As a lifelong Chicagoland resident, I could not be happier with this result. I did not want the Olympics here for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the sheer cost was going to be astronomical. Since Chicago doesn’t even use the dollar as currency anymore (we’ve been on the Daley Political Favor Standard for about 40 years), there’d be no choice but to raise taxes on everyone else in Illinois to pay for this mess.
Beyond that, however, it’s great to see Obama’s Messiah status challenged. He believes that he’s invulnerable and loved like a god overseas, and to have an international body completely crush him (especially after he blew off Gen. McChrystal and instead went to Copenhagen to whine about the Olympics) is heartening and great entertainment. Yes, our POTUS is a source of entertainment. Deal with it.
The Obamas’ little political campaign lost for a couple of reasons, and it was completely their fault (ok, it was also Richard Daley’s fault, but everything that happens wrong in Chicago, from shortened “Walk” signs to window washers spilling stuff on you, is Daley’s fault).
First, Obama has spent the last 9 months telling the world how crappy this country is. He’s given his World Apology Tour multiple times, saying how the U.S. is this and that, bad and worse, racist, unjust, among other things. And then, he goes to the IOC and says, hey, we’d be a great country to have the Olympics in. After he spent 9 months telling the world we suck. I mean, come on, that’s elementary math. The IOC members would be laughed out of their seats for putting the Olympics in a country whose own president admitted that it was ‘in the dark ages.’
The second reason is his arrogance. European bloc countries may not be as tough as us, they may not be as powerful as us or as free as us, and we may have had to save their collective butts in two world wars…but…BUT…they are not complete buffoons. They know when they are being talked down to, and they can’t have taken a shine to Obama trying to anoint himself the savior of the world.
Finally, Michelle Obama. Her ridiculous, rambling speech, which included crying and insane references to sitting on her father’s lap and watching Carl Lewis (which either meant she sat on her dad’s lap when she was 20 or she was fabricating a story) probably pissed off many more IOC voters than it put a tear in their eyes.
Now, the burning question is this: if Obama the Rockstar, Obama the Savior and Obama the World Leader cannot convince a body of snobby Europeans to put the Olympics in our country…how is he going to convince hard-line Iran to not build nukes? Or North Korea to not shoot nukes at Japan? Or Putin to not restart the Soviet Union? Or…well…you get the point.
Obama was on his home turf, speaking to a European crowd who used to adore him and he didn’t even place…he finished dead last. That should give everyone pause; he wouldn’t have burned that much political capital if he had not been SURE he was going to win. Valerie Jarrett said that WH’s intel said they were “very close,” even though in reality, Chicago didn’t have a chance. I mean, come on, where were we going to build the Olympic village? On Lake Michigan? Seriously. Have you seen our city? Does it look like we have room to build more things? And have you ridden our public transportation? It’s disastrous.
But I digress. My point is that if the WH was so sure that a Chicago win was going to happen, and their intel is that bad about a stupid Olympic bid, how can we trust them with ANY foreign policy issues?
Among other lies, Obama’s most hilariously stupid statement of his hand-picked New Hampshire town hall this week was his assertion that he’s “not a supporter of a single-payer system.”
Really?
Gee, that sort of sounds like you’re FOR a single-payer system, Comrade Obama. Just a little.
This guy is just a piece of work. This is all smoke and mirrors, all these town halls, the big speeches, the lofty ABC advertisements…it’s all hyperbole.
Obama wants a single-payer, government-rationed healthcare system, with all private companies put out of business and the government dictating your treatment. There is no compromise for him. As he said at this town hall, “We can’t let them do it again. Not this time. Not now.”
What I find nauseating about this town hall is that it was not presidential. It was campaigning, pure and simple. Barack Hussein Obama cannot lead; he is a slick salesman. Nothing more and nothing less. His rhetoric worked on a dumb population last year, and what’s disgusting now is that even with a majority of Americans claiming opposition to his plan, he’s not going to stop. He’s going to continue to push it, saying that he “knows better” than us, since, you know, it’s SO hard to understand all this complicated stuff. He’s just going to Big Brother us, make sure we’re “taken care of,” as long as we don’t ask questions.
