OSU Student: 'Terrorist' Attack (If You Can Call It That) Was a Misunderstanding

The very reasonable and affable Doc Thompson filled in for Glenn on The Glenn Beck Program to set a few things straight today, Wednesday, December 21.

Read below or listen to the full segment from Hour 2 for answers to these questions:

• How is Doc like Oliver Twist?

• What is RINO Season tweeting?

• How did Obama rig wait times at the VA?

• Are you racist if you don't like Thai food?

• Do Italian and Irish lives matter?

• Is it a misunderstanding if someone purposefully tries to hit you with a car or stab you?

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

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

DOC: Hi, there. I'm Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck. Thanks so much for joining me today. We're taking your tweets @DocThompsonshow, as we do during my regular morning radio broadcast on TheBlaze Radio Network.

More about me, go to TheBlaze.com, click on channels. And if you would, please follow my channel at TheBlaze.com. Just again, right at the top, you'll see channels and scroll down. And please pay no attention to the picture of me.

Somehow, some way of all the press shots that they've taken over the years, they said, "Let's see if we can find the worst possible picture." Now, I'm not saying any of them are really good. I realize you're starting with this. I get that. That's cool.

Kal, have you seen the picture that they have up there on this?

KAL: I did. You look a little -- what's the word?

DOC: I look like I'm begging for gruel, like I'm Oliver Twist.

Please can I have more? Hello. Hello. Can I have some?

KAL: And the smirk on your face, I got to say, it's kind of douchey. You got a bit of a douchey smirk.

DOC: It's a very douchey smirk. It looks like I'm in pain or passing gas, like I didn't hear the question.

What? What?

KAL: Do you get final approval on the photos they use?

DOC: No. They just put it up there. It's horrible. Look at this. It's horrible.

But of all of that, somebody said -- either this was the first one in the whole series of photos, and they just said, "There's the one. Found one of Doc. Good." Or they're like, "Let's go through and find one, and somebody thinks that looks good."

If that somebody is a female around here, I really question your taste. I really -- I'm starting to think that there's somebody working against me in the company. I think somebody is like, "Let's take him down. Do everything bad. All right. First, we'll start with a really bad photo." So, please, pay no attention to the photo. And, instead, just follow the page.

The tweets coming in. It's RINO Season tweeting: And when Obama says the police acted stupidly, he was doing race relations a solid? Is that right?

Yeah, see, that's the point. He has done so many things wrong when it comes to race relations, and now he's suddenly above it, as he's leaving office, that he's done everything right.

One of the comments he made in the interview he just presented was -- and I'm paraphrasing here, but it was something to the effect of: By every measure, everything is much better now in America.

By every measure or metric, any way you could judge America, everything is better now compared to when he took office.

I could come up with a whole lot of things that are not better, a whole lot of things that are worse. In fact, I saw today, the VA -- look at the VA alone.

If he said, "Wow, we put McDonald in, and everything is great. They got those wait times."

First of all, the wait times that they're reporting are not accurate wait times. All they did -- instead of actually lower the amount of times that veterans have to wait, all they did was change the system or way that they measure them, the way they calculate it. So it seems like they're better." The people aren't actually getting in sooner. They just started measuring or counting different.

It's just a different formula that makes them look better. In fact, they rate -- there's a service that rates veterans hospitals. And they rate them one to five stars. Five being the best, one star being the worst. And there are multiple hospitals, veterans hospitals around the country that went from a certain amount of stars to lesser stars.

I know it was, off the top of my head, Albuquerque, and one in Colorado, went from two stars to one star. But by every metric, things are better in America today. Race relations. The economy.

Relations, in general, are they better today? We all getting along much better than we did in 2008? Health care, is that better? More money? By virtually no metric is it better.

I know one metric it's better in America today. It's better for Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. It's better for them. Because they are loaded. Lots of power and lots of money.

All right. Another tweet, @DocThompsonshow from Ken Putt: I'm completely with you, but maybe it's time to switch to APR coffee, decaf.

@APRCoffee is American Pride Roasters. It's the official coffee of TheBlaze. AmericanPrideRoasters.com, they have the gift packets. It's the best coffee in America. Try it.

