The GOP Is Poised to Pass Tax Reform – but Will It Help?

Glenn was blunt about his feelings on the Senate Republicans’ plan for tax reform on today’s show: “This is an abomination, but I’ll take it.” If Republicans can’t give us something better, we’ll take what we can get, right?

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said at noon today that he would vote in favor of the tax reform plan, giving Republicans 50 votes to pass the legislation along with a tie-breaker vote from Vice President Mike Pence.

Want to learn more about the bill? Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) was on the show Thursday to talk about it, and you can listen here.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: Bill O'Reilly from BillO'Reilly.com.

Let's switch to another worthless topic on -- on Congress. The tax bill. They now have 49 out of the 52 senators. Are they going to be able to pass this today?

BILL: Yes, they will. They'll make some other tweak to get one or two more on board. And, you know, it shouldn't be this hard. But, you know, again, you're dealing with a body that is not looking out for the folks, in my opinion. It's all about them.

And, you know, once you get into that zone, it's hard to get anything done --

GLENN: How can they be so myopic, where they are -- where they are getting these giant -- these giant breaks. And I'm for the business tax going down. I'm absolutely for it.

BILL: Yeah. Uh-huh.

GLENN: But then to not give the break to the average person is nuts! Is nuts!

BILL: Well, they are though in a sense that if you -- if you really analyze the bill, it does help the working class in America. I mean, it's not fantastic --

GLENN: It does help.

No.

BILL: But it's something. And then the thinking is -- the wisdom is that when you stimulate the economy to this extent and you mentioned it at the top of the hour, that there will be more jobs available for everybody. And then the market will drive salaries up, so that you will make money from this bill, not only by getting a tax cut, a little bit of one, but your opportunities will expand.

So I think that's the overall arch on it.

STU: The bottom line here too and no one is talking about this, the bottom 80 percent of families, currently pay 33 percent of all federal taxes and will get 37 percent of the tax cuts. They pay 33, would get 37 percent of the tax cut. The top one percent currently pays 37 percent of all the taxes, but would only get 18 percent of the tax cuts.

So they keep acting as if they're only giving money to the rich here. That's not true at all.

GLENN: Yeah, you're giving more --

BILL: Well, the big thing is the economy. That's the big thing. If you have a president who stimulates the economy to the extent that everybody wants to work and salaries go up, that's an effective administration, domestically. So that's what this is all about. Democrats, of course, don't want Trump to succeed. So they don't care how good the tax cut is or how good the tax bill is, they'll try to sabotage it.

GLENN: So the economy and the numbers, what is Trump thinking by just tweeting all this nonsense? This should have been a great week.

BILL: He doesn't think. He just doesn't think. I mean, that's the problem. I'm not a psychologist, and I'm not getting into that. But you're absolutely right. I have it said from the very beginning, it's about accomplishments, not feuds. You know, once in a while you can use a feud for a political advantage, and people will enjoy that. But not every day. You got two big accomplishments. The economy is on the move and you've hurt ISIS badly: That's what you should be tweeting about.

GLENN: Yeah. Tell me what you thought about the Pocahontas.

BILL: It's not a racial slur. It was inappropriate. The guys -- the Navajos in the White House didn't even know what he was talking. You see their faces, going, what did Pocahontas do that we were not aware of?

GLENN: I know.

BILL: Let's go back to Jamestown, what did she do? But, again, it's a stream of consciousness with our president. I mean, whatever pops into his mind, he says. Because that's what rich guys do, Beck. And, you know that, you're a rich guy. Whatever pops into your mind you say, that's what happens.

GLENN: Right. I was saying that when I was broke. And that may lead to me being broke again.

BILL: Yeah. But you weren't sober then. That was a whole different track.

GLENN: Yes. That's exactly right.

When we come back, we'll talk about Michael Flynn who has just been charged by the FBI with lying to the FBI. What does this mean to the Trump administration? Coming up.

(OUT AT 9:31AM)

GLENN: We're with Bill O'Reilly for BillO'Reilly.com. We got news this morning that the former national security adviser for Donald Trump, Michael Flynn, has pleaded guilty today to willfully and knowingly making false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements to the FBI about conversations with Russia's ambassador.

The White House responded and said, this was expected. Trump fired him for lying to Vice President Mike Pence. Of course, he lied to the FBI as well.

Bill, what does this mean?

BILL: I don't think it means very much. I mean, it means that CNN and MSNBC will have a full roster of hysteria. But, you know, Flynn was a guy who had a very nebulous -- word of the day nebulous, association with Turkey and Russia. Made money representing various things that they were doing.

And apparently, the inside story here, Beck, though, and that's why you have me on every week is apparently they made a deal with Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI if they leave his son alone.

The son did work with the father. The younger Flynn was in kind of jeopardy. But I think the deal is, let the boy go. And I'll plead guilty. I think that's what happened.

GLENN: So does this move the case into the White House at all?

BILL: No. Because the White House did bail from Flynn fairly early. Because he did, as you pointed out, misled Pence. So unless Flynn has got some information, and nobody could possibly know that, that connects the president with Russia directly, it's probably going to die out fast.

STU: Bill, switching gears here a little bit, I did come across a little piece of an interview with you that I did find to be interesting this week. As you may have seen and remembered the Matt Lauer interview with you has been making the rounds quite a bit.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: I'm wondering, have you offered an interview for him on your show?

BILL: Nah. You know, everybody is caught up in the mass hysteria of all of these accusations. But I come back to the very simple thing, and what Americans should want is justice. They should want justice.

And nobody should be abused in the workplace. So when you keep your eye on that. And I think nobody would disagree with that. You can -- you can start to move through some of these things in a responsible way, unlike the press, which every headline is a conviction now.

So Lauer, who I've known forever, but I'm not a friend of his, what he did in my interview in September, with Killing England -- and people don't know that. But I was promoting the book. I was promoting Killing England. And I knew that NBC was telling Lauer, hey, you got to be tough on O'Reilly. You got to be ask him all -- I don't mind.

GLENN: Yeah. They did seven minutes on your firing and two on the book.

BILL: Yeah. And I didn't mind. All I wanted was my say. I went in there. And, you know, they did seven on that and two on the book. Fine, the book becomes number one. And I did what I had to do to promote the book. But as far as Lauer was concerned, I absolutely knew what he was going to do, what he was going to say. And if you looked at the interview, I answered the questions honestly. Now, he doesn't look good because all the while he was asking all those questions, he had to know that all this he has now admitted was in the background.

So how do you do that? I don't know. I don't know how do that. But that's him.

GLENN: So, Bill, you just said, you know, every accusation is a conviction now.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: Except when it comes -- except when it comes to Congress. That's not happening.

BILL: It is though. It is though.

Conyers is done, all right? He can -- he can -- his guy can say, I got to stay. He's finished, all right? And I expect he'll be out next week. And they'll say, his health is bad. I mean, that's what this is. And Franken is done.

STU: You think Franken is done?

GLENN: You think Franken is out?

BILL: He's out. Because the Senate Ethics Committee can't give him a pass. They can't. And they'll come back, Al, you know -- and I actually recused myself from Franken because I despised him so much. And I told my audience on BillO'Reilly.com, look, I'm not going to comment on what Franken allegedly did or did not do because I hate him. "Hate" is a bad word.

I despise him. He's a liar. All right?

GLENN: You hate the things he does.

BILL: I've known him forever, and he's the lowest of the low. You don't get lower than Al Franken. So I can't analyze what this situation is. But he has no future. He's done. And the ethics committee will come back, and there will be other people that will come in and say whatever they say.

GLENN: And so what about Roy Moore?

BILL: Now, that's a more interesting topic, Moore. Because I think Moore is going to win.

STU: I think so he is.

GLENN: I think he is too.

BILL: In December 12.

Now, is he going to win because he's the greatest guy?

No. He's going to win because the people in Alabama hate the press more than what he allegedly did. So that's what's happening.

GLENN: No, I don't think -- I think they're just willing to look away and say, I don't know what the story is because I hate the press so much.

BILL: I think it's more emotional than that. I think it's -- there is a -- if you look at the polling on it, okay? The majority of Alabama is not people who are going to vote for Moore. And, by the way, I would not vote for Moore. I would not cast a ballot for the man. But the majority of people who are going to vote in the election, all right? They say that the press is despicable and we don't trust them.

So that's the -- you know, people rationalize their actions. That's the rationalization. We don't know what he did.

You know, but the press is dishonest. So we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt. So then he'll get in there. And I think the Senate will bushwhack him. And then the governor of Alabama eventually will have to appoint somebody to take his place. I think that's how it's going to come down.

GLENN: You think the Senate is going to bushwhack him?

BILL: I think so. Because the Republican Party can't be tied to him. You see, they can't be tied to Roy Moore, and that's what the Democrats will do next year in --

GLENN: But we're already tied -- we're already tied to -- to Donald Trump. And if you believe the press reports, sources in the White House say that he's now saying that that -- excuse me. That Access Hollywood tape was fraudulent.

BILL: Okay. Then we get back to stream of consciousness. I don't take any of that seriously. I don't take any of that seriously.

But I will tell you this, I'm going to make a prediction here on the Glenn Beck Program. I wish I had the English accent to do it, but I don't.

After this tax reform thing gets passed, the press is going to then pivot into attacking Trump on the women accusations. That's going to be the next thing. Because they can't go into 2018 with a roaring economy, all right? And a pretty good accomplishment on Trump's resume. They've got to take him down personally. So you're going to see hysteria develop, coming up. And that's what's going to happen.

GLENN: So how do we -- because I think we're sending. And I don't know what message we're setting. And I've struggled with this. I mean, Bill, you and I have talked about this off the air with your situation. And I've pressed you up against the wall, saying, I don't want to defend a bad guy. Tell me the decision. And I've had to make tough choices, in my own life, you know, here. But I think we're all doing this throughout.

And I don't know what message we're sending. But I do believe the stories about Donald Trump. And I do believe he has that kind of attitude.

So what -- what is this -- what -- by saying, you know what, the president is off-limits. Or, you know, Al Franken is off-limits or whatever, what does this mean to us in 20 years? Because I think we're here because we said character didn't matter in the '90s.

BILL: Well, look, I know where you're coming from on this, but I think you've got to be careful. I know of a tape, an audiotape that I hope becomes public very soon, because there are at least three crimes on the tape that an anti-Trump person is offering money to someone to allege stuff against Donald Trump. That tape exists. All right?

And you got to be careful about this kind of stuff. Because there is very -- there are black ops, what they call in the CIA, going on, to ruin people that George Soros, Media Matters, Color of Change don't like. You know that. You know it. Don't discount that. Don't discount it.

GLENN: Well, see, that's why --

BILL: I don't know what Donald Trump did or did not do. I do know the American people elected him. But I know what's coming. I do know what's coming.

GLENN: So that's kind of where I'm at. Is, you know, we will say, you know, I'll give the person in politics the benefit of the doubt because I don't know -- because politics is so slimy, that I don't know what the truth is here.

BILL: That's right. And you can't know the truth. So, therefore, you can't form judgments. You've got to be -- if you're fair-minded, very circumspect on it, and very cautious.

STU: What's the appropriate way to look at these, Bill? Because I have struggled with this. These things come out, and we're forced to try to make without a court case, without a real accusation, without a charge being filed. We have to try to sit here and analyze through the media and random reports.

BILL: Yeah, but you can't because the media will never tell you the truth. And they're going to hang you in the headline, whoever you are. If you think this is going to stop, it's not. Next week, there will be five other people. Then once you get into the campaign season in 2018, almost everybody who runs is going to be slime in some way with this kind of stuff. It's just too easy to do. It's so easy to do.

GLENN: Look, I saw --

BILL: Americans have got to be aware that this thing is pretty much out of control right now.

GLENN: I saw the thing with Garrison Keillor. And if what Garrison Keillor says is true -- and, look, I mean, I think Garrison Keillor is talented.

STU: Ugh. Insufferable.

GLENN: I know. I'm a rare bird on this. I think he's talented. But he stands for almost everything that I stand against.

However, that being said, if what he says is true, it's insane to fire him. Was insanity. Because it's --

BILL: Absolutely. So, I mean, look, I'm not going to get into my situation, but I've told you and I've told everybody in this country, I've mistreated no one. Okay? And that -- there's no deviation from that.

And so, you know, you go on, but am I angry? I'm angry through the roof about this whole injustice in the media.

GLENN: So the question --

BILL: The media drives this stuff. But if there's evidence that you see, like a picture -- Al Franken -- or a police report -- Weinstein -- sure, that evidence has to be taken into account.

But if there isn't, it's just like Garrison Keillor saying I touched somebody on the back and now I lost my job, you know, you got to take that seriously, even if you don't like the guy.

STU: So you said before, Bill, you wouldn't vote for Moore. What was your decision-making process?

BILL: Right. I just don't think the guy is a problem solver. He's a pure ideologue, all right? Who has put forward a platform that I just don't think represents the country. And I don't know what he did or didn't do. I just don't know.

GLENN: So you're not making it on the charges?

BILL: No. But he sputtered around. He sputtered around it. "Sputtered" is a good word.

But when I see Gloria Allred involved in trying to get him, then I go, yeah, okay. Look at this.

STU: Yeah, you roll your eyes.

GLENN: Okay. Bill O'Reilly, thank you very much.

BILL: Can I say one more thing before you guys go to the British woman?

GLENN: Oh, jeez. Yeah, go ahead.

BILL: BillO'Reilly.com has an unbelievable Christmas promotion, and Glenn Beck needs this. If you buy three gift certificates for premium membership, Beck, you get four free books. That's seven gifts. So you can give your gifts to your staff, take care of everybody on BillO'Reilly.com.

GLENN: But there's 12 days of Christmas. There's 12 days of Christmas. It still leaves me wanting the pipers and the maids a milking.

BILL: Well, then do six, six gift certificates at BillO'Reilly.com, and then you'll get eight books. That's 14. Then you've outdone your 12 days of Christmas.

GLENN: I don't know six people that like Bill O'Reilly.

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.