Move over James Buchanan: Time to declare Bush worst…president…ever?

Guest Post by Morbo

I take it as a given that George W. Bush will be remembered as the worst president of the modern era, which I’m defining here as post-World War II. But lately I’ve been wondering if a case can be made that he’s the worst president ever in American history.

I do not say this lightly. The competition is stiff. When historians speak of the worst U.S. president, three names usually surface: James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding and Richard M. Nixon.

For a country that is only 229 years old, the United States has had its share of mediocre and downright lousy chiefs of state. (Franklin Piece, anyone?) In the latter half of the 19th century, the country was governed by a string of lackluster “caretaker presidents” — Chester Arthur, Benjamin Harrison, Rutherford B. Hayes and so on. These guys were poor presidents, but their crimes were more those of benign neglect rather than aggressive crappiness. The bar was a lot lower then, too.

Buchanan, Harding and Nixon were in an entirely different league. Buchanan came into office as the nation was poised to divide over the issue of slavery and did nothing to prevent it. The inept Harding, clearly unqualified for the highest office in the land, allowed his venal friends to plunder the nation. Nixon was a paranoid megalomaniac.

Yet in each case, mitigating factors exist. Buchanan served just one term, seeming to realize he was in over his head. Harding had the decency to die halfway through his term. Nixon resigned.

Bush, by contrast, will probably serve two full terms — giving the nation a full eight years of ineptitude, dishonesty, anti-intellectualism and cronyism.

What makes Bush’s failure all the more startling is that he had an opportunity to do so much more. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were horrifying, but they also brought about, at least temporarily, the type of national unity presidents rarely see. At first, Bush actually seemed up to the challenge. He gave some good speeches, and the people rallied around him. They were ready to follow him, if only he had articulated a vision.

Bush promptly threw it away, choosing instead to pander to an extreme base of jingoistic fanatics with delusions of empire. Instead of bringing to justice the murderers of 3,000 Americans, Bush invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attacks. By shifting the focus from terrorism to Saddam Hussein, Bush actually made Americans less safe. All the while, he and his top aides knowingly lied to the people, leading them to believe that Iraq was somehow tied to 9/11.

On the heels of that escapade, Bush committed the ultimate sacrilege, as he and his partisan allies, during two subsequent elections, cynically invoked the memories of the dead and used the threat of more attacks to scare people for no other reason than to strengthen his party’s grip on power. The national unity had long since collapsed; Americans were more bitterly divided than ever.

Americans were fiercely divided in Buchanan’s day, too. That division led to a shooting war. Buchanan sat on his hands as states began pulling out of the union. He insisted the states did not have the right to secede — but he quickly added that he had no power to stop them. It was incompetence on a monumental scale. More than half a million ultimately lost their lives.

Obviously the Civil War had been coming for a long time, and we can’t blame Buchanan for the conflict. But his inactivity at a time of national crisis is inexcusable. A bold leader of vision might have been able to find a way out. Buchanan was not that man. He was the wrong man at the wrong time. And for that reason, I have to conclude that Bush cannot claim the dubious distinction of worst president ever. That title still belongs to Buchanan; Bush must settle for second worst.

Here’s what scares me: Bush still has three years left in office. He seems bound and determined to grab the tarnished crown from Buchanan. Given his track record, I’m afraid he just might succeed.

What makes Bush’s failure all the more startling is that he had an opportunity to do so much more.

There are three ingredient in the recipe for success:talent, hardwork,and opportunity. Bush is one for three.

  • Interestingly, Bush is related through his mother, Barbara Pierce Bush, to Franklin A. Pierce. He carries the genetics of not one, but two mediocre presidents.

    Even most die hard Republicans have given up trying to defend Nixon, but for some reason that I will never understand I’m sure that twenty years from now Shrub will have his fanatical supporters. I can understand Reagan’s popularity. He spoke well and said inspiring things even if his administration was full of thugs, murderers and crooks, but Shrubs followers baffle me. What do they see?

  • That the country, or at least a solid majority, recognizes that Bush is an incompetent moron is good for the political maturity of the country. The most distressing thing about the country’s response to Reagan was that so many people never got that he was a fake and a liar. The truth about the GWOT and the Iraq War is that the country chose to follow Bush, to ignore the clear implications of his cowardly strutting and his simple-minded rhetoric; the pundits praised his “moral clarity” — the moral clarity, which now has us debating the merits of torture as an interrogation technique.

