The #1 Journalist Targeted for Anti-Semitism on the Internet Talks With Glenn

Ben Shapiro holds many titles, awards and distinctions --- editor-in-chief, author, attorney --- but perhaps his latest is the most compelling. Shapiro was recently named the number one journalistic target of anti-Semitism on the internet.

"I was always of the opinion that the vast, you know, anti-Semitic left was a much bigger threat, with regard to anti-Semitism, than the right," Shapiro said. "Virtually all of the anti-Semitism I received this year was from the alt-right. You know, that came as a shock to me."

According to an Anti-Defamation League survey, about 20,000 anti-Semitic tweets were directed at American journalists since March of 2016. Eight thousand of those were at Shapiro.

Unswayed by the hatred, Shapiro remains as focused and committed as ever to conservative principles. His new book --- True Allegiance --- is available now for pre-order and at bookstores everywhere next week.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these steadfast questions:

• What gives Ben hope in millennials?

• Why could Ben's new book be a history book very soon?

• What's Steve Bannon's scam?

• Does Trump even care about being president?

• What does Ben wake up every morning thinking about?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Welcome to the program, sir. How are you?

BEN: Hey, doing pretty well. How are you?

GLENN: Pretty good.

So we find out now that it is indeed a Jew, Ben Shapiro, that has been torching Donald Trump. They were right all along. They were right all along, Ben.

BEN: Yeah. If only they had known I was an international banker, this would have changed everything.

GLENN: That's right.

BEN: It is amazing how all of the people who foisted Donald Trump on us in the primaries are now insisting that anyone who says that Donald Trump was a bad candidate from the beginning is at fault here. If only we had jumped on the Trump train sooner, then he would be losing by presumably by six points, instead of by eight.

GLENN: Right.

BEN: Everybody is preparing for the post-election fallout. The people who timed themselves to this electrical fire, more than anybody else. They're already prepping Trump TV. And I look forward to the lineup, including, you know, some of our good friends who will presumably be appearing shortly.

I mean, Trump debuted Trump TV in the middle of the debate last night. And it's clear that's what this rigging talk is about, by the way. This whole routine is not designed to win any votes. No, independent voter across the country is going, "Well, you know, if Trump says it's rigged, that means I'm going to vote for that guy." This is just all about the coalition of the dispossessed. It's about creating a grievance culture where people think that the real reason Trump lost wasn't because he's the worst major candidate in presidential history. That the real reason he lost is because there are all these media people and evil pollsters and evil voting fraud gurus and the Never Trumpers who combine to stop him. And the only way that you're going to be able to fight back against those people is by paying 10.99 a month to watch Laura Ingram talk to Sean Hannity about the wonders of Donald Trump.

GLENN: So, Ben, how does this actually shape up at the end? Because he is not going away. As you said, during the debate two nights ago, he was debuting Trump TV. The BBC even tweeted that. Are we watching the beginning of Trump TV? It was clear that was the prototype broadcast of what was coming.

And he's not going away. And the reason why he hit Hillary as hard as he did was -- was not to expand his base, which he had to do. It was to make sure that his base was die-hard for him. They are going to say that it was rigged. They're going to blame it on the G.O.P. They're going to blame it on the media. They're going to blame it on people like you, people like me. And a good portion of those people are going to believe that from -- from now until the end of time.

BEN: Yeah, and that's a scam. That was Steve Bannon's scam, you know, when he moved over from Breitbart. I said it immediately. I'm admiring him. That Bannon is too smart not to have a backup plan. His backup plan is if Trump loses, they convert, you know, a million or 2 million of the big Trump fans into the a subscriber base for some sort of TV network. That was always the plan here.

I mean, Trump is not a great businessman. He's a great branding magnate. His brand is ruined internationally because of all the things he's done inside of this election cycle. But that doesn't mean he can't make a lot of money off of the die-hards. They're attempting to increase the number of die-hards here by suddenly narrowing all the Tea Party language that Trump despised at the time, but suddenly he's a Tea Partier, because they're trying to grab on to that audience, hold them tight, and then claim the real reason that people have moved away from him is not because he's not conservative enough, not because he has no values. The reason that people moved away from him is of course because he's just too tough and we're too wimpy to really take the fight to the enemy.

