Thanks, Obama: Why Guest Host Sheriff David Clarke Was in a Bad Mood Today

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 1 for answers to these questions:

• What had Sheriff Clarke in a bad mood this morning?

• How did President Obama kick law enforcement in the teeth one last time?

• Why did Sheriff Clarke support Donald Trump?

• Will President Trump's first 100 days be peaceful?

• Is Nancy Pelosi a racist?

• How are Democrats like a colony of carpenter ants?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

DAVID: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not in a very good mood this morning. Welcome to the program. We'll get into that a little bit. It has nothing to do with the NFL Sunday that we completed yesterday. My team did win, the Dallas Cowboys. Been a life-long Cowboys fan. They made it interesting, but won nonetheless.

Let me start with an introduction: I'm your host for today, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. You may know me. You may not know me. It's irrelevant at this point. I'm the host today.

Let me take care of a couple of housekeeping measures first. This is the Glenn Beck Program. Glenn Beck is a brand. Glenn Beck has built this brand. He's worked hard at it. He's good at what he does. Every once in a while, he allows somebody to pilot the ship. I've done it before for him. It's an honor to be with you this morning and to be a part of this brand, the Glenn Beck Program. And I'm here to the protect the brand. But at the same time, as always, TheBlaze has given me the freedom to express my views, and they may differ from some of the things that Glenn says -- not many. They may differ from some of the things that you believe and espouse and so on and so forth. And that's okay.

I don't mind discourse. But I'm here to protect the brand. Not only to me, but it's important to Glenn as well, but there may be some times, some rocky moments. But I always remind the people tuning in, don't take it out on Glenn, please. Don't take it out on TheBlaze. Take it out on me. I have big shoulders. I get blamed for a lot of stuff. I get piled on a lot. It's kind of the environment I'm in. I don't whine about it. So if I say something that rubs you the wrong way or whatever, you feel like you want to call in and talk about it, the number is 888-727-BECK. That's 888-727-2325.

What's coming up on the program today? Well, first, we're going to start out with an election wrap-up. I know the election has been over since November 8th, November 9th. And -- but there's a lot going on still. Today's a big day. The electoral college meets. That's when they truly pick the president of the United States, by the Constitution, by the law, and that will happen sometime today. All 50 states will gather. Their electors. And they'll make that determination.

If we go by the states that were won on November 8th, Donald Trump should be elected, duly elected, president of the United States, by the electoral college. But, you know, we're in some weird times. And some goofy things have happened and some goofy things will continue to happen. People continue to try to work the electors of the electoral college. Going to talk about that in one of the segments down the road.

Also going to talk about immigration. That is going to be a big issue for this upcoming Congress, the new Congress that will be seated on January 20th as well.

And the first 100 days are always talked about. A president -- a new administration comes in. Even if the president is reelected and he starts another term, the first 100 days are important. They set the tone. The first 100 days is an opportunity, if you will, for the incoming president to set the stage, set the vision for the country, get some things going. It's very important they get off to a fast start. That's why they have this concept called the first 100 days. And I'll tell you what, it can make or break an administration. If you get bogged down, you will be that way, and you will struggle. So you've got to get out of the gate fast. Donald Trump plans to do just that, as he's putting his cabinet together. But immigration is one of those things this new Congress is going to have to take up.

It was one of the major platforms of the Trump campaign. Immigration reform. Closing the border. Building the wall. So on and so forth. There's some other things that he wants to address in that first 100 days as well, the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. So we'll talk about the immigration aspect of it because it's going to be big.

And there's many facets to that, as you may know. So I want to hear from you on that. Again, that number is 888-727-BECK. 888-727-2325.

Also, this first hour, we're going to talk about the opioid epidemic sweeping America. Folks, I want to tell you that this thing is touching everybody. It is a crisis. It's not getting all the attention -- it's getting some media attention. But it's not getting all the attention that I think it should be. Because we're talking about a generation now of people, specifically young people, who have been gripped by this opioid and heroin epidemic. And we'll talk about that.

Also, I'll be joined by Heather Mac Donald, author of The War on Cops. Heather is a researcher, a Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute. She's a contributing editor of the City Journal Magazine. She's written several books. Her latest one being The War on Cops. And we're going to talk about an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, how Donald Trump can change the rhetoric in the war on cops. So we'll be joined by her. And we'll have much, much more.

