The First Review (and the score of "3" is for this review):
The author lists clearly and concisely the sixty-four actions he/she believes to be an impeachable offense committed by President Barak Obama. Most of the statements appear to have enough information for readers to follow up on for proof for or against. I did notice on web site being referenced in the body of the text. There is also a list of web sites, however, they appear to have been added after the fact. In any case, as of today, 06-20-2011, there is a list at the download page (before downloading).

If this "article" is editorial, then references are not required, although they are very helpful.

The Second Review:

@ Pablo Tempe (rating of "2")

If you could have provided clear indications of skewed objectivity, then that may have been helpful both as a literary review, and as your editorial regarding the content.

If you are providing an editorial response to the content of the article, then I would say that your remarks are fine, but out of place at this location.

Your remarks as a review of this literary item are not helpful. Your statment, "He cites no proof, nor any historical references to back up his weak claims." Not true. See item #54 in the list.

Upon reviewing your remarks, with no other input, I really would not have a clear idea about whether or not I should spend my time reading the article.

Third Review:

@ Graham W (rating of 1)
Your review, Graham, is purely political. Your remarks seem well modulated, however, you have also failed to provide references and/or specifics for several of your key claims. So I must assume that you are providing an editorial to the contents of the article.

You are incorrect in stating that the authors provide absolutely NO references. In the body of the text, at Item 54-Supreme Court tampering, a government web address is provided.

Even as an editorial, it would have been helpful if you had provided clarification regarding some of your terminology. After all, as I imagine you know, "One man's trash/propaganda is another man's treasure/factual reality." (paraphrase of a well know saying, author unknown)

AT A POLITICAL BLOG, It would really be great for you to choose about three statements, as a minimum, from the list, and either prove or disprove them with your own research. That would allow readers of your review to judge for themselves whether your remarks are helpful.

Regarding your remark, "One sign of wisdom is being able to grant procedural fairness to everyone--even one's enemies."

What does this mean? Are you speaking from a literary standpoint? Or, are you referring to the legal status of the sixty-four complaints/accusations in the article? If you are speaking to the legal status of the accused in the article, then what are the due processes that, in your opinion, were denied?

In any case, every American voter and citizen has both the right and responsibility to "listen" to, and critically analyze the remarks of any who make remarks. There is no legal standing that I can see here, and if there is, let whomever feels the need to, pursue the appropriate legal avenues. As far as I know, the Obama's and their crew have not been denied due process regarding any legal proceeding.

This writer has too much emotional capital invested in the subject to write objectively. He cites no proof, nor any historical references to back up his weak claims.

 
Before I commenced writing I asked myself why waste time reviewing this document. The answer was almost immediate: it's because I still hold now-seemingly-radical notions such as 'in a democracy everyone should be equal before the law', and 'the law should treat everyone equally and fairly', and the idea that 'irrespective of subject matter, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. Quaint they may be but I was indoctrinated years ago when once such views were commonplace.

The claims in this document, 'The 64 Impeachable Offenses of Barack Hussein Obama', are extraordinary and thus require extraordinary proof. Some statements in this document are simply irrelevant being just political opinion and the others are just statements without any justification. I've no idea whether any, some or all of the remaining claims are factual but on the evidence--of which there's none presented here--I'd give more credence to Dorothy having actually visited Oz than it being a dream.

This document cites no references, no proof whatsoever--not even an author. Its mantra follows the well-known formula of repeating a single and thus simple worldview many times together with many minor variations until many of its audience succumb and say 'yes, there's things in that worldview with which I agree'.

The 'simple worldview' notion is used widely and extensively by advertising agencies, the public relations industry, spin merchants, political propagandists and even many so-called news organizations because very unfortunately the formula works extraordinarily well (and there's no simple or immediate antidote as the propaganda becomes ingrained, almost hardwired). What is not well known--or usually left unmentioned because it's politically incorrect to do so--is to mention the name of the detestable little man who authored the document that turned the basic worldview notion into a high art form. His infamous document can be read here:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb54.htm

The propagandist's key tactic is reinforcement whether it's by repetition, sweeping statement, outrageous comment or all combined, and this document has them all in spades. The most egregious statement is in the introduction where the author audaciously says:

"As anyone can see from the list [64 points] below, no one else in history has generated more justification for impeachment."

This upfront reinforcement presupposes that every one of the 64 points is relevant, valid and proven true when in fact the document provides absolutely no factual evidence or references whosoever. It is unfortunate that many will accept such strong statements as fact and that they do so without question. This, of course, is the key to the propagandist's success.

Yes, the level of hypocrisy out there in propaganda-land is simply appalling. As I see it, in the interests of democracy and the betterment of our lives generally, it's incumbent on those who see through these deceptive and dishonest ruses to expose them for what they really are--even if we agree or are politically aligned with the perpetrators.

I'll finish this review with another quaint notion: 'a democracy works when the citizenry elects leaders by majority vote and the minority gracefully accepts that decision but opposes its new leaders' policies through the long-established and accepted practice of open public debate and rational argument whilst biding their time until new elections'.

One sign of wisdom is being able to grant procedural fairness to everyone--even one's enemies.