Love

None of us is a sinner. Noone who knows Christ, noone for whom Christ shed His precious blood is a sinner. In Christ we are made new, we are renewed through Christ's healing power, so that even when we continue to sin, we are not sinners, because every single sin we commit has already been covered in Christ's blood. There is nothing so powerful that it can separate us from God's love. "And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" 1 John 2:1. "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1. This then is God's comfort for us, that we cannot ever turn away from Him. If we believe on Him, even if we feel nothing, even if we feel completely alone and as if He does not love us, His love remains steadfast forever, and His mercy continues ever on. "So when the devil throws your sins in your face and tells you that you deserve death and hell, tell him this: I admit I deserve death and hell, what of it? For I know of one who suffered and made satisfaction on my behalf. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and where He is, there shall I be also"-Martin Luther. No matter how we feel, we cannot separate ourselves from God's love "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."-Romans 8:38-39. No sin we commit can separate us from that Love. Christ's sacrifice on Calvary paid for our sins once and for all. We need no other sacrifice, and we need no other help. Christ's sacrifice is eternal, and he intercedes now at the Right Hand of His Father for all the sins of his people. It is for this reason that David was able to say "Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him and in whose spirit is no deceit" because when we confess our sins to God, we are forgiven, and our souls are as if we had never sinned at all. So when we feel the weight of our sins, and we confess them to God, it is really a doubting of the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice if we continue to bear the weight. "Then I acknowledged my sin to You and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD" and You forgave the guilt of my sin"-Psalm 32:5

It is for this reason that we need not doubt our faith when we sin grievously. There is no sin so great that Christ's blood has not covered it. There is no reason to dwell on our guilt and sin. There is no reason to attempt to "make up for it" in some deed or work. We need only plead the Cross, and lift up our sins unto God, and turn away from those sins in repentance, and we need fear nothing, for He is with us. We need only pray "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me" ( Psalm 51) and we are renewed. For each of us is at the same time a great sinner and not a sinner at all, as all of God's people are renewed through His sacrifice of His Son Christ on the cross, and we are made whole in His blood, and it is as if we had never sinned at all.

"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."-Hebrews 4:16

"What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."-Romans 8:31-34

About to start

Since the school year is about to start again, I figured it was time to get off my dead behind and post on blogger again. So first post of the school year

I GOT TO SEE ALICE COOPER LIVE
and it was friggin' incredible, best experience of my life, and I also got to hang out with his opening band, Brent James and the Contra Band, a great Blues Rock group (I got a signed cd of theirs.) Everyone should look up Brent James on youtube and listen to their song "Moment of Silence" that they have a video for. They were really tight, really well organized, and put on a great show (especially since most of us, by the time they came on, were fed up standing around and wanted Alice to come out THEN) and really impressed a lot of people.

Alice himself was freaking incredible, though he only did one song of his new album, "Vengeance is Mine," with most of the other songs being from the early 80s, such as "Under My Wheels," "Guilty" and "Is it my body?" He "died" four different times, one guillotine, one noose, one lethal injection, and being stabbed, which was the last death that cued the chorus of "I love the dead." I'd have liked to hear more of his Christian songs, personally, but his choice of songs were still very good. I spent the entire concert screaming the songs, throwing up the horns, and jumping up and down like I never thought I'd do (I guess it wasn't the time for dignity.) His guitarists and bassist were very tight as well, especially since they spent half the time they were playing being "shoved" and climbing platforms. Keri Kelli especially impressed me, playing incredibly quickly and energetically, and sweating so much it looked like he'd flood the stage. All in all, it was the best concert I've ever been to, I'm definitely seeing him again if I can, and I had the time of my life

The Nightmare Returns-A Nightmare on Elm Street

First off, I'm not a fan of slasher films. At best they annoy me, at worst, they disgust me (Saw is the most disgusting waste of a film budget I've ever seen.) I don't even really consider them a member of the horror genre-they're like horrors deformed little bastard cousin. This isn't to say I haven't been entertained by the occasional one-I liked the Halloween series, for example. One film, however, that I have always felt was misclassified as a slasher was "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Now yes, the sequels were slasher films, but the original, I think, transcends that genre into full blown horror. Of all the horror movies I have seen, only two have ever scared me: The Exorcist, and A Nightmare on Elm Street. The new reboot is all that the first was and better. In my opinion, this came down to three factors: The deaths, the use of sleep and sleeplessness as a story driver, and Freddy himself.

