I will say then that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and politically quality of the white and black races that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes nor of qualifying them to hold office nor to intermarry with white people and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races from living together on terms of social and political equality and in as much as they cannot so live while they do remain together there must be the position of Superior and inferior and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
3:00. Interesting constitutional question so I have to go back to 1883 and the Pendleton Act and talk about
3:12. In 1883, we have some discussion about civil service reform. Why? In 1881, we have the assassination of President James Garfield. So he's walking in a train station, and a disgruntled office figure named Charles Guiteau shoots him in the back. He doesn't die right then; he'll die later on horribly from infection because they're trying to find the bullet, and they kept digging around in his back. When Guiteau shoots Garfield, he says, "I am a stalwart of the stalwarts." Arthur is president now, and what did that mean? In the 1880s in New York, you had political factions vying for the spoils of the presidency. Now at that time there were a shade over 100,000 federal jobs in the United States, and the party in charge of the executive Branch appointed all of these people the president actually made $100,000 appointments or at least he delegated that out to subordinates who appointed people it wasn't any civil service the executive branch turned over every time a new president came in all of them including things like postmasters all of that turned over you could have a new postmaster every 4 years because the postmasters were appointed by the president and this was very effective for the Republican Party during the war by the way because they would put Republican postmasters so they could control the Postal Service, they could search the mail and other things. We had all of these appointed people. Well, Guiteau didn't get a job, and so he thought he was going to take it out on the president. He shot the president and killed him. At that point, Chester Arthur becomes president. Chester Arthur was a stalwart. There were two factions. One were the stalwarts, one where the half breeds. The stalwarts were purely party men. If you were not a Republican, if you were not someone who toed the line, the Republican Party line, you were not going to get a job. The Half-Breeds, like James Garfield, believed in hiring Democrats at times. They didn't really have to be a Republican; he wanted the best man for the job. These were the reconciliationists. You saw this when you got to a period after the war where there was some insistence that some Democrats were brought into the fold, or at least some Southerners. These were people that were thinking, "Well, we need to reunify the United States. Let's put some things back together." So, after Garfield was killed, there was an outcry for civil service reform. "We've got to get rid of the spoils system. It's a problem." So that led to the Pendleton Act of 1883 Chester Arthur was behind it so was most of the American population but even at that point with well over 100,000 workers only about 10% were covered by the Pendleton Act still there were a lot of people that worked as civil service employees that we're going to be hired instead of political appointees only about 10%, so you're looking at what 13,000 people. the rest were still Federal appointees. You could see how small the federal government was at that point if only 10% were covered by civil service. Most of the people were not. That means the president still appointed all these people. Now, today we have a federal workforce of around 3 million people, 3 million people. Unprecedented. 3 million people. What D.O.G.E. is finding out is that most people don't do any work. They simply get a salary, and it's corrupt and fraudulent, and everything else is graft. All of it. But all of those people are covered by the Civil Service law except for the President [who] appoints such a small percentage of the federal workforce now. That is almost all of the 2.9 million people. I can't remember if that number includes military people or not. I don't think it includes that. To cover the soldiers, there is a million of those. So now you've got almost 4 million people who are on federal service, and when you're broaden it out further when you look at people who are on the door who get money from federal contracts Federal money it's a huge number millions and millions of people are getting federal dollars in one way or another. So we have this interesting situation that has developed since 1883 where the president has become completely hamstrung to control the executive branch. In 1883, the president controlled all of it. In 1882 the president controlled every higher in the executive branch there were 130,000 of them. Today, the president controls very few. So we've gotten 180° in the other direction. People complained in 1883 that the President had too much control. But it only covered 10% of the federal workforce, so they were still fine with the president getting everything else. So what happened? Over time it was that people decided that who wanted bigger and more bureaucracy, and that the president didn't need to have control over these people however in the 1880s when you go back and look at how some of what the president said about this. The Pendleton Act itself actually had all kinds of rules and regulations. One of the things was that you couldn't be overly political. You couldn't be forced to do something for political reasons but you couldn't take money you couldn't do anything political but now we know the federal workers do this all the time. And when Grover Cleveland became president, he actually set out some rules. You had to be a US citizen