    Personally, I do not think Bush will last 3 years. The powers-that-be in the Republican Party will find a way to dump him. We will know that something is afoot, when Cheney resigns, “due to reasons of health” and Bush appoints his own successor. That will be interesting.

  • I dion’t think Bush is as bad as you think. He’s won in Afghanistan with few casualties there. He’s prevented another domestic terrorist attack. To me he’s more like Truman. Iraq is much like Korea. He’s turned the nation’s attention from its paceful relations with Europe and China and world powers to the needs of the rest of the world. His major mistakes are in who he’s hired to carry out his policies and his putting partisan politics ahead of the national interest. The only way he’ll go down in flames is if there’s a major economic collapse because of his budget policies and Iraq ends up more like Vietnam than Korea which does not seem likely, or if in the future people decide that 9/11 was indeed his fault. He certainly doesn’t have the personal integrity of Truman but the similarities are there.

    Also, Bush 1 was not a bad president. He was better than Reagan. You should read tom friedman’s friday editorial.

  • It is sad and bitterly inevitable that a self-described and self-aggrandizing “war president”, whose entire presidency has been a grim parade of callow incompetence, should choose Veteran’s Day to again manifest his utter inability to lead. Worse, perhaps, is his obvious and clownish disinterest in learning to be a leader. If he were genuinely committed to his troops, he would never even think of making the day about himself. Surrounded by those who have paid dearly in war, men and women to whom he has offered precious little honesty and even less wisdom, he does not cover himself in vicarious glory. He merely casts his selfishness in the harshest of lights.

  • I think you’re selling poor Georgie Boy short. What other president could combine in his administration the lack of qualifications and corrupt cronyism of Harding, the megalomania and political hackery of Nixon, and the failure to engage in time of crisis of Buchanan.

    In fact, comparing how Buchanan failed to act as the relationship between North and South deteriorated and how George Bush has acted as the relationship between the U. S. and the World has deteriorated, I would argue that Buchanan comes off well. In fact, it gives me scary visions of GWB traveling 1860 America, insulting Virginians, telling Ohioans that the New England states prefer to act unilaterally, and generally making the situation worse.

    As the Union dissolved, was that Buchanan I heard remarking “Freedom’s untidy. Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.”? Did he insist that “Democracy is a messy thing.”? Then Bush must agree with Buchanan, because Bush has never acted to remove those in his administration who have expressed similar views.

    Perhaps Bush feels powerless, like Buchanan, when those in his administration write legal justifications for policies of torture, or others impliment those policies. Powerless when secret detention facilities crop up around the world. “Darn,” he says, “I just wish I had some way to show the world that this is not the way America works. To show that America stands for justice and liberty and wants to share those values with the world. But I just don’t know what to do. I just can’t make a difference.”

    Poor George Bush. Please don’t compare him to these terrible presidents. I am afraid he doesn’t shine very brightly in the comparison.

  • Several random thoughts:

    Harry Truman described Dwight Eisenhower as “the most inept president since Millard Fillmore”.

    Apparently Barbara Bush’s relatives were miffed when she besmirched the Franklin Pierce line by marrying “beneath herself”.

    Buchanan does hold another distinction: he was fairly openly gay. His lover, Senator William Rufus DeVane King, was commonly referred to as “Miss Nancy” in DC, and when Buchanan was elected they had to hide King by rushing him off to France as amabassador. King County WA is named after King (though there have been efforts to rename it after MLK Jr).

    No question about the worst. For all the reasons mentioned in GGordonL’s first paragraph, it will always be The Shrub. I can’t see any reconsideration in any future America, unless we’ve all gone to the Funny Farm by then. He’s a spoiled brat who doesn’t give a shit about America except as a profit-maker for the Bush Crime Family.

    I think Nixon will, in the long run, be given more credit than he is now; the Watergate crime will just be thought of as a petty flaw by a psychologically damaged, insecure man who was otherwise quite talented. In contrast, I think LBJ will be more tarnished: a kind of Ahab figure of considerable talent sucked down by his obsession (and lies about) with Vietnam.