But he's saying maybe I switched to their decaf. And I'm sorry, it's only American Pride Roasters, and it's the Doc Thompson's Bacon Blast Coffee today. Mmm. That's good stuff.

Okay. Before the break, we had a lady challenge and say, "Okay. What's the solution?" I offered one. We need to stop paying attention to this stuff, start treating people well. And the people that don't treat you well, move on. Stop thinking that they have some ulterior racist motive. Sometimes it's a misunderstanding. But there's another way forward.

Race relations in America -- and I have expressed this on my morning radio broadcast from time to time, could be centered around food.

Who doesn't like food, and who doesn't like ethnic foods? You may not like all ethnic foods. But you're going to probably like some ethnic foods.

Kal, is there any ethnic food that you like that has nothing to do with your ethnicity or ethnic background? Anything at all?

KAL: Of course. My favorite food. Mexican. I love Mexican food.

DOC: You're not Mexican.

KAL: I'm nowhere near Mexican.

DOC: So imagine somebody said, "You know, Kal, you have to accept Mexicans along with Mexican foods. I mean, that's a package deal." Even if you were racist, wouldn't you be like? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and take the food. I'll just go ahead and accept them.

KAL: Why wouldn't I accept them?

DOC: Well, I'm saying if you were a racist.

KAL: Oh, okay. So you're telling me, if I'm a racist, I could eat my favorite kind of food, Mexican food, if I accept Mexicans.

DOC: I'm just saying, you start calling the racists out. And you're like, "Okay. So you don't like certain races, whatever, but you certainly love some of their food, don't you?"

I'm saying, we don't know each other, and we start breaking bread with people -- you don't like Asian people. So you don't like that Japanese cuisine? You don't like Thai food? Really, seriously? You're racist?

See, what I'm saying? Then we get together. We start learning about it. Because food is also culture. So they start learning about people and understanding them. So I'm thinking that's part of the key. Food solves so many other problems.

KAL: Food knows no boundaries.

DOC: Right. Exactly. It solves so many other problems. I think you do, you have the food summits. That's how you need to start leading. And actually that has been the case in some ways throughout history in America.

For example, for many years, most of the immigrants to America were primarily from Europe. They were from places like Italy and Germany and Ireland. Places like this.

And the Irish are always going to fail here because Irish food basically sucks. I mean, by comparison, it's just not good. So maybe it's not going to work so good for the Irish. But -- is there a whole lot of racism against Irish people right now?

I mean, the gingers there are, but that's not exclusively Irish. Right? Okay.

But for years, there was racism against people like from Italy and people from Germany, for example.

After World War II, when you had American soldiers that were traipsing all over Europe as part of their efforts in Europe, they come back to America, and they're like, "Hey, so I have this stuff. It's called pizza, right? You got to try this stuff."

People in America didn't know what pizza was. And then they would go into areas of New York where there were -- or other major cities, where there were Italian communities, seeking out such cuisines, and they got to know about it. And how many real -- real claims of and accurate claims of racism against Italians are there in America today?

Oh, come on. Italian lives matter. You don't have that. What do you have? You have Hispanic and black primarily are the claims of racism in America. At one time, a lot of Italians claimed racism. And maybe there was.

The food helped bring us together.

My father, when he was -- grew up in the hills of West Virginia. And he was probably 15, 14, something like this. Shortly after World War II, his sister took a trip to New York. His older sister. And she came back, and she told him about this wonderful food called pizza. He had no concept of it. And she described it to him. And he said at the time, he goes, "I thought it sounded horrible. It's bread with sauce on it. I don't -- what is -- it sounds horrible." He couldn't -- he like couldn't even put it together in his head.

And, of course, pizza is one of the biggest cuisines in America. We even recognize it as pretty much an American cuisine.

So, Kal, I think that food could be one of those ways forward. Think about all the foods around the world you love. All the ethnic cuisines. That's part of the solution to it.

KAL: Totally. I think we can bring all people together with the food.

DOC: That's it.

I love food from all over the place. If I thought for a moment that it wasn't a package deal, I even learn about the cultures, or you just use food to say, "Hey -- think about all the stuff you learn about China from the fortune cookies when you're eating.

KAL: Before you even start a conversation, just, "Here, try this."

Automatically, they're going to be put in a good mood. Wow, this is really good.

