What the Hell Kind of Young Men Are We Raising in This Country?

The outspoken and fantastically fierce Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke filled in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program today, Tuesday, December 20.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 2 for answers to these questions:

• What diplomatic situation will President-elect Trump inherit?

• What the hell kind of young men are we raising in this country?

• Is there a rape culture on college campuses?

• How did the Univ. of Minnesota football coach make a bad play?

• Should President-elect Trump trust the CIA?

• Why must the TSA treat every American like a terror suspect?

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

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

DAVID: Welcome to the Glenn Beck Program. I am your host for today. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. The call-in number is 888-727-BECK. That's 888-727-2325, if you want to opine or get in on any of these conversations.

I'm going to do a little self-promoting starting this block. You can follow me on Twitter. And that's @SheriffClarke. C-L-A-R-K-E. I think you'll find that interesting. My tweets.

The liberal mainstream media likes to keep up with them and try to contort some of the things I say into something and try to destroy me with it. They have not been successful thus far. I don't think they will be. I think about what I'm doing before I put out a tweet. I never do it on impulse. And I always ask myself if I know it's going to be one of those cutting-edge tweets, I always say, "What can the liberal mainstream media do to turn this thing inside-out or upside-down or contort it into something I didn't say?" And that's why they haven't been successful, although they'll keep trying.

Also, you can follow me at my blog, and it's ThePeoplesSheriff@Patheos.com. And it's P-A-T-H-E-O-S.com. Also, I have a book coming out in March.

Cop Under Fire: Beyond the Hashtags of Race, Crime, and Politics For a Better America. You can preorder that book at Amazon.com. And also, my understanding, it's available at Barnes & Noble for preorder. But it's due to come out in March of 2017.

You know, I was looking again at this -- I talked about it a little bit before, earlier, I should say this terror attack in Turkey.

This is something that we should keep an eye on. Because this is not the first incident involving Turkey and Russia. It was a Russian ambassador that was shot and killed at some art exhibit or whatever in Turkey. And apparently, the early reports, the Russian ambassador was shot because of Russia's involvement in Syria.

This one here might -- this is one that President-elect Donald Trump is going to inherit, this situation. And here's why I say this is one that we really need to pay close attention to. If you recall, sometime last year -- it might have been earlier this year, a Russian fighter jet was shot down by the Turkish army. And Turkey had accused this fighter jet of violating their airspace. Killed a Russian fighter pilot. And all eyes were on Russia as to how they were going to handle this thing. And, you know, nothing drastic happened. But I'll tell you why this one here is important. Because Putin has to look at it this way, you know, how many more times is a Russian citizen or a Russian soldier going to be shot and killed and not have Putin or Russia do anything about it?

I mean, that would be -- after a while, it's going to be viewed as a sign of weakness. And that's what Putin has to think about. That's why I said it will be interesting to see what their response might be. Will Russia go to the UN and try to, you know, put together a coalition of support for some sort of action against Turkey, or will they act unilaterally?

They have the right to defend their sovereignty and defend their citizens. I know if that happened here in the United States, yeah, I guess the -- the preferable route is to, you know, go to the UN and do all that stuff.

But, you know, when it comes to the commander-in-chief of the United States, you know, we don't need -- he does not need permission from the world to defend American sovereignty, American interests, and American citizens. So that will be interesting to watch.

Here's what we're going to get into now: Again, the call-in number, 888-727-BECK. (888)727-2325.

Going to talk about rape on college campuses. This is an issue that exploded recently over the last couple of years. It was a dirty little secret that there was a problem with sexual assault on college campuses.

And what I want to specifically point to an incident that happened very recently. It involves the University of Minnesota and their football program. And the things I want to talk about is, what is the proper course of action for the university to take? I mean, some of this -- you know, some of the course of action is a no-brainer. But some of it is not. And I'll get into why that is.

But here's what happened: Five or -- ten of University of Minnesota football players were suspended from the team recently in the fallout of a student sexual assault.

This comes from the Star Tribune out of Minneapolis.

From the team in a fallout of a student's sexual assault allegation. And these ten students now face expulsion from schools -- from the school. They've been suspended from the football program.

It says four other players face a one-year suspension, and another could get probation, stemming from this September 2nd incident. So that's within the last couple of months.

The school discipline comes weeks after a criminal investigation resulted in no arrests or charges. Now, that's key. Okay. No arrests of these players were made. And it does not look like, according to the prosecutor who reviewed this thing -- it doesn't look like criminal charges will result.