GLENN: So with -- with Steve Bannon who is -- and you worked for him for years, or worked with him for years. One of the more despicable men alive. Would you agree?

BEN: Yeah. I'm not a Steve Bannon fan.

GLENN: Yeah. Okay.

BEN: Yeah, he's a bad guy.

GLENN: Right. A really bad guy. He is -- he is -- he will use -- I don't know if he believes in the alt-right, but he is certainly willing to use the alt-right for fuel.

This is going to be a very bad chemistry lab experiment that that could blow the conservative movement sky-high. How do we navigate around this? How do we -- how do you expose what's coming and what they're going to be doing?

BEN: I mean, the only thing that we can do is, of course, tell the truth about what is going on. And this is sort of the final con in what has been a con of a campaign.

But beyond that, I think that we also have to make clear, some of the stuff that you've been saying, Glenn, I think has been useful in this respect. And I've been trying to say the same thing.

My hard feelings are not with the people who feel like they have to vote for Donald Trump in order to stop Hillary Clinton. I totally understand that logic.

GLENN: Correct. I do too.

BEN: You know, I wake up every morning trying to figure out for myself on a personal level, is that logic that predominates over other logic that suggests you can't vote for this guy.

GLENN: Hang on. Before you say anymore. Was there a time -- any time at all in the first ten minutes a couple of nights ago on the debate when you heard her talk about the Constitution, the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment, and abortion, that before he started talking, that you said, "I've -- I have to consider voting for Donald Trump. She is awful."

BEN: Yeah. Pretty much every time she opens her mouth, I have to consider voting for Trump. And I think that that's true for virtually everybody who considers themselves Never Trump.

GLENN: Correct. I agree. And I think that's why both of us -- all of us, we do not condemn anyone who is voting for Donald Trump. We get it -- we totally get it.

BEN: Right. Exactly.

GLENN: Unless you're part of the alt-right -- you know, when you had 16 candidates in front of you, I don't understand that.

BEN: Right. Even if you had 16 others in front of you, but you weren't following the news that closely, and all you saw was sort of the headlines that he's going to be a fighter.

GLENN: Yeah. I agree.

BEN: But somebody who backed him because you're sort of a nationalist/populist and you want that sort of constitutional conservatism that's always driven the Republican Party or has since the Reagan era, then that's the part that I don't understand.

I think that what you're seeing is sort of a preemptive strike from a lot of the Trumpkins, the Bannons of the world, saying, "Look, we know we're going to go down in flames here, but we have to make it seem as though people like Beck and Shapiro and people who aren't going to vote for Trump are sneering at you, like they're looking down their nose at you for voting Trump. I'm not looking down my nose at anybody. I've made a personal calculation. I've never said to anybody, "I'm encouraging you not to vote for Donald Trump."

I have said that, "Here's my -- you know, here's calculation, why I'm not voting for Donald Trump." I think that Washington takes the heart out of the Republican Party over the last year alone is good evidence that he's going to do much worse over the next eight years and pervert the Republican Party into the Steve Bannon alt-right, and that is something that I'm not going to stand around for. But, you know, that said, I understand the differing risk assessments that people have.

GLENN: Sure.

BEN: The civil war is entirely a creation of the Bannon/Trump brigade. They want the civil war. Neither you nor I want the civil war. We would like to see us come together and actually fight the left. Listen, the reason that I opposed Trump in the primaries because I thought he's an agent of the left. I still think that he's leftist in his heart.

GLENN: Yeah. I do too. You know, I don't think you meant that literally. But there are some -- and I think you could make a pretty strong case that Bill Clinton, you know, called him up a week before and was like, "Hey, Don, I know you're thinking about it. You should do it because, you know, it will be good for your brand. And you'll be able to have fun. And, you know, you'll be able to clean up those crazies on the right."

