The great danger — the warrior’s garb sits uneasily on Barack Obama’s shoulders



Super Obama?

September 10, 2008

By Fouad Ajami


The warrior’s garb sits uneasily on Barack Obama’s shoulders: Mr. Obama seeks to reassure Americans that he and his supporters are heirs of Roosevelt and Kennedy; that he, too, could order soldiers to war, stand up to autocracies and rogue regimes. But the widespread skepticism about his ability to do so is warranted.

The crowds in Berlin and Paris that took to him knew their man. He had once presented his willingness to negotiate with Iran as the mark of his diplomacy, the break with the Bush years and the Bush style. But he stepped back from that pledge, and in a blatant echo of President Bush’s mantra on Iran, he was to say that “no options would be off the table” when dealing with Iran. The change came on a visit to Israel, the conversion transparent and not particularly convincing.

Mr. Obama truly believes that he can offer the world beyond America’s shores his biography, his sympathies with strangers. In the great debate over anti-Americanism and its sources, the two candidates couldn’t be more different. Mr. Obama proceeds from the notion of American guilt: We called up the furies, he believes. Our war on terror and our war in Iraq triggered more animus. He proposes to repair for that, and offers himself (again, the biography) as a bridge to the world.

For Mr. Obama, the race is about the claims of modernism. There is “cool,” and the confidence of the meritocracy in him. The Obama way is glib: It glides over the world without really taking it in. It has to it that fluency with political and economic matters that can be acquired in a hurry, an impatience with great moral and political complications. The lightning overseas trip, the quick briefing, and above all a breezy knowingness. Mr. Obama’s way is the way of his peers among the liberal, professional elite.

Mr. Ajami is professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University. He is also an adjunct research fellow of the Hoover Institution.

From HughHewitt:

The great danger is that the new Adminstration will see some upside in talking with Hamas and Hezbollah or their sponsor Iran. There is no possibility of a “grand bargain” with these forces because they are not driven by any objective that can be met short of the destruction of Israel.  If the president-elect conveyed his understanding of this central fact, he’d go a long way towards reassuring the world and the region that we were not in for a Carter-like epic naivete about our enemies.

“President-elect Obama is closely monitoring global events, including the situation in Gaza, but there is one president at a time,” said Brooke Anderson, Obama’s chief national security spokeswoman, in a statement.

We’re told that the president-elect is watching developments closely, and receives daily intelligence briefings on the Mideast (and other regions) from an intelligence staffer who has accompanied him to Hawaii.

in July, while in Israel

OBAMA: “I don’t think any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens. The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if — I don’t even care if I was a politician — if somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.

“FACTBOX — Developments in Israel — Gaza fighting”

From AssociatedPress

The Bush administration has called again for a “sustainable cease-fire” in the Mideast and demands that Hamas stop its attacks on Israel. (Dec. 29)

Phil Berg Barack Obama Ron Polarik Jeff Schreiber

71 Responses to “The great danger — the warrior’s garb sits uneasily on Barack Obama’s shoulders”

  1. sliderblaze Says:

    echm, first

  2. sliderblaze Says:

    DDlew. How bout them Eagles, sorry, had to.

  3. rosettasister Says:

    Polarik Comments at Free Republic: (Part 1 of 3)

    To: seekthetruth; LucyT; Polarik
    So now I see the big picture and the ultimate endgame that the Supreme Court has in mind for Barack Obama. Just like in chess, the winner is the person who sees many moves in advance; in this case the winner is the Supreme Court! They’ve set a checkmate legal trap for Obama, whereby even if there are no objections by any members of congress, the Electoral College’s votes are counted and Obama is declared the presidential winner on January 8th. The Supreme Court has deliberately chosen to wait until January 9th to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari, whereby Berg’s legal standing (harm that can be done to him by Obama) becomes valid! And finally, the Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear to Obama by its deliberate action of allowing for a January 16th conference regarding Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes; that unless he hands over his evidence to them on January 9th—they’ll retroactively cancel the Electoral College’s voting results from January 8th!
    Thanks for the posting. I was trying to make sense of the very strange dates of January 9th and January 16th.
    I hadn’t considered that they’d try to access and alter or replace the original microfiche film. The microfiche image posted online looked like a clumsy forgery; note the two lines immediately to the right of the Obama announcement and how they are to the left of and out of alignment with all text above and below them. I had thought that someone had taken a real microfiche image and altered only the print or digital image of it, not the microfiche itself.
    You describe a very interesting scenario with SCOTUS, and I hope it is proven true.

