How many times can you associate "Liberal" with "Hypocrite"?

ANSWER:  More times than I can keep track of.

7 Liberal Hypocrites Who Call For Gun Control While Being Protected By Guns

John Hawkins
John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News

One of the great ironies of the gun control debate is that everyone who calls for gun control still wants a man with a gun protecting him. Every governor in America has armed security. You have to go through a metal detector guarded by men with guns to get into the Capitol building. Barack Obama has hundreds of Secret Service agents carrying fully automatic weapons who protect his safety. Even run-of-the-mill Democrats who want to take guns away from everyone else will unhesitatingly pick up the phone and call the police if they feel threatened -- so that a man with a gun can show up and make them safe.

But, if a man in a bad neighborhood wants a gun to make his family safe, a rape victim wants a gun to be protected, or just the average Joe wants a gun in case his life is endangered by a burglar, thug or the next Adam Lanza, these same people want to take their guns away. Pro-gun control Democrats may think we have an "upper class" that deserves to be protected with guns while it's okay if the "peons" get shot, but that goes against the core of what America is supposed to be. If your child's life is in danger, you should have every bit as much of a right and opportunity to defend his life as the Secret Service does to defend the
President of the United States when he's threatened.

Unfortunately, there are some people in this country who apparently believe they're so special, so elite, so much better than the rest of the "riff-raff," that they should have a right to be protected even if you don't.

1) The Journal-News: The Journal News printed "the names and addresses of gun permit holders in Rockland and Westchester counties" as its way of taking a dig at gun owners. But, this attitude about guns certainly did change when the shoe was on the other foot.

Veritas video reporter James O’Keefe has released a new video of his team posing as an anti-gun group promoting an initiative to journalists.   At each home, the group dubbed as “Citizens Against Senseless Violence” asks homeowners if they are willing to put up a “Gun Free” sign in their yard.

O’Keefe primarily focuses his efforts on employees of the Journal-News – the New York newspaper that published a controversial map of registered gun owners online.

Armed security welcomes the Veritas team at some of the homes - as some of the newspaper's employees felt threatened once bloggers retaliated by posting their names and addresses online.

2) Dianne Feinstein: She introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 in the Senate.

"I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me." -- Dianne Feinstein

3) Mark Kelly, the husband of Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ): "Mark E. Kelly, gun-control proponent and husband to former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, recently purchased an AR-15 (an “assault weapon,” he called it)—which he now says he intended as an illustration of the need for more stringent gun laws.

Kelly reportedly bought the AR-15 and a 1911-style semi-automatic pistol at a gun store in Tucson, Arizona.

Testifying to the Senate Judiciary Committee January 30, Kelly had urged senators to restrict sales of firearms based on their lethality–a common refrain with other witnesses that day who argued that semi-automatic weapons, which chamber subsequent rounds as bullets are fired, and other guns with military-style features, level the playing field against law enforcement.

Kelly and Giffords founded their own advocacy group to restrict gun rights, Americans for Responsible Solutions, in January.

...Similarly, the ARS website says: “Congress should act to limit the sale of assault weapons."
4) Shania Twain: “Shania Twain didn't exactly have a shotgun wedding....in Puerto Rico ... but it sure was a pistol -- as in what the guards were packing on the beach during the ceremony,” TMZ.com reports.

We’re told there were 'several armed security guards.'

...But here’s the thing about the privileged Ms. Twain employing armed guards (lawbreaking or otherwise) in the first place—she’s a big advocate of infringements against those of us who can’t afford an armed security presence and must rely on being our own first line of defense.

She was one of the signers...of the Handgun Control, Inc. (since changed to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, to help mask their intentions) “Open Letter to the NRA,” a full page ad published in USA Today."

5) Rosie O'Donnell: "On her television show, April 19, 1999,O’Donnell had this to say about gun owners: “I don’t care if you want to hunt. I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, ‘Sorry.’ It is 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Several months later, a bodyguard in her employ applied for a concealed gun permit from the Greenwich (Connecticut) Police Department. When queried about whether her bodyguard should carry a gun on May 24, 2000, she said, 'I don’t personally own a gun, but if you are qualified, licensed and registered, I have no problem.'"

