Glenn Beck: Shell President


John Hofmeister is the retiring president of Shell Oil...

Glenn: From midtown Manhattan in Rockefeller Plaza, this is the third most listened to show in all of America. My name is Glenn Beck. John Hofmeister is the retiring president of Shell Oil and he is on the -- he's on the phone with me now.

John, I was told by one of my producers that you're outgoing as the president and I said, was it because he was on my show last night?

Hofmeister: Well, this has been announced sometime ago. It's a natural transition. Good to be with you, Glenn.

Glenn: John, last night I had you on the TV show and we talked about the record profits of big oil and I am so tired of hearing about the record profits on big oil without talking about -- for instance, Exxon just announced today with their profits that they paid more in taxes than any corporation in U.S. history.

Hofmeister: That doesn't surprise me. On a global basis, I know I gave you a number yesterday of 1 billion dollars for last year and that's a pretty big number to pay in taxes.

Glenn: Yeah. Exxon income taxes were $9.32 billion in the first quarter and, in fact, CNN -- I love this -- CNN said Exxon paid $1,185 in income tax every -- no. I'm sorry. They said -- oh, shoot. They said that it was -- well, now I can't find it. Where is it, Stu? Following the CNN lead.


They paid -- well, I can't find it. They paid all this money and what they were trying to do was CNN was saying they made so much money in profits that they could have bought all of this gas, you know, the X number of gallons of gas. Well, what they didn't do is they didn't say how many gallons of gas they would pay with their income tax.

Hofmeister: Yeah. Well, I usually use a different term. I think about how many dollars we are not putting into new exploration, new production of more oil and gas or alternative energies for the future by virtue of what we're paying to the governments that we work for.

Glenn: John, tell me about the -- because Hillary Clinton wants to seizure profits and everybody always says, "Oh, my gosh. These tax breaks that these oil companies are getting." Tell me about the tax breaks.

Hofmeister: Well, the tax breaks are a myth. What happens is, in Congress in 2004, the Congress, in its judgment, decided that much of what the energy companies do is manufacturing. After all, we have some 10 refineries that manufacture gasoline products, aviation fuels, etc. So, we were then able to use an appreciated or an accelerated depreciation allowance in order to create more jobs for America.

So, when people use the word "tax incentive," when we're actually doing our work, we are creating new jobs for Americans at our U.S.-based refineries and as a privilege of doing that, we get to accelerate some of the depreciation. I don't consider that an incentive at all. I consider that a way every other manufacturer in America is doing business. Why not extend it to oil manufacturing, as well?

Glenn: Do you get breaks for alternative energy?

Hofmeister: Well, if -- there are breaks. For example, we're in the wind business. Right now there is an incentive that enables wind companies like Shell to set up wind farms and, again, depreciate more rapidly or get other tax credits for the setting up of wind farms, which is in the national interest. Wind farms are very expensive, very high capital for which there is no profit and if there is no profit, our shareholders say, Well, why are you doing that? When we show them that we are actually saving shareholders money by taking advantage of certain incentives for new forms of energy, which is experimental but actually make a difference, then our shareholders say, Oh, okay. We understand that and they support it.

Glenn: Oil is now -- what is it today? $110 a barrel. That's good news, down over 2.50 today. I talked to -- I've talked to several people and they say that the days of cheap oil are gone forever. Agree or disagree?

Hofmeister: I basically agree with that if you're thinking about conventional, easy oil. It's scarcer and scarcer to get the big fines that are inexpensive to produce. We have a project now in the Gulf of Mexico where we're working through 700 feet of water. The reservoir is 28,000 feet below the surface of the earth and it's a good reservoir and will produce hundreds of millions of barrels from this other of prolific oil, but how do you lift barrels of oil from -- really it's a total of almost 7 miles to get it to the surface of the ocean which is then 100 miles from the coast of Texas and we have to transport it and then refine it and then get it to customers. So, that's called expensive conventional oil.

The days of, you know, our good friend, you know, the -- Uncle Jeb where he, you know, shot a bullet in the ground and out to him bubbling crude, those days are gone. We have exploited those, although we could go back into old fields with and probably get a lot more oils out of what are considered decommissioned or oil fields, using enhanced oil technology.

