Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents

Wow. Roughly 32 days into the Obama era and "historians" have labeled Bush one of the worse 10 Presidents of all time.

The worst presidents, according to the survey, were James Buchanan at 42, Andrew Johnson at 41, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison, Warren Harding, Millard Fillmore, George W. Bush, John Tyler, Herbert Hoover, and Rutherford B. Hayes.

How can that be? I mean they ranked him lower than nut case farmer Jimmy Carter. That fact alone tells me there is political agenda behind the ranking more than an objective look at the presidencies of 42 men.

"How we rank our presidents is, to a large extent, influenced by our own times," Medford said in a news release. "Today's concerns shape our views of the past, be it in the area of foreign policy, managing the economy, or human rights. . . . Lincoln continues to rank at the top in all categories because he is perceived to embody the nation's core values: integrity, moderation, persistence in the pursuit of honorable goals, respect for human rights, compassion; those who collect near the bottom are perceived as having failed to uphold those values."

So if these scholarly historians perceive Bush to be a bad president in the context of today's concerns, they feel justified in putting him in the bottom 10.

U.S. News and World Report mentions another list of 13 Worst Presidents. GWB didn't make it but Nixon did (tied at 9th with Hoover)and Carter was #11. The bold names above made both lists.

Regardless of the current list I think George W. Bush was a good president. I certainly don't think he was one of the 10 or even 20 worst. Time will adjust his position, like it has for Ronald Reagan who has just now cracked the "Top 10 Best Presidents" of these same liberal historians. It takes time for them to figure out what exactly a good president is.



Shared with Flock - The Social Web Browser

Happy Washington's Birthday (repost)

I wrote this piece back in 2006 and thought I would relax this Washington's Birthday and repost it instead of doing something new.

It is a fact that there are fewer black conservatives than black liberals. Occasionally I find myself surrounded by people who under most circumstances would be rational thinking human beings despite the crimson hued area between their chin and shoulders. On one such occasion, such a person blurted out “I really hate how they took away George Washington and Abraham Lincoln’s Birthdays and gave it to Martin Luther King”.  I was of course stunned. I know that the vast majority of whites in this country can not truly relate to the discrimination and hate that was targeted against blacks before civil rights movement of the sixties but come on, this statement was completely clueless. Unfortunately for me, I didn’t have the hard facts to counter this man. I remember a time when we celebrated Washington’s and then Lincoln’s birthdays. Then we stopped. So I had to do some research into the situation. (I was very young at the time of these events so I had no hard dates.)  I discovered that the time we started celebrating President’s Day and the time MLK’s birthday became a holiday were over a decade apart.

First off there is no such thing as President’s Day. Richard Nixon’s executive order declared some holidays to be celebrated on Mondays regardless of when they fell. This was done in ‘68.  Washington’s Birthday was one of them. It is still called Washington’s Birthday according to the law books and was first celebrated in ‘71.  I also discovered that no one “took” Abe’s birthday. It was never a national holiday. It had been celebrated as a state holiday in many states.  Once the so called “President’s Day” was established, states stop celebrating Lincoln’s Birthday.

Martin Luther King’s Birthday was signed by Ronald Reagan in ’83, some 15 years after Washington’s Birthday was made a Monday holiday.  It was first celebrated in ’86 but not celebrated in all 50 states in until ’93.  So whoever they are, they sure took their sweet time about taking Abe’s day and giving it to Martin.  

Just so we are clear, I have absolutely no doubts that much of what I am today I owe to men like Martin Luther King. But I have always wondered if his birthday should have been made a U.S. holiday. I felt this way even when I was a liberal democrat! I didn’t feel that way because of his accomplishments, nor did I buy into all the character assassination and talk about his womanizing and illicit affairs. I just wasn’t sure if the majority of Americans identify with his life enough to say he deserved his own holiday. It was 10 years after it became a holiday before all fifty states embraced it (remember the flak the Governor of Arizona caught because of it?) So I guess I have my answer.  Anyway that’s just my take on it.  Happy Washington’s Birthday!

