Will Main Street Get a Tax-Free Holiday Next Year?

Chris Martenson from PeakProsperity.com joined The Glenn Beck Program on Monday talk about what Glenn calls a "weird switching of musical chairs."

"The right is now convinced that everything is fine, and the left is now convinced we're on the precipice," Glenn said.

Martenson predicted another change given that the Federal Reserve is terrified of even the slightest market correction.

"We're still accumulating debt at more than twice the rate that the economy is growing," Martenson warned. "So to get around that math problem, they're going to have to give money to Main Street. And I'm talking like complete tax holiday next year. A check from the Federal Reserve. Something like that."

If that's the case, get your shopping lists ready to buy because hyperinflation will be just around the corner.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

GLENN: All right. So Chris Martenson is here from peakprosperity.com. And we're talking a little bit about the economy and what is to come. And there is this weird switching of musical chairs, where the right is now convinced that everything is fine.

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And the left is now convinced we're on the precipice. And I'm happy to say that I haven't changed my position in two presidents.

CHRIS: Yeah.

GLENN: What was coming in 2006, that we felt coming, is still coming.

We propped it up. It's still coming, and it's going to be worse.

You said that there's two parts to this. There's the downside.

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Right? And, part two?

CHRIS: Well, economically, there's first the downside and then the Federal Reserve has to print more and more and more. They're going to keep trying the same thing over and over again. And it's not really going to work. I haven't changed my position over a couple of presidents either because there's deeper structural things that we need to attend to. And that's part two. That's the part of the story I'm actually excited about, is can we finally have the conversation to say, "Who do we want to be?" You know, where do we want to go as a country? And have that vision and really bring that forward.

GLENN: Okay. Before we get there, tell me -- they've printed all this money, and it went all to the Wall Street fat cats.

CHRIS: Right.

GLENN: I was just told by Wall Streeters, that this is not true, Glenn. They're not buying back their own stock. The fundamentals are sound. And I said, "You're starting to see the beginnings of inflation. There's no inflation on chicken. There is inflation in the stock market. That's inflation. That is inflated money. Funny money had by all the fat cats. They're dumping it in there. That's making the stock market go up, and everybody feels good."

CHRIS: Right.

GLENN: But the average person didn't get that money. Banks never lent that money. Go try to get a business loan.

Now you're saying that they're going to print again. Where are they going to give the money this time?

CHRIS: This time it's got to go to Main Street. They've tried giving all this money to Wall Street. They'll keep doing that. The Federal Reserve and the other central banks are scared to death of even the most minor market correction. When the markets start to go down, even a little bit, they come out, and they use words. And I think they might even be using other means to drive the markets back up again. They're scared of that. But it hasn't really worked. When you look at overall economic growth, worldwide United States, it's not there.

GLENN: Right.

CHRIS: We're still accumulating debt at more than twice the rate that the economy is growing. Try doing that -- you know, your credit card is growing at twice as fast as your income. It doesn't work. It's a math problem.

So to get around that math problem, they're going to have to give money to Main Street. And I'm talking like complete tax holiday next year. A check from the Federal Reserve. Something like that.

GLENN: For everybody?

CHRIS: Everybody. They'll have to do something like that.

PAT: Yay!

GLENN: I mean, it would be hard to -- to be disappointed on a tax holiday.

PAT: Yeah, it would. A complete tax holiday. That would be really hard to say no to.

PAT: Yes, it would.

GLENN: And they expect us to just dump it into the system.

CHRIS: And I not only would expect people to do that, I would encourage them to do that. As soon as that tax holiday comes, run, don't walk. And make sure you know what your buy list is going to look like because that's when we're starting down to act two of the story, which is hyperinflation. All of that.

GLENN: Inflation. Hyperinflation.

Okay. Because when they start dumping -- you know, this is one of the guys who said, "Glenn, these corporations, you're going to get tax breaks. And these corporations are going to repatriot their money." I said, "That's $15 trillion repatrioted to the United States. Where is all that money going to go?" It's either going to go to the stock market, or they're going to start building factories and everything else. Then that's $15 trillion that is going to be seeping through the system. How do you not have inflation?

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: And they said that wasn't a concern.

And I didn't understand the math on that one. But that's what the experts told me.

CHRIS: Now, look, everybody fights their last battle. So when we say inflation, people think about back to the '70s, where you had a wage-price spiral, right?

GLENN: No, I'm thinking '30s.

CHRIS: Or '30s. Right? But we're not having that world. So you're absolutely right in identifying, look, if you dump money into a market, you get inflation.

GLENN: But we are getting inflation.

