How Dare We Call Obama the “Worst President”!

Thus far, that seems to be the general, liberal reaction to the publication of 150 Reasons Why Barack Obama is the Worst President in History.  While we have not been able to detect any liberal who has purchased and read the book before commenting on it, we have had plenty of negative comment, all of which tends towards outrage at the very concept of writing a book critical of The One.  The unreality of the criticism is shown by the complaint that by writing this before the end of Obama’s term in office we can’t be putting things in to historical perspective – this critique is joined with a claim that historians are rating Obama as our 15th greatest President.  I’m not quite sure just how a person wraps themselves around that sort of thing – only a resolute refusal to think can account for it.

But it occurs to me that  maybe a lot of people are not understanding the purpose of the book.  Its not just a hit piece of Obama – it is not designed merely to feed right wing anger, nor serve as a provocation of the left.  The purpose of the book is, quite simply, to ensure that the full truth of Obama is available.  Matt came up with the idea a few days after the election – both of us were flabbergasted that Obama had been re-elected.  As fairly well-informed observers – and seconded by many expert electoral forecasters – we were both of the opinion that Obama was done.  His horrifically bad record and the terrible state of the nation indicated that any reasonably credible alternative would be chosen – and Romney was certainly at least that.  But, in the event, Obama managed to win – with a gigantic reduction in votes over 2008, but still a win.  How to account for it?  Lots of people have put out reasons for this and there is plenty of blame to go around – and much work to do on the GOP/Conservative side of the aisle to refurbish our message and our electoral tactics:  but for Matt and I, a large part of the problem seemed to be that a majority of voters were unaware of just how bad Obama has been.

And this view was borne out as we wrote the book and repeatedly came across absolutely terrible Obama actions which neither of us were aware of prior to writing the book.  In its initial genesis, we were going to write “50 Reasons”.  Then it grew to “100 Reasons”; eventually we flew right past 150 and realized that we could keep going but we’d better cut it off at 150, to ensure that the book was published before Obama left office.  I am quite certain that even the most informed person out there will be several score things in the book which he had not heard of.  Just to take one, small example – answer to yourself honestly:  how many of you know that Obama let out a no-bid contract for a smallpox vaccine which (a) cannot be tested on humans and (b) cost $255 per dose when regular smallpox vaccines cost $3 a dose?  The boss of the vaccine maker is, of course, a big Democrat donor.  And this is really rather small beans compared to other things – it was included in the book because it illustrates the larger pattern of Obama:  which is that everything done is to serve his political needs and there is no law which won’t be broken, at need, in order to serve Obama’s political needs.

Now, as to just why Obama would subordinate everything to his personal, political needs is open for debate – none of us can peer in to his soul and see exactly why he’s doing this.  Maybe it is to impose a socialist dictatorship on us – on the other hand, maybe it just to set up all his friends and cronies in vast wealth so that they can all be fat and happy after Obama leaves office.  I don’t know – and don’t actually care, because the result of a President subordinating all to himself is the same whether he’s a tyrant or a grafter:  the breakdown of government and the end of liberty are the sure results of either action.  And that is why Obama is the worst President in history – because whether from accident or design, Obama’s policies, carried through long enough, could prove fatal to the ability of Americans to successfully govern themselves.  If everything is for sale and everything at the service of the Ruling Class, then even if Obama doesn’t want to be a tyrant, he’ll ensure we eventually get one because a nation will not remain ungoverned – and if we can’t govern ourselves because of government corruption, then someone will govern us…if for no other reason than just to keep the wheels moving and people fed.

This does not have to be put in historical perspective – this is not a debate about whether or not ObamaCare will be as good or bad as Social Security.  Once you take each Obama action and put it in to relation to all, you see what is happening – and it is horrible for our nation.  And it is terribly sad that people didn’t see it in 2012…though, of course, the media hiding things for Obama helped Obama carry it out.  Everything we state in the book is sourced – it was all reported.  But it was reported on page A-32 of the newspaper, or in the last 30 seconds of the Sunday night newscast, or some such.  And it wasn’t at all relentlessly reported, as it all would have been had Obama had an (R) after his name.  We have gathered it together; it is now available for anyone to see, if they want.  I strongly urge everyone to buy it – especially if you are an Obama supporter.  If you are, then you’ve been taken for a ride – a con-artist has bamboozled you in to betraying even your liberalism and its time you found it out.  Meanwhile, fellow conservatives, it is also time for you to see the whole story – because we won’t be able to defeat Obama until we see all of what he’s doing and thus fight against all his efforts.

112 thoughts on “How Dare We Call Obama the “Worst President”!

  1. j6206 May 11, 2013 / 8:31 pm

    Mark I have a friend who has a great book about a former federal official in the executive branch who steered 100’s of billions of dollars of no bid contracts to a company where he was on their board of directors. Can you point me to a contact @ Victory Books. I have googled them and can’t seem to find their website. Thanks in advance. : P

    • M. Noonan May 11, 2013 / 8:57 pm

      If you have that, then the book your friend is hawking is a lie. And Victory Books is just an imprint for Matt and myself.

    • Amazona May 11, 2013 / 10:25 pm

      OMG, the loons are back at the no-bid contract thing again.

      Why is that? Is it because you truly lack the mental capacity to understand why some contracts have to be no-bid, is it because you can’t remember from one month to another the explanations you have been given, is it because your pseudo-political hysteria demands that you focus on this non-issue? (I say “pseudo-political because, like your fellow travelers, you are all about personality and not a bit about actual politics.)

      Bill Clinton gave a lengthy no-bid contract to the only international company qualified to act on extremely short notice to accomplish highly complex assignments with pre-qualified pre-vetted employees already holding high security clearances and extensive job skills.

      Most people can grasp the reality that classified actions cannot be put out for bid. People like you can’t, but then you are in the Lunatic Fringe minority.

      I had a friend who was head of security for a large international KBR operation in Bosnia and he explained it to me. Halliburton recruited him right out of the Rangers, got his security clearance elevated, trained him in additional skills,and invested quite a lot of money in him, just so when they needed him he would be available on, as once happened, the next flight out. And he was one of thousands in whom a fortune had been invested, just to ensure that quick-response capability. His whole team had been set up well in advance for the contingency of having to be ready to go quickly to wherever they were needed.

      He told me that additional billions had been invested/risked in establishing stations around the world, so they could be ready for immediate use if necessary.

      Sure, to the simple-minded, the question is why NOT put classified, secret, imperative actions up for open bids? After all, what could go wrong with putting out all the details of supplies, manpower, skill sets, language skills, etc for everyone to see, and then waiting for companies to bid, and then waiting for them to assemble their staffs and equipment and do necessary construction in the area?

      When Dick Cheney left the government at the end of HR Bush’s term, he was recruited by an aggressively growing company that needed his knowledge of foreign affairs, potential hot spots, and the needs of government in crisis situations. He’d been SecDef and VP, he knew what kind of company would be necessary to fill those needs.

      BFD. He had knowledge,skill and understanding and someone hired him to use those attributes to help the company grow.

      And then President Clinton recognized the fact that this company filled an essential need, recognized that no-bid contracts would be necessary when secrecy and speed were paramount concerns, and he gave Halliburton its no-bid contract.