Now, yes there is plenty of death in Nightmare. You expect it (The claw on Freddy's hand isn't a backscratcher), and you shouldn't be surprised at its presence. However, unlike the deaths of the original, Freddy's methods of execution in the new Nightmare are far more cruel and brutal than before. He doesn't, for example, eat anyone with a bed. He does, however, slash people open brutally, stab them through the throat, and do it all in such a menacing way that realizes perfectly Freddy's personality as a psychopath. There is gore, but nothing too excessive, merely enough to be horrifying without being nauseating.

Sleep and sleeplessness figured big in the original Nightmare, but it lost its focus in the sequels, being replaced by Freddy's horrible puns and almost likeable personality. This movie brings back the sleep factor and the suspense affiliated with it. Freddy can kill people, but ONLY if they fall asleep. The lines between sleep and reality begin to blur, and so the audience is sometimes left wondering whether Freddy is going to pop out, knives a'flashin' at any moment.

While sleep and death certainly made the new "Nightmare" effective, it is Freddy himself, both design and character-wise that leads me to regard the remake more highly than the original. In the original Nightmare, Freddy is confirmed early on as a child murderer, and serves as a being of pure, unadulterated evil. The newer Freddy is more ambiguous, and we even doubt his guilt for a portion of the movie. Also, instead of being a mere child murderer, the new Freddy is a sexual predator; a child molester. Thus, he is given a whole new level of evil as a character, and any sympathy the audience might have had for him evaporates with almost chilling suddenness as we realize the full scope of Freddy's evil. Gone also are Freddy's horrible and macabre puns, replaced with evil laughter at the pain of his victims. There is no humor to the new Freddy; he horrifies instead of amusing us. While his iconic design is not completely changed, per se, Freddy's burned features are given an overhaul that make him, once again, more horrifying. The more realistic burn injuries that he carries make the audience uncomfortable; they repulse and yet beg pity, and when contrasted with Freddy's repulsive character, serve to make him more horrifying.

All in all, it's not an art film. However, it's not a mere slasher film either. It impressed me, and even scared me a little. Freddy is the triumph of this movie. While most of the characters are a step up from the crap cardboard characters of the old series (minus the first) it is the revamping of Freddy as a horrifying, evil, disgusting character, bringing the scare back to him, that is truly the triumph of this movie.

*** 1/2 out of *****

Why Does Modern Music Suck?

Well? Why does it? Short answer: I don't know. Long answer: I have a theory

To start with, I don't literally believe all modern music sucks. Actually, there are a lot of "modern" artists that I like: Blink-182, Escape the Fate, Senses Fail, The Killers, etc. However, within the last decade, and especially within the last five years, there's been a major downturn in the music entering the pop world. When the abominations called "That's What I Call Music" came out, I'd often hear a couple of songs on the albums that I'd like; Bowling for Soup's 1985, the occasional Crossfade song, even the Killer's "Somebody Told Me." Now, however, I haven't heard a song from before 2005 on the radio that I can really stand, with the exception of the alternative stations. Now, I understand that Pop music has sucked for a long time, but why the hell is it getting worse?

Before I go on, I'm gonna quote my idol, Alice Cooper, on why HE (and he's been ruling the music world for over years) thinks. "Kids these days, they have all these catchy tunes, but their songs are just the saaaame thing over and over again. They don't feel their music at all. You're angry. I get it. Some girl or boy broke your heart. I get it. You're just putting out tunes, not real music." I think that Alice has it right there, that a lot of bands aren't feeling their music anymore, and the popular ones aren't feeling them period. I've heard Taylor Swift (my sisters listen, I live in a small house. I'm not gay) and Justin Bieber and the Jonas Bros. and all that other pop-music garbage; that's exactly what it is, garbage. Oh, musically, I'll admit the Bros. can play and Taylor Swift has a nice voice, but they sing about the same "feel good" crap in every single song. It's all about love (or a facsimile thereof) and self-esteem. The human touch is starting to evaporate from a lot of pop-music. Listen to your classic rock, or even modern alternative, and you get a sense of connection. There's a difference between Miley Cyrus talking about some guy who broke her heart, when she's never experienced more than the typically awkward and painful teenage relationship crap, and Buddy Nielsen of Senses Fail who really had his life butchered by a broken relationship. It comes out in the music. Now I realize contrasting Pop music with Post Hardcore may be a little unfair, but even if you look at older bands in the same genre, the problem remains. Looking at the old Good Charlotte (a talented band whatever you may think of their music) it was perfectly apparent that the Madden bros. had grown up in a significantly less privilaged environment than Miley had.

