AND YET ANOTHER SILLY AWARDS SHOW COMES AND GOES…

 

 

With the appearance of ‘BJ’ Clinton at this year’s Golden Globes, it has once again been made crystal clear just how phony all of these ridiculous award shows really are. This time around we had that leftist nut, Steven Spielberg, actually go so far as to arrange for the appearance of 'Slick Willie' to hawk his movie," Lincoln," at last night’s silly awards show. Supposedly, the appearance of the ex-president to introduce Stevie's work of pure fiction about Abraham Lincoln was the equivalent of state secret. "We had this on lockdown," said DreamWorks co-chair/CEO Stacey Snider, one of the people who helped organize ‘BJ’s’ appearance. Only about a handful of people at the Globes knew der 'Slickmeister' was coming. In fact, to keep things under wraps, Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) members who did know about the ‘surprise’ were actually told to lie. They were actually told to make stuff up and if asked to say that the special presenter was Prince Albert of Monaco. Really?

 

Some of those who comprise the supposed HFPA hierarchy heard there would be a special guest during the first hour but didn’t know who it was. Certainly Golden Globes attendees dropping off their cars before the ceremony must have noticed that security was a little tighter than usual with assault rifles visible on authorities. After all, whenever you have a serial rapist in the building, such precautions become necessary. And oddly enough, but something that shouldn't surprise anyone considering of the caliber of folks present there in the audience, it was 'Slick Willie' who received the first standing ovation of the night when he came onstage. Stacey Snider, besides being one to assisted in getting 'Slick' to show up, was also one of those in attendance who said that "her heart was pounding" during his intro of a clip. "BJ" called Lincoln a "brilliant film" in his remarks, and he also 'joked' about some of the harsh realities of politics that Lincoln reveals in the Civil War era President’s desire to see slavery outlawed.

 

"Winning it required the President to make a lot of unsavory deals that had nothing to do with the big issue — I wouldn’t know anything about that," old 'Slick' said to big laughs. Which again, should come as no surprise. I mean let's face it, what we had here, last night, was essentially a room filled with all manner of bizarre characters who together, I think it fair to say, probably account for a very significant percentage of all the perverts, drug addicts and psychos that we have in the entire country. And the combined IQ of this odd assortment of fruits, nuts and flakes, I’m quite sure, rests quite comfortably somewhere in single digits. Which would help to explain the rather exuberant response that was brought about by the appearance of der 'Slickmeister.' Let's face it, before our present occupier of the White House came along, old 'Slick Willie' was easily considered to be the most dishonest politician to have ever crossed the threshold of the Oval Office. I am curious, though, about how much it was that der 'Slickmeister' charged for showing up and for plugging the film.



***FLASH*** RAPIST GETS STANDING OVATION AT HOLLYWOOD AWARDS CEREMONY...

WELL DRESS ME UP AND CALL ME SALLY...

I gotta tell ya this is definitely something that I never saw coming, nor would I have ever thought that it would have even been possible. But, as they say truth is stranger than fiction, and so it is then that we have a rapist who has now been named as being "Father of the Year." So even though we're less than two weeks into 2013, the National Father's Day Council has already bestowed the title of 2013 Father of the Year upon none other than ex-president, and well-known serial rapist, 'Slick Willie' Clinton. Imagine that! Admittedly the award does seem to be a bit of a head scratcher because the Chappaqua resident's only 'known' child, Chelsea, is a married 32-year-old woman who hasn't lived at home since she moved away to college in 1997. Which would have been just a few months before most Americans first heard the name Monica Lewinsky. You remember her right? And how about "BJ's" other 'victims, Juanita Broaddrick, Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones to name just a few others.

