Anita Calls to 'Set the Record Straight' on Trump

Anita called The Glenn Beck Program Monday for a fiery discussion on Donald Trump, hoping to show her support for the real estate mogul was based on issues rather than his authoritarian personality.

What was the main reason for Trump getting Anita's vote of confidence? His stance on protecting the border and everything that entails---from crime to job loss in America. Anita also expressed her belief that Glenn hadn't covered the border issue enough, but Glenn quickly countered with the facts.

"I was calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush based on what he was doing on the border," Glenn explained. "So I have a very long, long history on what I believe is happening on the border."

The discussion took a turn south when Anita got personal. She complained about co-host Stu personally attacking Trump and followed it up with several personal attacks on Stu. Huh? Complaints about personal attacks followed with personal attacks?

In addition to the border issue, the topics of Donald Trump's clothing, Stu's high school graduation, abortion, the Holy Spirit and gang rape came up.

"These are the kind of circular arguments that you get," Glenn said about discussions with many Donald Trump supporters.

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Laurie is in Delaware, and she's quite upset. And we want to lead with this. Hello, Laurie. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Yes, hi, Glenn. It's Anita. Thank you for taking my call.

GLENN: Oh, I'm sorry.

CALLER: That's okay. And I really want to start out -- the reason why I called was when you were talking about the people that like Trump because he's an authoritarian figure. And I just want to set the record straight on that, Glenn. Because I think you're fair. I think Stu is the ringleader of hating Trump, and everyone else has fallen into -- right in behind him like little soldiers.

PAT: That's us. Yes.

CALLER: However, what Trump is doing right now to Cruz saying that he isn't liked because he can't get along, that's total deception. Cruz actually honors the oath that he took when he was elected into office. He actually obeys our laws, and he does want to serve we, the people.

And the reason why I haven't crossed Trump off the list has nothing to do with him being an authoritarian figure. It had everything to do with the fact that 94-plus million legal citizens are jobless. We are living below poverty level. I don't think that it's fair for people to be here illegally, ignore our laws, which they can't do in other countries, commit a crime, gang rape people -- and Hannity went into great depth on a lot of those people -- and then they're able to flee to sanctuary cities. I don't agree with that.

GLENN: Hold on just a second.

CALLER: And I don't think you would agree with that.

PAT: Of course not.

GLENN: Hold on, Anita. Of course we don't agree with that. We never have agreed with that.

PAT: And we've been talking about this --

GLENN: Since George Bush was in office. Early on.

PAT: Longer than Donald Trump. That's for sure.

GLENN: Yeah, we've been on this --

CALLER: Honestly you haven't, Glenn. That's why I get so upset.

GLENN: Excuse me. Hold on just a second. I gave you a chance to talk. Give me a second, please. Let me finish what I was saying.

I was calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush based on what he was doing on the border. So I have a very long, long history on what I believe is happening on the border. None of us are against any of that.

The question is, how do you get it done? Are you going to follow the Constitution, or are you just going to use the pen and the phone, as Barack Obama says?

CALLER: But, Glenn, honestly, I always feel that you listen to the Holy Spirit. And I feel because Stu is such a ringleader of hating Trump and making it personal. That's how he started. He started with putting down Trump's clothing line, his hair, his businesses, his TV show. When Glenn, you're a business owner. You have a TV show. You're going to be making movies. You have a clothing line. You can't -- Trump over those things.

GLENN: Okay. I have no problem -- okay. Laurie -- or, Anita --

PAT: I don't remember Stu ever saying anything about a clothing line. I own one of his ties. I don't have a problem with the clothing line.

CALLER: I'm talking about Stu.

STU: What did I say about his clothing line?

CALLER: Stu, that's one of the first things you said! That's when I thought, "Stu, you're making this personal. Why!"

STU: Wait. Can you explain to me what you're talking about?

GLENN: No, no.

STU: What have I said --

GLENN: Can you remember what he said specifically so we can track it down?

CALLER: Yes. And honestly, please, if there's any way that you can digitally type that in and bring that up.

GLENN: Yeah, if you can quote it, we can.

CALLER: Glenn, that's when I started posting on your Facebook.

STU: Stop.

