EVEN OLD SLICK WILLY AIN’T SO SURE ANYMORE ABOUT THAT ‘BLUE WAVE’…

Apparently it’s even the old ‘Slickmeister’, BJ Clinton, who is now beginning to have what are some pretty serious second thoughts about whether or not that much talked about ‘blue wave’ will become a reality this November.  To the point where he’s been busy cautioning those Democrats who may be taking the much heralded ‘blue wave’ in November for granted, and has reportedly said that it is now “impossible to tell” if the Democrats will actually take back control of the House.  

Old ‘Slick Willy’ acknowledged during a Sunday interview with USA Today that though the so-called ‘blue wave’ had been building, factors such as the strength of President Trump’s economy as well as his progress on the North Korea negotiations have complicated matters for Democrats.  He said, “Well, it was building, big time.”  And went on to add, “It’s impossible to tell now just because there are so many other intervening narratives.”  For once I agree with old Slick.

And it’s even out in the land of the fruits, the nuts and the flakes, California, the bluest of blue states, that Democrat gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom has said that he has not seen evidence of a “big blue wave.”  It was when asked about the so-called ‘blue wave’ that he said, “I don’t see evidence of that.  In California, we kind of feel like we’ve got this.”  And he went on to say, “It’s a big blue state and in some respects, I think we kind of take things for granted at times.”

I’m thinking all of this talk of a ‘blue wave’ may be nothing more than wishful thinking. What do the Democrats really have to offer other than raising taxes, granting full amnesty for all illegals and confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens?  Their party platform is focused on illegal aliens, sexual deviants, Muslim refugees, and calling all who disagree with them, racists.  The U.S. economy is now stronger than it's been in decades thanks to a Republican administration.

Our President is not a politician.  He’s a man with a track record of getting things done. And that’s all the American people want.  We want action not words that even a five year old can tell is political BS.  The President is not polished, he is not politically correct and what he says doesn’t always come out perfect. But he can identify problems and ways to fix them.  He spent a lifetime doing that in the business world.  Now, he is using that ability to clean up Barry’s mess.

And while I’ll admit he still has a long way to go, he has accomplished much, more than I would have expected in this short period of time and has done so while getting attacked 24/7 by Democrats, those in our state-controlled media as well as more than just a few RINOs. Just imagine what he could do if that pack were to be thinned out some come November?  And that, my friends, is what we ALL need to be focused on when we walk into the voting booth come this November!

We need not vote for any Democrats or for that matter, any RINOs.  We need to do our part in assisting the president in draining ‘The Swamp.’  We must focus on defeating as many of the ‘Establishment’ types as we can, regardless of party.  These elitists who comprise ‘The Swamp’ want to destroy America.  And like Barry ‘O’ they hate America. He, and they, wanted to “fundamentally transform” her.  And while he may be gone many remain who are dedicated to that mission.

Democrats are in dream land if they are seriously counting on some mythical ‘blue wave.’ Nothing they do has a positive effect on the welfare of our great nation.  Alternatively, everything Trump does have a positive effect.  Last time I voted for Trump it was an anti-establishment vote.  When I vote for him in 2020 it'll be because he is a damn good President.  We need to vote for those willing to advance, not obstruct, the president’s agenda to ‘Make America Great Again. 

So despite any misgivings that old Slick may have about whether or not this ‘blue wave’ does become a reality, we conservatives must, between now and the next election, operate as if we are at least 10 points behind.  And we dare not allow current polling trends to lull any of us into some false sense of security or allow ourselves to fall into a state of complacency.   We must continue to remain focused on one thing, and that is to prevent Pelosi from becoming Speaker. 

‘SLICK WILLY’ FLOATS YET ANOTHER EXCUSE FOR HITLERY’S LOSS…

And the excuses keep on coming for why Hitlery lost to Donald Trump.  Let’s see, there was the “fake news” excuse, the “James Comey” excuse, and let’s not forget the “Russian hacking” excuse.  And just when we thought we’d heard it all, along comes ‘Slick Willy’, impeached ex-president and spouse of the most corrupt candidate to ever run for president, to offer yet another excuse.  You see, it’s according to the old ‘Slickmeister’ that while Donald Trump “doesn’t know much”, it seems that “one thing he does know is how to get angry, white men to vote for him.”

At least that’s what old ‘Slick” spewed to a local newspaper earlier this month.  ‘Slick’ was speaking to a reporter from The Record-Review, a weekly newspaper serving the towns of Bedford and Pound Ridge, New York, not far from the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, New York.  The ex-president held court earlier this month in Katonah, New York, where he took questions from the reporter and other customers inside a small bookstore.  More than likely, in this particular locale, most of those present had voted for Hitlery and therefore were eager to accept ‘Slick’s’ theory.

When it came to the question of Russian cyberattacks damaging the candidacy of his wife, Hitlery, ‘Slick’ said, “you would need to have a single-digit IQ not to recognize what was going on.”  But he blamed FBI Director James Comey for her loss, telling those gathered around him that he had “cost her the election” by announcing with less than two weeks to go before the election that the bureau was examining fresh evidence related to her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.  After all, how else could someone so ‘qualified’ actually lose?

‘Slick’ confirmed that he had, in fact, received a phone call from Trump on the day after the election and said that the Manhattan billionaire was ‘strangely’ cordial, “like it was 15 years ago” when he was friendly with the Clintons and would socialize with them. ‘Slick’ said Trump told him that Hitlery “was tougher than I thought she’d be.”  So I’m curious, just what was it that old ‘Slick’ might have been trying to imply, exactly, by describing Trump as being “strangely cordial?”  I guess when it comes to the classless Clintons, cordiality doesn’t apply when you lose. 

