WATCH: C-SPAN Ranks the Presidents and It MIGHT Be Liberally Biased

C-SPAN came out with its Presidential Historians Survey for 2017, and Glenn's co-hosts had a heyday going through the rankings.

"Number 11 is Woodrow Wilson," Stu Burguiere revealed.

"That is unbelievable," Pat Gray chimed in. "Racist, another internment guy, a guy who brought us --- well, this is what they'll love about him, but we hate --- all the progressives policies, the income tax. I mean, so much about him to hate, so much.

Wilson was also a catalyst for reviving the Ku Klux Klan.

"The KKK was essentially . . . he brought them back out of obscurity as president," Stu said.

Other abominations include Calvin Coolidge at #27 (just one slot ahead of Richard Nixon even though Coolidge brought the U.S. out of a devastating depression and into the Roaring '20s), Bill Clinton (#15) listed ahead of James Madison (#17), the father of the US Constitution, and the introduction of Barack Obama at #12.

"Now, this is a disgrace," Stu said.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Featured Image: Original cartoon created by Pat Cross Cartoons for glennbeck.com. Pat Cross loves drawing, America and the Big Man upstairs.

PAT: Pat, Stu, and Jeffy in for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. 888-727-BECK.

Happy Presidents Day. I guess pretty much every year it's traditional that they -- they do some sort of ranking the presidents who have been president of the United States. And who is this one from, Stu?

STU: That's a good question. By C-SPAN, I believe. C-SPAN does this, I guess, every year, and they get a bunch of historians -- 50 historians or so. One hundred historians. And they believe up with a list of who is the best.

And it's always --

PAT: One hundred historians. You know this is going to be -- this is going to be liberally biased, I would assume.

STU: Uh-huh.

PAT: It's just a wild guess of mine. Just a stab in the dark.

JEFFY: But you don't know that.

PAT: I don't know that for a fact. So...

STU: Shocking, yeah. Number one is going to be -- let's see. Blaze story. Blaze has the list up there.

PAT: Let's see if we can guess who number one is. Who would you think, Jeffy, if you had to guess, 100 historians.

JEFFY: Off the top of my head?

PAT: I'm going to say --

JEFFY: It's going to be -- it's going to have to be either WW, right? Woodrow or Franklin, right? Or Roosevelt.

PAT: It's got to be FDR.

STU: No. Come on, guys. Look, we know they are biased. But you're going to put either Lincoln or George Washington at number one. Is that a surprise?

PAT: Really? No, not usually. A lot of times it's FDR.

STU: My understanding is it's always been Lincoln or Washington.

JEFFY: Oh, okay.

STU: And top ten, number one is Abraham Lincoln.

PAT: Abraham Lincoln is a good choice. I can't argue with that. I mean, I get this email from this Abe Lincoln hater every single time we mention his name.

JEFFY: Yes.

PAT: You do too?

JEFFY: I believe I'm copied on that.

PAT: Like come on, man. Has history not exonerated this guy by now? Because I think so. Did he do some extraordinary things for extraordinary times? Yes, he did. But he gave back the power, which is also extraordinary. The guy was amazing. And I love Abraham Lincoln. And I don't care how many emails I get on the subject, I'm still going to love Abraham Lincoln. So I've got no issue with that, with Abe being number one.

STU: Yeah, you put it in perspective, here's a guy who went through basically the most till --

PAT: Most difficult time in our.

STU: We talk about, "Well, we're very divided." We had a Civil War. We were more divided then, I can assure you.

PAT: Not as divided as we were, that's for sure. So Abe was number one. Was George number two?

STU: George Washington, number two.

PAT: That's pretty good. I'm okay with that so far.

STU: Not a huge surprise. Again, you want to talk about a guy who surrendered power.

PAT: Yes. A guy who was offered to be king. They asked him, in fact, would you -- you should consider being king. And he told them not to even bring that up to him again. Don't even mention that to me again.

