5 Presidents To Remember

5 Presidents To Remember

Happy President's Day!

Happy President’s Day and may the odds be ever in your favor. As you go about your day, I hope you have enough fight in your heart to defend your vote in the recent election. I’m kidding. President’s Day, the national holiday to commemorate all US presidents, should have no violence. Instead of engaging in political debate or sharing the latest article that slams Mr. Trump on Facebook. Here are five presidents that have stories worthy of celebration.

1. Thomas Jefferson.

Popularly known for writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson snagged the deal of the day in 1803 when he paid just four cents per acre for the entire Louisiana territory. The land acquired from the French spanned from the Mississippi River to the Rockies and all the way up to present day Montana. In exchange, France received ample funds to support the war with Britain. Meanwhile, Jefferson commissioned Lewis and Clark to explore and map the land. With the addition, the size of the US doubled. The first state from this territory, Louisiana, was admitted into the Union in 1812. Thanks Mr. Jefferson! Because now we have the Arkansas Razorbacks and New Orleans gumbo.

2. William Henry Harrison.

In 1840, William Henry Harrison won the presidency with John Tyler as his running mate. The Panic of 1937 and the Crisis of 1939 lowered Van Buren’s popularity. So, the Whig party took this opportunity to propose Harrison as a candidate. To win the campaign, Harrison was portrayed as a war hero. Posters, slogans, and songs characterized Harrison as a “log cabin and hard cider” man from the West. His image circulated throughout the nation, in effect, the Whig party separated Harrison from the established politicians that were responsible for the economic mess. Sound familiar? This was the first presidential campaign that running mates sought to win over the hearts of the American people. Yes, Harrison was the president that caught a cold from giving a long inaugural address in the cold and rain. He died a month later, but nevertheless, he had a great campaign slogan!

3. Abraham Lincoln

History remembers Lincoln as the humble man who preserved the Union, who began the process of freeing the slaves through the Emancipation Proclamation, and who gave one of the most famous speeches, The Gettysburg Address. Lincoln made it clear that by fighting in the Civil War, men were fighting to save their country. He famously said, “...I know that the Lord is always on the side of the right. But it is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation should be on the Lord's side." Elected just before the Civil War began, Lincoln had a tough job ahead of him. He believed in preserving America and ferociously led the fight against the south. However when the Union won, he desired for the south to rejoin peacefully and without punishment.

4. Franklin D. Roosevelt

In the 1930s, the Great Depression suffocated the American people. FDR’s term began in 1933 and would not end until 1945. He took action immediately and proposed his New Deal. This plan consisted of reform bills and government programs. Programs such as the Civilian Conservations Corps and The Tennessee Valley Authority reduced unemployment and provided relief to the American people. Throughout his term, he spoke directly to the American people by radio. His fireside chats comforted the nation as they faced tough crises. He famously states, “So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." Through his presidency, the nation not only survived the depression but also, endured and saw victory in WWII. Increasing government spending through his New Deal reforms and military expenditures saved the US economy. Alas, his term ended when he died in 1945, but he remains one of the most admired presidents.

5. Ronald Reagan

He took office in 1981 following the Carter administration. Reagan inherited an economy in ruins. So, he proposed a tax plan to combat the lack of economic growth. His plan was known as Reaganomics, supply-side economics, or trickle down economics. He proposed a large tax cut, focusing on businesses and on higher income citizens. He increased military spending to bolster US capability in the Cold War. Reagan reduced regulations on businesses and cut back on government social programs. The initial effect of Reaganomics led the nation into a recession, the nation was experiencing short term effects of expansionary policies. However, by the second half of his first term, the economy stabilized and for the rest of his presidency, the nation experienced economic growth. His plan worked so well, they even named the policies after him.

Cover Image Credit: yahoo.com

Popular Right Now

Islam Is Not A Religion Of Peace, But Neither Is Christianity

Let's have in honest converation about the relgious doctrine of Islam


Islam is not a religion of peace.

Christianity is also not a religion of peace.

But, most people in both religions are generally peaceful.

More specifically, bringing up the doctrine of Christianity is a terrible rebuttal to justify the doctrine of Islam.

That is like saying, "Fascism is not a good political ideology. Well, Communism isn't any good either. So, Fascism is not that bad after all."

One evil does not justify another evil. Christianity's sins do not justify Islam's.

The reason why this article is focused on Islam and not Christianity is the modern prevalence of religious violence in the Islamic world. Christianity is not without its evil but there is far less international terrorist attacks and mass killing perpetrated by Christians today than by those of Islam.

First, let's define "religious killings," which is much more specific than a practicer of a religion committing a murder.

A religious killings are directly correlated with the doctrines of the faith. That is different a human acting on some type of natural impulse killing someone.

For example, an Islamic father honor killing his daughter who was raped is a religious killing. But an Islamic man who catches his wife cheating and kills her on the spot is a murder, not a religious killing. The second man may be Islamic but the doctrine of Islam cannot be rationally held at fault for that killing. Many men with many different religions or experience would make the same heinous mistake of taking a life.

Second, criticizing a doctrine or a religion is not a criticism of everyone that practices the religion.

It is not even a criticism of everyone who make mistake while inspired by the religions. Human are willing to do heinous things when governed by a bad cause. Not every World War 2 Nazis was a homicidal maniac but human nature tells them to act this way in order to survive in their environment. It is hard to fault a person from traits that comes from evolutionary biology and natural selection.

However, commenting on a philosophy, ideology or a religion is not off limits. Every doctrine that inspires human action should be open for review. The religion may be part of a person's identity and it holds a special place in its heart but that does not mean it should be immune to criticism.

Finally, before going into a deconstruction of the myth that Islam is a religion of peace, there needs to be a note about the silencing of talking about Islam.

There is a notion in Western Society that if a person criticizes Islam, then that person hates all Muslims and the person suffers from Islamophobia. That is not the case, a person to criticize religion without becoming Donald Trump. In Western Society criticizing fundamental Christians is never seen as an attack on all Christians because there is a lot of bad ideas in the Bible that Christians act on. Therefore, criticizing Islam should have the same benefit of the doubt because the Quran has many bad ideas in it.

The Quran advocates for war on unbelievers a multitude of times. No these verses are not a misreading or bad interpretation the text. Here are two explicit verses from the Quran that directly tell Followers to engage in violence:

Quran 2: 191-193:

"And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah (disbelief or unrest) is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists and wrong-doers)"

Quran 2: 216:

"Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

There is no rational way to interrupt these passages in a peaceful way. The whole premise of both passages is to inspire followers that war against the unbeliever is justified.

The first verse advocates for genocide against non-believers for the mere transgression that a society worships a different god or worships another god along with Allah.

The second passage is arguable more dangerous because the first passage just advocate that fighting may be a necessity, while the second passage encourages it. The second passage claims that war on the unbeliever is a good thing under the eyes of Allah.

The reason why these passages are dangerous is because they directly incite religious violence. For most followers of Allah, these passages are ignored or they convince themselves the passages means something they do not. However, for a large numbers of followers that view the text of the Quran as the unedited words of Allah, these texts become extremely dangerous. These passages become all the rational they need to wage war on non-believers.

This is dangerous because there are millions of followers of Islam worldwide that believe every statement in the Quran is true.

Therefore, the Quran becomes a direct motivation and cause for its followers to attack non-followers. Rationally one can understand where the Islam follower comes from, if a person truly believes that Allah or God himself wrote these words then why would you not comply.

Especially when there is verses in the Quran that says the Follower who does not fight the infidel is not as worthy of a Follower that does wage war against the non-believer (Quran 4:95). Finally, when male Followers are told that their martyrdom fighting for the faith will be rewarded with an eternity in paradise with 72 virgins for personal pleasure. If a Follower truly believes all of this is the spoken word of Allah then there is more rational why a person would commit these atrocities then why they would not.

Men and women are radicalized by these passages on a daily basis.

No, it is not just the poor kid in Iraq that lost his family to an American bombing run that indiscriminately kills civilians but also the middle classed Saudi Arabian child or some Western white kid that finds the Quran appealing. If radicalization were just poor people, then society would not have much to be worried about. However, Heads of States, college educated people and wealthy Islamic Followers are all being radicalized and the common dominator is the doctrine of Islam.

Osama Bin Laden, one of the most infamous terrorist in history, was not a poor lad that was screwed by the United States military industrial complex. Bin Laden was the son of a billionaire, that received an education through college from great schools. There is no other just cause for Bin Laden to orchestrate such grievous attacks on humanity besides religious inspirations. A person can rationally tie Islam Followers gravitation towards terrorism to a specific verse. Quran 3: 51 tells readers,

"Soon shall we cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers."

