Time to Pass the Baton to the Next Hero Generation: The Millennials

It's time to take the plastic off the furniture and turn off the TV set. Millennials are the next hero generation queued up to save the republic. They're depending on older generations to show them the way. They don't care about political parties, they don't care about Ronald Reagan. They care about making a difference. So let's show them how to do it --- the American way.

RELATED: Will Millennials Turn to Capitalism or Socialism on Their Quest for Truth?

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these questions:

• Do millennials watch television?

• What unrealistic expectations did parents set for millennials?

• Do millennials think older generations are like old grumpy neighbors?

• Why don't more millennials know about Mao Tse-tung?

• Do millennials want your house?

• Does Glenn surf the Kondratiev wave?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN:  So if -- imagine that you are a -- imagine that you're a millennial, and you're 20-something years old, and you're seeing the world as it is today.  And you're watching people on television -- on television, which is no longer a part of your world.  You go over to your mom and dad's house, and they're sitting on their couch, watching television, which you don't do.  You don't do it.  You don't sit and watch an hour of commercials in a television program.  And so it's already kind of cute and quaint.  It's kind of like going over to your grandparents when they had the plastic on the furniture.  You're like, "They're just old.  Don't -- you know, just go along with it."  Okay?

PAT:  I don't know if it's quite that bad.

GLENN:  It's pretty close.  It's pretty close.  Millennials do not watch television.

JEFFY:  No.  No, they do not.

PAT:  I mean, they watch it less.  But they do watch it.

GLENN:  Not cable news.  Not cable news.

PAT:  Nobody watches cable news anymore.

JEFFY:  No cable.

GLENN:  Yes, they do.  

So the ones who are connected to politics, they're watching cable news.  So they come over from their world into yours, and you're watching cable news.  And you're seeing usually two old white guys and a young person, a millennial, a girl, a hot girl, who isn't talking at all like any of your millennial friends.  Is like old people speak.

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  And you're rolling your eyes at her.  Because you're like, "Total sellout."  And the other one -- because you're like, "This is so obvious.  They're saying the same basic thing.  They're arguing over things that -- oh, my gosh, I don't know why my dad does this."  Okay?

That's the world they're coming from.  Then they go to their world where they're listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and everybody else saying that jobs are good.  Hey, we're on the road to recovery.  They're massively in debt.  They have -- they are -- they've gone to college.  All their friends have gone to college.  Their friends aren't getting jobs.

JEFFY:  If they are, they're underemployed.

GLENN:  Yes, they're underemployed.  They can't pay for their --

PAT:  And let's not forget, they've been told that which drives me out of my mind.  That their debt is not their fault, they believe.  Which pisses me off.

GLENN:  Well, hang on just a second, they have now -- they see this crushing debt that they have --

PAT:  That they accrued.

GLENN:  Hang on just a second.

PAT:  All right.

GLENN:  That the old world, as they see it --

PAT:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  -- has been encouraged since they were little, "You got to go to college.  When are going to go to college?  Where are you going to go to college?  Got to go to college.  Got to go to college.  Everybody goes to college.  Got to go to college.  Got to get into a good college."  

Everyone in their life who they're now seeing represented on dad's/grandpa's TV set yelling at each other about a solution that they know won't work, and they think to themselves, "I -- I mean, this doesn't work, and I'm screwed with this debt."  

Meanwhile, while everybody has been saying, "Got to go to college, got to go to college, got to go to college," they went to college.  And where everybody -- where mom and dad said, "This is the best college.  This is a great college."  Those people that mom and dad endorsed taught them that you didn't really incur this debt and this whole system doesn't work.  And so maybe I do know a little bit more than mom and dad.

Even if they don't go that far, they know this system doesn't work, and they don't want to become like mom and dad, who are now in debt.  Dad is still having to work.  Maybe their retirement isn't coming through the way it was.  They haven't really been happy.  Mom or dad have just been kind of tolerating each other for a while, maybe till the kids -- they've drifted apart.  Or maybe they're really happy, but they're -- they are under such pressure with debt because of the house and the lifestyle, that the millennial looks at and says, "Why not just buy a smaller house?  Why -- we didn't need all this stuff, mom and dad.  Why did you do that?"

