Prophecy Comes True!

Posted by Jack

A  94-year-old prophecy is fulfilled

H.L. Mencken (born 1880 – died 1956) was a journalist, satirist, critic and registered Democrat.


He wrote the editorial below while working for the Baltimore Evening Sun, which appeared in the July 26,1920 edition.

“As democracy is perfected, the office of the President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people.
On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will
Be occupied by a downright fool and complete narcissistic moron.”
– H.L.  Mencken, the Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

So it was written, and so it has come to pass!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Prophecy Comes True!

  1. Dewey says:

    2000 – 2008

    Yep was the stolen election decided by the SCOTUS for the administration That created ISIS problem.

    GW Bush!

  2. Tina says:

    Amazing isn’t it Jack?

    It’s disconcerting to realize that there were so many of them to choose from…we couldn’t miss!

  3. Tina says:

    Dewey you are sadly misinformed about the entire sordid mess. Scotus did not “decide” the winner. Scotus ruled on a state of Florida law and the decision stopped the insanity of counting and hanging chads.

    November 12, 2001, NYT, “Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote”

    April 2001, PBS, “Media Recount: Bush Won the 2000 Election”

    The Gore had called Bush to concede but lawyers from his campaign decided there might be a way to steal the election challenging vote counting in democrat controlled precincts. The plan sowed the seeds of their shame when the Supreme Court found that Gore could not challenge in only selected precincts because it was against Florida law to do so.

    Several newspapers went to Florida to investigate and all of them came to the same conclusion…BUSH WON FAIR AND SQUARE.

    Democrats once again tried to win by manipulation, deception, and fraudulent counting. They also tried to make sure military votes didn’t count that year. Despicable.

  4. Dewey says:

    Tina I am not misinformed you are.

    In Fact if I wanted to waste time giving facts that would not even be discussed here I can make a case that we need to look at the legitimacy of every republican president elected since Eisenhower. He was the last legitimate Rep president.

    Sorry but You are DEAD WRONG

    In fact I am beginning to think the coup started with the assignation of JFK. Although the mafia Killed him the CIA was well aware. Oswald was CIA Patsy.

    SO yes GW Bush was a stolen election and there is more than enough proof. Do you even know John Roberts History?

    The same people get these political positions as they move up the ladder and have been in the conservative political machine for years! Know your modern History!

    Do you even know Ted Cruz’s small part in Bush V Gore?

  5. Tina says:

    Let’s see…

    I present facts regarding the actual ruling of the Supreme Court as well as evidence that investigations found GWB would have won even without all the hanging chad distraction.

    You declare that I am “DEAD WRONG” and go off on a tangent about JFK and coup conspiracy theory.

    And our readers are supposed to buy that the election was stolen by Bush?

    “Do you even know Ted Cruz’s small part in Bush V Gore?”

    Yes…he got people on the religious right to come out and vote…oh the horrors…people on the right voting! It’s a scandal, is what it is.

    And then, being a lawyer, he served on the Bush legal team thus allowing the Republican Bush team legal representation in the matter before the courts! How dare he practice in his trained profession!

    He also had the unmitigated gall to have served under one of the judges (Rehnquist) at some point in his career…just awful!

    The left, or the uninformed, likes to write things like, “Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over the wildly controversial Bush v. Gore Supreme Court decision, which effectively shut down the 2000 election vote recount in Florida, thus handing the presidency to Bush.”

    That’s a derogatory sentence lacking correct information that deceives those who read it.It also uses weasel words like “wildly” and “effectively shut down” to make it seem conspiratorial, when it was simply a legitimate legal dispute about the Florida election laws.

    The courts ruling can be read here.

    While I agree that there are powerful people who work in politics to greatly influence who runs I do not accept silly conspiracy theories, especially when there is no compelling assertion of criminal or fraudulent activity. I also firmly believe that left media has played an influential part in picking Republican candidates…the candidates they want the Democrats to run against. Lets face it until social media came along the left had a lock on what got reported and how.

    You are going to have to do better Dewey if you want anyone to take your assertions seriously…and please one thing at a time…focus!

  6. Peggy says:

    It is no wonder this county is such a big “mell of a hess.” Our leader is “out to lunch,” on the golf course or at a fundraiser instead of attending security briefings.

    Obama’s Attendance of Daily Security Briefings Shows He’s Out-to-Lunch, Often Quite Literally:

    “The White House has a intelligence-focused Presidential Daily Brief scheduled for President Obama. But, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Institute, the President has attended 42.1% of them since he was sworn in.

    This not-so-stunning revelation certainly might answer a few questions about such international quagmires such as the Benghazi attack and the horrors currently going on in the Middle East.”

    See link to report.
    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/182726-new-report-daily-security-briefings-provides-possible-explanation-obama-seems-totally-touch/

  7. Post Scripts says:

    ATTENTION DEWEY:

    (sample)
    2009 – Mike Duvall, a Republican politician and a former member of the California State Assembly, resigned after his sex comments were broadcast in Sept. 2009.
    2010 – Paul Stanley, Republican former member of the Tennessee Sen., resigned from the state Senate effective Aug. 10, after his affair with a 22-year-old intern and a subsequent extortion attempt was revealed to the public.
    Arizona State Senator Scott Bundgaard (R) resigned just before the State Senate Ethics Committee was expected to recommend his expulsion after allegations of assault on his girlfriend.
    Delaware State Senator candidate Eric Bodenweiser, (R) was accused of 117 counts of child molestation.[27] Shortly before his arrest, Bodenweiser abruptly ended his State Senate campaign in District 19. Bodenweiser has pled not guilty.
    Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer (R) resigned from his position and was later arrested on six counts of fraud for stealing at least $125,000 from the Republican Party (United States). (2010).

