America Is Awash in Opioids, Urgent Action Is Critical

The outspoken and fantastically fierce Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke filled in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program today, Monday, December 19.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 3 for answers to these questions:

• How do we stop people from becoming addicted?

• What synthetic opioid is 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine?

• How are doctors and pharmaceutical companies complicit?

• Are politicians getting paid off by pharmaceutical companies?

• Will crime increase in 2017?

• When will Sheriff Clarke's new book Cop Under Fire be available?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. Milwaukee County David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. We're talking immigration. Let's go right to the phone. Gabe from Texas. Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

Gabe, are you there? Going once. Going twice. I guess we lost Gabe.

So I'm going to close out immigration here. We're talking about sanctuary cities, how the local governments many of them -- probably most of them. I stay away from absolutes. I would say all. But most of them are run by liberal Democrats who don't believe in our nation's immigration laws, who don't believe that we should have borders, don't believe those borders should be protected, borders should be enforced. And it's wreaking havoc.

But here's another issue of why at the local level, sanctuary cities are a public safety menace. Here's how this works at the local level.

You have people in the country illegally, who are in the city -- any city. Name a city that's a sanctuary city: Pittsburgh. Their mayor recently -- Peduto, I think his name is, recently declared that they were going to make Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a sanctuary city.

But here's what happened: You have people in the country illegally. They're committing crimes.

And that's not all illegal aliens committing crimes. But the ones that do. Here's what they know: They know that if they victimize somebody in the country illegally, that victim is not likely to call the police for fear of being discovered to be in the country illegally themselves.

So, in other words, I do a street robbery and I know you're in the country illegally, I know you're not going to call the police. The victim judges goes home and says, "I can't call the police because then it will be discovered that I'm in the country illegally. And I don't want to be discovered and identified. And I don't want to be kicked out. So we have unreporting and underreporting of serious crime in these cities because of the illegal immigration issue.

So the police don't know that the crime is going on and will continue to go on. I don't know if these mayors and these city councils and county boards, I don't know if they think about this or not. Do they care about their law-abiding citizens in that city or county? Is there such a disregard for the rule of law -- that's probably why the Democrats continue to lose seats in state legislatures. Lose governor's races. Members of Congress. Because they don't care about law-abiding citizens anymore, the Democrats.

They work harder to protect and create an environment -- a safe environment for illegal aliens than they do law-abiding citizens. This actually goes on. This criminalization, the victimization -- and I'm talking about some serious crimes, ladies and gentlemen. I'm talking about things like -- I mentioned robberies. I'm talking about sexual assault. I'm talking about domestic violence. I'm talking about child abuse.

Where if you're in the country legally and you know someone is abusing your child, you may not notify local law enforcement because you don't want to be discovered to be in the country illegally.

This stuff has to be enforced.

Let's go back to the phones. Scott from Ohio, welcome to the Glenn Beck Program.

CALLER: Sheriff, how are you? Thank you very much for all that you do. You're a witness to this American Revolution that we're in right now and the battle to reclaim law and order in America.

DAVID: Thank you, sir. It's an honor. It's an honor to serve. Go ahead.

CALLER: Yeah. The question is: I've traveled internationally, and in regard to your comments on enforcing E-Verify, countries like Great Britain actually publicly announce fines that they give for companies that have been caught hiring large number of illegals. It could be 1,000 pounds. It could be 20,000 pounds.

But they publicly announce that for two reasons. One is to openly identify to the public the problem that they had. But, two, also to keep the other companies in line. They have little problem with enforcing E-Verify through that public announcement and the fine itself. What are your comments on that?

DAVID: Well, first of all -- and thanks for the call, Scott, I appreciate it. Merry Christmas to you.

You know, with the E-Verify system, first of all, I think the biggest problem is that it's voluntary. When you get into this squishy area with, you know, do the feds want to force -- or can they force the local communities -- I think private businesses, they can. Can they make them enforce immigration laws, even private businesses, which is what this would be doing? But I'm not going to get all hung up on that stuff.

I'm going to go back to the thing that I mentioned earlier where if you do heavy fines with these individuals, especially the ones who don't use E-Verify before they hire somebody -- now, here's the problem even if you do use E-Verify: Most of these individuals that come in looking for work, you don't even really know who they are. You come in, they give you somebody else's name. They give you the documentation of somebody who is in the country legally.

The employer doesn't know that. So he runs that name in. So let's say you have a person who is legally in the United States. And he or she has a birth certificate. A driver -- probably a birth certificate. They go to the employer and say, "Yeah, here's who I am." And they run that through E-Verify. It's going to say, "Yeah, that person is in the country legally." But it's not even the person who passed the document.

