10 worst presidents in American history part 3

So we already covered the best of the worst, and the fairly bad of the worst, in our last two parts. Now its time to see who is worthy of the dishonor of being America's WORST president.

Leading off the final leg of the journey to historic suckatdue Number 3:

Andrew Jackson. 7th President

So I have a hunch a lot of people would call this my "biggest shock/outrage pick" yet, and thats after putting Washington at #4 on the Best List. And your welcome to that opinion.....but here's the thing, I dont get it.

There are very few famous Presidents in US history where some kind of argument cant be made to justify their high standing in the American Consciousness. In fact I can only think of two, Jackson and Reagan. And in Reagan's case, as vastly overrated as he is (and if this were a top 15 worst presidents list, Reagan would probably be on it) , he at least had some small redeeming qualities to his presidency.

That's more than can be said for Jackson.  I tend to think his entire public perception is based on the fact he was the first Democratic president, and since the first ever president, and the first republican were great, people assume he must be too. But its not true.

In fact, the one slightly redeeming thing Jackson did, force South Carolina down on the idea states can nullify federal law, comes with a giant asterisk.....the guy pushing for the idea of Nullification was Jackson's vice president. And this was in the post 12th amendment era, which was designed to make a fight between the President and Vice President much harder.....but at least Jackson replaced him for his second term.

Oh and you remember how I put Chester Arthur at #10 on the best presidents list because he over turned the system of patronage, known as the spoils system that had corrupted pretty much every president since it was put in place? Yea......Jackson is the guy who created it.

And maybe you've heard of the trail of tears in your elementary school? thats another of Jackson's great ideas. In fact his policy towards Native Americans was so bad, its not much of a stretch to compare his policy towards natives to Hitlers policy towards Jews. Hell he even went to war over trying to get rid of the Natives, in the Second Seminole War, america's most expensive war against natives. (and not one we won either, as anyone who roots for Florida State could tell you).

And his stand on African American's wasnt much better. His Attorney General once issued an opinion saying it was legal for the state of South Carolina to legally exclude any free blacks from entering the state. Jackson responded by later appointing his AG Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Oh by the way, this guy's name was Roger Tawney......the Chief Justice who wrote the Dred Scott Decision.

Most famously Jackson killed off the Second Bank of the United States, and ended centralized banking in the country. (side note, the Secretary of the Treasury who actually helped Jackson do this was Roger Tawney, prior to being Chief Justice.....this is how the spoils system works, you just kept kicking your friends higher and higher up the ladder). Now I'm not saying that was a mistake or anything. I'm saying that Jackson paid off the national debt in 1835 (the only time that has ever happened), killed the Bank in 1836, and by 1837 we had a debt of 3.3 million......which meant a lot more back then. Oh and then there was the Panic of 1837, the economic crash that possibly even beats out the great depression as the WORST crash in the history of the country. Technically its official "crash" date is less than 5 weeks after Jackson left office, but since the visible signs of a crash had started before he left, I'm going to break my rule slightly and blame the thing on him, because hey less than 5 weeks really cant be the new guys fault.  

It's also worth noting that in the 40 years before Jackson killed the banks, only two presidents failed to win a second term (the 2 Adams') and in the 100 years since Wilson restarted centralized banking, only 4 have failed to win a second term (Hoover, Ford, Carter, H.W. Bush), not counting those who died in their first term. However in that 80 year interim, only 4 presidents won back to back terms....two who won wars (Lincoln and McKinley) and 2 who were considered the heroes of those wars (Grant and T Roosevelt). Now the reason a lot of those presidents lost in those 80 years was because, as a rule, the economy was in the toilet,

Basically, ending the Second Bank was a historically bad decision, that really could only be beaten by a couple of worse decisions.....which brings us nicely to Number 2:

 

Franklin Pierce. 14th president.

The fact that Pierce was nominated on the 34th round of voting at the 1852 Democratic Convention was probably a sign he was going to suck. Sadly no one knew how much.

First there was the Ostend Manifesto, which was drafted by Pierce's ambassadors and state officials, which was designed to give a rational to going to war to annex Cuba as a slave state (possibly two slave states) if Spain refused to sell it to us. Luckily this didnt happen.....but only because something worse did.

Perhaps you've heard the term "Bleeding Kansas"? that would a mini Civil War (or arguably the start of THE civil war) that raged in Kansas over its admission as a slave or free state starting in 1854.

Well that was Pierces fault. You see the territory of Kansas wanted to come in as a state (well two states, Kansas and Nebraska), and under the preexisting laws at the time, both would have come in as free states since they were north of the Missouri Compromise line. Well pro slavery forces, including the President, objected and instead changed the law to allow "popular opinion" to decide if the states would be free or not. Which worked so well, the first election held on the issue in Kansas had more votes cast then people living in Kansas at the time. And that election led to a Pro slavery Constitution and government. Congress sent a committee to Kansas to look into the results, and the committee declared the results invalid and called for a new election. The second election (which was policed and closer at least to being a real and fair election) nominated an anti slavery government and an anti slavery Constitution. Pierce for his part had the anti slavery government declared insurrectionists, which would be quickly followed up by an attack and sacking of the anti slavery town of Lawrence, and so on and so forth it would go, in fact the bloodshed of bleeding Kansas would only officially end in 1861....not because the fighting stopped but because the fighting in Kansas became national and was absorbed into the Civil War.

Which brings us to our number 1, and unlucky winner of the WORST DAMN PRESIDENT AMERICA HAS EVER HAD:

James Buchanan. 15th president. 

You know, I'm convinced part of the reason Lincoln is seen as such a great president is because he followed these two jackasses. (the fact that both of Lincolns immediate successors are also usually on these "bad lists" likely helps as well)

For starters he had the bad luck to be in office when Dred Scott was issued....although he was hardly a critic of the decision.

But mostly his administration consisted of taking everything Franklin Pierce had done and making it worse.

For example, Pierce had refused to recognize Utah for admission to the Union....mostly because he didnt like polygamists. When Utah tried again after Pierce left office Buchanan sent the military to replace the governor by force. (so yea a military overthrow of a duly elected government). The plan was stopped when the Mormons took up arms and raids all over the territory, the army backed off and Buchanan basically ignored the state for the rest of his term.

He also got involved in Bloody Kansas. He appointed a new governor to hold yet another election to decide if Kansas would be free or slave......well sort of. You see the options to vote were "a Constitution with slavery", and a "Constitution without slavery", except the second choice actually meant not that Kansas was a free state, but only that it would ban the future importation of slaves into the state.....something that basically would have been unenforceable. Not shockingly the "With slavery" option won, despite most Kansans being against slavery. Buchanan then instantly publicly endorsed this Constitution as the legitimate one, only to see it go down in flames in congress. (in fairness to Buchanan's hand picked governor, he resigned after seeing the options for the vote not wanting to be involved with the injustice)

But here's what lands Buchanan at the number 1 spot.....he was the president in office when the South Seceded. South Carolina went first in December of 1860, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas would all follow, and the Confederate States would officially be created while he was in office. Hell Jefferson Davis was even sworn in while Buchanan was in office.

However the big problem was actually that as the states seceded they confiscated all federal property in their respective states, much of which was fortifications and the weapons needed to fight the civil war.