      At this time Dick Cheney was a private citizen.

      Yes, I do understand how vitally important some lemmings find the alleged connection between Dick Cheney and the no-bid contracts given to the company for which he once worked. But the thing is, I also understand how utterly stupid their obsession is, because I took the time to research the entire subject. My curiosity had nothing to do with Cheney, I just like learning things, and the whole operation in Bosnia was fascinating. My friend and I spent hours with me asking questions, about the construction and the security and the internal conflicts of the country and the reason things are done the way they are done.

      But then, this resulted in learning actual facts, and as usual actual facts have no room in the echo chamber of anti-conservative hysteria.

      • Cluster May 11, 2013 / 10:37 pm

        The anti conservative hysteria is a patholigical obsession of an ideology that they are completely ignorant of, and choose to remain ignorant of for fear of discovering that their own biases are wrong.

      • rustybrown2012 May 11, 2013 / 11:41 pm

        Hey ama,

        Everyone knows how no bids work. The 900 lb. gorilla you’re purposefully ignoring is the record breaking amount of no bid contracts which rained down on the heals of a war of choice orchestrated by the very people who stood to gain the most from them. Just a happy coincidence that while destabilizing the Middle East, killing tens of thousands in an unececessary war of choice, the bush admin, Cheney and all relevant cronies made out like bandits. Yeah ama, just a few pesky qualifications to your otherwise excellent defense of no bid contracts.

      • Cluster May 12, 2013 / 12:02 am


        Document that for us please. You made the accusation, so now quantify it. How many “no bid contracts” were issued and what was the previous record? Exactly how large were the profits that Cheney and his cohorts got away with?

      • rustybrown2012 May 12, 2013 / 2:30 pm


        No problem. Concerning no bid contracts:

        “Last year’s report found that no-bid contracts and other forms of contracts awarded without full and open competition had risen from $67.5 billion in 2000 to $145.1 billion in 2005. This year’s report finds that spending on these no-bid and limited-competition contracts surged over $60 billion to $206.9 billion in 2006, the largest single-year increase ever. The value of federal contracts awarded without full and open competition has more than tripled since 2000. For the first time on record, more than half of federal procurement spending was awarded through no-bid and limited-competition contracts in 2006.”

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) May 12, 2013 / 3:50 pm

        no-bid contracts and other forms of contracts awarded without full and open competition had risen from $67.5 billion in 2000 to $145.1 billion in 2005. This year’s report finds that spending on these no-bid and limited-competition contracts surged over $60 billion to $206.9 billion in 2006, the largest single-year increase ever.

        Gee, what could have possibly happened between 2000 and 2006 that would have warranted such an increase in no-bid contracts — Iraq, Afghanistan? Naw, couldn’t be.

        That’s sort of like all the embassy bombings during bush’s tenure that “weren’t investigated”, making Benghazi seen somehow acceptable by comparison.

        There is an argument I am seeing show up pretty regularly on Twitter. Someone tweets a link to a news story asking valid questions about Benghazi, or suggesting that there has been a cover-up (and history shows that fallout from coverups are always worse than the incidents that preceded them, but politicians never learn) someone intent on protecting the administration or Hillary Clinton tweets the equivalent of a sneer: “oh yeah? Well there were this many attacks on US Embassies while Bush was president, where were you then, huh? Why wasn’t anyone demanding investigations, then, huh?”

        Okay, well, I was wrong in calling that an argument; it’s really just your basic distraction tactic, meant to obfuscate and confuse, as we see Jon Stewart try to do, here. Must not discuss Obama and Benghazi and today. Let’s keep repeating the talking points from ten years ago.

        But the answer is actually pretty simple: yeah, there were x-number of embassy attacks under Bush and they did not require investigations. For that matter there were all of these attacks on embassies and American interests under President Clinton, and they didn’t require investigations, either.

        Why not? Well, because under Bush the embassy attacks were taking place mostly in Iraq, and during a time of acknowledged war — right in the thick of it, in fact — and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.

        And during the Clinton years, the attacks — which took place an average of every 18 months — were recognized as planned, organized attacks and no one tried to argue that they were anything different, either.

        And while our embassies were attacked under these presidents, and others, none of our Ambassadors were murdered (along with Navy Seals) while multiple stand-down orders were given against mounting a rescue.

        Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations sought to mischaracterize the attacks on their embassies. Neither of them disseminated weirdly vague stories that was “really” took place was a spontaneous protest over an unseen, stupid video. And it was not the Bush (or Clinton) administration that — even after acknowledging a terror attack had occurred — repeated those lies to grieving parents or (weeks later) in a speech to the UN where the “video” was blamed six times

        Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations first claimed that it was too early to talk about the attacks, and then too late. None of their Secretaries of State first flatly said — two days after the event — that they would not talk about the attack, declared to congress “what does it matter” or fell back on stereotypical behavior of yelling and emotionalism to distract the press and scare her mostly-male congressional inquisitors into silence. And none of their Secretary of State’s successors started out his term by quickly announcing that he didn’t intend to talk about the attacks, either. (::::UPDATE::::Just breaking, now he says he will!:::END:::)

        But mostly, the reason “no one investigated” attacks under Bush or Clinton is because no one lied about what they were, or refused to be clear about what their responses had been.

      • tiredoflibbs May 12, 2013 / 3:56 pm

        Wow, crust your ignorance knows no bounds. What did you call it before, data mining? Apparently, you have no problem there, purposefully ignoring the actions of Democrats with regard to no bid contracts. You only have a problem when one Republican administration uses it after a Democrat. The silent again,when another Democrat uses it again.

        ““I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all,” he thundered to a Grand Rapids, Mich., audience on Oct. 2, 2008. “The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.” After becoming president, Mr. Obama continued the attack and promised on March 4 to “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts. … In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition. … And that’s completely unacceptable.”


        “Last week, the Army revealed that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through next year.”

        Oh yeah, obAMATEUR hated the sweet-heart deals so much he continued them. What’s so hypocritical of the left that Haliburton was used by not one but two Dem administrations before and after Cheney left (after becoming vice-President).

        You are such a hack and a mindless tool.


      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 3:59 pm

        rusty, how about breaking away from LibThought and actually looking at a solution to a problem, for a change, instead of just whining about what someone else has done?

        How would you handle situations where materiel, manpower and equipment have to be on-site in a very short period of time, with secrecy during the planning stages?

        How do you put such an endeavor up for bid? Do you understand the bidding process? Have you ever prepared a bid? Just how would you/could you hand our the classified details of your mission to several competing companies without compromising security?

        Federal bidding is public—so much for security. I suppose you could have some new laws passed but even so the very act of having a bidding process on a supposedly secret mission would be a message that there was a secret mission in the works. Secrecy would be impossible.

        What about timing? One example: Halliburton, because of its advance planning and willingness to risk huge amounts of capital, had stations set up all around the world, so when we needed a staging area for the Iraq invasion they were already positioned in Kuwait. Any idea how long it would have taken for a competing company to prepare a bid, get the bid, and then hire and train personnel while acquiring real estate and commencing construction on the necessary infrastructure? Any idea of how long it would take to find, hire, train and get security clearance for people after a bid was accepted?