‘Slick’ also scoffed at the standard claim from Trump and his team that the president-elect’s Election Day win represented a “landslide” victory, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote.  ‘Slick’ said, “Landslide? I got something like 370 electoral votes,” correctly recalling his 1992 total. He added, “That was a landslide.”  While that may be true, when you stop to consider the fact that Trump was predicted, by many of the so-called experts, to garner no more than roughly 180 electoral votes, the 304 he ended up winning can, and justifiably so, be referred to as a landslide.

And also in his attempt to mock Trump’s claim of an Electoral College “landslide”, what ‘Slick’ very clearly neglects to mention regarding his own claim of having ‘won’ “something like 370 electoral votes”, is the fact that had it not been for Third Party candidate Ross Perot being in the race, old ‘Slick’ would not only have never ‘won’ 370 electoral votes, but he very likely would never have won the election.  But he doesn’t ever want to go there.  He likes to continually portray himself as having been the obvious choice of millions of Americans regardless of political party.

Look ‘Slick’, how about we just cut to the chase, shall we?  The fact is Hitlery was never ahead and therefore she was never really ever going to win.  The proof of that played out right before our eyes every single night on our television screens.  While Trump was filling stadiums, Mrs. ‘Slick Willy’ couldn’t manage to fill a high school auditorium.  And it was talking head after talking head who doubted that all those bodies would actually translate into votes.  They chose instead to place their faith in the polls that they rest us were able to recognize as being clearly bogus. 

Personally, I couldn’t be happier that the jig is, at long last, finally up for these two grifters. These two have swindled, coerced, bribed, slandered, lied to and bullied their way to the top and working class white men were joined by millions of other angry voters in America and took the bitch down.  All races, creeds, genders and even those of different sexual orientations come together in the effort to finally show them the door.  Yeah, just lie to folks, telling them how everyone is out to get them, and those angry conservative white dudes will prove themselves stupid and easily excitable.

Poor ‘Slick’. Most presidents are dead and buried before history writes their final review, but Hitlery's loss gives ‘Slick’ quite a preview. America rejected another Clinton, but more to the point America elected Trump.  Even a potential Trump presidency was seen as being better than another Clinton.  He was called a rapist during the second debate and nobody jumped to his defense.  His accusers were there, all eyes were on him, his daughter was sitting with him and he looked angry. And the Clinton Foundation has been exposed for the shakedown organization it is.

‘Slick’ has to know that that's his legacy: that he’s nothing more than a crooked, alleged rapist whom very few, except the most hardcore of Democrats, wanted to see back in the White House, in any capacity.  And now with Hitlery suffering her second defeat in as many attempts, dare we hope that, when it comes to the Clintons, our long national nightmare is finally over?  After all, it seems like they’ve been around forever.  I wish I could confidently say that I think we’ve heard the last from them, but somehow I very much doubt it.  I don’t think we could be THAT lucky! 

WHERE ELSE BUT IN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY CAN A RAPIST BE AN ADVOCATE FOR WOMEN…WEIRD…

For those who were able to stomach watching it, last night was ‘Slick Willy’s’ time to shine at the Democrat convention by doing a little bragging on his ‘wife’.  And it’s this morning that he seems to be gathering some rather mixed reviews.  Old Slick delivered a speech that, besides being more than a little too long, has also been described by some as being more than a bit rambling.  And according to some if the point of the speech was to fire up the crowd, despite his reputation as being a great orator, it failed to live up to expectations.

’Slick’ did his best to appear fulsome in his praise of Hitlery, but there was something yuge, that was missing from the speech. ‘Slick’ described Hitlery as the “best darn change-maker” he’d ever met and recounted how he tried three times to get her to marry him.  All in a speech designed, I guess, to use his popularity to somehow ingratiate his wife to those folks who can’t stand her.  He attempted to do so by taking the crowd on a rather weird little journey through the years of their relationship starting in 1971 when he met the girl with big blonde hair and glasses.

There were the years between 1993 and 2001 when he and Hillary made the White House their home.  There was 1997, when daughter Chelsea went off to college, and then, just like that, as if by magic we were suddenly transported to 1999.  But there was one year missing.  A year that it’s probably best not to bring up especially when you’re trying to sell your audience a story of your happy marriage.  In all of ‘Slick’s’ speech, 1998 was completely absent. But why?  Was there nothing of significance that took place in the life of these people?

After all, it was during 1998 that we were witness to a number of rather notable events, such as the New York Yankees ending their season with 125 total victories, the most by any team in 123 years of Major League baseball.  But for the Clintons, it was also their “annus horribilis”.  Because it was in January of that year when website the Drudge Report revealed allegations that White House intern Monica Lewinsky had sex with the then President ‘Slick Willy’.  Later the same month, ‘Slick’ made the now famous denial: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”. 

It would take until August 1998, and the discovery of Lewinsky’s blue dress replete with his DNA, for ‘Slick’ to finally admit that yes he had indeed had what was then termed as being an “improper physical relationship” with an intern young enough to be his daughter.  It was a scandal that would lead to ‘Slick’ becoming only the second US President to be impeached and charged with a crime, although he would later be found not guilty of obstructing justice and perjury.  No wonder, in his speech, Clinton decided to “fast-forward”, from 1997 to 1999.

Slick gave what as a rather long-winded recitation of I’m sure he sees as being his wife Hitlery’s impressive resume. And to hear him talk you’d think that Hitlery was some sort of a ‘Superwoman’ who singlehandedly rescues literally thousands of women and children.  His speech was supposed to start at 10 PM but, perhaps because of some walker issues, he was a few minutes late getting started.  By 10:30, which is what time I finally threw in the towel, he was only up to1982 in his meandering little fairytale.  I saw very little point in listening any further.

It was amid the meandering autobiography that Slick offered a few attempts to justify his wife on policy.  He said, “She put climate change at the center of our foreign policy.”  I can only assume that he apparently thinks that was a good thing.  He said that there are two Hitlerys: “One is real and the other is made up. You just have to decide which one is which, my fellow Americans.”  He said, “The real one calls you when you’re sick, when your kid’s in trouble, or when there’s a death in the family….earlier today, you nominated the real one.”