6) Sarah Brady: "Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas...and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the Daily News has learned. Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington.
30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop. "I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat.

"Brady became a household name as a crusader for stricter gun-control laws after her husband, James, then the White House press secretary, was seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan."

7) Michael Moore: He's a staunch advocate of gun control who has gone so far as to suggest that merely owning a gun is racism, "…But on this particular day, on Martin Luther King Day, I think this needs to be said. That imaginary person that’s going to break into your home and kill you, who does that person look like? You know, it’s not freckle-faced Jimmy down the street, is it really? I mean, that’s not what really, that’s not what really people, we never really want to talk about the racial or the class part of this, in terms of how it’s the poor or it’s people of color that we imagine that we’re afraid of. Why are we afraid? What is that, and it’s been a fear that has existed for a very, very long time." -- Michael Moore

Yet, Michael Moore has an armed bodyguard. We know because that bodyguard was arrested carrying his weapon.

“Filmmaker Michael Moore’s bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York’s JFK airport....”

Close the door, lock and latch it, here comes the government with a big old hatchet!

Honestly though, think about it.  If there were ever an administration hell-bent on destroying our economy through massive spending and borrowing, it’s this one.  And, if there were ever an administration hell-bent on "changing" our form of government "from the inside [as taught by Obama's mentor Saul Alinsky] it’s this one. 

And, if there were ever an administration so hell-bent on disarming its citizens, it’s this one.  All of these observations taken on their own may not mount to much.  But, when you view them all as one grand plan, the conclusion that Obama and his communists, socialists, Alinsky-ites, progressives, mindless lackeys (Pelosi, Biden, Reid) are preparing for one massive revolution is not really all that far-fetched. 

My recommendation - watch carefully the advancement of the above initiatives before they all reach an explosive conclusion.  And, oh yea, maybe you had better make sure you have some weapons in your possession.  Because, not sure about you, but when Armageddon comes to our own country, I won't go quietly. 

WND EXCLUSIVE

Obama admin stonewalling on big ammo buildup

Lawmaker: 'They refuse to let us know what is going on'

By Garth Kant

Garth Kant is a WND staff writer. Previously, he spent five years writing, copy-editing and producing at "CNN Headline News," three years writing, copy-editing and training writers at MSNBC, and also served several local TV newsrooms as producer, executive producer and assistant news director. He is the author of the McGraw-Hill textbook, "How to Write Television News."

 

Members of Congress are demanding the Obama administration explain why it is stockpiling a huge arsenal of ammunition and weapons.

The Department of Homeland Security bought more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last year, as well as thousands of armored vehicles.

Rep. Timothy Huelscamp, R-Kan., wants to know what DHS plans to do with all that firepower, but he can’t get an answer.

A reporter for We Are Change asked Huelscamp at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week why DHS needs weapons of war.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that,” Huelscamp said.

“I’ve got a list of questions of various agencies about multiple things. Far from being the most transparent administration in the world, they are the most closed-nature, opaque and they refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t have an answer for that. And multiple members of Congress are asking those questions,” he added.

Huelscamp said he plans to apply pressure to get an answer: “It comes down to during the budget process, during the appropriations process, are we willing to hold DHS’s feet to the fire? We’re going to find out. I say we don’t fund them ’til we get an answer.”

Rep. Leonard Lance, R-N.J., also wants answers, and WND has reported that he is demanding an explanation of DHS’s bullet buys from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

“I think Congress should ask the department about both of those issues, and I would like a full explanation as to why that has been done, and I have every confidence that the oversight committee … should ask those questions,” said Lance, adding that he shared a belief “that Congress has a responsibility to ask Secretary Napolitano as to exactly why these purchases have occurred.”

As WND reported, the Department of Homeland Security has argued that it is buying in bulk to save money, explaining it uses as many as 15 million rounds a year for training law enforcement agents.

But the 1.6 billion rounds of ammo would be enough for more than 100 years of training, or, more ominously, enough to fight a war for more than 20 years. It would also be enough to shoot every American more than five times.

Forbes columnist Benko, who worked for two years in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division, doubts the government’s explanation.

“To claim that it’s to ‘get a low price’ for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant,” he writes.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin said she believes the federal government is building an arsenal to prepare for the day the country goes bankrupt. Last month, she wrote on her Facebook page: “If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.”

The prospect of civil unrest puts a chilling spin on an ominous remark then-candidate Barack Obama made in a Colorado campaign speech in July 2008.

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” said then-candidate Obama.

Even the far-left is worried by the feds’ growing power.

WND reported four days ago that Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, a left-wing “peace and social justice movement” known for its colorful marches and protests, told WABC host Aaron Klein the potential for the Obama administration to abuse its growing domestic police power is “extremely troubling.”

Klein asked Benjamin, author of “Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control,” if she was concerned that military-style drones now authorized to fly over U.S. skies could be used against American citizens, the same question that prompted U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to filibuster in the Senate earlier this month.
“Very much so,” Benjamin replied. “We see a militarization of the U.S. police forces here in the United States, and it’s a very troubling tendency.”

Furthermore, Benjamin charged she was “upset” that liberal Democrats – who might question and fight the federal government’s growing police powers under a Republican administration – “have been very quiet when this is happening under Obama.”

Klein asked if concerns that federal agencies are buying for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the last year meant America is heading toward some sort of military-style control.

“I think the potential is there,” Benjamin replied, “and the fact that 10 years after 9/11 the U.S. is still keeping the American people in the state of fear about terrorism and using that to take billions and billions of our tax dollars to use to set up these kind of facilities and equip our local law-enforcement agencies with military equipment and potentially really be turning us into a society where Big Brother is watching us all the time, I think is extremely troubling.”

The astronomical growth in federal firepower comes at a time when Democratic lawmakers and President Obama are trying to reduce the availability of guns for American citizens, following the Dec. 14 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

A law went into effect in the state of New York on Jan. 15 banning so-called assault weapons and limiting ammunition magazines to seven rounds.

Just yesterday, Colorado’s governor signed into law a measure expanding requirements for background checks and another putting a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Gun-rights supporters are fighting back in both states.

The National Rifle Association announced today that it has joined the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association in a lawsuit challenging the New York law.

Sheriffs in Colorado are considering filing suit against that state’s new anti-gun laws.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he and many other county sheriffs “won’t bother enforcing” the new laws, because it would be impossible to keep track of whether gun owners are meeting the new requirements.

He says the laws are “feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.”

As WND reported, similar sentiments have been expressed by Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and sheriffs in Missouri, California, Kansas, Montana and in dozens of counties in several states across the country.

Weld has joined the list of at least 340 sheriffs who have vowed to uphold the Constitution against gun-control measures that violate Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

The sheriffs’ push-back against the gun measures is significant because, “The bills are a model for what they’ll try to push in Congress,” said Independence Institute research director and Denver University law professor Dave Kopel.

“Colorado is a pawn for the Obama-Biden plan,” he added.

That plan is moving forward in Congress, although not even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could get Democrats to go along with banning “assault weapons.”

Earlier this week, Reid told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that her measure to ban those weapons would not be part of a sweeping bill restricting gun rights. She said Reid decided the ban had little chance of surviving a vote in the Senate.

Feinstein said she will be able to offer the ban as an amendment instead. But AP suggested that by pushing it back to that level, Senate leaders believe it will have a hard time passing.

Feinstein sponsored the 1994 assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Her current proposal would have banned 157 different types of weapons and ammunition magazines.

All of these gun-control measures have some concerned about outright confiscation of guns.
WND reported three weeks ago that the City Council in Guntersville, Ala. proposed to give police officers the authority to “disarm individuals, if necessary,” during an emergency or crisis. The council quickly backed down after an outcry when the story hit the Internet.

Such blatant grabs for guns are not new in the U.S. Less than a year ago, the Second Amendment Foundation fought a court battle over a North Carolina regulation that banned firearms and ammunition outside the home during any declared emergency, and won.

A provision in a Washington-state gun-control bill that failed in the state House last week was so draconian that even its sponsors backtracked or denied any knowledge of it when they were confronted about it.

As Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat reported, the “Orwellian” measure would allow the county sheriff to inspect the homes of owners of so-called “assault weapons” to ensure the weapons were stored properly.

In the post-Newtown debate, Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke speaks for many of the nation’s sheriffs in saying such firearms seizure plans are flat-out unconstitutional and they won’t enforce them.

Authorities confiscated firearms in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Thousands of weapons – legally obtained and owned – were simply grabbed from citizens after New Orleans Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III announced, “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.”

In a series of videos, the NRA has documented the stunning weapons grab by police in New Orleans, assembling videos that show them physically taking weapons from individuals, including one woman who was stunned when officers threw her against her kitchen wall because she had a small handgun for self-defense.

The police actions – many of the victims describe the gun confiscation as out-and-out theft – left New Orleans’ residents, who had been prepared to stand their ground and defend themselves from thugs and looters running amok, completely defenseless.

WND reported this week a new poll indicated only one in five gun owners would be willing to give up their firearms if the government demanded it.

“In other words, the government has a huge fight on its hands if it tries to implement a gun confiscation program,” said pollster Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies.

Nearly half of the nation’s households have at least one gun, according to a 2011 Gallup poll. The 2010 U.S. Census counted nearly 115 million households. Since President Obama took office in 2009, more than 65 million background checks have been conducted on gun purchases.

The push to limit the gun-rights of citizens comes as the federal government seeks to expand both its firepower and its reach. WND has reported on growing federal police power across dozens of government agencies for more than a decade and a half.

In 1997, WND exposed the fact that 60,000 federal agents were enforcing more than 3,000 criminal laws. The report prompted Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America to remark: “Good grief, that’s a standing army. … It’s outrageous.”

Also in 1997, as part of an ongoing series on the militarization of the federal government, WND reported armed, “environment crime” cops employed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a federal law enforcement program had trained 325,000 prospective federal police since 1970.

WND also reported on thousands of armed officers in the Inspectors’ General office and a gun-drawn raid on a local flood control center to haul off 40 boxes of paperwork.

WND further reported a plan by then-Delaware Sen. Joe Biden to hire hundreds of armed Hong Kong policemen in dozens of U.S. federal agencies to counter Asian organized crime in America.

In 1999, Farah warned there were more than 80,000 armed federal law enforcement agents, constituting “the virtual standing army over which the Founding Fathers had nightmares.” Today, that number has nearly doubled.

Also in 1999, WND reported plans made for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, to use military and police forces to deal with Y2K.

In 2000, WND CEO Joseph Farah discussed a Justice Department report on the growth of federal police agents under President Clinton, something Farah labeled “the biggest arms buildup in the history of the federal government – and it’s not taking place in the Defense Department.”

A 2001 report warned of a persistent campaign by the Department of the Interior, this time following 9/11, to gain police powers for its agents.

In 2008, WND reported on proposed rules to expand the military’s use inside U.S. borders to prevent “environmental damage” or respond to “special events” and to establish policies for “military support for civilian law enforcement.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/dhs-stonewalling-on-big-ammo-buildup/#PgJRCLjS3eABfzlV.99

Oh no...of course not...no way Obama's a socialist...or a communist...time will tell

WND EXCLUSIVE

Obama quotes Alinsky in speech to young Israelis

Channels theme of 'Rules for Radicals' book dedicated to Lucifer

JERUSALEM – In his address in Jerusalem today, President Obama channeled Saul Alinsky, citing the radical community organizer’s defining mantra as he urged young Israelis to “create change” to nudge their leadership to act.

Obama told a crowd of college students at Jerusalem’s main convention center that Israel “has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but also the courage to see the world as it should be.”

 

One of Alinsky’s major themes was working with the world as it “is” to turn it into the world as “it should be.”

In his defining work, “Rules for Radicals,” which he dedicated to “the first rebel,” Lucifer, Alinsky used those words to lay out his main agenda. He asserted radical change must be brought about by working within a system instead of attacking it from the outside.

“It is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system,” wrote Alinsky.

Obama related his Alinsky quote to a suggestion that “peace” begins with the people and not just the leadership – a statement some may relate to community organizing. 

He further suggested Israelis do an end-run around the country’s leadership and “create the change that you want to see.”

The president said: “That is where peace begins – not just in the plans of leaders, but in the hearts of people; not just in a carefully designed process, but in the daily connections that take place among those who live together in this land, and in this sacred city of Jerusalem.”

He continued: “Speaking as a politician, I can promise you this: Political leaders will not take risks if the people do not demand that they do. You must create the change that you want to see.”

It’s not the first time Obama used the Alinsky phraseology of the world as it “is” versus how it “should be.”|

In a May 2011 speech, Obama stated: “There must be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that advances self-determination and opportunity. Yes, there will be perils that accompany this moment of promise. But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.”

In an April 2009 talk to a London girl’s school, first lady Michelle Obama recalled that on her first date with Barack Obama, he took her to a “community meeting” and taught her about the world “as it is” and “as it should be.”

“As he talked to the residents in that community center, he talked about two concepts,” she stated. “He talked about ‘the world as it is’ and ‘the world as it should be.’ And I talked about this throughout the entire campaign.”

Alinsky’s ideology is not foreign to Obama. The politician started his career as an Alinsky-style community organizer in Chicago and taught the radical’s tactics at the University of Chicago.

WND was first to report the executive director of an activist organization that taught Alinsky’s tactics of direct action, confrontation and intimidation was part of the team that developed volunteers for President Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Jackie Kendall, executive director of the Midwest Academy, was on the team that developed Camp Obama, a two-to-four day intensive course run in conjunction with Obama’s campaign. It trained volunteers to become activists to help Obama win the presidential election.

WND also reported the Woods Fund, a nonprofit for which Obama served as a paid board director from 1999 to December 2002, provided capital to the Midwest Academy.

Obama sat on the Woods Fund board alongside William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground domestic terrorist organization.

Also, in 1998, Obama participated in a panel discussion praising Alinsky alongside Midwest Academy’s founder Heather Booth, an organizer and dedicated disciple of Alinsky.

The panel discussion following the opening performance in Chicago of the play “The Love Song of Saul Alinsky,” a work described by the Chicago Sun-Times as “bringing to life one of America’s greatest community organizers.”

Obama participated in the discussion alongside other Alinskyites, including Booth, political analyst Aaron Freeman, Don Turner of the Chicago Federation of Labor and Northwestern University history professor Charles Paine.

“Alinsky had so much fire burning within,” stated local actor Gary Houston, who portrayed Alinsky in the play. “There was a lot of complexity to him. Yet he was a really cool character.”

In a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe, Alinsky’s son praised Obama for stirring up the masses at the 2008 Democratic National Convention “Saul Alinsky style,” saying, “Obama learned his lesson well.”

The letter, signed L. David Alinsky, closed with, “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully.”

‘Communist fellow traveler’

Former 1960s radical and FrontPage Magazine Editor David Horowitz describes Alinsky as the “communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration that characterized the 1960s and have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States.”

Horowitz writes in his 2009 pamphlet “Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution. The Alinsky Model”: “The strategy of working within the system until you can accumulate enough power to destroy it was what ’60s radicals called ‘boring from within.’ … Like termites, they set about to eat away at the foundations of the building in expectation that one day they could cause it to collapse.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/obama-quotes-alinsky-in-speech-to-young-israelis/#qFA8gxoZXm8Rhfzv.99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More hypocritical liberal cronyism to the nth degree

The story below appears on Michelle Malkin's web site - http://michellemalkin.com/

It was Michelle's book, The Culture of Corruption that turned me politically active and helped me find my true spot on the political spectrum.  I'm a conservative who leans toward the Tea Party.  I have such disdain for the progressives, the liberals who are destroying the country I love dearly.  Obama is an enemy of the U.S.  He needs to be removed from office through the impeachment process.  So many impeachable offenses have been committed.  One day, one will stick. 

Penny Pritzker: A Chicago Fat Cat for Commerce Secretary?
by Michelle Malkin
Copyright 2013

Will President Obama really nominate billionaire Chicago gal pal Penny Pritzker to head his Commerce Department? “It’s a done deal,” according to a White House source close to the Chicago Sun Times. As further confirmation, Pritzker resigned abruptly from the Windy City’s school board late last week. The crony fix seems to be in.

Taxpayers, beware. Pritzker is a deep-pocketed doyenne with a family history of dodging taxes — or siphoning them away from the public for her own family’s gargantuan private gain. If you want to see how she’ll oversee a $10 billion government agency, look at her own wealth redistribution record.

Most notoriously, Pritzker headed up subprime lender Superior Bank. Even after it went under in 2001 and left 1,400 mostly poor and minority customers destitute, Pritzker was pushing to expand its toxic subprime loan business. As I’ve reported previously, Pritzker and her family escaped accountability by forking over a discounted $460 million settlement over 15 years after the bank collapsed.

One of the Obamas’ oldest Chicago friends and an intimate confidante of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Pritzker served as a top national finance chairwoman and bundler for the 2008 presidential campaign. She is an heir to the Hyatt Hotel and Pritzker family fortunes. According to Forbes, her grandfather and his sons also created the industrial conglomerate Marmon Holdings, which the family sold to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway for $4.5 billion.

To protect her family’s multibillion-dollar fortune, Pritzker’s enterprises park their money in the very same kind of offshore trusts Obama attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney over. But Obama lapped up nearly $800 million in campaign and inaugural funding raised by Pritzker. A former Pritzker tax lawyer pioneered tax-avoidance strategies for the family, which allowed them to pay $9 million in taxes instead of $150 million in estate taxes after patriarch A.N. Pritzker died. As Forbes notes: “There are now 11 Pritzkers on the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans.” Nice lawyering if you can get it.

Exempted from Obama’s poisonous class-warfare demagoguery, Pritzker also chaired Chicago’s failed Olympic Village Subcommittee while serving as president of Pritzker Realty Group, a top Illinois mega-developer that would have reaped untold millions in project work if then Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and the White House had secured the 2016 Olympic bid.

Former Pritzker executive and Obama campaign treasurer Martin Nesbitt also served on the Olympic committee, while holding the chairmanship of the Chicago Housing Authority under Daley — brother of former Obama Chief of Staff William Daley. Cronies of a feather.

One of the most lucrative schemes milked by these developers and perfected in Chicago is a mechanism called tax increment financing. When I worked in Seattle covering corporate welfare and city government, I became strange bedfellows with a diverse alliance of libertarians and Ralph Naderites who rightly oppose “public-private partnership” deals between developers, statist Democrats and corporate welfare Republican politicians. These “public-private partnership” scams inevitably involve tax increment financing gimmickry to siphon off tax dollars to subsidize developers/builders/contractors, who then reward politicians with big campaign donations.

TIF schemes totaling hundreds of millions of tax dollars were at the heart of the Obama/Daley/Pritzker Chicago Olympics bid. And a huge franchise of Pritzker’s Hyatt Hotels Corp. was the beneficiary of a $5.2 million TIF subsidy approved by Chicago Dems last year. It’s part of a massive redevelopment project with the Obamas’ hometown University of Chicago that robs local schools to subsidize well-connected corporations.

Don’t take my word for it. As a radical leftwing local activist put it: “It’s not fighting economic blight; it’s a way of taking from everyone and giving to the 1 percent.” From Chicago to Chicago on the Potomac, it’s dirty statist business as usual.

 

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Opening our airports to more 911 terrorists

So many things about this administration's decisions and policies just defy logic, common sense and sanity to a normal person.  But I guess to a liberal, all is well.  .

DHS questioned over decision to let Saudi passengers skip normal passport controls

Published March 20, 2013

FoxNews.com

A Department of Homeland Security program intended to give "trusted traveler" status to low-risk airline passengers soon will be extended to Saudi travelers, opening the program to criticism for accommodating the country that produced 15 of the 19 hijackers behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Sources voiced concern about the decision to the Investigative Project on Terrorism, which issued a report Wednesday on the under-the-radar announcement -- which was first made by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano after meeting in January with her Saudi counterpart. According to the IPT, this would be the first time the Saudi government has been given such a direct role in fast-tracking people for entry into the United States.

"I think you have radical Wahhabism in certain elements in Saudi Arabia, and I think to be more lenient there than in other places would be a mistake," Rep. Frank Wolf told the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

"There were 15 [hijackers] from that country, and there is a lot taking place in that region."

Only an exclusive handful of countries enjoy inclusion in the Global Entry program -- Canada, Mexico, South Korea and the Netherlands. According to the IPT, some officials are questioning why Saudi Arabia gets to reap the benefits of the program, when key U.S. allies like Germany and France are not enrolled; Israel has reached a deal with the U.S., but that partnership has not yet been implemented.

Any Saudi travelers cleared through the program will be able to bypass the normal customs line after providing passports and fingerprints. The status lasts for five years.

The decision is a turnaround, the IPT notes, from when Saudi Arabia was briefly placed on a list of countries whose U.S.-bound travelers would face higher scrutiny, in the wake of the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt in 2009.

But Napolitano spoke highly of "the bond between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" when she announced the change in January.

"By enhancing collaboration with the government of Saudi Arabia, we reaffirm our commitment to more effectively secure our two countries against evolving threats while facilitating legitimate trade and travel," Napolitano said.

The Global Entry program was launched in 2008 to expedite pre-approved passengers through the airport customs and security process when they arrive in the U.S. The program is designed to weed out low-risk passengers and enable authorities to zero in on those who may be more likely to pose a threat.

But the program has sparked controversy in the past. Critics objected in late 2010 when Mexican citizens were included in the program, raising concerns that drug cartels would quickly learn how to exploit loopholes in the plan. DHS officials, however, insisted at the time that people who attain trusted traveler status don't get a free pass and are still subject to random searches.

The program allows travelers who have undergone a thorough vetting process -- fingerprinting, background checks, interviews with customs agents, etc.-- to attain a low-risk status that allows them to skip the line at customs and complete their entry process at an automatic kiosk.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/20/decision-to-extend-trusted-traveler-program-to-saudi-scrutinized/#ixzz2O6DHG2TW

Nothing like rubbing a little salt into American Citizens' wounds, eh Obama?

Typical liberal attitude...Tells other people how to behave, but can never live by their own directives.  Elitist snobs that just know better than everyone else.  How can anyone still support this buffoonish troll?  ...hold on a second...I think I hear something...sounds like a Drone flying overhead...guess they found my blog...maybe I'm just being paranoid...wait...what's they buzzing sound?  Its getting louder!  OMG...KABOOM!

No Plans for Obama to Cut Back on Lavish Vacations and Travel

Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall

Yesterday during the White House daily press briefing, Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked by "just a blogger" if President Obama planned to cut back on his lavish vacations and travel at a time when the country is hurting economically. Carney's answer wasn't "no," but rather a long drawn out "Obama is focused on jobs."

As a followup to the question asked by the woman earlier, with very high unemployment in the black community, and when there are government workers who may be furloughed, and there are millions of other Americans unemployed, and families whose budgets have been cut, how does the President justify lavish vacations and a golf trip to Florida at taxpayer expense? Does he plan to cut back on his travel?

This question came just one week after it was revealed the Obama's are living at a cost of $1.4 billion per year.

The executive mansion is not in that much trouble, of course. It’s certainly not in sufficiently dire straits for Air Force One ($181,757 per hour) to be grounded, or to see the executive chef ($100,000 per year) furloughed, or to cut back on the hours of the three full-time White House calligraphers ($277,050 per year for the trio), or to limit the invaluable work of the chief of staff to the president’s dog ($102,000 per year), or to trim his ridiculous motorcade ($2.2 million). If Ellen DeGeneres wants another dancercize session or Spain holds another clothing sale, the first family will be there before you can say “citizen executive.” Fear ye not, serfs: Austerity may be the word of the week, but the president is by no means in any danger of being forced to live like the president of a republic instead of like a king.

The current annual cost of the White House — just in household expenses, not the policy operations for which it exists — is $1.4 billion: Annually, presidential vacations cost $20 million (the low estimate for one presidential vacation to Hawaii is $4 million, but the true cost is probably five times that); the first family’s yearly health-care costs are $7 million; more than $6 million is spent on the White House grounds each year. Transporting the president cost $346 million last year. But as Michelle Obama might say, America is basically a downright mean sort of place, so the tours will just have to go. One hopes at least that the calligraphers were recruited to sign the docents’ pink slips.

A glimmer of hope! A mounting call and increasing support to impeach Obama over...well, take your pick.

Are you looking for a reason to support the impeachment of Obama but just can't pick the most glaring offense he and his hencmen and henchwomen have committed?  Well, here's a nice laundry list from which you can choose.  Pick one.  Or two or three.  Collectively, it is astounding that this president is still in office. 

Americans Get Serious About Impeachment

The Obama administration has invoked executive privilege to block the U.S. Congress from receiving Justice Department documents regarding the loss of 2,000 firearms, most of them flowing freely over the Mexican border. The deaths of as many as 100 people, including a U.S. border agent, have been linked directly to those weapons. The U.S. House of Representatives has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to respond to questions on the subject, but a U.S. attorney declined to prosecute him. Do you agree or disagree that Eric Holder should be impeached because of his management of this operation, known by the code name Fast and Furious?

The United States Congress is empowered by the U.S. Constitution with oversight of the executive branch of the U.S. government. Some information, including that from intelligence briefings, is conveyed to Congress in secret and remains secret from the public. Other information is made public. Generally speaking, do you agree or disagree that the executive branch of the U.S. government should be allowed to withhold some documents or information about its operations from those in Congress who have oversight responsibilities?

If a presidential administration was to keep information about its operations from Congress, who should decide what information should be withheld?

The Obama administration has used missile strikes fired from unmanned drones to kill at least three United States citizens, none of which had renounced their citizenship or been convicted of a crime in any U.S. court. The administration received no permission to conduct these killings from Congress or from any federal judge or court. Regardless of whom these people were who were killed, do you agree or disagree that the Obama administration had the right to kill its own citizens in this manner?

These citizens were all said to have links to terrorist activities, despite not being adjudicated by the courts. Knowing this, do you agree or disagree that the Obama administration had the right to kill these American citizens?

Had the Obama administration pursued and won criminal convictions against these people, even if in absentia, would you agree that following that legal process would then give the Obama administration the right to kill these American citizens, or would you have preferred these people be captured and subjected to the traditional U.S. court system of punishment?

Do you agree or disagree that President Obama committed an impeachable offense by ordering these U.S. citizens be killed?

The U.S. Constitution provides for the president to fill vacancies in his administration when the U.S. Senate is in recess, but when the Senate is in session, they must confirm his nominees. But while the Senate was in session in January 2012, President Obama made what he called recess appointments and these people took office and began to take action on federal business. A federal court later ruled that these appointments violated the Constitution, but these officials continue in their positions. Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should have made these appointments?

Do you agree or disagree that these officials should remain in office making decisions after a federal court has ruled their appointments unconstitutional?

Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached for making these appointments in violation of the Constitution?

The Obama administration in 2010 filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona to stop it from enforcing federal law regarding illegal immigrants, while at about the same time it declined to enforce similar federal statutes in so-called sanctuary cities, which had purposely ignored such federal laws against illegal immigrants. Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached for his handling of these situations?

In June 2012, President Obama issued an executive order preventing the deportation of many illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as children, though Congress had not passed such a law allowing for such treatment of these illegal immigrants. Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached for his handling of this situation?

In March 2011, the U.S. launched combat operations in Libya to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi, despite the fact that President Obama never sought or received congressional authorization for those operations, as required by the U.S. Constitution. At the time, Libya posed no threat to the United States. Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached for his handling of this situation?

President Obama announced in 2011 that his administration believed the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional and that they would not defend it. The law, known as DOMA and signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton, guarantees that states won’t be forced to recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. Do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached for his handling of this situation?

http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/americans-getting-serious-about-impeachment/