Ulysses S. Grant: Rebuilding a nation

Most people remember Ulysses S. Grant as a General who lead the Union to victory during the Civil War. While I'm sure most people know he was later elected President, I think he generally is chocked up as a bad President because of all the scandals during his terms in the office. I would like to argue that he was one of the best Presidents.

One of the objectives of Articulating Ideas is to question the general consensus, to search for and investigate the facts, and to come to our own conclusions. I think once we lay out all the facts about Grant, we can label him as one of the great Presidents.

Huge cigars and scandals aside, here are a partial list of Grant's accomplishments. Sure some of these are bad, although the majority are good. Let's start by setting the stage.  During reconstruction there were two groups of republicans:

1. Moderate Republicans: They agreed with Abraham Lincoln that the seceded states should be admitted back into the Union, although on Congress's terms, not the presidents. 
2. Radical Republicans: They opposed slavery during the Civil War, and did not trust ex-Confederates after the war. They believed the seceded states should be punished, and their social structure uprooted. In the meantime, they wanted newly emancipated blacks to be protected by Federal powers.

When Lincoln died, Andrew Johnson, a democrat, wanted a quick restoration, and so he continued on with Lincoln's reconstruction plans. Grant, on the other hand, sided with the Radical Republicans.

A majority of republicans were moderates when Lincoln was President. Once Grant, the embodiment of Union victory, sided with the Radicals, a majority of republicans became radicals.

Grant was the logical choice for President at the 1868 Republican convention. Johnson became very unpopular among democrats. This lead Democrats to nominating New York Governor Horatio Seymour. Ulysses S. Grant would easily go on to win the Presidency, earning 214 electoral votes to Horatio's 80. He won 52.7% of the popular vote to Horatio's 47.3%.

At 46, Grant became the youngest President ever elected up to that time. He was a war hero, but he had literally no political experience. This would go on to plague him during his Presidency.

While he was considered a very honest man, he would go on to appoint some people to his administration who weren't so honest. This has caused many historians to list his presidency as an abject failure.

At Articulating Ideas, we do not always side with historians. We make our own assessment. Scandals aside here is a list of what the Grant administration accomplished, both good and bad.

1.  He supported equal rights for blacks and native Americans, and he encouraged passage of the 15th Amendment, which protected African American voting rights. Congress passed the Amendment on February 26, 1869. At one point, 17 states approved ratification and 11 did not, meaning 11 more states were needed for ratification. This caused Congress to force all Southern States that had seceded from the Union to accept the 15th Amendments in order to be admitted back into the Union. They also had to accept the 14th Amendment, which granted citizenship to anyone born in the United States, including former slaves. Both Amendments were ratified and signed by the President. This protected the liberties to more people, which is always a good thing. Because the 14th Amendment was poorly written, it has now come under scrutiny, as some people in 3rd world countries are coming to the U.S. just so their children can automatically become citizens. Such an interpretation is taking the Amendment out of context, and that is a discussion for another day.

2.  He enforced civil rights laws already on the books to fight the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). This was good.

3.  He signed the first of the Klu Klux Klan Acts, a.k.a. the Civil Rights Act of 1870. This essentially gave the President the legal power to enforce the 15th Amendment. Essentially, the Act prohibited voter discrimination on the basis of race, color, or the fact a person was formerly a slave. It was passed in May of 1870 and signed by President Grant. This was good.

4.  He signed the 2nd Klu Klux Klan Act, a.k.a. the Civil Rights Act of 1871. The intent of this law was good in that it guaranteed equal rights for African Americans. However, it was bad in that it did so in such a way the violated the natural rights of those of whom the law was used against. The law encouraged the violation of natural rights, thus ignoring the Constitution, thus violating Constitutional Rights and the rule of law.  It basically suspended the right of Habeas Corpus to combat the KKK. Habeas Corpus is the right to defend oneself against wrongful imprisonment.  It is protected by the Suspension Clause of the Constitution (Article One, Section 9), and states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." So fighting the KKK was good, but signing a law that disregarded the Constitution was bad and violated liberties was bad.

5.  He signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1875, a.k.a. the Enforcement Act. It was good in that it helped in guaranteeing equal rights for African Americans.  The law guaranteed African Americans equal treatment in public places and on transportation prohibited exclusion from jury service based on race. It was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This was because, while Congress has a right to ensure that government officials guarantee the right to vote of all citizens, it does not have the right to prevent discrimination by private individuals. The law was bad because it violated the natural right to form an opinion. You cannot force me to conform.

6.  He championed for reforms. He favored civil reforms that would have ended the spoils system or a system where elected politicians rewarded their friends and family members who helped them get elected with government jobs. However, he failed to get civil reforms passed through Congress.

7.  Cut taxes. Prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1909 and ratification in 1913, the only means of raising money was through custom taxes or tariffs. There was no income tax. If money was needed it was raised through the states. However, prior to the Civil War, there was no government debt. Foreseeing an expensive war, Congress passed the Civil War Revenue Act of 1861 that called for a 3% tax on income over $800. It was signed by Lincoln and became the nation's first income tax. It was only expected to last 10 years. On July 1, 1862, Lincoln signed the Revenue Act that created the Commissioner of Revenue that had the power to impose even more taxes. To run the program Lincoln created the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Within the next six months over 4,000 government jobs were created to make sure citizens paid the taxes and to prosecute those who did not. Northern residents did not think they should have to pay off the debt when it was Southern states that were responsible for the war. So, in 1872, Congress and Grant allowed these taxes to expire. This was good in that it left more money in the hands of citizens so they could spend it where they wanted. However, the Civil War debt continued into the 20th century, and so too did the Commissioner of Revenue.