STU:  It would be great if that's the way they were -- that's the way they were thinking about these things.  It doesn't seem like that's the way they're thinking about it.

JEFFY:  No, it is not.

STU:  Good example of your generational thing.

GLENN:  Some.  Some.  I'm telling you --

STU:  Of course, some --

GLENN:  -- they're being indoctrinated to think the other way.

STU:  Right.  But let's think about --

PAT:  Some believe they're entitled to the house that mom and dad are living in.

JEFFY:  Exactly right.

GLENN:  I agree with you.

PAT:  Move out of that house.

GLENN:  I agree with you.

STU:  Why would you bring that up?  That's a weird thing to bring up.

PAT:  I don't have any examples, no.

(laughter)

STU:  Okay.

PAT:  I just know that exists.

GLENN:  You have five examples.  You have five examples.

(chuckling)

STU:  The generational thing you've talked about many times -- and this is an interesting -- potentially an interesting example of it, the situation -- the old system is faulty.  Right?  We spend all of this money.  We get in lots of debt to get college.  And they agree that that's faulty.  You know what, I agree also that that's faulty.  My, let's call it, generation would look at that issue and say, "Let's execute a cost-benefit analysis.  Is it wise for us to enter into this agreement that everyone is telling me I have to do and acquire all this debt?  Should I consider being educated in a way that is less expensive?  Should I chase a different way of approaching this problem?"

PAT:  Should I have gotten a job in high school and earned money?

GLENN:  Hang on.  Hang on.

STU:  Hold on.  Let me just finish the point.  

They seem to be looking at this as, it's not the idea that college should be required, that's the problem.  The issue is, I just shouldn't have to pay for it.  I completely accept without questioning --

JEFFY:  Yes.

STU:  -- the idea that I must go to college and must do all these things, despite the fact that I'm going to spend 80 percent of my time now doing schoolwork, as has been shown in study after study.  That, I shouldn't question at all.  I should only question the cost I acquire for it.  And that's why we continually complain about them -- millennials looking at socialist solutions.

A real -- a real questioning the status quo, really, is to say, do I need this?  Do I need to do it in a different way?  Do I do it in a way that maybe doesn't --

PAT:  Can I go to trade school?  Can I go to a community college?  

Can I go to a State University where it's going to be cheaper than Harvard?  

JEFFY:  Not without getting a job though.

PAT:  You know.  Right.

STU:  I stopped talking already.  Glenn is giving me that look of how dare you.  How dare you.

GLENN:  No, no.  No, no, no.  

I agree with your point -- I agree with your point of view.  I absolutely agree with your point of view.  Here's where we differ, I think.

STU:  Uh-huh.

GLENN:  Do you know how hard it is to cut your own way anyway?  Everybody likes to think, I'm different.  I'm special.  I'm cutting my own way.

JEFFY:  Right.

GLENN:  Well, first of all, that wasn't true for most of us when it was cool to think that you were different, but this generation, it's not cool to necessarily think differently.  It's to think collectively because of their generation.  Okay?  To make things better collectively.

So they're coming to it from a different place than we are.  It's why -- it's why grandparents usually understand -- have such a great bond with the grandchild.  I've always thought that it's because, "I don't have the responsibility.  So it's kind of fun."  No, it's because it's an 80-year cycle.  Your experiences are closer than the experiences of your children.  It skips a generation because it's an 80-year we/me cycle.  Okay?

So the grandchildren are looking at things much differently.  Our children are looking at things much differently than we are.  We were more independent-minded.

Also, at the time -- at our time, there were more people like Ronald Reagan, who were living this and saying, "Be this.  Do this."  All of society was, "You -- you can do it."  All of society now is, "No, you can't do it, nor should you want to do it.  No man is an island.  You all have to work together for the common good."  Everything is teaching them the opposite.  And on top of it, who the hell do we have on our side that they can -- that they even relate to?

Because everybody that is on our side looks like me, sounds like me, does talk radio, or a stupid talk show on television, that come at that only their dads are watching.  And they think their dad doesn't understand them.

