I have been asked to rate who the ten worst Presidents are, following up on the ten worst Senators this country has had to endure, so here goes! 🙂
I will simply list and explain who I think are the ten worst, but without actually putting them in numbered order as the differences among them are not major ones, making it easier to list them in chronological order. It is clear that at least one of every four Presidents has been a mediocrity, and in some cases, really harmed the country with their poor leadership.
So I will list the Presidents chronologically, and I will not rate the two Presidents who served less than one year–William Henry Harrison (one month) and James Garfield (six months)–as that would be unfair, since they had almost no impact on the office of the Presidency.
So actually, not counting them, we have had 40 other Presidents to this moment, not counting Barack Obama, of course.
First chronologically would be Zachary Taylor (1849-50), who had the third shortest Presidency and failed to demonstrate in his brief time in office any leadership regarding the upcoming debates and vote on the Compromise of 1850, although it is believed he would have vetoed the compromise, which likely would have led to the Civil War a decade earlier, at a time when the North was not as strong economically and in railroad development, to have fought a successful war. As it was, when the war came, it took four long years for the North to triumph, so had Taylor survived, it is likely that the Union would NOT have been preserved.
His successor, Millard Fillmore (1850-53), by signing the Compromise of 1850, did delay the Civil War, but was seen as caving in to slave interests in the South, and generally, therefore, comes across as a weak President.
His successor, Franklin Pierce (1853-1857), signed the Kansas Nebraska Act, which set into play destructive forces that caused a civil war in Kansas and changed the entire party system in America, and he is blamed for having catered to southern interests, therefore helping to bring about the Civil War by his signs of weakness.
His successor, James Buchanan (1857-1861), is often considered the worst President of all, and there is a lot of validity to that, as he continued to pursue an appeasement of the South, and his administration left a crisis of massive proportions over US military forts in southern states, helping to lead to the outbreak of war shortly after Abraham Lincoln became President in 1861.
So four presidents in a row, the four before Lincoln and the Civil War, certainly can be seen as weak and ineffective, and only make Lincoln stand out more as, without much doubt, being the best American President.
Immediately after Lincoln, we will see two other Presidents who would fit on the list of ten worst, plus one other later on in the Gilded Age, making it seven of the ten worst Presidents before the 20th century.
Andrew Johnson (1865-69), who succeeded the assassinated Lincoln, proceeded to divide Congress by his actions and words and faced impeachment, although he was fortunately found not guilty.
Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77) was, of course, the famous Civil War general who won the war and was able to gain the surrender of Robert E. Lee, the best general on the Confederate side, and arguably the best general on either side of the Civil War. Despite his war record, Grant proceeded to preside over widespread corruption and scandal, face an economic depression, and drink heavily, so that often he was not aware of what his appointees were doing in his name.
Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893), the grandson of the one month President William Henry Harrison, presided over the peak of the Gilded Age with its emphasis on the growth of corporate monopoly and conservative dominance politically, and the Panic of 1893 soon ensued.
In the 20th century, two Presidents in the 1920s would become numbers 8 and 9 on the list of worst President historically.
Warren G. Harding (1921-23) presided over the worst scandals since Grant, and while he had some good cabinet officers, little is remembered of his administration beyond the Teapot Dome scandals and the love affairs he had in the White House.
Calvin Coolidge (1923-29) was Harding’s successor, and while certainly improved over Harding, is still seen as a President who tried to restore the Gilded Age conservative tradition of promoting corporate monopoly, and failed to consider the needs of farmers and workers. It is often said that his economic policies helped to lead to the Great Depression that began in 1929.
Ok, we have covered nine of the worst Presidents, and finally it is time for Number Ten, again not ranked but simply on the list.
Probably no surprise to anyone, I would put George W. Bush (2001-2009) as the last on this undistinguished list. While we cannot, certainly, be sure of his future reputation and ranking, the fact that Bush presided over the failure of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Hurricane Katrina, and the economic collapse that led to the Great Recession we are now suffering through, plus his use of torture techniques against those held in the war on terrorism, and other abuses of civil liberties, qualifies him to be on this list. Whether as some say he is the absolute worst of all Presidents is subject to vigorous debate, without any conclusive answer at this time.
Notice who is NOT on this list of the ten worst Presidents. John Tyler (1841-45), the first President to succeed from the Vice Presidency during a term, avoids the list by his courageous assertion of Presidential power upon taking office, despite limited success.
Herbert Hoover (1929-33), despite presiding over the Great Depression, avoids the bottom ten because of late actions he took in 1932 to try to ameliorate the economic collapse that he believed was turning around when it had not done so.
Richard Nixon (1969-74), despite Watergate, had redeeming virtues in his foreign and domestic policy that save him from this list.
Jimmy Carter (1977-81), despite the Iran crisis and economic troubles, also escapes because of other actions in foreign and domestic policy that make him avoid the bottom ten list.
So this is how I would assess who the ten worst Presidents are. If I was asked to pick the bottom five of the ten, I would list in chronological order the following–Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, and Warren G. Harding.
So at this point, George W. Bush would avoid the bottom five in my estimation, but of course, over time, with research and reflection by many historians and other scholars and journalists, he might very well be placed in the bottom five. Only time will tell! 🙂
Again, I invite discussion and debate about my rankings! 🙂
I think Carter avoids this list for many more reasons.
Carter has worked internationally for the disenfranchised, fighting hunger and poverty through a variety of non-profit organizations. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his years of humanitarian work.
Carter negotiated the peace treaty between Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat and Israeli Premier Menachem Begin. The treaty is known as the Camp David Accords for the presidential retreat where the trio negotiated for 13 days before reaching the agreement. Sadat and Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize…For many years Carter taught Sunday school at the Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Georgia.
While many have “talked” a great game in the middle east I am hard pressed to recall any president (maybe Clinton?) who was able to bring these countries to the table. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
Richard Nixon: while hated by many and often remembered for just his foreign policy…. I was astonished to read (in a wonderful 60’s history class last semester) just how many domestic programs Nixon supported/ created. Including:
Baseball teams visitng the Whitehouse (ongoing)
ERA (women’s rights)
Affirmative Action
Earth Day
the E.P.A
the Consumer Product Saftey Com.
OSHA
DEA
NOAA
Supp. Social Security (SSI)
Changes to the US Postal Service
Cost of Living Adjustments
Ended the draft
Amtrak (from Wash. to Boston)
Also, He appointed 4 new Sup. Court Justices
1)Warren Burger (a Moderate)
2)Louis Powell (a moderate)
3)Henry Blackmun (Presided over Rowe vs. Wade 1973)
4)William Rhenquist (a conservative) – who later becam Chief Justice (1986) and recently died (2005) – He was one of the longest serving justices.
Nixon, in my mind, is still a crook. But, we can’t debate the good that came out of his foreign AND Domestic policy.
Carter, I feel was misunderstood but whose life work should have him avoid the “10 Worst list” and possibly, on a good day, put him somewhere on the “best President’s” list.
I would welcome any thoughts. 🙂
I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment of both Carter and Nixon. The reason I wrote about them is because there are many who say that they belong on the ten worst list, which I vehemently disagree with!
By the way, I am wondering who you took for that course on the 60s and where LOL 🙂
I actually took that course from you at Florida Atlantic University 🙂
Additionally, I feel there is another president who should be mentioned here…yes…I know many of us don’t want to admit it….but LBJ (based on achievements while in office) cannot be overlooked. I understand that Vietnam will plauge his memory forever. I am not sure he really understood the situation in SE Asia and simply was led by those military minds into escalating it. But if one can bring their mind to get beyond this point – and look at LBJ’s domestic record – I think we would all have to agree that his presidency may have impacted this country as much (or more) than any other. It should be noted that LBJ’s success was directly related to the sympathy the country had for the loss of JFK at the time. His policies and domestic plans (much of the time) were an extension of JFK’s. This greatly assisted him in making many of the changes he is credited with. Additionally, having been Senate majority leader (and very respected by his peers in that role)also assisted him a great deal.
His tenacity (coupled with bullying or buying or blackmailing or heart-to-heart talks on the “Johnson Couch”) worked to change the face of this country forever.
His domestic achievements include:
The Civil Rights Act (where he defeated an 82 day filibuster to pass)
Tax Cuts
The Voting Rights Act
War on Poverty
Model Cities Program
The Job Corps
Funding of Education
Medicare
Medicade
Envir. Protection Laws
Consumer Protection Laws
PBS
NPR
Supported the Endowment for the Arts
Supported the Endowment for Humanities
He created two new cabinet positions:
Housing and Urban Development (1965)
The Dept. of Transportation (1966)
He appointed two Supreme Court Justices:
Marshall & Fortis
There are few, if any, that have held office and have passed such widespread legislation. Not just BS programs either – I am talking major programs that have served to change the face of this great country.
Because of the magnitude of his accomplishments – and realizing that Vietnam was handed to him from JFK – and he never fully understood the powder-keg it could become – I would have to rate him (not in the top 10) but certainly somewhere in the top 20.
Thoughts?
You have done an excellent job in outlining LBJ’s accomplishments. I would never consider LBJ anywhere near the bottom. If anything, I think he has been underrated for too long because of Vietnam.
While Vietnam is his Achilles Heel, LBJ is rated Number 10 in the C Span poll in February, 2009, which I discuss in an entry for that month, and that pleases me greatly. In fact, though, I would rate him number eight, ahead of JFK and Eisenhower.
So I never mentioned LBJ in my entry, because no one, in their right mind, would put him near the bottom of the ratings!
It is curious, to say the least, that the first nine names were those occupying the presidency before 1930. This leads me to believe that there must be something peculiar either on with the criteria used to select the unfortunate characters or that the standards of the presidency were higher during the last three quarters of the 20th Century as opposed to the previous years. This probably a question for Dr. Feinman…
Eduardo, the Presidents since the Great Depression have faced massive problems, and while some were not as successful and accomplished as others, they all have avoided being in the bottom ten of our Presidents. But notice that Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter have often been thought of as candidates for the bottom ten. Only George W. Bush, I think, qualifies for the bottom ten, but even that is subject to change over time, as we move away from the emotions of the times he governed our nation. He might yet be redeemed, although I highly doubt it! 🙂
Professor,
I would rate him ahead of JFK and Eisenhower as well. While I think JFK may have accomplished some great things (or not, based on his senate stint)- he served only 1000 days and did, sadly, very little in that time. So, we will never know but I don’t think he should be escalated up the polls for this fact either.
I was unaware of the C-Span poll but it is good to see that others have recognized the magnitude of LBJ’s accomlishments – beyond, as mentioned, the huge error that was Vietnam.
Indeed. However, it is remarkable (not withstanding the pending historical judgment on HH, RN and JM) the fact that 90% of the “bad” prez´s on that list were in charge of the Administration before the Great Depression. On a further note, I´m under the impression that GWB´s name should head a new list of US Presidents with severe mental disorders. After all, no matter how badly- rated Johnson and Grant, and the rest of the Bad-Old-Boyz might be, no one deserve to stand trial next to Thy Beast.
Edward, as I think the progressive professor answered the first part of your question fully…I will focus on the second half.
I would agree with you. However, the caveat might be, and simply my opinion, that he (Bush) might be regarded – over time- as the absolute worst – by far – and that the damage his 8 years in office produced is so severe that later presidents (Obama being the first) may be more negatively viewed as a result. In short, Obama has a brass set of b@!!’s for even wanting to be president at this time. Bush has handed him (us) a quagmire composed of a failing economy, endless war on multiple fronts, a recession (finaly being called as such – could also be called a depression),growing civil unrest, high unemployment, loss of wealth not seen since the Great Depression, and has clearly done more harm than good in regards to the security of this country and the view the rest of the world has for America. This fact, in particular, may be years in repair as our relationships with the major economic powers around the world (Germany, France – hell, most of the EU, USSR, China, and N. Korea – not to mention the Middle East – is at its lowest ever. They hate us. They hate our wars. But, more importantly, in the EU they understand that they will surpass us not only economically but with quality of life, health-care, you name it. The EU – the next economic giant (beyond China) has set in place a system of alliances that eliminate any possibility of war, have brought people together with boarderless travel, and essentially have united Europe into a force that will emerge on top.
I also feel that Bush’s reign has cemented the decline of America. I realize this is a strong statement but under his “rule” there was so much non-regulation of wallstreet that we have yet to see the largest collapse of the housing market and will see the continue decline of the dollar. In the words of one economist, “You can’t stop this train…..it will go over the cliff. The best anyone can hope for is orderly decline.” Orderly decline? Like we will go sown with dignity? Eventually, the dollar will not be the reserve currency (countries like China and others are doing all they can to dump there US dollars now) and the end will come when they begin trading oil using the Euro.
As history has shown us….with the death of a currency….the death of a country is not far behind. But, this may be just what we need.
We need to pruge the scum from their posts across the board. While I believe in the fixtures of our government (the three pronged approach – legislative, judicial, and executive) – the system (in all areas) has been inundated with self serving men/women who have sold their souls (to cooporations or special interest groups) simply to get elected and stay there. The average citizen (you and I) are no longer represented. What’s more, Obama could have been the answer – but those surrounding him – and walking the halls of capital hill (with some exceptions) are self-serving a@% H@l$@ – so his true potential will never be known.
That said, in my opinion, Bush, along with the sleazy Dick Cheny, Paul wolfowitz, Et Al should all be in prison. Until the public demands (protests, boycotts, riots) that they are represented and not simply a life from which taxes are extracted – than this decline will continue. When the public wakes up…..if they ever do (which is probably hoping to much considering they slept through the patriot acts 1, 2, and 3 and the loss of civil-liberties for the better part of 8 years) than those men and women better flee quickly. If the average man realized how many times they had been screwed….there would be mayhem in the streets.
Your thoughts?
Eduardo, the issue of mental health is a major one, as a number of Presidents had mental issues.
Franklin Pierce (1853-57) was an alcoholic and was often depressed, primarily because of the death of one of his young sons shortly before the inauguration.
Abraham Lincoln (1861-65) definitely suffered from depression and melancholy, with the stresses of the Civil War, problems with his wife, and the loss of one of his sons during the Presidency due to illness.
Ulysses S Grant (1869-77) was also an alcoholic, and often seemed unaware of what was going on around him.
Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) had suffered mini strokes in earlier years before he suffered the massive stroke which incapacitated him in his last 18 months in office, and generally, he had a very stubborn streak, with unwillingness to negotiate with opponents.
Calvin Coolidge (1923-29) also suffered from depression, some of it triggered by the death of one of his sons during his time in office.
Richard Nixon (1969-74) certainly had major mental problems, including paranoia, with a sense of victimization, and a feeling that opponents were enemies. He probably was the most dangerous President in a mental sense that we have experienced.
Ronald Reagan (1981-89) often seemed lacking in alertness and awareness, and it is likely that he was suffering from Alzheimers in his second term, when his wife and some aides seemed to be often assisting him in communicating.
George W. Bush (2001-2009), a certifiable alcoholic as Grant and Pierce was, certainly can be seen as having mental issues, but I don’t think as serious ones as Nixon.
We also have Presidents who had real problems with anger and temper, including Andrew Jackson (1829-37), Andrew Johnson (1865-69), Harry Truman (1945-53), Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), and George HW Bush (1989-93).
Face the facts: the job of President is a highly stressful position, and I think we have to insist in the future on some kind of mental health testing, as well as a physical exam.
Tate, I agree with you that this country has major complications that create many insoluble issues in the short term.
Barack Obama is faced with the greatest series of crises since the Great Depression, and there tends to be impatience on the part of the public, which seems to expect miracles.
There are no easy answers, but certainly there is a need for major change of direction from the malaise of the Bush Administration, if there is to be any hope of real progress on important domestic and foreign policy issues.
Thank you gentlemen for your thoughts on the subjects at hand. Tate, its been a pleasure and I sympathize with your radical perceptions; Proff. I will quote you on my next week´s article and send you a copy.
By the way edward…I love the picture 🙂
They always say never waste your time arguing with an idiot, so I’m not sure
why I’m responding to your nonsense article (probably because the
hypocrisy is all beyond what I can take), but with regard to George Bush,
here’s a few responses:
Iraq War was a failure? Liberating 25 million people from a monster, his murderous
sons, and top thugs who murdered upwards of 1 million people (the real
number will never be known), and for kicks, would put people into industrial shredders
feet first, among other incredible atrocities; plus installing a new government, which
BTW is still in place, is all your idea of a ‘failure’, eh? I see. And liberals are the
humanitarians, right? Ha!
And before you blow your gasket over the ‘Bush lied’ and weapons of mass destruction
nonsense, please explain to me what those 90,000 Kurds were killed with,
and how Dr. Germ and Chemical Ali got those strange monikers. Also, Clinton, Shrillary,
Al Bore, Kerry, Levin, Kennedy, Pelosi, and many of your other Democrudic heroes all
said the WMD were there as well, and I HAVE the quotes.
Afghanistan was a failure? Once again, 25 million were liberated. So the Taliban and Al
Qaeda training camps should have stayed? We need clarification.
BTW, 18 months in office now, and Obama shows no signs of leaving
either place. Your comments?
Hurricane Katrina – For a delay of several days, you’ll never forgive him (What
about Nagin’s buses? We never hear a word from you people about that).
But for THREE MONTHS now, the oil has been leaking in the Gulf, and this alleged
“president” (Where’s the birth certificate?) has done nothing about it except try
to make it a political issue, and you have nothing to say. And I’ll add that
contrary to the incredible assertions of Bobby Kennedy, Jr., Bush did not create
and steer hurricanes.
The economic collapse was caused by Carter, Clinton, Frank, and other
Democruds that forced banks to give loans to people they knew could
NEVER pay them back. And this alleged “president’s” response of
quadrupling the debt sure hasn’t solved anything. It just raised
the unemployment rate to nearly 10%.
TORTURE techniques? Like cutting off heads? (Oops, sorry, THAT was OK,
for that was done by Muslims. The REAL horror was the panties on
heads, right?) Or was it the dreadful waterboarding? Too bad, but if it saved
American lives (which it did), then I could not care less that that harmless,
non-life threatening interrogation technique was used on a foreign terrorist
whose objective it was to kill us. You need to get Utopia out of your mind,
because unfortunately, the world is a tough place, and ‘Diversity sessions’
and ‘group hugs’ simply will not always cut it. There are times tougher
measures are necessary, and that was one of them.
But please tell me, in your brilliance, how would YOU have extracted
information from a terrorist? Be specific.
I agreed to post your comment because it had substantial issues included, but I don’t understand the necessity of personal attacks, and all it does is weaken your arguments!
Having said that, I point out to you that we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than in any wars in American history, and that the handling of both wars was botched by George W. Bush! Obama cannot just withdraw quickly, but his intention is to limit wars that have caused most of the national debt increase since 2001! And to start using the “birther” argument totally makes you lose credibility!
As far as extracting information from a terrorist, you seem to have forgotten that John McCain is the best person to ask about water boarding, and he has always made it clear that it does not work, and undermines our image as a nation that believes in civilized behavior!
I notice you have not commented on the other Presidents in the “Worst” list, and I guess that is because you do not have the knowledge to judge Presidents. However, I also wish to point out that a new Presidential rating list, out on July 1, the judgment of hundreds of scholars (the Siena Research Institute) rates George W. Bush as 39th out of 43 Presidents, fifth from the bottom, only above Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce (43rd to 40th)!
In other polls, Bush was rated 37th of 42 in 2008 by the London Times, and 36th of 42 by the 2009 C Span poll! Oh, and by the way, Obama, rated for the first time in the Siena poll mentioned above, was 15th! So you certainly have a right to your opinion, but the experts would disagree with you! All that I ask in response is that you avoid character assassination and personal attacks against me and those you don’t agree with, as it does not reflect well upon what you are arguing!
I’m not the least bit impressed by polls of the “experts†you cite – even less so by your use of that word. Let’s call them for what they are: Polls of liberal academics. I have to tell you, my idealistic friend, that there IS another world out there, one very different from the isolated campus . To place yourself in an ivory tower and look down on others does nothing to bolster your position, and I will not fall for that ploy. The “polls†you cite consistently place FDR – who created monumental problems for this country that extend to this very day – at the top of the heap. Up against that mindset, there’s really not much to be said.
Yes, we have been in Iraq and Afghanistan longer than any war in American history; I’m not arguing that point. But I will also add that the loss of life in those places (which is obviously unacceptable under any circumstances) is not NEARLY that which we experienced in WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. Indeed, there were battles in WWII in which we lost more men in ONE DAY than we did in all the time we’ve been in Iraq. Again, I am not saying that any of this is acceptable, but can we please put it in perspective? And as I recollect, Bush said from the beginning we would be involved there for the long haul. So I’m not sure what you point is.
The Left’s constant drumbeat of blaming George Bush for everything in sight, and at the same time giving Obama a pass, is beyond tiresome at this point – it now speaks of pure childishness. Please consider that the same game can be played against YOU, in that if George Bush is responsible for all poor Obama’s woes 18 months into Obama’s “presidencyâ€, then surely Bill Clinton was responsible for 9/11, which occurred just 7-8 months into George Bush’s term.
Arguing for what Obama’s “intentions†are is also very feeble. First of all, how do you REALLY know his “intentions� Unless you are in his office every day (But even then, how do you know for sure? Have you ever been betrayed by someone you’ve worked with?), I doubt you have any special insights into his intentions.
Secondly, what are you saying when you point out his intentions? That Bush’s intentions were different? What were they? To make money for Halliburton and the oil industry (Precisely how much money did they make)? Or was it to avenge Saddam Hussein’s attempts to kill his father? These ideas sound so absurd, but it is the kind of crap that we had been hearing for all those years of the Bush presidency.
Third, intentions are irrelevant when you look at the outcomes, and I have to tell you that in spite of all his well-delivered teleprompter-led talk, Obama’s policies in Southwest Asia really are not that different from George Bush’s, especially when we consider that he just selected General Petraeus to carry them out. Don’t listen to what they say – look at what they do. And I remind you that Obama has not even closed GITMO, nor will he ever do so (trust me on that one).
I did not ask you what John McCain said about water boarding. I could not care less about what John McCain thinks, whom I regard a terrific serviceman and a terrible Senator, all rolled in one. I asked you a specific question: How would YOU extract information from a terrorist whose “intention†(and here, I will AGREE that we can accurately gauge intentions) it is to kill us? Surely, an “expert†like you can easily answer a such a straight-forward question posed by a simpleton “birther†like me.
You don’t “understand the necessity of personal attacksâ€, and yet you not-so-subtly imply that I lack “the knowledge to judge Presidentsâ€. Gee, thanks a lot. Yes, I CAN comment on other Presidents (indeed, I just did briefly) but my issue is with the dreadful, hypocritical manner in which those on the left have treated George Bush, and which you even highlight in your article. I will add that calling me a “birther†does not provide evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii. Obviously, the man is hiding something.
Three laws firms hired at $1 million (at least that’s the rumor) proves it.
I thank you for your comments, and I wish you to know that I do not doubt your intelligence and knowledge at all, but it is clear to me that you and I will have to simply agree to disagree, as since I am an author of a book on the NEW DEAL years of FDR, I cannot, of course, accept your condemnation of him!
The fact that you and I can have this discussion and see things differently is part of the greatness of America, and I applaud your impassioned beliefs!
I also wish to point out that I do not, personally, believe that George W. Bush should be rated number 39 out of 43 as in the Siena poll. I would rate him 34 out of 43 (tenth from the bottom) as I did in the entry above, and I admit that as time goes by, he will likely move up in the ratings, just as Richard Nixon has in many polls. Time tends to be kind to Presidents who are rated low when they leave office–Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson are other such examples!
I have no doubt that in thirty years or less, Bush II will be seen in a less emotional perspective than he is seen now! Again, thanks for your contributions!
OK, thank you for the kind words, and I did not mean to get personal
myself, although it does hurt to see the way George Bush, who, like FDR,
liberated so many people, was pilloried in the manner that he has. I would
never say the man was perfect, for he surely was not. He took a number
of positions I did not like – immigration being the chief one, but also some
apparent mistakes in prosecuting the war. Yet in the end, I still believe he
did the right thing, ‘expert poll’ results notwithstanding.
I had hoped you would have answered my question regarding torture,
but it is evident to me that that will not happen. Nevertheless, thank you
for the honest discourse.:)
Daniel 7:8-13 is a vision of about two decades that represents Obama’s rise to power and the nation he comes from. It is about his political career in the United States, while Revelation 13 is a 42 month prophecy on his “world†control or something else. It is starting to take shape, but it will not be fully known until it comes into play. Gabrielle Giffords retired which will free her in fulfilling her role in Revelation 13 as the head wound that healed.
The Bible prophecy scholars wrote books explaining what you should see based on their interpretation of events. They missed Obama taking three people from his first run for office. David Jackson and Ray Long, Tribune reporters wrote http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-070403obama-ballot-archive,0,5297304,full.story on April 3, 2007, of this event. Because people believed others on how prophecy should be, they have missed this event. One more thing, the Almighty thinks the world of George Bush. Make no mistake about this. If you listen to a liberal, then you agree with the liberal in imposing your views on others. George Bush did not do any of this. Find me a video on where he intimidated Cindy Sheehan, or any other person who disagreed with him.
A liberal gets their morality from themselves and those who agree with them. A child of God gets their morality from God. If you get your morals from this guy and believe his view of the worst Presidents, you will be a part of the world religion he is a part of called “Collectivism.†Individualism is the opposite of this. They do not put their values above others, and they do what they are obligated to do?
What should have George Bush done? Let the Muslims (Collectivist religion) impose their views on the rest of us? Get real!
I think you are right on, with the exception of Bush. He is bad-but not as bad as Andrew Jackson, who ignored the Supreme Court, Congress and the will of the people to illegally displace the Cherokee nation. He also began a series of illegal Federal activities that enriched his cronies in Tennessee and Georgia. His foreign policy and ambassador appointments made the US the laughingstock of the world. Finally, he misused the US Army to kill US citizens.