DOC: This is really good. That's right. And you know whose that is? Let me tell you about these people.

So Ireland is at a disadvantage there, I admit it. Ethiopia probably at a disadvantage too.

KAL: What's wrong with potatoes? You can have fried potatoes, baked potato, mashed potatoes?

DOC: Yeah, and some of that is okay. But you got to understand, western European food, they don't cook with a lot of spices and stuff. A little bit bland. There are some exceptions. Not horrible. But, I mean, by comparison -- and, by the way, I'm of Irish and German descent or whatever, so -- but by comparison, they lose when it comes to Italian food. Am I wrong?

KAL: I mean, if you're going on full-on meals, I guess they're not as exciting.

DOC: Kal, let's go out for Irish food tonight. Kal, let's go out for Italian tonight.

KAL: I can go for some corned beef and hash and mashed potatoes. That's good stuff.

DOC: Yes, you can go for it. But, Kal, here's your choice: We go Mexican, we go Italian, we go Thai, we go Irish food. Rate those for me.

KAL: Yeah, okay. You're right. Irish is not going to be the top on the list.

DOC: All right. That's it.

All right. Students at the Ohio State University were asked recently by my friend, Faith Goldy, some questions about the terrorists. Well, of course, we had the terrorist attack in Berlin, which is still continuing to unfold this morning. Quick update on that, before I get to the Ohio State story.

Now it looks like there was two drivers or two people in the vehicle. The gentleman that was killed, likely, possibly, probably was hijacked. He was carjacked. They believe the truck, based on their tracking equipment and computers, that somebody tried to start it a couple of times and failed. Maybe without a key or whatever. Tried to get it started. And then at some point, it ended up starting.

It drove toward Berlin for an hour or so, stopped for a couple of hours, and then eventually plowed through the crowd. And then the Polish gentleman, who was likely carjacked or something, was found dead. We don't know how he ended up -- they haven't confirmed if it was self-inflicted, if the guy who carjacked him or the guy who was with him shot him, if a police officer did. They haven't told us that yet. The other guy is still on the lam. He's still out there. They say he's armed and dangerous. The gentleman that they picked up to begin with turned out to not be the guy.

So this is what's going on. A couple of weeks ago, a few ago -- I guess it's probably close to a month ago now, at the Ohio State University, right around Thanksgiving, a guy in a car tried to pull off a -- well, I guess it was a terrorist attack. He wasn't as successful as some.

And in the car, plows into some people. Gets out of the car. Jumps out and starts stabbing people.

Faith Goldy goes there and says, "In light of what's happened there and some of these other automobile attacks, people using their car as a weapon or vehicle as a weapon, let's go talk to the people and find out what they think about this guy who, based on his rants on social media, what we know about him, and ISIS claiming responsibility for, was likely motivated by extremist beliefs. Extremist Islamic beliefs." Not that all Muslims believe this. Not that all Muslims are a part of this nonsense. They are not.

By percentage, very few are. But it's wrong to ignore the motivations to this stuff.

So she went and said, "Hey, what do you think about this? Tell me about this guy. Do you think this was terrorism?" Ask them all kinds of questions. Here's what some of the students at the Ohio State University had to say when she asked.

VOICE: I'm here at Ohio State University, which has just become the setting of ISIS's most recent terrorist attack on --

DOC: Scroll in just a little bit. Scroll in about 30 seconds or so to this.

VOICE: Multiculturalism.

VOICE: Do you feel safe on campus after the attack this week?

VOICE: Yep.

VOICE: You do?

Would you call it a terrorist attack?

VOICE: Depends on what your definition of terrorism is.

VOICE: According to your definition.

VOICE: No.

DOC: Okay. Wait. Wait. Wait. Would you call it a terrorist attack?

It depends on what your definition of terrorism is.

What -- is there another definition of terrorism I don't know? I mean, is it because he wasn't more successful?

It depends on what your definition of terrorism is.

I assume that there was really only one standard. So you mean my definition, like -- Kal, help me out here.

KAL: I'm guessing, you know, attacking, hurting, killing.

DOC: Yes, he did those things. He did all of those things. Yeah, he was responsible for that. It was based on extremist ideology.

