Any Talk of Immigration Reform Must Start With Sealing the Porous Southern Border

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 2 for answers to these questions:

• Who is a best friend to police officers?

• What is reality like for police officers today?

• Is it violating federal law to threaten Electoral College voters?

• Does Sheriff Clarke think we should locked down the borders?

• Is Sen. Jeff Sessions a good choice for Attorney General?

• Is there a mechanism in place to defund sanctuary cities?

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. I'm your host today, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Our next segment, we're going to be talking to Heather Mac Donald. There is no better friend outside of law enforcement than Heather Mac Donald. I've said that before. And I truly mean it. Joined on the line by Heather Mac Donald.

Heather, how are you?

HEATHER: Great, Sheriff Clarke. It's always such an honor to speak with you.

DAVID: Likewise. And I gave you an introduction in the opening, so they kind of know your background. Your latest book The War On Cops is a must-read for all law enforcement officers, people outside of law enforcement, who want the research, who want the data, the statistics, to fight back in this war on police.

Now, you authored an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend. And you indicate that Trump can end the war on cops. And in it, you say Donald Trump's promise to restore law and order to America's cities was one of the most powerful themes of his presidential campaign. His capacity to deliver will depend on changing destructive presidential rhetoric about law enforcement and replacing the federal policies that flowed from that rhetoric. How does president-elect Donald Trump go back doing that?

HEATHER: Well, I would love to hear him or his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, give a speech just laying out the facts for the American public that policing today is data-driven. There's no government agency more committed to the proposition that Black Lives Matter, than the police.

And that there is simply no evidence that policing is shot through with racial bias or that we're living through an epidemic of racially biased shootings of police officers. And he should promise to, you know, investigate misconduct when it legitimately -- when there's legitimate evidence that it's occurred. And, of course, officers have to be held to the highest standards of courtesy, respect, and lawful behavior. But the public has to stop fighting officers. They have to stop resisting arrest. They have to cooperate with criminal investigations.

As you know, Sheriff Clarke, a detective will tell you, he could solve every single murder in the inner city if he got the witnesses to cooperate. And instead, because of the no-snitching ethic, nobody's talking. And that's the reality that cops are facing today.

DAVID: There's no doubt about it. It's part of the cultural dysfunction that I've talked about, that exists. And it's not all black people. I'm not even intimating that, and you aren't either. But there is some cultural dysfunction that goes on. Like you've mentioned, the no snitching, lack of respect for authority, lack of respect for the police.

Now, you mentioned Jeff Sessions. He's the President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be the next attorney general of the United States. And I indicated when Donald Trump ran for president, I said, "One of the things he could do -- because, as you know and you point out, you know, local policing is a local issue.

HEATHER: Right.

DAVID: But the feds can't play a role in helping us.

But you mentioned Jeff Sessions. And I said one of the things the president-elect can do is appoint an attorney general who understands policing, who is a supporter of the police, a supporter -- strict supporter of the rule of law. How do you think Jeff Sessions can help and will help?

HEATHER: Sessions is a remarkable appointment. It could not have been better.

DAVID: Amen.

HEATHER: And, as you know, Sheriff Clarke, you have been one of the most fearless exponents of the immigration rule of law. And for people who believe that immigration should be a function of the American people deciding what their laws should be -- not a function of people outside the country, deciding whether they want to enter illegally, Sessions could not be a better pick because he has been the voice within the Senate for immigration enforcement and the rule of law.

But on the policing matter, he's also stood up against the phony narrative that so-called mass incarceration is another idea of where racism is dominant.

DAVID: One of the myths.

HEATHER: And he's pushed back against this myth that the reason that there is a disproportionate representation of blacks in prison is because of criminal justice racism.

The reality is, sadly, criminologists have tried decades to find this evidence of criminal justice system, racism. They always come up short and against their most fervent desires, are forced to conclude that it's a crime that is resulting in disproportionate representation of blacks in prison.

And Sessions will, I think, try to put a break on this effort to de-incarcerate and decriminalize, that is contributing to the crime increase that this country has experienced over the last two years.

DAVID: And one of the things that you point out -- you've done extensive research on, is this theory that you offer about the Ferguson effect, where police have cut way back on pedestrian stops, public order enforcement, I call it, quality of life enforcement, assertive policing, discretionary policing. That they've cut back in minority neighborhoods because of this war on cops and now this fear to actually go out and like I said, assertively police, for fear of being caught up in some United States Department of Justice dragnet, if you will, and called racist.