True enough, a lot of pop is meant to appeal to teenagers. Even there, modern pop is doing nothing but screwing the proverbial pooch. Blink-182, Bowling for Soup, Good Charlotte, the early Green Day; they all appealed to teenagers in a much more real sense than these Disney-backed disasters do. And why? Once again, the aforementioned bands FELT their music. I can think of no better band than Blink for expressing how teens feel. Life isn't all about self-esteem, sometimes life is shit and "It'll happen once again, You'll turn to a friend, Someone who understands, Sees through the master plan, But everybody's gone, And you've been here for too long, To face this on your own, Well I guess this is growing up." That's teenage life, in my experience anyway, not this highschool musical jonas bros. bullcrap. I'll admit, Blink-182 aren't the most talented bunch (save for Travis Barker. aMAZING drummer), but their relatively simple sound has a broader, more real, and quite versatile appeal. The Jonas Bros. rely on their good looks and self-esteem toting songs, and their time will soon be over. It ain't your skill that matters, it's your heart.

The other problem I have with a lot of modern pop is this; it all sounds the SAME. I know the sounds of Alice Cooper, of Social Distortion, of the Ramones, of the Clash, of the Sex Pistols, of AC/DC, of Aerosmith, of the Killers, of Socratic, of Blink, the list goes on. I turn on the radio, and I have no friggin' idea who's playing. Now, in a sense, I've been spoiled musically, because my dad insisted on my exposure being very broad, from Celtic to New Age to Jazz to Blues to Classic Rock. Hell, my first favorite rockband was Creedence Clearwater Revival. But as I look through all these "old" albums, watch all these "old" interviews, I see a variety of influence. Alice Cooper was influenced by everything from the Beatles to Elvis to Chuck Berry and the Stones, and then he injected his own sound. Aerosmith took influence from bluegrass, blues, and jazz just as much from the Stones. Social Distortion owed just as much to Johnny Cash as it did to the Ramones. Ozzy listened to British folk (often all lumped, quite incorrectly and to my fury, into the category of "celtic") just as much as he listened to the Beatles. Even classical music wormed its influence into the most unlikely corners of music; Randy Rhoades was a classical guitarist. Now, though, the influences are all the same; a bit of the Beatles, and then the power-pop and New Wave of the late 80s to 90s, and hence it ALLLL sounds the same. There is so much good music out there, and if you look at the influences of any good musician or band, and they will be diverse. If I was to list my influences as a musician, there'd be as much Folk as there would be rock, and even the rock would be diverse. Yes, Alice Cooper would be there, Social Distortion, Green Day, but there would be Andy M. Stewart, Tom Waits, Voltaire, Mauro Giuliani (whose method of classical guitar I subscribe to) and Vivaldi. The Jonas Bros. list Switchfoot and Prince, both of which are pop, and mediocre at best (no apologies are coming for that comment, don't even start with me.) Even if they listed Michael Jackson, who I loathe, at least it would be original. Just as eating only candy leads to ill physical health, lack of a varied musical influence will lead to crappy and unoriginal music. I'm not saying your influences can't come mostly from one genre, in fact, they probably should, because sound should be relatively concrete, but it should come OUT in your music. You can tell Aerosmith had a broad influence. Even (and I loathe to say it because I despise them SO VERY MUCH) Nirvana had a broad influence and it showed (they still blow. Just compared to Jonas Bros., they're decent.) Pearl Jam, The Cure, the Cult, Garbage, the Pogues...they all showed their influences and the broad range of music that influenced them, and so they all had a distinct style. Modern pop music....generally sounds the same.