KAL: Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Not going to say like tickling falls under terrorism.

DOC: Oh. Is there some way this wouldn't be called terrorism? If he, what? If he wasn't motivated by extremist ideology?

KAL: Perhaps.

DOC: No, it could still be likely terrorism. Okay. A little bit more from the Ohio State University students.

VOICE: No.

VOICE: Would you call what happened terrorism?

VOICE: I don't see -- I don't know what happened. I don't know what it's about. And I think we still have a lot to learn about the incident.

VOICE: ISIS has claimed responsibility.

VOICE: I do realize that. But that doesn't always mean that's what necessarily happened.

VOICE: Would you call this terrorism?

VOICE: I'm not sure.

DOC: Okay. Hold on a second. This guy, he wants to get all the answers. I don't know. I haven't read everything yet. I just want to make sure that I don't say something that's inaccurate. Get all of the facts.

Which I agree with. That's great. I wonder how he feels about Russian hacking during the election. Did he say that as well? Did he also say, "Well, we don't know for sure. Let's wait till all the information comes out?" I would guess probably not. Here's a bit more.

VOICE: I'm not sure. I've been just kind of like keeping updated with the news. I'm not sure like if they've confirmed that --

DOC: Okay. Hold on a second. So she doesn't know because she's been keeping up with the news. Didn't she just say she has been keeping up with the news, but she doesn't know?

So is that a criticism of the news? They haven't given her enough information? Okay. A little bit more.

VOICE: Yeah, so I don't know.

VOICE: Would you call what happened terrorism?

VOICE: No, I wouldn't.

VOICE: No.

VOICE: I would say it was a misunderstanding.

DOC: Okay. There's the one. It wasn't terrorism. It was a misunderstanding. That's all it was.

You know all the times that I have run people over and stabbed them, it was just a misunderstanding. That's all it was. It certainly wasn't terrorism. It was just confusion. I thought it was perfectly acceptable to run people over and stab them.

I mean, Kal, all the times you've killed people, misunderstanding?

KAL: Luckily, I haven't killed people recently.

DOC: Oh.

KAL: But I wouldn't think that that could be something that could be misunderstood though.

DOC: I'm trying to think, what type of misunderstanding could there have been?

KAL: You know, if your wife says, "Hey, pick up some lemons," and I bring home limes. Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood.

DOC: Right. That seems a little lighter. Uh-huh. Uh-huh.

KAL: Although, I'd be in a lot of trouble. But I can't see how running people over and then getting out of the car and stabbing them --

DOC: Maybe. Maybe your wife said, "Hey, can you go to the store for lemons," and you thought she said, "Hey, can you hit somebody with your car and then jump out and stab them?" Lemons. Hit somebody with your car, jump out, and stab them. Very similar. Something like that, you know.

KAL: No. Not really similar at all, actually.

DOC: Hmm. Maybe it was like this --

KAL: I mean, I know there's lost in translation, but this is a bit much.

DOC: Could be. But I'm thinking, maybe it was something like, hey, you know, if you run into Steve today, tell him I said hi. If you run into Janice --

KAL: Oh, I could see what you're saying -- if you translate or misunderstand, you actually literally run into them.

DOC: Right. Literally ran into Paul or Steve.

Can you do me a favor? You know, if you run into Steve, give him this information.

I don't know how the stabbing comes in. Maybe it's, hey, if you run into Steve, jump out of the car and stab him a couple of times. Maybe it's something like that. Hmm. So it's a misunderstanding.

KAL: I don't think this guy knows what the definition of misunderstanding is.

DOC: I don't know how you would ever misunderstand such things.

Okay. I'm going to get a break in. We'll come back with more of what the students of the Ohio State University believe about this terrorist on this the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DOC: Students at the Ohio State University asked by Faith Goldy a bunch of questions about the guy who jumped -- ran people over with his car around Thanksgiving. Jumped out of the car and started stabbing people. Whether or not it's racist. And the last gentleman said, "No, it was just a misunderstanding."

They had this -- as I touched on at the beginning of the show, they had a -- a memorial service for all people of color that have been killed recently, within months or whatever, by police officers. And they said, just because somebody has done something wrong, it doesn't mean that police officers should execute them. Paraphrasing. But that was the point of it. That police shouldn't just try them. But what they're missing about this case was, police weren't just trying him they were stopping him from killing other people. It didn't matter. I'll share that story with you in just a minute. It's Doc Thompson in for Glenn Beck at the Glenn Beck Program.

[break]

DOC: Doc Thompson in for Glenn today. Thank you so much for joining me. Coming up on my radio broadcast in the morning on TheBlaze Radio Network, Friday morning, I'm going to let the cat out of the bag and tell a bunch of company secrets.

Until they stop me. So coming up Friday morning -- there's been a lot of questions about what's going on with the radio network. A lot of good stuff. But I'll tell you, some of the stuff going on, cat out of the bag, Friday morning. So please make an appointment now. Friday morning, Blaze Radio Network. 6:00 to 9:00 Eastern time. Just go to TheBlaze.com. Click on radio.

So the Ohio State University Coalition for Black Liberation, whatever that is, headed this memorial for people of color that were killed by police officers recently. And a young lady stood up and read this: She said, in some cases, the deceased may have committed acts of violence against others before they were killed. Perhaps they were domestic abusers. Perhaps they were threatened or killed other people. She said, this possibility is not something to shy away from. The protest against police brutality extends to the innocent and the guilty alike, because we know no matter the crime, justice and due process do not come from a cop's bullet. Which is true. That's the reason that police do not just go out and execute people.

And they didn't execute this guy. The guy who drove his car into a group of people and started stabbing people was stopped by a police officer.

Did she miss that piece of the story? So it would have been better for the police officer to allow him to go on stabbing people, or does she believe they should have subdued him a different way? I love when they say, well, you didn't have to shoot him. You know, like deadly force. Can you just shoot him in the leg? Can you shoot him in the arm or something to stop him? No, you can't.

That's not how it works, folks. Police officers are trained. If you pull your gun and you shoot somebody, you shoot to kill and that's it. There's no wound them. This isn't Hollywood. You watch too many movies.

And if your loved one or you were being stabbed, would you really concern -- now, hang on, police officer. Oh, I'm being stabbed -- hang on. Don't. No, don't shoot him. No, no, no. Try -- just wing him. Hold on. No, no. Use your Taser.

No! You're going to say, "Stop this guy." And that's what they did, and that's what they were supposed to do.

There is an associate professor of English. Her name is (sound effect). She said --

KAL: I'm sorry. What was that?

DOC: (sound effect). That's her name.

KAL: Is that the professional pronunciation?

DOC: Yeah, it's a foreign name, so it's not going to make sense to you. (Sound effect). She said, you can understand where an act of violence comes from without condoning it.

I was like, "Okay. I guess you can understand that. You know, right. Nobody wants to be a criminal. And you could say, hey, this guy (inaudible)."

But that doesn't mean you lead with, hey, this guy had a rough life, don't shoot him. He's stabbing people, so let's think about it before we shoot him.

No, stop him from hurting people. And then you don't lead with, okay. Now let's talk about how rough this guy had it. You talk about what was wrong. What he did wrong. The fact that it was terrorism. The motivation for the terrorism. The victims.

You talk about all these things before you go, "Wow, this guy probably sucked." Right?

Then she called what he did a tragic, tragic mistake. He drove into the people and it was just a tragic mistake.

Stephanie Clemance Thompson -- cousin Stephanie who is an associate director of residency there said that the gentleman in question, the terrorist (sound effect), was a Buckeye. This was --

KAL: Sorry, one more time?

DOC: (sound effect). Again, a foreign name, Kal. You're not going to understand it.

She posted on social media: He's a Buckeye, a member of our family. If you think it's okay to celebrate his death and/or share pictures of his dead body -- if I see it in my time line, I will unfriend you. Because he's a Buckeye. #Buckeyestrong, #BlackLivesMatter.

So that's her concern? That you're posting pictures -- you're mocking him. You know why people are posting pictures and mocking him? Because they're upset, they're frustrated, they're scared, they're angry. All of these things, based on his actions. Not on his race. His ideas. His religion. None of this stuff.

She said, "I pray you will find compassion for his life, as troubled as it clearly was. Think of the pain he must have been under to feel his actions were the only solution."

Now, I mentioned the Brock Turner thing. Do they say the same thing when it comes to Brock Turner or rapists? Do they ever say, "Wait a minute, let's give the racist some credit here. I'm sure they don't want to be racist. What are they going through in their life? They must have really been jonesing for some strange in order to go out and rape somebody, right? They were just looking for a hookup." No, they don't say that. They say, "No, it's wrong. No means no." They never say nice things about it, "Let's take their past into consideration." They never say any of that stuff. They say simply, "It's wrong." Why the double standard? Because it doesn't fit the agenda.

These people say they need safe spaces from perception. Their perceptions of you and me and things you say. Perceived slights. Perceived insults. No, I mean, sometimes they actually are insults. But their safe spaces have not been strictly limited to that. And many times, in many cases, they'll say, "Well, I think he meant this, or I believe that, or I thought I heard."

So they need safe spaces from the perceived harsh words that you or somebody else present. But terrorists, they don't need safe spaces from that. He needs to be understood. Don't shoot him because that's just executing him.

So their safe spaces are for words. Meanwhile, when they are actually in danger and in jeopardy, they don't need a safe space, it's good.

What kind of twisted logic is that? What kind of nonsense is that?

I cannot wrap my head around it. So I was taught sticks and stones break my bones, words won't hurt me. Theirs is completely flipped around. It is: Words will hurt me, and a knife and a car will not. Vehicular assault, that's good. That actually won't hurt me. Come on, kids.

You were just run over and stabbed. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off. What do I tell you? Words and names may cause you pain, but cars and knives, they won't hurt you. So just suck it up.

It's just bizarre.

Hey, did you see the Oscars have a possibility, for the first time in history, of having somebody win both the male and female best acting categories?

(laughter)

Somebody has been nominated for both the male and female best acting category. Kelly Mantle was born a male, but plays a transgender prostitute in Confessions of a Womanizer. Whatever that is. And Mantle calls himself an actor on Instagram, but also appeared in RuPaul's Drag Race. Whatever that is. And has also said that he -- she is gender fluid. Not just transitioning. Because transitioning would say, "I was born a man, but I've always known I'm a woman." So he would only be by their progressive Hollywood logical a female and, therefore, eligible for the female category.

But he's gender fluid. So at any given moment, he could be male or female. He just vacillates back and forth. So I imagine if they nominate him for both categories, at any moment, he may not fit that category. But he may again in a minute, a day later. So I imagine it would go like this.

He -- this person is in the audience. Right? Okay. The best actress award goes to -- and at that moment, he's probably female, making him eligible to win. And then he would win it. And, yes, I won. But then as they get ready to read the male winner, probably gender fluid over to the male category. He's gender fluid.

Producers say they weren't sure what category to put him in because when they years ago split the reminder list -- this is a list that they send out to all the people that vote in the Academy, this little controlled group, into male and female categories. And he fits both since he's gender fluid.

So they said, "Just put him in both. Just easier. Just put him in both since he's gender fluid. We don't know what he is today. Throw him in both. And who knows, he may fit that."

You know, I don't agree with or fully understand people that say they are transgender. I try to, and I say, "Wow, that must be really horrible, if you feel this -- you know, you've always been trapped in somebody else's body." I can empathize -- sympathize with them and say, "That sucks. I don't wish you any ill will. You have a right to live your life. I don't want to keep you down. Go forth with personal freedoms and personal responsibility and live your life. And if you grant me the same respect, we'll have a fine relationship."

I can -- it must suck if you want to go into a certain restroom. I get all that. The simple solution to restrooms are you just make them all unisex. One person. One bathroom. And there you go. Move on. So we can move on.

But gender fluid, I got to call foul on. That one I'm calling foul on. That's BS. That is definitely BS. If you're gender -- let me help you out, if you're gender fluid or believe you're gender fluid, you're female. No, no, if you cannot make up your mind, you're female. Guys can make up their mind. No guy is saying, "You know, today, I'm just feeling kind of effeminate. Today, I just need help. Today, I just need some understanding and chocolate, okay? I just need that. I'm not looking for you to solve my problems. I just want to you listen." No guy is saying that.