What effect has the Ferguson effect had on the quality of life for black people living in these high-crime neighborhoods?

HEATHER: It means that their voices are being ignored. You know, I don't blame the cops for backing off. Because if they're told by the most powerful segment of society, which is the media, the political class, the academics, that they're racist for enforcing quality of life laws. And when they encounter this virulent hatred in the streets now, they're human. And they're going to back off.

But there's another segment in the black community that is not represented on CNN or MSNBC. And these are the people that I hear every time I go to a police community meeting, in places like Harlem or central Brooklyn. These are the good, law-abiding, bourgeois citizens who beg the police to restore order, to clear the corners of the youths who are hanging out, fighting, smoking weed, to get the drug dealers off the streets, to get rid of the illegal vendors, to get the kids out of their lobby. And the irony that the cops face in today's racially charged world is that they cannot respond to those heartfelt requests for public order, without generating the racially disproportionate stop-and-arrest data that the Justice Department under a President Obama or an ACLU can use against them in the next racial profiling lawsuit.

DAVID: You know, one of the things that I admire you about you, Heather, is unlike many academics who sit up there and offer these theories, and they write these reports from these ivory towers. They're not at street level. They don't talk to street cops on the front lines. They don't talk to everyday citizens that have to live with this crime and violence. And you have done that. You go down to the street level. And most of these people are too afraid to do that sort of thing.

I want to thank you for the work that you continue to do on behalf of, not just the police, but on behalf of every law-abiding citizen in America who appreciates the rule of law and what it does to maintain some standard that we all want to live under inside these neighborhoods.

Again, Heather Mac Donald's book, The War On Cops, a must-read. And, Heather, thanks for joining me, and Merry Christmas.

HEATHER: Well, Sheriff, thank you so much. And I'd like to tell your listeners to pre-order your book, Cop Under Fire. I'm sure it's available on Amazon. And if not, they should just sign up as quickly as possible because it's a fantastic, elevating (inaudible) to American greatness.

DAVID: Well, Heather, thanks for that endorsement.

Coming up in the next segment, we're going to talk immigration. And that is, like I said, in the first 100 days, one of the things that this Congress, this new Congress is going to have to deal with, keeping in mind that the Constitution says that Congress has the enforcement and the -- is empowered to create immigration laws. The Congress. Not the president of the United States.

The president-elect, I should say, Donald Trump has made it very clear that he wants something done to finally fix this issue of immigration. But we'll talk about that again. The number is (888)727-2325. It's 888-727-BECK. You'll want to get in on that conversation. I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. I'm your host for today. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program. Thanks for joining us. Again, you can follow me during the week on Twitter @SheriffClarke. And that's C-L-A-R-K-E. Don't forget the E. And also at ThePeoplesSheriff@Patheos.com. That's my blog. And also don't forget, Cop Under Fire, my book coming out in March of 2017. You can preorder that now on Amazon. And I've been told you can order that at Barnes & Noble as well.

Call-in number, 888-727-BECK. (888)727-2325. We're going to talk about immigration. This is going to be one of the priorities of the Trump administration. He campaigned on it. On his thank-you tour, victory tour across the United States and some of the other states that he won, that he was not expected to win, he talked about it again. He's going to build a wall, folks.

We can talk some other day about who is going to pay for it and all that other stuff -- you know, the trimming on it. Going to build a wall.

It has to happen. Because any talk of immigration reform -- any talk of immigration reform has to start with sealing the border. It has to.

If you don't seal our porous southern border, mainly the southern one, it's not going to matter. Because you can deport all the people you want, even the criminal illegal aliens, which there are about 820,000 estimated -- you can deport them all you want. They're coming right back.

Some other aspects of immigration -- see, the problem, ladies and gentlemen, is we don't enforce the laws on the book. We talk comprehensive -- I don't know what that means anyway -- comprehensive immigration reform. But when we talk about immigration reform, we have immigration laws on the books that we will not enforce. So part of it is getting back to enforcing the laws as they are written. And if Congress and other constitutional authority thinks that we need to reform some of those, well, God bless them.

They can make all the laws they want. If the laws are not enforced by the United States Department of Justice, by the White House, you know how President Obama has obliterated our immigration laws. And it's not going to matter what kind of new immigration reform that they come up with.

So we have to lock down the border. This is a national security issue. If you're going to be a sovereign nation, which the United States is, then you have to have borders and you have to enforce those borders.

But there's no -- there's been no will. And, you know what, this -- this stuff transcends different administrations.

