Muslim Brotherhood at CPAC?

Has CPAC been ifiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood? That’s what Pam Geller said on Friday afternoon.What did Glenn think?

“This is from CPAC, and I want you to know that I am not taking on CPAC at this point.  I am going over the news and I am at the beginning of looking into this.  And I don't say this with a slam against CPAC by any stretch of the imagination,” Glenn said.

“Well, it's interesting because one of the panels, Pamela Geller, who's a conservative blogger, made some interesting charges against CPAC and what's going on there,” Pat explained.

“It's corrupted and it's been compromised by Muslim Brotherhood,” Geller said in the audio to applause. “2,000 people, this is where I do my event.  Every year I do an event because if you look at the agenda of CPAC, look at all of the panels and then look at your daily news, headlines, they're either clueless or complicit, okay?  And I believe it's the latter.”

“I find it very hard to believe that they are complicit, you know, but I haven't studied, I haven't studied this particular angle,” Glenn explained.

On the other hand, Suhail A. Khan, a former senior Bush political appointee, and board  director of the American Conservative Union, claimed there was no Musim Brotherhood in the United States.

“Which is absolutely a lie.  That is absolutely untrue.  Now, who is this guy?  This is a very important figure in the Bush administration.  This is a guy who comes with his credentials for the right.”

Glenn invited Zuhdi Jasser on to discuss these remarks and the revolution going on in Egypt.

“In case you don't know Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is a practicing Muslim, and he is one, he is one Muslim that we were all searching for after 9/11, somebody who comes out and says jihad, blowing yourself up is an abomination, and he has been trying to rout out the evils in his own religion for a while.  He is a brave, brave man,” Glenn said.

“He is a patriotic American and a voice that I trust,” Glenn added.

Glenn asked Dr. Jasser if the Muslim Brotherhood was in the United States.

‘Absolutely.  I mean, if you look at any ‑‑ anybody that looks at any of the work being done, whether it was the Holy Land Foundation that showed a whole nexus, our documentary, the Third Jihad [which] talked about the documents that were demonstrated from 1991 that showed a whole Nexus of operating organizations that were founded by members that came out of the brotherhood, out of Egypt and out of the Middle East,” Dr. Jasser said.

“The brotherhood is much more than the brotherhood.  It's the ideology of political Islam.  It's a mixture of mosques and states.  It's the desire to establish Islamic statism and put Sharia law into government,” Dr. Jasser said.

“[Khan] just wants us to accept it on face value that he's a conservative and he's all about Western ideals when, in fact, talked about American ideals, talk about Egypt, talk about other things.  He never identifies the brotherhood as a threat and that to me is a problem for somebody who's an avowed conservative.”

“I do want to caution my conservative colleagues that we have to be careful not to say that, well, good Muslims are nonviolent; bad Muslims are violent and that these guys become extremists.  There's a continuum there.  Even the most radicals like Imam Elahi or Nidal Hasan there is continuum these guys slid down over ten years.”

“That continuum begins with sort of this nonviolent motherhood and apple pie, we want an Islamic state based on separation of powers, we love America, you know, et cetera but their vision of America includes sort of a crescent on the flag, it includes this universalism of Islam, not a universalism of individual rights and reason that our country was based on.  So we have to be careful to be able to nuance the continuum that these individuals slide down.

“And that's what I hope when we have radicalization hearings that Peter King is doing, we start to look at that continuum because we can't as a nation do counterradicalization as sort of a binary black and white.  We have to recognize that there is a long continuum that includes the beginning of a political ideology of Islamism that slides some of them down to violence and others down to this insidious ideology that is a threat, the same type of threat,” Zuhdi explained.

Full rush transcript below:

In case you don't know Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, he is a practicing Muslim, and he is one, he is one Muslim that we were all searching for after 9/11, somebody who comes out and says jihad, blowing yourself up is an abomination, and he has been trying to rout out the evils in his own religion for a while.  He is a brave, brave man.  There are other voices that say these things.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes to mind, but she is not Muslim.  Zuhdi is.  And he is a patriotic American and a voice that I trust.  And we wanted to get him on because there is a story that you will see the video on The Blaze and, Pat, if you'll help fill in some of the blanks here with Zuhdi where some of the members are saying that there's problems with one member on the board of directors of CPAC.  He is an apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood.  In fact, he says there is no such thing as the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

Let me bring Zuhdi on with us now.  Hi, Zuhdi, how are you, sir?

JASSER:  Great, Glenn, it's good to be with you.

GLENN:  Good to be with you.  Are you familiar, what is his name, Pat?

PAT:  Sohail Khan?

GLENN:  Sohail Khan, you're familiar with him, right?

JASSER:  Yeah, I am, uh‑huh.

