Thursday, May 25, 2017

Radical Islamist Terrorism: The Enemy In The War On Terror

We have been in a war with terrorism for 16 years now, and we are not even close to victory. The reason is because, when you are at war, you have to change your perspective.

For one thing, you have to recognize who you are at war with and call them for what they are. And, for some reason, nations run by progressives -- which most western nations (France, England, the U.S. before Trump) are, refuse to do. 

Why? Because they are afraid to offend Muslims.  For some reason, they are under the guise that Muslim is the religion of peace. If this is true, if Muslims are peaceful, then why are we so afraid to offend them?

I actually got that quote from Rush Limbaugh from his May 24, 2017, show. The full extent of the quote is this:
I have a question, ladies and gentlemen. If Islam is so peaceful, why is everybody so damn frightened of offending them? And on the other hand, if Christianity is so violent as people like Whoopi Goldberg and others tell us, why is nobody afraid to offend Christians? People laugh at, make fun of, and mock Christians all day long with no fear whatsoever. But you so much as think anything offensive about Islam, and they descend on you and they accuse you of violating political correctness and they beg you to shut up.
After the terror attack in the United Kingdom, the Mayor of London said that terrorists were nothing more than a nuisance, or "part and parcel" to living in a big city. That they will just have to learn to deal with. Suck it up!

This is poppycock! Tell that to the people who died as a result of this terrorist act. Tell that to all the people who died in the many, many, many acts of terror perpetrated by Muslims over the past 16 years. It's ridiculous.

Here is another example of the ridiculousness of how the left responds to terror. In an act of solidarity to the victims of terror, the French turned out the lights in the Eiffel Tower one night a few days ago. This is the extent to their war on terror, an effort to show solidarity to all those who died due to the effects of terrorism, of which they refuse to admit is caused by Radical Islamist Terrorists, by the way. They can't do it.

They can't say those words due to political correctness. And they are so intent on being politically correct that they have no ideas for solving the problem. That is why there are so many acts of terror. It's because we aren't doing anything to stop. Of course, until Trump comes along.

Then you have people like Trump actually calling them out on it, actually blaming them for the acts of terror they commit, and he is scalded. Trump. You know why they get mad when we speak the truth about Radical Islam. Because in their minds, they somehow see the United States, the west, as the bad guys. Rather than blaming Islam for acts of terror caused by Islamists, they blame the United States.

In fact, they just blame us. Progressives don't want to credit Muslims for their terror acts, they blame us. They blame us. They say we are too arrogant. We are too successful. So, they believe that if we open our borders and let in more Muslims, they will like us more. If we appease them, they will like us more. That is the whole premise behind open borders. That is the whole premise of their political correct policies to these "random acts of terror," as they call them.

So, we have had 16 plus years of open borders. We have had a massive influx of Muslims in to western nations. We have been politically correct to them for 16 years. What has been the result? Less terrorism? No. It's more terrorism. And worse, many of these their heinous acts are insidious: done right side the walls of western nations. Terrorism from within.

Do you want to know the safest country in the world? Do you want to know what country has had zero acts of terror? It is Poland. Poland has a no-Muslim policy, because it has acknowledged who the enemy is. Nearly all the acts of terror are within country's that openly admit Muslims. No offense, but it's just true. It's a fact. And if you don't want to hear the truth, you are a snowflake.

This is not racist to say that. The people who say you are racist for admitting the truth, for stating a fact, are simply politically correct idiots. They are snowflakes.

We know full well who the terrorists are. Nearly 100% of the time they are Muslims. Liberals are afraid to say who they are for fear of being seen as racist. But it is not racist to say that 100% of the acts of terror on U.S. soil were the result of the works and evil deeds of Muslim people.

That is not to say that all Muslims are evil people. Okay? It is saying that some Muslims planning acts of terror against western nations, and they must be stopped. It doesn't even matter why they are doing it: they are. It's a fact. They, for some stupid sick reason, want to kill people. It's not random acts of terror, like Obama said. They are not random. They are planed in cold blood. They are all done under the name of Allah.

The part of this that really boggles my mind is: why don't you ever hear peaceful Muslims speaking out against the acts of terror. Truly, the true radical Muslim's are those who don't speak out. It's obvious that only a few Muslims are evil. So, I ask, why don't the ones who are peaceful stand up and speak out against their brethren?

We are at war. This is not criminal action. When you are at war the rules of engagement must change. You must create border security to keep radical Muslims out. This is not racist: it is smart.

And face it, world leaders beside for Trump do not want to face radical Islamist terror. They don't want to do it. They have no balls. And that is why terrorists continue to get away with it. 

Friday, May 19, 2017

Tax cuts for the wealthy? Busting The Myth

You hear a lot from democrats about how unfair it is to give tax cuts for the wealthy.  One thing that is interesting about this is that most wealthy people do not even pay taxes. You have men like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet chiming that they don't think tax cuts for the wealthy do anything to stimulate an economy. Yet they don't pay taxes, so they don't care if taxes stay high.

Isn't that interesting? And this entire premise that tax cuts are for the wealthy is poppycock to begin with, considering you cannot tax wealth.

Let's use Buffet and Gates as our examples. They do not have jobs, per se. They have their money invested in various places, such as the stock market. That's where they make their money. They do not receive pay checks. In this way, they do not make income. Therefore, they do not pay taxes.

What they do is they collect capital gains. They are affected by the capital gains tax. But they are in no way affected by the income tax.

So, you see, the wealthy, like Buffet and Gates, got wealthy because they made good investments. They did not get wealthy because they were paid a huge salary or wage. So, you can raise the income tax to 90% on the top income bracket -- which is where it was before the John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan tax cuts --, and it will have no effect on the truly wealthy.

So, given our economics 101 lesson here, you can see clearly that there is no such thing as tax cuts for the wealthy. Wealth cannot be taxed. They might make some income, but the majority of it is accumulated wealth which cannot be taxed.

So, people that are wealthy, like the Kennedy's, like Warren Buffet, like Bill Gates, they champion for higher taxes, or at the very least don't argue against them, because they don't have to pay taxes anyway. They believe in social justice, where you solve problems by spending other people's money, not their own.

Interestingly, say Donald Trump gets his tax cuts through Congress. It won't be a tax cut for the wealthy. It won't even be a tax cut. What it will be is a tax rate cut. Anyone who pays taxes will see a cut. We discussed how tax cuts increase revenue to the government, they do not decrease revenues in my last post.

If Trump cut taxes, it would not be on the wealthy, unless you consider the 48% of people in this country who actually pay taxes to be wealthy (and, by the way, that's not even possible).

Further Reading:

Monday, May 15, 2017

Tax Cuts Do Not Cause Reductions In Federal Income -- They Increase Revenue

In order to put people back to work, Donald Trump has proposed legislation that would drastically cut taxes for both individuals and businesses. But democrats, and some republicans too, say this might backfire as it will also reduce income to the Federal government. Where did this rumor that increasing taxes increases Federal revenue come from anyway? It's a fallacy.

Rush Limbaugh gives a perfect example of how lowering taxes generates more government revenue thatn tax increases. He said,
"If it’s hard to understand lowering tax rates and increasing revenue, let me ask you this. Have you ever seen a store put things on sale? Obviously you have. Why do they do it? Why do they lower the cost of certain things to entice you to come in and buy them? Well, because they’ll sell more of it. The lower the price of an item, the more likely people are to buy it, and the more people that buy it, the more are sold, by lowering the price. When airlines are feeling the heat of competition, what do they do? They lower fares. If one airline lowers ’em, they all have to on the same routes. Or they’ll throw you off, right, or kill your rabbit, but don’t confuse me here.
On a government-run transportation system, what happens? When the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is in a crunch and it’s not collecting enough money, what do they do? They stupidly raise fares. They do not try to get more people riding; they rip off the people who still are by charging them more. Does it ever work? Why don’t they reduce fares? Why don’t they lower the price of going across a bridge or getting on the subway? They never do. Well, I can’t say never. But you know as well as I do that mostly those costs increase. When a business raises the price of an item that you’re used to paying X for, are you more likely to go out and buy it again, or less likely, maybe look for someplace else to get something like it, something close to it? 
Look, this is simple math. It’s not even arguable. The Democrats have so corrupted our understanding of economics and productivity that lowering tax rates is now considered to be some kind of sop to the rich. I mean, it’s just profound to me, the damage inflicted on this country by the Democrats in their pursuit of perpetual power.
So true.