Republican presidents haven't had the will. Democrat presidents haven't had the will. Democrat-controlled congresses haven't had the will. Republican-controlled congresses haven't had the will. They've always turned this into a political issue. How can they use this into political leverage? How can we turn this into votes?

Instead of just enforcing the law. So there's this estimate that we have anywhere between, I don't know, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17 million people living illegally in the United States.

What do we do with those? We don't have the answer for that. But I know this much, as I indicated -- there are about 820,000 criminal illegals who have not been deported. We need to start there because that can happen immediately. What congress wants to do with the anywhere from 11 to 17 million illegal aliens in the United States, I'm going to leave it to Congress, the political issue. But let's get rid of the criminals.

And here's another thing, folks, I'm tired of the games being played with criminal illegal aliens where courts and others are saying, "Well, you know, it has to be a serious felony." And then other courts have thrown attempts to deport out because, "Well, that's not really a serious felony, like burglary." Yes, it is. It's a very serious felony. Because if you break into my house and I'm home, you're an intruder and I fear for my life -- I'm going to shoot -- I'm going to shoot you. That's how serious this is.

So what they're basically saying is, "Well, you can't use deadly force, Sheriff, if someone breaks into your home because that's not a serious felony." Yes, it is. I'm going to make sure it's clear to the perpetrator, it is very serious.

I don't think it's unreasonable -- I do not think it's unreasonable. If you are in somebody else's country, that you should adhere to all of their laws. You are a guest. And if you're in the country illegally, you're a trespasser. You should be able to deported, for disorderly conduct, for drunk driving. We've had courts throw out attempts to deport a criminal or illegal alien who has been arrested for drunk driving. Said it's not serious. That is -- yes, it is.

So we got to get rid of this notion of trying to parse things here. And, you know, pick nits.

Well, it's not -- no, you will obey all of our laws, civil and criminal. I don't think that's asking that much.

It would happen to you or I, if we were in somebody else's country. If you went to Mexico, they would look at you -- if you were arrested for drunk driving, "Well, it's not really serious." Oh, they would look at it differently.

One of the other reasons we have to lock down the border, to prevent and control the spread of infectious diseases.

Remember the flu epidemic a couple years ago? Do you remember some of the other epidemics that hit the United States? There was a fear about it, just a couple years ago. Ebola, remember that? That's why -- that's another reason you have to control your borders, to spread and prevent infectious diseases from becoming epidemic in your country. So it's a national security issue. There's health issues.

And like I said, if you're going to be a sovereign nation, you have to have borders, and you have to be willing to enforce those borders.

Now, coming up on the other side of this break -- because there's many facets to immigration reform. And I want to hear from you. 888-727-BECK. (888)727-2325.

One of the other important issues surrounding immigration is, what do we do with these sanctuary cities? These cities that are providing safe haven for not just people in the country illegally, but for criminal aliens as well. There are laws on the books that don't allow the local level to do this. But, again, we have not demonstrated that we have the will to enforce our immigration laws.

That's why we're up to now, you know, 17 million people in the country illegally. And it will get worse as time goes by.

Coming up on the other side, we're going to continue this conversation. I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. I'm your host today, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. I'll give you advanced notice, or maybe warning in some case. I'll be with you tomorrow, as well. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

Before we get back into this immigration issue -- and, again, the number is 888-727-BECK. That's 888-727-2325.

Let's go to the phones. Chris from Florida, you've been waiting for some time. Chris, welcome to the Glenn Beck Radio Program.

CALLER: Thank you, Sheriff. Good morning to you.

DAVID: Good morning to you, sir.

CALLER: I'd like to first just say, you know, I am a deputy out here in south Florida. And I'm a part of all law officers: Men, women, white, black, Hispanic. Just thank you for how strong you've gone to bat for us, to, you know, tell the public to at least have the facts come out before we're hung, judged, fired. You know, have all the facts come out in all the cases. Because as you've seen on TV, a lot of us have come back innocent on cases. And their lives and careers are ruined even because they did what they had to do. And I still back, like you say, if an officer does cross the line and does do wrong, well then he needs to -- he or she does need to face the consequences. But we just can't be judged right away. And I want to just thank you very much for everything you've done on that.

DAVID: Thank you, Chris. Thanks for the call.

You know, and that's a good segue into continuing this immigration issue. I want to thank Chris and everybody who puts on that uniform and goes out to protect and serve their community, puts their life on the line, puts themselves in harm's way. These people have families. They're spouses. And what they do for this country is incredible. It's been an honor, Chris, and it's been an honor to every law enforcement officer out there to be able to defend your character, your courage, your commitment, your sacrifice as you go about protecting and serving your community.

Now, here's why this is a segue with local law enforcement. One of the things I've thrown out there in terms of immigration reform is, we need a mechanism with which to deputize all local law enforcement officers to have immigration enforcement authority. Currently, they do not -- this is going to be a big issue because the local law enforcement officer comes across these individuals on a daily basis.

Let's be frank, ladies and gentlemen, immigration and customs enforcement don't have the bodies, they're not in these neighborhoods, they're not doing traffic stops, they're not investigating crimes where they're coming across these individuals. The local law enforcement officer does not have the authority currently to detain these people for potential -- for potentially being in the country illegally. They can notify ICE. We can notify them. But we can't hold them, unless ICE puts a detainer on.

So here's how this works: If I go and make a traffic stop -- I'm investigating a traffic violation. I'm not investigating whether this person is in the country illegally or not. And all of a sudden, you come across an individual with no driver's license. You come across an individual who has no identification and he or she can't even speak the English language, at least not fluently, it doesn't mean necessarily they're in the country illegally. But that is called a red flag.

So what we would do in that instance -- what I would do -- let me talk about what I would do. Don't forget, I've been doing this -- I'm in my 39th year. I never tell people I've seen it all because every time I start to believe that I have, I see something that I haven't seen before.

But I will say this about my 39 years in serving my community and wearing my community's uniform, I've seen a lot. So what we would do in that situation is you'd call a bilingual officer, someone who speaks Spanish. Say, come over and interpret. And you start asking a few questions: Where do you work? Where do you live?

You try to find known associates. So you're just asking some probing questions. You aren't doing any immigration enforcement. But you're allowed to ask those questions of a law enforcement officer. Because don't forget, you're going to write a citation, and the person has no identification. How do you know who this person is?

So what we would do is make some determination -- you may haul them in, on a summary arrest, because they don't have ID. So you take them in for fingerprints so you can identify them. So you can write the citation.

We are not enforcing immigration up to this point. Now, what we can do is notify immigration and customs enforcement and we can say, "We've got an individual here when we suspect may be in the country illegally. We don't have -- we still don't have the authority to detain them." Now, ICE gets to make that determination.

They'll ask a few questions. They'll do some initial digging. And they'll say, "We're going to put a detainer on that individual." Now the local jail has the authority to detain this person under that lawful detainer. Now, they don't have to.

Because the feds can't force -- the locals, the local law enforcement, local communities to enforce immigration, but I do in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I've been a part of a couple of those initiatives. Secure communities. We cooperate with ICE. We don't enforce immigration. We don't have the authority.

But I'll -- I'll detain. They're not doing California. That's why Kate Steinle is dead. You remember that case. The one that capitulated the immigration issue for Donald Trump.

That guy had been deported five or six times. Back in the country. In and out of jail. The sheriff of the San Francisco area wouldn't honor the detainers. So these guys go back on the street to commit crimes, to commit more crimes.

So we want to secure communities. I would hold -- I still hold them today. If ICE puts on a detainer, I hold that. Yeah, I get blasted politically in Milwaukee County. I don't care about that. I care about law-abiding citizens. I care about doing my job. Which is, what? To enforce the law.

So I cooperate with ICE. But I think it would go a long way if we would give deputize -- and ICE would have to do that. Federal government. Deputize local law enforcement so we could start asking these questions, looking at whether this person is in the country illegally or not. Currently, we can't do that.

I think it would go a long way. So, you know, there's many facets. But the sanctuary city deal, totally out of hand. San Francisco is one. There's many cities, all run by Democrats, liberal Democrats. What I mean by that, their mayors, their city councils, who make it clear, "We're going to provide a safe harbor, a safe haven for people who are in the country illegally." Guess what, there's a federal law that says you can't do that.

And I've talked about it. It's under 8USC1324, which in part contains criminal sanctions for any person who knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to or entered or remains in the United States, in violation of law, in attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection such alien in any place, including any building or in subsection. Four, encourages or induces an alien to come, enter, or reside in the United States.

That's what sanctuary cities are doing. They're saying, "Come here. We'll provide you safe haven." Safe haven.

Knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to or entry or residents, is or will be in violation of the law, engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, shall be fined and imprisoned for up to five or ten years -- five to ten years.

These sanctuary cities -- these mayors, these city councils who are proclaiming a sanctuary city, they are in violation of 8USC1324. But, folks, remember. Remember what I said: We don't have the will. We don't have the will -- this law is already in the books. Congress doesn't even have to add nothing to this. But where is the will? What about the rule of law?

I'll tell you right now, this happens on college campuses -- there's some university recently where the president said, "We're not going to enforce immigration in terms of -- of illegal aliens coming on to our campuses and enrolling in our schools. They're in violation of 8USC1324."

I'll tell you right now, the first university president, the first mayor, the first city council president that is prosecuted under 8USC1324, I'm telling you right now, within a year, these sanctuary cities would shut down.

It would serve as a deterrent. But they them their nose because they know there's no will on the part of the federal government, the United States Department of Justice, the attorney general of the United States. They know there's no will to enforce this.

See, this to me is the biggest aspect of any kind of immigration reform. You can come up, as I said, with all of the reform you want, you don't have the will to enforce it -- enforce the border, deport criminal illegal aliens and other persons that we learn are in the country illegally -- we're not talking about roundups. You can't round up 17 million people, but you can put things in place to discourage this.

We have to zero tolerance, zero tolerance at the federal level to enter into the United States illegally and set up residence. Zero tolerance. And when we do this, people will stop coming over. They'll stop crossing the borders. You don't have to round up and deport 17 million people.

When you force employers -- here's another aspect, when you force employers under E-Verify -- right now, E-Verify is voluntary. So the federal government sets up this program where employers can run these names through to see if the person is in the country legally before they employ them. But it's a voluntary system. You have to have it mandatory.

How do you? Well, when you find some business that in large numbers -- I'm not talking about one person that slipped through the net, that in large numbers are employing illegal aliens knowingly and they haven't checked with E-Verify, you hammer them. There are sanctions for that.

Once again, we come back to this -- we have plenty of laws on the books to fix this immigration issue, but we don't have the will.

So another thing that I would recommend is to make the E-Verify system mandatory. And like I said, well, how do you mandatory that employers are going to do it? Well, when you find out that they've employed somebody who is in the country illegally, massive fines. Massive fines. You don't have to arrest anybody. Massive fines for that company or corporation. This stuff would stop yesterday.

When the federal government sends the signal that we're not doing this anymore, we're not going to allow you to do it anymore, because we are a sovereign nation. Like I said, this is a national security issue. This is a domestic security issue. This is a public health issue.

We're going to continue this on the other side of the break. I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: Thanks for joining us. Thanks for staying with us today. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. We're talking immigration. Something the new Congress is going to have to take up and many facets that are involved and what it might look like. Let's go to the phones. Mike in Missouri, you're on the Glenn Beck Program. Mike, are you there?

CALLER: Hey, Sheriff, thanks for having me.

DAVID: My pleasure.

CALLER: You know, I just wanted to mention it. You kind of touched on it a little bit, because you keep talking about that we don't enforce the law. And I think the main thing it comes down to is accountability. And it's something that's not mentioned enough because there is no accountability.

But I think Trump's already demonstrated that he believes in a top-down leadership, you know, with an open door. And I don't think you can go to the cities themselves. But, you know, there's nothing to say that he can't lean on the governor which leans on the county seat, which, you know, maybe pulls in a senator from that district and goes to these cities and be like, "You know, this is what the deal is. And we're going to bring in -- I don't know the rule of law that you were discussing. I don't know if it would be like a U.S. Marshal that would enforce them or if the FBI would come in and enforce them.

But like you said, as soon as we get one person arrested or prosecuted for harboring an illegal, I think things will change. But there's no will because there's no accountability. No one comes to these local sheriffs or these local city mayors and says, "Hey, this is what you have to do, or you're going to have consequences." And no one holds anyone accountable anymore. And I think that's where the lack of will came from.

DAVID: Without a doubt. Mike, thanks for the call. Without a doubt, there's no will to enforce the law. But here's how you deal with sanctuary cities: Defund them. There is a mechanism. We might get into that coming up after the next break. We're going to continue this. 888-727-BECK.

Defunding sanctuary cities. There's a mechanism in place. Again, like I said, and Mike touched on it, we have what we need. There's no will to enforce it. I mean, like I said, these are national security issues, domestic security issues. You have public health implications involved in this sort of thing. They have to get their arms around this now.

I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program. Stay with us.

Featured Image: The Rio Grande flows along the U.S.-Mexico border on August 16, 2016 near Roma, Texas. Border security has become a main issue in the U.S. Presidential campaign, as Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump has promised to build a wall, at Mexico's expense to fortify the U.S.-Mexico border. (Photo by John Moore/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.