Glenn Beck: Roger Pilan about the Sotomayor nomination



Roger Pilon is the Vice President for Legal Affairs for the CATO Institute


GLENN: Roger Pilon is the vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and also director for the Center For Constitutional Studies. Roger, how are you, sir?

PILON: Well, thank you, Glenn.

GLENN: Well, tell me about Justice how do you say her name? Sotomayor?

PILON: Sotomayor.

GLENN: Tell me about her.

PILON: Well, she was a judge on the second circuit. She was before that a district court, federal district court judge named by the first George Bush, elevated to the second circuit by President Clinton, and she has a very attractive history. She came up the hard way, so to speak. Her father died when she was 9 years old. She was brought up by a single mother thereafter. She went to Princeton, went to Yale Law School and served as a U.S. attorney, assistant district attorney in New York. But there is a lot of negative as well, and it's going to come out in these hearings.

GLENN: Well, hang on. Hang on, I didn't I didn't hear really the positives there. I mean, I know she had a tough life and, boohoo, cry me a river, a lot of people had a tough life.

PILON: Yep.

GLENN: And then she went to Yale and Princeton which kind of goes against the tough life thing, but maybe that's just me. What are the strengths that she has? I hate to boil it down to, you know, content of character kind of issues, but what has she done that has she done anything that is a positive when it comes to looking at the Constitution?

PILON: Well, you maybe want to rephrase that question this way: Were she not female and Hispanic, would she be nominated.

GLENN: The answer to that is no, and I know nothing about her.

PILON: That's right. And the reason is this, that the left is fairly salivating for someone who will be intellectually powerful and an effective voice against the intellectually powerful people like Antonin Scalia, John Roberts and so on.

GLENN: I

PILON: And the question is, is she going to be this kind of person? And there is concern on the left that she will not.

GLENN: Okay, I have heard that she is, in the second court of appeals that she is almost a bully at times, that she has the image of not being that intellectually bright. I don't know if this is true or not. This is one piece of analysis that I heard today: She's not that intellectually bright and she's almost a bully. She just loves to hear herself talk.

PILON: This is widely held. You can see a piece in the New Republic on May 4th by Jeffrey Rosen, their Supreme Court correspondent, that addresses that issue, drawing from a number of Democrats who have clerked and who known her over the years. So there is that. But without question, Glenn, the case that is really going to come to the fore is this Ricci V. DeStefano and that's the New Haven firefighters case, just for your audience who may not be familiar with it. This is a case brought by Ricci and several others, white firefighters including one Hispanic, by the way, who got high marks on the exam for officer, firefighter officer. And when the results did not come out right, the city threw the test out. So Mr. Ricci brought suit. He was dyslexic. He had studied long and hard for this. He had spent a substantial amount of money getting the tests put into recorded form so that he could study for it, and he came out number 6, I believe it was, in the order and therefore was a prime candidate for elevation to an officer. The Court threw it out, and the district the district court threw it out. The appellate court, the panel on which Judge Sotomayor sat, all but dismissed the case, gave a perfunctory disposition of it. Indeed in a response to Judge Cabrenas, a colleague of Judge Sotomayor on that court, he said it contains no reference to the constitutional court to the claims of the core of this case, a perfunctory disposition, rest with the weighty issues addressed by this appeal. In other words, it was a classic affirmative action case in which she stood for affirmative action and it is going to come down from the Supreme Court next month. The oral arguments suggest that the Supreme Court is going to reverse the second circuit and so if these hearings are going to be held in July, it will be right after that decision comes down and they will be stormy hearings, I predict.

GLENN: Okay. So she was against and explain the there's some sort of law that even if this test, even if none of the questions were like are you black or are you handicapped; if so, you're out, even if there was no evidence that there was any kind of racism in this test, if the results of the test are that, hey, select group of people, whichever group that is, didn't make it into the top, then that can be deemed racist because of its effect? Is that right?

PILON: This is the way the court in effect decided it. Now, I ask you, if it had turned out that the African Americans had come out on top, the Court surely would not have sustained and the city would not have thrown out the results and, of course, if it had, the court would have found this to be a violation of equal protection. So I mean, we have we're just about as blatant a case of race discrimination as you could possibly ask for and yet she sat on this panel and found nothing wrong. There's the nub of the matter right there.

GLENN: Roger, let me ask you one more question, then I want to ask you about another big case coming out today. When she has to take the oath of office, why has no one been challenging Barack Obama when he says he wants somebody of empathy, and she's quoted in one of her lectures saying that she really, you know, she just hopes that a Latina woman with rich experience is appointed to the court, et cetera, et cetera; how come nobody is pointing out the oath that she's going to have to take, I solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge? There's no empathy in you would have to violate your own oath to be empathetic. Why is there no challenge here?

PILON: Well, there is a challenge but they are by people who are being dismissed out of hand because it's politically incorrect to raise such a challenge. That's what we've come to, Glenn. This is a Constitution that has been so politicized in recent years that it's hardly indicative of the rule of law. It is an empty vessel in which transient majorities or judges 5 4 can pour their own conception of evolving social values.

