Barack Obama

Nat Hentoff: "Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had"


Via the Cato Institute's Tim Lynch, legendary civil libertarian Nat Hentoff gives Barack Obama's presidency a big fat F in a rollicking interview with John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute. A snippet:

Nat Hentoff: In terms of the Patriot Act, and all the other things he has pledged he would do, such as transparency in government, Obama has reneged on his promises. He pledged to end torture, but he has continued the CIA renditions where you kidnap people and send them to another country to be interrogated. Why is Obama doing that if he doesn't want torture anymore? Throughout Obama's career, he promised to limit the state secrets doctrine which the Bush-Cheney administration had abused enormously. The Bush administration would go into court on any kind of a case that they thought might embarrass them and would argue that it was a state secret and the case should not be continued. Obama is doing the same thing, even though he promised not to.

So in answer to your question, I am beginning to think that this guy is a phony. Obama seems to have no firm principles that I can discern that he will adhere to. His only principle is his own aggrandizement. This is a very dangerous mindset for a president to have.

JW: Do you consider Obama to be worse than George W. Bush?

NH: Oh, much worse. Bush essentially came in with very little qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background but he lacked a certain amount of curiosity, and he depended entirely too much on people like Rumsfeld, Cheney and others. Bush was led astray and we were led astray. However, I never thought that Bush himself was, in any sense, "evil." I am hesitant to say this about Obama. Obama is a bad man in terms of the Constitution. The irony is that Obama was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He would, most of all, know that what he is doing weakens the Constitution.

In fact, we have never had more invasions of privacy than we have now. The Fourth Amendment is on life support and the chief agent of that is the National Security Agency. The NSA has the capacity to keep track of everything we do on the phone and on the internet. Obama has done nothing about that. In fact, he has perpetuated it. He has absolutely no judicial supervision of all of this. So all in all, Obama is a disaster.

Read the whole thing here.

NEXT: Strange New Twist in Scandal Involving Rogue Philadelphia PD Narcotics Unit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nat Hentoff: "Obama is possibly the most dangerous and destructive president we have ever had"

    Pfft! Tell us something we don't know...

    1. Killing all our rights,
      Dumping money straight down the ratholes;
      Doing everything to rob our whole nation blind;
      And while these horrid scum
      Are raping our whole country again,
      I'm wondering if we lost our collective mind.

      Dubya come back! Any kind of fool can see
      We were stupid; we had no cause to doubt you.
      Dubya come back! You can blame my friends and me:
      We were wrong, and we won't live long without you!

      All day long, blood is running from DC's altar;
      Trying to hold back the fires of our arrears,
      But as the states melt down, our cities are all reeling again;
      Who voted for these traitors and queers!?

      Dubya come back! (Come quickly!) Have another term or three;
      There's just no one who does it as well as you.
      Dubya come back! Bring along your friend Cheney.
      We were wrong; we had no good cause to razz you.

      Did we just lose it altogether?
      Temporary insanity?
      Did we blow every last fuse in our heads?
      Are we that crazy?
      Will we be permanently?

      Dubya come back! (Oh, please...) Save our idiocracy!
      Please do something; you've got your wits about you.
      Dubya come back! (Listen, Dubya...) Forgive our idiocy!
      Don't be gone, 'cause we won't live long without you!

      Don't be gone, 'cause we won't live long--

      Dubya come back! (Dubya, please...) Stay 'til the next century;
      We've got nothing better than you old-timers.
      Dubya come back! You could not do this badly
      Even if you were suffering Alzheimer's.

      1. Nobody don't read crappy blog lyrics.

    2. The difference between Osama and Obama:

      One is trying to destroy the country, the other is succeeding.

  2. What makes Obama extra dangerous is that he's building on the Bush foundation, including stuff Bush probably wouldn't have done. He's certainly not undoing the damage.

    The beauty is that we're all losers, now!

    1. I said the same of the last four presidents. Every time, I was accused by $PRESIDENT's supporters of being alarmist. My point was never that I was convinced that *this*president* will be evil, but that he was building up a foundation for his successor to build a fortification upon. A reading of history informs me that it was going on long before I came of age and started watching.

      By now the system is a full blown mecha-godzilla, waiting to be stirred to action.