    191 posted on Sunday, December 28, 2008 8:34:43 PM by thecodont

    To: thecodont
    Keep in mind that (a) the House will be meeting on Jan 6 to validate the voting, if it is not postponed, which is a very real possibiity. Not only can the vote certification be delayed but also the inauguration. You are correct in the Jan 9 date to give the House the chance to require Obama to prove his eligibility before they invalidate the vote. But, like I said, they can postpone the vote certification.
    Point Two: Bush can (and should) issue an Executive Order today calling for Obama’s eligibility to be determined prior to the vote certification. Bush has every right to do so given the major risk to national security posed by Obama given the likelihood that if he turns out to have been born in Kenya, or is a US citizen with a second or third citizenship to one or two hostile Muslim nations.
    I covered all this in another post yesterday.

    204 posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 5:17:32 AM by Polarik

    To: thecodont
    I also suggest a letter-writing campaign to President Bush, the current Commander-in-Chief. requesting that he issue an Executive Order for Obama to obtain the highest-level Security Clearance required to serve as the new Commander-in-Chief.

    205 posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 5:20:43 AM by Polarik

    To: Chief Engineer; Polarik; MHGinTN
    At this time we know also that neither Obama Sr. nor the Dunhams lived at the address listed in the birth announcement.
    Yes, I was aware of research done that proved that fact to a very high degree of probability.
    Do you have any comment on (1) the possibility that microfiches of the 1961 newspapers may have been altered much more recently to instert the respective birth announcements and (2) the seeming oddity of no baby’s name in the Obama birth announcement and, IIRC, none of the others?

    185 posted on Sunday, December 28, 2008 7:23:41 PM by justiceseeker93

    To: justiceseeker93
    See this link:

    208 posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 6:32:06 AM by Polarik

  4. rosettasister Says:

    (Part 2 of 3)

