Trump's Impressive 100-day Action Plan to Make America Great Again

In October, Donald Trump released a plan for his first 100 days in office. Called "Donald Trump's Contract With The American Voter," the plan promises to restore "honesty, accountability and change to Washington."

"It's pretty impressive," Glenn said Thursday on his radio program.

Trump's very first line item is proposing a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has already gone on record as saying, "It will not be on the agenda in the Senate."

"It's not going to happen, and it has nothing to do with Donald Trump. If anyone can get it done, it might be Donald Trump," Glenn said.

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these promising questions:

• What six measures does Trump promise on day one to clean up corruption and special interests?

• What seven actions does he promise to take on day one to protect American workers?

• What five actions will Trump take on day one to restore security and the constitutional rule of law?

• What 10 items does Trump pledge to fight for in the first 100 days of his presidency?

• What, if anything, does Glenn disagree with?

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

GLENN: Hello, America. I want to talk to you about the 100-day action plan to make America great again.

I will tell you that elections have consequences, and also obligations. And in this election, our obligation is to now stop fighting the battle of, should he be president, should he not be president?

Did he believe those things? Did he say those things? What's he going to do? And now he's president. Let's take him at his word, and let's follow what he's going to do and then hold him accountable if he deviates from that, with the understanding that every president has to make some sacrifices. They have to compromise from time to time. As long as we don't compromise our principles, we'll be fine. So it's a new day. Elections have consequences. Elections have responsibilities for its citizens.

And one of those is not to be marching in the streets, calling for people's, the death after an election. That is more like a -- oh, I don't know. Russia 1919.

What follows is the 100 day action plan to make America great again. Let's go through this. It's pretty impressive.

First, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.

STU: First!

PAT: I like that.

STU: I love that.

PAT: Yeah, that's great.

GLENN: It's not going to happen. And it has nothing to do with Donald Trump. If anyone can get it done, it might be Donald Trump.

JEFFY: He won't.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: But -- because he can speak directly to the American people and try to push it through. But already, Mitch McConnell, you know, that great guy who was for Donald Trump, he has come out and said, "No, that's not even going to make it to our Senate agenda."

STU: And the thing about -- the issue why this never happens -- because this is something that's supported by 8 percent plus of the people.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Is that, it's always somebody who understands, quote, unquote, that, you know, you need to stay in office and everyone needs to hang around. You need to understand the system and all that.

This is one thing that I really have and had hope that Donald Trump would push for. It came along late in his agenda. It was not like one of the first things he passionately talked about.

But it strikes very much of that -- honestly, the Bannon philosophy. Hopefully, that actually happens. That one, I'm really -- I would love. Because that one is huge, and it has long-term implications.

GLENN: Yeah. That's number one on his list.

Number two, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition, exempting military, public safety, and public health.

STU: That's --

GLENN: Third, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.

PAT: What?

JEFFY: Okay.

STU: Wow. I mean, I like that. I don't know if that's --

GLENN: We'll see.

STU: We'll see. I like that.

GLENN: Fourth, a five-year ban on White House and congressional offices becoming -- or, officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.

PAT: Yeah, Obama --

GLENN: That should be easy.

PAT: But, whatever.

GLENN: I know. Fifth, a lifetime ban on White House officials, lobbying on behalf of foreign governments.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Six, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: So he says that's day one.

STU: What's that last one?

GLENN: A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for elections.

STU: That's interesting. Because that was some of the stuff -- it was one of the issues that Manafort was criticized for, being a lobbyist, working with foreign governments. It's interesting he would take that on as a big part of his platform. Because, I mean, the most recent --

GLENN: This was after Manafort left.

STU: Exactly. And I know the new people didn't particularly like the old people. So it's an interesting part of that.

GLENN: Yes.

First, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.

Now, when it comes to trade deals, I believe Donald Trump 100 percent. I believe he will spend all of his political capital on trade deals. He's willing to, at least.

Because he -- that's the only -- that's the one thing that remained true and constant his entire campaign. And he said it for years.

Second, I will announce our withdrawal from the Transpacific Partnership.

JEFFY: Yeah, he wants that.

PAT: Wow. Good.

STU: I mean, that's no surprise.

GLENN: And I think he'll do both of us.

STU: Yeah, those -- yeah, the NAFTA one will be interesting to see of what he does with it. Again, he's not saying he's going to get rid of it.

And there's been a lot of positives from it, to be perfectly honest. But I think --

PAT: A lot of negatives though, too. It's not a great treaty.

STU: But if you can go through and find the bad and get rid of that obviously --

GLENN: Well, yeah, the problem is, it's an outside -- it's an unconstitutional government framework being built above the Constitution. That's the problem with TPP.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Third, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.

Warning.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Warning. I would love to do that, but that is kicking the people who are feeding you right now.

PAT: Hmm.

STU: And, well, I mean, A, he promised it. Right? He's promised this -- all this stuff are campaign promises. So you're not as surprised to see them. I mean, I don't agree on a lot of this --

PAT: However, all his promises were suggestions. Let's not forget that. They were all --

GLENN: Wait. Wait. I will tell you this -- I will tell you this, this is one of the main concerns I have had with Donald Trump's policies, is he is not a conservative when it comes to trade deals, not at all.

STU: He's Bernie Sanders on it.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: And that's -- look, that's not something he lied about. He was straight-up and honest about it.

GLENN: No, no. No, I know that. But I have been very clear that if he wants or if he -- if he gets into trade wars -- and that's how these things are solved -- if you start to stick a hot iron into one of your partner's eyes, they're going to stick two hot irons in your eyes. And this is what the Great Depression became the Great Depression, instead of an 18-month depression, because of Smoot-Hawley tariffs. So this is very dangerous territory.

I will direct Secretary of Commerce and US trade representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.

STU: Okay. Again, that's --

PAT: Still waiting for Obamacare repeal.

GLENN: It's coming. It's coming.

STU: We're on 11. Just number 11.

GLENN: Hang on. Hang on. Fifth, I will lift the restrictions on the production of 50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas, and clean coal.

PAT: Oh, good. Good.

GLENN: That could save the economy there alone.

PAT: That's really good.

GLENN: Except -- except prices of energy is so low right now.

STU: Yeah, but, I mean -- certainly, A, this is a positive.

GLENN: I know. It's a positive. I know.

Six, lift the Obama/Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects like the Keystone Oil Pipeline.

PAT: Yes. Good.

GLENN: That's gigantic.

PAT: Those two are really good.

GLENN: Yes.

Seventh, cancel billions in payments to the UN climate change program.

PAT: Oh, good golly.

STU: Yes.

GLENN: And use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure. I'm okay with that.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: I want to know the details on that, but I think I'm okay.

PAT: All right. Yeah.

JEFFY: He's already tapped the climate skeptic Myron Ebell for his --

STU: Yeah, and that's a good hire.

PAT: Good.

STU: Smart guy. And definitely a skeptical climate guy. Again, good for us.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That's a good name.

GLENN: Additionally, on the first day -- so everything he's saying so far is day one.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Additionally, on the first day, I will --

JEFFY: It's a good day.

GLENN: You get this done, you could take a vacation.

I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law.

First, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum, and order issued by President Obama.

PAT: I mean, this is -- a lot of these things, Ted Cruz talked about.

GLENN: I know. I know.

PAT: This is great.

GLENN: This came very late. And he took some of the last stuff -- this is his Gettysburg address.

PAT: This is great. This is great.

STU: Is this post-election or pre-election?

GLENN: This is post-election, but this is what he said at Gettysburg.

PAT: All right.

GLENN: Okay.

Second, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.

PAT: So he's actually verifying --

GLENN: He's sticking to the 20 judges on his list.

PAT: -- confirming that he's going to pick from that list.

GLENN: Yes. Third, cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.

JEFFY: Ooh.