to be in the Civil Service, all these things. The Civil Service Commission made recommendations. One of the things was that you couldn't show up intoxicated. Regardless we had a civil service that covered very few people and even as it expanded out the president had a lot of power over who could be hired and fired even there under civil service. So this is the vesting clause, the vesting clause. The president is the head of the executive Department and because of the vesting clause if you want to read it broadly it just means that he has the powers vested and him through the Constitution of only the things listed there but these people that are in favor of extensive executive power they said the vesting Clause means that anything that would be executive is invested in the president, not the Congress, not the Supreme Court. They have no control over it. Separation of powers, and the president has the authority to do these things. He has the authority to appoint, for example, Elon Musk, and create this DOGE committee to go and review the waste in government and make recommendations, which the president can then implement. He has the power in the vesting clause to fire people who are not doing their job. He's the president of the United States. Or his secretaries have the power to fire people because they're not doing their job. This was a big issue during Reconstruction. Could the president of the United States fire the commander, the General in Chief of the US Army? The Congress said no, the president said yes. This has now been litigated out and this is under the administration of Andrew Johnson and the courts have decided that, yeah, the President can fire the General in Chief ;we call him the Joint Chiefs of Staff now, but they can do it. The president can fire these people he can also hire these people even if Congress has a role in hiring them the president can still fire them because they're not doing their job Congress doesn't have to have any role in that so that vesting Clause actually allowed a broad interpretation of it for Franklin Roosevelt to use the executive branch to transform the government in the 1930s. Also Woodrow Wilson has set the stage for that in the 19-teens, but really Franklin Roosevelt did it more than anyone else. And essentially what has happened since the 1930s is that we've seen a massive expansion of federal power through the bureaucracy, because that's what Roosevelt did. He created a fifth column. He created a bureaucracy that was unmovable. He knew exactly what he was doing and he talks about it we have all these people people working in government and really when this is over when World War II was over the United States just rearranged the deck chairs and they just kept all of the stuff in place. So we kept the massive bureaucracy in place. We kept all the things in place that he was doing, supposedly to win the war, win the war on poverty, the war on depression, win the war in Europe. Truman just came in and rearranged the deck chairs, and we kept this in place so really no one alive today remembers what it was like before this even if you were old enough to remember World War II there are still some people alive and their 90s that could remember that you really don't remember what it was like before that if you were 18 in World War II at the end of World War II you're in your mid 90s now so you might somewhat remember a time but you really don't remember anything before the 1930s when Roosevelt became president so you don't really remember anything about this we've had three generations of people now essentially who have been brought up under a system, a Roosevelt-type system, an American fascist system, that's what it is. And so all Trump is doing is going in and doing something with this stuff but using the same powers that Roosevelt claim he had in the 1930s.
2:00. We have the big decision come out of the Supreme Court yesterday. This is huge, and, of course, as I predicted on the show, it would be a very interesting decision. I initially predicted a couple of months ago that it would be a 5-4 decision in favor of Trump. Guess what? It was essentially a 5 to 4 decision in favor of Trump. All 9 justices argued that Colorado could not keep Trump off the ballot, but 4 of them had reservations about it. There was a concurring opinion that was almost a dissent. As I said, it was going to be 5 to 4, and then after listening to the arguments I thought, well, it's going to be 9 to 0, or 8 to 1, but it turned out to be 9 and 0 in favor of Trump "staying on the ballot," but the arguments against it, kind of this expansion of the 14th Amendment, certainly the 3 liberal justices believe that Amy Coney Barrett, who I thought would be in the 5 to 4, who I thought maybe Roberts would go to the 4 but it was Barrett. She is certainly still saying that maybe the state can do something with the 14th Amendment, Section 3 of that, but regardless, I was right on both accounts. That's why you listen to the show and that's why on social media I said I should be making Rush Limbaugh kind of money.
3:30. Let me go into some of the things about this; in fact, I'm not going to read the decision very much. I'll say some general things about the decision. First and foremost, I think that Barrett in some ways is actually right that states can enforce provisions of the Constitution. I mean state judges take an oath to defend the Constitution, and so do state officers. They do it. This is what I've mentioned about Texas. Texas can enforce the Constitution. They can round up people crossing the border illegally, send them back to Mexico, or wherever else they are from. They can do that. State officers take an oath to support the Constitution. Now, what states don't have to do is enforce unconstitutional laws. I've talked about that on this show. That's non-commandeering. But if the law is constitutional, and they take an oath to do it, then they have to enforce those things.