So I understand some of the complexities for employers, but I think the first step is making it not voluntary, making it mandatory to do that sort of thing.

Let's try Gabe from Texas back again. Gabe, you're on the Glenn Beck Program. Go ahead, sir.

We still don't have Gabe.

Okay. That's what Congress is going to be dealing with. And they're going to want to hear from you. By the way, ladies and gentlemen, you know what people in Congress tell me all the time? If we don't hear from constituents, we don't think it's that big a deal. They might know it's a big deal, but if they don't think it's going to move the political needle for them, they're not going to fool with it. They have to hear from you. They have to hear from you.

Let's try Gabe one more time. Gabe from Texas, you're on the Glenn Beck Radio Program. Go ahead, Gabe.

CALLER: Hello. Hello. Yeah, I live 5 miles from the border of the United States right here in Texas. And the city -- the city of Mercedes, Texas, and it's a big frustration over here. I know we got an immigration issue in all four corners of our country. But we're talking about the southern border, it's a big frustration for us down here. And the problem I have -- I am an American citizen. I did serve my country. And the problem I have now is that a lot of the influx of the people that are coming over, they got to find jobs. And most of them are taking -- that I can see, they're taking American jobs. And they're all over the place. And we're talking large numbers at a time.

And also, another issue that I have around here is most people are staying true to their Mexican flags. And you see it all over the place, you know. And they're not pledging to the United States flag.

DAVID: Gabe, thanks for your call. Gabe, I got to let you go in the interest of time here. But a couple of things that you touched on, and, you know, you're right. And you're seeing it firsthand, the border enforcement. But you're also talking about, you know, people come into this country for a reason, because they want to experience American exceptionalism. They obviously believe in the western culture. The opportunities that the United States affords. They want to participate in that.

Well, you can't have one foot in the water and one foot out of the water. You either come here because you want to experience American exceptionalism -- exceptionalism, or you don't. You left your country of origin for a reason. And I don't care what that reason -- I don't care what your motivation is. You left that country for a reason. You couldn't find work. It's a war-torn country. No matter what it is, you left. Leave it behind.

I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. We have to take a break. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck.

This is the Glenn Beck Program.

We're going to switch gears here. Third hour. We're going to talk about this opioid epidemic sweeping across the United States, to the point now this is such a crisis, that everybody either knows somebody, is related to somebody, has lost somebody due to this addiction.

Heroin, some of the prescription, the opioid weight-based prescription drugs. Something has to be done about this. We're talking about a generation of people -- and, you know, this thing transcends race. It transcends class, gender.

If we don't get our arms around it now, we might be talking ten years before we get rid of this. Now, we were able to eradicate this epidemic of heroin back in the '60s. And I don't know how they did it back then. I was a young kid back then.

But I'm hearing a lot of lip service today. I'm hearing people use it for political leverage, people running for office, people who are in office. Officeholders, politicians. Oh, yes, we need to do something about the heroin and opioid crisis in America.

And if you elect me, I will make sure we get treatment programs and blah, blah, blah.

I've seen some grants given out for pilot projects, treatment programs, but this can't just be a treatment-based remedy, ladies and gentlemen. It cannot be. Because it's too late at that point.

What are we doing early on to prevent people from slipping into this addiction?

You want to stop people before they become addicted to this and not have the heavy emphasis -- which is what we always do. We do the same thing with crime. We want to treat crime with all of this money put into somebody who is already a career criminal. It's in their DNA. It's too late.

If you're a 25-year-old and you've led nothing but a life of crime, you have no education, you have nothing to offer an employer, you're functionally illiterate, it's too late.

Now, I'm not suggesting we throw those people away. I'm saying, "I don't have the answer for that." I want to spend what little money we have for this type of thing, this intervention. Because that's what we need here with the opioid crisis. We need interventions.

Forget about solutions. Okay? Thomas Sowell reminds of that all the time: There aren't solutions to these things. There are remedies.

Because when you remedy something, what ends up is you create an issue or problem somewhere else. So intervention is what we need.

Getting back to the opioid thing: This is an article that I came across. This is the director of the Center for Disease Control. His name is Thomas Frieden. He's an MD.

How to end America's opioid epidemic. One of the most heart-breaking problems I face as CDC director is our nation's opioid crisis.

Lives, families, and communities continue to be devastated by this complex and evolving epidemic. Year after year since I've been at CDC, the drug overdose -- I'm sorry -- the drug overdose death toll in our nation has been the highest on record. In 2015, more than 52,000 Americans lost their lives from an overdose. More than 33,000 of these deaths involved a prescription or illicit opioid.

