a small dose of reality

keeping it semi real, promoting conservatives, taking potshots at fools, democrats other than Obama, liberals, the left, know it alls, the dnc, etc., reviews of models, pundits and blogs

I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said. 

William F. Buckley, Jr.


Bigmouth Jim Webb Clams Up and Lets Phillip Thompson Take Gun Rap

@ 01:09 AM (96 months, 16 days ago)


First Webb has Thompson carrying his gun into a government building, then the illusionist bails on his aide.  What a sterling example of a self proclaimed straight talker revealing that his talk was whatever it took to get elected.  At the first chance after being elected to man up, Webb takes the Hillary route.

Police complaint reveals Thompson's statements: "The defendant stated that he was in possession of a pistol and two magazines belonging to Senator Jim Webb. The defendant further stated that he inadvertently left the gun that he was safekeeping from the previous days." Webb may be pleased to know that, according to the complaint, "the weapon was test fired and is operable."

And how does Webb feel about the whole thing? Surprise surprise Webb says nothing.  Pretty unusual for the habitual bigmouth.

"I use this to keep happy when my aide has my gun."


Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.



Chris Rock Calls President Bush a Retard on March 17, 2007 Saturday Night Live

@ 10:29 PM (96 months, 18 days ago)


Every once in a while I just have to be serious.  This story seriously pissed me off.  One reads so much democrat bullshit and this sort of thing happens all the time and the democrats think it's OK.  Well, this dead Senator doesn't think it's OK.

I was tempted to write on this subject the following day.  However, I thought it my be interesting to see if I heard it referred to anywhere at all.  When I heard it I was shocked.  Chris Rock called President Bush a "retard" on national television is NBC can be called that.  A week goes by and it is mentioned nowhere in the media.

Suppose Dick Cheney said "Hillary Clinton is a retard".  Would Congress have already issued subpoenas for his sworn testimony on this subject?  Hell YES.

The media would be all over that like flies on shit.  (I know, the more apt analogy would be shit on shit - but that is a little confusing).  I was pissed of when I heard it last week and the hyposcrisy and double standards piss me off a week later.  I KNEW it was not be acknowledged, much less condemned.


Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.


julio pino of Kent State - Cleveland Plain Dealer Letters to the Editor March 24, 2007

@ 05:20 PM (96 months, 19 days ago)


When is the announcement of the official pino investigation going to be made public.  There is so much smoke, one has to suspect a fire.  Take a look:


In response to "Jihadist's trail may lead to KSU" (Sunday):

As a wise person once wrote, the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact. Our constitutional right to freedom of speech does not extend to speech that undermines the very political system that makes this freedom possible. However, if Professor Julio Pino of Kent State University has his way, we will all be living under Islamic law, and we will no longer enjoy any of the rights we have under our Constitution, including the freedom of speech that Pino has invoked to protect his jihadist writings.

Indeed, KSU should have fired Pino after it found out that he published a poem praising a Palestinian suicide bomber and that he runs a blog that promotes violent jihad and applauds the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, the university granted him tenure and said that Pino is entitled to "academic freedom." The simple fact, of course, is that if Pino and his fellow jihadists were to win their war against the West, there would be no academic freedom in universities, since such freedom contradicts Islamic law.

It is a shame and a scandal that the taxpayers of the state of Ohio are being forced to pay the salary of a man who is hiding behind the freedoms granted by the Constitution in order to subvert them.

James Schneider and Mary Schneider Avon Lake


The jihadist story is a chill ing reminder of the hate that surrounds us.

Professor Julio Pino, the self-professed man of "faith" and "Lover of Angels" also calls himself "the most dangerous Muslim in America" and refers to suicide bombers and mass murderers as his heroes. And Kent State University still allows him to teach impressionable students?

The leaders of KSU should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to employ Pino. I can understand the university respecting the First Amendment right to free speech. But the university should take action on two other counts: first, the safety of its students; second, educational integrity. I would not want my children sitting in the classroom of a man who not only celebrated the killing of two innocent civilians, but also wrote a poem about it. A man who celebrates death should not be around students.

But he is also implementing poor historical and pedagogical practices. If you are going to teach about the Middle East conflict, but you only offer the Palestinian viewpoint, you are doing students a disservice by not presenting the case of Israelis.