BEN: Look, I don't think Trump is the plan. But if he were, I'm not sure he would be acting much differently than he has been for the past few months.

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

BEN: I think he's -- I think Trump is an ad hoc guy who has never really thought about politics very much. What he does think is about (inaudible). He has no ties to the Constitution. He has no ties to conservatism. And so he's this sort of reactionary who doesn't like some of the stuff that he saw from Barack Obama. That's all.

GLENN: So let's just assume that the polls don't change -- because he didn't have a game-changing debate. And so let's say the polls are accurate, which is still an if. And Donald Trump loses. We know what he'll do. He'll start Trump TV. There will be an alt-right party that grows out of this. Let's talk about, how do we come together enough to stop Hillary Clinton? Because that's -- that's going to be the important part. And I will tell you, because some show hosts have said, "I will never come together with you. I will condemn you for you, you know, losing the vote for Donald Trump." So how do we get together and stand together as a bloc to block Hillary if she wins?

BEN: You know, I think that we're going to have to ignore the flames and arrows. Unfortunately, this capitulation -- there's a phrase in the Jewish prayers -- (cutting out) I let my soul (cutting out) -- I think there's going to be have to be some of that. (cutting out)

GLENN: Hang. Hang on. Ben, I don't know if you just walked into another room or something, but you broke up. Can you tell us -- we lost you at the -- at the Jewish prayer.

BEN: No.

Yeah. Can you hear me now? Is that better?

GLENN: Yes, yes.

BEN: Okay. So there's a part of the Jewish prayer service where it talks about, you know, let my soul be as dust to people who criticize me. And I think that we're going to have to adopt that, that idea. Because we're going to get hit with blame for Hillary, because everybody who selected Trump in the primaries and backed him so ardently, they have to shift the blame somewhere. We're just going to have to keep the focus. We're going to have to ignore it. We're just going to have to keep the focus, where it ought to be, which is on attacking the left, attacking Hillary Clinton.

And, look, I think that the recriminations are going to last longer than they did after 2012.

GLENN: Right.

BEN: It is amazing. I don't remember after 2012, the whole Republican -- a large swath of the Republican Party turning on the Trump people, who didn't show up for Romney. And saying, "It's your fault Romney wasn't elected." But the Trump people, some of them, are going to do it to us this time. But, you know, I think that -- people have short memories. And the only thing that's going to matter is, how do we stop Hillary's agenda? So alliances of conveniences to the Republican Party -- has shown are not foreign to the Republican Party or a lot of people who are in it.

STU: Ben, this is Stu, and it's very rare that we have award-winning journalists on the program. You have won the award for the number one journalistic target of anti-Semitism on the internet. Congratulations.

BEN: Thank you. I thank God. I thank my neighbor --

(laughter)

STU: Did you want to give -- I -- you have to look at this -- I mean, A, it must be just a nightmare to even sign on to Twitter or any of these places these days with this stuff going on. Not only were you the number one target of anti-Semitism. It was by a really, really large margin.

GLENN: I know what it's like, Ben, to sign on for me. The things that they say -- my wife blew a gasket the other day. I just got an email, and she said, you are never talking to another person in the press ever, ever again. I don't care what it is. I don't care what happens. You're never talking to another member of the press.

And I can't imagine what it's like to be you, with the anti-Semitism that is going on. How are you dealing with it?

BEN: You know, at a certain point, you start to tune it out because you have to. But on the day of your baby's birth and you're getting notes from, you know, people who write for Breitbart, you know, that are essentially racists. And then you get other notes from people that are -- just pictures of gas chambers and talk about cockroaches. And I hope the four of you die in a gas chamber. That kind of stuff. At a certain point, it moves from the mildly irritating to the actually upsetting.

I mean, I've received -- according to that ADL survey, there were something like 20,000 anti-Semitic tweets directed at American journalists since March. And I was the recipient of nearly 8,000 of those.

So, you know, at a certain point it's kind of amazing that there are that many people that think they're that important in their lives that they're going to do that. And my feeling has always been that if you're pissing off the mouth-breathing Jew hater, then you're doing something right.

So it didn't bother me on any moral level. But I will tell you that it's pretty clear that it's coordinated. I mean, there are certain spike points where people did it based on the news cycle. There were a couple of accounts that were taken off of Twitter. By the way, I'm not an advocate of taking people off Twitter for anti-Semitism. I retweet these people because I think it's important to expose them.

But there are a couple who were taken off of Twitter when Milo Yiannopoulos was booted off of Twitter, which I didn't advocate for. When that happened, the amount of anti-Semitism in my feed dropped by at least 50 percent.

So, you know, when people ask why are you concerned about the Breitbart/alt-right movement, why are you worried Trump, you know, being kind of confused with that, well, it's because the major players in that movement are a problem. I mean, they believe some pretty terrible things. And our fellow travelers (phonetic) are people who believe even worse things.

GLENN: Ben, I -- I have to tell you, we've been a fan of yours for a very long time. But this -- this last year has really shown people's colors. And I don't know if the -- the people who read you or listen to you on the radio understand the difficulty that you have put up. And anybody who has taken this stand. It's a very, very brave thing to do.

And we've been watching you for the last year. And we are -- we're really impressed. Really impressed. Can I switch topics? Go ahead.

BEN: Yeah, that's high praise come from you obviously. Because of the people who have taken a lot of hits in this election cycle, you're definitely number one on that list. So it's been brutal, and I'm just hoping that after this election cycle, we can move into a period where people actually go back to principle instead of sort of the tribal fight that they've wanted to engage in.

GLENN: Yeah. Can you hang for a minute. Because you also have started another project that I think is really interesting. And I'd love for you to share with the audience. Do you have time to stay?

BEN: Sure. That would be great.

GLENN: Okay. Great.

[break]

GLENN: Ben Shapiro is with us. Ben, you've written a novel. You want to tell us about it?

BEN: Sure. That would be great. The novel is called True Allegiance. And it sort of takes all of the political crises we're facing in the country and ratcheting them up by a factor of about 50 percent. And it talks about what the dissolution of the country would look like.

And the reason that I wrote it as fiction as opposed to writing a sort of nonfiction book as to what the future looks like, is mainly because -- and, Glenn, I know you've been a proponent of this for a long time, Andrew Breitbart, my mentor, or my former mentor, was promoting this as well, the idea that culture is upstream of politics.

And if you tell it in a story, what you can't necessarily say in nonfiction, you know, here's one possible future, here's how bad things are on everything from the border to government's encroachment on land rights to race relations in the inner city, then people are more likely to read it and take it seriously, oddly enough, than they are to take a non-fiction book about the same topic seriously. Plus, you end up with more readers.

Ayn Rand did more for capitalism probably than Milton Friedman did, just because there are so many more people who read Atlas Shrugged. So the idea was to take all of these crises, stack them up one on another, and say, "Okay. How close are we really to everything collapsing?" And I have to say, I wrote the thing maybe a year and a half ago I started writing it. I completed it probably a year ago. And since then, half of the stuff in the book came true. So it turns out that I thought it was all 30 years away, and it may only be about 15 years away, which is a little scary.

GLENN: I did -- I'll tell you, I did the same thing.

We published -- what was it? Eye of Moloch. I don't remember what it was. Oh, it was the NSA stuff. The Eye of Moloch was a novel that I wrote. And it was about the spying on American citizens and how the NSA was going to do this and everything else. And I wrote it. It took about a year and a half to write.

And we put it out. And the day it came out was the day that I think the WikiLeaks story broke. We were like, "Good heavens, man. This is supposed to be in the future." It's amazing.

BEN: Oh, yeah. It is incredible how the future has accelerated. I mean, all of the worst fictional things that I talk about in True Allegiance, again, a lot of them came true. I wrote about major race riots in an American city and the attempt by the race rioters to kind of mainstream their politics into the politics of the upper echelon of the city. And obviously that's now been happening in pretty much every major Democrat-controlled city in America.

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. I have to take a quick break. Come back and just tell us the things that are in the book. And what the solutions are, if there are any. I'd like to hear your version of what's coming in America. Next, Ben Shapiro.

[break]

GLENN: Ben Shapiro, the biggest target for anti-Semitism in America today. He's an amazingly brave man. And a -- a brilliant, brilliant mind. And I'm glad he's on our side because I'd hate him to see him use his power for evil. Ben Shapiro is with us. He has a new book -- is it out this week?

BEN: Yeah. It's coming out next week.

GLENN: Okay.

BEN: So you can preorder it now.

JEFFY: True Allegiance.

GLENN: True Allegiance. Tell me the scenarios that you put in the book that you thought were 30 years away.

BEN: So one I talk about at length is a major race riot breaking out in a major American city and the government, led by presidents of the United States, essentially pushing the notion that the -- that the government -- the local government should give into the race rioters and allow them to take leadership of the local government.

And obviously, we've seen things along those lines from the presidents of the United States. I talk about precipitous pullout from a country. In this case, Afghanistan, that leads to the rise of a major terrorist group that hooks up with Iran to start pursuing nuclear terrorism.

And, you know, it turned out, I had the wrong country. The precipitous pullout from Iraq is what caused the rise in ISIS. But the idea that precipitous pullout causing rise in a major terrorist group, I wrote that before the rise of ISIS.

I talked about the idea of raids across the southern border from Mexican drug cartels, causing tensions on the border such that the government of Texas has to start disobeying the federal government in attempts to enforce the border, causing serious conflict between the state of Texas and the president of the United States. Obviously, you can see that beginning to materialize now.

GLENN: Ben, this isn't 30 years in the future. This was Wednesday.

(laughter)

BEN: Exactly. That's why I have to tell it now because it will be history --

GLENN: Right. It's a history book very soon. So how do -- how do -- I mean, I don't want you to tell me the whole story. But is there a solution to these problems that you see? Are you in this novel, are you proposing solutions?

BEN: Well, there are some solutions. And I think the number one solution that I sort of propose is that everybody start relying on basic human decency, which I know sounds ridiculous. But that's what we've come down to in this country. Is, are we going to have a country founded on individual decency, or are we going to have a country founded on everybody taking advantage of the situation at hand?

But the book does -- you know, I don't want to give away the ending of the book. But I will say that not everything is resolved peachy keen. Because I'm not sure that everything is resolved so peachy keen easily. I think these are deep abiding conflicts. And I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. But people of principle are going to have to ban together because tough times are coming.

If we do that, then I think we're going to be able to rebuild from some pretty bad things that are about to happen. But I think that it may be -- I mean, not to be a pessimist. I think it's late to forestall some of the worst things that are already happening from taking further material effect.

GLENN: Ben, I was talking to a guy -- yesterday I was having a meeting. And a pretty famous commentator -- and he just stopped by the studios to say hi. And we were having a private conversation. And he said to me, "I no longer believe people are good." He said, "I used to." He said, "I used to believe" -- he said, "I've heard you a million times, you know, you put good against evil, side by side, and Americans will always pick good." He said, "I don't think so."

Do you?

BEN: I think that unless there's a serious revival of morality in the country, I agree with your friend. And I think, by the way, our Founders didn't believe that people were naturally good.

I think our Founders, they said in Federalist 51, they believe that people are capable of good. They're capable of evil. That's why you can't have a government that's overpowering because the people who run it could be evil. And the only way that you're actually going to protect liberty is with a decent citizenry.

Obviously, the Republican Party -- conservatives have done a very poor job of maintaining the culture, maintaining the educational system, maintaining the media. And a lot of these values have dripped down all the way into -- you know, what was shocking to me about this election was, is that I didn't realize how far a lot of this had dripped down into our own party.

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: You always like to think of yourself as sort of you're on the side of the angels and people on your own team aren't part of the tribal problem. And then you look around and you realize, some of the people on your own team are not really on your team.