PAT: Nice.

JEFFY: Ooh.

STU: So he can do that on day one without --

GLENN: That's billions of dollars.

STU: Can he do that?

GLENN: I don't know.

JEFFY: I don't know.

STU: I'm sure he has some plan to do it, I just don't know what that is.

PAT: Executive order?

GLENN: Fourth, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won't take them back.

STU: Okay. So you're going to punish -- if they won't take them back -- because that is an issue that we don't talk about all that often. They might not -- we might say, "Hey, we found this criminal. Take him back, Mexico." And they're going to be like, "Screw you. We don't want him." So they're going to be -- then he would cancel visas to that country as punishment.

That will be interesting -- I mean, obviously both --

PAT: It will be retaliation.

STU: That would probably escalating --

PAT: You got to do something, right? We've been begging for something to be done.

GLENN: Think about just canceling federal funding for all sanctuary cities.

JEFFY: Wow.

GLENN: That puts cities like New York --

PAT: Houston, Dallas.

STU: Oh, my gosh.

PAT: San Francisco.

GLENN: Into massive disrepair fast.

STU: They have to stop --

PAT: They have to stop it immediately. They have to stop it immediately.

STU: I mean, there will be a million things that happen off of that.

JEFFY: Yes.

STU: But, again, these are --

GLENN: All of these things have massive consequences.

STU: To go to what you were talking about earlier, I mean, if you take this stuff literally, there might be issues here. But the general direction of it is positive.

GLENN: Yes, it is.

PAT: If I'm the city council of one of these cities, I'm already planning for that.

JEFFY: You're darn right you are. And you've got to be talking about the fact that if he does that, we've got to stop being a sanctuary city.

JEFFY: Or they're going to -- they're already starting to talk about filing lawsuit, even here in Dallas, against that.

GLENN: Good luck in the courts in Dallas.

JEFFY: Okay.

GLENN: Good luck in the --

STU: It may or may not work. But, again, he can't control that. Right?

So if he tries to do something --

PAT: Yeah, these are good steps. These are good steps.

GLENN: Fifth, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur.

STU: So this is what the Muslim ban turned into, which is a much more rational policy.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. Yes.

STU: And, again, there could be some issues with other countries --

PAT: There will be.

STU: And that's a fair -- that's a fair limitation.

GLENN: Okay. So those are the things that he says he's going to do on day one.

PAT: Wow.

STU: No Obamacare in there. But I think that's coming, right?

GLENN: It's coming. That's gigantic. If he did all of those things on day one, I can't guarantee you what the ramifications will be. It makes me happy.

JEFFY: Me too.

GLENN: But it might set the world on fire. I don't know.

STU: Right. So going through -- categorizing real quick, term limits, one, I'm 100 percent behind that. Then he goes to regulation cuts and spending cuts, I love that. With the hiring freeze. Then he has the lobbying stuff, which is fine, but, I mean, I'm not all that passionate about it.

GLENN: Yeah.

STU: Then trade stuff, which I think, in my opinion, would be bad most of it.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: Then energy, I like that a lot. Climate change, certainly love that he would not be paying for climate change crap like that. Supreme Court, one of the 20 judges is a big step. And this is -- we were told and heard that was one of the things he locked in to get some conservative support. Because the first time he gave that list, he gave it and then backed off of it.

JEFFY: Backed off.

GLENN: Drew said he locked in Mike Lee for that.

STU: So that's -- and Lee was on that list. Then sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, I mean, funding. That's good too.

So, I mean, most of that is pretty good, I think.

PAT: Really good. A lot of it is really good.

STU: Yeah, it's more -- in the only iffy part is the trade policy. And, you know, we've talked about that the whole time.

STU: And you knew that getting into this. That's not a surprise.

PAT: Yep. Yep.

GLENN: So he says, then in my first 100 days, I'm going to work on something more broad with Congress. And I'll tell you what that is, coming up in just a second.

[break]

GLENN: First half-hour of this hour, we talked about the things that Donald Trump said he was going to do on day one. Pretty overwhelming. And pretty ambitious. And --

PAT: Most of it pretty great.

GLENN: Yeah. I think -- I don't think there was anything in there that I didn't think was great. There were things in there that I worry sincerely about the consequences.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And what he means. The devil will be in the details on the trade stuff.

But, you know, some things that are really great, but some things that, you know, might start a trade war. But who am I to say?

He then says, within the first 100 days of my administration, I will introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage.

One, Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4 percent a year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restriction on American energy.

The largest tax reductions will be for the middle class. A middle class family with two children will get a 35 percent tax cut.

PAT: Hmm.

GLENN: The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three. And tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified.

STU: I mean, this is almost identical to the House plan.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: We talk to -- we had Evan McMullin on the air several weeks ago, and one of the first interviews we had with him on Pat & Stu. It was almost his exact tax plan as well. Their plans were very similar at the end. This was not the first Trump plan, but the one he landed on was almost identical to the House Republican plan.

Anyways...

GLENN: The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent. You know how many people we'll hire?

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.

That's a little concerning, but I appreciate the effort.

STU: Right. There's good and bad with that.

GLENN: Yeah. That can cause massive inflation. You bring back trillions of dollars of cash.

STU: Many of these things too --

PAT: If it happens all at once, especially.

STU: Many of these things can be done through reconciliation as well because they're budget matters. That's how the Bush tax cuts got done. It also means that they would have an expiration date. But I think it's ten years. So you would have some time with a much more favorable business environment. But then you would have to pass something to keep it this way, which is where it gets really different. But, still, ten years is ten years.

PAT: The president and the House and the Senate, I just don't understand why they can't go after something more ambitious than this.

GLENN: I agree.

PAT: Why not? Why not go for it now? You've got the power. Go for it. They never do. Never do. Republicans never -- look what Democrats did when they have the shot.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: They overhauled 17 percent of the US economy.

GLENN: Among other things --

PAT: Among other things.

STU: Dodd-Frank. Not to mention the stimulus. They went for it. They did serious damage. Well, we could repair a lot of that with a really ambitious plan. It's a shame they're --

STU: But this one is better than what we have now.

PAT: I mean, I'll take it. I'll take it. But we always just have to take it. All right. Throw us a scrap. I'll eat it. Whatever.

GLENN: Well, and that's the problem. That's why you can accomplish things on the left that the right can't accomplish, because the left is always big and aspirational and new.

PAT: Always.

GLENN: And you're like, "Wow, that's -- I mean, wow. Who can't dream about that?"

PAT: Right.

GLENN: We're always about nickel and diming the tax brackets.

STU: But, again --

PAT: Like Ted Cruz proposed is doable right now. Because you've got the power to do it.

GLENN: I agree.

STU: Let me give you where this was. So Bush had the tax rates at 35 percent. This -- and they're now 39.6, plus some other junk that I assume this gets rid of as well. I don't know that for a fact.

This would move it to 12, 25, 33. So you would still have a 33 percent tax rate, and capital gains would be at 20 percent. So, again --

GLENN: That's still high for --

PAT: Are they keeping deductions, or are they trying to take those?

STU: Some -- I mean, it's a mixed bag on that. There's nothing flat about it. It's the House plan. It really is.

I don't think it's that simplified. There's not just charity and mortgage. There's still lots of deductions in there. They will get rid of some of them. They will get rid of the death tax, at least temporarily, which is always -- it's just a ridiculous tax. It's like the most insultingly ridiculous thing I've ever heard of in my --

PAT: It's government theft.

STU: It's not the biggest part of the economy, but it's just morally ridiculous.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: That you would --

GLENN: All this stuff -- all this stuff that progressives have done, I think, that revolve around death, is morally reprehensible. I really do. The death tax.

I'm sorry. But I think somebody buying land and putting it in a trust in perpetuity is wrong, is absolutely wrong.

