Maximum Freedom, Maximum Responsibility

You can't have maximum freedom without maximum responsibility. Glenn explained why the two go hand-in-hand during tonight's opening monologue on The Glenn Beck Program.

Updated 3/27:

Well, tonight I want to talk about two things, freedom and responsibility, freedom and responsibility.  Today on the radio program, somebody asked me, it might have been Pat, said, Well, what’s your plan?  What do you mean my plan?  My plan was eight years ago.  I said, don’t let this stuff happen.  Nobody would listen.  And I said we were going to start passing all of the exits, and it going to get worse and worse and worse, which would mean you would have to make a more desperate plan.  You’d have to get more and more radical.  This isn’t anything new.  You run out of options.

I mean, you have cancer, right?  If you catch your cancerous growth early, you have lots of options.  You could have radiation, you can go in and surgically remove it without much damage, but if you let it grow and metastasize, then I mean you’ve got to cut your leg off, you know, take your whole jaw off, more and more invasive procedures, radical surgery, and those will be the only things left to prevent death.

Well, we have passed the point of easy cures, and we are now reaching this stage of this cancer metastasizing in the body of the republic, which will mean the end of the republic as we know it and maybe the end of the Western way of life as we know it.  And there are no easy answers left.

And I don’t know if you feel this, but the world has gotten much more serious.  I don’t know if you feel the same way that I do that we’ve known there were problems, but I think even those who have strongly disagreed with me in the past about what they mean are starting to say wait a minute, wait a minute.

Now, there are no easy answers, but there are simple answers.  And they are good answers, but we have got to start taking these steps.  We have to do it.  We have to do it right now.  Rand Paul, Mike Lee, some of the guys you’re seeing in Congress, they have the solution.  It is freedom and responsibility, maximum freedom and maximum personal responsibility.  This is really, really easy, because freedom really is action.  You have the freedom to act.

You have the freedom to light a fuse.  You have a freedom to eat too much cake.  You have the freedom to make bad loans if you’re working at a bank; however, you have to then take the responsibility, because with every action is a reaction.  That’s the responsibility part.

You have the freedom to light a fuse, man, but you have now the personal responsibility of the bomb that explodes.  You have the freedom to eat too much cake, but that means you have the responsibility to live with the reaction of getting sick or looking like tubby.  You can make bad loans, but you go out of business, and it’s not my fault. 

If you make a bad loan, you go out of business, but see what we’ve done is we have erased all of this, and we’ve said there is no reaction to the action.  That’s the problem.  So what does freedom look like when there is no responsibility?  Well, it looks like Greece.  You can have everything.  You can have unlimited vacation.  You have to work hard.  You don’t even have to show up.  We’ll pay you.  We’ll let you retire when you’re 51 years old.

It looks like Greece.  It looks like Egypt.  It looks like Cyprus, and it also looks exactly like what the global left has been orchestrating for years all around the globe, remolding the world nearer to its heart’s desire.  And you heat it up, and you heat it up with the natural reaction, because there is a natural reaction.  There is responsibility, and because the responsibility has been scapegoated and put on to some other, somebody else’s shoulders because it allows you to continue to believe you’re living free, it ends in total control, because it ends in civil unrest because you’re pissed off.  You’ve been told you’re free and you can light the fuse, eat too much cake, and make bad loans, and live in houses that we can’t afford, and everything’s going to be fine.  Whose problem is it?  I did my part of the bargain.  Where did it go wrong?

It went wrong because you were lied to.  There is reaction to these things.  And so, the last piece doesn’t become responsibility, it becomes blame.  I did these things, and now it’s bad.  Who do I blame?  Well, you, and it will come back to you, because it’s freedom to blame.  People have too much freedom.  They should have known not to light the fuse.

Cyprus and other European countries are now burdened with taking responsibility for the poor choices of their people, their government, their banks.  They bought into the lies, just as we’re faced with the consequences of shoddy behavior of ourselves and our banks in 2008.

Just before the financial crash, we all had the freedom to say, That doesn’t make sense.  You’re going to give me what kind of a loan?  And the banks had the freedom to make the deal they wanted, but when they collapsed, and when we collapse, you now have to take the responsibility.  But instead of taking the brunt of the consequences, we look for someone to blame.  Well, that’s not freedom.  That’s Cyprus.

