Worst Presidents of the United States

Some presidents were:

• Merely mediocre (e.g., John Kennedy).
• Merely inept (e.g., Howard Taft).
• Downright depressing (e.g., Jimmy Carter).
• More damaging after their term than during (Carter, again).
• Mixed, doing damage in some cases but helping in others (e.g., Ronald Reagan, whose rhetoric reversed the Carter funk).

And some were outstanding, such as:

• Andrew Jackson. His last words, as he lay dying, where, "I killed the bank." If you look at the inflation figures in the years during and around Jackson's administration, you find, well, they just are not there. Inflation, which is a word meaning "currency debasement by counterfeiting" was not yet standard operating procedure. Inflation is a form of stealing, and it's the most pernicious effect of having a central bank that isn't under proper controls. The bankers sent assassins against Jackson five times. He survived all five attempts.
   
• Andrew Johnson. He didn't accomplish much, but not for lack of competence or effort. He tried to maintain Lincoln's policy of not seeing the seceded states as having left the union. Had this policy been followed after the war between the states, the country would have healed quickly. The travesty of Reconstruction and the backlash it unleashed against African Americans would have been prevented. But more significantly, the takeover of the country would have been avoided.
   
• Teddy Roosevelt. Senator Clark (Clark County, NV, is named after him) was a billionaire who, in inflation adjusted dollars, had more money than Bill Gates. He got that money by stealing. He owned railroads and pillaged public land for the timber. Roosevelt interfered with the unbridled capitalism that emerged from Reconstruction. Read about Roosevelt and you'll find he was a champion of liberty and of the people. He was the last US president to be so. And, yes, an assassin went after him also. He was shot in the chest just before he was due to give a speech. He barely survived. See: Colonel Roosevelt

Andrew Johnson vs. the criminals

Before we continue, it's important to note what happened during Andrew Johnson's administration. The war between the states was a struggle between federalist powers (Hamiltonians) and a Constitutionally-constrained government. The Constitution spells out the limits of the federal government, with the intention of protecting the rights of the states (however misapplied) on the one hand and individuals (however poorly defined by race, creed, and color) on the other. It was a war against liberty, and the federalists won.

It was not a war to free the slaves. Lincoln stated at the outset that he didn't care if the slaves were freed or not. He later, during the war, issued a proclamation freeing slaves in the Southern states but not in the northern or border states. This was a PR move aimed at the Europeans, and it worked.

Johnson wanted to quickly get the nation back on its feet. But with the South defeated and in ruins, there was a great opportunity for dishonest, immoral people to abrogate the Constitution permanently (in fact though not in letter). They let the illusion of it remain, but the reality was quite different. If you read about the various political games and intrigues, what you see is unbridled corruption and rampant crime. It was against this that Johnson stood, and for that he was impeached. Johnson was rendered powerless, due to the political games.

Another development was the way reins of power were grabbed and manipulated during Reconstruction. The effect of it was to concentrate the control of ballot access in the hands of a few powerful titans of the time. One impetus was the Chinese Affair, as detailed in the excellent historical work Driven Out.

This control of ballot access, combined with control of party nominations, ended actual voting. Even Joseph Stalin would, in later years, comment on the fake elections held in the ballot-controlled USA. You can read biographies and just look at the pattern of family names and business contacts to see this. You can also just look at the track record of theft and other crimes fomented by it (such things would not happen in a nation that had actual elections).

Previously, voting was restricted to white males. But by the time "negros" got the vote, ballots were stuffed and essentially controlled by the party bosses who did the bidding of their corporate employers. By the time women got the vote decades later, it was also too late for their votes to matter. Reconstruction fundamentally changed governance and fundamentally disenfranchised all but the elite among Americans.

Post-Johnson

Since the ending of the Johnson administration, only one President has actually been elected. That was Teddy Roosevelt. All of the others were placed on the ballot by those controlling ballot access and party nominations. In some cases, they could not control access well enough to post two candidates (one from each wing of what was essentially now a single party). Because they also controlled the media, it was simple enough to destroy the opposition through lies, obfuscations, and implications.

Some of these folks were truly creepy, for example Richard Nixon. But all of them were run by handlers who used them to increasingly eroded the Constitution and increasingly transfer wealth from the working classes to the elite ones. This pattern is quite clear when you read through the history of the USA from 1870 to today.

So, we've mentioned some good presidents and some bad ones. Then there were the truly atrocious, costly, damaging Presidents. These, we will provide a bit more detail about. First, a couple of the second tier worst:

• Bill Clinton. Deepened our already staggering national debt by about another $4 trillion (the actual amount is hard to determine, because Treasury hides information and plays accounting tricks). Plus several costly, pointless military actions.
• GW Bush. Same note as Clinton, except he gave us two costly, pointless wars instead of several costly, pointless military actions.

No real difference, other than rhetoric, between Clinton and Bush. Except this one: Bush inflicted upon us the illegal Patriot Act. Talk about a blow to freedom. That concept is now merely a myth in the USA.

The worst of the worst

Now, for the top four worst presidents in United States history. They are ranked by the sheer damage inflicted. They are almost, but not quite, in chronological order.

Number 1 worst: Woodrow Wilson. He gave us the IRS, which is the world's most feared and hated terrorist organization. It costs the country more than it brings the Treasury in revenue. Its main purpose is to subjugate the people through a systematic campaign of terror and abuse. Financially, the existence of the IRS cannot be justified. As a tool of oppression and control, it's very justifiable.

