Glenn Beck: EU moving...right?


British politician and Member of the European Parliament, representing South East England for the Conservative Party.

GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, third most listened to show in all of America. I love this guy. We've had him on before. His name is Daniel Hannan. He is a member of parliament for the EU and I think he hates it as much as a lot of people apparently hate the EU in Europe. Daniel Hannan, welcome to the program.

CALLER: Hi, Glenn, nice to be here.

GLENN: Good to talk to you. So this weekend you guys did some crazy thing where you have an election, you know, on a weekend when people are around.

HANNAN: Exactly. Well, they do on the continent. In Britain we have those on Thursday but then weirdly we're not allowed to count them until the last polling station is closed on the continent. So we did not actually count them until last night.

GLENN: Okay. So what are we supposed to learn? Because the media here is saying that this is a surge to the right.

HANNAN: Yeah.

GLENN: First of all, explain what that means. What does your right means because there's also stories now that the right is like the Nazi party right.

HANNAN: Sure. It's a very good question. The term "Right" isn't used in exactly the same way on this side of the Atlantic. First of all they mean really the big beneficiaries are the kind of Christian Democrat parties which would be Democrats, I guess, in the U.S. I mean, they certainly wouldn't be what a Glenn Beck listener would recognize as a conservative rightwing party. And they've done pretty well because you know what? The left always does well when the right has sorted out under the circumstances. And the left always does badly when people realize that there is work to be done. So the leftwing party did really well after the Cold War because conservative parties had made Europe safe for them. And suddenly they thought they could splurge out of welfare and all this kind of stuff. And then the recession came along and people thought, that's enough, we need the grownups now, we can't have this anymore. And so there was a swing back. You are right, some of the parties that are called far right are, of course, nothing of the kind. There is an outrageous semantic trick being played whereby parties which are corporatist and socialist, that want nationalization, that hate free trade, you know, you are called rightwing because our media used the word "Rightwing" as a synonym for bad guy.

GLENN: You know, it's amazing because we've been having this discussion on the radio and on television here on my show for a while that the choices in America are becoming big government Republican or big government Democrat, and there's nobody really representing freedom and small government or the smallest possible government. And it strikes me as that's kind of what the game is being played here in Europe as well, that you have the rightwing which seems to be a nationalist, statist or corporatist sort of party and then you've got the socialist. So you've got big government whichever way you go.

HANNAN: I think that's true. I mean, look, I wish we had your problems. You are right in what you say. I'm just saying this as an outsider, but I think that is true. I think the Republican Party, of which I'm generally a big supporter, and I'm a much more complicated supporter of your party than my own party. But in the Bush years they made mistakes and they went down this road towards big federal spending and budget deficits and, you know, trampling over states rights even on ludicrous issues like the gay marriage amendment. You know, they became the party of field tariffs and external protectionism and in the end they became the party of bailout and nationalizations. And so you are right. But you know what? With all of that I would rather have the choice that you have than the choices that we have in Europe because you are at least starting from a position where there is the choice of the free market whereas we have moved decades away from that and there is an assumption of state control in both the Christian and Democrat parties in Europe. And there are some tiny kind of libertarian parties on the fringes, but the real challenge for us, I mean for the British conservative party is to try and create in the European Union some kind of official opposition because for 50 years the European parliament has worked on the basis that everyone wants more government, everyone wants more tax, everyone wants more European integration. And our challenge is to try and piece together different parties from different countries of decent free market patriotic politicians and saying, hang on, there's a different way of doing this.

GLENN: And that seems to be what people are voting on. It's almost like here in America where people are starting to say, you know what, I believe in state rights, or, I want the control not to be in Washington but closer to my home, et cetera, et cetera. That's kind of the same feeling that I'm sensing from Europe that it is they want the power pulled back to their own countries.

HANNAN: Absolutely right they do. And clearly that is the result of the election in the United Kingdom that we've just had. Seven out of ten votes went to Euro skeptic parties, the parties that campaigned on a pro Brussels ticket were clobbered. You know what? Again I compare your system to the EU system, and I would love to swap my problems for yours. I mean, your Constitution in my version is 11 pages long and it has rights for the individual. The proposed EU Constitution is 580 pages long and is about the power of the state. Your Declaration of Independence promises life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Our charter of fundamental rights guarantees your right to strike action, affordable housing and free healthcare. You know, there is an absolutely basic foundational difference between the philosophy of the European Union and the philosophy of the U.S. You were very lucky in when you were founded as a country. Your founders had fought against a system of remote government where they feared the concentration of power because they had seen where it led and they deliberately tried to create a Constitution based on what you had, the principles, the diffusion of power, the decentralization of decision making. I'm afraid the EU is also a child of its time and it is based on the idea of ever close a union. Item 1, line 2 commits to an ever closer union and therein lies all the problems because if you have more centralization of power, you get more bureaucracy, you get higher taxes, more regulation, less competition.