Listen to this, ladies and gentlemen, this crisis was caused in large part by decades of prescribing too many opioids for too many conditions where they provide minimal benefit. And is now made worse by wide availability of cheap, potent, and easily available illegal opioids: Heroin, illicitly made fentanyl, and other new illicit synthetic opioids.

These deadly drugs have found a ready market of people primed for addiction by misuse of prescription opioids.

Overdose deaths involving heroin more than quadrupled since 2010. And what was a slow stream of illicit fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, 50 to 100 times stronger than morphine is now a flood, with the amount of the powerful drug seized by law enforcement increasing dramatically. America is awash in opioids. Urgent action is critical.

Now, listen to this. Back to the story here. Thomas Frieden, MD, Center for Disease Control director.

Our nation's current situation reminds me of a story often told to students in public health.

Here's the story: A person on a riverbank saves one drowning person after another before stopping, exhausted to think, how can I stop people from falling into the river?

That's what I was getting at. I've talked about how we deal with criminal behavior. Instead of treating the criminal, why don't we stop people early on? Meaning, juveniles, we're talking about, right? But in this situation here, yeah, the guy is on the riverbank saving drowning folks. But at some point, you realize, I'm not doing anything here. Why don't I stop people from falling into the river, instead of trying to save people as they're drowning?

We don't have that mindset. All this money for treatment -- and I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't have treatment programs. But what about abstinence programs? Education programs to keep people from falling prey to this.

But here's another thing, doctors cause this. Not intentionally, but they're overprescribing of these highly addictive prescription painkillers. And pharmaceutical companies are behind this too. Let's not kid ourselves. And who do pharmaceutical companies give campaign donations to?

Politicians. Members of Congress. Members of state legislatures. That's why there's no will to point at. We're not having an honest discussion here, folks, when it comes to the opioid crisis.

Nobody wants to take a look at these pharmaceutical companies who are making millions and billions. And I'm not saying they should -- they shouldn't, I should say. I'm not suggesting that.

We have to take a look at the doctors who are overprescribing this. And, look, in fairness to doctors, look, you come in, you have a surgical procedure, they say, "Here, you know, take a couple of these -- and why are they giving out 30-day doses of this stuff?

Give it out for ten days and say, "If you're still in pain, call me. We'll look at something else. In the second round, we'll give you something less addictive." But it's easier for the doctor, whose offices are flooded treating patients to just say, "Hey, here's 30 days. Then I don't have to be worried with this person coming back every ten days."

I get that. But it's not helping the situation. It's making it worse. So until we begin to have an honest discussion about the -- now, doctors are saying -- forget the cop in me. We're not going to arrest our way out of this.

But the doctor says -- doctors have caused this, unintentionally, but they've caused it. We need to start having an honest discussion about this opioid crisis, or it's going to continue on.

Do we want to remedy this, or do we just want to talk good about it and use it for political leverage? This is amazing.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. We have to take a break.

[break]

DAVID: Yep. Welcome back to the program. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Look, I don't want to give that opioid crisis short strokes. So I'm going to have some final comments to say on this.

This is from, again, Thomas Frieden, who is a doctor. An MD. Director for the Center for Disease Control. And he says this, in terms of straightening this thing out, he says: While we implement these emergency response strategies, it is also important that we look upstream to prevent opioid use disorder in the first place. This starts with improving how providers prescribe opioids for pain treatment.

That's an excellent starting point, he says. There are safer drugs and treatment approaches that can control pain as well or better than opioids for the vast majority of patients.

But, see, this is where the pharmaceutical companies come in. Because they're pushing out of these doctors the opioid-based prescription medicines.

Doctor goes on to say: We must reduce the number of Americans exposed to opioids for the first time, especially for conditions where the risk of opioids outweighs the benefit. In addition, state policies should facilitate better use of prescription drug monitoring program.

You see, we spend all our money downstream on treating the person once they're addicted.

He closes this out by saying, "We must not forget what got us here in the first place: doctor's prudent use of the prescription pad and renewed commitment to treat pain more safely and effectively, based on what we know now about opioids, as well as healthy awareness of the risks and benefits among patients prescribed these drugs, can change the path of the opioid epidemic.

Again, Dr. Thomas Frieden, the director for the Center of Disease Control.

Ladies and gentlemen, this guy, first of all, should be testifying on Capitol Hill. And, again, part of the problem is that politicians are just using this stuff for leverage. They know it will sell back home that, "Hey, I just got a 2 million-dollar grant for a drug treatment program for people addicted to opioid."