GLENN: Anita, hold on a second. Please. We're trying to be reasonable. And there's no reason for you to get so upset here. Let's have a reasonable conversation.

If you can give us a quote, we can type it in, and we can find the quote. So do you remember kind of what he said about it?

CALLER: Yes. It was back when all this first started and Trump got in the race. Stu went on about his clothing -- who wants to wear his clothes? And he brought about his businesses. And he also brought up about his TV show. And that's when I actually posted on Facebook and I said, "Stu, you're making this personal. Please pray and ask God to direct you on this." I tried to be reasonable.

STU: Can this be like a debate where I get mentioned and I get 30 seconds to respond? Is that --

GLENN: Let him respond, and I'll talk to you too.

PAT: I need 30 seconds to speak too.

STU: You weren't specifically mentioned, Pat.

GLENN: Come on.

STU: No. The only thing I can ever remember talking about his clothing line, ever mentioning, was when the story came out that it was made in Mexico. That was the only thing I could ever remember --

CALLER: That wasn't the thing you said, Stu. Because that's when I started posting about you being a high school dropout because I got so mad at you over that.

STU: Stop. Hold on.

JEFFY: Am I going to get some time too?

STU: First of all, I made it through high school, clearly.

CALLER: Okay. Then it's wrong about you on Facebook, so you'll want to fix that then. Because that's what they have about you. So just have them fix that for you.

STU: What?

GLENN: Okay. I don't where you would see that. But I don't --

STU: Anyway --

GLENN: As we all learned this weekend, you can't always trust things on Facebook.

CALLER: Okay. But, Glenn, please stop saying that people are for Trump just because we didn't hate him because he's authoritarian. That's not true --

STU: That's not what the story said, Anita. That's not what it said.

GLENN: Anita, that's not what I said.

STU: The study said it was a statistically significant difference. It didn't say everyone who supports Trump believes in authoritarianism.

GLENN: It is a study. I am not saying it. It is a study, and it is significant difference between -- in fact, let me -- let me just quote the study.

Right here. Had been buoyed by Americans with authoritarian -- has been buoyed. Not driven by. Not all of them. Has been buoyed above all by Americans with authoritarian inclinations.

CALLER: Okay. And I go back to, again, Ted Cruz is respected because he honors his oath he took when he entered office.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: He obeys the laws, and he's also for we, the people. Now, that's why I like Ted Cruz. The reason why I like Trump is because he actually had the courage originally to stand up against those that were coming here illegally, which it is against the law -- that's illegal.

GLENN: So have a lot of people.

CALLER: And I don't feel that it's right to commit a crime, gang rape. Set people on fire. Then move to a sanctuary city.

GLENN: Hold on just a second. Neither does Ted Cruz.

STU: Bernie Sanders for that matter.

GLENN: Bernie Sanders doesn't think gang rapes are good. I was just understand your -- your passion that is so deep, I can hear it in your voice. You're very, very angry, and you're very angry at us. And I understand, okay.

CALLER: I'm disappointed in you, Glenn. That's the thing. Because I always feel that you listen to the Holy Spirit -- I feel like you're not!

GLENN: Listen to yourself. Listen to yourself. Listen to yourself. You might want to ask, if you believe that I do listen to the Spirit and you're being driven --

CALLER: Holy Spirit.

PAT: Yes.

GLENN: Yes. It's the same thing. If you believe that I listen to the Holy Spirit and you are being driven here with such anger, that you might want to question if you're hearing the Spirit. Because --

CALLER: Well, again, I don't like when you infer that anyone that was not --

GLENN: I never did. That's what you heard.

CALLER: -- because we like an authoritarian figure.

GLENN: No, that's what --

CALLER: That's so far off base, Glenn. That really is.

PAT: That's not what he said.

GLENN: That's what you heard. And you can have an opinion against this study, but it is a study that shows that -- a number of people, just like Barack Obama, there are a number of people that are the hard-core base -- that wouldn't include you because you say you're not part of his hard-core base. But I would kind of question that listening to your voice.

CALLER: Listen -- read all the comments on your Facebook page. I mean, you got to look at that.

GLENN: Yes.

CALLER: That's why I prayed over and over again, Glenn, please read. Please read. Ask the Holy Spirit to direct you.

