Binary Choices Lead to Walls, Condemnation and Destruction

The binary choice offers two options --- one good, one bad. Whatever side you agree with, you become an enemy of the other side. Take Black Lives Matter, for instance.

"Right now, we're being told there's a binary choice. The binary choice is, they're good or they're bad. That's it. They can't be anything else," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

So what do you do, when you've made the binary choice?

"You say, Well, I've got to build a wall against all those bad people, and I've got to condemn anybody who is for them, listens to them, wants to march with them, because they're all bad," Glenn said.

main-image-binary-choice Screen shot from The Glenn Beck Program, October 6, 2016.

And the other side does the same thing.

"So a binary choice leads to walls, condemnation, destruction and separation of two camps that only becomes balkanized. It only becomes the Palestinians and the Israelis --- and there is no coming back from that," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these singular questions:

• Are the two political parties exactly alike now?

• How did Democrats convince 97% of a population to vote one way?

• What term did communists invent that is killing us now?

• Is a sit down or powwow after the election literal or metaphorical?

• Does Pat have herpes and will a cream help?

• Can we please get out of the binary box?

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

GLENN: Let me take you to this frustrating binary choice thing we're in right now.

I'm not even going to tell you the personalities involved because it doesn't matter because it's not about the personalities.

One personality yesterday said, "Hey, why won't Donald Trump do X?" And the other personality tweeted out immediately, "Well, you should be mad at Hillary Clinton. Why don't you -- you know, you must -- it's just because you're for Hillary Clinton."

STU: Clearly support Hillary Clinton.

PAT: Oh, good gosh.

GLENN: Right? Okay. So everything that you do is a binary choice.

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You either do it --

STU: And we should also point out, a binary choice always defined by someone other than you. Everyone else gets to define what your binary choice is.

GLENN: Yes. Correct.

STU: Which is such a wonderful place to live. It's never our choice. It's never our responsibility to come up with our own decisions. Someone gets to define what the binary choice is, and we must abide by their decision.

GLENN: Right. And if you don't, they destroy you. That is the new binary choice.

PAT: Or at least they're trying.

GLENN: Yeah, well, here's the thing -- let's just put it this way. The two parties are now exactly alike, except constitutionalists are now the black population for the Democrats.

If you step out of line and you're a Democrat and you say, "No, I think that guy is bad. I think Hillary Clinton is not going to be good for us." I don't think Barack Obama -- what happens? You're an Uncle Tom, and they'll do everything they can to destroy you.

PAT: You're not even black.

GLENN: And we sit here -- we sit here, and we look at that and we say, "Black people, you got to -- wake up. Wake up." They're looking at us and saying, "Wake up? We have woken up. And every time we wake up and try to stand up, we're shoved down into the ground."

I contend Bill Cosby would have gotten away with everything that he did his whole life, had he not rocked the boat at the end and started talking about his own community and saying, "Hey, we've got to look at our own community." Basically, what is he saying? The same thing the Democrats don't want to say about the family. The same thing they don't want to say about Detroit. That the things that we've been doing and are being told to ignore are the problems.

So you can't have anybody think. You got to shout them down. That's what's happening with the Democrats, with the black community. And it works.

That's how you can get 97 percent of a population to vote one way. Shut them up. It worked for Saddam Hussein. It's been working for the Democrats for how long? Did Glenn Beck just call him?

So now we're doing it. Now, unless you go with the party, you are politically incorrect in the way that the communists who invented that term, really meant it. You are not correct with the political party. And you will be shut down, shut up, made uncomfortable, and in the case of the communist, you're going to be shipped off. You're going to go into a camp.

And if not, you're just going to be disappeared. You'll go to Siberia, or you'll go into the ground. That's the real term "politically correct." That's the heritage of "politically correct."

Now if you are politically incorrect, you're an enemy. You're a traitor. And everything is a binary choice.