‘Slick’ also defended his wife’s carpetbagging in winning the 2000 New York Senate election.  He said, “We’d always intended to go to New York [after he left office]…so she decided to give it a try.”  And he went on to say, “After a tough battle New York elected her to the seat once held by another outsider, Robert Kennedy.”  Perhaps he considers “outsider” another term for “carpetbagger.”  ‘Slick’ said, “Speeches like this are fun,” before finally signing off shortly before 11 PM.  But fun for whom.  After reading most of the reviews this morning, I’m glad I went to bed.

I guess if the purpose of the speech was to, as best as he could, sugarcoat Hitlery’s ‘career in public service’ by leaving out entirely any mention of her real record, then I guess you could say that it was a good speech.  But to be honest, there is virtually no place on God's green earth that is better off today because of anything that she has done. There are 100s of thousands of innocent people who are dead today because of her and Barry. Libya, Iraq, Africa, Russia, Asia, Iran, and countless other places that are far worse off today because of her. 

This speech was, for the most part, completely fact free, quite ridiculous and totally boring. But then as we all know, facts aren’t exactly something that Democrats like to delve too far into, or discuss too far in depth, because the facts rarely, if ever, actually support any of their positions.  ‘Slick Willy’ must have been on oxycodone or some such medication because as much as I despise him, he is usually very good when he gets in front of a microphone.  And what I did hear of it was rambling and for the most part was pretty much incoherent.

There is a time for a woman president, just like there was a time for a first black president, unfortunately America has found out the hard way what it's like to vote for someone simply because of outward appearance, now we have a woman who is nowhere near worthy of the honor to be elected as our president.  America can do so so much better, but that will be some time in the future.  Definitely not now, Hitlery, I fear, would be even worse than Barry.  The bottom line here is that America simply can't survive another Democrat as president, male or female.

‘SLICK WILLIE’, HITLERY’S GO TO GUY ON ALL MATTERS OF SEXISM???

Apparently, Hitlery supporter Bill Cosby was currently unavailable to come rushing to her defense and to retaliate against a surging a Bernie Sanders by hurling accusations of sexism.  So, instead, Hitlery, chose the next-worst possible surrogate at her disposal.  That being, of course, none other than her husband, ‘Slick Willie’, a guy who has been accused by nearly a dozen women of everything from outright rape to groping to sexual harassment.

Apparently there now exists what has been described as being a cohort of Bernie Sanders’ backers that have been identified by some as the “Bernie Bros.”   And it’s these individual who have been accused of “vicious trolling” of various supporters of Hitlery.  So it was then that a rather old and tired ‘Slick Willie’ who looking well beyond his 69 years, ripped into Sanders with a rather bizarre guilt-by-association attack involving those same supposed supporters of Sanders.

Now I have no idea if those involved are Sanders supporters or not, but he has disavowed the attacks, saying he does not want support from anyone who would attack Hillary in this way. It was while speaking to a crowd of 300 folks gathered there at Milford Middle School that ‘Slick’ said, “People who have gone online to defend Hillary and explain why they support her have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane — not to mention sexist — to repeat.”

While ‘Slick’ chose not to use the moniker, “Bernie Bros,” that others have chose to use, nevertheless it was pretty clear about who it was that he was talking about. That being some of Sanders’ male supporters, who some reporters claim use rather sexist language online to attack Hitlery and her allies.  Now if there is anyone who may know a thing or two about being sexist, the using of sexist language online, or in any other medium, that would be none other than old ‘Slick Willie!’

And it was in speaking about specifics that ‘Slick’ brought up ‘The Nation’s’ Joan Walsh, and it was about Ms. Walsh that he said, “She and other people who have gone online to defend Hillary and explain — just explain — why they supported her have been subject to vicious trolling and attacks that are literally too profane often — not to mention sexist — to repeat.”  Now when one possesses a history like old ‘Slick’ possesses, isn’t that a bit like the pot calling the kettle sexist?

Hitlery’s campaign has increasingly injected gender and sex into the 2016 Democrat primaries. On Saturday, it was a rather beat looking, former Sec. of State, Madeleine Albright that did her best, to shame young women voters in voting for, many of whom are supporting Sanders, into voting for Hitlery.  The tired old battleax made the proclamation that “there’s a special place in Hell for women who don’t help each other.”  The need to resort to such tactics as this is really kinda sad.

And then it was just this past Friday, that we heard from yet another tire looking and warn out old hag, 81-year-old ‘feminist’ Gloria Steinem, and a rather vocal Hitlery supporter.  In was when she made her rather bizarre assertion that young women are flocking to Sanders because “the boys are with Bernie.”  Now of course she later apologized for her remarks, claiming that she was somehow misinterpreted.  But how many ways are there to interpret what the old hag said?

And shouldn’t you call into question the wisdom of a candidate who would choose to involve a pathetically sleazy guy like ‘Slick’, spouse or not, when it comes to advancing a narrative that speaks about sexism?  It just seems to me to be a rather curious choice given the rather numerous allegations that countless women have made against him over the years.  Remember it was Juanita Broaddrick who accused ‘Slick’ of raping her in a Little Rock hotel room in 1978.

And then there was former White House aide, Kathleen Willey, who accused ‘Slick’ of sexually assaulting her in 1993.  And let’s not forget about how it was that old Slick also had to paid Paula Jones an $850,000 out-of-court settlement to drop a sexual harassment lawsuit against him. And then of course, there is that old but a goodie in which old ‘Slick’ had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern, who was only 22 years old when that twisted little tryst began.

It seems to me that it would a little difficult to take the claim of a candidate that she is the defender of women seriously when said candidate sees as appropriate the charging of guy like ‘Slick’ with discussing claims of sexism.  How can that be seen in any way as being a good idea?  And you have to know, even though it was Democrats in the audience, that there more than a few folks among those 300 in attendance who were shaking their heads and snickering at least a little bit.