Now, there is hope yet for music. Bands like The Killers, Matchbox Twenty, Socratic, and Fountains of Wayne are all "pop" bands that I enjoy and that are highly original. Alice Cooper and Ozzy Osbourne are still shaking things up too. Even Tom Waits will be putting out new stuff shortly. However, these guys are all gaining in years. Even the more modern bands like Blink-182 are pushing 40. Green Day's pretty much gone, their last album sucking like you wouldn't believe, and Good Charlotte having to redeem themselves from their last album, which I'll admit didn't COMPLETELY suck, but it was right up there. However, until the Popular Music world stops catering to teeny boppers, I think the musical depression we're in is gonna be lasting for a while. At least we still have classic rock and alternative stations, and that wonder of the modern world, that saviour of civilization...iTunes.

Album Review-Peace and Love

Well, I haven't listened to any "new" albums in a while, not since Alice Cooper's "Along Came a Spider" that I've liked. However, I always am on the look out for albums I haven't heard before, because new is in the ear of the listener. So I was on iTunes the other day, wanting to waste some money, when whimsy clubbed me over the head and said "You haven't listened to the Pogues in a while. Get a new album." So I looked around, and I was struck by the picture on the front of Peace and Love. I don't know if you've noticed yet, but the boxer on the cover has six fingers on his right hand. Maybe he's the cousin of Count Rogan from Princess Bride, I dunno. So I bought the albums, seeing that it did have an equal amount of Spider Stacy and Shane McGowan singing. While some of my favorite Pogues songs are absent from the album, as an album itself, I think it's my favorite.

To start with, the Pogues, if you don't know, are not just Irish folk. While they're all either Irish or of Irish descent, they play just as many non-Irish songs as Irish ones, especially on Peace and Love. The first song on the album, "Gridlock," seems to be drawn more from Benny Goodman than from the Dubliners. One of my favorite songs on the album, "Blue Heaven," sounds more like reggae than Irish folk. IMAO it's also one of the best songs to partner dance to, but I digress. The album isn't devoid of Irish influence, having the anti-English and pro-Irish song "Young Ned of the Hill," as well as love ballad "Lorelei," which also stands as one of my favorite Pogues songs.
I was somewhat disappointed by the last four tracks of the album, but as is standard for the Pogues, their experimentation with sounds can lead to less than shining results. The songs aren't bad in the slightest, they just didn't strike me, and I don't think it gave the album as strong a finish as I would have liked. However, due to the strength of the songs I liked, I would give this album **** out of ******

Best songs off the album: "Young Ned of the Hill," "Blue Heaven," "Lorelei"

Valkyrie

I saw Valkyrie when it first came out, but not that I've seen it again on DVD, I can contrast first impressions with lasting ones.

To start, Valkyrie stands as one of my favorite WWII movies ever. I normally hate Tom Cruise, because I don't think he can act anything but angry young men, but in Valkyrie, he plays Von Stauffenberg in a way that I don't think anyone else could have. The intensity and passion he brings to the role is astonishing. Terrence Stamp, William Nye, Tom Wilkinson, Sir Kenneth Brannagh, and a host of other great British actors fill the other roles to bring the acting to a caliber not often seen in hollywood war movies. There have been some criticisms of the "Nazis" not having German accents, but I have no problem with that, as I can clearly understand everybody and what they're saying, something not true when actors use fake accents and mix the odd Russian or German phrase into what they're saying.

The action and suspense are also brilliantly executed. Even though we all know that Valkyrie failed, I found myself on the edge of myself as they were executing it, from the moment the explosive is placed to the point when Hitler reveals himself to be alive. The movie's pace serves to highlight the tension it creates, though the pace is slightly too fast to give the sense of the passage of time that happened in reality.