  • I was loathe to annoint Bush as the worst president in history until his term in office was over, but it’s difficult to argue against it. Considering Harding was my personal choice for “worst ever,” I think Bush has leapfrogged him. Harding was much like Bush in that he was a complete dimwit hopeless out of his league in the White House and who’s handlers, like Bush’s, ran with corruption (Harding even had his own version of Rove in Harry Daugherty, except Harding had the gall to name that venal crook Attorney General). What seperates Bush from Harding in badness, however, are two things.

    1: Nothing much happened during Harding’s tenure in office. He got in after WWI and during a time of relative calm at home and abroad, so thankfully, he didn’t have much of a chance to screw up in a national crisis. Bush has had SEVERAL and has fucked up every time (even 9/11, when his first reaction was to sit and read “My Pet Goat” before running like a scared rabbit for the bunker).

    2: Harding knew he was not cut out for the presidency. He openly admitted that he was out of his league and confessed he had problems with the job. Bush is incompetent and doesn’t know it, in fact thinking he’s a reincarnation of Reagan, Churchill and Jesus Christ, all in one group.

    So yeah, Bush is at least one of our worst presidents, right up with Buchannan, Harding and Nixon. But worst ever? He’s just about there.

    And I think you should include Pierce amongst the “worst ever” list. He was an incompetent drunk (he was once arrested for drunk driving on a horse in D.C.) and a complete lapdog of the South (kinda weird given he was a New Englander) who couldn’t do anything right during his term to help stave off the Civil War. Buchannan’s conduct was terrible, but the situation he found himself in came about in no small part because of Pierce’s incompetence.

  • To be worst President ever, you have to have led the country into an avoidable war that severely damaged it. Buchanan’s war was a result of neglect, but far worse for our country. Bush’s war, though not yet as damaging, was entirely of his own doing. Tough call.

    If a nuclear weapon were to go off in this country as a result of Bush’s negligence, or the economy collapses due to his stewardship, Bush could very well be credited with bringing about the fall of the American Empire. After the Civil War, our best days were ahead of us. Because of Bush, we have lost the opportunity to lead the American century..

    Buchanan sat on his hands in a time of trouble. Bush took the world’s only remaining superpower with surpluses and a military everyone thought was unstoppable and drove it into the ground. Give Bush time. We will feel the results of Bush’s Presidency for many years to come.

  • without september 11th, the country would have known sooner that bush was the worst president ever.

  • Sorry, this is simply no contest. It is Bush already–and he has three more years to put distance between himself and any challengers. No other president is so comprehensively a disaster. Name a category, war and peace, foreign relations. the economy, health care, the environment, energy, helping the poor, the elderly, the infirm, cronyism and profiteering, responding to natural disasters, treason, lying, torture and responsibility for tens of thousands of deaths. When it comes to arrogance, ineptitude, and yes, moral weakness as well as neglectful and intentional evil, our boy has finally come in first, on his own merits.

  • calvin does not wish to appear to be an “I told you so” kinda cat, but he was telling people that Bush would be the worst President in Hx prior to the election in 1999. However, even calvin could not foresee how far Bush would vault to the head of the class. He is without peers. Incomparable. Difficult to believe that he is that dumb and stupid. But, he proves calvin wrong every day. Just when calvin thinks he has Dumbo figured out, he does something dumber and more stupid.

    calvin wonders where Will Rogers and Mark Twain are when we really need them.

  • My first reaction to the post was to consider the “worst president ever” question to be a depressing and unproductive parlor game. Whether Bush is the worst or not will not change our situation an iota. But, the thoughtful posts have changed my mind a bit. I find it helpful to maintain clarity of thought as to why I think that – barring an amazing correction between now and January 2009 – history will judge Bush’s presidency as worse than any of those that preceded him.

    GGordonL took the words out of my mouth regarding (to borrow from the propaganda of Bush himself) the “trifecta” of unsuitability for office that Bush brings to the presidency. Others also made arguments “for” Bush with which I agree. I offer to following observations:

    I believe Buchanon faced an electorate deeply divided over an issue with serious moral, political, and economic implications. The matter of slavery (dressed or not in the cloak of states rights) had been left to us for resolution by our founders. We criticize Buchanon for sins of “ommission,” because he failed to engage the public with a vision and a solution that had eluded all his (more gifted or not) predecessors. The best any had been able to do was kick the can down the road. Buchanon certainly was inept and cowardly; he faced a challenge (from within) to lead the public back from the precipice and failed miserably.