Teachers must present all sides of a complicated issue and allow students to draw their own conclusions and find their own truths.

Brooke Collier, Moreland Hills

Click HERE to see what Kent Staters are currently saying about pino


Please join the voices of these and hundreds of thousand of other Americans and don't stop until Kent State throws pino out.


Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.


Army, Navy, Marine Political Correctness

@ 11:51 PM (96 months, 21 days ago)


U.S. Navy Directive 16134 [Inappropriate T-Shirts]

The following directive was issued by the commanding officer of all naval installations in the
Middle East, and it was obviously directed at the Marines.

To: All Commands

Subject: Inappropriate T-Shirts

Ref: ComMidEastFor Inst 16134//24 K

All commanders promulgate upon receipt, The following T-shirts are no longer to be worn on or off base by any military or civilian personnel serving in the Middle East:

"Eat Pork Or Die" [both English and Arabic versions]

"Shrine Busters" [Various. Show burning min arets or bomb/artillery shells impacting Islamic shrines. Some with unit logos.]

"Napalm, Sticks Like Crazy" [Both English and Arabic versions]

"Goat - it isn't just for breakfast any more." [Both English and Arabic versions]

"The road to
Paradise begins with me." [Mostly Arabic versions but some in English. Some show sniper scope cross-hairs]

"Guns don't kill people. I kill people." [Both Arabic and English versions]

"Pork. The other white meat." [Arabic version]

"Infidel" [English, Arabic and other coalition force languages.]

The above T-shirts are to be removed from Post Exchanges upon receipt of this directive.

In addition, the following signs are to be removed upon receipt of this message:

"Islamic Reli gious Services Will Be Held at the
Firing Range At 0800 Daily."

"Do we really need 'smart bombs' to drop on these dumb bastards?"

All commands are instructed to implement sensitivity training upon receipt.




Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.



Who Exactly Are the Americans Terrorists Intend to Slaughter?

@ 11:09 PM (96 months, 25 days ago)


You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.

So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is . So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)

"An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.

An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim.
In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.

An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.

The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return.

When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!

As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan. Americans welcome the best of everything...the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best services. But they also welcome the least.

The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty , welcomes your tired an d your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the! people who built America.

Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different t countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.
< BR>

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

New York Times and Time Magazine Slam Hillary - HUH?

@ 12:04 AM (96 months, 26 days ago)


Bill Morris has his finger on the Hillary pulse, what a yucky job:

On the same day that the Time Magazine released its poll showing Hillary tumbling, The New York Times published an interview with Hillary Clinton that will haunt her for the remainder of the campaign. Asked about her twisted, convoluted, contradictory Iraq policy, she avowed a determination to stay in Iraq after she becomes president!
 A few weeks ago, she said she’d end the war in 20009 when she was elected president. Now she’s saying that she’d “start” to end the war. And just a few ago, Hillary said she would vote for an amendment to the appropriations bill calling for a total withdrawal from Iraq by March of 2008 (and sooner if the Iraqi government doesn’t meet certain specified goals during the interim). While the other 534 Senators and Congressmen see the amendment as a cutoff of funding, she insists it merely sets a “goal.” 
This is Classic Clinton – as in ‘it depends on what the meaning of is is.”
(By the way, Hillary apparently doesn’t like to read the bills she backs. She claims that her 2002 vote to authorize the President to send American troops into Iraq was actually a mandate for ongoing UN inspection and now this specific cutoff of funds for the troops is, in her view, merely advisory).
So she wants to pull out but also keep the troops there – end the war, but keep it going – in other words, have her cake and eat it too!
She told The New York Times that “I think we will have a remaining military as well as political mission, trying to contain the extremists [in Iraq].” She elaborated on what the troops would do once she took office:
·       “help the Kurds manage their various problems in the north,”
·        “prevent Iran from crossing the border and having too much  influence inside Iraq.”
·       “logistical support, air support, and training support” for Iraqi troops
Her latest position provides Obama with an easy ability to contrast his positions on the war with hers. The Illinois Senator says flatly that we should pull out totally and that he thinks the war was always a mistake and still is.
Of course, Hillary is right and Obama is wrong. We can no more completely pull out of Iraq than we could have withdrawn from NATO during the cold war. But her position will severely damage her support and credibility among Democrats who want a total cutoff of all funding for the war. In the latest Fox News poll, Democrats supported the withdrawal by 77-18.
Until the Times interview, the only serious issue separating Obama and Clinton was the irrelevant one of whether she should apologize for her vote authorizing the war. But now she has created a huge issue by announcing her decision to stay in Iraq.
Hillary’s plan sounds downright Republican and very much like one ventured by former Rumsfeld deputy Dov S. Zakheim who estimates that this more limited mission would require only 75,000 troops, down from the 160,000 we will have there after Bush reinforces our presence this year.
Her pessimism comes at a time when US combat deaths in Iraq have dropped by 25% from 88 every thirty days to 66 now that Bush’s redeployment is taking place. It also comes as the Iraqi government is celebrating a huge drop in Baghdad violence.
So, why does Hillary do this?
First, as a woman candidate, she is always sensitive to gender stereotypes that question a woman’s ability to be an effective Commander-in-Chief. So, she has to show that she’s tough.
And, second, she is in awe of some of the generals and military types who provide her with advice on the Armed Services Committee. She wants their approval.
So, she tries to have it both ways.
Hillary’s constant flip-flopping on Iraq will bring her no end of grief in the primaries.

Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.


Hillary Campaign Taking on Water - Biden and Dodd Gaining Steam

@ 06:51 PM (96 months, 27 days ago)


Again compliments of Dick Morris, is he the man or what?

Why is Hillary Clinton’s campaign team -- supposedly so experienced and so far superior to those of the other candidates-- advising her straight into defeat?
She’s gone steadily downhill since she announced, and at this rate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd will be ahead of her in a few months.
One key reason may be that her ‘team’ may not be used to working in Democratic primaries and never expected any real opposition this time. They simply don’t know how to deal with the nuances of a primary, as we can see in what’s happened to her ratings.
Bill Clinton didn’t have a primary in 1996 and Hillary has none in 2000 and only token opposition in 2006. So, two of her top three advisers – Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson,- have had no experience in serious national primary campaigns.  It shows. And the third member of the top tier, Mandy Grunwald, is a film producer, not a strategist.
But one thing is clear: All of them, and Hillary, too, expected to simply walk away with the Democratic nomination and then grab the White House. Just like the two New York Senate races.
But then along came Obama.
After his announcement, Hillary had no choice. She had to jump in. But she and her advisers still thought that she could run as a sort of imperial- incumbent- in- waiting whose ascendancy was a given.
That didn’t work.
Obama and Edwards didn’t hesitate to criticize call her on her Iraq war vote. (The one that was never mentioned in the New York Senate campaign) And the Democratic left has repeatedly challenged her conservative positions.
Her advisers thought that they could use the same tactics that they had used in the Clinton White House and in her two virtually unopposed Senate races. And so they attacked Obama.
Those didn’t work.
Instead of helping her, she completely lost her lead over black voters. It was a disaster.
They thought that she would charm the voters once they got to know her.
That certainly hasn’t worked.
It’s going to be a very long campaign and already, she doesn’t seem to be wearing too well. A year and a half more of Hillary as Oprah is not something to look forward to. The flat voice, the canned lines, the “Bill and I” lines are already grating on her listeners. So far, the ‘charm’ hasn’t worked.
They thought that the voters wouldn’t pick up on her flip flops and canned lines.
They were wrong about that. She’s been castigated by the left at every campaign stop and the term ‘scripted’ is probably the single most frequently used description of her.
They thought that they could still treat the emotional and angry rantings of Bill Clinton as if they were the emotional and angry rantings of a sitting President of the United States. So when he said: “Attack”, they aimed.
That backfired.
They thought that Bill Clinton was her ace in the hole – the world’s best political consultant, her private guru, who would guide her to an easy and early victory.
But that certainly hasn’t been true. His clouded judgment and obsession with rewriting his own legacy gets in the way of objective advice.
So, the woman with most brilliant political team in the country has been repeatedly outmaneuvered and outsmarted. She’s on the defensive and going downhill.
Her attack dog Wolfson has been put on the bench. Bill Clinton has been relegated to private fund raisers. And Hillary is tanking in the polls.
Some team!

Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.


Hillary No Longer Considered Black by Blacks

@ 06:47 PM (96 months, 27 days ago)


Compliments of Dick Morris:
The wholesale migration of Democratic African-Americans voters towards Barack Obama and away from Hillary Clinton accelerated this week and began to reach epic proportions. Hillary has now gone from a 3:1 lead among blacks to an 11 point lead to a dead even 36-36 tie, all in the wake of her criticism of Obama.
The result is that the Democratic presidential race is now a decidedly two-way affair. Time Magazine’s most recent poll shows Hillary’s margin diminished to seven points (30-23) with Obama actually one point ahead in the West and only four back in the South. Virtually all of Hillary’s lead comes from a 2:1 margin in the northeast. But overall, Hillary has fallen in the Time polls from 40% in January to 30% in early March, while Obama has risen from 21 to 23 in the same period.
How did Hillary screw it up?
First, she blundered badly by sending out her rabid attack dog Howard Wolfson to criticize Hollywood mogul David Geffen for his attacks on the Clintons. Geffen described Bill as “reckless” and bemoaned the pardons the former president passed out, especially to fugitive Marc Rich.
That was way too much for the former president and syndicated columnist Bob Novack reports that he flew into a Clintonian rage – the sort we all saw when he unloaded on Chris Wallace on Fox News. Clinton’s advisors (read flunkees) huddled by conference call in the wake of his tirade and decided to please Bill and Hillary and lash back at Geffen.
That was a huge mistake. Obama had been wondering how to gain among blacks without embracing Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson – whose support would alienate white voters. Hillary’s attack solved his problem. Faced with a white candidate rapping an African-American, blacks deserted Hillary and brought Obama to within eleven points of the former First Lady.
Then the Clinton team panicked and made the second mistake: Sending Bill and Hillary to Selma, Alabama to horn in on the 42nd anniversary celebration of the voting rights march. That was Obama’s day and Hillary’s attempted one-upsmanship cost her dearly. Voters laughed at her affected preacher’s southern drawl and blacks snickered cynically when she said that Martin Luther King had cleared the way for her candidacy for president! Apparently they had all noticed that she’s not black and Obama is!
The Selma bounce – which we predicted last week – has now materialized and all but extinguished Hillary’s front runner status as Obama surged into a close second place. Of course a big part of the credit belongs to the Illinois Senator for his courageous speech in Selma where he criticized the “anti-intellectualism” of the black community where if you “know how to conjugate a verb” you are seen as acting “white.”
Now it is very likely that Obama and Hillary will continue slugging it out until February 5th of next year, when the race will be over. As of now, this has become a two-way race!!!

Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.



Hillary United States Attorney Hypocrisy - Web Hubbell Anyone?

@ 11:28 PM (97 months, 6 hours ago)


Once again Clinton is caught in another whopper.  Does she think the American people are STUPID?  Is Hillary STUPID?  Imagine how deep a hole she will dig for herself between now and the first primary.  First she loses to Obama in the Selma "Who is Blacker?" contest.  What next?

Compliments of the Wall Street Journal:

"Congressional Democrats are in full cry over the news this week that the Administration's decision to fire eight U.S. Attorneys originated from--gasp--the White House. Senator Hillary Clinton joined the fun yesterday, blaming President Bush for "the politicization of our prosecutorial system." Oh, my.

As it happens, Mrs. Clinton is just the Senator to walk point on this issue of dismissing U.S. attorneys because she has direct personal experience. In any Congressional probe of the matter, we'd suggest she call herself as the first witness--and bring along Webster Hubbell as her chief counsel.

As everyone once knew but has tried to forget, Mr. Hubbell was a former partner of Mrs. Clinton at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock who later went to jail for mail fraud and tax evasion. He was also Bill and Hillary Clinton's choice as Associate Attorney General in the Justice Department when Janet Reno, his nominal superior, simultaneously fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys in March 1993. Ms. Reno--or Mr. Hubbell--gave them 10 days to move out of their offices.

