Jonah Goldberg Interview



Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg


Also see: Glenn's Recommended Reading List

GLENN: Putting the radio back into Radio City, from Midtown Manhattan in Rockefeller Plaza, this is the third most listened to show in all of America. I'm glad you're here. Jonah Goldberg, who has been a frequent guest on the program, especially the last couple of weeks, friend of the program, he's the author of the number one New York Times Best Seller, Liberal Fascism, is on the phone with us. Jonah, I called you when I found out you were number one -- I think it was on Wednesday. You were hard at work. You were out in California -- to congratulate you on being a number one New York Times Best Seller. I couldn't be happier if it were happening to me. You so deserve a number one best seller on this particular book. Congratulations.

GOLDBERG: Glenn, I cannot begin to tell you how happy I am to you and your listeners. I was very happy with where I was on the list. But it was after the yeoman work that you did on your radio show and, of course, on the TV show that catapulted me to number one. So, you know, let me promise right here and now that I'm going to mow your lawn and wash your car for the foreseeable future. I am incredibly indebted to you and eternally grateful.

GLENN: Please, please, please. Jonah, let me ask you this.

GOLDBERG: Yes.

GLENN: Because you debuted at number 3, did you not?

GOLDBERG: I debuted at 10 and then the following week went up to 3 and then ran out of books.

GLENN: These publishers, they honestly do not believe that conservatives can read.

GOLDBERG: No, that's right. They were -- Random House was, in effect, getting out of this business, of conservative book publishing when this book skyrocketed up and I think it's sort of shaking up a lot of the assumptions of the publishing establishment that, you know, conservative books still sell, that people want to read this stuff and that it's not all sort of, you know, it's not all the Charlie Rose that read books.

GLENN: It just, isn't it amazing, Jonah. Do you live in Washington?

GOLDBERG: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. Isn't it amazing when you come up to New York and you deal with the New York elite how they just, they just, it's almost like they talk to you as if you're, you know, autistic. You know, it's like, "Okay, Jonah, okay, well, we'll do that, we'll see. Can you make the words a little smaller? Because I don't know if people like you are going to read this. That's an awfully big word."

GOLDBERG: Well, I grew up on the upper west side of Manhattan and we were basically -- the Goldbergs, we were one of the very few politically conservative families around and we were sort of like Christians in ancient Rome. You know, you have to sort of, you hide in Riverside Park and you draw a little C in the dirt to see if the other guy's a conservative, too, and then you meet and try to talk about how you actually like Ronald Reagan.

GLENN: Right, right. Keep it down.

GOLDBERG: I grew up with all of that. I'm very used to it and it's never -- it never ceases to be frustrating.

GLENN: Yeah, and it never ceases to amaze me how -- let me rephrase this. Let me ask you this: I believe that -- I'm beginning to believe that these people in Washington, these Progressives are not this stupid when it comes to the economy. When people are celebrating and saying, oh, my gosh. You know, when Fannie Mae yesterday announces, what was it, a $3.65 billion loss in the fourth quarter alone, then says they have more losses on the way, they've got $700 billion in loans and they say 20% of them are already in default. So you know what's coming. How the liberals and the Progressives in Washington celebrate and say, oh, my gosh, you guys need to take on more debt. Jonah, talk me down from the tree where these guys -- tell me that they're this stupid. Tell me that they're not intentionally trying to take down our economy to be able to implement all of the things that they want to implement and make us into one giant socialist state.

GOLDBERG: Well, you know, I don't think that in their heart of hearts they think that's what they're doing but that doesn't mean that's not what they're doing.

GLENN: So then your case would be that they're that stupid.

GOLDBERG: Yeah, cognitive dissidence. It's not quite Leninist but, you know, Lenin has this phrase, the worse, the better. The worse things got, the more support they would get. And I think that sort of thought runs through a lot of the Democratic party these days, particularly because they want to make this a change election, they know if the economy gets worse, they'll do better and so they see nothing wrong with talking down the economy when a bad economy will hurt the Republicans, not them. And I think we see that in things that, you know, Harry Reid says all the time, we see that in the sort of glee with which the mainstream press is reporting that we're going to go into a recession, you know, which they know becomes in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy.