    In the aftermath of September 11, Bush was the beneficiary of a public that was unified and ready for positive leadership to respond to an external threat. That threat was and remains complicated – both in its origins and the means necessary to confront it successfully. There are many things Bush might have done with this public unity, but, as Jared poignantly points out, he chose to place his own partisan politics – and, I might add ideology and vision for his own glorious place in history – above the national interests.

    Bush used the fear and saddness engendered by September 11 to divide us from each other and the world. The “your either with us or with the terrorists” rhetoric might initially have sounded comforting for its “action orientation,” but it was ultimately unsatisfying and ineffective. Bush did not try to instill courage in the public. Rather, he tried to create the illusion that he, and he alone, had cornered the courage market (after his decidedly uninspired performance on the day of the attacks). He wanted a public of cowed and compliant observers to his “let’s kick some ass” shadow play. He saw fear in the public as the ultimate political weapon and he opted to use it in a manner that kept it regularly replenished.

    Bush’s failures have been of “commission.” He took a united electorate and led it to (and perhaps over) the precipice. He left business in Afghanistan un-finished and took his eyes of the “prize” that was our attackers, because he had always been looking downfield and envisioning glory in the “end zone” of Iraq. If Buchanon lacked vision, Bush was seized with flawed vision. In my mind, this makes Bush worse than Buchanon.

    Bush’s megolomania and political hackery are unchecked by Congress. Rather, it is enable and amplified by Congress. Bush has Nixon’s ruthlessness and thirst for power, but – as might be inferred from Ed Stephan’s post – Nixon’s ideology seems to pale in the harsh light of Bush’s performance in the service of his “base,” the “haves and the have mores” and the religious right. Because his ideology scares me more, and the he has no check from Congressional oversight, I rate Bush worse than Nixon.

    I do not know what type of a person Warren Harding was. For some reason I have this notion of a man who was very flawed and out of his depth, but not necessarily cruel and vengeful. Bush’s tenure has brought new meaning to the terms “cronyism” and “crony capitalism.” The corruption boggles the mind. On top of it all, is George W. Bush – supposedly the man with whom 2004 voters would most like to share a beer. He cultivates the image of the “aw shucks, I’m stupid just like you,” every man. He just can’t be bothered to master policy. That’s for elitist wonks. Hell, he was a “C” student at Yale, and all those smarty-pants brainiacs? Well, they’re not the PRESIDENT, now, are they? My intuition tells me that Bush is not the face he presents to the public. Every now and then he flashes his cruelty and distain for the hoi poloi for those who are open to seeing it. So, because I cannot be sure WG Harding was a sonovabitch in addition to presiding over a corrupt and crony-filled administration, I think Bush beats him, too, hand down.

  • History is not my field, but I cannot
    imagine an earlier America surviving
    such a travesty as eight years of
    these neocon thugs. It starts with
    the fact that this spoiled, selfish
    lazy bastard hasn’t got the intellect,
    the knowledge, the leadership,
    the integrity, the focus or the
    commitment to be president of
    the local PTA, to say nothing of
    the president of the USA. In
    short, this fraud has no character
    to begin with. None. Absolutely
    none.

    And then it all goes downhill from
    there, when we see how this administration
    has ravaged this nation and the world
    with its ill conceived, criminal, and
    heartless policies. Reminds me of The
    Terminator, relentlessly destroying
    everything in its path.

    And it doesn’t stop there. There’re
    all a bunch of thugs. Everyone of
    them.

    How could it possibly be worse?

  • Mondo, I don’t comment here very often, but I just want to let you know that my Saturday isn’t complete until I read your posts. Great job today.

  • I agree with those above who find Buchanan less culpable because his mistakes were passivity and lack of leadership, rather than active criminality. However, I think there is a better parallel for Bush (and a better candidate for “worst” honors) than Buchanan: James K. Polk. Polk was determined to grab massive amounts of land from Mexico, whatever it took. When half-hearted diplomacy failed, he sent American troops into territory Mexico had made clear it considered Mexican, and waited for something to happen. When it didn’t happen soon enough for Polk, he summoned his cabinet and told them he was sending a war message to Congress. Before he could do so, however, word came in the middle of the night that there had been a skirmish between Mexican and American troops, exactly as he designed. The next day, his war message read that “American blood had been shed on American soil,” and that war was the only response.