        I agree there is waste when the feds tell a company, any company, what to do and in what time frame without financial restraints on cost, but that can be addressed. The need for qualified people ready to move quickly with personnel and infrastructure in place without having to compete in a bidding process will be unchanged. The qualification of the company has to be done in advance and information about the project has to be limited.

      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 4:06 pm

        Cluster, you are so right. I have seen only one poster here, “James”, openly admit to and try to defend an ideology on the Left. We on the Right do it all the time—on the Left, close enough to never as to be considered never.

        These trolls do not come here to argue the superiority of one form of government over another, because they don’t know, and they don’t care.

        The only thing that floats their boats is spite and malice, and all that motivates them is the opportunity to sneer, snarl and attack others who have a different political identity, while remaining ignorant and uncaring of the ideology behind that, either.

        They are devoid of political knowledge or awareness, but desperately need to feed their craving for conflict. The Left has recruited these people, who once would have been identified as having personality disorders of rage, hostility and irrational hatred, and validated these disorders by recasting them as political commentary, though they have no political content.

      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 4:08 pm

        Damn those “heals of war”.

        Reminds me of an ad I once saw in the Pets section of the Classified for “Blue Healer Pups”. I kind of wanted to buy one, having some knee problems at the time, but the ad did not specify the type of healing the pups would do, and the “Blue” part kind of threw me—heals only the blues??????

      • M. Noonan May 12, 2013 / 5:33 pm

        The point of having that in the book is not that no-bid contracts should never happen, but that an entirely un-necessary and vastly expensive no-bid contract was let out to a gigantic Democrat donor – of course, all of this would become clear to our liberals if they would read the book.

      • tiredoflibbs May 13, 2013 / 6:17 pm

        Come on people, you can’t argue logically with crusty’s so called “logic”.

        According to his logic:
        No bid contracts issued to Haliburton/KBR under Clinton …acceptable (even though Cheney is involved).
        No bid contracts issued to Haliburton/KBR under Bush… corrupt and unacceptable (Cheney divests himself of Haliburton/KBR interests).
        ObAMATEUR campaigns on ending no bid contracts to Haliburton/KBR, gets elected and issues Haliburton/KBR no bid contracts …. magically becomes acceptable once again.

        Lets look at this “non-corrupt” obAMATEUR administration:

        Hmmmmm… I wonder if obAMATEUR’s Justice Department obtained a warrant? Why should they? They reinforced the use of FISA and warrantless wire taps. GITMO is still open. ObAMATEUR continues to sign on and extend parts of the Patriot Act that drones like crusty found to unacceptable and corrupt under Bush (There’s that double standard again).

        crusty can’t help being a mindless hack, who thinks that his posts are civil and attack free…. what a hoot!

      • tiredoflibbs May 13, 2013 / 7:01 pm

        oooo, crusty proved me wrong by finding a typo! I might as well give up now!

        Yes, crusty I missed your massive criticism of obAMATEUR and Clinton for using Haliburton/KBR and their no bid contracts. Those same contracts you found so corrupt under Bush, but predictably silent elsewhere.

        You are so transparent it is ridiculous. One little minor detail, you have not shown that there was any corruption….. you again ASSume that there is. As I said, your shouts of corruption stopped once obAMATEUR did the same. Oh, that’s right, obAMATEUR claimed that he would have a transparent and ethical administration! It is easy for you to make claims now about obAMATEUR and no bid contracts, but your history and past tactics reveal more than you think.

        Simple denial don’t work here. Leftist corruption is always ignored and excused by mindless drones such as yourself.

      • tiredoflibbs May 13, 2013 / 7:22 pm

        crusty: “I know you’re dim but I’ll try repeating it again: I’m against the corrupt/unethical policies of the Bush/Cheney era that Obama still embraces.”

        Uh, crusty, I know this is just a minor detail that blows your stupid ASSertion above, but no-bid contracts with Haliburton/KBR began long before Bush/Cheney, as I pointed out before. Your complete failure at reading comprehension bites you on your ass once again.

        Details… details….

        So, using a resource with experience and the infrastructure to accomplish the same in Iraq that it did in Kosovo is somehow corrupt. We’d much rather spend more and reinvent the wheel rather than using a company with a proven record as in Kosovo.

        Uh, oh…

        “BUT IT IS FALSO TO IMPLY that Bush personally awarded a contract to Halliburton. The “no-bid contract” in question IS ACTUALLY AN EXTENSION OF AN EARLIER CONTRACT TO SUPPORT US TROOPS OVERSEAS that Halliburton WON UNDER OPEN BIDDING. IN FACT, THE NOTION THAT HALIBURTON BENEFITTED FROM ANY CRONYISM HAS BEEN POO-POOHED by Harvard University professor, Steven Kelman, who was administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

        Now pay attention drone:

        “One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded . . . who doesn’t regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd,” Kelman wrote in the Washington Post last November.”

        Who cares how contracts are awarded when the left can influence their weak minded drones to follow the mantra and regurgitate dumbed down talking points.

        Oh, so you won’t whine about sources:

      • tiredoflibbs May 13, 2013 / 9:02 pm


        Awwww, poor cwusty can’t post his tantrums and spell checks while insulting and attacking other posters with little or no content – then has the nerve to whine about it.

        You have yet to show anything of merit (with the exception of my typo – writing “to” instead of “too”). You claim corruption on one hand but show none, while I refute your stupid claims with the lefty website

        Then you post your usual crap with attacks, then whine when it gets deleted while claiming “that is the only way you can win”. No, crusty, you have been warned repeatedly that your behavior will result in your posts being deleted.

        Your inability to comprehend the written word is your downfall once again.

        Sorry but after we delete Rusty’s posts we have to delete quotes from them. Too bad because they illustrate why he is no longer welcome here. He will complain that we should leave the posts that do not contain vulgarity and crudity but that is not the way it works. //Moderator

      • tiredoflibbs May 13, 2013 / 10:09 pm


        So instead of refuting facts that I posted , which blew away your dumbed down talking points, you engage in bathroom humor like any middle school little boy.

        Pathetic, yet oh so predictable.

        Now, go ahead and whine about your “civil” posts being deleted.

        Sorry but after we delete Rusty’s posts we have to delete quotes from them. Too bad because they illustrate why he is no longer welcome here. He will complain that we should leave the posts that do not contain vulgarity and crudity but that is not the way it works. //Moderator

  2. cyberactor May 11, 2013 / 8:41 pm

    You know, in order to prove that someone is the “Worst President in History,” you’d think that, at the very least, you’d have to demonstrate that they left things worse off than when they found them. The Dow Jones in the tank, unemployment higher than when he took office, the economy in shambles, involved in hopeless, pointless, expensive wars all around the world, our allies despising us, our enemies more powerful than ever….

    Certainly that describes ONE president in recent memory, but not Obama. The funny thing is, the very people who used to spout off about “Bush Derangement Syndrome” are now firmly entrenched in “Obama Derangement Syndrome” without even a hint or irony. If you wanted to demonstrate that you guys on the right- unlike those CRAZY people on the left- had some perspective, you could say- for example- that you think Obama is the THIRD worst or something. But no…you’ve got to go all in and cash your crazy chips by saying “Worst Ever!!!”. Silly, but unconvincing.

