Is MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski Turning Conservative?

An amazing shifting is taking place, and the mainstream media doesn't seem to recognize it. Ironically, the left and the media are sounding like the Tea Party did in 2008 and 2012, lamenting about their constitutional rights disappearing.

"If I wanted to be a jerk, I would say, Really? Can you tell me which rights have disappeared? Because isn't that what they've said to us for the last eight years? We can't play that game anymore," Glenn said Wednesday on his radio program.

Another shift taking place is a new open-mindedness and objectivity among a minority on the left.

RELATED: Former Progressive Caller Josh Reveals His Incredible Transformation After Reading ‘Liars’

MSNBC news anchor Mika Brzezinski has, on several occasions, expressed her concern about double standards on the left while looking for new ways to communicate about and approach issues. Brzezinski recently voiced her displeasure with Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), saying she might want to be a little inclusive because she's sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive.

Is Brzezinski turning into a conservative? No, of course not. She's just changing her approach, her tone.

"That is critical, just critical. And that's what we've been talking about. That's what the book Liars tried to do in the writing," Glenn said.

The bottom line is that we need each other. We need to be approachable to the other side and listen to the opinions of others.

"I don't mean that you change your principles. I haven't changed --- people believe I have --- but I have not changed my principles. I am changing my approach because this doesn't work, what we've been doing. It doesn't work. And it's going to lead us into very dark and bad places," Glenn said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: This is an amazing thing. I'm now reading articles about how the Hollywood left is -- they're buying luxury bunkers. And what is it that these people know that the rest of us don't seem to know? All of a sudden now preparing is also kind of cool for -- for the left, I guess.

Now there's a reason to hunker down. To me, this says, we can make the case that the presidential powers are far too great. That if half of the country is terrified under a Democrat and then we -- and then we replace him with a Republican and the other half is terrified, would he give you a problem.

PAT: And, gee, who said that, "Don't give those powers to the president because you're not going to like it eventually?"

GLENN: We said that during Bush. We said that during Bush.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: This is the real problem. I want to get into this here in just a second, but I want to start with a phone call that we had yesterday that I think is -- I mean, we had so much mail and so many Facebook comments on this because it shows that, A, there is hope and that people are open-minded if you present yourself the right way.

Listen to this.

CALLER: Let me start off this way, I was a very, very progressive liberal, almost to the point of communism. I believed everybody should be -- you know, in the wage gap and everything. So a buddy of mine that I've known since I got out of the Army, he -- he came to me one day and gave me your book. One of your books. And he says -- he said, "You've got to read this."

GLENN: Which one?

CALLER: Liars.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: And he said, "You've got to read this book." And I said, "Oh, come on. Really?"

And, "No, you've got to read this book. You'll never believe the some of the stuff that's in it."

So he told me the first chapter to go to. And it was in August, so I can't remember, to be honest, what chapter it was.

But it was the part of the book where it talked about how they -- with Prohibition.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: And how they put poison in the alcohol to find out the tracking routes of where it was going.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: So I read that, and my jaw hit the floor.

GLENN: You looked it up too, didn't you? You didn't believe --

CALLER: I did. And I finished that book in three days. It was the most amazing book I've ever read. And I said, "I've got to do more research on this, and I've got to find out who this Glenn Beck guy is." So I went to YouTube.

GLENN: Oh, boy.

CALLER: And I searched your name and I found a video that you did on TheBlaze. I don't know how long it was. But you spoke to a guy that was an alcoholic. And you talked to him about some -- I forget who said it. It was to Peter Carr.

GLENN: Oh, yeah.

CALLER: And the statement was, "Set reason firmly in her seat, and question with boldness the very existence of God. For if there is a God, he must rather honest questioning over blind-folded fear." I will never forget that statement. Because that statement brought me to Christ.

I was an atheist before that.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Holy cow. So you were a communist, an atheist?

CALLER: Yeah.

PAT: And how long ago was this, Josh?

GLENN: He said August.

CALLER: I got that book on August 15th of this year.

PAT: Of this year! Wow, that's --

CALLER: Yeah, I voted for Barack Obama twice. I'm sorry, but I did.

GLENN: Holy cow.

PAT: Wow.

CALLER: And I would have voted for Hillary Clinton with vigor. However, I pulled the lever for Evan McMullin this year.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: You didn't even go -- oh, my gosh.

CALLER: And I have never, ever, ever -- I'm telling you -- I want to be as serious as I can with you, Glenn, because this is a dream of mine, to speak to you since August. I have never, ever realized the difference -- I thought all conservatives hated me. I thought conservatism was hate -- was complete hate, until I listened to you.

PAT: Wow. That's --

GLENN: This is -- this is a dream come true. This has made the last year totally worth it.

Before we go back to this phone call, because we talked about -- we talked about a few things with him on what -- how -- because that's quite a statement to make. But I want to -- I want to shift gears. And can we go to Mika and what Mika said on MSNBC? Was this today or yesterday?

PAT: I think it was yesterday.

GLENN: Okay. Listen to this.

VOICE: And you have Elizabeth Warren who is stepping out and basically looking like she's going to be the de facto head of the Democratic Party nationally. That is a --

VOICE: Yeah.

MIKA: Do you lead on anger though? Because that doesn't seem very constructive to me.

I got to tell you, I love her. I'm getting tired of this act.

PAT: Wow.

VOICE: She's definitely giving voice to the people in the party and in the country who think Donald Trump is a disaster for the country. She's going to be out every day --

MIKA: Yeah. But you know what, there's a huge part of the country that doesn't think so.

VOICE: Right.

MIKA: And she might want to be a little inclusive because she's sounding like the people she's accusing of being exclusive.

I mean, she's just got to stop. I'm sorry. It's getting exhausting. And this was not helpful during the campaign. It wasn't. There was an anger there that was shrill and --

PAT: Uh-huh.

MIKA: -- and a step above what it needed to be, unmeasured, and almost unhinged.

PAT: How about that?

GLENN: Now, listen, what people will want to say, on our side is, wow, is Mika turning a conservative? No. No.

PAT: She's changing her tone.

GLENN: She's changing her tone. That is critical. Just critical. And that's what we've been talking about. That's what the book Liars tried to do in the writing. And obviously, at least for one person, it was successful.

We tried to say, "Look, this isn't a Democratic problem. This is a Democratic and Republican problem. And this is not a liberal problem. This is a human problem."

PAT: And nothing proves better what you've been trying to say for a while now better than this. Because how did that make all of us feel? Everybody listen I objecting to that went, "Wow, thank you. Thank you for being a little bit reasonable and seeing the other side."

GLENN: And honest. And honest.

PAT: And honest.

Well, so if we did the same thing, how will the left feel?

GLENN: Correct. Correct.

And you're not going to get everybody on the left. You're not going to get the die-hards. You're not going to get the die-hards. But the die-hards eventually --

PAT: Some reasonable people might be able to come --

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: On both sides.

GLENN: And the die-hards will eventually be the absolute outer fringes that no one will listen to.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Another great example of this was David Axelrod, of all people.

PAT: Right.

STU: Who was in the Obama administration obviously. A real hard-core partisan and hasn't changed his beliefs. But while Trump was getting beat up for not naming his people fast enough in his cabinet, Axlerod came out and said, "Wait a minute. By this time in our administration, we hadn't named anybody, and I don't remember any criticism." We need more of that.

PAT: A little honesty. A little bit of honesty goes a really long way.

GLENN: Right. Right.

And if we can -- if the right can lead the way in this -- if we can not play the same game and not trash our enemies because they're our enemies, but call them as we see them -- not remain silent when an injustice is happening. Let me give you one. Let me show you an example.

Right now, you have Breitbart being boycotted. Well, first of all, I don't believe that Kellogg's was ever a major sponsor of Breitbart. Maybe. But I don't ever remember seeing Kellogg's Corn Flakes all over. And this was done to us.

There were people that would say they were going to boycott us, that never spent money with us. We were never on part of their buy. They never would have.

PAT: And everybody counted it, "That's the 37th sponsor." Yeah, like eight of them. Four of them. One of them was a sponsor before.

GLENN: Right. Right. Really, most of them were like BMW will never advertise -- well, they never advertise on talk radio. They've never advertised with me before.

So, A, I think this is the press doing to Breitbart what the press did to us. What the left did to us. I don't believe that that -- that boycott of Kellogg's is even real. But even if it is, let me make the case -- and everybody knows how I feel about Breitbart and Bannon. So I have nothing to gain here.

Let me tell you why I think it is a problem. I believe in legal boycotts. I believe you have the right to do it. It's a free market. You have a right to spend your money as a business or -- or an individual, any way you want. It's your money. So if you want to do a boycott, you can do a boycott.

But let me show you why it's not good: Breitbart, if the numbers are right -- and I'm trying to look this up. If the numbers were right, in the last 30 days, Breitbart claims they did 45 million next week.

That's a lot of people.

STU: That's a great number.

GLENN: That's a great number. And that's a lot of people.

Okay. So 45 million people -- Kellogg's, you're going to say, "I don't want any of you. I don't want any of you." Now, Breitbart has said they are the platform for the alt-right. Okay. That's a pretty big choice. To me, I'm not reading Breitbart anymore because I don't want to support something that has -- that says, "I'm going to give this group of people a platform." I don't agree with that. But 45 million people don't care. Forty-five million Americans.

Now, let me just give you this: Remember Richard Spencer. He's the guy who's the leader of the alt-right. He had a big get-together in Washington, DC. This was their big victory lap. How many people showed up?

JEFFY: I think it was like 80 million.

GLENN: Right. 80 million. Well, 45 million, right? Right. No. 275 people.

JEFFY: A little less than that.

GLENN: Yeah. 275 people showed up.

PAT: Yeah. Less than 45?

GLENN: Yeah, it is less than 45.

Now, you don't need 30 percent of the population for a real movement, but you need maybe -- well, definitely more than 275.

JEFFY: Yes.

(chuckling)

GLENN: The point is, Breitbart's audience is not alt-right. And this is the point the press has got to understand. They're all touting -- let me give you this: This is from The Daily Tar Heel. This is the newspaper for the University of North Carolina.

Here's their headline: We can -- this is the editorial board right --

PAT: Are they considered pretty liberal? Yeah?

GLENN: Yeah. Okay. This is the editorial board. We can all learn from Glenn Beck's change of heart.

And it goes in to say we're living in a world that is in perpetual status quo with different ideas for directions on where to go from the norm.

In many cases, the far right and silent majority have won, leaving many of those who generally aligned with that party, to be ecstatic.

It goes on to say -- I'm going to skip a bunch of. Regardless of which side you stand on these issues, let's praise Beck's open-mindedness to new ideas and perspectives.

Now, they are saying that I am praising Black Lives Matter.

PAT: That you've changed on certain things like Black Lives Matter.

GLENN: And I haven't. I haven't.

What I have done is what Mika has done and changed my tone. And I've said, "Let's listen." Not to the people who are praising Fidel and want an end to American capitalism, who are at the top of Black Lives Matter, but instead, the people on the street, who are not violent, who are not calling for death to cops, who just are wound up in this group that I believe is the majority of them. The majority of people that are saying, "You know what, at least Black Lives Matter is stepping up and getting people's attention.

I don't believe they want to destroy America. We need to listen to people who say, "No one is hearing me."

That -- now, by boycotting 45 million people that read Breitbart, what are you doing? You're saying, "You're not even worth listening to. You're not even worth marketing to. I never want to see you again." That's a mistake. Because .00001 percent of the people who read Breitbart are Nazis. Two hundred and seventy-five nazis showed up last week in Washington, DC.

PAT: Well, alt-right people, right?

GLENN: Yes.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yeah, well, I'm sorry --

PAT: I mean, they've got some of those tendencies perhaps.

GLENN: The 275, no, they were giving the Hitler salute. I will call them that.

PAT: Were they?

STU: No, they were saying hail -- hail Trump. That was their big excuse. They're like, it wasn't heil Trump, it was hail Trump.

GLENN: They actually did the Hitler salute and said hail Trump.

PAT: They said heil in English.

STU: Right.

PAT: Okay. Good. Good. That's unique.

GLENN: Completely differently. Completely different.

So I want to go back to this guy, but, again, the point of the phone call that came in yesterday and the point of Mika and the point of Liars, the book -- if you haven't read the book, we worked really hard on it. And it was a best-selling book, and it's really good. Please get it for Christmas, especially if you know somebody who has an open mind.

PAT: Like this guy.

GLENN: Right. And may I suggest that we need an open mind, that we need to be approachable to people on the left. I don't mean that you -- that you change your principles. I -- I haven't changed -- people believe I have. I have not changed my principles. I am changing my approach because this doesn't work, what we've been doing. It doesn't work. And it's going to lead us into very dark and bad places.

We need each other. We need to be able to listen to each other. We need to be able to -- how many of us had a Thanksgiving where we just couldn't stand sitting at the table with our own relatives for political reasons? I understand not wanting to sit at the table for other reasons with your family, but not for political reasons.

Featured Image: Host Mika Brzezinski speaks on stage during the Women In The World Summit held in New York on April 24, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Toth/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.