GLENN: Well, you know what, Jonah, do you watch or listen to my program very often? Because I am leading the charge on I think we are in deep, deep trouble economically.

GOLDBERG: No, I think -- I'm not saying that they're wrong necessarily but I don't think you were happy about it.

GLENN: Okay. No, yes, yes, you're right about that. I'm terrified out of my mind about it, yes. Okay. First of all, because I want to talk to you about something entirely different.

GOLDBERG: Sure.

GLENN: Another article you wrote, but I've got to ask you this, or at least maybe congratulate you on this. You are the worst person in the world with Keith Olbermann.

GOLDBERG: Again, yes, I think two more and I'm in eighth.

GLENN: What were the worst person in the world for?

GOLDBERG: It was a clip from your show which they took off context.

GLENN: What a surprise.

GOLDBERG: And Olbermann basically says I called FDR and Obama Hitler. That's not what I said. I mean, you were there. You know we were constantly defining our terms and saying what we were talking about and all of that. And then, you know, Olbermann says, "Goldberg still doesn't understand what fascism is, he still thinks it's like socialism, he doesn't even know that fascists were beating up socialists in the streets in Italy." And, you know, the response to that is, okay well, you know, Stalin beat up and murdered several million socialists. Does that mean he was antisocialist? Does that mean he was a fascist? Hitler killed a bunch of Nazis. Does that mean he's not a Nazi? I mean, it's this no-nothing kind of sheep Sophomoric scoring that you come to expect from someone like Olbermann.

GLENN: It's really disheartening to see that this guy, especially on debate nights, does well in the ratings.

GOLDBERG: Yeah.

GLENN: He is a growing force and, you know, God bless him. I mean, freedom of speech. You have a right to do that. It's disheartening because he is so full of opinion and his -- I mean, a lot of his stuff comes from blogs. It's not even good sources. And then when you see something like that. Even me, man, I'm a rodeo clown. I'd never run with a story like that.

GOLDBERG: Yeah. Beck I'd never run -- you can't take things out of context but this guy's a growing force and truly a propaganda machine.

GOLDBERG: What drives me crazy, I'm a free speech guy. I don't mind having lots of different voices on television, the media.

GLENN: Me, neither.

GOLDBERG: It's great you want to have the O'Reillys, the Hannitys, all of that is great. Opinion is great. I have no problem with it. My problem with Olbermann is that MSNBC cast him as a straight newsman whenever they want to and his fans in the quote/unquote main street press are hailing him as the new Edward R. Murrow.

GLENN: I know.

GOLDBERG: Whatever he is, he is not that. Certainly not what they think he had war R. Murrow was. He's not a straight newsman and he gets to have it both ways and, you know, the conservative talkers, they have to be very up front. You know, they're conservative. They're giving their opinion and it would never occur to, you know, the news networks to run them as anchors as well.

GLENN: There's no way anyone would run me as an anchor. There's no way -- you know what's amazing, there's no way that they would put Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly at Fox over to ask questions during a debate.

GOLDBERG: Yeah, they know there's a difference between Brit Hume and O'Reilly and I think they have no clue that there's a difference between Keith Olbermann and Tom Brokaw.

GLENN: It's a frightening trend. I want to talk to you, this goes to the point of your book, Liberal Fascism. Your point, correct me if I'm wrong, is liberals need to know their history. You need to know where you came from. You need to be able to see that there were real nefarious people involved. Conservatives need to do it as well. You need to look at history to know where you're going.

GOLDBERG: That's right. And, you know, conservatives understand that, you know, they've got skeletons in their closet. Liberals just seem to always think that right now at this very moment, they are the good guys, that they are not responsible or they don't have to worry about the fact that their predecessors also thought they were the good guys and did some really terrible things.

GLENN: Now, you have a new article out, and tell me the connection to Obama, to Weather Underground because it's kind of shifting sand here on the connection. It's not a real strong connection, right?

