WATCH: Unanswered questions surrounding Boston Marathon bombing

Part 1:

Part 2:

Now, some interesting new developments in the Boston Marathon attack as well. The media, quick to latch onto the lone wolf theory – you know, well, who are these guys, really? And then they immediately went, well, it was their religion. I’m not sure what religion.

But as the investigation continues to pan out, it is becoming increasingly likely that this event being done by a couple of guys who were just radicalized solely by taking the wrong turn on Google search is as likely as Benghazi happening because of a YouTube video. That’s not the truth. Lawmakers now say the Tsarnaev brothers were trained before the attack. Here’s a Congressman, Michael McCaul, the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Watch this.

VIDEO

Rep. Michael McCaul: I think given the level of sophistication of this device, the fact that the pressure cooker is a signature device that goes back to Pakistan, Afghanistan, leads me to believe – and the way they handled these devices and the tradecraft – leads me to believe that there was a trainer, and the question is where is that trainer or trainers?

Okay, who is the trainer? Remember, this guy is a Republican. Now, let me give you the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, also revealing that the FBI is investigating persons of interest here inside the United States.

VIDEO

George Stephanopoulos: Do you know of any other people here in the United States who might have been part of this process of radicalizing Tamerlan?

Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger: This is part of the investigation. It’s a domestic investigation, and it’s an international investigation. And we’re really good at this. The FBI’s very good with that, working with our other agencies. There are persons of interest in the United States.

Let me give you another Democrat. This is a Democrat Representative in the House on the House Intelligence Committee. He said he believed the Russians know more than they are telling us now.

VIDEO

Rep. Adam Schiff: But at the same time, if they were up on the mother or on someone related to the mother and listening, there’s got to be a basis for why they went up on her electronically or why they went up on one of her affiliates or associates. We don’t know that. We haven’t received that information from the Russians. I think they do know more than they’re telling us.

Okay, now here’s what’s of particular interest: the fact that the Russian authorities recorded a conversation between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his mother back in 2011. They’re talking about jihad together, and there’s a second call that was recorded between the suspects’ mother and an unnamed man under FBI investigation living in southern Russia.

The Russians just provided this information to United States over the weekend, so why were the Russians recording the phone call in the first place? What do they know? Well, again, there’s no answer yet. That seems to be the theme around many of the stories today. There are more questions than answers, but there’s something different, because it used to always take time. But there was something else that we used to also have, and that was trust for our own government, trust that eventually we would get to the meaning, trust that there were people actually trying to do the right thing.

The issue of the Miranda rights has caused all kinds of disagreement in the Boston Marathon attack investigation, and here’s where I stand. If you’re not a citizen, sorry, dude. If you are a citizen, you need to be granted those rights, no matter how big of a dirt bag you may be. It only counts when we uphold the rights of the people we really don’t want to give rights to. That’s when it’s important.

But there is controversy surrounding how the surviving suspect was Mirandized. A federal judge – her name is Marianne Bowler. She decided to go it alone. She went down to the hospital, and she rushed down there to set up a makeshift proceeding and read the suspect his rights. It’s like 16 hours into it. That’s important to remember.

According to House Intelligence Committee Chair Mike Rogers, the FBI was “not happy about it” because, “They believed they needed more time. This is not a good way to stop another bomb from going off.” The FBI reportedly was blindsided and stunned when the judge showed up. Tsarnaev was providing valuable intelligence information and then suddenly stopped after his rights were read by this particular judge.

The FBI believes valuable information now has been lost due to the actions of this judge. So who is this judge? Who is the judge? Well, the Supreme Court held that a suspect has to be brought before the judicial officer within 48 hours. You’ve got 48 hours. The suspect has to be read their rights no matter what at 48 hours.

I believe you should be Mirandized right away, but others argue that the FBI should have been allowed the full 48 hours under the law. Okay, we can go back and forth on that one all day. Are you going to get to the next bomb, if there is a bomb? Okay, the debate goes on, and everybody’s focused on this debate, but nobody is looking at this judge.

Whether or not…is this legal? Yeah, but her timing is very interesting. We reached out to Judicial Watch. We asked them, how common is it for a judge to insert themselves into a case like this? Here’s what they told us in a statement just this afternoon. “What is unusual is the reported surprise of the FBI and the other officials at the turn of events. It looks as if the DOJ went around the FBI. The DOJ reportedly coordinated with everyone but the FBI.”

So in other words, Eric Holder went and coordinated with this judge but nobody else. Now, that seems strange for the chief law enforcement officer, doesn’t it? “Arraignments and other court proceedings do sometimes take place in hospitals. Once he was charged by justice in a federal court, it was a matter of time before Tsarnaev would have been read his rights. Don’t blame the judges, blame the Justice Department.”

Okay. Well, now let’s look at this here for a second, because I’ve got another theory. If you go by Judicial Watch, this is the decision of Eric Holder. But I again think we should ask who is this judge? Well, we started today just by going over her resume, and it’s fairly normal except for one part of her resume, a strange string of facts. One of her hobbies and interests include traveling overseas to Muslim countries for speaking engagements all the time.

She was the first female judge to speak in Kuwait. She also appeared at the United Arab Emirates, and let me put aside here for a second another big piece. She also visited the U.S. embassy in Belgrade, but besides that one, all of her international trips, she goes to Muslim countries to speak to them.

And here’s the last piece of this: She made a trip to Egypt last year. Now, this according to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, she was there for a conference on cross-border financial investigations organized by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations in cooperation with the Egyptian judicial and law enforcement authorities.

Okay, so the Department of Homeland Security picks her to go because she keeps going over to the Middle East. They pick her to go and be a part of this, but that’s not the only reason why she was there. She also was to meet with the defense team and observe the trial of the six NGOs accused of receiving foreign funding and operating illegally in the country. Do you remember this?

We talked about how strange this was during the Arab Spring. All of these kids from both the Republicans and the Democrats, they were all there, and they were accused of funding street protest during the heat of the Arab Spring. Everybody was chanting for democracy, and the radical leftists rushed to Egypt to help and so did all of these kids. And they were scooped up, and they were held.

And then all of a sudden, they were just released. Yet, that’s one of the reasons why that judge was there. What is it about this judge and her particular interest in the Muslim countries? What is happening here? Is this just a coincidence? Maybe, very well may be. Why is she so eager to defend those who are fueling the riots? Oh, probably because she’s in good graces with this administration, and those weren’t riots; those were freedom fighters to help the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood.

We’ll continue to seek answers on all of the questions in the stories, but like I said, only more questions are coming, not more answers, including the crazy mother of the Boston bombing suspect. Something’s wrong here. She has said some truly outrageous things. Watch.

VIDEO

Zubeidat Tsarnaev: They already are talking about that we are terrorists. I am terror – they told that I was doing some terroristic, you know. What did they tell? Some kind of operation, I was kind of preparing here or I already did something, I don’t know. People are telling different, you know, information I get. They already want me, him, and all of us to look as terrorists. So yes, I would prefer not to live in American now. Why did I even go there? Why? I thought America was going to like protect us, our kids. It’s going to be safe for like any reason.

Yeah, it’d be safe. You could come over. You could be, you know, part of let’s say a marathon, and you wouldn’t be blown up. Yeah, I don’t know why you came here. I ain’t gonna miss you. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

Here’s the amazing thing here is if you don’t like America, if you don’t trust America, she rings true to you. She rings true to you. This is important. She also told the Associated Press, “I’m sick and tired of all this nonsense that they make up about me and my children. People know me as a regular person…” Yeah, they did Lee Harvey Oswald, too.

“…and I’ve never been mixed up in any criminal intentions, especially any linked to terrorism.” Never been mixed up in crime, really? That is quite a bold statement considering we have the mug shot. She shoplifted $1,600 in merchandise from Lord &Taylor. Ironically, Lord & Taylor is the store that also had the videotape of her sons planting the bombs.

Also, we have now the taped phone conversations that she had with her son about jihad, and another person on the watch list, so it’s quite a statement to make. But again, if you listen to her, and you don’t like us, if you mistrust us, she rings true. It causes more doubt.

The reaction of the mom, the dad, the crazy aunt, all of this, immediately discredits the United States, but not just outside, here at home as well, I believe. The assumptions are so cartoonish, they’re so fake, it’s role-playing. Why would she leap to such bizarre, unsupported conclusions without any evidence at all? Why would she point the finger to America? Why would she say, “I’ve never done anything”? Because most people won’t look it up.

This is the tactic they use against Israel. We haven’t had it used here in our own country. This is the first time. This is something new for America. This has moved us into a new place, because what’s different this time is we don’t trust our own government. Back on September 11, we would all stand together, but now we have an inherent distrust of the U.S. We have an inherent distrust of the media. We know we’re not getting the truth.

And remember, back after September 11, the truthers didn’t ring true to anybody, because we would never have believed that before. The truthers are a mixed bag. It’s Ahmadinejad, radical Muslims, and Michael Moore, and all they have to do is plant the seeds of doubt whenever and wherever they can. With her and her husband’s stories changing in such a strategic way, I can’t help but wonder – is somebody coaching her?

I said this is a lot like Israel. Let me bring you up to speed on one other thing, one other thing I haven’t seen anybody talk about. On the day of the bombings, everybody lept to connect the bombings to the tax day and the Tea Party. Have you heard anybody point out that April 15 was also the 65th anniversary of Israel’s independence? I mean, given the bombers were radical Islamists…reasonable to search for the connection there?

Should we expect that the tactics of bombings and terror normally used against Israel to happen here more frequently? By the way, the White House cared about this 65th anniversary of Israel so much that they say well, because of sequester, we had to cancel the dinner celebration for the Jewish Heritage Month at the White House.

Yeah. Oh, and one other thing: here’s the bombing scene, and you’ll notice that this is the area here, and there’s the Israeli flag. I mean, is it too much to assume that maybe – has anybody looked for the Saudi on the surveillance tape from the day before? The scripts don’t match. The media is not telling you the truth. The government is also not telling you the truth.

And I have to tell you, I thought about it a lot this weekend. I thought, you know what, maybe everybody else in the media has gotten the call saying hey, look, you’re harming the investigation. That doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t make any sense at all, because they would’ve called us. Somebody would have said to us, but instead, we have law-enforcement officials calling us. We have people in the federal government who are instrumental in this case calling us saying please don’t give up on this…please, please, please.

The administration keeps downplaying the threat of Al Qaeda, downplaying – it’s crazy talk to even say anything about Saudi Arabia. They say that Al Qaeda is decimated, but yet their activities seem to be ramping up. They say nothing is happening, could possibly happen with Saudi Arabia, and yet the Saudi Arabians, their fingerprints are all over this.

We told about the incidents in Canada and Spain. Now there’s a story today about the terrorists beginning their spring offensive, something that we’ve been afraid of seeing happen here. It may just be getting started. This is something I’ve told you for years that when we would really be weak, when our enemies felt, okay I think they’re done. They’re at their weakest point, they’d say “go.” Are we there?

The way our government has gone out of their way to lend credibility to the secular and legitimate Muslim Brotherhood while denying any potency left in Al Qaeda and other spinoff radical Islamic terror organizations, we have set ourselves up for big, big trouble, and I don’t think anybody except the few in Washington and in our law-enforcement agencies really care.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not secular, and the only thing legitimate about them is the threat that they pose to you and your family. They have been exported around the world, and they go to work radicalizing people. That’s what they do. They are basically an extension of Saudi Arabia and the radicals there.

The Muslim Brotherhood is financed by contributions from their members, and many of those members just happen to be in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They fund many of these mosques, in fact, the mosque the bombers attended in Boston, the Islamic Society of Boston, the ISB, Islamic Society of Boston. They admitted to receiving millions of dollars from Saudi banks.

It’s run by the Muslim American Society, the MAS, which has been described by prosecutors as a North American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Extreme radical Yusuf al-Qaradawi, former trustee at the Islamic Society of Boston. It was founded by an Al Qaeda fundraiser who’s currently serving time in federal prison, and the current imam who also spoke at the Islamic Society of Boston said, “grab onto the shovel, grab onto the gun, and the sword.”

The list goes on and on, and this is just one mosque, the one in Boston. There are many. America cannot continue to ignore the warning signs, but it is more than just an administration failing to recognize the warning signs. This administration is aiding and abetting. They are adding to the warning signs.

Let me give you this warning sign. This is from a concerned Islamic leader. This guy is a good guy, speaking at the State Department in 1999. He said – remember ’99 – “The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques…is the extremists’ ideology…because they are very active…They took over more than 80 percent of the mosques that have been established in the U.S.…A danger might suddenly come that you are not looking for…We don’t know where it is going to hit.”

Islamists call the mosques a rabat. It means “military fortress.” They’ve basically set up the radical Islamic version of the Mafia. The Brotherhood and CAIR and other legitimate organizations are then filled with the made guys. They’re completely legitimate. Uh huh. Really? I’ve seen The Sopranos. This is the Islamic version of The Sopranos. They sit around the table in the scheme while the rabats have the mob enforcers carrying out their hits. And that’s what those two kids were.

We keep going out of our way to help Saudi Arabia in times when we really shouldn’t be. Why, is the question. Why are we helping the Muslim Brotherhood? There’s a deal with Saudi Arabia, and I think we all know it. I mean, geez President Bush, I think actually kissed one of the princes on the lips. It was creepy.

We outwardly claim to have a mutual enemy in Al Qaeda, and we tell the Saudi’s, and they tell us, hey, we’re both against Al Qaeda, but in reality, we should say our enemy is not only Al Qaeda which came from within you, but the Islamic radicals that believe that jihad is more than an internal struggle also come from you.

Al Qaeda believes this. The Muslim Brotherhood believes this. Hezbollah believes this. Much of Saudi Arabia believes this. And why are we helping them? We’ve helped them in Egypt. We’ve helped them in Syria. We’re helping them now in Syria. It was Al Qaeda who was blamed for Benghazi, because we were running guns through Turkey into Syria, for what? For the Muslim Brotherhood at the request of Saudi Arabia.

We have helped fund the Arab Spring, the Muslim Brotherhood. I will tell you one thing that the press will not, nor will the administration, or the terrorists’ mom, and this is the good part; I want you to know while all of these questions are out here, I want you to know that I personally have seen patriotic Americans coming out of the woodwork in our government right now and coming out of the woodwork in law enforcement.

They will not sit down. They are warning. They are begging for someone to listen. I don’t know why the rest of the networks won’t do it. I don’t know why anybody else won’t do it, but people are being threatened with jail time now for helping. But they’re not going to sit down, and this is much bigger than you think and much bigger and different than you are being told. You keep asking questions, and know that we here at TheBlaze will continue to do the same.

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.