They know this. I think it's a sin. They listen to this guy. We can set up monitoring -- what doctors are overprescribing this?

And like I said, they're not -- I don't think there are many doctors out there -- I'm not accusing them of saying, "I want to get people hooked on this."

They're well-intentioned. But I don't care about good intentions. I care about results. And the result is like this doctor said: This stuff is being overprescribed. There are safer remedies to deal with pain. But, of course, that's not what the pharmaceutical companies want. They want the latest and the greatest. And this stuff is more expensive.

So you have to ask yourself: Do we want to fix this thing or don't we?

You know, this is something that's right up my alley in terms of giving you straight talk. You know, well, compassion. Compassion nothing.

Let's remedy this. Let's keep people from becoming hooked in the first place. Then we'll deal with those that are already hooked. Once this stuff enters into the political realm, forget about it. Forget about anything meaningful coming out of Congress. You're going to see a heavy dose of federal dollars for treatment. You will not see mechanisms in place for monitoring of doctors and pharmaceutical companies, who are peddling this stuff. These people are unintentional -- they're dope dealers. They're no different than a dope dealer.

I know some of you will freak out. What do you mean a doctor -- look, this doctor says so. Not David Clarke.

Speaking of a crisis, the crime and violence in the does he of Chicago should bring tears to the eyes of a brass monkey. This is unbelievable. To date in the city of Chicago, you talk about a crisis and you talk about remedies, 753 people have been murdered in the city of Chicago. Compare that to 492 last year.

Where's the outrageous? Periodically, you see a story here and there.

Let me tell you what goes on weekly in Chicago: Here's what happened just last weekend. Five dead. Thirteen wounded. One night.

Four dead, 15 others wounded in shootings the next night.

So nine dead, 28 people hit by gunfire. Folks, this goes on weekly, in the great city of Chicago.

Where is the outrage? I'll tell you right now, if 753 people were killed in the Ebola crisis or epidemic or a scare -- let's call it a scare -- oh, hell, you'd have news conferences every day. All the local news would be covering it. All the major news networks would be covering this.

Oh, this is horrible. Now it's up to 750 -- somebody do something.

And, by the way, over 3,000 people have been hit in non-fatal shootings in 2016 alone, ladies and gentlemen.

This stuff is staggering. I've been in law enforcement, as I indicated, for 39 years. I'm staggered by this. Chicago is only 80 miles from Milwaukee, where I live. Just 80 miles down the road.

New York has hit an increase in homicide over last year. City of New York.

Baltimore, for successive years, has hit over 300 homicides.

Milwaukee is closing in on reaching the second highest level ever in the city's history. Last year was the second highest number of homicides. This year, we're closing in on that number.

If you joined us earlier, we talked about with Heather Mac Donald, what this war of cops has done. Men and women of Chicago Police Department are under siege because of ineffective leadership by none other than Democrat liberal mayor Rahm Emanuel, who has no idea what to do here. He has no idea how to get his arms around this.

I've offered some remedies. You notice again I didn't say solutions. Some things that we did during the '90s that led to record decreases in violent crime across the country.

Record numbers of decrease in crime and violence across the country. But we stopped doing those things that worked. We got hooked into this left's myth of mass black incarceration. We stopped locking people up. We engaged in these social engineering experiments. Second chance, for habitual criminals. Habitual!

Community corrections. A reluctance to use jails and prisons as a crime control tool. Jails and prisons are a very effective crime control tool. And here you have President Obama, a friend of the criminal, a cop hater, commuting sentences in record numbers. Hardly a mention in the national media. Every once in a while, a little blurb.

Reducing the sentences of major drug dealers and people who are in possession of weapons that are prohibited, while they're peddling those drugs.

We didn't provide any pushback. You know, this stuff doesn't turn on a dime. Even if we put those effective remedies back in place today, it might be five years before we see a downturn again. You know how many people are going to be victimized by violent crime in the next five years with these numbers?

This is amazing. We got to take a break. This is Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Looks like we're coming in for a smooth landing. A little turbulence along the way. But don't worry about that. You know, this is not my craft. I'm a cop by career. I'm a cop by trade. A pretty damn good one at that, I might add. But this radio stuff and TV stuff is -- is not my craft. But I enjoy it. I do it from time to time. And I really enjoy it. I hope you enjoy it as well.

If you did, I'll be back with you tomorrow. And if you didn't, come back tomorrow anyway and give me something to complain about, I guess.

