Serious About Fixing the Country? You MUST Know This.

John Marini with The Claremont Institute wrote a brilliant article titled Donald Trump and the American Crisis. The piece explains exactly what is happening in America and to her citizens.

"I think this writer is actually a fan of Donald Trump --- I'm not sure --- but he explains Donald Trump and what's happening," Glenn said Tuesday on his radio program. "This explains so much of what I have felt in my gut, but I haven't been able to articulate."

RELATED: Donald Trump and the American Crisis

Glenn read portions of the article, highlighting key points:

• The government is no longer legitimized by the consent of the governed.

• People must understand themselves to be citizens or things will never change.

• Political parties no longer establish a meaningful link between the people and the government.

• Political campaigns have made a science of dividing the electorate into groups and voting blocs.

• Behavior based on traditional virtues has become indefensible based on what our schools teach.

• Post-modern intellectuals have pronounced their historical and moral judgment on America's past.

• Our culture has been transformed --- and we had nothing to do with it.

Understanding and naming the problem is the first step in fixing it. If generations of Americans no longer see the value in traditional virtues or the noble history of America, then we must reintroduce them to these concepts in new and unique ways.

"We've got to stop talking about guys in powdered wigs. We've got to find a new way to present history," Glenn said. "Again, this guy likes Donald Trump . . . but he's explaining why [Trump] is doing so well and why we're not, if you believe in the Constitution."

Listen to these segments from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: One of the greatest articles I have read in I don't know how long, explaining what exactly is happening to us. And I think this writer is actually a fan of Donald Trump. I'm not sure.

But he explains Donald Trump and what's happening. I think personally he's giving him far too much credit for his intellectual prowess. But I want you to hear this. Because this explains so much of what I have felt in my gut, but I haven't been able to articulate why. I didn't know why. I didn't know exactly why. This guy does. And I'm going to give you the highlights of this.

This is called Donald Trump and the American Crisis by John Marini. This is not a hatchet piece. In fact, in some ways, it's a love letter to Donald Trump. But I want you to listen to this.

Every conservative should read this article. Because this is absolutely true and what we're facing.

Let's see. Bureaucratic rule has become so pervasive that it is no longer clear that the government is legitimized by the consent of the governed. Do you agree with that?

PAT: Definitely.

GLENN: Yeah. That's what we're feeling. We don't have anything to do with it. And our vote doesn't matter because bureaucrats are doing everything. The Congress has given their power away to the EPA and everybody else and you have nothing to do with it. Rather, it is the consent of the various national, often international, social, economic, political, and culture interest groups that determine the outcome of the elections. Absolutely true.

You see that it is these -- these groups -- how many times have we said, "I just wish -- is there some sort of group that can represent us, just the American people, not the dogs and cats of America and whatever it is." Everybody who has a political agenda, these groups, they're controlling things.

It is possible only when people understand themselves as citizens and when the regime recognizes them as citizens that things will change. But this requires distinguishing American citizens from all others and identifying them as one people.

So you can't make any difference if you don't recognize that we're a unique place, and so is Germany and so is Mexico and everything else. And you as a citizen are the one that is supposed to make the decisions that then lead the government.

But until we can even say that you're a citizen, you'll never be able to do that.

Consequently, political campaigns have made a science of dividing the electorate into groups and reassembling them as voting blocs committed to specific policies and issues dominated by the demographic categories themselves. This strategy requires a systematic mobilization of animosity to ensure participation by identifying and magnifying about what it is that needs to be opposed.

Now, we are doing that on both sides. And this is why I've been saying, "It's not enough to be against her. What are you for?"

Because this is playing into the new system. You're against something, and the system makes you against something. And so we continually go down this path.

Understood this way: What is central to politics and the election is the elevation of the status of personal and group identity to something approaching a new kind of civil religion.

Tell me that's not true. Black Lives Matter. Global warming. Constitutionalism. It is like our religion.

And if you defy our religion, you're the devil himself. You're Satan. You have to be destroyed. You're evil.

Individual social behavior. Listen to this. Individual social behavior, once dependent on traditional morality and understood in terms of traditional virtues and vices has become almost indefensible when judged in the light of the authority established by what they're now teaching in our schools.

And he goes on to talk about this a little bit. He says, "What's happened to us is, we have this critical post-modern theory that is being -- that historians have -- and the experts in our universities, have gone back and they have looked at our history. And everything is judged as bad in our history. Everything is against one of these groups."

And so as our groups are becoming more and more important, at the same time our history is being presented as only things that oppress groups. There's no individual aspiration. There's no individual that says, "I'm going to change the world, and look what they did." No, forget about the individual. What that guy did, no matter what his aspiration was, ended up hurting this group or that group. It ended up in slavery, oppression, global warming, smog, globalism -- whatever it is.

