I'm going to go with the free market system and vote against this thing and I hope the American people will show their anger at election day.

GLENN: If I may, you could quote, I believe he was a senator. If not, he was in the House. You should quote Daniel Boone: You can all go to hell. I'm going to Texas. I mean, it is, it is a place here in our capitol building and in our White House and all throughout Washington where they are disconnected from the people, and real people are going to be hurt with this or without this, and the people who have poisoned the system are now telling us they can heal us.

SENATOR DeMINT: Right. And they are blaming our free enterprise system for this.

GLENN: Yes.

SENATOR DeMINT: And that's the biggest casualty of all of this is that people are going to come away thinking our markets have failed, that the free enterprise system doesn't work, capitalism is not the right model. And they did the same thing after the Great Depression. And we know, Milton Friedman knew that that was caused by bad the Federal Reserve bad monetary policy, meaning he proved it very well in my mind.

GLENN: Right.

SENATOR DeMINT: But Roosevelt used that as a way to intrude the government into all areas of our life. And the same thing's happening again right now.

GLENN: Exactly right. And that's what caused, that's what caused the Great Depression to last for ten years was nobody could trust that the government wasn't going to just change the rules and get involved. It's a decade mess we're creating. Senator, is this going to pass?

SENATOR DeMINT: Yes, I think it's going to pass easily. And they are trying to

GLENN: Easily?

SENATOR DeMINT: They are trying to choreograph it to cover people so that they can get an equal number of Republicans and Democrats so that no one can be blamed.

GLENN: How dare whoever is who is responsible for this?

SENATOR DeMINT: Well, it's primarily coming from the administration, but they have so frightened the leadership and congress and frankly I think the Democrats are chomping at the bit over this. They have wanted to get their tentacles into Wall Street and the financial markets. They feel like capitalism is out of control. So what has happened is Bush feels like we have to do something. The Democrats are seeing this as a way to leverage a lot of their regulations and control and ownership frankly of the American economy and so they're going to help Bush if he helps them, and it's the same thing that happened on prescription drugs for Medicare, same thing that happened on No Child Left Behind. Bush is working with the Democrats.

GLENN: This is an abomination.

SENATOR DeMINT: It is.

GLENN: This is a betrayal of the this is why in 2004, if you were a listener of this program, I said get the hell away from these Republicans. You vote for the individual, not for the party. These Republicans, please, call your Republicans and say do not vote for the please do not vote for this. Don't disenfranchise me even more.

SENATOR DeMINT: Those calls, Glenn, are so helpful. That's why I've been on as many radio and TV shows as I can be on is just to get people to call and show their anger. It's the way we brought down the big amnesty bill. There were only five senators against that when we started. But it was you and others, people saying, hey, this is not the right way to do this. I mean, we need to have a rule of law system and control our borders, and the people were heard. And they have been heard on this energy issue. We were able to usher in energy freedom day and let the bands expire because we stirred up anger.

GLENN: But you know and I know that nobody's going to invest until they again nobody is going to invest in those oil wells and start to move forward on that until they know the next congress and the next President isn't going to change the rules on them.

SENATOR DeMINT: You are exactly right. Democrats are already talking about reinstating the moratorium.

GLENN: Sure they are.

SENATOR DeMINT: So this has got to be a movement of the people because this is a huge drag on our economy that the whole energy situation's hurting every American. The bad policies up here are incredible. I mean, I'm just pulling my hair out that in the middle of this crisis I mean, we passed more pork spending last week than in history.

GLENN: Excuse me?

SENATOR DeMINT: Yes. I mean, this was, the dollars, over $20 billion between the spending bills and the military authorization, more and we were supposed to cut them in half and Bush wasn't going to sign any bill, and we just have forgotten about that and so we're saying the world is in a financial panic, yet we're spending like there's no tomorrow here. It's just shameless. And they don't think the American people can figure this out.

GLENN: You know what, the American people are busy. We're busy working hard. Most Americans are not following it but I'm telling you, Senator, and this is what you need to tell your friends up on Capitol Hill well, not your friends. I have a feeling that your friends

SENATOR DeMINT: Former friends.

GLENN: Yeah, you need to tell the people up on Capitol Hill, the American people may not know exactly what's going on, but Republican, Democrat, independent in their gut, they know something's very, very wrong and they're not they know that the leadership on both sides are not telling them the truth at best and lying to them at worst. And when that gut catches up to their pocketbook, there's real hell to pay, real hell to pay.

SENATOR DeMINT: I think you are right. Americans are starting to see through the double speak here that, you know, they've told us for years, "Well, we don't have to drill for oil but we're going to have cheap energy." You know, they told us things that can't be.

GLENN: Yeah.

SENATOR DeMINT: And my hope is in the anger and involvement of the American people at this point, that's the only I mean, but we shouldn't kid ourselves. If we don't pass this bill, we're going to have pain.

GLENN: Yes.

SENATOR DeMINT: And economic difficulty. If we do pass this bill, we're going to have pain and economic difficulty.

GLENN: Senator, will you be clear on the pain? Because I've talked to people who have been working side by side with Paulson, I have talked to people at the highest levels, all off record. Will someone please tell the American people the truth that whether we pass it, whether we don't pass it, there is a good possibility we are looking at 1929 style Depression.

SENATOR DeMINT: Yeah. I hope we're not looking at that, Glenn, and actually the frustrating thing is we do have good fundamentals in our economy, but the credit markets and the financial part has been so misplayed by our government and we've messed things up, we've taken the risk out of capitalism and insulated people from bad decisions and we've hurt ourselves. And we've got to fix that. But I just don't think Treasury can fix it, I don't think $700 billion's going to fix it and I think we need to basically send a signal out there is we've got to fix this ourselves, we've got to encourage local banks to loan money. We could fix some accounting rules that would make it easier for them without spending a dime of taxpayer money, but we won't do that. So I think the anger has got to precede any positive development.

GLENN: Senator, we hope to check in with you again, if you have time, we'd like to check in with you again and get a progress update.

SENATOR DeMINT: Sounds like I'm going to be here for a while.

GLENN: Appreciate it. Bye bye.

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.