Connect with us

Politics

Michelle Obama About To Lose It After Trump Rips Her Favorite Freebie From Her Greedy Hands

Congress might get involved. It’s bad!

Published

on

The White House has shared some shocking information with the public that might have the Obama family and their supporters a little ticked off after they see the stunning irresponsibility just exposed. Taxpayers especially won’t be happy to read this as this comes directly out of their pockets, one way or another, and they don’t even get to taste the fruit of their labor as the Obama family sucked them dry for $114 million – the amount the Obama’s used for their own personal luxury and campaign funds.

The White House revealed on their website that the Obama family cost taxpayers about $114 million to pay for family vacations and campaigning. Some of the details were revealed and the numbers were quite staggering. One could only imagine spending even a small portion of that on a vacation. Some families struggle to make it to one vacation per year, but sure would love the chance to go on vacations that cost millions!

This numerical disaster might tie into the fact that Congress may go after Barack’s pension. They were somewhat prompted to look into this after he charged $400,000 for a speech, but Obama had done something to put a stop to that. He previously vetoed a bill that would curb the pension of former presidents if they earned $400k or more in income. Sounds sneaky, right? Now that he put that bill on hold while he was in office, he was free to earn more than $400,000 – especially at once, something many might consider a ripoff just to have a single person give a speech. The logic here is that there’s no need to pay someone a six figure pension when they’re already making six figures on their own. Obama blocked that from becoming a reality and now he’s taking advantage of it.

Some political figures would like to rip that pension from the hands of Barack and Michelle, and any other president who finds ways to earn over $400,000 on their own. Do a former president and his wife really need $200,000 pensions if they’re making an extra $400,000 on the side?

Trending: First Video of Latest Trump Star Vandal Swinging Pickaxe Shows What Happened – Spread Like Wildfire

USA Today reported: “Last year, then-president Barack Obama vetoed a bill that would have curbed the pensions of former presidents if they took outside income of $400,000 or more.

So now that former president Barack Obama has decided to accept $400,000 for an upcoming Wall Street speech, the sponsors of that bill say they’ll reintroduce that bill in hopes that President Trump will sign it.

The Obama hypocrisy on this issue is revealing,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and sponsor of the 2016 bill. “His veto was very self-serving.”

Chaffetz and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, the sponsor of the companion Senate bill, say they will re-introduce the Presidential Allowance Modernization Act this month. The bill would cap presidential pensions at $200,000, with another $200,000 for expenses. But those payments would be reduced dollar-for-dollar once their outside income exceeds $400,000.

The issue isn’t a partisan one — or at least, it wasn’t last year. The bill passed both the House and Senate with no opposition, and no veto threat had come from the White House.”

The information from the White House that discloses the amount spent by the Obama on travel and campaigns simply adds insult to injury as people slowly realize that President Trump has been more fiscally responsible. The numbers don’t lie.

As provided from the White House: “Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained records from the U.S. Department of the Air Force and the Secret Service in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and two FOIA lawsuits for travel expenses by the families of former President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump.

The total for Obama travel is $9,028,346.90 for this production of documents. Added to the previously released costs, the known total for travel expenses for the Obamas is now $114,691,322.17.

The total for President Trump’s travels in this production is $2,821,367.34. Added to the previously released costs, the known travel costs are now $10,381,792.35.

Judicial Watch obtained new Obama travel records from the Secret Service as the result of a May 2017 FOIA lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (No. 1:17-cv-01007)). Judicial Watch’s lawsuit produced the following travel records showing a total of $9,028,346.90 for Obama travel:

A pair of Obama family vacations the weekend of February 14, 2014, cost the Secret Service $272,192.91:

Michelle Obama’s annual trip to Aspen with her daughters – where she shut down the airport for an hour – cost $6,970 in air/rail, $5,614.99 in car rentals and $76,078.30 in hotels for a total of $88,663.29
President Obama’s annual golfing trip to Palm Springs included a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah II and cost $10,951 in air/rail, $10,166.79 in car rentals and $162,411.80 in hotels for a total of $183,529.62
Michelle Obama made two North Carolina trips in 2016 to campaign for Hillary Clinton. Air Force expenses total $40,902.40. In both trips, she took a C-40C military jet operating at $5,312 per hour.