And that was -- that came as a rude awakening to me. You mentioned the anti-Semitism thing a little bit earlier. I was always of the opinion that the vast, you know, anti-Semitic left was a much bigger threat, with regard to anti-Semitism, than the right. I really had never -- I'm a guy who wears the Yamaka every day. I had never seen anti-Semitism from the right. Virtually all of the anti-Semitism I received this year was from the alt-right. You know, that came as a shock to me.

I think that we're going to need to re-inculcate values from the most basic level with our kids because people just don't know anything about, not only basic economics and basic politics, but basic decency. Because in the end, politics is just a reflection of values. When you have an entire generation of voters who are looking at Bernie Sanders as some sort of savior and socialism is a good, moral thing. And that's -- that's our fault. I mean, that's because we haven't done enough. Because my parents' generation hasn't done enough. I have to do a better job as a father in order to rectify the breach. And that's going to be a long process. That's not something that happens overnight. I don't think that we're one election away from restoring the country. I think we're one generation away from restoring the country. The idea that Reagan said, we're -- liberty is always one generation away from disappearing. You know, I think that liberty is always one generation from restoration, but it's going to be a hard generation (inaudible).

GLENN: How old are you, Ben?

BEN: I'm 32.

GLENN: So you're a millennial. How much faith do you have in the millennials?

BEN: I'm hoping for the millennials. I think the millennials are bored. I think the millennials don't pay a lot of attention to politics. I think they're dispossessed. They don't like all of the institutions. So there's not the same faith in the government and the same faith in the media that you see with the Boomers.

So there's an opening there. I think they're susceptible to basic reason, but they have to be -- they have to be pushed off the moral superiority they feel. And I speak at probably 30 colleges a year. And when I speak at these colleges, the first thing that I do is I immediately take the feelings question off the table, by basically saying, "You think you're a good person because you believe these things politically. Here's why what you believe politically is actually immoral and it hurts people."

And it's an argument who are young have never heard before. Because they've grown up in a millennia that's told them that the way to assure your ascent to political heaven is just by voting Democrat or by saying socialism is a great system of redistribution or by talking about white privilege.

When you say, look, the real way to be a good person is to actually be a good person. I agree with you. When young people are presented with the argument for good, then they will become more good. But if they're never presented with the argument for good and they're just told that politics is politics and everybody is corrupt and the whole system is rigged and nobody is good in the end and it's get yours at the table before somebody takes it away from you -- or (cuts out) the ultimate sacrifice that you can make is voting somebody else's money away, then you're going to go with the side that gives you a feeling of moral superiority. And failing to recognize that on the part of the right has been a mistake.

GLENN: Do you think that -- do you see when you're speaking out in universities, when you really start to teach some of these things, do you see the millennials at all get a little pissed that they've kind of been robbed by -- by people who have been teaching them garbage? Are they ticked at all?

BEN: Yeah, there's definitely a backlash that's building. I mean, I get probably somewhere between 50 to 100 emails every day. And all from millennials. People who are my age or younger. Who are excited that -- who have watched -- there are these videos on YouTube that have started to go viral, called Ben Shapiro thug life videos. Where somebody took like my kind of destroying somebody in the debate. Then they put sunglasses on me and an Obey hat on me.

It's really ridiculous stuff. But it's become very popular with young folks. And I get a lot of emails from young people saying, I was never even exposed to basic arguments or moral arguments. And if you speak dispassionately about what is good and true, then I think the young people resonate to that. It's actually one of the areas where I do have hope.

I speak on enough college campuses that I have hope for young people. I actually have less hope for some of the Baby Boomers than I do for people who are my own age and younger. I think a lot of the people, my own age and younger, are still malleable. They don't know a lot. They haven't been taught a lot. And when they're made aware of arguments they've never heard before, they're kind of shocked by it. They're actually vulnerable in that way because they're being blind-sided by the truth.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Always good to talk to you, sir. Thank you so much. And thanks for all your hard work and taking such a hard stand. Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of dailywire.com. Thank you so much, Ben.

BEN: Really appreciate it, Glenn.

Featured Image: Ben Shapiro on radio

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.