Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
More
AboutBooksCharityEventsReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2019 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Glenn’s interview with Wrath and Righteousness author Chris Stewart

May 09, 2012
 Wilson

Writer

Glenn welcomed author Chris Stewart on radio today to talk about his amazing series of books that Glenn says make reading feel like watching a high paced, high action season of ‘24’ on TV. What makes the series tick and why does Glenn feel like it could rapidly become a history book rather than a fiction book?

Transcript of interview below:

GLENN: With everything that is happening in the world, there's got to be a way to tell the story of what is really going on in a way that is entertaining, that will connect with new people, that can help get the message out and warn people about what we're facing.

PAT: I don't think that's possible.

GLENN: You don't think so?

PAT: I don't think it can be done.

GLENN: Our job has been for the last few years not only to figure out what has been going on but then to expose it. And I've gotten a lot of heat because, "Oh, he's a clown, he's this, he's that." Well, yeah, that's what I've always been my whole life, but I'm also a responsible adult and a dad that cares about my country, and we have been smeared and maligned, and you name it. And it doesn't matter. I mean, you've gone through the same thing. If you're in a Tea Party, I can guarantee you've had the same problem, different scale but, you know, just because I'm on a national scale and you might just have happened in your office where you have been maligned and called names in your own office or in your own family. Same thing. You know the game that's being played. But it doesn't stop you from telling the truth.

We've gotten to a point to where we can't ‑‑ we're not going to bring any new people in. You know, my name now is, has been forever smeared, and I'm either a crazy man, a lunatic, you know, somebody who just is doing it for the money, whatever it is, to a good number of people. Before I ‑‑ before Barack Obama got into office, I had one of the highest what's called Q scores of anybody in the media, where it meant people might not know me that much or they may not agree with me, but people generally liked me. I don't even know what my Q score is now. But it ain't, it ain't gonna ever go back up because this is what the political process does and this is what the enemies of the Constitution do: They've got to smear you and destroy you.

Okay. So now how do we continue to get this message out? How do we tell people what's going on and get this to spread even further? There was a book that I read and there was ‑‑ there's six of them that I read on vacation. Is there how many? Seven? How many of them now?

PAT: Seven originally, yeah.

GLENN: So there's seven of them, and I read them on vacation. I think I started the first or second. And the first one was good. The second one was really good. The first one I really liked because I could see where it was going. The second one was really pretty good. By the third, I read ‑‑ I think I took the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh on vacation and I read them in a week because they're absolutely unbelievable. And Pat and I, when I got back, I said, "Pat, you have to read this stack of books." And he's like, what? "Read this stack of books." And it was ‑‑ by the time you get to the third, you cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction. You can't. It is ‑‑ it's shocking.

Last night on television, I read a quote. Now, these were written, what, five years ago, seven years ago?

STEWART: Yeah, a little more than that. Almost ten years now.

GLENN: Ten years? In one of the parts that we showed last night, one paragraph is about how the Syrian government is slaughtering all of their citizens, like they're at war. They're just slaughtering them. And there's uprisings all across the Middle East and Egypt had been lost to Muslim extremists. I mean, and it was written ten years ago. We wanted to put this book series out. If you remember listening to us over, you know, the last year or so you remember a time that Pat and I were saying on the air quite a bit, "I can't tell if that was ‑‑ is that the book we're reading or is this what's really happening in the world?" And I've had this ‑‑ I went out and I called the author and we got the rights to this series and I wanted to put it out, but I'm ‑‑ I have to accomplish two things: One, have to reach a new audience and a younger audience; and B, I think we have to get it out because it is quickly becoming a history book. The author is Chris Stewart, a good friend of the program and a good friend of mine, a former Air Force guy, is just a straight‑up guy. And the research on this book is profound.

How long did it take you to write this?

STEWART: Well, in a way I guess it probably took me, you know, 14 to 15 years because a lot of it was based on my experience as a pilot in the Air Force. And, you know, that's just kind of background, but it's really, really important background because a lot of the book ‑‑ you know, it's a techno thriller at its heart. It's kind of an interesting combination between a spiritual element and this battle between good and evil but also at its core, it's a techno thriller. It's a ‑‑

GLENN: Tim LaHaye is going to be on the TV show on Friday. We're doing an hour on this. And Tim LaHaye is going to be on the TV show and I talked to him last night.