    Oh, and while we’re explaining away stupidity on the right, can you please justify this?

    Thanks ever so.

    • M. Noonan May 11, 2013 / 8:57 pm

      Read the book, or don’t comment on it. Don’t be such cowards.

      • watsonthethird May 11, 2013 / 9:13 pm

        Mark, what is this “general, liberal reaction” you are referring to? I googled the title of your book and didn’t find any liberal website discussing it. Are you referring to the comments here at B4V by myself and others?

        I am still happy to shell out the $10 or so if you are willing to publish my review.

      • M. Noonan May 12, 2013 / 12:49 am


        Comments here, comments at Amazon, comments on Twitter. And, no, we’re not about to provide a forum for someone to attack us – perhaps some liberal blog will be happy to do so – and we’ll be pleased with that, as well.

      • M. Noonan May 12, 2013 / 12:49 am


        Thank you for your purchase.

      • meursault1942 May 12, 2013 / 2:00 am

        “Mark, what is this “general, liberal reaction” you are referring to? I googled the title of your book and didn’t find any liberal website discussing it. Are you referring to the comments here at B4V by myself and others?”

        It’s certainly not any publicly viewable reaction. Both here and on Amazon, the reaction is far from “how dare you.” It’s much more “come on, be serious.” Mark seems desperate for an outraged reaction, but all he’s getting is bemusement.

        But the original post here is pointing to a trend: Mark calls himself a “well-informed observer” who nonetheless got the election very, very wrong. And after getting it very, very wrong, he decides that the problem has to have been everybody else, not him.

        A couple weeks ago when we were discussing evolution, Mark kept insisting that he was “very well-informed” on the subject, yet he kept making extremely basic errors. Even when he was corrected on those errors, he kept making them. And after getting things very, very wrong, he decided that the problem had to have been everybody else, not him.

        He’s establishing a pattern here.

        And by the way, Mark, the problem was not everybody else being uninformed, the problem was that you were uninformed because you existed (and still exist, it appears) in a closed information loop. You only listen to sources that will tell you what you want to hear, and then, when the chips are down, you end up blindsided.

      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 9:13 am

        Gee, wino, why don’t you claim Mark is “flailing around like a panicked porpoise” or maybe “spinning around like a terrified tuna”?

        Mark’s pattern is identifying defects in your hero, The One We Have All Been Waiting For, and yours is to deny the facts in front of you. Maybe you should be described as a “spineless jellyfish” floating around in your sea of delusion.

        Damn, it’s hard to get past that “frightened squid” thing.

      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 9:15 am

        btw, wino, not agreeing with you is hardly the same as being wrong. I can see why you need to cling to that fantasy, but sorry, sonny, it just ain’t so.

      • M. Noonan May 12, 2013 / 12:59 pm


        Leaving aside the fact that you didn’t prove me wrong before, we’ll address ourselves to the “closed information loop”. That would actually be your problem, not mine – I’m one of the two who went out and for months diligently sought out all the information I could obtain on what Obama has done over his first term in office. A lot of searching, a lot of cross-referencing, a lot of determining if a source was credible and whether or not a story reported at one point was substantially altered by later facts. You, I am quite certain, have not done this. You can, now, take the easy route and buy the book and profit from what Matt and I labored to produce. Once you’ve done that, get back to me with your criticism. Until then…

      • cyberactor May 12, 2013 / 11:18 pm

        Tell you what, Sparky: Send me a free copy and I’ll happily read it and comment on it. But I’d rather pull a live, rabid hedgehog out of my nether regions than line your pockets with my money. So…buy a copy? I think I’ll take a big pass on that.

      • neocon01 May 13, 2013 / 6:16 am


        stick to the gerbils…they suit your nether regions much better than books.

      • Cluster May 13, 2013 / 8:10 am


        You don’t want to “line” Mark’s pockets with money by buying a book?


      • meursault1942 May 13, 2013 / 10:53 am

        “you didn’t prove me wrong before,”

        Sure I did. I can understand why you wouldn’t want to admit it, though. And at any rate,it’s not that important here except as part of your pattern of claiming to be well-informed and then ending up quite wrong.

        As for the closed information loop, it is entirely your problem. Again, just look at the election: You considered yourself very well-informed and were quite sure of a Romney landslide (I barely even had to check this blog’s archives to know that). But at the same time, you were only listening to sources that agreed with you, and you were furiously “unskewing” polls (what a joke that was) and finding excuses to discount anything that was contrary to your view. You only talked to and listened to people within that closed loop. And then what happened? You were wrong. Just like all those “skewed” polls and facts were telling you all along.

        And then, in response to this, you decide that the problem was that people just weren’t as fabulously well-informed as you. Get that? When you’re wrong, you double down and claim that it’s everybody else’s fault, not once stopping to check yourself and realize that you had it quite wrong. This is of a piece with your claim that obedience and recitation is “thought.” Same dynamic.

        We see this play out now with the book. You claim to be so well-informed and to have done mountains of research, yet your book is, as noted, a compendium of talking points. And it is no coincidence that the book aligns perfectly with the talking points; that’s your closed loop at work. You repeat stuff from within your echo chamber to people who already believe it: Recitation and obedience. You’ve already been caught reprinting a discredited chain email about Obama and the debt, to say nothing of the blatant hypocrisy (Obama uses tragedy for political gain, Bushie?) and the whining (“narcissist in chief”…has it really come to that for you?).

        So again, you’ve written a book that is just another partisan screed. Fine. The problem is that you’re trying to claim it isn’t. Why do that, Mark?

      • M. Noonan May 13, 2013 / 12:47 pm


        You can’t know if it aligns with talking points, or not, until you have read the whole thing. I assure you, there are scores of things noted in there you haven’t even heard about. And given what we have unearthed, I am confident that a majority of Americans would have voted against Obama had they been fully aware of the issues involved. So, no closed loop.

      • meursault1942 May 14, 2013 / 10:34 am

        You claim that you aren’t in a closed information loop, yet you continue to insist that you would’ve been proven right on election day…if only more people had swallowed the talking points and joined that closed information loop. And around and around you go.

        You’ve reversed the sequence, Mark. It’s not that if people would start believing the talking points, they’d oppose Obama. It’s because you oppose Obama that you believe the talking points because you’ll believe just about anything anti-Obama; its simple confirmation bias.

        But I still wonder why it is you don’t want to admit that you’ve written a partisan screed. Why be ashamed of what you’ve done?

  3. mitchethekid May 11, 2013 / 9:22 pm

    Buy the book, read it and post your review on the books Amazon page. Matt and Mark have no ability to delete any comments made there.

  4. 02casper May 11, 2013 / 10:09 pm

    After reading the reviews and the previews for your book online, I’ve decided not buy it. The preview chapters aren’t much different from the day to day threads on this blog. Lots of opinions and taking things out of context. Not to mention the hypocrisy. Attacking Obama for his vacations when you were defending Bush for the same thing a few years ago definitely stands out. I buy a lot of books. I just ordered three history books to give me some background for a vacation I’m going to take this summer. All the books are highly recommended and well written. Your book isn’t.

    • Cluster May 11, 2013 / 10:14 pm

      Color me shocked.

      Casper, knowing what a stickler you are for ethics, I am curious as to your thoughts on the Benghazi hearings. Why do you suppose the State Dept. rewrote the CIA’s talking points (several times) before going to the media?

      • 02casper May 11, 2013 / 10:28 pm

        I’m curious how you feel about the 11 embassy attacks that resulted in 52 deaths under Bush? Are you ok with them? If not, where was your rage when they happened?

      • Cluster May 11, 2013 / 10:39 pm

        Is this an admission that you choose not to answer a sensitive question that might put your leader in bad light? Only those who are afraid of answers respond to a question with another question.

      • Cluster May 11, 2013 / 10:44 pm

        I will point out one obvious fact though Casper (he of who would never criticize a President with a dark skin color, which only highlights his extreme racism) – Bush had the presence of mind and the honesty to call those embassy attacks for what they were – terrorism. He didn’t blame a YouTube video and imprison the film maker.

      • Amazona May 11, 2013 / 10:46 pm

        Gee, cappy, you have clearly been looking for and memorizing Lefty talking points circulated to try to take attention away from Benghazi.

        So tell us, what happened in those attacks?

        What was the security? Had the personnel requested additional security? Did they happen on the anniversaries of events important to our enemies, and were they therefore somewhat predictable? Did the personnel ask the State Department for assistance while they were being attacked?

        How were these attacks presented to the public? How were they explained or described? Were there efforts to hide the facts of the attacks, to shift attention away from those who might have been culpable? Was there a coverup?

        Did we callously ignore pleas for help and stand by to watch our people die?

        Is there any way any of these attacks were similar to what happened in Benghazi? Or are you just being a good little Lefty footsoldier, parroting what you are told?

      • Amazona May 11, 2013 / 10:50 pm

        “Are you OK with them?”

        What a weaselly despicable comment. How vile!

        OK WITH THEM !!

        What a horrible person to even be able to come up with something like this.

        Yeah, casper, people who find Benghazi to be a deplorable abandonment of decency and responsibility followed by a litany of lies only do so because they are OK WITH other deaths at other times.

        What a twisted petty creature you are. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to think like this. Yecchhhh.

      • Amazona May 11, 2013 / 10:55 pm

        “…where was your rage when they happened?”

        Uh, DUH, dummy—it was with the terrorists who committed the atrocities, you idiot.

        And in the case of Benghazi, it started with them, and then as we learned that our own "leaders" and the Complicit Agenda Media had been lying to us, and trying to hide their culpability, to help The One We Have All Been Waiting For get reelected, it quite properly expanded to include the liars.

        And, by the way, people like you who defend them.

        We will probably learn (those of us with minds open enough to accept actual facts, that is) that the reason this had to be covered up was because the White House and the State Department were trying to cover up not only their callous abandonment of their people but the illicit reason those people were in harm's way in the first place and the absolute incompetence that failed to provide them with the protection they needed and requested before the attacks even took place.

      • Amazona May 11, 2013 / 11:02 pm

        Why do you suppose the State Dept. rewrote the CIA’s talking points (several times) before going to the media?

        Answer: Laura Bush killed her boyfriend—are you fine with that?

        Don’t hold your breath waiting for an actual answer from the Resident Weasel, casper.

        Hey, cappy—have you had anyone else move into casper from across the state to tell you all about me?

        What a loser.

      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 11:54 am

        Hey, cappy, tell us your revisionist excuse for Secretary Clinton telling Charles Woods, the father of the heroic former Navy SEAL Ty Woods, that the government would “make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted.”

        Knowing, as we do now, that Clinton knew all along the murders were committed by terrorists and there was no “demonstration” much less one based on outrage over “that film” your job might be a daunting one, but as the Resident Weasel I am sure you are up to it.

        Maybe you will say that she told the truth, that the guy who made the film WAS arrested and prosecuted, and after all she never came right out and said she blamed the guy for the violence that resulted in the murder of Ty Woods. This would be Classic Clinton, and I would not be surprised to see you chugging that KoolAid and spitting it up here on the blog.

    • Cluster May 11, 2013 / 10:18 pm

      And Casper, I am curious as to your thoughts on this revelation:

      “CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi.”

      Do you think that the ties between the Obama regime and the mainstream media might be a little too close? And do you suppose that is why bad stories on the regime are buried in page A32?

      • Cluster May 11, 2013 / 11:58 pm

        And I remember liberals accusing Bush of being too closely tied to Fox News with regards to Tony Snow.

        My, my how times have changed.

    • Amazona May 11, 2013 / 10:40 pm

      Of course casper would not buy the book. Why expose his well-entrenched biases to anything that might challenge them? Why run the risk that he might learn something that would tarnish his adoring perception of The One We Have All Been Waiting For.

      He whines that the book is just more of what he has read here, and nothing he has read here has dented his impervious devotion to Obama.

      We have discussed, documented and proved lie after lie told by Barry, and casper simply does not care. We have exposed Barry’s sordid past and casper just whistles under his breath and looks off into the distance.

      And just look at the silly comment on vacations. No, no one defended Bush “vacations”. We defended Bush’s decision to work from his home, where he was accompanied not by buddies and hangers-on but by working staff, and where he entertained visiting dignitaries and worked without the distractions of the White House. He would take an hour or so during the day to ride his bike or cut some brush, to clear his head, but he worked on these trips. He did not go swanning about on exclusive golf courses, bunking down in lavish digs donated by supporters, or spending millions to take his wife and kiddies (or send them) accompanied by extensive entourages, on lavish trips.

      No, he went to his own house, in Texas, where he set up shop and did his job. Only the foolish and the hateful called these trips “vacations”.

      Hey, cappy, have you found any examples of “civil rights” in which the plaintiffs asked not for equal rights but for the ability to use the actual WORD describing those who already had them? I did a quick search and didn’t find a single black person who defined “equal rights” as being called white, or a single woman who felt that the only way she could achieve parity with men would be to rename herself as a man.

      • Cluster May 11, 2013 / 10:47 pm

        We have discussed, documented and proved lie after lie told by Barry, and casper simply does not care.

        That is because Casper is a racist of the worst kind. He feels the need to protect minorities because without his protection, they are incapable of handling what life dishes out.

      • M. Noonan May 12, 2013 / 12:42 am


        The funny thing is, if they’d grow an ounce of courage they’d actually find some of the “blame Bush” stuff placed in there for context. It is a complete indictment of Obama – certainly, it can be fleshed out and more detail added – but that wasn’t the purpose of the book. The purpose is to show the pattern – and let those who say there isn’t a pattern read the book and then prove by reasoned argument and factual detail that there is no pattern which makes Obama the worst President.

    • M. Noonan May 12, 2013 / 12:39 am

      How can you possibly know if you don’t buy it? I can understand someone saying, “as I disagree with Mark and Matt, I’ve decided not to buy the book”, but I don’t understand “I condemn the book without reading it”. That is just cowardly.

      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 11:58 am

        Well, Squiddy, these guys are just being Libs—not bothering with facts but indulging in knee-jerk opposition to anything any conservative says.

        BTW, we are aware that the ink you spread around is formed into letters, which then form words, which are linked together to make sentences, which outline facts which make the RRL very nervous.

        I think they most closely resemble a Hapless Halibut, lying on the floor of the sea and watching life pass by, with vision in only one direction.

    • neocon01 May 12, 2013 / 11:08 am

      Presidents of ABC and CBSNEWS Have Siblings Working at White House…

    • neocon01 May 12, 2013 / 12:44 pm


      one of your ilk….you must be so proud of your peers..

      Harford County Public Schools employee Stephanie Mikles indicted on deviant sex charges (with a dog)

  5. Cluster May 11, 2013 / 10:10 pm

    I read The Amateur by Edward Klein (who is certainly not a right winger) and that book told a very unflattering tale of Barack and Michelle in their rise to the top. The number of people they used and discarded along the way speaks volumes to their lack of character. I will buy the book and give it a read.

    • Amazona May 11, 2013 / 10:59 pm

      I read it, too, and wasn’t it a striking contrast to the history of Mitt and Ann Romney, who had so many people from their pasts coming forward to praise them for their kindness, love and generosity throughout their entire lives?

      I still find it hard to understand how any decent person could have chosen Mooch and Barry over these fine people.

      And then I read Lib posts here, like casper’s vile implication that anyone was “fine with” the deaths of Americans before the Benghazi debacle, and realize that many of those who chose the Obamas are not decent people.

      • Cluster May 11, 2013 / 11:03 pm

        It would be hard to find two more caring and decent people than Ann and Mitt Romney. I am sad for this country that they were treated and maligned like they were.

    • M. Noonan May 12, 2013 / 12:47 am

      Everything Obama does is at the service of Obama – there is nothing he has said or done, or likely ever will say or do, which is not designed to advance himself, period. We didn’t put it in the book because we wanted to stay away from the birther business by a country mile, but one of the things we considered was the fact that Obama’s own author bio held that he was born in Kenya…now, Obama’s people claim this was just an error…but, if so, from whence did the error come? Why did his own publisher think he was born in Kenya? To me the answer is simple, given the pattern – Obama, at that time, decided that being foreign-born was best for his own advancement, and so it went in…later, as Presidential ambitions arose, it became terribly inconvenient for that aspect of Obama’s self-promotion to be in the public square, and so it was buried and denied.

      Whatever he does, the first thing anyone should do is ask, “how does this advance Obama?”. That is the key – and most astoundingly, he’s got the MSM entirely on his side in doing this because they are more afraid of someone on their own side considering them racists than how absurd they appear when they defend him.

  6. mitchethekid May 11, 2013 / 11:37 pm

    They weren’t maligned for what they were, they were exposed for what they are. A sword cuts both ways and if anything is “vile” as Ama so condescendingly puts it, it is to whine about being held accountable by the voting public. Romney lost by a wide margin but in the conservative bubble, the majority of Americans are dupes. There was an old saying, America: Love it or leave it. Personally, I think you will stay.

    • Cluster May 11, 2013 / 11:56 pm

      He didn’t actually lose by a “wide margin”. And Obama received less votes this time around then he did before. Strip away the cover the media gave him, and the beating they gave Romney and the election may have been quite different.

      But I am curious as to who you think Romney is, and why he deserved to be maligned. Care to expand?

    • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 9:08 am

      Let’s see if I got this right, mitche. “If anything is “vile”……it is to whine about being held accountable by the voting public.”

      No, it still doesn’t make sense.

      What I said is that the morons who voted for Obama are now being held accountable for their actions, and poor sad silly mitche couldn’t even figure out what that meant—-or couldn’t put together a coherent reply.

      And for the record, what I said was “vile” was casper’s suggestion that people who are outraged by the administration’s behavior regarding Benghazi are somehow “fine with” the deaths of other Americans in other embassies.

      I know, there are too many ideas here for you to keep up, being all tangled up in your wackadoo BDS and general hatred of what your minders have told you are “conservatives”. Scoot on over to the fork and when you have stopped admiring the peenies on the “girls” you can pick up some pointers on what you are supposed to believe and regurgitate.

  7. mitchethekid May 12, 2013 / 1:29 am

    If wishes were fishes we’d all live in water. The comparison number of people voting in 2008 vs 2012 is irrelevant. Obama won by a significant margin of those who did vote in 2012. To blame “the media” for his win is sour grapes IMO. I won’t get down into the weeds as to why Romney lost, but to encapsulate it, he was a phoney of the first order. The 47% comment was the unveiling of his true self and his refusal to release his tax records didn’t help much either. He aligned himself with the ultra-wealthy, he lacked the common touch, his wife was perceived as a patriarch and he is stiff, calculating and uncomfortable in his own humanity. You guys defend him because he was the Republican candidate. It seems to me that you liked every one from Rick Perry to Newt Gingrich to Rick Santorum.
    But this thread is about the reaction to “The Book”. Not about the past election.

    • Cluster May 12, 2013 / 8:33 am

      To deny the medias unprecedented support, cover, and sycophantic relationship with Obama is too deny basic reality. It’s not sour grapes, it’s a simple observation from someone who actually lives and breathes in that reality.

      The 47% comment was also just an honest assessment of the number of people who now live on the Democratic plantation and have become convinced that without the crumbs that the Democrats promise them year in and year out, that they don’t have a chance in earning a decent living on their own. The only people offended by it were those people on the plantation, and those people working hard to keep those people on the plantation. Any self assured, clear thinking adult knew exactly what Romney was saying.

      Finally, Ann Romney may have been perceived as a matriarch, but certainly not a patriarch. And for the record, I never supported Santorum or Perry. But we could have used Gingrich. He has a way of cutting to the chase of liberal idiocy better than anyone.

      • Cluster May 12, 2013 / 8:49 am

        Mitch –

        Here’s an revealing confession from a major media member:

        “Our house is on fire,” said Pelley. The video of Pelley’s speech is courtesy of

        “These have been a bad few months for journalism,” he added. “We’re getting the big stories wrong, over and over again.”

        The CBS newsreader was quick to take at least partial blame. “Let me take the first arrow: During our coverage of Newtown, I sat on my set and I reported that Nancy Lanza was a teacher at the school. And that her son had attacked her classroom. It’s a hell of a story, but it was dead wrong. Now, I was the managing editor, I made the decision to go ahead with that and I did, and that’s what I said, and I was absolutely wrong. So let me just take the first arrow here.”

        And Pelley said the republic relies on the quality of the news business. “Democracies succeed or fail based on their journalism,” said Pelley. “America is strong because its journalism is strong. That’s how democracies work. They’re only as good as the quality of the information that the public possesses. And that is where we come in.”

        Emphasis is mine. Currently the quality of information the average voter has, and the level of intelligence the average voter possesses, is very poor.

      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 8:52 am

        The whines about the Romneys reflect the political illiteracy of such as the wino and rusty and, of course, mitche. Look at the complaints—-all acting as if the perception of the personalities of the people involved was the point of the election.

        Sadly, to this kind of mentality, it was. To people like this, the election boiled down to: Obama = black and Not Republican and Romney = white, wealthy, and Republican.

        But even the identification of “Republican” is superficial and unrelated to actual politics—that is, the best way to govern the nation.

        Many of us voted for GOVERNMENT—-that is, for a return to the Constitutional model of a federal government restricted as to size, scope and power—-and against the infinite expansion of central power and authority.

        As I said about Mitt—-I didn’t want to date him, I wanted to hire him.

        I view an election as a job interview, in which I look for the best person for the job. The Loony Left views elections as personality contests in which all sorts of superficial criteria are considered, such as if a person “appears” to be “stiff” or too wealthy.

        And when you have an American Idol mentality voting on an American Idol basis, using shallow and superficial criteria, you end up with an empty suit like Obama, because he packaged himself in a way that appeals to the uninformed emotion-driven politically ignorant voter, and is backed by a political machine with extensive skill and experience in maligning opponents and creating elaborate (though false) narratives and impressions designed to sway those uninformed emotion-driven people.

      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 9:00 am

        Ann Romney a “patriarch”? It just gets funnier and funnier.

        I think mitche may have been the guy who speculated that someone had “turret syndrome”.

        Interesting, though not surprising, to see that his ignorance is not limited to politics.

        Yeah, pass up on a guy with impeccable ethics, a history of doing good for all around him, and business skills badly needed by this country, because you think he “aligned himself with the ultra-wealthy”—a bizarre comment given the sucking-up of Obama to the very very rich, his mooching off them to spend time in their lavish estates, his schmoozing the Hollyweird elite, etc.

      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 11:41 am

        Just curious: What character defect is associated with “aligning” oneself with the “ultra-wealthy” and why would this defect only be applied to a non-Liberal?

        And what can be determined about the character of one who does associate with the wealthy, vs one who associates with known and admitted enemies of the country who have admitted guilt regarding bombing government buildings, trying (and in the case of the Mrs. succeeding) to kill people, and overtly plotting to either undermine or overthrow the government?

        (We have to remember that the guy whose buddies were and are the anti-American violent radicals also happens to “align” himself with money every chance he gets.)

        What is worse, having money or hating people because their skin is white?

        Which is more offensive, a religion which is Christian but has some quirky elements, which is based on service to the community and family values, or a splinter religion based on a bizarre rewriting of history in which Jesus was a black man killed because of his race by evil white Europeans, and which actively promotes racial hatred and divisiveness as well as hatred of the United States?

        After all, since you guys are all about personality traits and appearance, instead of how best to govern the nation, you ought to be able to make your decisions based on your answers to questions like these.

    • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 8:54 am

      Looky, looky, now mitche is auditioning for the job of Blog Cop. I guess the wattle will want some time off.

      • mitchethekid May 12, 2013 / 10:27 am

        Blog Cop? Hardly. I am not prudish enough. Perhaps you should guard the gates and perfect this echo chamber.

      • neocon01 May 12, 2013 / 10:32 am

        Obama was cheated in, there is ample proof of that hardly a big “win” only in the kneepadders eye.

        Haliburton was the former brown and root, the largest NON union construction company in the world. Guess what presidents wife sat on the board and guess what NON bid contracts worth BILLIONS in the 60’s were let to them, and by what potus?

      • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 11:31 am

        Gee. mitche, I thought you were the one sniveling “But this thread is about the reaction to “The Book”. Not about the past election.”

        Let’s check the record, shall we?

        Yep, it was mitche, lecturing on what should be discussed.

        As for “prudish” if your mind is a sewer and your mouth its exit point, pretty much anything short of verbal filth will seem “prudish” by comparison. You really need to hang out with your own kind. I’ll bet the forkers will lend you some tape to tuck up those little semi-manly parts so you can pose with them, and you can all admire each other’s mental farts.

  8. Amazona May 12, 2013 / 12:03 pm

    Speaking of the cowardly administration, what do you think of this?

    From NewsMax: (emphasis mine)

    Rep. Dana Rohrabacher charges that the U.S. government has been acting “cowardly” in not pressing Pakistan to release the doctor who helped America track down Osama bin Laden.

    Dr. Shakil Afridi was sentenced to 33 years in prison in May 2012.

    “We should take this opportunity to initiate a forceful strategy to save this hero rather than the quiet diplomacy the U.S. State Department has been insisting on and the Republican leadership of the House has acquiesced to,” Rohrabacher, a California Republican, said in the statement released on Monday.

    “The U.S. Ambassador should be recalled and legislation should be passed to withhold foreign aid to Pakistan as long as they are doing the bidding of terrorists and persecuting the likes of Dr. Afridi.

    “He was bold enough to help the U.S. bring justice to the mass murderer Osama bin Laden but unfortunately the actions of the American government have been cowardly in comparison.”

    Afridi was arrested weeks after the American raid on Abbottabad, Pakistan, where al-Qaida leader bin Laden was living in a compound. U.S. officials later confirmed that Afridi had helped in the hunt for the terrorist chief by conducting a vaccination campaign in Abbottabad to obtain DNA evidence from the compound to confirm that bin Laden was hiding there.

    He was accused of being a “national criminal” who should be tried for “conspiracy against the State of Pakistan and high treason.”

    Rohrabacher’s statement was released after news broke that Afridi was on a hunger strike in jail to protest his harsh treatment, and that his appeal hearing, scheduled for May, has once again been postponed.

    In June 2012, Rohrabacher urged the government to intervene more forcefully in Afridi’s case, saying it “doesn’t appear that other people are taking this case seriously.”

    Then in July, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told Newsmax TV that he was pushing for a vote in Congress to end all aid to Pakistan until Afridi is freed.

    Paul reiterated his threat to freeze aid to Pakistan in September after Afridi told Fox News how he was brutally tortured by Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence.

    The Obama administration requested $1.4 billion in aid to Pakistan in its fiscal 2014 State Department budget proposal.

    • neocon01 May 12, 2013 / 12:19 pm

      Just bought my hard back copy….. 🙂

      • M. Noonan May 12, 2013 / 1:00 pm

        Thank you for your purchase.

    • neocon01 May 12, 2013 / 12:28 pm

      to all you fine ladies

    • neocon01 May 12, 2013 / 12:48 pm

      OPM and the donks…….

      1/3 Population of Puerto Rico Gets Food Stamps From US Government – $2 Billion In 2012

      CNS News ^ | May 10, 2013 | Elizabeth Harrington

      The feral government spent more than $2 billion to provide Puerto Rico in food stamps in 2012, up to 25% of it is untraceable because it is distributed in cash and there is “no way to verify that funds are being spent on food”
      according to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The funds are used to provide more than one-third of the population of Puerto Rico with food stamps

      • neocon01 May 13, 2013 / 6:24 am

        “How Dare We Call Obama the “Worst President”!”

        fixed! 🙂

      • neocon01 May 13, 2013 / 2:24 pm

        Jury: Fraud put Obama on ’08 ballot
        Democrat officials convicted of making up names for qualifying petition


  9. mitchethekid May 12, 2013 / 1:15 pm

    Better watch out Ama, the moderator doesn’t allow insults.

    • Amazona May 12, 2013 / 2:34 pm

      Too funny, watching you try to ignore the dissections of your talking points and the questions posed to you.

  10. bozo May 12, 2013 / 9:23 pm

    Ammo, Neo, Clusto…get over to Amazon and write some five star reviews, for crying out loud. Mark’s getting hammered in the review section. Eight bucks is too steep for me (I get all my Obama slams free from the Saudi Prince Journal), but you can read the first 25 “reasons” in the Kindle preview and sound like you bought it.

    Help a brother out. I only agree with Mark on some Distributist ideas, but would hate to see him get stuck on food stamps. Us liberals are happy to provide that safety net, but y’all can get off the couch for a few minutes and get some cash flowing to your host here.


    • neocon01 May 13, 2013 / 6:19 am


      Us liberals are happy to provide that safety net,

      yeah…….IF any of ya paid taxes….ROTFLMAO!!!!

      • Amazona May 13, 2013 / 11:32 am

        Yeah, “us” are happy.

    • neocon01 May 13, 2013 / 6:30 am

      I wonder which TROLL kevin black is??

      • tiredoflibbs May 13, 2013 / 12:08 pm

        “I wonder which TROLL kevin black is??”

        wasn’t there a drone called “kblack77” or some such?

  11. Amazona May 13, 2013 / 11:30 am

    These guys can’t even write a simple post defining their political philosophy, about how best to govern the nation. No wonder they are consumed by envy when faced with people who write whole books.

    The levels of spite, malice and envy oozing out of every one of these troll droppings are astounding. Not surprising, given the sources, but astounding. One might expect them to have enough self-awareness and pretense to dignity to hide their seething jealousy of someone who accomplishes so much more than they can, but evidently neither self-awareness nor dignity are components of the RRL.

    I notice that, true to form, the trolls focus on people and personalities instead of ideas and facts. It’s all part of that TMZ mentality, the Jon-Stewart-as-source-of-news mentality, the fluff-over-substance mentality.

    All they ever bring to the table is squalling, whining, insults and a lot of huh-UHHHHH without anything to back it up.


    • Majordomo Pain May 13, 2013 / 11:43 am

      Amazona many of these things you state are untrue. The simple fact that progressives have a different set of values and beliefs as you or other conservatives does not mean that they cannot define their ideology in terms that you can accept. A chart of the issues of the day showing the views of the right the left and the center would clearly point to everyone what direction each would like to see America take. The problem is that many of the conservative ideals and views as currently expressed are not appealing to the bulk of moderates and are not appealing at all to the Progressives. Now these values and ideals to conservatives are rotted in the Constitution but as has been proven over more than two hundred years of American history, like it or not that document is both living and flexible and must be to take into account the pace of change in the modern age of technology and social change. What has worked in the past, and was considered mandatory to the survival of society in status quo ante, no longer is the case. In its most distilled form conservatives are for rules and social conduct from the traditional recent past which may exclude some groups from maximum freedom and Progressives are for moving forward to assure that the rules and social conduct assure that the maximum amount of freedom can be enjoyed by all.

      • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) May 13, 2013 / 12:51 pm

        Progressives are for moving forward to assure that the rules and social conduct assure that the maximum amount of freedom can be enjoyed by all.

        What a pantload!

      • Amazona May 13, 2013 / 12:52 pm

        And here is where you make my point for me.

        Ideology is not “issues”. The Left has learned that if they can divert attention away from government into “issues” and then divide people into groups based upon their views on these “issues” they can keep people distracted. divided, partisan, mutually distrustful, and in general more easily gulled and manipulated.

        I keep seeing Libs outline their “issues” and not one of them ever has anything to do with actual political ideology.

        Here on this blog many of us have worked very hard to try to shift discourse away from the ever-shifting, always-divisive, “issues” into something substantive about how we should govern our nation.

        Let me tell you my position on your “issues”. It is that many of them should not be issues involving government at all, and those that should involve government are all limited, by the 10th Amendment, to state or local government.

        But we can never drag any of you into an actual substantive discussion on government. which leads us to conclude that you simply do not think that way.

        One more time: I believe that the United States of America should/must be governed according to its Constitution, and that this means that the federal government should/must be severely restricted as to its size, scope and power, and that anything that is not covered in the 17 enumerated duties of the federal government should/must be left to state or local governments, or to the People.

        This is political ideology.

        Now I think that one can agree with this political ideology and still think that the union of two people of the same gender should be called “marriage”. The first is political ideology, the second is not. I think a woman can believe in the political ideology I outlined and still believe in AGW, abortion, the Big Bang, Wicca, the earth being seeded by aliens to create what is now called mankind, astrology—what might be called a “dizzying array” of various personal beliefs.

        The thing is, not one of these “issues” which so divide our nation politically actually have anything to do with how to govern the nation.

        There are people who actually have a clear and coherent belief that the best way to govern our nation is best described by Marx. They truly believe that the best form of governance is one of massive central government and control. THIS is ideology. They can and do argue for this ideology, and try to defend it.

        And it is possible to believe that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman, that Christ came to earth to be the savior of mankind, even that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and still adhere to this political ideology. Many ardent Christians are socialists and believe that the federal government should have not only the duty but the authority to be deeply involved in every aspect of life in this country.

        My complaint is that people do not vote on their ideology, or their convictions about which is the better way to govern the nation, but instead on the very same “issues” that you have all muddled up with political ideology.

        As for whatever you may be talking about, I feel pretty safe in saying that according to my political ideology not one of them should be in the purview of the federal government, and probably a lot of them if not most of them should not be part of government at all.

      • Amazona May 13, 2013 / 12:55 pm

        J.R., you beat me to it.

        Conservatism is about personal freedom, as well as personal responsibility, which means by definition very limited intrusion of government into the personal and private lives of citizens.

        The major pain proclaims: “In its most distilled form conservatives are for rules and social conduct from the traditional recent past which may exclude some groups from maximum freedom and Progressives are for moving forward to assure that the rules and social conduct assure that the maximum amount of freedom can be enjoyed by all.” but represents a political ideology (whether she understands it or not) that is all about a massive, intrusive, powerful central authority which can, and does, and according to her should, dictate to people what they must do and what they cannot do.

      • neocon01 May 13, 2013 / 1:31 pm

        Conservatism is about personal freedom, as well as personal responsibility, which means by definition very limited intrusion of government into the personal and private lives of citizens.


      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 13, 2013 / 5:17 pm

        “Progressives are for moving forward to assure that the rules and social conduct assure (sic) that the maximum amount of freedom can be enjoyed by all.”

        Ignoring the obvious hyperbole of moving forward and the subjective “maximum amount of freedom”, the so-called progressives actually support the idea that freedom is a finite entity which requires rationing; one person’s freedom is limited by another’s.

        In order to insure equal distribution of freedom, the apparatchiks must first determine which person has the greatest historic grievance from exclusion from freedom, then allocate the freedom accordingly; from each according to ability to each according to need.

        Once an equitable distribution of freedom has been achieved, some will find they have less while others have more. This is needed to compensate for previous discrimination from freedom.

        In the end, the totality of all parties will have less freedom than before, but none will have no freedom while others enjoy unlimited freedom; the latter at the expense of the former should not be allowed.

        A shared sacrifice such that a “maximum” amount is attained.

        How much is a maximum freedom in today’s exchange?

        Now, let’s discuss Liberty

      • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) May 13, 2013 / 5:30 pm

        Just as an aside, a flexible constitution is one that can be amended by the legislative process; this is a legal distinction.

        The US Constitution is not flexible by definition.

        The premise of a legal contract that is “living” is absurd.

Comments are closed.