There is no individual that is being taught anymore. The moral standing established by group identity is now how everything is judged. Character is almost unrecognizable and no longer serves as the means by which people can determine the qualifications for public office, of those they don't know personally. As a result, it's difficult to establish the kind of public trust that once made it possible to connect public and private behavior or civil society and government.

When coupled with the politicization of civil society and the institutions, the distinction between the public and the private or the personal and the political has almost disappeared.

So because -- because we no longer have anything that revolves around individual character, we can no longer judge because we don't understand principles. We don't understand virtue and vice.

You can no longer judge. And because we can no longer judge, because we're now all about groups, the idea -- the idea of having your thought philosophy have anything to do with the presidency, it doesn't work.

In short, public and private character of American policies and politics has been placed in the hands of academic intellectuals.

Post modernist and intellectuals have pronounced their historical judgment on America's past, finding it to be morally indefensible. Every great human achievement of the past, whether in philosophy, religion, literature, or the humanities, came to be understood as a kind of exploitation of the powerless. Rather than allowing the past to be viewed in terms of its aspirations or its accomplishments, it has been judged by its failure. The living part of the past is understood in terms of slavery, racism, and identity politics.

No public defense of the past greatness can be allowed to live in the present.

That's absolutely true.

PAT: It sure is.

GLENN: In such a time, an appeal to American citizenship is almost a revolutionary act because it requires making the distinction between citizens and all others.

Since local politics and administration came to be centralized within the administrative state, elections have provided the people the only possibility of participation in public life.

It wasn't long before the brightest and most ambitious college faculty and graduates became graduating to Washington, DC, the new center of economic, social, and political decision-making.

In turn, the federal government and bureaucratic apparatus become dependent upon the intellectual elites to provide the expertise of what everything means.

But do these people who participate in politics -- but what do you do with the people who only participate in politics only as citizens?

In terms of elections, the old partisans of both parties, the party pro who have devoted their lives to trying to understand politics in terms of mobilizing the people, were no longer needed once partisan appeals could be marketed just like any other commodity. Both political parties have benefited from the kind of predictability made possible by the incorporation of scientific professionalism in the organizing and shaping of campaigns and elections.

In addition, both parties have enforced political correctness as the ground of understanding civil society, public policy, law, and bureaucracy itself. Before the end of the 20th century, a new kind of iron law of politics happened. There are red states, and there are blue states, and then there are handful of purple or battleground states.

Political conflict can be contained by focusing on the battleground states. Elections were understood in terms of division rather than unification. And it became almost impossible for any candidate to appeal to the electorate on behalf of a common good.

That's not surprising. Because positivism was rejected and -- as was any other understanding of meaning of the common good.

The political parties no longer establish a meaningful link between the people and the government. Party patronage has been replaced with bureaucratic patronage, and a professional elite has established itself as a vital center between the people and the government.

It's all true, right? It's about to get really important.

PAT: And it's already incredibly insightful.

GLENN: Yes, it is. I mean, this guy is brilliant.

PAT: It's deep, but it's --

GLENN: John Marini, he is brilliant.

PAT: It's really insightful.

GLENN: I do not need think tanks, because we need some do tanks.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: And I avoid think tanks like the plague because I just don't -- I see them churning out papers that are meaningless.

PAT: Besides think tanks avoid us as well.

GLENN: Yes. This is -- this is -- this is from Claremont.

And this is -- this has to be understood if we're going to take our country back.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Okay. So listen to this. You know, let me take a quick break because the next section -- the next section talks about why constitutionalists, conservatives, those -- basically it says, basically, Glenn, everything you've done in the last ten years, worthless.

PAT: Oh, good.

GLENN: And it explains why my gut has been saying for how long, would he give you to stop using the word "conservative." We've got to stop talking about guys in powdered wigs. We got to find a new way to present history. Would he give you to stop talking about, "Hey, we need another Reagan." And why Donald Trump's slogan, "Make America great again," appeals to the older generation, but there are zero people who are millennials who are voting for him.

PAT: Very few.

GLENN: Very few. So we'll get into that here in a second.

And, again, this guy likes Donald Trump. I think likes Donald Trump. But he's explaining why he's doing so well and why we're not, if you believe in the Constitution.

[break]

GLENN: John Marini, who I think is a Donald Trump fan, in an article from Claremont.org -- Donald Trump and the American Crisis, this is a must-read for everybody who believes in the Constitution because it is why our argument is failing.