References and further reading:

Monday, May 8, 2017

Free College Will Not Work

Bernie Sanders has proposed making college free.  He says, per his website, that no one should be denied a college education due to lack of ability to pay. And no one should leave college with a mountain of debt. Then Hillary Clinton jumped on the bandwagon.

I would like to contend, that while this sounds nice on the surface, a further inspection reveals that it would not work, and would essentially make your education worthless.

First off, let us assume that the supply of teachers stays the same. It is already hard to get qualified people to teach, so if the number of students increases, the number of teachers should also increase. If the number of teachers increases somehow, there's a likelihood you will be watering down the education people get, and it will be worthless on that face alone.

Assuming the supply of teachers stays the same, and the demand for sitting in a class with these teachers increases (which it will, because it's free), then going by economics 101, the price will increase. Schools need to make a profit, and if they see there is an unending supply of students, then they will simply make those who do attend their schools pay more. This is just how it is in a capitalistic society.

Now, on the other hand, say Bernie or Hillary decides to solve this problem by setting price controls for schools. If this happens, professors won't make as much money, and the incentive to become a teacher will be eliminated. Now no one will want to be a college professor.

Assuming the most qualified professors are already on the job, and other qualified professors choose some other higher paying job (or just stay put where they are), that means Universities and Colleges will be forced to hire less qualified professors, thus diminishing the quality of education, making it worthless.

If you're saying colleges won't raise the cost of education, just consider the states that have already provide "free college."  If you think college is free, then wait until you get the tax bill. Do your own research here and let me know what you learn.

All these aside, there is yet another reason free college would make your education useless. One of the reasons you get paid what you do is because the supply of those seeking to do what you do remains relatively low. However, if there is an influx of people wanting to become what you are or want to be, this will cause employers to lower the price.

This is economics 101 here. If the supply goes up, the price will go down. Your college education will be useless. You might as well just skip college and get the best paying job you can that doesn't require a secondary education.

If the progressives get their way, everyone should make the same wage anyway, as this is the entire premise of socialism -- equality for everyone. They see it as if everyone is equal then everyone is a winner. However, the reality of it all is, if everyone is equal, then everyone is also a loser. If everyone is equal, then everyone gets paid the same and everyone will end up in poverty. Worded another way: if everyone is equal, everyone is poor.

And there you have socialism. In a nutshell. This is another example of how socialism fails everywhere it's tried. It looks good. It sounds good. It probably even feels good. But it never works. It has never worked, and I'm certain it will never work.

So, if you think you don't get paid enough already, just wait until the price to become what you are drops. And if any or all of this happens, what's the point of getting an education?

Monday, May 1, 2017

FDR: How he kept getting re-elected

FDR raised taxes to unprecedented levels. He ordered Americans to sell their gold or face prosecution. He jailed people who spoke out against his policies. He put Japanese Americans in Concentration camps. He threatened businessmen with even higher taxes if they didn't support his programs.

Utterly said, despite what we learn in schools, FDR was a scary President. And many people knew he was scary, and knew his programs were making the economy worse rather than better. Despite this, he kept getting re-elected. How?

I have the answers:
  1. He used the IRS and FBI to prosecute people who did not agree with him, and therefore many Americans were simply too scared to oppose him
  2. Many Americans were afraid if they opposed him they would have their federal relief funds taken away.
  3. Many business men were threatened with higher taxes if they opposed him and he won, and therefore they were threatened to vote for FDR.
  4. FDR pushed up his opposition and therefore the people were unable to learn about the fact FDR's policies were contrary to improving the economy.
  5. He created his programs to buy votes, and used his programs to shut up those who spoke out against him. By doing this, he won re-election three times.
  6. Local political opponents of FDR had to keep quiet lest FDR hunt them down with the IRS or FBI or cut other programs to their liking.
  7. He used subsidies and political capital, money and tools to get re-elected. He was first to buy votes with the very programs he created. So, however, unpopular his programs were, he kept getting re-elected.
  8. He also used political subsidies to punish enemies and reward friends.
  9. Special Interests who lobbied in favor of FDR got special subsidies and were favored for government loans.
  10. FDR used government expenditures to persuade voters. He was the best at doing this.
  11. In 1936 before the Presidential election, FDR added 300,000 to the work relief program (WPA). In the months following the election, 300,000 were removed from the WPA.
  12. Work Relief expenditures increased sharply -- 268% increase from fall of 1935 to the fall of 1936 -- the biggest increase of 3,663% was in Pennsylvania, a swing state that Hoover had carried in 1932, and FDR specially targeted in 1936.
  13. A plan was in place to make sure the Soil conservation Service checks arrived in Farm households before the election of 1936 to ensure votes for FDR -- 4 farm states were in the balance.
  14. Alf Landon said "If he (FDR) did not have $5 billion (of WPA money to dole out) his election would be very much in doubt.
  15. FDR ran on this issue with signs saying, "Relief for Votes," subtitled "will the American people accept the imputation that their votes can be bought with relief money." Another leaflet said, "If we don't stop the New Deal the nation will go bankrupt.
  16. Funny thing, Landon tried to win votes by denouncing government programs, but he had to do it without alienating the increasingly large number of voters who had Federal jobs, or hoped to have them. In this sense, republicans couldn't get re-elected even though FDR's programs were unpopular.
  17. Landon hailed before cheering crowd at Madison Square Garden that it was bad to use "public money for political purposes" as FDR was doing. He said, "I am against the principles of the AAA and... the concentration of power in the3 hands of the Chief executive."
  18. Republican problem since 1936 was that they risked offending the 10,000 voters working in federal programs if they hailed for cutting government programs to balance the budget. (this is actually a problem that is ongoing to this day). This is also why many republicans get caught in the trap of increasing government programs to buy votes.
  19. He got people excited about voting who normally don't vote, such as young people and blacks
In a sense, the progressives of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson and FDR started a slippery slope that resulted in an Obama Presidency with our Trillions of dollars in debt and so many government programs we have to borrow from China to pay for it.

Quite often the Presidency is not won by character alone as it was in the past. Now, once elected, a president can buy votes by creating and doling out subsidies.
Material for the above posts came from the following sources:

Further reading and references.

Monday, April 17, 2017

What is federalism?

What is Federalism? Because "Fed" is in federalism, many people think that it means a large government. It's a system where people in Washington decide what's best for the people. What is being defined here is liberalism. What is being defined here is fascism.

What is Federalism really? It's actually the opposite of a large government. It's a system where the people closest to a problem solve the problem. If you have a spill in your house, the people most capable of knowing how to remedy the problem is not a person sitting at a $1,000 desk in Washington. It is the person overlooking the spill. It's the person living in the house.

So, Federalism is a system where the communities closest to a problem solve the problem. This is why local communities do a vast majority of things. They decide where stop signs go. They decide where city parks go. They decide what rules should be in the park, and what signs should be up. They decide opening hours for parks. They decide closing hours. They decide how many workers there should be. They decide wages. When there is a problem, they solve it.

If you relied on Washington to solve problems, you have to go through all the red tape. You have to go through all the bureaucrats. By the time the problem gets solves, all these bureaucrats will have to have learned about it. They would have to get paid. And this takes time. So, the non-Federalist problem costs twice as much money and takes twice as much time.

But you want your water spill cleaned up right now. So you do it yourself. That's called Federalism. It's solving most problems locally.

It's a system where the people closest to the problem directly see it, deal with it, repair it.

The founding fathers understood the importance of this. That is why they made it so hard to create a large government. They wanted the smallest government as possible. That is why the 10th amendment says, "All that is not covered in this Constitution is reserved to the states (which is the people)."

They wanted the federal government should be limited, small, and uninvolved in local events.

What is the role of the Fed, then? The Federal government is only supposed to do what the States cannot do, and the best example of this is wage war. The states cannot wage war. They can't because they would never decide what to do in a timely manner. There would be disputes. So, this is where Congress, and the President, have to make quick decisions based on the facts they have on hand.

The states also wouldn't have been able to decide on and organize an interstate highway system. So this had to be organized by the Feds. The Feds are responsible for keeping the nation safe, for securing the borders, and for creating a good economic environment where the people can prosper. That is it.