      1. Shouldn't president be a local variable?

        1. No, I think it's as global as they come.

        2. Bad as the global scope is, the fact that he has overloaded the HopeAndChange() method so many times is way worse when it comes to supporting the Obama object code.

          1. Don't ya know you can get around the Constitution with a simple buffer overrun?

            1. I decompiled the source:

              void HopeAndChange(bool HaveCrisis, int UninformedVoters, int RepublicanScandals) {

              if (HaveCrisis) {
              UninformedVoters += MSM.Distract(UninformedVoters, RepublicanScandals);
              } else {
              HaveCrisis = MSM.ManufactureCrisis(UninformedVoters);

              echo "Look, my administration is dealing with the problems that were created over the last 8 years..."; // TODO: figure out how to solve problems

              return HopeAndChange(HaveCrisis, UninformedVoters, RepublicanScandals++);

              Still working on the MSM code...

          2. I do believe the HopeAndChange() function is declared as pure virtual.

      2. briareus,

        That's a smart observation.

    2. i really get the sense that the (D) or something like that is a major contributor to your opinions of the guy....

      Bush is hands down evil. and BHO isn't as bad. Still over way too many lines, but isn't as bad.

  3. Being worse than Bush is quite the standard to attain, but Obama has reached & surpassed the standard.

    The sad fact is that he is still likely to be reelected, especially if the Republicans nominate that dullard-Sarah Palin.

    1. Unless Obama has a serious come to Jesus session with himself and radically changes the way his presidency is going, there is no way he gets re-elected in 2012. No matter who the Republicans run. Obama's positive poll numbers are currently even with Palin's.

      1. Obama calls those "come to me" sessions.

      2. John, do not make the mistake of underestimating the idiocy of our fellow countrymen. No matter what the polls say.

        1. I am a hopeless optimist. I always think we will come to our senses before it is too late. I really do. I think Obama got in because most people in this country can afford not to care who is President. Well, those days are ending and people are starting to care.

          1. I am optimistically hopeless. I think we are fucked by our own slothful abdication, but we just might luck out by the miscalculated asshattery of these runts at the helm of the realm.

            1. Do you write lyrics for Progressive Metal bands?

              1. Considering the horrible day I've been having, dealing with last-minute Xmas shipping issues and cards, this made me laugh out loud and brightened my mood by at least 3%.

              2. Wouldn't progressive metal require massive government subsidies and union guitarists, while giving poor on-stage performance?

        2. Electing President Palin would be pretty idiotic in its own right.

          Of course, a lot of this is silly speculation; in 2005 everyone thought it would be Hillary vs. Rudy in 2008.

          1. I am not saying they would elect Palin. I am just saying Obama's numbers are pretty bad. I don't think Palin will run anyway. The country desparately needs someone to come in and totally tear down the Washington establishment. Frankly, a RINO Republican establishment type would be a lot worse than Palin. Whoever wins in 2012, they can't just go up there and produce more of the same or people really will check out and get pissed off. And that won't be good.

          2. No more idiotic than the last few elections.

          3. NOT TRUE yo!

            In late 2005/early 2006, I was fully prepared for an Obama presidency. In politics, as in other popularity contests, I tend to assume that the winner will always be the best looking, most eloquent sounding guy.

            I knew for sure when I started hearing the way the news media talked about him... It was like listening to a girl talk about a hot guy she met at a party.

        3. or how much money can be spent between now and 2012 to get the votes.

      3. You're comparing apples to oranges. That compares Obama's job approval numbers to Palin's favorable numbers. Obama's favorable numbers are still 10 over Palin's.

  4. Bush had to answer to someone. The Left went bizerk and the media at least subjected him to criticism. Even if Bush's motivations and ambitions had been totally malevolent, that kept him somewhat in check. But, Obama doesn't have to answer to anyone. The Left and the media will never hold one of their own accountable for anything, except maybe failure to deliver on healthcare, and the Republicans are going to go along with the President on matters of national security. So who does that leave to say anything? Reason?

    1. The media was in love with Bush from 9/11 until things in Iraq started to go south. Also, the MSM isn't as powerful as it once was; its dominance has been shattered by the blogosphere, FoxNews, and talk radio. Look at the bailouts, stimuli, and health care reform: all were championed by the broadcast news orgs and by 24/7 news stations like MSNBC and CNN, but all remain unpopular.

      1. The media was in love with Bush from 9/11 until things in Iraq started to go south.

        No they weren't.Afghanistan was portrayed as a "quagmire" not 3 months in, well before our Iraq incursion.

      2. The media was not in love with Bush, rather 9-11 scared them to death for a couple of months and they dropped the hostility to him for that time, that and they got nostalgia for the WWII level trust in government and "pulling together".

    2. Indeed, part of the reason the media has become so brazen in its liberal bias has been the fact that they have to play to their remaining market, which is mostly lefties of one variety or another.

      1. Media or no, who is going to stand up and make a principled case that Obama is violating civil liberties and ought to be punished for it? I can't see anyone. The Republicans, even if they believed it, won't do it because they won't stand up to a president, even a Democratic one, unless it is for not being hawkish enough. And I can't see the Dems doing it.

    3. I think you meant 'berzerk'.

  5. I am beginning to think that this guy is a phony.

    *outright, prolonged laughter*

    1. Next you'll tell me there's no tooth fairy.

      1. But there is a Truth Fairy.

  6. Hentoff is God.

    1. Blasphemy. God knew Obama was a phony before he was born in Kenya.

      1. That, was beautiful. Bravo!

      2. That's racist!

        1. No one manipsmates Tulpa

  7. I am beginning to think that this guy is a phony.

    Wow, talk about slow on the uptake!

  8. "I hate to judge before all the facts are in, mister President, but it's beginning to look like General Ripper exceeded his authority."

  9. Nat Hentoff is possibly the dumbest right-wing fuck on the planet.

    1. Yet still, if he converted to the Left, would raise the collective IQ of the movement.

        1. Snap-A-Docious!

    2. I little ditty 'bout a pot and a kettle comes to mind

    3. Considering Hentoff has always considered himself a liberal, that's quite an accomplishment!

      1. And spent many years at NYC's Village Voice paper.

    4. Glad to see the SPLC checking in!

      Oh I'm on a list somewhere.

    5. Considering how long it took him to start distrusting Obama, I'd have to agree. Having agreed with Morris, I will now mix up and imbibe an ipecac cocktail.

    6. Did you know that Morris spelled backwards is Sirrom and that both words are essentially anachronisms?

    7. Your major premise is flawed because your minor premise is flawed.

      He is not right-wing.

      No news yet as to whether he is a fuck.

  10. Thank you, Mr. Henthoff.

    Obama is indeed the worst president of my lifetime. Of course, I have a feeling that will only hold true until we elect someone different, since I'm sure whoever it is will be even worse (since he'll likely build off the civil liberties violations of Obama)

      1. Without a doubt.

    1. I wonder what Jimmy Carter thinks of all this. JC was the worst president that I remember. (Bush was bad, but loses out because he wasn't as sanctimonious as Carter)

      Do you think he is happy about the prospect of being deposed as the worst president in recent memory? Or do you think he likes having the title?

  11. Thank you, Mr. Henthoff.

    Obama is indeed the worst president of my lifetime. Of course, I have a feeling that will only hold true until we elect someone different, since I'm sure whoever it is will be even worse (since he'll likely build off the civil liberties violations of Obama)

    1. It was worth repeating.

  12. "Bush was led astray and we were led astray."

    Poor little lamb! Sorry, but I'm beginning to think ol' Nat is getting senile.

    1. If so, at least he had somthing to lose Vannaman. I can understand why that makes you envious.

    2. Senile? Now contrast this interview with a Gore Vidal interview.

      Let us know which one is senile.

  13. lambs need to be slaughtered.

    1. Get it right! It's pigs that must be slaughtered!

  14. We keep getting a president who make the previous president look better by comparison. That's not a good sign for the future.

    I mean, how bad is the next one going to have to be to make Obama look tame? Armed thugs not just outside the polling places but actually inside? Maybe the next guy won't just make the cases against them go away, but give the thugs actual authority.

    1. I think I actually met said armed thug on a recent trip to Philly. He was outside along Market Street on a soap box with a megaphone preaching how the white man needed to be enslaved... I really wanted to confront him but figured I'd be charged with hate speech.

      1. If you would have walked up and punched him out, I gaurentee you they would have made a federal case out of it. So people just walk around like scared sheep and never stand up for themselves. In better days, he would have gotten his ass kicked.

      2. Racist!

        1. i don't get you sometimes. yer way too sensitive about that one...