When you’re being forced to give up 30 or even 40% of your assets, you look for somebody else to blame.  Make them pay it.  I’m not going to pay it.  You see, what they’re saying down at the bottom is you told me I could do these things without any reaction.  Well, I played by the rules.  That’s what they’re saying.  I played by the rules.  I lit the fuse, I ate cake, and I made bad loans.  You told me I could. 

Well, soon what has already happened elsewhere globally will happen here with ObamaCare – can we turn this around, Eileen – when we are forced to pay for the lifestyle of others – the other way, Eileen.  Oh, there it is, yep – when we are forced to pay for the lifestyle of others.  We are going to – this is what’s happening.  When people know they can get away with, you know, anything, somebody else has to pay for it.

For instance, Jack.  Jack works hard.  Jack lives a clean life, he helps others, and he plays by the rules.  He’s over here building a place for the, you know, so he can have the well and the bucket, and they can all fall down the hill and break his crown.  Okay, great, he’s working hard, but Jill, she doesn’t work.  She doesn’t work.  She lives off Jack.  She smokes, she drinks, and she has too many kids, and they’re protesting: we’re the 99.

Well, when Jack has to pay for Jill, the first thing he’s going to do is say, Wait a minute, wait a minute, that’s not fair.  That’s not fair.  Why am I paying for Jill?  What is she doing?  Well, you know, she’s – okay, alright, well, if I have to pay for her, the first thing, she can’t smoke.  She can’t drink.  We have to make sure she doesn’t have any more kids.  That sounds like Bloomberg, and that’s exactly why Bloomberg is doing it, because somebody has to pay for her having a heart attack, from her cancer treatment, from her alcoholism.  They have the pay for rehab, and it’s Jack, and Jack is pissed.

You know what this is?  You’ve heard this before.  This is not freedom.  This is, as long as you live under my roof, you will follow my rules.  That’s what it is.  That’s why Jack and Jill moved out of their house at 18, we wanted freedom.  We wanted to chart our own course.  We didn’t want to live playing by our parents’ rules.  That’s natural.  That’s good, but with that freedom comes responsibility.  But now, strangely so many Americans want to crawl back under that roof, whether that’s Obama’s roof or Bloomberg’s roof or the faceless, nameless IMF.

Take Egypt.  We’re seeing what happens further down the road.  When you separate freedom with responsibility, if you take ’em and split ’em apart for too long, well then violence and unrest, and it’s just the beginning here.  This is just the beginning of it, but conveniently, there’s somebody else.  There’s somebody else.

You see, when Jack is really pissed off and he can’t take it anymore, and there’s a whole bunch of Jills, then you have to have somebody up here.  It used to be God, but now it’s the government, and the government will say Jack, don’t worry about it.  We’ll protect you.  We’re going to have roughly, according to the FAA, roughly 10,000 active drones in five years over the skies of American cities.  That’s great.

Universal principle:  freedom cannot exist without responsibility.  There cannot be action without reaction.  Those who want to control every aspect of your life, they will tell you that there is no reaction to your action, and they will bring you in in seductive ways.  Oh, your life is going to be so much easier.  You’re going to have more stuff.  You’re going to have more time.  You’re not going to have worries.  All of our children are going to be safe.  There’s no boo-boos.  Nobody will ever fall down.  We’re all going to be smart and strong, and they will entice you by thinking that you can have the good part, the action, without ever having the reaction.  You’ll never have to face the things that are not appealing. 

But the relationship between the two are as inseparable as lighting the fuse on a rocket and that rocket lifting off.  When you separate them, when you try to convince people that those don’t, are not related, it always ends badly.  And it always ends in somebody forcing you, because at some point you’ll go, that rocket, I push this button, and every time I push that button, a rocket like that goes off.  And pretty soon you’re like, This makes that work.  Hmm.  So somebody has to get stronger and start lying to you and convincing you and running propaganda saying, That button has nothing to do with it.

If you only have freedom without any responsibility or vice versa, one person like Jack will always be burdened with all of the responsibilities resulting from another person’s actions.  This is something that Hayek wrote about in his book Road to Serfdom.  He wrote, “Freedom to order our own conduct…is in the air, but the “responsibility for the arrangement of our own life according to our own conscience…and to bear the consequences of one’s own decision, are the very essence of any morals which deserve the name.”  You have to bear the consequence, point of the book, Road to Serfdom.