GOLDBERG: Right. Basically Obama, when he was coming up in Chicago politics, one of the people that you sort of have to go and kiss the ring of is this guy, Bill Ayers, who is a professor at the University of Illinois and sort of a local powerhouse in Progressive politics in Chicago and he's a former member of the Weather Underground. He was a bomb maker for them. He claims responsibility for sending bombs, attacking all sorts of government institutions. The Weather Underground declared war openly on the United States of America, has blood on its hands and Ayers --

GLENN: They called for -- they actually said -- now, was it this guy who said it or just the Weather Underground that said, kill your parents -- what was the quote? I read it in --

GOLDBERG: I don't have it right in front of me but it's kill your parents, kill your family, you know, attack the government, something like that, that's where it's at. And that has been widely attributed to Bill Ayers himself. And when he was asked by the New York Times on total irony on September 11th, 2001 about his work making bombs for the Weather Underground, they asked him if he had any remorse and he said, no, I wish I had done more. And, you know, that was the same day a couple of hours later that the Pentagon actually gets blown up, all these attacks. And, you know, can't be held accountable for the bad timing. But he was unapologetic, as far as I know remains unapologetic and there seems to be no cost for these former radicals to sort of reenter polite liberal society and be treated with respect and deference and, you know, imagine -- I mean, imagine if some guy was even remotely connected to bombing a church during the civil rights, you know, era.

GLENN: But let's just say a bomb maker, a bomb maker.

GOLDBERG: Yeah. For the right there is never any forgiveness, and I'm not saying there should be any forgiveness for a guy who has anything to do with blowing up a church. But my point is that there is this assumption that anyone too far to the right is permanently illegitimate but anyone who's too far to the left, well, you know, they were young, they were passionate, they cared too much and that it's okay to sort of have this segue. And academia and the universities are full of these people, these former radicals, Weather Underground, FDS, Black Panthers, fan of the Black Panthers. And the Black Panthers who Hillary Clinton was a fan of, the liberal elites these days were probably fans of in their youth. They were an openly fascistic terrorist organization, declared terror on the United States in the name of racial superiority, who ambushed cops and shot them in cold blood in the back, who murdered, you know, people willy-nilly, and yet we have Hollywood making pro Black Panther movies, Tom Wolfe writes about the radical sheep of the Black Panthers who go to a cocktail party on the upper west side of Manhattan. I mean, imagine having a cocktail party for Klansmen. I mean, there is an enormous double standard in the culture that the further you move to the left, you may be misguided or wrong but you are never evil, you are never bad and the further you move to the right, the closer you get to pure evil.

GLENN: You know, you were talking about, imagine a cocktail party for Klansmen. I think they are fundraisers for Robert Byrd. I think that's what they're called now. Jonah, congratulations again on the book Liberal Fascism, number one New York Times Best Seller. Nobody deserves it more than you do. No book more importantly deserve it more than that and I encourage anybody who hasn't picked this book up yet to please pick it up. It is number one on the New York Times.

I know you're a conservative. So it's hard for you to read other than "Sam I Am."

GOLDBERG: Well, maybe we'll get some hand puppets and we'll --

GLENN: We'll act it out for them, that's great. Jonah, thank you very much. Congratulations.

GOLDBERG: You're the man.

GLENN: Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism. I have to tell you, the best thing about this audience and thank you so much for being a member of it, is that you are curious, that you are -- you are looking for answers. You are not just looking for the typical answer, that you are engaged on trying to figure things out. You know, I'm so encouraged to hear from listeners from both sides of the aisle that listen to this program and say, "You know what, Glenn, I mean, I used to believe this; I don't think I believe this anymore. I think I'm -- I can't be a Republican. I don't know what conservatives even stand for anymore because they're so tied to the Republican party. I don't know, you know, about liberals, what do they stand for anymore. They've just become Democrats, they're just selling their soul to the devil." Find out the truth. Find out what's really going on. Find out what you really believe in. And I've got to tell you, that is this audience.

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.