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.

So when Obama’s veto came one Friday night last July — on the last day for him to sign or veto the legislation — it took lawmakers by surprise. It was the 11th of Obama’s 12 vetoes.

At the time, Obama argued that the bill would have “unintended consequences” and “impose onerous and unreasonable burdens” on former presidents by requiring them to immediately lay off staff and find new office space.

Republican leaders did not call up the bill for a veto override, which would have required a two-thirds majority in both chambers.

Democrats say they won’t necessarily oppose changes.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the top Democrat on Chaffetz’s committee, was a co-sponsor of the original bill. “Cummings definitely supports the concept, and if we can work out the technical issues with the bill that arose late in the last Congress, we expect he would strongly support it again,” said spokeswoman Jennifer Hoffman Werner.

Trump has not taken a position on the legislation. But during the campaign, he said he’d take a close look at pensions for elected officials — especially members of Congress.

“The first thing I’m going to do is tell you that if I’m elected president, I’m accepting no salary, OK?” he said at a town hall in 2015. “They get benefits that nobody else can even think about, OK. And they don’t like to talk about it. But we’ll work on that.”

Under the Former Presidents Act, the nation’s five living former presidents — Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama — get a pension equal to the salary of a current cabinet secretary: $207,800 in 2017. They also get $150,000 to pay staff, and “suitable office space, appropriately furnished and equipped.”

In 2015, the entire benefit package ranged from $430,000 for Carter to $1.1 million for George W. Bush.

With Obama joining the club as of Jan. 20, the 2017 spending bill approved by the House Wednesday contained nearly $3.9 million for all the former presidents through Sept. 30 — a $588,000 annual increase.

Obama spokesman Kevin Lewis said the former president had no comment on the legislation.

Obama has already shown he has considerable potential to raise money in his post-presidential career. He and his wife Michelle have signed a publishing deal for two separate books, which the Financial Times reported was worth at least $65 million. And the Wall Street speech — a health care conference planned by investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald in September — will reportedly net him another $400,000.

“President Obama will deliver speeches from time to time,” said Eric Schultz, a former White House spokesman who continues to advise Obama. “Some of those speeches will be paid, some will be unpaid, and regardless of venue or sponsor, President Obama will be true to his values, his vision, and his record.”

Obama has said he also plans to use his post-presidency to work on a range of issues through his presidential center in Chicago. On Wednesday, he unveiled the design of that center and said he would donate $2 million to a summer jobs program for Chicago youth.

A spokesman for President George H.W. Bush said he does not oppose changes to the law, and expects that Congress will likely take some action.

On the first day of Barack Obama’s presidency, he promised that he would close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. However, 8 years later the prison still remains open even though most of the prisoners have been released back into the population with disastrous consquences.

Brack Obama did all he could to release these disgusting terrorists and do what he could to make their lives better too. If it was not banning pork of prison menu’s it was releasing Muslim extremists back to the battlefield to fight against American troops. The prison was almost emptied out completely, but it appears that it will not be for long.

President Trump has made no secret that he planned on utilizing GITMO once he was president. And, like all promises Trump makes he intends on keeping this one as well. It appears that Trump is signaling that he will be filling the terrorist prison once again.
Here is more from The Hill:

The Trump administration appears to be making its first moves toward fulfilling a campaign promise to fill the Guantanamo Bay prison camp with “bad dudes.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein visited the prison on Friday to get an update on current operations, the first concrete action the administration has taken on the facility since taking office.

Up until now, Guantanamo has been running on autopilot; the executive order from former President Obama calling for the facility to be shut down is still technically the law of the land.

But President Trump promised during the campaign to “load it up with some bad dudes,” and Sessions has called it a “very fine place” with no legal reason not to send new detainees there.

Supporters of keeping the facility open and sending new detainees there are confident Trump will fulfill that promise, even if little movement has been made.

“We have taken off the table the silly ideas that the previous administration had about Guantanamo,” said David Rivkin, constitutional litigator and a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served under Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the White House counsel’s office and the Justice Department.

Obama, having failed in his efforts to close the facility, left Guantanamo with 41 detainees. Five of those detainees were cleared for transfer by either the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force set up in 2009 or the interagency Periodic Review Boards set up in 2011.

Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, various draft executive orders floated around Washington that would have moved to fulfill Trump campaign promise to begin sending new prisoners to the facility.

The orders would have revoked Obama’s executive order and suspended any existing transfer efforts pending a new review. They also would have called for the continued operation of Guantanamo to hold and try members of al Qaeda, the Taliban and “associated forces,” including the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

But no such orders have been signed.
Of course, the left is already screaming about human rights violations, but do not care about the lives these terrorists have taken. Unlike Obama who believed that incarcerating terrorists would only create more terrorists, Trump has a much more logical approach. And, that is to keep these dangerous individuals locked up so that they cannot harm anyone else.

Obama has had an extremely difficult time relinquishing the power he was held as president of the Untied States, as he’s spent every waking moment in recent months obsessing on ways to take out President Trump with his “resistance movement.” Over the past week Obama’s jealousy was on full display while Trump was in Germany for the G-20 Summit meeting, where Obama was caught breaking federal law to hold a secret meeting with the South Korean president. Now in an effort to up his game of subversion against President Trump, Obama has just abruptly ended his international vacation to fly back to Washington D.C. for another meeting cloaked in secrecy, proving yet again just how far he’s willing to go in order to get President Trump removed from office.

Obama’s antics over the past week in order to sabotage President Trump have been nothing short of startling. We reported several days ago how Obama secretly met with South Korean President Moon ae-in last week in order to discuss “dealing with Trump” for over 40 minutes, which was a straight up act of illegal subversion on Obama’s part. As Obama was busy parading around and pretending to still be president of the United States, he missed the fact that holding a diplomatic foreign meeting as a civilian is a direct violation of the Logan Act, and a serious federal crime. But unfortunately for President Trump, Obama was just getting warmed up with his plans to get rid of Trump for good.
What’s hilarious is that no matter what Obama and his band of Democratic cronies do to take down Trump, their plans keep imploding in their faces. Scandals surrounding Democrats continue to impede any type of momentum liberals have towards an impeachment on Trump, just take a look at how CNN and MSNBC (the propaganda wing of their “resistance movement”) have been going down in flames in recent weeks.

Democrats are also licking their wounds after their high hopes for getting Trump impeached over the “Russian election conspiracy” was officially killed this weekend, after President Trump discussed the issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin during their closed-door meeting at the G-20 summit. Compound the issue that the Democratic Party has no real prospects to run against Trump in 2020, and it’s easy to see why Obama and liberals are panicking, as all their plans to get rid of Trump are currently going down in flames. After a devastating last month, Obama is now kicking his antics into full gear, where he will be heading a fundraiser in Washington D.C. this week in a desperate attempt to “woo donors” to invest in political races.” The Hill reported:

Former President Barack Obama will headline a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., this week.

He’s set to appear Thursday at a closed-door event for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, the Washington Post reported.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez told the Post that Obama wants to help “build the bench” for the Democrats.
NDRC Executive Director, Kelly Ward would not say how much Obama’s appearance is expected to bring in, said he “still has such a microphone” to woo donors to invest in state-level races.

“That bully pulpit still very much rests with him,” Ward told the Post.

Obama wants to support the committee’s “efforts to address unfair gerrymandering practices that leave too many American voters feeling voiceless in the electoral process,” spokesman Kevin Lewis said.

“Restoring fairness to our democracy by advocating for fairer, more inclusive district maps around the country is a priority for President Obama,” he added.

Former FBI Director James Comey may be in hot water after what has been recently discovered about his memos. Comey who is well aware of government procedures appeared to have “lack of judgment” which can lead to serious consequences. More than half of the memos that Comey took during his private conversations with President Trump hold classified information.

Now, any FBI agent knows that any information released during an ongoing investigation is strictly forbidden. In fact, all the records that are created by agents are considered government property and cannot be released to the public.

From the bureau’s policy:

Unauthorized disclosure, misuse, or negligent handling of information contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI or which I may acquire as an employee of the FBI could impair national security, place human life in jeopardy, result in the denial of due process, prevent the FBI from effectively discharging its responsibilities, or violate federal law.

All information acquired by me in connection with my official duties with the FBI and all official material to which I have access remain the property of the United States of America. I will surrender upon demand by the FBI, or upon my separation from the FBI, all materials containing FBI information in my possession.

I will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.

So, you would think that the Former FBI Director would know this rule, right? Well, apparently Comey forgot about it and possibly will have to answer for it now.

The Hill reports:

More than half of the memos former FBI chief James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been determined to contain classified information, according to interviews with officials familiar with the documents.

This revelation raises the possibility that Comey broke his own agency’s rules and ignored the same security protocol that he publicly criticized Hillary Clinton for in the waning days of the 2016 presidential election.

Comey insisted in his testimony he believed his personal memos were unclassified, though he hinted one or two documents he created might have been contained classified information.