    Luckily for Polk’s reputation, Mexico could not resist very effectively, and all we seem to remember is a glorious victory and the acquisition of huge swaths of territory (including California). However, the political system was unable to assimilate this new territory. Trying to incorporate the gains from the war was the catalyst that caused the political system to break down and brought us to the point of civil war.

    I’m not sure whether forcing us into war while keeping the public in the dark (something both Bush and Polk did) is worse when the cause is oil or slavery (because Polk wanted all those new lands to be eventual slave states). Both men, it seems, had the economic interests of a very small class of Americans in mind. I can see the long-term effects of Bush’s actions being as damaging as Polk’s, but — please — let’s not forget about Polk. The general ignorance of his abuses of power certainly helped lead to today’s mess.

    BTW, one of the most effective Congressmen resisting Polk was a Whig from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln, who repeatedly introduced “spot resolutions” on the floor of the House. These were resolutions asking the president to detail exactly where the spot was where American blood had been shed on American soil.

  • i am as liberal as they come… do your research about nixon: by today’s standards his heart would be bleeding.

  • gotta concur about Nixon. He wasn’t a terrible president, just a terrible politician. (And, as you point out, a paranoid megalomaniac)

  • I just wandered in here, but there’s much more I want to read.

    This comment struck me:

    “calvin wonders where Will Rogers and Mark Twain are when we really need them.”

    Well, calvin, they currently go by the names “Bill Maher” and “Jon Stewart” (and others).

    This quote by Bill Maher had me rolling on the floor: “I was watching Ashlee Simpson on Jay’s show last night… She was really singing, and I was saying, ‘Bring back the lip synch.’ …And it struck me that Ashlee Simpson is a lot like George Bush — because she wouldn’t even really be in the big leagues if it wasn’t for family connections, and she’s in way over her head. And she doesn’t know what to do. And she blamed her band.”

  • During fascinating discussions like this, I can’t help but think back to an essay by some wise sage back just after the 2000 election shakeout. He/she/it wrote that America has always been fortunate/blessed to select just exactly the right leader just before times of great turmoil for the country (think Lincoln, Roosevelt, and yes, Washington). And I remember thinking that to the extent that some kind of national fate/luck might be gently guiding this country, the fact that Bush the Lesser was (s)elected must surely mean that the next four/eight years will be relatively uneventful–at least in terms of potential national trauma and challenge. Boy did Bush the Lesser blow that theory/meme/chimera out of the water! And for that reason alone, BtL deserves eternal historicist damnation.

  • “King County WA is named after King (though there have been efforts to rename it after MLK Jr).”
    Comment by Ed Stephan — 11/12/2005 @ 1:50 pm

    Actually King County in Washington State did change the name and now honors MLK memory, the main arguments for the change was not that DeVane King was an homosexual but that he was an slave owner.

  • Sorry guys, you are giving Bush too much credit here as the president. It’s not worth hating or even despising him.

    He’s just the front man – the ventriloquist’s dummy. But certainly the worst presidency. Dick Cheney and his PNAC cohorts must take the blame and our ire. Of course, as chaos reigns behind the scenes, the dummy has to speak and act on his own. Frak has summed up his performance nicely above.

    The world’s best hope is for resignation or impeachment. I think it’s a real possibility. These men are war criminals. These men are political criminals (Plame game). The last election is tainted (Kerry believes now that it was rigged). These men are white collar criminals (if Haliburton can be called white collar). These men are traitors (subverting America’s interests to those of a foreign nation).

    It doesn’t get much more serious than this. I think the situation now is akin to that of a bully who’s authority has been challenged. The road downhill can go further. Having bent the rules of civilised discourse and political behaviour so far, there really isn’t a safety net underneath them anymore.

    They have made enough enemies (Paul O’Neill, Colin Powell, Joe Wilson, Lawrence Wilkerson, John McCain – to name just a few) on their own team that they are in real danger right now. And thank heavens. This administration has to be stuck and killed where it stands.

  • “Sorry guys, you are giving Bush too much credit here as the president. It’s not worth hating or even despising him.

    He’s just the front man – the ventriloquist’s dummy”

    You are correct, La Vie, but I think that’s well
    understood. I’ve written letters to the editor
    with that very analogy, but in common-speak
    I think we simply use “Bush” as a collective
    term for the gang of thugs, lead by Cheney
    and Rove and the corporate interests, that
    really run the country and tell this puppet
    yo-yo what to do.

    But I will say this, and it’s scary. I do
    believe that Bush, the man himself, is
    so utterly clueless, out of it, inept et al,
    that he truly thinks he is the president.
    He doesn’t even know that he’s not.

  • I disagree with the idea that Bush is not worth hating or culpable because he is an imbecile. Yes, he is a moron–but he is also callous, mean spirited and avaricious. Let us not forget that he is, alas, the president and could fire and hire different brains if he wanted to. He doesn’t want to. And, in this life, the responsibility is his as the elected (selected) official. The penalty for what he’s don–just for Iraq alone–should be impeachment and prison. He is definitely worth despising. In fact, we must vocally detest him if we are ever to get our country back on track. Morons who run for high office, who think they can destroy this country through sins of omission or comission had better realize that there are consequences.

  • I’ve been carrying on this watercooler conversation since .. well .. well before it became trendy to do so.

    So I have to inform you that, sadly, you’re way under-selling him.

    Worst president ever ? If you lump together the stupidity, narrow-mindedness, incompetence together with the corruption, law-breaking, and lying .. it’s a no-brainer: easily THE worst president in US history.

    I argue, with a straight face, that if you also lump in the damage he’s done to the american political discourse, the concept and precepts of truth, morality and logic .. and combine that with the fact he’s lead the way in (adovocating) the destruction of the environment, the total collapse of support and friendship for the us, the devaluation of human life …

    Then I say you have to think about an all time ranking.

    Worse than Hitler ? No. Stalin ? No. Genghis Kahn ? No … Pol Pot .. probably not .. but i think you seriously can think about putting him in around the five or six slot.

    Thoughts ?

  • Yes, he is all of those despicable
    things, in spite of being an empty
    suit, and in that sense, he’s worse
    than any leader ever.

    How did the American people ever
    elect this impostor of a human
    being? How could they have been
    so misguided? Is it any wonder
    that Hitler beguiled the German
    people and rose to the top?

    I can’t imagine history ever teaching
    children what an abomination this
    presidency was. It is the worst,
    the most awful thing, the most
    shameful thing, the most dreadful
    thing we have ever done to ourselves
    or the world. I am simply overcome
    with the degree of depravity of our
    culture, our society, that not only
    allowed this to happen, but welcomed
    it.

    And the MSM are still talking about
    it in terms of Bush, as if he were a
    sports hero on a downer, looking
    to get his putting back, or his batting
    average, or his passing game. It
    makes me sick. They act as if we’re
    all rooting for this sociopath to get
    back into the groove and administer
    more damage to the world.

    They just don’t get it. I think the
    enormity of this holocaust is beyond
    human comprehension.

  • Time out of mind –you have said what I have been trying to so eloquently, so much better. Hark–I agree completely. My heart breaks for our country which I fear has been done irreparable damage.

  • Program on the emergence of civilization.

    “14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
    13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa.
    None from the sub-Saharan African continent. ”
    Favor.
    And disfavor.

    They point out Africans’ failed attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it’s applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.

    The roots of racism are not of this earth.

    Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals.

    The North American continent had none. Now 99% of that population is gone.

    AIDS in Africa.

    Organizational Heirarchy/Levels of positioning.
    Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:

    1. MUCK – perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as “god”
    2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management
    3. Evil/disfavored aliens – runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere

    Terrestrial management/positioning:

    4. Chinese/egyptians – this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
    5. Romans – The seamless transition between Cleopatra and Julius Ceasar may be a clue alluding to a partnership.
    6. Mafia – the real-world 20th century interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
    7. Jews, corporation, women, politician – Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.

    Movies foreshadowing catastrophy
    1985 James Bond View to a Kill 1989 San Francisco Loma Prieta earthquake.

    Our society gives clues to the system in place. We all have heard the saying “He has more money than god.” There is also an episode of the Simpsons where god meets Homer and says “I’m too old and rich for this.”