    Dewey, your statement that republicans never get busted because they always buy their way out of trouble is a blatant lie and I just proved it.

    Republicans get busted and/or expelled from the GOP every year. We’re not proud of this, but unlike democrats, republicans have no problem kicking out law breakers and people of low moral behavior that brings shame on themselves and the party they represent.

    However, the ugly truth that should be obvious by now is that politicians are no longer the best of us, as it was intended by our founding fathers. I’m sad to say politics with its power and money attracts too many opportunists. I would love to see candidates take an ethical pledge before entering office that will force them out if they behave in a scandalous manner.

    Dewey, maybe you were confused because it is true that you read about democrats being arrested in some sort scandal far more often? Is that where your lie stems from? But, has it occurred to you that it could be because democrats break the law and do corrupt things far more often than republicans?

    The statistics do prove it, but I’m sure you are not interested in knowing that or you would never had told your big lie in the first place. Glad I could set you straight.

  8. Tina says:

    Dewey: “BTW way Tina it is not the Job of the supreme court to decide elections nor legislate law. You did hit on one point.”

    Excuse me Dewey the SC did not decide an election or legislate law (whatever that means). It decided, on petittion, whether the SC of Florida’s decision was Constitutional.

    The Supreme Court did not rule on the election as you suggest with your absurd accusation.

    The Supreme court overturned a lower court decision to allow Al Gore’s team to change, ignore, and sidestep Florida election law. Gores team tried to recount votes in three Democrat controlled precincts, and the activists methids to decide the election were shoddy and this led to the debacle of hanging chads, counts, recounts and arguments about what counted and what didn’t.

    the following were A excerpted from the SC decision and illustrate the problem and the decision:

    As seems to have been acknowledged at oral argument, the standards for accepting or rejecting contested ballots might vary not only from county to county but indeed within a single county from one recount team to another.

    The record provides some examples. A monitor in
    Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment.

    An early case in our one person, one vote jurisprudence arose when a State accorded arbitrary and disparate treatment to voters in its different counties. Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368 (1963). The Court found a constitutional violation. We relied on these principles in the context of the Presidential selection process in Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814 (1969), where we invalidated a county-based procedure that diluted the influence of citizens in larger counties in the nominating process. There we observed that “[t]he idea that one group can be granted greater voting strength than another is hostile to the one man, one vote basis of our representative government.” Id., at 819.

    The court cited other problems and finally decided:

    In addition to these difficulties the actual process by which the votes were to be counted under the Florida Supreme Court’s decision raises further concerns. That order did not specify who would recount the ballots. The county canvassing boards were forced to pull together ad hoc teams comprised of judges from various Circuits who had no previous training in handling and interpreting ballots. Furthermore, while others were permitted to observe, they were prohibited from objecting during the recount.

    The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.

    The question before the Court is not whether local entities, in the exercise of their expertise, may develop different systems for implementing elections. Instead, we are presented with a situation where a state court with the power to assure uniformity has ordered a statewide recount with minimal procedural safeguards. When a court orders a statewide remedy, there must be at least some assurance that the rudimentary requirements of equal treatment and fundamental fairness are satisfied.

    Given the Court’s assessment that the recount process underway was probably being conducted in an unconstitutional manner, the Court stayed the order directing the recount so it could hear this case and render an expedited decision. The contest provision, as it was mandated by the State Supreme Court, ,b>is not well calculated to sustain the confidence that all citizens must have in the outcome of elections. …

    Because it is evident that any recount seeking to meet the December 12 date will be unconstitutional for the reasons we have discussed, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida ordering a recount to proceed.

    Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See post, at 6 (Souter, J., dissenting); post, at 2, 15 (Breyer, J., dissenting). The only disagreement is as to the remedy. Because the Florida Supreme Court has said that the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. § 5 Justice Breyer’s proposed remedy–remanding to the Florida Supreme Court for its ordering of a constitutionally proper contest until December 18-contemplates action in violation of the Florida election code, and hence could not be part of an “appropriate” order authorized by Fla. Stat. §102.168(8) (2000). (emphasis mine)

    “You have a problem with actual votes deciding an election not a supreme court?”

    Wrong. I support all votes being counted and I support election laws being upheld. I also support decision when they find the constitution and equal protections have been compromised. The supreme court decides cases about those.

    Can you see how you jump to wrong conclusions?

    You have a problem, Dewey. I don’t know if it’s a learning problem, a problem focusing, or some other malady but you do have a problem getting what has been communicated.

    “many voters were purged off rolls”

    If they were it was because they were ineligible to vote: dead, moved, married and forgot to re-register under new name, incarcerated for federal crimes, etc. Felons are ineligible to vote. This “purging” would be an act that supports a true vote count.

    If anyone in Florida was attempting to steal the election it was the radical Democrat activist left…isn’t it always!

    Dewey you have proven on these pages time and again that you are a nut with weird conspiracy theories and delusions that you are part of a huge revolutionary movement…you are delusional. Not only do you not have the facts, the facts you do have are often twisted or flat out wrong. An example is what happened in Florida.

    There is really nothing else to say.

Comments are closed.