    To: Polarik; LucyT
    “BTW, the vote by the House and VP does not have to take place on January 6. It can be delayed, as well as the date of the Inauguration, and I predict that it will.”
    I have read that the January 6th date had been changed some time ago and it is January 8th for this year only. So I believe the Special Session of Congress IS on the 8th.
    I also agree with your statement. I can not imagine that SCOTUS will pass on this issue and believe they are waiting to see if Congress does their job to uphold the Constitution. Here is a posting another Freeper sent me from ObamaCrimes. In the meantime I am writing, emailing and faxing Reps and Senators from now through January 7th. Hoping many others join in! Here is a great link to the list of addresses for all members of Congress:
    Here is the posting mentioned above:
    The following is an interesting post from
    Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 1
    written by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008
    In my previous analysis of the Berg v. Obama Supreme Court case, I said that the Supreme Court Justices were very sly by scheduling a January 9th conference date in order to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari. Because just one day earlier, congress is to open up the Electoral College’s sealed votes from each state, count the votes and declare a presidential winner. But now there is a new development, which seems very perplexing at first but I believe I can shed light on this news and reinterpret it as a sign of political chess.
    The new development is that on December 18, 2008 Berg filed an injunction (to stay the congressional electoral vote count on January 8, 2009 until Barack Obama proves his qualifications, i.e. that he was born in U.S.A.) and he submitted it to Justice Antonin Scalia. Now the very perplexing news is that this injunction has been granted a conference date of January 16, 2009! I know—you’re all rubbing your eyes in disbelief and also when you put into context that the inauguration is on the 20th of January, I have no doubt that you’re saying, what the ?
    Whenever I try to type a website on my comments, I never get posted on this blog, so I’ll creatively refer you to the following website, type in three ‘W’s’ and then a dot and then type ‘americasright’ then a dot and finally type ‘com’. Read the story ‘Berg’s Application for Injunction Curiously Moves On at Supreme Court’ under Tuesday, December 23, 2008. Jeff Schreiber (the person running this blog), is a law student and he can’t fathom the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to set a date to discuss Berg’s injunction that is well after the time congress will have counted the Electoral College’s votes. In doing so, Jeff feels this conference on January 16, 2009 to discuss Berg’s injunction will be a moot issue.
    However, I see it differently, the Justices of the Supreme Court aren’t sequestered in some castle. The Justices know exactly what the issues are and are constantly being bombarded with similar legal applications to be considered regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility for president. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, if the Justices wanted to dismiss Berg’s writ of certiorari they could have but they deliberately chose to discuss it 24 hours after congress officially counts the Electoral College’s votes; reason being Berg’s issue of standing will now be valid! Once Obama official wins the national vote (via the counting of Electoral College’s votes), Berg’s issue of harm being done to him by Obama now becomes legally valid it is no longer theoretical; thus Berg does have legal standing!
    Now in a political game of chess, the Supreme Court’s manoeuvring of the January 9th date to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari can be seen as a move of check against Obama. Obama is now in a corner but still can move his king chess piece and similarly with the writ of certiorari, Obama still could refuse to deliver evidence proving he was born in United States. I understand why the Justices set a date one week later (January 16) to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes, this move can be seen as check and mate! Meaning Obama’s king can’t move in any direction on the chessboard, thus he’s trapped and has lost the game!
    Setting a date to discuss the injunction on preventing congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes isn’t a moot issue; in this context any judgement is retroactive! So that even if congress has counted the Electoral College’s votes and have declared Obama the presidential winner; if the Supreme Court finds Obama ineligible to be a presidential candidate, they can retroactively cancel the results of the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!
    And that’s why the Supreme Court is allowing for a January 16th conference on Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s vote on January 8th. It’s not a moot issue, it’s a very deliberate political game of entrapment or as in chess it can be seen as a move of checkmate. Because the Supreme Court is basically giving Obama no wiggle room to manoeuvre and escape from the January 9th’s conference of Berg’s writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court is ultimately saying to Obama, if you don’t hand over your evidence to us on January 9th, you will be forced to hand over your evidence to us on January 16th, otherwise we’ll retroactively cancel the results from the Electoral College’s votes that were counted back on January 8th!
    Ok—Now I see the big picture! Part 2
    written by Tom Waite, December 24, 2008
    So now I see the big picture and the ultimate endgame that the Supreme Court has in mind for Barack Obama. Just like in chess, the winner is the person who sees many moves in advance; in this case the winner is the Supreme Court! They’ve set a checkmate legal trap for Obama, whereby even if there are no objections by any members of congress, the Electoral College’s votes are counted and Obama is declared the presidential winner on January 8th. The Supreme Court has deliberately chosen to wait until January 9th to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari, whereby Berg’s legal standing (harm that can be done to him by Obama) becomes valid! And finally, the Supreme Court has made it perfectly clear to Obama by its deliberate action of allowing for a January 16th conference regarding Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes; that unless he hands over his evidence to them on January 9th—they’ll retroactively cancel the Electoral College’s voting results from January 8th!
    I’m smiling so much now because all this time Barack Obama has hired teams of lawyers to go to court and ask to dismiss all these lawsuits that have one similar theme—show proof you were born in the United States. But now because just one of these ‘nuisance’ cases (as Obama sees it) has made it to the Supreme Court, the Justices have already out manoeuvred Obama and his team of high priced attorneys. First, they’ve cornered Obama with a move of check by setting a conference date of January 9th (24 hours after congress counts the Electoral College’s votes) to discuss Berg’s writ of certiorari; the case can’t be dismissed—Berg will have legal standing! And finally the Supreme Court has made its devastating move of checkmate by allowing a conference on January 16th to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress in counting the Electoral College’s votes! There’s no more wriggle room left for Obama because essentially it’s a fait accompli by January 9th for him to hand over his evidence to the Justices otherwise, if he doesn’t comply by January 16th, the Justices’ will have it within their power to retroactively cancel the results from the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!
    So Obama tried to play a game of legal chess against the Supreme Court—well guess what? Obama—you’ve already lost! Checkmate!