And knowing Democrats as I’m sure we all do, isn’t it worth considering, just a little bit, the possibility that those who have been identified as being these “sexist” ‘Bernie Bros.’ were in reality nothing more than Hitlery supporters posing as Sanders supporters in attempt to garner sympathy for Hitlery?  But regardless of whether or not Hitlery wants to accuse fellow Democrats of sexism, the rest of us should just sit back to enjoy a little Blue on Blue violence.  Don’t ya think?

OLD ‘SLICK WILLIE’ CLINTON, LOOKING PRETTY FRAIL…

One of the reasons I’ve always said that I didn’t relish the thought of Hitlery being elected president was because I just didn’t think it would be appropriate to have a slimy creep like ‘Slick Willie’, an accused rapist, once again permitted to be slither around the White House.  But when I saw him at Hitlery's speech after narrowly winning the Iowa caucuses on Monday night he didn't look like he’s in the best of health.  The guy I saw looked less like a guy who would do much slithering and more a guy who would be relegated to using a walker, or a wheelchair, just to get around.

And I gotta tell ya, for a guy who’s only 69 years old he looks a lot more like a man who’s much closer to being 89.  And while standing in the background during Hitlery’s Iowa ‘victory’ speech, he looked absolutely clueless, like he had no idea where he was or even why he was there and only started clapping after looking around and seeing that that’s what everyone else was doing.  I must admit that I barely recognized him.  Old Slick appeared more than a little frail, listless and apathetic.  He also seemed to be talking pretty slow and to be thinking even slower. 

And when looking at ‘Slick Willie’ compared to ‘The Donald’ you’d never guess that these two guys are the same age.  It would seem that Trump has held up considerably better than has the old ‘Slickmeister’.  And while ‘Slick Willie’ looks like he’s just about ready for ‘The home’, at least Trump looks like he’s got more than just a few good years left in him.  And in looking at old ‘Slick’ you’d think that he was closer to being Bernie’s age than Trump’s.  In fact, if you didn’t know either man you might even say that Bernie looks younger than ‘Slick Willie’ instead of being 5 years older.   

And from everything that I’ve been reading it would seem that I am far from being the only one who thinks that old ‘Slick’ looks old and well beyond his years.  Now I’ll admit that I haven’t been keeping close tabs on old ‘Slick, but it seems like the last time I saw him he didn’t look to be in near as bad shape as he did when I he was on the campaign trail with Hitlery.  ‘Slick’s’ rather frail appearance has caught the attention of many in the media, and I must admit that I’m more than a little curious about how it is that anyone could such a senile old fuck seriously!   

OLD ‘SLICK WILLIE’, DOIN’ WHAT IT IS THAT HE DOES BEST!!!

Ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, one of only two president to ever be impeached, both of whom were Democrats, has been operating at his smarmy best of late in trying to dismiss the notion that donors to the Clinton Foundation somehow got special treatment during Hitlery’s tenure as Secretary of State.  The ‘Slick-meister’ has said that he believes such allegations are driven solely by political motives.  Normally I’d say that old ‘Slick’ probably knows a thing or two about such motives.  But in this particular instance, I think his claim is more than a little off the mark.

It was just this week, while in Denver attending something billed as a Clinton Global Initiative event, that old ‘Slick Willie’ was heard to say, "Nobody even suggested it or thought about it or talked about it until the political season began, and somebody said, 'Well, what about this?'"  ‘Slick’ went on to claim that he hadn't been asked for anything by any donors and he doesn’t know if any companies were seeking influence from his wife's position on ‘Team Obama’.  Such an idiotic statement would be funny if didn’t involve she who may yet become the next president.  But it does!   

Now while political opponents and investigative journalists have yet to uncover any specific wrongdoing on the part of this dynamic, and very shady, duo, the circumstantial evidence is pretty significant and damn convincing.  And with these two slimy characters, where’s there’s the least bit of smoke there is likely to be a roaring bonfire.  And the recent book, "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, has suggested while there was "no direct evidence" there is a pattern of transactions that should be sufficient to warrant, at a minimum, a legal probe of some kind.

And I found it downright disgusting that it was with a straight face that ‘old Slick’ was actually able to say, "I don't know. You never know what people's motives are, but in this case, I'm pretty sure that everybody that gave to Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake saw what they saw on television, were horrified and wanted to make a difference," he said, adding that he did not "think Hillary would know either."  No, of course not, Hitlery wouldn’t have a clue as to why someone might be the least bit suspect about the motivation of these two unscrupulous and unethical crooks.

‘Slick’ gave the example of the government's relationship with Boeing, saying the U.S. had always lobbied for American-made planes and that the government worked with the company while it was also donating to the foundation's relief efforts for the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.  He said, "She was pretty busy those years, and I don't — I never saw her study a list of my contributors."  He added, "No one has ever asked me for anything or any of that."  Now keep in mind all of this nonsense is coming from the same guy who once wanted to quibble over what the meaning of ‘is’, is. 

So I guess it’s simply assumed that we’ll except at face value everything we are told by this the sleaziest couple in America.  Now I’m pretty sure that your average Democrat will have no trouble swallowing, hook, line and sinker, anything that old ‘Slick’ may say, but then I think we all very well aware of the priorities of these folks.  That would be the making sure that their taxpayer funded welfare check keeps coming.  Democrats are the lowest form of life on this planet.  They are parasites.  Even ‘Slick’ and Hitlery are parasites, just uptown parasites.  

SO, WHAT DO ‘SLICK WILLIE’ CLINTON AND A SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE HAVE IN COMMON?

