Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
Events
Christmas Stories
More
AboutBooksCharityReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2019 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

Note to Jeffy and Pat: 'The Walking Dead' Is Not a Documentary

October 24, 2016
 Lori Hanes

Writer

Here's a no brainer: The Walking Dead is a fictional TV show. Therefore, when discussing the much-anticipated season 7 premiere, one should keep in mind that it's not real. Repeat. The Walking Dead is not real.

"There is no government. There is no authority. There is no law. There's only chaos. And there's only these walkers and then bad people trying to kill less bad [people]," Co-host Pat Gray said Monday on The Glenn Beck Program.

Co-host Jeffy concurred.

"Groups of people trying to survive with each other," he said.

Pat went on to marvel at people hanging on to their humanity in that type of situation.

"Guys, you realize this isn't a documentary, you realize that?" Co-host Stu Burguiere bravely asked.

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

• What does Pat consider the greatest TV show before The Walking Dead?

• Is The Walking Dead torture porn?

• How did 24 turn into a commercial for CAIR and global warming?

• Why would Pat become violent with Jeffy?

• Is there a new standard in TV violence?

Listen to this segment, beginning at mark 38:28, from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

The Walking Dead premiered season seven, is it, Jeffy?

JEFFY: Yes, it did.

PAT: Season seven, last night. And we'll start there, right now.

(music)

PAT: I'd have to say The Walking Dead is one of the best television shows of all time. Would you agree with that?

JEFFY: I would. I would agree with you. Yeah.

PAT: I mean, I -- 24 -- up until now, up until recently, 24 was probably the TV show that I thought was maybe the greatest of all time.

JEFFY: For you.

PAT: Every week was like movie-quality programming, during the best years of 24. And then at the end, it was like, "Shut up." It was a commercial for CAIR toward the end and global warming.

STU: And global warming.

PAT: Oh, it was agonizing.

STU: It's funny. Now you're seeing like a pushback against that. What was that movie? It was an English movie -- a bunch of English guys, and they were kind of like in their own little FBI, Secret Service. The -- oh, God. The Kingsman. The Kingsman. Anyone see the Kingsman?

The villain in that movie was a guy -- it was Samuel L. Jackson, who his belief was man was killing the environment so much, he had to wipe out most of humanity. And so he was starting out this like doomsday-level event to call all these people. The new movie with Tom Hanks coming out which is from the Da Vinci Code.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah, yeah.

STU: Seemingly from the previews --

PAT: It's called Inferno.

JEFFY: That's what it is. Right? Yeah.

STU: Inferno. The Inferno virus is something created by a crazy environmentalist who believes he has to wipe out most of the world's population because the earth is destroying it.

PAT: Wow.

STU: I mean, two from Hollywood.

PAT: Good.

STU: Kind of incredible to see that.

PAT: It is.

STU: Yeah, but you go back to the 24 days, that was a big thing. They break to say, by the way, we want -- sure, we shot and tortured a bunch of Muslim terrorists.

PAT: We didn't mean to. And don't ever think that any Muslim is ever responsible for any terrorism because that just can't happen. That can't happen.

JEFFY: Ever.

STU: This is fiction. And you shouldn't go beat up your local Muslim because we know you people. We know what you're like.

PAT: Thanks, Keeper. None of us could figure that out on our own.

STU: Exactly. And then global warming, I don't even know how that one was thrown in there. Look, if you're going to kill a bunch of terrorists, you're going to emit some CO2. And that's why -- that was just a bizarre tie-in. But I think it was one of the costs of liberals participating in a conservative show. It's like Kiefer (phonetic). Come on, do the show. It's a great show. It's about struggling against terrorism. Look, I'm not comfortable about that material. If I can do a message about global warming though, a serious message in the break and just say, "Guys, I know -- this is all fun and games. This whole terrorism thing, it's not real." But you know what is real: Invisible gas, changing your world. That is -- you needed to have that in there to get them to play along.

PAT: They did. And they deny it. I mean, we talked to Joel (inaudible) that one time. Had a get-together. And I asked him if, you know, he was forced. And he didn't think that they were doing anything out of the ordinary.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: And I don't know if he just -- if that was just the line he had to sell to feel better about it.

STU: Well, I think --

PAT: But it was pretty clear they had caved at the end.

STU: I think too, there's an instance of you're trying to be surprising, right? The thing with 24, there was always unexpected twists and turns. And you could say that, okay. The Muslim -- because there's always a low-level Muslim terrorist involved in every 24 plot. At the very lowest level, there's a Muslim terrorist. There's an Islamic extremist involved.

PAT: Yeah, but it's usually the president or vice president of the United States that's really behind it.

STU: Right. Who is really behind it, it's always like a Croatian. Okay.

PAT: A Croatian, but with help from the US government. You got to get that help from the US government.

STU: Always. It's always an inside job.

PAT: Always. There was a French guy one year. There was a Croatian. There was a French guy. I don't know which. And then there was some Frenchy guy in there.

STU: Oh, yeah. Yeah.

PAT: It was always --

STU: Nazis. There's the one Nazi who --

PAT: South African. South Africans are popular.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: You can make fun of them all day because of apartheid.

STU: So The Walking Dead doesn't do this. All the walkers are not Republicans or anything like that.

PAT: Actually, we don't to have deal pretty much with any politics like that.

STU: You're just beating the crap out of zombies?

PAT: Yeah. And live people.

JEFFY: Yeah, this year --

PAT: Really, it's kind of morphed into -- the zombies are sort of secondary now.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: It's really the live people you have to worry about.

JEFFY: And, first of all, we don't call them zombies.

STU: They're walkers. I know. But if you don't watch the show, you might not understand them.

PAT: Hardly anybody doesn't watch the show, it's the number one show on TV.

JEFFY: Yeah, I'll be fascinated to see the ratings from last night.

PAT: Yeah, it will be interesting.

JEFFY: What they were. Because I was just reading, season six, last season, they were 48 percent higher than the top show on broadcast TV, season six, their ratings. 18-49.

PAT: Wow. Wow.

JEFFY: That's pretty impressive.

PAT: It's on AMC. Think of that.

JEFFY: I know.

PAT: I mean, there was a time five years ago we didn't think that was possible. There will never be a cable show that would beat network television. That just won't happen.

STU: It's not even close.

PAT: It's not even close. And now, because of The Walking Dead and other shows -- Breaking Bad broke a lot of ground and created a lot of buzz. And then that kind of built up for The Walking Dead. And now, look at where that is. The by far the number one show on TV. By far. So it will be interesting to see how well --

JEFFY: I want to talk about it really bad. And you're going to not want me to talk about the episode --

PAT: Well, they were saying there was a lot of violence, right?

JEFFY: There was quite a bit of violence.

PAT: A lot of violence.

JEFFY: With -- and there was quite a bit of violence done by Lucille, the bat.

PAT: If you divulge one thing -- because I haven't seen it yet -- if you divulge -- if you wreck this for me, the violence on that show will be nothing compared to the violence I'm going to reign down on you today. Don't even do it. Don't even do it.

