Evan McMullin: We Must Seek Honest, Wise Leaders, Not Merely Those the Party Gave Us

A recent state-wide poll from Utah's Deseret News showed Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin in a statistical tie with Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, putting the Utahn within striking distance of winning his home state. If that were to happen, McMullin would be the first Independent candidate to win electoral votes in nearly a half century.

RELATED: Evan McMullin on Islamic Jihad, Russia and the Looming US Economic Crisis

Glenn spoke with McMullin Thursday on radio about the 13 principles outlined in his document Principles for New American Leadership and why both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are unfit for the presidency.

Read below, watch the clip or listen to this segment for answers to these questions:

• What principles do the two major party candidates fail to honor?

• Why does McMullin believe both Clinton and Trump are big government liberals?

• Why do we keep electing corrupt leaders?

• What is McMullin calling on all Americans to do?

Listen to Part 1 of Glenn's most recent interview with Evan McMullin on The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Evan McMullin, welcome to the program, sir.

EVAN: Great to be with you, Glenn. Great to be with you.

GLENN: So, Evan, tell us why we should vote for you. What are your principles that you think are not being represented?

EVAN: Well, Glenn, that's the most important question of this election. It is about principles. You know, we've just put out a document called Principles for New American Leadership. And I would add another part to that title: New American Leadership and Civic Engagement. I think that's what we need in this country. We do need a new generation of leadership, a new conservative movement, but we need also a new era of civic engagement.

And so, as far as principles are concerned, in this document, there are 13 principles. But they start off with some -- there are very basic things that we're losing sight of, things that the two major party candidates don't honor. I'm talking about the first, for example. We say our basic rights are God-given. That is so incredible. Our rights don't come from the government. They are inalienable, and they come from our maker.

Number two, we honor our Constitution. Not what we think it should be. There are different opinions. But how it's written.

Number three, government power must be separated and balanced. We must have checks and balances, and they must be honored in our system to protect against the government's abuse of that power.

Number four, our leaders must be honest and wise. Because the reality is, even though we are blessed with an inspired Constitution, Glenn, if we don't have honest and wise leaders who respect that Constitution, our nation will suffer. And it has.

And then the last one, I'll just mention to start off with, number five, we share responsibility for service and civic duty.

We need to serve our fellow man and woman. We need to be involved in civic engagement. We need to be aware of the issues and well informed. And we need not to be passive in the selection of our leaders.

I believe we must seek out leaders who are honest and wise and promote them into office, not merely wait for the party to give us whoever they want to give us. We must find them. We must recruit them, and we must promote them forward to our leadership, to our service.

GLENN: What do you say to people who say, "Hillary Clinton is -- I mean, I've heard people say she's the devil himself. And some people actually mean it. But some -- others, like me, believe she is so wildly corrupt in all aspects of her life, that she has to be stopped. Some people say, "I don't like Donald Trump, but I will vote for him. And, Evan, no matter how much I like you, you don't have a chance. Why should I vote for you?"

EVAN: Well, I'll tell you this, Glenn, my perspective on both of these two candidates, and, you know, everybody has heard it all before. But they're both deeply corrupt. And I've got news for everyone -- this is my view -- Donald Trump is a big government liberal, just like Hillary Clinton, maybe even worse.

He does not respect our system of checks and balances. He doesn't respect the courts or their power. He doesn't respect, I believe, Article I of the Constitution. He doesn't even understand the Constitution. He doesn't -- you know, he proposes policies that are in violation of our Constitution. It seems like, every week or couple of weeks, it's something new. They're both big government liberals. That is the reality.

This is the situation in which we find ourselves. How did we get here? Because we've accepted the argument that we need to vote for the lesser or decide the lesser of two evils between the two major party candidates for a long time.

That decision, the lesser-of-two-evils decision, that framework posits to lower our standards for our leaders, and as a result of that, we get weaker leaders. We get corrupt leaders like both of them.

We get leaders like many of ours, who have disappointed us this year, who won't stand up for principle, who put their own reelections first. And that is happening right now. And that's why we get -- that's why I think, Glenn, we have a leadership crisis in this country.

So what I'm saying and what my running mate, Mindy Finn, what she's saying as well, is vote for the people who you actually want to see in office. If you do not do that, if we do not do that, Glenn, we will never get the leaders we need in this country.

