Press "Enter" to skip to content

Chuck Baldwin: My List Of The Ten Worst U.S. Presidents


Chuck Baldwin was the Constitution Party’s 2008 presidential candidate. He published the following article on on September 1st, 2016:

A few days ago, I posted my list of the top ten worst U.S. presidents on my Facebook page. See (and hopefully “Like”) my Facebook page here:

Chuck Baldwin’s Facebook Page

People who are familiar with my writings should not be surprised at my list, although many people who read my Facebook post did act surprised. Of course, these could have been people who aren’t that familiar with my writings after all.

At any rate, with my Facebook post I made my list without explanation. I will use this column to share a little bit of the reasoning behind my selections. So here goes: my top ten worst presidents in U.S. history:

  1. Abraham Lincoln (Republican)

Without an ounce of doubt in my mind, Abraham Lincoln is America’s absolute worst President. He did not free a single slave; but what he did do was begin the process of enslaving free men. It is no hyperbole to say that Lincoln truly governed as a dictator, not as a President.

Virtually every single problem we are having today (and have had ever since Lincoln’s presidency) with an overbearing, encroaching, authoritarian federal government in Washington, D.C., came as a direct result of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency. EVERY SINGLE ONE!

Read the rest of the article here. 

About Post Author

Krzysztof Lesiak

I've been a contributor for IPR since January 2013. I consider myself to be a paleoconservative. I'm also the founder of American Third Party Report. Email me at


  1. langa langa September 3, 2016

    Overall, a pretty accurate list, although there are a few things I think he gets wrong. For example, I think he is a little too hard on Obama, and not hard enough on Nixon. But he definitely gets the Top Three correct (although I think you could rank those three in any order, and personally, I’d likely put FDR at number one).

  2. AMcCarrick AMcCarrick September 3, 2016

    Missing Reagan… Drug War. That’s all that needs to be said.

  3. Bondurant Bondurant September 3, 2016

    Wilson will always top my list of worst presidents. I respect that he’s not afraid to dish on Lincoln, though. Given our candy coated treatment of US history, it’s not politically correct to say anything critical of Honest Abe. People will always give him a pass because of the slavery issue despite the fact that he stated, many times over, that slavery wasn’t a major issue and he loathed abolitionists.

    Similar how people don’t want to acknowledge that one of Washington’s first major actions was enforcing a war upon citizens in PA over a tyrannical tax put in place to destroy independent whiskey distillers.

  4. Matt Cholko Matt Cholko September 3, 2016

    I’ve got a 40 way tie for worst, with the other four tied for next to last. I’m not sure which 4 those are, I’m just figuring that in 240 years, there must have been a few that weren’t total scumbags.

  5. Bondurant Bondurant September 3, 2016

    William Henry Harrison is the best president by default. He didn’t stick around long enough to fuck anything up.

    Silent Cal appears to have a good record but there’s probably something there I wouldn’t be too thrilled about. I need to study him more in depth.

  6. Richard Winger Richard Winger September 3, 2016

    The idea that U.S. slavery would have ended anyway is not supported by evidence. The link below says that Brazil did not end slavery until 1888, and it ended by a decree from the Emperor of Brazil, and even afterwards, slave-owners left an armed rebellion to preserve slavery. Slavery has continued to exist in parts of Africa and the Arab world to this day.

    There is no loss of liberty greater than being a slave. Anyone who loves liberty must be a passionate opponent of slavery.

  7. Joshua K. Joshua K. September 3, 2016

    Baldwin wrote, “Bill Clinton is the only President to be impeached besides Andrew Johnson. Perjury is a serious crime, and if the Republicans in the Senate had had any man-stuff, they would have removed him from office.”

    How does Baldwin think that the Republicans could have removed Clinton from office? There were 55 Republicans in the Senate, and it would have taken 67 votes for Clinton to be convicted in the impeachment trial and removed from office. Even if the Republicans had been unanimous, they would still have needed 12 Democratic votes to remove Clinton from office. None of the Democratic senators voted guilty on either charge.

  8. Just Some Random Guy Just Some Random Guy September 3, 2016

    “Barack Obama set many firsts for America. He is America’s first Muslim President; America’s first Marxist President; and the first President not born to an American citizen or in the United States as required by the U.S. Constitution.”

    Basically stopped reading there. Granted, I probably should’ve stopped reading earlier with how many dumb things he said, but there were just enough valid points intermixed in the lunacy to keep me going; this, however, was where he lost me completely.

  9. Deran Deran September 3, 2016

    Obama is Deporter in Chief and Bomber in chief. But he’s not a Marxist or Muslim. Bawldwin is obviously out of touch with reality.

    And as far US Grant, Grant tried to convince white US to make serious peace with the indigenous nations. Grant supported radical Reconstruction, until the bankers pressed for the abolition of the more fundemental successes of Reconstruction, setting the stage for the rise of “Jim Crow”.

    If IPR accepts the prittle prattle of an obvious racist, religious extremist and lunatic. Why not Let Norman post more silly essays? Or how about the works of the late Lyndon LaRouche?

  10. Richard Winger Richard Winger September 3, 2016

    Lyndon LaRouche is living.

  11. wolfefan wolfefan September 4, 2016

    You know, Deran, I’d never thought about it but I wonder why we see no LaRouche stuff here. He is arguably as relevant to third party politics as Baldwin.

  12. Jill Pyeatt Jill Pyeatt September 4, 2016

    Interesting comment, Wolfefan. I don’t remember reading anything about LaRouche at all over the past few years. Does he ever issue opinion pieces? I never hear that he’s making appearances, either.

  13. Matt Cholko Matt Cholko September 4, 2016

    He’s 90+ years old, so…..

  14. Krzysztof Lesiak Krzysztof Lesiak Post author | September 4, 2016

    “If IPR accepts the prittle prattle of an obvious racist, religious extremist and lunatic. Why not Let Norman post more silly essays? Or how about the works of the late Lyndon LaRouche?”

    Deran, your statement is utterly ridiculous. Dr. Baldwin is in line with mainstream paleoconservative thought and arguably has very strong paleolibertarian tendencies. He was endorsed by Ron Paul in September 2008. He’s not a “religious extremist”: in fact, his current church, Liberty Fellowship, is nondemoninational. He’s been a pastor for decades and trust me when I say he’s no Steven Anderson – he’s not even close, he’s light years away from Faithful World in Tempe. Your leftism here is showing, tolerance for me but not thee. Let people practice their Christian faith in the way they see fit. Dr. Baldwin is not here to establish a theocracy; like I said, he pastors a a nondenomintational church in Kalispell.

    Racist? Come on man, call me a racist all you want because I’m here to defend myself and the author of this article is not – but please don’t say such absurd things about Dr. Baldwin. Christianity is anti-racist, unless maybe one is Christian Identity, and Baldwin IS NOT THAT. Christianity teaches all people can be saved and enter Heaven, regardless of their race. All human beings are equal in the eyes of God, regardless of their race. Anyone can accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Baldwin takes the Southern point on the War of Northern Aggression but many, many people do as well – Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr is one of them. , and he just spoke at the Libertarian Party national convention!!!! I wasn’t aware the left-libertarians were trying to ban them from their convention, maybe you have intel that I don’t. There’s other examples to list, but that’s one really prominent individual. AND AGAIN FOR THE TEN BILLIONTH TIME THE CONSTITUTION PARTY IS PALEOCONSERVATIVE AND HAS NEVER BEEN WHITE NATIONALIST EVER!!. THEY HAVE NO LINKS OR TIES TO WHITE NATIONALISM WHATSOEVER! NONE, NADA, ZIP!! THE IPR ARTICLE FROM JANUARY 2014 WAS THOROUGHLY DEBUNKED BY TRENT HILL AND OTHERS. Here’s why I went as far as saying white nationalism -because lefitsts tend to lump white nationalists, “racists” Confederates, immigration restrictionionists, Buchananites, realists, racialists, ethnocentrists, European Catholic nationalists like Jobbik, Ruch Narodowy etc and actual (sometimes even violent, see The Order and David Lane, creator of 14 words – murder of Alan Berg) neo-Nazis in the same exact category, which is simply beyond the pale. AND LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR _ DR. BALDWIN IS NONE OF THESE THINGS -EXCEPT AN IMMIGRATION RESTRICTIONIST -WHICH IS A MAINSTREAM CONSERVATIVE POSITION – BASED ON HIS YEARS LONG RECORD OF COLUMNS AND POLITICAL ACTIVISM>DR BALDWIN IS NOT A RACIST OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Provide examples for your ignorant comments, because everything you said can be refuted with ease, though you made the accusations, so the initial burden of proof lies with you.

    Here is the article, a few weeks ago I reread it and the entire 234 comment thread in its entirety (DEBUNKED 100%, INCLUDING THE SECTION ABOUT LONGTIME IPR CONTRIBUTOR PETER GEMMA):

    “The Constitution Party’s Disturbing Ties With the White Supremacy Movement” – January 25th, 2014

    Lunatic? Name calling, it’s what you leftists do best. Everyone you don’t like is suddenly mentally deranged. Leftists like yourself, Deran, are literally the most intolerant people out there. Anything other than your Politically Correct version of the world is immediately attacked with unparalleled viciousness.

    I also want to add this, you didn’t bring it up, but here goes — as a leftist, there’s a somewhat good chance you are an anti-Zionist, since Zionism is chauvinistic ultra-(pseudo)nationalism. So is Baldwin. When he endorsed Rand Paul a few months ago, he said in his endorsement that “I believe Rand gets the Zionist issue.” He’s criticized the Israel First mega-millionaire false prophet pastors like John Hagee and Pat Robertson. He’s definitively awake enough that he knows that America’s interests do not equal Israel’s, and quite frankly never have. USS Liberty or the Lavon affair is just two examples. (It’s why the neocon Israel First architects of mass murder are fuming at Trump’s “America First” slogan). Dr. Baldwin is probably just as -or almost as- red pilled on this topic as, I would say, a prominent hero of the Left and one of the few Leftist politicians I actually admire overall, Cynthia McKinney.

    Everyone I don’t like is a racist, that’s the leftist way of looking at things. Why don’t you call him a Nazi at this point? Everyone who challenges multiculturalism and mass third world invasion is a Nazi, through the lenses of a close-minded Leftist.

    LaRouche is in retirement, he hasn’t run third party in years. I don’t think he’s been a third party candidate since the 1990s, but I could be wrong about that. Nathan Norman is a troll who thrives on personal attacks against people he doesn’t even know – and note, I’m attacking your political ideology and your slanderous comments, Deran, not you personally – I think that should be very apparent by now. Norman is not even close to being relevant enough to have his articles published. He had his chance at ATPR, but he blew it – and now he’s been permanently banned.

    Your comments regarding Dr Baldwin, Deran, get the award for the most ridiculous thing I’ve read all week. You didn’t even bother to provide any evidence for your accusations – especially the lunatic one – which is a very serious accusation. Dr. Baldwin has been a well respected pastor for decades, has a family, was the most successful Constitution Party candidate ever, and is a widely syndicated columnist with a quite active Facebook page. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just say that your comments were made out of sheer ignorance of Dr. Baldwin’s actual views.

    Unbelievable. Maybe you should focus on your socialist parties, and have them stop glorifying mass murders like Stalin and Chairman Mao and Castro and the North Korean regime? That’s actually pretty concerning stuff. Instead, you’re attacking a paleoconservative with slanderous things you made up in your head that you won’t bother ( because you can’t even) substantiate. Sad!

    I’m done for right now, but I’ll be back should a response from you be forthcoming. Enjoy the rest of the weekend, Deran, and everyone else observing this thread, enjoy your weekend as well.

  15. langa langa September 4, 2016

    There is no loss of liberty greater than being a slave.

    Being murdered is a greater loss of liberty, since it is permanent.

    Anyone who loves liberty must be a passionate opponent of slavery.

    Thanks, Captain Obvious. No one is denying that libertarians should vehemently oppose slavery. The question here is whether libertarians should approve of the things that Lincoln did as President — and the answer is that we should not, since Lincoln himself admitted on many occasions that his actions were not motivated by any desire to end slavery. He cynically supported abolition when he felt doing so would help him politically, but he strongly opposed it when it was an obstacle to his real goal — power.

    Furthermore, even if he had wanted to end slavery, there would have been many more libertarian ways to do so. For example, he could have simply had the government buy all the slaves, and then free them. Or, he could have simply declared all fugitive slave laws null and void, which would have made slavery unprofitable. Granted, the Constitution did not give him the power to implement either of those ideas, but so what? Most of the things that Lincoln did during the Civil War weren’t authorized by the Constitution, either. In fact, I’m sure someone as “creative” as Lincoln could have come up with all sorts ways to end slavery without war, if that were his real goal. But, of course, it wasn’t, was it?

  16. itdoesntmatter itdoesntmatter September 4, 2016

    The first 5 were not that bad, though I might have some disagreements with the points about Lincoln.

    The personal attack on Obama was just nuts, though. It’s hard for me to rank any Presidents as “good”- so Obama would certainly make my “bad” list. Not sure about top 10, though. Attack policy, not personally, and IF you attack someone personally at least get the facts right. I seriously doubt Obama is a Muslim. He’s much more likely to be a genuine Christian, and if he isn’t he’s probably agnostic/atheist. The whole birther thing is lame, too.

  17. Richard Winger Richard Winger September 4, 2016

    I do not agree that being murdered is a greater loss of liberty. I think Langa means all death is equally a loss for that individual’s liberty. I don’t agree with that because I believe consciousness survives physical death, and I it very likely Chuck Baldwin would agree with me on that.

  18. Deran Deran September 4, 2016

    I retract my comment abt the “late” Lyndon LaRouche.

    As far as never criticizing people who are not on IPR, I don’t see the point of that? Especially as there are plenty of people on IPR are here to defend him.

    As far as Baldwin being in the mainstream of paleoconservativism. You said it, I didn’t!

  19. Deran Deran September 4, 2016

    I mean, I have a similar contempt for the Stalinoids, LaRive and Moorehead.

    I’ve been severely critical of Jill Stein on IPR. And no one rushed to defend her.

  20. langa langa September 4, 2016

    I think Langa means all death is equally a loss for that individual’s liberty.

    No, I mean being murdered is a complete and permanent loss of all liberty, while being enslaved is a partial and temporary loss of liberty. “Partial” because slaves still retain some freedoms (such as freedom of thought, albeit usually without the freedom to express many of those thoughts), and “temporary” because a slave can be freed, while a dead person can never be brought back to life. If you believe that being enslaved is worse than being dead, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I doubt many actual slaves would agree with you, or else more of them would have committed (or at least attempted) suicide.

  21. Richard Winger Richard Winger September 4, 2016

    I didn’t say slavery is worse than death. I said physical death does not mean less liberty than being a slave.

    If you are distinguishing between between murdered, and physically dying of any other cause, I am puzzled as to what the difference is, relative to loss of liberty. If you think people who are physically dead have lost all their liberty, one wonders what difference there is between being murdered, versus another type of physical death.

  22. Matt Cholko Matt Cholko September 4, 2016

    I can’t follow what you’re saying in that last comment, Richard. As to this back-and-forth, I’m with langa. A slave could be freed, and still has his ability to think “freely”, while a dead person is just dead.

    With that said, one could certainly make an argument that slavery is so bad that they’d rather be dead, as there are factors other than liberty that may come into play.

  23. Richard Winger Richard Winger September 4, 2016

    I’m just trying to understand the difference between being murdered, and dying some other way. I don’t think someone who dies a physical death ceases to exist. Others disagree. But why single out murder, if in reality Ianga thinks physical death means the end of that person’s liberty? If physical death equals total loss of liberty, I guess we all lose 100% of our liberty eventually anyway.

  24. Robert Haran Robert Haran September 4, 2016

    What utter nonsense. In my book, Chuck Baldwin now has zero credibility, he is just another idiot conspiracy theorist in the Alex Jones mold. I truly doubt that he truly believes the nonsense that he wrote. Baldwin is just making outrageous statements to increase his brand with the reactionary, conspiracy theorist yo-yo’s of America. It is amazing how Baldwin has mixed truth, half truths and nonsensical conspiracy theories into his wacky interpretation of American history.
    Is it any wonder that Chuck Baldwin has gone over to the dark side and supported someone who would easily be the worst president in American history if America made the mistake of electing him, Donald Trump.

  25. Cody Quirk Cody Quirk September 5, 2016


    Yes, the CP does not have direct ties, and the overwhelming majority opposes white supremacy for the most part… However indirectly, along with several candidates and CP leaders past and present- that’s a much different story.

    Josh simply didn’t dig deep enough in his research in that article.

  26. langa langa September 5, 2016

    If physical death equals total loss of liberty, I guess we all lose 100% of our liberty eventually anyway.

    Richard, perhaps “loss of liberty” means something different to you than it does to me. To me, the phrase “loss of liberty” implies some sort of rights violation, rather than simply the inability to exercise your rights. For example, if you are unable to speak because of government censorship, I would consider that to be loss of liberty, whereas if you are unable to speak because of a medical condition, like brain damage, I would not consider that to be a loss of liberty. The difference is that censorship constitutes a violation of your right to free speech, while brain damage is not a violation of your rights. Similarly, being murdered is a violation of your right to life, while dying of natural causes is not, since the right to life doesn’t imply a right to live forever. It’s this idea of being wrongfully deprived of your rights that, in my view, characterizes loss of liberty. Now do you understand the distinction I’ve been making?

  27. langa langa September 5, 2016

    I should add that, in the above analogy, I am assuming that the brain damage was caused by some medical problem, such as a stroke or a blood clot, rather than by violence. If someone intentionally inflicted brain damage upon you, then that would obviously be a rights violation, and would constitute the loss of liberty.

  28. Tony From Long Island Tony From Long Island September 6, 2016

    Are you EFFING kidding me? Why is this Marde allowed on this otherwise respectable site? Who decides what gets posted here? They obviously need to be replaced.

    ” . . . . . 6. Barack Obama (Democrat)

    Barack Obama first Muslim President; America’s . . . not born to an American citizen or in the United States as required by the U.S. Constitution. I think anyone who believes Obama was born in Hawaii is intellectually challenged. . . . .. Obama is also the laziest President in history. He has taken more vacations, played more rounds of golf, and spent more taxpayers’ dollars on pleasure trips than any President before him. . .. ”

    Where to start? It’s difficult. Why should I even bother replying to this complete shit garbage?

    So, Mr. Baldwin, who was his mother?

    Even if he is a Muslim, which he is not, who cares? Is there some sort of reason why his religion is relevant?

    I guess the great exalted Ronald Reagan never took a vacation . . . Give me a break! Let me stop before I really get going.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.