STU: Well, I think it was Dana Loesch who is on TheBlaze as well, tweeted something to the effect of that it's essentially -- we -- it's torture porn. Like, we're to the point where now, we're getting to torture porn in this show.

JEFFY: Well --

PAT: That was one of the knocks on it. We read an article last week, about the decline or something of The Walking Dead. And their deal was, it started out as kind of charming violence or gore. And now it's become something -- it's morphed into something more than that.

JEFFY: Yeah. And they were -- in that article, he was talking about how he wanted the survivors to evolve. And he was saying the survivors haven't evolved enough. In the article, he mentioned Carol. But really, when you -- I think all the characters have evolved, quite a lot.

PAT: Oh, yeah. They have.

JEFFY: They've done the best they can to hold on to their humanity. I mean, that's what makes the show so good. Right?

PAT: Right.

JEFFY: And we're at a point now where --

PAT: And you see that struggle all along, to hang on to some remnant of humanity.

JEFFY: Right. Right. I mean, that's what makes them different than the people they run into.

PAT: Because if you know about what the show is about, we're at seven years now into this apocalypse, where every -- society has completely broken down.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: There is no government. There is no authority. There is no law. There's only chaos. And there's only these walkers and then bad people trying to kill less bad --

JEFFY: Groups of people trying to survive with each other.

PAT: Yes. And they're trying to set up some form of hierarchy so that there can be some order among the chaos. And for anybody to hang onto humanity in that situation, it's pretty amazing. Pretty amazing.

JEFFY: Yeah. And this show shows you obviously how difficult it is with all the obvious around them.

STU: Guys, you realize this isn't a documentary, you realize that?

JEFFY: For instance, what happened last night, Stu.

PAT: So you're not going to tell us what happened last night?

STU: The Economist did an article about guns and how they get into films. And it's largely about how basically, you know, gun manufacturers -- like how specific guns get into films, they become popular and their sales go up. You know, just like product placement for anything.

JEFFY: Sure.

STU: But there's one little nugget in there that I thought was pretty interesting. Researchers have found that gun violence in PG-13 films -- and this doesn't necessarily go to all violence, but this is just specifically gun violence. In recent years has -- has tripled since 1985 and has even exceeded the violence in R-rated films.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And we're seeing this -- Walking Dead is an example of this, where it's become so violent. There's some scenes in Breaking Bad is another one. Is so incredibly violent and disturbing. And it's going further and further and further on that. And it's a weird line. Because for some reason, that's much more okay than -- than the oversexualized stuff and even the language.

PAT: And that's explainable.

STU: I think it is. I think it is.

PAT: You're much less likely to go out and murder somebody after you've seen violence than you are to go out and have sex with somebody once you've been stimulated in that way, right?

STU: Yeah, I think -- well, I look at it a little bit differently than that.

JEFFY: I don't know.

PAT: Oh, come on. It's a no-brainer.

STU: The difference between it is -- morally speaking, for a second, morally -- because I don't think that stuff -- I don't necessarily think that, you know -- it can. Obviously, like, you know, certain -- opening yourself to certain things that you watch can influence your behavior. It's certainly been shown in studies.

But I think like, more than that is, morally speaking, I have no desire to go out and, you know, torture a zombie or a walker for the next 45 hours. I have no -- maybe I would if I was in that situation. But there's no, like, inherent desire for me to commit violence against another person. Obviously there is inside of most of us, there is a sexual desire that you like.

PAT: Right.

STU: So, you want to see women naked. You don't necessarily want to see -- I have no -- I'm rooting for the person to avoid the violence in most of these movies. You want the person to get away. To escape. That's different motivation, I guess, when it comes to the nudity and such.

But, again, even -- even language -- I mean, Jeffy, ever since I've known Jeffy --

JEFFY: Language.

STU: -- one of the first things he said out of his mouth when we were doing radio is, "I'm not the word police," when someone was swearing on the air. "I'm not the word police."

Jeffy, you're supposed to press the dump button --

JEFFY: I'm not the word police.

STU: I'm not the word police. That was the big Jeffy thing. Ever since I've known him, he's said that.

But you think about it, we really do monitor language much more than we monitor violence.

JEFFY: Yes, we do.

STU: It's a shocking thing. I mean, if someone comes on the air and swears here, we're going to dump your words. But, I mean, there would be huge consequences if we didn't. You know, the FCC would be all over that. We could go on and on and on about extreme violence. And in some cases, to make points about war and terrorism and things like that, we have. We've talked to you about people being beheaded on the border and all of that. The crime that goes on there. You know, you could do that all day. But if you say a word that is a little bit salty, you know, the whole world collapses. It is a weird standard.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh. I know.

STU: I do think that is a strange standard. And we all kind of accept the violence thing. And sometimes it is, it can be really disturbing. I mean, stuff that was in Saw, you can now see --

JEFFY: It was there for the violence. That was the whole point of those movies, right? Was to just see how bad you could torture people.

STU: I think it was the problem-solving Jeffy.

JEFFY: Oh.

STU: How do -- it was more of an IQ test.

JEFFY: You're right. You're right. How to get out of it. I apologize. You're right. You're right.

STU: But, I mean, a lot of that stuff -- certainly on HBO, for sure. But even on AMC -- you know, a scene in Breaking Bad comes to mind, where they needed to get rid of a body, and they put it in a bathtub with acid and stuff like that. It was really disturbing.

PAT: And there's some disturbing scenes in in The Walking Dead. I mean, seriously disturbing. Things you thought you could never see on TV are right there for you.

STU: And it's the number one show on television --

JEFFY: I know.

STU: Remember how they used to say, well, like family hour. When you have shows that are aimed at a large audience, you don't put those things in there. I mean, this is -- while it's not aimed at family hour, by any means, it's still a show that's the number one show on television. And, I mean, it's probably the top three or four most violent shows on television.

PAT: Oh, yeah. By far.

STU: The stuff, they talk -- I listen to it. I cannot even discuss it on the air. I just went on this whole thing about how we can't say certain things on the air. I cannot even discuss on this show what was discussed on a recent episode of Law & Order SVU that I watched. I cannot believe that show airs.

JEFFY: I'll tell you, Criminal Minds does the same thing. Criminal Minds from time to time goes really deep into stuff we can't talk about.

STU: It's insanity. I mean, the fact there is a show that runs every week that is highly rated that every week, as a requirement of the episode, is a detailed description of a brutal rape --

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: That's the premise of the show, is that they're going to describe how a woman was brutally raped and left on some sidewalk somewhere. And, of course, it's a -- it's one of those shows where you're looking for sort of forensic information and everything. So they always, as a requirement of the show, go into extreme detail about how the crime was committed. What fluid was left where. What -- what it -- I mean, what the medical reports say. And it's insanity. I want -- I was a -- I was in a hospital for -- I had a relative who was in the hospital. And they, you know, of course -- as I think every day they run a non-stop marathon on like TBS or something. And that was the channel was on. So I was in the waiting room for hours and hours and hours. And it was episode after episode after episode of freaking Law & Order SVU. And, you know, I had watched the show a couple times, but never really put it together. These people have put together hundreds of rape story lines.

