A Year After Obama Pledged To Take 5% Pay Cut, WH Won’t Confirm If He Actually Did

obama_crossing_fingers_10-31-13-2

In April of 2013, Obama promised to take a 5 percent pay cut in “solidarity” with federal employees who were furloughed as a result of the budget cuts, known as the sequester.

The promise was meant to be a visible way to show the American people – that he was “walking the walk” – not just “talking the talk.”

Um – but this is Barack Obama we’re talking about – aka “Captain Bullshit”  sooooo of course he was just “talking the talk.”

The White House has refused to confirm whether the Obama followed up on his pledge when asked by the Washington Free Beacon. (That usually means, no.)

The White House is refusing to confirm whether President Barack Obama followed up on his pledge to take a five percent pay cut due to sequestration last year.

Obama promised last April to take a 5 percent pay cut in “solidarity” with federal employees who were furloughed as a result of the automatic budget cuts, known as the sequester. The cut was meant to equate to the level of spending cuts imposed on nondefense federal agencies.

“The president has decided that to share in the sacrifice being made by public servants across the federal government that are affected by the sequester, he will contribute a portion of his salary back to the Treasury,” a White House official said at the time.

According to his tax returns, Obama is still receiving the presidential salary of $400,000 per year. Last year, he earned $394,796 in wages from the Defense Financing and Accounting Service (DFAS-CIVPAY), which handles the salaries for civilian members of the Defense Department.

The one promise Obama kept, was to himself: “If I like my $400,000 salary, I will keep my $400,000 salary.

By the way, the entire cut would have amounted to a measley $20,000. They could save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars by taking fewer vacations – but obviously that was never in the offing.

UPDATE:

Other Democrats who should be checked up on to see if they kept their pay cut pledges, include Chuck Hagel, Mark Begich, and Claire McCaskill.

Hagel and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter have announced plans to give up part of their pay because about 700,000 civilian workers face mandatory furloughs this summer.

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and Deputy Secretary Maurice Jones will also forgo some of his salary, their office said.

***

A few members of Congress also have announced self-imposed pay cuts. Lawmakers’ salaries are exempted from the sequester, so any reductions in pay are voluntary.

Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, who is up for re-election in 2014, said Wednesday that he will return a portion of his $174,000 salary to the Treasury. “We need to be making responsible cuts wherever we can, and there is no reason that members of Congress shouldn’t feel the pinch like everyone else,” he said in a statement.

More than half of the senator’s staff will take a pay cut this year, he said, and his office began furloughs in March.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., also said she will give up a portion of her salary.

Linked by: IHateTheMedia, thanks!

Dismantling the Left’s Dishonest Obama-Defense Strategies

o scandals

Kudos to Kyle Becker of IJ Review for doing the fact-checking on the left’s ’13 Benghazis That Happened Under Bush’ Viral Meme.

Many of us have seen the narratives refuting “Benghazigate.”

“Where was the outrage about all those embassy attacks under Bush? What about all the people killed in those attacks? Where was Fox News then?”

Let’s put aside for now that this line of questioning has nothing at all to do with why people are concerned about what happened during and after the Benghazi terror attack.

All 13 false equivalencies are picked apart, here.

Of course there were attacks on US Embassies in terrorist hot spots throughout the world during the Bush era. We were fighting two hot wars as part of what used to be called – “the global war on terror.” But there were major differences between these attacks and Benghazi, including the fact that in most of the examples no Americans died, there were no requests for more security that were  ignored, and there was no active cover-up after the attack. They were not “just like Benghazi” at all.

Bush readily admitted that we were fighting a global war on terror. But Obama wanted the nation to think that he had decisively won the war after  Osama Bin Laden was assassinated. The war on terror was over. Now, we just had overseas contingencies and workplace violence and demonstrations over Youtube videos.

___

The left  uses dishonest defense strategies to protect Obama and they have used them time and time again to explain away his scandals. They mischaracterize past events to draw some sort of moral equivalency – which often involves blaming Bush.  It looks good on the surface, but falls apart upon close scrutiny. But it doesn’t matter how weak their false equivalency is, because the strategy is geared toward BDS-ridden O-bots who are inclined to agree with them and not do any independent fact-checking. They just want to be spoon-fed what to think, and the Alinskyites running the show right now, are happy to provide them with the nonsensical pablum they need to fulfill their preconceived notions about a world in which every enemy has an R after his name.

