New intel on the San Bernardino killers

Filling in on The Glenn Beck Program today, Doc Thompson and Skip LaCombe outlined new details that have emerged about the San Bernardino terrorists, including their ties to a local mosque and the real plan they were hoping to execute in California.

The FBI has questioned Roshan Zamir Abbassi, the cleric acting as spokesman for the San Bernardino mosque where terrorist Syed Farook worshipped, and his claims that he barely knew Farook and didn’t know his terrorist wife at all. However, the evidence casts doubt on this story.

Phone records show a flurry of communication with Farook, including at least 38 text messages over a two-week span in June, coinciding with the deadly Muslim terrorist attack on two military sites in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Abbassi, a Pakistani, insists he had nothing to do with the shooting at a San Bernardino County government building five miles from the mosque. While he confirms the text messages with Farook, he claims they were merely discussing food donations for his Dar-al-Uloom al-Islamiya of America mosque.

"Thirty-eight messages on food donation over the course of two weeks?" questioned Skip. "I mean, if that's the case . . . I would think that wouldn't take anymore more than four messages tops."

Doc was more generous, thinking six messages would do the trick.

"You did say Tuesday here at the mosque at 4 o'clock, right?" Doc posed. "Okay, just to confirm one more time how many do you need, right? Okay. I may try to get some other people to donate. Is that cool, too? Okay. That's like six messages."

More troubling, though, was a plan revealed by Farook's former neighbor who has since been arrested for purchasing weapons used in the deadly San Bernardino attack.

"Their plan---at least one of their plans---was to use explosive devices on a stretch of highway . . . that had very few exits in Southern California to trap people on the highway," Doc explained. "Then they would use explosive devices to blow up a car or cars that would block people on the highway."

The plan also included Farook walking among the cars and shooting people. The neighbor was going to be positioned in the hills near the highway as a sniper to take out law enforcement, security or emergency crews.

This type of plan is shocking and very different from a 9/11 style attack. It's personal and up close, and should be a wake up call for every American.

Listen to the exchange below beginning around 48:28:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

DOC: By the way, new information on the San Bernardino terrorists. Apparently, the spokesman/cleric for the San Bernardino mosque where Farook, the husband would worship, do you remember when he was supposedly married there and there was some question about that. And he worshiped there. And right after this happened, the mosque was like, "Whoa whoa, we don't know if he was married here." And then they distanced themselves. "We don't know. He could have come here. But we're not part of that." And I get that.

Hey, if you're Muslim in America and you're not causing any problems, you're an American, you just want to live your life and be left alone, yeah, this stuff is pretty annoying when everybody wants to prented or cast you in the light that you're a terrorist as well. So I understand if a mosque is going, hey, that's not us. We don't want any trouble.

I get that. The problem is, the feds have uncovered some things that seem like the mosque knew him pretty well. It seems like -- you know what, I'm going to let you be the judge. I'm going to present you some information and you tell me if, you know, maybe you think they kind of knew each other.

SKIP: All right.

DOC: Because the spokesman said he barely knew Farook. In fact, when he was talking to reporters, he didn't know them better than a lot of the reporters in the room.

So the feds say that the mosque is just 5 miles from the attack site. So it's pretty close and he used to go there.

SKIP: That in itself is probably not too much.

DOC: They have a record of them being married there.

SKIP: Okay.

DOC: That's a little bit more.

SKIP: But I'm sure there's a lot of weddings there.

DOC: You don't necessarily know everybody. Farook was supposedly there all the time. He had been going to pray there at least three to four times a week for two years.

SKIP: Okay. Now you're starting to get a little more familiarity with him.

DOC: Hey, that's that guy that's always here praying. But there's probably a lot of other people praying. Still though, you're adding this up, it's looking kind of rough for them. But still --

SKIP: No like smoking gun yet though.

DOC: This cleric exchanged at least 38 messages over a two-week span in June.

SKIP: Okay. See, that right there, that piece right there, that's going to be damning.

DOC: Skip, it's only 38 messages in two weeks.