JEFFY: Oh, yeah.

STU: And it's on normal TV every single week.

JEFFY: And they put together fake rape story lines. And real rape story lines.

STU: Yeah.

JEFFY: And story lines that much -- the top story of the news.

STU: Oh, yeah. They like that.

JEFFY: And old rape story lines. I mean, it's amazing.

STU: It's incredible. The stuff that is discussed on just mainstream television. They always like to say, "Oh, conservatives, they're always trying to control the culture." If we are, we suck at it. I mean, we are terrible at that. I mean, the lines that get blown by every single day on television now, it's incredible.

PAT: It's unbelievable. Yeah, we're past Leave It To Beaver land.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh, yes. There was a scene last night in Walking Dead --

PAT: Gee, Wally, it wouldn't be real neat-o if you told me what happened last night. I'll crush your skull.

JEFFY: There was a scene last night.

PAT: It wouldn't be real neat-o to tell me.

STU: Come on. Let's just get a quick update from Jeffy of exactly what happened.

PAT: Just overall, was it a great episode?

JEFFY: I enjoyed it, yes.

PAT: Yeah. Okay. 877-727-BECK. More of the Glenn Beck Program. Coming up.

(OUT AT 9:23AM)

PAT: What do you think about this mega merger with AT&T, BellSouth, TimeWarner, Turner TBS, CNN, Warner Brothers, DirecTV, all under the same umbrella? All the same company. Wow.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: I mean, you want the free market to be free, but then you also think, well, isn't that like a monopoly? Don't we have --

STU: Yeah. That standard should be super high for that.

PAT: But, I mean --

STU: If you're going to get the --

PAT: You're getting pretty out of control with a company like that.

STU: Why? To do what? The worry is, they might restrict -- I mean, it's the same net neutrality arguments that get made over and over again. They might restrict people from watching Game of Thrones, because if you're not AT&T or DirecTV.

PAT: Uh-huh.

STU: Well, first of all, they're not going to do that in their own interests. Second of all, should the government get involved because -- if they did this, should the government get involved because Game of Thrones can't be watched by anyone else? Let's just say they want to a ridiculous level they never would. You can't purchase it. You can't watch it. We won't stream it to you if you're on a competitor.

If you have Comcast, you cannot see the show from HBO.

And? Like is that where the government is supposed to step in and get involved.

PAT: Just worry about competition. I worry about -- I mean, this is almost everybody. I mean, this is --

STU: But, again, we've been hearing these warnings for how long. And it's like, have our entertainment options, have they increased or decreased? We've got the number one show on television that's on AMC.

PAT: Yeah. I know.

STU: I mean, we have -- this -- this world -- again, we're at a point where the shows that everybody is talking about are on a network that's not even a network. Netflix -- we talked about this last week on Pat & Stu, which by the way, airs on TheBlaze every single day. And this was a situation where it's Netflix that's spending more than anyone else on original programming. Netflix.

This is -- you know -- I mean, we have more options now than we've ever had before. More high quality television than we've ever had before. These are -- these are the golden years of television right now. I mean, you can go to channels you didn't even know existed five years ago and watch shows that are better than anything that was on television.

PAT: It's nerve-racking because just 15 months ago, AT&T acquired DirecTV. Now if they acquire TimeWarner, that gives it HBO, CNN, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, and Warner Brothers. That's a -- that's a pretty massive company.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Yeah.

Featured Image: Photos from Twitter/The Walking Dead (@WalkingDead_AMC)

Democrat candidate power rankings by Stu: July 30th edition

As we move along this endless primary season, we implement our first major adjustments to our power rankings model. Because of all the changes on the model itself, we'll keep the write ups short this week so that we can get an update posted before we hit the second round of debates.

There are now 40 separate measures of candidate performance which are summarized by the 0-100 score that helps us makes sense out of this chaos.We also have a new style of graphs, where the section highlighted in blue will show the progress (or lack thereof) made by each candidate over the life of their campaign.

In this update, we have our first campaign obituary, a couple of brand new candidates (when will it ever stop) and plenty of movement up top.

Let's get to it.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history. Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes. The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground. If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

Campaign Obituary #1

The Eric Swalwell Campaign

California State Congressman

April 8, 2019 - July 8, 2019

Lifetime high: 20.2

Lifetime low: 19.5

I ended my initial profile on Eric Swalwell with this:

"There's a certain brand of presidential candidate that isn't really running for president. That's Eric Swalwell."

amp only placement

It's now more true than ever that Swalwell isn't running for president, because he has officially dropped out of the race.

To any sane observer, Swalwell never had a chance to win the nomination. This was always about raising his profile with little downside to deter him from taking money and building a list of future donors.

In one of many depressing moments in his FiveThirtyEight exit interview, he noted that one of his supporters told him he definitely thought he'd eventually be president, but it wasn't going to happen this time. (This supporter was not identified, but we can logically assume they also have the last name Swalwell.)

Swalwell did outline a series of reasons he thought his ridiculous campaign might have a chance.

  1. He was born in Iowa. After all, people from Iowa will surely vote for someone born in Iowa, even if they escaped as soon as possible.
  2. He had what he believed was a signature issue: pretending there was no such amendment as the second amendment.)
  3. He's not old.

It was on point number three where Swalwell made his last stand. In an uncomfortably obvious attempt to capture a viral moment that would launch his fundraising and polling status, Swalwell went after Joe Biden directly.

"I was 6 years old when a presidential candidate came to the California Democratic Convention and said it's time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans. That candidate was then-Senator Joe Biden." This pre-meditated and under-medicated attack, along with Swalwell's entire campaign future, was disassembled by a facial gesture.

Biden's response wasn't an intimidation, anger, or a laugh. It was a giant smile that somehow successfully communicated a grandfathery dismissal of "isn't that just adorable."

Of course, headlines like this didn't help either:

Eric Swalwell is going to keep comparing the Democratic field to 'The Avengers' until someone claps

The campaign of Eric Swalwell was pronounced dead at the age of 91 days.

Other headlines:

Eric Swalwell ends White House bid, citing low polling, fundraising

Republicans troll Swalwell for ending presidential campaign

Eric Swalwell Latest 'Cringe' Video Brags About Omar Holding his 'White' Baby

Eric Swalwell's message to actor Danny Glover is 'the cringiest thing I've ever seen in a hearing'

Eric Swalwell's 'I Will Be Bold Without The Bull' Bombs

25. Joe Sestak 11.0 (Debut) Former Pennsylvania State Congressman

Joe Sestak is a former three-star admiral who served in Congress for a couple of years in the late 2000s. Besides his military service, his most notable achievement is figuring out a way to get Pat Toomey elected in a purple state.

With Arlen Specter finally formalizing his flip from Republican to Democrat in 2009, he was expected to cruise to reelection. However, Sestak went after him in the primary, and was able to knock him off in the by eight points. Sestak then advanced to face Republican Pat Toomey in the general election. He lost by two points during the Tea Party wave election of 2010.

Needless to say, losing to the former president of the fiscally conservative Club For Growth isn't exactly an accomplishment that is going to help Sestak in the Democratic presidential primary.