    177 posted on Sunday, December 28, 2008 6:10:30 PM by seekthetruth

    To: seekthetruth
    SCOTUS has already “approved” Berg’s writ by scheduling the conference for the injunction to come after its “conference” on the writ, because the latter was dependent upon the former!
    One of two things will happen: (1) the House will either stay the count or conduct the count but delay declaring Obama the winner, pending proof of Obama’s qualifications, and the conference on the 9th will become moot and likely cancelled; or, (2) the House will conduct the count and declare Obama the winner, and the conference becomes a mere formality, paving the way for the conference on the injunction which will absolutely take place if the House declares Obama the winner.

    209 posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 6:47:57 AM by Polarik

  5. rosettasister Says:

    (Part 3 of 3)

    To: LucyT; pissant; SE Mom; Calpernia; Polarik;page=51#64

    To: Kevmo
    The following points come from my conversations with Vital Records staff and the State registrar, Alvin Onaka.
    First of all, back in 1961 Hawaii, EVERY COUPLE would have been listed as Mr. and Mrs. regardless of their actual marital status when their child was born.
    Secondly, there is NOTHING in these birth announcement that indicates WHERE a child was born. This fact alone should squash any hasty conclusion that Obama was “likely” born in Hawaii. Not only is Obama likely to have been born in Kenya, he is more likely to have been born there than Hawaii.
    Barack could have been born anywhere in the world, and when his mom turned over the original birth certificate from an out-of-state location (whether it was Kansas or Kenya) in order to get a Hawaiian Certificate of Birth for Obama, the Health Department recorded the date that was on that foreign certificate, which BTW, was never, ever validated to be genuine and accurate. They DID NOT perform any kind of verification process for out-of-state certificates exchanged for Hawaiian ones and naturally assumed that the original birth certificates were genuine.
    In other words, Obama easily could have been born on a different date in a different country, and the information that was on a foreign birth certificate does not have to reflect reality.
    If Obama was born in Kenya, then the probability of the date on the Kenyan BC being inaccurate is as likely than it being accurate, given that the vast majority of births in Kenya did not occur in hospitals. Even if Obama was born in the best hospital in Kenya, getting local officials to fudge the data was simply a matter of waving around some American dollars.
    Again, keep in mind that Health Department had no way of authenticating an original birth certificate from a foreign country. Whatever was on the foreign BC is what was put on the Hawaiian BC.
    Bottom line: the ads are totally meaningless as far as proving that Obama was born in Hawaii and the probability of getting a bogus BC made, in 1961, and in a country like Kenya, was high.

    94 posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 6:25:55 AM by Polarik

  6. rosettasister Says:

    “Open letter to Member of Congress”

    Please advise of your INTENT TO OBJECT to

  7. rosettasister Says:

    More Good Questions

    “Properly Vetting Obama”

    As the various eligibility lawsuits

    churn on, it is important to keep in mind that America’s founding fathers laid the onus of accountability for our leaders on us, “we, the People.”

    Hence the reason why our constitutional republic is based on the concept of government rule by the consent of the governed.

    However, as blogger and attorney Mario Apuzzo opines,

    Why do we currently have the massive debate over the question of whether Obama is constitutionally qualified to be President?

    On properly vetting Obama, our own political leaders, institutions, political parties, and main stream media have failed the people miserably and they should be taken to task after this is all said and done.

    One example of this failure can be seen from the August 12, 2008 interview by Hannity & Comes of Howard Wolfson, FOX News contributor and former Clinton communications director.

    Hannity asked: “Do you regret not vetting, you know, Senator Obama the way he should have been?”

    Wolfson responded: “No, I mean the media is tasked with the responsibility of vetting candidates. . . .”

    As we can see, all the players involved will simply point the finger at the other on the question of who was suppose to properly vet Obama.

    Another question that we need to ask is why was Obama not vetted properly?