The true strength of Valkyrie, and what makes it such a phenomenal movie, are the characters. At the beginning of the movie, General Tresckow (Kenneth Brannagh) says "If we do nothing, this will always be Hitler's Germany. We have to show the world that we were not all like him." This is the entire point of the movie; it shows the men in Germany who didn't just sit with their thumbs up their ass, but who got up and decided to do something about it. It's a risky venture to show men affiliated with Nazi Germany to be human, let alone to be heroes. If the venture had been attempted with lesser actors or a lesser director than Bryan Singer, it would have failed. As it is, however, the characters of the movie are so realistic, so believable, that we overcome the fact that they wore Nazi uniforms and see them as heroes. My Grandmother, a staunchly liberal Jewess who will remain so until she dies, point blank refused to see the movie because "Nazis were all animals. I don't want to see anything that tries to tell me any different." And indeed, we do see the absolute animals who inhabited and thrived in the Nazi Party. Hitler (David Bamber) in the main scene we see him, talks about the Valkyries of legend. "Killing the weak and preserving the strong. One cannot be a National Socialist if one does not understand [valkyries]" showing the Darwinian viewpoint of Hitler. Stauffenberg, on the other hand, is shown, although never explicitly, to be a Christian, praying in church and always wearing his cross. It is this conflict that serves as the focal point of the movie; Stauffenberg's faith and believe that he is doing good versus Hitler's evil, borne out of a misguided desire to do the same.

The movie ends as we knew it would; Valkyrie fails, the plotters were executed or committed suicide. As Tom Cruise shouts his defiant cry "Long live Sacred Germany," after a list of the plotters and how they died, we are left wondering; would we have done the same? Would we, as the movie said, "put our principles above personal gain?" Stauffenberg had a wife and family, and I have been to a couple of their estates. Most of the men who plotted against Hitler had everything to lose, and yet they all, unashamedly, defied him. Movies ought to make the audience think, and Valkyrie certainly does that. If you're only going to watch one World War II movie, it ought to be Valkyrie.


"The whole world will vilify us now, but I am still totally convinced that we did the right thing. Hitler is the archenemy not only of Germany but of the world. When, in few hours' time, I go before God to account for what I have done and left undone, I know I will be able to justify what I did in the struggle against Hitler. God promised Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom if just ten righteous men could be found in the city, and so I hope that for our sake God will not destroy Germany. None of us can bewail his own death; those who consented to join our circle put on the Robe of Nessus. A human being's moral integrity begins when he is prepared to sacrifice his life for his convictions." -General Tresckow, instigator of the July 20 Plot
***** out of *****

Top Ten Worst US Presidents

As per the request of a friend of mine. In AP Government, I've been analyzing, in detail, the presidency as an office, and the individuals who have held it. Adding into this my AP History course, I've learned a lot about a lot of presidents and their actions in office. As such, here is a list of my worst US Presidents. It's not based on my politics, or on my religion, it's based on what they did in office. (If it was my politics, Obama would be number 1 on that first list.) I'll post a list of my top ten best US Presidents at a later date.

TOP TEN WORST US PRESIDENTS

1. FDR
Ok, this guy was the most scummy guy you can find. He flouted the Constitution and manipulated a good deal of the public into accepting his openly Socialist agenda. He didn't get us out of the Depression, his Federal intervention just made it worse. He also regulated the press and the radio to stop his opponents being able to make known any opposing opinions, so that history seems to tell us everyone liked him. He extended the scope of Presidential authority so far outside the Constitutional limits that he should have been impeached, except he had the full Democratic (IE, Progressive Democratic) party at his back and he wasn't afraid to use it as a club. He bullied the Supreme Court, even threatening a justice with arrest for "treason" because the justice didn't agree with his position. FDR was nothing short of an evil scumbag, and definitely deserves number 1 on this list.

2. Woodrow Wilson
Again, Wilson flouted the Constitution openly, with an "ends justify the means" mentality and the schizophrenic belief that "God has ordained me for this office. All that I do is the Lord's will." He censored the press, had people locked up for disagreeing with him, and flouted the will of the people. Under the Espionage and Sedition Act, and Act that makes the Patriot Act seem mild, he allowed Federal Investigators to raid, beat, and imprison anyone who was "treacherous" IE, who disagreed with him. Also, the way he intervened in Mexico made what Bush did in Iraq look absolutely brilliant and moral. Add into this the fact that, in a presidential speech, he endorsed the KKK, and you have it clinched.

3. Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln was one of America's first tyrants. As with the two I placed above him, Lincoln ignored the restrictions imposed on the Executive branch with the mentality that "The ends justify the means." While slavery was an issue that started the Civil War, Lincoln never freed the slaves in the North. Four northern slave states to whom the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply. Going against the will of the people (As the South was about 1/2 the population at the time) and the Supreme Court's verdicts, Lincoln forced the issue of slavery. I'm not defending Slavery, but nor will I defend Lincoln's atrocities in managing the war including; the institution of the draft, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, and the institution of Concentration Camps that resembled something out of Nazi Germany. He was a tyrant and a horrible president.

4. Theodore Roosevelt
Roosevelt was a nice guy as a person. Ok, yes, he was a little insane, but he wasn't a self obsessed maniac like his cousin. However, as a president, Teddy was atrocious. He was a war monger and an imperialist. The Panama Canal was paid for by us instigating a revolution against Colombia when they wouldn't sell us the land we wanted. Teddy also increased our imperialist regime in Haiti, Cuba, and the Phillipines to a level that resembled the British Empire.

5. Lyndon B. Johnson
Johnson was a castrated FDR. He wanted to implement socialist policies, he just didn't have the force of will to make people obey them. His "Great Society" utterly failed, and was nothing but more socialist policies paid in tax dollars and given to those who do didn't deserve them. It's not the taxpayer's job to pay for someone else's welfare. We're still paying for this schmuck's policies, and the backdoor deals he made, including the ones that kept us in Vietnam.

6. Ulysses S. Grant
Grant was, like Teddy Roosevelt, a decent man. Plagued by propaganda campaigns from the South (from which the idea that he was an alcoholic arose) he felt threatened from the very beginning of his presidency. Not made to be a politician, his foolish choices regarding his cabinet ended up screwing the South over big time in the Reconstruction. He was incredibly ineffectual, and so many atrocities happened both to the South and in the South, that I would consider him one of the worst US Presidents.

7. Jimmy Carter
If you want to talk about an ineffective President, look at Carter. Now, I could talk about what a major league pain in the ass he's been since his presidency, but seeing as technically he wasn't in office when he did that, I'll just review what the "baby-faced Baptist" did in office. For starters, he kissed the Palestinians' ass so much that he made the situation in Israel a powder keg. Carter just had no idea what to do regarding foreign policy, and it showed. He talked when he ought to have fought, and bowed when he ought to have resisted. His ass-kissing towards the Soviet Union was sickening, his domestic spending was atrocious. He was without a doubt the most ineffectual president we've had since US Grant.

8. Barack Obama
"It's too early?" Bull. His pushing for healthcare, the most blatantly unconstitutional bit of legislation since the New Deal, earns him a place on this list. He's doubled the government spending of Bush. Bush screwed up again and again in his presidency, there's no doubt, but at least Iraq was constitutionally acceptable by previous interpretation. After William McKinley's presidency, it became legal (although stupidly so) for the President as Commander in Chief to deploy troops, and Congress would have to approve within 60 days for it to be considered a war. Whatever your feelings on Iraq, it was handled Constitutionally (although not as constitutionally as I'd like.) Healthcare is SO anti-constitutional, blatantly anti-constitutional, that the Founders are probably spinning in their graves at such a velocity that we could use the motion as a source of power.

9. William McKinley
I don't think we've had a president, besides Jimmy Carter, who spewed out as much pseudo-Christian bollocks while justifying stupid actions while in office. McKinley's foreign policy was even worse than Carter, and he'd have Carter's place on the list if he hadn't been better at regulating domestic policy. The Spanish American war, and the subsequent occupations of Cuba and the Phillipines were McKinley's brilliant ideas. He felt that God wanted us (well, you, I'm half Jewish and thus subservient in the minds of such men) to extend a hand to the "racially inferior" and "disadvantaged" and show them the "light of Christianity" at rifle point. He bowed to the will of the people when they wanted the Spanish American war, had us interfere in foreign affairs that weren't ours, and basically made a complete ass of himself, earning him number 9 on this list.


10. Andrew Johnson
Lincoln at least was a powerful tyrant. Johnson was a putz. He was completely ineffectual, and simultaneously screwed over the Northern and the Southern states when Reconstruction began to be enacted. Adding into this his refusal to heed the will of Congress, and his shenanigans to get them to agree with him after they overrode his vetoes, has me place him as the 10th worse president.