(1) Abraham Lincoln bringing forth massive federalism.
(2) Woodrow Wilson, bringing forth the fed and setting the policies of fiat currency and the disaster that portends in motion, not to mention the whole fiasco of involving us in a foreign war in Europe.
(3) F.D. Roosevelt, for bringing this nation closer than any president (save the most recent) to a socialist oligarchy controlled, run, and espoused by the federal government. Also see the foreign war thing above.

Slavery was already on it's way out, and it's pretty well known that it would not have survived the 1860's regardless of the war - I know, it's not politically correct not to eschew the enslavement of humans, and to assume a tremendous amount of collaborative social guilt over that, but reviewing the documents of the times, even the president of the Confederacy admitted that emancipation would have had to occur before 1870. It was not a popular sentiment, but popular or not, it was reality.

Carter was the first person to take 2 middle eastern tribes that had been historically (hell, biblically) at war for centuries and get them to shake hands. He was handed a raw deal with the Shah, and it was our cozying up with Reza Pahlavi for the decades post WW2 (Who, by the way, was notorious for his secret police, the Savak, and dictatorial fist over his country); a man feared and despised by most of his own countrymen, which brought forth former exiles from Iran (such as one Ruhollah Khomeini) to try to take over once the Shah was close to the end of his days. As soon as he came to America (for treatment), the die was cast and the rift appeared allowing the Iranian Revolution to take place and Khomeini to claim the seat of power. It was the US's undying and absolute support of the former Shah that created the Embassy Crisis, which Carter was stuck with.

My only debate is (God forbid) Hillary gets elected, which would be worse - the socialistic, dictatorial communist anti-American in the White House, or the one that immediately preceded her? Seriously - as much as people abhor Sanders, at least his credibility is there. You know what and who he is, and unlike the others, he's not working his butt off to hide it.

Right you are, Pamela! If not limiting it to three, we could add Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt, onandonandon. But I cannot think of anything worse than her three.Although I just came across a quote that applies to the above by one of them, none other than Teddy himself: "They are equally deficient in brains and virtue."

I admire that woman's courage.

From one side of her mouth Pamela lauds Individual rights and freedom. From the other side she praises our former ally, the Shah of Iran. Talk about blanking out. The Shah, with the help of our CIA and Israel's Mossad, set up his secret police, the Savak, to torture and kill any Iranians who protested his brutal dictatorship and his selling out of his country's assets to foreign companies, primarily British oil. To say nothing of our overthrowing the Iranian government in 1953 to remove the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and reinstalling the shah as emperor.

It's understandable that Ms. Geller, who is Jewish, would promote the anti-Iran and anti-Muslim agenda in a Christian advocacy site. Nothing like adding more oil to the fire. One has to admire her firebrand advocacy and skillful spins while deploring her subterfuges.

I did not really think things through before I posted.
I just admire Geller's guts as well as her looks.
That's a silly old dino for you.

Upon reflection, I reconsidered who Pam Geller is. She is much more concerned with Islamo-Fascism that any other issue. This is where her "list" comes from. I don't think she's stupid. Her concerns are just more pinpointed in that area.

Pamela Geller is a freedom fighter. She never claimed to be perfect. I am not, nor are you, "freedomforall." Why not comment without personal attacks? It's quite easy for those who think rationally.

I don’t think Geller really studied history. Jefferson changed completely from the guy we all know and love to a land grabber once he became president. Lincoln is the first, though, to completely shred the Constitution and get away with it. Much worse than the Carter and Obama she complains about.

Possibly Geller is shortsighted and ignoring history, just trying to make GOP evil fascist-socialist candidates appear less evil by comparing to Democrat evil socialist-fascists. imo, she never really intended to consider the biggest mistakes in American history.
The other possibility: Geller is just too stupid to actually read history and understand it. That appears frequently among the entertainers who distract people from the fact that the one party system is intended to stealthily enslave while pretending to offer a choice.

Allowing organized religion?!
Freedom of religion is what initially drove quite a few of Europeans over here.
The Founding Fathers were not Communists.
Our Founding Fathers never would have been our Founding Fathers if they had denied religion in the first place.
We'd still be British subjects maybe.

Allowing for the possibility that a person could actually make a living as a politician - making that job a possible career, as opposed to something a citizen volunteered to do for a short period of time, then returned to their 'normal life' knowing they had to live with the consequences of their decisions - has to be near the top. Once that happened, we no longer had government by and for the people, and we were ruled by an out of touch ruling class.

"allowing"????

Skipped right over Woodrow Wilson, America's first "progressive" president. An ardent racist who resegregated the military. Interesting.

not maintaining a republic, as opposed to democracy
2. not preventing Fed
3. allowing organized religion

Dang, you're hard to argue with!
Then following Lincoln, there came the "Progressives" Woodrow Wilson and FDR. OK, I got it.
That's why I like the Gulch.
Old dino can learn stuff here.

Without Lincoln, Obama wouldn't have had the precedents to do what he has done. Lincoln destroyed the liberty of all Americans, and destroyed what balance the constitution provided to keep the executive from pretending to be king.

I agree, Freedom.

I can accept booting peanut-brained Carter from the equation, but I consider Obama a far more enormous immediate threat to freedom compared to Lincoln.
As for Income Tax and the Fed, yeah, I have no problem with that replacing Carter.

Ridiculous! Study history, Ms. Geller, instead of making embarrasing comments.

I'd put Lincoln's Looter War on Liberty, and 1913 (Income tax and the Fed ) instead of Carter and Obama.