Glenn Beck: Time to act



Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg

GLENN: Good friend of the program, Jonah Goldberg. Hello, Jonah.

GOLDBERG: Hello, sir, how are you?

GLENN: Well, I'm pretty good. I'm pretty good. I'm -- as we talked yesterday or last night, I'm a little, I guess shocked how many people are trapped in this place of, "Okay, well, I guess I'll go down the socialist route just a little bit because I don't want something really, really bad to happen." And you are a guy who is -- I mean, you wrote one of my favorite books, Liberal Fascism, that somebody asked me just the other day, Glenn, I want to read about socialism, where do I start. And I said, only one place to start, Liberal Fascism.

GOLDBERG: See, now you are guilting me.

GLENN: I'm just playing the role of the administration or Nancy Pelosi. Just trying to guilt you into it. Yet you know that this is really bad for us. If this bill would have come through, you know this was really bad.

GOLDBERG: I agree the bill is really bad, I agree. I think there are all sorts of saner things that could be done. I'm not saying that we wouldn't need to spend some large amount of money in some way down the road, but this doesn't strike me as the way to do it. I guess my problem is I am just so frustrated with this entire mess. The rank hypocrisy and corruption all over the place that, you know -- and while my heart is entirely with the Mike Pences and free market guys and the House Republicans, you know, Republicans ran the congress for most of the last eight years and they let Barney Frank, they get Chris Dodd play the games that they played that got us into this mess. They didn't fight Bush on prescription drugs, they didn't fight Bush on all sorts of things and now with the place burning down around them, they've become purists about enforcing the fire codes and --

GLENN: Here's what I -- I mean, Jonah, here's -- I'm with you that I can't take the hypocrisy. I can't look at Barney Frank anymore. I can't, I can't take it.

GOLDBERG: I almost think the guy should be in jail.

GLENN: Oh, I do, too. I absolutely do. Honestly I think we should have at least, bare minimum we should have stockades in front of the capitol building. Some of these people are out and out criminal on what they have done. I had -- who was it yesterday -- Senator DeMint that said this -- this is a quote from a U.S. senator: This government has betrayed the American people. And nobody's going down that road. But here's my problem, Jonah, and how do you say, how do you give the same exact people $770 billion? They say they can fix it. They created it and they won't even admit to it.

GOLDBERG: They made this problem when they created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those things have our implied -- I mean us taxpayers, the few of us who are left, we're going to be paying those taxes in chickens any day now. We gave our implied support for these things when we created those institutions. And in the 1990s and the early 2000s, those institutions went off the rails. And so the taxpayers are legitimately on the hook for it. I don't mind -- I mean, of course I mind, but I can stomach the spending of the money if I think it's going to work because essentially it was -- you know, the government created this problem. The taxpayers are on the hook for what the government does and the government has to honor its obligations.

GLENN: Right.

GOLDBERG: The government made these obligations. I agree with you it's annoying to empower the same class that created these problems but the next class that's about to come in is even worse. I mean, the Pelosi, Reid, Obama guys are poised to take over and those guys are going to -- as we've talked about it a million times, they really do want a new New Deal. So when I agree with you, look, it's just -- you know, John Boehner said this bill was a crap sandwich but he was going to eat it. As far as I'm concerned, it's crap sandwiches for as far as the eye can see.

GLENN: It really, truly is crap sandwiches for as far as the eye can see. Let me ask you this: When was the last time you saw the President of the United States make this kind of effort, with a speech last Thursday, then a speech to Wall Street Friday morning, one yesterday morning, another one today with these dire, dire warnings and yet they're still saying, well, it would be a recession. How many recessions have we gone through, Jonah? We keep going through recessions. We don't have this.

GOLDBERG: Look, I think, you know, John McCain got a bad rap a couple of weeks ago when he said the fundamentals of this economy were strong. He probably shouldn't have said it politically, it was probably a dumb idea but once he said it, he should not have let Obama beat him up on it. Because in the middle of a panic, you are not supposed to spread panic. FDR, one of the few things he really did, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and all that kind of thing. And Obama took the juvenile position that the thing to do in the middle of a panic is to scream fire. So I don't fault Bush for, you know, trying to sort of skirt the line.

GLENN: I agree.

GOLDBERG: Between stability and scare mongering but it's a difficult line to cross.

GLENN: Right, and I'm not asking you, I'm not asking you about that because I don't think the President has a choice. But this is the fundamental problem that we have in the United States of America and no bailout of any size is going to correct this. When John McCain was talking about the fundamentals of the economy are strong, I believe what he means is the average person, the average person is the engine of the economy and I know that's -- I think that's what he said a couple of days later. But it's true, the entrepreneur is fine if you just get out of his way.

GOLDBERG: Yeah, productivity, the worker productivity which really is the fundamental engine of all prosperity is actually doing pretty good.

GLENN: Right. But the problem is, the fundamental problem is trust.

GOLDBERG: Yeah.

GLENN: The President no longer can say -- he can't say how bad it really is because he's the President. You can't scare the market. You can't scare people in that. But nobody believes anybody in congress. Nobody believes anybody in the White House. Nobody believes anybody in Wall Street. Nobody believes anything because we have been lied to over and over again. So Jonah, how do you get the word out when -- and this is a problem I've been facing now for two years. How do you get the problem out and really vocalize when no one is trustworthy?

GOLDBERG: Look, I agree it's an enormous problem. Look at John McCain, right? He suspends his campaign and comes to Washington because the Democratic leadership said we need John McCain here to get a deal worked out. John McCain suspends his campaign, comes to Washington and they ride him out on a rail, they ridicule it as a stunt and the press openly and without reservation flies into the bald Democratic lie that there was a deal already nailed down just so they can make it look like John McCain blew up the deal. Now, you disagree with the deal, but there was no deal and you disagree with McCain's position on this.

