The Biggest Swamp Has Been Drained: John Podesta and Hillary Clinton Are Out of a Job

One of Glenn's favorite authors and conservative commentators joined The Glenn Beck Program on Tuesday. An intellectual giant, Michelle Malkin's latest endeavor is a new show titled Michelle Malkin Investigates which airs on CRTV. Her first four episodes go in-depth on topics she's covered her entire career.

Glenn talked with Michelle about a variety of issues, including who should be Time Magazine's Man of the Year, Trump's new pick for Secretary of Education and her relief that Hillary Clinton lost the election.

RELATED: Donald Trump Faces off Against Hillary Clinton, Beyonce, Vladmir Putin and Simone Biles for Time ‘Person of the Year’

"There are many sub-swamps in Washington, DC, but the biggest one that has been irreversibly drained, has been the swamp that's been dominated by progressives who have been running the levers of power since at least the Clinton administration . . . John Podesta, Anita Tandon and Hillary Clinton and all of her minions are out of a job," Malkin said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Welcome to the program, Michelle Malkin. New York Times best-selling author and a good friend of the program.

Michelle, how are you?

MICHELLE: Good, how are you doing, Glenn? It's been quite a year.

GLENN: That is an understatement.

MICHELLE: Which I'm not usually prone too.

GLENN: Right. We were just talking about TIME Magazine is trying to decide who the man of the year could possibly be. I don't think there's really a choice here.

MICHELLE: No.

GLENN: I think one man has changed the world, or at least has found a way to capitalize on where the world was and is -- is being viewed all over the world as the catalyst of change. Which is it?

MICHELLE: Yeah. Well, things have changed. And there are many sub-swamps in Washington, DC. But the biggest one that has been irreversibly drained, has been the swamp that's been dominated by progressives who have been running the levers of power since at least the Clinton administration.

And for those who had had reservations about Trump on whether it was character or certain policy positions or whatever he's tweeting, whenever, in the middle of the night, there is one reality that cannot be denied: John Podesta, Anita Tandon, and Hillary Clinton and all of her minions are out of a job.

And it was enough for me, when I decided after the primary and even before the primary -- because I remember the last time I talked to you and TheBlaze, last year, I had said that I had no qualms if the choice had to be between Donald Trump or Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton. And that has given, you know, both the personal and political history that I had had with Donald Trump. Was it hard in some ways? Yes. But in many ways, it was probably one of the easiest political decisions I've ever made.

GLENN: Unbelievable. As you know, Michelle -- and I respect you and respect your opinion and everybody's right to disagree with things. But this was a hard year for me.

MICHELLE: Yes, I understand.

GLENN: Because I can't jump on the bandwagon of a $1.2 trillion stimulus package and say, "Oh, well, that's okay." Because it's not. That's crazy. That's crazy.

MICHELLE: Well, you know, I'm not a bandwagon jumper either. And I haven't been in the quarter century that I've been doing this. And so, you know, political reality is unfortunately about having to make cost-benefit calculations.

And when you look, even now, at some of the transition choices, it blows my mind, particularly because, you know, Glenn, that immigration and sovereignty issues have been something that have been near and dear to my heart for my entire career --

GLENN: Oh, yeah, I know.

MICHELLE: That we have a stalwart hero like Jeff Sessions who is now the attorney general nominee. I never in my lifetime thought that ever would be a possibility, let alone a near reality.

GLENN: So why is -- why are you so pro on this, and yet Ann Coulter, who was in my opinion, damn near unhinged on Donald Trump, is now saying we may have a traitor within our midst?

MICHELLE: You'd have to ask her. All I can do is tell you this. I was covering immigration issues back -- as far back as 1992 in Los Angeles. My first book was Invasion which came out in 2002. And there have been a lot of Johnny-come-latelies to the cause of immigration enforcement and the need to have systemic reform, that not only puts the rule of law and the immigration laws that are on the books first, but the interests of America, American workers, American citizens, and law-abiding people who lined up and did it the right way. And so I think it's up to each and every one of your listeners and your readers to make up their mind about how authentic people really are when it comes to practicing what they preach.

GLENN: Yeah. Preach.

Can I ask you a question? I've never talked to you about this before.

MICHELLE: Yeah.