8.  Presided over the Panic of 1873 when the economy fell into deep economic recession. During the Civil War, Jay Cooke and Company loaned money to the U.S. to pay for the war. After the war, building tracks where land had yet to be cleared required Federal grants and loans, and the chief financier was Jay Cooke and Company. Jay Cooke's firm, along with other banks and industries, had loaned out heavily to fund a railroad construction boom, which resulted in 35,000 miles of railroad tracks being laid down between 1866 and 1873. In 1869, the first transcontinental railroad was completed in 1969. A second transcontinental was planned, and Jay Cook was the main financier. When Cooke realized he had overextended himself, he filed for bankruptcy. This resulted in a nationwide panic resulting in many other banks and industries filing for bankruptcy, and so to did 89 of 364 railroads along with 18,000 other businesses over the following two years. Unemployment grew to 14%.

9.  Vetoed inflation bill of 1874:  Along with the Revenue Act of 1861 to raise money to pay for the war, Lincoln also approved the printing of money without species. Without species means that it was not backed by gold or silver, and were essentially IOU promissory notes whose value was essentially based on the confidence of wealthy investment banks like Jay Cooke. In 1862, the government printed money not backed by gold, called "Greenbacks." This resulted in overconfidence in the market, inflation, and some say this caused the panic of 1873. On Sept. 20, the New York Stock Exchanged announced it was suspending transactions for ten days. Many called for inflating the supply of greenback, while bankers were against it. On April 18, 1874, Congress passed an inflation bill to increase the money supply by $100 million. Grant vetoed it, claiming that any short-term benefits would be worth the long-term consequences, mainly the risk of inflation and a devaluation of the dollar. This set the stage nicely for the Specie Payment Resumption Act.

10.  Signed the Specie Payment Resumption Act. Grant's campaign promise was to return to species-backed money and to pay off debt with gold or silver. The Coinage Act of 1873 eliminated silver as a species and this followed other nations who did the same. Grant believed this would cause stability. However, it was too late. Grant rightly vetoed a bill to print more money claiming it would only cause more inflation and make matters worse. Instead, he signed the Specie Payment Resumption Act of 1875 that ended the overprinting of money and backed newly printed money with gold, thereby returning the country to the Gold Standard. Some say this prolonged the recession and was why it lasted into the Rutherford B. Hayes administration. Others, however, believe such relative inaction by the Federal government is what ultimately helped investors regain confidence. With all due respect to Grant, the resumption of specie payments did not resume until the Hayes administration was underway, and the nation returned to prosperity by 1879.

11.  Lowered debt.   His Treasury Secretary, George Boutwell, worked to reduce federal expenditures. One of the means he did this was by laying off over 2,248 government employees. He signed the Public Credit Act of 1869 to pay off all public debts with gold rather than greenbacks. The reason for this was that part of the debt incurred during the Civil War was caused by giving out war bonds and overprinting greenbacks. Signing the Public Credit Act helped reduce the value of gold to $130 per ounce, making it more affordable for the U.S. to pay back bonds with gold.

12.  Fired 2,248 government employees to help lower the debt. Okay, so that was very good.

13.  Avoided war with Spain and Cuba despite Virginius Affair.

14.  Signed Peaceful Treaty of Washington. It was a treaty signed by Grant in 1871 to settle disputes that arose following the Civil War between Great Britain and the United States.

15. Comstock laws were signed on March 3, 1873. I am not a fan of contraceptives, and they allow people to play God. However, in 1873, Anthony Comstock headed to Washington to try to get Congress to pass a bill he wrote banning the sale of contraceptives through the mail and across state lines. The bill was passed by Congress and signed by President Grant. I think Comstock had good intentions, but it is never good when you use Government to force your views on everyone else. So, in this way, the Comstock law was not a good law.

16. He signed the General Mining Act of 1872. This bill was promoted by prospectors from Nevada and California. It as essentially a byproduct of the California Gold Rush, where most of the gold was found on public lands. At the time there were no Federal laws regarding mining on public lands. Some Congressmen believed that they were robbing the taxpayers and their mines should be seized to pay off the war debt. In 1865, Representative George Washington Julian proposed a bill to seize the mines and sell them via public auction. Representative Fernando Wood actually proposed sending in Federal troops to force the minors out. However, such proposals would have discouraged mining and would have hurt the economy. So, this encouraged prospectors from Nevada and California to promote the General Mining Act. They claimed the minors were providing a public service by settling land and selling valuable products and creating commerce. The Act simply states that anyone over the age of 18 who discovers gold, silver, or platinum on public lands had the right to mine it without paying taxes. This was great for the mining industry and the U.S. economy. Critics say it gives away "valuable assets" at unfairly low prices. They believe the public should benefit from the mining industry. They also hate it because it doesn't include regulations to protect the environment.  However, Grant saw the value in the public service argument, and he rightly signed the bill making it the law of the land.

17.   anti-Mormon Poland Act (-8)

18.   Civil Rights Act of 1875 (-9)




6. Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
Good: General Mining Act of 1872 (+9), supported equal rights for blacks and Native Americans (Fifteenth Amendment) (+4), favored but failed to institute civil service reform (+1),[23] vetoed Inflation Bill of 1874 (+7), cut taxes (+6), lowered debt (+3), fired 2,248 government employees (+6),[24] de facto gold standard (+8),[25] Specie Payment Resumption Act (+7), avoided war with Spain/Cuba despite Virginius Affair (+9),[26] peaceful Treaty of Washington (+6).
Bad:


 Created Office of Solicitor General (-1), left Reconstruction violence problems to state militias instead of Army but kept some federal troops in South (-2),[27] Ku Klux Klan Act that suspended habeas corpus (-9), wanted to annex Dominican Republic (-10),[28] intervened in Liberian-Grebo War(-10),

  Comstock laws (censorship) (-5),,, numerous scandals (-2).[29]
Score: 10

Further reading and references:

• CDN: Federal Income Tax: Paying the president's debts
• New York Times: Keeping Your Money Where It Will Do Most Good
  
• Boundless.com: The governmenet debt

Activist Judges Undermine the Constitution

I was discussing with a friend of mine that the #1 most important reason that Donald Trump needs to be elected is to make sure a Constitutionalist Judge is nominated to the Supreme Court. 