GLENN: Right.

GOLDBERG: But McCain is the only guy in his entire political class, in the top tier political class that wants to treat this crisis like a crisis and the media and the Democrats joined forces to ridicule and belittle him as some sort of fool. It is an incredibly poisonous situation. You know, in the middle ages Harry Reid would have his stomach cut open and a half starved weasel thrown in for the kind of things he's doing.

GLENN: Got to blame it on living in the Dark Ages now. Okay, so help me out. Because I was watching TV early this morning. I turned on the TV and I'm getting ready for work and I see Nancy Pelosi give that speech and then I see Harry Reid say something and then Barney Frank said something and they are all blaming this on, "There was absolutely no standards here. They were trying to stop regulation." Well, there's no regulation on the hedge funds and nobody seems to have a problem with that one and that thing's going to come apart anytime. It was not a Republican stop regulation thing. It started as a Democrat, "We're going to call you a racist if you don't make these loans to people," and continued on with a Republican administration that did the same damn thing. How can you get that down to the average person so they can understand when the media is not reporting this at all.

GOLDBERG: No, look, I agree entirely on it. It is outrageous that Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank have been going around saying this is the failure of the free market. You know, Christopher Dodd said, "Oh, we didn't have enough oversight." He is the chairman of the banking committee! His job is to run oversight of the banking industry! It is amazing that these guys can say this stuff with a straight face. You would think the press pool would just dive for cover for fear of God's lightning bolts coming down to smite fees people for their effrontery. And yet it is par for the course. Everyone's talking about, you know, you tell a lot about people by how they sort of interpret facts that bolster their own ideological, you know, preconceptions, and that happens on the right and the left. But it is amazing that after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac came up with all of these bizarre ways of slicing and dicing mortgages into ever more complicated schemes in order to personally enrich Franklin Raines nearly to the tune of $100 million that people are saying, oh, this has something to do with the inherent failures of the free enterprise system. The Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stuff that Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd and these guys champion, distorted the market. And yes, there were bad actors on Wall Street who did bad things who, you know, who took the lead of government and personally enriched themselves, and shame on them. But the market was screwed up by these guys who want to sort of rate banks not on the soundness of their loans but on their social conscience in terms of giving out money to groups like ACORN and historically, you know, aggrieved and disadvantaged groups, which is not the way proper business runs. And now we're living with this enormous mess and these guys want to use it as an excuse to turn the entire financial system into the Fannie Mae of their dreams. And it is a really scary situation.

GLENN: Jonah Goldberg, in your book Liberal Fascism, you talk about the -- you know, you talk about how all of this started, that the New Deal was started way before, just a different mindset and how America changed its mindset. There are two kinds of Americas now. There are the Americans that are the traditional Americans that are like, get the heck out of my way and I don't want a handout and I never ask you for a handout. And then there are those Americans who are saying, well, they're bailing them out; how come they won't bail me out. Now, I would say that as a, you know, to make a point, they are not coming to bail me out but I would never want them to bail me out. But a growing number of Americans want that bailout. A, do you think this is a slam dunk now for Barack Obama because the tide is moving towards, I want somebody to hold my hand and, you know, scratch my back and prop my feet up on a pillow and big government's the one to do it; and B, what do you think about the new New Deal? What is coming our way?

GOLDBERG: Well, I think you are right. History quickly. Woodrow Wilson creates more during World War I. FDR says we were onto something with socialism during World War I, let's do that to fight the Great Depression. The New Deal prolongs the Great Depression rather than fight the Great Depression. It extends the shelf life of the Depression by years. Europe's Depressions weren't great in the 1930s. Only America's was. What FDR's revolutionary tactic in American politics was to change citizens who had rights and freedoms that were independent of government, to clients of a government that would give them everything that they need. And now we've got a sizable number of Americans who think that the government is their mommy or daddy and that they should be the government's trust fund babies and get all sorts of stuff from the government. And I think that Obama fits entirely within that tradition, the way he talks about, you know, unity and how we all have to sort of, you know, be on the same page and if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem and, you know, how his wife talks about he is going to fix our broken souls and all these sorts of things. He comes explicitly from that same perspective and says that we're going to turn all Americans basically into clients of the state. Doesn't necessarily mean we're going to live in a Nazi dictatorship or anything like that but he no longer views -- you know, in his speech at the Democratic convention he very straightforwardly ridiculed the idea of the American dream -- or replaced the idea of the American dream with what he calls the idea of the American promise, and the American promise is a collectivist vision where everybody gets their payday from the government rather than the American dream where every individual gets to pursue happiness as they see fit.

GLENN: I'm sure you know this, Jonah, but he's going to be the first -- this is part of his deal. He is going to be the first person ever to, when you get -- if you didn't pay taxes, you're going to get a rebate check from the IRS, but you're going to have a letter that comes from President Obama that says, this is your check, this is your money, this is the American promise. He's going to be the first one that is actually issuing checks for those who, on a regular basis, that did not pay taxes.

GOLDBERG: No, that's right. I mean, Obama has half a point when he says the people do pay sales taxes and all the rest. But when he calls these things a tax cut, you know, it's an incredibly simplistic but brilliant marketing because basically what he's doing is just giving these people cash and saying, here, I've cut your taxes. I think the best single fundamental reform for our country would simply be no more paycheck withholding, no more sales tax. If you want to keep the income tax, fine, but once a year you write out your check to the federal government so it really distinction and on the back you'll vote for who you want for President in congress. And if people have to pay their taxes in one lump sum and vote on the same day, we would have limited government in this country.

GLENN: You ain't kidding. You are not kidding. Jonah, thanks very much. I appreciate it. We'll talk to you again.

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.