Answer?  Both can, apparently, be very difficult to get rid of.  Because by the time the next presidential election rolls around, ex-president ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, one of only two presidents to ever be impeached, will have received $16 million from taxpayers for post-presidential support, the highest figure of any ex-president.  According to federal records, we the taxpayers, courtesy of something called the Former Presidents Act, will have covered his pension, travel, office expenses, and salaries and benefits of staff at his philanthropic foundation.

Rumor has it that scrutiny of the act, as well as of the vast financial empire built by the Clintons, is poised to intensify, and rightly so, as questions mount about the family's co-mingling of personal, political, government, and foundation business. Critics have for years questioned the need for taxpayers to offer financial support for presidents, who have a multitude of opportunities for earning after leaving office.  But while the funds for the Clintons seem to be rather excessive, to say the least, they do, apparently, comply with federal government guidelines.

And it is only to be expected that officials there at the ‘Slick’, Hitlery and Chelsea Clinton Foundation have very casually brushed aside any and all questions about the use of public funds to supplement staff salaries.  According to the General Services Administration (GSA), which administers the funds, nearly $3 million has been allocated for staff salary and benefits.  Such an amount can be considered as pocket change when compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars donated to the ‘Foundation’ by ant number of questionable sources and shady governments. 

In addition, $947,000 was distributed for communications-related costs and for "equipment," which could include anything from "information technology hardware or software."  Perhaps, maybe, some of that money may have actually been spent on that very same email server that’s been in the news of late?  But, supposedly, a Clinton spokesman has come out and said that no taxpayer money was used to buy or maintain the private email server which ex-secretary of state Hitlery Clinton used during her time in office.  Well then, I certainly feel better.  You?

Anyway, the Former Presidents Act also provides funding for lifetime Secret Service protection for Clinton and other presidents, but the cost remains undisclosed. The law was set up after former President Harry Truman left office in 1958 to "maintain the dignity" of the presidency.  But I think we can all agree that it’s now far too late for us to be concerned about maintaining the ‘dignity’ of the presidency.  Because what dignity remained after Jimmy Carter was reduced still further by ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton and will have been totally eradicated by Barry “Almighty”.

Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union, which has urged Congress to scale back payments to former presidents, said, "The notion of former presidents becoming paupers in their old age was laid to rest with Harry Truman."  He went on to say, "With the prospect of ex-presidents becoming even more deeply involved in post-career politics, there should be more motivation now than ever before to try and put reasonable limits on the load taxpayers are being asked to shoulder."  Presidents today, impeached or not, seem able to command rather generous fees for speeches.

Sepp also warned that, in the case of the Clintons, the funds are effectively being used to "subsidize activities that could aid presidential campaign operations."  Because you see, as incredible as it may sound, ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton will receive $3.1 million in pension payments from the act through 2016, more than the amount that any of the other former presidents are set to receive.  And I think makes very obvious the level of greed possessed by this pathetic scumbag, that he doesn’t return this paltry sum back to the taxpayers.  But I suppose that’s far too much to expect. 

‘SLICK WILLIE’ CLINTON…DOING WHAT HE DOES BEST…

According to ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, one of the only two U.S. presidents to ever be impeached, and the only one ever to be accused of rape, power is more diffuse in a technologically advanced world, and that means ‘inclusiveness’ is the only way to battle the world's problems. Now don’t that just make everyone feel all warm and fuzzy?

It was during his appearance over there on Jon Leibowitz’s idiotic little program, ‘The Daily Show’, that ‘The Slickmeister’ claimed that even though the world seems to be disintegrating all around us, there is actually more good news than bad. Oh ya, there’s all kinds of good news out there. I was just telling my wife that the other day.

And what might some of this "good news" come in the form of? Well, Slick says that the explosion of information technology is helpful to fishermen in Indonesia, who now can use cellphones to determine the price of fish. Of course the drawback is that the Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist group can use that same technology to draw in new recruits.

‘Slick said he believes Barry’s plan to defeat ISIS has a chance to succeed because the Iraqi government finally includes Sunnis who represent the tribal leaders needed to help defeat ISIS. Slick demonstrated the knack Democrats have for rewriting history when he said, "We can't win a land war in Iraq. We proved that." Well no, not exactly.

Democrats like old Slick, here, have never been willing to admit that the Iraq war was essentially won. It was Barry who lost it. And this moron went on to say, "But they can, and we can help them win it. … If the democracy model is going to work it has to be inclusive." So apparently, Slick’s assessment of the situation is no better than Barry’s.

Still, he said, we have to accept that we can't win every battle and that we are likely only about halfway through what may well be a 50-year struggle to define the terms of our interdependence. Now I realize I’m not as sophisticated as is old Slick, but what the Hell is he even talking about? That statement is just so much pure and unadulterated drivel.

Slick then went on to say, "But we do know this: We are interdependent." And then he added the clincher saying, "That is, all the borders of the world look more like nets than walls. … We've got to realize inclusion works, and unilateralism doesn't." What a completely ‘progressive’ way to look at things. More "New World Order’ drivel that makes no sense.

‘THE SLICKMEISTER’ IS BUT THE LATEST DEMOCRAT TO ATTACK ISRAEL…

Just as I don’t understand the fixation that most Democrats have when it comes to their outright hostility toward Israel, neither do I understand how it is that many Jews in this country can bring themselves to support those very same Democrats. Now I can understand it coming from Barry, because in his heart I think we all realize that he is essentially a Muslim, and therefore an enemy of Israel. But now it would appear that one of the only two U.S. presidents to ever be impeached and the only one, at least as far as I know, ever known to be a rapist, and one who was never really known for being much of a leader, has now taken it upon himself to criticize the Israeli government's handling of peace negotiations with the so-called, Palestinians.