STU: Do you think we would get that from today's politicians?

PAT: Oh, jeez. No, no.

STU: Really? So you're saying no?

PAT: No. I'm kind of saying no.

STU: So here's the -- this is looking back. In 2000, Abraham Lincoln was number one. 2009, number one. 2017, number one. So he's been number one for all three of the years they've done this.

George Washington was number three in 2000. Number two, 2009. Number two, 2017. So those two really have been consistent. And number three has been pretty consistent as well. The only time that George Washington wasn't number two, FDR was number two. And he is number three this year.

PAT: FDR, the third -- okay. This -- on the 75th anniversary -- this is the 75th anniversary of the Japanese internment camps. Thank you, FDR. The third best president of all the time.

JEFFY: Was he responsible for that?

PAT: Sure was. Yes, he was. Yes, he was.

STU: Amazingly, the same people who will today come out and bitch about Donald Trump and his immigration roundups across the country --

PAT: Right.

STU: Where there's been 100 -- I think the number is 174, in America since Donald Trump took over. 174 illegal immigrants that were not already criminals for something else have been arrested and deported or in the process of being deported in these raids. 174 people. How many people do we have in this country? Like is it a thousand? Two thousand? I don't know. It would be really disturbing if it was 2,000 people we had in this country.

PAT: Stu, it's 320 million. So it's higher than you thought for sure.

STU: Wow, that's higher. That's much, much higher. So the same people who will be complaining about this will give FDR, the number three president of all time, after he took an entire race of people who were citizens, by the way.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Not illegal immigrants. They were citizens of the United States of Japanese descent and put into camps because we thought we might not be able to trust them during the war.

PAT: Right. For whatever reason, the other thing about FDR is, they always give him credit for getting us out of a depression.

STU: Right. Which is not true.

PAT: Getting us out of the depression, we were in it for 12 years.

STU: He extended it.

PAT: Virtually his entire administration was the Great Depression. And the only reason why we got out of it was because of amazing manufacturing in World War II. We manufactured so -- we manufactured our way out of the Great Depression. And it had nothing to do with FDR, except for the fact that he asked Congress to declare war. That's about it. I mean, it is -- it's amazing to me that people don't see that the depression lasted for 12 years here. And one or two years everywhere else. That's because of the incredible overreach of FDR.

STU: And a lot of economists have come around to that. For a long time, it was just, that was the truth. FDR was the guy who bailed us out of this Depression, even though he had like 97 terms as president to do so, and it took him all of it.

PAT: Hard to make that case. Yeah.

STU: But really, recently, you start looking at these policies and how they affected the rest of the world, as you pointed out, and things that just really extended it and made it worse. Right?

PAT: Yes. Made it much worse.

STU: You know, everybody likes to praise the Obama recovery in the media. And it's like, it's the worst recovery since World War II.

PAT: When we had another super progressive president.

STU: When we had FDR. Right, yes. It's like, what is the pattern here? Number four.

PAT: Jeez.

Another one that's going to drive you out of your mind.

STU: Yes. Theodore Roosevelt. Now, if Glenn were here to scream about this, he would. It's again another typical pick. He's been fourth every single time.

PAT: Those two progressives right next to each other and always ranked in the top five.

STU: Now, they do have the same last one. Is it possible they're voting for the wrong ones? I don't know.

PAT: I don't know.

PAT: But it does seem like Theodore Roosevelt always gets that.

And this is the -- this is the thing they do to say it's okay for Republicans: See, it's a Republican.

Now, obviously Lincoln. But he's a little bit of an exception to this story. Theodore Roosevelt is like, well, it's John McCain's favorite president. It's Newt Gingrich's favorite president. See, we're not just crazy liberals putting this list together. And that's one of the sad truths that has happened with the Republican Party, that has turned into -- again, the guy ran -- he started the Progressive Party.

Like, this is not --

PAT: It was named that for a reason. Because it was progressive. That's why.