Michelle Obama flew to Charlottesville then to Raleigh on October 4 for 2.1 hours at a total of $11,155.20
Michelle Obama flew roundtrip to Belville and then Salem on October 26 and 27 for a total of 5.6 hours at $29,747.20.
In July 2017, Judicial Watch filed a separate FOIA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, for the Air Force and Secret Service travel expenditures for the Trump family during April 2017 and Obama family between January 2009 and January 2017 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Dept. of Defense and Dept. of Homeland Security (No. 1:17-cv-01341)).

Air Force and Secret Service records show President Obama’s annual trips to Chicago cost $7,444,780.78

During fiscal year 2015, Obama flew 9 hours at an operating cost of $206,337 per hour for a total of $1,857,033
During fiscal year 2016, Obama flew 5 hours at an operating cost of $180,118 per hour for a total of $900,590
During fiscal year 2017, Obama flew 6.2 hours at an operating cost of $142,380 per hour for a total of $882,756
Secret Service records show a total of $3,804,401.78 in costs between 2011 and 2016 for the Chicago trips. The Secret Service spent $3,372,399.07 in hotels, $423,428.28 in car rentals and $8,574.50 in miscellaneous expenses.
Secret Service showed expenses for Obama’s post-presidency travels of $1,913,702.21 including: $936,742.56 in hotels; $159,393.40 in air/rail; $2,684.11 in car rentals; $819.70 in overtime; and $814,062.44 in miscellaneous expenses. The destinations of these trips were withheld under “privacy” and “law enforcement” exemptions.”

Give me a few hundred thousand to play with and I could go on a few more vacations than this! It seems like the Obama family sure made the best of the taxpayer’s money, but people thought the Democrats were supposed to be the caring and responsible type. It sure sounds like they were quite capitalistic of the situation and figured – hey, they’re in the White House, they can do whatever they want and everyone else pays for it.

Any of us would take a few family vacations, but it would be fairly hard to find a way to waste over $200,000 on a single vacation. The Obama family somehow did it and if Congress and President Trump have their way, then they might be taking away that freebie pension from the Obama family.

Michelle might have to settle for a little bit less.

Do you think former presidents who earn over $400,000 on their should be paid a pension? Or should it be removed since they clearly don’t need it?

Share this story with someone who was not a fan of the Obama family. See how they feel about it and then write your comments in the section below.

Join the conversation

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

News

Dem Candidate Pushing ‘Irresponsible Breeder’ Tax On Certain Parents Because Of ‘Privilege’

Published

on

Scott Wallace is a multimillionaire running in Pennsylvania’s 1st Congressional District against current incumbent Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-R). Considered an elite, even amongst the wealthy, he boasts a net worth of between $127 million and $309 million, according to his financial disclosure statement. This would make him the third-richest member of Congress if he were elected to the House today.

From a hardline leftist pedigree, his grandfather was Henry Wallace, the “New Deal visionary” and one-time vice president under former President Franklin D. Roosevelt. His wealth is inherited, stemming from a seed company his grandfather founded that was purchased by DuPont for $10 billion in the 1990s, along with a large number of stocks with the largest being DowDuPont.

His campaign is largely self funded with Wallace claiming he is “putting a significant amount of my own assets into this because this is the most important thing I can imagine doing for America at this point in my life — this is a very expensive district to run in, but it is crucial in the Democrats’ efforts to retake the House.”

But just why this is so incredibly important to Wallace goes beyond the typical party lines of Republican and Democrat. Receiving endorsements from both Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women (NOW), Wallace is a population control zealot who believes families who choose to have more than two children are “irresponsible breeders” and should be taxed. Wallace has donated nearly $7 million dollars to various population control groups over the past 20 years, with the majority going through his own Wallace Global Fund.  In addition to its efforts towards population control, the foundation has also reportedly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to anti-Israel groups that support a boycott of the Jewish State.

Fox News reports:

“Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was among the organizations that received the money from the fund. According to public records, it received $420,000 between 1997 and 2003.

The group, shortly after being founded in 1968, released a brochure advocating abortion to stabilize population growth and claimed that “no responsible family should have more than two children.” To deal with larger families, it also called for families to be “taxed to the hilt” for “irresponsible breeding.”

It also blamed the overpopulation on the ‘white middle-class’ that ‘use up more than their share of resources and do more than their share of polluting‘ and urged them to ‘voluntarily limit their families to two children.’

Paul Ehrlich, who co-founded the ZPG, once called abortion “a highly effective weapon in the armory of population control.” The goal of the organization, which changed its name to Population Connection in 2002, has remained the same since its inception, arguing that the world needs to contain population growth with particular emphasis on American families.

The organization’s political arm, Population Connection Action Fund, publicly endorsed Wallace for Congress, saying his support for their cause is “exactly the kind of dedication we need in Congress.”

Wallace’s fund also gave $20,000 in 2010 to the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE), a group that sees the economic growth as undesirable and instead supports an economy with ‘stable or mildly fluctuating levels’ and a society where birth rates equal death rates.

The organization openly supports zero population growth and its executive board member, Herman Daly, advocated issuing reproduction licenses, allowing women to have only two children unless they buy the license for more children from other women. Daly called it the ‘best plan yet offered’ to limit population growth.”

The group advocates strongly for abortion and along with taxing families “to the hilt” for having more than two children, as noted in a Yale Law School publication about the “voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court’s ruling.”

The group advocates that –

  1. That no responsible family should have more than two children. Any family wanting to care for more than two children should adopt further children. Adopting children does not increase the population.
  2. All methods of birth control, including legalized abortion, should be freely available—and at no cost in poverty cases.
  3. Irresponsible people who have more than two children should be taxed to the hilt for the privilege of irresponsible breeding.

Fox News continued:

Zoe Wilson-Meyer, communications director for Wallace’s campaign, didn’t answer Fox News’ questions on whether Wallace still supports the ideas expressed by the groups.

“The Wallace Global Fund has for decades been a leader in helping women gain access to family planning. Former Co-Chair Scott Wallace is proud of the work of grantees like Planned Parenthood in empowering women and protecting reproductive rights and will stand up for Pennsylvania women,” she said in an email.

“In Washington, Brian Fitzpatrick voted to defund Planned Parenthood and supports Donald Trump’s effort to take away a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

Largely reminiscent of Nazi Germany who exercised eugenics to its full and most horrific potential, this policy of so-called “irresponsible breeders” also resembles the one-child policy from China that saw forced abortions or other forced invasive birth control procedures. Yet eugenics practices had their roots in America as well. American newspapers frequently offered praise for eugenics just prior to WWII and The Holocaust …. that is until Adolf Hitler revealed the true horrors of what eugenics really looked like. They avoided the subject for decades thereafter.

Nine out of ten eugenicists in the 20th Century were also Progressives or Socialists, and the most central component to the eugenic creed is the desire to engineer and centrally plan human reproduction, weeding out the unwanted or undesirable, according to a report on eugenics by PBS.

Yet where does that end? Who determines who is undesirable? Is it the unborn child conceived at an inconvenient time? The elderly mother? The child with cerebral palsy? Those with PTSD? Autism? Blue eyes? White skin? You cannot get to genocide without first visiting identity politics and they say the propagandist’s job is to effectively make the people forget his “enemy” is, in fact, a human being just as he is. It seems we never really do learn from history, do we?

Continue Reading

News

Elected Democrat Official Who Viciously Attacked Veteran Just Learned Her Fate

This heated exchange just got personal!

Published

on

Earlier this week it was reported that Patricia Edmonson, who is the vice chair of the Palm Beach Soil and Water Conservation District, has now had to resign after she came under fire for her vulgar comments on Facebook against a combat veteran over his support for President Donald Trump. The resignation came after the chairman of the Republican Party of Palm Beach County demanded Edmonson’s resignation over the comments.

Palm Beach Post reported:

“The vice chair of a little-known environmental panel resigned Wednesday after she came under fire for cursing at a U.S. Army veteran, calling him a traitor and speaking ill of fallen veterans in a Facebook chat earlier this month.

Patricia “Pat” Edmonson, who until Wednesday afternoon served on the Palm Beach Soil and Water Conservation District, and U.S. Army veteran James Plowman, who lives in North Carolina, didn’t know each other before they met in cyberspace through a discussion on Facebook on July 16.

But their conversation turned extremely ugly — and has gone viral.

The two sparred over a Facebook post by another user regarding President Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin. After Plowman mentioned the years he spent in combat, Edmonson, wrote using an expletive, “—— you, traitor.”

Edmonson then launched into a vitriolic tirade of posts. “Do your dead brothers ever visit your dreams and ask you why you’ve turned your back on them?” she wrote. She also asked:“Do you smell the rotting flesh of those you’ve betrayed?”

Reached on Wednesday, Plowman said he isn’t concerned about being called a traitor. That’s comical to him, he said. But the comments she made about soldiers killed in battle “just can’t be forgiven,” Plowman said.

“That’s just something I’m not going to even look at forgiving. It’s just not a place she should have ever went,” he said.

The posts have not gone unnoticed and have circulated through Palm Beach County and beyond.

Michael Barnett, the chair of the Palm Beach County GOP, publicly called for Edmonson, a Democrat, to resign from the conservation district’s governing board. Rob Long, who sat on the board with Edmonson, also called for her resignation. Long said her seat will either be filled through an appointment or a special election.

On Plowman’s Facebook page, Edmonson wrote that she appreciated Plowman’s service to the country and apologized for “the inappropriate choice of language” by calling him a “traitor.”

“My words were spoken as a private citizen, not in any professional or public capacity and should be treated accordingly,” she wrote. She also added her role in the exchange wasn’t “her finest hour” and she “let my Trump hate get the best of me and said some truly hurtful things.”

In an email to The Post, Edmonson said: “Given the enormity of the reaction to my indefensible Facebook comments to CSM Plowman, I am submitting my resignation as Vice Chair of the PB Soil & Water Conservation District. It has been an honor to serve with my colleagues on the District and to serve the people of Palm Beach County. However, I cannot allow collateral damage from my actions to harm the District, its employees, or the outstanding work done by the District.”

I have personally apologized to CSM Plowman for my highly offensive remarks. I have no defense for the comments made to one person on a social media platform at a specific point in time. My comments have been globalized to assert that they represent my feelings towards veterans and the military; which they do not. My comments have been politicized by others to further their own agendas. Do my foolish and highly regrettable comments rise to the level of receiving death threats, does the punishment fit the crime? I will leave that question to wiser minds than mine. I made a terrible mistake; I apologized to the person I wronged.”

Edmonson was elected to the Palm Beach Soil and Water Conservation District in 2016 and won a new term in June when she ran again but unopposed.

The Palm Beach Soil & Water Conservation District, based in Royal Palm Beach, is a state government division. It does not have taxing authority, nor does it levy bonds or enforce land use laws. Its mission is to work with “local businesses and agencies to provide conservation services throughout Palm Beach County.” It’s governed by an elected, five-member board of supervisors that serve without pay.

The district addressed Edmonson’s comments on its Facebook page Tuesday saying views expressed by members of the governing board in “ABSOLUTELY NO WAY” reflect that of the rest of the board or the employees.

But the fallout continued.

A consulting company that lists Edmonson as an officer has received $39,000 from Jim Bonfiglio’s Democratic campaign for state House District 89, according to Florida Division of Elections reports. Bonfiglio took to Facebook on Tuesday to announce that his campaign has severed ties with Edmondson.

“Ms. Edmonson’s words do not reflect my views or the views of my campaign. She exhibited a severe lapse in judgment, to say the least. Although I count her as a friend, Pat is no longer associated with my campaign in any way,” he wrote.”

Edmonson had also been working on the campaign of Jim Bonfiglio, who is, of course, a Democratic candidate for the Florida House of Representatives, but he swiftly kicked her off his campaign.

Her vacant seat will now be filled through appointment or a special election.

Let’s be honest here. This woman may regret that she lost her temper and was caught. She let her true feelings out and because of this has possibly lost whatever career in politics she had aspired to have. But no need to worry, I am sure she can still salvage her political career by moving to Southern California and getting a job with Maxine Waters. I’m sure she would be considered a superstar there and would go far.

Continue Reading

Like Us on Facebook

Recent

Trending

No trending posts found at this time.