GLENN:  Let me play what happened this weekend at CPAC and they're having a panel with the board of directors on it.  And somebody stands up and they are talking about how could we possibly be excited about a revolution where the Muslim Brotherhood are involved; we can't stand with the Muslim Brotherhood.  And this is what happens.

(Audio playing).

VOICE:  What I have a problem with is they say, you know, jihad is their way, you know, martyrdom is their goal.  I mean, that is antithetic to everything ‑‑

VOICE:  I understand all of those things.

VOICE:  You got your answer.

VOICE:  You know what they said, too, Mr. Khan?  That we should be outreaching the Muslim Brotherhood.  There's no Muslim Brotherhood in the United States?

VOICE:  No.

GLENN:  Zuhdi, is the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States?

JASSER:  Absolutely.  I mean, if you look at any ‑‑ anybody that looks at any of the work being done, whether it was the Holy Land Foundation that showed a whole nexus, our documentary, the Third Jihad put out by the (inaudible) talked about the documents that were demonstrated from 1991 that showed a whole Nexus of operating organizations that were founded by members that came out of the brotherhood, out of Egypt and out of the Middle East.  And the bottom line is when you say brotherhood, I know many on the left say that, well, this is all conspiracy theory.  They are not card‑carrying members per se.

GLENN:  Yes.

JASSER:  But to me as an active Muslim we formed our organization, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, because the brotherhood is much more than the brotherhood.  It's the ideology of political Islam.  It's a mixture of mosques and states.  It's the desire to establish Islamic statism and put Sharia law into government.  And these Muslims that deny that, actually what they are doing is obfuscating their Muslim responsibility to reform our faith into (inaudible) and to separate mosque and state, they are obfuscating the direct connection between the separatist ideology of Islamism and Western society's values.  And I think this issue at CPAC is very important.  Not that we could definitely prove that sue hail had the card or the brotherhood but you can prove that here you have a so‑called conservative who as far as I'm concerned hasn't represented any of the ideas of true conservatism.  Not only fiscally but when it comes to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, he has not stood against Islamist groups that have basically been all about big governments, all about theocracy.  He has not made any statement that the brotherhood is a threat to society, a threat to the West and to me this is not something that is consistent with CPAC values.

GLENN:  Okay.  So give me the guy's resume.  I mean, Zuhdi, I had heard that you disagreed with David Horowitz.  David Horowitz is strong on this and says this guy's a danger.  I don't know if he goes as far as saying that he is a member, you know, card‑carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood.  I don't think he does.  He just says this man is ‑‑ was appointed by Bush and brought in, you know, the people like CAIR into the White House which they're, many believe are front organizations for this Islam extremism that makes political correctness, ratchets all the political correctness up so you can't look into any of the dangers that are clear and present.

JASSER:  You know, I agree with him in many ways in that what happens is ‑‑ and not that one Muslim can make that much of a danger to an organization like CPAC, but what happens is in today's society where Muslims are a minority, they look for a Muslim to sort of say, okay, we're not offending Muslims.  So here you have Sohail, comes in and brings in other Muslims.  So the White House or whoever seeks his advice in the State Department or whatever checks up have they talked to a Muslim and here you have him bringing in organizations that are not part of the solution but part of the problem.  CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America and others are basically front organizations.  Why?  Because their entire mantra is about victimology.  It's that, well, terrorism is the West's fault, it's basically because Muslims are attacked.  They use that so‑called narrative that if somehow American foreign policy would change or anti‑ Islam rhetoric would change that somehow terrorism would go away and they don't recognize that it is a problem within the house of Islam that needs reform.  So it is dangerous, I think, to have individuals that so‑called represent Muslims who, in fact, they're actually representing a statistic platform and that is of political Islam.  And it anesthetizes Americans and especially conservatives to our founding ideals of classical liberalism and our founding documents.  So yeah, I think ‑‑ and not to mention, I mean, sue hail hasn't rejected.  He denies his father's connections to the brotherhood which is fine.  I mean, we can't prove that.  And as they say, the sins of the father are not the son's.  But he hasn't rejected those ideologies.  He hasn't ‑‑ I mean, to me my work post 9/11 is rife with ideological descriptions of the problem of Sharia, the problem of Islamism.  He has none of that work.  He just wants us to accept it on face value that he's a conservative and he's all about Western ideals when, in fact, talked about American ideals, talk about Egypt, talk about other things.  He never identifies the brotherhood as a threat and that to me is a problem for somebody who's an avowed conservative.

PAT:  Yeah.  And not only was he a senior political appointee with the Bush administration, he was also a senior fellow for the Muslim Christian Understanding of the Institute For Global Engagement.

GLENN:  What is that, Zuhdi?

JASSER:  It's a think tank that does work on Christian Muslim cooperation around the world and looks at foreign policy.