She said, "Why?"

I said, "Because we need to make sure that the rule of law is followed. Democrats, at least in the past 100 years or so, have been known to nominate activist judges who do not make rulings solely based on the rule of law."

She said, rolling her eyes, "Oh, they do not." 

Recent events have provided a perfect example of what I was trying to describe to her. To start with here, I think we need some definitions.

1. Judge. A person who considers the evidence in any given case and makes a ruling or opinion solely based on the laws that currently exist. This would include the U.S.Constitution, followed by laws created by the U.S. Congress, State Legislatures, and the various local legislatures. A modern term for this is a Constitutionalist Judge. 
2. Activist Judge. A person who considers evidence in any given case and makes a ruling or opinion solely based on his or her own opinion or political preference rather than considering the rule of law. 
3. Judicial Activism. Judicial rulings solely based on personal opinions and politics. 

Now, for our example. I can think of many good examples, but there is one very good one that is currently working it's way through the U.S. Court systems. It involves an executive order written by Donald Trump banning immigration from seven Muslim Nations and Syria from immigrating to the United States. 

The ban is because radical Islamist terrorists have entered the U.S. since and before 9-11, and 72 have come from these seven nations and Syria. So, the idea of the ban was to cease immigration from these nations until a proper system of vetting them could be put in place. 

To me, this seemed like a logical order. Why? because the #1 job of the President is to defend and protect the Constitution. It is the #3 job to create a sound economic environment. The #2 job is to keep America safe from foreign invasion and from thugs who want to destroy us. In fact, without #2, #1 and #3 are impossible to do. In other words, if we are not safe and secure, we cannot be free.

Now, there are various opinions on this executive order. Some people like it, and some people don't. Regardless, it's what the President thought was necessary given the security information that he was provided with. Okay? Now I am going to give you an example of how Judicial Activism works. 

So, you have activist lawyers who do not like this ruling. So, they create a legal case. Then they find a judge that they believe is an activist judge who will rule in their favor. Judges in Seattle tend to be the most liberal judges in all of the land in the United States. They find this judge in Seattle by the name of Judge James Robart. 

He was nominated by George W. Bush. However, he was referred to Bush by liberal Senators from Seattle. In order to appear bipartisan, Presidents have often times nominated judges in this fashion, alternating from allowing liberal Senators and conservative Senators, or democrat Senators and republican senators, to nominate judges. Then the President officially nominates them, recommends them, and ideally they are confirmed by the U.S Senate. 

So, this is how judge Robart became a judge in Seattle. Liberal activists know that most courts would rule in favor of Trump in this case. So, they know their only hope is to find a judge like Judge Robart. So, they present the case to his court. They knew that, before Trump's lawyers even considered the evidence, that their case would prevail, mainly because they knew they had a judge who would consider his own personal political views over the Constitution. 

Therefore, it should not be a surprise to anyone that Trump's executive action banning Muslim's from immigrating into the U.S. from seven Muslim nations was ruled unconstitutional. Then the case went before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the opinion of Robart was held up. Now, this should not come as a surprise, as there was no way these judges were going to rule any way other than the way they ruled. 

Here's a little history of travel bans. President Bill Clinton imposed travel bans on certain nations 12 times. Obama imposed travel bans on certain nations 10 times. Calvin Coolidge banned all immigration. The main reason for these bans was to make sure terrorists weren't coming into our country. It was to keep us safe based on the evidence available at these various times. 

Not one of these times did the case go to court. No one even questioned the Constitutionality of these bans. If someone did, it was not enough to make a difference. The reason there was not discontent with these bans is because they are not unconstitutional. They are only unconstitutional when Trump does it.

The law is simple here. According to my sources, it comes from a 1952 law, not one created by an activist court, but an actual one created by Congress and signed by a sitting President. It's a statute that says:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Liberals have an agenda. They know their agenda is not popular with the American people. The only way they can get their agenda moved forward is by using activist judges. You can go all the way back to Rowe-v-Wade to find the first activist ruling by the courts. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes abortion legal. However, when you have activist judges it doesn't matter what the law is: they just rule based on their political views.

It's called judge shopping. Liberals can't get their agenda passed by Congress, they don't have the support of the people, so all they have left are activist judges. They have that and the bureaucracy. They have judges and people hired by democrats who are unelected and you can't get rid of them. 

So, liberals knew how Judge Robart would rule before Trump's lawyers even spoke. It was already known he would rule against Trump. In his ruling, he never even referenced the above statute.  basically stated his own personal political views, that there is no evidence that terrorists were coming from these seven countries, so it was Unconstitutional. He said this makes it racist.

Also without referencing the above statute, the 9th circuit held this ruling.

First of all, a judge is not supposed to rule based on his opinion. It doesn't matter if there are terrorists coming from these countries or not. These judges don't have access to the same security information the President does. There is supposed to be Separation of Powers, where the President doesn't have to share top secret security information with the other branches -- and this is for security reasons.

However, that aside, it was later revealed to Judge Robart that 72 terrorists have come in from those seven countries and were convicted of terrorism since 9-11, but that doesn't matter. It should not matter to this judge. It doesn't matter if it is racist. It doesn't matter the morality of the law. A judge is supposed to rule based on the law. He is to rule if it is Constitutional or not. He is not supposed to rule on the morality of the law -- which is what he did.