But there's some twists here that you need to know about. This was a party, some football players had a party, and there was drinking. And there was a young lady there, and she claims that up to 12 of these players forced themselves -- sexually assaulted her in a bedroom, wherever this party was. I believe this party was off campus.

There was an underage recruit who was present. And he's one of the ones who is alleged to have had sex with this co-ed, this student.

So the university took this action and suspended these players. And some of them are going to be expelled from the school, or at least there's a process, and that has started, even though no criminal charges have been filed. Now, just because no criminal charges have been filed, it does not mean that the school shouldn't take action.

And oftentimes, you'll hear people say, "Well, you know, there was no crime committed, or nobody was arrested." It doesn't matter.

Here's the first thing I said to myself when I learned about this, "What the hell kind of young men are we raising in this country?"

Most men know what's right and what's not right as it relates to these sorts of things. This is not the first time this has happened. You know, let's be honest about this. You get a college campus environment, even if it's a dorm off campus, you get fraternities, you get these football players, you get alcohol, and they introduce women or a woman into this thing, and that is a recipe for disaster.

No good is going to come of that, ever. And these are just the ones that we hear about. How about the ones that we don't hear about? There was one that happened at Marquette University. It actually made the -- Marquette University in my hometown of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. But it did make the media sometime after where the campus security kind of dissuaded the woman from making an accusation against some basketball players of sexual assault. Something happened, and they talked her out of it. And later on, she had remorse and brought this up. And it hit the fan.

So you had a university who tried to squelch it. Here the university takes action. No criminal charges have been filed. No arrests have been made.

When we come back on the other side of the break, I want to get into some of the moving parts on this thing. We got to unpack this. Going to talk about some cases that have happened in the past and figure out, you know, what's the right course of action for the school to take?

I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in for Glenn Beck. This is the Glenn Beck Program. We'll see you on the other side of the break.

[break]

DAVID: Thanks for staying with us. I'm your host for today. This is the Glenn Beck Program. I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. Before we went to the break, we were talking about this issue of rape or rape allegations on college campuses. And I'm talking about the ones where you have these frat parties or you have these parties in general, and you have either athletes or frat members. And you start mixing in alcohol and girls, and sometimes it's a recipe for disaster.

And one of the questions I ask was, you know, what kind of young men we're raising that don't know -- they know. I shouldn't say they don't know. You got 12 women -- 12 men, I should say, are accused of having sex with this one woman at this University of Minnesota situation, 12 football players.

You know, we're not talking about the stranger sexual assaults, where someone is abducted and brutally raped. We're talking about these things that involve a party, alcohol, there was consent, it was consensual, it wasn't consensual. And these are very difficult to prosecute. They're very difficult to investigate as well for law enforcement. You know, it's a "he said, she said". You collect evidence. There's evidence that some sort of sexual activity occurred. You can determine that. But the consent issue is one that is not clear. And then that's very tough for the prosecutor as well. And what does the school do?

In this case, the University of Minnesota acted very quickly and suspended these players. Some of them are facing expulsion.

The coach at the time -- not at the time -- the football coach issued a statement after it was learned that ten of the players were suspended. And then the rest of the football team got in on this and then also boycotted and said they weren't going to play in the upcoming bowl game, the Holiday Bowl, which I think is December 27th in San Diego, California. That's when this thing broke on the sports news networks because they were threatening to boycott the bowl game, as if that, you know, mattered in this situation. But, anyway, the coach said he was never more proud of his players because they stuck together.

You know, the players had said, "We're going to boycott the bowl unless this suspension is lifted." Wrong answer.

Very wrong answer. The coach's response should have been, "I'm disappointed that the young men who were part of this program that I lead didn't do the right thing in this situation, didn't exercise discipline." That's what he should have said. He said he was never more proud for his players because they stuck together in this boycott.

You know, it's this kind of attitude that doesn't help these situations. This is not the most famous case where this situation occurred. I think the iconic case is the Duke lacrosse case. You may remember that. It was about ten years ago.

This comes from ESPNNews.com: Exactly ten years and six days before Duke and Yale met -- this was in lacrosse -- a black woman reported to police that three white Duke lacrosse players had raped her during a house party at which she had stripped.

So they brought her in to strip. Again, you know, I ask -- I'm not a Puritan or anything like that. But these are college-aged kids. Okay. They're going to do dumb stuff. I'm not naive to think that college kids don't party and there isn't booze involved and that sort of thing. But they bring this woman in to strip.

It says here, latent and long-standing tension in the city on campus around race, class, and gender, boil quickly to the surface. The district attorney made inflammatory statements that fueled an intense media firestorm.

The DEA at the time, the prosecutor, he was a grad of North Carolina. So you know he had no love for Duke, if you know anything about the rivalry.