STU: The one thing -- the one book that you have written, and I haven't read it in years.

MICHELLE: Uh-huh.

GLENN: That I was perplexed by and thought it was very brave, but I disagree with, is the case for internment. Because we have had that conversation.

MICHELLE: Yes.

GLENN: And I don't know how anyone can think internment, especially Asian descent, could possibly think internment was a good idea.

MICHELLE: Well, maybe you should reread the book.

In defense of internment, the case for racial profiling in World War II and the War on Terror makes a very sophisticated and history-based argument that in a post-9/11 era, the kind of national security scrutiny measures that, for example, Kris Kobach, who is the secretary state of Kansas, a hero when it comes to fighting corruption, left-wing activism that has seeped into the federal government and, of course, immigration enforcement, helped design in the Bush administration.

Of course, it is now a very relevant issue with the national security entry/exit registration system, which has been falsely characterized as, quote, unquote, a Muslim registry and has been likened to, yes, the Japanese internment.

The entire thesis of the book took a look at what happened in, yeah, a very far left, liberal FDR administration and asked a question that -- that very few people asked, the people who actually had knowledge of national security issues at the time: What was the evidence for taking these extreme measures? And what actually occurred is far different than what is taught in history books.

The magic message is from the State Department, at the time, which were later decrypted, indicated that there were real serious security threats, particularly on the west coast. I also delve into the actual history of the relocations that took place and the measures that were taken not just against people of Japanese descent, but also Italians and Germans who were interned by the thousands.

The point of the book, Glenn, for those who read it -- and I'm very grateful over the years that I heard from so many high school history teachers who now teach the book in their classrooms to give a full picture to their students so they're not just getting what left-wing Alinsky and Howard Zinn historians tell them. They actually look at the original source documents that I include in the book.

The point of it is that we want to avoid the -- the absolute extremes of that kind of policy by taking sensible national security profiling measures. And that is why I'm so vocal about the need for someone like Kris Kobach to head the Department of Homeland Security. Because he's done the hard work. He's faced the slings and arrows of being called a racist and a xenophobe and a fascist because these people are actually very serious about protecting national security in an unapologetic way, as I was when I wrote this book.

GLENN: So let's go to education. Because you just talked about how education -- you know, you're getting Howard Zinn.

Tell me about Betsy DeVos.

MICHELLE: Yes. So my grassroots friends and fellow warriors against Common Core and fed Ed, know full well that Betsy DeVos has not been a friend to those who want to limit and eliminate the overreach of the federal government in our children's lives and their classrooms.

PAT: Hmm.

MICHELLE: In Michigan, Betsy DeVos was involved in a consortium called GLEP. I believe it's the Great Lakes Educational Project -- Great Lakes Education Project, which was pushing the Common Core standards adoption in Michigan.

She now says that she's against Common Core. She now says that she has adopted Donald Trump's stance, which was very clear. And not just clear, but also much more 50 than simply saying, as everyone else has now, that they oppose Common Core. And, of course, you and I were -- were -- teamed up to illuminate the dangers in the classroom with regard student data mining, the overencroachment of the testing regime, and, of course, the ways in which these so-called federal high standards were undermining local control and local classrooms in states where the standards were already much higher than what the federal government had set.

And, of course, it's the Gates Foundation and Jeb Bush which are largely behind it. So grassroots Michigan activists and parents are very worried, and rightly so, about how committed Betsy DeVos will be.

There's -- there's -- I have mixed feelings about it. And I think that leading up to the confirmation, there are many questions that she needs to answer and that informed senators in both parties need to ask.

You cannot just preach about school choice and charter schools. And expect to have people bow down to you on the right, just because school choice has long been one of those sacred cows for us.

The more sophisticated and informed parents -- many of them in your audience, Glenn, understand that choice and fed ed and Common Core are completely incompatible. And there is an explicit cognitive dissonance involved there because espousing choice doesn't mean anything if Common Core-lined textbooks and tech and testing are being forced down the throats of independent charter schools and, yeah, school choice beneficiaries. If you still have to submit to the Common Core regime that has not been dismantled yesterday, choice is illusory.