    This is the system on earth because this is the system everywhere.

    20 cent/hour Chinese labor, 50 cents for material.
    An $80 sweater costs less than a dollar; homage, tribute kicked upstairs vindicates the creative accounting.

    I don’t want to suggest the upper eschelons are evil and good is the fringe. But these individuals become wealthy exploiting those they hurt.

    They have made it abundantly clear that doing business with evil (disfavored) won’t help people. They say only good would have the ear, since evil is struggling for survival, and therefore only the favored could help.

    The clues are there which companies are favored and which are disfavored, but they conceal it very hard because it is so crucial.

    I offer an example of historical proportions:::

    People point to Walmart and cry “anti-union”.
    Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family’s problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
    Unions serve to empower.
    Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.

    Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people’s belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the indistry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
    Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.

    The middle class is being deceived. They are being misled into the unfavored, and subsequently will have no assistance from their purchases with corporate america.

    The coining of the term “Uncle Sam” was a clue alluding to just this::Sam Walton and WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.

    Amercia is a country of castoffs, rejects. Italy sent its criminals, malcontents.
    Between the thrones, the klans and kindred, they “decided” who they didn’t want and acted, creating discontent and/or starvation.
    The u.s. is full of disfavored rejects. It is the reason for the myriad of problems not found in European countries. As far as the Rockafellers and other industrialists of the 19th century go, I suspect these aren’t their real names. I suspect they were chosen to go and head this new empire.

    Royalty is the right way to organize a society. Dictatorships and monarchies are a reflection of the antient’s hierarchical organization.
    Positions go to those who have favor with the rulers, as opposed to being elected.
    Elections bring a false sense of how the world is. Democracy misleads people.
    Which is why the disfavored rejects were sent to the shores of America::To keep them on the wrong path.

    Jews maim the body formed in the image of “god”, and inflicted circumsision upon all other white people, as well as the evil that is Jesus Christ.
    I think about how Jews (were used to) created homosexuality among Slavics, retribution for the Holocaust.
    Then I think of the Catholic Church and its troubles.
    What connection is here between Jews and the Catholic church???
    If it is their sinister motives that’s behind the evil that is Jesus Christ are they being used at all?
    Perhaps it is them who are pulling strings.
    Their centuries of slavery in Egypt proves their disfavor.
    The Jew leaders decided to prey on the up-and-coming Europeans to try to fix their problems with the ruling elite, a recurring aspect of the elite’s methodology.
    Jews were ostracised for a reason.

    Jesus Christ is a religious figure of evil. The seperatist churches formed so they could still capture the rest of the white people, keeping them worshipping the wrong god.
    And now they do it to disfavored people of color, Latinos and Asians, after centuries of preying upon them.

    Since Buddism doesn’t recongnize a god, the calls are never heard, and Chinese representation is instead selected by the thrones.
    Budda was the Asian’s Jesus Christ::: bad for the people. “They came up at the same time for a reason.”

    Simpson’s foreshadowing::Helloween IV special, Flanders is Satan. “Last one you ever suspect.”
    “You’ll see lots of nuns where you’re going:::hell!!!” St. Wigham, Helloween VI, missionary work, destroying cultures.
    Over and over, the Simpsons was a source of education and enlightenment, a target of ridicule by the system which wishes to conceal its secrets.

    The advent of the modern Christmas was a brilliant move. It creates a vested interest among those who would prefer the Church of Evil be destroyed::::
    As goes the Catholic Church so goes the majority of annual retail sales.
    The similarity between the names “Santa” and “Satan” is no coincidence.

    I believe Islam is the one true religion, and those misled christians who attack “god”‘s most favored people will pay dearly one day.

  • While I don’t agree with Geo. W. Bush on many things, I can’t say that he is the worst president ever. I can’t even say that he is the worst since WWII. I actually rank him 19th of all time–pretty close to the middle of the pack. But let’s just look at the presidents since WWII–

    I think Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, & Dwight Eisenhower all did admirable jobs. They each rank in my top ten of all time, as well as most historians’ lists. We certainly have had enough time to evaluate their impact on America and its place in the world. They all significantly advanced America’s stature throughout the world, took care of domestic policy, & avoided any major scandals.