Duke University, North Carolina University, the Tar Heels. About 8 miles separate the two schools. Very intense rivalries in their sports programs.

So it says here, with Duke lacrosse: The coach of the team was forced to resign. Their season was cancelled.

Over a year later, when the attorney general of North Carolina dropped the charges against the three players, he said, "We have no credible evidence that an attack occurred."

The DEA was later disbarred after he was found to have committed ethics violations in the case.

Remember I said he was a UNC grad. So he had no love lost for Duke.

It says here, ESPN's recent 30 for 30 documentary, Fantastic Lies, dissects how the media coverage and the prosecutorial misconduct had a profound effect on the families of the men accused.

So these men -- Duke lacrosse, they had to cancel their season.

Remember, there were some players who were not a part of this party. So the season was cancelled. The coach was fired. And then they find out later, no sexual assault occurred.

So you get this situation. You say, "How fast is too fast?"

And then you get the case of Penn State. A little different because you had underage men. The Coach Sandusky had young boys in the locker room when he was taking sexual liberties. It was brought to the attention -- or at least reported, brought to the attention of the late Joe Paterno who kind of said, "I don't really want anything to do -- I don't want to hear about that." So I ask the question -- and there's no straight answer: How fast is too fast? How slow is too slow to act?

And then you have the Baylor University situation, where the coach apologized for his role in a scandal that led to his firing. The coach, Art Briles, was removed as Baylor's head coach on May 26th after a university commission investigation found he was slow to act when confronted over the course of several years with accusations that multiple Bears players -- Baylor Bears, that's their nickname -- had sexually assaulted fellow students. Two of his former players have been convicted of sexual assault, while a third, a former star defensive end was indicted on a similar charge.

So he was slow to act. Duke may have been too fast to act. You have to suspend the season. Fire the coach. Instead of letting the investigation play itself out.

But the PR disaster for the school is, if you wait for the investigation, which is the prudent thing to do -- but it's also prudent to suspend the players pending the investigation. I think that's the sweet spot here. We'll get to the bottom of it. We won't get to the bottom of it right away. We won't get to the bottom of this before the Holiday Bowl. But who cares about the Holiday Bowl?

Don't release the names. The names are probably going to get out in public anyway, but the university shouldn't release the names. Don't expel them just yet. Suspend them and wait for the investigation and see what happens. It doesn't look like any criminal charges are going to result, but that doesn't mean that the school shouldn't take some sort of disciplinary action. It doesn't have to mean that a crime occurred, that anybody was arrested and charged.

It's not innocent until proven guilty. Not for the school, it's not. They have the right -- they have the need to take some sort of action, if for no other reason, to tell their alumni and their donors, here's how we deal with this sort of unwanted behavior at this university. We have values here that we're going to uphold. And you also send a message to your current students and future recruitees -- remember, there was an underage recruit at this party who had sex with this woman.

But you got to send a message, this sort of behavior is not going to go on -- this abhorrent behavior is not going to go on at this university. So there is a sweet spot. And these schools need to work hard to find it. You don't always land on the sweet spot, but if you get close, you're going to be okay. But this stuff -- and it's going to happen again. We will be sitting here at some point in time with another situation like this. But I think the message needs to be sent, you know, about proper behavior for young men everywhere. Not just on college campuses. I'm Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. This is the Glenn Beck Program. We have to take a break. And we'll talk to you on the other side of the break.

[break]

DAVID: Welcome back to the Glenn Beck Program. Let's see. Let's take a twist here -- turn into something else. I want to talk about this deal with the CIA and the president, the president-elect, that's been reported that there's some differences of opinion between the President-elect Donald Trump and the intelligence agencies within the United States federal government.

I think Donald Trump is right not to trust these intelligence agencies. They -- he's going to have to make that determination as time goes by. But I wouldn't trust what they're giving him, if I were him.

You know, I've studied the intelligence process, these intelligence agencies in my graduate decree program. I'm familiar with how they work. And I'll tell you what the CIA does not have: a stellar record. They miss a lot. They've missed a lot of -- for instance, the fall of the Berlin wall, they missed it. The breakup of the Soviet Union, they missed it.

This is an agency that came into being after the 1947 National Security Act, after the bombing at Pearl Harbor. And they were designed to do just what the name says: to develop intelligence and give recommendations to the president, keep him appraised of what's going on in world events. Who are the threats? What are their capabilities, and are they planning an attack? That's what they're supposed to do.

It's not a perfect world. I understand, for the CIA. But there's some things that they should not miss. They missed 9/11. There were red flags, but they missed it.