Buchanan's response was to decide that this really wasnt his problem, he'd be out of office in 4 months or less (he'd already lost his reelection bid), stick his head up his ass and do nothing.

Which is possibly the biggest dereliction of duty of any president in US history....even John Adams and Andrew Jackson at least threatened to put down uprisings with military force, Buchanan couldnt even be bothered to do that.

So yea, for basically abandoning his duty, James Buchanan is america's worst president EVER!.

So there you have it folks, America's 10 best.....and 10 worst presidents.

That said I would feel a little remiss if I didnt include my runner up for 10 worst presidents, especially since I did a runner up for 10 best presidents (Harry Truman). Except that in this case, we have a tie.  

The two guys who just missed making the cut would be Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, the 29th and 30th presidents. Both these guys benefited highly from the fact I cant blame them for the Great Depression because it didnt happen while they were in office, even though it was pretty clearly their policies that led to it (which they still take heat for even under my rules since the policies were bad at the time in many cases). 

However even without that, they both still came close to making my list, Harding for the Teapot Dome and Veterans affairs and Justice Department scandals (all involved his appointees basically stealing money from the government), and Coolidge for his response (or lack of) to the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, leaving flood damage that was only surpassed by Hurricane Katrina.  The only thing that knocked the two of them off was a sense of obligation that I had to include the only president to resign and the one who oversaw the most corrupt administration ever. I would say that Nixon and Grant were actually better presidents than Harding and Coolidge (especially Harding), but I just couldnt justify not including such historic levels of corruption, so Harding and Coolidge got moved off the list.

Finally for those who are interested in partisanship, the final party tallies are as follows:

On the 10 best presidents list:  4 Republicans, 4 Democrats (5 counting the runner up), 1 Democratic-Republican, and George Washington who had no party.

On the 10 worst presidents list: 3 Republicans (5 counting the two runner ups), 4 Democrats, 1 Federalist, 1 Whig, and Andrew Johnson, whom I cant decide what party to stick him with.

Since I didnt really consider party affiliations when I put these lists together, I find it kinda interesting its basically an even balance all around.   

10 worst presidents in American history part 2

Last time out we showed you the best of the worst, with the 10th 9th and 9th worst president in history....now its time to move much much closer to the worst of the worst.

And we lead off with Number 7

Herbet Hoover. 31st president

Hoover draws the short straw on this list. You see he's mostly here because of the Great Depression which started 4 months into his term. The thing is, 4 months into your term means your still working with the last presidents final budget. Which means their is a good argument to be made the blame should rightly go to Calvin Coolidge or Warren Harding, the two previous presidents, who economic policy likely did cause the collapse, but thats not how the rules work so we have Hoover.

And actually to be fair to Hoover, he did alot more to combat the depression than he usually gets the credit for, including laying the groundwork for a minimum wage, and 8 hour work day, which were expanded on to much greater affect by his successor. He also signed the Glass–Steagall act, which was designed to regulate   banks and keep them disconnected from the stock market. By the way it should be noted that not long after Glass-Steagall was repealed by president Clinton, the Great Recession started, so maybe Hoover was on to something.

Now that said, Hoover would still make this list in his own right, because of the Bonus Army.
For those who dont know the Bonus Army was a group of WWI vets whod been promised a Bonus for their service by the Federal government that was supposed to be paid in 1945, but due to Depression wanted their money early.

Hoover responded by sending the US army, under the command of General Douglass MacArthur after them. Hoover had given strict orders to only push the protesters out of the city, but not to disturb their encampment, orders MacArthur, who believed the real purpose of the Bonus Army was to take over the government, refused to follow, and had his army charge the camp, injuring over 50 veterans and family's, arresting over 130 more, and two deaths. Hoover's reaction to his orders being openly disobeyed and the resulted arrests, injuries and deaths was basically "its not what I wanted, but hey shit happens" and he did nothing about it. That alone would get him a spot on this list.

Next up Number 6:

John Tyler. 10th President

Of all the presidents on this list, Tyler is probably the most important based on his impact on the Presidency. See Tyler was the first Vice President to become President after the death of his predecessor and therefore set the standard for all future Vice Presidents, with his insistence that he WAS in fact THE president, and not the Acting President, as many at the time saw him to be, and that a new election wasnt needed and he was entitled to finish out his predecessors term.

But that aside Tyler was horrible president. In theory he was a Whig, until they voted him out of the party after he became president and vetoed their entire agenda. In fact he was so bad, his entire cabinet, save one, resigned, not out of scandal, but simply because they refused to work with him.  He was also the first president the House ever tried (and failed) to impeach.

All in all, he is well deserving of his spot on this list.

Next up, Number 5:

John Adams. 2nd President.

   Alright, no one can deny that John Adams is likely one of the most important and great people in american history.....the thing is, all of that is for shit he did before becoming president, as president he kinda sucked ass.

For starters he requested congress to pass, and signed into law the "Alien and Sedition acts", which basically made it a crime to speak out against the government (What First Amendment?) and increased the wait time for Citizenship for first generation immigrants to 14 years......and keep in mind this was at a time in which there were almost no 2nd generation Americans. Side note, it should be noted Thomas Jefferson beat adams for reelection by pledging not to enforce these laws....even when still on the books (so thats how that tradition of selective enforcement got started, although it doesnt really weigh into an evaluation of Adams)

Then there is the Quasi-war, which was actually America's first war as a recognized country. But its called the Quasi-war because Congress never actually voted to go to war. So yea if your wondering where that tradition that the President can unilaterally declare war started.....well here you go.  

And of course, as I pointed out in the Jefferson bit I did for Best President, John Adams, and his Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, broke the damn government, to the point a constitutional amendment was needed to change how the Vice President and President were elected so as to ensure fighting of the level those two had could never happen again. Jefferson dodged the blame in my Best Presidents ranking because he wasnt president when that happened......Adams was though so he's gonna take the hit.

The one positive to come out of Adams sole term as president was the appointment of Chief Justice John Marshal to the Supreme Court, as Marshal was likely the best Chief Justice in history, and certainly the most important for designed the roll the Court should play in the government.

But that one shining spot does not a great president make and it should be no surprise that John Adams was 1 of only 2 presidents in the countries first 40 years not elected to a second term (the other was his son....Ouch talk about a disliked family)

Number 4:

Andrew Johnson. 17th President

Alright folks, pop quiz time; Was Andrew Johnson a Democrat? a Republican? or a 3rd party President? 

Now if you answered "Yes" at any time you are correct. If you answered "No" at any time you are also correct.

See turns out no one really wants to take credit for this guy. He was a Democrat who was nominated to be Vice President at the Republican convention on the Constitutional Union ticket. Meaning any of those groups could claim him.....and had he not been a total fuck up, likely would. Instead each party claims he really belongs to the other.

Johnson is most famous for being the 1st president to be successfully impeached by the House.....although I hate to tell you this, it was even more bullshit than the Clinton impeachment, as in order to impeach Johnson the Congress had to pass a law to make illegal something Johnson had already said he was going to do (replace a member of his cabinet) that all presidents had done.....and then they repealed the law when his successor came in.    