And that’s a feat in and of itself, considering how widely disapproved of the good old peanut farmer was.
Barack Obama’s public approval rating has plummeted faster than President Jimmy Carter’s, reports RealClearPolitics in its review of Gallup polling.
Carter first polled at a 66 percent approval rating, dipping to 54 percent by September. Meanwhile, Obama has already tumbled down to 52 percent approval rating at the end of July, according to the latest Gallup survey.
The bottom line: Obama began his presidency at 68, hitting 69 the following day. That translates to a 16 point drop since day one. In less time than Carter, Obama has fallen more, concluded the RealClearPolitics review.
By contrast, Richard Nixon was in office more than a year before polling in the low 50s. Lyndon Johnson did not dip that low for several years. Dwight Eisenhower did not score in the low 50s until 1958.
This report from Newsmax also quotes a bunch of issue-by-issue numbers from a Pew survey that shows a rapid decline not just in broad support, but also for his individual policies.
Kool-Aid pitcher empty? Sleeping potion wearing off? People realizing “Hope and Change” is a catchy Lifetime channel movie title, not a political ideology? I don’t know what it is, but bottom line: people are getting wise to the charade of Barack Hussein Obama. Only a matter of time before his carefully constructed house of communist cards falls to the ground with a resounding thud.
WASHINGTON, DC - Barack Obama says that while he’s dedicated to expanding homosexual rights, many Americans still cling to what he calls “worn arguments and old attitudes.”
At a White House celebration of Gay Pride Month, Obama said he hopes to persuade all Americans to accept homosexuality. “”There are good and decent people in this country who don’t yet fully embrace their gay brothers and sisters — not yet,” said the president. “That’s why I’ve spoken about these issues — not just in front of you — but in front of unlikely audiences, in front of African-American church members.”
Obama acknowledged that many Americans still disapprove of homosexuality. “There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes,” he stated.
“Worn arguments?” How dare you, sir. How dare you. Not only is it disgusting for him to refer to religious opposition to homosexuality as “worn” and “old,” it is wholly unacceptable for him to think he can force us to change to his world view. Freedom of religion and freedom expression means we can believe whatever we want. That is our right. Mr. Obama, you cannot (and you will not) force “all Americans” to accept your views as the only “right” views.
This reeks of totalitarianism and is only one step from the Thought Police. Utterly reprehensible.
What’s funny is that he claims to be Christian but opposes a Christian view of homosexuality. (Well, actually, he seems to be against gay marriage but for more gay rights…I think.)
He’s like the love child of Janus and Karl Marx: commie lunatic with multiple faces.
In an apparent policy shift, President Obama on Thursday invited Hamas — a designated terror organization — to “play a role” in the future of the Palestinian people.
During his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo on Thursday, the U.S. president bluntly recognized the group, which has called for the destruction of Israel, in a two-sentence passage that was part of a broader discussion about the terms for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
“Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel’s right to exist,” Obama said.
Nothing like inviting a terrorist organization that has threatened to destroy our biggest Middle Eastern ally to come to the table. More of Obama’s apologist foreign policy at work, it seems. What is it going to take for him to understand that TERRORISTS = ENEMY, while ALLIES = FRIENDS.
TERRORISTS are NOT equal to FRIENDS. No amount of your rockstar sneering and arrogant chin-lifting will convince Hamas to “live and let live” with Israel.
You’ve tried this strategy already, and now we have a missile-happy North Korea trying to start WWIII and a nuke happy Iran trying to beat the Koreans to the punch. How about we try some foreign policy WITH SOME TEETH IN IT!
Charges brought against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense under the Bush administration have been dropped by the Obama Justice Department, FOX News has learned.
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.