At the time, President Clinton presented the move as something perfectly ordinary: "All those people are routinely replaced," he told reporters, "and I have not done anything differently." In fact, the dismissals were unprecedented: Previous Presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, had both retained holdovers from the previous Administration and only replaced them gradually as their tenures expired. This allowed continuity of leadership within the U.S. Attorney offices during the transition.

Equally extraordinary were the politics at play in the firings. At the time, Jay Stephens, then U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, was investigating then Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski, and was "within 30 days" of making a decision on an indictment. Mr. Rostenkowski, who was shepherding the Clinton's economic program through Congress, eventually went to jail on mail fraud charges and was later pardoned by Mr. Clinton.

Also at the time, allegations concerning some of the Clintons' Whitewater dealings were coming to a head. By dismissing all 93 U.S. Attorneys at once, the Clintons conveniently cleared the decks to appoint "Friend of Bill" Paula Casey as the U.S. Attorney for Little Rock. Ms. Casey never did bring any big Whitewater indictments, and she rejected information from another FOB, David Hale, on the business practices of the Arkansas elite including Mr. Clinton. When it comes to "politicizing" Justice, in short, the Bush White House is full of amateurs compared to the Clintons.

And it may be this very amateurism that explains how the current Administration has managed to turn this routine issue of replacing Presidential appointees into a political fiasco. There was nothing wrong with replacing the eight Attorneys, all of whom serve at the President's pleasure. Prosecutors deserve supervision like any other executive branch appointees.

The supposed scandal this week is that Mr. Bush had been informed last fall that some U.S. Attorneys had been less than vigorous in pursuing voter-fraud cases and that the President had made the point to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Voter fraud strikes at the heart of democratic institutions, and it was entirely appropriate for Mr. Bush--or any President--to insist that his appointees act energetically against it.

Take sacked U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state. In 2004, the Governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets reported, some of the "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage-rental facilities, and still others were convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were "discovered" in a Seattle warehouse. None of this constitutes proof that the election was stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a Democrat, to investigate, something he declined to do, apparently on grounds that he had better things to do.

In New Mexico, another state in which recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias did establish a voter fraud task force in 2004. But it lasted all of 10 weeks before closing its doors, despite evidence of irregularities by the likes of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn. As our John Fund reported at the time, Acorn's director Matt Henderson refused to answer questions in court about whether his group had illegally made copies of voter registration cards in the run-up to the 2004 election.

As for some of the other fired Attorneys, at least one of their dismissals seemed to owe to differences with the Administration about the death penalty, another to questions about the Attorney's managerial skills. Not surprisingly, the dismissed Attorneys are insisting their dismissals were unfair, and perhaps in some cases they were. It would not be the first time in history that a dismissed employee did not take kindly to his firing, nor would it be the first in which an employer sacked the wrong person.

No question, the Justice Department and White House have botched the handling of this issue from start to finish. But what we don't have here is any serious evidence that the Administration has acted improperly or to protect some of its friends. If Democrats want to understand what a real abuse of power looks like, they can always ask the junior Senator from New York."


Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.

WIPO of United Nations Fame

@ 01:36 AM (97 months, 1 day ago)


The Internet's key site identity system is in mounting danger from new techniques that could cause havoc by turning it into a free-for-all market, the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO warned on Monday.

And the United Nations' agency said the latest trends in registering top-level domain names (TLDs) -- like http://asmalldoseofreality.bloghi.com -- could undermine dispute procedures under which patent holders can pursue "cybersquatters."

"Domain names used to be primarily specific identifiers of businesses and other Internet users, but many names nowadays are mere commodities for speculative gain," senior WIPO official Francis Gurry told a news conference.

WIPO is crying over spilt milk.  Didn't the UN ever hear of "finders keepers, losers weepers"?

Since 1999, WIPO has operated a system under which cybersquatters can be challenged and have the sites they registered closed down or more usually transferred to the genuine owner of the name if they lose a game of rock, paper, scissors.

Over the past eight years, the WIPO system has handled nearly 10,200 cases, in which complainants won 85 percent. Is it luck or is it a WIPO conspiracy? The number of complaints has kept growing, reaching 1,823 last year.  WIPO just can't handle the crybaby volume.

New techniques used by cybersquatters -- who include many adapting common drug names to sell doubtful or fake medicines over the Internet -- means the volume of potential new cases is growing exponentially.