Glenn: What do you think that the price of oil is going to be, you know, in the short-term? Do you think -- now, the Nigerian strike just was settled today.

Hofmeister: If we had sound national policy and we get rid of this ridiculous 30-year moratorium on prohibiting American oil companies from exploring and producing oil in the outer continental shelf, 85 percent of which is off limits, if we could access domestic resources, if we had a sound energy policy that took into consideration short, medium, and long term issues, I think we could settle in a range of 60 to $80 a barrel, depending upon global circumstances, and wouldn't that be good for the American economy and wouldn't that be good for job creation and wouldn't that be good for maintaining our lifestyle?

Glenn: Wouldn't that be bad -- not to play Devil's advocate for you, wouldn't that be bad for the caribou? Wouldn't that be bad for the whales? Wouldn't that be bad for planet earth?

Stu: Keep in mind I said, short, medium, and long-term. In the short-term if we're going to maintain the existing strength of this country, have jobs, and continue to have the lifestyle that we have, we have no choice other than hydrocarbons, but if you look over the medium and longer term, there are technologies that could be brought to bear on the efficient use of molecules.

For example, an internal combustion engine only uses 20 percent of the energy to give you mobility. 80 percent is wasted as heat. There has to be better technology than the internal combustion engine and companies like Shell and GM are working on that that give you hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Over the medium to longer term, we can produce more energy with less CO2 in the efficient use of all of the machines and appliances that we have, as well as lighting. In addition, we can also reduce CO2 by using the technology of carbon capture and storage at stationary power generating stations. New power generating stations should be induced or incentivized to begin using carbon capture and storage, whether that's with coal burning or with coal gasification. The technology is there, but it needs enabling legislation to make it affordable so that we can get a price on carbon.

We're proponents at Shell of a national cap and trade session, where we set a cap on emissions and we begin using innovation and technology to bring down emissions but there needs to be a price of carbon which can be set through a trading system.

Glenn: Why would you do that? Why would you be for that?

Hofmeister: We're for it because we think it's going to create huge economic value over the next decade. Whole new industries will spring up if we begin to control emissions and start trading on new energy saving or energy conservation because, I mean, let's face it. We don't know everything today. There's all kinds of new innovation and technology which will create whole new industries around carbon management. We think that's worth pursuing.

Glenn: Scientists announced today that there is a 10-year break in global warming. So, we've just bought ourselves 10 years on this global warming, which I believe is nonsense, but at least the solutions are nonsense. How long do we have -- if we continue to screw around the way we are, how long do we have before we cannot afford our lifestyle?

Hofmeister: Well, the reason Shell is an advocate for going now is so that we don't have to answer that question. We're not climatologists at Shell.

Glenn: No, no. I'm not talking about global warming. I'm talking about if we don't stop screwing around, if we don't unleash the energy power here in our own country and be able to take the shackles off of exploring and creating our own energy, if policy doesn't change, how long before we cannot afford the energy that we're currently and expected to consume?

Hofmeister: I would submit we're already sliding down a slippery slope and that started actually about the middle of this decade, whereas the competitiveness of China, India, and other developing nations increased, our competitiveness decreased because we have overpriced energy to American businesses and consumers. We've overpriced it because we have limited access to it. We have not done anything other than punish those who would like to produce more energy by restricting their ability to move, let's say, to the outer continental shelf that's off limits or made it so difficult to add expansions to our refineries that people chose not to do it but did it in other words parts of the world. So, we have incentivized food producers, manufacturers to move offshore, because there is more affordable energy elsewhere in the world.

We have already started down the slippery slope of making energy too expensive for this country, making infrastructure very difficult to build. Try to build a power plant today. We are making it so difficult by public resistance, often coming from just a few elite sources that don't think about the implications for low income and middle income Americans, that we're already sliding down that slippery slope, Glenn, which is why my voice has been so strong recently and in my retirement it's going to get louder and a bit more critical and a bit more edgy, maybe even like yours, to where -- you know, my next business is to establish a nongovernmental agency called Citizens For Affordable Energy and we're going to look across the population of America from individuals to companies to say please join us in leveraging the pragmatism of the American spirit to make energy affordable in the future.

