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.

Fort Knox exposed: Is America's gold MISSING?

Christopher Furlong / Staff | Getty Images

President Trump promised that we would get a peek inside Fort Knox, but are we ready for what we might find?

In this new era of radical transparency, the possibility that the Deep State's darkest secrets could be exposed has many desperate for answers to old questions. Recently, Glenn has zeroed in on gold, specifically America's gold reserves, which are supposed to be locked away inside the vaults of Fort Knox. According to the government, there are 147.3 million ounces of gold stored within several small secured rooms that are themselves locked behind a massive 22 ton vault door, but the truth is that no one has officially seen this gold since 1953. An audit is long overdue, and President Trump has already shown interest in the idea.

America's gold reserve has been surrounded by suspicion for the better part of a hundred years. It all started in 1933, when FDR effectivelynationalized the United States's private gold stores, forcing Americans to sell their gold to the government. This gold was melted down, forged into bars, and stored in the newly constructed U.S. Bullion Depository building at Fort Knox. By 1941, Fort Knox had held 649.6 million ounces of gold—which, you may have noticed, was 502.3 million ounces more than today. We'll come back to that.

By 1944, World War II was ending, and the Allies began planning how to rebuild Europe. The U.N. held a conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where the USD was established as the world's reserve currency. This meant that any country (though not U.S. citizens) could exchange the USD for gold at the fixed rate of $35 per ounce. Already, you can see where our gold might have gone.

Jump to the 1960s, where Lyndon B. Johnson was busy digging America into a massive debt hole. Between the Vietnam War and Johnson's "Great Society" project, the U.S. was bleeding cash and printing money to keep up. But now Fort Knox no longer held enough physical gold to cover the $35 an ounce rate promised by the Bretton Woods agreement. France took notice of this weakness and began to redeem hundreds of millions of dollars. In the 70s Nixon staunched this gushing wound by halting foreign nations from redeeming dollars for gold, but this had the adverse effect of ending the gold standard.

This brings us to the present, where inflation is through the roof, no one knows how much gold is actually inside Fort Knox, and someone in America has been buying a LOT of gold. Who is buying this gold? Where is it going and for what purpose? Glenn has a few ideas, and one of them is MUCH better than the other:

The path back to gold

Mario Tama / Staff | Getty Images

One possibility is that all of this gold that has been flooding into America is in preparation for a shift back to a gold-backed, or partial-gold-backed system. The influx of gold corresponds with a comment recently made by Trump's new Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, who said he was going to:

“Monetize the asset side of the U.S. balance sheet for the American people.”

Glenn pointed out that per a 1972 law, the gold in Fort Knox is currently set at a fixed value of $42 an ounce. At the time of this writing, gold was valued at $2,912.09 an ounce, which is more than a 6,800 percent increase. If the U.S. stockpile was revalued to reflect current market prices, it could be used to stabilize the dollar. This could even mean a full, or partial return to the gold standard, depending on the amount of gold currently being imported.

Empty coffers—you will own nothing

Raymond Boyd / Contributor | Getty Images

Unfortunately, Glenn suspects there is another, darker purpose behind the recent gold hubbub.

As mentioned before, the last realaudit of Fort Knox was done under President Eisenhower, in 1953. While the audit passed, a report from the Secretary of the Treasury revealed that a mere 13.6 percent was checked. For the better part of a century, we've had no idea how much gold is present under Fort Knox. After the gold hemorrhage in the 60s, many were suspicious of the status of our gold supply. In the 80s, a wealthy businessman named Edward Durell released over a decade's worth of research that led him to conclude that Fort Knox was all but empty. In short, he claimed that the Federal Reserve had siphoned off all the gold and sold it to Europe.

What would it mean if America's coffers are empty? According to a post by X user Matt Smith that Glenn shared, empty coffers combined with an influx of foreign gold could represent the beginning of a new, controlled economy. We couldstill be headed towards a future where you'll ownnothing.