There's nobody positioning themselves on our side that's speaking their language or even doing anything, but, "These crazy kids.  Get off my lawn."  That's who we're turning into, to them.

(chuckling)

GLENN:  Where their professors are all --

PAT:  Well, I don't want them on my lawn.

GLENN:  All the professors are really super cool and telling them all the super cool things they can do collectively.

JEFFY:  That's right.

GLENN:  We're not.  We're not.

We are never going to make an impact trying to speak the language of Ronald Reagan to a group of people who don't -- nor do they care.  And in most cases, have been taught he's a bad guy.  Nobody is going to listen to, "We got to be more like Ronald Reagan.  We need another Ronald Reagan."  They don't even know who the hell that is.  

STU:  I mean, I think that's the point I was making.  In that, that's the generational gap.  Right?  That's the difference.

PAT:  Yeah.

STU:  And it's not just even bringing up Ronald Reagan.  They don't even know who freaking Ronald Reagan is.

JEFFY:  Right.

STU:  I mean, you know, we talked about them not knowing who killed more people, Mao or Bush.  Forty-two percent of people were unfamiliar with Mao.  Almost half of them have never even heard of the guy.  So I'm not -- you're right on language, I think.  What I was trying to define is more of like what their approach is.  And I think you've tried to do this with guest after guest after guest, and Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after pendulum -- all of those things are pointing to the same general conclusion, that these -- that younger voters think completely differently about this stuff.  And, you know, I find it to be problematic.  I think -- I think you're looking at it as, well, how do we win them over, which I think is appropriate and is necessary.  But, I mean, I do think it's problematic.

GLENN:  But there's no -- the question I keep asking -- Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave after Kondratiev wave -- and I go back and do my history and look -- you do not beat -- it's like standing in front of the ocean expecting to change the tide.  You're not.

Now, how can you get into the water and work with that tide and that force and perhaps change the direction?  Because that happens every time.  It's why we have the French Revolution and the American Revolution.  Very different things, all the same piece:  We, the people.  We, the people.

That's really important to understand, just that one thing.  That was a generation that understood -- that looked at things as a collective.  

Now, you can push back and say, "Yeah, well, we had the Bill of Rights.  That was all about individual liberties."  

Yes, because they know that the eternal truth was that no one is over you.  But that's why they started it with, "We, the people."  Not, I, the individual:  We, the people.  We'll establish this to protect these things, to protect the individual.  We're going to get together as a collective.  

Now, unless you have somebody who is teaching, "Hey, as a collective, we have to protect the individual."  Because that's all they want to do.  "We want to help the downtrodden.  We want to help."  Great.  Well, there's ways to do that.  And the two times before this wave was the Founders' wave.  

And they said, "We, the people, need to protect the individual and what the individual -- because that is supreme."  Where all of the other generational we thinkers at that time went Robespierre and said, "We are the collective, and we'll crush the individual that stands in our way."  And that's already happening.

You disagree with global warming, they will crush you.  You disagree with Donald Trump, and they will crush you.

We are in that scenario, that always leads to witch hunts and to blacklists, unless somebody on our side is appealing to the youth and knows who they can be.  They've just not had anybody on our side actually reaching out to them and saying, "I know who you are.  You're not who everybody says who you are.  I know who you are.  You are the hero generation.  And people are going to try to misguide you.  We, collectively -- you can change the world and chart the course, away from the death you never learned about."

When somebody teaches you something and you realize that somebody intentionally has kept a very important detail away from you, you don't run into their arms and say, "Hey, thank you for that."  You look at them and say, "What the hell were you thinking?  You didn't tell me about this part?  You didn't tell me about Mao and 100 million people that he killed.  You let me believe that George W. Bush was a bigger killer.  I can't trust you at all."  We have a massive win.  But it's slipping through our fingers every time we betray our values by living something differently than what we say is important.

Featured Image: USA's Gil Roberts (L) grabs the baton from USA's Tony McQuay as they compete in the Men's 4x400m Relay Final during the athletics event at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games at the Olympic Stadium in Rio de Janeiro on August 20, 2016. / AFP / PEDRO UGARTE (Photo credit should read PEDRO UGARTE/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.