Ben Shapiro Praises Trump for This Bold Move on Israel

President Donald Trump formally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel today, a controversial move that undoes decades of U.S. foreign policy.

The decision is part of a plan to shift the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, something Trump promised during his 2016 campaign. Moving the embassy is a long process that will take several years, but formally recognizing Israel’s capital is the first step.

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro joined Glenn on today’s show to share his perspective on Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Good friend of the program. Daily Wire host and I think one of the most important men in the conservative movement today is Ben Shapiro. He joins us now. You up in New York, Ben?

BEN: Actually, no, I'm in LA. A little early.

GLENN: Yeah, sorry about that.

BEN: Not at all.

GLENN: Ben, I want to talk to you a little bit about what the president is claiming he's going to do today. And that is announce that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. If he does that, but he's not announcing that, you know, that there is a new embassy -- we're going to ground break on, does it matter? And why?

BEN: So it does matter. It would matter more if he would move the embassy. The reason why it would matter is because that's a permanent statement. For him to say Jerusalem the eternal, undivided capital of Israel, that's stuff that presidential candidates have said before. The Senate itself voted 90-0 back in June that that was the case. So a political statement by the president is important. But it's always revocable. You can have a new president come in and say, while we don't necessarily believe what Trump believed and maybe it's up for negotiation --

GLENN: Yeah.

BEN: -- moving the embassy is more permanent. Yeah.

GLENN: I think it's Obama's Bear Ears monument. The next guy comes in, and it's whatever he wants.

BEN: Yeah, I think that's right. And what I'm hearing from the White House is that the White House is serious about moving the embassy. They're investigating the sites right now. But they're going to have to get it done before the next election, obviously, because you can't expect a Democrat to actually fulfill promises that Democrats have been making for 50 years.

So it's a big move. It's a big announcement. And good for Trump for doing it.

But I would definitely like to see it made more permanent. On the other hand, listen, the president of the United States is saying something that takes moral courage to say, in a time when people refuse to recognize both religious and historic reality on the ground. And that is a grand and good thing. It's definitely a gesture I think that's meaningful.

GLENN: So, Ben, I think you're a religious guy. And those who bless Israel will be blessed. And those who curse Israel will be cursed. I happen to believe that. I believe that we -- we were a country that was founded in part by our desire to restore Israel and to -- to bring Israel back. I think we played a key role to that.

And I've talked to scholars of the Founders who disagreed with me at first, and then went back after a year's worth of research and went, oh, crap. I think you're right. So I think we were blessed because of that path.

I think we'll be blessed because of this. Do you -- do you see it that way at all?

BEN: Yeah, 100 percent. I'm a religious Jew. This means a lot to me as a Jew because Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people. I was explaining it this morning on Fox, that -- in order to understand the value of Jerusalem to Israel, you have to take Washington, DC, and then invest it with godly power and multiply it by a thousand. (inaudible) these things -- literally that we built on a swamp because we didn't want it to be part of any state, Jerusalem was built on a rock because God said so, right? That's the reason Christians care about it. It's the reason Muslims care about it, and it's the reason Jews cared about it a thousand years before Christ. So the idea that it's not the eternal capital is absurd.

As far as whether this is going to be a blessing, I think it will be a blessing because one of the things politically -- just in very practical terms, that I think is necessary here, is if you actually want a real peace negotiation between the Israelis and the Arabs, that has to be premised on some elemental truth.

Israel is not going to give up Jerusalem. Israel is not going to divide Jerusalem. And as soon as the other side recognizes that, as soon as the Arabs recognize that, maybe they can have a negotiation based on reality.

Beyond that, one of the things we're watching in the Middle East is something incredible right now, which is this unintended consequence of Obama's unbelievably crappy foreign policy. There is this new alliance, and pretty strong alliance, now forming the Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia against the Arabians. And for Trump to basically say, listen, I'm just going to get this Jerusalem thing off the table right now with the Israelis. And you're still going to have an alliance. Because it's more important for you to ally against Iran, than smack the Jews about. That's a ground shift in the nature of the relationship and I think something very important.

GLENN: So what do you think is the -- what do you think are the ramifications of this? Do you see any real ramifications?

BEN: Well, I think the Palestinians will try to launch a terror wave. But that's also true in most states.

It -- I think that you'll see some regimes like Saudi Arabia and Jordan have platitudes about how they'll oppose this. But I don't think they'll do anything of any real consequence.

Turkey might try to type in some more supplies to Hamas and the Palestinian authority, which had been operating in a quasi unity government for several years.

But, you know, again this is not the first wave of violence that has hit Israel, not even with regard to Jerusalem. I mean, I wrote an entire piece over at Daily Wire, tracing the history of violence with regard to Jerusalem. The reason that the Muslim world doesn't want to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, because they don't want to recognize Israel as existing. Jerusalem is the heart of Israel. Jerusalem is not Jewish. Neither is Tel Aviv. Neither is Jaffa. Neither is any other Jewish city in Israel. So the recognition of Jerusalem that's an Israeli territory, that may be an ugly truth for a lot of anti-Semitic Muslims, but it is also a truth that is not going to change.

GLENN: So as I was trying to look at this today and put this into perspective, you know, as a lover of history, I look at this and I say, in my lifetime, born in 1964, there are very few things that I would say had real ramifications, eternal ramifications, big ramifications, like the fall of Berlin wall. The defeat of communism.

I believe this is one of the biggest events, if they move the capital. I believe this is one of the biggest events of my lifetime.

Would you agree with that?

BEN: It certainly could be. Yeah, it certainly could be. I mean, if they moved the embassy to Jerusalem, then it does set a new groundwork. And it makes it difficult for the United States ever to back off of that. It puts Israelis in charge of their own faith.

I mean, basically Bill Clinton, since Oslo, too many presidents have held that the fate of Israel's future in their hands, as opposed to letting the Israelis hold their own future in their hands. We really shouldn't be part of these negotiations in the first place. I mean, these are bilateral negotiations the United States has very little to do with.

It's an important thing. It's an important moral step. Because -- because the more that we recognize that, number one, we don't get to boss our allies around. And, number two, the more that we recognize that Israel is a force for good for the region, and we understand our own role in the world.

Our role in the world is as a freedom loving country that helps out freedom-loving allies. It's not as, quote, unquote, honest broker (phonetic) between freedom-loving countries and terrorism and tyranny-loving countries. I think that that is going to set American foreign policy on a new tactic that it desperately needed for a long time.

GLENN: So can I be really crass here? And now look at this politically.

You know, the timing is really interesting to me. And, you know, out of all of the people on the stage, you know, out of the 17 candidates, I just did not think he was going to be the guy that would actually come through with this. Because this takes massive stones to do. And you also have to really believe it. And I don't think -- while he has, you know, some Jewish influence in his family now, I don't think that's enough to do something like this. Usually it comes from a religious zeal, that this is right and righteous.

So let me just float this by, Ben, and see what you think. I think -- I think the president is in much more trouble than he wants to let on or anybody on the right wants to let on. Maybe not as much trouble as the left seems to hope for. But he's in real trouble.

And this gives him -- you can only -- you can only pick the bones of the Gorsuch nomination for so long. And this, again, puts him into a situation with a lot of groups. Especially evangelical Christians. Where you kind of put up with a lot of stuff. And kind of defend -- because you're like, look, that just happened. I mean, I don't know who else would have given us that. And it seems to me that it could be a -- a political maneuver to shore up some real fight to the end of the battle supporters. Am I being --

BEN: That's definitely a possibility. I don't want to psycho analyze the president because I think that's a fool's errand. But I also think that the timing of it is interesting. The truth is, I've never seen anything like -- the last two weeks have been so good for conservatives on policy.

GLENN: Yep.

BEN: You know, everything from the tax cuts to the national TARP stuff to Jerusalem. I mean, this is really, like, hard-core good stuff for conservatives.

And at the same time, the rhetoric that is coming out of the administration, like Roy Moore are really a problem.

And I do agree with you, that I think there may be a political attempt to shore this up.

But I will say that everyone that I know who surrounds the president, and I've gotten to know some members of the administration relatively well.

Everyone who surrounds the president, does believe this stuff, the Jerusalem stuff down to their bones. I'm not just talking about Jared and Ivanka. I'm talking about Vice President Pence. The people who are very close to the White House. This is stuff that they -- one of the things -- you're right, of the people on the stage, who pledged to do this, Trump was the person who I didn't trust the most.

But it does show, for all the people that keep saying, on the left, that the Republican Party is, you know, quasi anti-Semitic and all this nonsense, the fact is that I think that Trump was not the only guy on the stage who actually would have done it.

I mean, the fact that he's done it, he gets the credit obviously. But I think Ted Cruz would have done it. I think there's a good shot Marco Rubio would have done it.

I think there a bunch of candidates on the stage -- this has become a very strong issue for Republicans. So in that sense, I think you're right, it's one way of shoring up the base. But I'm not going to detract from the president for doing the moral thing, just because it's political advantageous.

GLENN: Yeah. I don't -- in fact, I want to do the opposite. I think, if he does this -- yeah, if he does this and he moves the embassy, it's one of the bravest moves I've seen probably since Ronald Reagan said that's an evil empire and needs to be destroyed.

BEN: I think that's right. I think that's exactly right. And I think it's very similar to the way the left has responded. The international commotion. Oh, this is going to be so terrible. It's going to lead to World War III. It's going to be a conflagration.

You know what is really going to happen? Countries have interests in the world. Saudi Arabia does not care that much about Jerusalem.

You know how I know that? Last week, the New York Times reported that Saudi Arabia was actually going to the Palestinian and telling them, you guys need to back off this Jerusalem thing and just cut a deal with Jerusalem and be done here. Saudi Arabia has no interest in this.

The Jordanian kingdom has no interest in this. So the idea that they're all going to suddenly stand up on their hind legs because they're so mad that Trump says that Jerusalem is a part of Israel, which it always has and always will be. I think that that's a lot of leftist claptrap.

GLENN: Ben Shapiro. Thank you very much. God bless. Editor-in-chief. DailyWire.com.

BEN: Thanks a lot.

GLENN: 2017. Wow.

Could anything else have happened in 2017? I mean, look at the history. We're going to do -- is it next week or the week after, we'll be doing some shows of just the year end review. Oh, my gosh

STU: I'm hesitant because at the end of 2016, I was like, ugh, let's get this year over with, get to something else. Then 2017 is happening. I'm thinking the same thing. But maybe I shouldn't.

GLENN: I know. Be careful what you wish for.

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.