To be able -- if it's owned by your family, you know what I mean? And your family -- you pass it to your son. That's fine. But telling your son and his son and his son, what he can and cannot do with that land, we have no idea what that might be on that land.

You might find that it has a special rock in that land in 100 years from now. And somebody ruling from 100 years ago is going to tell us, I can't get that rock. Who the hell are you?

STU: But whose land is it?

GLENN: It bothers me when it is locked up -- it's still his land. It's still his land. Because he's locked it up. No one living today can say, "Oh, well, we want to -- we want to go look for that rock. We want to go do this." No.

That land is only for this particular use. Period.

STU: But, I mean, isn't that your right, as someone who is -- if you want to -- like, I remember there was a radio station, I don't remember where it was. You'll remember this story probably. And the people who owned it, it was a great signal, in the middle of the FM dial. And they made it a classical station.

GLENN: It was King.

STU: And then -- in Seattle?

GLENN: In Seattle.

STU: And they said, I don't care what you do with this. It's just got to be classical.

GLENN: But they were still alive. The family that owns King, I think they still are -- I can't remember their names anymore. But they were still alive. The sisters were still doing it. And, again, it's -- the land -- I'm sorry. I'm much more Native American on the land.

Men do not own land. We can possess the land while we're alive, and we can -- we can have our own borders on it. But we are really care takers of the land. The next generation comes in and they decide what they're going to do with --

JEFFY: What you're saying is you're giving it to the next generation, and the next generation is able to decide what they're going to do with it during their lifetime.

GLENN: Yes.

JEFFY: Not three generations from now, Glenn Beck's property is still Glenn Beck's property.

GLENN: Right. What I'm saying -- look, what I'm saying is -- okay. I have a ranch. Okay. I die. I want my ranch to go to my children. Now, they can keep it exactly the same. But if I said to my children, oh, boy, you are never to build another house on this land -- you know, Dad, you didn't see 50 years ago, before you died, what was happening in the world. I want to build a house here.

STU: If it's something -- for example, if you are -- you put a religious institution on a piece of land and you say, "I want it to be there because it's my principles, they last forever, it's mine. This is what I want it to be." If you don't want to take my free gift of land under these -- under this contract, then don't accept it. But I built my life -- my life's work resides here. It's important to me. I want it to last forever.

GLENN: You lock -- you lock --

PAT: Plus, how much of that is there?

STU: Not a lot.

PAT: That's a small portion of what we're talking about anyway.

GLENN: I just find it -- I find it reprehensible. I find it reprehensible. That -- that the federal government can just tell people who are close to the land what they have to do from an office in Washington where they have no idea what they're doing with the land. They have no idea what they're doing.

And beyond that -- for instance, we have now -- are you against -- are you going -- are you against going in and getting oil if the country needs it in the preserve lands of Alaska?

PAT: No.

STU: No.

GLENN: You're not against that?

PAT: Uh-uh.

GLENN: Well, why? It's deemed preserve land.

STU: Yeah, but deemed by who? The government? If you said -- if you bought land and you said, "You know what, this is my land, and no one shall ever drill on it," then I think you would have a right to do that.

GLENN: What right do you have to rule behind --

STU: It's yours.

GLENN: From beyond the grave.

STU: You don't have to accept the land under that contract.

You just die, and no one accepts -- because you're deeding this as a -- you're putting it in a certain condition.

PAT: And that's the government's theory on your money too: What right do you have to give your money to your children?

GLENN: No, no. That's not.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: That's how they think about it. You're dead. We should get that money.

GLENN: No, wait. I'm saying that you could give that land to somebody and say, "Look, Pat, take this land. Here's our agreement. Our agreement is you don't build anything on there. You got it." Good. Then it's a contract between me and you.

And then, when you die, you could pass it and say, "Hey, look, I made him a promise." But it allows Pat -- if things change, it allows Pat to say, "Okay. Hang on just a second."

We have found a new rare mineral. It's only found on this land.

STU: But progressives always find a way that things have changed. That's why -- I mean, that's why you have a principle. It's essentially a part of your own Constitution. If you say you want to use land for a specific thing and it's yours --

GLENN: Okay. Let me give you -- remember the Barnes Museum in Philadelphia?

STU: I do not.

GLENN: Okay. The Barnes Museum in Philadelphia, a guy was -- was an eclectic and pretty damn near crazy collector of art. One of the greatest collections of art in America. Okay? But he wanted them all hung.

It makes no sense. The way you go and you listen to the lectures, and they take you through his art collection, you're like, "What the hell. What?" And he's like, "See, this -- this represents this." And they are put together because of -- well, none of it -- some of it is inaccurate. But he -- that's the way he viewed the art. And so he said, "I'll donate the collection, but it always has to be done like that. And these things have to be said."

STU: Right.

GLENN: Okay. Hang on.

Well, the city of Philadelphia said, "It's in a neighborhood. It's poor lighting. It doesn't make sense to be done that way." And they took it from the Barnes Foundation, and they forced them to move it and to do it the way they wanted to.

The people from the inside who were responsible for the collection took it and said, "No, we're not going to do that way anymore. After all, he's dead." No, no, wait. That is private property. That's different than land.

STU: Yeah.

GLENN: Land --

STU: I think land is property.

PAT: Yeah, it is.

STU: It's actually property brothers. It's a land --

GLENN: I'm not -- no, I'm not saying that you don't own -- I'm not saying someone can come on to your land and tell you what to do with it. I'm not saying that at all.

STU: No, you're definitely against that. We know that.

GLENN: Right. I am for personal property being land. I'm saying, when you die, what right do you have to take a finite thing, which is earth -- art is not finite. But buildings -- anything you want to do, that's not finite.

STU: There's always other land. There's always other land.

GLENN: There may not be that land. There may not be --

STU: There is a theoretical point, right? Like, that you're making, that theoretically, there's this plot of land that there's -- this one resource that we can only get there. In that, you know, one in a zillion chance -- I mean, again, this is a real long shot. But if that were to happen, we do have eminent domain laws, which is what this is actually constitutionally to be used as, not for casinos or parking lots, but for that type of purpose. That's -- that is probably where that would apply, if it applies. But, I mean, that never -- that situation is almost impossible.

Like, I mean, to me -- if you don't want to take the donation of whatever it is, then don't -- then you don't accept it under those circumstances. If there's a foundation that has that and that is your legacy, I think that is completely within your right to do.

GLENN: All right. Here's our sponsor this half-hour, it's SimpliSafe.

PAT: Does Trump get to Obamacare in the first 100 days?

GLENN: Yes, he does. Yes, he does. And I'll get to those real quick.

[break]

GLENN: All right. So here's what he's going to do: He's going to reduce the taxes. Then end the Off-shoring Act, establish tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers, in order to relocate in other countries to ship their products back to the US, tax-free.

STU: That's something I disagree with.

GLENN: Yep. American energy and infrastructure. Leverages private public partnerships, private investments through tax incentives, spur one trillion in infrastructure investment over ten years.

STU: That's a stimulus.

GLENN: Yep.

School Choice and Education Opportunity Act. Redirects educational dollars to give parents the right to send their kids to public school, private charter, magnate, religious, or homeschool of their choice. Ends Common Core.

Love that.

Brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical educations and make two to four-year college more affordable.

PAT: Pretty good.

GLENN: Let's see.

Restoring the Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs, violence, by creating a task force on violent crime and increases funding for programs that train and assist local police.

I don't like this at all.

I don't like anything getting into the government, giving money to police.

Increases resources for federal -- yeah, the federal government. Federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.

Restoring the national security act, rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester -- good -- and expanding military investment, provides veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment, or attend the private doctor of their choice, good. Protects our vital infrastructure from cyber attack, good. Establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.

Ten, clean Up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corruption influence of special interests in our politics. On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to make America great again.

STU: Yeah, the first half of those are pretty specific. The second, they're much more broad.