But there is a reason they wanted to get rid of him that badly, he was still a shit president. Mostly because unlike Lincoln, Johnson didnt see the enfranchisement or even the rights as citizens of African American's as remotely relevant to readmitting states, and basically turned a blind eye to state after state enacting "Black Codes" which were basically a predecessor to Jim Crow, but also in many cases happened to reduce blacks to a situation very similar to slavery. Most included a provision that made it illegal for a black person to not be working, and anyone caught doing so could be arrested. In order to avoid this black folks had to have a contract to work the land of a nearby farmer.....and the contract could prohibit them from leaving without permission. They could also restrict the rights of African Americans to own land or other property, including firearms (second amendment anyone?) or make it legal to not allow blacks to vote....(which is why the 15th amendment was later needed)

Basically, Johnson gives Wilson a run for his money as America's most racist president, has none of Wilson's positives, and was more despised by congress that Tyler or even Obama. Hence his winding up at #4 on our worst presidents list.

Which raises an interesting question.......how much of a fuck up do you have to be to get the Number 3-1 spots? You'll have to come back next time to find out.

10 worst presidents in American history part 1

So last time around I covered the 10 best presidents in american history. BUT prehaps more interesting than the 10 best is the 10 worst presidents. As a rule we immortalize the great but banish the bad into the fog of history. So while many many people have heard of my 10 best picks (or at least 9 of them), it will be interesting to see how many people have even heard of the 10 who make up the worst list, let alone think they are sucky presidents.

Now the same rules apply to this as applied to the best presidents, Obama, W Bush, W. Harrison, and Garfield arnt eligible for the same reasons they were left out of the best presidents.  And of course, these men are weighted ONLY on their presidency, not on things they did before or after

So with that in mind here we go with Number 10:

Ulysses Grant. 18th President

Truth be told, its actually a shame Grant makes this list. As president he was actually really good. First he got the Tenure of Office act repealed, an act that had basically been invented by congress to justify impeaching President A Johnson. Then he had the radical idea of actually appointing a Native America, Ely Parker to head up the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the first and only president to do this. He helped get the 15th amendment, allowing the right to vote to be given to African American males passed, combined with the Naturalization Act of 1870, allowing African Americans to become naturalized citizens. He established the Department of Justice, and passed the Force Acts of 1870 and 1871 to try to clamp down on the Klan.

So why is he here? well quite honestly its everyone elses fault. Grant has the distinction of presiding over the most corrupt administration in history.

For example the "Gold Ring" Scandal was an almost successful attempt to corner the gold market, that involved Grants Brother in law, and Grants actions allowed the scandal to move forward (although his actions were done in "ignorance" following corrupt advise and not personal corruption) and his attempt to fix it crashed the economy with the original "Black Friday".

Or the Whiskey ring, that involved Republican politicians across the country, a bunch of tax collectors and Whiskey makers in a scheme to steal the governments share of taxes on alcohol, in which Grant himself was deposed as part of the investigation.  Or the Star Route scandal, where the Postal Service auctioned off southern and western routes to private postal services at over-inflated contracts. Or the New York Custom House Ring, where custom officials were overcharging to store goods, and pocketing the difference. Or the Salary Grab, a budget bill Grant signed (he had to or risk a shut down) that raised both his salary and congresses.....but also included a retroactive raise for the previous congress (which is blatantly illegal).

Or the Delano Affair and the Pratt & Boyd affair, which forced the resignations of Grants Interior Secretary and Attorney General for corruption, or the Trading post ring which lead to the impeachment and resignation of his War Secretary.

Oh and then their was the replacement between terms of Grants Vice President, after his first VP had to resign due to the Crédit Mobilier scandal which was basically a bribe to congress by a railroad company. In fairness to grant though, the scandal itself happened under Lincoln, just happened to be exposed under him. Still losing your VP to scandal is a big problem when it comes to claiming to be a good president

And with that many scandals in one administration, it doesnt matter how good a president you were personally, you kinda have no choice but to end up on this list, albeit at the bottom of the list.

And now Number 9

Richard Nixon. 37th President

You knew he was going to be on the list. In fact I think their is a law that says he must be on any top 10 worst presidents list. In fact if anything is surprising its likely how low he placed on the list. After all he is the only president to ever resign, and likely would have been the only president impeached and convicted if he hadn't.

But here's the thing, outside of watergate he really wasnt a bad president. For example even his critics praise him for his work in China and his visit to that country. He started phased withdrawals from the Vietnam war, and the year before he resigned, the draft ended. He also signed SALT I, which was the start of the drawdown of the cold war. He also created the EPA.

I mean heck, that resume alone would land him at near the top 10 best list, if not on it (admittedly near the bottom).....but then there's Watergate, which itself and the impact of it on American Politics, puts him near the bottom of a different top 10 list.

And now on to our last entry in this installment, our Number 8 worst president:

Woodrow Wilson. 28th President.

Like the two men below him on the rankings, Wilson did do a couple of things right, he passed the Federal Reserve Act which brought much longer periods of economic stability then had existed since Andrew Jackson destroyed the Second Bank of the United states. And he established the Federal Trade Commision and signed the Clayton Anti Trust act, building on, and solidifying the Trustbusting started under Teddy Roosevelt.

And of course he is the genius that came with the "14 points" peace plan to end World War I that likely could have prevented World War II. Except that he did such a horrible job of Politicking it that no one listened to him. Heck even the US congress wouldnt allow the US to take a seat in the League of Nations, the only part of the plan Wilson sold Europe on. So while it was a genius idea, it actually undercuts Wilson's standing because of how poorly executed it was.

And he was also a racist little shit. He's famous for thinking the uber racist retelling of american History, that put the Klan as the driving and heroic force in US history, was pretty accurate. But did you know he also RE-segregated the federal government?

Yea thats right, the federal government was already integrated, this asshole came up and undid it. Even the anti african american semi pro slavery Andrew Johnson didnt try to institute slavery, and didnt really want to. Thats how racist this SOB was.

But what really lands Wilson at this point on the list is the Lusitania. For those who dont know the Lusitania was a luxury liner that was sunk by the German's claiming it was smuggling weapons to the British to aid them in World War I. 125 Americans were killed in the sinking.

Now here's the thing, the Lusitania was sunk in 1915. In 1916 Wilson won reelection by pledging to keep the US out of the war. In 1917 the US citing the unprovoked attack on the Lusitania and the lies about its smuggling weapons as the as the reason to declare war on Germany.

Except as it turns out, the Germans weren't lying. in 2008 scuba divers proved the ship had been carrying weapons. And that the president would have known that back in 1915. Which means he lied us into World War I, but only when it became politically advantageous, and after winning reelection based on the lie he wouldnt take us into war. Those double lies hurt Wilson as he is dragged kicking and screaming from his usual spot in the 10 best presidents list where he usually shows up, to this spot on my 10 worst presidents list.

Next time, just like with the best presidents list, our next installment will feature our 7th, 6th, 5th and possibly 4th worst presidents of all times. With Nixon already out of the running, it will be interesting to see who tops the list by the time we get to part 3.  

  

America's 10 greatest presidents Part 3

Alright folks its time for the 3 GREATEST PRESIDENTS IN AMERICAN HISTORY!!!!!!! 

(link to part 1 and part 2 for those just joining us) 

But who's it gonna be? After all several traditionally highly regarded presidents have yet to make an appearance.  