Among these techniques was the use of computer software to automatically detect expired site names, re-register them with one of the thousands of official registrars around the world and park them on portals bringing advertising revenue.  The moving them from portal to portal much like off shore banking money laundering.

Poor WIPO - crying about being overwhelmed by too many rock, paper, scissors contests to moderate.

Yet another example of why the United Nations should be moved to Cuba


Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.



Hillary is Losing Primaries Before They Are Held - Obama Only Democrat Moving Forward

@ 11:43 PM (97 months, 2 days ago)


Dick Morris is perhaps the American who is willing to discuss his first hand Hillary information:

Hillary’s flip flop on a deadline for troop withdrawal comes amid her continuing fall and Obama’s ongoing surge.

Hillary has been steadily losing ground to Obama since her announcement in January, especially among Afro-American voters.  The Gallup Poll of March 2-4th shows her losing 5 points to Obama since February 11th. That’s significant.

Before either candidate announced their intention to run, Hillary held a slender eleven point lead over Obama (29-18 in the Gallup poll of January 14th).  But after Hillary’s announcement, she jumped out to a nineteen point advantage (40-21 in the Gallup survey of February 11th).  But, in the most recent survey – March 4th, her advantage has dwindled to fourteen points (36-22).


Mar 2-4

Feb 9-11

Jan 12-14

Dec 11-14

Nov 9-12







Hillary Clinton






Barack Obama






Al Gore






John Edwards












The Gallup Poll indicates that, like Mc Cain, Hillary’s negatives are more personal than her opponents’. While some disagree with her on specific issues, most object to her because they find her dishonest, associated with scandals and with Bill Clinton, power hungry.  A lot simply don’t like her. Those kind of negatives are very difficult to overcome.

On the positive side, many see her as highly experienced, knowledgeable, intelligent, and right on the issues.  And her gender is important.  Many cite the fact that she would be the first woman president as a big advantage.

But, according to the most recent ABC/Washington Post poll at the end of February, 48% of the voters have a negative opinion of her while 49% have a positive one. And the number of people who strongly dislike her has risen from 25% to 35%.

In contrast, Rudy receives positive ratings from 64% and has negatives of only 28%.

Sounds like Hillary isn’t wearing too well.

But these polls all predate Obama’s stirring remarks and Hillary’s blatant pandering in Selma, Alabama, where the Clintons and Obama helped to celebrate the 42nd anniversary of the civil rights march.  Obama used the occasion to condemn what he called the anti-intellectualism of the African-American community where “if you conjugate a verb” you are seen as too “white.” 

Hillary, poorly imitating a southern drawl, tried to horn in on the event by claiming that the march not only enabled Obama’s candidacy, but her own as well. That’s not all – this week-end, she claimed to be  like JFK, when he ran as the first Catholic.

When new polls come out, reflecting the impact of their different performances in Selma, Obama will likely close the gap even further.

In any case, the past three weeks have all been about Obama.  He draws huge and adoring crowds while Hillary turns off voters with her scripted and rigid performances and her clumsy efforts to appeal to different audiences.  As voters get to know Obama more, his charisma shines through while Hillary’s artificiality becomes more obvious the better she is known.


Voters overwhelmingly view Obama as a fresh and charismatic new face with new ideas. They also find him to be honest and admire his integrity. And Obama understands that – he constantly tells his audience that “its time to turn a new page,” a not-so-thinly-veiled reference to the Clinton dynasty.

Hillary runs on her name, her ability to raise money from the Democratic establishment, and her experience as First Lady and Senator.

Now that Hillary has flip-flopped on the Iraq War, there is not much difference between them on the issues.

So, it will come down to personality and whether the voters want another political dynasty and the order of succession to be Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

And Hillary’s “experience” is suspect.  As we discussed in our last two columns, it is totally derivative of Bill’s and has a Walter Mitty – I was there all along – quality to it.  A thorough search of Bill’s memoirs finds scant reference to Hillary’s “experience” other than perfunctory mentions of her as traveling with him or defenses of her conduct amid the White House scandals.  The examination of a campaign may find her “experience” to be bogus.



Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.


Mint Omits "In God We Trust" from Dollar Coins? HUH?

@ 01:07 AM (97 months, 6 days ago)


This is no doubt the result of a democrat liberal aclu plot.  Fortunately the trickery was detected and future dollar coins will be accurate.  democrats, liberals, aclu lose again.


Funny money

An unknown number of new U.S. $1 coins bearing the image of George Washington are missing the words "In God We Trust" and other lettering along the edges, the U.S. Mint said on Wednesday.

The Mint released more than 300 million gold-colored, George Washington $1 coins last month, but it recently discovered a problem. The coins, made by the Philadelphia Mint, were supposed to have the inscriptions "In God We Trust," "E Pluribus Unum," the date and the mint mark around the edge.

It is unclear how the mistake occurred or how many of the coins are in circulation, according to the Mint statement. The Mint said it would make necessary technical adjustments in the manufacturing to eliminate the defect.

Real money


Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.


Ahmadinejad Detained by Air Syria for Possession of Hallucinogens

@ 01:13 AM (97 months, 8 days ago)


Finally....things are starting to make sense.



Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.



Obama Crushes Hillary in Selma Who is Blacker Battle

@ 11:57 PM (97 months, 9 days ago)


Compliments of Dick Morris.  Morris' comments are especially insightful due to his intimate relationship with the Clintons spanning decades.

Selma: Battleground for the Afro-American Vote


Today’s appearances by Hillary and Obama in Selma, Alabama mark the beginning of a public battle for the Afro-American vote. As mentioned above, Obama resoundingly grabbed the lead from Hillary last week. But she’s not giving up – not by any means!


Hillary lobbed one back at him by arranging to speak at another Baptist Church in Selma at the exact same time that Obama was scheduled to give his own speech. And, just so the folks in Selma don’t forget who she is, Bill Clinton accompanied his wife – his first campaign appearance with her since she announced.


Remember when author Toni Morrison called Bill Clinton “the first Black President?”  Well, the Clinton campaign wants to remind black voters that Bill will be right next to Hillary in the next Clinton Administration. His message: This white woman is better than that black man – she’s got me, she’s got experience, and we’ve both been there for you.


But if audience reaction to their respective speeches means anything, Obama is still ahead. He spoke confidently and called Selma “ the ‘ground zero’ for a movement that spread hope and inspiration to oppressed people throughout the world.”


Repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations, Obama laid claim to the heritage of Selma and the civil rights movement: “If it hasn’t been for Selma, I wouldn’t be here,” Mr. Obama said. “This is the site of my conception. I am the fruits of your labor. I am the offspring of the movement. When people ask me if I’ve been to Selma before, I tell them I’m coming home.”


Hillary tried to do the same, claiming that it was the Voting Rights Act that permitted women to enter politics. (apparently overlooking the 19th Amendment and confusing Susan B. Anthony with Martin Luther King Jr.) But, she didn’t rouse the crowd – even when she screeched a series of ‘what matters.’ (health care, Iraq, U.S. reputation in the world) Her text was compelling, but she’s never been an emotional speaker, so her delivery was flat.


One wonders if Selma will be the defining ‘ground zero’ for Obama, much as another ‘ground zero’ further north was for Rudy Guiliani.


Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.



Kent State Officials Notified of julio pino's Threat to America in April, 2006 and Did NOTHING

@ 11:42 PM (97 months, 10 days ago)


I sent the following email from my personal email account to the chairman of the board of trustees of Kent State University and julio pino's department head with copies to Foxnews, the local newspaper there and the Drudge report.  I suggest you do the same:

I emailed you in April of 2006 with notice that this individual personally threatened the existence of the United States Government and advocated the slaughtering of millions of Americans.  You did not have the courtesy to even respond much less do anything about it.  The major news outlets who are now onto this story and the University's defense of this individual are in possession of the information I sent to you.  Your coverup of this individual's activities is reprehensible.  Be aware that my statements to the news media will also request your ouster as well. 







Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.




London Telegraph Says Observers Across the Atlantic See Hillary as a Fraud Says

@ 01:18 PM (97 months, 11 days ago)


If they have figured it out, odds are that those of us who have not already figured it out will.  Hillary seems to be thinking that she will get so many female votes that she is set.  The women I know are smarter than that.  Hillary is insulting their intelligence.

By the way, who is Duncan Hunter?

"Hillary's candidacy, as seen in the London Telegraph.
Whom does Hillary think she's fooling?
By Jan Moir
Only a few days have passed since Hillary Clinton announced she is running for president, but already it is clear that much forbearance will be required from us all in the long months ahead. This is not just because Mrs. Clinton has started wearing ominous pastels and smiling a lot, or appeared to enjoy a joke apparently about her husband's sexcapades in the White House - although these things do, of course, matter. No, what is so lowering about Hillary and her rush for power is the merciless, unapologetic, chisel-eyed way she has pursued her presidential ambitions over the past few years, and her blatant attempt to make over her naturally acrid persona into something that American voters might find palatable.  Even from an ocean away it makes painful viewing, like watching someone trying to fold a balloon into a matchbox, or form a rounded human being out of leftover ectoplasm and a Martha Stewart wig.

Yet the New York senator seems unstoppable in her aspirations, attempting a soft-focus rebrand on herself as a homemaker of meek views and kindly disposition, ready to whisk around with the duster, cook Bill a nice, eggy supper and sort out world problems at the same time.  In her new pearls and heart-shaped lockets, those telling little trinkets she hopes will send out the subliminal message that she is a biddable soubrette at heart, Mrs. Clinton has become shameless in her pursuit of high office and the Hillary-lite ideal. Her official website reveals that the woman who once sneered at Tammy Wynette wives who baked cookies now talks of the inner calm that she finds in housework and gardening, and of how cleaning out her closets brings relief from worrying about North Korea and Iran. "I can't get my arms around that," she says, modestly acknowledging that there are bigger global problems that she can contend with, although folding sweaters and chucking out old tights, alongside the occasional skeleton, is an enjoyable breeze in comparison.  What happened to the forbidding woman who first stepped into the public arena 15 years ago, the militant feminist who was not afraid to air her  difficult views on stay-at-home mothers and abortion on demand? Sister, she has long gone, dissolved in an acid bath of burning ambition,b alongside the First Lady Hillary who had an agenda of her own in trying to push through healthcare reforms that appalled many Americans, but fitted with her own bossy, liberal views.

With the voting landscape now dominated by moral values and faith-based groups who wield enormous power and are easily affronted, Senator Clinton's route march to the White House must remain free of controversy, and if that means shaping herself into a vanilla vision of impeccably centrist views and somehow distancing herself from her own initial support of the Iraq war and other pesky matters such as gun control and gay marriages, then so be it. Not that any of this is going to be  easy.  Mrs. Clinton reminds too many Americans of the international embarrassment and sexual psychodrama of her husband's administration, an experience many would rather forget.

Naturally, the far Right doesn't like her much, but even among Democrat supporters, she polarizes opinion as if she was political Marmite: people either absolutely love her or utterly loathe her, although all are agreed that a little Hillary goes a long way.  There is even a thriving Hate Hillary industry that sells "I Hate Hillary" T-shirts, mouse mats and car bumper stickers, and feeds on the foaming bile of Hillary-hating blogs. Many of Mrs. Clinton's detractors find it particularly annoying that she has made gender the focal point of her campaign, perhaps in an attempt to neuter the enthusiasm being whipped up around Barack Obama's bid to become the first black US president. "I'm a woman and I'm a mom," croons Hillary-lite, while complaining about the double standards she must endure regarding comments on her clothes and her hair. Yet none of this is trivial. 

Everything Mrs. Clinton now does and says is a deliberate political statement, from the honey streaks in her hairdo to the girly pinks she chooses to camouflage herself in, although the effect of the latter is unconvincing: think killer shark prowling the shallows in a party frock.  Of course, all politicians are guilty of a little  positioning and shaving of principles when the occasion suits, but until Hillary Rodham Clinton came along, no one has ever dared to politically morph themselves to quite such an astounding degree.

Will it work? Let's hope not!!!!!!"


Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.



Allenna Williams Ward Must Have a Hot Bod

@ 10:36 PM (97 months, 13 days ago)


Yet another female rapist teacher has surfaced.  This time, looks wise...not so much.  Strangely the news has not reported she taught at a middle school for the blind.


Copywrite 2007  -  Barry G.