The states decide on abortion, education, healthcare, welfare, bathroom laws, etc. That's Federalism. The powers not delegated to the government is left up to the states to decide. Those who rule otherwise are "liberally" defining the Constitution and the Founding intentions.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Why trump's tariffs may not work

There are a lot of people who don't like free trade agreements because they work to the disadvantage of Americans. American companies move their factories to other countries where labor is cheaper, and then they sell their products to Americans at a lower price. Trump said this strategy has resulted in the loss of over 70,000 U.S. industries, and many jobs to boot. His plan is to raise the tariff to, I think, something around 30%.

This sounds like a good idea, but it probably won't work. The reason is because industries don't pay taxes; corporations don't pay taxes. If a tariff is imposed, companies would put some of that tariff into the price of the product. They would put some of it at wholesale price, some of it in retail price, and some of it out of their marketing budget. They might write the check to pay the tax (the tariff), but the money is going to come from the consumer at the end of the line. 

Then, if this results in a price of air conditioners that are too high, then the product won't be sold in America. However, if Trump can use this threat to get companies to stay in the United States, all the power to him. And so far this seems to be working. So far, Ford is staying, and so is Carrier, an so are other companies Trump has negotiated with. So long as he continues to succeed at keeping such industries in the U.S., then there will be no tariff.

And this might be his plan all along. Trump is not stupid. He knows that high tariffs won't work. He has to know that. He has to know it because I wrote about it before right here

Monday, April 3, 2017

Common Phrases Often Misused

Liberalism is very unpopular. So, one method liberals often use is to create happy names for unhappy and unpopular phrases. Here are a few good examples.

1.  Global warming theory is real. They say global warming to make the theory look like a fact. What they really should say, to be accurate, would be "Man-made global warming." In fact, there hasn't been any rise in global temperatures since the mid-1990s. Global warming isn't even a real theory. What it really is is an excuse for liberals to raise taxes and increase regulations to advance their agenda.

2.  Climate change is real. Conservatives have been chiming for years that the climate is always changing.  So, when global temperatures quit rising, they changed the name of their theory to "Climate Change." Again, what they really mean to say is "Man-made climate change." So they poll people, and they say, "Do you believe in climate change?" Most people are going to say "yes" to this. A more accurate question would be, "Do you believe in man-made climate change." A majority of Americans do not.

3.  The term liberal. Liberal used to be about human liberty and its gradual progression. It was about freedom and limited government. It was about the progression of freedom and liberty. It was about limited government. Nearly every President from Thomas Jefferson to Grover Cleveland were considered liberals.  This all changed with the progressive movement of the early 20th century. . When word got out that progressives were the American version of fascists or communists, the term progressive soured. So, when FDR was president, they changed their name -- or abducted the term -- liberal. Ironically, fascism is the antithesis of freedom and liberty. But, this didn't matter, as the name stuck. This forced historians to start referring to liberals like Thomas Jefferson and Grover Cleveland as classical liberals. Modern liberals (of the true sense, that is) refer to themselves as either libertarians or conservatives. Read "What is fascism?"

4.  The U.S. is a democracy. The founding fathers understood that most democracies ended up run by tyrannical dictators. This is because, in order for a true democracy to be effective, all the people must stay up to date on all the issues, and they must all participate in debates and voting. Usually, with ancient Greece and Rome as our best example,, most people are too busy to participate, and so this creates an environment for a dictator -- like Caesar -- to take over. The founding fathers did not want that to happen in the U.S. In fact, they didn't like democracies. So, they chose to form a republic in the U.S. That said, we are a republic, not a democracy. Read: "America is a republic, not a democracy."

5.  Donald Trump and his proponents are anti-immigrant. He is not anti-immigrant. This is just a phrase used by liberals and the media to make Trump look worse than he really is. Trump, and most Americans, are anti-illegal immigrant. They want to keep illegal aliens in an effort to keep our nation safe and secure.

6.  The Affordable Care Act is Necessary. The affordable care act was named to make something that no one wanted sound good. The truth to the matter is that it is not affordable. Premiums for most people have skyrocketed since the advent of the ACA. In fact, premiums are so high, deductibles are so high, that most people with insurance can't even use it.

7.  Russians hacked the election. The Russians did not hack the election. They hacked emails. They tried to hack emails at the republican national committee headquarters and failed. They tried to hack emails at the democratic national committee headquarters and succeeded. However, they did not hack the elections. This is impossible. It's impossible because the polls, polling booths, are not connected to the Internet. So, it's impossible for polls to be hacked. It's impossible for the American election to be hacked. This is the exact reason voting is not done on the Internet.

The bottom line is that liberals cannot tell you the truth. They cannot refer to something as it actually is, because they would never be able to advance their agenda if they did. In order for liberals to advance their agenda, in order for liberal candidates to become elected, they have to pretend to be conservatives. This is what FDR did. 

Wednesday, March 15, 2017

Joseph McCarthy was right after all

Joseph McCarthy
Joseph McCarthy was a U.S. Senator who stormed into office during the 1946 mid-term elections which saw the republican party take over Congress for the first time since 1930.

He would become famous in 1950 for claiming that he suspected there were over 50 Soviet/ Communist sympathizers in the FDR and Truman White House. Considering that liberals had control of much of the country, and the minds of millions of Americans, he was laughed at and scorned to an early death.

The media still talks about McCarthy in a negative way, even though he has essentially been vindicated. Unfortunately, he would not be vindicated for another 41 years, or until the Soviet Union fell.  Once this happened, the U.S. released secret documents it didn't want to release during the Cold War for fear of hurting any efforts of winning the Cold War. These secret documents were the Vinova Accords.

In 1991, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. released secret documents it didn't want to release during the Cold War for fear of hurting any efforts of winning the Cold War. These secret documents were the Venona Files.

The Venona Files showed (proved) that not only was McCarthy right about there being 50 soviet spies working for the FDR/ Truman administrations, there was over 300 spies.

Still, you don't hear much about this outside the conservative sphere. You will never learn this in the liberal public school systems. You will never learn about this by the liberal media. For this reason, many people still view McCarthy as a bad man who falsely accused people of being Communists. When, in truth, the evidence, if we so choose to check it out, shows that McCarthy was right.

In effect, we should consider McCarthy a hero rather than a villain. He would go on to serve as a Senator until 1957, until he died an untimely death. Some say he was ridiculed so much that he was driven to alcoholism, and died of hepatitis.

Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Democrats out of touch with reality

The best way to describe democrats is by saying they are out of touch with reality. Here are some examples.

1.  Muslim Ban. They call Trumps ban on immigrants from seven countries a "Muslim ban." It's not a Muslim ban: 80 terrorists have come into our country from those countries. So, it's about security. It's a temporary ban on immigration from those countries until we can come up with a strategy for properly vetting these people to make sure terrorists are not going to enter our country. There are 40 other countries that are about 50 Muslim nations, and this is only seven, so there's no way you can call it a Muslim ban. If anything, it's a terrorist ban.

2.  Travel ban is unconstitutional. They are activist judges. Rather than deciding on the Constitutionality of the travel ban, they made their decision based on their opinion. They decided the morality of the ban, rather than the Constitutionality. This is not what they are supposed to be doing here. They aren't supposed to use any information other than the law. Is the law (or, in this case, executive action) legal or illegal? It cannot be illegal in this case, because the Constitution only applies to American Citizens. The people coming (or trying to come) into our country from other nations are not even citizens. So, it's impossible for the travel ban to be unconstitutional. Plus, by holding it up, terrorists are entering our nation and putting our nation at risk. Do democrats not care? Do democrats want terrorists to enter our great nation?

3  Taxing wealth. Democrats talk often about taxing wealth. They say that the wealthy "need" to pay their "fair share." But you cannot tax wealth. The only thing you can tax is income, and many wealthy people do not make income. This is why they want Trump to release his tax forms, because they will probably find that he doesn't make income, and they will tromp on this. They will say, "See, he's a greedy rich person who doesn't pay taxes; he doesn't pay his fair share." That's what democrats do, they twist the truth to their own benefit.

4  Public schools. They keep talking about how our public school system is getting worse because we aren't funding it well enough. "What we need to do is throw more money at it," they say. Well, prior to the 1960s, hardly any federal funds went toward education, and the U.S. had the #1 educational system in the world. Since the progressives took over the school system under the guise of, "We have to do something," we have gone from #1 in many areas to as low as 17. And no one calls them on this. The truth is that taxpayers put forth $536 billion per year just to fund Kindergarten through 12th grade, and this is more than is spent on national defense, according to the Department of Education. From 1991-91 to current, the federal share of K-12 spending increased from 5.7-8.3%.  Despite this increase, Education in our country has not improved. According to CBS News, the U.S. spent $15,171 per student in 2010, which is above every other developed nation. As, per example: Switzerland spent $14,922, Mexico spent $2,993. The average was $9,313 per student. As a percentage of GDP in 2010, the U.S. spent 7.3% on education, higher than any other developed nation. The average is 6.3. While it might make people feel good to keep increasing this funding, it has not resulted in better education. The problem is the system is broken. You keep throwing more money at a broken system and nothing improves (money just gets wasted).

Russians hacked the election. The Russians hacked emails of democrats like John Podesta. they hacked his emails and they ended up on Wikileaks. They made the democrats look really made. They made the people aware of how crooked they are. There were CNN reporters giving Hillary questions prior to the Clinton-Trump debates, for example. The Russians did not hack the elections. In fact, it's impossible for them to hack the elections, because the polls are not even connected to the Internet. There has not been a shred of evidence to prove this story. In fact, even the media admit that the leaks coming from Washington were so juicy they had to go with it, despite a lack of evidence. If anything, this proves media bias. They did not drop this story until Trump called their bluff and claimed that Obama tapped the trump tower. If true, this would be the biggest scandal in U.S. history. However, if proved false, would prove the story of Russian hacking to be nothing more than a hoax. So, the media had no choice but to drop this story.

6 They believe there is a limited supply of money, and if one person (or country) is rich, it comes at the expense of everyone else.  For example, if Donald Trump gets rich, hundreds or thousands of people are trapped in poverty as a result. If the United States is the wealthiest nation, it comes at the expense of other nations. It is under this belief that they think the U.S. is the cause of the world's problems, not the example of exeptionalism. This is why they believe it's important to take from the wealthy and give to the poor (redistribute wealth). This is why they want to keep our borders open, to allow the impoverished from other nations to come in and get a piece of the pie. The problem is this is not true. The truth is, prior to the United States, 98% of the people of the world were impoverished. The United States (and this is what American Exceptionalism is) showed the world that, when natural rights are protected, when the government is limited, EVERY person has a chance make something of their dreams. The U.S. Constitution, therefore, created an environment where any person can rise up and become something. Every person has an opportunity to get rich. However, they are going to have to make the effort, they are going to have to dream and dream big, and they are going to have to be willing to relocate. It's not guarantee that they will succeed, but at least it's the only system ever created whereby anyone can become rich. Of course, democrats will say it's an unfair advantage, but even the poor can rise up if they are willing to make the effort.

7. History begins the day you are born. This is how many millennials think. This is a direct result of liberals controlling our public school systems. They do not teach about what life was like prior to the founding fathers. Sure, they teach history, but they don't teach about American exceptionalism. So, as a result, most young people today think history began the day they were born. This gives them a warped view of history, causing them to miss out on many of the lessons that have already been learned.

8.  They want diversity, but they don't want diversity of thought. They love colleges like the University of Michigan, where you will see people from many nations together in one place. That's fine. The problem is that they are opposed to free thought. The reality is, if you are, say, a Trump fan, and you speak up, you will be mocked and ridiculed. You will be an outcast. The reality is that there is very little diversity in their world at least not if you have an opposing view. 

9. Choice. They are all for choice. They want you to be able to choose to kill an unborn baby, they want you to be able to choose what sex you are, they want you to be able to choose to marry someone of the same gender, they want you to be able to choose to live with your parents until you are 40 years old. But, you are not allowed to choose anything that opposes their political stance. You cannot choose to pray in public schools. You cannot choose to accept vouchers to send your kids to the best schools (assuming the schools in your area are not acceptable to you). You cannot choose to not have healthcare (thanks to Obamacare). The reality is, while they say they are for choice, they are actually opposed to it.

10.  They say they are for free speech, while directly opposing it when the free speech comes from those who disagree with them. If you oppose global warming, they mock you. They say things like, "Do you  believe in gravity?"  If you want to reform social security to assure that it will be around for another 100 years, they say things like, "Do you want to throw grandma off the cliff?"  If you attack their programs, policies, or beliefs, they call you names: "Racist, homophobe, offensive, hateful." The reality is that conservatives want to help the poor and down trodden just as the liberals do, but conservatives have a different approaches to doing so.  Conservatives trust in the free market, for one thing. Conservatives believe people are smarter, closer to the problem, and better capable of making the best decisions than elites in Washington.

11.  Taxes make more money for the government. Democrats believe the best way to fund government programs is to raise taxes. However, the reality is, at least according to the Laffer Curve, raising taxes makes money for the government up to a certain point. Once this point is crossed, revenue from taxes starts to decline. Here's an example. If taxes are 20%, rich people say, "Fine. I will just pay it. It's not worth the trouble to not pay it." Now, if taxes are 40%, they start to say, "Let's see if we can find ways to get around paying it." Here's some more evidence. Harding/ Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush all cut taxes, and the result of all four instances was a near doubling of the national income over the ensuing 10 years. This never once even came close to happening when taxes were elevated (i.e. when taxes were 90% after WWII).

12.  Trump is the only person to impose travel bans. It's not true.  Even Obama did this. Obama banned people from Iran from coming here. Many presidents have banned immigrants from entering the U.S. Obama did it 10 times. Clinton did it 12 times. They requested bans because they decided they could not guarantee those coming in from certain countries were not terrorists. They needed time. they needed help. The best example was a complete ban on immigration from the 1920s to the 1960s. In the 1920s, Coolidge signed a bill banning all immigrants from entering the U.S. This ban stood until Johnson became president in the 1960s. The ban was in place because there was a massive uptick in immigration from the 1880s to 1920s, and we wanted to make sure they had time to assimilate. It was also done because terrorists were coming into our country from Europe. They were radical, left wing socialist terrorists. So, it has been done before, and it is Constitutional. That is the reality.

Monday, March 13, 2017

J. Edgar Hoover and James Comey: Too Much Power by FBI Directors?

J. Edgar Hoover
Michael Goodwin, New York Post Columnist, just made an interesting claim on the Fox News show "America's Newsroom," to Shannon Bream. He said that no president will ever fire an FBI director for fear of what he might reveal about the president. 

He said that FDR and Truman both complained about J. Edgar Hoover. President Truman went as far to accuse him of treason, but never fired him. This is because, said Goodwin, the FBI director has at his disposal access to all the dirt on the President. So, as long as he keeps his job, nothing will be revealed. 

J. Edgar Hoover was the first director of the FBI. He was the 6th director of the Bureau of Investigation in 1924, and stayed on to head the FBI when it was formed by the Herbert Hoover administration at the beginning of the Cold War. Truman wanted it to be responsible for  foreign and domestic spying, just like the Russian KGB. 

He remained director until he died at the age of 77 in 1972 

James Comey
After he died, evidence started to come out that he abused his power to influence political figures. It was also determined that he had amassed large political files on political figures, including FDR and Truman. So this gave him lots of power over both FDR and Truman. It would explain why he was never fired, despite claims that sitting presidents did not like him. 

Even President Nixon said he never fired him due to fears that he would use information against him. J. Edgar Hoover historian Kenneth Ackerman denied these claims, but there seems to be enough evidence to support them. 

Goodwin said that James Comey is the most powerful FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover. Evidence of this was when Comey came out and bravely said, "You are stuck with me for another six years."  In a way, one might think he is being very brave, daring Trump to fire him. But, according to Goodwin, it's because Comey has access to leaks and intelligence information about Trump.

Chances are he had similar evidence against Obama and Hillary. In fact, the way he handled the Hillary Clinton email scandal may be evidence of the power he has. He came out with damning evidence showing that Hillary was guilty, but failed to charge her of anything. Then he came out again after wikileaks revealed John Podesta's emails, and then decided once again not to charge her.  He may have just been doing this to show how powerful he was, and to show Hillary and Trump that he cannot be messed with.

That would explain why Obama never fired him.

Interesting. Not surprising, though. 

Friday, March 3, 2017

I think Trump's speech to Congress was first Trump speech media ever listened to, and their responses prove it

I listened to Donald Trump's address to the joint Congress on Tuesday, February 28, 2017. He gave a good speech. To me, however, he basically gave the same speech he had been giving since he announced his candidacy over a year ago now. To me his speech was nice, but nothing spectacular.

After listening to the speech I started reading what people from the various media outlets had to say about it. It seems they basically all rehashed what Fox's Chris Wallace had to say. Wallace said, "Tonight I feel like Donald Trump became the President of the United States."

When comments like this are made, it makes me wonder if these people even listened to his speeches prior to this one. I mean, you have democrats who have been attacking Trump left and right. You have Congressmen who have been protesting him, basically. You have people who voted for Hillary because they are so "offended" by Trump (like my own "liberal friend"). And I often wonder, "Do these people even listen to Trump? Have they even listened to one of his speeches?"

It seemed to me if they did, they might see a Trump they like. He wants to keep our borders secure and keep terrorists out. He wants to cut taxes and regulations and create jobs. These are all things have been done many times before, and they work.

So, when all these people say, "For the first time Trump seems Presidential." It makes me think that this speech was probably the first time they ever even listened to one of his speeches. I honestly think this is true and when they say stuff like this (for the first time, he seems presidential), it just confirms my suspicion. Because to me, a person who listened to many of his speeches, he seemed presidential long ago.

I bet my "liberal friend" has never listened to a Trump speech. If I asked her she would probably tell me she has. But, I bet she hasn't. I'm just saying. I bet all these protesters have never even listened to a Trump speech. I bet if they did, they might find that Trump is looking after their well-being as much as he is for mine.

Just to add to this a second. There are things Trump wants to do that I do not like. I mean, I'm fine with fixing bridges and tunnels and roads. I'm fine with that. But that is the job of the states, not the Federal government. Spending government money to do something the states should be doing is something democrats love. I mean, democrats should love that Trump wants to spend money.

But, I think, rather than listening to his speeches, that they just do whatever the pundits say. The pundits are adamantly opposed to Trump. They are "offended" that he speaks the truth. They are "offended" that he doesn't say things in "politically correct" fashion. The pundits say protest and hate, and so democrats just follow right along hating and protesting.

That is the state of the nation right now. Democrats hate. They are a party of hate and envy.  Trump said during his speech, "We want to create jobs." Everyone in the room stood and cheered. Democrats stood on their hands. Trump said, "We want to keep radical, Islamist terrorists out of the country." Everyone stood and cheered. Democrats sat on their hands.

So, I ask here, "Do democrats want less jobs? Do they want more terrorists into our country?" Is that what I am to make of their response, or lack of response, to Trump's speech? It kind of makes me wonder. Now, I know the answer to my own questions here. I'm asking rhetorically.

Monday, February 27, 2017

Bill Clinton: A good fiscal president, bad role model

George H.W Bush failed to hold true to his pledge not to raise taxes, and this angered the conservative base. This, coupled with the successful independent campaign of Ross Perot, allowed William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton to slip into the office of the President without garnishing a majority of support among voters.

He ran as a "new" democrat. By this, he was trying to make it look like he was not the same old type of liberal democrat as was portrayed in the 1960's. However, there was nothing new about the Bill Clinton's agenda other than he attempted to run as a moderate (conservative) democrat rather than a liberal democrat. However, once elected he would run as a liberal. 

So, the claim of being a "new" democrat, the fact that the country was ready for something other than a republican, the fact that Bush was perceived as not conservative enough, or as a person who is not true to his word, gave us Bill Clinton. 

Bush made very little effort to change domestic policy; he essentially rode the wave of Reaganomics. By the end of his term, a mild recession was in process, and this may have been partially due to Bush's allowing Congress to raise some existing taxes. However, the recession was short lived and is generally considered one of the mildest recession in U.S. history. The Reagan economic boom continued throughout much of the Clinton administration. 

The result was Bill Clinton became President in 1992. The economy quickly recovered and continued to soar. Bill Clinton's popularity soared as he rode the economic tide created by Reagan. The economy created by Reaganomics was so strong the Bush recession turned out to be but a minor blip in the road.

My dad, a person I would consider a conservative republican, has said to me on numerous occasions that he thought Clinton was a good President just by the fact that he created a sound economic environment. My dad said that he decided to sell his business while the economy was still doing well, and this was mainly because of Clinton. 

While it's easy to give Clinton credit, he probably doesn't deserve it. Here is why.

During the 1980s, Reagan cut regulations and cut taxes in order to stimulate the economy. At the same time, to help win the cold war, he increased military spending. He believed it was important to have the mightiest military in the world but to not need it. He referred to this as "Peace through strength."

To offset this, a democratic controlled Congress promised to cut spending. Congress would later renege on this promise. So, by the end of the Reagan-Bush era, the national debt was at an all-time high. Bill Clinton believed he could pay off some of this debt by cutting military spending and raising taxes on the wealthy. So, in 1993, he signed a bill that would do just that.

As far as the military, throughout his terms, the military budget was repeatedly cut, and this resulted in reductions at the Pentagon, a closing of military bases, a pullout of many troops from Europe, and many military bases were shut down.

By the end of Clinton's term in office, the military was severely depleted. While conservatives saw this as problematic, liberals see this as a good thing. They believe a powerful military just makes the U.S. look arrogant to people in nations like Iran and Iraq.

For instance, when radical Muslims commit acts of terror against us, it's our fault more so than theirs. To fix the problem, rather than built up the military, they tear it down.

You see, this is the kind of nonsensical stuff your dealing with when a liberal posing as a moderate is elected President.

In fact, after 911, Clinton's former Defense Secretary, Casper Weinberger, said Clinton had cut defense spending so much, and the military was so depleted, that he didn't think we could fight and win a war on terrorism.

He also raised taxes on the wealthy. One of the myths of Keynesian economics is that raising money on the wealthy is a viable method of raising governmental revenue. The problem with this is wealth cannot be taxed, only income can be taxed. Most people who are wealthy have their money invested, and so they don't make income per se.

Plus, on the income they do make, as their taxes go up, they just find ways of getting around paying it. It's not worth doing this when taxes are low, but when they are perceived as too high, the extra effort is worthwhile.
In either case, tax hikes usually result in a short-term revenue increase, althoug a long-term decline in revenue. Liberals believe this is okay so long as it allows them to push forth their progressive agendas. 

However, this agenda was repudiated by voters in the 1994 mid-term elections as republicans gained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate for the first time in 40 years. This is often referred to as the "republican revolution," and was lead by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. It's also often referred to as the "Newt Gingrich Revolution." 

Gingrich's House, capped by the Contract with America, powered Conservatives, and united republicans. The most important thing on that Contract with America called for tax cuts -- particularly capital gains tax cuts. 

Due to his desire to get along with Congress to pass his agenda later, Clinton (perhaps due to bad advice from his staffers), signed the Gingrich tax cuts into law. 

This, in my opinion, is why the economy continued to boom. This tax cut offsets the Bush and Clinton tax hikes and allowed the economy to continue to soar. Now, of course, we also have to recognize the Internet boom also played a role. But I think the Newt Gingrich Contract with America, while helping to reinvigorate republicans, also saved the Clinton administration, making it look good. 

The 1964 election put Clinton up against moderate republican Bob Dole. Clinton rode the economic wave through the election, beating Dole by an electoral vote of 379 to 159. However, once again he failed to gain a majority of support of the voters, as he garnished only 49.2% of the popular vote (although this was more than Dole's 40.7%). 

As you might imagine, the liberal media makes sure most people know that it was Bill Clinton's economy. And that's fine with me, as the President should get credit for the economy. I mean, think of it this way: he could have vetoed the tax cuts. But he didn't. He signed them into law, and in this way, he should get credit.

Still, liberals sight the booming 1990s economy as a result of the Clinton tax hikes. They often cite this as evidence that tax hikes can stimulate the economy. Conservatives understand that it was the tax cuts that did this, not the tax hikes. But, this is one of the reasons there are two parties, so one can act like kids and skrew things up, and the other can act as adults and fix things while not caring that the other gets credit.

In December of 1993, he worked with democrats and republicans in Congress to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This bill removed tariffs on trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.

 Critics said this bill would cause industries to move out of the U.S. and open shop in those other countries where workers were paid less, and then they would sell their products back in the U.S. while making a higher profit. Supporters claimed the bill would benefit both countries equally.

This criticism was brushed off by democrats and republicans alike until Donald Trump came around 23 years later and informed voters that NAFTA had resulted in 75,000 industries leaving the country. So, in the end, while seen as necessary in the modern global economy, it would end up benefiting other nations at the expense of American jobs.

So, NAFTA would wind up being one of the worse bills ever signed by any President.

One other really good thing he did was, on August 22, 1996, sign the welfare reform bill called The Personal Responsibility And Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. It required able-bodied people on Welfare to work, and it limited the number of years they could receive government assistance. His Welfare to Work Partnership helped people get the needed education and training they needed to get jobs.

It worked. Between 1994 and 2004, the number of people on welfare declined by 60%.Plus, many studies showed that in 1996, 60% of mothers removed from welfare were able to find jobs, and after a period of several months 80% held jobs. U.S. Census data also showed that between 1993 and 2000 the percentage of low-income, single mothers, with a job grew from 58-75%, an increase of almost 30%. In those same years, the percentage of never-married mothers in the workforce increased from 44-66%, an increase of 50%.

All of these were unprecedented improvements. Another neat statistics is that, between 1994 and 2000, child poverty fell every year. By the year 2000, the poverty rate of black children was at the lowest it had ever been.

Liberals see this as bad, claiming it means there are people who need assistance are not getting it. Conservatives believe success is not based on how many people need government assistance, but by how many people can make it on their own. By the conservative definition, Clinton's welfare reform was a huge success. 

Clinton also faced his share of scandals, including various accusations that had sexually assaulted or raped women, and one woman by the name Monica Lewinski who claimed that she gave him a blowjob in the Oval Office. Clinton at first denied these claims, although later evidence forced him to appear on national television one evening to apologize to voters. That must have been humiliating.

So, I list Clinton in my second tier of Presidents called, "They did some good things, but they also did some bad things. Fiscally he was a pretty decent President. Along with raising taxes and cutting military spending, he also succeeded at cutting 377,000 government jobs and sharply reduced government spending.

This was so successful that, in 1999, it was announced that he and Congress had succeeded at balancing the Federal budget. By the time his term ended there was even a surplus. It's also important to mention that he helped create an economic environment that saw the creation of 20 million new jobs.

Again, people who credit the tax hikes for these successes are not being honest. The true reason for the good Clinton economic years were the tax cuts, particularly on Capital Gains. It should be noted that the best way to get a stagnant economy moving is by cutting capital gains taxes. 

Regardless, by the end of his terms, the Internet Bubble had burst. This caused a recession. I think it's fair to say that, by our own rule of giving a President credit for the state of the economy, we can duly call it the Clinton Recession. It was in this state that Clinton saw his Vice-President nominated as the democratic candidate for President in 2000.

Perhaps a repudiation of sorts on the Clinton years was that Gore lost in in closely contested election to George W. Bush, the son George H.W. Bush. Overall, however, Clinton's economy was pretty good, and for that, we can mark him as a pretty good fiscal President. Socially, however, he was a horrible role model for a nation that truly needed one.

Wednesday, February 22, 2017

My ranking of the presidents

George Washington often a top choice on best president lists,
with Abraham Lincoln usually ranking in the second spot.
The rest of  such lists are merely subjective,
usually being influenced by political affiliations.
The following is a list of presidents ranked from best to worse.   

Here are the great presidents.

1. George Washington (no party) for keeping the country together, and creating a humble executive.  The worse thing he did was sign the Fugitive Slate Act of 1793, which gave the right to a slave owner to recover an escaped slave (an ardent violation of natural rights). However, considering we probably wouldn't have a nation were it not for him, we will forgive him for this and still rank him #1 forever and ever Amen.

2. Abraham Lincoln (Republican) for preserving the union and ending slavery. Nothing else he did could add to nor take away from these stunning achievements, not even the fact that he was an enemy of state's rights.

3. Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) for protecting state rights and preserving a limited government by repealing many federal taxes and opposing government debt. We must also hail him for the brilliant Louisiana Purchase, which is perhaps one of the greatest bargains in all of world history. Of course his greatest fame came from his actions before becoming president, mainly for writing the Declaration of Independence. He might also gain respect for his making up with John Adams and writing many letters about the true intentions of the founding fathers.

4 .Martin Van Buren:  (Democrat) Some say he was the first forgettable president based on his inability to get the U.S. out of the depression caused by the panic of 1837.  Some say the depression was the result of banks offering easy credit with no central regulation, and that all he had to do was create regulations to end it. However, I believe this is a reason to rank him high on this list.  He was the first president to have a laissez-faire approach to government, and therefore refused to use the depression as a reason to increase the central government at the expense of personal liberties.  This laissez-faire approach set a precedent that was followed by most presidents for the next 90 years.  He should also get credit for keeping us out of war with Britain as tensions grew along the border between New York and Canada.  However, despite these successes, the propaganda tossed out by the Whigs won the day.  Not helping matters was that he was also known for living an extravagant lifestyle, making him an easy scapegoat.  He was easily defeated by William Henry Harrison in 1841. Ironically, to defeat him, the Whigs had to nominate a democrat for Vice President. So, when Harrison died shortly into his term, the laissez-faire democrats were back in power anyway.

5. Calvin Coolidge (Republican) for continuing the policies of Warren G. Harding and becoming the only president to accomplish the trifecta of cutting both individual and corporate taxes, limiting regulations on private business, and cutting spending in order to create an environment of economic prosperity that created the environment that made both the Industrial Revolution and the Roaring 20s possible.

6. Ronald Reagan (Republican) for having the nerve to cut taxes across the board, and limiting regulations on private business, to lift a faltering economy.  He may also receive credit for putting pressure on the Soviet Union to end the Cold War, and for creating confidence that gave rebirth to the notion of American Exceptionalism.

7. Grover Cleveland (Democrat) for his love and devotion to the Constitution, for refusing to sign any law that violated Constitutional restraint and impeded upon natural rights, for supporting low tariffs that benefited businesses, for reducing taxes, for having the courage to fight government corruption and fighting government corruption, and for doing all of this despite the fact that doing the opposite would have paid dividends as far as his political career and legacy were concerned. He should also be hailed for his quote, "People support the government, the government should not support the people."

8. John Tyler: (Whig, Democrat, Independent) He is often thought of as one of the worse presidents. However, according to the Daily Caller, "Short of George Washington, Tyler is perhaps the greatest presidents in American history. Tyler used his veto power the way Washington intended, as a check on unconstitutional legislation. He vetoed the re-incorporation of a central banking system, as well as bills involving internal improvements and a protective tariff. The Whigs expelled him from the party for “gasp!” following the Constitution. His administration laid the groundwork for the settlement of the Oregon dispute with Great Britain and brought Texas into the Union."    He is also significant for vetoing the Third Bank twice, vetoing the tariff bill, ending the Second Seminole War, holding back federal troops in Dorr Rebellion, establishing trade with China, and establishing the role of the Vice President while fending off Henry Clay. Not good was that he annexed Texas despite the fear of free states that Texas would be a slave state.  This lead to a war with Mexico -- although it also ultimately lead to the expansion of the U.S., which as good.

9.  Zachary Taylor: (Whig) He opposed the compromise of 1850. This can be perceived as good because, after Zachary Taylor died in 1850, Milford Fillmore would sign the bill, ultimately prolonging slavery as an institution in the U.S. The bill also strengthened the fugitive slave law, which was an ardent violation of justice.  Taylor opposed all this: He would not have signed the bill.  It also should be known here that the Whigs were ardent supporters of slavery, so Taylor opposed his own party on this.  So he went up against his own party on this issue, and for this we should give him credit. This may also have been why he was killed.

10. Dwight David Eisenhower (Republican) for creating an era of economic stability and peace that allowed the U.S. to emerge as a world superpower, for standing firm against the Soviet Union, and for his warnings against deficit spending. While it was a huge government project, his championing for the building of an interstate highway system was a good federal program.