Maybe it will be the Great Emancipator Abraham Lincoln.
Maybe it will be the Great Communicator Ronald Reagan
The man who won World War I, Woodrow Wilson

The man who won World War II, Franklin Roosevelt
The father of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson
The man who set american foreign policy for a century, James Monroe
The man who ushered in the Nuclear Age, Harry Truman.
A soft spoken man with a big stick, Teddy Roosevelt.
The father of the bill of rights James Madison. 

Consider, with only 3 spots left, 2/3 of those guys, as respected as they are, and as famous as they are wont even make the cut to top 10........and that assumes I dont throw in a dark horse no one sees coming.

So whos Great, and who's so so? a final definitive answer is coming your way.......just as soon as I waste enough space to knock the picture of Number 3 down far enough to not give it away without scrolling.

And here we GO, the countdown is on with NUMBER 3:

Theodore Roosevelt. 26th President.

Teddy is the third person on the list to become President after his predecessor was assassinated. He's also one of the easiest presidents to justify on this list....in fact I could do it in one word "Trustbuster"

Basically you remember the whole "too big to fail" crap from the great recession? well according to Teddy that meant you were too big to exist, he made his presidency trying to prevent corporations from taking over an entire market or industry/preventing competition by controlling the market for a good.

On top of that, he literally helped clean up america.  Pure Food and Drug Act, signed that. Federal Meat Inspection Act, signed that too.  Was honorary president of the American School Hygiene Association while still actually president and held the first Conference on the Care of Dependent Children.

He also created the National Park system, and appointed the first Jew to a cabinet position Oscar Straus, Secretary of Commerce and Labor.

Oh and did we mention the Nobel Peace Prize he won for ending the Russo Japanese war?

So actually the question should be, "Why isnt teddy roosevelt higher?"

Well it turns out their are two reasons......the first is actually the Panama Canal.
Look no one can deny the Canal has been a HUGE benefit for US trade and Naval services for a century now, and its much better and faster than having to go all the way around the tip of South America.

The problem lies in HOW he got it.  See he tried to buy the land from Columbia, they refused. So TR sent the US navy down there, and encourage rebels in the Panamanian province of Columbia to rise up....while also telling the Colombians not to interfere or else. After his successful revolution was staged and Panama created, TR bought the land from them instead.  Thats some pretty underhanded shit when you think about it, and one of the earliest examples of the US belief that they can dictate decisions for other counties and they better go along with it or suffer the consequences.

The other issue holding TR at third, is that most great presidents face either a domestic crisis, or a foreign menace, and he faced neither, in the grand sceme of things, his administration was pretty quite, wedged in between Civil and World war.    

 

Number 2:

Franklin Roosevelt. 32nd president. 

To be honest, their is also most no point in going over FDR's greatest strong points, most people already know them, he got us out of the depression, with the new deal, set the basis, if not the core idea for all government aid programs from his administration forward, and helped the allies win World War 2.

But he's got a few lesser known accomplishments as well. He partly undid his Cousins mistake and renegotiated a treaty with Panama to no longer make it a US protectorate, he did the same thing in Haiti and Cuba, and signed the Montevideo Convention, which basically said the US would stop assuming it had unilateral power over all decisions made in the Western Hemisphere and would recognize the sovereignty of other western hemisphere nations. He also issued Executive Order 8802 which prohibited discrimination based on race in the defense industry, a forerunner to the Civil Rights act and Title VII signed by LBJ. Oh and he appointed Francis Perkins as Secretary of Labor, making her the first female Secretary.  

Which is not to say Roosevelt didnt have his negatives. He did. However most of them were actually totally legal, just bad ideas (for example his court packing scheme, which was done completely legally....just not very intelligently). There were two major exceptions to that though, and they cost him the Number 1 spot.

With Executive Order 6102 FDR forced Americans to sell their gold to the US government at a set price, for the betterment of the national economy. Now granted that we got out of the Depression not long after, we might be able to debate the effectiveness of the order, but its still pretty blatantly unconstitutional. 

As was the infamous Executive Order 9066. If you happen to be of Japanese decent, I wouldnt mention that number near your grandparents. See that was the Order used to justify the rounding up of ALL persons of Japanese decent in the US, including america citizens, taking their property and putting them in forced relocation camps based solely on their national origin. There are very few actions by any president I can think of that were that against the idea of America, and the couple I can think of were technically legal, which I find hard to believe Order 9066 was.

So yea, really with that one act, FDR took himself right out of the top spot and gave it too.......

NUMBER 1:

Josiah Bartlett. 

 I'm Kidding........

Number 1 for real:

Abe Lincoln. 16th President.

As if it could be anyone else really. Lincoln gets loads of credit and rightly so, for guiding the country through the civil war. And much like FDR I dont really need to drone on and on about his great achievements, everybody knows them all. Although I will say in my opinion his greatest achievement was the emancipation proclamation, a document that did nothing, and was designed as a FOREIGN policy document,  masquerading as a world changing domestic policy.

See heres the thing, the proclamation was issued to keep France and England out of the civil war, as both countries were talking about supporting the South (and England was even in the process of building Ironclads for the Confederacy) but also had governments that would not support a slave power against a free power. So the Proclamation was supposed to make the US look like a free power, yet didnt actually free any slave in any territory controlled by the US (which included 4 slave states, most of a 5th, half of a 6th New Orleans, and parts of VA), only in territories in open revolt against the government.....where the proclamation wouldnt have been considered law. Yet somehow the damn thing worked  and everybody bought into in.

Now Lincoln does have one big, and somewhat ironic negative, he kinda shit all over the Constitution, probably violated it more times than any other president in history, and I wouldnt be surprised if he beat all the rest of them combined.  Consider even Lincolns decision to fight the war was unconstitutional since he claimed the South was still part of the country and therefore he was raising an army inside the US to fight American Citizens.  Now yes, some of his violations, like suspending the writ of habeus corpus, went a bit too far, but even that wasnt widespread enough to knock him off the top of the mountain.

So there you have it, the 10 greatest presidents in history. At some point soon I hope to compile a list of the 10 worst presidents in American history, and spoiler alert, a couple of the names I listed at the start actually wind up on that list.  

Also as a final side note, in the entry for JFK I said in my original ranking Kennedy wasnt in the top 10, for those who are wondering the guy he knocked out was Harry Truman, who had been number 9. I knew I wanted Arthur at 10, so it was a hard choice between Truman and Ike (who had been 8) for that spot, but I picked Ike because in part hes a bit lesser known as president, and Truman put a lot of "the pieces together" but it was Eisenhower who really used them to best effect. 

America's 10 greatest presidents Part 2

Alright, for those just joining us, heres the link to part 1, which covers our 10th-8th greatest presidents.

Now we are going to get rolling with Number 7:

John Kennedy. 35th President.

Alright, so I'll be honest, the reason Kennedy is so low (compared to where he normally shows up on these things anyways) is because most of the things he pledged to do....he didnt, he was killed first.

And I have to be honest, in my "first draft" while preparing this list, Kennedy didnt make it.

All things considered I believe he is overrated as President. Consider he basically started the Vietnam War and launched the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion.

Of course on the flip side, he did expand NASA, and fund/start the Apollo program, and continued the integration of the South started under his predecessor our #9 entry, President Eisenhower. He also started the Peace corp.

Problem is, on balance I'm not sure those 3 things make up for those 2 bad one.