GLENN: We have the audio of her. Can we play that, Dan? We have the audio of her speaking. Now, this is recorded on videotape, et cetera, et cetera. Listen to what she says about the role of the court.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SOTOMAYOR: The role of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is, court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. (Laughter). Okay. I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, you know.

GLENN: Stop, stop.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

GLENN: She's clearly saying it and then trying to backpedal like, no, no, no, really, I mean, you can't I mean, this is the reality, Roger.

PILON: Yeah.

GLENN: What you are saying is an empty vessel, this is proof positive of it.

PILON: Absolutely. This is a wink and a nod, right, to the rule of law. It is saying in effect that we sit as one more legislative branch, making policy. And, of course, that is not what the Court is supposed to do. We call the Court the nonpolitical branch as opposed to the legislature and the executive because it is to decide cases brought before them by the law. That's why Lady Justice, Justicia is blindfolded.

GLENN: Roger, I don't know if you can answer this. When we come back you just tell me if you're not the guy to talk to on this. But the way they are going to they are going to rule today on Proposition 8 as well.

PILON: Yeah.

GLENN: Can you discuss that?

PILON: Well, I can, yes, but it's I can only give you the conventional wisdom on it because no one knows how the

GLENN: Right, right. But I have a question on this because there seems to be a very convenient loophole that I bet you my life the Supreme Court is going to take, and I'd love to get your opinion on it. We'll do that next.

PILON: Okay.

(OUT 9:45)

GLENN: 888 727 BECK. Roger Pilon is with us. He's vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute. And by the way, here's the quote. Here's the quote from Sonia Sotomayor. She said, quote: I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male that hasn't lived that life. Have you ever heard anything like that, Roger, before? I mean, you know, outside of KKK rallies or, you know, Nazi party speeches.

PILON: There are judges, there are judges out there who believe that. In fact, this goes way back to the 1930s when people argued that the judges make decisions based upon what they ate for breakfast that morning. And so this is an approach that has come from the school of legal realism, as it's called, and it's been around for some time. Of course, it is not our ideal of what a judge should do, but that's why as I said before the break, we have Lady Justice with the blindfold on because she really doesn't care whether the person before her is black or white, rich or poor. Her job is to apply the law in light of the facts before her. And that is what as Chief Justice Roberts put it in his confirmation hearings, it's like an umpire. The umpire calls balls or strikes not for the home team or for the visitors but as he sees them.

GLENN: Of course that's what a white male who hasn't lived life would say.

Roger, let me go to Proposition 8. Proposition 8, as far as I'm concerned, whatever you want to do in your own bedroom is your own business. Anybody who thinks that, well, we're just going to stop this at gay marriage if the state is involved, you have no intellectual but I mean, you know, neither does Sonia what's her face. You have no intellectual honesty. If you can say, well, we're going to make an exception here but not for triads but not for polygamy or anything else. You can't change one part of it without the other. I personally think, like California be California, Utah be Utah, call it a day, let's move on.

PILON: Well, this is a complex issue that can be approached on many levels. Let's start at the most basic level. Marriage is a contract. And who's to say what contracts people can enter into of various kinds.

Now, what's the state doing involved in this contract? Well, there are complicated reasons for that. Historical, for example, then there are children involved, at least in some marriages where the state has an interest. And then, too, there is the impremateur factor and that's the really tricky issue. It's one thing if you have contracts that are just simply recognized about I the state, but the state recognition tends to impose an impremateur and that's where you get into the political difficulties because there are lots of people, as in the State of California who don't want their impremateur to be placed on the political realm on this union of same sex couples. And it came out that way when it was put to a vote not once but twice in the State of California and so now you get to the Democratic dimensions. And if the Supreme Court of California overrides again the will of the voters

GLENN: They are going to.

PILON: then there is going to be some real consternation, I predict. That's why the conventional wisdom has it that there will be kind of a split decision, that is to say they will allow the proposition to stand but they will also allow those marriages that took place before that to stand as well.

GLENN: I think they are going to go for this new argument that it has to be introduced by the legislature with 3/4 vote and then brought to the people.

PILON: I see. You think that's the route? Well, it's possible, yeah.

GLENN: You don't think so?

PILON: I don't know. I mean, the California Supreme Court

GLENN: Crazy?

PILON: is a world all unto itself.

GLENN: If that happens and I've only got 30 seconds here. If that happens, shouldn't you go back in California and repeal every constitutional amendment that hasn't been done exactly that way?

PILON: Well, one would think that that would follow. But Glenn, let me tell you. The same sex marriage issue is the least of the problems in California today.

GLENN: I mean, it's just, it's really ridiculous. I mean, it really is. Like, "So North Korea's testing nukes. Hey, who won on American Idol?" Maybe that's just me. Roger, thank you so much, sir.

PILON: You're quite welcome.

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.