Technically speaking, immigrants aren't even citizens. The Constitution doesn't even apply to them. So it's impossible for Trump's executive order to be unconstitutional. This whole issue should have been thrown away just on that fact. But, this judge is an activist, so the ruling is what it is. It was to be expected. This is what to expect from activist judges. This was planned all along.

There is another reason the case went to a Seattle Judge. This is because an appeal would go to the 9th Circuit Court, which is the most liberal, activist court in the United States. They, like Judge Robart, already knew how they were going to rule, even before Trump's lawyers spoke. They knew, because they already decided how they stand on the issue politically. They were going to hold Judge Robart's standing. This is not a surprise. It is not a shock to anyone but people who don't pay attention to the news.

Interestingly, to give an example of how out of touch the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is with the mainstream of America, they are the most overturned court in the nation. Of the cases that made it to the Supreme Court, 80% were overturned in 2010, 71% in 2011, and 86% in 2012. So, they are found to be guilty of political activism greater than 80% of the time.

Of this, Rush Limbaugh said:

But at the root of all of this, is the Constitution being ignored, the will of the people being ignored, liberalism. And they have their various areas where they engage in this nefarious activity, and those areas shield them and give them authority and give them respect, like scientists in climate change and judges in the law wearing black robes eminently educated, among the best and brightest of our legal minds, educated in some of the finest liberal indoctrination centers — I’m sorry, law schools — in the country.

So, these activist judges ruled that it was a Muslim ban. It was a ban on a certain religion, so it is unconstitutional. 

A Constitutionalist Judge, of which most judges are, would have ruled based on the law. In this case, they would have found that it's not a Muslim Ban. The ban is only on seven countries. They do so happen to be Muslim countries. But if it was a Muslim ban, all other Muslim nations would have also been banned from immigrating to the U.S. As it is, 85% of Muslim nations were not banned. So, it is not a religious ban. It is not a ban on religion. If it was a religious ban it would name every Muslim country.

Putting all that aside, a Constitutionalist Judge would have thrown the case out based on one simple fact: the Constitution does not even apply to immigrants. 

But such common sense doesn't matter to activist judges. 

One more thought before I end this post. Judge Gorsuch, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Donald Trump, said something interesting during his nomination speech. He said that sometimes he is unhappy with the decisions he makes.  I think what he was implying here is that he doesn't rule based on his politics; he rules based on the law. And, sometimes, he has to make rulings that oppose his own political positions. He is saying he is a Constitutionalist and not an Activist Judge.

Judge Robart and two of the three judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are Activist Judges. They are probably always satisfied with their rulings, because the Constitution takes a back seat to their political views.

Further reading and references:

• Rush Limbaugh: The History of the Statute Trump's Ruling is Based On
• Rush Limbaugh: The Best Thing Judge Gorsuch said
• National Review: Judge Robart: Not a Republican Judge
• Natural News: 72 Individuals from Trump’s seven named countries have been convicted in terrorism cases since 9/11
• National Review: Never Go Full Ninth Circuit
• National Review: Ninth Circuit Leading the Pack for "Most Reversed"
• Rush Limbaugh: Ticked Off by The Lefts Takeover of the Judiciary

Abraham Lincoln: The first republican was not a conservative

Abraham Lincoln was the first republican. I rank him as the second best President behind George Washington, and I rank him solely on the fact that he ended slavery and fought for equal rights for blacks. Other than that, he was not a very good President, and definitely not a conservative. You might even be able to argue that he was, if the term existed back then, a liberal.

He was a former Whig. The Whigs were divided on whether or not to support slavery. The party dissolved, and the anti-slavery Whigs in the North created a new party to oppose slavery and they called themselves Republicans. Lincoln was one of these republicans. In 1860, they nominated Abraham Lincoln to run for President.

He said he would not interfere with states who were pro-slavery. However, after he was elected, many southern states decided he was too anti-slavery, and so they decided they would secede from the union and formed the Confederate States of America. This caused Abraham Lincoln to use Federal troops to fight to preserve the nation. This was good. The effort would result in the deaths of 620,000 soldiers (bad), but the effort would eventually succeed (good).

Sure, he was a liberal in that he wanted to end slavery, a change that would have been quite radical considering slavery had existed long before the birth of the nation.  However, this change would also move the nation more in line with the founding intentions of "all men are created equal." It would also make the United States the

To be honest, it doesn't matter if freeing the slaves and giving them equal rights was a liberal or conservative act: it was the right thing to do. For this, we rank Lincoln high on our ranking of Presidents. Okay, that's not arguable. And, I'm sure few would argue with me. Well, I known there are libertarians who rank Lincoln on the bottom of their rankings.

That success aside, he was not a conservative. Here is the evidence.

1.  He raised taxes. Prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1909 and ratification in 1913, the only means the Federal government had for raising revenue was through custom taxes or tariffs. There was no income tax. If the Federal government needed to increase revenue, it was up to the states to raise money. This was a means of preserving state sovereignty. Lincoln changed this when he signed the Civil War Revenue Act of 1861 that created an income tax of 3% on all income over $800. This was the nations first income tax. It was supposed to expire in ten years.

Later, on July 1, 1862, Lincoln signed the Revenue Act that created the Commissioner of Revenue position. This commissioner had the power to impose even more taxes. To run the program, Lincoln created the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

2.  He created more government jobs. Along with increasing the power of government, he also increased the size of government. Within the next six months, over 4,000 government jobs were created to make sure citizens paid the taxes and to prosecute those who did not.

3.  He gave the Federal government power over the states, especially in regards to slavery. This was opposed to democrats of the time, who preferred states rights over social justice. Democrats favored limited government over big government.