GLENN: Yeah, because they're legislative acts.

STU: They could be really good.

GLENN: They could be really bad.

STU: They could have lots of problems. There's definitely a lot of spending in that second half, which makes me concerned.

GLENN: Yep.

STU: But, again, we'll look at it as these things come.

PAT: I'm not sure I ever heard the words repeal Obamacare either. I didn't hear that.

STU: No.

GLENN: Yeah, it is there. I must have skipped it when we took a break.

PAT: If it's there, boy, they buried the lead.

GLENN: It is there.

Featured Image: President Barack Obama speaks while meeting with President-elect Donald Trump (L) following a meeting in the Oval Office November 10, 2016 in Washington, DC. Trump is scheduled to meet with members of the Republican leadership in Congress later today on Capitol Hill. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Can you remember the economic crisis of 2008 and how you felt when the news broke that Lehman Brothers had collapsed? I have found an economic threat that everyone needs to be aware of, so you can prepare yourself in case we see another 2008 type collapse. I am going to present the evidence to you and I urge you to verify everything and to form your own opinion.

What is that threat?

It is a bank called Deutsche Bank. They are by far the most dominant bank in Germany which is the world's fourth-largest economy. In 2018 they had €2.08 Trillion worth of assets and the second-placed bank (DZ Bank) had €506 Billion worth of assets. To show you how dominant this bank is, they have more assets than the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th sized banks combined.
When we review a business there are three key parts to analysis:

  • Market sentiment
  • Business numbers
  • Technical Analysis

Market Sentiment

Deutsche Bank has a long history of potential scandals including going all the way back to World War 2 and dealing in Nazi gold. Below are five recent stories which have increased the negative sentiment around Deutsche Bank.

  1. In 2007, they purchased a portfolio of loans worth $7.8 billion and purchased insurance from Warren Buffets Company. It was discovered they did not set aside enough capital to cover any potential losses. Over the course of the ten years, they lost $1.6 billion, and when they sold the loan they did not update their financial statements to include the big loss
  2. The Panama Papers are an ongoing investigation looking for many things including offshore tax havens. These investigations have resulted in several heads of state resigning including in Iceland and Pakistan. Last November, 170 police raided 6 different offices in Frankfurt looking for evidence of money laundering.
  3. Estonia is a small country in Eastern Europe. It has a population of 1.3 million people and a GDP of €26 billion. In January, it was discovered Deutsche Bank got involved with a Danish bank called Danke Bank and processed over $230 billion worth of cross country payments (including from Soviet Russia) through one bank in Estonia.
  4. There have been rumors of issues with Deutsche for a while now and one of the solutions put forth was a merger with a bank called CommerzBank. The leaders of both companies met and they even got support from politicians. In April, news broke that the merger talks had failed because over worries the risks and costs would be too great.
  5. Last week in France, Investment banking boss Garth Ritchie and others were arrested in France over illicit tax transactions.

Business Numbers

Deutsche Bank is already struggling as they are losing staff, losing market share, and bonuses are expected to be down at least 10% and further rounds of cost-cutting to come. Now imagine the impact if business costs start going up.

The banking industry works in a very simple way. They raise funds through large bonds at low-interest rates and then sell those funds to business and individuals thru products like loans and credit cards at a higher interest rate which results in a potential profit.

Earlier this year, Deutsche Bank tried raising money through several bonds. They paid 180bp (basis points) on a two-year bond and 230bp on a seven-year bond. Let me put this in context for you. There is a small bank in Spain called Caixabank which paid 225bp on a five-year bond and one of the larger banks in Spain, BBVA paid 130bp on a five-year bond.

  • How and why is a small bank in Spain getting a better deal on bonds than a huge bank in Germany?
  • Why is a large bank in Spain getting a bond 100bp cheaper than a German bank?
  • What does the market know that we do not?

Stock Price

Deutsche is also missing revenue projections which further hurt the business ability to survive and prosper. As you can imagine all of this news has a deep and lasting impact on its stock price which is in deep trouble. Before I share the stock price, I need to put this into the context of the market and the industry compared to the big economic crash of 2008. Below you will see a chart of some banking stocks from around the world with their peak price prior to the 2008 crash, the low of the 2008 recession and the price today:

As you can see from the above chart the banks in America have recovered from the 2008 recession by anywhere up 375% and JP Morgan has not only recovered its price in full but is constantly setting new high's. Ireland went bankrupt and had to be bailed out by the EU/IMF following the 2008 crash and even our national bank has more than doubled its price since 2008. The worst performing bank I could find was Societe Generale which has issues but is still hovering around its 2008 low price levels.

Now let's put that into the context of Deutsche Bank. Not only has the stock not rebounded but it is over 65% below its 2008 low at $6.75.

Technical Analysis

When you are dealing with the stock market, you also have people who study pricing through technical analysis. Experts look at things like FIB sequences, trend lines, and support levels. Support levels are a key metric for a stock failing because are looking to find where it will find support and potentially bounce higher.

We are very close to a key support level ($6.40) and if the price goes below this level, there is no saying exactly how low the price could go. At least one company expects Deutsche to fall below this support level, as several weeks ago UBS downgraded the stock to a sell order. This news was compounded last Friday when rating agency Fitch, downgraded their credit rating to BBB or two levels above JUNK status.

Other Information

I know you are likely reading this and thinking "this bank must have smart people in charge and surely they have a plan, right?" I am sure there is a plan and while they have kept their cards close to their chest, they have spoken in the past about the areas they foresee having growth for the company – they include business in Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt. Do they strike you as countries which are stable and will offer steady and reliable growth? Do you have to think really hard to imagine how this could go potentially very wrong?

Questions

I believe there is at least a solid case Deutsche is in a LOT of trouble. So what are possible scenarios for the future? I will lay out the key questions below but I must stress that it's impossible to say for sure what exactly will happen. One of the key numbers to remember here is they have roughly €50 billion worth of derivatives.

  • How likely is it that the bank can turn things around and survive?
  • How likely is it the bank continues to run into trouble, its stock price fails and eventually fails?
  • If you think it is likely it will fail, the question becomes what will the fallout be? Who will be affected?
  • Will they be bailed out?
  • If so, by whom? The German government, ECB, IMF, the Federal Reserve?
  • What will the German government think? Some members recently spoke out saying they would block public money for the proposed merger? Will they block funds if it failed?
  • Will other banks be exposed and affected? Will they have to take losses?
  • Will those losses be spread around or will one or more bank be mainly affect?
  • Will this affect the sentiment of the banking sector and cause a panic?
  • If there are issues and it starts affecting the stock prices, what will be the impact on other industries?

Last Question

The last question revolves solely around the banks and the regulators? How secure are the other banks? We all hear about how banks are now put through "stress tests" but how much trust do you put in those results? How much trust do you have in the regulators?

I know this may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist to some but it's an honest question. The Fed is on public record saying they want to keep this economy strong as long as possible. If a bank did not perform strongly in a stress test or even barely failed one, do you think they would report it?

Can you imagine the pressure that body would come under to stay silent? Can you imagine the rhetoric they would face with questions like, "Are you really going to fail one bank? Do you know how many people will lose their jobs if you do that?" Am I saying this is happening? No, but can you really rule it out 100% as a possibility?

I urge you to ponder on these questions, do your own research and find YOUR answers.

Update: The most freaquently asked question I have received from this column / show is how much time do we have to prepare. This is an impossible question to answer, as it could fail tomorrow, next week or might be next year. However I want to provide you a potential date for your diary – July 24th. That is when Deutsche will release their next earnings report and if it comes in below expectations, it could cause a further drop in price casting more doubt over the future viability of the bank.

Please support Jonathon's weekly podcast which is exclusive to the Blaze Media and available for FREE. He offers a unique perspective by promoting America's Founding Principles and brings every issue back to a set of core principles which are always based around the laws of nature. You can find links to his show by clicking here or by searching for Freedoms Disciple on your favorite audio platform.

