Here's how I ranked the presidents

I was talking to my wife about what I learned about Martin Van Buren.  I said that my initial impression of him was that he was an insignificant president.  So I dug deeper and learned his term was not insignificant at all.  I then learned that he was considered an economic failure.  So I dug deeper and learned this was not true either.  I have found this to be the case with many of the presidents.  

I told my wife that, after a thorough investigation into the facts about Van Buren, I learned that he was very successful at both keeping the U.S. out of wars, and at protecting and defending the Constitution.  During his presidency their was a conflict on the border between New York and Canada, and many thought we were going to go to war with Britain.  Van Buren championed for peace and he succeeded at avoiding war.  

I said that the nation was heading into a depression when he was inaugurated, and a few months into his term the panic of 1837 occurred.  Then I said to my wife: "Other than making a few tweaks, he did not give in to pressure to create federal regulations to solve the problem.  He did nothing, and that's why I consider him as a good president."

She said, "You mean he was lazy?"

I was kind of floored by this at first.  Why would my wife see a president's doing nothing as being lazy? Then it occurred to me: This is how liberals consider conservatives.  Conservatives are lazy because they don't like to fix individual problems with government action, they prefer that the government stay inactive, thereby allowing individuals to solve their own problems.  To liberals this is being lazy. (I'm not saying my wife is a liberal, I'm just trying to make a point here.)

It is liberals who control the press, liberals who control the educational system, and liberals who control what is communicated through history books.  By having control of all these platforms, it is liberals who have succeeded in shaping the minds of so many people.  So it is liberals who have succeeded in painting Van Buren as a failure. 

The truth is, presidents like Martin Van Buren, and John Tyler, and Grover Cleveland, are often sited in history books as being rather insignificant.  Yet I have learned, as I described above, that history books are not always fair to some presidents, especially presidents who did nothing.

Look, doing nothing is not so bad.  In fact, the general consensus of most presidents prior to Teddy Roosevelt was not to solve individual problems with government action.  They believed this was necessary to preserve the integrity of the nation.  They also believed it was unconstitutional and they were right.  

They were also afraid of setting precedents that might be abused by future presidents.  So, while Grover Cleveland might have benefited politically by creating some federal regulations, he scoffed at the idea and vetoed hundreds of bills.  

Does this mean Cleveland was lazy? Does this mean he was insignificant?  A review of the facts actually show that Grover Cleveland was one of the best presidents we ever had, merely for the fact that he did not put his own personal ambitions before his country.  

Look, the media, Hollywood, and the most significant historians believe the best presidents are those who solved the most problems with government action.  Most presidents are ranked by how many laws they made, or by propaganda.  For instance, Abraham Lincoln ended slavery so he is ranked high.  George Washington was the first president, so he is ranked high.  FDR ended the great depression.

Yes, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were both great presidents, but FDR in no way ended the great depression.  Still, the propaganda has convinced most people that he did.

So, when I ranked the presidents, I did so by how forcibly that president defended the Constitution he was sworn to protect.  I based it on whose policies killed the least people and preserved the most liberties.  In this regard, we can easily rank Martin Van Buren as one of the best presidents of all time.

Further reading:

• Libertarian presidents

Van Buren prevents annexation of Texas

During the Andrew Jackson administration a rising number of Americans migrated to Texas and formed settlements their.  It was for this reason that Jackson was in favor of the annexation of Texas.  This position of Jackson's would later cause trouble for the Martin Van Buren Administration.

Jackson was a Democratic-Republican.  Despite changing the structure of the party and changing its name to the Democratic Party, Van Buren essentially supported the political decisions of his predecessor. He supported his economic decisions, his decision to place Federal funds into private banks, and his belief that Texas should be annexed.

Americans who lived in Texas were excited about the idea. However, those who lived in free states weren't so thrilled, as Texas would have been a slave state. So, more so to stave off a split within his own democratic party, Van Buren announced in 1837 that he did not support the annexation of Texas.

It should be known here that he did not make this decision because he opposed slavery: he made it merely for political purposes.

If everyone's a winner, everyone is also a loser

When we were kids we played games like duck duck goose and we knew we were probably going to lose. Sure it was sad to lose, but it taught us how to lose.  It prepared for the failures in life that were certain to come.  Losing taught us how to cope with failure.

Today our kids are taught not to lose. Today's version of duck duck goose has all kids winning.  So, in effect, they are all losers.  It makes it easier to teach liberalism to them later in life, because they have had the idea that everyone is a winner inculcated into their heads.

That's the whole premise of liberalism.  It's that the government takes from those who make money, and divides it equally to those who do not make a lot.  In this way, everyone is a winner, or so they make you believe.

In truth, however, when everyone wins, they also lose.  If you take all the money in the world and dole it out equally, that makes everyone equally poor.  Rather than having a euphoric world where everyone is well off, because there are no rich, there is no one to create jobs.  Therefore, there is never enough money to go around.

In this way, little games of duck duck goose set these kids for a world of failure.  They set these kids up for a lifetime of not knowing how to deal with setbacks in life, like death and failure.

My opinion of common core

I want to discuss common core just for a moment here. Studies show 57% of parents hate common core. I think the consensus by supporters that it's about how math is taught, with all the touch points and all. They think parents who oppose it are just stubborn and unwilling to change. But, I contend, that's not why we oppose it at all.

Look, I'm not an educator. I will leave how my kids learn to the experts. The problem with common core is the same problem with Obamacare, is that the government has no business telling us what to do. It has no business running healthcare. And it definitely has no business running education.

As a matter of fact, this was a key issue for many of the signers of the Constitution. Many states had schools run by churches, and they didn't want this to change. So this is why they made sure that the states had the right to control what kids learned.

Granted there were founders who believed the federal government should pay for education to make sure everyone was educated. Still, they wanted the states or parents or teachers to control what was being taught. In fact, until the 1960s, kids were educated in little school houses and parents did control what was taught.

So if Obama wants to pay for education, that's great. But he should not be controlling what is taught. If schools want to continue to teach common core material, great. But if they choose to go a different route, then that should be their freedom

Still, while the goal  -- standards, academic achievements, and accountability -- of common core may sound good, the results are not good. From what I have read, the experts who postulated this system do not value "background knowledge."  They decided it's unfair to the "underprivileged" to force them to memorize history or formulas, so they took this right out of any learning material.  In essence, they did this to level the playing field. 

The result, is that rather than the questions be filled with facts about the founding fathers, or American history, or about American Exceptionalism, they are filled with liberal indoctrination. They ask questions that refer to global warming as fact, for example, rather than listing it as one of the many potential theories. 

Because of the Constitution, schools cannot be forced to accept common core.  To get around this, the government "experts" simply put in reverse incentives: "Either you do it or we'll cut funds to your school." Considering most schools need government assistance, they have no choice but to accept. This is the same way Obamacare forced hospitals to accept government regulations even though most didn't want to.

The worse part of common core is that it has never been tested. So liberals are basically "assuming" it's going to work, and risking an entire generation of our kids to make this bet. Personally, I think, if common core is so great, why not just let schools adapt it on their own, rather than "force" it on them?

The bottom line is that parents and teachers are taken out of the equation in exchange for a few faceless bureaucrats in Washington.  This is wrong, especially when you want your kids to grow up with good conservative, Christian values. 

Further Reading:

• Limbaugh: The Common Core Debacle
• Rethinking Schools: The Trouble With Common Core

Conservative media is good for free speech

I went to college at Ferris State University.  Most of my friends were from Detroit, and were hardcore liberal democrats. When we debated they would use the Detroit Free Press as evidence to support their ideas. They'd say, "See, right there!"  As a conservative, I didn't have this. That's why it was so great when Rush Limbaugh came along.

I grew up in the eighties under Reagan and became aware of the misinformation and lies that the liberal media was putting forth, particularly Reagan economics,, which logically made sense, but also the Soviet Union, Communism, and so forth. They said Reagan's tax cuts were not working, and that all his military spending did was add to the national debt, instead of giving people a reason not to mess with us.

A quote by Rush Limbaugh

You know, I always figured the purpose of building a strong military, a strong nuclear program, and stealth bombers, was so we didn't have to use them. You know, people know we have them so they won't mess with us.

I could never explain that to my friends.  They would just pick up the latest edition of the Free Press and point to their evidence. If I wanted to get evidence I had to go out of my way and go to the library and do some research, which was impossible given that I had all sorts of homework and studying that had to be done. Actually, they didn't need evidence. Sometimes they would just look at each other and laugh when I opposed them. I was backwoods.  I had these outdated, controversial ideas.

When I tried to explain to them that the Iraq War was good, they mocked me. When I tried to explain that Sam Donaldson, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather were all in the tank for democrats and were trying to make Reagan and Bush look bad, my friends mocked me. "It's the news!" they'd say, laughing. "It's the facts as they happen.  How could you oppose facts?"

Well, I knew it wasn't the facts what I was hearing, but I just learned to keep my mouth shut.  The only vindication I got was that the opposing voices in the media, all their attempts at destroying Reagan and Bush, didn't work, as Reagan won in two landslide elections, and Bush also won in 1988.  So there were obviously many people who were thinking the same as me, only if you watched the media you wouldn't know it.

So I was so thankful when conservative media, beginning with Rush Limbaugh, came along to give me some credibility and not let me feel so isolated anymore.  I do not get most of my ideas from Rush, it's just that he sort of vindicates what I'm thinking as I read the news. Of course now theirs National Review, and even Fox News to some extend, although I think Fox is far from a conservative media outlet.  It does, however, seem to be fair to both sides, actually giving traditional Americans (conservatives) a platform.

Yet there are some who don't like all these voices being heard.  They don't like that the Internet, a.m. radio and books give voices to people with differing opinions on the facts to be heard.  They don't like Rush Limbaugh, and would prefer that he not have a voice.

A good example is yesterday when I read that Mitt Romney was saying that he thought American was a better place before conservative media came along.  He thought America was a better place before Rush Limbaugh came along, because all this did was create a partisan divide where people could just listen to people they agree with all day long, rather than everyone getting all the same facts from the same sources every day.

What makes this so naive is that it sort of feeds into what liberals and democrats have always said about Rush, that he hives people ideas and tells people how to think.  That's not how it is at all.  All he does is make free thinkers like myself feel less isolated in a world surrounded by liberal media.

You see, I didn't think I was getting the facts when I watched Dan Rather.  I didn't agree with the editorials in the Detroit Free Press that my college buddies were quoting from.  Conservative media made me realize that I was not alone in doubting the "facts" doled out by the media and my liberal buddies.

Granted, we did not have many political debates, as we were more interested in studying, doing homework, but mainly in having fun. Still, it's something I think about once in a while.  I simply don't understand why anyone would want to stop voices from being heard.  There's nothing better, in my mind, for free speech than a free Internet.  It allows people to get their news from all sorts of media outlets, both left, right, independent, and so forth. It's simply a great thing.

Further Reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: Debunking the mind numbed robot

Martin Van Buren: A most significant president

Martin Van Buren is one of those presidents considered insignificant by many historians despite evidence to the contrary.

Those who cite him as significant cite his creation of the current political system.

In 1800 he entered into the Democratic-Republican party of Thomas Jefferson. He later rose to political prominence, first in New York and then on the national stage. Yet he did so at a time when his party was suffering from "infighting, and by lack of organizational and ideological unity.

He believed that it was impossible to have everyone in a party agree on everything, although he believed this infighting could be better organized to defeat political opponents.  It was for this reason that he created the democratic party.  So, while Thomas Jefferson is often cited as the father of the democratic party, the true father was Martin Van Buren.

He used this new political structure to his advantage politically, particularly in succeeding Andrew Jackson as the eighth President of the United States in 1936.  He became the first president to be born within the borders of the United States.

Those who say he was insignificant site his failure to end the economic down-turn that following the panic of 1837.  It began on May 10 of that year when banks in New York ran out of hard currency and refused to convert money into gold and silver.  This resulted in other banks following suit.

This resulted in banks declining to give out loans to prospective investors, resulting in lack of new purchases by prospective buyers.  Since paper money seemed to be losing its value, many creditors refused to accept it.

Being that the panic occurred only a few months after his inauguration, Van Buren's policies could not be blamed.  So, what was the cause?

One possible blame was financial troubles in Great Britain causing them to stop pumpting money into the American economy. This was considered significant because British lending was considered a contributing factor for the the booming economy of the two decades prior to the panic.

A second possible blame was the Andrew Jackson 1835 Specie Circular. In order to stabilize what Jackson considered an out of control economy, he decided it was necessary to purchase government lands with "hard money" rather than "soft money."  In other words, to purchase land with precious metal as opposed to paper money.

A third possible cause was an "over-extension" of credit by banks.  It was this, along with "greedy business practices" that Van Buren cited as the cause.  It was this that he acted upon when he called for an emergency session of Congress that convened in September of 1837.

He called for a reversal of Andrew Jackson's decision to deposit Federal money into Private Banks. Instead, he called for Federal money to be placed into independent banks. This, he believed, would prevent private banks from giving out reckless loans to overzealous and "greedy" investors.

His political opponents, the Whigs, along with prominent members of his own party, were quick to criticize Van Buren's idea. And by the time an independent treasury bill was passed in 1840, it was much too late to save the Van Buren Presidency.

Those who claim he was significant claim this was a success.  For instance, the Whigs championed for a national bank that would have increased the scope and size of the federal government and taken away personal liberties.  Van Buren opposed this idea.

Significant is the fact he vetoed bills designed to create governmental solutions to end the depression, as such solutions would almost assuredly abdicate liberties.  Those who say insignificant cite this as a failure, as such inaction is considered the antithesis of a solution.  They don't see a problem with abdicating liberties when such a sacrifice would benefit the whole.

Those who say significant site the fact he deregulated finances, the fact he considered gold and silver as money, the fact he advocated low tariffs, the fact he advocated free trade, and the fact he opposed war abroad as successes.

Significant is that he was an ardent opponent of a strong central authority, as evidenced by his sound money policy, low taxes, light spending, low debt, and low tariffs policies.  Despite the push for an increase in the size and scope of government, he fought against this.  And he did so at the risk to his own legacy.