Unfortunately, with the current state of the party— his distinguished service in the Navy probably isn't helpful either.

Other headlines:

Joe Sestak on the issues, in under 500 words

Joe Sestak, latest 2020 candidate, says it's not too late for him to gain traction

Sestak aims to 'heal the soul of America' with presidential bid

Joe Sestak Would Move the US Embassy 'Back Out of Jerusalem'

24. Mike Gravel: 12.5 (Previous: 24th / 15.3) Former US Senator from Alaska

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gravel was able to get celebrities and other candidates to send out pleas to raise funds in effort to get above 65,000 donations and qualify for the second debate.

We may never know if it was grift or incompetence, but Gravel probably should have known that crossing this line made no difference. He'll still be yelling at the TV when the debate starts.

Other headlines:

Gravel meets donor threshold to qualify for Democratic primary debate

Gravel spends a bit of cash to run an ad against Joe Biden in Iowa

Mike Gravel: Why the American People Need Their Own Legislature

Mike Gravel Is the Anti–Joe Biden

23. Wayne Messam: 12.7 (Previous: 23rd / 15.8) Mayor of Miramar, FL

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Messam has made no impact in this race so far, and has fundraising numbers that don't even get into the six digits, let alone seven. He's not really running a campaign at this point, so there's no real downside in staying in for now.

Other headlines:

Wayne Messam: Money Kept Me Out of the First Democratic Debate. Will It Keep Me Out of the Second?

22. Seth Moulton 17.2 (Previous 20th / 21.5) US Rep. from Massachusetts 

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Seth Moulton is the invisible man on the campaign trail. Most people don't even know who he is when they're talking to him. His appeal to the Democratic party is heavily flavored with his military service and appeal to patriotism.

Good luck with that Seth.

Other headlines:

Moulton: Buttigieg Was a Nerd at Harvard

Moulton: Democrats shouldn't go on 'moral crusade' against Trump

Moulton talks reclaiming patriotism from Trump, Republicans

Moulton: 'Trump is going to be harder to beat than many Democrats like to believe'

Presidential candidates hear challengers' footsteps at home

21. Tim Ryan 18.4 (Previous: 18th / 24.3) US Rep. from Ohio

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tim Ryan's first debate performance was so bad he lost about a quarter of his score with this update. He's not without a plan to get that support back though. He wants to bring hot yoga to the people.

Other headlines:

Tim Ryan on CNN: Trump 'clearly has it out for immigrants'

Ryan Falls Way Behind in Q2 Fundraising Race, New Poll

20. Marianne Williamson 20.7 (Previous: 21st / 20.6) Author, Lecturer, Activist

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Williamson is not going to be the nominee for the Democrats, but if you throw a debate watch party, she might supply the most entertainment. So much so, Republicans have started to donate to her campaign to keep her in future debates.

Other headlines:

"I call her a modern-day prophet": Marianne Williamson's followers want you to give her a chance

Williamson Uses Anime to Explain 2020 Candidate's Holistic Politics

What Marianne Williamson and Donald Trump have in common

Marianne Williamson's Iowa director joins John Delaney's 2020 campaign

19. John Hickenlooper 22.5  (Previous: 11th / 32.0) Former Gov. of Colorado 

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Hickenlooper has been shedding campaign advisors at a relatively furious pace as he admits "there's just a bunch of skills that don't come naturally to me" when it comes to campaigning.

Probably best to pick another line of work.

Other headlines:

Hickenlooper defends campaign fundraising to The Onion: 'The race is wide open'

WP: 'You are who?' The lonely presidential campaign of John Hickenlooper

Gary Hart Warns John Hickenlooper Against Campaigning On Bipartisanship Message

Hickenlooper refuses to condemn protesters who hoisted Mexican flag at ICE facility


18. Michael Bennet 27.4 (Previous: 14th / 28.8) US Senator from Colorado

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Michael Bennet is a bit of a boring no name, but give him credit for actually trying to differentiate himself from the field. He's one of the only candidates willing to criticize his socialist opponents from the center, calling out the open borders crowd and student debt. Obviously this has no chance of success in the democratic party, but at least he's trying.

Other headlines:

George Will touts Bennet to beat Trump in 2020

Bennet: America doesn't know what the Democratic Party stands for

17. Steve Bullock 28.3 (Previous: 16th / 27.7) Gov. of  Montana 

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Bullock's biggest moment of his campaign, and quite possibly his only important moment , will come in this round of debates. He missed the first round, but squeaks in for round two after Eric Swalwell decided to take his zero percent and go home.

Bullock has a theoretical argument that doesn't look half bad on paper, but it seems impossible for another "moderate*" to make noise with Biden still hanging around.

(*-None of these moderates are actually moderate.)

Other headlines:

For Democratic presidential hopeful Steve Bullock, it's all about the 'dark money'

Steve Bullock hates 'dark money.' But a lobbyist for 'dark money' donors is helping his campaign.

Steve Bullock looking to introduce himself as someone who won in Trump country

Bullock said he's not one to eliminate all student-loan debt

Steve Bullock raises $2 million for 2020 bid in second quarter, campaign says

Lowering of state flag at capitol draws criticism

15. John Delaney 29.5 (Previous 19th / 20.3) Former US Rep. from Maryland 

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The power ranking model likes Delaney more than voters seem to like him. He continues to pour his own money into the race and at some point you have to believe someone in his life stops him from setting his cash on fire.

He did steal a key advisor from Marianne Williamson's campaign, which doesn't seem like a path to success.

Other headlines:

Delaney: "Non-Citizens Are Not Covered By My 'Better Care' Plan, But…"

Delaney says he opposes decriminalizing border crossings

Undaunted by low polling, John Delaney keeps his show on the road

Delaney presidential campaign theme: fix what's broken, keep what works

14. Andrew Yang 30.0 (Previous: 15th / 28.3) Attorney and Entrepreneur 

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Before the campaign started, if you would have said Yang would be in the middle of the pack at this point, he probably would be happy with that result. His embrace of quirky issues like banning robocalls, giving everyone free cash, and spending $6 billion to fix the nations malls is enough to keep him in the news.

His fundraising was decent, and he remains an interesting and thoughtful candidate. But, Yang has a better chance of dropping out and running on a third party ticket than winning in this Democratic Party.

You do have to wonder how long it will be before the word "Math" moves from his campaign slogan to the reason he needs to drop out.

Other headlines:

Andrew Yang Is Targeting The 'Politically Disengaged' To 'Win The Whole Election'

You can't turn truck drivers into coders, Andrew Yang says of job retraining

Yang's plan to give $1000 a month to everyone is popular with young, poor Democrats

13. Jay Inslee 31.4 (Previous: 12th / 30.4) Gov. of Washington state

CANDIDATE PROFILEf

Expect Inslee to capture the king-czar-chancellor role of the new climate police or whatever draconian nightmare the actual Democratic nominee creates if they win.

In the meantime, he should try to avoid cringe inducing nonsense like this.