Glenn: The most important warning of your lifetime—AI is coming for you

NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Artificial intelligence isn’t coming. It’s here. The future we once speculated about is no longer science fiction—it’s reality. Every aspect of our lives, from how we work to how we think, is about to change forever. And if you’re not ready for it, you’re already behind. This isn’t just another technological leap. This is the biggest shift humanity has ever faced.

The last call before the singularity

I've been ringing this bell for 30 years. Thirty years warning you about what’s coming. And now, here we are. This isn’t a drill. This isn’t some distant future. It’s happening now. If you don’t understand what’s at stake, you need to wake up—because we have officially crossed the event horizon of artificial intelligence.

What’s an event horizon? It’s the edge of a black hole—the point where you can’t escape, no matter how hard you try. AI is that black hole. The current is too strong. The waterfall is too close. If you haven’t been paying attention, you need to start right now. Because once we reach Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI), there is no turning back.

You’ve heard me talk about this for decades. AI isn’t just a fancy Siri. It isn’t just ChatGPT. We are on the verge of machines that will outthink every human who has ever lived—combined. ASI won’t just process information—it will anticipate, decide, and act faster than any of us can comprehend. It will change everything about our world, about our lives.

And yet, the conversation around AI has been wrong. People think the real dangers are coming later—some distant dystopian nightmare. But we are already in it. We’ve passed the point where AI is just a tool. It’s becoming the master. And the people who don’t learn to use it now—who don’t understand it, who don’t prepare for it—are going to be swallowed whole.

I know what some of you are thinking: "Glenn, you’ve spent years warning us about AI, about how dangerous it is. And now you’re telling us to embrace it?" Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Because if you don’t use this tool—if you don’t learn to master it—then you will be at its mercy.

This is not an option anymore. This is survival.

How you must prepare—today

I need you to take AI seriously—right now. Not next year, not five years from now. This weekend.

Here’s what I want you to do: Open up one of these AI tools—Grok 3, ChatGPT, anything advanced—and start using it. If you’re a CEO, have it analyze your competitors. If you’re an artist, let it critique your work. If you’re a stay-at-home parent, have it optimize your budget. Ask it questions. Push it to its limits. Learn what it can do—because if you don’t, you will be left behind.

Let me be crystal clear: AI is not your friend. It’s not your partner. It’s not something to trust. AI is a shovel—an extremely powerful shovel, but still just a tool. And if you don’t understand that, you’re in trouble.

We’ve already seen what happens when we surrender to technology without thinking. Social media rewired our brains. Smartphones reshaped our culture. AI will do all that—and more. If you don’t take control now, AI will control you.

Ask yourself: When AI makes decisions for you—when it anticipates your needs before you even know them—at what point do you stop being the one in charge? At what point does AI stop being a tool and start being your master?

And that’s not even the worst of it. The next step—transhumanism—is coming. It will start with good intentions. Elon Musk is already developing implants to help people walk again. And that’s great. But where does it stop? What happens when people start “upgrading” themselves? What happens when people choose to merge with AI?

I know my answer. I won’t cross that line. But you’re going to have to decide for yourself. And if you don’t start preparing now, that decision will be made for you.


The final warning—act now or be left behind

I need you to hear me. This is not optional. This is not something you can ignore. AI is here. And if you don’t act now, you will be lost.

The next 18 months will change everything. People who don’t prepare—who don’t learn to use AI—will be scrambling to catch up. And they won’t catch up. The gap will be too wide. You’ll either be leading, or you’ll be swallowed whole.

So start this weekend. Learn it. Test it. Push it. Master it. Because the people who don’t? They will be the tools.

The decision is yours. But time is running out.

The coming AI economy and the collapse of traditional jobs

Think back to past technological revolutions. The industrial revolution put countless blacksmiths, carriage makers, and farmhands out of business. The internet wiped out entire industries, from travel agencies to brick-and-mortar retail. AI is bigger than all of those combined. This isn’t just about job automation—it’s about job obliteration.

Doctors, lawyers, engineers—people who thought their jobs were untouchable—will find themselves replaced by AI. A machine that can diagnose disease with greater accuracy, draft legal documents in seconds, or design infrastructure faster than an entire team of engineers will be cheaper, faster, and better than human labor. If you’re not preparing for that reality, you’re already falling behind.

What does this mean for you? It means constant adaptation. Every three to five years, you will need to redefine your role, retrain, and retool. The only people who survive this AI revolution will be the ones who understand its capabilities and learn to work with it, not against it.

The moral dilemma: When do you stop being human?

The real danger of AI isn’t just economic—it’s existential. When AI merges with humans, we will face an unprecedented question: At what point do we stop being human?

Think about it. If you implant a neural chip that gives you access to the entire internet in your mind, are you still the same person? If your thoughts are intertwined with AI-generated responses, where do you end and AI begins? This is the future we are hurtling toward, and few people are even asking the right questions.

I’m asking them now. And you should be too. Because that line—between human and machine—is coming fast. You need to decide now where you stand. Because once we cross it, there is no going back.

Final thoughts: Be a leader, not a follower

AI isn’t a passing trend. It’s not a gadget or a convenience. It is the most powerful force humanity has ever created. And if you don’t take the time to understand it now, you will be at its mercy.

This is the defining moment of our time. Will you be a master of AI? Or will you be mastered by it? The choice is yours. But if you wait too long, you won’t have a choice at all.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Trump's Zelenskyy deal falls apart: What happened and what's next?

SAUL LOEB / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump offered Zelenskyy a deal he couldn’t refuse—but Zelenskyy rejected it outright.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Washington to sign a historic agreement aimed at ending the brutal war ravaging Ukraine. Joined by Vice President J.D. Vance, Trump met with Zelenskyy and the press before the leaders were set to retreat behind closed doors to finalize the deal. Acting as a gracious host, Trump opened the meeting by praising Zelenskyy and the bravery of Ukrainian soldiers. He expressed enthusiasm for the proposed agreement, emphasizing its benefits—such as access to Ukraine’s rare earth minerals for the U.S.—and publicly pledged continued American aid in exchange.

Zelenskyy, however, didn’t share Trump’s optimism. Throughout the meeting, he interrupted repeatedly and openly criticized both Trump and Vance in front of reporters. Tensions escalated until Vance, visibly frustrated, fired back. The exchange turned the meeting hostile, and by its conclusion, Trump withdrew his offer. Rather than staying in Washington to resolve the conflict, Zelenskyy promptly left for Europe to seek support from the European Union.

As Glenn pointed out, Trump had carefully crafted this deal to benefit all parties, including Russia. Zelenskyy’s rejection was a major misstep.

Trump's generous offer to Zelenskyy

Glenn took to his whiteboard—swapping out his usual chalkboard—to break down Trump’s remarkable deal for Zelenskyy. He explained how it aligned with several of Trump’s goals: cutting spending, advancing technology and AI, and restoring America’s position as the dominant world power without military action. The deal would have also benefited the EU by preventing another war, revitalizing their economy, and restoring Europe’s global relevance. Ukraine and Russia would have gained as well, with the war—already claiming over 250,000 lives—finally coming to an end.

The media has portrayed last week’s fiasco as an ambush orchestrated by Trump to humiliate Zelenskyy, but that’s far from the truth. Zelenskyy was only in Washington because he had already rejected the deal twice—first refusing Vice President Vance and then Secretary of State Marco Rubio. It was Zelenskyy who insisted on traveling to America to sign the deal at the White House. If anyone set an ambush, it was him.

The EU can't help Ukraine

JUSTIN TALLIS / Contributor | Getty Images

After clashing with Trump and Vance, Zelenskyy wasted no time leaving D.C. The Ukrainian president should have stayed, apologized to Trump, and signed the deal. Given Trump’s enthusiasm and a later comment on Truth Social—where he wrote, “Zelenskyy can come back when he is ready for peace”—the deal could likely have been revived.

Meanwhile, in London, over a dozen European leaders, joined by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, convened an emergency meeting dubbed the “coalition of the willing” to ensure peace in Ukraine. This coalition emerged as Europe’s response to Trump’s withdrawal from the deal. By the meeting’s end, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced a four-point plan to secure Ukrainian independence.

Zelenskyy, however, appears less than confident in the coalition’s plan. Recently, he has shifted his stance toward the U.S., apologizing to Trump and Vance and expressing gratitude for the generous military support America has already provided. Zelenskyy now says he wants to sign Trump’s deal and work under his leadership.

This is shaping up to be another Trump victory.

Glenn: No more money for the war machine, Senator McConnell

Tom Williams / Contributor | Getty Images

Senator McConnell, your call for more Pentagon spending is as tone-deaf as it is reckless. The United States already spends more on its military than the next nine countries combined — over $877 billion in 2023 alone, dwarfing China ($292 billion), Russia ($86 billion), and the entire EU’s collective defense budgets. And yet here you are, clamoring for more, as if throwing cash at an outdated war machine will somehow secure our future.

The world is changing, Senator, and your priorities are stuck in a bygone era.

Aircraft carriers — those floating behemoths you and the Pentagon so dearly love — are relics of the past. In the next real conflict, they’ll be as useless as horses were in World War I. Speaking of which, Europe entered that war with roughly 25 million horses; by 1918, fewer than 10 million remained, slaughtered by machine guns and artillery they couldn’t outrun.

That’s the fate awaiting your precious carriers against modern threats — sunk by hypersonic missiles or swarms of AI-driven drones before they can even launch a jet. The 1950s called, Senator — they want their war plans back.

The future isn’t in steel and jet fuel; it’s in artificial intelligence and artificial superintelligence. Every dollar spent on yesterday’s hardware is a dollar wasted in three years when AI upends everything we know about warfare. Worse, with the Pentagon’s track record, every dollar spent today could balloon into two or three dollars of inflation tomorrow, thanks to the House and Senate’s obscene spending spree.

We’re drowning in $34 trillion of national debt — 128% of GDP, a level unseen since World War II. Annual deficits hit $1.7 trillion in 2023, and interest payments alone are projected to top $1 trillion by 2026.

This isn’t sustainable; it’s a fiscal time bomb.

And yet you want to shovel more taxpayer money into a Pentagon that hasn’t passed a single audit in its history? Six attempts since 2018, six failures — trillions unaccounted for, waste so rampant that it defies comprehension. It’s irresponsible — bordering on criminal — to suggest more spending when the DOD can’t even count the cash it’s got.

The real threat isn’t just from abroad, though those dangers are profound. It’s from within. The call is coming from inside the house, Senator — and not just the House, but the Senate too. Your refusal to adapt is jeopardizing our security more than any foreign adversary.

Look at China’s drone shows — thousands of synchronized lights painting the sky. Now imagine those aren’t fireworks but weaponized drones, each one cheap, precise, and networked by AI. A single swarm could cripple our planes, ships, tanks, and troops before we fire a shot. Ukraine’s drone wars have already shown this reality: $500 drones taking out $10 million tanks. That’s the future staring us down, and we’re still polishing Cold War relics.

Freeze every bloated project.

Redirect everything — every dime, every mind — toward winning the AI/ASI race. That’s the only battlefield that matters. We’ve got enough stockpiles to handle any foreseeable war in the next three years and a president fighting to end conflicts, not start them. Your plea for more spending isn’t just misguided — it’s a betrayal of the American people sinking under debt and inflation while you chase ghosts of wars past.

Or is it even that senator? Perhaps I have buried the lede, but I am not sure if the following stats will help people understand why this op-ed might have been written by someone in your office.

Your state, Kentucky is:

  • 45th in GDP Per Capita
  • 44th in Employment
  • 42nd in High School Diplomas

And 11th in Defense-related defense contract spending

Who are you actually concerned about, Senator? The safety of the American people or your war machine buddies?

Thanks, but no thanks.