  8. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    afternoon everyone

  9. rosettasister Says:

    Found at CountryFirst:

    Has our mightiest governing document been rendered worthless?

    By Jerry McConnell


    How else can you describe someone who can stand up to the entire citizenry of this great country of three hundred million residents and when asked to do something, simply say that he won’t do it?

    And even more brazenly, go completely against a U.S. Constitutional directive while even our omnipotent Supreme Court hasn’t got the power or directives to order compliance.

    The only man in the history of our country that is mightier than the highest court in our land; simply by refusing to comply.

  10. budgy Says:

    Great posts Rose! I surely pray that these people are correct in their analysis of the SCOTUS’ timing in this matter. There is still “hope” and if the SCOTUS rules Bo ineligible, there will be “change” coming soon. Just not the kind some were expecting.

  11. Tenacity Says:

    I second budgy’s compliment…good posts Rose. I have invited a group of people from all over the country to visit here today and see your excerpts and links.

  12. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    Rose has been a busy bee yesterday and today

  13. patriotamy Says:

    Good information, Rose. Thank you for your hard work.

  14. thinkingmom11 Says:

    Wow Rose – good job the last couple of days – hope I can fully check out all of the good links and articles you have put together. The above discussion was certainly interesting and encouraging!

  15. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    Guess Larry had some wires cut on his car

  16. sliderblaze Says:

    nothing is more dangerous than an idiot with a cause.

    i think you spell jews Juice.

    Fn morons

  17. jjones Says:

    Damned those evil oranges and grapefruits !! 😉

  18. sliderblaze Says:

    i’m sorry, these people need wiped out

  19. jjones Says:

    no they have every right to protest against Isreal bombing them.. I mean, what… they only launched a few hundred rockets at them… is that any reason for Isreal to respond? 🙂

  20. sliderblaze Says:

    i think the estimates are 3000 rockets launched in 2008

  21. sliderblaze Says:

    i think the media should have counter at the bottom of the screen for the next “cease fire”

    number of rockets launched since latest cease fire ( )

  22. jjones Says:

    I just hope they (the Isrealies) don’t screw the pooch again. Last time was quite a debacle.

  23. Tenacity Says:

    Some years ago in Boca Raton, I asked the waitress in a Chinese restaurant if there were any Chinese Jews. I was with 6 of my wild and crazy Jewish friends. The waitress goes back to the kitchen and comes back after about 5 minutes. She says “I sorry, we have tomato juice, apple juice and orange juice, but no Chinese juice.” The whole table was rolling on the floor and p’ing their pants. The poor waitress had no idea why everyone was laughing at her and disappeared from embarrassment.

    So I’m telling some local friends this story the other night while dining at Mt. Fuji Restaurant. So I ask the waitress “Do you know if there are any Chinese Jews?” and immediately I get the same exact reply that I had gotten years ago. I quickly explained to the waitress why everyone was cracking up.

  24. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    Wish everything wasn’t happening right at the wire…
    In Washington state, attorney Stephen Pidgeon is representing 12 plaintiffs in a case that claims to have standing under a unique Washington statute that allows any registered voter to challenge the election of someone who, at the time of the election, was ineligible to hold the office. The suit intends to include a subpoena of Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate. The case is scheduled for argument before the Washington Supreme Court on Jan. 8.

  25. Tenacity Says:

    I like Sinclair’s mechanic’s shirt. I mean if you’re going to do a video, don’t wear a rebel flag. The guy is discredited before he opens his mouth. You need to know that I am proud of the Confederate Flag, but too many people will immediately see the mechanic as a red neck, which he probably is.

  26. justanamericancindy4 Says:


    yeah I saw that too,…… obots will have a field day with the t-shirt making it into something it isn’t

  27. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    Looks like we need to sacrifice a bunch of virgins….. if we cam find any …

    Yellowstone has had 250 small earthquakes since Friday

  28. Tenacity Says:

    The problem with the earthquakes at Yellowstone is that it messes with Ole Faithful and other geysers. That area is on a huge fault. I hope they are not a warm up for a big event.