What does make up for it though, and what gets Kennedy on this list, is the Cuban Missile Crisis. At a time when pretty much everyone was advocating to bomb the shit out of cuba, and maybe russia, and anyone else they could find.....or to at least invade Cuba, Kennedy refused, and found another less violent way to end what had the potential to be a world ending disaster. Especially in light of recent findings (that Kennedy didnt have) that the Russians in Cuba had functional short and mid range nuclear weapons and the ability to fire them on their own authority without needed prior approval from the Kremlin.  

So in hindsight Kennedy's decision looks even smarter, however my rule of "only the time as president" prevents him from getting the extra credit for the information uncovered later.    

Number 6:

Thomas Jefferson. 3rd President.

By far the BIGGEST beneficiary of my "only the time as president" rule, Jefferson actually did a great deal to heal the divide in the country......a divide he created as Vice President, when he effectively broke the government. The 12th amendment changing the way President and Vice President were chosen was passed in part because of a desire to avoid the kind of chaos he and President Adams created.

But like I said, none of that counts. As President Jefferson did pretty well. He doubled the size of the county with the Louisiana Purchase, and in doing so set the stage for almost a century of westward growth and over a dozen new states. He also oversaw America's first declared war since the Revolution (John Adams oversaw the actual first war, the Quasi war, but no declaration ever passed congress) and because of America winning that war, started America on the path to being a recognized power. He also led the call to ban the slave trade and signed the law doing so. He also signed the legislation creating West Point

On the flip side he signed the Embargo act, trying to keep America neutral in the war between the UK and France, and that didnt work as well as he had hoped, although if nothing else it prevented American entry into the war for a few years.

He also started the policy that would later be known as 

Indian removal trying to force native americans who hadnt adopted European customs farther west to shittier and shitter land as the country grew.

One final note. he ran for office and won partly on a platform of refusing to enforce (and later repealing) the Alien and Sedition acts, which is one of the first (if not the first) examples of a President using his discretion when it comes to enforcing a law, setting a precedent (good and bad) for every man who followed him.

Number 5:

Lyndon Johnson. 36th President

So remember how I said one of the reasons Kennedy is overrated in my opinion is because he didnt really do most of the things the talked about doing? Here's the guy who actually got them done and expanded on them.....but tends not to always get the credit. 

Johnson's accomplishments are VERY VERY long. He created Medicare and Medicaid. He passed the 1964 Civil Rights act outlawing racial discrimination, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, ensuring minorities the right to vote. He appointed the first minority supreme court justice in history, and also the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 making it easier for legal immigration into the US.

His negatives are a comparatively short list.....the problem is, they overshadow (and somewhat rightly so) many of his accomplishment. Those shortcomings are Vietnam. Not only did he reverse an attempt by Kennedy to maybe drawdown, he massively expanded US presence there, and managed to get the Gulf of Token resolution passed so he could expand even more. Although the groundwork for Vietnam was arguably laid by his two predecessors and the war would continue under his two successors, based on his actions it does seem fair to lay most of its legacy at his feet. Oh and I should probably mention he came extremely close to starting another war with Syria during the Israeli Egyptian "6 days war"

Given all he did, if he could have gotten out from under the shadow of Vietnam, he'd be much higher on this list.   

Number 4:

George Washington. 1st President.

And here is where I'm going to take the heat........

Seriously though, no presidents administration could be summed up on a t-shirt as succulently as Washington's: 

Arrive

Serve 2 terms

Leave

By far the greatest thing Washington ever did, and the thing he's most remember for is voluntarily leaving the Presidency.  (and deciding the President would be addressed as "Mr")

Now to be fair, in a government that was theoretically based on the peaceful transfer of power, Washington's act made that theory fact, and likely made complete the American system of government. Its important enough to catapult him to the #4 spot based just on that.

Still when your only real act of note is leaving, that kinda means you had a bland term of office. 

Which might actually be for the best given that the other major action Washington did was put down the Whiskey Rebellion. At the time it was viewed as a great thing, and proof the federal government had teeth and therefore the government could last and was stable. In hindsight though I dont think the image of the American President personally leading the army to possibly attack american citizens who refused to pay a tax is one most people would see sympathetically. And its somewhat ironic too, given what Washington was known for before being President..... 

I think I will stop with that for now......mostly to give people time to express their outrage and anger that I didnt make George Washington number 1. Once the flames die down, I'll be back with part 3, and America's 3 greatest presidents (spoiler alert its not David Atchison) 

America's 10 greatest presidents Part 1.

Alright, so it seems every blog out there has a couple of "top 10" lists, and I see no reason this blog should be any different. Now given that my subject material is mostly political, my educational background is in American History....and fuck it, its fun, I figure I might as well do a top 10 list of America's Best Presidents according to me.

Now a quick note before I get going. Although America has had 43 Presidents, only 39 of them are actually eligible to be included. I believe in order to fully judge a presidents legacy, he must be not only out of office, but well out of office.....say 16 years out of office. Up until that point much of what any given president did can not be rightly judged without involving "recent" emotional attachments to said president.

Which means President Obama and President Bush are not included.

The other two presidents not to be included are James Garfield and William Henry Harrison. Garfield was shot 3 months into his term, and languished a basic invalid unable to execute the powers of office for 3 more, Harrison died 31 days into his. Neither really had a long enough term to do anything, and given the empathizes on the "first 100 days" it seems unfair to judge two presidents who didnt get that far.

So with those disclaimers in mind, lets get rolling with America's 10th greatest President:

Chester Arthur. 21st President

Chester A. Arthur is my dark horse pick. By which I mean you will probably NEVER ever see another top 10 list with his name on it and honestly, for good reason. By many accounts Arthur was a failure. His record on civil rights for blacks was decent, kinda, but his record on native american rights was horrible (many of his actions were later overturned). He also signed the Chinese Exclusion Act (prohibiting Chinese Immigration) as well as signing a law excluding disabled immigrants and put a tax on all immigrants. He did try, but fail, to improve the then obsolete navy. So thats one positive.....slight points for trying.

Also for what its worth, Arthur was never actually elected president (1 of 5 men not to be) taking over only on the death of James Garfield. Now its worth noting, their is a good argument to be made Arthur didnt want to be president especially not a second term.....he'd been diagnosed with a terminal disease, which he hid from the public, during his first term, which killed him months after leaving office. Its rumored that Arthur didnt want to run because of the morale impact the deaths of two consecutive presidents would have on the public.  

So why is he on this list? For 1 reason and 1 reason alone. The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act.
That act is probably the single piece of legislation any president has ever signed that has had the longest lasting positive impact on the country. Basically Pendleton forced all government appointments to be merit based and not patronage based. the idea behind patronage is that you did a favor for someone, they repaid you with a government job, usually one that was overpaid and had easy access to even more kickbacks, even if you have zero qualifications. The merit system was a (mostly) successful way to ensure government officials had some knowledge about what they were doing, made it harder to take kickbacks, and generally reduced corruption.

Most presidents before Arthur had some scandal where some part of their cabinet would be linked to some kind of money grabbing scheme using government connections to get rich and with one exception (spoiler: not nixon) you havnt really seen that since....at least not at the federal level (Pendelton doesnt apply to states)

Number 9:

Dwight Eisenhower. 34th President

Next up Dwight Eisenhower. Now a word here. I'm ONLY considering what happened when these guys were president when making these ratings. Which means as far as Ike's standing, I could give a crap if he won World War II.

