George W. Bush

The Smartest and the Least Smart US Presidents by IQ

Can you achieve a significant success even though you are were not the smartest kid in the classroom? One of the best examples can be seen in the IQ scores of ex-presidents of the United States. According to the research conducted by the University of California, who investigated the IQ ratio of ex-presidents based on their biographies, their leadership, and overall academic brilliance. We’ve decided to present you with the 5 smartest and 5 least smart presidents of the US.

Smartest Presidents

John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) – IQ Score: 168.75

The sixth president of the US studied law at the famous Harvard University. He is famous for his brilliant presidential mandate achievements, such as ending the war with the United Kingdom with the Treaty of Ghent, Buying the state of Florida from Spain, and established the border with Canada.

Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) – IQ Score: 153.75

Thomas Jefferson is probably the most intellectual president of them all because of his knowledge of architecture, mechanics, several languages, mathematics, and being a talented surveyor. His achievements are establishing a peace treaty with France, developing the American trade, and he doubled the territory of the United States.

John F. Kennedy (1961-1963) – IQ Score: 150.65

JFK is one of the most loved US presidents ever, mainly for his charm and for his tragic end. He was responsible for steering the country during the Cold War era and he managed to achieve some exceptional things for his country like Equal Pay Act (1963) and proposing the blueprint for the future Civil Rights Act (1964).

Bill Clinton (1993-2001) – IQ Score: 148.8

42th American President had a really rough childhood that had a lot of family drama; however, he didn’t let these to prevent him to succeed in life. Before he became a US President, he worked at the University of Arkansas, where he lectured law and he was the Governor of Arkansas.

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) – IQ Score: 145.1

Even though Woodrow Wilson wasn’t such a great law student, he ultimately managed to pass the bar exam in the state of Georgia. He was the US president during the crucial years after World War I, and he had a significant influence on the future look of the European continent after the war.

Least Smart Presidents

Andrew Johnson (1865-1869) – IQ Score: 125.65

Andrew Johnson was the 17th president of the US, who emerged from a poor family and he didn’t receive an official education. He will be remembered as the total opposite of Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, and he wasn’t remembered well by the people.

George W. Bush (2001-2009) – IQ Score: 124.88

Described as a traditional man, George W. Bush was the second US president from the Bush family. His presidency evolved around criticism of the Iraq War and bad response to Hurricane Katrina, which hit states of Louisiana, Florida, and Mississippi.

Warren G. Harding (1921-1923) – IQ Score:124.13

Before Warren Harding became the US president, he was the co-owner of a moneymaking newspaper. His presidency is often described as one of the worst in the history of the US by historians.

James Monroe (1817-1825) – IQ Score: 124.13

James Monroe was an ambassador of the US in France, where he didn’t have a lot of success, before becoming a president. However, he did a good job of being a president and he had numerous achievements, but, the most prominent is that he found colonies for freed slaves in Africa. The capital of Liberia, Monrovia got its name after him.

Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877) – IQ Score: 120

The former general that fought in the Civil War is believed to have the lowest IQ Score among all Presidents involved in the research. Even he was a successful general, he wasn’t the best in his new role as a president, and he didn’t have any success with battling depression in the late 1800s which ended in bankruptcy of many American citizens, as well as him.

Strange Sleep Habits of 5 American Presidents


Being the president of the United States is honorable as it is tasking. The word POTUS, (President of the United States), is no doubt one of the most respected names in the world.

Apart from being the most important and feared leader in the free world, the POTUS also happens to be human, not superhuman. To manage all the weight of the world, they require the recommended 7 – 8 hours of sleep to function normally, but this is not always the case.

From waking up earlier than sunrise to jumping from meetings around the world, it’s not a surprise that past and present American Presidents have had to manage peculiar sleeping habits. Here we look at the strange sleeping habits of five American Presidents.

Surviving On Little Sleep

Img Source:

To make sure that all the daily business is attended to promptly, American Presidents, like President Barack Obama, are known to have stayed up until the early hours of the morning. Of course, Obama was not the first POTUS to do this, but he had an interesting way of keeping up with this routine like clockwork. He never set the alarm while in the White House, thanks to the everyday wake-up call he received from the White House phone operator at 7am, after retiring around 1am.

Waking up earlier than the medically suggested 8 hours can take a toll on just about any person, let alone the POTUS with more responsibilities. No wonder many presidents finish their tenure in the office looking older than their peers.

Popping Sleeping Pills

Having a sleeping disorder and being the POTUS is rarely heard in the same sentence, but as shockingly as it may sound, past American Presidents have a history of popping sleeping pills to get a decent amount of sleep.

Img Source:

William Taft, the 27th president of the US, had sleep apnea, which caused him to snore loudly and he was rumored to doze off during meetings. To keep this sleep disorder in check, he had to rely on sleeping pills.You can find out more about this sleep disorder, and safer treatment methods here.  

When it comes to sleeping pills, President George W. Bush also used them to squeeze in hours of rest whenever he could, especially during flight time. He was reported to take naps while on Air Force One, but he may have had some help with sleeping pills. Of course, there is no way of telling if Bush was just sick of the torturous long-haul flights or he merely took advantage of the quietness of thousands of miles above sea level to catch up on his beauty rest.

Img Source:

Snoring Loudly

All Americans loved president Theodore Roosevelt for his policies and character; however, he will undoubtedly go down in history as a notorious snorer. There is no evidence proving that Roosevelt had sleep apnea or used pills to control his snoring. The job of POTUS is very stressful, and stress is a symptom of snoring. So, you can understand if President Roosevelt couldn’t help but let his symptoms show.

Once, he was transferred to a separate floor at the hospital because his loud snores were keeping every other patient awake.

Img Source:

Regular Napping

If there are any benefits linked to taking naps, then President Ronald Reagan benefited greatly. Napping is known to increase creativity, alertness, reduce stress, and several other advantages anyone would want to have. Ronald Reagan might have taken this practice a tad bit to the extreme; though, he was not the only president with a knack for regular naps.

Img Source:

President Calvin Coolidge was reported to get more than 11 hours of rest every day, way more than most adults manage to get – president or not! Even though Coolidge seemed to have enjoyed his time subconscious rather than awake, he also lost his 16-year-old son. There would be no telling if he slept so often due to depression.

Img Source:

While the lack of proper sleep can cause you to be in a depressive state, it is not the only factor to cause depression. Constant deprivation of sleep will accelerate your risk of getting depressed, causing a drop in your energy level. Depression causes hypersomnia (excessive sleepiness), which was common with President Coolidge.

Super Early Starts

If you ever wondered how President Donald Trump seems to have extra time on his hands replying to every Tweet directed at him, then you should also know that it may be thanks to Trump’s daily routine of getting out of bed very early. He is reported to manage only about 4 hours of sleep. No! President Trump does not rely on coffee or energy boosters to run the country, but he is always so full of energy and vigor.

Img Source:

Caffeine can boost your performance in several ways, but it can also destroy your internal body clock. So while you can depend on a cup of coffee to keep you away from sleeping, ensure that you don’t rely on it and the recommended amount of daily sleep.

Syria Strikes Indicates What’s Wrong with US Foreign Policy


During his presidential campaign in 2016, Trump repeatedly indicated that the interventions in the Middle East were stupid and unnecessary. He must have surprised his supporters when he announced that he commanded the US military to launch airstrikes against Syria in response to the supposed chemical weapons attack. Britain and France followed the US in this mission.

Although he spoke differently in the campaign, his preferences obviously changed when he got the seat in the office. He definitely thinks that America cannot watch from the side and as the world leader, his country needs to do something about the atrocities in Syria. Perhaps Trump is not so different from Obama after all. While many would disagree with such a statement, there are similarities between the two presidents. Both Barack Obama and Donald Trump made promises that they would change the role of America in the world. However, both failed to do so when faced with pressure. They sensed that they should act and so they did. As a result, we have had a poorly thought-out intervention and this is only going to become more prominent with the Trump administration in power.

According to psychological studies, people are prone to react to something which is happening around them. Inaction is seldom the solution. The studies have shown, that World Cup goalkeepers have more chance to save their net if they stay put, but most of them would dive during a penalty kick. Of course, the stakes are much higher in politics, than they are in soccer, but the bias towards reaction is not debatable. Obama was not the first president to start off with biased reactions. We have to mention George W. Bush whose choices were detrimental to the country and his Foreign Policy only weakened the US influence around the world.

The criticism comes from all sides of the world, whereas media also forces the world leaders to do something about a particular situation. Furthermore, we need to take into consideration that America has the most powerful military in the world, and the cost of airstrikes is negligible. When all of this is combined, we have expected no other reaction from President Donald Trump.

In 2013, President Obama was seeking approval from Congress to launch airstrikes on Syria due to chemical attacks, but the Congress was against it. This turned out to be a good decision because Obama managed to negotiate the removal of chemical weapons in Syria. This was a risk worth taking, but instead of ending chemical attacks once and for all, it only delayed them for several years. And here we are today.

Jump a few years into the future, and we have Mr. Trump who authorized missile attacks on Syria. The strikes were far less efficient than the dialogue and negotiation since the attacks on civilians didn’t cease, and the Syrian government still uses chemical weapons. Comparing the two decisions by two presidents, Obama made a better one – or the Congress in that matter. Yet, he was widely criticized for the inaction, whereas Trump was praised for the attack. Even some of his biggest critics acknowledged such a move and recognized Trump as someone who can deal with the situation outside the US borders well. Quick action may be effective, but it may sometimes have long-term consequences. Trump’s Syrian airstrike in 2017 proved more effective than Obama’s attack in Libya in 2011, for instance, which was disastrous.

Before we conclude this topic, we need to look at one more case of poorly thought-out intervention. When the US overthrew Muammar Gaddafi, it caused the European refugee crisis and the civil war which killed more people than the intervention saved. The removal of Gaddafi may have been the biggest mistake of the US foreign policy as Muslims flooded into Europe, settling in the West in countries such as Germany and France. However, Obama came to understand that the intervention needs to be planned carefully. But his epiphany came too late.

Obama doesn’t have an impulsive character, and yet he found it difficult not to act. Donald Trump will be even more impatient, and this is something that needs to be changed. The interventions need to be carefully planned by a president and a leader who knows what he is doing, and Trump is not that leader.


Egyptian billionaire Sawiris – Trump is better than Obama when it comes to Middle East policy


Thanks to a recent CNBC interview, we heard a rather interesting opinion from one of their guests. An Egyptian billionaire, Naguib Sawiris, stated that when it comes to U.S. foreign policy (one towards the Middle East in particular), it is “definitely President Trump” who got it right.

Sawiris, in a CNBC interview, told Hadley Gamble, in Abu Dhabi on Monday, that “I think what we’re seeing today is the product of Obama’s rule.” Basically, he thinks that Russia gaining ground in Syria is a direct result of inaction that was seen with the Obama administration. According to him, that same administration also allowed extremists to thrive in the Middle East. He also stated that “I’m not saying you should police the world, but you can’t let evil strive and say, ‘It’s none of my business.’ So, I believe President Trump is on the right track.”

If you recall, back in 2012, Obama’s administration threatened to retaliate if Syria’s Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons in that country’s civil war. After he did and took hundreds of civilian lives in the town of Ghouta with chemical weapons, U.S. stood their ground and did not respond with military action. Trump is also, pretty much always, quick to judge Obama’s administration and blame them for the rise of ISIS, even though we all know that this organization came to rise during the administration of George W. Bush. The ISIS started losing their grip, at least militarily, during Obama’s administration, and it was thanks to their support to Kurds, who were actually the ones fighting this terror group.

Sawiris said a few other things, but among those worth mentioning, he is not opposed to Trump’s decision to order a military strike on Syria, but since there is no obvious end in sight to the war something had to be done. Sawiris (who built a net worth of $4.2 billion mainly in the telecommunications industry) also said that, thanks to the fact that war still wages here (even though ISIS has been long wiped out), as a safe investment he favours gold, and that he would rather invest in democracies, in order to avoid being at the mercy of political rulers.

There is one exception to this, and it happened in North Korea (he invested around $250 million), where his company Orascom Telecom, holds the sole telecommunications license. He defended this by stating “I always think you should punish regimes but not the people of the regime,” and continued with “And from an investment perspective, there’s also a lot of sense in there. When they, North Korea and South Korea, unite or come to an agreement, my assets there would be worth billions.”


The Reason American Foreign Aid Works


If you ever doubted whether US foreign aid works, we need to go a few years back when Barack Obama was the President of the United States. In spring, 2014, Obama’s visit to South Korea marked one of the greatest success stories of foreign aid in the history of the United States. At that time, South Korea increased its budget for foreign assistance by 11 percent. Not only would this help the other countries in the region and the world, but the US has gained a valuable ally which improved the country’s economy and security.

After the Korean War, South Korea was devastated. Their entire country needed to be rebuilt, and the USA worked together with the Korean government in the following decades, to bring Korea back from ashes. The US invested around $35 billion in foreign economic assistance which protected this country from the possible attack from their neighbors. Today, South Korea is one of the richer countries in the world, with Seoul being the economic center.

The transformation of South Korea was a victory by the US. It showed the government of the United States and its citizens that this was a smart investment. This state has become the tenth largest export market for the goods made in the United States, and the trade has developed even more in the recent years, facilitated by the US-South Korea free trade agreement signed in 2012. Initially, South Korea was a heavily dependent foreign aid recipient, but the country role has changed for better. They are now a major international donor, and they joined the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), thus becoming the third Asia-Pacific country to do so.

The ways in which South Korea has helped the world are numerous. They donated $680 million to Afghanistan for reconstruction purposes and medical facilities as well as paved roads and police training stations. Furthermore, five years ago they added another $43 million to improve women’s rights and access to medical services in Afghanistan.

Luckily, South Korea’s story from a war-torn country to one of the countries which are providing assistance due to America’s intervention is not the only one in the world. The US also sent assistance to Colombia which had problems with insurgents that threatened the lawful government back in 2001. Thanks to the American aid, Columbia managed to combat the insurgent groups and they have become another major country where the US exports its goods. Since 2000, the profit from the US exports has grown from $3.6 billion to approximately $20 billion today. The US donated around $8 billion in combined military and economic assistance so you can do the math.

A major change happened in 2003 when President George W. Bush established the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. This plan allows the US to support almost 66% of all antiviral treatments for HIV/AIDS in the world. Since the pressure of AIDS dropped in African countries, partly due to American assistance, the economic growth ensued.

Washington keeps taking necessary steps to make the foreign aid more transparent and as effective as possible. In the last decade, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was established by Congress, and the MCC was ranked the top agency among 67 international donor organizations a few years back.

Although some congressmen question the effectiveness of foreign assistance, the fact is that stopping to aid countries around the world would undermine America’s national security and economic growth. The good thing is that more lawmakers are in favor of such aid, which benefits both America and the countries which need to receive much-needed donations.

FPI Analysis: Bush, Obama, and Islam


The politics of two presidents – George W. Bush and Barack Obama differed greatly. However, after notorious Paris attacks, Obama pay respects to Bush and his decision not to declare war on Islam. Bush managed to differentiate Islam from terrorism although terrorism is connected to this religion often. At the press conference after the Paris attacks, Obama declared: “I had a lot of disagreements with George W. Bush on policy, but I was very proud after 9/11 when he was adamant and clear about the fact that this is not a war on Islam.”

Both of the presidents recognized that terrorism and Islam were not connected. However, both of them failed to explain to the Americans why a significant number of Muslims joined the Islamic State, which is predominantly made of people whose religion is Islam.

9/11 – Terrorism and Islam

To understand the relationship between Bush and Obama as well as their views of terrorism, we have to go back to the darkest hours of the American history – 9/11. The devastating attacks which happened on September 11, 2001, caused Bush to go to the Islamic Center of the capital city and call for tolerance. At the Islamic Center in Washington D.C. Bush said:

“These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith. And it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that. The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” He added that Muslims contributed greatly to the society and reminded the nation that they are “doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms, and dads.” He also said that “they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.”

After the notorious event and his visit to the Islamic Center, Bush met with the Indonesian President Megawati Sukarnoputri. Indonesia is the country with the largest number of Muslims in the world and Bush wanted to make sure his voice is heard. He told Megawati: “I’ve made it clear, Madam President, that the war against terrorism is not a war against Muslims, nor is it a war against Arabs. It’s a war against evil people who conduct crimes against innocent people.”

Although Bush kept trying to explain that terrorism and Islam are not connected whatsoever, he made a mistake by saying: “This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.” The word “crusade” drew a lot of attention, and many people started believing that Bush intended to go on a war against Islam. That was the word he never used again in his speeches regarding the war against terror.

Did and how things changed under Barack Obama?

Obama’s campaign was highly successful, and his selection to the highest seat in the country was a historical event and a major step forward for African-Americans in the country. In his campaign, Obama addressed the war against terrorism and just like his predecessor, he tried to show the difference between terrorism and Islam. In his campaign, he said: “In the first hundred days of my administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam.”

He had a vision similar to Bush’s, and in Cairo, after the Paris attacks he pointed out that the values of Islam are similar to the American values. He said: “Let there be no doubt. Islam is a part of America. Muslims have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights.” He added that America and Islam do not have to compete against each other and that they overlap. On several occasions, Obama spoke the same words as Bush, saying that “The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam.”

Both Bush and Obama fought to distinguish Islam from terrorism. Take a look at these two situations and tell us what you think. When he was in Cairo, Obama said: “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. The United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it.” Let’s walk down the memory lane and recall the words said by Bush. He stated: “Women who cover their heads in this country must feel comfortable going outside their homes. Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value.”

As you can see, the two presidents have the same views. Nothing has changed in Obama’s administration in terms of Islam and terrorism. And while Bush fought the hopeless and costly war in Iraq, Obama did the same in the states of North Africa. They were trying to differentiate Islam and terrorism and yet they fought against Muslim countries continuously.

“Hijack” and “Pervert”

The two presidents tried to explain that the terrorists were using Islam as a justification. They both conveyed the same meaning, but they used the different terms. Bush preferred to say that the terrorist who committed crimes in the name of Islam used to “hijack Islam” while Obama favored the syntagm “perversion of Islam.”

On several occasions, Bush said: “[Terrorists are] traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.” And one year later: “We respect the [Islamic] faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.” While he was in Abu Dhabi, Bush warned: “Today your aspirations are threatened by violent extremists who murder the innocent in pursuit of power. These extremists have hijacked the noble religion of Islam, and seek to impose their totalitarian ideology on millions.”

On the other hand, Obama had the same answers. After winning the Nobel Prize and accepting it, he pointed out: “the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam.” A few years later he answered: “There is an element growing out of Muslim communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced a nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam.”

However, there was a “significant difference between the two presidents. Obama never used terms such as “Islamic extremism” and “radical Islam” because he believed that terrorism and extremism would be connected to Islam. He avoided these terms, whereas Bush had no problems using them. On the other hand, he did state that such extremism should not be connected to Islam. At one point he acknowledged: “Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam.”
Majority of Muslims are against this extremism, advocating peace. If this holy war is false indeed, why so many people join it? That was something neither Obama nor Bush could explain.

Is Islam the problem?

Bush and Obama tried so hard to distinguish such extremism from Islam as we have mentioned that several times in the article. However, this constant need to explain the phenomenon and separate the two terms had consequences. They kept refusing the fact that Islam and terrorism were connected and this has motivated a large part of the population in America to believe that the jihadists and extremists DO represent the religion. Several scholars, advisers, and congressmen said that ISIS and Islam are related and that this is the fact people need to accept. We just have to point out that this doesn’t mean that all of those who believe in Allah should be considered extremists, but we have to agree with the fact that Islamic State and Islam are connected to some degree.