Thomas Jefferson on Healthcare, Big Government, Marriage and Christianity

Several years ago, author and historian David Barton published a book about Thomas Jefferson. For four weeks it remained on the New York Times bestseller list before being pulled by the publisher. Why? Progressive liberals who didn't want the truth revealed about Thomas Jefferson complained heartily, scaring the publisher into thinking the book was full of nonsense.

Encouraged by Glenn to address every issue raised by those skeptics, David Barton has returned with The Jefferson Lies, an historically accurate account supported by original documents. This compelling and fact-based new book gives an account of Jefferson's beliefs on a variety of issues---including healthcare, big government, marriage and Christianity.

"I went through and listed 15 specific things Democrats are doing right now that Jefferson would go through the roof over," David Barton said Tuesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Not the least of which Jefferson had very clear opinions on healthcare and who should and shouldn't do healthcare. And the federal government was not to do it. It was to be in the states."

Jefferson's stance on the separation of church and state is also widely misused by liberals to undermine faith in public schools. Some even use it to mischaracterize Jefferson as an atheist. But his views on faith were clear:

No nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion, nor can it be. The Christian religion is the best religion that's been given to man, and I, as chief magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

Glenn praised Barton's new book, calling it a must-read for every American.

"The book is about Thomas Jefferson. And the book is called The Jefferson Lies. Everything the left has said about Thomas Jefferson that is an out-and-out distortion and lie, backed up with the facts," Glenn said.

David Barton will discuss The Jefferson Lies with Glenn tonight on TheBlaze TV at 5:00 ET.

Listen to a complimentary segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: I want to tell you a story about how truth in America gets squashed. And somebody who comes up off the rope and says, "Oh, really?" There was a book that came out about, three years ago. And some -- some liberal wannabe geniuses got together and decided that they had a way to get this book off the New York Times list and to get the book pulled off the shelves in America.

Believe it or not, pulled -- a New York Times best-seller, pulled from the shelves. Why? Because these liberal professors got together and scared the publisher and said, "This is -- these are all -- this just isn't even true." And they scared enough people to where it was pulled off the shelves.

I happen to know the author. And I happen to know the research the author does. And I called the author while this was going on, and I said, "What the hell is happening?" And he explained it to me.

And I said, "But I know you well enough to know and I know you have the actual documents to prove this and back this up."

He said, "Yes."

I said, "You know what you should do? You should take all of their concerns, all the things they said and you should add them to this book. And you should use the original documents that shut them down and then republish."

That's exactly what this author has done, and it is even stronger than it was before. And the reason why they wanted it pulled in the first place is not because the facts aren't right, is because this gentleman that he's talking about in this book is revolutionary. This book is about, if you don't take this guy down, you can't destroy America.

The book is about Thomas Jefferson. And the book is called The Jefferson Lies. Everything the left has said about Thomas Jefferson that is an out-and-out distortion and lie, backed up with the facts. The author is David Barton. And he's with us now. Hi, David.

DAVID: Hey, Glenn.

GLENN: I can't tell you how happy I am that you've published and put this out. Do you want to get into at all what happened before and what --

DAVID: I'll go where you want to. But I want to pile on what you said. Because people have to get rid of Jefferson on the left if this is going to work. And they've done such a good job that we've been hearing recently the calls for Jefferson to be taken off Mount Rushmore, for him to be taken off the nickel, for them to tear down the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC. The Democrats are saying, "No more Jefferson/Jackson HEP dinners. Jefferson has nothing to do with who we are."

GLENN: Andrew Jackson does.

DAVID: Andrew Jackson, that's a good guy to get rid of.

GLENN: Yeah, he's a good guy -- yeah, I would be for getting rid of Jackson.

DAVID: Absolutely.

GLENN: They will stand around and love Jackson, who was a horrible guy. But you got to torch Jefferson.

DAVID: Yep. You got to torch Jefferson. And, man, his ideas are so opposite to where they are today and where most folks in government are.

GLENN: When I was growing up. It was the Jefferson dinner. The Jefferson/Jackson dinner for the Democrats. And the Lincoln dinner. And they have now -- we still embrace Lincoln. But they are divorcing themselves from Jefferson. Let's go through some of the policies that you say are exactly the opposite, based on facts.

DAVID: Well, I went through and listed 15 specific things Democrats are doing right now that Jefferson would go through the roof over. Not the least of which Jefferson had very clear opinions on health care and who should and shouldn't do health care. And the federal government was not to do it. It was to be in the states. He has very clear --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Give me some examples on that, David.

DAVID: Let me read you a quote from Jefferson.

GLENN: Because you don't think of health care as something they even debated back then, but they debated abortion back then.

DAVID: That's right. All of these issues. Nothing new. Jefferson says -- here's what he said between the role of federal and state governments on health care. He said, the federal government is to certify with exact truth for every vessel sailing from a foreign port the state of health which prevails at the place from which she sails.

So if you're coming from overseas, you have to be healthy to come to America. But the state authorities are charged with the care of the public health. So health goes to the state level. It's not a federal thing. It's not one of the 15 enumerated powers. It goes to the states. So there's a role for the feds, only with the borders. Once it's inside the borders, everything inside the borders for health care belongs the states.

GLENN: Okay. Give me the next.

DAVID: Let's take -- debt. How about debt? That's a real easy one.

You know, it's -- so many things here to deal with. But let me take debt. Or even federal growth. Listen to this. Federal growth.

I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary. There are too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. The multiplication of government offices, the increase of expense beyond income, the growth of the public debt, these are all indications that we need a pruning knife in government. Small government.

GLENN: You say that he also is dead-set against what the Democrats are doing with the LGBT.

DAVID: Right. LGBT, he came out very clearly, and he said, the law of nature. Creator. Bible. And by the way, he actually introduced a bill that said that laws should be those that are recognized by the Bible. Marriage should be based on biblical recognition. So he said marriage has to be defined by what the Bible defines it as. That's the law that he introduced.

He also said that sexual relations were designed for procreation, not for entertainment. And, therefore, in that basis, that's how you define marriage, is procreation. So sexual relations was designed by the creator, throughout a law of nature for procreation. Anything that violates that, violates the laws of nature.

And he came up also on the issue of marriage and he said, "Taking from the states the moral rule of their citizens and interrogate to the federal government would break up the foundations of the union." You love it at the states, not the feds.

GLENN: Let's go to gun control.

DAVID: Gun control. He has that going tonight in the State of the Union.

GLENN: State of the Union.

DAVID: So let me just take the gun control. Here's what he told youth, young people. See if we get this from a Democrat.

A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the best species of exercise, I advise the gun. It gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

GLENN: Holy cow.

(laughter)

DAVID: That's for young people.

PAT: I think Barack Obama said that, what, three times last night.

DAVID: Yeah.

GLENN: So this is not necessarily what the book is about. The book is about the lies. Let's start with -- chapter number one is about Sally Hemings.

DAVID: Right.

PAT: That's the agonizing one.

GLENN: The number one thing people use to discredit, well, he had children with a slave.

PAT: Yeah.

DAVID: Back in November of 1998, that came out in the middle of the Clinton impeachments. And I was talking to a group of law students the other day at a law school. I said, how many of you have heard that Sally Hemings -- HEP that Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings? 98 percent of them raised their hands.

And I thought, that's interesting because here we are now 20-some-odd years later still saying this thing. Why would we say it now? Why does it matter, except to trash Jefferson?

Here's the problem with that. 221 news outlets ran with that story when it came. Six weeks later, the story was retracted. Only 11 news outlets carried the retraction. Now, why would they retract the story?

We actually called and talked to the DNA researcher who did it, Dr. Eugene Foster, talked to him twice. And he said, "Actually that's not what I showed them in my research. That's not what my research said." But the guy who did it, Joseph Ellis, was a defender of Clinton. Had just helped run a full-page ad in the New York Times defending Clinton from impeachment and said, this would really help him. Because if we can say Jefferson had a sexual tryst, then we can say what's the big deal with Clinton. So he comes out and he says --

GLENN: Unbelievable.

DAVID: You know, you would think that if -- if you want to check DNA, you would want to check Jefferson's DNA. They never checked Thomas Jefferson's DNA. They checked his uncle's DNA. Field Jefferson. There were 26 Jefferson males living at the time. They never checked Thomas Jefferson's. And that's why the researcher said, I told them it wasn't Thomas Jefferson's.

GLENN: No. Told them that it wasn't for sure Thomas Jefferson's, right? It's one in like --

PAT: One in 26.

DAVID: One in 26. What they can do -- to test DNA generations later, you have to test the white chromosome which remains the same in male descendants. So you have to have a male descendant. Thomas Jefferson had a son who died when he was one. He has no male descendents. There's no way of testing his DNA. They say, "Well, the Jefferson family, all the Jeffersons in the United States maybe." So they take an uncle of Jefferson, Field Jefferson is his name, they tested him and it was all based on the first child of Sally Hemings. I actually have the newspaper over there. 200 years ago, a guy named James D. Calendar wrote an article that said, Jefferson fathered Tom through Sally Hemings. And she called him Tom because his father was Thomas Jefferson.

And so for 200 years, that's what everybody said. Tom. Well, they tested the descendents of Thomas Woodson, and there's no Jefferson genes at all. Not any at all. Not Thomas'. Not Fields'. Not any of the 26. None.

GLENN: Wait. Wait. So the guy that they said was his son --

DAVID: And they've said it for 200 years.

GLENN: And the reason why they checked the DNA.

DAVID: Is because of this guy, Thomas.

GLENN: And they've checked his DNA, his descendants --

DAVID: His descendants. And there's zero.

PAT: So he's not even one of 26.

GLENN: So where did we get the one in 26?

DAVID: Well, Sally had five children, and the fourth child is shown to have some Jefferson genes. So it could be one of the 26.