But here's where I want to start: This thing I opened up this program by saying I was not in a real good mood this morning. I learned over the weekend that President Obama in one final move, kicking law enforcement in the teeth by selecting an individual, Abu-Jamal. He's a cop killer. Actually, he didn't appoint Abu-Jamal. But Abu-Jamal is a cop killer, 1981, he killed Danny Faulkner in Philadelphia, a police officer who was 25 years old.

Abu-Jamal was a Black Panther. And what happened was the officer, Faulkner, made a traffic stop. A scuffle ensued. Abu-Jamal's brother was scuffling with the law enforcement officer. Abu-Jamal saw it. He came over. He shot and killed Officer Faulkner. Officer Faulkner was found face up, bullets in his back. He shot him before he hit the ground, then stood over him, straddled him, and shot him in the forehead. Very famous case.

Abu-Jamal was convicted and sentenced to death. And then in a turn of events, he was granted a new trial because there was an error in the jury instructions on a death penalty. So they settled the case, giving him life in prison without parole.

Anyway, there was an attorney. Debo Adegbile. Debo Adegbile was an attorney for the NAACP, the legal defense fund. He was not representing Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal had competent counsel, but he entered a brief into the case -- a friend of the court, talking about Debo Adegbile.

Debo Adegbile is a straight-up cop hater and a black racialist. Several times President Obama tried to jam Debo Adegbile down our throats, first by nominating him to be a federal judge and then tried to nominate him -- both of these required US Senate confirmation. He tried to nominate him to head the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice.

Now, keep in mind, Debo Adegbile is a straight-up cop hater. He's not a good fit to lead the civil rights division of the United States Department of Justice. He's also not a good fit to be a federal judge.

Because like I said, he's a black racialist. He sees everything through the lens of race. Thinks all whites are racist. The Senate struck down his -- his judgeship. And then he withdrew -- Adegbile withdrew his name from consideration for the US DOJ Civil Rights Division post because he wasn't going to be confirmed.

Well, in one last move, President Obama put this individual -- I got to be careful here. But I said I'm not in a good mood today. But he put him on the US DOJ Civil Rights Division, in an appointment that's going to last six years. A kick in the teeth to every law enforcement officer in the country.

This is who Barack Obama is. Barack Obama is also a straight-up cop hater. I've said that before. I've said that on TV, nationally. And people would ask, "Do you really believe that President Obama is a cop hater?" And I'd look them right back in the eye and go, "Yes, I do, and I can prove it." And I'd go on to state these instances. This is just one. But you remember the Cambridge, Massachusetts, case, where a friend of Obama's was arrested by Cambridge Police. And Obama said the police officers academy stupidly in arresting his friend.

No, they didn't. They were doing their job. That started it.

Obama was also very intricate in starting the war on cops. So we'll see how this goes. I think incoming US attorney Jeff Sessions would do well to find a spot, if they can't stop this move -- to find some spot in some corner office and have Debo Adegbile counting paper clips. That's kind of what needs to happen. We're going to take a break. On the other side, we're going to come back, and we're going to talk some post-election wrap-up. I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Radio Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the program. I'm your host for today. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

I'm here with you tomorrow too. I don't know if that's going to be good or bad news for you. Joined us today, I think it will be good news. But I'll let you know as well. Two days, so I can get some stuff going here.

Let me do a little self-promoting before I get into the first topic, which is going to be some post election results.

You can follow me on Twitter @SheriffClarke. And that's C-L-A-R-K-E. Don't forget the e, otherwise, you might get some other Twitter handle. And you'll look, and you'll say, "What the heck is this?" That's the good stuff, folks. That's the stuff the national -- the liberal media pays attention to. And they look every time I put out a tweet to try to contort it into something I did not say. But that's okay.

But it's @SheriffClarke. C-L-A-R-K-E. I also have a blog. You can follow me on my blog, and it's ThePeoplesSheriff@Patheos.com. Patheos is P-A-T-H-E-O-S. And I also have a book coming out. My first book is going to be coming out in March of 2017. But you can preorder it now at Amazon, or you can go to Barnes & Noble and get your preorder in.

What's this book about? It's called Cop Under Fire. As you may know, we've become an increasingly divided and polarized nation in recent years, growing racial tension. You have animosity toward law enforcement professionals. Government corruption and disregard for our constitutional process. There's no easy answers to these. This book is not just going to be a recitation of things that are problematic in America. I don't say wrong in America. We have some problems. We have some issues. But it's not going to be the same, you know, here are the issues facing America. But what I try to do is take those things that deeply affect us, and I point out in this book, Cop Under Fire, how we can rise above these current troubles and these issues and we can truly become that great nation in pursuit of liberty and justice from all. So, again, that's Cop Under Fire at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. You can preorder that, in you have a law enforcement friend, if you have a law enforcement officer retired or current in your family. It's going to be a must read if you -- even citizens in general. It's going to be a fascinating book, not just because I wrote it. But it comes from the heart. And anybody that has listened to me over the last, I don't know, three, four, five, years, you know, I speak from the heart. I don't pull any punches. I don't hold anything back. I just tell you the way I see it. Am I right on everything? Of course not. Do I have all the answers? Not hardly.

However, I put it to you straight. Straight talk is what you're going to get from me. Unvarnished. And I offer some things that are food for thought for a way forward.

Now, let's get into this post election, presidential election. 2016. Happened on November 8th. A lot has been said about it. Much has been talked about, but you haven't heard my perspective on this thing.

We may differ a little bit on some of the things here, but like I said, I don't shy away from that. I believe discourse, differing points of view, different schools of thought, I believe that stuff is healthy in a democracy. We should be able to politely disagree. Some spirited discourse back and forth. Nothing wrong with that. I love that. Like I said, I think it's healthy in a democracy. And it shouldn't denigrate into the name-calling and some of the other things that it does when people differ with somebody else's views. Let's just have educated conversation and skip all the other stuff. You know, I mean, if you say something -- for instance, if somebody has different views on gay marriage, all of a sudden you're a homophobe. You know, if you believe that the United States is a Judeo-Christian nation -- not to the exclusion of any other religion. Did not say that. But if you believe that the principles that this country are founded on were Judeo-Christian, if you believe that, then you're an Islamophobe. Right? That's what it denigrates into.

And you can go on and on and on. You're a racist if you believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, the Founding Fathers, the history of this nation, you're a racist. And that's what everything seems to end up -- where everything seems to end up, and it's very unfortunate. Because like I said, you know, with critical thought, we truly can move this nation forward and become this shining city on the hill that I believe we already are. But we've gotten away from some concepts that have grounded this nation and led it to be that shining city on a hill. But if we just allow people to shut down people we don't agree with, it's not going to be very good.

But, you know, the post election, I look back -- and I supported Donald Trump for president of the United States. I supported him after the primary. I stayed out of endorsing anybody in the primary, Republican primary, I'm talking about. First of all, I'm not a member of the Republican Party. I'm not a member of the Democrat Party.

I run as a Democrat. Sheriff in Milwaukee County. I'm elected as a Democrat. But I don't belong to a political party. I don't believe in belonging to a political party. If you do, that's your business. I don't care what your politics are. It's neither here nor there. But that's why I didn't endorse anybody in the Republican Party. I wanted the people -- we, the people, the members of that party to select a candidate. So I stayed out of the way. I had numerous candidates ask me to endorse them during the primary. I stayed out of it. I made it clear. I'm keeping my powder dry. But I made this clear to whoever comes out of this process as the nominee for the Republican Party, I will back and I will back 100 percent.

Folks, I'm a man of my word. And when I say something, you can take it to the bank. So Donald Trump obviously was the victor. And he came back around to me and asked for support. And I said to him, "Mr. President -- he wasn't president at the time. I said, "Mr. Trump, I don't know what I can do for you. But I made it clear I'd back whoever won. You are the winner. I will do everything I can. I will fight as hard as I can to help you become the 45th president of the United States. That's how I arrived at my decision.

And I just believe that after that process, the convention, which I spoke at -- that was an honor. I thought it was time for conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, some independents, to put all that stuff aside in the name of the country. That's what I did. And that's why I supported Donald Trump. I offered no apology. I'm just trying to tell you where I came from in that decision. But you look at what's happening now with this -- this whole process. Election is over. The election is over. We have a president-elect, his name is Donald Trump. He's putting his government together. He's putting his cabinet together.

And he needs our support, folks, for the country. All right? The left even today, with the electoral college, they don't want to believe that the election is over. But it is.

We need to take a break. On the other side, we'll continue this. This is Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: I'm your host today. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. Thanks for joining us.

You know, coming out of that election November 8th, there were many important aspects of why I got behind Donald Trump to become the 45th president of the United States. But I think at the end of the day, the Supreme Court. I believe that we'll get a strict constructionist, appointed by Donald Trump to replace Scalia. That was huge. If you believe in your gun rights, if you believe in the Constitution, if you believe in the rule of law -- the Supreme Court, that thing would have tilted hard left, and we would have been talking about a hard left United States Supreme Court for the next 30 to 40 years.