SKIP: No, see, any person I've exchanged 30-some-odd messages with over --

DOC: That's not even 20 messages a week. I mean, what is that? Three messages a day if you average it out.

SKIP: Yeah, that's going to be at least a little more familiarity.

DOC: You're telling me that with anybody you've exchanged 38 messages over a two-week span -- text messages with, you know them pretty well?

SKIP: A little more familiarity, I'm going to go ahead and say. I know them pretty well.

DOC: By the way, during this span, this was during the same time period that the attack happened in Chattanooga. The terrorist attack. What's the matter?

SKIP: Those types of attacks. You'll probably be uber aware of correspondence and people you're corresponding with. Particularly in a mosque situation. Because they deal with these types of fears of profiling or being associated with -- yeah, you'll probably have a little extra guard.

DOC: You're thinking that looks bad for him. So during a two-week period in June that was during the time of the attack, the terrorist attack in Chattanooga, Tennessee, which was a Muslim extremist, this spokesperson from the mosque exchanged at least 38 text messages with Farook.

SKIP: Now, what were the texts? OMG. LOL. You see this? WTF. Or what?

DOC: They have not released. I don't know if the feds have the information yet. Theoretically, they would be able to see what the texts were. I have not seen them yet.

SKIP: Of course they would.

DOC: But the cleric claims they were merely discussing food donations for the mosque.

SKIP: Thirty-eight messages on food donation over the course of two weeks? I mean, if that's the case you truly are just trying to get information on, hey, where can I drop off the canned goods? I would think that wouldn't take anymore more than --

DOC: Tuesday at 4:00 here at the mosque. Right?

SKIP: I'll give you four messages tops on that.

DOC: You did say Tuesday here at the mosque at 4 o'clock, right, that's what you said? Okay. Just to confirm one more time -- how many do you need, right? Okay. I may try to get some other people to donate. Is that cool too? Okay. That's like six messages.

SKIP: Hey, listen, I know you said canned goods, but can I bring some of those pouched goods? Pouched tuna. I know they're not canned though. Is that okay?

DOC: Something like that. Okay. That's like eight messages. What about the other 30?

Now, here's the thing, they're not claiming these messages were part of the terrorist attack at this moment. In other words, they're not pointing the finger at the cleric going, a-ha! You were in on the terrorist attack. They aren't doing that yet.

SKIP: I think they're just trying to prove that they did in fact have more of a relationship than he's trying to --

DOC: That's what I'm saying. So 38 messages, even if it's about food donations, you had a relationship with this person. I mean, if you were the cleric and this guy is like -- I'm getting another message from him about the food donations. This is like 14. Hey, Farook is texting me again, Skip. Just look at this. I would be going to Skip. Look at this. How many times do I have to tell him it's canned goods? This is the eighteenth message. Look at this. I would be bitching to you. Right?

SKIP: Yeah. But then again, you would remember that and hold that as well. I mean, yeah, we exchanged blah, blah. You wouldn't have to come out and say, yeah, we were best friends.

DOC: Right.

SKIP: I would be like, yeah, I knew the guy. He was a nut.

DOC: He wouldn't leave me the hell alone. I told him about the canned goods.

SKIP: If anything, that could work in your favor. Yeah, I know him. He was a jackass.

DOC: There's a little more information. This cleric said he didn't know Farook's wife at all. He said he barely knew Farook. Didn't know his wife at all.

There's a long-time member of the mosque.

SKIP: I'm sorry, what's that name again?

DOC: (foreign language). I don't know if that's a man or a woman. Claimed that they prayed shoulder to shoulder with Farook and his wife. And went to the couple's wedding last year at the mosque.

So that would indicate that this cleric knew Farook's wife. Didn't know her at all.

SKIP: At least some familiarity.

DOC: Right? So then you have to ask yourself: Why are you denying this?

I understand that you know people -- I understand being a little paranoid if you think everyone is looking at you even if you're not a terrorist and you happen to be Muslim. I understand that you're -- okay. They all think I'm a terrorist here. So I don't want to do anything. So let me just say I didn't know the guy.

But aren't you smart enough to realize that looks even worse for you instead of being honest and saying, listen. It's one thing to downplay it. But if you exchanged messages like that, there's no downplaying it. People are going to know.

SKIP: No, it just makes you look guilty.

DOC: That's what I'm saying. So let's say the cleric in this mosque had some sort of a relationship with Farook, but not much of one. He could have said, yeah, he worshiped here. I knew him a little bit. They had their wedding here. You know, we had exchanged messages. He tried to come up with some food donations. Whatever. I didn't know him well. I mean, there are many people that come to this mosque that I have a similar relationship with. You know, we didn't see each other outside of the mosque or anything like that. Then I would go, okay. That makes sense. But when you start going, nope. I didn't know his wife at all.

SKIP: Who? Farook.

DOC: Oh, the guy with the canned goods. Right? I mean, at some point it just makes you look guilty.

SKIP: It makes you look guilty, yeah.

DOC: That's not going to be good for him there. You have to wonder, was anybody else a part of this? You know just before we were off for break, so prior to last week, the neighbor -- they finally arrested the neighbor, the one who bought the two long guns and then gave them to Farook, who was planning a terrorist attack with him in 2011 and '12.

SKIP: I would have a hard time believing that. I mean, because of that, because of this neighbor, they were planning HEP an attack on a highway. I mean, that clearly proves to me, I think, that Farook spoke about this stuff with some regularity. So I would have to think, I would be surprised to find out that nobody else in that mosque, that not a single other person knew that they had something planned.

DOC: Interesting thing about this friend, the former neighbor who has been arrested now. He claimed that they had this terrorist plan. The plan they were working on is shocking. And this is the thing that should really frighten all Americans. I'm not somebody that is given into hysterics. I think we have to live our lives or the terrorists win. But it should be shocking when you hear what they were planning.

Their plan, at least one of their plans, was to use explosive devices on a stretch of highway. Now, I don't know if it was a particular stretch that they had already planned out for. But they were looking for at least a stretch of highway that had very few exits in Southern California to trap people on the highway. Then they would use explosive devices to blow up a car or cars that would block people on the highway. And, again, you wouldn't be able to get off once traffic started backing up.

At that point, Farook was going to walk among the cars and start shooting people in their cars or if they fled. The crazy neighbor was going to be positioned in the hills near the highway and began -- begin sniping law enforcement or security or safety or emergency crews as they tried to help people.

This was their plan. Now, why that should be shocking, of course, that's a terrorist attack, so it should be shocking in itself. But when you look and realize that these are the new terrorists many America. Many people, I think including even the president and maybe even George W. Bush before he left office, and many people that are advising them, still believe that terrorism in America is going to come in the form of a plane flying into a building or something similar.

Remember, prior to 9/11, the only fear you had of somebody taking an aircraft or blowing up or terrorism on an aircraft was it being hijacked because nobody would kill themselves. Or planting a bomb on a plane, but they wouldn't get on because no one would kill themselves. That was our thinking.

They would check and as long as everybody got on that planted luggage on the plane, you were good. And then we were like, oh, okay. Now I see that people will actually kill themselves too. Got it. Okay. We were behind.

SKIP: Totally changed the game.

DOC: Changed the game. Well, now we've got a new plan here. Look at the multiple terrorist attacks in France. Look at the Boston bombing. Look at San Bernardino. What do these attacks have in common? They plan a terrorist attack, using explosives, guns, whatever they can find, they don't stick around to be shot or killed. Even if they're willing to die for their cause and will likely die for their cause. They want to cause as much havoc and terror as possible. As much death and destruction. So what do they do? They flee causing more death and destruction. This is the new plan, and we have to wise up. They're willing to die for their cause, but it looks more like this than planes into buildings.

Featured Image: Dar-Al-Uloom Al-Islamia of America mosque in Muscoy, a suburb of San Bernardino.

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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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)


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.