As president Eisenhower was actually a bit of a mixed bag. The economy kinda sucked during his 8 years (he saw 3 different recessions), and the CIA was doing all kinds of illegal things we still may not know about to destabilize foreign governments to try overthrow them and replace them with "US friendly" governments (and for the record, I dont think thats ever really worked out for us). He also expanded the US Nuclear arsenal.....although in his defense it did seem like the best and cheapest idea at the time

That said, he did end the Korean War (or at least most US involvement in it since North and South Korea are still at war to this day, and we still have the whole DMZ thing) Also the famous image of the young black girl being taken to school by the National Guard after the racist governors refused to integrate? yea Ike signed that order. Also after Sputnik launched, Eisenhower created and massively funded NASA to compete with the Soviets, so Kennedy really should thank his predecessor on that famous promise. Ike also expanded Social Security,  and actually attempted on multiple occasions to negotiate and deal with the USSR following the death of Stalin. The fact that they shut him down, doesnt affect him as negatively as if he'd failed.

And perhaps most famously, and perhaps his most used (if not associated with him) legacy, he created the Federal Interstate Highway system. And hell who hasnt used that?.......and wished maybe he'd made it a little wider.....fucking traffic jams........


Number 8:

James Polk. 11th President

The only president to sport a mullet......Ok that has nothing to do with his ranking.

Polk is a president (like Arthur) that no one has really heard of. Or if they have, they have heard of him for one reason and one reason only, the Mexican American war. Which he kinda provoked into happening, possibly illegally, by sending troops into "disputed territory" (that we really didnt have a legit claim on and he probably knew it) and acting SHOCKED, SHOCKED I TELL YA when they got shot at.       

That said, he is the president responsible for "finalizing" the shape of the contiguous United States. He not only acquired Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona in the war, but he negotiated with Britain for the Oregon Territory, which was not just Oregon but Washington state Idaho and parts of Montana and Wyoming as well, making Polk president for the second largest expansion of US territory in history after Jefferson.

He also reestablished an Independent Treasury, which was kinda needed since Andrew Jackson destroyed the Second Bank the United States, and fucked over the economy for much of the next few decades. An Independent Treasury wasnt quite the same thing as a National Bank, and it wasnt the best system, but it did at least separate the purse strings of the united states from private banking industry control.    

Now that said he is somewhat hampered by his "both sides of the fence" approach to slavery. Personally believing that Slavery wouldn't expand into the newly acquired southern states, he refused to sign the bill to make that law, opting instead to support the idea of just extending the Missouri Compromise line all the way to the pacific.  Which may not be the ballsiest stand but does make him much better on the issue than the 4 jag offs who followed him, so at the end of the day, he gets some credit.

Finally his last accomplishment in office was the creation of the Department of the Interior in part to oversee all the land he acquired for the country. Which kinda means we have him to thank for setting up the system Teddy Roosevelt used to create the national parks. That said, in an inverse of the above paragraph, this doesnt count for him as much as it otherwise would....he was presented with the bill his last day in office, probably opposed it on principal, but didnt have enough time to come up with a reason to veto it, so signed it out of duty.

Next time, Part 2, and Presidents 7-5 or 4.....I really havnt decided yet (although I know WHO they are).  

"marvel"ous diversity.

So for those who havnt been paying attention, this week Marvel Comics made TWO blockbuster announcements, 2 of their major characters, Captain America and Thor, will no longer be white men.

Enter Black Captain America and Female Thor.

Now a while back I posted a blog about Marvel Comics "race swapping" characters in their movies and how, admirable as race neutral casting is, they had to be a bit careful, since sometimes race is tied into the character.

Now in that blog I wrote this:

"Marvel presumably already knows that, no matter how good the actor in question, they will NEVER be able to cast a black man as Steven Rogers/Captain America. It's simply not believable that in the early 1940's the United States government would pick a black man to give superpowers to, and make THE face of the United States in World War II."

So people may assume I'm going to be against the idea of a Black Captain America.....but they would be wrong.

See the sentence I quoted states a black man couldnt be STEVE ROGERS' Captain America, not that they couldnt be Captain America, because of the fact that Steve Rogers is inexorable linked to the 1940's and the reality of the 1940's would make him being black impossible.

But the new Captain America ISNT Steve Rogers' its Sam "Falcon" Wilson.

Comic version top, movie version Bottom       

Now unlike Rogers, Wilson's backstory isnt tied into the 1940's and there is no reason he cant be Captain America.

In fact, this will be the SECOND time he's been Captain America. He had a brief stint as Captain America in Captain America Sentinel of Liberty a comic published in 1999, but set (at least for Sam's run as Cap) in the 1970's.

Granted that last run was no where near as "high level" as this one, as he only appeared as Cap in a secondary title, and even then via a "Retcon" (retroactive continuity change.....basically going back in time to change/show something not shown at that time). Now he's appearing as the title character in the main title in the present, a huge step up.

Now its true he is not the only replacement Captain America, fellow avengers Hawkeye, Bucky "Winter Solider" Barnes, and US Agent have done stints as Cap, as have at least 5 other guys. Now admittedly only Bucky, US Agent and a guy named Jeff Mace have had long stints as Cap (although Mace's stint was as a Retcon to explain the existence of Cap Comics in the late 1940's 1950's when the current marvel storyline had cap frozen in ice in 1944).

Nor actually is he the first Black Captain America, that honor would go to Isaiah Bradley, who in one of Marvel's more controversial retcon's would be revealed to be the FIRST Captain America, as he was the sole survivor of a unit of black soldiers the US government who were illegally experimented on to perfect the serum that made Steve Rogers become Captain America (if this sounds familiar in real life, marvel was trying to reference the Tuskegee syphilis experiment).

But all those points aside, Falcon is still a great pick to be the New Captain America, since the comic book story line has left Steve Rogers unable to fill the role. Cap and Falcon have been a team since the late 60's so it only really makes sense he would be next in-line, so it works in-story, and is something arguable marvel has been building to for a while. In fact out of the 9 men, other that Rogers, who have been Captain America, Falcon is the only one Rogers has actually hand picked to replace him (twice now).

Plus as an added bonus, Marvel has announced that even while being Cap, Wilson will keep his Falcon Powers (mechanical wings that allow him to fly, and the ability to telepathically interface, and see out of the eyes of any bird in the world) which will help make him stand out unique among the other 9 replacement captain america's for something other than just his skin color.....he may in fact become a very different character with a very different style.

Wilson's Captain America, complete with Falcon Wings

Sadly however the same may not be able to be said for Thor. His replacement may well be set up to fall flat on her face. Which is kinda surprising given Marvels long history of having female replacements/knock offs succeed (wasp, Captain Marvel (twice), She Hulk, Spider Woman (at least twice depending on what we call success))

Its funny actually in some respect, that Thor's replacement seems to be the one least likely to succeed. Of all Marvel Characters Thor should be one of the EASIEST to replace and have it make sense "in-story". Thor's defining feature is his hammer "Mjolnir", which carries a "Worthiness Enchantment".

Basically its like the Sword in the stone from Arthurian legend, you have to worthy to lift the weapon or you wont be able to.