STU: Yeah, that's really what he meant. That's what he meant.

PAT: That's what he really meant, yeah.

STU: Number five is Dwight Eisenhower. And interesting about Eisenhower is in 2000, he was number nine. In 2009 --

PAT: Moving all the way to number five.

PAT: Eight. And then all the way up to number five this year.

PAT: Number five with a bullet.

STU: Now, I don't know what he's done since 2000 to justify this.

PAT: A lot. He's done a lot. Yeah, he's done a lot.

STU: Really? It's weird because you look at a historical legacy of a president, and it might move you over time. You might say, "Wow, that policy worked."

Like, for example, LBJ might have looked like a better president when he left. What he left behind was basically all of our financial problems.

PAT: The scourge.

STU: Right? You know, $100 trillion, where, what? 75 trillion are that are policies that he passed.

PAT: Easily.

STU: I mean, this is a disaster.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: For our country as far as finances go. And over time, I think you can look at his -- you might have left that and think, "Wow, he really wanted to help people." Fifty years later, you're going to say, "Wait a minute. He ruined the country with these policies."

That's not the way that the left looks at it, of course. But I'm surprised to see -- what with Eisenhower has moved people in the last 17 years, where he would go from ninth to fifth?

PAT: Yeah, it's interesting. I don't know. Just maybe over time. And he realized his policies did kind of have a stabilizing effect during the '50s. I don't know. The economy was pretty good during the '50s.

STU: Sure.

PAT: So, you know, maybe -- maybe that's moved them a little bit.

STU: Harry Truman in sixth. Which he's been right around that area for a long time as well. Thomas Jefferson.

PAT: Number seven. Come on. That's ridiculous.

STU: He should be a little higher than that.

PAT: Ridiculous.

STU: JFK at number eight is obviously a controversial one.

PAT: He was in office for about 15 minutes.

STU: Yeah, he had the tragic end. But, I mean, other than that --

PAT: He saw us through the Cuban Missile Crisis. He gets a lot of brownie points for that, for standing up to the Russians and doing that courageously. And he did. He did.

JEFFY: Yes, he did.

PAT: He faced down the Russians, and that was a tough time in American history.

STU: Standing up to the Russians, that's an interesting --

PAT: Yeah, it is.

STU: Yeah. You know, you're right. But, again, that thing almost turned into -- that probably was the closest we came other than mistakes -- because there were some mistakes that we almost went into nuclear war over.

PAT: Oh, yeah, for sure.

STU: But as far as a policy issue, probably the closest we came.

PAT: I'd say definitely, yeah.

STU: And, again, you're right. He was president for 15 minutes. He did cut taxes, which is something the left likes to ignore about his reign.

PAT: Yeah, they don't like to hear that.

STU: But putting him at number eight is, I don't know. How much of that is the rock star dying after his second album and everybody just kind of gives him the full credit for the full career?

PAT: Almost all of it. Almost all of it.

STU: Probably. Right? Kurt Cobain. What's the right guy?

PAT: A Buddy Holly situation. One album.

STU: Yeah, where you just kind of give him credit for twelve good albums, even though they only put out two and then died. It's like, oh, well, he would have had ten more. I mean, look at this, this was unbelievable. That's kind of what you do with musicians. I guess you do that with presidents too.

PAT: Yeah.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: Ronald Reagan, number nine. Yeah, Regan should be three, four, five.

PAT: Way too low for Ronald Reagan. I've seen him as -- it seems like I've seen him high as number one. But maybe not. Because usually these historians don't do that.

STU: Yeah, I don't think with the -- you're probably not putting him number one when you're putting him against George Washington. But more than presidents, I would certainly put him as number one. What's the last president you would put potentially -- you don't even have to make the distinction? But like you put in the conversation with -- with Reagan. Coolidge?

PAT: Yes. Yes.

STU: Again, probably you're going back to Coolidge. Which, again, you haven't heard his name yet.

PAT: And he never shows well in these rankings.

STU: No. And here's a really pathetic one, as we just talked about, LBJ coming in at number ten. He's a complete embarrassment.

PAT: Terrible. He should maybe be dead last.

STU: Yeah. There's an argument to be made there, that he should be dead last. Again, we have $100 trillion of unpaid liabilities, future liabilities, along with $20 trillion of debt.

The overwhelming reason we have that are the programs that LBJ started and have sat here and drained our society for a long time. Now, there are some parts of that, that are popular. But, you know, they're not particularly run well. You can't necessarily blame LBJ for how a program that he instituted is run 50 years later. But still --

JEFFY: No, but there's evidence that he knew it was going to happen anyway.

STU: Yeah, the other part of that too is it comes with skepticism of giant federal government. If you go into this thinking, well, the government is wonderful, and they will do these things well, then you start giant programs like this. And when that fails, you should get some of that blame.

PAT: Uh-huh.

PAT: And it's part of the reason why I think -- one of the parts of the reason that I turned on things like the Patriot Act, for example, was I -- you know, you look at the guy who wrote it, Sensenbrenner. He wrote the Patriot Act. And even he says it was implemented in a way that it was not written. They did things that were not allowed in the Patriot Act, according to the guy who authored it. And that's not because the Patriot Act in and of itself was the worst thing that was ever past -- though many argue that it is -- it's because the government takes what they have, and they do 100 percent more every time.

And, you know, you have to be able to see these things because this is the pattern that happens every single time.

So the next two are the most controversial on this show. Number 11 is Woodrow Wilson.

PAT: That is unbelievable.

STU: That is absolutely unbelievable.

PAT: Racist. Another internment guy. A guy who brought us -- well, this is what they'll love about him, but we hate, all the progressives policies. The income tax. I mean, so much about him to hate. So much.

STU: And not to mention, you said the racist part. The KKK was essentially he brought them back out of obscurity as president.

PAT: Yeah, he reignited the KKK.

STU: Yeah. He -- he, you know, screened one of their movies that really tried to reignite the movement. I mean, he really was responsible for the resurgence in that era.

PAT: The movie, wasn't the movie based on a book he wrote?

STU: Yeah, I think that's the -- Glenn would be here yelling at us right now I'm sure.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: Yeah, that's how bad it is. However, I will say, Glenn I think at times -- and you've heard this over the years -- has felt as if -- especially off the air, why we even bother doing this? You know, he gets into those frustrated moments when things don't go the way we want them to go. You know, he'll get frustrated. And that's natural. Right? We all get that way at times. Sometimes you feel you push so hard and you fight so hard for something and you think it's the truth, and then it doesn't come through, and, you know, you beat yourself up over it. Glenn has been talking about Woodrow Wilson for a long time. And I'm not going to give him credit for this. But in 2000, he was ranked sixth. He fell -- in 2009, ranked ninth. In 2017, ranked 11. He's falling.

PAT: Yeah, good.

STU: He's falling down the list of presidents. Again, Woodrow hasn't done much recently to justify a move. People are just waking up to how bad of a president he was.

PAT: Right. Yeah, that he was terrible.

STU: So that's important. And number 12 is the big one.

PAT: Coming in at number 12 with his big debut, Barack Obama.

STU: Barack Obama.

JEFFY: Oh, my gosh.

STU: Now, this is a disgrace.

PAT: It is a discourse. It is. But you know these liberal professors are like, he hailed Obamacare. He insured so many people who otherwise would die from lack of medical coverage. You know that's what they're thinking.

STU: I guess. Look, if you are a progressive, you probably do like the presidency of Barack Obama. And he should get into this more in-depth because it's so revolved.

PAT: Yeah, we should. Yeah, we will. We'll do that coming up here in a second. More of the Glenn Beck Program with Pat, Stu, and Jeffy coming up in a sec.

[break]

PAT: It's Pat, Stu, and Jeffy for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. Presidents Day. We're kind of going over this list, ranking all of the presidents in order.

One through 44. Actually 43. Forty-three have finished their terms.

STU: Right. Obviously Trump isn't on this list yet. Barack Obama is the one who had the debut this year. And they went with number 12, which is we're going to come back and hit that after a while. At number 15 is Bill Clinton. And Clinton was -- went from 21 when he left the office all the way up to 15. You'd expect Barack Obama to have the same type of thing, right? He's going to move up. He's not moving down.

JEFFY: Wow.

PAT: Yes.

STU: Because, again, these are mostly liberal historians that are going to love this guy.

PAT: Can you believe Bill Clinton is listed ahead of James Madison? The father of the US Constitution.

STU: Inexcusable.

PAT: Now, I know this is presidency. And they're not necessarily taking the Constitution into account on this. But he was a good president. James Madison certainly was better than Bill Clinton.

STU: How is that -- how is that an argument? How is that an argument?

PAT: I don't know. I don't know.

STU: One of the things they didn't like about Madison is that he is the reason -- he basically made it illegal to -- again, he -- he wrote the -- he wrote some of our important founding documents, if you might remember. So he was kind of the expert of the time on what you were allowed to do. And one of the things he said you were not allowed to do was have direct stimulus from the federal government to states to pay for things like infrastructure. He didn't like that.

So the way they -- they have to go around and have all sorts of hurdles and loopholes and gymnastics to justify these stimulus programs they passed today because they're not allowed. They're straight-out not allowed. So what they have to do is they have to give money to the states for the states to do these things. And with some exceptions. But that's one of the things they don't like about him. But what else is there? I mean, Madison was pretty good. It's James freaking Madison.

PAT: Yeah, he was. These lists are almost always inexplicable.

STU: Oh, yeah.

PAT: When you have John Adams at 19 -- and maybe that's the Alien and Sedition Act.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: Which is kind of understandable, it would drop him down. Ulysses S. Grant at twenty-two. He was one of the worst presidents of all time: Scandal-ridden, controversial, not a good guy. How is he at number two? Unbelievable. We'll talk Obama and finish off the list, coming up.

[break]

PAT: Pat, Stu, and Jeffy for Glenn on the Glenn Beck Program. 888-727-BECK.

Kind of celebrating Presidents Day here with the latest ranking of the presidents in order one to 43. And so once again -- actually this is a decent -- the top of it is pretty good because they've listed Abraham Lincoln number one and George Washington number two. I can easily --

STU: That's fine.

PAT: That's fine. You can change those two if you want.

STU: I think I probably change them, but I'm okay with them. Right?

PAT: They're definitely the top two.

STU: I mean, I'm fine with them being the top two.

PAT: I would actually put Jefferson number three. They selected Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

STU: Yeah.

PAT: FDR number three. And then Theodore number four, followed by Dwight Eisenhower. So that was the top five.

STU: Let me give you -- because we've kind of gone through little bits of pieces of this. We don't need to hit every single name. But let me give you a quick run of presidents here. Twenty-six, Jimmy Carter. Twenty-seven --

PAT: Way too high.

STU: Way too high.

Twenty-seven, Calvin Coolidge, who should be at least top ten for sure.

PAT: Top three. Oh, definitely top ten.

STU: And then 28, Richard Nixon. So you have Coolidge one slot ahead of a guy who was impeached or almost impeached. Then you have -- you have Carter ahead of both of them, which --

PAT: Ahead of Calvin Coolidge. That's an outrage.

STU: And you have to look at like Nixon being an obvious line of demarcation of where they think -- you know, everyone below that was bad for sure, according to these historians. He's number 28.

And then number 33, five spots below George Nixon is George W. Bush.

PAT: That just shows how much they hated the guy.

STU: They just hated the guy. Now, he's risen -- he went from 36 to 33 since the last time they ran this.

But that is -- he is rising a little bit. Then you kind of get down to the real -- I think William Henry Harrison really gets screwed in this. Because JFK is a top ten guy mainly because he got assassinated. And, you know, people look at that and they look at that event as a real moment. And, look, he wasn't in office long enough to be a top ten president. If you take out that part of it, you know, I think he's remembered quite differently. But poor William Henry Harrison. The guy --

PAT: In office only a month.

STU: A month. He should be like number two on this list. Poor guy. He gets a month in office, and they throw him down at 38.

PAT: He got a cold or something. Right? He got pneumonia.

JEFFY: Yeah, because of the inauguration. It was so cold out. He wanted to do it outside. He got too cold. Got sick.

PAT: And died.

STU: That's not how colds work. But, yeah. That is, I believe, what they throw around about him. You don't get a cold because it's cold. That's not how colds work.

PAT: But I think if I have this correct -- if I have this down -- and maybe there's a scientist out there or doctor who can help us. But if you've hardware got the germs, the cold enables is how I think it works. I think the cold creates an atmosphere whereby they can better do their work. I think. I'm not sure about that.

STU: Okay. I will say this. You know, it was 73 yesterday here in Texas.

PAT: Yeah, it was so warm.

STU: And it's freezing in other parts of the country, where we used to live, for example, the northeast. And that decision -- I don't care if it causes. I don't care if warm made you sick, I'd still live here. I don't care at all. It's that devastating.

And then the bottom -- probably the biggest story from this, other than the Obama thing, which we'll get to is the fact that they put the first gay president last on this list. Which is pretty -- pretty offensive to me.

JEFFY: Thank you.

STU: James Buchanan, our first gay president, was -- he's tossed in here as last place. And obviously this shows the hatred towards him.

PAT: Now, James Buchanan, I know this, was maybe the only bachelor among these guys, right?

STU: Hmm.

PAT: And he was forever a bachelor.

JEFFY: Call it what you want, bachelor. Whatever you want, Pat.

STU: You can call it a bachelor. Or you can call it what it was, was he was gay. But had a long relationship as a gay president. First gay president. In-man gay president. And he did roll a little dude heavy. This is actually a real thing that they believe.

JEFFY: Yeah.

STU: Or at least I should say that the gay history project believes, the National Gay History Project.

PAT: Oh, well, then you can't dispute that.

STU: More than 150 years before America elected its first black president, it most likely had its first gay president, James Buchanan. Buchanan, a Democrat from Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, was the 15th president of the United States. Lifelong bachelor. Served as president from 1857 to 1861, years leading up to the Civil War.

Historian James Loewen, who, by the way, I have the list right here -- James Loewen, not included on the list of historians to rank these guys because obviously they are anti-gay.

PAT: Obviously.

STU: We're putting that out there right now. It's confirmed.

PAT: Obviously. Uh-huh.

STU: So his research into Buchanan's personal life -- he says he's convinced that Buchanan was gay. Loewen is author of the book Lies Across America, which examines how historical sites inaccurately portray figures and events of America's past. Quote, I'm sure that Buchanan was gay. There is clear evidence that he was gay.

I don't know what clear evidence there would be.

PAT: Wow.

STU: And since I haven't seen any evidence that he was heterosexual, I don't believe he was bisexual. In case you were wondering that. A lot of people are like, wait a minute. I want to know, was he bisexual? We don't think so. Okay?

According to Loewen, Buchanan shared a residence with William Rufus King, a Democratic senator from Alabama for several years in Washington, DC.

JEFFY: Yeah.

PAT: Can you imagine at that time?

STU: I know.

PAT: That must have been so weird.

STU: We talk about crony capitalism -- relationships now between government and everything. Imagine a senator and a president --

PAT: A senator and president living together.

STU: And apparently according to this guy, dating.

PAT: Did they share the White House together? They didn't. I mean, I can't imagine that.

STU: Loewen said contemporary records indicate the two men were inseparable. And they would refer to them as the Siamese twins. Loewen also said Buchanan was fairly open about his relationship with King, causing some colleagues to view the men as a couple. For example, Aaron Brown, a prominent Democrat, writing to James K. Polk -- or, Mrs. James K. Polk, referred to King as Buchanan's better wife, his wife, and Aunt Fancy.

JEFFY: I don't know what's so funny about the man being gay.

STU: It's not.

PAT: Nothing.

STU: There's nothing funny about this at all, Jeffy.

PAT: Except for fact that he's ranked 43rd, dead last.

STU: Right. And that's laughable. Look, if he was our first gay president, he should be number one. I don't care what he did in office. He should be number one.

PAT: Even though he did send the nation hurdling into Civil War.

STU: Right.

PAT: Number one.

STU: I'm pretty sure our standards today are supposed to make him number one. It's hard to read these things.

JEFFY: He's so lucky that Twitter didn't exist.

PAT: Yeah, no kidding.

It's interesting down near the bottom though, you've got George W. Bush at 33, followed very closely by Martin Van Buren, a guy nobody knows anything about. Chester Arthur. Now, you can go through all 43, and you would never name Chester Arthur. Nobody even knows we have a President Arthur in history.

JEFFY: What? The only reason we know we have Chester Arthur is because in Die Hard 3, he played a prominent role, right?

PAT: Did he?

JEFFY: Yeah. It was the elementary school, that one of the bombs was --

PAT: Wow. You are weird on that movie. That is -- that's freaky.

STU: That's three? That's the one he's walking around town, and he's got the N-word on a sign as he walked through --

JEFFY: Yeah, yeah.

STU: That's a hell of a scene, man.

JEFFY: Yeah. Die Hard With a Vengeance.

PAT: Which you could not do now.

And number 36, Herbert Hoover. Then Millard Fillmore. These are all the forgotten guys. William Henry Harrison. John Tyler.

STU: John Tyler is the one, by the way, I would say -- if there was anyone on this list -- and this happened to me many years ago, when I was looking at a list of presidents and I looked at John Tyler, and I'm like, who the hell is that?

Like, he's the guy -- because you said Chester Arthur. Chester A. Arthur to me stands out for some reason. Maybe it's the middle initial, I don't know. John Tyler seems like he wasn't president. I feel like I want to write an article like the first gay president article that says John Tyler wasn't actually president. Because I just don't think he was.

PAT: Look you into that. Because you might be right.

STU: It just doesn't seem like he was, right?

PAT: It would be great to expose that hoax once and for all.

And number 40, this is really egregiously bad: Warren G. Harding is not the 40th best president of this country. He's probably top ten. Certainly top 15. He and Coolidge pulled this nation out of a Great Depression that was actually deeper in 1920 than it was in '29. And they did it by going with a hands off policy. Let's keep government out of this. Let's enable the free market. Let's lower taxes. Let's spur this economy. And they got us out of it in a year. In a year. Not 12, like FDR, who was the most celebrated man of all time, just about. And Warren G. Harding is the 40th worst president? Come on now. Come on.

STU: Come on.

PAT: Forty-one, Franklin Pierce. Then Andrew Johnson. And James Buchanan, our first gay president.

STU: Gay man, gay president. And the fact that you would put him at the bottom of the list says a hell of a lot. A hell of a lot.

PAT: Let me tell you something, that angers us. That angers us.

JEFFY: It sure does.

STU: I mean, here we are, in a nation -- you know, these guys are supposed to be the accepting, tolerant historians. And they put James Buchanan last. It's a shame.

PAT: Right! Our first gay president. And you know that's why. You know that's why.

STU: Yeah.

By the way, included in this list of historians, a really interesting note is Paul Kengor. We've had him on the show before. Really smart guy.

PAT: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, he is.

STU: So it wasn't as if they had no conservatives on the list. Kengor can't believe that it wound up being number twelve for Obama. He thinks it's a travesty. And also, there's an interesting part of the way they do this.

PAT: Did he write the book on his mentor? Right? Didn't Kengor write the book on Obama's mentor?

STU: Yeah. I think so, yeah. That's the -- what's the name of that thing? It was really good. Let's see.

PAT: Frank Marshall Davis.

STU: Yeah, the communist, was it? Yeah, the communist. Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor.

Now, this guy voted on this list.

PAT: Wow.

STU: He was in this panel.

PAT: So you know he didn't vote him number 12.

STU: No, he did point out -- he's going to come on with us later this week and discuss it. Because he pointed out that the way they do this is they give you -- essentially one of the main things they have you ranking the presidents on is their effectiveness, right? So how effectively did they implement their agenda? Well, I think you can make a good argument that FDR and LBJ, for example, did a really good job implementing their agenda. But the agenda was --

PAT: They were effectively bad.

STU: Right. But the agenda was terrible for the country. So, you know, saying that they implemented -- I think you could make an argument that Barack Obama implemented some of his stuff, if you're a progressive.

PAT: He was effective. He was effective.

STU: Though the stimulus, Obamacare, which looks like -- well, let's not -- let's not chicken before egg hatching and all those phrases apply here because they haven't done anything yet when it comes to Obamacare. But in theory, in the next couple of years, we're going to see the elimination of Obamacare. After that, what's his electrician? The stimulus project, where they dumped a bunch of money on bridges and --

PAT: Stu, he saved Detroit. He saved the US auto industry. He saved Ford, and Chevy. GM.

STU: You might want to look at that. Bush actually started that.

PAT: But he took the credit. And these historians I'm sure gave him the credit for that.

STU: They certainly didn't give it to Bush.

PAT: And, by the way, they didn't save it anyway. They didn't save it.

JEFFY: Let's not forget he killed the United States' vaunted terrorist.

PAT: That's true.

STU: He did. That's a legitimate good moment of his --

PAT: Yeah. It took the guys six months to even decide to pull the trigger on that operation. Come on.

STU: Again, I'm not going to give him too much credit. It was not the most difficult decision in 500 years, as Joe Biden --

JEFFY: No, it was not.

STU: I always love that one. The most difficult decision in 500 years. To take out the country's biggest enemy --

PAT: It doesn't make any sense.

JEFFY: It doesn't. It doesn't make any sense.

STU: It's not entering World War II where you're putting millions of American lives at stake.

PAT: Especially after you promised you were not going to get into the war.

STU: Right. If it went horribly -- let's look at this -- if it went horribly, what is the result of that? We would have lost some of our best, and that would have been tragic.

However, every conservative in America would have said, you know what, when you have a chance to take out Osama bin Laden, this is what these guys signed up for. And, you know what, every one of them, if they had passed away, would have said, absolutely. We take this chance to get Osama bin Laden.

PAT: Definitely.

STU: Every one of the soldiers who had to go do it.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: So to act as if that was a difficult decision --

PAT: Ludicrous. It's ludicrous.

STU: It took him months after he pulled the trigger. We could have lost it easily. Kind of a crazy one. I've never understood that. But, I mean, I'll give him credit. Look, I'm happy it happened under his watch. And I'm happy it happened. I'm glad Osama bin Laden is dead. And I'm glad our military was able to pull that off. And, you know, whatever. He was commander-in-chief at that time, fine. But outside of that, I mean, the other stuff he was commander-in-chief for, you're going to take credit for that? The world is in a very unstable situation right now.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: The economy, while it's certainly better than while it was in free fall, it was the longest recovery to reclaim a drop like that in history at least since World War II.

PAT: Well, Trump said it last week and he said it very well, I inherited a mess, an absolute mess, domestically, foreign, it's a mess, believe me.

STU: Believe me.

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.