Glenn Beck: Brian Jennings - March to Socialsim

 


Author Brian Jennings | Buy Book


VOICE:  The Glenn Beck program presents more truth behind America's march to socialism. 

GLENN:  All right, look.  You can't just walk higgledy-piggledy into a socialist state or a fascist state where the government is -- and I know fascism is crazy.  I know, I know.  You know, that would imply that, you know, our president would be firing people, you know, CEOs.  It would be taking over companies.  It would be giving -- a fascist state, what would they do?  They would give giant corporations over to the people, to the workers.  I know that's crazy 55% of Chrysler went to the UAW.  I know, it's nuts.  But let's just say that that kind of activity were going on but in a friendly way.  You would have to minimalize the impact anyone against you would have.  First you would try scare tactics, you would try racist, hate monger.  You would shout anything you could to get them to cower, but there would be a few that would still say, you know what, I don't care about you.  There would still be a few that would be smart enough to be able to defend themselves against ridiculous charges, and as the country was just about to go to sleep from the hypnosis of an administration, there would be a few that would stand up and say, "Listen up.  Wake up, wake up, wake up."  Those people would be successful in waking people up, unless the fascist administration could find a way to silence those voices.  They tried everything else.  How could they do it?  Well, you couldn't convince a people that loved freedom to go in and have something called the Fairness Doctrine to shut down freedom of speech because the majority of people understand that the media isn't telling them the truth.  So there would have to be another plan.  What it would be?  There's several.  There's a new book out, censor ship:  The Threat to Silence Talk Radio.  It's not by some guy who doesn't know radio, not written by some guy who's just some schlub.  It's written by Brian Jennings.  You may not know who Brian Jennings is but people in radio know who Brian Jennings is.  Brian Jennings was a guy who oversaw all of it for Citadel Broadcasting which, Citadel is now ABC.  He's now released this book, Censorship:  The Threat to Silence Talk Radio.  Brian, welcome to the program, sir.  How are you? 

JENNINGS:  Glenn, thank you so much.  It's good to talk to you. 

GLENN:  Okay.  So Brian, I find it absolutely incredible what is happening behind the scenes.  I said a few months ago don't pay any attention to the Fairness Doctrine, they are going to come at this from a different angle entirely.  And the angle that I predicted but you have even more is localism. 

JENNINGS:  Absolutely. 

GLENN:  Let's start on localism, where it is right now and what's coming our way. 

JENNINGS:  Localism is a vague, vague rule within the FCC, Glenn.  What it is, is a force of the media to go to local programming and to require local programming in communities.  Now, requirement again, government regulating speech by requiring something called localism?  It's absolutely crazy that government would even have a whiff of regulating speech in America and that's what this is all about.  But under the banner of localism comes community advisory programming boards for radio stations. 

GLENN:  Listen to this, America.  This is important.  Listen to this. 

JENNINGS:  The FCC in January 2008 issued a 97-page report, rule-making report in which they eight times mentioned they would like to install, mandate programming advisory boards for every radio station in America.  And what that means is this group would have oversight over the Glenn Beck show and every radio station in America.  This group, organized by the community organizer himself, Mr. Obama, would be made up of far left liberal groups like ACORN, like radical Islamists.  They could go in and if you didn't match up to what they wanted to hear on that radio station, they could go in and complain to the FCC, you would be subject to potential fines and license revocation.  They could then reassign those licenses, broadcast licenses to other groups and those other groups would, guess what, force liberal programming onto conservative radio stations. 

GLENN:  Okay. 

JENNINGS:  Simple as that. 

GLENN:  Two things, two things.  First of all, Brian, I think -- and I know you, so I don't think you did this intentionally but it's really a big pet peeve of mine.  It drives me crazy when -- and I do it sometimes by myself without thinking, when people call President Obama Mr. Obama.  We all complain when we would call him Mr. Bush instead of President Bush.  And I know you didn't do that intentionally. 

JENNINGS:  Absolutely. 

GLENN:  The other thing is how much local programming is required from television stations, local television stations?  What is the percentage of programming data that must be local? 

JENNINGS:  Very minimal.  Two, three, four, five percent maximum, it all comes in their news broadcasts. 

GLENN:  Which is an hour, and maybe they are required to do some in the morning which, if you have a local morning show, most likely that's enough to cover the same minimums that television is required. 

JENNINGS:  Without a question, Glenn.  Without any question. 

GLENN:  So the FCC would be saying local television has to have this but local radio has to have more.  So it would tip their hand and show what their real intent is.  Do we know how these people would be chosen to be on this local advisory board? 