And Mjolnir's worthiness enchantment says "Whosoever holds this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of ... Thor"

So yea, if you can lift the hammer you ARE Thor, with everything that entails. Doesnt really matter if your black, white, man, woman, straight, gay, transgendered, or even a half Asian half native american bisexual transgendered man who is also a transvestite.....YOU ARE THOR as long as you can lift the hammer.

So whats the problem? well its two fold.

First, over the decades of his existence, its become less and less clear which of Thor's powers are "the power of thor" and which belong to him as a person. His super strength, durability, speed, senses, healing, language skills (i shit you not), and longevity have all been shown to be traits of his entire RACE and not "the power of thor". Furthermore even without his hammer, Thor has been shown to be able to fly, and to manipulate the weather as an innate part of himself.

The most recent "in story" explanations is that really all Mjolnir does is amplify Thor's natural powers, and only adds very limited powers of its own, mostly dimensional travel, energy projection, and an alternative (and implied to be easier) method for thor to manipulate weather.

This isnt helped by the fact that the powers given to those who have been able to carry Mjolnir also varies.  In the case of Thunderstrike he literally became Thor (that is to say Thor's consciousness took over his body), Beta Ray Bill gained a super human form and ALL of Thors powers. On the Flip side, Steve Rogers only gained the power to hit people really hard with the hammer, enhanced strength and a couple of lightening bolts.  

Now normally, this wouldnt be a big deal, except Marvel has announced Old thor is still going to be around, just not worthy of keeping his hammer. Which becomes a problem if Old Thor remains more powerful than New Thor. Heck this is even a problem if their powers are the same, when the original is still around, people are going to demand to have that one. The only reason most of the women I listed before worked it either their power sets were vastly different from their male counter parts (Wasp, Captain Marvel (First time), Spider Woman), or the original was/is dead and gone (Captain Marvel (Second time)

Which brings us to our second problem,
Consider this description: Female. Considered by some to be a goddess. Controls the Weather, signature weather is bolt of lightning, can fly, not a human, has the ability to wield Mjolnir. 

Sounds like a female Thor right?

Then again....maybe not   

Yea see, thats the second problem. That description sounds like a female thor.....but is also an accurate description of Storm of the X-men.  Now I know what your saying: "But what about the  ability to wield Mjolnir" part?

And thats not the only time Storm has become Thor. She was first able to use Mjolnir in 1985, before at one point being given her own copy of Mjolnir called Stormcaster which she used to fight Thor with

So that's the added burden the New Thor has to deal with, and the reason I expect her to fall flat on her face. There already IS a female Thor replacement running around, who has been long established as an A list player in the marvel universe (leader of the X-men, one of the most powerful mutants, and for the record I believe the first Female and Black team leader in comics).

So making the New Thor stand out is double tough seeing as how not only will she have to contend with Old Thor being around, but the unofficial female Thor (Storm) as well.

Which isnt to say its impossible, one rumor is that the New Thor is actually his asgardian brethren, and fellow Avenger Valkyrie

Valkyrie

Thor

It looks like that could be possible based on some similarities in costume and appearance.. And Valkyrie is one of the previously c/d list characters Marvel has been trying to push up to A list status with her staring role in "Fear Itself: Fearless" and "Fearless Defenders".

And Valkyrie does have all of Thor's basic powers already (since those powers are normal for their race), except the elemental ones Mjolnir would bring her. However she also has her own set of death related powers, and it was the Norse Goddess of Death who gave her powers in the first place. Plus she has her own set of enchanted weapons (the sword, Dragonfang, and her spear) and a flying horse.

So that would give her not only a decades long back story (and support) but a unique powerset that would help move her well out from under the shadow of her predecessors/closest competition (just like Falcon).

Honestly though, as much as I hate to say it, thats probably the ONLY way new thor can get out from under the shadows of Old Thor and Storm.  Otherwise as diverse a move as this is, it will probably fail.

There is one final caveat though and it applies to both Falcon and New Thor. They may not have the time to succeed. Marvel's Avengers 2 is set to hit theaters in less than a year.  It will star Chris Evans as a White Captain America (Steve Rogers) and Chris Hemsworth as a male Thor.

And Marvel tends to use their movies to hook new readers. Even when that means changing whats in the comics to match the movies. For example, after the last Avengers Movie, the Hulk, who had a decades long issue with being an avenger (despite founding the team, he quit in issue 2) suddenly, without warning or reason, rejoined the team (which at the time even included his enemy Red Hulk) and has been a member ever since. Not because it worked storyline wise, or made any sense in terms of characterization, but simply because Marvel wanted the audience who'd seen the movie to see the same team in the comics.

Replacement heroes have been successful in the past, most notably Jim Rhodes as Iron Man for much of the 80's, (and brought back as Iron Man periodically ever since) but usually only after a fair amount of time has passed and people can appreciate the differences in the characters.

And with that movie coming, the clock is already ticking on both New Thor and New Cap.....so time is the one thing they dont have.

Which means for as much credit as marvel is getting for this, it remains to be seen if its sustainable credit, or just a well disguised temporary cheap pander to get attention in the build up to their next big movie (which in turn will hopefully increase comic book sales after the fact).    

Reverse One Drop Rules, how to fake Racism in a few simple steps

Alright, so upfront if your here to read my lastest rant on politics, this aint it. Today we are talking about something different: Intentionally bad, and misleading "journalism" designed only to make up a story for attention. (and be ye warned, this story has NOTHING to do with politics)

Today's case and point  Dion Berry's column in "the Atlantic" titled "Pro Wrestling is Fake, but it's race problem isn't."

Now in fairness to Mr. Berry that could well be a valid complaint, and a decent case could be made to support it

 (For those who have some trouble seeing, the mic's arnt malfunctioning, they are intentinally being badly dubbed)

Just saying, its not an impossible case.

The problem is, Mr. Berry not only FAILS to make what should be an easy point, he outright lies while doing it.

For example Mr. Berry points to one of WWE's new wrestlers, a storyline russian named "Rusef" who has basically been squashing (a wrestling term for beating an opponent who gets in little or no offense) talent since his debut to make him look like a legit threat. The problem according to Berry, is that the only people Rusef has squashed are ALL black wrestlers

"Rusev has been squashing black wrestlers almost exclusively since his debut back in April. Before Big E, there was R-Truth, who comes down to the ring dancing and rapping; Kofi Kingston, a Jamaican whose accent mysteriously vanished a year or so after his debut; and Xavier Woods, a legitimate Ph.D. candidate when outside the ring, but a funk-loving dancing machine within it.

Fans online remarked in amusement at the coincidence, at first. Kingston, Truth, and Woods are perpetual losers called “jobbers,” meant to get beaten by whoever the WWE brass have decided to push that month. Before Payback, even Big E joked in a tweet that stopping Rusev might involve putting back together the Nation of Domination, a controversial black-power faction formed in WWE in the mid-‘90s. That tweet was quickly deleted, and perhaps in response, the next guy Rusev beat had a lot less melanin in his skin, a Jersey Shore-inspired jobber named Zack Ryder."

The problem is, its not true.

Here's Rusev's DEBUT match

The guy he's beating the crap out of, is the same Zack Ryder who Mr. Berry would have you believe he only fought after the allegations surfaced on-line of racism.

In fairness it should be pointed out, those guys have had at least a dozen "matches" albeit all with the same result since Rusef's debut.