Sounding much like that other presidential loser, Jimmy Carter, it was ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton who was recently heard joining with the chorus of many others within his party and actually agreeing with a suggestion that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is "not the guy" to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East. ‘Slick Willie’ made his ignorant comments while speaking in a conversation at a Democrat fundraiser in Iowa this past weekend. He said, "If we don't force him to make peace, we will not have peace." So how arrogant of a statement is that? What ‘right’ do we have to force Mr. Netanyahu to do anything that he feels places his country in jeopardy and is not in the best interest of his people? Suppose if the shoe was on the other foot?

The exchange was recorded by C-SPAN and covered by the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. ‘Slick’s’ comments actually stood in direct contrast to what we had heard from his wife, that disaster of a secretary of State, Hitlery Clinton, who has been, at least in public, rather supportive of Netanyahu's handling of the conflict in Gaza, in keeping with but a few other Democrats. The newspaper said, "Whether Bill Clinton's comments reflect the private thinking of these other leading Democrats is impossible to tell." Adding, "But they also serve as a reminder that should Hillary Clinton run for president, the presence of a vocal and very opinionated spouse on the campaign trail creates added opportunity for embarrassment and even inadvertent policy shifts."

Here’s my attempt at a rather brief historical refresher. First of all, there has never been the country of Palestine. So therefore calling these people Palestinians is simply incorrect. In the second century, Emperor Hadrian crushed a new Jewish rebellion with many Jews being banished while others were made slaves of the Romans. A small number of Jews did stay in the land and remained there right up through the twentieth century. However, the name of the land at this time was changed because Hadrian wanted to destroy Jewish identity. He renamed the land "Syria-Palestinian." Palestine was a Latin version of the word Philistine, an ancient enemy of the Jews who were now extinct as a people. Hadrian was deliberately insulting the Jews.

So therefore, as I said, there has never been a country called Palestine. This was a nickname for the Holy Land under the Romans. The people who today call themselves Palestinians are Arabs and the fact is that they referred to themselves as Arabs for, quite literally, centuries until they were dubbed "Palestinians" as a publicity ploy by the terrorist and founder of the PLO, Yassir Arafat. And the truth is that Arafat himself did not use the title "Palestinian" until after the year 1964. Those who have ever since referred to themselves as ‘Palestinians’ have no rightful claim to any of the lands. And freedom loving people everywhere must stand shoulder to shoulder with the Jewish people to repel those who wish to steal that which does not belong to them.

So as we can once again very plainly see, the recurring tendency of Democrats to either ignore history completely or their attempt to rewrite it whenever it doesn’t suit their needs or justify their actions, once again becomes apparent. And while much has been made of the Palestinian exodus of 1948, what hear very little about is how the Palestinians have been made to suffer far more traumatic, and more recent, ordeals at the hands of their Arab brothers. Because as early as the mid-1950s, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Libya all chose to expel striking Palestinian workers. And in 1970, Jordan expelled some 20,000 Palestinians and demolished their camps and in 1994-95, Libya expelled tens of thousands of Palestinian residents in response to the Oslo process.

And it was after the 2003 Iraq war that some 21,000 Palestinians essentially fled the country in response to what was a systematic terror and persecution campaign. And then it was as recently as 2007 that Beirut effectively displaced 31,400 Palestinian refugees when the Lebanese army destroyed the Nahr el Bared refugee camp during fighting between the militant Fatal al-Islam group and the Lebanese army. But the largest forced displacement of Palestinians from any Arab state took place in 1991 when Kuwait expelled most of its Palestinian residents in retaliation for the Palestine Liberation Organization's (PLO) endorsement of Iraq's brutal occupation of the emirate (August 1990-February 1991).

And it mattered very little that this population, most of which had resided in Kuwait for decades, was not at all supportive of the PLO's reckless move. From March to September 1991, about 200,000 Palestinians were expelled from the emirate in a systematic campaign of terror, violence, and economic pressure while another 200,000 who fled during the Iraqi occupation were denied the ability to return. By September 1991, Kuwait's Palestinian community had dwindled to around 20,000. And yet even after all of this it is still Israel that is painted as being the villain in this continuing struggle. Democrats like ‘Slick Willie’ would have us believe that Israel is solely responsible for the plight of the ‘Palestinian’ people.

The true fact of the matter is that absolutely none of this, not one iota, not a smidgen, has anything to do with the reacquiring for the ‘Palestinian’ people their homeland. Because as I said earlier, this particular piece of real-estate where so much blood has now been shed over the years, was never their homeland to begin with. What is truly underway here is nothing more than an all out, no holds barred attempt to once again banish the Jewish people from what is, and really always has been, ‘their’ homeland from the time of Moses. And it absolutely sickens me that we have those in this country, who belong to primarily one of our political parties, who are completely willing to assist those who seek to drive the Israeli people from their home.

‘SLICK WILLIE’ CLINTON’ REWRITES HISTORY…AGAIN…

I’ve never quite understood the bizarre relationship between the Bush family and ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton, and I’m quite sure if I were ever to asking question I’d be quickly told to mind my own business. But personally, I could never bring myself to welcome into my home anyone who has spent as much time as ‘BJ’ has in telling lies about any member of my family. And apparently it’s a habit that ‘BJ’ has every intention to keep on doing.

His most recent example of came just this past Sunday when, in an effort to dismiss criticism of wife, Hitlery, over the Benghazi terrorist attack, ‘The Slickmeister’ actually set about the concocting of ten supposed occasions that he claimed took place during the Bush administration in which U.S. diplomatic personnel had been killed. In his attempt to provide cover ‘Slick’ went on to ask where the GOP anger had been then.

So it was during yesterday’s appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press that old ‘Slick Willie’ said, "When ten different instances occurred when President Bush was in office where American diplomatic personnel were killed in, in – around the world, how many outraged Republican members of Congress were there?" "Zero," he added. But actually this was just fantasy, because once again ‘BJ’ was simply choosing to rewrite history.