Other headlines:

Presidential hopeful Jay Inslee says Trump's immigration policies will 'end his presidency'

Crowd roars for Elizabeth Warren, Jay Inslee follows to tepid applause

Inslee on listening to Carole King, wanting an anchor tattoo

Inslee Says He Tried to Arrest Fleeing Republicans


12. Tulsi Gabbard 33.4 (Previous: 13th / 28.8) US Rep. for Hawaii 

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard really wants to be Joe Biden's vice president. Or, at least, she wants to hold an important role in his cabinet, like Secretary of Defense.

Gabbard has been running interference for Biden, aggressively going after Kamala Harris for her very successful but substance free bussing attack, while hammering Harris as not qualified to be President. These have been among the harshest criticisms levied by any candidate in the race so far, and there is definitely a purpose to all of it. Her presence in the same debate as Biden and Harris should be something Harris prepares herself for. Expect incoming fire.

Along with Yang, Gabbard remains among the most interesting Democratic candidates to Republicans and Libertarians, which is not helpful to her chances of actually winning the Democratic party nod.

Other headlines:

Gabbard says Harris used "political ploy" to "smear" Biden on raced

Which U.S. Wars Were Justifiable? Tulsi Gabbard Names Only World War II

Tulsi Gabbard Says It's A 'Good Thing' Trump Met With Kim Jong Un

Gabbard Sympathizes With Amash, Says the Two-Party System Sucks

Tulsi Gabbard Files Bill To Study Hemp's Uses For Just About Everything

Gabbard: '14-year-old girl hacked into a replica of Florida's election system'

11. Tom Steyer 33.5 (Debut) Billionaire hedge fund manager

Tom Steyer is a Democratic billionaire that has spent millions plastering his face all over MSNBC for the past two years begging people to consider impeaching Donald Trump.

The campaign power ranking model loves Steyer's potential because of his unlimited money and theoretical ability to put together a serious campaign team.

All of this is theory at this point though, as the millions spent so far has lead to a giant pile of zilch. If he's serious enough, he should be able to buy his way into the low single digits, and squeak his way into a debate or two.

Steyer's billionaire status isn't an obvious fit as the party of inequality attempts to take down Donald Trump. But, he does have legitimate movement credibility, tons of cash to buy support, and a long developed immunity to embarrassment—so the sky is the limit.

Other headlines:

Tom Steyer on the issues, in under 500 words

Tom Steyer announces 2020 bid, reversing course

Why We're Not Treating Tom Steyer As A 'Major' Candidate (Yet)

Steyer banks on South Carolina in 1st presidential bid stop

10. Kirsten Gillibrand 37.1 (Previous: 9th / 36.7) US Senator from New York

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There is probably no candidate that enters the second round of debates more clearly in do-or-die mode than Gillibrand. With headlines like "The Ignoring of Kirsten Gillibrand" lighting up her feed, she needs something big to happen, and fast. Her performance in the first debate wasn't actually horrible, but still went unnoticed.

She has zero percent in lots of polls, and that includes all of the benefits she says she's received from white privilege. Imagine if she didn't have that going for her.

Other headlines:

Gillibrand: I'd Tell Concerned Coal Miner the Green New Deal Is 'Just Some Bipartisan Ideas'

Struggling in White House bid, Democrat Gillibrand seeks bump in Trump country

Gillibrand Annoyed by Question About Immigration 'Reversal'

9. Robert Francis O’Rourke 40.7 (Previous: 6th / 52.8) Former state Rep. from Texas

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The free fall continues for Betomania.

When campaigns show signs of death, reporters start to write long profiles that aim to tell the story of the demise, or launch the amazing comeback.

Politico's headline (What Beto O'Rourke's Dad Taught Him About Losing) probably wasn't all that helpful.

Beto did secure Willie Nelson's vote though, meaning he can now count on 2 votes, assuming his "Republican" mother votes for him.

Other headlines:

Welcome to America—It's a Hell Hole!

A desperate Beto O'Rourke goes for broke, claims America was founded on white supremacy

Beto O'Rourke finds 'personal connection' to slavery, argues for reparations to unite 'two Americas'

Beto boldly vows not to prosecute people for 'being a human being'Rebooto O'Rourke

Fact Checker: Has Beto O'Rourke visited the most Iowa counties? No.


Beto O'Rourke: Let's Forgive All Student Loan Debt For Teachers

8. Amy Klobuchar 42.9 (Previous: 8th / 41.9) US Senator from Minnesota 

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar has been a massive underachiever so far, but is still sticking around in that third tier of candidates. Along with Beto, Booker, and maybe Castro— they aren't exactly eliminated, but can't seem to catch fire. Or even get warm.

Klobuchar would serve herself well to focus on the fundamentals and avoiding desperate pleas for attention if she wants to remain in the Biden VP sweepstakes. Or she could totally shake things up by throwing binders at her opponents in the debate.

Other headlines:

Klobuchar: I Don't Support Open Borders Like Warren, Castro

Deportation raids are about distracting from issues: Amy Klobuchar

Klobuchar hoping 'nice' finishes first

Sports bookmakers put Klobuchar as "heavy underdog" in presidential race

7. Julian Castro 43.2 (Previous: 10th / 34.5) Former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Castro is a good example of how overblown debates can be. His first debate performance was quite solid, but did more to sink Robert Francis O'Rourke than actually help his own candidacy.

One more good debate performance should be enough to get him into the next round of debates, as he has already passed the donor threshold. Polling, however, has been elusive. Perhaps there is a swath of America that is uncomfortable voting for a Castro for president, like say, all of south Florida?

Still, in a field of a zillion candidates that have shown no potential, he stands out as a long shot with a punchers chance to make some noise. This is reflected with a nice bump in his score for this update.

Other headlines:

Julián Castro Doubles Down On Decriminalizing Migration: Repeal Felony For Reentry, Too

Julian Castro: 'Instead of breaking up families, we should break up ICE'

Bill Maher rips Julián Castro for remark about abortion for trans women

Julián Castro declines to hold baby

Julián Castro can't speak Spanish

Julian Castro wants to solve homelessness by 2028

A consulting firm made specifically to prevent sexual harassment is providing Castro and other 2020 campaigns advice and training

5. Pete Buttigieg 65.8 (Previous: 2nd / 68.8) Mayor of South Bend, IN

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There probably isn't a campaign that has been more bizarre than Mayor Pete. He was a complete nobody to the public, though as we initially noted, he had support from a bunch of Obama era celebrinerds.

This helped him rise to a top tier candidate with all the money and momentum to make a run at the nomination. Since then we've seen a complete fizzle. He is using the cash to build the infrastructure to make himself a serious candidate, and he should last a while, but he probably must win Iowa to have a chance at the nomination.

Also, finding one African American who will vote for him would be nice.

Other headlines:

Pete Buttigieg goes on hiring spree after top fundraising quarter.