You see, Van Buren was a proponent of state and local rights, and was an ardent supporter of a limited Federal government. Due to these beliefs, he refused to use the depression as an excuse to increase the size and scope of government -- at the expense of personal liberties -- in order to end the depression.  

In other words, he created a precedence of laissez-fair government, whereby no government would resort to government regulation for the purpose of influencing commerce (beyond the minimal necessary), until Herbert Hoover was elected in 1928.  For this he should be heralded as significant, not insignificant.

In fact, significant is the fact that his laissez-faire policies during Panic of 1837 set a precedent that was followed by nearly every president for the next 90 years.

Significant is he kept the young nation out of foreign wars.  Early on in his presidency there was conflict between Americans, Canadians, and British soldiers along the borders of New York and Canada.

In 1837 a small group of Canadians sought independence from Britain.  After an unsuccessful uprising, they retreated to the U.S., where they found supporters.  They took refuge along the Niagara river that separates New York from Canada.  Some Americans began selling them weapons and supplies.  The British government encouraged loyalists in Canada to attack such supply ships.  

While some called for war, Van Buren encouraged a peaceful resolution.  He discouraged Americans from attacking the British, and he declared American neutrality in the plight of Canadians to obtain independence from Britain.  All of Van Buren's actions seemed to allay the situation.

Still, regardless of his policies, the depression continued: banks failed, businesses failed, prices declined, wages declined, workers lost their jobs, and unemployment rose. Despite his successes, his failure to end the depression spelled his doom, and rankled his legacy, at least among the authors whose writings are most likely to be taught in schools.

Van Buren lacked the political strength to get the independent treasury bill passed prior to 1940.  Had it passed before then, perhaps it would have lead to the end of the depression early enough to save his presidency.

In their attempts to defeat him, the Whigs highlighted his failures.  They opposed the unpopular independent treasury bill, and instead called for a national bank to stabilize the economy.  It was through such efforts that William Henry Harrison was able to defeat Van Buren in the election of 1840.

The depression would linger on for seven long years, and through three presidential terms: Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, and John Tyler.  It was by this event, and the propaganda used by the Whigs, that tarnished the legacy of Van Buren.

Yet this is unfortunate.  Because, despite what most writers say, he was actually very significant.  Instead of being defined by the propaganda, he should be viewed as a president who kept us out of wars and defended liberties.  He should be viewed as one of the most significant presidents of all time. 

Further reading:

• American President: A Reference Recourse: Martin Van Buren
• The five most underrated presidents
• The best libertarian presidents

Are traditional Americans now radicals? part 2

So I'm having this nice discussion with two republican coworkers.  At first it was a boring discussion for me, because everything that was said I agreed with.  It was "preaching to the choir" stuff.  But then the doctor said, "Catering to the extremes of both parties is how you lose elections."

I said, "Woah!"  

He looked at me funny, as I said, "Catering to the extremes is how you win elections. Catering to the middle is how you lose elections."  

He said, "Give me one example." 

I said, "I will give you many, "Gerald R. Ford, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bob Dole, John McCainn, and Mitt Romney."

He said, "What about them."

"They all catered to the center and lost. Ronald Reagan and Bush catered to conservatives, and they won. Obama catered the extremes in his party in 2012, he ran as an all out socialist who didn't call himself one, and he won.  You win by catering to what you call extremes."

He said, "What do you mean what I call extremes?"

I said, "The democratic party has moved so far to the left and has had so much success that the republican establishment felt the need to follow suit.  So both the democratic party and republican establishment has moved so far left that they make traditional Americans seem radical. So I say I'm a conservative republican, and you associate that with radical."  

He said nothing, only looked at me as though I was the radical; the idiot.

I said, "That's why democrats can get away with saying that republicans cater to their guns and their religion. That's why they call republicans dogmatic people who just hang out with people they agree with. They try to cling all republicans to the radicals on the far right, the people who are the mainstream but are treated as outsiders and radicals. And that's how Donald Trump is gaining so much momentum, because he is saying all the things we "'radicals' have been thinking but haven't had the nerve to say.  He is saying the truths that liberal republicans and democrats now refer to as 'controversial.'  That's why, when I'm watching the today show, and a guest says that 'guns don't kill, people do,' Matt Lauer says, 'My controversial guest...  To that I say, 'When did telling the truth become 'controversial?'  It became controversial the moment traditional Americans were viewed as radicals."

He said,"Evidence please!"

"Nearly every president, both democrat and republican, all the way to John F. Kennedy, with the exception of Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Woodrow Wilson, were conservatives in the sense, although they weren't called conservatives they were called liberals, or what we now refer to as classical liberals.  They were all traditional Americans who toted Bibles, guns, and defended liberties tooth and nail."

He was mad.  Here I was debating a fellow republican, just stating the truth, and he was mad. However, he wanted to continue the discussion, but duty called.