PAT: He wrote the Left Behind series.

GLENN: Yeah. Sold, what, 100 and some million copies?

PAT: 100‑plus million, I think.

GLENN: I mean, it's crazy. And when you think of a spiritual thriller, you pretty much go there to Tim LaHaye's book Left Behind. And he was kind enough to endorse this. He read it and said it was great and I mean, I talked to him last night and he was just like, right on. Biblically it's right on, I think it's right on, on where we're going. Which scares me.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: Because his book was a little frightening.

PAT: Yeah, you really don't want real life to go where this book goes.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: You really don't.

PAT: You really don't want that.

GLENN: And the thing about this book is it shows you not only in great detail and honestly, Chris and I first met because of this book. I read it, I didn't know him, and I called him on vacation because 3:00 in the morning, 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning I sat up straight up in my bed and I had read some things and it was ‑‑ it was a warning to the people. Because you see, you know, you see the angels and you see Satan and his minions all throughout this book and it shows how they're working behind the scenes. And one of the angels said something, I don't remember, and was whispering it to one of the main characters. And I sat up in bed because it is exactly what I have heard in prayer.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: And I mean, word for word. I mean, I broke out in a cold sweat. I knew this was an inspired book when I read that. And it happened several times in this book. And the things that I have heard: Warn the people, warn the people. I don't know how to warn them about this stuff. Well, here it is. But the good thing is, is it's not just a warning. It also shows you how to prepare. It also shows you ‑‑ people ask me all the time, "What do I do, what do I do." This really does.

PAT: By the way, the name of the book is Wrath & Righteousness. And you can get the first episode, you just download it right now.

GLENN: Yeah. It's ‑‑ I think it's $2.

PAT: $3.99 ‑‑ $2.99, right, 3 bucks? $2.99.

GLENN: If you're a GBTV subscriber, it's absolutely free. Otherwise you can go to, where is it? Just Amazon or any place? Wherever books are sold.

STU: Just go to GlennBeck.com. It's the easiest thing.

PAT: Wherever e‑books are sold and just get it for $2.99. You are going to love it. It's absolutely riveting.

GLENN: The first ‑‑ what we've done is we have taken the series and we've compressed it and taken it and cut it into ten episodes over a year. Instead of coming out over six years, which most people would do, for some strange reason I've thought we should put this out in a twelve‑month period.

PAT: Hmmm.

GLENN: And so the first, the first episode there's a lot of setup but there's also a lot of spiritual setup.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: Would you agree?

STEWART: Yeah. And the first book kind of sets the tone, I think, for the series. Because as I said, it's more than just a techno thriller. You know, when we get into the series, you'll see a very real, a very just compelling threat against the United States, one that a lot of people aren't aware of. And I think the story is built around that or some element of that. But again, the first of the series shows this battle between good and evil. It shows that Lucifer, Satan and his angels, his dark angels, are seeking to destroy freedom, they're seeking to destroy individuals, they're seeking to take away people's happiness and to discourage them. It's not just Satan whispering to someone, you know, go do something bad, go kill this person or something absurd like that. It's the words of discouragement that we hear from these spirits. It's the words of fear. It's the lack of faith. And I think that that is set up in the first part of the book.

GLENN: When you ‑‑

STEWART: And that's an important part of the series.

GLENN: When you were writing, because there's some really amazing scenes with Satan and his minions and really dark. I mean, the hate yesterday ‑‑

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: ‑‑ is so visceral.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: And real. And you ‑‑ I mean, it's amazing because you see him as a real figure.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: It's not a pitchfork and horn kind of guy. You see him as a real figure. And did that bother you at all? How did you ‑‑

STEWART: You know, I've had people ask me that, you know, because after the series was released, I would talk to people and they would say, "Well, you really scared me." And the first time I heard that, I was really surprised by that. It never occurred to me that these were scary scenes, that they were, you know, like frightening, like a horror, horror book. Because that wasn't my intention at all.

GLENN: It is.

STEWART: And it's really not in that sense. It's not a book of horror. And, you know, I realize I wrote some of these things at 2:00 in the morning sitting in my basement office. Was I ever scared? And I really never was. And ‑‑

GLENN: Your wife told me she thought you were under spiritual attack.

STEWART: Yeah, she did. She said there was about a six‑month period there where we were‑‑ wrote the first part of the series that she says, "I didn't recognize you, you became a different person." And there were some things that happened to us that were really unusual and ‑‑

GLENN: And you got a blessing.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: And it broke it; is that right?

STEWART: Yeah, and it really made a difference for us. So I mean ‑‑

GLENN: And you didn't remember being that way?

STEWART: No, I didn't. But I see now when I look back, I can go back and read some of the things that I had written at the time and I realize that it was out of character for me. It was an unusual experience. So...

GLENN: It's an unusual book and I believe it was ‑‑ Chris will never say this. He's never said it to me. I've asked him several times. I believe it was divinely inspired. Do you believe that, Pat?

PAT: Oh, yeah. Yes.

GLENN: Yeah. Divinely inspired. I believe it is a message. I mean, I've never purchased somebody else's book. I've never ‑‑ I've never done this. This does not help me.

PAT: You mean you've never purchased or published?

GLENN: Yeah, to publish. I've never ‑‑ this was really hard to figure out a way to get it out because it wouldn't fit in the schedule. It was six years. Chris and I have gone over this now for a year and a half, how do we do it, how do we get it out, how do we get it out fast enough for it to help people. But if you really want to see what's in my head and what I have felt and what I have ‑‑ I'm just being straight up with you.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: What I have heard in promptings on what I need to warn you about, what I believe is a real possibility of happening, not going to necessarily happen this way or the players, but it is ‑‑ it involves Israel, it involves Iran, it involves good and evil. You want to see what the world can look like quickly? Read Wrath & Righteousness, Episode 1. It's free if you're a Glenn Beck subscriber. You can go to MercuryInk.com/Wrath or wherever e‑books are sold. When does it start to ‑‑ when does ‑‑ I'm not going to give anything away because they really talk about what happens in America pretty early, don't they?

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: Yeah. So America's hit by an EMP and then it is ‑‑ when you get to ‑‑ I won't reveal anything but when you get to the scenes like with the farm, I think it's in Oklahoma, you get there, you see real people.

STEWART: Yeah. I mean, imagine you're driving along one night as some of the characters were out on the freeway and it's evening and everything just goes dark around you. Your car stops, the freeway is ‑‑ you know, there's no vehicles, there's no light on the horizon because everything is ‑‑ has changed in that moment.

PAT: And that's not something that Americans have really contemplated.

STEWART: No.

PAT: Because we don't know that much ‑‑ most people don't know about an electromagnetic pulse ‑‑

GLENN: I have up on my ‑‑

PAT: ‑‑ and what it would do.

GLENN: I have up on my desk now a Senate hearing report ‑‑

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: ‑‑ on the likelihood of an EMP. I mean, it is something that the government is truly worried about.

STEWART: Yeah. And, you know, it's surprising to me that most Americans are unaware of it. But a couple of things about that very quickly. According to that Senate report in the first three months 100 million Americans starve to death. I mean, nearly a third of us in the first three months. It's something that technologically is very, very possible.

GLENN: Very possible.

PAT: Because our food supply.

STEWART: Yeah. And I mean, and that's ‑‑

PAT: It is, it's all ‑‑

GLENN: There's no way to get it ‑‑

PAT: Short‑term. It's short‑term because we ‑‑

GLENN: You can't plow ‑‑ who owns a horse and a plow anymore?

STEWART: Yeah. We're instantly transferred back to 1880 and ‑‑

PAT: And we're not set up for that.

STEWART: No, not at all. Heavens no. I mean ‑‑

GLENN: No, Jeremiah. Only ‑‑

PAT: That's a bad thing.

GLENN: Only the Amish are.

PAT: The Amish are set up for that.

STEWART: That's right.

PAT: The Amish survive.

GLENN: Yeah.

PAT: And that's what you find out at the end of the book and I hate to spoil it.

GLENN: We're all Amish?

PAT: But the Amish rule the world in the end of the book.

STEWART: Well ‑‑

GLENN: But nobody knows.

PAT: Nobody knows.

GLENN: Because there's no TVs or anything.

PAT: So it's fine.

STEWART: Well, they only survive until someone discovers they have food and then things are bad for them as well because, yeah, they turn ‑‑ the world turns into a very hostile place.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Really fast, if you want to know ‑‑ remember that feeling that we all had on 9/11 where we all were really petrified and we were like, oh, my gosh, we could lose this? Freedom is so fragile, we could lose this in the blink of an eye? This takes ‑‑ this series takes that the next step: Yes, and let me show you what it looks like after the blink of that eye.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: You know, people who are saying ‑‑ you know, the Occupy Wall Street people who were out saying, "We want to take down the government," well, let me show you what it looks like when there is no government. Let me show you how fast people turn.

STEWART: And, you know, it's important to note this, too: The bad guys know this. You know, there have been ‑‑ there's intelligence that very clearly show the Iranians practicing what is essentially an EMP attack.

GLENN: Yep.

STEWART: They launch their missiles in a trajectory which mimics the EMP profile. They have done it from frigates in the Caspian Sea which allow them to move the frigates off the east or West Coast and allow them to attack the United States from 60 miles off our coast. It's impossible to defend against. They understand that the worst thing they could do us is to launch this EMP attack. You launch a nuclear attack on Washington D.C. or New York, that's a bad deal, and lots of people are hurt or killed by that. But it's nothing like happens if you do an EMP attack where virtually everyone is immediately affected and you don't kill 100 million people with one attack in any other way other than through an EMP.

PAT: That's a first strike that effectively ends life as we know it in the United States of America. Immediately.

GLENN: It changes the rest of the world.

PAT: Really bad.

GLENN: I mean ‑‑

PAT: Really bad.

GLENN: I think in the third book ‑‑

PAT: It's chilling.

GLENN: ‑‑ a very likely scenario on how the world would deal with Israel.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: A very likely scenario on how to have the entire world turn against Israel and what is I think extraordinarily likely, this style of attack.

STEWART: Yeah.

GLENN: And this plan. And you see it. And they take Israel and then they take the United States of America and the West is over.

PAT: And when Glenn and I were obsessed with this book a year, year and a half ago, whenever it was and talked about it almost every day on the air, listeners wanted it so badly, they wanted to know where it was, how they could get it. Well, here's your chance now. And if you ‑‑

GLENN: We wanted ‑‑

PAT: ‑‑ are a subscriber to GBTV, you can get it for free. Otherwise it's just three bucks.

GLENN: And it is, you can ‑‑ it's a ten‑episode book. So you'll get all of the episodes over the next year, and I'm telling you, you've never read anything like it. I wanted to make this into a TV show but it would have been ‑‑ to do it right would have been way too expensive for me right now, but I needed you to have this information. And ‑‑

STEWART: Well, and I'm so glad we're doing it the way you wanted to, Glenn. I mean, when you first suggested that, I was a little bit reluctant because I didn't quite see the vision. But I think you were right. I think you were brilliant. I think it was the right thing to do to get this out so folks can have it all right now rather than over several years.

GLENN: You are ‑‑ you're far too humble to see your own work and what it is, and I'm telling you, Chris, it's divinely inspired. And it is a message that has to get out and has to get out now, and it's Wrath & Righteousness. Go to Mercuryink.com/wrath or wherever e‑books are sold and grab it. If ‑‑ go to Mercuryink.com/wrath if you're a GBTV subscriber and you'll just get it for free. But sign up now. The first book is a lot of setup, I warn you, a lot of setup, a lot of spiritual stuff but then it starts to kick up. The next episode and the third episode will boggle your mind. If this was a miniseries or a series, we would have done a two‑hour episode and given you so by the end.

STEWART: Yep.

GLENN: All right. Thanks a lot, Chris.

Democrat candidate power rankings by Stu: April 29th edition

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.

What the mainstream media won't tell you about the new Netflix love-letter to socialism

Wikimedia Commons

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.

Digital book burning: History is happening now, document it before it's lost forever

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.

Why are Democrats afraid to call the Sri Lanka tragedy Christian persecution?

Wikimedia Commons

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.