And when you have serfs, the Lords of the Manor never have to worry about the consequences because they’re so far apart from the serfs, and what do they care about the serfs?  Oh, well, soon you’ll care because the serfs will rise up, and then there will be a struggle for power.  Well, that’s exactly what we’re seeing today.  How it ends really depends on you.

Today, the left loves to talk about freedom, but boy they hate talking about responsibility.  Free birth control – well, how about no sex?  Are you crazy?  What kind of a hatemonger are you?  Free drugs – well, how about not doing drugs?  What?  That doesn’t work, just say no to drugs.  Free food – how about working?  Oh, you hatemonger.  Free education – how about higher scores?  The freedom to provide loans for people with no credit, no credit whatsoever.  You don’t even have to show an I.D.

And they avoid the cause and effect of their actions, and when faced with the natural consequences, they don’t want any of it.  See, that’s the point.  This is natural.  This – can you turn the chalkboard again for me, back to where it was – that’s totally natural, action and reaction.  It’s the natural physics of the world.

We take the stance of supporting as little government as possible on this program.  We take that stance because there are causes and effects of nature.  It’s called “natural law.”  You’re out on a mountain in the winter, you’re going to freeze to death – natural law.  And when people recognize natural law, you don’t need manufactured laws enforcing them, because they understand, I’m up on the mountain and I should have a jacket on because I’m going to get cold and freeze to death.  They figure it out because they know how nature works, and they become stronger.

You don’t need laws that regulate.  You don’t need a law that says on a sign up at the top of a mountain summit, must have jacket.  I would put a sign right next to it go, must be moron if you don’t know that.  The banks should know that they’ll lose all of their money if they give out risky loans.  They’ll go out of business.  We don’t need laws that regulate what drugs you consume, because the consequences of those drugs if they are put on your shoulders become too much to bear.

When you remove the natural consequence, artificial laws have to be imposed, and that is when increasing government control begins.  There are some people like Michael Bloomberg who understand this and actually encourage this pattern because they’re trying to shake off the current Lord of the Manor so they can occupy the manor.

And what they want to do is build this up to a breaking point, and when that happens, society sees unrest.  And then the new manor, the new Lord of the Manor comes in, usually a strongman, and he says I’m going to alleviate everyone from their consequences of their behavior.  Well, he can’t, because it’s a natural law, and so to do that, he must stop the action, meaning, Alright, well, the first thing you’re going to do is you’re not going to light any more fuses,  and you can’t have any more cake, and you won’t make any bad loans.  I’ll do all of them for you.  That way we have no problems over here.

That’s it.  That is as simple as it gets.  The responsibility goes to the strongman.  Your freedom goes to the strongman, because you don’t want to take responsibility, so he will.  And if you don’t like it, if you don’t like what he says over here, the actions he stops you from taking, well then he has the responsibility to get rid of you, to shut you up.

That is how you enslave a people, you give one group privilege.  You give them the privilege of making the decisions and taking the actions, and then you pay for the responsibility.  You are the ones who have to pay the price.  One group does nothing but work for the earnings, while the other group controls them and enjoys the freedom to use those earnings freely.  It’s top-down redistribution.

People get mad when this happens, and then civil unrest erupts, bottom up, and it’s the Jack and Jill thing.  Imagine you’re Jack, and you’ve played by the rules your entire life.  And then you realize the whole time, Wait a minute, I’ve been working here, and the whole time I’ve been saving.  And now it doesn’t matter, because they just took it from my bank account.  And I’ve been playing and working hard, and they’ve been having a good time.  What the hell am I doing?  At some point, you think, I’m a sucker.  When people feel like they’ve been made a sucker, then they rise up.

This is the same injustice felt by the Tea Party and the 9/12 Project.  When all the banks and the auto companies were bailed out, and taxes started to go up, we rose up, not because it was unjust per se, but because we knew it would become unjust.  We knew we were on the road to serfdom, and we knew it was breaking the natural law.  Nature’s God put together nature’s laws – action-reaction.  We knew when you bail out the banks, we knew what was coming.

And as we explained yesterday, evil disguises itself as good and tries to win by seducing people using the logic that got us here in the first place – freedom without responsibility.  Relax, it doesn’t matter.  And when that doesn’t work anymore, when you’re like red button makes rocket go off, that’s when they have to go in and step in and say, Pay no attention to those people.  They’re crazy.  Rocket goes off when you push that button – no, no.  And that’s what they did to the Tea Party.