Still, I suppose, even those with grown children can be considered as being doting dads. However in Clinton's case he's probably doing nothing more that to use his daughter, Chelsea, as a means of trolling for likely candidates who might be willing to take part in some his rather perverted, how shall I say, preferences. After all, how many can say that they've gotten on their knees in front of an ex-president? Anyway 'Slick' did call the walking of Chelsea down the aisle during her wedding in Rhinebeck as being the "most important job" he has ever had, although that job was back in 2010. During his years in office, 'Slick' also had two four-legged babies: There was Socks the cat, who was given away to a staff member and then later euthanized, and Buddy the dog, who died after being hit by a car in 2002. However, knowing the rather lewd escapades of the ex-president as we all do, the poor dog probably just couldn't take the embarrassment any longer of being Clinton's dog and simply committed suicide.

In a 2001 interview on the cable news network named after him, the Clinton News Network (CNN), the 'Slickmeister' admitted he had a hard time raising the pets. "I did better with the Palestinians and the Israelis than I have done with Socks and Buddy," is what he told CNN. The awarding council, a not-for-profit group that first gave the award out to Douglas MacArthur in 1942, states on its (super official-sounding) website momanddadday.com that the award is given to "contemporary lifestyle leaders" who have shown dedication to family, charity and civility. Charity and civility, they're joking, right? "With the profound generosity, leadership and tireless dedication to both his public office and many philanthropic organizations, President Clinton exemplifies the attributes that we celebrate through the Father of the Year award," Dan Orwig, chairman of the National Father's Day Committee, said in a release. Come on, they can't really be serious, can they? Really?

In announcing 'Slick' as being the recipient of the 2013 award, Dan Orwig, chairman of the National Father's Day Committee, put it like this, "With the profound generosity, leadership and tireless dedication to both his public office and many philanthropic organizations, President Clinton exemplifies the attributes that we celebrate through the Father of the Year award." Supposedly the ex-president is being honored for his work through the William J. Clinton Foundation "to improve global health, promote healthier childhoods and protect the environment" and for bringing "global leaders together to work on the most pressing issues," at least according to the committee's statement. Well gee, that kind of puts everyone who hasn't got their own 'Foundation' or a couple hundred million bucks at a pretty severe disadvantage, don't you think? And realistically speaking, what has 'Slick' or his silly 'Foundation' really accomplished other than to make him rich?

But quite honestly, when looking back at who this organization as picked as being past "Father of the Year" recipients this list is a rather strange one, and one that includes many that I'm sure old 'Slick' will be quite comfortable in amongst. The list includes New York City Mayor Michael "Mr. Mom" Bloomberg, New York Governors Andrew 'Anti-Gun Nut' Cuomo, and his rabid progressive dad, Mario. Also included on this rather bizarre list is Bing Crosby, whose eldest son wrote a tell-all book chronicling his father's physical and mental abuse. Being what I consider a pretty good dad, what we have here is a list that if I were ever be selected to be added to, I would, and very politely, decline. I just wouldn't feel comfortable even being mentioned as being a member of this rather unique cadre of very sleazy characters. But I don't think I'll ever have to worry about that, because judging by the other recipients, there's no way that I possess the 'qualities' that this group seems to be looking for. Whew!

"BJ" CLINTON, WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE FOR US TO FINALLY RID OURSELVES OF THIS GUY?

I simply cannot be only person in this country who wishes that this lying sack of human excrement, "Slick Willie" Clinton, would just ride very quietly off into the sunset. Can I? From his apparent "coming out" and praising someone described as being his former nemesis, to saying he thinks he needs to be paying more taxes, to thinking that his hag of a wife will play some contributing role after 2012, to his critique of the "super-committee," he has an opinion on just about everything, and is happy to express it to anyone willing to listen. But I'm curious, are there still enough people, outside the ranks of imbecilic Democrats, who really care what this slime ball thinks about anything? Ever since he stood in front of the American people, looked us all dead in the eye and shook that bony old finger, after only God knows where it had been, and LIED to us, I've had no use for this man. And oh by the way, just how many military secrets did he hand over to Communist China? That act alone was impeachable. And now he's supposed to be revered as being some senior statesman? The truth is, he's nothing more than a living, breathing, piece of dog squeeze!



On the topic of Newt Gingrich, “It’s not any traditional charisma,” said "Slick Wille," who was recently busy out pimping his supposed new best-seller, "Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy," in a recent interview. Who besides flaming liberals are going to buy about the benefits of government? Anyway, instead, Clinton believes that Gingrich is emerging because “he thinks about this stuff all the time.” "Slick Willie's" praise for his one-time rival, whose willingness to interrupt normal government functions temporarily in 1995 and 1996 contributed ultimately to balancing the federal budget, came in a recent interview. It was back in a September that Clinton had predicted that Gingrich, who at the time was polling in the single digits, would make a comeback. “He’s articulate and he tries to think of a conservative version of an idea that will solve a legitimate problem,” Clinton said in an interview just this week explaining the Gingrich resurgence. But I can't help but wonder why "BJ" would choose to dabble in the Republican nominating process. Is he trying to somehow affect the outcome?


"Slick" continued: “For example, I watched the national security debate last night. And Newt said two things that would make an independent voter say, ‘Well, I gotta consider that.’ “He said, ‘OK, I don’t want to legitimize immigrants who came here undocumented, illegally.’ On the other hand, a lot of those people have been here for years, they worked hard, they paid taxes, they’ve got kids in the schools, they’re not criminals, we’re going to have a hard time sending them all home, there’s millions of them. So, I’d like to have a process where they could be here legally but not have a path to citizenship. That sort of splits the difference between the immigration reforms proposed by President Bush and President Obama, which would give a path to citizenship, and would be a version of what President Reagan did.” "Slick" said that he was impressed that Gingrich devised a “red card” system that would be used to stop normalizing the immigration status of illegals if efforts to control the border proved ineffective. “That was a thoughtful response,” "Slick" said. We must be thoughtful.


"Slick Wille" has said that he also credits Gingrich for innovative thinking in his plan to give workers an option to invest their Social Security retirement funds privately. Gingrich said there should be a guarantee, so that, if markets nose-dive, workers would not receive less than they would have received under the old Social Security system. “See, that’s a new wrinkle on this,” "Slick" said, crediting Gingrich for thinking out of the box. “So he’s always . . . I think he’s doing well just because he’s thinking, and people are hungry for ideas that make some sense.” He stopped short of predicting that Gingrich would win the nomination. So what are we to make of this nicey-nicey talk about Gingrich? Is it real or is it make believe? Anytime you bring old "Slick Willie" into the mix you can never be too sure. One thing you can say about him, is that he is a very convincing liar. He has raised lying to an art form, there are very few that are seen as being as capable at lying as is old "Slick." However, there is one other person would does comes to mind as being as skilled a liar as is old "Slick." And that would, of course, be his "wife."


On the subject of taxes, old "BJ" says that he stands by the many comments that he has made saying he doesn't support tax increases and spending cuts at this moment in the midst of the nation's economic crisis. But he does agree, no big surprise here, with Barry "Almighty's" proposal to raise taxes on the nation's wealthier citizens. “I favor people in my income group, the top 1 percent or a fraction of it, paying more not because I want to punish success, but because I think the only way to balance the budget is through economic growth, spending restraint, and new revenues,” he said. "Slick" emphasized that timing is everything when it comes to raising taxes. Barry, he said, "doesn't propose to raise any taxes before 2013. And he is assuming that the economy will have recovered sufficiently in 2012 to do that." What, pray tell, is he basing that assumption on? That would be a policy he agrees with, he said. I don't believe I have yet heard anyone say that if you want to pay more taxes, you can't. So what's stopping old "Slick" from paying more in taxes?


On the topic of increasing taxes on the wealthy, old "Slick" spewed the typical liberal gibberish saying that, "We're in the best position to chip in. In other words, to me we ought to do it because we should be trying to create an economy of shared prosperity with a growing middle class and declining poverty — not because I want to punish people who are successful or I think they're bad." "And so I think we'll actually benefit from broader prosperity, from having a more vibrant small-business community, from having more middle class wages going up, and stronger families, and especially reversing this big increase in poverty through work, having poor people work their way into the middle class," he said. And in spewing yet another bit of liberal propaganda, "Slick" remains a supporter of the notion that it would be a mistake to cut discretionary spending in a bid to reduce the deficit, because it would have a negative impact on the nation's future. Guys like "Slick" are living out there lives in some alternate universe where you can just spend and spend and spend some more and face no consequences.


On the topic of his Saul Alinsky worshiper of a "wife," old "Slick" revealed that he has discussed with his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, her plans after she leaves Barry's administration. The old battle ax has stated publicly that she plans to step down at the end of Barry's first term, even if he wins re-election in 2012. Can we really trust her when she says that she unsure whether she'll seek out a new role in public life or remain just a private citizen? "Slick" said that he has discussed the matter with her "a little bit." "I think she wants, and she has said publicly, to continue a lot of the work that she's done, she did as a private citizen, as first lady, as senator and as secretary of state," "BJ" said. "Around the world, she's done an enormous amount of good in, you now, the so-called soft power areas, empowering women and girls, helping them, giving them access to capital, helping them make a living, promoting better healthcare practices." Then "Slick" added, "I think she will have a major role to play in the nongovernmental world. That's what she plans to do, and I think she'll do it well."


And finally on the topic of the failed "super committee," old "BJ," in what appeared to an attempt to be seen as being objective, acted as if he were placing an equal amount of blame on both the Democrats and the Republicans for being so caught up in their differences that they failed to recognize opportunities to agree on common-sense ways to reduce the budget deficit. He said both sides in the recent standoff may have concluded that they would be better off waiting until after the election to find areas of agreement. "Now, in my book," he said, "I outlined a whole bunch of cuts they could make in that budget, and savings they could achieve based on a 1,000-plus page report by the Government Accounting Office that outlines duplicative programs and things of that kind. But if you do it all, you could maybe get up to a $100 billion a year, if you included collecting a third of the taxes that are owed today but not paid.” Liberals like "BJ" will spout all kinds of things in their effort to avoid cutting spending. Because the actual cutting of spending goes completely against their entire warped philosophy.


However, old "Slick" noted that he is very concerned that “the default position which allows the Republicans to hold firm on taxes, and the Democrats to hold firm on Social Security and Medicare, ignores that there are some options that would not be particularly painful for either side." "Slick," who was pretty much forced into balancing the budget after suffering a head-on collision with fiscal hawks and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, did designate some areas that he thinks should not be cut. He described discretionary spending, which is only 15 percent of the total budget, as "our future." Cutting those programs would hurt Americans down the road, he said. He also contended that it is a mistake to cut foreign aid, which is only 1 percent of the budget. "That's why Bob Gates, who was President Bush's secretary of defense, pleaded with the Congress not to cut it, because he said, 'Making more friends and fewer enemies is always cheaper than going to war.' And that needs to be part of our national security spending," "BJ" said. Gates may have been appointed by Bush, but he was in no way a conservative.


At some point I can only hope that America's fascination with old "Slick Willie" will eventually begin to wane and finally get to the point where no one, any longer, gives a rat's ass what he, our first black president, has to say about anything. He is nothing more than a self-promoting opportunist who is absolutely addicted to being in the spotlight. He insists on injecting himself into whatever conversations are taking place regarding the most important topics is at the time. As if he would ever have anything intelligent, or relevant, to add to any conversation of substance. There is only one person in this world that this sleazy character cares about. And that person is William Jefferson Clinton. He, almost as much as Barry "Almighty," is quite literally thrilled with the sound of his own voice, and he considers himself as being on a higher plain than those of us who are mere mortals. The arrogance of these egomaniacs like Clinton, suffer from what can only be describes as delusions of grandeur. They purport to have all of the answers, but more often than not they're not even asking the right questions.

OK, NOW I’VE HEARD EVERYTHING…



Some little group referring to itself as the Women for Women International has chosen to honor former president “Slick Willie” Clinton as its 2011 “Champion of Peace.” "President Clinton's support of women and girls through Clinton Global Initiative has single-handedly shifted the discussion from a marginal to a central discussion essential to world stability and success,” Women for Women founder, some bimbo by the name of Zainab Salbi, said in presenting the award to old “Slick Willie” during the group’s annual gala dinner Nov. 17 in New York City. Droning on Ms. Salbi said, “History shall always know that it was his commitment that shifted the issue and gave it much-needed attention.” Adding, “I, and all the women I work with, are grateful, grateful and grateful for his leadership.”

In accepting the award, “Slick Willie” quipped that he is thankful to women for offsetting men’s mistakes. On what was supposed to be a serious note, he advocated empowerment for women and “the liberation of men” from their traditional role as aggressors. "What [we're] trying to do here is change the behavior of history," Clinton said. "If we do it together, we'll still make some mistakes, but we'll still be stumbling in the right direction." Apparently, Women for Women International was organized to provide female survivors of war, civil strife, and other conflicts with the tools and resources to move from crisis and poverty to stability and self-sufficiency, thereby promoting viable civil societies. What? And the best candidate they could find to bestow this little honor of theirs was, “Slick Willie?”


According to the group’s website, the organization, now in its 18th year, which is an amazing fact in and of itself, has helped more than 316,000 “socially excluded women,” in eight different war-torn countries, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Congo, Iraq, and South Sudan. Sorry, but by they’re selecting “Slick Willie” as the winner of their silly little award, they rob from themselves any level of credibility that they might otherwise enjoy. They also demonstrate an obvious lack of seriousness regarding their supposed mission. I mean here is a guy with a long history of not only mistreating women at nearly every opportunity, but who has also been unfaithful to his wife on a very public level. He is a serial sexual harasser who has a very low opinion of women.

"BJ" CLINTON SUPPORTS "OCCUPY WALL STREET" RABBLE-ROUSERS...

Apparently ex-president "BJ" Clinton has now seen fit to enthusiastically join with the throngs of liberal politicians, leaders and celebrities who are now out there cheerfully endorsing and voicing their support of the Occupy Wall Street movement to all who will listen. It was during a talk this week at the Chicago Ideas Week, that "BJ" went so far as to make yet another attempt to somehow compare this supposed "grassroots" movement, comprised primarily of the dregs of society with a generous amount of union goons there for back up, to the Tea Party which is made up of nothing more than law abiding citizens who want their country back. "BJ" even went to far as to make the idiotic claim that what is going here, with this Occupy Wall Street nonsense, is that is part of what is “good positive debate.” “The Occupy Wall Street crowd basically is saying, ‘I’m unemployed and the people that caused this have their jobs again and their bonuses again and their incomes are high again. There’s something wrong with this country. This is not working for me,’” "BJ" said, at least according to the Chicago Tribune. “So I think it can be a good positive debate.” The Tribune goes on to say that “Clinton said the Occupy Wall Street movement reminds him of the early days of the Tea Party fighting ‘unaccountable power.’” Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing about these Occupy Wall Street miscreants, or what they are "demanding," can be said to even remotely resemble the Tea Party. Nice try there, "BJ." But one again he's talking out his butt!

Still, his praise didn’t come without a slight bit of reservation. "BJ" also said that the movement could have the same problems as some of the Middle East protests, mainly “no program and … no organized political party.” So what does our ex-president think the country needs? If you’ve been following the Occupy movement from the beginning, it all sounds so very familiar: "BJ" called for reforms to the corporate tax system and said the economy will never fully recover unless the country addresses the mortgage crisis. Of course he failed to mention his role in that entire fiasco. He also suggested that banks write down or extend existing mortgages at today’s low interest rates, and if people still can’t pay, allow them to lease their homes for five years with the opportunity to reconvert to a mortgage. He also pushed for a “broader job-generating strategy,“ including more ”green” technology jobs, and said that in order for the country to rebound, there needs to be less anti-government sentiment and more “networks of cooperation.” So according to "BJ" Clinton there needs to be less anti-government sentiment and more green jobs. Typical liberal pabulum. Yup, that's right, it's all the fault of those seeking smaller and less intrusive government. That's why we find ourselves in such an economic, to use a favorite word of the left, quagmire. And is the creating of "green" jobs really going to be what gets us past this mess?


When looking around to see who it is that is joining "BJ" in his supporting the Occupy Wall Street gang, we find quite the group of luminaries and some of our wealthiest celebrities. Given that Occupy Wall Street “are the 99%,” and, given the movement’s general distaste for “the other 1%,” I'm a tad bit curious about how enjoying support from these wealthy elites jibes with movement’s core principles. It is difficult to gauge who is most hypocritical in this instance, is it the wealthy “1%’ers” supporting a movement that claims to revile everything celebrity represents, or is the Occupy Wall Street protesters for “selling out” and accepting help from the purported “enemy.” just another one of the mysteries of life? Perhaps the greatest, and, most obvious hypocrisy of all is that, unless born into privilege, as is the case with some of our celebrities below, it can be argued that none of these high net-worth individuals would be where they are today had that not been able to avail themselves to the advantages of capitalism. So without further adieu, here is a list of the 10 wealthiest celebrities supporting the Occupy Wall Street misfits. According to Celebrity Networth, the site that compiled the list, they have a combined net worth of $1.255 Billion.


First we have that resident dingbat, Yoko "I'm sure glad I married John" Ono who is reported to have a net worth of around $500 Million. Ms. Ono stated “I love ‘Occupy Wall Street’! John is sending his smile to ‘Occupy Wall Street.’ I am sending my love to ‘Occupy Wall Street.’ We are all working together. ”


Next we have Russell Simmons, net worth, $325 Million. In addition to being a music mogul and best-selling author, Simmons is the founder of a fee-based credit card company called UniRush Financial Services. But isn‘t the financial services industry to blame for the nation’s economic demise?


Then we have Roseanne "Lop of the heads of bankers" Barr, net work, $80 Million. I recently heard that NBC has offered the very unfunny Barr a new sitcom. Let's hope is crashes and burns and takes Ms. Barr with it. As I stated, Ms. Barr is of the opinion that bankers earning over $100 million should be beheaded. Her supporting this group of malcontents probably makes the most sense. If anything about this dizzy bitch could make any sense.


Number four on our hit parade is Deepak Chopra, who has a reported net worth of $80 Million. Chopra is another on our list who was born into privilege. His father, Krishan Chopra, was a prominent Indian cardiologist and head of the department of medicine and cardiology at Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital in New Delhi. Chopra’s father was also a lieutenant in the British army. Chopra, who said Occupy Wall Street is “turning anger into awareness” has amassed quite the fortune for himself via his numerous best-selling self-help books, as well as from the services offered at his luxurious Chopra Center spa and treatment center — where workshops, seminars and the “Journey into Healing” — meant to help anyone, are priced out of reach for just about everyone.


Coming in at number five is Mr. "No Bring-um-ups" himself, Kanye West who is reported to have a net work of $70 Million. West, who grew up in a quaint, middle class suburb of Chicago, has an entrepreneurial side. While not completely successful, his company, KW Foods LLC, bought the rights to the Fatburger hamburger chain in Chicago with plans to open up ten locations. Additionally, West launched his own fashion line in addition to collaborating with Nike on the release of his own shoe, Air Yeezys. Is West “selling out” with his ever-growing commercial empire?


At number six on our list is Alec "I'm a douche bag" Baldwin, net worth $65 Million. Perhaps best of all is that in February 2009, Baldwin actually called on lawmakers to extend New York’s tax break for the film and television industry, stating that if the “…tax breaks are not reinstated into the budget, film production in this town is going to collapse and television production is going to collapse and it’s all going to go to California.” So tax breaks are O.K. then?


Number seven is Susan "I'm a dried up old hag" Sarandon, net worth $50 Million. Ms. Sarandon popped by Occupy Wall Street while on her way to Italy. ‘”I’m just here to be educated and offer my support. There’s a lot of different kinds of people here who want to shift the paradigm to something that’s addressing the huge gap between the rich and the poor.” That gap is made abundantly clear when one peruses Sarandon’s $1.75 million Manhattan penthouse.


In at number eight is Michael "The Jabba the Hut lookalike" Moore, net worth, $50 Million. An extensive interview with The Guardian in 2004 revealed that, not only has Moore sent his daughter to private school, but that he often travels with body guards and lives in million-plus-dollar residences in NYC’s Upper West Side (at the time of interview) and in Michigan. The Guardian noted that, although Moore consistently refers to himself as “working-class,” he in fact grew up in a middle-class suburb of Flint, in a two-car family where his father golfed, retired in his fifties, and was financially comfortable enough to send his three children to college. Perhaps most damning of all, however, was the following passage where Moore’s former manager called the “Fahrenheit 911” maker “money-obsessed”: Moore’s employers were confronted with ever more regal demands. He insisted that Channel 4 house him at the Ritz when he worked in England on The Awful Truth, a fact he now portrays as the revenge of the working class against corporate might. Meanwhile employees grumbled. ‘He’s a jerk and a hypocrite and didn’t treat us right and he was false in all of his dealings,’ said one former worker. His former manager, Douglas Urbanski, has said that Moore ‘was the most difficult man I’ve ever met… he’s money-obsessed’.


At number nine we have Tim "I ain't got the brains of an ice cube" Robbins, net worth $50 Million. According to public records uncovered in The Daily Beast, the UCLA film school graduate shockingly contributed some $5,000 to Republican candidates in 2006 including Tea Party icon Michele Bachmann. Imagine that!


And last, but never least we have Nancy "Way too much Botox" Pelosi, net worth right around $35 Million. Pelosi, whose father was a U.S. congressman and former mayor of Baltimore, is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. Ironically, her husband, Paul Pelosi, is a successful investment banker and owner of the Sacramento Mountain Lions and the United Football League. Ah yes, truth is stranger than fiction.


Such is just a small sample of the illustrious little brain trust that now joins with "BJ" Clinton in supporting this bunch of anarchistic slackers whose general beef appears to be nothing more than that corporations are evil. That's a pretty generic reason to traipse about the streets of New York City. While I suppose there is some validity to their argument regarding close ties between Wall Street and Washington DC, I get that, and I suppose some level of change warranted. But I don't think, however, that what we need is more mindless regulations. Look the core source of all if our current problem is not Wall Street, it's Washington, and that's where the eye should be directed. Evidently most of useless clowns have the time and evidently outside sources of income, probably from mommy and daddy, to hang out in the city for almost a month now. Along with the general message that corporations are evil, many are also demanding free medical, free educations and a living wage of 20.00 per hr. whether working or not and a canceling out of their debts. Raise taxes on the "rich" is another bray heard. Some just want to be part of the movement. Yup by golly, these folks are after all, just like "BJ" says, exactly like the Tea Party folks.


On the contrary. No matter how Democrats try to spin it, "Occupy Wall Street" is in no way comparable to a Tea party, and actual "grassroots" gathering. And try as they might, those on the left like "BJ" who continue in their attempts to portray this group of malcontents as being the lefts version of the Tea Party, there is, quite simply, no comparison that can rationally be made. The Tea Party has a clear and unified message: Lower taxes and smaller government. It's not complicated nor is it hard to figure out, you can ask almost any participant and you will get that same general answer every single time. When there is a Tea Party event, people gather at a place that does not interfere with the ongoing commerce and business of a city in which it is being held. There are never any arrests and people are usually very respectful. At the end of the day they, clean up any trash that may have accumulated, return to their homes, take a shower and get on with their normal lives. Tea Party members have made their voices heard at the voting booths by turning the elections on their head last November. The only people the Tea party gatherings inconvenience are the Tea Party participants themselves, who have usually taken time off of "work" and traveled long distances "at their own expense" in order to attend these one day events.