Any rational person can tie Islamic passages like this directly to terrorism. It is not a complicated correlation to like Nazism and Jewish persecution to Christianity. The Holy Book of Islam directly encourages the Followers of Islam to inflict terrorism unto the non-believer.

So why do some many people deny these obvious truths about Islam and violence?

Political Correctness and the want to not be viewed as a bigot. The correlations here are as direct as the terrors of the Spanish Inquisitions and Catholicism and no one is afraid to retrospect and say, "Yes Christianity caused the direct murder of thousands of people". A person would not even be controversial if one stated that both World Wars has significant religious undertones. However if anyone states that terrorism and violence has a direct link with Islam then there is an outcry.

Even President Obama refused to use the terms Islam and Muslim when publicly talking about the War on Terrorism. I am a hypocrite also because I used the term Islamic Follower instead of Muslim in an attempt to sound more political correct.

That is a problem when society refuse to use terms that are correct in an attempt to not offend anyone. Imagine if scientist could not report their findings because the underlying politics. Society needs to be able to have open dialogue about this problem or else it will never heal. Society needs to throw away the worrisome about being politically correct and focus on identifying the problems and solving them.

The world of Islam needs to open themselves up to this criticism.

There can no longer be a closing of dialogue where the West cannot speak on the doctrines of Islam because they are not partakers (That applies to all organized religion too, especially the Catholic Church). People who draw Muhammed must no longer be threatened with attacks on their life.

When Islamic women and men speak up about the sins of Islam, they must stop being silenced. If humanity is going to take steps into the future with better technology and more dangerous weaponry, then we need to solve this problem with Islam and gradually to organized religion at all.

If not it will doom us way before we get there…

Thank you for reading and if you enjoyed this article follow my podcast on Twitter @MccrayMassMedia for more likewise discussions.

Cover Image Credit:


Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Being Pro-Life Doesn't Exist Anymore

Stop saying you're pro-life if you don't support all walks of life.


Okay, hear me out.

I understand that people have the right to follow their own beliefs. We are in a nation that (should) support varying opinions, no matter how different they might be. Whether it be for religious reasons or political stand point, female reproduction rights has always been a major topic.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have come to realize being pro-life doesn't exist anymore here in America. There have been numerous protests claiming "abortion is murder" and many arguing that it is not considering how the baby would feel.

However, pro-life has turned more into pro-womb. Most of the time, people concentrate on the fetus growing inside and making sure the mother delivers the child. That is when it can be decided if the mother no longer wants the baby, but as long as it goes for adoption, not terminated.

Also, hate to break it to you, but saying that you want to keep abortions illegal is only ending safe abortions. You are putting lives at risk, not only the fetus's but the mother's, as they will go to extreme lengths to terminate the unwanted pregnancy.

What happens after the baby is born? Nothing. Many in America do not want government funding for potentially crucial programs that can help sustain life for the child. It becomes solely the mother's responsibility in order to provide food, clothing, and shelter. We still live in a world where the biological mother fills the role of homemaker and to take care of the children.

If she is unable to do that, our society looks down on her and calls her a bad parent.

Raising a child is not easy especially if someone is a single parent. Recently, a video surfaced of a young mother who just started using food stamps. She accidentally picked up the wrong milk at Walmart. When she went and retrieved the right milk, an older woman started making a scene how "she was holding up the whole line," and "you need to learn how to be a good parent. Do better."

And even now, with Trump's "no tolerance" policy still in effect, pro-life is nonexistent. Is it really in the best interest of the child to be taken away from their families and held in cages like animals? Absolutely not.

I understand that, yes, they did come into the country illegally and did break the law, but the United States does not have the right to separate families. Most of the time, people are crossing the border to escape gang violence and try to provide the best life for their children.

There is nothing criminal about that.

Yet, many who are pro-life have not voiced how inhumane this practice is. At least under Obama's "catch and release" policy, families were transported back to the border and kept together.

I am not saying those who lean more pro-life are wrong. It's more of realizing that by claiming you are pro-life, you should be supporting all walks of life, even after birth. It should be about trying to help everyone and anyone to live the best life possible.

Cover Image Credit:


Related Content

Facebook Comments