GLENN: I have to tell you, I mean, we're talking to Daniel Hannan. He is a member of the EU parliament from England and, you know, I'm always ashamed when I talk to you because everybody is I mean, like you, you just I mean, you know every me, I know Henry the 8th I think killed a bunch of his wives and Winston Churchill was the prime minister. I don't know enough about English history. You know what I mean? It seems like a lot of people overseas kind of know a little bit more about America than we know about them. I guess maybe that's why we're

HANNAN: Yeah, okay, but listen. I'm not sure that is true, but the reason that I'm interested in the U.S. is not just out of kind of historical interest. It's because I can see that your system is working. And with all its floors and I'm not going to say that it's perfect at the moment. I listen to your show enough to know that there are plenty of people that were unhappy about things. But, you know, there are way worse alternatives, and the there were tens of millions of people tuning in all over the world to listen to your president's inauguration speech. Now, you may or may not have supported the president but what a vote of confidence in the system that people all over the world believe in the U.S. in the capacity of the ballot box to change direction. You can't imagine people tuning in to watch the results of the European elections that we've just had. Yet alone the annual meeting of the national people's congress in Peking or the results of the Duma elections in Russia. You know, we are very lucky in the world in who the preponderant power is. And you guys I suspect sometimes take for granted, will do this, you take for granted things that you've grown up with and that you assume are a permanent fixture, that there are qualities of the American political system which go right back to the vision your founders had which are unique. You know, this idea of electing everybody from the garbage guy to the, you know, school board to the sheriff, the idea of having referendums on things, recall, you know, the idea of primaries to choose your candidate, these things I'm sure you don't even discount, you don't even really debate them. But very few other countries approximate that system as though things that have kept you free and prosperous and made you strong and powerful.

GLENN: Let me take you here. Are you familiar with the band Muse?

HANNAN: No.

GLENN: I'm a fan of the band Muse and they are huge over in Europe and if you listen to their lyrics, they are very much "Take the power back." And you can sense the European disenfranchisement with government. Are you at all concerned? Are you seeing any developing trends of, you know, what your own security service said in England is coming this summer calling it the summer I think they called it the summer of rage.

HANNAN: Definitely there is a sense of disconnection between government and governed. That is very obvious. It's obvious not just in the election results but in the abstentia rates. I mean, the single most clunking facts about the elections to the European parliament is that every election results in a lower turnout from the previous one. There hasn't been a break. It's been an unbroken decline since we started electing the European parliament in 1979. The more people know about this system, the less they like it and the less they want to kind of dirty their hands with the ballot paper. These things can be solved. I mean, this sense of distance between lawmakers and the rest of us, there are mechanisms that you could use to narrow the gap and there are a lot of things we could import or reimport from your system. You say, you know, I'm interested in U.S. history, but it's because I'm interested in how we can repatriate the best elements of our revolution. If I look back to what your founders were saying or the patriot leaders at the time of the American war of independence were saying, they didn't see themselves as rebels. They saw themselves as conservatives. In their own eyes they were defending what they had always assumed was their right to be free born Englishmen. And the tragedy is in this country those things are dying out, the ones that we exported, to you and other continents, we have turned our back on here in the United Kingdom. And the grievances that your leaders laid against George III, that taxes were being raised without consent, that laws were being passed without due constitutional process, that the executive was too big and the legislature was too small, the power had solicited from the citizens to the state, all of those things are coming true in the old world. They are happening now. This is happening now as a result of this wretched superstate, it's happening as a result of the growth of modern socialism in the way that it's now emerged, and it's happened in the growth of the kind of standing bureaucracies that have sucked power away from elected presidents. We have you know, 200 years on, we vindicated all of the fears that your revolutionaries had.

GLENN: If you were an advisor to the Democratic Party or to any of the parties that are, you know, progressive in nature here in America or you were an adviser to President Obama, what would you say is the lesson or lessons that they should take away from the election in Europe?

HANNAN: Don't copy us, you know? Picture me like that guy in H. G. Wells' time machine, the guy from the future who comes back and states, do not go where I've gone. We are further down the process, further down the road that you have just started walking down, towards, you know, universal healthcare, more generous welfare provision, a more powerful state, government regulation of industry and enterprise and so on. And you can see looking at us where it leads. It leads to bankruptcy, moral and literal bankruptcy, it leads to debt, it leads to stagnation, and it leads to a collapse of confidence in political institutions such as what we've just seen in these elections.

GLENN: Daniel, people are saying I mean, you say here in America free healthcare, and there's a lot of people that would say, oh, my gosh, free healthcare, that would help me out a lot, et cetera, et cetera. How do you make the case that you don't know what free healthcare is like?

HANNAN: If it really were free healthcare, you'd have to be insane to be against it, right? Somebody's paying for it. The difference is are you paying for it through your tax system or are you paying for it as a consumer. And if you are paying for it through the tax system, which is what we do in the United Kingdom. We have a basically socialist system where everybody contributes according to how much tax they pay and then there is no price mechanism when you claim it. What you find is that there is no incentive for anyone to reduce costs. Now, of course some people are going to say, well, why should there be any? For heaven sake we're talking about people who are very ill and it's shocking to think that there should be conversations of the competency in here. But when you have no consideration of reducing costs, what that means is that there is less to go around for everyone else, and the people are needlessly suffering because the resources have been squandered elsewhere. Now, I don't think that your system is perfect by any means. You know, and nor do I think the Continental European systems are perfect. You get that problem also when you have a completely insurance based model. I mean, you know, I had a flood here in my bathroom the other day and the first thing that the builder said when he came around to his, is this on insurance, right? How much he quoted for the repair was going to depend on whether I told him that somebody else was paying for it. And, you know, an insurance based system also has inefficiencies. But nothing like a system which is run on socialist lines where everyone pays into the pot and then everything is just distributed by a standing bureaucracy.

GLENN: Whenever the right here in America loses an election, it's happening right now, the media can't stop airing stories about, you know, the only way the right's going to be able to get back in is if they move to the left, move to the left, move to the left. Abandon the principles that they supposedly had and move to the left. Is your media today over in Europe littered with stories about how the only way the left is going to be able to get back into power is to move to the right?

HANNAN: No, weirdly it never works that way, does it? Meaning the conservatives have to be nice to the labor people or the Republicans have to be nice to Democrats. It never applies the other way. I was really amused by an editorial in the New York Times that I have to see the other day saying it's appalling that George Bush stuffed the Supreme Court with these ideological conservatives and what we now need is Obama to stuff the Supreme Court with ideological... either is right or is wrong to have politically based judges. It isn't only right when it's a liberal doing it. Of course, rather in the media world it is because they as I said earlier, they inhabit this funny world where rightwing is a synonym for battered. I think what people are the big story here in Britain and in a number of other countries, the big story now is the rise of what they are calling the far right, which as I say is really the far left, it's the far left party that happens also to be racist. And there is nothing rightwing about these parties. Hayek brilliantly demonstrated in the road to surf Dom that the battle to fascist is a battle between two brothers, two strains of the same ideology that believes in state control. And these parties are a symptom of disenchantment with political class people, use the election as a kind of megaphone to shout at everybody else and they say, okay, these are the guys you least want, then we're going to vote for them just to tell you guys what we think of you. But, of course, the way that is then covered is, oh, it's shocking that there has been this swing to the right. And when they use that word, rightwing, to talk about parties like the British National Party, it doesn't make anyone think more badly of the British National Party. It makes people think more badly of the mainstream right, which is why they carry on linking the words together that way.

I've only got about a minute here. I just wanted to ask you. We're putting all these treasury bonds up for sale. We're selling our debt, and everything must go this week and, you know, we've got China worried about us. How concerned are you, since the last time we talked? More concerned, less concerned, about as concerned that we're trashing our dollar?

HANNAN: Since we last talked, we've not only emptied our treasury and started our credit, we've started this insane policy of printing money and actually I think we reached a new low when there was an editorial in a state run newspaper in Zimbabwe about Britain for its economic mismanagement. They couldn't do anything to dishonor us more in the eyes of the world but being pitied by the Zimbabweans because of the inflationary rate, yeah, you guys are in a worse situation when we last talked but I'm afraid we're falling further down, you know, look down from the cliff and you'll see us almost about to hit the bottom.

GLENN: Holy cow. Daniel, thank you so much.

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.