Buttigieg, Struggling With Black Voters, Releases Plan to Address Racial Inequities

South Bend police call out Buttigieg for sending pizza rather than apology after race comments

CNN's Axelrod Rips Buttigieg: Blacks Doing Worse Under His Leadership

Only Pete Buttigieg gets standing ovation from Corn Feed audience

New Republic Drops Out Of Climate Forum Over Backlash To Pete Buttigieg Op-Ed

Pete Buttigieg says it's "almost certain" we've had gay presidents

Pete Buttigieg Sets Hollywood Fundraisers With Ellen DeGeneres, Chelsea Handler and More

4. Elizabeth Warren 70.4 (Previous: 5th / 53.4) US Senator from Massachusetts 

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Looking back at my initial analysis of this field, I'd say it's played out pretty closely to what I expected. Warren has surprised me though.

In an election where beating Trump is the most important characteristic for democratic voters, she seems to be grown in a lab to lose to him. She comes across as a stern elementary school principal who would make kids terrified to be called into her office, because she'd bore them to death by reading them the handbook.

Her DNA kit roll out was so catastrophic, I assumed democrats would see that her political instincts are awful. When put under the intense pressure Trump is sure to bring, she's going to collapse, and I figured democrats would recognize that.

Instead, she's in the top tier. This rise has been legitimately impressive for Warren.

It's also a dream come true for Donald Trump.

Other headlines:

The Activist Left Already Knows Who It Wants for President

Netroots Nation was the day Elizabeth Warren became president of the American left

Elizabeth Warren pledges to decriminalize border crossings

Warren plans to increase annual refugee admissions nearly 800 percent from FY2018

Warren, Biden Campaigns Appear to Find Loophole Around Paid Internships

Warren says she'll push to end Israel's 'occupation'

Warren staffer: 'I would totally be friends with Hamas'

Elizabeth Warren reintroduces legislation requiring corporations to disclose climate risk exposure

Elizabeth Warren Wants Reparations For Same-Sex Couples

Elizabeth Warren proposes executive orders to address race and gender pay gap

This is how Elizabeth Warren plans to close the pay gap for women of color

How much would a wealth tax really raise? Dueling economists reflect new split in Democratic Party

Elizabeth Warren Brings Ad Buying In-House

Elizabeth Warren says she raised $19 million in the second quarter of the year

3. Bernie Sanders 71.1 (Previous: 3rd / 67.2) US Senator from Vermont

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Sanders has fallen slowly but steadily in the polls the past couple of months, and while not every metric yet reflects it, the socialist wing seems more likely represented by Warren.

That being said, Bernie holds her off for third place. Warren and Bernie have reportedly struck a truce to not attack each other, an arrangement which benefits Warren far more than Sanders.

Bernie's machine and name recognition continues to keep him near the top of the heap, but one wonders how long that lasts as name recognition for other candidates get higher, and Iowa gets closer.

No matter if he wins or loses, he's moved the Overton window of the party in a dramatic way. And don't underestimate the appeal of his Medicare-for-all-humankind dream. Bernie may be too old and cranky to see socialized health care into the end zone, but he has advanced that ball much further than he had any right to.

Other headlines:

Bernie Sanders has 'deep sense of satisfaction' his positions are now 'centrist' among Dems

Bernie Sanders: I Will Cancel All $1.6 Trillion Of Your Student Loan Debt

Sanders hits back at Biden over criticism of 'Medicare for All'

Bernie Sanders: Nancy Pelosi shouldn't 'alienate' freshmen House Democrats

Why Sanders Wanted His Meeting With a Rabbi Kept Secret

Bernie Sanders Says Being the First Jewish President Would Be 'Another Barrier Broken Down'

Liberal billionaire calls Bernie Sanders a 'Communist' and 'a disaster zone'

Blackstone's Byron Wien: Markets are terrified of far-left Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

Antiwar candidate Bernie Sanders faces backlash over the $1.2 trillion war machine he brought to Vermont

The time Bernie Sanders ranted about baseball in a low-budget film

Bernie Sanders shows off sword Ross Perot gave him

Bernie Sanders Raises $18 Million in 3 Months, Trailing Buttigieg

2. Kamala Harris 79.2 (Previous: 4th / 65.9) US Senator from California 

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Harris has given back a good chunk of her post debate bounce, which is to be expected. While she rockets to number two in the power rankings, there are a few things to worry about.

The difference between Warren and Harris is notable. The candidates are nearly tied in most polls, but much of the strength of Harris is based on one spectacular moment. Warren alternatively seems to have a lower ceiling, but a stronger foundation.

The good news for Harris is she does incredibly well among voters that are actually paying attention, while her weakness lies with those who haven't really tuned in yet.

At some point, Harris has to clean up her mess of a policy package, which includes supporting a Bernie style Medicare for All without the Bernie style middle class tax hikes-- a combination that even the left admits makes no sense.

Quotes like this still feel way too accurate, "She's the easy-to-listen-to, poorly defined identity candidate." This needs to be sorted out eventually if she's actually going to win.

Other headlines:

It's Hard To Have A Conversation With Kamala Harris When She Doesn't Even Know What She's Talking About

Kamala Harris: Immigration Raids Are 'A Crime Against Humanity', there are 'babies in cages'

Harris doubles down on criticism of Biden's busing comments on The View

Mother Jones: Kamala Harris Wants to Bring Back Busing? Really?

Kamala Harris's Call for a Return to Busing Is Bold and Politically Risky

Race is 'America's Achilles' heel,' Harris tells African-American group

Kamala Harris claims her campaign is being targeted by Russian bots, also says she's not a plan factory

Harris proposes $100 billion plan to increase minority homeownership

What's Kamala Harris's record on Israel?

Kamala Harris Called Young People "Stupid" in 2015

Kamala Harris lags behind top-tier candidates in Q2 fundraising

Utah man arrested after alleged scheme to plan fake Kamala Harris fundraiser

1. Joe Biden 80.8 (Previous: 1st / 82.3) Former US Senator from Delaware and Former Vice President

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Biden's polling has mostly rebounded to his pre-debate status and he remains the favorite to be the nominee.

He can't survive too many more performances like his first debate however, and he needs to show voters that he can stand up to the heat President Trump is going to bring. In other words, don't get smoked again, fall over on your walker, or look like your dentures are going to fall out in the middle of a debate.

This is a real test for Biden's candidacy. He's had time to prepare, and he's had time to stretch the old muscles. No more excuses.

If Joe can get spry, he probably wins the nomination. But, that is far from a sure thing.

Other headlines:

NBC/WSJ poll: Biden tops 2020 Democratic field...

Joe Biden Decides He Doesn't Need to Stay Above the Fray After All

Biden campaigns as Obamacare's top defender

Biden says Democrats haven't been straightforward about 'Medicare for All'

Biden under fire for mass deportations under Obama

Biden refuses to apologize for high deportation numbers during Obama years

Joe Biden's campaign office opens in Philly with a protest, not a party

AOC: Segregationist controversy and debate performance raised question Biden could be too old for office

Are Biden's Apologies Killing His Electability Argument?

