« Pinch Yourself | Main | The McLaughlin Group »

November 01, 2008



(Maybe Monica can bring this to the attention of one of her media sidekicks, PB.)


Pat, you are a COWARD! There are 10 lawsuits challenging Obama's birth certificate in State courts and one in the Supreme Court and all you can do is opine about whether Mr Hussein is a socialist or not? OF COURSE HE IS A SOCIALIST! And, according to polls, almost HALF of America supports income redistribution, so what are you trying to achieve with this article? Half the people who read it will agree with you and continue to despise Obama and the other half agree with you and continue to support Obama. He is hiding his original (long-form) birth certificate because:

a) He doesn't have one
b) It will show he is not an natural born citizen
c) It contains information he knows he can't release to the public

Any one of the above reasons can put him out of the running. Your unneeded article, only a few days before the election, wont do a thing. The cowardly judges will continue to toss out the pending lawsuits unless the deceptive Obama main stream media starts reporting this story. Of course they wont until other people in the media and politics such as yourself make this story impossible to ignore. WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME LEFT!

obamacrimes.com FRANK BLACK, NY, NY

gringoNOTE: Disagree with the last sentence. Even if the Obamascam "wins" on Teusday, in effect perpetrating an historic fraud on the most sacred secular document in America, the US Constitution, Barry and his perps may think they're home free. Let them jump for joy. It's not over, Baby. Stay tuned. As GringoBro the Cracker Rapper said, "I think libruls gonna find out somethin'." We hear you, GringoBro.


gringoNOTE: The following is a dire warning of a potential historic Constitutional crisis concerning Barack Obama and the Presidency. You may ask: What kind of "political plant" or "right-wing loon" is this? Uh, the writer is not one I have even cited yet in the ongoing gringomanic investigation, which has included others issuing such dire warnings, like Attorney Phillip Berg, a lifelong liberal Democrat and Attorney Raymond Kraft. Today's authority is a man with approximately four times the Harvard degrees of Barack Obama, including in the Law. He is on the Harvard Faculty. He is a distinguished Constitutional scholar.



By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008


America is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history. Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen” of the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets. Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.”

Account Deleted

Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Editor of the Financial Times, who sometimes appears on the McLaughlin Group, wrote a great piece yesterday on the future of the Republican Party:

"Demise of Reaganomics poses grave intellectual challenge to Republicans"


Her conclusion:

"On the campaign trail, McCain has dealt with his party's intellectual crisis by ignoring it. When he talks about the economy, it is to make the traditional promise of keeping taxes and government spending low. He also delivers the traditional warning that the Democrats are "socialists" and "redistributors". If McCain manages a surprise victory next week, it might well be because socialism remains a dirty word in American English. But, whether they find themselves in government or in the wilderness, on November 5 the Republicans will need to confront the new reality that opposing socialism has become insufficient as a political and economic agenda."

Account Deleted

Alan Reynolds blasts Factcheck.org in The Wall Street Journal:

"Obama's '$4 Billion for Exxon' Myth: Why haven't the 'fact-checkers' done a better job?"


"That is not economics; it is not even competent bookkeeping."

The bottom line:

"In a new Tax & Budget Bulletin at Cato.org, Jack Mintz of the University of Calgary estimates that a federal-state corporate tax rate higher than 28% loses money for the government."


"... an accelerated version of Mr. McCain's original plan -- to cut the corporate tax rate to 28%-30% and expense investments in business equipment -- is by far the most potent "stimulus plan" anyone has yet proposed. And far from costing $200 billion a year, as Mr. Obama claims, it wouldn't cost a dime."


By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D. (Harvard Faculty)
October 29, 2008

Whether the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born Citizen” who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,” but only asked to provide the public with the original copy of some official record that establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his eligibility—unless he can not?

Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948).