Glenn: John, do you know David Neeleman?

Hofmeister: No, I don't.

Glenn: Do you know who he is? The president of Jet Blue, the founder of Jet Blue?

Hofmeister: Yes.

Glenn: David is a very good friend of mine and I have been talking to him about energy for a very long time and this guy is just now building an airline in Brazil. He came to me three years ago and he said -- I said to him, "Boy, I'm really concerned about oil, David. I think we're headed in the next few years for real trouble in oil." He said, "Oh, yeah."

He tried to get his company to build oil reserves and, you know, have their own oil reserves just like we have natural strategic oil reserves and they said no. He said, Well, then what do we do? Let's come up with coal to oil. Let's build plants.

He got together with GE and everybody else. All he needed is for the government to underwrite the loans. If oil was ever collapsed by OPEC -- I think it was at 30 or $40 a barrel -- the government would make up the difference for the loans because that's what they did to synthetic oil in the Eighties. The government said no. Then he went into sugar ethanol and said, Let's just buy up a swath of land and I'm going to start planting sugar. Let's talk to Brazil. Let's start planting some other sugar there. Let's do that. The government again said no. Every step of the way people are saying no.

How are you and your future company going to be able to make an impact? The desire is there. The customers are there. The ingenuity is there. The dollars are there, but the government will not tell you what the policy will be to be able to stabilize that market.

Hofmeister: I've thought with this a lot and thought hard about it and here I think is the issue: This country still works very well when it comes to a subject like home land security because we solve our problems in a bipartisan way. This country works pretty well when it comes to economic security because, with all of the shake-out that we've seen in the dotcom breakdown or with all of the shakedown with the mortgage crisis and so forth, we ultimately come together in a bipartisan way. What we have failed to do repeatedly, generation after generation, for the last 50 years, is come together on energy security.

My efforts will be to create a nonpartisan effort to solve our energy problems through good public policy by getting an overwhelming number of Americans to say, We need this. This is still a democracy. This is still where the majority matters. And I believe -- maybe I'm naive, some may call me foolish, but I believe that if we approach energy in a nonpartisan fashion -- and that's been the problem, especially the last 20 years, is partisanship. If one party proposes, the other party says no. If one president --

Glenn: On both sides.

Hofmeister: It's just -- it's an embarrassment to the world --

Glenn: It is.

Hofmeister: -- that we are so partisan when it comes to energy. In this regard, I have to be somewhat blameful of my own industry because the industry has unfortunately been in its own way too partisan and it has been too one-sided in its approach and it has also not been forthcoming in describing to the American people what the issues are and what needs to be done. We've been too quiet, too silent on issues that we would rather not, you know, have public debate over; and I think that's wrong, as well.

Glenn: John, we will help and play any role that we could play to be able to help you on that. I hope you will return as a guest here and also involve us in any way that you think that we could help because energy -- without energy we're in deep, deep trouble in this country and something has to happen quickly and I think you're on the right path.

Hofmeister: Well, thank you. I'll take you up on that, Glenn.

Glenn: May I just ask one last question? Where do you see the price of gas this summer? Do you have any concept of what direction we're headed, what we should expect?

Hofmeister: Well, at the current rate of demand supply, I think we're going to enter a period of a bit more stability in price although, heavens forbid, I could ever accurately predict a price, but because demand is slipping due to unfortunate economic downturn conditions, I think we're seeing, you know, a slight decrease in demand. That will have an impact, but here's an issue. What about the hurricane season and what might the hurricane season do to production alone in the Gulf of Mexico? That is a perineal worry. We're still enough hand to mouth that if we have a tough hurricane season and we start shutting down refineries because of the storms that are pending, we'll have immediate repercussions because the conditions that existed years ago in the Katrina/Rita season, nothing has really changed except we have protected our facilities better. We've learned some lessons, but we're still heavily concentrated on the gulf cost for production because frankly most of the rest of the country doesn't want us.

Glenn: John Hofmeister from Shell, the retiring president of Shell. Thank you again and I hope to talk to you again soon.

Hofmeister: You bet.

Glenn: Bye bye.

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.