In the popular election, arousing rhetorical defense of a political candidate is nearly impossible when those who have held political office as an attained social respectability are unable to praise the candidate. In the attempt to evaluate Donald Trump, liberals have judged him from the perspective of post modern culture, labeling him a reactionary racist, a nationalist, and a xenophobe.

Conservatives have not objected to this post modern characterization of Trump, they have simply tried to add a conservative twist by seeking to revive the old language of character, virtue, and vices, as though this language still has any public or political meaning.

Did you hear that?

As if character, virtue, vices has any public or political meaning. Unable to politicize a language that no longer resonates, even with the Libertarian or economic conservatives, their moral judgments can -- listen to this -- their moral judgments can only be interpreted by the general population in terms of self-interest.

How many times have we heard people say, "Well, you're only doing this because of, whatever our self-interest is." And we look at each other and say, "Are you kidding me? The beating we're getting for this." But that's the popular refrain. He's making the point, the reason why is because people do not connect to character, virtues, or even vices anymore.

This is not -- was not always the case in American politics. A political discourse once existed that understood itself in terms of principles of right, and the stewards of public office were once judged by nonpartisan standards that presupposed virtue such as honesty, integrity, character, and honor. Those are now a thing of the past.

It was an agreement on the need for such virtues that made it possible to entrust those offices to political partisans and to distinguish theoretical and practical reason or prudance. While it was possible to agree on an abstract principle, it was also possible to disagree on the practical way those principles were to be accommodated with respect to contemporary circumstances.

Moreover, a public language still existed that made it possible to agree on what kind of public and private behavior was praiseworthy or blameworthy.

This is what's happening, gang.

But that old language was dependent on a reasonable and objective understanding of virtue and vice. Such language eludes us now, in an age where subjective values have replaced public and private virtue.

Subjective values.

And when principles are merely subjective policy preferences that are defined and defended simply by being non-negotiable.

Let's see. Although it's easy to blame Trump for politicizing the personal by ridiculing those who seek and hold public office, this is his way of connecting with people who would become mere spectators, not citizens, when it comes to Washington politics. Perhaps he did so because there had been no honest evaluation of Washington that originated in Washington. No policy ever really fails. Private corruption never arises to the level of public corruption, let alone is punished. No officeholder of significance has been held personally responsible for their behavior since Watergate.

Ironically, it has taken a reality television star, one who knows the difference between the real and imagined --I think he's giving him too much credit there -- to make reality a political issue with respect to Washington.

Indeed in recent years, Washington has presented itself as a kind of reality show. It is difficult to distinguish what is real from the way it is spun. Benghazi is one example of the unwillingness of the Washington establishment to announce deception in a political matter. In our post Machiavellian age, which is open to every kind of novelty, we are faced with a new kind of incredulity, one that prevents men from believing in the old things which they no longer have any experience of.

So you can't -- you -- you don't believe in anything anymore because you haven't seen it for so long. And it's been destroyed by academia. It has become far easier for modern man to accept change as something normal, almost natural. What has become difficult to understood, let alone preserve are things that are unchanging or eternal.

History understood in terms of the ideal of progress and politics, economic, science, and technology, has made change or the new, seem almost inevitable. As a result, the desire for the newest has become almost irresistible.

He then goes into how Lincoln brought together, at the Cooper Union speech, where he said, "What is a conservative? What does it mean to be a conservative? Are we conservatives, or are we revolutionaries?" And he made the point that we're both, that you have to go back and reject what the fathers did, while weighing what they did as good and what parts are bad.

So, yes, we want to conserve what our Founders did. But we also are revolutionaries because we have to now go back and say, "This part of it is bad."

So he was asking, "You can't be -- he was saying, you cannot be a conservative and -- and -- and serve the future, unless you're using reason to be able to go back and look through the eyes of reason and virtue, to see, this is good. This is bad. I love this. Let's conserve or preserve this. And let's take this out."

In contemporary politics, both liberals and conservatives are necessarily now open to the new. But in many of the most important ways, they have rejected the old policies of the Fathers. True, conservatives have not yet seen fit to denounce the Fathers. But how much of the legacy of the Fathers do they still find defensible because of academia?

Lincoln was aware that the only proper defense of the tried and the true of tradition was a defense of the unchanging principles of political right understood in terms of an unchanging human nature.

This presupposed distinction between theoretical and practical reason, which made it possible to distinguish unchanging principles from policies that must change.

This understanding assumed the benevolence of nature and nature's God, as well as the capacity of human reason to comprehend and impose those rational limits on human freedom that are necessary to ensure human happiness. It is only if the old can also be defended as the good that conservatism or the tried-and-true can remain a living thing.