  29. Tenacity Says:

    I said fault when what I should have said was caldera. That basin has been swelling since 1995 and is believed to be an active volcano. I am always entertained by the uniformitarian thinking by the naturalist so-called scientists and their circular reasoning whenever they try to explain the geology of the area. I’d just like to hear their explanation as to why there is no vegetation (trees) older than 5,000 years old on the earth.

  30. justanamericancindy4 Says:


    yep, there is a super valcano under Yellowstone …. If Yellowstone’s volcano eruptions full force it could truly be an extinction level event

  31. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    The earthquakes are of concern to Scientists….. there has never been this many in this short amount of time. Guess the biggest was Saturday a 3.4

  32. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    a forensic document examiner Sandra Ramsey thinks the online BC is questionable

  33. sliderblaze Says:

    anyone home

  34. Tenacity Says:

    Who do the Eagles play first?

  35. sliderblaze Says:

    Vikings, then, if….when they win, the giants again

  36. sliderblaze Says:

    Eagles play them twice every year, we lost the first, won the second in week 14

  37. Tenacity Says:

    When they win, I take it they will be playing in NY?

  38. sliderblaze Says:

    yes sir

  39. sliderblaze Says:

    we are used to playing there. Eagles are firing on all cylinders as of late. The game against the skins we lost, once again, andy rieds play calling is real suspect. We have a great running back in Westbrook, arguably the best overall player….we need to run that dude more…

  40. Tenacity Says:

    Westbrook will definitely be the key if they are to get past both the Giants and the Panthers.

  41. sliderblaze Says:

    yep, staying healthy is the key

  42. sliderblaze Says:

    Russian prof predicts end of U.S. in 2010
    i wonder if he had any insight on the fall of the USSR…lol

  43. sliderblaze Says:

    McKinney to the Rescue for Hamas

    Free Gaza Group spokeswoman Caoimhe Butterly said their 20-meter yacht Dignity would leave Larnaca port around 5 p.m. (1400GMT) Monday with 3.5 tons of donated supplies.

    She said the yacht would carry 16 passengers, including former US Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney, Cypriot lawmaker and doctor Eleni Theocharous and activists from Britain, Australia, Ireland and Tunisia.

    please, just take out the damn yacht, i dont care if hamas is hit or not, just do us all a freakn favor and turn them into chum….

  44. Tenacity Says:

    I think its just swell that McKinney is going over there. They deserve each other. I figure once she realizes that no one in Gaza will give a rats patoot what she has to say, then she will slap them. Wouldn’t you just love to see that? I say take the yacht out after they get there so they can’t come back.

  45. sliderblaze Says:

    and let them know you are there to help, maybe they’ll make you stand next to a rocket launcher, and tell them to just hang out there for awhile

  46. sliderblaze Says:

    an additional note to the “Death to all Juice” i’d like to have every person he showed that sign to or who was in the planning of that sign, spayed or neutered. i mean, honestly, if your gonna hate a group of people, at least know who ur hating

  47. Tenacity Says:

    So, are we starting a betting pool on whether the SCOTUS takes affirmative action to demand proof of NBC on Jan 9, assuming the electoral vote is not delayed past the 8th? Or whether there is a single courageous Senator and Congressman to object on the 8th? I’m afraid this is one of those situations where I would lean toward betting against my home team and would be very pleased to lose my wager.

  48. Tenacity Says:

    I now see almost all politicians and judges as corrupt and/or gutless. Believing that they will act in an honorable way is like believing that a mutation has the ability to create genetic information…it ain’t happenin’. It’s time to give them no choice but bow to The People.

  49. sliderblaze Says:

    well, i think people are afraid that they will be pegged as nut jobs if they bring the issue up. sackless

  50. sliderblaze Says:

    anyone hear what actually happend to rothlessberger?

  51. j.b. Says:

    Hi All. 🙂 Just checkin’ in.

    Thanks for the recommended reading list, Rose. (I wish I could read in the car) Tomorrow is the last day of Christmas for me. What a whirlwind! Good times, though. Good times.

    Hey, Tenacity, just what do you have against rednecks? Hmmmmm?