We must use our voices, which are our votes, to support leaders who we actually want to see in office. And if they don't win this time, well, then they can win next time. But we must start building a movement, a new conservative movement, that will put leaders into the Oval Office and into Congress and elsewhere, who actually embrace the principles of our country.

GLENN: Evan, there are people that say that there may not be a next time. The country is at the breaking point, and you don't know what's going to happen. And the way things are going and how fast -- and how fast we have decayed over the last eight years with rights, that our churches will be under siege. Our rights will be taken. Possibly our guns would be taken. Our banking system could collapse. Just in the next four to eight years, this next president may be the last chance. We can't take that risk.

EVAN: Well, Glenn, I would -- again, I say that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are cut from the same cloth. These are both big -- they're both tax-and-spend liberals. These are people who are going to grow the size of the federal government. Donald Trump has made a promise about the Supreme Court, but he's violated that promise even in the campaign, saying that his sister would make a good justice, saying that, you know, Peter Thiel would make a good Supreme Court justice. And this is not a man we can trust. This just simply isn't a man that we can trust.

We are in a terrible spot right now. Yes, we don't have time to waste. But we have allowed ourselves -- I'll say this -- we have allowed ourselves to be offered two horrendous candidates from the two major parties.

And so this is what I'm saying, Glenn: I'm calling on all Americans now to have a conversation -- a conversation with each other, a conversation around the dinner table, in the backyard, over the fence in the backyard with the neighbor, with your colleagues, about the fundamental principles that have made this country the most prosperous and most powerful on earth.

We've got to go back as American citizens to the essentials. We've got to ourselves recommit ourselves to these principles and pursue better leaders. We're not -- you know, from the two major parties, we're not going to get them this year. But I believe we can get more of them in the future. But we've got to start with basics.

We're in a tough spot this year. There are no great solutions. That's just the reality. That's the difficult place we've been in. We have to start rebuilding something new, and it starts with the conversation with America, one that I and Mindy Finn are trying to have with America and one that I'm asking Americans to have with themselves, using this document, using these principles.

STU: Evan, Stu.

I have -- one of the things that we've seen in this debate is the world of foreign policy has been, you know, really in shambles. Everything from trade to, you know, we have -- I mean, we watched the debate the other night.

Hillary Clinton, we know what a disaster she was with Russia. I mean, you know, the reset button. I mean, that was a total disaster. And then her opponent, in his own defense, says that he doesn't know anything about the inner workings of Russia. So these are our two options. Not to mention, Gary Johnson, you know, who has his issues with where is Aleppo and what is Aleppo. All of this. How does your experience differ from these three?

EVAN: Well, I spent 11 years serving in the Central Intelligence Agency. I was an undercover operative. Most of that time came after 9/11. I managed some of our country's most sensitive counterterrorism operations against al-Qaeda leadership and other sensitive traditional intelligence operations against countries that are adversaries to liberty.

GLENN: If you would have -- if you would have handled the documents that you had, which I assume are less sensitive than what the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had, would you be in prison if you handled them the way she did?

EVAN: Yes. Well, I handled some very, very sensitive stuff that she may not have had. But even if I handled lesser classified documents, yes, I would have been fired, first of all. My security clearance would have been revoked. And I likely would have gone to jail.

And that's the reality. But that's what we see. And, Glenn, you pointed that out. Just the corruption. We live in a country where most Americans feel -- a strong majority of Americans feel we're on the wrong track. People don't feel like they're being heard by the government anymore, largely because so much power is centralized in Washington, DC. But this is exactly the wrong moment to elect a deeply corrupt leader. And that's what we're poised to do.

And it is truly unfortunate. And we cannot allow ourselves to be in this situation again.

GLENN: So how would you deal with Russia? Yesterday, the number two guy in the Duma came out and said that, "If America votes for Hillary Clinton and does not elect Donald Trump, that there will -- that nuclear war is imminent." He said, "There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere."

EVAN: Well, look, first of all, the first thing we need to do is reassert our strength in the world. What we've done under President Obama is withdrawn our strength and communicated weakness to the whole world. And so all of the destructive actors, whether it's Vladimir Putin or Bashar Assad or the Chinese -- Chinese government annexing parts of the South China Sea or North Korea, Kim Jong -- the Kim regime. You know, what we've got is a reaction by all these bad actors to a leadership, a power void, a power vacuum that's been left by President Obama.

The first thing we need to do, we need a president who will stand up and be strong. And that is -- that solves a lot of problems, candidly. It used to be that countries knew that they couldn't mess with us. And as a result, they couldn't most of the time.

That is not the case anymore because of our presidency because of this administration. But I'll tell you something, we would get more of the same with Hillary Clinton in that regard.

But with Donald Trump, we would get somebody who has actually aligned himself with these bad actors. I mean, it is unconscionable to me, incredible, that we find ourselves in this situation.

And I struggle and am so disappointed with Republicans. You know, Republicans -- the Republican Party was the national security party. How can they not stand up to Donald Trump's allegiance and infatuation with Vladimir Putin? How is that possible?

But this is where we find ourselves. And this, guys, is why I'm saying we find ourselves in a leadership crisis in this country. And we must return to these principles. Our principles are our strength, and we must have this conversation with each other. It's not the -- it's not the mainstream media. We can't wait for our leaders. They've let us down. We must turn to each other and rededicate ourselves to these principles and find our own leaders and promote them into office.

GLENN: Evan McMullin, running as a third party candidate, doing well in the polls in Utah. May actually win in Utah, which is something that Gary Johnson hasn't even been able to pull off in his own state. He's within four points in Utah and doing well in the Mountain West and is a write-in candidate -- is on the ballot in some states, write-in candidate on others. How many states can people vote for you and actually have it count?

EVAN: Well, it's 34 states. But by the time we get to Election Day, it will be 43, potentially up to 45. Most Americans will have the opportunity to vote for me and to have their vote counted. That's the reality. We're very excited about that.

We already have access to more than 300 electoral college votes, and we've done that in just a matter of weeks. I mean, for us, it's a three-month presidential campaign. I've got a phenomenal team. We've moved very, very swiftly. And we are doing it on the backs of our tremendous supporters. They're very strong, very motivated, and they have helped us get ballot access across the country. It's just been truly incredible to watch.

GLENN: All right.

[break]

GLENN: Evan McMullin is running as a candidate for president. And is beginning to pick up some steam in Utah. He's about to pass both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. And only 52 percent of the people know who he is in Utah. And that is starting to happen in the mountain west now, where he just started, I don't know, about six weeks ago because he was fed up.

Evan, I want to talk to you a little bit about the economy. Because HSBC has just come out with a red alert warning for the stock market, and a stock market crash they say is now pretty much imminent. We'll get into that in a second.

Let me talk to you about two things. People believe that the Supreme Court is the number one issue now because they feel religion is going to come under attack and the Second Amendment is going to come under attack. Where do you stand on those two things?

EVAN: Well, first of all, I do believe that religious liberty in this country is under attack. And we need to do everything we can to protect it. The Second Amendment is obviously as well. I agree with that. Unfortunately, I just don't believe Donald Trump would -- would -- would pursue originalist justices on the court. I just don't not believe it. We know Hillary Clinton won't either. But I just think -- look, America, we are in a tough position. We are in a tough position because the two major candidates are not people who respect religious liberty. They're not people who respect the Second Amendment, and it's going to be tough. That's the reality. That's the reality. And that's why I keep saying that, you know, we've got to go back to our principles, and we've got to really develop something new, a new movement in this country.

You know, it's interesting, I think back about John Adams and the way he described the revolution of his time by saying the real revolution began around the kitchen table, in what mothers were teaching their children in their readers. I mean, that's the kind of -- that's what we need to do. If we want to protect religious liberty, if we want to protect the Second Amendment, we have got to strengthen the conservative movement so that it can do that. And we need a political vehicle, in the form of a party who will fight for those things. And we do not have that now, Glenn. We don't have that.

We have a Republican Party and a nominee who don't support these value and who will not protect them. And so we've got to start from scratch in many ways, I believe. So I'm thinking about it in the long game because I've written Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump off. They're both cut from the same cloth.

So let's rebuild our conservative movement, through discussing these core principles, recommitting ourselves to these core principles. We're angry. We're all angry. I get that. But we need to channel that into something constructive and positive for our country. And this is what I believe it is.

GLENN: Okay. Evan McMullin.

Featured Image: Former CIA agent Evan McMullin announces his presidential campaign as an Independent candidate on August 10, 2016 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Supporters gathered in downtown Salt Lake City for the launch of his Utah petition drive to collect the 1000 signatures McMullin needs to qualify for the presidential ballot. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

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.