In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.” This is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s eligibility for “the Office of President” will not deny his supporters a “right” to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have any such “right” at all. For, just as Obama’s “right” to stand for election to “the Office of President” is contingent upon his being “a natural born Citizen,” so too are the “rights” of his partisans to vote for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.” If Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right” to vote for him. Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional duty to vote against him.

The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue




Bravo! Thank you for hitting the nail on the head. Employing thug style Chicago politics and silencing your critics is change we can all believe in?

"We have ways of making you sign the papers old man."


JUST WORDS: Barack Obama And Business Taxes:

ARLINGTON, VA -- This afternoon, Barack Obama told CNN's Wolf Blitzer that there was an argument for cutting business tax rates -- despite attacking the very same tax cuts earlier today. Once again, the American people are left with a tax plan that changes by the day and is little more than just words. Check out the facts below:

"By Barack Obama's own measure, Obama now supports billions in 'tax cuts for big oil companies' and corporations that are sending American jobs overseas. The truth: Barack Obama has a difficult time coming to terms with the devastating effects of his own economic plan, is learning as he goes and just isn't ready yet." -- Tucker Bounds, McCain-Palin 2008 spokesman

Today, Barack Obama Remained Open To Cutting The Business Tax Rate

Barack Obama: "And, In Fact, You Can Make An Argument For Lowering The Corporate Tax Rate." CNN'S WOLF BLITZER: "At a time of economic distress, is it wise to increase the corporate tax rate?" OBAMA: "We're not increasing the corporate tax rate." BLITZER: "I know, but there's some talk that you want to increase it, it's 35% right now. you talked about --" OBAMA: "Where is that talk coming from?" BLITZER: "I don't know, you tell me. You want to keep it at 35%?" OBAMA: "I have no plans for increasing the corporate tax rate. And, in fact, you can make an argument for lowering the corporate tax rate, but only if you, at the same time, close all the corporate loopholes. The problem we have right now, on paper we've got a high corporate tax rate; in actual terms, corporations aren't paying their fair share." (CNN's "Situation Roo m," 10/31/08)

• Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehT82CXU3Bw
But Even Today, Barack Obama Decried These Very Same Business Tax Cuts

Just Today, Barack Obama Decried Giving Tax Cuts To American Businesses. OBAMA: "At a moment like this, the last thing we can afford is four more years of the tired, old theory that says we should give more to billionaires and big corporations and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Des Moines, IA, 10/31/08)

Barack Obama: "It's Not Change When He Wants To Give $200 Billion To The Biggest Corporations Or $4 Billion To The Oil Companies." (CNN's "American Morning," 10/29/08)

Barack Obama Criticized John McCain For Proposing "Another Huge And Permanent Corporate Tax Cut." OBAMA: "Senator McCain used the crisis as an excuse to push a so-called stimulus plan that offered another huge and permanent corporate tax cut, including $4 billion to the big oil companies, but no immediate help for workers." (MSNBC's "Countdown," 9/16/08)

In Addition To Changing His Position On Business Tax Cuts, The Obama-Biden Campaign Has Changed Their Tax Plan Numerous Times In The Past Week

CHANGE #1 ($250,000): In July 2008, Barack Obama Said: "If You Make $250,000 A Year Or Less, We Will Not Raise Your Taxes. We Will Cut Your Taxes." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Powder Springs, GA, 7/8/08)

CHANGE #2 ($200,000): In New Obama Ad "Defining Moment" The Threshold For The Obama Tax Plan For Families Seeing A Tax Cut Is Lowered From $250,000 To $200,000. OBAMA AD: "The Obama Plan: Families Making Less Than $200,000 Get Tax Cut." (Obama Ad, "Defining Moment," 10/25/08)

CHANGE #3: In An Interview With A Scranton, PA, News Station, Joe Biden Said That Only Families Making Under $150,000 Would Get A Tax Cut. BIDEN: "Spreading the wealth was not--he was talking about is all of the tax breaks have gone to the very, very wealthy. For example you have right now, this year, under the old tax policy that was just -- that was put in by George Bush, people making an average 1.4 million a year, good people, decent people, patriotic -- they're going to get an $87 billion tax break. What we're saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn't need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people -- people making under $150,000 a year." (Joe Biden, Interview With WNEP Scranton, 10/27/08)

• Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAEE1_IUycs
CHANGE #4: Obama-Biden Campaign Aides Said That Those Making Between $150,000 And $250,000 Will Actually Not See A Tax Increase Or A Tax Cut. "Biden aides say his comments were actually consistent with Obama's tax plan -- people under $150,000 get a cut, and people making up to $250,000 stay the same." (Mark Murray and Mike Memoli, "$150,000 Vs. $250,000," MSNBC's "First Read" Blog, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com, Posted 10/28/08)

CHANGE #5: Obama Surrogate Governor Richardson Said Only Those Making Less Than $120,000 Would Get A Tax Cut. GOVERNOR RICHARDSON: "What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class and there is a tax cut for those." (Governor Richardson, Interview On KOA-AM, 10/31/08)

• Listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G88ebXY2uaI


Statement On Barack Obama Hedging On Foreign Policy:

ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement concerning Barack Obama's hedging on foreign policy and Iran:

"Earlier today, when asked about efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, Senator Obama said he might apply tougher sanctions -- 'potentially.' I have called for tougher sanctions against Iran for years. I have supported tougher sanctions during this campaign that Barack Obama opposed, and if elected, I would work to lead an international effort to put tougher sanctions in place -- not potentially but actually. Senator Obama last year opposed legislation with broad bipartisan support that called for tougher sanctions on Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for its terrorist activities. Senator Obama was also asked today about capturing Osama bin Laden -- he said he would 'try him, apply the death penalty to him where it is necessary.' I do not know why Senator Obama would have any doubt that it is necessary. There is no one more deserving of execution than Osama bin Laden. If he survives capture, the death penalty would be necessar y, just and appropriate. Senator Obama continues to hedge his bets on national security issues showing his inexperience and weakness. Senator Obama's comments demonstrate once again that America cannot afford untested leadership when facing the threats posed by Iran and Osama bin Laden."


Barack Obama
CNN's "Situation Room"
October 31, 2008

CNN'S WOLF BLITZER: Senator McCain says he knows how to capture Bin Laden and he says I'll get him, if he's elected president. Do you know how to capture Bin Laden?

BARACK OBAMA: I'm reminded of -- he said this during the debate. I think that night, maybe, Jon Stewart on Comedy Central said, you know, why have you been holding out on us over the last six years? The fact is, along with George Bush, John McCain championed the strategy that distracted us from capturing Bin Laden that focused on Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. And so clearly, Senator McCain doesn't know how to capture Bin Laden because he was supportive of a huge strategic blunder when it came to accomplishing the task. I will focus on what Secretary Gates and others have indicated is our number one security threat, and that is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We will go after him. We will kill him or capture him, try him, apply the death penalty to him where it is necessary. That's the threat we should have stayed focused on. That's the threat I will focus on when I'm president.

BLITZER: Senator McCain says that if he's elected president, Iran will not become a nuclear power. Can you make that same commitment?

OBAMA: Well, I've said I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I think it would be a game-changer. It would not be acceptable. It would be a threat to our strongest ally in the region, Israel. But it would also potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. And we have to both apply much tougher diplomacy and sanctions, potentially, if they do not move in a better direction. We have to give them some inducements to walk away from their nuclear program and we should never take a military option off the table.




By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.(Harvard Faculty)
October 29, 2008

These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.”


ZOGBY SATURDAY: Republican John McCain has pulled back within the margin of error... The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama 48% to 47% in Friday, one day, polling. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all...



Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.



Friday, October 31, 2008 8:04 AM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Iraq isn't the only place where the surge seems to be working. John McCain's gains over the last five days are remaking the political landscape as Election Day approaches.