Survey: Where do you stand on these conspiracy theories?

Thought Catalog / Unsplash

Have you seen this survey on the most-believed conspiracy theories in America?

It's no surprise the survey has been getting so much attention. The results are actually a pretty disturbing.

Infographic: Belief in Conspiracy Theories in the United States | Statista

I decided to put together a quick survey of my own, with slightly different wording.

Up-vote the ones you agree with and down-vote the ones you disagree with.

I believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK alone. However, I would not be surprised to find out the government sealed evidence that others were involved.

If by "deep state" you mean long-time Washington power brokers who are used to calling the shots and now feel threatened by Donald Trump not listening to their advice or council — yes, I do believe that many people like that are working against him and his administration.

Whether alien bodies are in Area 51 or not, I do believe the government knows more about UFOs than they have told us.

I do not believe the U.S. government was involved in 9/11, but as we know, NSA advisor Sandy Berger was caught destroying documents from the national archives related to both Bush and Clinton. All U.S. administrations have been to close to the Saudis, and the Saudis were involved in 9/11 at some level.

I believe the climate is always changing — it's natural. I would be willing to accept that man MAY play a role in this. But I do not believe in the solutions currently being discussed, nor do I believe the intention of most political activists are pure.

Any talk of the Illuminati provides the true dangers to man's freedom — like very powerful NGOS and men like George Soros — a perfect cover.

The U.S. government has done some horrible experiments on people and land — I also suspect they will do more things in the future. But I do not believe in the systematic spraying of chemicals using chemtrails.

The moon landing was real, but I see a time coming when people will not be able to trust their eyes due to deep fakes.

What do you think?

Let me know in the comments section below.

This edition features a brand new number two, a big mover in the top five, and the biggest drop since we started the power rankings.

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.

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.

24. Mike Gravel: 15.3 (Debut)

The month Ronald Reagan moved into the White House, Mike Gravel left his last government job.

He was a Senator from Alaska from 1969-1981, where he was known for his anti-war efforts and attempts to implement direct democracy. The latter is what led a couple of teenagers to attempt to draft him into the 2020 race. When I say "draft," I mean "ask him once on social media."

Gravel fought for something called the National Initiative, which would allow state style ballot initiatives to be passed on a federal level. What could possibly go wrong?

He is probably best known for one of the strangest political ads in history during his Presidential run in 2008. Entitled "Rock," the commercial begins with Gravel staring into the camera for well over a minute. Then it gets really boring. He also was a self-described "womanizer" which you might think makes him a perfect fit for the VP slot for Joe Biden— however, he's been critical about "Joe Biden's creepiness around young girls."

Gravel is 89 years old, making him one of the youngest candidates in the field.

23. Wayne Messam: 15.8 (Previous: 20th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A full 3% of Americans have a positive opinion of Wayne Messam.

Admittedly, that sounds bad.

Coincidentally, it also is bad.

The good(?) news is that another 8% know who he is. Unfortunately, all of them have a negative opinion. Messam is the Mayor of Miramar, FL, which is actually larger than South Bend, IN — the home of Pete Buttigieg. That strikes me more as a point against Buttigieg, but we'll count it in Wayne's column for now.

And hey! He's out of last place!

22. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Previous: 17th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Swalwell has navigated his desperate quest for attention in campaign form with little success so far, which is unsurprising. (Even his parents are Trump voters, and it's not yet clear if they will vote for him.)

Candidates like Elizabeth Warren have rejected town halls on Fox News, but not Swalwell. He would love to have a town hall on Fox News. It's just that Fox News doesn't want him.

Running for President is hard.

21. Marianne Williamson 20.6 (Previous: 19th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

"I'm deeply grateful to the many people who expressed early support for my candidacy. Today we reached an important milestone and we can go full steam ahead from here."

This is the sort of thing you say when you've accomplished something major in a campaign. Marianne Williamson said it after this: "We just hit 1% in our 3rd poll!"

It's a microcosm of the bizarre nature of the 2020 Democratic primary experiment, but in theory, this feeble showing in the polls may be enough to get Williamson on the debate stage.

It's on that stage where she is sure to shine, as she explains the narrow logical pathway of her worldview. She is a self-described "capitalist with a conscience" but also seems to admire socialism: "What's supposed to scare me about socialism, the free health care or the free college?"

Usually, it's the 100 million dead in a century. But, when you find out how much that "free" health care and college cost, they can get pretty scary too.

20. Seth Moulton: 21.5 (Previous: 16th / 20.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

"America is not a socialist country." Sure, this statement used to be entirely uncontroversial (like, way back in 2018). But, Seth Moulton is saying those things in 2019, in a Democratic primary, which seems almost disqualifying. It's hard to imagine a path towards success for someone with this opinion, unless maybe your last name happens to be Biden.

"There are elements of our party that are going too far toward socialism." True enough. But, it's a little like saying "There are elements of this orange juice that are going far too close to oranges."

Warning: The orange juice is made out of oranges.

19. John Delaney: 21.8 (Previous: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Delaney is probably one of the most moderate candidates in the field. He is even selling himself this way, arguing "to beat Trump, we need a moderate."

It's an interesting window into the state of the Democratic party. If the introduction of a $4 trillion global warming tax and spend scheme makes you moderate, what makes you a liberal?

18. Tim Ryan: 24.3 (Previous: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tim Ryan was elected as a pro-life Democrat. Now he's thanking NARAL and Planned Parenthood for convincing him that some babies just shouldn't be alive.

Essentially, your local drive-thru abortion hut won the moral reasoning battle against the Pope, which is an interesting decision for a Catholic: "I believe my faith supports my position because to me being Catholic, to me being Christian, to me following the teachings of Jesus is about being compassionate and an open-hearted toward people who you shouldn't be judging."

Someone should tell Ryan and his other deeply religious Democratic colleagues that judgment of behavior is actually pretty central to faith in general.

Religion may be a lot of things, but it is not about being "open- minded." The foundational book of Christianity is most famous for its list of "commandments."


"Thou shalt…or shalt not, whatever you want to do…let me know." -Exodus 20:9024325 or something.

17. Bill de Blasio 24.9 (Debut)

No one loves Bill de Blasio more than… well, no one loves Bill de Blasio. After his announcement, the New York Post ran the headline "Everyone Hates Bill."

Bill de Blasio is essentially a socialist, but that's not why New Yorkers hate him. They're fine with the left-wing craziness. They just want someone who can at least do his job half as well as he promotes himself.

De Blasio is so disliked in New York that even left leaning publications like New York Magazine admit they struggle to find one person who actually supports him for president. He begins his run with the highest unfavorables in the entire field, an amazing accomplishment considering his late entry into the race.

If you want to find something positive for Bill, it probably comes in the form of cash. As Donald Trump used to describe business life in New York, he would routinely donate to Democratic politicians he didn't like, because it helped grease the wheels for his company. De Blasio will likely get a considerable amount of cash from people who hate his guts, but realize that a hefty "donation" is a great way to get favorable treatment from a powerful socialist.

16. Steve Bullock 27.7 (Debut)

On paper, Steve Bullock could be a strong Democratic candidate for president. He's one of a few governors around the country that fit a very popular profile: in a deep red state, he's a Democrat, but tries to be seen as a "sensible" one. Larry Hogan, Republican from Maryland, has the same approach from the other side.

Bullock ran for governor of Montana with promises of streamlining the regulatory system, fighting prescription drug abuse, tax refunds, protecting the coal industry, and the baby sister to America first— "hiring Montanans first."

This approach had Bullock win reelection in a red state that Trump won by over twenty points. He was also the 4th most popular governor in America with an approval rating of 66%, with only 19% disapproving.

