A few months I wrote an article about ten of the most common lies that people in the 9/11 Truth Movement (whether it be intentional or not) tend to tell.
While I did touch upon ten of what I considered to be biggest lies, I still felt there were more lies that people in the 9/11 Truth Movement promoted that still needed to be addressed.
So, I have put together another list of ten more lies that Truther tells:
10. Nothing hit World Trade Center 7.
Actually something did hit World Trade Center 7... a skyscraper.
To be more precise falling debris from World Trade Center 1 hit World Trade Center 7 and caused huge amounts of damage to the lower floors of the building. The combination of that, and the fact that the building had been on fire for hours caused the building to collapse.
9. Only two buildings were hit, but three were destroyed.
This is not true. In fact more than three building were destroyed that day. World Trade Center 3, 4, 5, and 6 were heavily damaged that day and what was left of them had to be torn down because they could not be repaired.
Also, many other buildings around the World Trade Center were damaged as well.
8. A nuclear bomb brought down the towers.
If this was true then this would be the easiest one to prove, as all you would have to do is go down to the World Trade Center site with a Geiger counter and one would easily find large amounts of radiation there.
Also, lower Manhattan would be uninhabitable right now due to that radiation, plus the destruction caused would have been far greater, and a lot more people would have died, either from the initial blast from the weapon, or from the radiation and radioactive fall out.
Plus, there would have been an obvious flash some what similar to the Sun when the device went, and there would have been no way to hide that.
7. The towers were reduced to dust and gravel.
Primarily promoted by followers of Judy Wood and those that believe in her theory that the towers were brought down high energy lasers, their claims are that the towers were reduced to dust and gravel by these alleged lasers.
While the collapse of the towers did create a lot of dust and gravel, it also left large chunks of concrete, long pieces of steel beams, and even places where pieces of the outer wall several stories high still stood.
6. Israel did it.
Besides the fact that there is no evidence what so ever that Israel did this, the fact is that Israel had no reason to do something like this.
The United States is Israel's biggest supporter, and President George W. Bush was one of Israel's strongest supporters at that.
To simply put, the people in charge of Israel would have had to have lost their minds to have done something like that. Not only would they have been risking losing support from the United States, but also risked going war with the United States in order to get more support from the United States.
5. No Jews were killed that day because they got a call from Israel to stay home.
While estimates vary on just how many Jews died that day (mostly because by Jewish tradition some people might be considered Jewish, but in reality they don't consider themselves to be Jewish) it's believed that somewhere around 270 to 400 Jews died that day, including five Israeli citizens.
Also, considering how many Jewish people actually worked at the World Trade Center, a few of them would have said by now that they had gotten a call telling them to stay home.
4. We're just asking questions.
Actually no. What truthers are really doing is making accusations while at the same time asking leading question in an attempt to influence others. When confronted about this they'll claim that they are "Just asking questions."
There is actually a term for this, it's called JAQing off.
3. Other false flag attacks help give credibility that the 9/11 attacks were false flag attacks.
There are two problems with this: the first one is that most "false flag attacks" that people in 9/11 Truth Movement claims to be false flag attacks are in fact not false flag attacks and have been proven so.
The second problem is that even if some of these alleged false flag attacks really could be proven to be false flag attacks, it still doesn't prove or give any credibility that the 9/11 attacks were false flag attacks, especially when all the claims about it have been all debunked.
2. New information is constantly coming out proving that the 9/11 attacks was committed by the US government/Israel/Illuminati.
No there isn't. There hasn't been any new information from the 9/11 Truth Movement since 2005!
Any "new" information that the 9/11 Truth Movement claims to have is just old information that's been rehashed and rearranged in an attempt to make it look new, but in reality is just the same old stuff that has dis-proven and debunked for years.
1. There is undeniable proof that the 9/11 attacks were an inside jobs.
No there isn't.
If this was true then members of the 9/11 Truth Movement should present their evidence to the NYPD and get the people arrested who they believe were the "real" perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. This is not done of course because they do not have any proof what so ever that the 9/11 attacks was an inside job, which they probably know, but don't want to admit.
Odds are that any "proof" that they have is going to be the same stuff that's been debunked for years and that no one outside of the 9/11 Truth Movement takes seriously any more.
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Friday, September 6, 2013
Friday, May 31, 2013
Instead of GMO labeling laws, perhaps what we need is...
There has been a lot of debate recently over whether or not food companies should legally be required to label their foods as being either GMOs (Genetically Modified Organism) or not if they happen to actually be GMOs.
Supporters of these laws claim that this would give consumers the ability to know what they are buying, and whether or not they are actually buying something that is organic or not.
Critics on the other hand claim that such laws are unnecessary and even excessive, since it is well established that most foods are in fact either considered GMOs (technically speaking all foods are actually GMOs in one way or another) or at least would not be considered organic by many people in the organic food community, and that many people who do produce organic foods already label their products as being organic.
While this labeling law debate is sure to not go away any time soon, I do wonder if perhaps the anti-GMO crowd is going about this the wrong way. Perhaps instead of there being GMO labeling laws, there should be organic food labeling laws instead.
While the GMO food industry is heavily regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (despite what many people in the anti-GMO crowd believes) there is actually very little regulation for the organic food industry.
In the United States there are no laws that says what foods are considered organic, and what foods are not considered organic. In fact anyone can actually claim that the food that they are producing is organic, when in fact what the food that is being produced is not considered organic by anyone's standards...
While the United States Department of Agriculture does have a organic foods certification program that is regulated, there is no legal requirement in the U.S. that says a company has to go through this certification program before they start to claim their food product is organic, and no one can do anything about because there are no laws that says you can't do that.
It's even possible that some food producers will claim that their food is organic when it really isn't simply as a selling point, and so that they have an excuse to sell their product at a higher cost than what it really should be selling for in order to make a larger profit...
Also, the fact that there is no legal requirement for what can and can not be labeled organic foods might cause people not to wash off fruits and vegetables because they might not think it's necessary if they believe it's organic (this should be done anyways regardless if it really is organic or not as the USDA actually allows the use of pesticides for it's organic food certification program, and it's just common sense to do that anyways).
What really is needed is not GMO labeling laws, but organic food labeling laws, because not only would it be far easier and cheaper to implement (simply put, if someone doesn't believe that their product will receive a legal certification of being organic, they're probably not going to waste the time and money to try to get their product legally certified as organic in the first place when they can go on and sell it as it is, and they most likely won't claim that their product is organic because they won't want to face the legal circumstances if they do and they are not suppose to) and it would also allow consumers who choose to buy organic foods to know whether or not the food they are buying is in fact truly organic, and not just something some company claims.
At the very least it would help prevent companies from making fraudulent claims about their products...
Supporters of these laws claim that this would give consumers the ability to know what they are buying, and whether or not they are actually buying something that is organic or not.
Critics on the other hand claim that such laws are unnecessary and even excessive, since it is well established that most foods are in fact either considered GMOs (technically speaking all foods are actually GMOs in one way or another) or at least would not be considered organic by many people in the organic food community, and that many people who do produce organic foods already label their products as being organic.
While this labeling law debate is sure to not go away any time soon, I do wonder if perhaps the anti-GMO crowd is going about this the wrong way. Perhaps instead of there being GMO labeling laws, there should be organic food labeling laws instead.
While the GMO food industry is heavily regulated by the Food & Drug Administration (despite what many people in the anti-GMO crowd believes) there is actually very little regulation for the organic food industry.
In the United States there are no laws that says what foods are considered organic, and what foods are not considered organic. In fact anyone can actually claim that the food that they are producing is organic, when in fact what the food that is being produced is not considered organic by anyone's standards...
While the United States Department of Agriculture does have a organic foods certification program that is regulated, there is no legal requirement in the U.S. that says a company has to go through this certification program before they start to claim their food product is organic, and no one can do anything about because there are no laws that says you can't do that.