Lincoln wanted to enforce social justice on the nation, and thereby democrat claims of "state's rights" and forced states to respect the natural rights of blacks. This includes the 13th amendment to abolish slavery. I'm not saying this was bad (by God, no I'm not saying that). I'm just saying this was a liberal change, not a conservative one. It was radical social change.

As a side note here, what we now refer to as conservative was called liberal back then. The term liberal would later be absconded by the progressive movement, and so now liberal means the opposite of its initial intention. Today's liberals are also called progressives, and Lincoln was a social liberal progressive, if we were to use today's terms. He probably would be a democrat. A liberal. A neo-socialist. This is because he used big government to enforce his social agenda.

Anyway, Lincoln's republican party was in favor of a large central government and collective rights, similar to modern liberals.

I do not think I need to go into any further detail regarding Abraham Lincoln, as I would imagine any respectable American over the age of 8 knows who he is and what he did for the nation. He was a great President, perhaps the greatest. He kept the nation together during difficult times, and changed the nation so that it was closer to the founding intentions by freeing the slaves and ensuring that their natural rights would be preserved.

He said in his Gettysburg Address in 1863 that he guaranteed a "government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Thanks to the bravery of this brave and melancholy President the nation continued and more people were granted liberties. That, I would say, is a great achievement, making him the second greatest President of all time.

Obama Nixed Voucher Program Loved by Black Parents

Last week I articulated a nice post on school choice, and how Nancy Devos is good for the poor, especially black poor. She wants to create educational policies, like school choice, that would allow black parents to send their kids to the same schools the rich people go to.

Did you know that Washington D.C. had a school voucher program? Black parents loved it. They were able to send their kids to the same schools the rich people sent their kids to. They were able to send their kids to the same school Obama chose to send his kids to.

Do you know what Obama did the moment he was inaugurated in 2008? He got rid of this program. Black parents were livid. Why would Obama do this? Well, we know why he would do this: he wants poor kids to be trapped in poverty. That way they continue to vote for democrats, who they think will get them out of poverty, or at least support entitlement programs to help them (which ultimately keep them trapped in poverty).

He did it because he had to please the teacher's unions, who donated a lot of money to him. The teachers unions are opposed to school choice because they need students so their teachers can continue to make money.

There is another reason, though. They want to be able to indoctrinate kids. They want to control thought. They want to turn kids into good little liberals. That's the bottom line here. That's the only thing that makes sense about this.

The fight against Nancy Devos by the left -- is a fight to protect indoctrination centers from public takeover

Elisabeth Devos was barely approved by the U.S. Senate (by a vote of 51-50) as Donald Trump's Secretary of Education. Vice President Mike Pence cast the deciding vote today. This was the first time a sitting VP has ever cast a deciding vote for a President's nominee for public office.

It makes sense that democrats would try hard to stop her from being the nominee, as she is a champion for a voucher system. Such a system would allow parents to choose what schools their kids go to, even if they are religious schools.

This would be devastating for the liberal movement. They have altered the American educational system in such a way that has turned the public school system into liberal indoctrination centers. This makes it easy to teach kids that global warming is real, that the world is overpopulated, that high taxes big government are good, and other liberal themes.

Such schools also prevent kids from being exposed to religion, or from learning the truth about American Exceptionalism. They don't want kids learning what life was like before the U.S. existed. They don't want kids to learn about the founding intentions. This is because the majority of Americans do not support their agenda, and the only way they've been able to move forward is by "liberally defining" the Constitution.

Allow me to give you an example. Liberals believe that guns kill and people don't. They believe that if they can get rid of guns, they can more easily control the people. They won't tell you this, but it's what they believe. In order to take guns away from the people, they have to convince kids that this is a good idea.

Here is the text of the 2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You and I know what this means. The history here is that at the time of the founding, it was common for rebellions to take over governments. This was possible because governments could take away the natural right to own guns. To give Americans the ability to fight against such groups, the founders made sure they were able to form militias, and therefore own guns.

Basically, militia is an army of the people.

Liberal teachers tell kids that a militia is the military. So, their interpretation of it is that only the government military can own guns. This is the liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. If they can convince enough kids that this is true, then this makes it all the easier for them to regulate and ideally force people to hand their guns over to the government.

Imagine if the liberals control education, healthcare, and global warming regulations.If they control those, then they control the people. They control what what kids learn. They control what you eat and how many kids you can have. They control what you can drive and who can open a business. They control everything.

Now, here comes Donald Trump who says, "Enough!" He nominates Betsy DeVoss, a lady who has programs set in place that will allow poor black kids get the same education as rich people.

Let me ask you a question: Who has access to better education: rich people or poor people?" The obvious answer here is: rich people. Obama sent his girls to the best private schools in Washington D.C. At the same time, he supports public schools that are free, so poor black kids have no choice but to go to them.

So, even though it's obvious Obama thinks government run schools aren't good enough for his girls, You'd think he'd be all in favor of vouchers, so poor black kids can get the same education as his girls. But, he can't do this. He can't because, to do so, would be to admit that government run schools are indeed liberal indoctrination systems.

Liberals don't have to worry about what kids are learning when they have 8 experts, ideally liberal experts, sitting in an office in Washington deciding what kids learn. They cannot force schools to teach their agenda. However, they can if they give "reverse incentives." By this, I mean that they tell schools if they don't do what the government orders, they will lose funds. So, they have no choice but to comply. This is how common core gets approved by schools, even though a majority of parents hate common core.

(By the way, many people think common core is math. It's not: it's an entire system of educating kids based on the liberal agenda. They just call it common core to make it sound good. It's the same as when they called Obamacare "The Affordable Care Act." It's not affordable, but it sounds good. Okay, now I need to get out of these parentheses.)