The double-digit leads Barack Obama held last week have evaporated, as all three of the top tracking polls (the most current and reliable measurements out there) show McCain hot on Obama's heels.

Zogby had Obama ahead by 12 points last week — now it's down to 4. His margin in the Rasmussen poll has dropped from 8 points to 3 in the last few days. Gallup shows only a 2-point difference.

In each news cycle, Obama is on the defensive — staving off accusations of closet socialism and trying to wriggle out of his once overt advocacy of income redistribution. "Spreading the wealth around" has become the anti-Obama slogan and might become the epitaph for his candidacy, just as "brainwashed" was for George Romney and "Where's the beef?" was for Gary Hart.

Then, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's image is returning to haunt Obama. Yes, McCain refused to use the issue in his own campaign, but independent groups like goptrust.com are using funds from tens of thousands of individual donors to run ads featuring Wright and his relationship with Obama.

contd. http://www.newsmax.com/morris/polls_mccain_obama/2008/10/31/146232.html

J. Pierpont Finch

OBAMA's "SHARE THE WEALTH of a STATIC PIE" policies will be a disaster for our economy and standard of living as such policies were a disaster in The Soviet Union, Cuba, Zimbabue,.....

An important quote from John F Kennedy comes to mind which Obama needs to understand:




NOTE: gringINTEL does not agree or disagree with the following speculations, retrieved from open sources....

sgrant said...
WOOF said "...if there was any potential here, powers that be in the party would have seen to it there were better lawyers on it much earlier. We are going to have to beat Obama at the polls."

I disagree. The Republicans know the BC issue is the nuclear option and they're saving it as a last resort. They want McCain to win outright on Nov. 4 and then they don't have to worry about it. Hence, their attempts to supress the information right now, including the governor of Hawaii who is Republican.

The way I BELIEVE it will play out...

BamBam will win Nov. 4. He and Pebbles will have a few days to revel in the spotlight and think they've pulled it off. They'll grin and giggle and think they're above the law, but that will force the hand of the Republicans and the Clinton gang, and the nuclear card will have to be played before the electors vote on Dec. 15. Once BamBam is rendered inelligible by the courts, the electors only have one choice on Dec. 15, and that's John McCain. Game, set, match.

Lock and load, because that's when it hits the fan.

To be continued...

October 30, 2008 7:26 PM



She tells all that she knows and she knows a lot.

Egs. The real reason Obama didn't select Hillary for VP (gringoVision 'intuited' it long ago)

What they really think of Sarah Palin

Why the polls are misleading

The so-called Bradley Effefct etc etc

Revealing? Roger that.


Christian Drappi

Flawless post, Monica. I was watching the O'Reilly Factor, and just before you came on, Bill was addressing the media. http://www.journalism.org/node/13436 - It turns out, FOX is fair and balanced... Everyone else - not so much.

You're completely right, all everyone does is ask questions!

And good find Gringoman


Caller from Newport News just called Monica reporting on the successful rally in Virginia. He said 3x the expected crowds showed up to show support in COLD temperatures. The crowd was on fire.


Monica said to say goodbye to the 2nd Amendment along with the 1st in an Obama Administration.

Another reason to Vote for McCain


Monica just reported:

"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Saturday he didn't know his aunt was living in the United States illegally and believes that laws covering the situation should be followed."

Sound familiar:

As Monica points out:

"Not the Tony Rezko I knew...
That is not the Reverend Wright I knew... those weren't the sermons I heard.
I had no idea Bill Ayers was a domestic terrorist...he was just another guy in the neighborhood."


Monica is reminding everyone that John McCain will be on "Saturday Night Live" tonight.


The latest Zogby Tracking Poll show McCain with a one point lead nationally. I think McCain is coming back in a lot of states and the American people are beginning to see the real Barack Obama. How can anyone individual hang out with so many radical loons and still claim to be a moderate new kind of politician? The guy is a rock hard leftwing radical that makes George McGovern look reasonable, and the American people are beginning to see the light thanks to a few people like Monica and Sean Hannity. Certainly the main stream media is giving him a free pass.

The problem with his arrogance is that the main stream media gives him a free pass all day long, and then when he is confronted by a real journalist with Fox News or a few other places he goes crazy. How dare they ask a difficult question. Joe Biden when confronted with a question that the main stream media wouldn't have asked in a million years freaked out. By the way, has there been any sitings of Joe Biden lately? I think he is under the witness protection plan.

It funny to me that the main stream media has gone out of its way to attack Sarah Palin, but now at the close of the campaign she is out there speaking to huge crowds and Joe Biden is under the witness protection plan because of his idiotic mistakes.


(Foxnews)Barack Obama said Saturday he was unaware that one of his relatives from Kenya was living in the United States illegally and added that believes the appropriate laws should be followed.

The Associated Press reported Friday that Obama's aunt had been instructed to leave the country four years ago by an immigration judge who rejected her request for asylum from her native Kenya.

The woman, Zeituni Onyango is living in public housing in Boston and is the half-sister of Obama's late father .

"Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed," the Obama campaign said in a written statement given to FOX News.
One thing the main streaming media has refused to cover is Obama's relationship to his extended families. I understand a lot of his extended families is living in dire poverty, and the good Senator hasn't done squat for them. What a family man he is.

Matt Carolan

Good summary. I agree that some of this smacks of real arrogance. That has been apparent also from the fake presidential seal and the Kennedy-esque Germany speech. Pride goes before a fall.


I thought this was a great interview with Elizabeth Vargas because Governor Palin was just so strong and confident.

My favorite points:

"She said questions about her wardrobe and whether she could be vice president and raise a family at the same time were questions never asked of male candidates. "


"Palin was unapologetic about her attacks on Obama and his relationship to 1960s radical Bill Ayers, and Wednesday she linked Obama to Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor and former PLO associate. Palin has also accused the Democrat of promoting socialism. "

Peggy Noonan is also mentioned in the interview.


(Above post, quote from Freeland)Her conclusion:

"On the campaign trail, McCain has dealt with his party's intellectual crisis by ignoring it. When he talks about the economy, it is to make the traditional promise of keeping taxes and government spending low. He also delivers the traditional warning that the Democrats are "socialists" and "redistributors". If McCain manages a surprise victory next week, it might well be because socialism remains a dirty word in American English. But, whether they find themselves in government or in the wilderness, on November 5 the Republicans will need to confront the new reality that opposing socialism has become insufficient as a political and economic agenda."
I have seen Freeland on several shows and this is pure elitist drivel. Republicans oppose socialism because socialism is WRONG, period. It leads to economic collapse and a reduction of individual freedoms. If fighting against socialism doesn't fit the "new reality" then the new reality will just have jto change because conservatives ARE GOING TO FIGHT SOCIALISM UNTIL HELL FREEZES OVER. Nitwits and elitist snobs will just have to move to Cuba or France if they want to give in to the socialist elites.


Steve, the French all hate Paris FYI. Their problem is excessive unionizing and thus they vote in blocs for whatever the union tells them to.

A lot of them have become used to not working too hard.. and thus they have their socialism even if they hate a lot about it.

It's hard to run a small business over there too.

This goes for Germany, Holland and all the rest of them too.

France and Italy though are the worst.

In Italy they make the small cafes give their customers a printed receipt so they can't do any extra cash sales off the books.

It's disgusting.

Italians all hate it because they often don;t give the receipts to foreigners since they don't know about hit.

A foreigner isn't likely to be an undercover tax inspector either.


I am a strong supporter of objective and unbiased media coverage, and I was appalled by what appeared,
arguably, to be a specific attempt to exclude opposing view coverage.

If you are undecided or would like good information about the candidates, please check out TeamSarah.Org.

The comments to this entry are closed.