PAT: I don't think the Holy Spirit is directing us to Facebook.

GLENN: And I don't think the Holy Spirit is directing me -- I don't believe the Holy Spirit would direct me to a man who behaves the way Donald Trump behaves. I'm sorry.

PAT: I don't think so.

CALLER: Okay. Glenn, did it scare you last night listening to the one minute of the opening statements from Hillary and O'Malley and --

GLENN: I don't believe the Holy Spirit plays the game of, "Well, you should be afraid of this person, and that way you should choose this person." The Holy Spirit will always direct you to do the right thing, even if it means your own persecution.

CALLER: Well, again, I believe that the things that Trump is saying about illegals, I'm 100 percent for that. I am. I don't feel that's fair.

PAT: That's great.

GLENN: That is good. So, Anita, are you --

CALLER: And go to sanctuary cities. That's wrong.

GLENN: Are you a one-issue voter? And that's fine if you are.

CALLER: Well, number one, for me, not killing our babies and cutting them into pieces when they have a beating heart at 18 days. I'm pro-life.

GLENN: Okay. So hang on just a second, Anita. Anita.

Could you play the audio, please, from Meet the Press on Donald Trump and partial-birth abortion? Listen to this.

PAT: Yeah, listen to this, Anita.

VOICE: Partial-birth abortion, the eliminating of abortion in the third trimester. Big issue in Washington. Would President Trump ban partial-birth abortion?

DONALD: Well, look, I'm -- I'm very pro-choice. I hate the concept of abortion. I hate it. I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject, but you still -- I just believe in choice.

PAT: Oh.

DONALD: And, again, it may be a little bit of a New York background, because there's some different attitude and some different parts of the country. And, you know, I was raised in New York. And I grew up and worked and everything else in New York City. But I am strongly for choice, and yet, I hate the concept of abortion.

GLENN: Okay.

CALLER: What year was that interview? 1997?

PAT: 1999.

GLENN: 1999. And can tell you me --

CALLER: Okay. Do you know why -- I'm going to be very honest? I was married, and I was 26. And I got an abortion. And do you know why? Until I was in college and I actually saw the film, The Silent Scream, and I actually was educated on the truth about partial-birth abortion, I also was pro-choice until God changed my heart.

GLENN: Anita, I think that's --

PAT: You have a pivot point, what's his?

GLENN: Anita, that is a brilliant statement. And I'm glad God changed your heart. And like Pat just said, "You can tell me what your pivot point is." You can describe it. What was the movie theater like? Or where did you see the Silent Scream? Where did you see it?

CALLER: It wasn't. It was actually when I was a student at the University of Delaware, and I wanted to do --

GLENN: Hold on. Please answer my question. Anita, please listen to me. Please just answer the question. Where did you see it? Can you tell me what the room looked like?

CALLER: It was actually at the University of Delaware. They had it there. The Silent Scream.

GLENN: Where was it? I understand. Please.

CALLER: It was called The Silent Scream.

GLENN: No. I know that. Anita, please listen to me. What did the room look like where you saw it?

CALLER: It was in the basement of the library at the University of Delaware.

GLENN: Okay. Were there a lot of lights or not very many lights?

CALLER: No. It was actually me watching it by myself.

GLENN: You were by yourself.

CALLER: Yes.

GLENN: And what was the chair like that you sat in?

CALLER: It was a regular chair that you have at a university setting. I don't remember every detail about that chair. All I remember was --

GLENN: Okay. Hold on. Please listen to me. Please listen to me. You remember pretty much everything about that moment. You may not know the details of that chair, but you remember what that room looked like. You can tell me everything about your pivot point. Can you tell me now, Anita, what the pivot point was with Donald Trump, where Donald Trump, just in the 2000s, and I believe right before the election of '08 was still very pro-choice and still after '08 talked about appointing somebody to the Supreme Court that is wildly pro-choice. Can you tell me what his pivot point was that we should now believe? Because I do believe in redemption. I do believe people change their mind. I do believe in pivot points. But you have to tell me what it was. What changed his mind?

CALLER: Okay. What about Ted Cruz's father?

GLENN: No, no. Can you tell me -- I can tell you his pivot point.