Now of course the rather integral part that ‘Slick’ conveniently seems to leave out of the revised version of history that he seems so intent upon pushing to anyone who will listen is the fact that those U.S. diplomatic personnel who were killed during the Bush administration died in circumstances other than what was a blatant terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission. So once again ‘Slick’ demonstrates the ease with which he’s able to lie.

But on Sept. 12, 2012, it was a well planned out terrorist that ended with U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith, and Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were brutally murdered when heavily-armed terrorists assaulted the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. An attack that Hitlery Clinton, as well as others, did nothing to prevent, and would go on to repeat ad nauseam was caused by a video.

‘BJ’ also very conveniently leaves out the fact that before the 2012 attack, no American ambassador had been killed in the line of duty since back in 1979, during the days of that other foreign policy genius, Jimmy Carter. It was then that Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs was killed in a shootout after being abducted. So the one common denominator we seem to have here is that we had a Democrat in the White House both times

After the Benghazi attack the administration of Barry & Co. came under fire from Republican lawmakers, and others, over very questionable security decisions made in the run-up to the attack, and over its response afterwards, both of which were based solely on politics. Hitlery Clinton was secretary of state at the time and she made it quite clear that the death of four Americans, including our ambassador, was essentially no big deal.

Criticism focused primarily on the administration’s entirely bogus assertions that the assault had been nothing more than a spontaneous reaction to an obscure online video mocking Mohammed, and the planned terrorist attack that it so obviously was. It was a stance that many regarded as politically-motivated since it occurred during the latter stages of Barry’s 2012 re-election campaign. Barry & Co. of course denied such claims.

In the interview aired this past Sunday, ‘The Slickmeister’ dismissed an earlier suggestion by Rand Paul that his wife’s handling of Benghazi disqualified her from running for president. "That’s not a serious comment," he said. But not serious according to whom, exactly? His fellow Democrats who hate this country as much as he does? To such people, I’m quite sure, the fact that four American were butchered matters little.

THE REWRITING OF HISTORY AS IT PERTAINS TO “SLICK WILLIE” CLINTON…

I tell you what, if I have to hear one more time from some liberal luminary like Lanny Davis claim, as somehow being proof of how well progressivism works, how it was that "Slick Willie" Clinton was able to balance the budget and create 23 Million jobs, I think my head will explode. Because to actually believe such ideological nonsense requires one to ignore completely what it was that "BJ" tried to do, but was prevented from getting away with. Yes I know, rewriting history is what these liberal buffoons excel at, but what "BJ" possessed was not some exceptional political skill, what it was, was just some old fashioned plain dumb luck. As they say timing is everything, and nothing proves that better than the old Slickmeister himself.

None of these clones, eager in their desire to paint "BJ" as being some brilliant politician, conveniently forget to mention the fact that had it not been for the Congress, at that time under the control of the Republicans, that this douchebag was forced to deal with, the chances that he would have accomplished either feat is pretty damn remote! So let’s try to set the record straight, shall we? The fact is, though most Democrats are very likely to disagree, that Slick did not balance the budget. Granted, he was there when it happened, but the record clearly shows that that’s about the extent of his contribution to the event. Every single budget this supposed genius submitted, if passed as drafted, would have added to the then already existing deficit.

And I’m quite sure that no one would be the least bit surprised if I were to tell them how it was that the media went, and continues to go, to great length to exaggerate this story. The New York Times loudly proclaimed at the time, reporting how it was that, "Clinton balances the budget." Oddly enough, there were even some who have praised George H.W. Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush was one of "the real heroes" for his willingness to raise taxes, and never mind read my lips. In any case, crediting Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its highest peak of $290 Billion during Bush’s last year in office. But I’m not looking to discuss the Bushes.

And contrary to what may still be the popular belief of some, 1993, that year old "BJ" brought into being the largest tax hike in our history, was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by Slick’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) actually predicted $200 Billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. So then, just what was it that could have changed this bleak outlook? Well, while Newt Gingrich and company have received virtually no credit over the years for balancing the budget, the surplus was, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink.

Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years. We had a balanced budget then that was mostly a result of 1) an exceptionally strong economy that is creating gobs of new tax revenues and 2) a shrinking military budget. Because social spending was still soaring to an overall total of more than $1 trillion. Skeptics said it couldn’t be done in seven years. However, it was the GOP, and not Slick Willie his band of spend-crazy Democrats, that accomplished it in only four. But as they say, it’s not about what you actually did, it’s about who’s best at convincing the voters of what you did.

Now let’s take a look at what was the real Slickmeister fiscal record. Recall now that it was ‘Slick’ who actually fought the Republicans every inch of the way in balancing the budget in 1995. When Republicans proposed their own balanced-budget plan, "BJ" waged a shameless Mediscare campaign to torpedo the plan, a campaign that even the Washington Post slammed as "pure demagoguery." It was "BJ" who, during the big budget fight in 1995, had to submit not one, not two, but five budgets until he begrudgingly matched the GOP’s balanced-budget plan. In fact, during the height of the budget wars in the summer of 1995, "BJ" admitted that balancing the budget was nowhere near being one of his top priorities.

And lets not forget who it was that was behind the first, and thankfully unsuccessful, attempt at a federal takeover of our healthcare system. It was, of course, none other than the Slickmeister and the Mrs. who set about to engineer a plan that, as we’re now finding out courtesy of Obamacare, would have sent the government’s finances well into the stratosphere. Tom Delay was right in saying at the time that for Clinton to take credit for the balanced budget is like Chicago Cubs pitcher Steve Trachsel taking credit for delivering the pitch to Mark McGuire that he hit out of the park for his 62nd home run. But that hasn’t stopped old Slick, or any number of Democrats from perpetuating the myth ever since.