If Obama really cared about kids, he would support some other program other than public schools. Actually, some public schools are good. I mean, here in Ludington, Michigan, we are fortunate to have a good public school system. But if parents in Detroit beleive their local public schools are failing their kids, they should be able to get vouchers to send their kids to the same schools rich people send their kids to.

I mean, this makes sense. Think of it this way: you are paying taxes to send your kids to school. So, if you decide to go to a private school, that money should follow you to that private school, not stay in the public schools.

And this is not taking money away from public schools. A lot of my liberal friends say, "How are you going to make schools better by taking away money." You are not. You are creating competition. Public schools that succeed, you are going to have other schools copy the formula they use. Parents will want to send their kids to succeeding schools. The schools that are not working will either have to improve or, sure, they will have to close their doors.

If we continue going the route we have been going with public schools over the past 30 years, this means just throwing more money at it. What good does throwing more money at a system that is failing kids do? The answer is no good. Proof of this is that America has one of the worse school systems in the world, and this is true despite spending more money per pupil than nearly every other Western nation. Okay. So, more money is not the solution.

De Voss wants to return the American education system into what it was before the Department of Education was formed. She wants to return it to teachers and parents. This would make me happier, because I want a say in what my kids learn. I want them to learn about the founding fathers. I want them to learn the true interpretations of the Constitution. I do not want them learning that theories are facts, such as the one that man is creating climate change. I don't want my kids coming home from school telling me that they are concerned because their teacher told them the world was overpopulated, and that too many people means too much carbon and rising global temperatures that are going to destroy the world. Why do they tell kids this stuff?

If they can succeed in convincing kids that they are responsible for the climate, then, when they get older, they will have an easier time convincing them to pass laws and regulations. These regulations tell people what cars they can drive, what foods they can eat, and how much cows can poop.

This would not be the case if teachers and parents were in control. And, if Devos gets her way (if Trump gets his way) the Department of Education will be disbanded, and education dollars will go back to the states, teachers, and parents -- a place where it should be.

So, you can see why liberals are rioting (not protesting -- they are rioting) in the streets. They were so close to controlling everything. They were convinced Hillary was going to win, and she was going to double down on a failing Obamacare. It would have been the same as education, where they keep spending more and more money at a failing program, and nothing gets better.

So, despite their opposition, Nancy De Voss is confirmed. Then she tries to go to a public school in Washington D.C., and she is blocked by a handful of "reprobates." She is forced to go back into her SUV. One person was blocking the road shouting, "Shame! Shame! Shame!. As Rush Limbaugh said on his program on February 10, 2017:

"This is not time-honored and wonderful and great American dissent. It’s human debris who have had their minds polluted and poisoned by the American left from the education system, to media, to pop culture. They’re just sick."

You want some poll results? One poll of democrats shows that 70% of democrats support vouchers and school choice. So, the democrats in power, the protestors, are out of touch with the majority even in their own party. In North Carolina, 65% of African Americans are more likely to support candidates who support school choice. Another poll showed that 72% of African Americans support vouchers. Blacks overwhelmingly support vouchers. Black parents want to be able to choose to send their kids to the same schools rich parents send their kids to. It's not even close.

Democrats in power don't care. Democrats claim to be the party of the little people, the down-trodden, and the poor. Yet they refuse to allow parents the opportunity,of school choice. Some public schools, perhaps not all, refuse to teach kids about the greatness of their own country. They are not preparing kids for college. Some of them are in run down neighborhoods. They have created a system where kids go to schools that are run down, and parent's don't like it, but they have no say because democrats are opposed to trying anything different, like vouchers.

Vouchers would be horrible for the Teacher's Unions. It would destroy their monopoly over thought. African American mothers, for example, who are given the ability to use vouchers, choose schools the rich people go to. Most of the time, they never go back to public schools. If those schools want parents to choose them, then they have to change, and change for the better. If they don't, then they should close.

Vouchers, or similar programs, would be great for parents. It would give parents, and teachers, the ability to decide what their kids are learning. Education should not be left up to the few -- it should be in the hands of the many. That is my opinion.

Betsy De Voss wants poor kids to be able to go to the same schools as the rich kids. She has ideas, she has programs, to do exactly that. She has programs that have been tried and tested, and they work. And liberals hate the thought of that. So, they protest.

Further reading:

• Fox News: DeVoss confirmed as education secretary: Pence casts historic tie-breaking vote
• Rush Limbaugh: Betsy De Voss is the opposite as the ignorant liberal cliche
• National Review: Jeb Bush: The best solution to our nation’s failing educational system is empowering parents.
• Watchdog.org: 65% of African Americans in NC support voucher programs
• Newsone.com: TV One/RolandSMartin.com Poll: 72 Percent Of Black Parents Favor Charter Schools

We are down to one political party that represents Americans

Since the days of John Adams our country has been a two party system. George Washington warned against it, but the two party system is what is. For most of history both party's have had some good ideas and some bad ideas. But, for the most part, both party's, in their own way, wanted what was best for the country; for the American people.

Now we still have two party's. But the sad news is that only one has some good ideas and some bad ideas. The other party is so far gone now that it is on the wrong side of nearly every issue. This is a sad state, but it's true.

Go back to the election of 1960. You had John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon. Both had some good ideas and some bad ideas. Kennedy was basically a conservative, and Nixon was a liberal republican. You may have preferred one over the other, but if your guy lost you didn't think it was the end of the country.

After Kennedy was assassinated the democratic party changed. The death of Kennedy put Lyndon John son in the White House, and this was when the party started to be taken over by radicals. This is when the hippies took over the democratic party.