4:20. Now, the situation with the ballot is very interesting because it wasn't until the late 19th century that we had the States involved in that process, and some of that was because of the 14th Amendment. But also because states wanted to regulate who could and who could not be on a ballot; in some ways, that's a little bit of an expansion of power that maybe they don't have. Private entities or parties can put anybody they want on the ballot. The states can sort that out after they get nominees, but you can have any party nominate anyone. And if that person had been convicted of, say, insurrection, well, then the state could potentially leave them off the ballot, or if that person was a criminal or another way of what if they were in jail well that person could be kept off the ballot I mean there are some things you know like when if they're not old enough whatever the situation is the state can review that and say no well this person can't be there also Congress has a role in that regard as well they can refuse to see people in Congress but the state certainly gets to decide to choose it's electors so in that way there could be some control of that for the states.
McClanahan's criteria for judging the worst or best presidents was based on their ability to uphold their oath of office, how well did they defend the Constitution? These 5 presidents are the worst because they violated their oath of office. When a president takes office, he takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. What does that mean? Well, that's the Constitution as ratified in the original Constitution: we don't have elected kings. Now, of course, Alexander Hamilton said he wanted that, but we didn't get that. "An elected king" was not ratified; in fact, one of the arguments against the Constitution is that it created an elected king, but those who said it never would. Even reading Alexander Hamilton's Federalists 69 he says "No, the American president will never be an elected king, it's not designed that way." So that's the Constitution we got, but typically the men that are considered the best act as dictators or kings or tyrants, and the ones that are considered the worst are generally those who follow the Constitution.
4:00. Harry Truman was so aggressive, we didn't have a peace treaty on the war. We had to end it through essentially a Congressional resolution because Harry Truman was blocking any attempt to have a real peace treaty with Germany or Japan. Also, Harry Truman, when the war was over, the United States attempted to demobilize. Harry Truman didn't let it happen; in fact, we just kind of rolled all these big massive unconstitutional government programs into something else and then called it something else. The United States has never gone off of wartime footing since World War II, and a lot of that is due to Harry Truman. A lot of the stuff was unconstitutional. We know it. Harry Truman nationalized the steel industry. Harry Truman attempted to arrest blue-collar workers for opposing his policies. Where have we seen this before in the modern era? Well, let's see, it's called mandates. So Harry Truman was doing things that were completely out of line. He's got his Fair Deal, "everyone deserves a fair deal," which was a massive expansion of federal programs, unconstitutional Federal programs. Harry Truman in so many ways is the personification of the Progressive Left: a) centralized power, b) come up with unconstitutional programs, c) be a warmonger, d) got us involved in Korea, the first time the United States had gotten into a major undeclared war and it's in Korea? Come on. This guy was one of the worst presidents in American history bar none. He makes the top five because he is so bad.
#4 LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON, LBJ
5:36. All right, coming in number four is another democratic warmonger, Lyndon Baines Johnson, another guy that is a . . . people try to give him credit for the Great Society which, of course, is massively unconstitutional. He's pushing that legislative agenda. They'll also try to give him credit for things like civil rights legislation and they'll give him a pass because of that, but we know Johnson wasn't really interested in real civil rights. What he really wanted was too ensure the ascendency of the Democratic Party and maintain power, and that's exactly what happened. He took one group of people, African Americans who had voted Republican for a long time, and made them Democratic voters because he thought that was the way forward. So was he really committed to civil rights or not, that's an open question. But the guns and butter policies of Lyndon Baines Johnson are some of the worst in American history. His War on Poverty didn't end poverty, hasn't ended it at all. His engagement in Vietnam cost tens of thousands of American lives and this is all under the guise of strong centralization, major centralization in American history. So Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society and the Vietnam War are two disastrous things; it's no wonder that Johnson, who assumes office after Kennedy's assassination, is essentially out in 1968. Because he knows he's not going to be reelected, so the man is out and we've got he's followed up by Richard Nixon, who's also really bad but not anywhere near as bad as Lyndon Johnson. So if you want to look at number four in terms of unconstitutional powers and abuse abusing power, Lyndon Johnson is your guy.