The historous understanding of freedom purports to reveal that nature itself is tyrannical and has attempted the self-destruction of philosophic reason by liberating the creative individual from the chains imposed by nature, nature's God, nature's law, and nature's reason.

Identity is something that must be freely chosen and self-created by the individual alone. And it must be defended by a government and a law in civil society. Social institutions dependent on the old morality have become intellectually indefensible. In terms of contrary, social, and political thought, it is good -- it is the good understood as the old that is no longer defensible. And its political defense has therefore become unattainable.

The most controversial aspect of Trump's campaign is his slogan, "Make America great again," because it goes to the heart of the problem. Trump's view presupposes that the old America was good and establishes the conditions for greatness. But is it true, or is America something to be ashamed of as the protesters against Trump have insisted, having accepted all of the teachings of the post modern cultural intellectuals?

Trump's defense of the old America goes unrecognized by conservatives, either because they have succumbed to the post modern narrative, or because Trump is unable to make an intellectual case for the old America.

It is possible that the Trump phenomena cannot be understood merely by trying to make sense of Trump himself, but rather, it is the seriousness of the need for Trump that must be understood in order to make sense of his candidacy. Those most likely to be receptive of Trump are those who believe America is in the midst of a great crisis in terms of its economy, it's chaotic civil society, its political corruption, and the ability to defend any kind of tradition or way of life derived from that tradition, because of the transformation of its culture by the intellectual elites.

This sweeping cultural transformation occurred almost completely outside of the political process of mobilizing public opinion and political majority.

Understand what he's saying? Our culture was transformed, and you had nothing to do with it. And that's what people are feeling.

I have nothing -- I don't agree with that. America is good. But you can't defend it anymore.

We haven't even learned how to defend it with new language. The American people themselves did not participate or consent to the wholesale undermining of their way of life which the government and bureaucracy helped to facilitate by undermining those institutions of civil society that were dependent upon a public defense of the old morality.

To be clear, the seriousness of the need does not mean that the need can be satisfied perhaps even by Lincoln, let alone a Trump.

That's frightening. That is frightening.

Trump has established his candidacy on the basis of an implicit understanding that America is in the midst of a crisis. Those who oppose him deny the seriousness of the crisis and see Trump himself as the greatest danger.

Well, I know there's five -- there's four in this room right now that understand this. And I think there's a great number of people in our audience that understand this.

Here again, this is why -- the Trump people have to understand. This is what -- we are with you on a lot of it.

We are concerned because I don't think Donald Trump has the intellectual firepower to even understand what this is saying.

PAT: Yeah. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

GLENN: They're not.

PAT: You can believe we're in crisis and just believe he's not the guy to fix it.

GLENN: Yes. Right.

Here, again, Trump's success will depend on his ability to articulate the ground of the common good that is still rooted in the past, a common good established by a government that protects the rights of its citizens in a constitutional matter.

I don't think he's going to be able to do that.

Trump may or may not succeed in becoming president of the United States. And all those who have a stake in preserving Washington as it now exists are his enemies, and the public that is drawn to him is fickle. Much will depend upon the ability of the established order, which has authority and respectability on its side to erode the trust that Trump has built with the constituency that he has created.

In any case, the need that brought Trump to the fore will not disappear with a possible Trump demise.

He has addressed this issue when no one else would. And it is the need for political rule to be reanimated in a way that allows public opinion, understood to arise in the creation of constitutional majorities to establish the legitimacy of politics, policy, and laws, in a matter compatible with the rule of law and the common good. That requires revitalizing the meaning of citizenship and reaffirming the sovereignty of the people and the nation.

It also requires the restoration of the link between the people and the political branches of the government so both can become defenders of the Constitution and the country.

That's from the Claremont Institute. There is a lot to digest. Anybody who is serious about fixing the country and helping the country needs to read that.

STU: It's a hearty meal right there.

JEFFY: Darn right it is.

GLENN: There's days of stuff to feast on in that. John Marini is the name.

STU: Yeah. I was looking back at his archives at the Claremont. And he wrote an article in 2012: America has a problem, not because of our Constitution, but because constitutionalism as a theoretical doctrine is no longer meaningful in our politics.

That's in 2012.

GLENN: How did I not know this guy? Can you reach out to him and find out if he listens or hates us or likes us? I would like to talk to him.

STU: I start at the hate.

JEFFY: Start at the hate. I know. That's a good place to start.

STU: And then be pleasantly surprised.

GLENN: So reach out to him. I'd like to talk to him.

STU: Sure.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump looks on during a campaign rally at the Prescott Valley Event Center, October 4, 2016 in Prescott Valley, Arizona. (Photo Credit: ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.