Best President

[green73]

JFK also cuts taxes on businessmen.

What you do is more important than what you say.

Like how he threw the whole weight of the federal government at the steel companies after they raised their prices? Including, Bobby going after their execs with bogus investigations?

 

[Ender]

He was killed because he wanted peace.

JFK was killed just a few months after he signed EO 11110

President Kennedy, The Fed And Executive Order 11110

Executive Order 1110 gave the US the ability to create its own money backed by silver. ...
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificats were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the gevernment the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

After Mr. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued. The Final Call has learned that the Executive Order was never repealed by any U.S. President through an Executive Order and is still valid. Why then has no president utilized it? Virtually all of the nearly $6 trillion in debt has been created since 1963, and if a U.S. president had utilized Executive Order 11110 the debt would be nowhere near the current level. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to future presidents who would think to eliminate the U.S. debt by eliminating the Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. Mr. Kennedy challenged the government of money by challenging the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt - war and the creation of money by a privately-owned central bank. His efforts to have all troops out of Vietnam by 1965 and Executive Order 11110 would have severely cut into the profits and control of the New York banking establishment.

http://rense.com/general44/exec.htm

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Like how he threw the whole weight of the federal government at the steel companies after they raised their prices? Including, Bobby going after their execs with bogus investigations?

No, JFK used personal persuasion with the steel companies. That's what a libertarian is supposed to do. He did not use the force of government.

 

[green73]

No, JFK used personal persuasion with the steel companies. That's what a libertarian is supposed to do. He did not use the force of government.

Whatever.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Whatever.

Tell me what force of government JFK used? Be specific.

 

[TaftFan]

THE JFK MYTH
Was he assassinated because he opposed the Fed?
© 2000 by G. Edward Griffin - Updated 2006 December 13

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth

 

[dillo]

JFK also made AIPAC register as a foreign government which would have made them unable to legally contribute to political campaigns. He also pissed off the CIA, Powerful Mafia bosses, Powerful Union Reps, the Military Industrial Complex and im sure many others.

I generally assume that any president that was killed by corrupt powers was clearly doing something right, although he definitely wasn't perfect.

 

[TaftFan]

JFK also made AIPAC register as a foreign government which would have made them unable to legally contribute to political campaigns. He also pissed off the CIA, Powerful Mafia bosses, Powerful Union Reps, the Military Industrial Complex and im sure many others.

I generally assume that any president that was killed by corrupt powers was clearly doing something right, although he definitely wasn't perfect.

Source?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

THE JFK MYTH
Was he assassinated because he opposed the Fed?
© 2000 by G. Edward Griffin - Updated 2006 December 13

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth

There are many reasons JFK was killed. The Fed is just one of many. I'd be wary of any title like what you put forward. Its common knowledge that Vietnam was a big reason why JFK had to go.

 

[TaftFan]

There are many reasons JFK was killed. The Fed is just one of many. I'd be wary of any title like what you put forward. Its common knowledge that Vietnam was a big reason why JFK had to go.

Are you familiar with G. Edward Griffin?

Or Tom Woods? http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/was-jfk-assassinated-because-he-opposed-the-fed/

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Are you familiar with G. Edward Griffin?

Or Tom Woods? http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/was-jfk-assassinated-because-he-opposed-the-fed/

Yes, they have some good points. But they also fail in many cases. Have you ever read Woods book on Galileo? Its is filled with establishment bs and pro-state apologies. It is obvious that Woods has never read any of my books or letters.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

OMG. Harrison is obviously the best. He died before he could do any damage.

FTW!!!

 

[wormyguy]

What was Rothbard's issue with Tyler?

Cleveland was also rock solid other than the road building, but as I said, even some libertarians are in favor of government doing that. Roads aren't really that big a deal in the grand scheme of things.

Tyler helped to provoke the Mexican-American War (and by extension the Civil War) by agitating for the annexation of Texas. Also, Rothbard thought he might've had William Henry Harrison killed. His biggest issue with Cleveland was the Interstate Commerce Commission (and a libertarian can think of others; the income tax, nearly provoking a war with Britain over Venezuela, sending the army to break the Pullman strike, etc.).

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Why JFK sucked. [video=youtube;CX9FbsvJfd4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CX9FbsvJfd4[/video] (this guy's vids give me giggles. )

 

[TaftFan]

Yes, they have some good points. But they also fail in many cases. Have you ever read Woods book on Galileo? Its is filled with establishment bs and pro-state apologies. It is obvious that Woods has never read any of my books or letters.

Which book is that? And Woods is an anarchist.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Which book is that? And Woods is an anarchist.

The one on the Catholic Church.

 

[dillo]

Source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Zionist_Council

 

[Aratus]

i voted for w.g harding but perhaps
i should have voted for j. monroe...

 

[MaxPower]

I don't see obama on the list. Did you forget him or leave him off on purpose? I did not vote in the poll. I think serious flaws could be found in each of their presidencies. Some more than others, which is why i understand the ranking. I would like to see a poll for the worst. wilson & fdr are good choices, but there are so many bad ones. Threads like this are moments i wish some of the banned and missing were here. You all know Travylr would have something to say.

I've been waiting for his presidency to play out before adding him to the list. Since he has now "served" for more than a full term, I suppose I could put him in. If I did so, rest assured he would be near the bottom-- around 40th.

 

[MaxPower]

I'd love to see the whole thing but I definitely have a few specific questions.

Why is elder Bush so low? Granted, I know he sucked, but I don't see how you can put him in the same ballpark as Lincoln. Let alone worse. Heck, I don't even know if younger Bush really reached the level of tyranny that occurred under Lincoln. Mind you: I get that modern Presidents have more technology, and therefore it may well be "worse" to be around now, but tech also goes both ways, I don't really think you can factor that in. The bottom line, at least Obama and Bush are incompetent tyrants. I absolutely quake in fear at the thought of another Lincoln.

Bush I launched the undeclared, unconstitutional Gulf War, loudly promised "no new taxes" in his 1988 campaign and then did an about-face in office, increased gun control, increased the national debt, etc. He was pretty roundly bad from a libertarian perspective.

On the subject of Lincoln, I am going to say something controversial on these forums: he did some good. Even though he had previously sometimes acted in ways that insulated slavery (as he prioritized "maintaining the Union" over fighting slavery) Lincoln was instrumental in the creation and passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished it, and began to publicly push for more legal recognition for blacks shortly before he was assassinated. Although he was undeniably ruthless and tyrannical in his prosecution of the Civil War, I do think he genuinely believed that his policies were only temporary "war measures" to be rescinded at the conflict's (well-defined, unlike certain more recent conflicts) conclusion; he actually was returning his usurped powers at the end of the war. After the South surrendered, he pardoned the entire Confederate army-- and before you scoff at this fact, understand that at that time, it would have been seen as perfectly normal and acceptable under the historical laws of war for him to have every prominent Confederate he could get his proverbial hands on lined up against a wall and shot. Frankly, I think many other presidents would have done even worse than Lincoln did in the same position-- Andrew Jackson, for example, who was shamelessly authoritarian in his use of the presidency, who seriously threatened to send the army to fight an attempted nullification in South Carolina, and who was a famously brutal and merciless operator, would probably not have shown even the limited grace Lincoln did. FDR might just about have taken the opportunity to outright declare himself Lord and King for life. Nearly all presidents, Lincoln not least, have been statists, and for a statist, an attempt to dissolve the Union amounts to the ultimate treachery and justifies virtually any action in combating it; if anything, Lincoln was more restrained and merciful, when he saw the opportunity to be, than many statists would have been.

Now, none of this changes the fact that he utterly desecrated the Constitution, violated the principles of liberty in a multitude of ways, and deliberately sanctioned war crimes against Southern prisoners and civilians-- hence the fact that he appears well toward the lower end of my list-- but he was not pure evil, and I do believe he had more going for him than a few of his peers in the history of the presidency.

Also, I feel like Wilson was worse than FDR. I get that there are some valid questions to be asked about World War II, but that war was at least arguably justified.

The war may have been justified, but FDR was certainly not justified in campaigning on the assertion that "Your boys will not be going off to fight in any foreign wars," all the while fully intending to send them off to do just that, and then, after winning reelection, seemingly deliberately baiting Japan into launching the Pearl Harbor attack so that he would have an excuse the public would buy.

And FDR didn't arrest his critics like Wilson.

He didn't arrest his critics, but he did have 110,000 Japanese-Americans, many of whom were small children and/or fully-Americanized individuals with absolutely no ties to Japan aside from biological heritage, incarcerated, stripped of their jobs, possessions, and personal freedom, and sent to internment camps for indefinite detention without suspicion or accusation of any crime.

So even though I do feel like FDR was a tyrant, I'd rank him one spot above Wilson, who I'd put at the bottom.

Keeping in mind the crimes I have already described, let us not forget FDR's illegal mass-confiscation of private citizens' and businesses' gold, underhanded bullying of the Supreme Court into accepting his unconstitutional, authoritarian, and economically-destructive New Deal policies (which prolonged the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in history), saddling the country with the financial-nightmare-to-be that was Social Security, turning back shiploads of European Jews fleeing the Holocaust, helping to mastermind and participating in the Dresden firebombing, which killed even more civilians than the Hiroshima strike, flaunting Washington's two-term precedent to give us four terms of his brutal, tyrannical "governance"... the list goes on. I say he was the worst.

Why is John Tyler so low? And why the heck is Cleveland higher than him?

He isn't exactly "low," but he isn't higher primarily because he pushed for the imperialistic annexation of Texas. He was also pretty pro-slavery, and signed a significant tariff increase. Cleveland, by contrast, honorably opposed and temporarily thwarted the US annexation of Hawaii, and fought attempted tariff increases. Cleveland was a true constitutionalist, a man of remarkable integrity and courage, reliably stood up for his principles in office (note his issuance of more vetoes than all preceding presidents combined, many of which were of pork-barrel spending and otherwise unlibertarian, authoritarian, and "progressive" measures). He has the most consistently pro-liberty and pro-peace record of any U.S. president.

The roads was a relatively minor thing, but I still think its enough to knock him out of the top spot when you've got Tyler or Van Buren...

"The roads"? Do you mean the Interstate Commerce Commission? If so, Cleveland did not (contrary to the "Why Cleveland Sucked" video someone posted in this thread) "make" the ICC; rather, he simply failed to veto it-- one of the few bad policies that made it past him-- likely because it stayed more or less within the bounds of the interstate commerce clause in its original form, though it subsequently ballooned into something significantly worse.