Liberal activists at Netroots Nation bet Joe Biden drops out of race

Joe and Jill Biden have made $15M since leaving White House

How Joe Biden, who called himself 'the poorest man in Congress,' became a multimillionaire

Penn Paid Joe Biden $775,000 to Expand Its "Global Outreach" … and Give Some Speeches

Biden: 'Occupation is a real problem'Joe Biden raised $21.5 million in second quarter, campaign announces

Joe Biden: I Promise To 'End The Forever Wars In Afghanistan And Middle East'

Joe Biden promises to 'cure cancer' if elected president

No, stealth Obamacare won’t fix the failed status-quo

Online Marketing/Unsplash

Another day, another proposed fix to a pressing national problem by a Democratic presidential hopeful. Former Vice President Joe Biden has positioned himself as the "moderate" leader of the Democratic Party, putting pressure on him to come up with a "sensible" alternative to Sen. Sanders' (I-Vt.) Medicare for All plan. But Biden's healthcare proposal, released July 15, doubles down on flawed, top-down solutions without offering any new ideas. Presidential hopefuls should instead pledge to unleash market innovation and lower healthcare prices for all.

Of course, a former vice president will inevitably find it difficult to make a clean policy break from the administration he has repeatedly hailed and defended. Biden's tenure as vice president made him into a second-tier political rockstar, and it makes sense that he's reluctant to separate himself from former President Obama's Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"). It's also no surprise that "Bidencare" preserves Obamacare's disastrous expansion of Medicaid, the federal government's insurance program for low-income Americans. His plan even provides a public option for residents of states that have not expanded Medicaid. Perhaps more surprising, or just disappointing, is how thoroughly the Democratic orthodoxy has embraced government medical insurance even at gargantuan cost, despite little evidence that it'll work.

RELATED: Medicare for all: Obamacare was only the first step

Back when he was a heartbeat away from the presidency, Biden vigorously defended Obamacare, criticizing Republican governors for failing to expand Medicaid and predicting that all states would eventually see the light. That never quite happened (as of now, 17 states wisely refuse to expand health insurance targeted at low-income Americans). But the Obama administration tried to cajole red and purple states into expanding the Medicaid eligibility threshold "up to 138 percent of the poverty level." Nevertheless, states such as Texas, Florida, and North Carolina wisely considered the evidence that Medicaid was breaking the bank — without helping the poor get access to the care they needed.

This evidence isn't just based on one or two stray studies produced by the "right" think-tank. In June 2018, Health Affairs published a blockbuster analysis of 77 studies on Medicaid's effectiveness, and the results may be disappointing for fans of government-provided insurance. Around 60 percent of the studies included in the meta-analysis found that health status and quality of care failed to improve for low-income patients after Medicaid expansion. The analysis also finds that a majority (56 percent of studies) found no improvement in the financial performance of hospitals post-Medicaid expansion. This finding contradicts claims by Obama, Biden and co. that Medicaid expansion would shift patients from the emergency room to doctor's offices, lowering system-wide costs.

These findings are scandalous for an expansion program that costs federal taxpayers at least $70 billion per year. How could all of this money be failing to improve outcomes? Plausibly, the types of institutions that accept Medicaid are larger facilities that aren't as great at delivering quality health-care as smaller offices? The copious paperwork and documentation required by the program don't really allow smaller facilities the bandwidth to deal with Medicaid in an efficient manner. Yet this documentation is necessary to curb rampant fraud in the program that costs taxpayers tens of billions of dollars each year.

Greater Medicaid funding and corresponding anti-waste measures fail to address the cancer undermining the healthcare system: sky-high drug prices and expensive medical equipment.

Greater Medicaid funding and corresponding anti-waste measures fail to address the cancer undermining the healthcare system: sky-high drug prices and expensive medical equipment. Instead of pushing for ever-higher government spending, a President Biden could push for a streamlined Food and Drug Administration approval process for drugs and medical devices, which would keep medical costs down and give a green light to innovators everywhere. The cost to develop a single medication is now more than $2 billion, and an onerous FDA approval process costs lives by being too risk-averse.

Presidential hopefuls such as Biden should also pledge to work with states to roll-back "certificate of need" laws, which force medical institutions to jump through countless barriers to expand their facilities and invest in new services. It's not just hospitals and their patients that suffer from these needless laws; Harvard medical scholar David Grabowski sums up the evidence that these laws make nursing homes far worse and costlier than they need to be. Getting rid of these laws nationwide would give patients and consumers far more options when shopping around for the care and facilities they need.

The price problem gripping the American healthcare system simply won't go away while regulatory barriers and onerous approval processes continue to stifle the sector. Presidential hopefuls such as Biden can make a dent in this problem by supporting market reforms, instead of doubling-down on failed government healthcare.

Ross Marchand is a Young Voices contributor and the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

Why the Declaration of Independence still matters — Part 4: The Declaration under attack

Frank / Unsplash

Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both fulfilled their goal of living to see the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Then, both died later that day — July 4, 1826. Adams was 90. Jefferson was 83.

Because of their failing health, Jefferson and Adams each declined many invitations to attend July 4th celebrations. Adams sent a letter to be read aloud at the 50th Independence Day celebration in his local town of Quincy, Massachusetts. He wrote that the Declaration is:

... a memorable epoch in the annals of the human race, destined in future history to form the brightest or the blackest page, according to the use or the abuse of those political institutions by which they shall, in time to come, be shaped by the human mind.

It's remarkable how well the Founders understood human nature and what could happen to the United States. It's the postmodern mindset that increasingly rules the U.S. now. It has infected our institutions and untethered us from the bedrock principles of the Declaration. In its place? Hypocritical and vitriolic partisan righteous indignation.

Less than a century after Adams' and Jefferson's deaths, the most serious attempt to undermine the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution came from America's 28th president — Woodrow Wilson. He wrote:

Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence.

As if that's a bad thing.

During Wilson's career as a college professor, he thought deeply and wrote extensively of his contempt for our founding documents. His issue with them formed the core beliefs of Progressivism that are still alive today.

In 1911, before he was elected President, Wilson said in a speech:

I do not find the problems of 1911 solved in the Declaration of Independence ... It is the object of Government to make those adjustments of life which will put every man in a position to claim his normal rights as a living human being.

See what he does there? He completely inverts the Declaration — he's saying, you don't have inherent rights until government puts you in a position to claim them. That's the heart of Progressivism.

In a later speech, Wilson said:

If you want to understand the real Declaration of Independence, do not repeat the preface.

Wilson did not think the equality, natural rights, and consent-of-the-governed parts of the Declaration defined the proper role of government. He preferred the Declaration's list of grievances because they addressed specific problems. That's what he thought government existed to do — solve problems for people. And since people's problems change over time, so should the Constitution and government to keep up with the times.

Wilson said:

No doubt we are meant to have liberty; but each generation must form its own conception of what liberty is.

We hear this sentiment echoed all the time today: follow your heart, find your truth, etc.

Another key to Wilson's Progressive theory of government was human evolution. He thought that because humans were now more enlightened, they could be trusted not to abuse government power. The Declaration's committee of five (Adams, Sherman, Franklin, Livingston and Jefferson) would've laughed Wilson out of the room.

It's hard to believe that less than 150 years after the signing of the Declaration, the U.S. president — Wilson — was saying this:

We are not bound to adhere to the doctrines held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence: we are as free as they were to make and unmake governments. We are not here to worship men or a document. Every Fourth of July should be a time for examining our standards, our purposes, for determining afresh what principles, what forms of power we think most likely to effect our safety and happiness. That and that alone is the obligation the Declaration lays upon us.

Wilson was so effective at imposing his philosophy on government that he forever diverted the U.S. presidency away from the Constitution. Progressives have kept Wilson's torch alive ever since.

Progressives are still hostile to the Declaration of Independence because of this idea of “historical contingency" which holds that truths change over time. Progressives think the “self-evident" truths of the Declaration are outdated and may no longer apply. And that means the Constitution based on those truths may no longer apply either. Wilson and Progressives especially don't like the whole separation of powers thing, because it hinders the fast action they want out of government. They want a justice warrior president who will bring swift change by fiat.

The current trend in attacking the Declaration and Constitution is to tear down the men who wrote them. In late 2015, students at the University of Missouri and the College of William & Mary, placed notes all over the statues of Thomas Jefferson on their respective campuses. The handwritten notes labeled Jefferson things like, “racist," “rapist," “pedophile" (not sure what that one's supposed to mean), “How dare you glorify him," “I wouldn't be here if it was up to him," and “Black Lives Matter."

That is the handiwork of students who are blinded by self-righteous victimhood and can't see the value and merit that the Declaration still holds for us today. After these incidents, Annette Gordon-Reed offered a reasoned defense of Jefferson. Reed is a respected history professor at Harvard Law School, who also happens to be a black woman. She wrote:

I understand why some people think his statues should be removed, but not all controversial figures of the past are created equal. I think Jefferson's contributions to the history of the United States outweigh the problems people have with aspects of his life. He is just too much a part of the American story to pretend that he was not there ... The best of his ideals continue to influence and move people. The statues should be a stimulus for considering all these matters at William & Mary and the University of Missouri.

At the opposite end of the spectrum from Woodrow Wilson's disdain for the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln loved it. If there is one overarching theme in Lincoln's speeches, it is the Declaration. Lincoln pointed the nation back to the Declaration as a mission statement, which ended slavery and preserved the Union.

Unlike Wilson, who recommended leaving out the Preamble, Lincoln considered it the most vital part. To Lincoln, the self-evident truths were universal, timeless, and more important than the list of grievances. Lincoln wrote that these truths were:

... applicable to all men and all times ... that today, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.

In a speech Lincoln gave in 1861, shortly after he was first elected president, he said:

I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence… I have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the mother-land, but that sentiment in the Declaration which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time.

Lincoln went on to say that he would rather be assassinated than see the nation forfeit the principles of the Declaration. His Gettysburg Address is a brilliant, concise renewal of the Declaration:

... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

We cannot assume that this radical idea of freedom will always be embraced by Americans. It has found hostility on our shores every step of the way. The Declaration's principles must be continually defended. Because while humans do have certain unalienable rights that are endowed by our Creator, there is darkness in the world, and for some strange reason humans, while valuing freedom, also seem to have a natural bent toward tyranny. That's why we must understand and discuss the Declaration. It's not alarmist. It's not a quaint history lesson. It's a reality, right now, that the fundamental principles of the Declaration are under attack. The Founders would have undoubtedly shuddered at most of the rhetoric from last week's Democratic presidential debates. Left to its own mob devices, even America would turn its back on freedom.

Shortly before his death in 1826, 90-year-old John Adams was asked to recommend a toast that could be given in his honor on July 4th. Adams didn't hesitate. He suggested, “Independence Forever." The small group of visitors silently glanced at each other for a moment, before someone asked Adams if he'd like to add anything else. Adams shifted forward in his chair, leaned on his cane, stared intently at the men, and replied, “Not a word."

China is having its Boston Tea Party moment

Unknown Wong / Unsplash

Freedom. It usually begins as a whisper. A secret passed on between patrons at a secluded bar or private meeting. And no matter how hard the tyrants may try and stop it, no matter how many dams they throw up to try and contain it, the whispers eventually become a flood. Sometimes it takes longer to break through, but it's the same EVERY TIME. Liberty and freedom always wins. It's an unstoppable force that knows no immovable object.

For us it was exactly 243 years ago to this month that those whispers became a flood. A group of ragtag colonists took on the world's only superpower —and won. Our forefathers proved it — freedom refuses to recognize tyranny as an immovable object. The world was forever changed.

And I can't help but see the poetic justice as more whispers became a flood, defying their own immovable object, just three days before all of us were buying fireworks to celebrate our Independence Day. But this time it was just off the coast of mainland China.

Last week over a MILLION protesters filled the streets in Hong Kong. Literally a FLOOD of humans looking for one thing — freedom. They stormed the government building that is the equivalent of their Congress. They smashed windows, broke down doors, and a photo was taken that I think just might be the picture of the year.

A British colonial flag, a symbol thrown out when Hong Kong was given back to China, was draped — BY THE PROTESTORS — over the chair of their head of government. I can't restate how historic this actually is. The people of Hong Kong, with a population that is over 90 percent ethnic Han Chinese, are saying to the mainland that they prefer colonial rule over the tyranny of the Chinese government. Leftists would tell you that communism is the remedy for colonialism, but for those living in the dark shadow of communism, they actually prefer colonial rule over what they now face.

The local Hong Kong government is caught between the immovable object of the Chinese communist government, and the unstoppable force of liberty.

When Hong Kong was given back to the mainland, China agreed to allow them a few freedoms that the rest of the Chinese don't enjoy. They're free to engage in protest against the government and they maintain a legislative body — both of which are outlawed on the mainland. But, as every tyrannical oppressor always does, China has been looking to reel that in. Most recently, China attempted to make it possible to extradite dissenters back to Beijing. The result? The quiet whispers of freedom, the secrets told in private at clandestine meetings, became a flood of millions in the streets.

On July 3rd, police began a crackdown. More than 13 people have been arrested so far. If China eventually gets their way, those 13 people will no doubt be the first of many to be extradited over to the mainland. Their crime? The dream of freedom. As of right now, the extradition law has been temporarily delayed. The local Hong Kong government is caught between the immovable object of the Chinese communist government, and the unstoppable force of liberty.

History has shown who will win in the end. Yesterday, over 200,000 protestors gathered at the high speed train station that links mainland China to Hong Kong. The message was just as clear as the British colonial flag hung inside their legislative building. For our forefathers it was symbolized with the Gadsden Flag and the phrase “Death To Tyranny." The message is simple: “we will not be ruled. Freedom knows no immovable object."

News of the protest movement has been censored in mainland China, but how long will they be able to contain THEIR OWN whispers with over two hundred thousand freedom lovers camped out at the bridge between Hong Kong and mainland China? How long before those whispers spread to secret meeting locations in Beijing or Shanghai? How long before that cascades to the Christian and Muslim minorities that are tired of being rounded up and thrown into camps?

We might have just witnessed the Chinese version of the Boston Tea Party. July 4th is still a long way away for them, but — as it does time and time again — freedom and liberty always win in the end.