Technorati tag: Holiday Opinion   President's Day  Washington's Birthday

Clintons on Receiving End of Race Baiting

One of these days I will have to explore the ramifications of schadenfreude with regards to the Christian walk. Until then I am just going to revel in it. The misfortune that is the source of my joy is the problems the Clintons are having in the Black community. Ever since Bill's "fairy tale" moment and Hillary's comment about Dr. Martin Luther King, then the subsequent "Shuck and Jive" incident, they have been working damage control to conserve their black votes. It is fun to watch them squirm especially since the very people who are attacking them usually attack Republicans and conservatives on their behalf.

Now personally I don't think they said anything of a racially prejudicial nature. But like so many things in this world it is the perception that is often more important than the truth. And isn't it so much easier to perceive things the way you want to than to actually analyze what is really going on?

Looking at the clip of Bill, I think it is pretty obvious that when he said "fairy tale" he was not referring to Obama's campaign, but his assertion that his (Obama's)judgment on the war was superior to Hillary's. To me this is a non issue. Let the black leaders rant and rave at Obama's alleged slighting, but who cares? To me the bigger issue is that there are Democrats who all voted for the war and are now saying that what was sold to them was a lie and that they thought they were voting on giving Bush authority to go to war only after more inspectors were sent and Saddam Hussein was given more time to comply. What? Didn't they read the resolution? And why were they silent about it until it became a campaign point? Hmmm.

Hillary's comment on Dr. Martin Luther King's dream beginning to be realized by President Johnson was basically correct. After all, rights (real and imagined) in this country come from our Constitution, which states how congress passes laws which affect us as citizens. So technically it was congress which passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which according to Hillary, was the beginning of the realization of Dr. King's Dream. So where is the racism there? Speaking as a current black American and former liberal I can feel and understand the fear that some black leaders are expressing. The fear that "The Man" (in this case Hillary) is trying to diminish the contribution of blacks, specifically Dr. King, in the betterment of their own situation. It looked like Hillary was saying that white men were responsible for making the dream real. What she was really trying to say, contrary to Obama's assertion that the current leadership is giving false hopes and saying that dreams will die, is that Presidential power, the kinds she hopes to wield, can go along way in realizing peoples dreams. No slight there. Let's face it. (I am going to catch Hell for saying this) the work the abolitionists did, the slaves, carried to freedom on the underground railroad, and the lives lost in the Civil War, only pointed out the need for freedom of the black people in the country. But without a 14th Amendment, we would still have slavery. Likewise Dr. King and his work and the work of others like him showed the world the need for civil rights in America. But Dr. King didn't sign the Civil Rights Act into law.

And finally the hoopla over the shuck and jive comment is just laughable. I think people really don't have enough real issues to concern themselves with. Still it is fun to watch the Democrats attack each other over such silliness!

What do you think?

When Did America Become the Bad Guy?

I apologise to those of you who sent me email over the holiday and I didn't get back to you. I am just now going through the Dane Bramage inbox. Inside I found this missive from chrys and a link to her site;The Big Lie About America at One Wing Bird It states:

The most successful Big Lie since Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels were in the mendacity business is that the United States of America is the prime villain in world affairs. How did this whopper come to be widely believed about the nation which 30 years ago, was almost universally regarded as a benefactor to humanity?

Go read the entire thing. And thanks chrys.

Never Forget

Today marks the 66th aniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. It drew this country into the conflict that has defined what is called by many "The Greatest Generation." That generation saw evil for what it was and stepped forward to stop it. Many paid the ultimate price. Let us never forget.

That's Right! I Said Baptists Are NOT Protestant!

This post is for Big Daddy Weave, an alleged student of Baptist history. BDW took exception to my assertion that Baptists are not Protestant. He invited me to catch up on my Baptist history. Nah. Instead I think I will teach him a thing or ten. From Baptist Banner Baptist History section:

1. Baptists are Ancient, and our Ancestry can be traced through the vital principles established and set forth by our Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples in the New Testament Churches


2. Baptists are not "Protestants," as our testimony extends much further in History than that of Martin Luther or John Calvin.


3. Baptists are not "Reformed" in Theology or practice, for our view of the church could never allow the marriage of church and state.


4. Baptists are not "Calvinists," for the doctrines of grace were believed and preached long before John Calvin Preached in Geneva. Calvinism


5. Baptists are not "Arminian" in theology, for our forefathers preached the Gospel with fervor long before the time of Jacob Arminius, and believed they were enabled by God to Persevere.


6. Immersion was in common use among Baptists before 1641. We reject the 1641 theory of William Whitsitt and oppose the Conclusion of Henry Veddar About Baptism. We View as Suspect the modern histories of Robert Baker, Leon McBeth, Walter Shurden, Robert G. Torbet, and James Edward McGoldrick as they submit to the thoroughly disproved theory of William Whitsitt.


7. Baptists heritage is far older than "Fundamentalism," or the era of the city-wide revival campaigns, or the time of the old Evangelical Alliance.


8. Because Baptists have suffered at the hands of Papists and Pedobaptistic Protestants alike, we ought to venerate and remember our historic testimony far above the testimony of our persecuting enemies. That is, we ought to revere the testimony of the Paulicians, Peter de Bruys, Henry of Clugny, Balthasar Hubmaier, Henry D'anvers, John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, Valentine Wightman, Isaac Backus, Shubal Stearns, Samuel Harris, John Leland, John Taylor, Isaac McCoy, et. al. These names should be more commonly known among Baptists than those of D. L. Moody, Ira Sankey, R. A. Torrey, Sam Jones, Gipsy Smith, John Wilbur Chapman or Billy Sunday.


9. Infant Baptism is the badge of the antichrist, and flirtation with that badge is akin to treason against God's word.


10. Ignorance of Baptist heritage, which is so infectious in our pulpits and pews today, is dangerous and must be overcome with a renewed teaching of our Baptist heritage and heroes of past generations.

Jesus said "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist..." Notice he didn't say John the Catholic, or John the Protestant. We Baptist trace our doctrine back to John the Baptist. Schools out.

Thomas Jefferson's Koran

I believe that you should go to church every time the doors are open. Church is not just for singing praises and eating fellowship meals. Church is for learning. Besides giving a great sermon on faith and another on Heaven, my pastor had an article in the Heritage Herald, our church bulletin. It was about Keith Ellison. I have reprinted it below with some additional data from Wikipedia.

Keith Ellison, now officially the first Muslim United States Congressman, placed his hand on the Koran, the Muslim book of jihad, and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.

The Koran used once belonged to Thomas Jefferson third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the rare books section of the Library of Congress and is one of the 6500 Jefferson books archived in the library. Ellison, born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson’s Koran because it showed that a visionary like Jefferson believed wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.

Because Ellison stated an intent to use the Koran instead of a Bible at his photo op reenactment of the swearing-in ceremony (the official ceremony is done en mass without any books) conservative columnists Dennis Prager wrote a column criticizing him. This drew responses from organizations such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), The American Family Association and The Anti-Defamation League.

Fifth term Representative Virgil Goode (R-VA) responding to "scores and hundreds of e-mails" from his constituents after the Prager articles has also stated his view that Ellison's decision to use the Koran is a threat to the values and beliefs traditional to United States of America he also wrote

"If American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Koran"

Ellison was right about Jefferson leaving wisdom could be gleaned from the Muslim Koran. at the time Jefferson owned the book he needed to know everything possible bout Muslims because he was about to advocate war against Islamic Barbary states Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli. Ellison's use of the Jefferson’s Koran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States but mostly forgotten today-- the Muslim pirate slavers enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic Barbary states. Not long after Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801 he dispatched a group of frigates to defend America's interest in the Mediterranean and informed Congress declaring that America was going to spend millions for defense but not one cent for tribute. Jefferson pressed the issued by deploying American marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
In 1805 American marines marched across the desert from Egypt to Tripolitania forcing the surrender of Tripoli and freeing all American slaves.

During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary states, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and onshore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy. Jefferson's victory over Muslims lives on today in the Marine hymn, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli".

Happy Washington's Birthday!

I know everybody calls it President's Day but it is officially in the books as George Washington's Birthday. I think people wanted to honor Lincoln too but two national holidays in the same month, days apart would have been too much. Which is a shame because Washington and Lincoln were both men to be honored. I am old enough to remember when we celebrated Lincoln's birthday but it was a state holiday and not a national one.
I mention all this because I want to point out something. OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WERE NOT DEISTS! There is an effort today by the liberal left to remove God not only from government but from the history of government.

Did You Know...

In the first inaugural address which was given by George Washington, the President repeatedly thanked God and mentioned how our fledgling nation was to look toward Divine Providence for guidance.

BUT

Claiming separation of church and state, the government removed all references to God from the speech before putting it in modern history textbooks.

And now there are people coming out of the woodwork proclaiming that the framers of the constitution were Deists and not Christians. The liberals tried to deny that God was important to our founding fathers but so much of their writing acknowledges God and specifically Jesus Christ for the birth of our nation that the liberals had to adopt another tactic. Merriam-Webster says;

de ism (often capitalized)
: a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe

So now they admit that Geoprge Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin all believed in God but they really didn't think that God cares about the actions and activities of individuals or nations. What a load of crap. It is amazing how the liberals overlook the first prayer said in Congress which asked God to guide the decisions of that body of government. God was real to our founding fathers. Many of them knew and professed Jesus as their personal Saviour. Don't let the left obscure that fact with cries of deism.

Arma Virumque Cano

Happy Birthday Virgil! Two years of Advanced Latin in high school and that's about all the Latin I remember from the Aeneid. That and "timeo Danaos et dona ferentis" which was uttered by the doomed Laocoon, who if I recall correctly was devoured by snakes sent by the gods.

BTW classic Latin in no way raises my nerdiness score.

Presidents Day Rant

It is a fact that there are fewer black conservatives than black liberals. Occasionally I find myself surrounded by people who under most circumstances would be rational thinking human beings despite the crimson hued area between their chin and shoulders. On one such occasion, such a person blurted out “I really hate how they took away George Washington and Abraham Lincoln’s Birthdays and gave it to Martin Luther King”.  I was of course stunned. I know that the vast majority of whites in this country can not truly relate to the discrimination and hate that was targeted against blacks before civil rights movement of the sixties but come on, this statement was completely clueless. Unfortunately for me, I didn’t have the hard facts to counter this man. I remember a time when we celebrated Washington’s and then Lincoln’s birthdays. Then we stopped. So I had to do some research into the situation. (I was very young at the time of these events so I had no hard dates.)  I discovered that the time we started celebrating President’s Day and the time MLK’s birthday became a holiday were over a decade apart.

First off there is no such thing as President’s Day. Richard Nixon’s executive order declared some holidays to be celebrated on Mondays regardless of when they fell. This was done in ‘68.  Washington’s Birthday was one of them. It is still called Washington’s Birthday according to the law books and was first celebrated in ‘71.  I also discovered that no one “took” Abe’s birthday. It was never a national holiday. It had been celebrated as a state holiday in many states.  Once the so called “President’s Day” was established, states stop celebrating Lincoln’s Birthday.

Martin Luther King’s Birthday was signed by Ronald Reagan in ’83, some 15 years after Washington’s Birthday was made a Monday holiday.  It was first celebrated in ’86 but not celebrated in all 50 states in until ’93.  So whoever they are, they sure took their sweet time about taking Abe’s day and giving it to Martin.  

Just so we are clear, I have absolutely no doubts that much of what I am today I owe to men like Martin Luther King. But I have always wondered if his birthday should have been made a U.S. holiday. I felt this way even when I was a liberal democrat! I didn’t feel that way because of his accomplishments, nor did I buy into all the character assassination and talk about his womanizing and illicit affairs. I just wasn’t sure if the majority of Americans identify with his life enough to say he deserved his own holiday. It was 10 years after it became a holiday before all fifty states embraced it (remember the flak the Governor of Arizona caught because of it?) So I guess I have my answer.  Anyway that’s just my take on it.  Happy Washington’s Birthday!

Linky Business
Pirates! Man Your Women! Open Trackback Day!
Right Wing Nation Monday Open Trackbacks
third world county Monday Open Post
Technorati tag: Holiday Opinion   President's Day