Now, let me show what happens to binary choices. Let's take Black Lives Matter. Right now, we're being told there's a binary choice. The binary choice is, they're good or they're bad. That's it. They can't be anything else. They are good or they're bad. Let's say you say they're good. Or, let's say you say they're bad. Because that's what most people on our side say, they're bad.

Okay. So what do you do, when you've made the binary choice? You say, "Well, I got to build a wall against all those bad people. And I've got to -- I've got to condemn anybody who is for them, listens to them, wants to march with them, because they're all bad." If you're for Black Lives -- if you excuse anything -- because these people should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Get over it. Right?

And if you don't agree with that, you're an enemy. You're with Black Lives Matter. So what do you do? You build a wall around them, make them the enemy. You condemn them. That's what that wall is all about. Then you try to convince others that they're bad. And if you can't convince them, that person you're trying to convince, they become bad.

And the other side does the same thing. So a binary choice leads to walls, condemnation, destruction, and separation of two camps that only becomes balkanized. It only becomes the Palestinians and the Israelis. And there is no coming back from that.

It's my side or the highway. Balkanization. My way or the highway -- thank you -- thank you for just the look.

Let me give you another choice, not a binary choice, one that doesn't lead to Balkanization of the United States of America, or we could just say, "I'm not getting back together with anybody. You were against, and so I will always be against you. And you will be my enemy because you voted differently. And I will never stand with you."

PAT: I'm not coming out to do some kind of sitdown powwow with you after the election.

GLENN: I'm not asking.

PAT: I'm not coming out to some powwow where we sit around and talk about things after the election. I'm not doing that.

GLENN: I'm not talking -- I'm not asking you to --

PAT: Well, that's what I'm not going to do, so stop asking.

GLENN: I'm not asking.

PAT: You're always saying, you want to sit down and do some powwow, some get-together after the election.

GLENN: No, I'm saying that we're all Americans after the election. And we're all going to metaphorically come together --

PAT: Why do you keep saying we need to come together and do a powwow after the election?

[break]

GLENN: Okay. So if you have a binary choice. If everything in our society -- and it is -- everything in our society is -- you're either for us or you're against us. You either love this or you hate this. Okay?

It's -- it's a binary choice. And a binary choice leads to the same thing over and over again. For instance, Black Lives Matter. Good. Okay. Well, then the people who oppose it are bad. And you got to stop them. Or it's bad. And the people who oppose that idea that it's bad, you have to stop them, because they're bad too. And you build a wall and you don't move any further. Or you could say there's more than a binary choice. There's good and bad, which builds the wall, and some will do. Or there is -- let's just take one -- they're bad, but some of the people can be saved. Or they're good, but they -- a lot of the people in there have been co-opted by bad leaders who don't understand what they're following. They've never gone to the Black Lives Matter website. I can guarantee you, Kaepernick does not know what the leadership wants and where they stand just on Israel. It's like a whole page on anti-Israel stuff. And they don't know where they stand on capitalism.

STU: And he's certainly not making that salary under their proposals.

GLENN: Correct. So you can make another choice. And I want to show you how one builds a wall and the other keeps the walls down and keeps us moving forward, when we come back.

[break]

Talking about binary choices and how dangerous binary choices become. And take the election out of it.

I know this is hard to do because everybody is making everything about the election. But in, what, 30 days, 33 days, the election is over. And we have to come together.

And for those who don't understand, I don't mean literally come together. I mean we're going to need each other. And we're going to need to come together metaphorically. I didn't think I needed to express this, this way. But I do.

PAT: No, but apparently, some people are so stupid, you do have to --

GLENN: Yeah -- stop it. Stop it. Stop it. You are the one who caused the last flare-up of herpes. Stop it. I'm trying to put some cream on this.

PAT: Me too.

(laughter)

GLENN: Yeah.

JEFFY: I got to tell you, sometimes the cream doesn't work. I just want to let you know.

GLENN: Yeah. Well, this cream will never work.