It's even possible that some food producers will claim that their food is organic when it really isn't simply as a selling point, and so that they have an excuse to sell their product at a higher cost than what it really should be selling for in order to make a larger profit...
Also, the fact that there is no legal requirement for what can and can not be labeled organic foods might cause people not to wash off fruits and vegetables because they might not think it's necessary if they believe it's organic (this should be done anyways regardless if it really is organic or not as the USDA actually allows the use of pesticides for it's organic food certification program, and it's just common sense to do that anyways).
What really is needed is not GMO labeling laws, but organic food labeling laws, because not only would it be far easier and cheaper to implement (simply put, if someone doesn't believe that their product will receive a legal certification of being organic, they're probably not going to waste the time and money to try to get their product legally certified as organic in the first place when they can go on and sell it as it is, and they most likely won't claim that their product is organic because they won't want to face the legal circumstances if they do and they are not suppose to) and it would also allow consumers who choose to buy organic foods to know whether or not the food they are buying is in fact truly organic, and not just something some company claims.
At the very least it would help prevent companies from making fraudulent claims about their products...
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Debunking the Anti-Monsanto/Anti-GMO claims
On May 25, a local group held a protest near where I live to protest Monsanto and GMO foods.
The protest itself, while larger than what I actually expected, wasn't as large as what it could have been, with maybe only about 50 to 60 people attending.
Now about a week before this protest occurred someone was going the area and putting up some posters on lamp post and electric post not only advertising the protest, but also making several claims against both Monsanto and GMO foods.
I've looked into these claims that were made, and this is what I have found:
1. Monsanto fights labeling laws.
This is true [read here] but only to a certain extent, and there are a lot of other companies and groups (including scientists) that oppose these laws because many of them consider them to be unfair, and/or leaves to many loop holes, and many opponents also claim that these laws are really attempts to out right ban GMO foods.
Also, when the people of California were given a chance to vote into law Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, the voters rejected it, so really you can't actually blame Monsanto about that, because when given the chance, the people rejected such laws.
2. Monsanto's propriety and legal actions harm small farmers.
Monsanto has, since the mid-1990's, filled 145 suits against individual US farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed, and while this may sound like a lot, this is actually a very small number in comparison to thousands of individual, independent farmers in the US.
Also, only 11 of these suits actually went to trial, all of which Monsanto won.
3. Scientists' studies show severe damage to GMO-feed animals.
There was a study in 2012 by Gilles-Eric Seralini that claimed to show that rats feed GMO corn increased cancer rates in these rats compared to rats that were not feed GMO corn. This study has been highly criticized for certain unscientific methods (such as the failure to record the amounts of food the rats were feed and their growth rates) and has pretty much been debunked. [read here, here, and here]
4. Monsanto's Agent Orange and DDT contaminate food crops and villagers abroad.
Agent Orange was only used between 1965 to 1970 by the US military in Vietnam (before then they used a herbicide called Agent Blue). Even though this was true, you really can't blame Monsanto because they are not the ones who actually used it. It was various governments around the world who used it. Monsanto (along with Dow Chemical) just made the stuff.
As for DDT, most countries have been banning the stuff since the 1960's for agricultural use, and again, Monsanto is not the only company that made DDT, and it doesn't even make it anymore because of the 1972 US ban.
5. Monsanto falsely advertised it's Roundup as "biodegradable."
In 2007 Monsanto was convicted in France for false advertisement of it's product Roundup as being biodegradable. France is of course the only country that has done this, and some people might even claim that this is the result of France's environmental laws, rather than reality as Glyphosate (the technical name for Roundup) does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.
Whether Roundup should be considered biodegradable or not seems to be more of a matter of opinion then fact.
6. Monsanto blocks regulations. It's CEOs are in a revolving door from Monsanto to FDA (ex: Micheal Taylor, current Food Safety Czar).
This is completely false. Micheal Taylor (whomever he is) was never the Food Safety Czar. There has only been one Food Safety Czar, and that was Dr. David Acheson, and he only had that position from 2007 to 2008.
Monsanto can not actually block regulations, all it can do is lobby against laws and regulations that could affect it's business, and there is no "revolving door", so to speak, between Monsanto and the FDA.
7. Consumers rejected Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in milk.
The rejection of BGH in milk is a matter of consumer opinion, and has nothing to do with facts.
8. 400 scientists and 58 countries conclude that organic farming trumps GMO for sustainable, environmental, and healthy agriculture. GM crops do not offer increased yields.
While studies have shown that organic farming, if done correctly, can be sustainable and environmentally friendly. If done incorrectly however the impact on the environment will actually be negative, and organic farming still requires more land than conventional farming.
Also, a crop's yield has nothing to do with whether or not it's a GMO, and has everything to do with the farming techniques used, and studies have shown that organic farming yields are actually less than those of conventional farming yields [read here].
9. Monsanto's control of the soy market results in 90% of soy market being GMO.
If Monsanto actually had control of the soy market then 100% of all soy beans would be GMO, not 90% as being claimed. Plus if farmers did not want to use Monsanto's soy bean seeds, then they don't have to, as there are other companies that sell soy bean seeds.
10. Allergies skyrocketed as GMO soy entered the system.
While food allergies have increased, and soy allergies are one of the more common food allergies, there is no scientific evidence that links GMO crops with the increase in food allergies.
11. Massive aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia is being used by the U.S. and the Colombian government as a counter-insurgency tactic, contaminating food crops and poisoning villagers.
There has been large aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia by the Colombian government (although there is no evidence that the U.S. actually is doing this to, and only gives support and training), the main purpose of which is to destroy coca plants (the plant which cocaine is extracted from).
While this has come under scrutiny for damaging legal crops and adverse health effects, the main criticism about the program (called Plan Colombia) has been about the cost and effectiveness.
Despite the fact that Roundup is used in this campaign, it doesn't mean that Monsanto is to blame for any damage done, as they are not the ones' spraying Roundup on these places.
The protest itself, while larger than what I actually expected, wasn't as large as what it could have been, with maybe only about 50 to 60 people attending.
Now about a week before this protest occurred someone was going the area and putting up some posters on lamp post and electric post not only advertising the protest, but also making several claims against both Monsanto and GMO foods.
I've looked into these claims that were made, and this is what I have found:
1. Monsanto fights labeling laws.
This is true [read here] but only to a certain extent, and there are a lot of other companies and groups (including scientists) that oppose these laws because many of them consider them to be unfair, and/or leaves to many loop holes, and many opponents also claim that these laws are really attempts to out right ban GMO foods.
Also, when the people of California were given a chance to vote into law Proposition 37, which would have required labeling of GMO foods, the voters rejected it, so really you can't actually blame Monsanto about that, because when given the chance, the people rejected such laws.
2. Monsanto's propriety and legal actions harm small farmers.
Monsanto has, since the mid-1990's, filled 145 suits against individual US farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed, and while this may sound like a lot, this is actually a very small number in comparison to thousands of individual, independent farmers in the US.
Also, only 11 of these suits actually went to trial, all of which Monsanto won.
3. Scientists' studies show severe damage to GMO-feed animals.
There was a study in 2012 by Gilles-Eric Seralini that claimed to show that rats feed GMO corn increased cancer rates in these rats compared to rats that were not feed GMO corn. This study has been highly criticized for certain unscientific methods (such as the failure to record the amounts of food the rats were feed and their growth rates) and has pretty much been debunked. [read here, here, and here]
4. Monsanto's Agent Orange and DDT contaminate food crops and villagers abroad.
Agent Orange was only used between 1965 to 1970 by the US military in Vietnam (before then they used a herbicide called Agent Blue). Even though this was true, you really can't blame Monsanto because they are not the ones who actually used it. It was various governments around the world who used it. Monsanto (along with Dow Chemical) just made the stuff.
As for DDT, most countries have been banning the stuff since the 1960's for agricultural use, and again, Monsanto is not the only company that made DDT, and it doesn't even make it anymore because of the 1972 US ban.