Just to give an example, republicans are known for putting constitutionalists judges on the benches. For most of history both party's did this. For most of history, judges followed the rule of law regardless of their own personal opinion; regardless of their own party's political agenda.

Not now. The democrat party puts activist judges on benches. These are judges who use the bench to move the liberal agenda forward, rather than defending and protecting the Constitution; rather than following the rule of law. To democrats, to the liberals who control the democratic party, the Constitution is an obstacle in their way and it needs to be "liberally" defined. That's how Rowe-v-Wade was allowed to go through.

One party respects climate, and understands that it changes all the time; that it has always changed and always will change. They want clean air just as much as anyone. However, they understand the idea of man made climate change is a theory to be respected, and not a fact. The other party is so in bed with the climate change theory that they are willing to hurt our economy with stiff regulations.

For most of history both party's respected God. Today, one party is the party of God, while the other party -- the democrat party -- has done everything in their power to take God out of schools and out of Washington. One party respects life, while the other believes women should have the right to kill their unborn children at any point before they are born.

Basically, it's almost as though the republican party is the party of America, and the democrat party is the party of anti-America. Republicans understand that America has made the rest of the world better. Democrats believe America is what's wrong with the rest of the world. This is why they want to keep our borders open, because they feel guilty.

To give an example, republicans know there is plenty of money in the world for everyone to get rich if they wanted to; if they made the effort. They understand that American exceptionalism means that everybody has an opportunity to dream big and accomplish their dreams.

Democrats believe there is only so much money in the world. The believe if one person is rich, that someone else is poor. They believe that if one nation is rich, it's at the expense of others. That's why they support socialist ideas of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. Rather than teaching the poor how to fish, they just give them entitlements that someone else pays for.

This also explains why they want open borders and free trade agreements. I'm fine with open borders and free trade, but democrats have made our borders bleed. Free trade resulted in 70,000 jobs moving out of America because foreign labor is cheap, and then they sell their products in America at a lower price.

For example, there is a $60 billion trade deficit with Mexico. This was done on purpose. It's because democrats (and sadly, half of republicans too), have decided to take care of the people of other nations before our own.

Basically, conservative republicans are republicans. Reagan conservatives are republicans. Moderate republicans like John McCain are democrats. Democrats are now fascists.

George H.W. Bush: "Read my lips: No new taxes!"

Ronald Reagan leads the nation through the greatest period of economic expansion in U.S. history, and when term limits and age prevented him from running for a third term, an easy decision for republicans was to nominate his Vice President, George Herbert Walker Bush, for President in 1988.

George Bush was born on June 12, 1924, in Milton, Massachusetts, the second of five children. His parents were Prescot and Dorothy Bush. He was named after his grandfather, whose nickname was "Pop." So, it was only fitting that the younger George H.W. Bush be called "Poppy" or "Little Pot."

His father was a partner in a Wallstreet investment bank, so Prescot and Dorothy  had plenty of money. Despite this, they made sure George and his siblings were not spoiled.

When Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japanese warplanes on December 7, 1941, George Bush was 17 years old. He vowed that he would join the military as soon as he turned 18. And, true to his word, despite being accepted to Yale, and despite his father encouraging him to go to college prior to joining the service, Bush joined the Navy. On June 9, 1943, he earned his wings, becoming the youngest aviator in the navy.

On September 2, 1944, his plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire. Despite his plane being on fire and the cockpit filling with smoke, he completed his mission and dropped four bombs. He then flew as far as he could over the ocean until he couldn't stay inside the plan anymore, and ejected.

He inflated a raft. Japanese forces were in the area and were on the way to take him prisoner. However, out of the blue water came a U.S. submarine called the Finback. Bush had to stay aboard for a month while the crew finished their mission.

In total, he would participate in 58 missions. He would serve out his time in the military as a trainer of new navy pilots. He would serve until the end of WWII.

He became a student at Yale, had a son named George W. Bush, and graduated from Yale. His father wanted him to work with him, although Bush decided to take a job as an equipment clerk at an oil company in Texas. It's what got his foot in the door of the oil industry.

In 1951, he and friend started the Bush-Overbay Oil Development Company that they called "Zapata." The business became very successful.

His father was elected as a U.S. Senator out of Connecticut in 1952. By 1962, the younger Bush was bitten by the political bug and decided to get into politics. He was asked to run for chairman of the Harris County Republican Party (in Texas) and he accepted. He easily won.

This set him up nicely to run for the U.S. Senate in 1964. He would be opposed the incumbent Ralph Yarborough. During the campaign, John F. Kennedy was assassinated and Lyndon Johnson became President.

The very liberal Johnson would face Conservative Barry Goldwater in 1964, and Bush supported Goldwater. Johnson won in a landslide, and riding the wave of this landslide victory was Ralph Yarborough.

After the loss, Bush quipped: "I took some far right positions to get elected. I hope I never do it again. I regret it." This was among the first signs that Bush was not a true Conservative, more of a moderate republican. This would go on to haunt the rest of his political career.

In 1966, Bush ran for a seat in the House of Representative, and this time he won with 56.7% of the vote. He became the first republican to represent Houston in Congress. During his term, he angered his fellow republicans by supporting Johnson's Fair Housing Act.

In 1968, he campaigned for republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon, and for this Nixon was very thankful. That same year Bush successfully ran for a second term. In 1970, he gave up his seat in the House to run against democrat Lloyd Bentsen for the Texas seat in the U.S. Senate.

Bush lost. However, Nixon, wanting to thank Bush for campaigning for him in 1968, nominated Bush to become U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In 1972, he was asked by Nixon to chair the Republican National Committee. He didn't necessarily want the job, but he said, "You cannot turn a President down"

After Watergate resulted in Nixon's resignation, Bush became chief liaison officer to the People's Republic of China. Beginning in 1972, Nixon had started to improve relations with China. At the time, little was known about this nation, so Bush considered his new assignment a challenge.