Anyway, I don't mean come together. What I mean is, metaphorically, we need to be Americans again. Because no matter who is going to be our president -- Trump or Hillary -- trouble is coming. And depending on who you're voting for, you'll think that the other one is going to have more trouble. And you may end up being right.

But we'll never know. Will we? Because she's want going to go to a parallel universe and run another country so we'll have a double-blind -- we won't know. We'll just know, we need to stand together so we can weather any storm that might come our way, from the outside or the inside.

And I'm using Black Lives Matter as a -- and please, do not use this as politics. These are principles.

Black Lives Matter to show you the binary choice. One, the binary choice: Good, bad. Leads you to a wall, you don't go past that. You become a balkanized country that sees things one way or the other, black or white, and you go nowhere, because you have nothing in common because you stopped talking to each other a long time ago.

Black Lives Matter, let's just say, you decide they're bad. They're bad. The leadership is bad. What they're doing is bad. But not all the people are bad.

Well, now that's not a binary choice. No, no, you got to make -- they're good or bad. We have to condemn them all or not. No, no. It's like -- and I know this isn't popular currently again, but this audience understood currently when we did it because it took a lot of explaining because we are trained to think binary -- we all want immigrants to be legal. We -- at least in this room, we all want legal immigration. We all want really tough border security

PAT: And I will say, nobody has fought harder than illegal immigration than we have. No one has fought harder.

GLENN: Yeah, you have been -- you're crazy on it.

PAT: Yeah, and nobody has opposed more consistently comprehensive immigration reform than we have. When others were flip-flopping on it because the nominee in 2012 was for it --

GLENN: No, no, when others were flip-flopping because George Bush was the president for the G.O.P. --

PAT: And that too. We were rock solid on that.

GLENN: We were hardcore. So anyway, we have been there -- thank you, Pat for another flare-up.

PAT: Yes, you're welcome. No, I'm just clarifying.

GLENN: I know.

So, anyway, we have been -- we have been solid on this. We went down to the border because I said, "I am for legal immigration, not illegal immigration." We want border security. We want this -- we need this to be solved. And if you come across the border, you need to go home. But we must soften our hearts and see the plight of people. We need to see that there are bad guys. We need to see that there are drug runners. We need to see that there are Syrians and Iraqis and really bad ISIS and al-Qaeda guys coming across our border. But we also need to see the children. And when it comes to the children, we don't just box them up and put them in storehouses, and then do what with them?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: We need to love the children and love people, unless you've proven yourself to be a bad guy. And then you have credibility to say, "I love you. Now it's time for you to go home." And we need to make sure our hearts don't harden and harden into a place where we can't see people anymore.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Black Lives Matter, good, bad, build a wall, you don't see people anymore. Or bad, but some of these guys are good. They're just misguided. They're being led by people and they don't even know who they're being led by. Because they've had something happen in their life or they've been brainwashed, quite honestly, by an educational system and a culture that just tells them, "You can't make it. These guys are bad. And there's no escape." And as our mothers used to say, "Show me your friends, I'll show you your future."

How many of us have gone down the wrong road because we have surrounded -- don't answer this, Pat, because I don't want to hear this answer. We've gone down the wrong roads because we've made friends with people who were strong personalities that weren't necessarily on the straight and narrow. And you changed your behavior and you changed courses. How many of us have been sold a load of goods that now in retrospect, we were like, "Oh, crap. I can't believe I was so stupid, I believed that."

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: But if you had a bunch of people standing around you --

PAT: How many times had we said that about the Bush administration? How misled we were about the Patriot Act and going into Iraq --

GLENN: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Right. All of it. All of it. And if you were surrounded by people, as we were by the Michael Moores --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: -- who were extremists themselves, who said, "All these people are just bad people." And we're like, "No, we're not bad people. We really believe this. We don't think he's a bad guy."

PAT: Right.