However, there are plenty of hints that Bullock is no moderate. He blocked multiple bills to restrict late-term abortion, supported DACA, supported net neutrality, and is deeply in the pocket of the unions, including wanting to force unwilling participants to pay dues until it was ruled unconstitutional.

Policies aside, Bullock seems to lack a certain je ne sais quoi. If you don't speak French, it's kind of hard to describe why, but basically most people find it difficult to pay attention to him.

Bullock is trying to sell moderation with a wink. The idea that one can sound moderate to get elected, then run the country as a relatively strong progressive, similar to the package he delivered to Montana. In the era of "shout your abortion," it seems like a difficult message to connect with primary voters.

Maybe there's a VP window for Bullock, but if you do want the moderation with a wink approach, it's unclear why you wouldn't just go with Biden at the top of the ticket.

15. Andrew Yang 28.3 (Previous: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Andrew Yang continues to have the highest buzz-to-poll results ratio in the race. This is partially because of his embrace of issues well off the normal path of politicians. I.e., pennies must go!

Yang does have some legitimate credibility when it comes to our governments pathetic technology infrastructure and is capable of talking about issues like AI, cryptocurrencies, and probably Fortnite. He's embraced meme culture and has a way of going viral that eludes other candidates who try way too hard to do it (see Booker, Cory and Gillibrand, Kirsten.) Unfortunately, you can't tweet yourself into the White House. (Most of the time.)

14. Michael Bennet 28.8 (Debut)

Michael Bennet grew up in Washington D.C. and went to a high end prep school and is currently serving as a U.S. Senator from Colorado. A political outsider, he is not.

He was appointed to the Senate in 2009 and went on to a somewhat surprising victory over Ken Buck in the Tea Party wave election of 2010. He's a Democrat from a purple state that outperformed Hillary in 2016. And it's not the worst thing in the world for his candidacy that his little brother is the editorial page director of the New York Times.

But Bennet is one of a handful of little known, unremarkable, pseudo-moderates in this race that have no chance to win unless Joe Biden slips his hand up a female moderators skirt in the middle of a debate.

The best part of Bennet's candidacy is the fact that he was born in New Delhi, India. Who's ready for another cycle of the media highlighting every random Facebook users posts about birtherism! I know I am!

13. Tulsi Gabbard 28.8 (Previous: 13th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Las Vegas shooting was just a distraction for the Harvey Weinstein scandal.

Russia didn't hack the DNC.

The Parkland shooting was a false flag.

Pizzagate is real.

Bill Cosby was framed.

Is this a grouping of opinions from Alex Jones? Well, probably yes, but they also happen to be the views of the biggest online fundraiser for Tulsi Gabbard.

As pointed out in her candidate profile, Gabbard is a bit of an odd bird as a Democratic option for president. But the main reason for her support among conspiracy theorists and racists like David Duke, seems to come back to her role as supporter and excuse factory for Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Tulsi was able to get herself on the Joe Rogan podcast, which has brought a lot of attention (along with no poll number increase) to her campaign. While there, she mentioned her affection for South Park—the Human Centipede episode in particular.

However, Gabbard does not endorse turning people into human centipedes, that we know of...as of this writing.

12. Jay Inslee 30.4 (Previous: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Jay Inslee is trying to branch out from his single issue climate change campaign.

Forget sanctuary cities, Jay wants sanctuary states. He's also signed a public option add on to Obamacare in Washington, which was part of Obama's original plan. (Also, not part of his plan was an individual mandate, but I don't see many Barack originalists in the Democratic party on that point.)

Inslee has hit the magical 65,000 donor level to get him into the debates, but has made as much of an impact in this race as his favored amount of carbon emissions: zero.

11. John Hickenlooper 32.0 (Previous: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Is John Hickenlooper a moderate? He wants America to think he is… but he wants Democratic primary voters to know that he isn't.

"You can have progressive ideas, but you have to present it to them in a moderate way."

This is a very typical Democratic politician approach, or at least it used to be. Today, Hickenlooper couldn't avoid being unmercifully booed for daring to say that socialism isn't the answer… when it comes to beating Donald Trump. In other words, you can have the terrible ideas, but don't tell everyone about it.

Hickenlooper's CNN town hall did beat Beto's town hall in the ratings, which unfortunately says more about Beto's failure than it does about Hickenlooper's success.

10. Julian Castro 34.5 (Previous: 10th / 35.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

I usually write these things in order from worst to first, and it's always around Julian Castro where I have the same thought: I've been writing too long to just be at Julian Castro. However, this is a race in which some polls show 17 of the 24 candidates are at zero or one percent, allowing an enormous disappointment like Castro to still squeak into the top ten.

One bandwagon that Castro has jumped on is the "fight for $15"— an attempt to try to force McDonald's to pay its employees $15 per hour. Of course, there are plenty of high-end restaurants/coffee shops/political campaigns that cater to left-wing audiences that don't pay $15 an hour, but McDonald's seems to always be the target.

This is bizarre, considering McDonald's is known for its high-volume, low-margin business model, making it among the most easily damaged by higher minimum wages. It, also, already has technology available to have kiosks replace workers, which can easily be more widely distributed.

Of course, the "fight for $15" is much more about grabbing attention than helping workers. Now, I'm hungry for McDonald's.

9. Kirsten Gillibrand 36.7 (Previous: 9th / 38.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand is not good at this. One of many examples: she was asked during her Fox News town hall why she flip-flopped from pro-gun to anti-gun after leaving her conservative district for the more liberal audience statewide.

Her answer was to explain that her previous district was more conservative and wanted more gun rights, but the state as a whole was not.

That was the accusation against you. It's not supposed to be the same as your excuse.

When asked what gun policies would have stopped the recent shooting in Virginia Beach, she said we should "stop being beholden to the NRA." This quality analysis wouldn't get you an internship under a low-level editor at Think Progress, but somehow she's a Senator and running for President.

But if you think that's bad, look at her fundraising. "Gillibrand raised less money from small contributors in her first quarter as a presidential candidate than she had in six of the eight previous quarters when she wasn't running for president."

I continue to believe that Gillibrand will drop out long before Iowa casts a vote.

8. Amy Klobuchar 41.9 (Previous: 8th / 45.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar's campaign hasn't exactly been lighting the world on fire so far. That's the bad news. The good news is there isn't a long list of gaffes on the campaign either. (Bonus! She hasn't abused any underlings on camera!)

This formula probably isn't enough for her to compete for the nomination, and she claims the third largest point drop from our last power ranking.

But this news is not entirely terrible for Klobuchar either, who is likely still a top tier VP candidate. She's been working on entirely controversy-free legislation like securing tax breaks for Gold Star families. If she can look competent in the debates, show some gravitas, and not light an interns torso on fire in front of gasping kindergartners, she might be fine.

Klobuchar's best path to success continues to be avoiding mistakes and hoping Joe Biden wins the nomination.

7. Cory Booker 51.6 (Previous: 6th / 54.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Cory Booker is your white knight, ladies.

Swoon.

Cory wants you to know that men are the problem, which is why he wrote an open letter to all men. The topic? How men need to fight alongside women who are facing new restrictions in their moral crusade to make children more available for expiry. How can a society possibly demand women to endure "lengthy 72-hour waiting periods?" (Yes, it's a real quote. You see, 72 hours sounds long. Three days sounds short.)

Booker wants to heal our divisions about abortion by… what else?... creating yet another government bureaucracy. All hail the "White House Office of Reproductive Freedom."

There is some stunning evidence that voters seem to like Booker, challenging the virtue of democracy, and perhaps our civilization as a whole.

6. Robert Francis O’Rourke 52.8 (Previous: 5th / 60.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Beto's campaign is falling apart. His 7.4 point drop from our previous power ranking is the largest drop since the rankings began.

However, a high-profile launch, followed by a complete fizzle does not always mean the death of a campaign. John McCain's 2008 run began the same way, even leading to a mass firing of campaign executives before relaunching and capturing the nomination.

But McCain was a well-known D.C. power player with massive name recognition and political connections. O'Rourke is essentially a viral video about Colin Kaepernick and a travel blog to find himself wrapped into an Irish guy pretending to be Hispanic.

O'Rourke doesn't have to win to give himself a future in politics (as we've already seen), but he does need to avoid complete embarrassment. This is something he should keep in mind next time he decides to live stream his own haircut.

5. Elizabeth Warren 53.4 (Previous: 7th / 45.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

It shocks (and pains) me to say this, but Elizabeth Warren is having a little bit of a moment. Her 8.1 point rise leads the field in this edition of our rankings, and she has created a nice little niche for herself. She's claimed the progressive high ground on policy, with her somewhat effective but twice as annoying "she has a plan for that" mantra. In another era, the idea that a politician has a way for government to be involved in every aspect of your life would show up in an opposition commercial. But today the left eats it up.

To be clear, none of them have actually read any of these proposals. And they all rest on an impossible to pass, completely unenforceable, and almost certainly unconstitutional wealth tax on the rich.

But her combination of a furious technocratic pace, along with her individual outreach to voters (Elizabeth Warren called me!) has lifted Warren out of her self-imposed gaffe-a-thon and back into a serious contender.

We now estimate that Warren has a 1 in 1,024 chance to win the presidency.

4. Kamala Harris 65.9 (Previous: 3rd / 68.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you're going to make a massively misleading statistic one of the cornerstones of your campaign, you should probably understand how the statistic is calculated.

Kamala Harris is supposed to be one of the intelligent options in the Democratic field, but at times, one is amazed at her ignorance of basic facts.

Literally anyone who has studied or debated the gender pay gap is familiar with the massive problems with the statistic. It simply averages all women working and compares it to all men working. It doesn't account for experience level, choice of industry, education level, and so on.

Harris said to Stephen Colbert "In America today, women on average are paid 80 cents on the dollar of what men are paid for the same work." She then doubled and tripled down on the "same work" aspect of the claim. It is most certainly not a measure of different pay for the same work. We should also note that, of course, Harris is paying women in her campaign less than men. But you probably guessed that one already.

This isn't about the gender wage gap, which can be easily explained in the book 'Why Men Earn More,' for example. It's more of a study of the early disappointment of the Harris campaign. She just occasionally blurts things out that make you crinkle your forehead.

Another example: "Very few people can get by and be involved in their communities or society or in whatever their profession without somehow, somewhere using Facebook." This was said in an explanation about regulating Facebook as a utility. But about a third of adults don't use Facebook at all. One could not say the same about electricity, water, or sewage.

These are minor examples of a potential larger issue. Harris needs to know what she's talking about a little more often. To quote Tim Malloy of Quinnipiac polling, "I don't know why she's not caught fire. But she hasn't."

3. Bernie Sanders: 67.2 (Previous: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Most people who follow politics realize that Bernie Sanders is a Democratic Socialist. But, the democratic primary has brought his pro-communist and anti-American views of the past into a new light. This has left many Democrat friendly media sources to discover that conservative media has pretty much been correct all along. The New York Times wrote about his past support for communist governments in Central America, including the Nicaraguan Sandistas.

"The Times shows that Sanders went well beyond mere opposition to funding the war. He wrote to Sandinista leaders that American news media had not 'reflected fairly the goals and accomplishments of your administration.' On a visit to the country, he attended a Sandinista celebration at which the crowd chanted, 'Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die,' and complained that American reporters ignored 'the truth' about Nicaragua's government, telling a CBS reporter, 'You are worms.'"

Sanders "…at times crossed over from mere opposition to American policy to outright support for communist governments." This isn't from the Blaze. It's from New York Magazine.

"Any politician is going to frame issues selectively, but Sanders is presenting a spin on the controversy so selective it completely fails to convey any of the points relevant to the controversy."

Ouch.

It's getting harder to see Sanders actually winning the nomination, given what seems like a ceiling in his support. The thinking goes, why pick Bernie, when you can get Bernie's policies in a much more attractive package from almost anyone else in the race?

The answer may come down to how dumb, uninformed, and oblivious the primary voters are… at least, according to NBC news:

2. Pete Buttigieg 68.8 (Previous: 4th / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

It's completely shocking to see the mayor of South Bend, Indiana at number two in a 24-candidate field. This is a guy that 31% of Democratic primary voters have still never even heard of.

In fact, I had recently been under the impression that the Buttigieg bump had started to fade away. But the numbers say what they say, and Mayor Pete has pushed himself all the way to number two in our rankings.

The first time we ran these numbers, Buttigieg had a candidate score of 30.8, now he's at 68.8. He's moved more than any other candidate, and it's not even remotely close.

Why?

Given this is a Democratic primary, one would be committing a crime against the obvious if we didn't note that identity politics are playing a role. But Buttigieg is an obviously smart, well-spoken candidate that plays well in this particular moment.

In short, he's the polar opposite of Donald Trump—in demeanor, in age, in his interest in hooking up with female supermodels from the Eastern Bloc.

Buttigieg gives Democrats exactly what they're looking for—a candidate to signal to everyone around them that they're more tolerant, more intelligent, more reasoned, and just generally better than those Neanderthal Republicans.

He's basically a Prius in the form of a candidate.

1. Joe Biden 82.3 (Previous: 1st / 78.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Saying that Joe Biden is the "leader" or the "favorite" in this primary doesn't really do him justice. Biden is in a tier by himself. Sure, he continues to hold massive leads in the polls, but perhaps more importantly, those leads are affording Joe the ability to execute the perfect Joe Biden game plan.

1. Run away and hide in the polls

2. Run away and hide in real life

Biden has near universal name recognition and access to the very valuable 2012 Obama campaign voter list. He doesn't have to be seen in public to lead the polls. When he does have to show his handsome face, he's on prompter, and he's keeping his hands to himself.

Most analysts don't think that Joe Biden will simply cruise to a 20-point victory. He will be challenged by someone as this race gets closer. He will be forced in front of cameras. He will say that television was invented in 1593, and he will inhale the follicles of a passing pre-teen. We all know this--and more--will happen at some point in this campaign.

The question is, does Joe have enough in the tank to protect this lead? Can Joe defend himself over what will be uncovered from his political past?

For instance, video emerged of Joe Biden joking about "panty raids" that he once participated in. Can a party constantly talking about male privilege nominate a candidate who once stormed female dorms, only to steal their undergarments?

The fact that Biden made the comments in the 80s, about the 60s, while in his 40s, does not exonerate him.

It somehow makes it even more creepy.

Today is the 75th anniversary of D-Day, the largest amphibious invasion in history.

The Allied invasion force included 5,000 ships and landing craft, 11,000 planes, and almost three million allied soldiers, airmen and sailors. Despite such numbers, the location and timing of the invasion was still an enormous gamble. The Nazis fully expected such an invasion, they just didn't know precisely when or where it would be.

Despite the enormous logistics involved, the gamble worked and by the end of June 6, 1944, 156,000 Allied troops were ashore in Normandy. The human cost was also enormous – over 4,900 American troops died on D-Day. That number doubled over the next month as they fought to establish a foothold in northern France.

There were five beach landing zones on the coast of northwestern France, divided among the Allies. They gave each landing zone a name. Canada was responsible for "Juno." Britain was responsible for "Gold" and "Sword." And the U.S. had "Utah" and "Omaha."

The Nazis were dug in with bunkers, machine guns, artillery, mines, barbed wire, and other obstacles to tangle any attempt to come ashore. Of the five beaches, Omaha was by far the most heavily defended. Over 2,500 U.S. soldiers were killed at Omaha – the beach so famously depicted in the opening battle sequence of the 1998 movie, Saving Private Ryan. The real-life assault on Omaha Beach included 34 men in that first wave of attack who came from the same small town of Bedford, Virginia. The first Americans to die on Omaha Beach were the men from Bedford.

amp only placement

America has a national D-Day Memorial, but many people don't know about it.

America has a national D-Day Memorial, but many people don't know about it. Maybe that's because it wasn't a government project and it's not in Washington DC. It was initiated and financed by veterans and private citizens. It's tucked away in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, in the small town of Bedford, Virginia. Why is the memorial for one of the most famous days in modern world history in such a tiny town? Because, as a proportion of its population of just 3,200 at the time, no community in the U.S. sacrificed more men on D-Day than Bedford.

There were 34 men in Company A from Bedford. Of those thirty-four, 23 died in the first wave of attacks. Six weeks after D-Day, the town's young telegraph operator was overwhelmed when news of many of the first deaths clattered across the Western Union line on the same day. Name after name of men and families that she knew well. There were so many at once that she had to enlist the help of customers in the pharmacy's soda shop to help deliver them all.

Among those killed in action were brothers Bedford and Raymond Hoback. Bedford was the rambunctious older brother with a fiancée back home that he couldn't wait to return to. Raymond was the quieter, more disciplined younger brother who could often be found reading his Bible. He fell in love with a British woman during his two years in England training for D-Day. Like in that opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan, Bedford and Raymond barely made it down the ramp of their Higgins Boat in the swarm of bullets and hot steel before they were cut down in the wet sand.

Bedford and Raymond Hoback's mother, Macie, learned of both their deaths from two separate telegrams, the first on a Sunday morning, the second the following day. Their younger sister, Lucille, remembered her mother's devastation, and her father walking out to the barn to cry.

The day after D-Day, the killing field of Omaha Beach was already transforming into the massive supply port that would help fuel the American drive all the way to Berlin over the next year. A soldier from West Virginia was walking along the beach when he saw something jutting out of the sand. He reached down and pulled it out. He was surprised to find it was a Bible. The inside cover was inscribed with: "Raymond S. Hoback, from mother, Christmas, 1938." The soldier wrote a letter and mailed it with the Bible to Raymond's mother. That Bible, which likely tumbled from Raymond's pack when he fell on D-Day, became Macie Hoback's most cherished possession – the only personal belonging of her son that was ever returned.

Of the 23 Bedford men who died on Omaha Beach, eleven were laid to rest in the American cemetery in Normandy.

These men, many of them barely out of their teens, didn't sign up to march to the slaughter of course. They had hopes and dreams just like you and I. Many of them signed up for adventure, or because of peer pressure, and yes, a sense of honor and duty. Many of the Bedford Boys first signed up for the National Guard just to make a few extra bucks per month, get to hang out with their buddies, and enjoy target practice. But someone had to be first at Omaha Beach and that responsibility fell to the men from Bedford.

Over the last several years, the D-Day anniversary gets increasingly sad. Because each year, there are fewer and fewer men alive who were actually in Normandy on June 6, 1944. The last of the surviving Bedford Boys died in 2009. Most of the remaining D-Day veterans who are still with us are too frail to make the pilgrimage to France for the anniversary ceremonies like they used to.

It's difficult to think about losing these World War II veterans, because once they're all gone, we'll lose that tether to a time when the nation figured out how to be a better version of itself.

Not that they were saints and did everything right. They were as human as we are, with all the fallibility that entails. But in some respects, they were better. Because they went, and they toughed it out, and they accomplished an incredibly daunting mission, with sickening hardship, heartbreak, and terror along the way.

So, what does the anniversary of D-Day mean in 2019?

In one sense, this anniversary is a reprimand that we've failed to tell our own story well enough.

In one sense, this anniversary is a reprimand that we've failed to tell our own story well enough. You can't learn about the logistics of the operation and above all, the human cost, and not be humbled. But as a society, we have not emphasized well enough the story of D-Day and all that it represents. How can I say that? Because of an example just last weekend, when common sense got booed by Democratic Socialists at the California Democrats' State Convention. When Democratic presidential candidate John Hickenlooper said during his speech that "socialism is not the answer," the crowd booed loudly. When did telling the truth about socialism become controversial?

Sure, socialists, and communists and other anti-American factions have always been around. America certainly had socialists in 1944. But the current socialists trying to take over the Democratic Party like a virus don't believe in the D-Day sacrifices to preserve America, because they don't believe America is worth preserving. They are agitating to reform America using the authoritarian playbook that has only ended in death and destruction everywhere it is followed.

Ask a Venezuelan citizen, or an Iraqi Christian, or a North Korean peasant why D-Day still matters in 2019.

The further we move away from caring about pivotal events like June 6, 1944, the less chance of survival we have as a nation.

At the same time, the D-Day anniversary is a reminder that we're not done yet. It's an opportunity for us to remember and let that inform how we live.

Near the end of Saving Private Ryan, the fictional Captain Miller lays dying, and he gives one last instruction to Private Ryan, the young man that he and his unit have sacrificed their lives to rescue in Normandy. He says, "Earn it."

In other words, don't waste the sacrifices that were made so that your life could be saved. Live it well. The message to "earn it" extends to the viewer and the nation as well – can we say we're earning the sacrifices that were made by Americans on D-Day? I cringe to think how our few remaining World War II veterans might answer that.

Honor. Duty. Sacrifice. Gratitude. Personal responsibility. These used to mean a lot more.

Honor. Duty. Sacrifice. Gratitude. Personal responsibility. These used to mean a lot more. I don't want to believe it's too late for us to rediscover those traits as a nation. I want to believe we can still earn it.

The challenge to "earn it" is a lot of pressure. Frankly, it's impossible. We can't fully earn the liberty that we inherited. But we can certainly try to earn it. Not trying is arrogant and immoral. And to tout socialism as the catch-all solution is naïve, and insulting to the men like those from Bedford who volunteered to go defend freedom. In truly striving to earn it, we help keep the flame of liberty aglow for future generations. It is necessary, honorable work if freedom is to survive.

The end of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is remarkably relevant for every anniversary of June 6, 1944. This is what D-Day still means in 2019:

"It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Letter from Corporal H.W. Crayton to Mr. and Mrs. Hoback – parents of Bedford and Raymond Hoback who were both killed in action on June 6, 1944

Álvaro Serrano/Unsplash

July 9, 1944 Somewhere in France

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hoback:

I really don't know how to start this letter to you folks, but will attempt to do something in words of writing. I will try to explain in the letter what this is all about.

While walking along the Beach D-day Plus One, I came upon this Bible and as most any person would do I picked it up from the sand to keep it from being destroyed. I knew that most all Bibles have names & addresses within the cover so I made it my business to thumb through the pages until I came upon the name above. Knowing that you no doubt would want the Book returned I am sending it knowing that most Bibles are a book to be cherished. I would have sent it sooner but have been quite busy and thought it best if a short period of time elapsed before returning it.

You have by now received a letter from your son saying he is well. I sincerely hope so.

I imagine what has happened is that your son dropped the Book without any notice. Most everybody who landed on the Beach D-Day lost something. I for one as others did lost most of my personal belongings, so you see how easy it was to have dropped the book and not know about it.

Everything was in such a turmoil that we didn't have a chance until a day or so later to try and locate our belongings.

Since I have arrived here in France I have had occasion to see a little of the country and find it quite like parts of the U.S.A. It is a very beautiful country, more so in peace time. War does change everything as it has this country. One would hardly think there was a war going on today. Everything is peaceful & quiet. The birds have begun their daily practice, all the flowers and trees are in bloom, especially the poppies & tulips which are very beautiful at this time of the year.

Time goes by so quickly as it has today. I must close hoping to hear that you receive the Bible in good shape.

Yours very truly,

Cpl. H.W. Crayton