Nor is Ryder the only non-black person Rusef has crushed, as Mr. Berry would have you believe.

For those keeping score at home, that would be Mr. Rusef destroying 3 not black guys at the same time.

And again, those are hardly the only examples.......examples Mr. Berry intentionally left out in order to infuriate you.

And thats not his only lie and distortion.  For example, a bit later Mr. Berry is talking about a guy named Mark Henry, who's black, and gives this description. 

"He’s an Olympian who has been with WWE for over a decade and has enjoyed two reigns as “world champion.”

Those scare quotes need an explanation. Mark Henry has held world titles before, but never the world title, the WWE Championship. From March of 2002 until December of 2013, there were two world championships in the company, one for each brand of WWE programming, the flagship Monday Night Raw and the B-show Friday Night Smackdown. For a brief period, WWE operated a third brand, a relaunch of ‘90s grunge federation ECW, and there were three world championships in the company. However, not even in WWE’s nonsensical universe can there be three different people who are supposedly champion of the world, so a hierarchy of titles formed. Fans recognized that since Raw was the flagship show, whatever championship was defended on Raw was the real world championship.

Mark Henry held ECW’s world championship, and then Smackdown’s world championship. But despite having one of the most impressive resumes in WWE history, he has never won the top prize in WWE."

Now, as a wrestling fan myself, I do have to fairly point out a lot of people DID see the smackdown brand as the B brand.....but not for any lack of trying on the part of WWE. When they first split the show in half, WWE put Hulk Hogan and The Rock on smackdown.....and if your not a wrestling fan, those are probably the ONLY two wrestling names you could list. And Smackdown and Raw wrestlers often went head to head to see who the better show was (they even had a yearly pay per view devoted to this concept)to my memory, Smackdown NEVER lost one of these matches.

They also [evenually] gave Smackdown "the big gold belt" considered by many to be THE definitive world championship, despite not originating as a WWE title, as its design has unchanged since 1985, due to the fact it was immediately seen as most "legitimate looking". No other title comes close to this "run" with the same design.

Ric Flair with Big Gold Belt in 1986 and Randy Orton in 2013

By comparison, the WWE title (which is the other belt Randy Orton is holding in the second photo) is in its 6th design since 2001. 

Also it should be pointed out, their is a reason Randy Orton is holding two belts in that picture....WWE unified their titles (so they only have one champion) but is making the champ lug two different belts around cause they want the legitimacy so many attach to the Big Gold Belt. 

So basically point is, WWE did everything in its power to make Smackdown, the show where Mark Henry was champion, look like the A-show. So the idea they intentionally never gave him the top title is bullshit. 

But we still have the two most egregious intentional "oversights" left to go. 

The first involves a wrestler (now WWE hall of famer) Booker T.  Mr. Berry devotes the entire middle third of his article to talking about a Wrestlemania match (WWE's version of the superbowl) between Booker T, and the defending champion, HHH, that Booker lost, and in the minds of most fans (myself included) that was totally the wrong call for that storyline and match. And to be fair the storyline was even a bit racist in ways it wouldnt have been as troublesome if Booker T won. 

Now I will spare you copy pasting the entire 4 paragraphs (you can read the whole article at the link near the top) and only really hit the relevant sentence.

"Booker T was, as he would put it, a five time, five time, five time, five time, five time world champion in WCW, a company that surpassed WWE in ratings for a significant chunk of the time he was champion there."

Now the idea here is that Booker T was a major draw who WWE held down because he was black. Small problem....its not true

WCW (WWE's former competition)had a monday show that ran head to head with WWE, and WCW DID beat the WWE in rating's 84 weeks in a row, from mid 1996-mid 1998. And with a couple of single week exceptions, they never won again. Booker T won his first world title in 2000. So no, WCW didnt surpass WWE for any chunk of time was champion. (which in all fairness to Booker T is not at all his fault) 

Oh and a second point, just minutes after winning his FOURTH WCW championship, WCW went out of business.

So how did he wind up being a  " five time, five time, five time, five time, five time WCW Champion"?

Well WWE bought WCW, and brought the name and the title over to their show, where Booker would both lose his forth title, and win his fifth. So yea, he wasnt exactly a "5 time champion in a different company"

And a final point. Several years after that wrestlemaina match, and several years before this article was written, Booker T became a 6 time World Champion.....there's only about a 16 or so wrestlers in history who've had that many.  And it should be noted, when Booker T had this last world title, it was when WWE had 3 world titles, and all 3 champions were put into a match to see who would win the title "Champion of Champions".....and Booker T won.

But again none of that actually counts according to Mr. Berry, because it wasnt the title HE decided mattered. 

But then we get to BY FAR the biggest and least professional justification of the entire piece. 

Early on (when discussing Mark Henry) Mr. Berry throws out this line 

"In its 62 year history, WWE has never chosen a black wrestler to hold its world championship. "

Now even if we limit ourselves ONLY to the specific title Mr. Berry wants to consider, their is a small problem:

The Rock. 8 time WWF/WWE World Champion (and 2 time WCW/World Champion)

Yea thats right, a small problem, also known as only one of the most popular wrestlers of all time, especially outside the wrestling world, and probably one of the only wrestlers most people can name. 

So how does Mr. Berry get around that "small" problem? buckle up boys and girls....its about to get bumpy

"The only person of African descent ever named world champion was Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, a special case. Half Samoan and half African-Canadian, Johnson identifies as Samoan and comes from a line of famous wrestlers."

Yea that's right. Mr. Berry REVERSE "One Drop Rule"'s that motherfucker and declares him NOT BLACK because he has a drop or two of not black blood.

Also not American either. 

Which by the way, while it is true Rock's Father, WWE Hall of Famer Rocky Johnson, is black and was born in Canada, and his mother is Samoan.

BUT, guess where the Rock's mother was born......the far off island nation of.......Hawaii.

That's right, in order to avoid being forced to call the Rock "African American" Mr. Berry didnt just hit him with a Reverse One Drop,  he followed it up with a full on Birther. 

Oh, by the way, one last point, as far as I know the Rock has never identified as "only Samoan" in fact, you remember the part from earlier about "Big E joked in a tweet that stopping Rusev might involve putting back together the Nation of Domination, a controversial black-power faction formed in WWE in the mid-‘90s."
Yea, here's a picture of the Nation of Domination (minus Mark Henry who joined later)

  

Notice anyone familiar? like say the "Not Black" Rock over on the left? The same "Not Black" Rock who would later go on to LEAD the "Black Power Group" the Nation of Domination?

Certainly looks to me like the Rock is in no way at all identifying himself as Black........

There is one other excuse Mr. Berry gives for why the "not really black or american" Rock got to win the world title 8 times....

"As WWE's first third-generation fighter, he was allowed a narrative that reflected his specific family history, not the mere fact of his race."

And I guess here, he has a point. WWE ALWAYS treats their "multi generational" talent better, and give them the best most likely characters to be world champions.

And unlike the Rock's dad, who never won a world title, their dad, the American Dream Dusty Rhodes, won 3. So I guess so much for that "Multi Generational" preference theory. 

But I guess that's what happens when you take what could have a been a legitimate point, get lazy and substitute easy outrage for legit research.....you wind up getting made a fool of by two grown men in gold face paint and glitter..........