« Country On Fire | Main | Spitzer Spits Again »

October 26, 2007



Ultimately, I believe that Romney will get the nomination. Giuliani comes with way too much baggage. New Yorkers despise him. And Romney actually looks presidential, while Giuliani simply does not.


Here is some background about Spitzer's plan for giving driver's licenses to illegals and some of the players involved.



Here is an article about the expensive scanning machinery that Spitzer will use for his driver's license plan. The machines don't work.



New York State Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco is a vocal critic of Spitzer's plan to give illegal's driver's licenses. He plans to sue the Governor on behalf of the People of New York. Look what happened to the funding for his free health clinic.


Monica, you should invite Assembly Leader James Tedisco, and County Clerks Frank Merola and Kathleen Marchione on your show to talk about this issue.



Would you ask Mitt what he plans to do to secure the borders?


As Monica has demonstrated unusual interest in both Romney and the Don Imus hatcheting, here is an extremely relevant question for her to put on the air: Mitt, your wonderful success story, Staples, was one of the advertisers that folded on Imus like a cheap you-know-what when the Clinton/Soros/Tawana Sharpton m'fug hit team struck. What say you, my man?

Romney, of the self-styled "conservative base" then (a)pleads ignorance like a pol (b) says he'll get back to her on that after the Election (3) very articulately explains that under campaign rules he is now fully divested of Staples, has nothing to do with their decisions and so--ha-ha, old girl---you see, I'm free.

In which case. does Monica (a) ask him what he would have done differently from what the current weasels at Staples did do? (b) remind him that her listeners are supposed to be smarter after her show, not dumber? (3) Does she, as a radio first, heave on air? or (4) Is it all kissy-kissy downhill from there on?



Romney may be right about Giuliani. His tenacity and administrative skills would make him a worthy opponent for Hillary. But, can he win the primary? His liberal stances are a major roadblock.
Unless the religious and conservative base sacrifice principles and opt for pragmatism, he can kiss that trophy goodbye.


I'm as a loss to understand why Monica Crowley seems to support Mitt Romney. Especially since Monica Crowley claims to be a conservative. All the evidence points to Mitt Romney as a "big government" liberal who is an avid supporter of liberal issues such as gay rights. And now that he is running for president he is desperately trying to pass himself off as a conservative.

There is no crime in being a liberal, just be honest( I think in "beltway-speak this is called being disingenuous )about it. This goes for Monica Crowley as well as Mitt Romney. Here is an article that shows Mitt's support for liberal causes. I hope the "conservative" Monica Crowley and her readers finds it enlightening.



Monica Crowley's positions rarely make sense because she's not that bright.



How would someone who suffers from lack of mental vision know what's bright from what isn't?

BTW Jacko, thought you said goodbye. What happened? Forgot to take your shadow with you?


Has it ever struck you that when history is reviewed, the liberals are usually in the right, and the conservatives are usually in the wrong? For example, during their time, the abolitionists were viewed as nuts, but, looking back, it's the conservatives who defended the existence of slavery who were clearly in the wrong.

The same with civil rights. The marchers and freedom riders were the nuts back then, right? But looking back, we know they were in the right.

When today's events are history, the people who still supported George W. Bush in 2007, when it was clear that he was a total failure with no "mental vision", will be viewed as the nuts.

J. Pierpont Finch



By Frosty Wooldridge
October 29, 2007

Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, "Mexican visitor's lament" -- 10/25/07.




Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67 percent drop out/flunk out rate via thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver's four percent unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.
If 20 million illegal aliens returned "home" --





Drain on America's economy; taxpayers harmed, employers get rich



Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the "progressives" on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11 percent of our greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico’s poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California in what the New York Times called, “colonias” or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, electricity, roads or any kind of sanitation. The New York Times reported them to be America’s new “Third World” inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I’ve seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it’s sickening beyond anything you can imagine.) By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico.

High integrity, ethical invitation



© 2007 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved


Charlie/Finch -- Other blogs are not a good source to cite to support arguments on another blog. Do you ever cite any credible sources?

Anyone who still supports Bush clearly doesn't get his information from reliable sources. Watch a lot of Fox and read a lot of Ann Coulter, do you?



I see that you're very proud of the shackles which liberalism has placed on you.
Reminds me of the negro who looked down his nose at another, because his massa owned more slaves.

FYI, the liberals of today are a different species from those of yesteryear. (with the passage of time, some words, like gay and liberal, take on different shades of meanings)

In Lincoln's time, liberals were generous and just, and their beliefs were anchored in Judeo/Christian ethics. Slavery was an anathema and atrocity to them.

Most of todays libs are atheistic and materialistic, and their ideology has its roots in Marx and Lenin.
The message: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs!" looks good and alluring, esp. to the poor and downtrodden, but it is sheer fantasy.
Such theories are suitable for insects like bees and ants, and may even work in small villages and communities, but never on large or national scales. We're mammals, and weren't designed to live like that.

In countries that tried it, it resulted in 'state capitalism'--that hated word among socialists and communists. Top party members then became the bourgeoisie and royalty.

Had the US adopted such measures, it is very unlikely that it would have been the great nation that it is.
Innovative spirits of men like Edison, Bell, etc. would have been quenched, and the amenities and luxuries which we enjoy today, and take for granted, would have been nonexistent.

"Useful idiots' like you don't know any better, though, and try to scuttle the ship that affords you freedom and safety.


This country was founded by people who didn't accept the norm. Sounds a lot like liberals, the people you condemn.

Your thinking is very limited if you equate liberalism with communism.

And Charlie/Finch, must you ramble on and on? You could have said the same crap as you did in a paragraph.

BTW -- nice use of the word "massa" . . . why did you find it necessary to say that that way, in a manner that mocks slaves? Little racism sneaking in there?

The comments to this entry are closed.