Rather than riding limousines through the streets of China, He and Barbara rode bicycles just like the Chinese residents did. In order to learn about the Chinese way of life, he and Barbara would also participate in many Chinese events and would socialize with the Chinese as much as possible.

Bush was tasked with the job if further improving relations with the Chinese, and improving relations between the two nations. His time in this post was considered by many as a success. It ended in 1975 when President Ford nominated him to head the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

He loved his current job and did not want to change. The CIA at this time was a mess, and failure to fix it might hurt his future political aspirations. However, once again, he did not turn a President down. He used skills he learned in the oil business to fix the CIA. When Ford lost to Carter in 1976, Bush's term as CIA director abruptly ended.

So, this would put Bush in a nice position to begin preparing for a potential run for President in 1980. He was the son of a former U.S. Senator. He was a successful businessman and had gained extensive experience in both domestic politics and foreign affairs. It's probably fair to say he was among the most qualified people ever to seek the office.

A problem he faced was that he was up against a true conservative by the name of Ronald Reagan. While he was a conservative, it was quite clear that he was no Ronald Reagan conservative. While running against Reagan in the Republican primaries in 1980, he referred to Reagan's economic plan (which would later be dubbed "Reaganomics") as "Voodoo Economics." This would end up haunting Bush more than his opponent.

Many people thought Reagan was going to name former President Gerald R. Ford to be his Vice President. However, Ford sort of stepped in it when he said that if he were nominated for the post it would be like there were two Presidents in the White House. Reagan wasn't happy with that idea. So, he went with his #2  choice for the position and gave George H. W. Bush a surprise call.

The problem with Bush is that he is one of many republican politicians who are afraid of conservatism. Even though they might support the conservative agenda, they developed a fear that if they gave the impression they were too far to the right that their careers would take the same path as Goldwater.

Reagan was well aware that Bush was very qualified for the job. He was also well aware of his fear of Conservatism. So, he asked Bush if he would be able to support his Conservative agenda. Bush said he could.

Reagan campaigned as a Conservative. When elected he acted like a conservative, and cut regulations, cut taxes, and created an economic environment that set off the greatest period of economic expansion in U.S. history.

As Reagan's second term was coming to an end, George Bush was set up nicely to be the Republican nominee for President. Haunting him, however, were his comments in the past that hinted that he would not be conservative enough to gain the support of the republican conservative base.

In 1984, for instance, democratic nominee for President Walter Mondale said that if Bush were elected President he would raise taxes. While Reagan said he would not raise taxes during his second term, Bush said that there are times when taxes needed to be raised.

At the Republican National Convention on August 18, 1988, even though he had secured the nomination, these comments still hung over Bush's head. So, in order to gain the support of conservative voters, he said:

"Read my lips: No new taxes!"

These six words would go on to define his presidency, and not in a good way.

They would see him rode the wave of Reagan's popularity and a booming economy and handily defeat Democrat Michael Dukakis by an electoral vote of 426 to 111. He won 40 states to Dukakis's 10 and won the popular vote by a total of 53.4% to 45.6%.

I was freshman student at Ferris State University at this time. I watched the results come in with my friend Frank in the Bond Hall lobby. He was a democrat. Early in the evening, it appeared quite apparent that Bush was going to win. I remember my friend saying, "It's looking pretty apparent to me that Bush is going to win. Congratulations!

This landslide victory put Bush in a great position to continue the Reagan economic boom.

He failed.

He failed because he decided to play it safe and make no changes, rather than continuing the Reagan trend of reducing the size and scope of government. It became apparent, even to those who were new to politics such as myself, that Bush wasn't a true conservative. In fact, he was afraid of it.

And it was so sad to see. He was set up so nicely, if only he just acted as a conservative. He was not alone in this type of failure, as it plagued Ford in 1976, just as it would plague Bob Dole in 1996, John McCain in 2008, and Mitt Romney in 2012.

Reagan proved conservatism worked. Yet, for one reason or another, republicans, like Bush, continue to be afraid of it. It was because of this stupid idea that you have to move to the center, and to cater to democrats, and to negotiate with democrats, that doomed the Bush presidency.

It was for this reason that he reneged on his promise of no new taxes. However, not helping matters was that he did have to deal with a Democrat-controlled Congress.

In 1990 this Congress believed new taxes were needed to pay off the debt. Bush attempted to compromise so he didn't renege on his promise. The bill created no new taxes, per se. However, it did raise existing taxes.

This was called a broken promise, a sign that he could not be trusted. Nationalist Conservative Pat Buchanan played on this theme during the republican primaries in 1992. After Bush won the nomination, this theme was also used against him by former Arkansas Governor and democratic nominee for President Bill Clinton.

If winning re-election is considered as a sign of a President's success, then Bush's Presidency was flat out repudiated by voters, as he would go on to lose to Clinton by an electoral vote of 370 to 168.

To be fair, however, we must note here that Bill Clinton only earned 43% of the popular vote. So, during a typical election day, this would mean that Bush should have won.

However, businessman Ross Perot ran as a Reform Party candidate. He appealed to  voters by paying for commercial time and speaking directly to them, often referring to graphs and charts. He won a whopping 18.9% of the popular vote.

Most political analysts will claim that Perot cost Bush the election. However, some believe that if Perot shifted votes from Bush or Clinton, he did so equally, as exit polls showed he drew equally among conservative, liberal, and independent voters.

I'll let you decide if Perot cost Bush the election. However, I think it's fair to assume that Bush could have helped his chances if he would have had more faith in Conservatism.