“One thing virtually every American can agree on is that every ranking of American presidents is a reflection of the values of the person or persons making those rankings. So, if you share the left-wing values of the vast majority of academics and journalists, you will certainly be pleased with how highly Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama, to cite but two examples, are ranked. But if you believe, as I do, that these were two of the worst presidents in American history, where do you go for a knowledgeable ranking of the presidents? Here is the answer: Robert Spencer’s Rating America’s Presidents. It offers a new assessment based on the only criterion that matters: who did good for America? Given the author’s credentials and the subject matter, this is an important ― and enjoyable ― book.” — Dennis Prager, author, The Rational Bible
Preorder Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster here.
gravenimage says
Dennis Prager: Rating America’s Presidents ‘an important ― and enjoyable ― book’
……………..
Excellent to hear!
Juhani says
One thing I don’t get. If Trump is nationalist why is he allowing ultra globalist project like ID2020 rising from his country.
gravenimage says
Your apparent belief that as president that Trump has control over everything that happens in the US is mistaken.
curious says
Prager says that “every ranking of American presidents is a reflection of the values of the person or persons making those rankings.” In other words, he believes that no one ranks objectively. If he is correct, then there is little or no point reading the book.
Any Presidential administration is like a glass half empty or half full, depending on PoV. Some people seem habitually and emotionally to hate one President or one party, instead of looking at the advantages and disadvantages of each. Any list that cites Presidents of only one party as “the worst” is merely a partisan recitation, not an objective comparison.
For example, while I agree with Prager about Wilson, I think Obama was either better or less bad than most; looking at the alternatives, Obama was either twice as good, or half as bad, as McCain and Romnesia would have been. Looking at the most recent 100y, Wilson (D) Nixon (R) and W43 (R) were the worst; LBJ (D) and Carter (D) meant well but were non-successful.
Juhani says
Do you mean it cannot be objectively defined what is good for America? I believe that the criteria of “good for America” is defined in the book.
curious says
@Juhani, you asked, “Do you mean it cannot be objectively defined what is good for America?”
That would be consistent with Prager’s opinion: he says that “every ranking of American presidents is a reflection of the values of the person or persons making those rankings.” If he has read this book, then he is calling it personal rather than national, and subjective rather than objective.
Prager makes his living by misleading people, so his opinions don’t have much value; they might even have negative value. If his opinions had positive value, then his review would be discouraging. It is possible to state objective criteria to evaluate what is good for America, but Prager claims to have found no such objectivity in this book.
mccode says
Curious,
Your claim that Dennis Prager makes a living by misleading people indicates that you either have never watched the numerous videos he posts on his website Prager U, or that you are a scoundrel.
Your misinformation campaign serves to only further divide this country and this world, along lines of ignorance.
You are certainly entitled to disagree with his presidential rankings. His opinions carry no more weight than anyone else’s, including yours or mine.
Have a nice day. I’m sure your day will be much happier if you take the time to watch at least this one video from Prager U.
https://www.prageru.com/video/the-key-to-unhappiness/
gravenimage says
Different people do indeed have different values–for instance, some uphold America’s values, some hate them and want to destroy the West. One major purpose of Jihad Watch, in fact, is pointing out how the values of Islam are not compatible with those of the free West.
How is noting this “misleading” people?
curious says
mccode, Thanks for the link; I watched part of the video and read the whole transcript, which says “If ingratitude makes people unhappy and mean, then gratitude must make people happy and kind.” Muslims are often praising and thanking Allah, just as North Koreans praise their Fat Leader, but it does not make them happy or kind. In fact, the Islamic phrase ‘allahu akbar’ is often associated with terror attacks against disbelievers.
@gravenimage, what you wrote is not misleading people, but it is also not a fair description of Prager’s work. Did you know that he called Donald Trump “unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president”?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/prager-university
There’s more. He wrote in 2014 that the “heterosexual AIDS” crisis was “entirely manufactured by the Left.” In reality, most of the AIDS pandemic has always resulted from heterosexual transmission, primarily in Africa.
Also in 2014, Prager said if same-sex marriage were legalized, then “there is no plausible argument for denying polygamous relationships, or brothers and sisters, or parents and adult children, the right to marry.” That’s demonstrably false, and no country that has legalized same-sex marriage has gone on to legalize polygamous or incestuous marriage. To the contrary, the only country to have both is Britain, where the British government began subsidizing polygamous Muslims while prosecuting polygamous non-Muslims and refusing to recognize same-sex marriage. Britain has now legalized same-sex marriage, but continues to prohibit non-Muslim polygamy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/arts/music/santa-monica-symphony-dennis-prager-conservative-guest-conductor.html
I would worry about anyone who claims a degree from “PragerU”.
curious says
P.S. here is a lnik regarding Britain.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9433441/Immigrants-with-multiple-wives-will-get-more-benefits-officials-admit.html
I should note add, many Russian families kept portraits of Stalin in their homes, and many continued to express gratitude to “Uncle Joe” Stalin even after he died, but that did not make Stalinists happy or kind.
gravenimage says
curious, I don’t agree with Dennis Prager on every point, and never said that I did. I asked how his noting that values are key to one’s view on the greatness of individuals is misleading?
Then, people also have the right to change their minds–for myself, I don’t consider Trump to be perfect, and there are things about him I do not like all that much–but so far as I am concerned he is far better than the Islamophilic Clinton or Biden would be. You may, of course, choose to disagree.
curious says
@gravenimage, I wish that I could find relevant examples of Prager changing his mind. In 2011, he called Donald Trump “unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president”. In 2016, he called Donald Trump the worst of the 17 Republican candidates, meaning worse than Saudi candidate Jeb Bush (who claimed absurdly that his brother had kept America safe) and the other candidates trying desperately to curry favor with KSA and praising Islam. You seem sometimes to distinguish in a binary way between people who support Islam vs people who oppose Jihad; if Prager opposes jihad, then it is obviously not a high priority for him. Although he had never supported Donald Trump, Prager said eventually there was no other choice left, meaning his highest priority is partisanship and there were no other candidates left from his party.
Also, if you compare your most recent question to your original question, I think you will see they are different questions.
gravenimage says
curious wrote:
@gravenimage, I wish that I could find relevant examples of Prager changing his mind.
………………….
Well, there is *this*:
“Dennis Prager: I was Wrong, Trump is a Great President”
https://www.americanexperiment.org/2018/01/dennis-prager-wrong-trump-great-president/
That seems pretty definitive to me.
More:
You seem sometimes to distinguish in a binary way between people who support Islam vs people who oppose Jihad; if Prager opposes jihad, then it is obviously not a high priority for him.
………………….
Not at all–I realize that this is a spectrum, all the way from pro-Jihadists to those who are opposed to Jihad terror but understand little about its roots and may not recognize such aspects as stealth Jihad to those who are staunchly opposed to it. Then, there are those who are either apathetic or in complete denial.
Trump himself is not perfect–he chided Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer for daring to uphold freedom of speech with their Muhammad Cartoon Art Contest. There is a lot he doesn’t know about Islam, as well. But compared with other major politicians both here in the US and in the rest of the West, he is overall pretty good.
As for the claim that Dennis Prager does not oppose Jihad terror, here he is on the Jihad murder of Lee Rigby:
“The ‘Muslims-Killed-by-the-West’ Lie”
https://www.newageislam.com/islam-and-the-west/dennis-prager/the-muslims-killed-by-the-west-lie/d/11935
And here he is, interviewing Robert Spencer about his book “The History of Jihad”:
https://www.dennisprager.com/spencer-the-history-of-jihad-from-muhammad-to-isis/
He also has pieces on his site about Shari’ah law and whether Islam is a religion of peace. There are other examples.
He is not exactly hiding his opposition to Jihad, as you appear to believe.
More:
Although he had never supported Donald Trump, Prager said eventually there was no other choice left, meaning his highest priority is partisanship and there were no other candidates left from his party.
………………….
This is mistaken; please see above.
More:
Also, if you compare your most recent question to your original question, I think you will see they are different questions.