____

Perhaps the first time the left used this strategy to protect Obama came after Holder’s DOJ dropped the charges against the New Black Panthers in what one Justice Dept lawyer described as a slam dunk case –  the clearest case of voter intimidation he had ever seen..

The charges stemmed from an incident at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day 2008 when three members of the party were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force — one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he “supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews.”

The Obama administration won the case last month, but moved to dismiss the charges on May 15.

Believe it or not – the left tried to blame Bush for the decision – forcing conservative bloggers like Delroy Murdock to waste time slapping down their idiotic false narrative:

Olbermann, recently fired Washington Post analyst Dave Weigel, and The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer have all crowed that Bush’s Justice Department dropped a criminal case against the NBPP. In fact, there never was a criminal case to drop. The NBPP faced a civil lawsuit prepared by Justice’s Voting Rights unit. This is exactly what career prosecutors recommended in the first place.

With respect to all but one defendant, Justice abandoned its civil case under Obama, not Bush — no matter what Olbermann and his comrades would like to believe.  

______

During the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal, in which thousands of high powered guns were allowed to fall into the hands of criminal gun cartels, Democrats constantly tried to argue that the Obama administration’s Operation F & F,  was a continuation of  “Wide Receiver”, a failed gun-tracing operation that the ATF briefly tried under George W. Bush. Democrats often used the Wide Receiver narrative during Congressional hearings, and Jay Carney used it when questioned by reporters during press briefings.

They were lying.

Besides the fact that they were two separate operations,  Wide Receiver actually made an attempt to track the guns that were headed into Mexico – guns  were implanted with RFID chips and were tracked electronically. The ATF in Phoenix also implemented aerial surveillance tactics in an attempt to follow the weapons.

Obama’s ATF  took no such steps to track the walked guns other than recording the serial numbers before allowing them to cross the border into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.  ATF agents involved with Fast and Furious would later testify that they were ordered to stand down and not track the weapons even when interdiction was possible.  The objective was to get them into the hands of drug cartel bandits only to be interdicted after they had killed people – at which point, they were  traced back to the gun shops that sold the guns to straw purchasers (at the ATF’s behest.) It was not a “botched operation. It was totally effed up from the start.

The Bush administration also worked in cooperation with the Mexican government. When about 200 guns were lost track of – the operation was terminated in 2007.

Mexican authorities were kept in the dark over Fast and Furious and were outraged when the details about the criminally insane operation were revealed. The operation started in the Fall of 2009 and not terminated until Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered with one of the Fast and Furious Guns in December of 2010.

A good question for Eric Holder would be why would the DOJ resurrect a program like Wide Receiver after it failed  –  but he would tell you he had no idea about it or Operation Fast and Furious.  He testified that he didn’t even know about Fast and Furious until well after Brian Terry’s death in Dec. 2010.  Any emails that might say otherwise have been protected by Executive Privilege.

There are still liberal drones out there who will knowingly tell you that Fast and Furious is a GW Bush scandal because it was a continuation of a Bush era gun-walking operation.

____

Remember Solyndra? The solar company that went belly-up after the Obama administration awarded them with an ill-advised half a billion dollars  loan? That was Bush’s fault, too, you know.

After spending months touting the Obama administration’s decision to loan $535 million to the California solar energy upstart Solyndra, top officials took a new tack Wednesday while testifying before Congress about the company’s abrupt shut-down and bankruptcy: the loan, they said, was actually the Bush administration’s idea. The Energy Department’s top lending officer told Congress that the Solyndra loan application was not only filed during President Bush’s term, but it surged towards completion before Obama took office in January 2009.

“By the time the Obama administration took office in late January 2009, the loan programs’ staff had already established a goal of, and timeline for, issuing the company a conditional loan guarantee commitment in March 2009,” said Jonathan Silver, who heads the Energy loan program.

It was a key part of the Democrats’ pushback over the Solyndra scandal. Dems argued that the loan guarantees made to the solar panel company were just as much the doing of the George W. Bush administration as they were of the Obama administration.