          1. Racist

      3. Videotape the whole thing, send it to one of Breitbart's sites.

    2. That is a good question. Short of an armed coupe, I am not sure what the answer is.

      1. In Chicago we use armed sedans.

        1. Snap-A-Licious!

          And anyway we don't need an armed coup. If the people were able to exercise some collective cleverness, this could all be over in days without a drop of spilt blood.

          Of course, it is amazingly unlikely that the American citizenry can approach anything like a coordinated act of clever non-violence, so the streets will probably run with blood.

          1. IF the streets run with blood, that'll eliminate a lot of future social security and medicare payments. It's a win-win!

        2. In Cali....of course it's the heavily armed convertible!

          1. I can't believe I said "Cali".....who am I Lightning McQueen?

            1. Im guessing you're just high and too lazy to type -fornia.

      2. If you're planning an armed coupe, I recommend this site.

  15. 'Obama has reneged'


    1. No, not until he calls him a renegger.

      1. Now dats not racist

  16. It's nice to see Obama get shit on some, but the Bush-dupe/Obama-supervillain read will never make sense to me.

    Bush wasn't notably dumber than any president in living memory, except maybe Nixon, and Obama's political evil is ignorant pride, a haughtily reactionary information-free fake-knowing about everything and everyone. Not "curious," that guy. Got it all sorted, before he even saw it. Doesn't even look.

    The same bad things both of them have done, Bush seemed to do out of a wavering surety (that Cheney & Co. were around to shore up), and Obama does because You lookin' at me? On those things, he's Bush with retard strength.

    On everything else, he's just worse, Chicago style.

    1. 9-11 scared the living hell out of Bush. The things he did were at least meant to stop another such thing from happening. I don't think Bush came in with some evil plan to create a police state.

      Obama is a bit different. For at least the second Bush term the Democrats claimed that the terrorism threat was overblown and there was no reason to have things like the Patriot Act. Okay, fair enough. So which is true. Were the Dems lying when they claimed that terrorism doesn't justify the Bush era policies? Or were they telling the truth but see no problem with the policies when used for their ends?

      1. ""Were the Dems lying when they claimed that terrorism doesn't justify the Bush era policies?""

        A politicain was opening their mouth. So yes, they were lying.

        How many dems voted against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act?

  17. his argument is really weak(poor little bushie was taken advantage of by his mean cabinet members, which he was technically responsible for). I do agree with the basic statement though. because from a civil liberties perspective:

    reagan was worse than nixon.
    hw bush was worse than reagan.
    clinton was worse than hw bush
    bush was worse than.....

    they just build on their predecessor's bullshit.

    yeah, i left out carter, i know.

    1. carter gets points for running as a segregationist "redneck" in GA...

    2. If the WOD is left out, what did Regan do that was worse than Nixon. Moreover, again leaving out any WOD issues, what did Nixon do that was worse than LBJ or Kennedy.

      1. Why leave out the WOD issues? They're the source of a decent-sized percentage of the civil liberties violations we're talking about here.

      2. Actually Nixon was quite good on the war on drugs. He was the last president to have a drug policy that didn't emphasize incarceration.

        1. Well, if you leave out suppressing the The Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse aka The Shafer Commission Report, that is.

      3. 1. the WOD was and still is a huge problem, so that's enough.
        2. escalating the 'all out war on the drug menace' at a time when it could've been publicly debated, and establishing culture wars as a BKM for those in government.

  18. I am beginning to think that this guy is a phony.

    You mean not living in the community one is an activist for isn't enough to convince you?

    1. I'm curious why you think that would make one a phony.

      1. I've met both kinds of community activists - those that live in said community and those who were uplifting outsiders.

        1. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say there are two kinds of people and...

  19. please pass health care and cap and trade and get this over with. Please start a new war witha draft as well. I am really tired of waiting for economic collapse. This slow death stuff sucks.

    1. It is not death. The country split in half and killed 6% of the male population and burned the losing half to the ground and somehow survived. Germany and Japan were both taken over by murderous lunatics and ended up losing a war and having their country leveled and they came out okay.

      It will take more than 100 Obama's to wipe this country out. I am actually starting to get optimistic about the long term. I think we are seeing the end of big government liberalism. We are finally hitting a point where we can't afford it anymore and people are waking up to it. Things are definitely going to get worse before they get better. But, what is going on is not going to last and we are going to come out a better country for it after it is over.

      1. John, I hope you are correct. However, I lived in the UK for too long and I fear that is our future.

        1. We are not the Brits. We didn't lose as many people in the World Wars. And we had an influx of Mexicans instead of Muslems and in much smaller percentages than the Brits had. And our immigrants actually assimilated to a degree that didn't happen there. In short, there is still a critical mass of people who can stand up and do something about this.

          But time is running short. If we don't do something in my lifetime, we will end up like the UK.

          1. hope you don't die tomorrow.

          2. have you ever actually been to the UK?
            or ever actually looked up any immigration stats for Britain?
            or even considered the huge numbers of
            immigrants from Poland or other EU countries
            or even the Hindu & Sikhs from india?
            or all the muslim immigrants that are Sufi?

      2. "I think we are seeing the end of big government liberalism. We are finally hitting a point where we can't afford it anymore and people are waking up to it.""

        I though Bush jr. was going to bring the end of big government liberalism?

        People wake up, then go back to sleep. I've been hearing about how ripe it is for a 3rd party candidate for over 20 years.

        Don't get me wrong, I would like to agree with you. But no matter how much it seems like the citizenry gets it, they don't.

        1. Here is the difference between now and when Bush Jr. was in office, we were making money. Big government liberalism is a luxuary item and a parasite. When things are good people don't notice it or care who are not activists. Now the money is running out and people are starting to notice. As Margarat Thatcher once said "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of people to take money from". We are approaching that point now.

          1. when Bush Jr. was in office, we were making money.

            One tends to in a bubble. Unfortunately for your silly little narrative of things, the bubble popped before the socialist arrived.

            1. George W. Bush was a socialist.

            2. Wow ... Tony is right.

              Think I'll go to the garage now and start up the car.

          2. ""Here is the difference between now and when Bush Jr. was in office, we were making money.""

            Who's the we you speak of?

            I'm making a little more money now than when bush was in office, albeit a small cost of living increase by my employer. Did your paycheck shrink this year?

            1. We had an unemployment rate lower the 5% and a growth rate in excess of 3% for most of his second term.

              1. You think comparing what happens in a second term vs first 11 months in office is fair? Come on.

                Obama inherited most of the current economic condition. Bush went as far as TARP to save the economic fall. Have you forgotten that buddy Ben at the Fed is a Bush holdover?

                Obama is not responsible for the cause. He is responsible for the quality of his solutions, or lack of quality as it is.

              2. Yeah, again, I will point out that the bubble was, as always, induced by the Federal Reserve printing an assload of money at the request of Bush era people - As the politician's dipshit response to the tech bubble collapse + 9/11 attacks.

                So what you mean to say John, is that we had completely unsustainable "growth" of 3% for most of his second term, and a 5% unemployment rate by overemploying sectors that grossly misallocated resources.

                The remarkably annoying part is that there's no reason we wouldn't have seen a stable 5% or less unemployment if the market wasn't so distorted. And the bonus would have been that we hadn't massively overbuilt homes, pushing billions of dollars worth of resources into products that massively exceeded demand, and thus wouldn't be faced with a painful readjustment period.

                So Bush/Greenspan did terrible, terrible things to the economy.

                BUT.......... Obama's "fix" today is identical to what Bush's "fix" was in 200 - but on a MUCH bigger scale. So sure, Obama & Bernanke might throw enough money into the economy to temporarily raise employment, etc., but the costs are much much much higher than we experienced this last time. Unfortunately, he's fighting himself as well, by pushing for a highly controlled economy, thereby ensuring stagnation for a long time.

                Speaking of which: I just blogged about this Who's Ready for Stagnation!??

                1. We had a banking crisis on Bush Sr.'s watch too.

                  Somthing about Bush's and banking crisis, Jeb should stay away.

          3. There are far fouler things than big-government liberals that dwell in the dark places of the earth. We must tread lightly to avoid waking them.

      3. You could well be right, but I fear that the inevitable collapse of the modern socialist welfare state and our penny-wise, pound-foolish consumption economy could have even more devastating consequences than the civil war did. Never before has a civilization had such a large population of dependents unequipped with even the most basic and rudimentary skills needed for independent survival.