I want to thank the crew here, the staff. They've been great.

You know, they realize that I'm a rookie when it comes to this, but they're very helpful. You know, they don't throw you into deeper water -- shark-infested and say, "Good luck." Very helpful. And I want to thank you for that.

Also, I want to say Merry Christmas to everybody. Always feels good to say "Merry Christmas" and not feel bashful about it. You know, this political correctness that we've been under, this country has been under, this siege for the last eight years has been horrendous. You had to go around and, you know, say "Happy Holidays" so you don't offend anybody. This move toward secularism. You know, Christmas, the birth of Christ.

And you had to said, like I said, skittish about saying it. You didn't want to offend anybody. Not that any of you were, and I know I wasn't. But, man, does it feel good. And I've heard more and more people since November just really exuberant about saying, "Merry Christmas!" It feels good. And Happy Hanukkah. As I said, we're a Judeo-Christian nation. The founding it was anyway. Not to the exclusion of any other religion.

I want to close by talking about Mrs. Bill Clinton. And she's hurting after the election, after her loss to Trump. And she's on this pity party -- this tour, this pity tour where she's going around the country talking to donors and supporters and blaming everybody except her lousy campaign for why she lost the presidential election.

Donald Trump outworked her. Donald Trump was tirelessly. They're about the same age. That guy is like the ever-ready Energizer bunny. The guy just doesn't stop. I watched him, folks. I was intricately involved in helping him getting elected. I got behind-the-scenes looks and up close and personal. And I would look at this guy, Donald Trump -- I say that affectionately -- the president-elect. And I said, "This guy doesn't stop." And I could tell early on he was going to outwork her. So she's going around, she's blaming everybody.

Remember, first she blames Jim Comey. She doesn't blame her corruption. She doesn't blame erasing 33,000 emails. She doesn't blame the secret server. She doesn't blame the Clinton Foundation. She blames Jim Comey.

Then after that, she blamed fake news. Fake news is why she lost the election. No, she ran a horrible campaign.

Then she said the other day she lost because the media didn't help her enough.

It took me a long time to stop laughing. Folks, the media was her campaign. The liberal mainstream media. They were her -- what do you mean they didn't help her enough to win? They couldn't do anymore. They couldn't do anymore to help her.

They gave her questions to the debates. They gave her stories and said, "Does this story meet with your recommendation before we go to print?" Now she says the media didn't help her enough.

Then there was the Russian hacking. Ah, the Russians did it. The Russians didn't cause her to lose the election. Even if they did hack -- and it hasn't been proven. I don't know what to believe, like I said. But even if they did hack in the DNC emails, that wasn't why she lost. Nothing in those emails that was put forth by Assange, they didn't dispute any of it. They never said, "That stuff's not true." They were just blaming hacking.

Well, guess who they're blaming now? I saw something up on the screen now, up on the monitor, up on the set here: Clinton is saying the inner city didn't come out -- they didn't help enough.

Now it's the voters. Her voters. She got 90 percent of the black vote.

What the heck is she talking about? You know what my advice to her would be? If she were my friend -- if she has any real friends, you know what they should do? They should go to her and say, "You know why you lost? Here, let me walk you over here." And put her in front of a mirror.

She's why she lost. But, of course, with her it's always somebody else's fault. Accepts no responsibility. Slept -- slept during most of the campaign. Every time you turn around, she was reported to take a nap. Well, she's going to have plenty of time to nap now, isn't she?

This is amazing. So we'll keep an eye on this electoral college. It's supposed to be meeting at noon Eastern time across the country. And closing this thing out, the left has scheduled protests -- there are scheduled protests across the nation prior to this election -- or the electoral college. They're still trying to put pressure on the electors. That is a federal crime. It's just not being investigated. But Donald Trump is going to get the required number of electors to finally seal this thing.

We still are not going to be able to move forward because, with the left, it's never over. It's never final. They're going to do everything they can to slow him down, to delegitimize his presidency. He's going to need our help. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program. It's been my pleasure. God bless you.

Featured Image: Bags of heroin, some laced with fentanyl, are displayed before a press conference regarding a major drug bust, at the office of the New York Attorney General, September 23, 2016 in New York City. New York State Attorney General Eric Scheiderman's office announced Friday that authorities in New York state have made a record drug bust, seizing 33 kilograms of heroin and 2 kilograms of fentanyl. According to the attorney general's office, it is the largest seizure in the 46 year history of New York's Organized Crime Task Force. Twenty-five peopole living in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Jersey have been indicted in connection with the case. (Photo by Drew Angerer/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.