    Seriously? I don’t give a sh!t what the guy (or his mechanic friend)wears. Nobody deserves to have their transportation f’d around with!
    Plain and simple.

  52. j.b. Says:

    No, slider, but I don’t know who that is, either.

  53. j.b. Says:

    Oh, wait. Football, right?

  54. j.b. Says:

    Well, that’s a first! I was just told by my computer to “slow down, you’re posting too fast”! Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

  55. j.b. Says:

    What it should ahve said was, “Shut up, you’re talking too loud-to yourself”!


  56. sliderblaze Says:

    ok, Ben was concussed…. he’s been cotton ever since his motor bicycle accident

  57. sliderblaze Says:

    has Ohole made a statement about the Gaza situation yet?

  58. j.b. Says:

    Kind of. I just (kind of ) read it.

  59. Tenacity Says:

    I’m a southern boy (or should I say BOY). Some of my best friends are red necks. I trust them as much or more than any segment of society. I just thought that Sinclair would have done himself a favor by not making it so obvious because of the perception of many. It’s too bad he didn’t have a security cam video of the criminal/coward that sabotaged his brakes. But then I don’t see water-boarding as enough to stop a terrorist coward or gain information to follow the money.

  60. sliderblaze Says:

    great take

  61. j.b. Says:

    h t t p://

    Real niiiiiiiiiiiice. I used to BUY that rag! I like the rebuttal. Anyone else here read at NB’s? Good stuff. imo.

    I hear ya, Ten. I bought Larry’s book, btw. Can’t wait to get it, read it and transcribe all the good parts here! 🙂

    Oh! I think that whole bidnez about the SCOTUS sounds plausible! I AM geeked. Again. 🙂

    Okay, g’night.

  62. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    very Interesting read; I don’t know if it has been posted before..

  63. peppermintpatty777 Says:

    Hello–anyone home?

    I’ve missed everyone. Hope to be back on a regular basis this next week. Think I’ll go to Israel and hold up a great big red/white/blue Ole’ Glory!

    Have not had time to read most of the posts but know that the Israel/Gaza conflict has been a topic. Iv’e done a lot of work in Israel and what makes me so stomping mad is that there are so many Jewish agencies/people in Israel that risk life and limb to go to Palestinian held lands to bring people to Israel’s best hospitals and doctors for treatment—while Hamas and Pal. terrorists try to kill the Jewish peoples! These people (Hama, Pal. radicals) are so mucked in the head that they don’t know anything but violence.

  64. hockeyfan530 Says:

    wow, that’s a wild read. This all gives me a headache and angers me everytime i read about barry. Barry is just too crazy to believe

  65. hockeyfan530 Says:

    last night i got a very annoying computer virus. At one point 2 browsers popped up and I heard barry’s voice and a link the othert was for his little collecters plate. Viruses are bad enough…but to have one that pops up barry’s voice really pisses me off. I go to great lengths to avoid hearing his voice, seeing his image or any “news” about him (unless it’s investigative so no MSM “news)

  66. rosettasister Says:

    kay Says:
    December 30, 2008 at 1:17 am


    Welcome, kay!

    In case you see this, please join us at most recent post.

    The link is just above your post.

    You should be able to post at will now.

    I will copy your post to new thread.


  67. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    Welcome Kay

    Bam Bam is anti God, anti American ….. he just doesn’t deserve to be President

  68. justanamericancindy4 Says:

    Palin’s daughter had her baby, a boy and named him Tripp
    The libs are having a field day making fun of them over at the article. I tried to post and it wasn’t accepted, guess they only want Palin bashing.

  69. peppermintpatty777 Says:

    Hi JAC and everyone–

    Hope you all had a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays…

    BO can’t tolerate God–hmmm wonder how God tolerates BO– I believe God will have the last word in it all!

  70. thinkingmom11 Says:

    I had briefly heard that that punk atheist Newdow is trying to get them to take out the “So help me God” part out of the oath…That guy makes me so mad. That phrase was added by George Washington at the first inauguration. I would think HE would know if that phrase went against the Constitution for crying out loud.

  71. rosettasister Says:

    Good morning, America! How are you?!

    New Thread:

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: