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

O'Reilly Discusses 'Killing the Rising Sun' and Censored Japanese Atrocities

September 16, 2016
 Lori Hanes

Writer

Bill O'Reilly, host of The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News, joined The Glenn Beck Program on Thursday to talk about his latest book in the Killing series, Killing the Rising Sun: How America Vanquished World War II Japan. The sixth book in the massively popular series sold 103,000 copies its very first day of release.

Read below or listen to the full segment for answers to these scintillating questions:

• Did Glenn take it easy on O'Reilly or make his life a living hell?

• Does O'Reilly have a brown, blue or black belt in karate?

• Did Glenn actually read Killing the Rising Sun?

• What horrific atrocities did the Japanese commit that compare to the Nazis and ISIS?

• Why was dropping the atomic bomb the compassionate way to end the war?

• Which living presidents would or would not have dropped the bomb, according to O'Reilly?

• Will O'Reilly's next book be Killing Harambe?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

GLENN: Let's bring, the one, the only, the legend, the man, Mr. Bill O'Reilly.

BILL: Beck, is that ABBA singing your little theme song there? I thought they were retired.

GLENN: No.

PAT: First thing out of his mouth, right?

GLENN: I mean, right out of the chute.

BILL: I was getting on my dancing machine on here.

GLENN: Look what happens. Right out of the chute.

So, Bill, let me ask you this.

BILL: Sure.

GLENN: I have been threatened by Sean Hannity using his karate on me.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: Do you have a brown belt or a blue belt or a black belt?

BILL: Only in intellectual prowess.

GLENN: Okay. So there's no threats coming your way?

BILL: Never, Beck. You know, you're my pal. Why would I do that?

GLENN: Well, let's not exaggerate.

(laughter)

GLENN: So Bill is off killing someone else. A new book. This one is Killing the Rising Sun. He's run out of people to kill. Now he's killing an entire nation of people.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

GLENN: The hatred never stops with Bill O'Reilly.

BILL: Yeah, I know.

GLENN: The book is Killing of the Rising Sun: How America Vanquished World War II Japan.

So, Bill, what's in here that, you know, makes it worth reading?

BILL: Well, first of all, when the book was released on Tuesday, the first day out, it sold 103,000 copies.

GLENN: A lot of stupid people. Why -- what's in it?

BILL: You said a lot of stupid people?

GLENN: I mean, why -- I mean, what's in there?

BILL: Come on.

GLENN: I mean, you can get -- you know, I know the power of Bill O'Reilly. He hypnotizes you. He looks --

BILL: Look, this is the sixth book in the series. If they weren't any good, believe me, 100,000 people wouldn't be buying them the first day.

Your question about what you learn is a good one because history has been kind of trampled by boring people who just recite things that they've been told.

GLENN: Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

BILL: This one puts you on Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Hiroshima. You, the reader, will experience what happened there. And that's the formula that makes the Killing book successful, is that it's just not a resuscitation of facts. It's drama and real people.

And our research centers around Marines and soldiers and Naval people who wrote letters, not pinheads and, you know, who did all this research about -- you know, talking to this one and that one. We got down with the folks.

And one of the compelling stories that I know you'll enjoy once you get around to having someone read the book to you --

GLENN: No.

BILL: -- is how a woman survived Hiroshima by being three minutes late to her job. And that's the kind of stuff we have.

GLENN: Well, I read that story because I did read the book.

BILL: Did you really?

GLENN: No, I'm lying completely.

BILL: Not completely.

GLENN: Right. But I thought I'd give it a shot here for a second.

No, Bill, here's the thing that I really like your perspective on. What is -- why do we not know who the Japanese really were?

BILL: Because it's not politically correct --

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: But when did that --

BILL: -- for the public school education system to actually tell the urchins the truth about their country.

GLENN: So, but when did that -- when did that happen? Because World War II, you were about 70.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: So what --

(chuckling)

-- when did -- did we know during World War II that they were slaughtering 20 million Chinese, that they were, you know, having games of butchery? Did we know those things at the time?

BILL: Yeah, it was reported in the Chinese atrocities in the '30s, the major newspapers in America did report that the Japanese went in and murdered people, raped women, you know, en masse. That was recorded.

But then when World War II started, unlike the European theater where there was a lot of American reporters, there were very few in the Pacific theater. It was, number one, too dangerous to drop them on the islands. And, number two, MacArthur who was in charge of the Pacific theater as you know, didn't want the American public to see what kind of horror was unfolding on these islands because there were no prisoners on either side. Nobody took prisoners.

So they did not want that reported. And therefore, there was a news blackout. And to this day, people really don't know what happened and how Japan was defeated, which is why I wrote the book.

GLENN: Yeah. We've done an interview on the book before, and a much more serious one than this. But I can't take another 15 minutes of you being serious.

(chuckling)

But you and I did an interview. And I did an episode that's going to air soon on the show that I do called The Vault, where we're talking about World War II and the Japanese. And I don't know if you're aware of Unit 731. Bill, are you aware of that?

BILL: No, I am not.

GLENN: Okay. This is unbelievable. Unit 731, we're doing the same kinds of things that the nasty Nazi doctors were doing. They were -- they were doing live vivisections.

BILL: This is the Japanese?

GLENN: The Japanese were doing it.

BILL: Right. Right. Right.

GLENN: We excused all of them. And said, "Hey, in exchange for the research, we won't try you." I'm just puzzled by why we don't look at the communists and their atrocities. We don't look at the Japanese and their atrocities. But we focus all on the German and then we call our --

PAT: Us.

GLENN: Us saving the world from those nightmares, atrocities.

BILL: Look, the problem with the reportage after Japan was defeated is that there was censorship. There was censorship in the European theater. But the European theater was so in-your-face when they liberated the concentration camps and then Hitler was this evil icon -- they didn't have that in Japan. MacArthur was sympathetic to the Japanese people. He had a long history with his father of dealing with them.

So he didn't want to crush them like Patton did. He wanted to defeat them. And, by the way, MacArthur was against dropping the atom bomb because he wanted to invade and get the glory of the victory himself.

GLENN: And just to prove to you that I did read the book, you talk about him being in Manila at the time. You want to describe that?

BILL: Right. Well, MacArthur was not a battlefield commander, per se. He stayed behind the lines and was a glory hound. Not like -- it was totally the opposite for Patton, but MacArthur was a good tactician.

I mean, I think Nimitz was probably better. But the combination of the Army and Navy commanders, you know, put the Japanese on the defensive from the beginning.

However, the question is: Why were we leaning towards the Japanese? There's two reasons why the United States, Harry Truman, and MacArthur didn't punish them the way the Germans were punished.

Number one, the Japanese people pretty much cooperated. They didn't give us a hard time. They surrendered. And once it was over, it was over.

Number two, we did execute Tojo and a number of other war criminals, but there wasn't that hunt that there was for the SS. Because, again, they were so demonized -- the concentration camps were so overwhelmingly emotional, that the authorities had to do that. And Patton got in trouble because he didn't really want to go in and take apart the German society.

But in Japan, MacArthur got away with pretty much leaving the status quo. Hirohito actually kept his job as emperor. They didn't remove him. He didn't have any power, but they didn't want any trouble with the Japanese. They wanted them to fall into line.

GLENN: Yeah. And they actually thought -- because the peasants were so convinced that they were winning, that after that last bomb, they actually thought that there was a chance that the peasants would take over the military and continue the war. We didn't know until the very last minute.

BILL: Well, they weren't going to surrender. There's no doubt about that. The Japanese were not going to surrender. And if anybody thinks they were, then you're just a fool. Because even after Hiroshima, they didn't surrender. And they were arming children, women --

GLENN: Right. Yeah, last man --

BILL: Even though Tokyo was destroyed literally by conventional bombing, that still didn't break the Japanese spirit. There still wasn't a coup d'etat against Hirohito. There was an attempt, but it was fought back.

GLENN: Do you think this was -- do you think history is against America or against atomic weapons or both? Because the firebombing -- hang on just a second.

BILL: Go ahead.

GLENN: The firebombing in Tokyo --

PAT: Killed more people.

GLENN: Killed many more people.

BILL: Yeah.

GLENN: And a group of homeless the size of Chicago came out of that city. A hundred twenty-five miles was destroyed by firebombing, and yet you don't hear that.

BILL: No. Because the other bomb is such a specter.

GLENN: Right.

PAT: Uh-huh.

BILL: That people lock into that. And, by the way, when you're hearing North Korea testing and Iranian nukes, the nuclear weapons we have today are 100,000 times more powerful than the atom bomb.

So when you read Killing the Rising Sun and you're imagining the horror that took place there, I mean, it's unspeakable what would happen now if they ever drop these things.

But you basically have -- the reason why I wrote this book was because of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, when he said after 9/11, justifying the attack, that America's chickens have come home to roost because we dropped the bombs on Japan.

That so offended me. I was so appalled, I said, "You know what, some day I'm going to write a book and correct the record on this." And that's how that book got on the board.

GLENN: I will tell you, Bill, it is a fantastic book. And what you've done with the presidents afterwards -- you've gone back to the living presidents. And Bill Clinton wouldn't participate and neither would Barack Obama. But the other ones would participate.

BILL: Right.

GLENN: And you asked them, "Would you have done it?" And you don't believe that Bill Clinton answered that because he doesn't want to have to answer to the left. Doesn't want controversy now.

BILL: Right. You know, I asked five living presidents to give me a personal letter whether they would have supported Truman and dropped the bomb. The two Bushes and Jimmy Carter did. And they all said they would have dropped the atom bomb. Obama did not. Just speculation, just on my part, just speculation, I just don't think he would have dropped it.

GLENN: No.

PAT: I don't either.

GLENN: I don't either.

JEFFY: No way.

PAT: Do you think Bill Clinton would have?

BILL: Yes. But I didn't -- you absolutely hit it. Clinton didn't want to, you know, raise any controversy on the left by saying that. And so he passed.

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: You know, it is -- and you point this out in the book -- it was the compassionate thing to do. Millions would have died on both sides. Millions.

BILL: Yes. No doubt.

PAT: Didn't they estimate 4 million Japanese -- four million Japanese were saved by a non-invasion?

BILL: Yeah. Because they were -- you have to understand the mindset. It was a lot like the Nazi mindset.

GLENN: More like ISIS, I think.

BILL: Well, it's the same thing. I always say ISIS is the Hitler-lite. I mean, that's what they are. There's no difference between the Third Reich and the SS and all that and ISIS. There's no difference.

But the mindset is, look, we're willing to give our life for the emperor, Hirohito, living god. And wait until you see this guy. When you read the book, what Hirohito is really like -- and this is the living god? I mean, it's worse than Henry VIII, founding a religion in England. I mean, come on.

GLENN: No. It's pretty nuts.

STU: Bill, you bring up the Nazi side of this. And, you know, Hitler thought, as we're losing -- as we're retreating, I want the bridges blown up. I want all of our infrastructure destroyed so the enemy doesn't get a hold of it.

And there were people there, like Albert Speer, who said, "Hey, wait a minute I'm not going to do that," and defied his orders at the last minute, even with all that dedication. Were there people like that on the Japanese side?

BILL: Not that we know of. Because it was -- the Japanese secret police were more effective than the Gestapo. And if there were any dissenters, they were beheaded immediately.

GLENN: It was bad.

BILL: You know, that society was so tight and so closed.

But one of the interesting parts about Killing the Rising Sun is the reason that FDR fast-tracked the atom bomb research in New Mexico was because Hitler was doing it. And they feared -- they being the American authorities, they feared the Third Reich would get this bomb. And, of course, if they had gotten it, they would have used it. And that's why Hitler was allowed to hang on by his generals. Because his generals knew that they had these super weapons in development. And that would turn the thing around, which is why they fought harder than they might have.

But the Japanese were a different story. The Japanese were so fanatical and so crazy that they were going to die for the emperor because that's their code, Bushido, you know, you have to die for the emperor. And they were. And that includes little kids, women, everybody.

GLENN: Bill, always good to have you on. And, well, no, it's not. But this time, it was good to have you on. And I appreciate it.

BILL: You know, I really appreciate you having me on your fine program, and I want you to do me one favor. Will you do one favor?

GLENN: Thanks, brother. I'll try.

BILL: All right. Say hello to ABBA for me. I really am a big fan.

GLENN: All right. Bill O'Reilly.

STU: So you actually did read the book this time?

GLENN: Not one word of it. Not one word. And I didn't want to break my record of Bill O'Reilly books at this point.

PAT: It sounds great. It sounds great.

GLENN: Oh, it is. It is. I've read enough of it. And he was on with me. We're doing a deal on The Vault, where he's a guest on The Vault. And we're talking about this. And I have artifacts that he had never seen. We took him out. We have 8,000 artifacts, historic artifacts in The Vault. And next week is the premiere episode. Next Wednesday on TheBlaze TV.

And in an upcoming episode, we talk about this. And when you hear who the Japanese were -- you've never heard these stories before.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: You've never heard them before. And there's -- if you knew them, there would be no -- not a second of thought about, should we have dropped the bomb? And one reason -- he wrote this book. The other reason why -- it's the same reason I'm doing, like, The Vault and His Story. I'm doing these two shows because your kids are going to go into class, and they're going to have to -- they'll be asked this question. The only thing on Common Core is about the United States dropping the bomb. That's all they included in the Common Core tests for World War II.

PAT: And no context.

GLENN: No context at all.

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: Your kids have to have context. And they will not find it in schoolbooks. So Bill O'Reilly's book and also The Vault that's on Wednesdays on TheBlaze TV.

PAT: And get this one. Because Bill is running out of dead people to kill. So...

GLENN: Oh, no. His next thing -- I don't know. Who is he going to be killing next? What country? What continent?

JEFFY: Milky Way.

PAT: He's killed all the people, now he's killing entire countries. It will have to be the planet.

GLENN: The death ray -- the death star of books.

STU: I believe he's going to be killing Harambe. That is the next book.

JEFFY: Oh, nice.

GLENN: All of a sudden we're all going to say, "I feel like there were millions of voices that just cried out." Yeah, Bill O'Reilly just published another book.

Featured Image:

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.