But when the seven memos Comey wrote regarding his nine conversations with Trump about Russia earlier this year were shown to Congress in recent days, the FBI claimed all were, in fact, deemed to be government documents.

Four of the memos had markings making clear they contained information classified at the “secret” or “confidential” level, according to officials directly familiar with the matter.

A spokesman for the FBI on Sunday declined to comment.

Congressional investigators had already begun examining whether Comey’s creation, storage and sharing of the memos violated FBI rules, but the revelation that four of the seven memos included some sort of classified information opens a new door of inquiry into whether classified information was mishandled, improperly stored or improperly shared.

Maxine Waters is at it again, just like the mainstream media, spreading fake news and attempting to undermine a democratically elected President. With Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, and Bernie Sanders’ wife all under investigation, you’d think someone in the DNC would get this nutcase to be quiet. Every time Maxine Waters speaks, the only thing she accomplishes is displaying how obtuse and dumb she is.

Let me paint the picture for you, MSNBC has this thing called ‘Moment of Maxine’, yes she has her own TV segment, where brain dead liberals and God knows who else tune in to listen to this garbage. Maxine was carrying on with the fake news story that 17 intelligence agencies concluded unanimously, that Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential election. Of course, the host of the show, Jonathan Capehart held an unbiased position in his questioning. Here is a partial transcript of the segment:

Jonathan Capehart: After the first face-to-face meeting between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the White House is basically saying, let’s get past this whole Russia interfered in our Democratic process thing. But my next guest is saying not so fast. Joining me now for our Moment Of Maxine, Auntie Maxine to the rest of you, Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Thank you for getting up oh so early there in Los Angeles to be with us today.

Maxine Waters: You’re welcome. Delighted to be with you.

It was at this point, I threw up in my mouth watching this filth, but for the sake of journalistic integrity, I knew for my readers I had to muscle through it.

Jonathan Capehart: So I want to start the conversation with a Tweet you sent out, and our producer Tracy Curry came up with the best sort of translation of it …
Jonathan Capehart goes on to describe this translation of Maxine’s Tweet, which is full of insults and name-calling. You know, what liberals do best because they lack the common sense to form a legitimate retort when faced with facts. Maxine refers to President Trump as weak and impotent and, is mad because President Trump is not being nice to Obama. It is obvious that the filth and fake news is continuing.

Jonathan Capehart: What was so troubling to you about the President at the G20?

Maxine Waters: Well, I’ll tell you what’s troubling is to me about this President. First of all, he has consistently denied that Russia is responsible for the hacking. He says well it could have been somebody else. He left the United States of America with that position. He went to this meeting with no note takers, uh no staff people, just he and Tillerson. Both of whom want to lift sanctions, and they basically brought up the subject, did not delve very deeply into why Putin and people in the Kremlin and others may have been involved in this hacking. And you know they didn’t talk about our intelligence agencies, 17 of them, who have concluded, that yes, they were involved in the hacking, the undermining of our elections, the undermining of our democracy. That’s what it amounts to. And so Putin you know politely brought it up because he left here with so much pressure. He knew he couldn’t go in there and not say anything. But really he didn’t delve deeply into it and now you have Tillerson and the President believing Putin over all of our intelligence agencies when they’re saying “yes they did”, and Putin is saying, “no he didn’t” in our face………

There are a few things to point our here about Maxine’s statement. First, she carries on with the whole fake ’17 intelligence agencies story’ that they all said Russia conducted hacking operations to undermine the 2016 Presidential Election, but in actuality, the number was 4. Here is a video, which even demonstrates the New York Times had to concede President Trump was accurate in that it was 4 agencies and not 17. Meaning 13 other agencies have serious doubts about whether Russia was involved. This is hardly a conclusive finding.
Second, Maxine said that President Trump did not aggressively press Putin on the issue, which is not true. President Trump stated he brought the issue up twice, aggressively, and Putin denied it. Knowing how President Trump does business I believe him. The fact that there were no staff or note takers present is probably because President Trump and Putin were talking about highly sensitive matters, not for public consumption.

Many Facebook users around the world are now familiar with the name Jayden K. Smith after a message went out yesterday warning everyone online not to accept a friend request from this mystery person. Perhaps for some, it was already too late, as they now have a new addition to their “friend” list, having not gotten the warning about this account before selecting “accept” to this stranger’s seemingly friendly offer. Now, we know what the real threat of this viral message going around is and what it’s done to millions of people on Facebook.