Now as they say, numbers don’t lie and if we were to go back in time we would see that what the numbers show is that there was an actual cumulative budget deficit of almost $600 Billion from 1994 to 1998. Part of the explanation for the balanced budget is that Republicans in Congress had the commonsense to reject the most reckless features of Clintonomics. Had they not done so, you would not now be hearing anyone on the left bragging about how it was that because of progressivism the budget was finally balanced. Nor about how those evil conservatives then went on to squander that which Slick worked so hard to bring about. Slick was essentially saved from himself by congressional Republicans

And just as side note here, when it comes to the job growth that occurred on his watch, there is really very little here, as well, that "BJ" can realistically take any amount of credit for. It, again, was simply another example of his being in the right place at the right time. And while it makes for good storytelling, there’s very little about it that can be said to have resulted from anything that Slick might have done. You see, it was the time of that much talked about tech bubble, which I think we can all safely agree, that Slick really played no part in bringing about. So it is then that nearly every important component of his supposed legacy stems from the actions of others, with Slick having very little to do with any of it.

‘SLICK WILLIE’ ARGUES FOR IMMIGRATION ‘REFORM’…

Ex-president, and the man who seems to look at, with some level of pride, the fact that he joins Andrew Johnson, another Democrat, on the list of impeached presidents, 'Slick Willie' Clinton, claims that if U.S. lawmakers realized the economic impact of having the country’s population growth coming to a halt, it would energize immigration reform, "because it’s the only way to keep our country growing." This is but the latest reason to be floated by a Democrat and for no other reason than the desire of the Democrat Party to create millions of new voters.

But anyway, the 'Slickmeister' made his rather idiotic comments while discussing immigration reform earlier this month on something called the "America with Jorge Ramos" program. "I think that we're trying to pass immigration reform. The country needs it. If – I wish that all these members of Congress who oppose immigration reform, and who feel threatened by it, had been with me on my recent trip to Asia," "BJ" said. This guy would make a good used car salesman. He’ll say absolutely anything if he thinks there’s a chance that it will be believed.

Then old Slick went on to say, "And they – and Japan and China where they're worried about the population growth just coming to a halt. And what it's going to do to them economically," Clinton continued. "And I think it would give a lot more energy to immigration reform in America. The – we're going to have to do it, because it's the only way to keep our country growing. And the sooner we do it, the better." His entire argument makes absolutely no sense, unless, of course, you’re either a Democrat or a RINO. Then it makes complete sense.

But look, at a time when we have a ‘real unemployment’ rate that is well into double-digits, and even much worse for minorities, and the fact that over 11 Million people have now left the nation’s workforce, most because they couldn’t find a job, in just the last 5 years, I simply don’t see the logic behind his silly argument. And also when you take into account the fact that over 1,200 abortions occur in this country every single day and nearly 57 Million have taken place since 1973, and his argument becomes even more nonsensical.

Population growth, as it relates to our economy is a non-issue. We have more than enough people in this country without suddenly granting amnesty to the millions who are here "ILLEGALLY". As I said, the ONLY reason Democrats favor what’s commonly referred to as ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ is because they are quite confident in the fact that the vast majority of those illegal immigrants will be only too happy, once being declared legal citizens, to troop off to the polls and vote for Democrats who will likely return that favor by ensuring the gravy train continues to roll.

ADVICE FROM THE OLD “SLICKMEISTER”…

The Democrats were recently on the receiving end of the type of political advice that one could expect to hear coming from that sage of the party, ‘Slick Willie Clinton. As you may recall, it was old Slick’s administration that was made to experience a partial government shutdown back in 1996, and it was able to be spun as being the fault of the GOP. So now, he’s come out and said that he wouldn’t bother negotiating with Republicans on the eve of another shutdown. But what the ‘Slickmeister’ seems to ignore completely, and some Republicans do as well, is that 2013 is not 1996. And no matter how much he might wish it were so, a lot has changed over course of the last 17 years.

And things have changed the most dramatically just over the course of the last four years, with spending having gone through the roof, the racking up of an incredible amount of debt and an economy that is, quite literally, being destroyed by the very ones who claim to be ‘fixing it. And Obamacare is a fixture of all three of these areas. "I think there are times when you have to call people’s bluff," Clinton advised during an interview with his old sidekick, George "Stephy" Stephanopoulos," on Stephy’s stupid little Sunday show. And if this is the mentality we can expect from those on the left, then Republicans are left with few choices. They will need to stiffen their spines and plow ahead.

Slick said Republican tactics to undermine the 2010 health-care law seem "almost spiteful." However, I would argue that it’s just the opposite that’s true. I’d say that it’s the Democrats who are the ones being spiteful. They’re insisting upon putting their own political agenda above the desires of the American people. I mean, look, there has been poll after poll taken by all manner of polling group that has made it quite clear that well over 60 percent of the American people remain firmly against this thing. They see it as being far too intrusive, far too costly and incredibly destructive of our fragile economy. So it would be the Republicans who seem to be the ones doing that which the American people want done.

The Slickster recalled some "extremely minor" negotiations during his administration’s partial closures and said that, in this case, there isn’t an opportunity for real talks. "The current price of stopping it is higher than the price of letting the Republicans do it and taking their medicine," he said. "If they’re going to change the way the Constitution works and fundamentally alter the character of our country and damage the future of a lot of kids, you just have to say no." But in so saying, "BJ" seems to ignore completely the rather sleazy gimmicks used by his fellow Democrats to get the thing ‘passed’. Remember how it had to be passed in order for us find out what was in it? Old Slick don’t remember that, I guess

That’s the thing with these scum-sucking Democrats like the old Slickmeister. The rules are never meant to apply to them, only to the other guys. Democrats must be free to do whatever they want, however they want, because their motives are the ones considered to be so pristine. But it’s just the opposite that’s nearly always true. And despite what "BJ" said, it’s not the Republicans who are working to change the way our Constitution works, nor to fundamentally alter the character of our country. In fact, wasn’t it Barry who promised that if elected his goal was to "fundamentally transform" our country? We’re always being made to believe that it’s the Democrats who have our back, when all they really want to do is to shove a knife in it.