Homeschooling family set to be deported, lawyer gives Glenn the latest

GLENN: I want to go right to Michael Farris. He is the homeschooling legal defense association head guy, and we have had him on a couple of times. Do you remember the family from Germany that left Germany because the State was going to take their children away because they wanted to teach them about God. They did not want them in public schools where it was Godless and teaching them things that they didn't want to teach their children. And so their children came over here from Germany. We had them on the TV show a couple of weeks ago. They are remarkable people, just remarkable people. They came over here, they did it the right way, they came through the front door. They have asked for asylum. They were granted asylum. They set up their life, they're working, they're not ‑‑ they're not on the government Dole, they're making money and they love America. And they're here for religious freedom. Well, Eric Holder decided, no, we're not going to grant you asylum. So he challenged the Court and said, I want to make a different, a different case. And the case that I want to make is homeschooling is not a God‑given right. You don't have a right to homeschool. So they're not really being oppressed because there is no right. The government can take your children and educate them any way they want to.

Yesterday the federal government overturned the case, so now they're no longer granted asylum. They have to go home. If they choose to teach their children about God, their children will be taken from them. If this isn't the clearest case of oppression, if this isn't a clear case of people who need a refuge, need to come here to America so their children aren't taken away merely for their belief in God, merely for their belief that they should be able to teach their children, I don't know what is. This case has everything to do with your children. This case really is not about the Romeike family. This case is about what this government's about to do to you and your children. That's my belief.

Michael Farris is here. Michael, shocking decision yesterday.

FARRIS: It was, Glenn. I had a hard time containing my emotions. I got a call as I was driving to the office when I got in. It was all I could do, but it was very fast, it was very one‑sided, and the court was ‑‑ in oral argument there was one judge that was incredibly aggressive and hostile. We were holding out hope for the other two, but it didn't work out that way.

GLENN: Why was he hostile? Why was he hostile?

FARRIS: Well, what he was saying was basically everybody should obey the government.

GLENN: Jeez.

FARRIS: I mean, and to some degree that was the essence of the opinion is that because there's a compulsory attendance law for everybody in Germany, then tough beans. Just because it applies to you in a particularly harsh way, that's too bad for you. It's ooh general law.

GLENN: Well, wait a minute. Then couldn't you say that about the Jews that were in Germany?

PAT: Couldn't you say that about the Cubans who come here for asylum from Cuba?

GLENN: I mean, there's ‑‑ so it's applied to you harshly.

PAT: Yeah, tough.

GLENN: Oh, well, there's a lot of people that are in Cuba that don't have harsh conditions.

PAT: Sorry you don't like communism. That's ‑‑ you should obey the law.

FARRIS: That's exactly the point, and they make the argument essentially this, that the only value we're going to protect is equal protection, which throws individual liberty into the trash heap. And ‑‑ because these people are standing on individual liberty claims. They are not saying that the law as written only applies to them in some peculiar way. The harshest of the punishment clearly is aimed at the homeschooling, and the real essence of an asylum case is to prove persecution, and the essence of persecution is the government's motive. And that's real clear. I mean, the law is extremely clear on that point. Yet, they do not even quote, they do not even cite the statements by the Supreme Court of Germany, by the court of appeals of Germany, by the federal ministers of Germany that say out loud very explicitly we are trying to stop religious and philosophical minorities from getting a foothold in this country. That's what they say, out loud. And they ‑‑ by ignoring that motive is the only way they get to the conclusion they've reached and if we ‑‑

GLENN: So this is not just ‑‑ this is not just an attack on homeschooling here in America. I'm just trying to ‑‑ I'm trying to figure out where this, where this case actually goes, why, out of all the cases that you could pick, why Eric Holder said this one. And so this one not only appears to me to be about your right to homeschool your kids here in America but also religious liberty.

FARRIS: Oh, it does. And it goes with, you know, what we're seeing with the IRS and the attack on conservatives. You know, the fact that home ‑‑ Christian homeschoolers are seen as philosophical conservatives, the administration is dedicated to philosophical liberalism or progressivism, and they support their friends and they attack their enemies. And they are ‑‑ you know, that's not what the court decision's about, but that's what Eric Holder is about. Eric Holder I believe cannot offer a legitimate justification for why we're pursuing leniency for 11 million people who came here illegally and at the same time trying to deport this one German homeschooling family. There is no logical argument that can explain that disparity.

GLENN: Especially they are not on the government teat.

FARRIS: Yes, exactly.

GLENN: They are not on the government teat. Everyone else comes over here that they are trying to excuse, every single person that they are trying to excuse comes over here illegally through the back door and then is taking all of our services. These guys are not taking the services. They are actually ‑‑ are they employed?

FARRIS: Yes, they are ‑‑ they are music teachers. They have students who come and take music lessons from them.

GLENN: Are they paying their taxes?

FARRIS: Absolutely.

GLENN: I mean, these people are paying their taxes, they're employed. Are they using their real names?

FARRIS: They are using their real names.

GLENN: Have they stolen Social Security numbers?

FARRIS: No.

GLENN: I mean, why are we attacking these people? It is absolutely incredible to me.

FARRIS: This is what the administration wants. They want the people that fit the profile you just outlined and ‑‑

GLENN: And I will tell you this. This goes into exactly what we talked about last week on For the Record. We did a special For the Record. The first half was on the Coptic Christians that this administration is paying no attention to and they are being slaughtered, they are being raped, and so many are coming over here and trying for asylum. We still don't know if they are going to get asylum or not. I mean, are those Christians going to get asylum or are we going to send those guys back, those people literally to death? Oh, this ‑‑

FARRIS: Well, if the administration's going to be consistent, they are going to take a stand against those people as well because they don't fit the profile that the administration is looking to Curry. You know, what we are learning every day about this administration is they are not interested in constitutional principles except as a grounds of suppressing people, they are not interested in obeying the First Amendment and they are certainly not interested in religious freedom. They have a political agenda, they punished their enemies, they reward their friends. And Coptic Christians, German homeschoolers, American homeschoolers line up on the wrong side of the track and so rights, liberty, all of that gets thrown away when Eric Holder and Barack Obama are involved.

PAT: So Michael, what happens now? Where do we go from here? You're appealing this, right?

FARRIS: We're doing a motion for rehearing to the entire sixth circuit. Every court of appeals decision is decided by three judges at the outset. In rare cases all the sitting judges will decide to hear it on bond, and there's 15 judges that are active judges in the sixth circuit. You don't count the semi‑retired judges that are senior status, but 15 judges, and we have to get one of those judges to, you know, say they want to circulate the petition and then they take a vote. And if a majority of the 15 say we want to hear the case, then we go into briefing and another oral argument.

GLENN: Do you think you have a ‑‑

FARRIS: If they don't, then we go to the Supreme Court.

PAT: So that would be the next step is if they turn that down, you're going to the Supreme Court?

FARRIS: Right. The appeal to the fifth circuit, what we just did is an appeal of rights. They have to listen to us. The two appeals that are left are discretionary. Neither court has to grant even a chance to make the case. They first decide whether they think it's important enough to take the decision and so ‑‑

PAT: What are the ramifications for the three million or so homeschoolers here in this country? Is it ‑‑ does this affect those of us who homeschool that this isn't just some right that we have to do with our children?

FARRIS: Not directly but it builds a precedent about what are rights and what are privileges. And the position of the government ‑‑ the sixth circuit decision in that regard was better than the government's position, but it's a far cry from, you know, a clean defense of rights. They said basically American homeschoolers may have the opportunity to make a case that's different because they can rely on the constitution, whereas we don't judge Germany by our U.S. Constitution.

GLENN: My gosh, then we don't ‑‑

PAT: They are not living in Germany, however.

GLENN: I mean, this is incredible to me.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Then why do we take a single person from Cuba or China ‑‑

PAT: Right.

GLENN: ‑‑ or the boat people.

PAT: Right.

GLENN: Why didn't we take the boat people and send them all back? Why didn't we take the Jews ‑‑ I'm sorry. We were under a progressive administration. We did actually send the boat of Jews back. So at least they are being consistent.

FARRIS: They are being consistent.

PAT: Unbelievable. Wow.

FARRIS: And so, you know, so they pay a little bit of lip service to the rights of American homeschoolers, but the essence of a government's argument is this: Homeschooling and religious freedom are not individual rights that are protected. They are privileges that the government can grant you or not grant you. And if they have a broad general law that bans your rights, then just because they're privileges, they go away. That's the ultimate government position and, you know, what the sixth circuit opinion will sort out to be in the long run, it's a building block in the wrong direction. It's not a complete eradication of our rights, nor could it be since it's just a circuit court opinion. The Supreme Court and the justice department can do more damage to us. They also can vindicate us. And there's no reason Eric Holder can't end this mess today and just simply say, "You know what? I'm going to grant them asylum." He could do it today. And he doesn't have to wait for any more court decisions. If he wanted to get the, you know, to do something to show he has a little bit of an evenhanded spirit about him ‑‑

PAT: No way. No way. There's no way he would do that.

