Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wilson's regime set the stage for the mess we have today.Liberoidals have bastardized that and the interstate commerce clause to basically claim federal jurisdiction over anything and everything.
It is because they have destroyed Federalism, that is, the power of the states to govern themselves. Here is logic progressives used at the beginning of the 20th century to erradicate the power of the states. Woodrow Wison wrote,
"The old theory of the sovereignty of the states, which used to engage our passions, has lost its vitality. The war between the states established at least this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers. Furthermore, we are impatient of state legislatures because they seem to us less representative of the thoughtful opinion of the country Congress is. We know that our legislatures do not think alike, but we are not sure that our people do not think alike."
From the perspective of a progressive like Wilson, the Civil War proved that state sovereignty was a failure. However, what if the federal government at that time was like it is today and dominated state rights? Furthermore, what if that federal government had sided with the slave owners?
And lastly, with an approval rating of around 10% for the Congress of the United States, can we safely say that Wilson's notion of a federal Congress better representing the populace better than a state legislature is full of poo?
He's easily one of the top three worst presidents of all time.
Wilson's regime set the stage for the mess we have today.It is because they have destroyed Federalism, that is, the power of the states to govern themselves. Here is logic progressives used at the beginning of the 20th century to erradicate the power of the states. Woodrow Wison wrote,
"The old theory of the sovereignty of the states, which used to engage our passions, has lost its vitality. The war between the states established at least this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers. Furthermore, we are impatient of state legislatures because they seem to us less representative of the thoughtful opinion of the country Congress is. We know that our legislatures do not think alike, but we are not sure that our people do not think alike."
From the perspective of a progressive like Wilson, the Civil War proved that state sovereignty was a failure. However, what if the federal government at that time was like it is today and dominated state rights? Furthermore, what if that federal government had sided with the slave owners?
And lastly, with an approval rating of around 10% for the Congress of the United States, can we safely say that Wilson's notion of a federal Congress better representing the populace better than a state legislature is full of poo?
He's easily one of the top three worst presidents of all time.
Actually, it was Mr Lincoln that first destroyed states rights and set into motion the all powerful federal government.
Mr Wilson may be in the top three. But Mt Lincoln is number one when it comes to trampling states rights in favor of an all powerful federal government.
some dude said:So here is my list of the worst five:
1) Abraham Lincoln - While Lincoln is revered by so many, he did great damage to the country. *He supposedly ended slavery, but that was just an effect of his war. *Slavery would have come to an end anyway, and it could have been done peacefully. *Lincoln waged a massive war, which killed over half a million people. *That is when the country was much smaller. *It was easily the deadliest war in American history, at least for Americans. *It severely diminished states' rights and centralized the national government. *His policies definitely had a lasting effect that we are still paying for today. *He was really a brutal dictator in many ways. *He killed and imprisoned those who disagreed with him. *I am glad to say that it is highly unlikely that any president today could get away with the things that Lincoln did to his fellow Americans.
2) Woodrow Wilson - He presided over the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment. *These three things all happened in his first year of office. *In 1913, we got the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax, and the direct election of senators (another killer of states' rights). *This alone would have been enough to put him in the top five. *On top of it, he put America into World War I and instituted a draft, much like Lincoln. *With American entry into World War I, it set the stage for the spread of fascism, World War II, and eventually the cold war. *Wilson was awful on all accounts, foreign and domestic.
3) Franklin Roosevelt - Roosevelt was horrible on economics. *He instituted his "New Deal", which gave us Social Security. *He continued the Great Depression by not allowing the free market to work. *He really began the massive welfare state in America. *While Roosevelt is looked on highly by many for his leadership in World War II, I beg to differ. *He provoked the Japanese into attacking America by imposing oil embargoes and other restrictions. *There is even a good chance that he knew the attack was going to happen at Pearl Harbor and did not warn anyone. *This really makes him a mass murderer. *He may as well be since he loved his "Uncle Joe" Stalin so much. *As a libertarian, there is one positive thing that Roosevelt did during his reign in office. *He ended alcohol prohibition. *This was a great thing for liberty and the violent crime went way down, even in the midst of the depression.
4) Lyndon Johnson - It would not surprise me if Johnson had a hand in the assassination of JFK. *It turns out that Jackie thought that. *Johnson, of course, was a war president. *He is responsible for the deaths of millions of Vietnamese, along with many others. *While America was already involved in Vietnam when Johnson became president, he is the one who lied Americans into war and really started the violence. *On the domestic front, Johnson gave us his "Great Society" that was anything but great. *He started up Medicare and Medicaid and began his "war on poverty". *He was really a disaster in every way.
5) Harry Truman - Truman belongs on this list because he used two atomic bombs, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. *It was not necessary to end the war. *The Japanese were already willing to surrender. *For this alone, Truman belongs on this list. *He also presided over most of the Korean War. *On economic issues, Truman was also bad. *The one good thing that he did was that he didn't do anything at the end of the world war. *Due to his lack of action, the economy was finally able to recover for the first time since the 1920's.
There are certainly a whole bunch of other presidents who were horrendous. *You can go back to Washington (the Whiskey Rebellion) and Adams (the Alien and Sedition Acts). *You can include the other Roosevelt. *You can include Obama and the younger Bush. *But really, almost every president of the last hundred years was a total disaster. *It's just that some were worse than others. *For the top five worst though, they definitely all need to be war presidents.
It is no coincidence that all of these war presidents were also horrible on economic issues. *The two things are related. *A statist politician believes in big government in all arenas. *What is scary though is that most historians regard many on my worst five as the best.
So.. Yeah... GWB/Obama tie for 6
some dude said:So here is my list of the worst five:
1) Abraham Lincoln - While Lincoln is revered by so many, he did great damage to the country. *He supposedly ended slavery, but that was just an effect of his war. *Slavery would have come to an end anyway, and it could have been done peacefully. *Lincoln waged a massive war, which killed over half a million people. *That is when the country was much smaller. *It was easily the deadliest war in American history, at least for Americans. *It severely diminished states' rights and centralized the national government. *His policies definitely had a lasting effect that we are still paying for today. *He was really a brutal dictator in many ways. *He killed and imprisoned those who disagreed with him. *I am glad to say that it is highly unlikely that any president today could get away with the things that Lincoln did to his fellow Americans.
2) Woodrow Wilson - He presided over the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment. *These three things all happened in his first year of office. *In 1913, we got the Federal Reserve, the federal income tax, and the direct election of senators (another killer of states' rights). *This alone would have been enough to put him in the top five. *On top of it, he put America into World War I and instituted a draft, much like Lincoln. *With American entry into World War I, it set the stage for the spread of fascism, World War II, and eventually the cold war. *Wilson was awful on all accounts, foreign and domestic.
3) Franklin Roosevelt - Roosevelt was horrible on economics. *He instituted his "New Deal", which gave us Social Security. *He continued the Great Depression by not allowing the free market to work. *He really began the massive welfare state in America. *While Roosevelt is looked on highly by many for his leadership in World War II, I beg to differ. *He provoked the Japanese into attacking America by imposing oil embargoes and other restrictions. *There is even a good chance that he knew the attack was going to happen at Pearl Harbor and did not warn anyone. *This really makes him a mass murderer. *He may as well be since he loved his "Uncle Joe" Stalin so much. *As a libertarian, there is one positive thing that Roosevelt did during his reign in office. *He ended alcohol prohibition. *This was a great thing for liberty and the violent crime went way down, even in the midst of the depression.
4) Lyndon Johnson - It would not surprise me if Johnson had a hand in the assassination of JFK. *It turns out that Jackie thought that. *Johnson, of course, was a war president. *He is responsible for the deaths of millions of Vietnamese, along with many others. *While America was already involved in Vietnam when Johnson became president, he is the one who lied Americans into war and really started the violence. *On the domestic front, Johnson gave us his "Great Society" that was anything but great. *He started up Medicare and Medicaid and began his "war on poverty". *He was really a disaster in every way.
5) Harry Truman - Truman belongs on this list because he used two atomic bombs, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians. *It was not necessary to end the war. *The Japanese were already willing to surrender. *For this alone, Truman belongs on this list. *He also presided over most of the Korean War. *On economic issues, Truman was also bad. *The one good thing that he did was that he didn't do anything at the end of the world war. *Due to his lack of action, the economy was finally able to recover for the first time since the 1920's.
There are certainly a whole bunch of other presidents who were horrendous. *You can go back to Washington (the Whiskey Rebellion) and Adams (the Alien and Sedition Acts). *You can include the other Roosevelt. *You can include Obama and the younger Bush. *But really, almost every president of the last hundred years was a total disaster. *It's just that some were worse than others. *For the top five worst though, they definitely all need to be war presidents.
It is no coincidence that all of these war presidents were also horrible on economic issues. *The two things are related. *A statist politician believes in big government in all arenas. *What is scary though is that most historians regard many on my worst five as the best.
Kinda sad that one of the worst is better than what we've got now.Wilson's regime set the stage for the mess we have today.
He's easily one of the top three worst presidents of all time.
Actually, it was Mr Lincoln that first destroyed states rights and set into motion the all powerful federal government.
Mr Wilson may be in the top three. But Mt Lincoln is number one when it comes to trampling states rights in favor of an all powerful federal government.
Very true, which is why many regard Licoln as a terrible president. I can't say I can argue, but at the same time, I can't say I blame his response after such a terrible war. What can I say, he screwed up like we all do from time to time.
Having said that, we can never forget him for helping to end slavery. Also, one quote of his always comes to mind every time I see these progressives drag us into wars like in Libya or Iraq etc.
"Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was in the object."
Considering his faults, he certainly was a much better leader than what we have today.
Why is it that libtards argue against truth with stupidity that has nothing to do with the subject? As usual, libtards get the constitution wrong.From my uderstanding, progressives, both Democrat and Republican alike, use the General Welfare Clause of the Contitution to give the nanny state legitimacy. They interpret it to say that Congress has the power to tend to the general welfare of the public at large, so any taxpayer money spent to that end is legitimate.
However, have they ever read the writings of the Father of the Constitution who is James Madison? He wrote about the General Welfare Clause because he wrote it himself, and this was what he said about it.
"If Congress can supply money indefinately to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the welfare, they may appoint teachers in every state, country, and parish and pay them out of their public treasury, they may take into their own hands the education of the children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision of the poor, they ma undertake the regulations of all roads other than post-roads; in short, everything from the highest objects of state legislation down to the minute objects of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress......were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundation, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America."
After reading what the author had to say about the General Welfare Clause, how can progressives falsely interpret it to defend the nanny state? I would have more respect for them had they just disagreed with the Constitution and tried to amed it.
This country and every other modern industrial country with high literacy rates and low mortality rates has provided for the general welfare through taxation. How would schools, roads, education, police and fire protection etc. be paid for otherwise?
So maybe this was Madison's thinking at that time. He also didn't object to slavery and to having only propertied white males allowed to vote.
When you come to it, the far lefties and the TeaPs and the libertarians are psycho-babbling are coming to an end on Tuesday in terms of any influence in the future. The center right/left right are going to come together, or this country is going to be even worse than it is now because of their screw ups.
Kinda sad that one of the worst is better than what we've got now.Actually, it was Mr Lincoln that first destroyed states rights and set into motion the all powerful federal government.
Mr Wilson may be in the top three. But Mt Lincoln is number one when it comes to trampling states rights in favor of an all powerful federal government.
Very true, which is why many regard Licoln as a terrible president. I can't say I can argue, but at the same time, I can't say I blame his response after such a terrible war. What can I say, he screwed up like we all do from time to time.
