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.

A nation unravels when its shared culture is the first thing to go

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Texas now hosts Quran-first academies, Sharia-compliant housing schemes, and rapidly multiplying mosques — all part of a movement building a self-contained society apart from the country around it.

It is time to talk honestly about what is happening inside America’s rapidly growing Muslim communities. In city after city, large pockets of newcomers are choosing to build insulated enclaves rather than enter the broader American culture.

That trend is accelerating, and the longer we ignore it, the harder it becomes to address.

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world.

America has always welcomed people of every faith and people from every corner of the world, but the deal has never changed: You come here and you join the American family. You are free to honor your traditions, keep your faith, but you must embrace the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. You melt into the shared culture that allows all of us to live side by side.

Across the country, this bargain is being rejected by Islamist communities that insist on building a parallel society with its own rules, its own boundaries, and its own vision for how life should be lived.

Texas illustrates the trend. The state now has roughly 330 mosques. At least 48 of them were built in just the last 24 months. The Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex alone has around 200 Islamic centers. Houston has another hundred or so. Many of these communities have no interest in blending into American life.

This is not the same as past waves of immigration. Irish, Italian, Korean, Mexican, and every other group arrived with pride in their heritage. Still, they also raised American flags and wanted their children to be part of the country’s future. They became doctors, small-business owners, teachers, and soldiers. They wanted to be Americans.

What we are watching now is not the melting pot. It is isolation by design.

Parallel societies do not end well

More than 300 fundamentalist Islamic schools now operate full-time across the country. Many use Quran-first curricula that require students to spend hours memorizing religious texts before they ever reach math or science. In Dallas, Brighter Horizons Academy enrolls more than 1,700 students and draws federal support while operating on a social model that keeps children culturally isolated.

Then there is the Epic City project in Collin and Hunt counties — 402 acres originally designated only for Muslim buyers, with Sharia-compliant financing and a mega-mosque at the center. After public outcry and state investigations, the developers renamed it “The Meadows,” but a new sign does not erase the original intent. It is not a neighborhood. It is a parallel society.

Americans should not hesitate to say that parallel societies are dangerous. Europe tried this experiment, and the results could not be clearer. In Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, entire neighborhoods now operate under their own cultural rules, some openly hostile to Western norms. When citizens speak up, they are branded bigots for asserting a basic right: the ability to live safely in their own communities.

A crisis of confidence

While this separation widens, another crisis is unfolding at home. A recent Gallup survey shows that about 40% of American women ages 18 to 39 would leave the country permanently if given the chance. Nearly half of a rising generation — daughters, sisters, soon-to-be mothers — no longer believe this nation is worth building a future in.

And who shapes the worldview of young boys? Their mothers. If a mother no longer believes America is home, why would her child grow up ready to defend it?

As Texas goes, so goes America. And as America goes, so goes the free world. If we lose confidence in our own national identity at the same time that we allow separatist enclaves to spread unchecked, the outcome is predictable. Europe is already showing us what comes next: cultural fracture, political radicalization, and the slow death of national unity.

Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

Stand up and tell the truth

America welcomes Muslims. America defends their right to worship freely. A Muslim who loves the Constitution, respects the rule of law, and wants to raise a family in peace is more than welcome in America.

But an Islamist movement that rejects assimilation, builds enclaves governed by its own religious framework, and treats American law as optional is not simply another participant in our melting pot. It is a direct challenge to it. If we refuse to call this problem out out of fear of being called names, we will bear the consequences.

Europe is already feeling those consequences — rising conflict and a political class too paralyzed to admit the obvious. When people feel their culture, safety, and freedoms slipping away, they will follow anyone who promises to defend them. History has shown that over and over again.

Stand up. Speak plainly. Be unafraid. You can practice any faith in this country, but the supremacy of the Constitution and the Judeo-Christian moral framework that shaped it is non-negotiable. It is what guarantees your freedom in the first place.

If you come here and honor that foundation, welcome. If you come here to undermine it, you do not belong here.

Wake up to what is unfolding before the consequences arrive. Because when a nation refuses to say what is true, the truth eventually forces its way in — and by then, it is always too late.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Shocking: AI-written country song tops charts, sparks soul debate

VCG / Contributor | Getty Images

A machine can imitate heartbreak well enough to top the charts, but it cannot carry grief, choose courage, or hear the whisper that calls human beings to something higher.

The No. 1 country song in America right now was not written in Nashville or Texas or even L.A. It came from code. “Walk My Walk,” the AI-generated single by the AI artist Breaking Rust, hit the top spot on Billboard’s Country Digital Song Sales chart, and if you listen to it without knowing that fact, you would swear a real singer lived the pain he is describing.

Except there is no “he.” There is no lived experience. There is no soul behind the voice dominating the country music charts.

If a machine can imitate the soul, then what is the soul?

I will admit it: I enjoy some AI music. Some of it is very good. And that leaves us with a question that is no longer science fiction. If a machine can fake being human this well, what does it mean to be human?