Now, historically they have always said it was Thomas Jefferson's brother Randall HEP because he lived there at HEP Monte Chello. That's what everybody still says, is there was none in what was believed to be Thomas', but Randall HEP was believed to have an affair with Sally Hemings. And there is some Jefferson DNA in that fourth child, Eston HEP Hemings. So there's absolutely nothing that points to Jefferson.

By the way, after this was done and all this scandal broke and they recalled it and nobody talked about the recall, you know, they pulled the story, they got a whole bunch of research together. All these Ph.D. guys from Harvard and Kentucky University and Indiana. And they were guys that got together and said, we think Jefferson did it. And they looked at all the historical research and unanimously came back and said, we don't think Jefferson did it. Once you look at all the history, Jefferson didn't do it. That didn't make the news either. So it really has not helped the political agenda to exonerate Jefferson from 200-year-old charges that have been out there. But that's what the evidence has been. That's a lie about Jefferson.

GLENN: What was the case when the book was pulled that they said, "Well, you didn't address this -- how did you strengthen this case even more, David?

DAVID: Well, what we did -- it's interesting that when this thing was done. Thomas Nelson had the book, and they never even talked to me about it. They just pulled the book and never even told me they pulled it. I told them ahead of time, here are the professors that are going to come after you. Because these guys on the left have been doing this for a while. Here's two cases of research documents to show you everything that I say is documented historically. And when they come after you, you'll know it. Well, they never did anything. Came after them, they pulled the book.

GLENN: Cowards.

DAVID: So in this particular book, we never had to do anything to that particular lie because the academics didn't even touch it. They left it alone. They went after all the other things we said. So the seven lies we pulled out, even the academics were scared to touch that one because it's too well-documented. They'd much rather have people think that Jefferson is morally impugned than to have him exonerated. So they never even went after that lie.

GLENN: So let's take separation of church and state. Because this is so well-documented.

DAVID: Yeah.

GLENN: So well-documented. And we always go to, name the document.

DAVID: Yeah.

GLENN: But beyond that, in his letters and the things that you outline in the book, it is crystal clear, crystal clear that's not what -- it's not what he meant the way they're using it today.

DAVID: Well, see, they use it today as saying Jefferson is a secularist. A lot of writers say he's an atheist. And so they derive that because he wanted separation of church and state. Well, let's define it the way he did. And let's also look at his actions. So when you looked at the way he defined it, he did not want a state-established government church that was telling you what denomination to belong to. And that's what he made really clear. This is a denominational issue. We don't want what we had in England. Because in his state of Virginia, the Anglican church was the state-established church, and they literally persecuted the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Methodists. Threw them in jail. Killed them. Fined them. Whatever. He didn't like that. Was he a secularist? No. Not by a long shot.

The thing I love to point to is that when he gets -- he helps build the US capitol -- as Secretary of State under Jefferson -- under George Washington. 1795 is their building. They start having church services on the grounds of the US capitol every Sunday.

Then when he becomes vice president under John Adams, as vice president, they vote and they say, we want the largest building in the capitol, the brand-new building to be a church building. So Jefferson not only helps to enact that. He starts going to church there every Sunday. And as president for eight years, he goes to church there every Sunday. And I love the quote, let me just read you a quote that -- because somebody said, "Why do you go to the church at the capitol? Why is it that you're so faithful there?" And even his political opponents that were in the other party, talked about how that he never missed a church service at the capitol, even if it was raining, sleeting, snowing, whatever. He jumped on his horse and made it there. And asking him, "Why is it that you do this?" Here's his response.

I want to read the exact quote. Sorry here, guys.

GLENN: It's all right.

DAVID: Here's what he says. This is what he told the guy.

They were walking to the capitol church together. He says, no nation has ever yet existed or been governed without religion, nor can it be. The Christian religion is the best religion that's been given to man, and I, as chief magistrate of this nation, am bound to give it the sanction of my example.

There's no way I'm going to miss church. I have an example to show to the nation, and I'm going to make sure we have church here at the capitol. He starts church in the War Department and the Treasury Department every Sunday. So if you want to go to church in D.C., you can take the Capitol Building or the War Department or the Treasury Department.

GLENN: Jeez.

DAVID: While he's president of the United States, he sets aside on three occasions property so that it can be used to propagate the Gospel among Indians. Federal property. He approves -- I have it over here in the folder. The actual treaty with the Gascasi HEP Indians where he sends money so they can have priests, and he builds them a church in which they can worship. He directs the Secretary of War to give federal money to a religious school in Tennessee. He told a Christian school in Louisiana that it would enjoy the patronage of the government. I'm just going through the list of stuff he did.

GLENN: Jeez. At 5 o'clock today on the TV show, David is going to join me. He has all the documents.

DAVID: I have the documents.

GLENN: So he will show you. It's always great to watch David. He has the documents. How do you argue --

PAT: You can't.

GLENN: And he'll just take out the documents tonight, and he'll show them all to you. And you don't want to miss it. That's tonight, 5 o'clock. Only on TheBlaze TV. Back in just a second.

Featured Image: Screenshot from The Glenn Beck Program

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.