        1. Ollie Holmes would know what to do....

        2. inevitably, those without skills and without a government teat to suck on will turn to crime. the reason why no gun shop has been able to keep ammo in stock for the last year and a half is that many people recognize this, and are preparing to defend themselves from the criminals that will inevitably break down their doors.

  20. Gabe,

    Sorry, but you'll have to wait. We're either going to come to our senses, or the world is going to learn what happens post Pax Americana. I think it's not pleasant.

    1. Too true!

      Pax Americana may be no more, but the hole left will not remain a vacuum. Some country will fill the void and there will not be a Pax China or Pax Russia and the EU in irrelavant.

      1. I don't think it's quite over yet. We're still asserting some level of military control over much of the world (in the sense that we're perceived as likely to intervene in anything with global implications), and we're still by far the dominant economic power, which also contributes to stability.

        But all that may be changing, if we don't get our act together. I'm okay reducing our policeman role, but the economic collapse, if it comes, could be catastrophic and horrifically destabilizing for many countries.

    2. Last I checked, Pax means "Peace"..... When has that described the US in the last 100 years?

      1. Uh... in 85 of those years?

        WW1 and WW2 were started by European nations, with the US only entering years after hostilities were underway. The Vietnam War was a French thing before we got involved, but I'll count that against us because we did escalate it. Gulf Wars and Korean War we were in at the beginning.

  21. Bush essentially came in with very little qualifications for presidency, not only in terms of his background...

    Disregard who the candidate in question is for a minute, but if being a two term governor of a major state - one of only two or three states* that on their own would be a major world power ? does not count as adequate qualifications, what possible qualification is adequate. Fuck, our current president had something like 143 days experience as a senator before starting his campaign for prez. Comparing GW Bush's pre-inaugural credentials to Obama's is like comparing a Mack truck to a hot wheels toy, not matter how little you think of Bush. It's as bad as arguing that Regan was only an actor, like all actors have been two term governors of California.

    *I'd argue that California, Texas and possibly New York, could stand as major world players if they were countries rather than states. Nope, I am not from CA, TX or NY.

    1. Kentucky could be a right fine 3rd world shithole, thank you very much!

      1. I was on my annual poaching hunting trip in rural Western Kentucky this year. Beautiful country, and thos girls in Murray are hot, hot, hot, just like the girls in the rest of the third world. Guess being near starvation takes care of the fatty problem.

        It was a wonderful thing to ask for a box of .410 pistol shot and a box of .44 magnum and have the guy set it on the counter and ring me up no questions asked. To celebrate, I went out and murdered me some cry-baby liberals. That was so cool.

        1. Murray?!? Oh, you poor thing!

      2. You ever notice that your state shares its initials with a popular brand of lubricant? If y'all want me to consult for your board of tourism to work that into a slogan, my fees are very reasonable.

    2. Ohio could totally kick Slovakia's ass. Fuck you, Slovakia.

    3. Along the same lines of a broken-up USA in the world: I've often thought that, had the South succeeded in getting its independence from the USA and gotten to a decent understanding with the Union, such that it didn't have to constantly fear landward invasion, that it would have given Britain a run for its money as a colonizer. The South was/would have been militaristic, expansionist, explicitly white-supremacist, and on the day of independence one of the five or six top military powers in the world.

      1. I have often thought that to. They would have kicked Latin America's ass. The latins are bitching and moaning about Yankee imperialism when they should be thanking God the North won the civil war and saved them from real imperialism. And if the South was willing to enslave blacks, hard to imagine they wouldn't have found an excuse to do the same to Latin Americans.

        1. Ever seen the movie C.S.A.?

          1. I have flipped by it a few times on cable but never watched it.

            1. It's the tale of a Confederate victory in the Civil War. I've only seen it once and I was kind of halfassedly paying attention but the movie's definitely in the vein of Imperial South and the like.

            2. I have read that Winston Churchill thought that it would have been good if the South had won. Britain would have quickly persuaded it to give up slavery and it would have been much more more closely aligned with Britain so there might not even have been a WW2.
              Sadly i don't think there was any reference as to where Churchill was meant to have said this.

              1. He wrote a meta alt history story called If the South had not won at Gettysburg where the South wins Gettysburg, the Brits recognise them, and the US, CSA and UK decide to all be friends on account of their common English-speaking cultures and pre-empt all the bad things that happen in our universe (such as WW1).

                Quite lame, even for alt-history.

                1. Is that the one where an author in the alternate history where the South won the war, is writing about what would have happened if the North had won (and of course gets everything wrong)? I took that one as more of a shot at the whole idea of alternate history than anything.

              2. You can read it here: http://content.wisconsinhistor.....SHOW=21759

                Are link tags not working for anyone else, btw? Or have I been singled out for special attention by the Squirrel?

        2. Love speculating about alternative histories. I think Confederacy east of Mississippi River would have gone after Cuba and Puerto Rico, and divided up Carribean with their British allies. Western Confed would have kicked out Maxmillian and taken over Mexico as far south as tropics.
          Eventually CSA splits into Land of Cotton and Texas Republic (which controls everything to Los Angeles area.)

          1. I would like to see ones where say for example the persians won the Battle of Thermopylae and the only difference was that madonna would have sold slightly less records or the redskins would have won the last super bowl.

            1. According to the Many Worlds Hypothesis, all that did happen.

              1. No, we won't go back! The Federation's collapsed, the Borg are everywhere!

            2. Read your history books if you want to know what happened after the Persians won the Battle of Thermopylae. Hint, the Spartans all died. Now, let's say if the Persian won at Salamis?

        3. Didn't the Spanish try to enslave the S. Americans and find they were slackers? Oh, I get it...the Southerners would've enslaved the Spanish!

      2. The southward expansion of a victorious Confederacy into all of Latin America is the backdrop of the alt-history novel Bring The Jubilee by Ward Moore.

        Very good book. Much better than the overrated Turtledove, for my reading dollar.

  22. Sadly, I think he may well be right!


  23. Snore. At least Obama thinks with the organ normally designated for that function, rather than with a part of his digestive system.

    1. File for intellectual bankruptcy yet, Tony?

      1. He is expecting a bailout from Obama.

    2. [citation needed]

    3. Haven't you said in the past how horrible torture is and the CIA renditions were no different than torturing in house?

      Its not so bad now, I guess because Obama doesn't think with his digestive system. Now I guess the torture is a little more nuanced.

      1. Funny how quiet some liberals have been about this since The Obama took over. Might make one think their opposition to torture was less principled than political which rather pulls the claimed moral high-ground out from under them. I have noticed the same thing with the anti-war protesters here in town. There is a (now quite small) group that stands outside the courthouse a couple nights a week with signs and flags, but that group has gone from fairly sizable before the election to only a few truly principled holdouts these days. Wonder what happened to the rest of them?

    4. Tony|12.17.09 @ 4:25PM|#

      Snore. At least Il Duce made the trains run on time.


      1. Ahh, Mussolini... the Joe Besser of world dictators.

      2. At least Il Duce made the trains run on time.

        Nope, he just locked up anyone who wouldn't pretend that they did.


    5. Gosh, Tony... if you can't believe Fellow Traveler Hentoff, who CAN you believe?

    6. Tony just loves the taste of that Obama cum. He can't get enough of it.

      1. I wish I could get some of that... *sigh*

    7. Ah ... shut the car off, take pipe out from exhaust, go back to bed and sleep peacefully - Tony has shown himself to be a complete and utter retarded fetus jackass and all is right in the world again

  24. Re: Tony,

    Snore. At least Obama thinks with the organ normally designated for that function, rather than with a part of his digestive system.

    He is? Oh my gosh - NOW I'm scared!!!

    At least with the other way there would be an excuse...

  25. Whitehead and his Rutherford Institute are the dumb asses protesting his Congressman's office location. Seems that the 60 feet from the public sidewalk where they are free to protest through the private parking lot to the Congressman's office is a violation of his First Amendment. Maybe Hentoff can help him out?

  26. Yeah... we'll see in three years I guess. Seems like bullshit hyperbole to me.

  27. Hats off to Hentoff! Exposing the failures of our president takes courage.

    Did I mention that Hentoff is a RACIST! RACIST! RACIST! How dare he criticize our melanized president.

  28. who is hentoff, from what I can see he writes about jazz and shit

  29. Yes, Obama represents a lethal combination of the worst of the right and the worst of the left. He puts a pretty face on government that we should be horrified at.

  30. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Obama's the most dangerous president we've ever had, but he's in charge (more or less) of the most dangerous government we've ever had.


  31. Well...that's blunt and to the point!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.