Democrat or Republican Presidents: Who Has Started More Wars?

Indian Wars occurred in every Presidency up to the 20th Century. Many were the results of broken treaties. They will not be counted.

Franco-American Naval War (Quasi War): John Adams, Federalist (Ancestor Party of the Republicans); See XYZ affair for reason of war

First Barbary War: Thomas Jefferson, Democratic-Republican (Ancestor Party of the Democrats); Tripolitians ransomed American Sailors and tried to blackmail US. When the US refused, the Pasha (equivalent to king) declared war.

Second Barbary War and War of 1812: James Madison, Democratic-Republican; Second Barbary War began the same way as the first only with the Bey of Algiers declaring war. While the War of 1812 can be argued as being a war about sailor's rights, the real motive was Canada.

Mexican-American War: James K. Polk, Democratic; The Republic of Texas had a claim to Land between the Rio Grand and San Antionio(which the US inherited), which was not valid. Polk sent troops to the territory to protect it and the Mexican government sent troops to drive it out.

American Civil War: Abraham Lincoln, Republican; Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired upon Fort Sumter, a key fort held by Union troops in South Carolina. Lincoln called for each state to provide troops to retake the fort; consequently, four more slave states joined the Confederacy, bringing their total to eleven. The Union soon controlled the border states and established a naval blockade that crippled the southern economy.

Korea (1876); Ulysses S. Grant, Republican; Called Choson in 1876, the country attacked and destroyed an American Navy Vessel. The war was fought with similar motives as Perry's visit with Japan.

Spanish-American War and Phillipine Insurrection: William McKinley, Republican; American Naval Ship Maine sent to monitor alleged mistreatment of the civilians of Cuba and protect American economic interests. The ship was destroyed and the press (the real instigators of the war) of the time placed the now doubtful blame on the Spanish. US fought the war to free Cuba. McKinley announced that giving the Filipinos Independence outright would be like simply handing them over the Germans or Japanese (because of the geographic position) and harm American economic Interests.

Haiti; Vera Cruz occupation, Pancho Villa, World War I: Woodrow Wilson, Democratic; Troops were sent in to stabilize Haiti, Vera Cruz was occupied to prevent ships from Germany delivering guns to the government. Pancho Villa made several attacks on Americans (because he was not recognized as President of Mexico) forcing Wilson to send troops to capture Villa. WWI involvement was the result of Germany violating Neutrality rights.

Nicaragua: Calvin Coolidge, Republican; Like Haiti the objective was stabilization.

World War II: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Democratic; Asked for declaration of war after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Germany and Italy declared war two days later.

Korean war (1950-54): Harry S. Truman, Democrat; North Korea, in violation of a UN treaty, invaded South Korea. Troops were sent to contain communism.

Vietnam War: Lyndon B. Johnson, Democratic; involvement started after two American gunboats were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin (the reports have now been proven falsified.).

Grenada: Ronald Reagan, Republican; When a Communist government took over the country, it persecuted the American college students studying there.

Panama, Persian Gulf War Operation Restoring Freedom: George H. W. Bush, Republican; Noriega, leader of  Panama was charged with drug trafficking and through Noriega's power, Panama would declare war (Retaining the Panama Canal is allegedly the real motivation). Persian Gulf War was fought to Liberate Kuwait from Iraq and protect Saudi Arabia from an Invasion (also protecting oil interests). Troops were sent to Somalia to assist in the feeding the hungry, after guerrillas shot up UN aid convoys.

Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq: Bill Clinton, Democratic Party; troops were sent to Bosnia to enforce peacekeeping. Yugoslavia was attacked over genocide upon the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. Air assaults on Iraq were ordered after failing to comply with UN weapons inspectors.

Afghanistan and Iraq: George W. Bush, Republican; Invasion of Afghanistan was the result of the Taliban ruled government's refusal to hand over Osama bin Laden after the attack of September 11, 2001.

Iraq's invasion after 9/11 is still under debate.

Final Score: 

Democrats: 16

Republicans: 10

Source(s):

Wikipedia, Robert Leckie's The Wars of America

Reflections, 9/11 And Warnings - An Interview With Aaron Russo

In the wake of the Globalist manufactured attack on America, September 11 2001, we keep hearing, especially politicians saying, “Freedom isn't free.” Why do they believe that sacrificing democracy will ensure that freedom.
We need not ensure it never happens again, we need to get at the root of the problem and why we allowed it to happen. While some may feel a sense of security giving up their rights as American citizens, the result will be a repeat of all our failures.

545 vs. 300,000,000 People

Charley Reese's final column for the Orlando Sentinel... He has been a journalist for 49 years. Be sure to read the Tax List at the end. This is about as clear and easy to understand as it can be. The article below is completely neutral, neither anti-republican or democrat. Charlie Reese, a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, has hit the nail directly on the head, defining clearly who it is that in the final analysis must assume responsibility for the judgments made that impact each one of us every day. It's a short but good read. Worth the time. Worth remembering!

545 vs. 300,000,000 People
-By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. ( The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.)

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House?( John Boehner. He is the leader of the majority party. He and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. ) If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. [The House has passed a budget but the Senate has not approved a budget in over three years. The President's proposed budgets have gotten almost unanimous rejections in the Senate in that time. ]

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ..

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees... We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Pew Research Center: "Veterans of Post-9/11 Wars Ambivalent about Whether Iraq Was Worth It"

44^% - In a 2011 survey of veterans of the post -9/11 wars, 44% said Iraq was worth fighting while 50% said it was not. 

 

This week marks the tenth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq — a war that started with solid public support, but ultimately became a politically-divisive issue.

A survey of veterans conducted during the summer of 2011, about 8 years after the war began, found that that less than half (44%) of those who served in the past decade’s conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan thought that the effort in Iraq had been worth it given the costs to the U.S. vs. the benefits. Half of those surveyed said it was not.

At the time of the survey, the percentage of veterans who served after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States who thought Iraq was worth it was higher than that the general public (36%). A more recent survey, conducted March 14-17, 2012, asked only the general public whether the decision to U.S. military force in Iraq was the right one: 44% said it was wrong and 41% said it was right.

The Iraq War got less approval from older veterans in the 2011 survey: 35% who served before Vietnam and 36% who served during it said Iraq has been worth fighting, compared with 44% of all who have served in the military since Vietnam.

Veterans who served in or off the coast of Iraq or who flew missions over the country at any time since the war began in March 2003 were more likely — by 52% to 41% — to say that war was worth fighting. That compares with 59% of post-9/11 veterans who did not deploy to the Iraqi theater say that war had not been worth fighting. Read more

Time to profile white men? #Politics #Guncontrol

ONTD_Political - "Time to profile white men?" | David Sirota calls out ~political correct~ conservatives like a boss.

My interview with MSNBC ignites a conservative media firestorm -- and exposes America's dangerous double standard.

Yesterday, during a cable news discussion of gun violence and the Newtown school shooting, I dared mention a taboo truism. During a conversation on MSNBC’s “Up With Chris Hayes,” I said that because most of the mass shootings in America come at the hands of white men, there would likely be political opposition to initiatives that propose to use those facts to profile the demographic group to which these killers belong. I suggested that’s the case because as opposed to people of color or, say, Muslims, white men as a subgroup are in such a privileged position in our society that they are the one group that our political system avoids demographically profiling or analytically aggregating in any real way. Indeed, unlike other demographic, white guys as a group are never thought to be an acceptable topic for any kind of critical discussion whatsoever, even when there is ample reason to open up such a discussion.

My comment was in response to U.S. Rep. James Langevin (D) floating the idea of employing the Secret Service for such profiling, and I theorized that because the profiling would inherently target white guys, the political response to such an idea might be similar to the Republican response to the 2009 Homeland Security report looking, in part, at the threat of right-wing terrorism. As you might recall, the same GOP that openly supports profiling — and demonizing — Muslims essentially claimed that the DHS report was unacceptable because its focus on white male terrorist groups allegedly stereotyped (read: offensively profiled) conservatives.

For making this point, I quickly became the day’s villain in the right-wing media. From the Daily Caller, to Fox News, to Breitbart, to Glenn Beck’s the Blaze, to all the right-wing blogs and Twitter feeds that echo those outlets’ agitprop, I was attacked for “injecting divisive racial politics” into the post-Newtown discussion (this is a particularly ironic attack coming from Breitbart – the same website that manufactured the Shirley Sherrod fiasco).

The conservative response to my statement, though, is the real news here.

Let’s review: Any honest observer should be able to admit that if the gunmen in these mass shootings mostly had, say, Muslim names or were mostly, say, African-American men, the country right now wouldn’t be confused about the causes of the violence, and wouldn’t be asking broad questions. There would probably be few queries or calls for reflection, and mostly definitive declarations blaming the bloodshed squarely on Islamic fundamentalism or black nationalism, respectively. Additionally, we would almost certainly hear demands that the government intensify the extant profiling systems already aimed at those groups.

Yet, because the the perpetrators in question in these shootings are white men and not ethnic or religious minorities, nobody is talking about demographic profiling them as a group. The discussion, instead, revolves around everything from gun control, to mental health services, to violence in entertainment — everything, that is, except trying to understanding why the composite of these killers is so similar across so many different massacres. This, even though there are plenty of reasons for that topic to be at least a part of the conversation.

Recounting the truth of these double standards is, of course, boringly mundane, which means my comment on television summarizing them is an equally boring and mundane statement of the obvious. However, as evidenced by the aggressive attempt to turn those comments into controversial headline-grabbing news over the weekend, the conservative movement has exposed its desperation — specifically, its desperation to preserve its White Victimization Mythology.

In this mythology, the white man as a single demographic subgroup can never be seen as a perpetrator and must always be portrayed as the unfairly persecuted scapegoat. In this mythology, to even reference an undeniable truth about how white privilege operates on a political level (in this case, to prevent a government profiling system of potential security threats even though such a system exists for other groups) is to be guilty of both “injecting divisive racial politics” and somehow painting one’s “opponents as racist” — even when nobody called any individual a racist.

In this mythology, in short, to mention truths about societal double standards — truths that are inconvenient or embarrassing to white people — is to be targeted for attack by the right-wing media machine.

Of course, just as I didn’t make such an argument yesterday on MSNBC, I’m not right now arguing for a system of demographically profiling white guys as a means of stopping mass murderers (that’s right, the headline at Beck’s website, the Blaze, is categorically lying by insisting I did make such an argument, when the MSNBC video proves that’s not even close to true). After all, broad demographic profiling is not only grotesquely bigoted in how it unduly stereotypes whole groups, it also doesn’t actually work as a security measure and runs the risk of becoming yet another Big Brother-ish monster (this is especially true when a lawmaker is forwarding the idea of deploying a quasi-military apparatus like the Secret Service).

Additionally, I’m not saying we should avoid the complex discussion about myriad issues (gun control, mental health, violence in Hollywood products, etc.) that we are having in the aftermath of the Connecticut tragedy. On the contrary, I believe it is good news that those nuanced conversations — rather than simplistic calls for punitive measures against a demographic group — are able to happen, and it’s particularly good news that they are persisting in the face of pro-gun extremists’ best effort to polarize the conversation.

But the point here is that those tempered and nuanced conversations are only able to happen because the demographic at the center of it all is white guys. That is the one group in America that gets to avoid being referred to in aggregate negative terms (and gets to avoid being unduly profiled by this nation’s security apparatus), which means we are defaulting to a much more dispassionate and sane conversation — one that treats the perpetrators as deranged individuals, rather than typical and thus stereotype-justifying representatives of an entire demographic.

While such fair treatment should be the norm for all citizens, the double standard at work makes clear it is still a special privilege for a select white few. That’s the issue at the heart of my comment on MSNBC — and it is a pressing problem no matter how much the conservative media machine wants to pretend it isn’t.

Spilled Tea