………………….
I’m not sure what this is a specific reference to–I do sometimes ask more than one question.
curious says
@gravenimage, thanks for the link. You are right that Prager changed his tune about Trump – but only after Trump got the Republican nomination and became the only chance for Prager’s party to take and hold the White House. In the article you linked, Prager says: “Any Republican is better than any Democrat, that’s just the way it is.” That’s brazenly partisan and false; for example, Tulsi Gabbard would be better than Romnesia or Jeb Bush (Jeb!), both of whom Prager supported over Trump until Trump became the only hope of Prager’s party.
Regarding the issue of jihad, prior to Trump winning the nomination, Prager seems to have subscribed to the opinion of “moderate” Islam vs the “extremists,” without mentioning that the extremists are actually doing what Islam commands. Prager’s 2013 column that you linked says, “In the Muslim world today, it is hatred of the West, not love of — or even concern for — fellow Muslims, that animates Muslim atrocities and terror against the West.” That would sound like a good start, except he attributes Muslim atrocities and terror to a minority of extremists rather than to Islam itself (e.g. the Koran commanding Muslims to strike terror into the enemies of Allah, and the ultimate Islamic example Mohamad stating he was “made victorious through terror”). A PragerU lecture (initially published in 2015 but still part of the current program) says:
“But in order for democracy in Pakistan to prevail, the moderates, and that still means the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis, must show the kind of courage that Salman Taseer did. They must stand up to the Islamists, and hold the country together until the flames of religious extremism die out. Right now, the numbers still strongly favor those Pakistanis who believe in Western ideas of pluralism.”
https://www.prageru.com/video/pakistan-can-sharia-and-freedom-coexist/
That isn’t really a criticism of Islam itself, and in reality “the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis” demand Sharia:
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
Anyone relying on the PragerU lecture would be misled to the diametric opposite of reality. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis demand Sharia (including killing blasphemers) because that is what Islam commands.
You wrote that Prager “is not exactly hiding his opposition to Jihad, as you appear to believe.” I did not accuse him of hiding anything. To the contrary, he is brazenly partisan. I wrote that “if Prager opposes jihad, then it is obviously not a high priority for him.” That remains correct. He supports anyone from his party over anyone from the other major party, regardless of where they stand on jihad; in fact, among the candidates in his party, the only one who opposed Islam was Prager’s last choice out of 17.
Also, while advance copies of books are often distributed to reviewers prior to the release date, many authors and celebrities trade blurbs and praise without actually reading the books. Prager might have read part of it, or skimmed, or had an assistant read it, or simply relied on an agent’s description.
Peter Nickless says
Some smartass might suggest you actually read the book before you leave critical and biased reviews based on a one paragraph synopsis of the book. However, you may prefer to live in your narrow-minded and judgmental mindset.
curious says
I assume you are referring to Prager’s critical and biased review, as the book is not yet out. He does indeed live in a narrow-minded and judgmental mindset.
gravenimage says
Reviewers do indeed get advanced copies of the book to work from. This has been standard in publishing for well over a century.
gravenimage says
curious, how was Obama–who said “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” twice as good as John McCain and Mitt Romney? (note that I was not that impressed with either of these candidates and their knowledge of the threat of Islam–but neither of these men ever said anything so horrifying as this declaration of Shari’ah law and crushing of freedom of speech).
curious says
@gravenimage, regarding Islam, I have yet to find any criticism of Islam from McCain or Romnesia. To the contrary, Romnesia called Islam a “peace-loving religion”. Romnesia’s Moronic cult is modeled on Mohamed’s hateful fraud of Islam, and his fellow followers of Moroni have long advocated Muslim immigration, so Romnesia slammed candidate Trump’s proposed Muslim ban:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/262472-romney-trump-fired-before-aiming-at-muslims
John McCain advocated arming Sunni militias, and traveled to Syria to meet personally with Sunni terrorists whom he supported. Here you can see video of John McCain saying that “Allahu Akbar” is equivalent to “Thank God”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_VfGjzwPOs
He said that as part of a policy in which the USA sent weapons to Sunni militias including ultimately al qaida:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n08/seymour-m.-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
So, regarding Islam, McCain and Romnesia were as bad as the worst parts of Obama’s record. Regarding everything else, they were either twice as bad or not half as good.
gravenimage says
curious, thank you for your reply.
I have already noted that I was not impressed with either McCain or Romney’s understanding of the the threat of Islam–but I never heard *either* of them threaten those who dared to say anything critical of the hideous “Prophet” of Islam.
I am disgusted by the “Islam is a religion of peace” tripe–but this is pretty boiler plate and usually indicates a general ignorance of Islam. Threatening anyone who dares to break the Shari’ah ban on criticizing the “Prophet” Muhammed is far more disturbing.
I am no fan of fundamental Mormonism, but I never heard Romney indicate that he intended to impose polygamy or child marriage. And if you are troubled by Romney’s roots in Mormonism due to its partly Islamic roots (which you are right about), then it seems you might be at least as disturbed by Obama’s roots in Islam itself. Both his father and step-father were Muslim, he attended Mosque with his stepfather, and was registered as a Muslim at school in Indonesia. (Now, I don’t hold anyone’s childhood against them, when they have little control; but Obama never really openly rejected this).
While Obama’s comments at the UN General Assembly were particularly horrific, these were hardly the only instance of his lauding Islam.
Here’s some more, in his speaking at a Mosque:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/03/remarks-president-islamic-society-baltimore
In it, he sneers at the idea that Jihad terror has anything to do with Islam. Her also lies about the “Prophet” Muhammed voicing the Golden Rule. He then also lies about Thomas Jefferson and John Adams being admirers of Islam. This is pretty appalling stuff–and far more knowing than the generic “Islam is peace”.
curious says
@gravenimage, thanks for your reply and the additional information.
You are right about Obama and Islam, though his father renounced Islam to become an atheist. There were warnings including in the NY Times that then candidate Obama would be considered an apostate from Islam, and therefore Muslims would be required to kill him, and prohibited from protecting him. Someone must have told him, and I wonder if his praise for Islam might have had something to do with self-preservation.
In 2016, Donald Trump became the first candidate in living memory to speak candidly about Islam. All other candidates in both major parties praised it, as had all recent presidents. I attribute the problem to the Petrodollar corruption and hypnosis going back to Nixon’s deals with KSA. Mass media became obsessed with demonizing DJT and have continued ever since, and I think it is primarily because he spoke candidly about Islam and wanted to ban Muslim immigration. Most recent candidates and even Presidents try to curry favor with Gulf Muslims, as if auditioning openly for the role of Petrodollar recipient.
Meanwhile, the USA endured at least one Islamic terror attack every year from the assassination of RFK through at least 2017, and maybe even the present if we count Taliban attacks on Americans in Afghanistan. Throughout that time, with regard to Islam, American Presidents tended to get worse and worse. W43 stood on the wreckage of the WTC and declared Islam a religion of peace. Obama presided over multiple Islamic attacks, and tried to conceal the connections to Islam (e.g. trying to censor the transcript of the 911 call in which a jihadi pledged allegiance to the Islamic State while committing an Islamic terror attack in Orlando). So, while I think Obama’s record on Islam is one of the worst aspects of his Presidency, I see it as part of a pattern that continued unbroken until candidate Donald Trump stood up and denounced it.
gravenimage says
curious, the implication that Obama only whitewashed Islam out of terror of his former coreligionists seems implausible–no matter how much he praised Islam, they could still have killed him as an apostate.
More likely they just realized that Obama was too useful to Islam to kill.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Last week I noticed a first for Spencer, at least that I’m aware of, where he published a piece in PJMedia on political economics, with no Islam aspect. Pleased to see it, my thought was that he practices logic on Islam and the general public doesn’t notice, so maybe some interpretation of contemporary politics through a Von Mises lens is a way to capture their attention.
Mike Proulx says
True democracy cannot be upheld, regardless of what man holds the office of The presidency if a people turned their backs from the True and Living God.