CHRIS: We are.

GLENN: To the people who got the money. It's the stock market, right?

CHRIS: Look at the trophy properties in Manhattan and San Francisco and London.

Look at the price for rare gems. Fine art. Gulfstream Vs. All very hard to come by. Trophy Islands, right?

They dumped the money in to the fat cats, and they bid up everything they care about. Right?

All of those things I just mentioned, through the roof inflation. But people aren't recognizing that because we don't measure that when we look at the inflation measures. We measure chicken.

This next part of this story is they start pushing the money into the people, and that's where we get the other inflationary parts.

Now, the real question is, does the rest of the world say, "Yeah, I'll continue to hold US dollars under that circumstance?" So you have corporations rushing their money back.

Hey, but maybe the Bank of Iraq says we don't want dollars anymore. We don't like what you're doing. They start selling. China starts selling.

That's when you start getting the external inflation that comes back into this country. Because we've been great exporters. Fantastic. Of dollars. We've done a lot of that. And we're just kind of hoping that that won't stop. Like everybody will just continue to want to hold our dollars, forever and ever, no matter what. And that's an assumption that really needs to be tested.

GLENN: Well, preferably not in my lifetime. But it's going to be tested. It's going to be tested.

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You just said that coming to this realization has been the best thing in your life.

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Really? Because it always makes me really miserable.

CHRIS: Uh-huh.

GLENN: I mean, I look at it and I think, "Holy cow, I don't want to go through that."

JEFFY: Who cares? And what's the use?

GLENN: Yeah, what's the use? What am I going to do about it?

CHRIS: So, listen, there's a lot of things I can't control in this story. I can't control what the Federal Reserve is going to do about money printing. I have some ideas. I think I know what they're going to do. What can I do about that? Nothing.

I can, however, control my exposure to the dollar. So I have a lot of my assets out of the dollar. I have a lot of gold, a lot of silver, I own real estate. Tangible things. Because we've seen this story before, right?

In -- from 1918 to 1923, in Austria, they went through the Weimar hyperinflation. They write books about it. And they talk about it as if the great wealth destruction, the middle class was wiped out. And they still talk about it, oh, it's a wealth destruction. But not if you understand what wealth really is. Wealth is productive farmland, factories, hotels, the productive enterprises of the nation. Those didn't go away because they went through hyperinflation. But who owned them, that changed a lot.

So, yes, in this story, it's already happening. You know who the largest landlord in America is right now? The Federal Reserve.

JEFFY: The government. Yeah.

CHRIS: They own $1.75 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, which makes them the largest landlord in America.

Where did they get that 1.75 trillion to own more real estate than anybody else in this country? Well, they printed it out of thin air. We should be talking about that.

So this ownership is going to change a lot. So this is my advice to everybody is watch the trends, understand this is coming, and then own real assets.

GLENN: But doesn't that -- doesn't the ownership of more property in America, by the Federal Reserve, isn't that just now once again the rich getting richer?

I mean, this income -- what was it? Somebody last night was doing income redistribution for the Super Bowl. That's not the answer. But there is a problem here. And I don't know -- I don't know how to solve that. You do have the uber, uber fat cats. Not the guy who are living in the fancy houses in most -- in most towns. But the uber, uber billionaires that are up at the top of this banking problem and Wall Street problem. There's where they're sucking up all of the money.

CHRIS: Right.

GLENN: So how do we solve that without riots in the street?

CHRIS: But we're getting there already because they have -- that sucking sound is them sucking the economic oxygen out.

Let's look at, like -- rental prices in all the major cities have been going up at 8, 9, and 10 percent for the past five or six years.

And the reason for that is you have big, giant private equity companies. They get to borrow at 1 percent. So their rate of mortgage is a 1 percent mortgage. And they're competing against you or I, who might want to try and buy those apartments, who are not renting it, but our cost of capital is four, 4.5 percent on a mortgage. So they borrow at 1, unlimited. And then buy up all these things because they can make that number work at 1 percent. And for you, it's harder to make it work at 4 percent, right?

So they just have access to capital, and this is what Janet Yellen and the central bank of the United States, this is what they're defending.

This is what they're saying has had no economic harm, that they haven't been driving this wealth gap that exists in America. But it's happening structurally because we haven't been able to face it -- it doesn't exist.

GLENN: Right. We can't borrow the money that they can borrow.

CHRIS: Right. It's totally unfair playing field. It's shaped like this.

GLENN: So how do we fix that? How does that fix it, when they hold all the cards?

CHRIS: Well, this is a very big topic.