But Wilson did far more damage than creating that particular evil empire. The list of damaging things this man did to the United States is enormous. He was put into office by criminals who wanted to conduct theft at previously unimaginable levels, and he gave them what they were after.

An example of a theft tool he gave them is the Federal Reserve. It's not federal, and it doesn't reserve anything. It exists to transfer wealth from the working class to the elite. It reports to no government authority, has never been audited (unlike federal agencies, which are audited all the time), produces nothing, and issues debt.

During a recent 10-year period, the Federal Reserve debased our currency by 50%. That means half of all USD-based wealth was stolen. So, we get robbed blind. Is that really such a big deal? After all, it's only money. Yes, that's true but Americans work about twice the hours of their European counterparts to pay for this robbery. Compare this involuntary servitude to the Bill of Rights, and it's clearly illegal.

But to get this really nailed down, I quote Mayer Amsched Rothchild, "Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." That's exactly the situation we have with the nonFederal nonReserve.

Wilson did other phenomenal damage, but these two items alone have, thus far, cinched the title for him.

Number 2 worst: Barrack Hussein Obama. He made #4 at the end of his second year. By mid-2011, he had catapulted to second place. One shudders to think of what this whacko is contemplating on his way to the Gold Medal.

While he is aggressively trying to move to the #1 spot, reaching number four in only two years was a notable achievement. It was his only significant achievement in his entire life, until he made #2 in only three years.

You can't find anything he actually did, before occupying the White House. The fact he's there illegally rankles many people, but the real problem is the damage he's doing and the timing of it.

At a time when America was staggering from a national debt that exceeded the GDP of all nations on earth combined, along came Barry with his credit card. He focused on racking up as much additional debt as was humanly possible. When you drain the economy of capital, businesses must lay off. And millions of Americans lost their jobs.

Yes, we can. Cost millions of people their jobs.

The timing could not have been worse. Following the 16 years of the Clinton/Bush spending orgy and massive currency devaluation by the Federal Reserve (50% loss in value during those 16 years), we were mired not only in two costly, pointless wars, but also in massive unemployment (the country hit a new record for unemployment in each of Clinton's years in office). Getting hit with Obama's job destruction policies (to even pretend they would have any other result is either dishonest or incredibly stupid) was not something we could easily absorb.

Barry's malperformance was predictable. During his brief time as a US Senator, he received an F rating from various citizens watchdog groups such as the National Taxpayers Union. Why?

When a vote came up, he voted "Present." That is, unless the vote was for a spending (stealing) measure or something that aided the Save the Criminals program (which aims to protect violent criminals from their victims, rather than the other way around). Anyone doing the slightest bit of responsible voting would have known this and not voted for Obama.

Some people counter that "the other choice was McCain." That is false logic. Tossing your vote away on a false choice between two reprehensible employees of the same criminals is worse than not voting at all. You are giving your approval to the evil. Voting for your dog would have been a far better use of your vote. But, you could have done even better than that.

There was a law-abiding candidate, Ron Paul. Because he campaigned on a platform of following the law (McCain/Obama campaigned on a platform of breaking it, and yes, their platforms were identical though each had rhetoric aimed at different demographics), the state-run media vilified him.

So, there you have it. Obama is not the worst of all US Presidents. But he's working on it. Give him a second term, and he'll probably get there.

Number 3 worst: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR was a socialist, and an aggressive one at that. He was Teddy Roosevelt's cousin. TR's children, horrified at FDR's bad public policy positions, worked hard to get FDR out of the public arena. He was, according to TR's sons, the antithesis of their father. History shows them to be right.

And that cost the United States dearly. Just as the economy was starting to recover from a sharp recession, FDR began pumping money out of it. If you have a lake and pump the water out of it, does the level go up? Of course not. It goes down. The same thing happens when you pump money out of the economy. Consequently, we got the Great Depression. That travesty was damaging to the USA and it spread to most of the rest of the world.

FDR vastly increased the size, power, and cost of the federal government. As these things are a zero sum game situation against individuals, this means he vastly decreased the power and wealth of ordinary Americans. The state and the individual are necessarily antagonist to each other. Restraining some individuals from harming other individuals is the proper role of government, and exercising that role means we have some financial overhead. But it's necessary and we ultimately benefit. The limit to this is rather narrow, and FDR exceeded it by extremely wide margins.

FDR greatly diminished the individual to strengthen the state.

His foreign policy was rotten, also. Ask the Poles, Estonians, East Germans, Hungarians, etc., about this. In his memoirs, Winston Churchill discussed how compliant FDR was to Joe "The Butcher" Stalin. The consequence of this relationship was the Iron Curtain. If you look at FDR's foreign policy decisions and the cost in human life, you can express only disgust.

Most of the damage FDR did was permanent. Under his reign of error, the federal government metastasized from being a sort of local tumor to invading every organ of society. He packed the Supreme Court with his lackies, thus nullifying checks and balances. The CONgress, which was mostly owned by the same folks who put FDR into the White House, seldom got in his way either.

While FDR had no hope of becoming the worst president of all time due to what Woody did to earn the title, it did take him nearly three full terms to become the second worst president of all time.

But Barry Obama did it in only three years.