CALLER: -- Jesus his Savior, went and got his son and his wife, and they made it work, Glenn.

GLENN: Right. Exactly right. And what was his pivot point? Can you tell me what Rafael's pivot point was? He met a preacher, right?

CALLER: Who actually told him about Jesus. So why don't you give Trump the same opportunity to say --

GLENN: He's had it. He's had it. He's had it.

PAT: We gave him the choice.

GLENN: He's had it.

STU: In 2015, he wanted to appoint a Supreme Court justice that supports partial-birth abortion.

GLENN: 2015.

STU: 2015. Now, I know that's last year. So maybe we're supposed to excuse that too.

GLENN: There was something big that happened, Anita, between now and 2015 last year that was big enough to say, "I'm not for -- not just abortion, partial-birth abortion is what he was for." Now he's not for that. So tell me what it was?

CALLER: I know God changed my heart on the issue of life.

STU: On 2015, even 2015 we have to make these excuses?

GLENN: So let me say this. And Anita, if this doesn't ring to you, nothing will. And we're wasting our time. And we can bid each other a fond farewell. Donald Trump just said last summer that he hasn't done anything where he had to ask forgiveness for God. Nothing.

CALLER: I remember him saying that.

GLENN: You remember that?

CALLER: Yeah, I remember him saying that.

GLENN: He's never had to ask for forgiveness. If you are for and advocating partial-birth abortion and then you have something happen in your life, which we don't know about -- something happen in your life that is so jarring that in a six-month period, you can say, "I am not -- not only am I not for partial-birth abortion, I'm not for any abortion," something happened in your life. And it would drive you enough to your knees to say, "Lord, please forgive me for advocating for partial-birth abortion and all abortion. Please forgive me." If he can't tell you --

CALLER: Well, would you be willing to have Donald Trump on and say that? What you just said -- would you have him on and say that to him?

GLENN: Oh, dear God, Anita.

STU: We've invited him. He's refused.

PAT: He won't come on the show.

GLENN: He's refused. He won't come on. Because he doesn't have the balls to face actual questions.

STU: Obviously.

CALLER: Well, I don't think that's very Christ-like, you just saying that. And, again --

GLENN: Okay. Anita, I appreciate it.

STU: This is the level.

GLENN: Thank you so much, Anita. I appreciate it. These are the kinds of circular arguments that you get. And she claims not to be a Trump fan.

STU: Good heavens.

PAT: Jeez, man.

GLENN: Listen to what she's willing to accept.

PAT: And why?

GLENN: And talk to me about the Spirit.

JEFFY: The Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit.

GLENN: The Holy Spirit. Where he won't even ask for forgiveness from God. I am being lectured about the Spirit, and she has the full armor for him. It's amazing.

Don't tell me it's not about authoritarianism. She wants someone to pay for what's happening on the border. That's it.

(Later in the program)

GLENN: You found the clothing comment that you made?

STU: Yeah, she was right. I actually did talk about the clothing line, and I had not remembered this.

GLENN: This is a listener that just called in a few minutes ago, said she was very upset at Stu because he made it personal because he was talking about Donald Trump's clothing line, which wouldn't make it personal, would make it about his clothing line. But go ahead.

STU: Yeah. And here's what I -- Pat actually started it off talking about how Macy's dropped his clothing line.

JEFFY: Right.

STU: And then Pat said, "I mean, none of this legitimate. None of that should be happening." And then I did chime in there saying, "Right. It shouldn't happen. The second he becomes a Republican candidate, they all boycott him. He was saying this stuff before. Just now because he's a Republican candidate, they were all fired up about it."

PAT: So it's actually us standing up for his clothing line.

JEFFY: Listen to that hate.

PAT: Okay.

STU: We were actually defending him against the boycotts.

PAT: I will say this though, if your main issue is gang rape on the border -- and Anita seemed to be all fired up about gang rape -- maybe your guy is Ted Cruz who actually fought to get a guy who had committed gang rape and murder executed in Texas for it, while Bush, George W. Bush fought against him in the international courts.

GLENN: It was the country -- it was the beginning of my breaking point with George W. Bush was what was happening on the border. But that's a different story.

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.