FARRIS: ‑‑ then he would sign this today. I'm not expecting it.

PAT: Yeah.

FARRIS: I'm not holding my breath, but he could. He has the authority ask the ability to do it today if he wanted to.

GLENN: Okay. So huh. Let me ask you this. Crazy thought: Does the State have the ability to say we as the State are going to grant this person ‑‑ are going to grant this family an asylum?

FARRIS: Well, I've been thinking that through because usually they ‑‑ when it comes time to deport them, they have to get the sheriff to come and arrest the people. I think that the Tennessee legislature could pass a law that basically says we direct our sheriffs not to deport people under these circumstances. Not to cooperate. I think there is a path for exploration of a state override of the federal mandate in this particular circumstance, but that's something we're going to have to pursue. There's also the ability to go to congress and get them to pass individual legislation that protects this family. And if we fail in the courts, that's where we're going to go next. We will go and attempt that. I've told the family, you know, I've actually literally said it's going to be over my dead body they send you back to Germany. So I'm going to do whatever I possibly can do and I'm going to keep fighting. And I am not giving up on this. And, you know, we're in the seventh inning and we're behind at this point. But the ninth ‑‑ the eighth and ninth innings are still coming and we're going to keep fighting.

GLENN: Michael, you have my commitment. You tell the family that over my dead body as well.

FARRIS: All right.

GLENN: We're in this ‑‑

FARRIS: I am happy to stand shoulder to shoulder, Glenn, with you on just about anything. So thank you very much. And thank you for all you've been doing for this family for this case. Your generosity and your support have been absolutely exemplary and have led the way for others who have been willing to help as well. Thank you so much.

GLENN: How are you guys ‑‑ how are you guys doing on cash for all of this? Do you need ‑‑ would it help if people ‑‑

FARRIS: Well, you know, we ‑‑ you've been so generous with us that, you know, what's happened, you know, happened so far has been paid for. It's ‑‑ you know, we're good as of this moment. You know, there's going to be other things but, you know, we'll never turn down more help, but you ‑‑

GLENN: What is your Web address?

FARRIS: ‑‑ express generosity for what you've done today, that's for sure.

GLENN: Is it hslda.org?

FARRIS: That's the website, yep. That's the main organization. If people want to give tax‑deductible contributions, they should do it through the homeschool foundation. That's our (C)(3) arm.

GLENN: And how do you ‑‑ what's the web address?

FARRIS: They think just link off the main web address.

GLENN: You need a more clever website because nobody's going to remember.

FARRIS: Yeah.

GLENN: Hslda, Home School Legal Defense Association, hslda.org. Go there and ‑‑

FARRIS: That's what happens when you're ‑‑ the organization's 30 years old.

GLENN: I know. Thank you very much, Michael. I appreciate it. God bless.

FARRIS: All right. God bless you.

GLENN: All right. Bye‑bye. I think this is a ‑‑

PAT: It's crazy.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: It's crazy.

GLENN: I think this is a case that a state could get around.

GLENN: Well, I don't know. He seemed to have some help there but I don't see how because the federal immigration laws trump the state immigration laws. It's a federal law, not state. And you can't ‑‑ you can't circum ‑‑ and that's why ‑‑ that's why the state couldn't allow Arizona, that's why they sued Arizona because you can't trump federal law there. That's why Texas has a hard time bumping up against federal law. With immigration it's really tough. It's tough.

GLENN: I cannot believe that this government is actually saying amnesty for everybody that's here.

PAT: Except these guys.

GLENN: Except these guys.

PAT: Unbelievable.

GLENN: Who are law‑abiding, came in the front door, actually have a case of oppression, religious oppression. This is ‑‑ but these people don't appreciate the founders. They think that the Euro, the Euro trash that came over here, you know, stole all this land and so that's why, you know, give it all back to the ‑‑ I'm sorry. The Hispanics? Hispanics? You mean Hispania? Spain? Give the land back to the Spaniards? Really? But the Euro trash that came over here, that's bad? Okay, I get it. That's the most ridiculous line I've ever heard in my life. If there is somebody who is from Cuba and they need help, we help them! We help them. If somebody is being ‑‑ if their children are being taken away, you know what? Are you telling me that if come country was taking away the right of a Muslim family to raise their children in Islam that this administration would not give ‑‑ they would not roll the red carpet out for them and lecture us on how we need to be tolerant and a better nation because all of the eyes of the world is on us? Really? Bullcrap. Enough is enough. Over my dead body.

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.