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

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: 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.