And so, you know, we'll see how that relationship works out in the end, between Donald Trump and the CIA and the National Security Agency and some of those other entities.

But came I came across a story that I found disturbing. And there are some parallels with what went on in this recent election between the Democrat candidate, Mrs. Bill Clinton, and the local media. I shouldn't say local media, the national media, where she was given, in some instances, questions to some of the debates. They were clearing stories with the campaign: Hey, we're putting this out -- a particular writer -- we're putting this story out. Is this okay? Are there any changes you want to make?

That stuff should not go on. You know, we can't trust the media anymore. But also, some of our institutions of government are corrupt as well.

So this article, it's from the Intercept, and it says the CIA's mop-up man, LA Times reporter cleared stories with the agency before publication.

A prominent national security reporter for the Los Angeles Times routinely submitted drafts and detailed summaries of his stories to CIA press handlers, prior to publication, according to documents obtained by the Intercept.

Email exchanges between the CIA public affairs officers and Ken Dilanian, now an Associated Press intelligence reporter who previously covered the CIA for the Times, showed that Dilanian enjoyed a close collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts to review prior to publication.

In at least one instance, the CIA reaction appears to have led to significant changes in the story, that was eventually published in the Times.

Quote, I'm working on a story about congressional oversight of drone strikes that could present a good opportunity for you guys, Dilanian wrote in one email exchange to a CIA press officer, explaining that he intended to report what would be reassuring to the public, about CIA drone strikes. In another after a series of back-and-forth emails about a pending story on CIA operations in Yemen, he sent a full draft of an unpublished report along with the subject line, does this look better?

It goes on to say that Dilanian's emails were included in hundreds of pages of documents that the CIA turned over in response to two FOIA -- and that's information -- when you want to obtain information on records within the federal government.

A request seeking records on the agency's interaction with reporters. The email exchanges with reporters for the AP, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other outlets were included. This guy left the Times to join the AP in May.

So it goes on to say, when he's clearing these stories with the CIA, does this look okay? So on and so forth.

Quote, it's one thing for you guys to say you killed three instead of 15, it's another for congressional aides from both parties to back you up.

Part of what the story could do, if you could help me bring it to fruition, is to quote congressional officials saying that great care is taken to avoid collateral damage and that the reports of widespread civilian casualties are simply wrong.

It goes on to say that on June 25th, the Times published this guy's story, which described thorough congressional review of the drone program and said legislative aides were allowed to watch high-quality video attacks and review intelligence used to justify each strike. Needless to say, the agency hadn't quibbled with Dilanian's description about one of these terrorist's deaths in a drone stroke.

It says here: Video provided by the CIA to congressional overseers show that he alone was killed. That claim was subsequently debunked. Some of those killed were very likely members of al-Qaeda. But six were local tribesmen, who Amnesty -- Amnesty International believed were only there as rescuers.

Another field report published around the same time -- this one by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism -- also reported follow-up drone strikes on civilians and rescue workers, attacks that constitute war crimes.

The emails also show that Dilanian shared his work with the CIA before it was published and invited the agency to request changes. It goes on to say, on another case, he sent the press office a draft story on May 4th, reporting that the US intelligence believed the Taliban was growing stronger in Afghanistan.

Guys, I'm about to file this, if anyone wants to weigh in.

So after they confront this guy on this, it says, reached by the Intercept for comment, Dilanian said the AP does not permit him to send stories to the CIA prior to publication. He acknowledged that it was a bad idea. I shouldn't have done it. And I wouldn't do it now, he says.

He was not sure if the Los Angeles Times -- that's who he was working for at the time -- rules allow reporters to send stories to sources prior to publication. But the Times' ethic guidelines state they clearly forbid the practice. We do not circulate printed or electronic copies of stories outside the newsroom before publication. In the event you would like to read back quotations or selected passages to a source to ensure accuracy, consult an editor before doing so.

So the Times' bureau chief, the national security editor said he had been unaware that Dilanian had sent drafts -- story drafts to the CIA and would not have allowed him to do it.

So this is why there's no trust in government. This is why Donald Trump shouldn't trust the CIA at this point. At the very least, I'd have what Reagan would say, trust, but verify.

The CIA press corps was colluding with this newspaper writer for positive coverage. So, in other words, we don't know what the CIA, which is steeped in secrecy, anyway, but we don't know what they're up to.

Now, I realize a lot of the things they're involved with involve secrets. But when they're fabricating stories, when they're getting it cleared -- when the writer is saying, "Hey, I'm trying to get you guys to look good," this is problematic. It is to me anyway.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke. I'm your host for today. This is the Glenn Beck Program. We got to take a break.

(OUT AT 9:46AM)

DAVID: Welcome back. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, your host today on the Glenn Beck Program.

I want to share with you a letter I received. I was cc'd on it from an individual. You know, we were talking about terror for a lot of this program. It's rearing its ugly head again. But this is relative to how we treat American citizens at airports. The TSA. And I realize these people are just following policy, but the policies don't make sense.

And the way they do this is they don't allow people to use discretion. And when you don't allow people to use discretion, you get what happened with this guy here. And I'll just read the letter.

He sent it to Congressman Cuellar. But he cc'd me on it and Representative Mike T. McCaul. He's from Texas.

It says: Dear congressman, in August 2016, my son and I underwent complete body searches at the Tweed Airport in Connecticut. When I inquired why we were both required to undergo such thorough searches, we were informed it was because my son had prescription allergy medicine in his carry-on luggage.

When I appealed this procedure, in the enclosed August 2016th letter to the TSA, I received a letter dated September 22nd, in which I was told that additional screening of the passenger and his or her property after screening medically necessary items may be required and may include a patdown.

The nonsensical and ineffective security procedure that I question while in the Navy, that I describe in my enclosed letter, appeared to be duplicated by the TSA. If the United States is to be protected, particularly from terrorist attacks, it needs to implement intelligent and effective security measures.

Here, here. I would second that. Back to the letter.

While TSA officials were patting down a war veteran and his son at a small airport in Connecticut, which made my son ask, "Dad, why were we searched like terrorists," the Department of Homeland Security was shutting down Operation Failax (phonetic) that was effective in apprehending scores of illegal immigrants and some 13,000 pounds of narcotics.

It is my hope that whoever President-elect Trump chooses to head the DHS and TSA will have the experience and common sense to stop harassing veterans, the elderly, and children, instead of taking steps to effectively deter terrorist threats, illegal immigration, and drug smuggling.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you are interested in critiquing the rationale and effectiveness of our country's security procedures.

And then not too long after that, I came across a story -- this is from Pix11.com. This woman -- I'll just read a part of it here.

A breast cancer patient said she felt violated and humiliated in a public TSA search at LA International Airport after two security agents put her through what she called an aggressive patdown.

It says here, she recently underwent some cancer procedure. And she's pulled to the side as she's going through the screening. And she said she brought some cream on that was part of her -- her prescription there. And she said she was wearing a wig because she lost her hair because of the cancer treatment.

And it said she told the agents what she's going through. She could not remove her shoes since she was not wearing socks and had an infection on her feet, a side effect of her treatment and chemotherapy. So they let her sit down and remove her shoes.

After 20 minutes of sitting there, because they were debating on how to proceed, I told them my feet were freezing. Also, a side effect from chemo. They refused to help me, she said.

Now, this is her rendition. I realize there's two sides of every story. But here's her experience.

And I'm sharing this with you because you probably have, if you are engaged in a lot of air travel, you probably have some other nightmarish experiences that you could share as well.

So it says here, after the TSA agent forcibly and aggressively put her hands down the back of her jeans, the agent explained that they'd have to apply pressure from head to toe, which presented another set of problems for this woman. She wears a wig and did not want them to remove it and had a lumpectomy medical port in her chest, which she did not want the agents to trust. I started crying, she said. It was overwhelming and horrific. I could not believe this was happening, she said.

So after the agent conducted the search, the supervisor arrived, and her bags were emptied. She was made to feel humiliated again after another agent joked about fake eyelashes. Blah, blah, blah, blah.

This is how we treat American citizens. This does not thwart airplane hijacking. This does not thwart terror. I'm not going to sit here and necessarily pin this on the agents who are just -- and they'll tell you this all the time. I've had my own experience. We're just doing our job. We're just following the rules.

See, what they need at TSA is a risk-based model instead of a follow-the-rules model. Suspecting every American traveler of being a terrorist is not a risk-based model. It's to follow the rules so that they can check the box and say, "Well, we checked everybody." That's not how you identify terrorists, by checking everybody. It slows down the process. It's very expensive.

I think TSA has a budget of about $5.9 billion. This is how we treat people? I'd be willing to bet that if somebody came through of Arab descent and had their headdress on and everything else, they would not be treated like this out of political correctness.

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

Featured Image: Head coach Tracy Claeys of the Minnesota Golden Gophers yells at an official against Rutgers Scarlet Knights in the fourth quarter at TCF Bank Stadium on October 22, 2016 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Minnesota defeated Rutgers 34-32.(Photo by Adam Bettcher/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.