    JFK clearly did an excellent job handling the Cuban Missile Crisis, carried Ike’s ball with space exploration & technology, and laid the groudnwork for LBJ’s significant improvements in civil rights. But he was a philanderer, badly botched the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco, and made no significant impact on the economy. Of course, we won’t ever know if he would have done better if he had had more time. He’s 15th on my all-time list.

    George H. W. Bush had a huge advantage following Reagan. In my opinion, the Gulf War was the height of American influence around the world since the end of WWII. He also had no major scandals. I’m ambivalent about his impact on the economy. The recession that he left when he was voted out was pretty brief and shallow, and I don’t think that he caused it. He certainly didn’t hurt America. The question is how much did he help it. He’s 16th on my all-time list.

    LBJ set in motion several positive domestic policies, but he is largely responsible for the quagmire of Vietnam. And it looks like that whole “domino theory” was wrong. We had civil rights legislation, but also race riots. Even picking a successor when he decided not to run again turned into a mess–remember the 1968 Chicago Demo convention. I see him as a “two steps forward, one step back” kind of president. He’s 17th on my all-time list.

    Richard Nixon was a paranoid megalomaniac. Watergate will forever tarnish his presidency. But he got America out of Vietnam, almost single-handedly opened positive relations with China (okay, Henry Kissinger helped), nixed the gold standard, changed the military from a conscript army to a professional volunteer service, approved the Environmental Protection Act, and the list of accomplishments goes on. Too bad he was a paranoid megalomaniac who tarnished the image of the presidency. He’s 18th on my all-time list.

    Gerald Ford was a mediocre caretaker. Maybe that’s what was needed after Nixon resigned. He accomplished very little, but conversely he didn’r seriously screw anything up. Unlike JFK, LBJ, and Nixon, he doesn’t have a long list of pros and cons. He just has a short list of average. He ranks 24 on my all-time list–pretty close to average as a president.

    Bill Clinton squandered the tremendous stature of America he inherited from his predecessor by having no coherent foreign policy. Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia, etc. all happened on his watch. He presided over the first tastes of terrorism on American soil (i.e. the first World Trade Center bombing), FBI excesses and messes at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and attacks on American forces abroad (the U.S.S. Cole, as well as several embassy bombings). He failed to accomplish a key goal of his presidency–national health care reform. He faced a series of personal scandals (Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky, etc.). We weakened our military, America’s stature with the world, and polarized American voters. Still, he didn’t badly mess up the economy and he approved NAFTA, which I will give him credit for. I put him 27th on my all-time list.

    Jimmy Carter was pretty much a screw up. He had to deal with a weakening economic situation. He made it worse. America was eating crow around the world as a result of Vietnam. He made it worse by cowtowing to Iran when it was holding Americans hostage. Crime was bad coming into the 70’s. It reached a peak during his presidency. Education was declining. It reached a low during his presidency. Basically, he chose not to address the problems facing America, because he really, really wanted to win a Nobel Peace Prize for helping Israel and Egypt reach an accord. He did, at least, accomplish that. Still, I think he is clearly the worst president since WWII, and is 36th on my all-time list.

    George W. Bush I tentatively rank 19th, which means that I have fiev “modern” presidents ranked together 15-19. He has clearly made America safer at home, as evidenced by the lack of any further significant successful attacks. His tax cuts were long overdue, but not deep enough. His economic policies have weathered us through Enron/MCI, 9/11, etc. The current recession is likely to be short and shallow by all prognostications. He has sent a strong signal to the world that we mean what we say. I think overall we are stronger economically and militarily than when he came into office. He appointed two very solid supreme court justices who don’t appear to be either aggressively conservative (Scalia) or activist liberals (Ginsberg). But he clearly could have done so much more, and I am bothered by the potential threats to personal liberty posed by the Patriot Act and our interrogation of detainees.

    Worst Five All-Time:

    38. Herbert Hoover – Policies led to the rise of organized crime in America, and to the Great Depression.

    39. Franklin Pierce – Policies to the Civil War.

    40. Warren Harding – Incompetent by his own admission, and surrounded by corrupt colleagues.

    41. James Buchanan – Another president whose policies led to the Civil War.

    42. Andrew Johnson – Almost impeached. Instead of putting the country back together after the Civil War, his policies contributed greatly to an animosity between North and South and between Black and White that survived for decades.

  • Comments are closed.