JENNINGS:  No, that's really interesting.  The language in this FCC report suggests should they be elected?  They asked that question.  Or should they be appointed?  They don't know.  The FCC is leaving this wide open for interpretation, and they're going to work at language right now trying to determine how they will mandate these boards.  It is just an incredible situation that in 2009 we're talking about regulating speech on American airwaves.  Argentina is looking to roll back this exact same thing.  Are we going to go down that route?  Come on. 

GLENN:  So Brian, so we have localism, which is the way I saw it coming.  But then there's also the new licensing rules.  They want to --

GLENN:  Yes. 

JENNINGS:  Yes. 

GLENN:  Right now how long do the licenses last?  Seven years? 

JENNINGS:  Eight years. 

GLENN:  Eight years.  So a radio station let's their license.  Every eight years they have to go back to the FCC and they have to say, hey, we want our license renewed.  So it gives you an eight-year period to do business. 

JENNINGS:  That's correct. 

GLENN:  They want to reduce that to how long? 

JENNINGS:  There are proposals out there for every two years and three years. 

GLENN:  Which, America, try to -- put yourself as a small business owner.  Imagine that you have to go back to anybody to get your license every two years and you are doing political commentary.  Is there any way into two-year period you would take any risks, you would have any kind of risky speech because the memory doesn't have to be that long and you're dealing with politics.  How does that affect, Brian? 

JENNINGS:  Well, Glenn, this whole effort is about one thing.  They, the far left, want to destroy conservative values in America.  And they know that if they can destroy conservative talk in America, the minority, the only equal balance to all other media, then they have no opposition to their agenda.  And this is exactly what that's about.  They want to destroy conservative values in America, like Charles Schumer, the senator from New York says those traditional values, all that's over and that's what this is about. 

GLENN:  They also are working on something now on diversity.  Explain the diversity laws. 

JENNINGS:  As a matter of fact, today the FCC is meeting and for the first time they're going into what they call diversity of ownership of radio stations across America and they want to force more owners, minority owners, female owners, which is fine, but the way they want to do that is to mandate it and take licenses, broadcast licenses away from current owners.  It's a land grab.  Eminent domain:  Give those to the minorities and then force liberal programming into American airwaves that way.  It's an absolute regulation that purely is aimed at censorship of the conservative voice. 

GLENN:  And this starts today? 

JENNINGS:  This starts today.  And on the board that they have, 31 groups they've invited to this meeting, none of them are conservative, Glenn, none. 

GLENN:  Who are the groups?  Can you give me some of them? 

JENNINGS:  BET, entertainment television, the CB black Entertainment Television network, many, many Hispanic organizations and others. 

GLENN:  Okay.  Brian, again the name of the book is Censorship:  The Threat to Silence Talk Radio.  Brian, is there any doubt in your mind that these kinds of tactics -- that this is not, this is not -- you know, you are just trying to drum up business to sell a book, you are not trying -- this is not scare tactics to get Republicans elected.  Is there any doubt in your mind that if people don't wake up and stand up and protect the right of voices on radio, both left and right, that these voices will be lost? 

JENNINGS:  Glenn, I'm absolutely convinced that the FCC and Democrats want to reregulate conservative speech in America.  I have no question about that.  I've been accused of being paranoid.  Well, guess what, I'm paranoid because Nancy Pelosi won't allow a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act on the house floor.  She stood in front of it for two years.  She's brought this on herself.  If she would allow a vote on that, it would get rid of any Fairness Doctrine forever in America, but she won't do it.  It's incredible. 

GLENN:  Brian, how long do you think we have before this really starts to impact radio? 

JENNINGS:  The FCC will have a 3/2 Democrat majority, Glenn, in the next 90 days when they seat their new chairman, Julius Genachowski.  When that happens you can expect the FCC with all five members to go into full motion at that point.  All these rules and regulations have been stacked up in language for years.  They have a real sense of urgency to get something done now. 

GLENN:  Do you think it's going to happen as quickly as everything has happened here in the last 90 days, last 100 days? 

JENNINGS:  Absolutely, I think it's right underneath our nose and that's the mantra of this administration, get it done before people know. 

GLENN:  Anything that Americans can do?  What do they do? 

JENNINGS:  There is a website.  It's called censorshipbook.  But on that website there is a link to a petition.  The Media Research Center put it together.  They are a great group out of Washington D.C., and it will link you right to that petition.  It's our best way to speak because we don't even have a filibuster to rely on now in congress, and I would hope that everybody would sign this and just speak as loudly as we can. 

GLENN:  You know, Brian, let me ask you this.  Again I'm talking to Brian Jennings.  He is the former vice president of Citadel Broadcasting.  That is ABC radio.  You know, I mean, everybody knows the size of ABC.  This guy, you don't know him but everybody in radio knows him.  A serious broadcaster, been in for a very long time, concerned as every broadcaster, whether they will tell you this on air or not, if you know anyone in the broadcast industry, especially radio, they will tell you that radio is in dire, dire trouble.  You are going to lose the ability to say what you believe on radio, and the only reason why radio does so well, talk radio is huge in advertising.  It is huge in listenership.  It is such an impact because the people, generally speaking, that are on the radio, at least nationally own their own show or at least they are part of it.  I know Rush Limbaugh and I, we own our show.  So this is -- I only answer to me.  No other business allows that to happen.  And so there is no other filter.  There is one filter between you and me and that is the call screener.  That's it.  There's nothing else like this and that's why it is so dangerous and that's why it's in so much jeopardy.

Brian, the average person, what do you think happens if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity's voices just disappear because there's new censorship?  What happens to the -- what is it, about 60 million people total that listen to talk radio?  I mean, what happens to those? 

JENNINGS:  Absolutely, Glenn, 60 million people in America that listen to talk radio.  This is about -- if they take free speech rights away, marginalize them in any way, shape or form, we lose all other freedoms because all other freedoms hinge on your right to speak freely. 

GLENN:  But what I'm asking you is this is the thing that I think puts them in check.  The administration would have to understand that the people who listen to talk radio, no matter what they want to believe, are not hapless, stupid people.  They are very, very bright.  I know my audience is generally speaking, four-year education.  The next in line, I believe, is a six-year education, you know, on top of regular high school.  The average salary I think is $100,000 a year.  These are movers, shakers, entrepreneurs, very, very bright people that listen and they're not community organizers, they are not activists, they are not get on the bus because somebody called and said you've got to get on this bus on Saturday and we'll pay you $5.  These people take charge of their own life.  When they think that their voice or the people, the voices that they trust are being marginalized and taken out and taken away, what do those people then do?  I think they go crazy. 

JENNINGS:  Yeah, the only thing -- well, they haven't seen a tea party yet, you know? 

GLENN:  Are you kidding me?  You want a million man march, that's --

JENNINGS:  Absolutely. 

GLENN:  That's what it would be. 

JENNINGS:  Well, with pitchforks in hand, Glenn.  I think that it is well to speak up now and try to prevent any of this going on with the FCC because they are punch drunk with power and this has been a platform the Democrats have had ever since the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, they have tried numerous times to reinstate it and they've all failed fortunately because of voices such as yours which have prevented it.  We have to speak up loudly now because it's imminent and I's very scary in America to think that we're on the edge of tyranny.  We really are. 

GLENN:  The name of the book is Censorship:  The Threat to Silence Talk Radio by Brian Jennings, and the website is censorshipbook.com. 

JENNINGS:  Glenn, thank you. 

GLENN:  You bet.  We'll talk to you again.

Stu, you've been in broad -- when did you get in?  Was the first job with radio was with me? 

STU:  Yeah. 

GLENN:  Okay.  So you've only seen the late Nineties? 

STU:  Uh-huh. 

GLENN:  What is the -- because I was in radio when the Fairness Doctrine happened.  I was there.  I saw it before, I saw it after.  I saw it with all the regulation.  You wouldn't believe the kind of stuff that we used to have, and it's not anything like that.  You think this stuff is real, now that you -- you've only seen this freedom.  You think this stuff is real? 

STU:  I think that -- I don't think they are going to come back with the straight Fairness Doctrine but you are right, it's going to be these little drips and drabs, take a little piece with some diversity thing that sounds great and then another thing, a little piece with localism that sounds great and you take a little bit, piece here, there and everywhere and all of a sudden you have nothing left. 

GLENN:  Yeah, they are going to put these people out of business.  These are local radio stations, man.  They rely on your dollars, they really do.  And they rely -- may I say something?  I know I'm going to a commercial, but I mean this sincerely and I do all of my commercials as well:  Please buy from our sponsors.  Not if you don't need it and not if you don't find it a better value of what you're buying.  But if it is of value and you are interested in this, please buy from our sponsors.  Buy from the sponsors that you hear on other programs on this station because it's going to come down to putting these radio stations out of business.  They won't be able to afford to do it.

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.