Guys know -- males know, even women who say they've been transitioning to a male always felt like they were trapped in a female body, but they identify as male, they know. They know they're male. Women don't know. Women are the ones who, "Today I just need to be held." The other, "You know, if you think you can keep me down, what do you think I need a male? I need a man like a fish needs a bicycle." You're the one vacillating. Right? That's what I'm saying.

If you believe you're gender fluid, help me out, you're female. You're gender female. That's just how it is.

Kal, based on your experiences as a married man, do you dispute what I say?

KAL: No. No, not at all. Pretty much -- you nailed it down right there.

(laughter)

No misunderstanding.

DOC: No misunderstandings.

Does your wife ever not fully have an answer, or is she ever undecided, Kal?

KAL: No.

DOC: Does she ever change her mind? Is she ever fluid about where you're going to go to dinner, where the couch in the living room should go, what you're buying for Christmas, where you're vacationing, how to rear the child?

KAL: If she's asking that question, no, she always knows. If you're asking that question, eh, sometimes there's some variations. There's some questions.

DOC: Uh-huh. So today she knows exactly how she wants the living room setup, right? The couch goes in a certain corner.

KAL: Yes, she does. Uh-huh.

DOC: Is that static? Will she have that same idea six months from now?

KAL: No. She will --

DOC: So she is feng shui fluid?

KAL: Yes. Very feng shui fluid.

DOC: Okay.

KAL: Feng fluid.

DOC: She is interior design fluid?

KAL: Yes.

DOC: And what about what you should be consuming and what she is going to consume, what you're going to have for dinner tonight? Is she ever -- is she always static about her decisions?

KAL: No.

DOC: Okay. See, same thing. Hence, women don't make up their mind. They're fluid about many things. If you believe you're gender fluid, you are simply gender female. Quick break. Back with more on this. The Glenn Beck Program.

(OUT AT 9:50AM)

DOC: Hey, if you would, please follow me on Twitter, it's @DocThompsonshow. I'm pretty active on Twitter, so I'll engage with you, even after the program. @DocThompsonshow. Please follow me. Mickey Dunn tweeting, @DocThompsonshow and @Kal79. That's K-A-L79 for Kal, who is the producer today in New York.

Clearly, the students at Ohio State misunderstand what terrorism is. Yeah, they've had a misunderstanding -- which is more likely, they misunderstand what terrorism is, or the terrorists misunderstood? Yeah.

@DocThompsonshow from inseparable on Twitter. Women have the ability to ask what you want for dinner and inform you that you are wrong at the same time.

Yeah, that's true. How many times have you had this conversation, Kal? What do you want for dinner? I don't care. I don't care. So you're like, "Okay. I'll make a decision. How about we just go get that?" No, I don't want that.

KAL: That's every night.

DOC: I know. It's like -- I will -- I just tell her, "Whatever you want. Whatever you want." And finally, if she keeps saying -- I finally go, "Okay. Do you want me to make a decision or not? I'll make a decision."

KAL: I get this. She'll pick something, and then we'll go. And maybe it's not the greatest. And she's like, "This is why I don't pick. See. Because every time I pick, it's something bad."

DOC: Okay. But does she always automatically go along with what you say?

KAL: No. No.

DOC: Exactly. That's what I said. They're fluid when it comes to that.

MacAvoy tweeting: RuPaul's Drag Race has nothing to do with fast cars.

Can you imagine how confusing that would be? If I was RuPaul, I would actually invite friends to a drag race, to a NASCAR -- no, NASCAR is not drag, I guess. But to a car race.

KAL: A literal drag race.

DOC: A literal drag race between race cars and say, "Meet me down -- I had no idea this is what you meant."

KAL: They show up dressed up, it might be --

DOC: They look fabulous though. By that, I mean fabulous!

Micky Dunn @DocThompsonShow @Kal79, I feel like I'm a rock, but I'm trapped in the wrong body. I blame Krispy Kreme.

Yes, I have the same trouble. The same trouble.

All right. Calls coming up. We got a bunch of people that want to chime in. We'll get to your calls next. It's 888-727-BECK. 888-727-BECK. And also, a way that you can help out the little snowflakes who have been so upset since Donald Trump got elected. The ones who need those safe spaces. A way that you can help them out. You are going to love this.

Featured Image: Getty Images

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

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

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.