Having said that, we can never forget him for helping to end slavery. Also, one quote of his always comes to mind every time I see these progressives drag us into wars like in Libya or Iraq etc.
"Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was in the object."
Considering his faults, he certainly was a much better leader than what we have today.
Who knows, maybe over time, some other president will be worse than Mr Obama, then he won't have to carry that title for the rest of eternity.
Left wing moonbats like Jake think the GWC guarantees them everything from free weed to free housing.
But that's the thing - when read comprehension is applied properly - there really is nothing "vague" about it. This article articulates it far better than I could (but yet in simple enough terms that even a liberal with an adult in the room would be able to understand it)....I could pull up several quotes from our founders on this clause. All of them warning that if it was interpreted to mean the Government can do anything in the name of "the General Welfare" that it's so unlimited a power as to threaten our Republic.
I have to agree. The Left basically argues that anything, anything at all can be done by the Fed Government under this incredibly general and Vague Clause.
So, "to provide for the general Welfare" is actually a restriction on government, not a broad permission.
But that's the thing - when read comprehension is applied properly - there really is nothing "vague" about it. This article articulates it far better than I could (but yet in simple enough terms that even a liberal with an adult in the room would be able to understand it)....I could pull up several quotes from our founders on this clause. All of them warning that if it was interpreted to mean the Government can do anything in the name of "the General Welfare" that it's so unlimited a power as to threaten our Republic.
I have to agree. The Left basically argues that anything, anything at all can be done by the Fed Government under this incredibly general and Vague Clause.
X-Patriot (Constitutional Writes) | General-Welfare-Clause
The term "Welfare" appears twice in the Constitution, and it's always paired with "General".
The first time, is in the Preamble. The Preamble merely lays out the goals the people had when writing the Constitution. It has no force of law.
The second time is in Article 1, Section 8, which does have the force of law.
In full, that part of the Constitution says:
Article 1, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
"To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
"To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization...."
It's difficult, and sometimes unwise, to take pieces out of context. And that's been done wrong, more times than can be counted, for this particular Clause. Here's an attempt to do it right:
"Congress shall have the Power To collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States [and for other listed purposes]...."
People often leave out the collect-taxes part, and claim simply that "Congress can provide for the general Welfare". They then decide that "general Welfare" means anything that helps people, in any way. This is very convenient for those who want to expand government control, since the number of things that can help people, is almost unlimited.
They couldn't be more wrong, though.
It wouldn't have made much sense, for the original writers of the Constitution to take all the trouble of writing out certain powers of the government such as coining money, setting up Post Offices, punishing counterfeiters, offering patents for inventions, etc. Those things all help people, certainly.
If they were going to just make a general clause saying Government could do anything it wants, that helps people, those other powers are pretty redundant, aren't they? Why bother naming those particular powers, when you've already put a blanket permission for them plus lots of others, in place?
If the Welfare clause were a blanket permission, then 3/4 of the Constitution could be tossed out, because it would already be covered.
But, remember the collect-taxes part.
"Congress shall have the Power To collect Taxes to provide for the general Welfare of the United States [and for other listed purposes]...."
In fact, the Clause is a statement of what government can spend tax money on. Not a permission to do whatever they wanted under the vague guise of "helping people". And "general Welfare" had a specific definition in 1787-- it was written that way, to distinguish it from "Welfare of particular groups", which the Founders called "local Welfare".
So, "to provide for the general Welfare" is actually a restriction on government, not a broad permission. The complete clause really means, that the government can collect and spend tax money, but that anything spent to help people, must be applied evenly to the entire population, and cannot be "targeted" at certain groups. Further, it implies but does not explicitly say, that if a spending program does not boost the welfare of the entire population, then it is forbidden. Unless, of course, the spending program comes under other permissions listed in the Constitution, such as National Defense, the Courts, Patent office, etc.
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” - James Madison, principal author of the ConstitutionOh and the word charity isn't in the constitution.