But in my mind, we have to first confront the problem, understand it for what it is, and I think this is almost a cultural piece. I think it's time to actually not say, "Oh, it's this big private equity company," but let's call out the CEO of that company. And let's make them understand that we have -- we're watching them. I mean, maybe public shame used to be a feature, right?

CEOs used to be ashamed to take more money than their workers back in the '50s and '60s. It was a thing that you wouldn't do that. Today, we've become shameless.

GLENN: See, I don't necessarily have a problem. You know, if you are the -- if you're the wealth creator -- like I'm the wealth creator here. Everybody is working for me. We all know key man insurance, I die, the company dies. So why should I -- why should I not make more than the people who work?

CHRIS: Well, let's separate people who actually are generating, creating value and people who are skimming. All right?

What I'm talking about, these people are just running skimming operations. They don't create anything. They're just running a skimming operation. I might pick on, for instance, in the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, they went after everything. I'm getting killed by this, by the way.

GLENN: We all are.

CHRIS: Sixty-one and half percent increase this year, 25 percent last year.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Jeez. Holy cow.

CHRIS: Right? And that's dialing my way down through the bronze plans and all kinds of, like, deductible increases. All that.

GLENN: Right.

CHRIS: Where my anger, if not rage comes up, is when I open it up and discover that the CEO of Humana Health Care took home $66 million last year. 66 million. And that's just him. You look at the rest of the C-suite, they might have skimmed a billion dollars out of this. They weren't asked to contribute anything to this story, right? You would have to have over 4,500 families at my level paying into that system, just to pay that one person's salary. What did he actually do? He skimmed.

This is -- so there's a level, beyond which -- there's a tougher story we have to get to here, but that's just gone off the rails. It's -- you ever see that old game show where they put somebody in a plexiglass thing and dollars around them and trying to grab them as fast as they can?

I feel like that's the part of the story we're in. That's what it feels like. Everybody is just grabbing money as fast as they can because we all know that you can't print your way to prosperity. The money machine turns off at some point so you might as well grab as much as you can, while the fans are still growing and the money is swirling.

PAT: Isn't that -- that's market value though, right? I mean, if his company is willing to pay him $66 million, then pay him $66 million.

GLENN: Because who else is going to do it?

PAT: Right?

GLENN: They can make $65 million someplace else.

PAT: Isn't that the free market system? I'm not sure how you get around that.

GLENN: How do you solve that?

PAT: You can't make it equitable for everybody. It's never going to be. That's not capitalism. That's not communism. We can make it equitable if it's bad for everybody. But we can't make it equitably good for everybody.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: So the CEO of a major corporation is going to make a heck of a lot more than a worker with less education, with less skill.

GLENN: And I'm concerned because there are some --

PAT: Less work ethic.

GLENN: There are things -- some of these CEOs. You know, the banks really bother me. Because they know exactly what they're doing. They know exactly what's happening. They know the game that's being played. They know it's not going to work. And they're not warning anybody. They're out there, while they're taking tons of cash.

However, I hate to say CEOs. Because how do we know -- I mean, that just gets into the mob mentality of, get 'em.

CHRIS: Well, in this particular case, I'm talking about a highly regulated industry. So in my state -- and I live in Massachusetts.

PAT: There's your problem right there: Highly regulated. That's the problem.

CHRIS: I know. Well, it's regulated to the point that in my state, there's no competition allowed. Right? I can't buy certain levels of insurance because they've been lobbied out of my state.

PAT: Right. That's the problem.

GLENN: Correct.

PAT: But that's not the CEOs fault. That's the government's fault.

CHRIS: Well, no, the CEOs create this --

PAT: We need them out of it.

GLENN: I will tell you, I'm with both of you here. It is the government, Pat, but it is the CEOs.

What did Bill Gates just say his biggest problem was? His biggest problem was that he didn't feel -- at the time he created Microsoft, that they needed government. His deal was, I'm going to create what I create. You do your job. Leave me alone.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: Where Apple went and they partnered with the government.

CHRIS: Hmm.

GLENN: He said, "Microsoft is paying the price right now because they didn't feel they needed somebody to go in."

So you're kind of like the free market. If you have a fiduciary responsibility. I'm the CEO. I'm going to go -- if my business competitor is going the other direction and they're going to the government, my fiduciary responsibility, isn't it to go to the government as well? I mean, we just -- this whole system is broken.

PAT: But, again, that's government intervention. And it shouldn't be there. It shouldn't be there.

GLENN: Right. But how many people have the principles to be able to hold fast, especially when you have shareholders beating you down the door? I mean, I don't have the answer.

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.