GLENN: If somebody would have reached out to us, honest, not trying to -- not a Susan Sarandon -- honest. And sat down with us and really talked to us and loved us and proved they loved us -- they were our friends -- and look, we can disagree. Glenn, you and I can disagree. You might in the end really say war is right. But they would have sat down with us, and they would have listened to us. And then they would have said, "Wow, you've got some good points here. And I didn't know that. I'm going to go look that up. I did not know that. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. But you look up that. I'm going to look up what you showed me, and you look up what I just showed you. And let's come back together."

Not the intention of winning.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But the intention of reconciliation. The intention of, "Let's just come back together on the facts."

PAT: It would have been better. But I don't know that it would have swayed us because now we have ten, 12 years of evidence. You know, we've got -- we've got 12 --

GLENN: I contend nobody tried.

PAT: That's for sure. That's true.

GLENN: And look what happened, now no one tried and now we're in these camps of enemies where nobody even listens to the other side.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: No one -- let's take another example. The New York Times, and CBS, ABC, NBC, they have deemed people like us bad for so long, that they could come out and say the truth about something that we believe in and have the documentation. And you still wouldn't believe it. Because you would look at it and say, "Well, it's NBC. It's the New York Times. Of course, they're going to say that." Well, but wait. Here's the video. They --

JEFFY: We did use disclaimers, right? We would do stories or do reports and say, "Well, but it's NBC, so."

GLENN: Yes. But now it's gotten to the point where I said to Stu back in the '90s, there's going to come a point where you won't even believe your eyes. We now watch videos and we still dismiss it.

JEFFY: Right.

GLENN: Because that's just the media out to get X, Y, or Z.

It's on video!

So we've set ourselves up for absolute failure and the balkanization -- which, by the way, just want to let you know, is one of the goals of the Weather Underground, of the communists, of everybody, to balkanize the United States. E pluribus unum is bad. Because e pluribus unum means, from many one, and you can never defeat them when they're one. You have to break them up.

Black Lives Matter, you could love them first. Be honest and find a way to see the common humanity, which is almost impossible now. You're not a human anymore. You're a member of the media, or you're a conservative, or you're a liberal, our you're a Clinton supporter. Or you're a Trump supporter. And there's nothing in between, okay?

There's no humanity. I keep saying, "Am I not more than who I voted for?" Is this the only thing -- you'll see it on Facebook. Somebody will say, "Hey, this is a great pie recipe. Oh, notice it's apple pie. Apple pie. All you conservatives want apple pie, like everything is going to be fine if your beloved Donald Trump gets in." You're like, "What the hell -- I'm just giving a pie recipe." Okay. It's happening in everything. Everything.

We could love. We could listen. We could learn. Then we could either say, "I was wrong." They could say they were wrong. Or we could say, "I was a little bit wrong, and they were a little bit wrong." And we could stand united on those principles and those facts that we now agree on, together. Or we can continue to take one step.

Hmm. Bad. Build wall. Don't talk. Demonize. Put into camps.

We could do that. But that leads to our total downfall.

Or we could not do the same thing and expect a different result. We are doing the same thing -- George Washington warned us against this: Don't do the two-party system. Because the two-party system, they're going to start demonizing each other. And it's going to get worse and worse and worse, until you will divide into two camps. And then, somebody who is unscrupulous will come outside and say, "It's these two party people, and I will make everyone who disagrees with us pay."

And he won't be doing it for any other reason -- and I'm not saying this is Trump -- I'm telling you what Donald -- I'm telling you what George Washington said would happen. And that will be the end of the republic because everyone will just want vengeance because everyone will feel that they have been wronged by the other party who is now their enemy.

What do you say we try something different? And even if we vote differently, at least after the election, we try to take a deep breath and realize we're going to need each other.

PAT: I'm not coming to a powwow. Sit down and discuss things after the election.

GLENN: Oh, is that herpes? Yes, it is. Thank you.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

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.