A new world of artificial experience

This is not just about one song. We are walking straight into a technological moment that will reshape everyday life.

Elon Musk said recently that we may not even have phones in five years. Instead, we will carry a small device that listens, anticipates, and creates — a personal AI agent that knows what we want to hear before we ask. It will make the music, the news, the podcasts, the stories. We already live in digital bubbles. Soon, those bubbles might become our own private worlds.

If an algorithm can write a hit country song about hardship and perseverance without a shred of actual experience, then the deeper question becomes unavoidable: If a machine can imitate the soul, then what is the soul?

What machines can never do

A machine can produce, and soon it may produce better than we can. It can calculate faster than any human mind. It can rearrange the notes and words of a thousand human songs into something that sounds real enough to fool millions.

But it cannot care. It cannot love. It cannot choose right and wrong. It cannot forgive because it cannot be hurt. It cannot stand between a child and danger. It cannot walk through sorrow.

A machine can imitate the sound of suffering. It cannot suffer.

The difference is the soul. The divine spark. The thing God breathed into man that no code will ever have. Only humans can take pain and let it grow into compassion. Only humans can take fear and turn it into courage. Only humans can rebuild their lives after losing everything. Only humans hear the whisper inside, the divine voice that says, “Live for something greater.”

We are building artificial minds. We are not building artificial life.

Questions that define us

And as these artificial minds grow sharper, as their tools become more convincing, the right response is not panic. It is to ask the oldest and most important questions.

Who am I? Why am I here? What is the meaning of freedom? What is worth defending? What is worth sacrificing for?

That answer is not found in a lab or a server rack. It is found in that mysterious place inside each of us where reason meets faith, where suffering becomes wisdom, where God reminds us we are more than flesh and more than thought. We are not accidents. We are not circuits. We are not replaceable.

Europa Press News / Contributor | Getty Images

The miracle machines can never copy

Being human is not about what we can produce. Machines will outproduce us. That is not the question. Being human is about what we can choose. We can choose to love even when it costs us something. We can choose to sacrifice when it is not easy. We can choose to tell the truth when the world rewards lies. We can choose to stand when everyone else bows. We can create because something inside us will not rest until we do.

An AI content generator can borrow our melodies, echo our stories, and dress itself up like a human soul, but it cannot carry grief across a lifetime. It cannot forgive an enemy. It cannot experience wonder. It cannot look at a broken world and say, “I am going to build again.”

The age of machines is rising. And if we do not know who we are, we will shrink. But if we use this moment to remember what makes us human, it will help us to become better, because the one thing no algorithm will ever recreate is the miracle that we exist at all — the miracle of the human soul.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Is Socialism seducing a lost generation?

Jeremy Weine / Stringer | Getty Images

A generation that’s lost faith in capitalism is turning to the oldest lie on earth: equality through control.

Something is breaking in America’s young people. You can feel it in every headline, every grocery bill, every young voice quietly asking if the American dream still means anything at all.

For many, the promise of America — work hard, build something that lasts, and give the next generation a better start — feels like it no longer exists. Home ownership and stability have become luxuries for a fortunate few.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them.

In that vacuum of hope, a new promise has begun to rise — one that sounds compassionate, equal, and fair. The promise of socialism.

The appeal of a broken dream

When the American dream becomes a checklist of things few can afford — a home, a car, two children, even a little peace — disappointment quickly turns to resentment. The average first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old. Debt lasts longer than marriages. The cost of living rises faster than opportunity.

For a generation that has never seen the system truly work, capitalism feels like a rigged game built to protect those already at the top.

That is where socialism finds its audience. It presents itself as fairness for the forgotten and justice for the disillusioned. It speaks softly at first, offering equality, compassion, and control disguised as care.

We are seeing that illusion play out now in New York City, where Zohran Mamdani — an open socialist — has won a major political victory. The same ideology that once hid behind euphemisms now campaigns openly throughout America’s once-great cities. And for many who feel left behind, it sounds like salvation.

But what socialism calls fairness is submission dressed as virtue. What it calls order is obedience. Once the system begins to replace personal responsibility with collective dependence, the erosion of liberty is only a matter of time.

The bridge that never ends

Socialism is not a destination; it is a bridge. Karl Marx described it as the necessary transition to communism — the scaffolding that builds the total state. Under socialism, people are taught to obey. Under communism, they forget that any other options exist.

History tells the story clearly. Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba — each promised equality and delivered misery. One hundred million lives were lost, not because socialism failed, but because it succeeded at what it was designed to do: make the state supreme and the individual expendable.

Today’s advocates insist their version will be different — democratic, modern, and kind. They often cite Sweden as an example, but Sweden’s prosperity was never born of socialism. It grew out of capitalism, self-reliance, and a shared moral culture. Now that system is cracking under the weight of bureaucracy and division.

ANGELA WEISS / Contributor | Getty Images

The real issue is not economic but moral. Socialism begins with a lie about human nature — that people exist for the collective and that the collective knows better than the individual.

This lie is contrary to the truths on which America was founded — that rights come not from government’s authority, but from God’s. Once government replaces that authority, compassion becomes control, and freedom becomes permission.

What young America deserves

Young Americans have many reasons to be frustrated. They were told to study, work hard, and follow the rules — and many did, only to find the goalposts moved again and again. But tearing down the entire house does not make it fairer; it only leaves everyone standing in the rubble.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. It is flawed because people are flawed, but it remains the only system that rewards creativity and effort rather than punishing them. The answer is not revolution but renewal — moral, cultural, and spiritual.

It means restoring honesty to markets, integrity to government, and faith to the heart of our nation. A people who forsake God will always turn to government for salvation, and that road always ends in dependency and decay.

Freedom demands something of us. It requires faith, discipline, and courage. It expects citizens to govern themselves before others govern them. That is the truth this generation deserves to hear again — that liberty is not a gift from the state but a calling from God.

Socialism always begins with promises and ends with permission. It tells you what to drive, what to say, what to believe, all in the name of fairness. But real fairness is not everyone sharing the same chains — it is everyone having the same chance.

The American dream was never about guarantees. It was about the right to try, to fail, and try again. That freedom built the most prosperous nation in history, and it can do so again if we remember that liberty is not a handout but a duty.

Socialism does not offer salvation. It requires subservience.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Rage isn’t conservatism — THIS is what true patriots stand for

Gary Hershorn / Contributor | Getty Images

Conservatism is not about rage or nostalgia. It’s about moral clarity, national renewal, and guarding the principles that built America’s freedom.

Our movement is at a crossroads, and the question before us is simple: What does it mean to be a conservative in America today?

For years, we have been told what we are against — against the left, against wokeism, against decline. But opposition alone does not define a movement, and it certainly does not define a moral vision.

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

The media, as usual, are eager to supply their own answer. The New York Times recently suggested that Nick Fuentes represents the “future” of conservatism. That’s nonsense — a distortion of both truth and tradition. Fuentes and those like him do not represent American conservatism. They represent its counterfeit.

Real conservatism is not rage. It is reverence. It does not treat the past as a museum, but as a teacher. America’s founders asked us to preserve their principles and improve upon their practice. That means understanding what we are conserving — a living covenant, not a relic.

Conservatism as stewardship

In 2025, conservatism means stewardship — of a nation, a culture, and a moral inheritance too precious to abandon. To conserve is not to freeze history. It is to stand guard over what is essential. We are custodians of an experiment in liberty that rests on the belief that rights come not from kings or Congress, but from the Creator.

That belief built this country. It will be what saves it. The Constitution is a covenant between generations. Conservatism is the duty to keep that covenant alive — to preserve what works, correct what fails, and pass on both wisdom and freedom to those who come next.

Economics, culture, and morality are inseparable. Debt is not only fiscal; it is moral. Spending what belongs to the unborn is theft. Dependence is not compassion; it is weakness parading as virtue. A society that trades responsibility for comfort teaches citizens how to live as slaves.

Freedom without virtue is not freedom; it is chaos. A culture that mocks faith cannot defend liberty, and a nation that rejects truth cannot sustain justice. Conservatism must again become the moral compass of a disoriented people, reminding America that liberty survives only when anchored to virtue.

Rebuilding what is broken

We cannot define ourselves by what we oppose. We must build families, communities, and institutions that endure. Government is broken because education is broken, and education is broken because we abandoned the formation of the mind and the soul. The work ahead is competence, not cynicism.

Conservatives should embrace innovation and technology while rejecting the chaos of Silicon Valley. Progress must not come at the expense of principle. Technology must strengthen people, not replace them. Artificial intelligence should remain a servant, never a master. The true strength of a nation is not measured by data or bureaucracy, but by the quiet webs of family, faith, and service that hold communities together. When Washington falters — and it will — those neighborhoods must stand.

Eric Lee / Stringer | Getty Images

This is the real work of conservatism: to conserve what is good and true and to reform what has decayed. It is not about slogans; it is about stewardship — the patient labor of building a civilization that remembers what it stands for.

A creed for the rising generation

We are not here to cling to the past or wallow in grievance. We are not the movement of rage. We are the movement of reason and hope.

For the rising generation, conservatism cannot be nostalgia. It must be more than a memory of 9/11 or admiration for a Reagan era they never lived through. Many young Americans did not experience those moments — and they should not have to in order to grasp the lessons they taught and the truths they embodied. The next chapter is not about preserving relics but renewing purpose. It must speak to conviction, not cynicism; to moral clarity, not despair.

Young people are searching for meaning in a culture that mocks truth and empties life of purpose. Conservatism should be the moral compass that reminds them freedom is responsibility and that faith, family, and moral courage remain the surest rebellions against hopelessness.

To be a conservative in 2025 is to defend the enduring principles of American liberty while stewarding the culture, the economy, and the spirit of a free people. It is to stand for truth when truth is unfashionable and to guard moral order when the world celebrates chaos.

We are not merely holding the torch. We are relighting it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.