This argument has been pushed repeatedly by the Democrats on the Energy and Commerce committee, by liberal groups like Media Matters and even by the Energy Department itself, which has been emailing reporters regular press releases spinning the scandal.

For example, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce investigation subcommittee, asked Friday, “Whether the Bush and Obama administration conducted due diligence on the loan guarantee.”

But the facts don’t justify this claim. The bottom line remains that the Bush Administration did not approve the Solyndra loan guarantee. And just before they headed out of town, Bush officials ordered the project back to the drawing board.

Democrats argue the Energy Department first received the loan request in December 2006. By January 2009, it was still under consideration. That month, the department’s Loan Guarantee Credit Committee put the project on hold.

IBD concluded, “there were two administrations involved in this project. One, after more than two years of consideration, was still sending it back for further review. That was the Bush administration. The second was placing “intense pressure” on department staff to approve loans from the moment it walked in the door and even had the energy secretary himself personally reviewing each loan. That was the Obama administration.”

It would be like a Republican administration coming into office after Obama, immediately approving the Keystone Pipeline, and when something horrible goes wrong – trying to share the blame with Obama because he’s the one who  “established the goal” of approving the pipeline.

___

The IRS Scandal: One  defense strategy the left has employed to defend the Obama Regime  is the laughable “Progressive groups were targeted too!” false narrative. I’ve actually seen them try to argue that progressive groups were targeted even more than conservative groups. I mean if you’re going to lie – go big, right?

 NO progressive groups were unfairly targeted by IRS

This would already seem obvious given the fact that absolutely no progressive groups have come forward with horror stories about the abuse they supposedly endured as a result of being targeted and unfairly scrutinized. Congressional Democrats had every opportunity to let this alleged multitude of “progressive IRS victims” testify before various committees during several hearings that have been held on Capitol Hill on the scandal. Not-so-shockingly, no progressive victims have been identified and none ever testified..  Because they don’t exist.

There are still liberal drones who spread that particular brazen lie in the comment sections of our nation’s newspapers.

_____

Be on the look-out for this particular defense strategy. Now that we see the pattern, it should be obvious when we see them employing it.

The VA scandal is in its infancy, but I fully expect the left to blame the scandal on Bush era policies that Obama is heroically fixing. If they haven’t done that already.

Tommy Vietor on Benghazi: ‘Dude…That Was Two Years Ago’ (Video)

On FoxNews, Bret Baier interviewed Former NSC flack for Obama, Tommy Vietor who was involved in the editing of the talking points.

Baier asked Vietor about the edit that changed “attacks” to “demonstrations.”

Vietor shrugged it off, saying  he couldn’t remember, and then exclaimed impishly, Dude, this was like two years ago!”

Bret Baier shot back, “Dude, it’s what everyone’s talking about today.”

Unbelievable. This doofus used to work in the White House National Security Council. Think about that for one moment.

SEE ALSO:

Twitchy: ‘Dude, this was like two years ago’: Tommy Vietor talks Benghazi with Bret Baier

Gateway Pundit: BOOM! Tommy Vietor – Former NSA Spox – Admits Obama Never Made it to Situation Room During Benghazi Attack! (Video)

Obviously, we can’t take anything these twerps say on face value. That’s why I don’t think this is a big story. An O-bot said something, and what? We’re supposed to believe it?

Sharyl Attkisson wants to see the tick-tock of Obama’s whereabouts for that night, but the Regime isn’t supplying it.

Her theory is the White House had prepped for two different outcomes.

1. If somehow the Ambassador and crew had managed to survive the attack – there would be a picture of Obama and his team busy monitoring the situation in the Situation Room.

2. If things didn’t go well – well we already know  – blame it on a youtube video.

Attkisson has requested all of the photos taken at the WH, that day – but has been stonewalled on that.

Gowdy Blasts House Leadership: “Congress Is Supposed To Provide The Oversight – Not Judicial Watch!” (Video)

Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) appeared on Fox News with Bill Hemmer, Wednesday to discuss the explosive, smoking gun documents that were released by Judicial Watch, yesterday.

Gowdy said that the documents only prove what we already suspected, that “the White House was preoccupied with spinning their policy more so than telling the people the truth.”

But the slightly agitated Gowdy continued, “but Bill, Congress didn’t get this email. And that’s the point that I would stress to you and your viewers. This email came because of a court action by a private entity.

After 20 months, Congress still doesn’t have all the emails, and apparently we’re not willing to do anything to force the administration to give us the emails.”

How many more emails are there like this? And are we going to have to wait another 20 months to get those?” a clearly frustrated Gowdy asked.

“But it’s been 20 months!” Gowdy later exclaimed, “And we didn’t even get this email! Congress is supposed to provide the oversight – not Judicial Watch!”

“You would hope that my colleagues in the House – particularly the leadership, would be so infuriated that a private entity is getting more information from this administration than we are, that we would actually start using the tools that we have at our disposal to compel the information being produced. If this email existed for 20 months and we just got it, what else exists that we don’t know about,” Gowdy concluded.

Linked by RWN and Doug Ross, thanks!

Bart Stupak’s Pig In a Poke

stupak-as-chamberlain

I’ve held off on commenting on Bart Stupak because everything that needed to be said about him was said four years ago, and really, who wants to revisit that unpleasant, painful memory? I really don’t. It’s Lent, and I should be in a forgiving, charitable mood.

But then I remember how he was our only hope of defeating the ObamaCare monstrosity as he held out for statutory prohibitions on abortion funding. And he settled instead for a transparently fake fig-leaf of an  executive order that was unconstitutional and obviously fraudulent.

As a result his  political career came crashing to an end and now he’s telling us  he’s unhappy and feeling “double-crossed.” Was there ever a more aptly named congressman?

Today, as a private citizen, I’m proud to stand with the Green and Hahn families and their corporations, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, in seeking to uphold our most cherished beliefs that we, as American citizens, should not be required to relinquish our conscience and moral convictions in order to implement the Affordable Care Act. …

[W]e received an ironclad commitment that our conscience would remain free and our principles would be honored. With our negotiations completed and our legislative intent established by the colloquy, we agreed to an executive order directing federal agencies to respect America’s longstanding prohibitions on government funding of abortion and most relevant here, to respect longstanding protections for individuals and organizations conscientiously opposed to participating in or facilitating abortions.

I was deeply concerned and objected to the HHS mandate that required all health plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives, including four drugs and devices that could terminate human life at its earliest stages by preventing an embryo’s implantation in the womb. The FDA’s own labeling statements, as well as other studies, indicate that drugs such as the 5-day-after pill (Ella), as well as intrauterine devices (IUDs), may operate this way. The Greens and the Hahns cannot, in good conscience, risk subsidizing actions that may take human life.

He was also promised that no federal funding would go to pay for abortion under the health reform plans, yet that of course is happening. All of this was as predictable as the sun rising in the East.

Here’s what I said on March 21, 2010 – the Day Stup caved.

I can tell you right now; this won’t be worth the piece of paper it’s printed on. There is no one in politics today who is more viciously pro-abortion than Barack Obama, and every statement he makes comes with an expiration date.  If Obama was willing to lie to the Pope to his face about abortion, he certainly has no compunction about lying to Bart Stupak and his pro life stalwarts.

Tom Price called it “a pig in a poke” because he naively thought you couldn’t override legislation with an executive order. Way back in 2010 – that was considered beyond the pale.

A clearly disgusted Doug Ross, cut loose:

This bill fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the people; and it does so in a despicably evil way. Health care will, there is no doubt, be wielded as a political weapon to reward and punish.

Congratulations, Bart Stupak and your so-called “Pro-Life” Democrat Caucus, you’ve sentenced the unborn generations of this country to misery, poverty and economic ruin. Way to stay true to your beliefs.

You aren’t pro-life, you’re low-lives.

Andrew McCarthy addressed the constitutionality  of the EO deal:

The Susan B. Anthony List observation that EOs can be rescinded at the president’s whim is of course true. This particuar EO is also a nullity — presidents cannot enact laws, the Supreme Court has said they cannot impoundfunds that Congress allocates, and (as a friend points out) the line-item veto has been held unconstitutional, so they can’t use executive orders to strike provisions in a bill. So this anti-abortion EO is blatant chicanery: if the pro-lifers purport to be satisfied by it, they are participating in a transparent fraud and selling out the pro-life cause.