11. John F. Kennedy (Democrat) for defeating a popular republican vice president (Richard Nixon) and being more conservative than he was, for not being afraid to deal with communism in both Cuba and Vietnam, for not blaming his predecessor for the Bay of Pigs failure (Eisenhower designed the plan), for cutting taxes in order to spawn economic prosperity during 1960s, and for championing for flights to the moon and back, all of which gave Americans reason to be proud once again. He also should be given credit for his quote: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  His liberal social views are what keep him out of the top ten. 

12. James Monroe (Republican) for a Monroe Doctrine that warned European nations about coming to the new world and prevented the U.S. from becoming entangled in European affairs for the next century. Also for his opposition to excessive government spending and not being afraid to veto popular bills.

13. Andrew Jackson (Democrat) He can be considered a great for refusing to allow South Carolina to leave the union, and threatening military action if it tried. He can be considered great for believing that American greatness comes from the people and not from government.  He can be considered great for cutting federal spending, eliminating internal taxes, and reducing the national debt. He must also gain credit for his constant warnings that government encroachment would lead to many of the problems that are occurring today as a result of government encroachment (mainly a loss of personal liberties, or natural rights).  He did not believe the government should intrude in the lives of private individuals.  Some like to move him down in rankings for his battle with the Indians, but at the time his actions were popular because various Indian Tribes threatened American settlements.

14.  James Madison (Democratic-Republican) He can be considered great for signing the Non-Intercourse Act which allowed the U.S. to trade with all nations except France and Britain, and the Macon's Bill #2 that allowed the U.S. to trade with any nation that worked to protect American shipping interests (all nations except Britain agreed).  He can be considered great for leading the country through the War of 1812 to stop British soldiers from harassing American ships and impressing soldiers. He can be considered bad for creating the Second Bank of the United States.  He is best known for what he did prior to becoming president, which was being one of the key authors of the Federalist Papers and Bill of Rights.

15. Harry S. Truman (Democrat) for having the courage save millions of young lives by dropping Fat Man and Little Boy on Hiroshima, for the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe, and for standing firm against the threat of communism.

16. James K. Polk (Democrat) for being a Jacksonian president (Manifest Destiny) and expanding the country all the way to the Mexican border by defeating and forcing them to cede both New Mexico and California to the U.S in exchange for $15 million in cash, for avoiding war with Britain by encouraging them to agree with creating a border at the 49th parallel, except for the southern tip of Vancouver, in 1846, and for keeping his campaign pledge of being a one term president despite pleas for him to run again (good thing he didn't, because he died shortly after his term ended).

The next group of presidents is generally considered as good or bad, depending on how you look at what they did in office. They all did some good things, but offset them with some bad things. 

17. George W. Bush (Republican) He failed to reign in spending, and in fact allowed it to soar, but he did cut taxes to allow the economy to expand, he did make excellent Supreme Court nominees, and he responded heroically to 911. Another of his failures was to stop the influx of illegal immigrants and to protect and defend the borders. By failing to veto any spending bills placed on his desk, the national debt skyrocketed to unprecedented levels.

18.  Ulysses S. Grant (republican) He rode his popularity following his Civil War successes into the office of the president.  He is usually considered an unsuccessful president due to too many scandals.  However, that's what the propaganda says.  If we go by his attempts to prevent the nation from getting into wars, and ability to preserve liberties, he deserves a higher ranking than he often gets.  He vetoed the Inflation Bill of 1874, he cut taxes, he lowered debt, he fired 2,248 government employees, he moved the country toward a de facto gold standard, he signed the Specie Payment Resumption Act and avoided war with Spain/ Ciuba despite Virginius Affair, and signed the Treaty of Washington.  He should also gain more respect simply because he supported equal rights for blacks and native Americans by supporting the 15th Amendment. Still, bringing down his presidency are all the scandals, plus his creation of the Office of Solicitor General, and the fact that he left reconstruction violence problems to state militias instead of using the army.  He also suspended habeas corpus (the right to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment) by signing the Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871

19.  John Adams (Federalist) We are going to give him credit for avoiding war with France despite his own personal desires to go to war with them. By avoiding war and not advancing his own political agenda, he took serious criticism within his own party, particularly from Hamilton Federalists.  It may have been for this reason that he lost the 1800 electionand and the Midnight Judges.  One of these midnight judges was John Marshall, who was the first activist judge who used his position to advance an agenda at the expense of personal liberty.

20.  Chester A. Arthur (Republican) The spoils system allowed elected officials to award those who supported their campaign with the best government jobs. Even though his political career benefited from this, Arthur ended it by signing the Pendleton Act in 1883. The new law required government officials to be hired based on merit instead of political affiliation. He also lowered tariffs, which are essentially taxes on imported goods.  He pushed for the International Meridian Conference, which established the Greenrich Meridian as an international standard for zero degrees longitude.  He signed into law in 1882 the Edmunds Act, which was an anti-Mormon bill that made polygamy illegal.  The Act was unconstitutional because it violates the natural right to choose who you marry. He also signed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which prohibited Chinese laborers from immigrating to the U.S. The act was renewed in 1892, made permanent in 1902, and eventually repealed with the Magnuson Act in 1943. 

21. Franklin Deleno Roosevelt (Democrat) He could easily be hailed as one of the best presidents due to his patriotism in war time and his ability to inspire through his speaking skills during the Great Depression and ability to lead during WWII.  However, he could just as easily be hailed as a bad president for putting his own personal political ambitions before the Constitution he was bound to protect and defend.  He could be hailed as great for creating the FDIC for protecting money invested in banks and restoring confidence in the banking system.  He could be considered great for creating a social security program to assure that the elderly and sick would be cared for.  However, at the same time. we could rank him as a bad president for using the troubles of the nation as an excuse to ignore the constitution to push forth programs that benefited a few at the expense of the majority.  And that is why we rank him here. 

22. Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) for carrying "A Big Stick" and breaking up trusts that infringed on individual liberties, and for his defense and foreign policy views. He moves down the list because he was a progressive, big government president who supported high taxation, and government intervention into commerce. Bad is that he increased tariffs, and pushed for an income tax. Terrible is that he created the Department of Commerce and Labor, which set a precedence for future presidents to likewise create such departments.  This is bad because these departments have the power to make regulations without the approval of Congress, and thereby have the ability to take away liberties. 

23. Bill Clinton (Democrat) He can be considered great for putting his nation before his political aspirations and agreeing to sign on to republican bills to cut taxes, reduce capital gains, and welfare reform. Such actions allowed for the economy to stay robust during most of his terms in office. He can be considered great for expanding free trade.  He can be considered a poor president for his lack of leadership in foreign affairs.  He can be considered as a poor president on social issues, such as nominating liberal judges to courts.  He can be considered great for supporting the gay community although opposing gay marriage.  He can be considered a bad president not for having sexual relations while in office, but for lying about it when he was caught.  

24. Warren G. Harding (Republican) for succeeding in cutting spending by 40 percent, and signed a much needed tax cut that helped to lead the country into the greatest period of economic expansion in history at that time. He was the only president to succeed at both cutting taxes and reigning in spending. Unfortunately, scandals lead to his downfall, and perhaps the stress that lead to his early death.

25. James Buchanan (Democrat)  The fifteenth president failed to stand up against the spread of slavery, and the  block of states that would become the Confederacy. However, unlike Abraham Lincoln (the man who succeeded him) he succeeded at avoiding war. He also favored low taxes and low tariffs in an effort to stimulate the economy, Many consider him a failed president, although he really wasn't. Yet the slavery issue was too big a scar on his legacy to rank him higher than this. 

26. John Quincy Adams (Federalist) The son of John Adams, he was literally groomed for the presidency but failed to accomplish anything once elected.  He was good because he did not allow the U.S. to become involved in the affairs of other nations.  He said that America should not go abroad "in search of monsters to destroy." Bad is he supported Henry Clay's American system.  It called for high tariffs that disadvantaged the poor, who were now forced to pay higher prices.  It called for high western land prices to discourage people from leaving eastern states in favor of western states.  This also worked to the disadvantage to the poor who could not afford the higher land prices. The bill favored one group at the expense of another, and was therefore unconstitutional.  He also signed the Tariff Act of 1828, which disadvantages the poor, especially in western states, who could not afford the high prices of imported goods.