The Tea Party was made to be angry, vicious people.  Look at them.  Look at them.  They were angry, but that’s not why they gathered.  They gathered because they were standing for individual freedom and individual responsibility that comes with that freedom.  We were upset because our freedoms were being taken away by taking away reaction to action.  We knew we would be burdened with the responsibilities.  We knew the government would blame it on somebody, and it wasn’t going to be them.

Now, there’s another one that is confused with the Tea Party all the time, but they’re totally different.  It’s Occupy Wall Street.  They came, and they came with the same rage.  They came with the same feeling of Hey, this system doesn’t work, but they didn’t ever harness it with a sense of responsibility and morality, action-reaction, freedom-responsibility.  They didn’t have the responsibility.  That’s why the Tea Party left everything clean when they left, and it was left like a sewer from Occupy Wall Street.

When you unpeg freedom and responsibility, it becomes dangerous and violent and out of control.  Today the Cypriots are following the same lead.  They’re following Occupy Wall Street by occupying the banks, but what are you going to do now?  What are you going to do?  You’re in the wrong place.  The robbers are already gone.  It’s not the bank anymore.  It’s the IMF.

We’re going down the road of the French Revolution.  It was an out-of-control mob that began terrorizing the cities, drowning babies in the barricades, and this is what happens when you take away God, morals, and responsibility, when you take those things out of the equation.

It’s exactly the same story that happened in the 1960s.  Look at the radical hippies.  They got high, they had free sex, and well, let’s stop the war.  Well, they stopped it, alright.  And that’s when the Khmer Rouge killed 3 million people, because there is a reaction to the action.  They stopped the war, left a vacuum, and 3 million people lost their lives, but the hippies never took responsibility for that.  They refuse to even look at it.

The ones who took responsibility, as it always is with big government people, with hippies, with Occupy Wall Street, with Communist, Marxist, it’s always the same thing.  Tea Party people will always say, Well, I take responsibility for that.  I made the mistake, but the other side, once you remove that responsibility, they don’t take it.  So who is it?  The people who take responsibility were the Cambodians.  They were the ones that bore the responsibility.  The reaction went against them.  They were killed.

It’s the same story for Conservatives now in America.  The radicals want to spend money, live like animals, and then hand off the consequence to people who don’t live like animals and spend money like water.  It would be like every time your friend goes out partying, he gives you his hangover.  Hey man, I’ve got such a headache.  Here, you take it.  I’ve got to go to another party.  Despite the fact that you chose to stay home, you chose to work, you’re stuck with his hangover, and you say like, Oh man, can you stop, please?  Stop.  And he doesn’t listen, so then you demand it.

What’s going to happen here?  If he keeps giving you his hangover, and he keeps going out and partying, he’s either going to die, or you eventually lock his keys up, and you say, You’re not leaving, man.  If I have to have the hangover, you’re not leaving.  But then what does he do?  He turns to you like, Whoa, dude.  I just want my freedom to go party.  You’re a Fascist.  Well, in a way, I guess I am.  I’m more of your parent.  If I have to pay for your decisions to use drugs, then you can’t use drugs.  So you’re a parent, unless you’re not the one making the decision, unless you’re just the one footing the bill.

It’s like a parent, that would be the government, a parent making all the decisions, and then the child who behaves and looks at the parent and is like, What are you doing?  That’s crazy.  I’m going to work.  I’m going to do my job Taco Bell.  And every time you come home, you get the hangover, and the parent takes your money.  And you’re like, Wait, stop.  What are you doing?  My sibling is out of control, and so is my parent.

That’s what’s happening now.  You’re a parent if you say, Look, you live under my house, you live by my rules, but you’re not the one even making the rules now.  You’re the one trying to stop the parent from making those rules.  You’re saying they don’t work.  Those rules don’t work because you’re paying for them, neither the parent nor the sibling, you are.  How are you involved in this at all?

That’s why you have to get rid of blame.  This is why I believe Lincoln said “with malice toward none.”  You have to get rid of blame, and you have to put back responsibility and reaction, have to.  Gotta put ‘em back.  Gotta go back to maximum freedom, maximum individual responsibility.  Then we can talk about a true libertarian society.  It’s just that easy.  That’s the solution.  

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.