#3 WOODROW WILSON
7:15. Coming in at #3 is a man who did a lot to change the way we think about the executive office in the 20th century, and that would be Woodrow Wilson, the man who got us involved in World War I, the first time in American history that Americans are going to be fighting in Europe in a major war, that's Woodrow Wilson. Also Woodrow Wilson and his legislative programs, he provided the blueprint for the New Deal and the unconstitutional measures used by the general government during World War II. This guy was terrible when it came to defending his oath; he didn't do it at all. He's a progressive and Woodrow Wilson thought it was the job of the progressives to change the nature of government. Wilson, in fact, said as much. He said, you know, the Constitution is not something that should get in our way, right. The Constitution is something that we can use to our advantage. Now, Wilson at one time was very much a strict constructionist, but he saw that as an obstacle to good effective, efficient government, so from that point forward after he became president of Princeton and he was governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson certainly decided that unconstitutional authority was was the best kind of authority and an aggressive foreign policy was the best kind of foreign policy. So if you want to look at the beginning of the American age and World War 1 and the American Empire, it certainly started before that with the Spanish-American War, 1898, but World War I really put the United States front and center on the world stage and that was thanks to Woodrow Wilson. And you wouldn't have had the New Deal without Wilson and Wilson's domestic policies. This guy was awful and if you look at him defending his oath, he did a very poor job.
#2 ABRAHAM LINCOLN
8:58. Coming in at #2, this is the one that's going to infuriate a lot of people but it's true: the second worst president in American history is Abraham Lincoln. Now I could have put him number one; as a matter of fact, I could have put any of these people number one, but Lincoln did so much to create the modern Imperial presidency. Now, Lincoln had precedence: he had Andrew Jackson and he also had George Washington. Why Jackson and Washington, those are good presidents. What are you saying? Lincoln was a good president. Anyone who engages in a war that kills a million Americans is not a good president. Lincoln could have chosen to have peace but he chose War instead. In fact, historians pointed this out for years. It's only been recently that we've had this idolization of Lincoln to the point of making him a demigod. There's a very good book by James G. Randall, Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln, 2012. Everyone recognized Lincoln's dubious constitutional tactics. People understood that Lincoln was violating the Constitution, his opponents knew he was violating the Constitution. Heck, Lincoln himself even admitted at times, "I think I'm violating the Constitution. It doesn't matter." But if you want to point to presidential powers, war powers, and how they are abused, you've got to go back to Abraham Lincoln. There's a guy that said, "Look, I don't care if it's constitutional or not; it's best to designed to subdue the enemy." And that of course became the basis of every single presidential act when it came to unconstitutional military power, you can't go beyond Lincoln for that. So Lincoln did a lot to create this national government, destroying State powers. We go from a federal republic to a national Empire. I mean this is the Lincoln Administration in a nutshell, and I think that you can't get around the fact that Lincoln is a disaster constitutionally in terms of defending his oath. His opponents said it, and we should all recognize that.
#1 FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT
10:51. Coming in at number one the worst president in American history, Franklin Roosevelt, King Franklin, the only man to serve 4 terms, which broke precedent. George Washington had established precedent; he only served 2 terms. Franklin Roosevelt elected 4 times, died in office very early into his 4th term. Regardless, really a man who transformed the way we think of the modern Executive Branch. Here's a guy who assumes office in 1933 and essentially admits openly in his inaugural address that he's going to be a dictator and that's what he does. So the New Deal which Roosevelt essentially authored the Roosevelt administration. He threatened the Supreme Court, so they'd bend to his will. He gets the United States involved in World War II, which there was a question, did it have to be involved in World War II? So all these unconstitutional things and, of course, all the programs that were put into effect and solidified by World War II, the creation of the military-industrial complex, all of that is because of King Franklin and FDR's Administration. This guy is absolutely horrible in defending his oath, yet he's often elevated to the status of a great president. You can't get around the fact that people loved FDR. He's right up there at the top, always ranked near the top with Lincoln, of course, and George Washington. I could say that George Washington is a great president in many ways. Of course, in my 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America and Four Who Tried to Save Her, 2018, I made the case for Washington who had some problems as well but . . . . Franklin Roosevelt is the worst president in American history bar none.
Who are McClanahan's 5 Best Presidents? His criterion? Based on defending their oath of office. If they did a good job of defending the Constitution, they are going to be in this 5 Best.
What does it say about society when you have to force your women into going to war, particularly in a Western society?
"Americans Don't Want to Fight for Their Country Anymore," Aleks Phillips, Newsweek, November 10, 2023. Surprisingly honest in some ways. This is Newsweek, this isn't some right-wing website. This is surprisingly frank about the effects that wokism has had on military recruiting. Somebody pointed out that the recent commercials have dropped almost all of that stuff. In some very recent commercials, they dropped all the woke stuff. It's all gone.