GLENN: So -- because this is kind of what -- you know, in a nutshell, this is kind of where we have been, that I think some of Trump's picks have been confusing at best. Because his policy will say one thing, and then he'll pick somebody like this. And you're like, "Wait. No, wait." Jeb Bush celebrated her appointment. That can't be a good thing.

MICHELLE: Yes. And I did point that out.

Now, having supported Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton does not obligate me to jump up and down like a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader at everything he does and every choice he makes.

And just as I did with every other president, whether they were Republican or Democrat, when they deserved to be praised, I will be out there praising very loudly with my big brown mouth. And when they deserve to be criticized --

GLENN: Wow. What a racist.

MICHELLE: -- I will do the same.

(laughter)

PAT: But the problem has been -- hasn't it, Michelle -- have you noticed that so many on the right are doing just that?

JEFFY: They sure are.

PAT: I mean, it's been amazing to me that nobody has said anything about Ivanka and Donald both meeting with Al Gore yesterday. Nobody is saying anything about a trillion dollar stimulus package.

GLENN: Unless it's good.

PAT: Unless it's good.

MICHELLE: Yeah. Well, I understand what you're saying. And I understand why you feel that way. But there's plenty of unhappiness about a number of things.

PAT: I'd love to hear it.

MICHELLE: You know, for me -- okay. I will tell you how I came about these decisions. Because, I mean, we've -- we've been -- I -- I appreciate that I have friends in the Never Trump camp. I have friends who are on the Trump train since day one. And there are more people who are like me, who initially struggled with this decision, but sort of stepped back and saw the bigger picture.

I was definitely -- at a certain point in this election, I was just Never Hillary, that doesn't mean I'm going to be happy that Ivanka and Donald are meeting with Al Gore.

GLENN: Right. I think you're the majority.

MICHELLE: But somehow they will defeat that machine, and that means a lot to me. It does.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Right. Does that mean -- do you think there's a chance -- because I said this yesterday.

And this is a little bit of the, "Hey, John Roberts must have a plan to really defeat Obamacare." So it's a little wishful thinking. But, I mean, do you think that he actually is buying into the global warming thing here, and Ivanka is going to run with this, or is this a way to kind of bring it into the fold and defeat it?

MICHELLE: Oh, I have no idea what they talked about. And so it might be worth asking about that.

And, you know, there were a lot of past Republican presidents who met with really shady people. You can go back and look at all the pictures of George W. Bush palling around with Al Sharpton, and Newt Gingrich palling around with Al Sharpton. And many other execrable left-wing figures. Does it mean that he's going to throw in with the climate change crowd? Well, the fact that he picked Myron Ebell from the free market environmental hard-core competitive Enterprise Institute to be the EPA nominee who is an adamant --

GLENN: You're right.

MICHELLE: -- has been an adamant opponent of the left-wing global warming crowd.

STU: We praised him for that.

GLENN: Yeah, we did.

MICHELLE: -- tells me that he means business.

Yes, I know he met with Al Gore. So it gives people a lot to fret about for a day --

PAT: Well, I will say, if it was Ted Cruz meeting with Al Gore, it would have been a nightmare. It would have been a nightmare.

GLENN: Well, but I think that's a mistake. I stand by what I said yesterday. This president -- the current president never reached out to anybody on our side. And when you shut yourself off, then you got nothing.

PAT: That's true. That's true.

GLENN: I mean, at least he is reaching out. The proof will be in the pudding on what he actually does.

I got to go. We're up against a break. Her new gig is on Mark Levin's CRTV. Does it begin tonight, Michelle?

MICHELLE: Yes. My episodes are now all available. I have four episodes that go in-depth in topics that I have covered my entire career.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: And I do want to say that one of the most important stories I've ever, ever, ever covered is the subject of a first two-part series of CRTV's Michelle Malkin Investigates on a former Oklahoma City police officer who was convicted a year ago this weekend of a series of alleged sexual assaults. I dig deep into this case.

GLENN: Right.

MICHELLE: And this is the most massive miscarriage of justice I have ever experienced.

GLENN: That is saying something. And it's available now. Michelle Malkin Investigates on CRTV. Michelle, thank you so much. And we'll talk again.

Featured Image: Conservative author and commentator Michelle Malkin (Photo Credit: Jensen Sutta)

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.