27.  Rutherford B. Hayes (Republican) Good is that he ended reconstruction and withdrew federal troops. He defended the rights of blacks who were being oppressed in the South. He ended the spoils system and defended the gold standard. Good is that he vetoed the inflationary Bland-Allison Act.  Bad is he used federal troops to murder 70 striking workers. Bad is that he banned the sale of alcohol at Army forts.

28.  William McKinley (Republican)  He lead over the U.S. during the Spanish-American War.  Bad is he sent federal troops to end the Boxer Rebellion, a Chinese uprising in northern China against western and Japanese influence there. He also kept federal troops out of the south. Bad is he signed onto a high tariff bill. Bad is he failed to choose his own vice president, and allowed his fellow republicans to nominate Teddy Roosevelt at the convention. Good is he proved America could be a influence upon the world scene, setting the state for an American Superpower.

29.  William Howard Taft (Republican) He supported peaceful free trade treaties.  But, he signed on to the Payne Aldrich Tariff Act.  He also supported the 16th amendment, which allowed the government to collect taxes on income.

30.  George H. W. Bush (Republican)  Good is he was a nice guy. He involved the U.S. in a popular Gulf War, and gave the military the authority to do its job and win fast.  Okay, some government is needed.  So his Clean Air Act noble.  Bad is he reneged on his popular vow, "Read my lips: no new taxes." He was too willing to negotiate with democrats, giving them too much of what they wanted.  Of course we must keep in mind he was working with a democratically controlled Congress.  Still, his reneging on his no tax pledge is probably what cost him re-election in 1992.

31.  Gerald R. Ford (Republican)  He was the only president never elected.  He was chosen to replace Spiro Agnew as vice president by Richard Nixon.  He then became president when Nixon resigned.  He therefore is the only president never to be elected.  He did some good things, such as the Tax Reduction Act of 1975.  He urged the reduction of domestic oil price controls and refused to bail out a bankrupt New York City.  He also advocated the Human Rights Watch, a non governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. Bad is that he encouraged every American to be vaccinated for H1N1, and this ended up being a deadly mistake.  The Education for Handicapped Children Act essentially forced schools to provide an education for handicapped children and give them one free meal a day.  It surely sounds like a nice act, but it violates personal liberties by forcing schools to act in a certain way.  It basically doesn't force schools to do anything, but refusal to participate would result in reduced. The was an early attempt by progressives to negative incentives as a way to move forth their agenda. It was also evidence of Ford being a RINO, a Republican In Name Only.

The following presidents were not in office long enough to be considered good or great or bad or anything other than just spot fillers.

32.  William Henry Harrison (Whig) Many people have him as one of the worse presidents, but this is merely due to the fact he died of pneumonia 30 days into his term.  I think this is not enough time to judge him by, and therefore I rank him right here in the middle of my rankings.  He was neither a great nor one of the worse presidents. He was, in essence, just an average president. This is why I'm ranking him right here in the middle.

33.  James A. Garfield (republican) Like William Henry Harrison, he was not in office long enough to truly judge.  He was shot by an assassin's bullet and died three months later at the White House due to an infection that set in, probably due to his doctors not wearing gloves when they operated on him.

The following are generally considered poor presidents for the reasons noted.

34.  Millard Fillmore (Whig) He backed the compromise of 1850 that stopped southern states from seceding, but allowed slavery to spread. The compromise also strengthened the fugitive slave law, which was an ardent violation of justice.

35.  Benjamin Harrison (Republican) He did nothing good except have electricity installed in the White House. He signed the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890 because he was in favor of restricting international trade to the benefit of American businesses and jobs from foreign intervention.  He supported the Sherman Silver Purchase Act.  This, coupled with the McKinley Tariff Act, would lead to the depression inherited by Grover Cleveland. He also signed onto the Sherman Anti-Trust Act that gave the government too much power over business activity.  He appointed Teddy Roosevelt to the U.S. Civil Service, who would prove to be a thorn in his side and would go on to become the first progressive president.

36.  Herbert Hoover (Republican) Calvin Coolidge actually opposed Hoover following him into the office of the president, even though he was also a republican.  The reason was because he believed Hoover was too progressive.  And he was right.  When the economy started to spiral out of control, he worsened by signing into law bills that raised tariffs and regulations on businesses, making it harder for them to stay in business.  It was his progressive policies, and not capitalism, that lead to the Great Depression.

37.  Richard Nixon (Republican) Watergate dragged him down and doomed his political career.  But even before that he was one of the more progressive republican presidents of all time.

38.  Andrew Johnson (Republican) He has traditionally been judged as a terrible president, and this may be true because, as a democrat, he had essentially no clout over a republican Congress. However, he did have some good ideas. For one thing, he was opposed to high taxes and regulations that would hurt the common man. He was adamantly opposed to Whigs who championed for higher taxes and tariffs to pay for roads and other infrastructure improvements. Even when a spending bill would have benefited his own district and his political career, he opposed it as any good politician would. He was strongly anti-government, and so if he was only given a chance, he very likely would have been a good president. Yet, with no clout, he had no power. He was therefore rather ineffective. Still, he did not hurt the office as later progressive presidents would, so we cannot rank him lower on this list.

39.  Franklin Pierce (Democrat) He tried to avoid a Civil War.  He reduced the national debt. He refused to sign onto any bill that would compromise the slavery industry.  He angered northern voters because he hinted at adding southern slave states. His signing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act that lead to Bleeding Kansas. Kansas was a free state, and this act reversed that.  It enraged northern voters. The act also made it so white male voters could choose whether their state was a slave or free state.  So potential voters from the north and south were sent to Kansas to influence the vote, and this was termed "Bleeding Kansas." The Act was a betrayal to the north, and is often considered a prelude of the Civil War.

40.  Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat)  Nothing he did was good unless you consider advancing the progressive agenda and the scope and size of the federal government at the expense of personal liberties as good.  Oh, and he also failed to be a leader during the Vietnam War.  This allowed anti-war political activists to control it until there was no way it could be won.  This set the stage for America losing its first war.

41:  Barack Obama (Democrat) Even though it never had majority support, he pushed his healthcare reform through Congress.  The result was that, for the first time ever, Americans had to buy something (in this case healthcare) in order to be citizens.  Failure to comply with this state demand means you will be punished with higher taxes.  Unable to get his other unpopular agenda items through Congress, he bypassed them with executive action, setting a precedence for future presidents to likewise disrespect the law of the land to advance an unpopular agenda. He likewise used his pen to change Obamacare over eight times without going through Congress.  His administration was also embittered in an array of scandals, such as the Benghazi cover-up, Operation Fast and Furious, VA Scandal, lying to get Obamacare passed, and IRS targeting Obama's enemies. His ending of the War in Iraq created a breeding ground for a terrorist group worse that Al Qaeda to develop: ISIS.  He failed to act to the horrible acts performed by ISIS, such as beheading of American journalists.  He negotiated with Iran, the enemy of our ally Israel, thus setting the table for them to develop nuclear weapons.  He talked poorly of Christians while doing the opposite of Muslims.  He also went around the world apologizing for the U.S., as though we were the cause of the world's problems, as opposed to the arbiters of good. He did nothing good. In fact, he did so much damage to the office of the president that it's impossible to list them all here.

42. Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) He got the U.S. involved in a war we should not have been in, and he created a peace treaty to end that war that ultimately lead to WWII.  He created a ministry of propaganda that allowed the state to arrest and imprison people for speaking out against the government.  He was the first president to speak poorly of the constitution, believing it was a living document that should change to meet the demands of modern generations.  He made the government -- the state -- more powerful, thus setting the stage for future presidents to fundamentally transform America from capitalism to socialism.

43.  Jimmy Carter (Democrat) Nothing he did was good either.  He was another progressive president who attempted, although failed, to advance the progressive agenda.  In fact, he was such a horrible President he couldn't even advance the liberal agenda. His lack of leadership in Iran allowed the overthrow of dictators in Iran who were allied with the United States. His failure to stop radicals from taking over Iran is responsible for many of the problems that have occurred in the Middle East since that time. It should be noted here he was a great man, but a very poor president.

44.  Surely you're thinking there were 44 presidents.  You would be wrong.  Grover Cleveland was elected to two non-consecutive terms, so he is usually counted twice.  We are not going to list him twice here, and so we end up with this extra space.

Further Reading: