BUSTED: Look Who Obama’s NOW Buddies With – TOTAL HYPOCRISY

Published on April 26, 2017

You KNOW it’s bad when THOSE guys are saying Obama sold out.

Obama is wasting no time cashing in on. His speeches are fetching $400,000. From the big banks, no less.

That’s amazing. Not just the money. But that, too.

What’s amazing is that anyone would willingly sit in on one of his speeches now that he holds no power, let alone spend $400k for the ‘privilege’.

Have they forgotten that our favorite Obama parody song (“If”) was built around his actual stammer?

Here’s the song:

And just so you know it wasn’t an exaggeration, here was the original speech.


And yet, people are still willing to shell out cash to see him.

VOX (that partisan hack site that normally LOVES all things Democrat) is not happy about this.

Former President Barack Obama’s decision to accept a $400,000 fee to speak at a health care conference organized by the bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald is easily understood. That’s so much cash, for so little work, that it would be extraordinarily difficult for anyone to turn it down. And the precedent established by former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, to say nothing of former Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan and a slew of other high-ranking former officials, is that there is nothing wrong with taking the money.

Indeed, to not take the money might be a problem for someone in Obama’s position. It would set a precedent.

Obama would be suggesting that for an economically comfortable high-ranking former government official to be out there doing paid speaking gigs would be corrupt, sleazy, or both. He’d be looking down his nose at the other corrupt, sleazy former high-ranking government officials and making enemies.

Which is exactly why he should have turned down the gig. — Vox

Don’t look now, but Vox may have just called Obama and the Clintons ‘corrupt’ and ‘sleazy’.

That may be the one good thing about Bernie having galvanized their party. It’s finally cool to criticize Democrat corruption. The article continued:

Corruption is the progressive center’s Achilles’ heel

Perhaps my wrongest take of the 2016 campaign was issued right before Election Day, when I acknowledged that in the abstract Nate Silver was right that Hillary Clinton wasn’t a lock in the Electoral College but dismissed Donald Trump’s chances anyway because of Obama’s high approval ratings. Undecided voters would never break for Trump under those circumstances, I thought, since Obama and Clinton were so ideologically similar.

Will Obama still be a ‘hero’ to the Millenials when they realize he’s ‘bought and paid for’?

Share if this isn’t the ‘change’ they had ‘hoped’ for.