The message spread like wildfire, filling people’s Facebook feeds or messages from known friends in your Facebook Messenger inbox. It was alarming but seemed to serve as a heads up that if you get a friend request from a “Jayden K. Smith,” to not accept this black-listed Facebook user who is allegedly a hacker. The alert simply stated that this maniacal individual masquerading as a normal person on social media would have access to all of your personal and private information once you take the request bait and allow him onto your profile. However, was this a hack or a hoax? Here’s what you really need to know now 24 hours after it swept the Internet.

The message that you may have gotten along with many others of Facebook looked like this: “Please tell all the contacts in your messenger list not to accept Jayden K. Smith friendship request. He is a hacker and has the system connected to your Facebook account. If one of your contacts accepts it, you will also be hacked, so make sure that all your friends know it. Thanks. ”

While well-meaning users shared this just to be safe and not sorry, what they were really spreading was something much different than they thought. Fox 2 Now reports:

“Mass friend requests are flagged by Facebook as spam. So it is unlikely that anyone using a single account would use this as a method to hack millions of people. It is also against the social network’s terms and conditions so the offending account would be easily dealt with.”

It would be impossible for a single Facebook user to request millions of people’s friendship at once, or within a short time period, without being flagged and prevented from doing so. Additionally, a friend of yours on Facebook is not able to break into your account simply by you accepting their request. For these reasons, “Jayden K. Smith” is not a hacker, it’s a hoax message that managed to dupe droves of Facebook users into falling for it, but that doesn’t mean a Facebook danger is non-existent.

“The Independent reports that you shouldn’t just accept all friend requests. A hacker can’t access your password by simply becoming your friend but they can get a lot of information about you. Be careful who you accept as a friend because they can potentially see your personal information like address, date of birth or phone number,” according to Fox 2 Now.
“You should ignore the request to share this warning. Messages like this get recycled from time to time. They often contain elements like sensational warnings with devastating consequences and a prompt to share the message with everyone. Past warnings include names like Bobby Roberts, Anwar Jitou, and Tanner Dwyer.”
TimesUnion reports:

“There is no Jayden K. Smith. I mean, maybe there is, but he (I’m going with Jayden being male) is no different than the dozens of other ridiculous friend requests you get from people you don’t know — people typically based in the middle east and/or supposedly divorced or widowed and currently in the U.S. military.”

“You accept them, they try to get you to buy some island from their dying father, you mess with them a bit and then their account gets shut down by Facebook. It’s really as basic (and harmless) as that.”

“The only way to protect your account — or at least attempt to — from hackers is to have a strong password, not leave your account logged on when you leave a shared computer and to be vigilant. Oh, and use some common sense.”

President Trump recently met with Vladimir Putin for a scheduled 40-minute meeting that instead lasted for over an hour and a half. A large part of that meeting involved a lot of back and forth over the media accused “Russian meddling” of the 2016 elections.

Are we really still on that turntable? Even after numerous intelligence agencies have flat stated there seems to be NO EVIDENCE of any such meddling, as well as President Putin stating numerous times that he doesn’t have the time nor really the care to try and waste resources on such an act? Let it go people!

I seems that the liberal side of the country wants everyone to believe that Trump didn’t “push Putin hard enough” even though we now know that it has been reported by a senior White House official briefed on the interaction by Mr. Tillerson said that President Trump had pressed Mr. Putin on the issue for roughly the originally scheduled 40 minutes, which would explain why the meeting lasted for more than two hours.

Keep screaming libs because that piece of pertinent information came from your very own leftist agenda pushing new site, The New York Times. There really is nothing better than watching the left be discredited by their very own news sources. I guess The New York Times doesn’t want to end up like CNN.

Moving on now to things that actually matter, the 2 world leaders went on to discuss things like the war in Syria and the nuclear crisis in North Korea. Trump also reportedly pressured Putin to return the captured part of the Ukraine. It seems to me like Trump is actually doing the real part of the job that the last President skipped many times before in exchange for taxpayer paid vacations.
The light spirited presence of both men after the meeting in front of cameras may be an indication that by the end of that meeting things may have turned in favor of the United States. Both men seem as thought they had found a comfortable middle ground of sorts and even had a little bit of fun leaning in close and laughing at the expense of a few reporters that can be heard asking more idiotic questions about Russian collusion.

Watch the video of the press conference after the meeting. This link has a few different angles and such because the cameras used are quite loud. At minute marker 8:12 you can see the two leaders lean toward each other to gaff a bit at the media’s expense.
Sound like nothing but positives came from that meeting if truth be told. Time will tell but I have a sneaking suspicion that this is another case of epic winning for President Trump, hose of us with faith in him, and our country on a whole. For the record, I am still not tired of winning yet. Are you?

Let the liberals know that their days of riots and cry-baby antics are fast coming to an end by liking and sharing the hell out of this!

According to the staff salary report submitted by the Trump administration Friday, they are spending way less on salaries than the Obama administration.

According to the government watchdog Open the Books, President Trump’s 2017 salaries are decreased by 5.1 million in comparison to Obama’s 2015 payroll. The watchdog organization expects total federal savings up to $22 million in the next four years.

Many factors contribute to the savings, like significant reductions in policy czars, expensive fellowship programs and staff for the first lady, according to the watchdog group.

Today, there are 110 fewer staffers in the Trump’s White House than Obama’s.

In 2009 Michelle Obama’s employees were 24 that was the largest of any first lady, more the Hillary Clinton employees of 19 and Laura Bush’s 18.

Melania Trump now has only 5 staffers, whose annual salaries go from $77,000 to $179,700.

President Obama started his presidency by hiring expensive special initiative czars. Like, Director of the White House Office of Health Reform Nancy-Ann DeParle earned $158,000 a year, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner earned $172,000 a year, and White House Director of Urban Affairs Adolfo Carrion Jr. earned $158,500 a year.

Trump’s White House has no so-called “czars”, according to Open the Books.

Obama’s White House Leadership Development Fellowship program also came at a high cost. Fellowship candidate Elaine Ho had a salary of $158,700 for working with the first lady’s office to implement Michelle Obama’s “Let Girls Learn” initiative.

Two “directors” who were on the payroll for President Obama’s fellowship program had salaries of $120,000 and $60,876.

Trump also donated his presidential salary to the Department of Interior for use at military cemeteries in the first quarter of 2017.

First daughter Ivanka Trump, a special adviser to the president, and son-in-law Jared Kushner, a senior adviser to the president, have also refused to take a salary.

Obama’s staff of 472 in 2016 earned a median salary of $73,051.

Trump’s staff of 377 in 2017 are earning a median salary of $89,000.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in an email to the NPR that the lean staffing is proof the Trump administration is “trying to give taxpayers the best return,” saying that it’s a practice they want to enact “throughout all government.”

Please share this post on Facebook if you support Trump.

President Donald Trump’s first G20 Summit has ended and he was amazing. The mainstream made his accomplishments to sound like failures, but the foreign press was impressed by our president. Trump sent everyone blunt message after he saw what all the leaders did.

The other leader at the summit apparently forgot that Trump is a different leader than the one they are used to it and tried to force him to do something without having in mind that he is no Obama. And Trump refused to do it but that wasn’t all, he also stood for what he represents, he sent a bold message in the one picture he posed for and had all proud conservatives applauding him as he is remarkable.

While there were thousands of European protesters in Hamburg protesting G20 and globalism, Trump was inside sending a bigger message of his own.

Trump always puts America in the first place without caring if he offends others with his patriotism. And when every leader that attended the G20 Summit was gifted a special lapel pin to wear for the monumental meeting, Trump refused and wore one of his own.

They all wore a commemorative globalist lapel pin this weekend, representing a liberal agenda about international economic and foreign policy that Trump doesn’t agree with. So instead of wearing a lapel pin that he doesn’t believe in, he wore his American flag pin that you can see on him since he decided to run for President.
Please share this post on Facebook if you support Trump.

In a June 14 op-ed, the New York Times Editorial Board linked former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to the 2011 Arizona shooting that left six people dead and former Democratic Congresswoman Gabby Giffords injured.

The article was published after the Alexandria shooting despite the lack of a single shred of evidence that the shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, was somehow inspired by Palin.

Palin quickly filed a libel lawsuit against the New York Times, and the case is now underway.

The newspaper’s attorney argued in court on Friday that suggesting to readers that Palin was connected to the shooting was nothing but an “honest mistake,” according to the New York Post.

“There was an honest mistake in posting the editorial,” the lawyer reportedly said.

An attorney for Palin, Kenneth Turkel, wasn’t buying the excuse. “It was literally acknowledged the same day in another story in their paper,” he responded.

Here’s what was originally published by the New York Times Editorial Board:
The Times has since issued this correction:

An editorial on Thursday about the shooting of Representative Steve Scalise incorrectly stated that a link existed between political rhetoric and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established. The editorial also incorrectly described a map distributed by a political action committee before that shooting. It depicted electoral districts, not individual Democratic lawmakers, beneath stylized cross hairs.