Never fear, fellow citizens of the United States. Our Justice Department has a perfectly BHO-esque explanation for letting these criminals get away.
A spokesman for the Department of Justice told FOX News, “The Justice Department was successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again. Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law. The department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote.”
Oh, an injunction. Thank God we’ve got one of those in place! Injunctions are like kryptonite to Black Panthers! We know they won’t be breaking any more laws now! If these jokers were really serious about the “prosecution of those who intimidate,” they would have let the complaint stand instead of dismissing the charges. This is quid pro quo, AGAIN. Black Panthers helped BHO in PA, and now they get to run out without facing the music for their crimes. Chicago politics on a national scale.
Good thing we have the BHO UnJustice Department out to make sure that voter coercion is alive and well in America.
The Obama Administration’s shortlist to replace retiring Justice David Souter is a who’s-who list of radicals and liberal activists. None are worse, however, than Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
What’s wrong with her? On top of being a radical leftist, she absolutely exemplifies everything that is wrong with judges in today’s society. Instead of being content to perform the Constitutional job of interpreting the law in the context of, well, the Constitution, Sotomayor believes that the court should create policy. Oh yeah. It’s like that.
The court is where policy is made? Oh really? Could have fooled me. Here I was, thinking that the Founders created a country with three different branches of the Federal government that each serve a distinct function. In recent years, of course, these bodies have been merging together into one ugly conglomeration of overly powerful Federal government.
Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor would face a difficult time getting through the Senate if nominated to the Supreme Court, top Judiciary Committee Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) warned Thursday.
Hatch said that statements made by Sotomayor about judges making policy was a cause for concern that could hold up a potential nomination by President Obama.
“She would have, I think, a more difficult time if she was nominated because of statements like that and, of course, she has a whole raft of opinions that I think would have to be scrutinized very carefully,” Hatch said during an appearance on Fox News.
The comments are a warning shot against a nominee who, conventional wisdom has suggested, is a frontrunner to fill the vacancy left by retiring Justice David Souter.
Basically, Obama would pick her for two reasons: first, he wants to continue his pandering to the Hispanic demographic by selecting her. The second, of course, is the more obvious, which is just the simple fact that he wants to slide the court even further left. Remember what he had to say about his pick for SCOTUS?
We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.
The heart? The empathy? Are you kidding me? This isn’t a damn counseling session. This is the Supreme Court of the United States America. This is not a body of “empathy” or “heart.” This is a body of law, of order and of Constitutionality. Picking a judge based on these insane “qualifications” is stupid and naive, which really is par for the course with this administration.
Sotomayor thinks it’s funny that people get upset about judges legislating from the bench. I don’t think it’s so funny. The judicial branch was created to balance the other two, not work hand-in-hand with them to pass liberal legislation. They are supposed to interpret issues in the context of the Constitution, not create new laws. As Mark Levin is fond of saying, the Supreme Court has had a significant hand in destroying the fabric of America with judicial activism. Judges are not supposed to legislate, but it makes it much easier to further the agenda of socialism if you have justices who are willing to do just that.
I’m really getting tired of this garbage. Obama’s World Apology Tour just keeps on going.
We have nothing to apologize for. Well, I guess that is unless it’s suddenly a crime to rise from a colony of England to be the most powerful country in the world in 150 years and then spend the century saving the world from tyrannical dictators. Beyond that, I guess we would have to apologize for having the most freedoms in the world and for giving more money than anyone else to helping other countries.
I cannot sugarcoat Iraq. Obviously, there were strategical mistakes there. But offering blanket recriminations at your own country while you are overseas trying to appease countries that already dislike us is disgusting and just a political stunt. We were attacked in a most cowardly fashion by an enemy that calls no country his home and does not recognize international laws. We did what was necessary to defend our country from future attacks and I will not apologize for that.
In reality, Obama wants us to apologize for being better than other countries. Since we have a bigger GDP than Kenya, that makes us evil in his socialist playbook. This is the same idea he has for our country, where ANYONE successful, and any company that makes a profit, is vilified and made to appear as an evil entity. In a manner that would make Saul Alinsky proud, BHO and his ever-obedient cadre of media attack dogs then coordinate populist rage against said successful entities, turning an unsuspecting and trusting populace into a massive backlash against capitalism.
We are The United States of America, twice the undeniable savior of the world and a haven for freedom in an increasingly freedom-lacking world. How dare you, Barack Obama, think that you have the right to embarrass our country with your petty groveling. You are spitting on the graves of the soldiers who defended our freedoms.
Remember, Chavez is the guy who called Bush the devil and already insulted Obama (called him an “ignoramus). Now, Obama is shaking hands with him and giving him the time of day. He’s an evil dictator, mind you. We should be declaring war on him, not shaking his hand.
Should we be surprised? No. Obama has already showed subservience to Islam by bowing to the Saudi king, allowed North Korea to launch missiles unfettered and is relaxing all our relations with Castro. As Newt said tonight, Obama is a shallow administration following shallow policies…it’s going to be a Carter-esque dictator-friendly regime.
PORT-OF-SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago - President Obama made the first move to greet Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, but it was the acerbic and anti-American leader who beat Obama to the punch on the World Wide Web.
In a clear indication Chavez sought to leverage his brief encounter with Obama at the opening ceremonies of the fifth Summit of the Americas here, Chavez’s government Web site almost immediately posted a photo of the two leaders and a government-approved commentary in Spanish that read as follows:
“Before the Inaugural session of the 5th Summit of the Americas, the President of the United States approached President Chavez to greet him. They both drew their hands in a historic handshake after many years of tension under the Bush administration, when relations between Washington and Caracas had deteriorated. President Chavez expressed to Obama his desire for changes in the relations between the two countries. Eight years ago I greeted President Bush with this same hand. I’d like to be your friend.”
Relations deteriorated for a good reason. Namely, the fact that Chavez is an evil dictator who abuses his own people. Obama is now rewarding his belligerence.
Ever since Notre Dame announced that baby-killer apologist Barack Obama would be delivering their commencement address this year, it has been hearing some stern rebukes from the Catholic community. After all, many of Obama’s social policies (especially on abortion and stem-cell research) are exactly contrary to the Catholic teaching. Why, then, is a Catholic school inviting this man to do their commencement address? Good question. As a Catholic myself, I am disgusted that Notre Dame would even consider this.
But now, however, they are getting perhaps the harshest recrimination yet; the bishop of the Rockford Diocese in Illinois (my diocese), the Rev. Thomas G. Doran, has informed Notre Dame that they should change their name if they continue down this road and dishonor the Catholic community (hat tip: Stix1972)
The letter:
Reverend John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
President
University of Notre Dame
400 Main Building
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Dear President Jenkins:
I wish to express in my own name and on behalf of the Catholic community of this Diocese, my dismay and outrage at your decision to invite the current President of the United States to address the 2009 graduates of the University of Notre Dame and to receive an honorary degree.
This decision of your flies in the face of the expressed directive of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in the year 2004, that Catholic institutions not so honor those who profess opposition to the Church’s doctrine on abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
I would ask that you rescind this unfortunate decision and so avoid dishonoring the practicing Catholics of the United States, including those of this Diocese. Failing that, please have the decency to change the name of the University to something like, “The Fighting Irish College” or “Northwestern Indiana Humanist University.” Though promotion of the obscene is not foreign to you, I would point out that it is truly obscene for you to take such decisions as you have done in a university named for our Blessed Lady, whom the Second Vatican Council called the Mother of the Church.
I sign myself
Very truly yours,
The Most Reverend Thomas G. Doran, D.D., J.C.D.
Bishop of Rockford
Will they heed his words? Probably not. Some sort of progressive cancer seems to have infected the administration down there and they seem completely oblivious to any sort of logical argument.