Charles Krauthammer called the EO “worthless” and called Stupak’s cave “disappointing”…He said, “this is nationalizing health care. As of tonight, health insurance companies become agents of the government. Obama will be remembered as the father of nationalized health care.”

Michelle Malkin introduced us to next Congressman in Michigan’s 1st congressional district.

Meet Dan Benishek, Stupak’s GOP challenger in Michigan’s 1st congressional district. His campaign slogan: “You deserve better.”

The Daily Caller: Obama’s executive order that satisfied Stupak does absolutely nothing.

Of course, we were just a bunch of conservative crybabies bawling about being outmaneuvered by the clever and crafty ObaMessiah. After all ObamaCare was going to cover 30 million more people for less money and everybody would be able to keep their plans and keep their doctors and pay an average of $2,500 per family less a year in premiums.

The always behind the curve Bart Stupak continues to believe “the Affordable Care Act is critical to reforming our health care markets and providing a critical safety net for millions…”

Whatever, dude.

Backlash: Angry ObamaCare Victims Lash Out At Dingy Harry Reid (Video)

Earlier this week, in a desperate attempt to combat the bad press and devastating Republican campaign ads highlighting “ObamaCare horror stories”, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid proclaimed on the Senate floor that all the stories we’ve been hearing about are untrue. “There’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue … Lies distorted by Republicans to grab headlines,” Reid said.

Dingy Harry walked back his comments a little while later, in response to the uproar he caused. He admitted that not every single one of the horror stories were a lie – just the vast majority of them – and by the way – the Koch brothers are un-American.
I can’t say that every one of the Koch brothers’ ads are a lie, but I’ll say this. Mr. President, the vast, vast majority of them are. And it’s time the American people spoke out against this terrible dishonesty of these two brothers who are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine.
Yes, the Senate Majority Leader actually warbled that the philanthropic Koch brothers are “un-American” because they donate to conservative/libertarian causes unlike George Soros or most labor unions who donate (in much greater numbers) to left-wing causes. He has a source who gives him this information. It’s the same guy who told him that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid his taxes for 10 years, and the Iraq war was lost while we were in the process of adding troops.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Are you people in Nevada who voted for this senile gasbag proud of yourselves? Harry Reid has to be the absolute worst Senate Majority Leader we’ve ever had.
In response to his bizarre declaration, the National Republican Senatorial Committee put together a video that hits Reid with “the weapon every ObamaCare-defending Democrat fears most: the truth.”

This morning on Fox and Friends, Elisabeth Hasselbeck spoke to a mother whose family has been living an ObamaCare horror story since they lost their health insurance plan, last Fall.

Johanna Benthal, 17, was born with congenital malformations on her brain. She has undergone 89 surgeries. The most recent one was last night.

Johanna’s mom, Eileen Benthal, told Hasselbeck she was “offended” by Reid’s comments. “Here I was sitting at my daughter’s bedside, and I’ve spent the last three months – it’s been more than a part time job for me – to secure insurance after our termination happened in the fall.”

Eileen said they have lost one doctor and all out-of-state coverage. The family was left with three minor options that she described as “far less superior” to their previous coverage.

If Reid feels any regret for his offensive words, Eileen said to him, “I challenge you to make a donation to the Angioma Alliance in honor of Johanna Benthal.”

Last year, the Benthals’ insurance company paid the $27K needed for Johanna to have neurodiagnostic testing at a University of Chicago clinic. With no out-of-state coverage as of March 1, the family is looking to the grassroots organization to cover the cost.

“I’d like [Reid] to put his money where his mouth is,” Benthal said. “I’d like him to pay $30,000 dollars to the Angioma Alliance and make that donation, and apologize to me and to the American people.”

A second woman, Betsy Tadder,  who saw her family’s health insurance canceled under ObamaCare told Martha MacCallum what she thought of Reid’s comments.

“I agree that there are lies being told about ObamaCare – and they’re being told all over America. I agree that he knows who the liars are and her knows who the liars are – and the difference is – I can sleep at night,” she said.

Julie Boonstra, Michigan mother battling leukemia is becoming a household name thanks to Democrat attacks on her story. She told radio host John Gibson that she is DEMANDING an apology from Harry Reid.