If you look at the age of the justices right now, the ones that Obama put up for Supreme Court justices, they're going to be around for a long, long time. Some of the ones who are getting to that point where they're starting to look -- you know, Kennedy, even Justice Thomas, a young man by age standards, but, you know, there comes a point, it's time for me to move on. Would you have wanted Mrs. Bill Clinton to appoint the next three to four Supreme Court justices? I mean, think about some of this stuff. Which is why I told people during the process -- you know, the conservatives, slash, Republicans, slash, some Libertarians, slash, some independents. I reminded them, "Put all that behind you, and look at what's at stake here." And many of you did.

But, you know, in looking at what's happening -- goes about putting his government together. He's made several cabinet appointments. I think very fine selections. But look at some of the stuff coming out of the mouth of the left on some of his cabinet selections.

You had Dr. Ben Carson, who was been nominated for Housing and Urban Development. Here's what Nancy Pelosi. The ink wasn't even dry on the memo, folks, the news release.

Ben Carson is a disconcerting and disturbingly unqualified choice to lead a department as complex and -- the country deserves a HUD secretary with the relevant experience to protect the rights of homeowners and renters, particularly low-income and minority communities and to ensure that everyone in our country can have access to safe and affordable housing without facing discrimination. There is no evidence, she said, that Dr. Carson brings the necessary credentials to hold a position.

DAVID: Take that quote I just read from Nancy Pelosi. Take Dr. Ben Carson out of that quote and insert Barack Obama in 2008. You could have said the same thing after the election of Barack Obama in 2008. Disturbingly unqualified. Disconcerting. Doesn't have the experience. No evidence that he brings the necessary credentials to hold a position with such immense responsibility and impact on families and communities across America.

That was Barack Obama in 2008. Folks, he was a freshman senator. He was a couple years removed from being a state senator in the state of Illinois. He was in a state legislature. And now he assumes the presidency because he won the election.

You may not have voted for him. But, you know what, he won the election. But had you had said this about Barack Obama in 2008, you would have been labeled a racist.

And, you know what, the entire liberal mainstream media would have come down on you like a ton of bricks. But no such accusation toward Nancy Pelosi from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post, CNN, MSNBC. No such claim that Nancy Pelosi is a racist for thinking that a neurosurgeon -- think about this, ladies and gentlemen. A guy who understands the working -- the intricate working of the human brain can't figure government out?

She's not qualified. Nancy Pelosi didn't even make this statement, or to judge the qualifications of Dr. Ben Carson. Then you have this guy from California, Democrat congressman who called on Ben Carson to withdraw his nomination as secretary of Housing and Urban Development because of his utter lack of qualification for the job.

Some two-bit congressman from California is going to stand in judgment of a neurosurgeon. You know the history of Ben Carson? Grew up in Detroit, in the ghetto of Detroit. Single mom who dropped out of the third grade, worked any job she could to raise her two sons as a single parent and successfully, she did this.

And they're saying Ben Carson doesn't understand urban issues? This is fascinating.

So we have that going on. We have the riots that ensued post November 8th. George Soros funded. Or at least purportedly. We spent millions on recounts.

One of those recounts was in the state of Wisconsin. $3.5 million Jill Stein paid for recounts in the state of Wisconsin. That works out, if you do the math, to about $21,000 a vote to recount. And guess what, Donald Trump ended up with more votes than he had on election night.

So this is the stuff going on. And now the Russians did it. It's the Russians' fault. Now they've glommed on to this because there's nothing else for them to look at, the media. And it's all the media. They're trying to stretch and make something -- fake news, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm not here to suggest that the Russians don't try to hack into cyber systems in the United States. The United States does the same thing. Remember the Stuxnet virus?

Had to do with Iran's nuclear capability. The United States did that. That's the kind of stuff that goes on. But I think it's an insult to the American people -- a total insult that we, the people didn't go out and vote for Donald Trump or that we were influenced by Russian hacking. I don't know if the Russians hacked into the -- I don't know. I mean, you're hearing stuff all across-the-board, right?

They did, they didn't. Who knows? Donald Trump was duly elected by the people of this country. It is time to put this nonsense aside because we have this thing that's very near and dear to this representative democracy, and it's called the peaceful transition of government, of administration. Peaceful. We did it in '08. People that didn't vote for Barack Obama did not take to the streets. They did not blame the Russians. They did not harass electors to the electoral college.

We sucked it up. We said, "Hey, he got elected. Time to move forward." It doesn't mean you can't oppose his policies and whatnot for the next four years. It doesn't mean you can't oppose -- or the left can't oppose and fight Donald Trump on trying to get his Make America Great Agenda happen. They can do that. That's what's great about this country. But to try to delegitimize it before he even takes office, folks, this is fascinating.

I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the Glenn Beck Program. I'm your host today. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. Again, the call-in number, (888)727-2325. It's 888-727-BECK. Talking about some post election news, some wrap-up in the November 8th election, today is a big day. Constitutionally, the electoral college meets. In all 50 states, electors will gather to cast their electoral votes. Some states, by law, that if -- if a particular individual won the state, they have to vote that way. Some states, it's a little more loose. I know in Colorado, the Democrats have gone to their state court to try to get them to overturn their law. This is how the left operates.

See, defeat is never final. They're still fighting the election. The Democrats. So they're trying to get a court to overturn the law that says the Colorado electors have to vote for particular individuals.

This is amazing.

You know, you heard me talk about the criticism of Donald Trump's cabinet, of which I have none by the way. Zero. But here's another one, this is from the Mercury News: Trump's White House, how white will it be? So far, all five of Trump's first picks for key White House advisory cabinet posts have been white men, several of whom who have been accused of being racist or anti-Muslim.

First of all, if you're on the right, by their standards, we're all anti-Muslim and we're all racist, including me. I mean, that's what -- that's how they look at us. That's how they view us. So that means nothing to me.

But check out these first couple of paragraphs here. From the moment Donald Trump first uttered his slogan about making America great again, his critics countered that what he really wanted was to return to an era when white man ran the ship of state.

It goes on to say that so far, the president-elect is doing little to dispel their fears. Trump's first five picks for key posts are all white males, several of whom are causing chills to run down the spines of several Libertarians.

Let me stop there for a minute. Has anybody asked themselves what the people on the left, liberals, Democrats, have against white people?

I know I don't. I don't have anything against white people. You noticed when I talked about Ben Carson, I didn't call him a black neurosurgeon. I call him a neurosurgeon. I don't view everything through the prism of race. Every once in a while, from time to time, you'll hear me refer to myself as a black conservative. But that's not to point out my race. It's to point out how and why the left reviles me. Because, it's bad enough -- if you're on the left, it's bad enough to be a conservative, but if you're a black conservative, you're a conservative of the worst type, the worst kind.

I remember when Jeff Sessions was announced to be the nominee for the next attorney general. Again, before the ink was dry on the Trump transition news release, Senator Elizabeth Warren demanded that Trump withdraw the nomination. I mean, it was -- it was within the first five minutes of the announcement.

This is what we're going to be up against, for four years. Because remember for Democrats, defeat is never final. The fight is never over. Never over. That's why I've likened them to being a colony of carpenter rats.

Put "carpenter rats" in your favorite search engine, and look at some of the stuff -- they're amazing -- they're amazing species. They constantly just build the nest. That's all they do, continually. You can't get rid of them. You can call an exterminator. You may temporarily slow them down. But then they move on and build a new nest. That's how the Democrats operate. It's never over.

So the electoral college meets today. You have these people in the electoral college being harassed.

Folks, that is a violation of federal law.

And it's 18USCS594 (phonetic), it says, "Whoever intimidates, threatens, coerces, or attempts to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person who is voting for president, vice president, or presidential elector, shall be fined or imprisoned for one year or both." Where is the DOJ investigation because if this happened in 2008, there would be an investigation started? Where's the FBI?

The campaign is over. You cannot coerce. You cannot threaten. You cannot intimidate presidential electors. But it's going on -- Obama hasn't said anything about it. Loretta Lynch hasn't said anything about it. And Comey hasn't said anything about it.

This is fascinating. Just -- you know, rewind back to 2008. If this same thing were happening, you know there would be screams by the left for investigations of prosecutions and imprisonment. I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. Coming up on the other side of the hour, we're going to talk to Heather Mac Donald.

Featured Image: Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke (L) exits elevators after meetings with President-elect Donald Trump November 28, 2016 at the Trump Tower in New York. (Photo Credit: EDUARDO MUNOZ ALVAREZ/AFP/Getty Images)

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.