GLENN:  Do you think it's ‑‑

JASSER:  And, you know, it has some conservatives within.  I even think it's considered a right of center think tank but, you know, this is the thing of political correctness is that many of us in America want to believe that Muslims here have gone through a modernization, that they are Jeffersonian Democrats ‑‑ or Muslim and they believe in the same ideals but yet we don't ask for any type of expounding from them on their ideology so that we know where they stand.  We don't ask them to take apart organizations like CAIR and show how they have facilitated political Islam.  I mean, look at CAIR's position on the referendum of Sharia in Oklahoma.  Look at CAIR's position on ‑‑ recently CAIR, for example, has been doing media spots on Iranian television about the Egyptian crisis.  They weren't on Iranian television last summer when those people were revolting in that country.  So he doesn't speak out against those actions that Muslim organizations are doing and thus he facilitates an anesthesia, if you will, over what Muslim groups are doing in the name of Islamism.

GLENN:  Zuhdi, let me ask you, because you are so outspoken.  And these bad guys exist and they are nasty, nasty organizations.  What is your safety like?  Because here you are, I mean, you are the king of infidels.  You are a practicing Muslim that they would say is perverting Islam and destroying Islam.  What is your ‑‑ I mean, are you safe?

JASSER:  You know, I mean, it's in God's hands and I've never been physically threatened.  I do get my share of hate mail like all of us do but, you know, at the end of the day, they all know that I'm doing this because I love my faith, I'm a conservative Muslim, orthodox, I believe in our scripture and in God and I want to raise my children to be good Muslims with a close relationship with God.  But, you know, to me Islam is about responsibility.  It's about personal repair.  And I think the revolt in Egypt showed for the first time Arabs and Muslims starting to take responsibility for their own condition.  You didn't see them blaming the West, blaming Israel, blaming all these conspiracy theories.  And this is my problem with these Islamist groups.  And people like Mr. Khan who claim to represent Muslim communities in America but yet have done nothing in their work in America to fix our own condition.  It's all about everybody else and blaming others and to me I think Muslims, as much as they may not like what I have to say, you know, when they start attacking the messenger rather than the message, you realize, as you do, Glenn, that they must not have the power of their idea.  And that's my concern with the CPAC issue is CPAC ‑‑ and the reason this is so important is our conservative unions and our groups that we form are based on ideas, based from our Founding Fathers.  And if we can't figure out what that platform is and have appropriate filters to know who is with our ideas and who isn't, then I think we need to reassess how clear those platforms are.

GLENN:  Real quick, Zuhdi, because I have to run.  But what should members of CPAC do?  If you're a member of CPAC and you say, I love CPAC and this guy is on the board of directors, because it's not clearcut.  I mean, he's not, you know, he's not wearing a black hat and he has a lot of people that are, you know, vouching for him that are very high up in the conservative movement.  What should people do?

JASSER:  Well, I think first of all membership in CPAC, you can't have filters.  I think that then it really becomes sort of a McCarthyism and that doesn't make any sense.  But board of directors?  I mean, you have to have established a credibility that you are on the side of liberalism, Westernism, secular liberal democracy, then against political Islam and you recognize that the biggest threat to security, global security in the 21st century is the affinity of the Islamic state.  So I think they need to reassess what type of Muslims and what type of board members they are looking for.

GLENN:  Are you ‑‑ will you confirm that it is political Islam, extremist Islam, if you will, that it is the way to go in undercover, infiltrate and destroy and decay from within?

JASSER:  Yes.  I mean, simply put, absolutely.  But I do want to caution my conservative colleagues that we have to be careful not to say that, well, good Muslims are nonviolent; bad Muslims are violent and that these guys become extremists.  There's a continuum there.  Even the most radicals like Imam Elahi or Nidal Hasan there is continuum these guys slid down over ten years.  That continuum begins with sort of this nonviolent motherhood and apple pie, we want an Islamic state based on separation of powers, we love America, you know, et cetera but their vision of America includes sort of a crescent on the flag, it includes this universalism of Islam, not a universalism of individual rights and reason that our country was based on.  So we have to be careful to be able to nuance the continuum that these individuals slide down.  And that's what I hope when we have radicalization hearings that Peter cane is doing, we start to look at that continuum because we can't as a nation do counterradicalization as sort of a binary black and white.  We have to recognize that there is a long continuum that includes the beginning of a political ideology of Islamism that slides some of them down to violence and others down to this insidious ideology that is a threat, the same type of threat.

GLENN:  Zuhdi Jasser, he's the president and founder of the American Islamic Forum For Democracy.  Go to his website, find out more information.  Aifdemocracy.org.  Zuhdi, I'm proud to be called your friend and I thank you for all the hard work that you've done and the risks that you take and keep it up, brother.

JASSER:  Thanks a lot, Glenn.  God bless.  Appreciate it.

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.