5. Monsanto falsely advertised it's Roundup as "biodegradable."
In 2007 Monsanto was convicted in France for false advertisement of it's product Roundup as being biodegradable. France is of course the only country that has done this, and some people might even claim that this is the result of France's environmental laws, rather than reality as Glyphosate (the technical name for Roundup) does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.
Whether Roundup should be considered biodegradable or not seems to be more of a matter of opinion then fact.
6. Monsanto blocks regulations. It's CEOs are in a revolving door from Monsanto to FDA (ex: Micheal Taylor, current Food Safety Czar).
This is completely false. Micheal Taylor (whomever he is) was never the Food Safety Czar. There has only been one Food Safety Czar, and that was Dr. David Acheson, and he only had that position from 2007 to 2008.
Monsanto can not actually block regulations, all it can do is lobby against laws and regulations that could affect it's business, and there is no "revolving door", so to speak, between Monsanto and the FDA.
7. Consumers rejected Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone in milk.
The rejection of BGH in milk is a matter of consumer opinion, and has nothing to do with facts.
8. 400 scientists and 58 countries conclude that organic farming trumps GMO for sustainable, environmental, and healthy agriculture. GM crops do not offer increased yields.
While studies have shown that organic farming, if done correctly, can be sustainable and environmentally friendly. If done incorrectly however the impact on the environment will actually be negative, and organic farming still requires more land than conventional farming.
Also, a crop's yield has nothing to do with whether or not it's a GMO, and has everything to do with the farming techniques used, and studies have shown that organic farming yields are actually less than those of conventional farming yields [read here].
9. Monsanto's control of the soy market results in 90% of soy market being GMO.
If Monsanto actually had control of the soy market then 100% of all soy beans would be GMO, not 90% as being claimed. Plus if farmers did not want to use Monsanto's soy bean seeds, then they don't have to, as there are other companies that sell soy bean seeds.
10. Allergies skyrocketed as GMO soy entered the system.
While food allergies have increased, and soy allergies are one of the more common food allergies, there is no scientific evidence that links GMO crops with the increase in food allergies.
11. Massive aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia is being used by the U.S. and the Colombian government as a counter-insurgency tactic, contaminating food crops and poisoning villagers.
There has been large aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia by the Colombian government (although there is no evidence that the U.S. actually is doing this to, and only gives support and training), the main purpose of which is to destroy coca plants (the plant which cocaine is extracted from).
While this has come under scrutiny for damaging legal crops and adverse health effects, the main criticism about the program (called Plan Colombia) has been about the cost and effectiveness.
Despite the fact that Roundup is used in this campaign, it doesn't mean that Monsanto is to blame for any damage done, as they are not the ones' spraying Roundup on these places.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
FM 3-39.40 proves FEMA camps are real... Or does it?
Reblogged from Is that a FEMA camp?
Recently I read a comment on Illuminutti.com that was posted on a reblogging of several FEMA camp sites that were debunked on this site.
The comment (you can see the comment here) was concerning a US military document and training manual called FM 3-39.40 (alternate link) also known as Internment and Resettlement Operation.
The document is believed by many conspiracy theorists to be "proof" that the United States government is going to place citizens in interment camps and that the military was being trained to operate these places.
The person whom left comment also left a Youtube video concerning this as well:
While watching the video (which is 3:37 minutes, but tries to explain a 325 page document in that time frame) I could tell that the person who made it was obviously quote mining the document and taking a lot of things out of context, with many things that were just not mentioned.
One thing that was not mentioned was the Introduction section:
Recently I read a comment on Illuminutti.com that was posted on a reblogging of several FEMA camp sites that were debunked on this site.
The comment (you can see the comment here) was concerning a US military document and training manual called FM 3-39.40 (alternate link) also known as Internment and Resettlement Operation.
The document is believed by many conspiracy theorists to be "proof" that the United States government is going to place citizens in interment camps and that the military was being trained to operate these places.
The person whom left comment also left a Youtube video concerning this as well:
While watching the video (which is 3:37 minutes, but tries to explain a 325 page document in that time frame) I could tell that the person who made it was obviously quote mining the document and taking a lot of things out of context, with many things that were just not mentioned.
One thing that was not mentioned was the Introduction section:
Introduction
I/R operations facilitate the ability to conduct rapid and decisive combat operations; deter, mitigate, and defeat threats to populations that may result in conflict; reverse conditions of human suffering; and build the capacity of a foreign government to effectively care for and govern its population. This includes capabilities to conduct shaping operations across the spectrum of military operations to mitigate and defeat the underlying conditions for conflict and counter the core motivations that result in support to criminal, terrorist, insurgent, and other destabilizing groups. I/R operations also include the daily incarceration of U.S. military prisoners at facilities throughout the world.
This manual continues the evolution of the I/R function to support the changing nature of OEs. In light of persistent armed conflict and social turmoil throughout the world, the effects on populations remain a compelling issue. The world population will increase from 6 billion to 9 billion in the next two decades, with 95 percent of the growth occurring in the developing world. By 2030, 60 percent of the world’s population will live in urban areas. Coexisting demographically and ethnically, diverse societies will aggressively compete for limited resources.
Typically, overpopulated third world societies suffer from a lack of legitimate and effective enforcement mechanisms, which is generally accepted as one of the cornerstones of a stable society. Stability within a population may eliminate the need for direct military intervention. The goal of military police conducting detainee operations is to provide stability within the population, its institutions, and its infrastructure. In this rapidly changing and dynamic strategic environment, U.S. forces will compete with local populations for the same space, routes, and resources. The modular force’s ability to positively influence and shape the opinions, attitudes, and behaviors of select populations is critical to tactical, operational, and strategic success.
An adaptive enemy will manipulate populations that are hostile to U.S. intent by instigating mass civil disobedience, directing criminal activity, masking their operations in urban and other complex terrain, maintaining an indistinguishable presence through cultural anonymity, and actively seeking the traditional sanctuary of protected areas as defined by the rules of land warfare. Such actions will facilitate the dispersal of threat forces, negate technological overmatches, and degrade targeting opportunities. Commanders will use technology and conduct police intelligence operations to influence and control populations, evacuate detainees and, conclusively, transition rehabilitative and reconciliation operations to other functional agencies. The combat identification of friend, foe, or neutral is used to differentiate combatants from noncombatants and friendly forces from threat forces.
FM 3-39.40 is written with the acknowledgement that today’s OEs are much more variable than the environments addressed in previous doctrine. Military police must be prepared to deploy into any OE and conduct I/R operations in support of the commander while dealing with a wide range of threats and other influences. This manual builds on the collective knowledge and wisdom gained through recent operations, numerous lessons learned, doctrine revisions, and the deliberate process of informed reasoning throughout the Army. It is rooted in time-tested principles and fundamentals, while accommodating new technologies and organizational changes.
This iteration of FM 3-39.40 has been driven by a lack of existing doctrine for the rehabilitation and reconciliation of detainees and changes in OEs, the Army structure, and Army and joint doctrine. Changes not already mentioned above that have directly affected this manual include the—
• Integration of I/R operations within the overarching counterinsurgency or irregular warfare efforts of current operations.
• Development of terms of reference for detainee typology and standardization of procedures for detainee assessment.
Note. Recent decisions by the Executive Branch have adjusted the typology in JP 3-63.
• Implementation of standardized programs and methods for rehabilitation, reconciliation, and repatriation of detainees.
• Planning, employment, and sustainment of military police capabilities in support of all echelons while conducting I/R operations.
• Alignment of I/R operations with the sustainment warfighting function.
• Technological and doctrinal updates to material in other publications.
The foundations of military police operations provided in this manual, together with related military police doctrine, will support the actions and decisions of commanders at all levels. Like FM 3-39, this manual is not meant to be a substitute for thought and initiative among military police leaders and Soldiers. No matter how robust the doctrine or advanced the military police capabilities and systems, it is the military police Soldier who must understand the OE, recognize shortfalls, and adapt to the situation on the ground. It is the adaptable and professional military police Soldiers of the Military Police Corps Regiment who are most important to the future and must successfully perform their basic skills to accomplish the mission, with or without technology assistance.
Now if you read the Introduction you can tell that this doesn't have anything at all to do with the United States and it's citizens. It concerns what the military is suppose to do with displaced civilians in disaster areas and war zones that the United States is involved in in third world countries.
While there are certain things in that document that I don't agree with, it only concerns the United States military operations overseas, and not domestically, and it most certainly does not prove that FEMA camps are real.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Franklin and Sequoyah: Two states that never were
In either a few weeks, or perhaps several years from now, Puerto Rico is set to become the 51st state, but if history (and the heart of congress) had gone differently, Puerto Rico would not be on it's way to becoming the 51st state. It would actually be on it's way to becoming either the 52nd or 53rd state of the Union.
Now there have been multiple proposals for new states over the years that never came to be. There have been several proposals for a state of Jefferson and a state of Lincoln (both in various sites). There have been proposals for the Upper Michigan peninsula to become it's own state, and even Long Island (along with New York City) to become it's own state. There was even a proposal for a state of Absaroka (which would have taken land from Northern Wyoming, South Eastern Montana, and Western South Dakota to form), but the two places that almost became their own states were called the states of Franklin and Sequoyah.
Now Franklin (if you could not tell was to be named after Benjamin Franklin) is part of what is now North Eastern Tennessee, but back when it attempted to become it's own individual state in 1785, it was actually apart of the state of North Carolina, because until 1796 Tennessee was apart of North Carolina.
Back in April 1784 North Carolina ceded what is today Tennessee to the Federal Government in order to pay off debts the state had gained as a result of the War of Independence. The government was reluctant to accept this, and also many frontiersmen in that region were pretty upset about this to, and also feared that the territory might even be sold to a foreign power, so in August of 1784 several counties in what is to North Eastern Tennessee seceded from North Carolina, which resulted in the state of North Carolina to rescind it's offer of cession, and even ordered judges to hold court in those counties, and send soldiers to the counties that wanted to secede. This of course did nothing to stop the growing secession movement, and on May 16, 1785 a delegation from the region submitted a petition to Congress for approval of statehood.
The State failed to receive the two-thirds majority of approval from the other states that is necessary in order to be admitted to the Union (only seven of the thirteen states at the time voted to admit Franklin to the Union) and couldn't even get the support of Benjamin Franklin himself.
In 1788 the region was finally disbanded and readmitted to North Carolina, and would later become part of Tennessee, but this would not be the last time the area would attempt to become it's own state, the most notable during the Civil War as a result of Eastern Tennessee disapproval of the rest of the state seceding from the union. While the region never did secede from the rest of Tennessee, there were many people there who proposed seceding from Tennessee and rejoining the Union (much like what West Virginia actually did when it seceded from Virginia and rejoined the Union in 1863).
Now as for the State of Sequoyah, which was to be named in honor of Sequoyah, a Cherokee silversmith who invented the Cherokee syllabary (or alphabet), the area which would have become it's own state was part of what is today Eastern Oklahoma, and was from 1890 until 1907 when it was merged with the Oklahoma Territory and became the State of Oklahoma, it's own individual territory known as the Indian Territory, which actually once included most of Oklahoma, but after 1890 a little over half the territory was ceded to white settlers to form it's own separate territory.
In 1905 the territory formed a constitutional convention, and voted to send a petition to the United States Congress for approval of statehood.
The delegation that arrived at Washington D.C. from the Indian Territories did not receive a warm reception, with many eastern politicians not wanting to admit two new western states. Even President Theodore Roosevelt proposed that the two territories be merged back again and become the State of Oklahoma (which is what happened in 1907). Still, all the hard work of the Sequoyah state constitutional convention was not lost as the Sequoyah constitution served as the basis for the Oklahoma constitution.
It should also be noted that if Sequoyah had ended up becoming a state, it would have been the first (and only) state where the majority of the people were Native Americans.
Now there have been multiple proposals for new states over the years that never came to be. There have been several proposals for a state of Jefferson and a state of Lincoln (both in various sites). There have been proposals for the Upper Michigan peninsula to become it's own state, and even Long Island (along with New York City) to become it's own state. There was even a proposal for a state of Absaroka (which would have taken land from Northern Wyoming, South Eastern Montana, and Western South Dakota to form), but the two places that almost became their own states were called the states of Franklin and Sequoyah.
Now Franklin (if you could not tell was to be named after Benjamin Franklin) is part of what is now North Eastern Tennessee, but back when it attempted to become it's own individual state in 1785, it was actually apart of the state of North Carolina, because until 1796 Tennessee was apart of North Carolina.
Back in April 1784 North Carolina ceded what is today Tennessee to the Federal Government in order to pay off debts the state had gained as a result of the War of Independence. The government was reluctant to accept this, and also many frontiersmen in that region were pretty upset about this to, and also feared that the territory might even be sold to a foreign power, so in August of 1784 several counties in what is to North Eastern Tennessee seceded from North Carolina, which resulted in the state of North Carolina to rescind it's offer of cession, and even ordered judges to hold court in those counties, and send soldiers to the counties that wanted to secede. This of course did nothing to stop the growing secession movement, and on May 16, 1785 a delegation from the region submitted a petition to Congress for approval of statehood.
The State failed to receive the two-thirds majority of approval from the other states that is necessary in order to be admitted to the Union (only seven of the thirteen states at the time voted to admit Franklin to the Union) and couldn't even get the support of Benjamin Franklin himself.
In 1788 the region was finally disbanded and readmitted to North Carolina, and would later become part of Tennessee, but this would not be the last time the area would attempt to become it's own state, the most notable during the Civil War as a result of Eastern Tennessee disapproval of the rest of the state seceding from the union. While the region never did secede from the rest of Tennessee, there were many people there who proposed seceding from Tennessee and rejoining the Union (much like what West Virginia actually did when it seceded from Virginia and rejoined the Union in 1863).
Now as for the State of Sequoyah, which was to be named in honor of Sequoyah, a Cherokee silversmith who invented the Cherokee syllabary (or alphabet), the area which would have become it's own state was part of what is today Eastern Oklahoma, and was from 1890 until 1907 when it was merged with the Oklahoma Territory and became the State of Oklahoma, it's own individual territory known as the Indian Territory, which actually once included most of Oklahoma, but after 1890 a little over half the territory was ceded to white settlers to form it's own separate territory.
In 1905 the territory formed a constitutional convention, and voted to send a petition to the United States Congress for approval of statehood.
The delegation that arrived at Washington D.C. from the Indian Territories did not receive a warm reception, with many eastern politicians not wanting to admit two new western states. Even President Theodore Roosevelt proposed that the two territories be merged back again and become the State of Oklahoma (which is what happened in 1907). Still, all the hard work of the Sequoyah state constitutional convention was not lost as the Sequoyah constitution served as the basis for the Oklahoma constitution.
It should also be noted that if Sequoyah had ended up becoming a state, it would have been the first (and only) state where the majority of the people were Native Americans.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Who really was the first President?
If you were to ask a bunch of people who was the first President of the United States most of them would probably tell you that George Washington was the first President.
Those people would be wrong.
While it is true that George Washington was the first person to hold the title of "President of the United States of America" there were actually multiple people who were President of the United States before him, they just didn't hold the actual title of "President of the United States of America".
In fact the first Presidents of the United States actually held the title of "President of the Continental Congress" and they were not chosen by the people, but by the Continental Congress (which was the legislative body of the United States before the constitution basically dissolved the Continental Congress and split it into two with the creation the Senate and the House of Representatives) and in reality was closer to what we would consider to be the modern day Speaker of the House than President of the United States, and was more of an honorable title that held little authority. Still, the President of the Continental Congress was the Head of State for the United States, and therefore the Presidents of the Continental Congress were in fact the first Presidents of the United States.
Now Peyton Randolph was the first President of the Continental Congress, but he is not the first President of the United States, and for two very good reasons: One, he was president before the United States declared independence, and two, he actually died before the United States declared independence from Great Britain.
Now John Hanson first President of the Continental Congress to be elected under the Articles of Confederation, but Samuel Huntington was the President of the Continental Congress when the Articles of Confederation was ratified, and therefore many people consider him to be the first President of the United States.
Now of course Elias Boudinot could also be considered the first President of the United States because he was President of the Continental Congress when Great Britain officially recognized our independence on September 3, 1783, and he signed the Treaty of Paris, but the United States government doesn't recognize that date to be the date this country's independence. Instead the government officially considers July 4, 1776, the day the Continental Congress adopted and signed the Declaration of Independence, as the date of this country's independence.
So who was really the true first President of the United States?
It was John Hancock.
The Continental Congress, and the title of President of the Continental Congress was created before the Revolutionary War even began, and when the Declaration of Independence was adopted and signed, John Hancock was President of the Continental Congress (and of course one of the document's most famous signatories) and was actually President of the Continental Congress for almost 16 months after the Declaration of Independence was adopted and signed. Therefore since Hancock was President of the Continental Congress during and after signing of the Declaration of Independence, he is really the first President of the United States.
Of course there are others who will say otherwise...
Those people would be wrong.
While it is true that George Washington was the first person to hold the title of "President of the United States of America" there were actually multiple people who were President of the United States before him, they just didn't hold the actual title of "President of the United States of America".
In fact the first Presidents of the United States actually held the title of "President of the Continental Congress" and they were not chosen by the people, but by the Continental Congress (which was the legislative body of the United States before the constitution basically dissolved the Continental Congress and split it into two with the creation the Senate and the House of Representatives) and in reality was closer to what we would consider to be the modern day Speaker of the House than President of the United States, and was more of an honorable title that held little authority. Still, the President of the Continental Congress was the Head of State for the United States, and therefore the Presidents of the Continental Congress were in fact the first Presidents of the United States.
Now Peyton Randolph was the first President of the Continental Congress, but he is not the first President of the United States, and for two very good reasons: One, he was president before the United States declared independence, and two, he actually died before the United States declared independence from Great Britain.
Now John Hanson first President of the Continental Congress to be elected under the Articles of Confederation, but Samuel Huntington was the President of the Continental Congress when the Articles of Confederation was ratified, and therefore many people consider him to be the first President of the United States.
Now of course Elias Boudinot could also be considered the first President of the United States because he was President of the Continental Congress when Great Britain officially recognized our independence on September 3, 1783, and he signed the Treaty of Paris, but the United States government doesn't recognize that date to be the date this country's independence. Instead the government officially considers July 4, 1776, the day the Continental Congress adopted and signed the Declaration of Independence, as the date of this country's independence.
So who was really the true first President of the United States?
It was John Hancock.
The Continental Congress, and the title of President of the Continental Congress was created before the Revolutionary War even began, and when the Declaration of Independence was adopted and signed, John Hancock was President of the Continental Congress (and of course one of the document's most famous signatories) and was actually President of the Continental Congress for almost 16 months after the Declaration of Independence was adopted and signed. Therefore since Hancock was President of the Continental Congress during and after signing of the Declaration of Independence, he is really the first President of the United States.
Of course there are others who will say otherwise...
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Get out and vote!
Today is the day that the majority of Americans choose whether we keep Barack Obama as President, or if Mitt Romney is to becomes our next President (along of course with other elections to choose to keep or replace governors, senators (state and national), representatives (state and national), delegates, judges, sheriffs, mayors, local councils, and new laws).
At least, this is what we tend to believe...
The reality is that it is not the majority of the American people who choose who will be President of the United States. In fact it is the majority of people who actually can legally vote who's choice really counts (which are United States citizens who are over the age of 18, and are not currently incarcerated, and have not been convicted of any felonies, or have been convicted of felonies but have yet to get their voting rights restored... and of course citizens who are residents of United States territories that are not actually states (with of course the exception of Washington D.C.) ) and not the people who are just to lazy to get up and go vote.
It is important that everyone who can legally go out and vote to actually go out and vote. It is the only way to know at least what the true opinion of what most Americans believe who should be in charge of this country, and thus how the country should be run.
Now there are some people that say, and believe, that their vote doesn't really count, but the reality is that your vote doesn't count if you don't actually go out and vote. No one is going to consider your vote to count if you don't actually vote in the first place.
Others might say that your vote really isn't going to make a difference. Again, this is only true if you actually don't go out and vote. Whether you believe it or not, your vote does make a difference.
Now of course there are others will try to make the "excuse" that there is no one is running that they actually like. Well there are more then two political parties, and in the presidential race there are more then two candidates. You can always check out what one of the other candidates want do and vote for one of them.
While we may have a choice whether we want to go out and vote or not, others will be basically be making your choices for you, unless you go out and make that choice yourself.
The reality is that your opinion about how the country is being run, and should be run, only means something if you want it to mean something, and the only way you can make that opinion mean something is if you actually go out and vote!
At least, this is what we tend to believe...
The reality is that it is not the majority of the American people who choose who will be President of the United States. In fact it is the majority of people who actually can legally vote who's choice really counts (which are United States citizens who are over the age of 18, and are not currently incarcerated, and have not been convicted of any felonies, or have been convicted of felonies but have yet to get their voting rights restored... and of course citizens who are residents of United States territories that are not actually states (with of course the exception of Washington D.C.) ) and not the people who are just to lazy to get up and go vote.
It is important that everyone who can legally go out and vote to actually go out and vote. It is the only way to know at least what the true opinion of what most Americans believe who should be in charge of this country, and thus how the country should be run.
Now there are some people that say, and believe, that their vote doesn't really count, but the reality is that your vote doesn't count if you don't actually go out and vote. No one is going to consider your vote to count if you don't actually vote in the first place.
Others might say that your vote really isn't going to make a difference. Again, this is only true if you actually don't go out and vote. Whether you believe it or not, your vote does make a difference.
Now of course there are others will try to make the "excuse" that there is no one is running that they actually like. Well there are more then two political parties, and in the presidential race there are more then two candidates. You can always check out what one of the other candidates want do and vote for one of them.
While we may have a choice whether we want to go out and vote or not, others will be basically be making your choices for you, unless you go out and make that choice yourself.
The reality is that your opinion about how the country is being run, and should be run, only means something if you want it to mean something, and the only way you can make that opinion mean something is if you actually go out and vote!
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Gary McKinnon, threat to America, or another victim of conspiracy theories?
A British man by the name of Gary McKinnon, who ten years ago hacked into NASA and US military computers (apparently damaging some of them in the process) was spared from being extradited to the United States from the United Kingdom by United Kingdom Home Secretary Theresa May.
Now the reason cited for this isn't because the crimes he has been accused committing wasn't enough extradite him. The reason stated is because he has Asperger's syndrome (which is a mild form autism) and depression, and it has been determined that there is a high likely that if he were to be brought over here that he would most likely try to commit suicide.
Now many of you are probably asking why exactly did he hack into NASA and US military computers in the first place?
Well apparently back when he did this (which was about ten years ago) he was obsessed with UFOs and a alleged cover-up by our government, so he hacked into our government and military computers to find out any information about aliens that he believed the United States was covering up.
I have no doubt in my mind that Gary's autism caused him to become so obsessed with these UFO cover-up conspiracy theories that it caused him to do something that most people who do not have this neurological disorder, or any other type of neurological or mental disorder, would not do.
But, the existence of these conspiracy theories, and those who promote them, are also partially to blame as well.
Now most people don't take these UFO conspiracy theories that seriously. They might believe in it, but they usually don't obsessed with it to the point where they would commit a crime. Heck, I even once believed in them, but I never took it seriously enough to even buy a book on UFOs, much less do something that is as highly illegal as what Gary McKinnon is accused of doing (he admits to hacking into our computers, but not damaging them) but, if these conspiracy theories didn't exist then people who are like Gary who can become obsessed to the point where they have a great amount of difficulty controlling themselves and their actions, and thus they do stuff like this.
In my opinion this is another example of how destructive conspiracy theories can be, and how it can cause a person to rune their life.
The Slate article about this story
Gary's Wikipedia article
Now the reason cited for this isn't because the crimes he has been accused committing wasn't enough extradite him. The reason stated is because he has Asperger's syndrome (which is a mild form autism) and depression, and it has been determined that there is a high likely that if he were to be brought over here that he would most likely try to commit suicide.
Now many of you are probably asking why exactly did he hack into NASA and US military computers in the first place?
Well apparently back when he did this (which was about ten years ago) he was obsessed with UFOs and a alleged cover-up by our government, so he hacked into our government and military computers to find out any information about aliens that he believed the United States was covering up.
I have no doubt in my mind that Gary's autism caused him to become so obsessed with these UFO cover-up conspiracy theories that it caused him to do something that most people who do not have this neurological disorder, or any other type of neurological or mental disorder, would not do.
But, the existence of these conspiracy theories, and those who promote them, are also partially to blame as well.
Now most people don't take these UFO conspiracy theories that seriously. They might believe in it, but they usually don't obsessed with it to the point where they would commit a crime. Heck, I even once believed in them, but I never took it seriously enough to even buy a book on UFOs, much less do something that is as highly illegal as what Gary McKinnon is accused of doing (he admits to hacking into our computers, but not damaging them) but, if these conspiracy theories didn't exist then people who are like Gary who can become obsessed to the point where they have a great amount of difficulty controlling themselves and their actions, and thus they do stuff like this.
In my opinion this is another example of how destructive conspiracy theories can be, and how it can cause a person to rune their life.
The Slate article about this story
Gary's Wikipedia article
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
The Ten closest U.S. Presidential elections
10. 1844
While Whig Party candidate Henry Clay may have lost to Democratic Party candidate James K. Polk by 65 electoral votes, in popular votes he only lost by 1.4%.
This wouldn't be the first time Henry Clay has lost a presidential election too. In fact he has made five serious runs for the presidency, and three times as a major party's candidate, and he lost every time. He has even run for president under three different political parties: The Democratic-Republican Party, the National Republican Party, and the Whig Party.
It should also be noted that Polk also lost his home state (North Carolina) and his state of residence (Tennessee) in this election, and still won, making him the only person to do this.
Polk also only ran for one term.
9. 1968
While Democratic Party candidate Hubert Humphrey may have lost to Republican Party candidate Richard Nixon by 110 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.7%.
Some people might believe that George Wallace, the American Independent Party candidate who had won 46 electoral votes, and 13.5% of the popular vote, may have acted as a spoiler for Humphrey, but at that time in our history the south (where Wallace had won all of his votes) was going over from the Democrats to the Republicans. In fact Nixon had won 6 states in what was once the Confederate States, while Humphrey only won Texas.
8. 1884
While Republican Party candidate James G. Blaine may have lost to Democratic Party candidate Grover Cleveland by 37 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.3%
This election ultimately came down to New York, Cleveland's home state, which he won by only 1,047 votes out of 1,171,312 votes casts, narrowly securing him the election.
This is also the first time since the Civil War that a Democrat had won a presidential election.
7. 1960
While Republican Party candidate Richard Nixon may have lost to Democratic Party candidate John F. Kennedy by 84 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.2%.
This election also had several controversies with it.
The margin of Kennedy's victories in several states was very narrow, even to the point where many on Nixon's campaign staff urged him to demand a recount in those states. Also there were allegations of voter fraud in several places, most notably the city of Chicago and the state of Texas.
Also in this election Virginia Senator Harry Byrd, a Democrat who opposed racial desegregation, won 15 electoral votes, even though he wasn't an announced candidate, and didn't even seek out any votes.
6. 1880
While Democratic Party candidate Winfield Scott Hancock may have lost to Republican Party candidate James A. Garfield by 59 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.1%.
This is the smallest popular vote victory in United States history. In fact Garfield only won the popular votes by less than 1,900 votes.
5. 1796
In this election Federalist Party candidate John Adams may have defeated Democratic-Republican Party candidate Thomas Jefferson by 6.8% of the popular vote, he only won the election by three electoral votes.
This election was also a tad bit strange. Because of the way our election laws were at the time the person who came in second place in the election could become Vice President. So instead of John Adams's running mate, Thomas Pinckney, becoming Vice President, Thomas Jefferson became Vice President.
4. 1888
While President Grover Cleveland lost the 1888 presidential election by 65 electoral to Benjamin Harrison, he actually won the popular vote by 0.8%, making this the third time in United States history where a person who didn't win the popular vote won a presidential election.
Despite his loss, President Cleveland did make a come back, and defeated President Harris in the 1892 election by 132 electoral votes, making him the only president to win two non-consecutive terms.
It should be noted that James B. Weaver, the presidential candidate for the Populist Party may have cost President Harris the election as it could be argued that many of the people who voted for Weaver would have voted for President Harris, who only lost the popular vote by 3%, while Weaver managed to win 8.5% of the popular vote (and 22 electoral votes).
3. 2000
This is one of the closest elections in United States history, and one of the most controversial too.
While Democratic Party candidate Al Gore only lost the election by five electoral votes, he actually won the popular vote against Republican Party candidate George W. Bush by 0.5%.
Ultimately the election came down to Florida, where after several recounts in several counties, the Florida Supreme Count awarded Bush the state, and the presidency. This ruling is still controversial even to this day, with many critics stating that if a full state wide recount had been done, Gore might have won the state, and the election.
It should also be noted that many people consider Ralph Nader, who ran as the presidential candidate for the Green Party, may have also cost Gore the election, as he had gotten about 2.7% of the popular vote, which most likely would have gone to Gore if he had not run.
2. 1876
Democratic Party candidate Samuel J. Tilden may have won the popular vote by 3.1%, but he still lost the election to Republican Party candidate Rutherford B. Hayes by one electoral vote.
This is the closest election in United States history, and is the only one where a candidate received the absolute majority in the popular vote (51% in fact) and still didn't win.
The election was also very controversial too, with 20 electoral votes that were disputed, all of which were ultimately awarded Hayes.
This election also led to the creation of the temporary Electoral Commission and the Compromise of 1877.
1. 1824
While the election of 1876 is the closest in United States history, the election of of 1824 is probably one of the strangest in United States history.
Besides the fact that it had four candidates that all won electoral votes, all four candidates were from the same political party, the Democratic-Republican Party.
This election gets even stranger, as the person that won both the electoral and popular votes, Andrew Jackson, still didn't win the election. The reason for this is because he did not win enough electoral votes to be legally declared the winner, so it was up to Congress to decide who would be winner.
Ultimately Congress gave the victory to John Q. Adams, who was second in both electoral votes and the popular votes.
This is the only time in United States history where a person who won neither the popular vote, nor the electoral vote, still won the presidential election.
While Whig Party candidate Henry Clay may have lost to Democratic Party candidate James K. Polk by 65 electoral votes, in popular votes he only lost by 1.4%.
This wouldn't be the first time Henry Clay has lost a presidential election too. In fact he has made five serious runs for the presidency, and three times as a major party's candidate, and he lost every time. He has even run for president under three different political parties: The Democratic-Republican Party, the National Republican Party, and the Whig Party.
It should also be noted that Polk also lost his home state (North Carolina) and his state of residence (Tennessee) in this election, and still won, making him the only person to do this.
Polk also only ran for one term.
9. 1968
While Democratic Party candidate Hubert Humphrey may have lost to Republican Party candidate Richard Nixon by 110 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.7%.
Some people might believe that George Wallace, the American Independent Party candidate who had won 46 electoral votes, and 13.5% of the popular vote, may have acted as a spoiler for Humphrey, but at that time in our history the south (where Wallace had won all of his votes) was going over from the Democrats to the Republicans. In fact Nixon had won 6 states in what was once the Confederate States, while Humphrey only won Texas.
8. 1884
While Republican Party candidate James G. Blaine may have lost to Democratic Party candidate Grover Cleveland by 37 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.3%
This election ultimately came down to New York, Cleveland's home state, which he won by only 1,047 votes out of 1,171,312 votes casts, narrowly securing him the election.
This is also the first time since the Civil War that a Democrat had won a presidential election.
7. 1960
While Republican Party candidate Richard Nixon may have lost to Democratic Party candidate John F. Kennedy by 84 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.2%.
This election also had several controversies with it.
The margin of Kennedy's victories in several states was very narrow, even to the point where many on Nixon's campaign staff urged him to demand a recount in those states. Also there were allegations of voter fraud in several places, most notably the city of Chicago and the state of Texas.
Also in this election Virginia Senator Harry Byrd, a Democrat who opposed racial desegregation, won 15 electoral votes, even though he wasn't an announced candidate, and didn't even seek out any votes.
6. 1880
While Democratic Party candidate Winfield Scott Hancock may have lost to Republican Party candidate James A. Garfield by 59 electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by 0.1%.
This is the smallest popular vote victory in United States history. In fact Garfield only won the popular votes by less than 1,900 votes.
5. 1796
In this election Federalist Party candidate John Adams may have defeated Democratic-Republican Party candidate Thomas Jefferson by 6.8% of the popular vote, he only won the election by three electoral votes.
This election was also a tad bit strange. Because of the way our election laws were at the time the person who came in second place in the election could become Vice President. So instead of John Adams's running mate, Thomas Pinckney, becoming Vice President, Thomas Jefferson became Vice President.
4. 1888
While President Grover Cleveland lost the 1888 presidential election by 65 electoral to Benjamin Harrison, he actually won the popular vote by 0.8%, making this the third time in United States history where a person who didn't win the popular vote won a presidential election.
Despite his loss, President Cleveland did make a come back, and defeated President Harris in the 1892 election by 132 electoral votes, making him the only president to win two non-consecutive terms.
It should be noted that James B. Weaver, the presidential candidate for the Populist Party may have cost President Harris the election as it could be argued that many of the people who voted for Weaver would have voted for President Harris, who only lost the popular vote by 3%, while Weaver managed to win 8.5% of the popular vote (and 22 electoral votes).
3. 2000
This is one of the closest elections in United States history, and one of the most controversial too.
While Democratic Party candidate Al Gore only lost the election by five electoral votes, he actually won the popular vote against Republican Party candidate George W. Bush by 0.5%.
Ultimately the election came down to Florida, where after several recounts in several counties, the Florida Supreme Count awarded Bush the state, and the presidency. This ruling is still controversial even to this day, with many critics stating that if a full state wide recount had been done, Gore might have won the state, and the election.
It should also be noted that many people consider Ralph Nader, who ran as the presidential candidate for the Green Party, may have also cost Gore the election, as he had gotten about 2.7% of the popular vote, which most likely would have gone to Gore if he had not run.
2. 1876
Democratic Party candidate Samuel J. Tilden may have won the popular vote by 3.1%, but he still lost the election to Republican Party candidate Rutherford B. Hayes by one electoral vote.
This is the closest election in United States history, and is the only one where a candidate received the absolute majority in the popular vote (51% in fact) and still didn't win.
The election was also very controversial too, with 20 electoral votes that were disputed, all of which were ultimately awarded Hayes.
This election also led to the creation of the temporary Electoral Commission and the Compromise of 1877.
1. 1824
While the election of 1876 is the closest in United States history, the election of of 1824 is probably one of the strangest in United States history.
Besides the fact that it had four candidates that all won electoral votes, all four candidates were from the same political party, the Democratic-Republican Party.
This election gets even stranger, as the person that won both the electoral and popular votes, Andrew Jackson, still didn't win the election. The reason for this is because he did not win enough electoral votes to be legally declared the winner, so it was up to Congress to decide who would be winner.
Ultimately Congress gave the victory to John Q. Adams, who was second in both electoral votes and the popular votes.
This is the only time in United States history where a person who won neither the popular vote, nor the electoral vote, still won the presidential election.
Friday, September 14, 2012
25 interesting facts about the Vice Presidents of the United States
25. John Tyler is the shortest serving Vice President of the United States, having been in the office for only 31 days before becoming President of the United States upon President William Henry Harrison's death.
24. William R. King is the shortest serving Vice President to have also died in office.
23. Daniel D. Tompkins, Thomas R. Marshall, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney are the longest serving Vice Presidents, having served two full terms in office.
22. Andrew Johnson is the last person to be elected Vice President of the United States that ran neither as a Democrat, nor a Republican, but, along with President Abraham Lincoln, ran as a candidate for the National Union Party
21. A person must be a natural-born citizen, be at least 35 years old, and must have been a permanent resident of the United States 14 years in order to be eligible to run for Vice President, same as President.
20. Unlike with the President of the United States, there are no term limits for the Vice President.
19. There has been more Vice Presidents of the United States then Presidents of the United States. 47 Vice Presidents to be exact, while there has been only 43 Presidents.
18. John C. Calhoun is the only Vice President to be Vice President under two different political parties: The Democratic-Republicans, and the Democrats.
17. John Tyler and John C. Breckinridge are the only two former Vice Presidents to side with the Confederate States during the Civil War. Breckinridge even fought for the Confederate States as a Major General.
16. Alben W. Barkley is the oldest Vice President. He was 71 when he assumed the office, and 75 when he left.
15. John C. Breckinridge, at the age of 36, became the youngest person to become Vice President.
14. The longest living Vice President was John Nance Garner, who was almost 99 years old when he died.
13. The shortest lived Vice President was Daniel D. Tompkins, who was almost 51 years old when he died.
12. Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Richard Nixon all had two Vice Presidents.
11. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had three Vice Presidents, and thus more Vice Presidents then any other President.
10. Presidents John Tyler, Millard Filmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur never had a Vice President.
9. No Vice President has ever been assassinated.
8. George Clinton and John C. Calhoun are the only two Vice Presidents to serve under two different Presidents.
7. The Presidential election of 1800 is the only election where the current Vice President ran against the current President.
6. The elections of 1789, 1792, and 1796 are the only ones which a Vice President was elected that was of a different party then the President.
5. Martin Van Buren and George H. W. Bush are the only Vice Presidents to be elected President of the United States and after the terms of the presidents they served under, Andrew Johnson and Ronald Reagan, ended. Ironically, both only served one term, while their predecessors served two terms.
4. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson, are the only four Vice Presidents to become president after the previous president died, and then win a presidential election on their own.
3. John Tyler, Millard Filmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur, and Gerald Ford are the only five Vice Presidents who later became President of the United States, but was never elected president, and only became president after the previous presidents died or resigned.
2. John C. Calhoun and Spiro Agnew are the only two Vice Presidents to resign from office. Calhoun resigned to take a seat in the United States Senate. Agnew resigned due to criminal charges, which he later pleaded no contest to.
1. George Clinton, Elbridge Gerry, William R. King, Henry Wilson, Thomas A. Hendricks, Garret Hobart, and James S. Sherman are the only Vice Presidents to die in office.
24. William R. King is the shortest serving Vice President to have also died in office.
23. Daniel D. Tompkins, Thomas R. Marshall, Richard Nixon, George H. W. Bush, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney are the longest serving Vice Presidents, having served two full terms in office.
22. Andrew Johnson is the last person to be elected Vice President of the United States that ran neither as a Democrat, nor a Republican, but, along with President Abraham Lincoln, ran as a candidate for the National Union Party
21. A person must be a natural-born citizen, be at least 35 years old, and must have been a permanent resident of the United States 14 years in order to be eligible to run for Vice President, same as President.
20. Unlike with the President of the United States, there are no term limits for the Vice President.
19. There has been more Vice Presidents of the United States then Presidents of the United States. 47 Vice Presidents to be exact, while there has been only 43 Presidents.
18. John C. Calhoun is the only Vice President to be Vice President under two different political parties: The Democratic-Republicans, and the Democrats.
17. John Tyler and John C. Breckinridge are the only two former Vice Presidents to side with the Confederate States during the Civil War. Breckinridge even fought for the Confederate States as a Major General.
16. Alben W. Barkley is the oldest Vice President. He was 71 when he assumed the office, and 75 when he left.
15. John C. Breckinridge, at the age of 36, became the youngest person to become Vice President.
14. The longest living Vice President was John Nance Garner, who was almost 99 years old when he died.
13. The shortest lived Vice President was Daniel D. Tompkins, who was almost 51 years old when he died.
12. Presidents Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and Richard Nixon all had two Vice Presidents.
11. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had three Vice Presidents, and thus more Vice Presidents then any other President.
10. Presidents John Tyler, Millard Filmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur never had a Vice President.
9. No Vice President has ever been assassinated.
8. George Clinton and John C. Calhoun are the only two Vice Presidents to serve under two different Presidents.
7. The Presidential election of 1800 is the only election where the current Vice President ran against the current President.
6. The elections of 1789, 1792, and 1796 are the only ones which a Vice President was elected that was of a different party then the President.
5. Martin Van Buren and George H. W. Bush are the only Vice Presidents to be elected President of the United States and after the terms of the presidents they served under, Andrew Johnson and Ronald Reagan, ended. Ironically, both only served one term, while their predecessors served two terms.
4. Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, and Lyndon B. Johnson, are the only four Vice Presidents to become president after the previous president died, and then win a presidential election on their own.
3. John Tyler, Millard Filmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A. Arthur, and Gerald Ford are the only five Vice Presidents who later became President of the United States, but was never elected president, and only became president after the previous presidents died or resigned.
2. John C. Calhoun and Spiro Agnew are the only two Vice Presidents to resign from office. Calhoun resigned to take a seat in the United States Senate. Agnew resigned due to criminal charges, which he later pleaded no contest to.
1. George Clinton, Elbridge Gerry, William R. King, Henry Wilson, Thomas A. Hendricks, Garret Hobart, and James S. Sherman are the only Vice Presidents to die in office.
Friday, August 24, 2012
10 People who could have become President of the United States
So far there have been a total 43 people who have become President of the United States, but there are also several other people who could have become president, but didn't, either because of a matter of a few votes, or a matter of fate.
So here now is a list of 10 people who could have become President of the United States:
10. Robert F. Kennedy
Senator of New York, US Attorney General, and brother of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy announced on March 16, 1968 that he was running for President the United States. Unfortunately, on June 5, 1968, he was assassinated. Many people to this day speculate about whether or not he would have been elected president if he had not been assassinated.
9. John McCain
Senator John McCain of Arizona has run for president twice. In 2008 he was defeated soundly Barack Obama, and back when he ran in 2000, he didn't even receive the Republican nomination, but many people have speculated that if he had won the Republican nomination in 2000, he would have defeated Al Gore, and by a much wider margin then what George W. Bush did.
8. Thomas E. Dewey
While it's true that New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey didn't actually come close to becoming president, many in the media at the time had speculated during the voting returns that he was going to defeat President Truman. One newspaper, the Chicago Daily Tribune, was so convinced that Governor Dewey was going to win, that they published in their headlines that Dewey had defeated Truman, which lead to this iconic photo:
7. Hillary Clinton
In 2008 the former first lady and New York senator ran for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. She barely lost the nomination to Barack Obama, and due to the fact that the Republicans were so unpopular at the time, if she had won the nomination, she could very well have become the first female President of the United States.
6. Henry A. Wallace
Basically this is a matter of fate. If Franklin D. Roosevelt had chosen to keep his Vice President of his third term, Henry Wallace, and had not chosen Harry Truman to be his Vice President, Henry Wallace would have become the 33rd President of the United States after President Roosevelt died.
5. Hannibal Hamlin
Once again, this is a matter of fate. Hannibal Hamlin was Abraham Lincoln's first Vice President, and if President Lincoln had decided to run with Hamlin again instead of Andrew Johnson, he would have become the 17th President of the United States after President Lincoln had been assassinated.
4. Winfield Scott Hancock
While General Winfield Scott Hancock may have been solidly defeated by James A. Garfield in the 1880 presidential election, in terms of electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by less than 2,000 votes. It is entirely plausible that if General Hancock had received a few more thousand votes, he might have become the 20th president of the United States.
3. Al Gore
Vice President Al Gore barely lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. In fact he had only lost by five electoral votes, and had actually won the popular vote. He had also only lost the state of Florida, the state that ultimately resulted in him losing the election, by 537 votes. Even to this day some people still won't acknowledge George W. Bush's victory in that election, and continue to blame the Supreme Court and Ralph Nader (who many consider to be a spoiler in that election) for Al Gore's lose.
2. Samuel J. Tilden
So here now is a list of 10 people who could have become President of the United States:
10. Robert F. Kennedy
Senator of New York, US Attorney General, and brother of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy announced on March 16, 1968 that he was running for President the United States. Unfortunately, on June 5, 1968, he was assassinated. Many people to this day speculate about whether or not he would have been elected president if he had not been assassinated.
9. John McCain
Senator John McCain of Arizona has run for president twice. In 2008 he was defeated soundly Barack Obama, and back when he ran in 2000, he didn't even receive the Republican nomination, but many people have speculated that if he had won the Republican nomination in 2000, he would have defeated Al Gore, and by a much wider margin then what George W. Bush did.
8. Thomas E. Dewey
While it's true that New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey didn't actually come close to becoming president, many in the media at the time had speculated during the voting returns that he was going to defeat President Truman. One newspaper, the Chicago Daily Tribune, was so convinced that Governor Dewey was going to win, that they published in their headlines that Dewey had defeated Truman, which lead to this iconic photo:
7. Hillary Clinton
In 2008 the former first lady and New York senator ran for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. She barely lost the nomination to Barack Obama, and due to the fact that the Republicans were so unpopular at the time, if she had won the nomination, she could very well have become the first female President of the United States.
6. Henry A. Wallace
Basically this is a matter of fate. If Franklin D. Roosevelt had chosen to keep his Vice President of his third term, Henry Wallace, and had not chosen Harry Truman to be his Vice President, Henry Wallace would have become the 33rd President of the United States after President Roosevelt died.
5. Hannibal Hamlin
Once again, this is a matter of fate. Hannibal Hamlin was Abraham Lincoln's first Vice President, and if President Lincoln had decided to run with Hamlin again instead of Andrew Johnson, he would have become the 17th President of the United States after President Lincoln had been assassinated.
4. Winfield Scott Hancock
While General Winfield Scott Hancock may have been solidly defeated by James A. Garfield in the 1880 presidential election, in terms of electoral votes, he only lost the popular vote by less than 2,000 votes. It is entirely plausible that if General Hancock had received a few more thousand votes, he might have become the 20th president of the United States.
3. Al Gore
Vice President Al Gore barely lost to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. In fact he had only lost by five electoral votes, and had actually won the popular vote. He had also only lost the state of Florida, the state that ultimately resulted in him losing the election, by 537 votes. Even to this day some people still won't acknowledge George W. Bush's victory in that election, and continue to blame the Supreme Court and Ralph Nader (who many consider to be a spoiler in that election) for Al Gore's lose.
2. Samuel J. Tilden
New York Governor Samuel Tilden almost defeated Rutherford B. Hayes in the 1876 presidential election. He actually did win the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote by one vote. In fact, 20 of the electoral votes in three states were disputed, but were eventually awarded to Rutherford B. Hayes. This is perhaps the closest that any one has come to being elected president, and still never becoming President of the United States.
1. Benjamin Wade
Senator Benjamin Wade was President Pro Tempore of the US Senate at the time of President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial, and at that time in our country, our laws stated that the President Pro Tempore of the US Senate was second in line of presidential succession. If only one vote had gone against President Johnson, then Benjamin Wade would have become the 18th President of the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)