 Julie says Reid is saying she “is a liar” but “being able to keep your plan..that was the lie”.

Ophthalmologist, Dr. Patricia McLaughlin joined Greta Van Susteren to set the record straight:  We Are Not Liars and Phonies.

VAN SUSTEREN: When you hear Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid say these horror stories are wrong and untrue, what do you think? What do you say to him?

MCLAUGHLIN: I would just certainly hope that he said that in haste and that perhaps the information that was given to him came from a source that wasn’t correct. This is not the case that we are seeing in our practices and with stories patients are telling us.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, let’s go specific. Let me go first to your patients. You have patients who have insurance and they go to you. But now you have been knocked off one of the insurance networks. Is that correct?

MCLAUGHLIN: Well, I have been not dismissed but have nothing offered participation status in some of the subsections of one of the insurance companies. And that was insurance that would be covering individuals taking out insurance through the Affordable Care Act or through small business plans outside the Affordable Care Act. It also included them.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, does that mean that these patients that some patients of yours can no longer go to you unless they pay out-of-pocket?

MCLAUGHLIN: That’s correct.

VAN SUSTEREN: Have any of your patients said anything to you? Are they distressed by this or are they happy to sort of move on to look for another doctor?

MCLAUGHLIN: You know, most patients are attached to their doctor. We have had long-standing relationships. We don’t just take care of an illness. We take care of the human spirit as well. So we know things about their spouse, their children, their parents. We have gone through their trials and tribulations. There’s a relationship. Of course, they are distressed. And they don’t enjoy the fact that they don’t have freedom of choice any longer. It’s very, very confusing to them. It’s very distressful. They don’t know where to turn. They still will call us and ask for help. And, of course, we are willing it do that.

“Do As I Say…” Obama’s Most Hypocritical Moments (Video)

Fox & Friends highlighted 3 of Obama’s hypocritical moments – executive orders, lobbyists, and lastly golfing while in California for the drought.

On the campaign trail Obama criticized Bush 43 for the use executive orders, yet Obama bragged about how he has a pen and phone and will take action unilaterally. On the issue of lobbysists, Obama said that they will not be able to use the revolving door at the White House to cash in. And yet there are 395 former lobbyists in the Obama Administration including 136 current ones. Oh yeah how about golfing in California on courses that are able to stay green with water while farmers are suffering the worst drought in decades.

As I’ve stated many times, before. It wasn’t hard to figure out that this man was a pathological liar. I started tracking the alarming number of bold-faced lies and flip flops coming from “the Obamessiah” in the Spring of 2008, as I also tracked the bizarre cult of personality that surrounded him. I kept it up until it became too burdensome a task to keep track of every one of the man’s ridiculous deceits. By mid September, it had become clear that the electorate was (very stupidly) going to blame the Democrat-caused financial crisis of 2007-2008 on Republicans. Obama is a narcissistic manipulator who tells tall tales because he has a compliant media who lets him get away with it. He is guilty of massive fraud on ObamaCare alone. Yes, media fact checkers (who want to retain some modicum of self-respect) will point on some of the more egregious lies. To be absolutely clear –  if a Republican president were guilty of even half of what this president has gotten away with – the media uproar would have led to his impeachment, a long time ago. It’s not surprising that corrupt congressional Democrats support a corrupt, dishonest Democrat President. And it’s not surprising that a corrupt Democrat media complex supports a corrupt, dishonest Democrat president. What is surprising and disappointing is that there are still so many Americans who continue to support a corrupt, dishonest president who is so obviously harming the country. Rusty Weiss, of the Mental Recession, asks: Is America In an Abusive Relationship With the President?

The President pushed through his healthcare agenda, despite strong opposition.  He promised us safety, but when we wanted our own security system by securing our borders, Obama and his friends fought to prevent it.  He was showering America with gifts … using her own money. When we questioned the wasteful spending, he told us it was for our long term benefit, and raided $787 billion of our savings.  And when the economy failed to recover in any manner during his first term, we started seeing classic signs of an abusive relationship. Psychology Today examines several signs that you’re dating an abuser – signs which America should have easily picked up on in 2008, and most certainly should have identified in 2012. Here are 5 of those warning signs…

Continue reading at the link.

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,628,845 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 522 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: