OK, so Chicago lost its Olympic bid. Big stinking surprise, right? There they were, Barack, Michelle and Oprah, traveling all the way to Copenhagen (on the taxpayer's dollar) to schmooze on behalf of the windy city, and Rio gets the Olympics. Maybe Oprah should have bought every member of the IOC a nice shiny new car. It really was rather sad to see that rock band up there in front of a few thousand Chicagoans trying to figure out what to play after the announcement was made. Any suggestions? How does that tune go.....?

Chicago!

Chicago!

We got our butts kicked.

Oh well, here's my problem. This got really absurd real quick last Friday afternoon. Across the web and the radio dial this whole Chicago/Olympics debacle suddenly became the sole and exclusive fault of just one man ... Barack Obama. He was the reason .. and the only reason .. that Chicago lost out.

Are you kidding me?

Let's consider some other possible reasons. First ... I went through the names of the members of the International Olympic Committee. Now this is probably not accurate because some of these gender-bending international names are hard to figure out; but I put it at about 89 men and about 17 women, give or take one or two of each, and maybe a few GLBTC types in there as well. Now ... have you been to Chicago? Have you seen the women there? Fine. They're OK, by Chicago Standards. And no ... Catherine Zeta Jones does NOT live in Chicago. Now ... have you been to Rio? Nuff said, right? Do the math; 89 men, 17 women voting on whether to hang out for the next seven years in Chicago or Rio. Now just how difficult is that?

Another comparison: Navy Pier to Rio's beaches.

Then there's the possibility that the president actually did make a difference when he went rushing off to Copenhagen; a negative difference. Not, however, because it was President Obama, but because it was the President of the United States. Look; many foreign countries are a bit weary of what they view as America throwing its weight around. Naturally, if they're attacked or buried under an avalanche or tsunami they would just LOVE to see some weighty American money thrown around ... but unless there's danger at the doorstep they want us to stay in the background for a change. Now I may see this as a dangerous policy, but I don't count. Perhaps the IOC saw a presidential visit as some sort of a mandate. Here's the American President over here telling us what to do again. Let's show him we can't be pushed around. Sure, some other heads of state made the pitch as well, but these buffoons couldn't get a Home Depot to move in, let alone an Olympics.

Then there's the Chicago reputation itself. Let's face it, Chicago is not known as the city of lights. I happen to love the place, but overseas Chicago is gangsters. It's Al Capone. It's the St. Valentine's Day massacre and Elliot Ness. Also .. even though I love visiting Chicago, once that jerk Daily plowed under Meigs I've wanted his butt in my briefcase. This isn't it, but it's good enough. Too bad Chicago had to suffer with him.

The point here is that a lot of conservatives are keeping themselves busy looking for a way to blame everything that is negative in their lives or every bad thing that happens to anyone who lives in or is associated with our country on Barack Obama. I think Obama is a dangerous man. Anyone who believes that America's greatness comes from government is dangerous to freedom. We have a community organizer who's primary political flirtation during his college years was with Marxism. I truly believe that this could be the man who ultimately destroys the dreams of our founding fathers.

Obama is dangerous and must be watched. Those who value freedom and independence would be well advised to chose their fights with Obama and the Social-Democrat Party well. If an alarm is sounded every time he scowls or steps on a crack then America's uneducated dumb masses will completely stop paying attention. A lot of political capital has been wasted ranting about something that really, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't make all that much of a difference; that being whether or not Chicago gets the Olympics. When a true threat comes along, how do we get the attention of a weary public? Let's forget this Olympics thing. It's over. The only real losers here are the corrupt Chicago political class that undoubtedly would have cashed in on this big time, and the unions that most certainly would have controlled every square foot of Olympic-related construction.

We could have a problem though. Isn't there a huge Jesus statue looking down on Rio? I guess the ACLU is going to have to get busy getting that thing removed before our athletes will be allowed to carry an American Flag during the opening ceremony.

Quite a few Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner, are wringing their hands over PrezBO's visit to Copenhagen to promote the 2016 Olympics for Chicago. They say that there were more important things for Obama to focus on back here. Well ... know what? There are more important things for Republicans to focus on as well. OK ... so the White House first said the president wouldn't go, then he went. Big deal. The point here is if the Republicans get their thongs in a bunch every time Obama wanders off on some quest the people are going to tired of hearing about it ... and they won't pay attention when the important stuff happens. Schmoozing for the Olympics may be important for the people of Illinois and Chicago - it will cost them a bundle - but for the rest of us? Not so much.

Have you seen this video yet? This is a video of some community organizing group in Chicago called the Gamaliel Foundation. This is the kind of idol worship we have come to expect ... people who think that Barack Obama can truly solve all of their problems.

Here's the set up. The city of Chicago has banned handguns and automatic weapons since 1982. The NRA believes this to be an infringement upon your right to bear arms. Now, you'll remember last summer the Supreme Court decided on a case "District of Columbia v. Heller," which recognized an individual right to bear arms. The day after the Supreme Court came to this decision, the NRA challenged the Chicago gun ban.

Well the reason I bring this up now is because a three-judge panel has finally ruled on the challenge - it rejected the NRA's challenge to the ban. Its explanation was that the

"District of Columbia v. Heller" case recognized an individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that it doesn't apply to states and municipalities. In other words, the Heller case dealt with a law passed by the federal government, where as this Chicago gun ban is a local matter ... and according to this panel of judges, the Second Amendment does extend to laws passed by state or local authorities, only the federal government.

So now the NRA wants the Supreme Court to take up the case. Better hurry. You can rest assured that if Obama gets to replace a conservative justice it won't be with someone who feels friendly towards the Second Amendment.

Why does the left feel so strongly about disarming Americans? Could that be because when guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns?

I was wondering yesterday how the media would be responding to these anti-tax rallies across the country yesterday. I suggested that the leftist media would be presenting the protestors as rightwing extremist nut jobs who were motivated by greed and wanted to make sure that none of their money was ever used to help the (ugh) "less fortunate."

So, how did it turn out? Have you heard about this CNN reporter named Susan Roesgen? If you have the time and want to listen to her report from the Chicago tea-party you can click right here or watch below. If not, well ... let me tell you. This Roesgen person was, as I said, covering the Chicago rally. She picked out a rather inarticulate person from the crowd: "Ok, you're here with your 2-year-old ... why are you here today?" The protester said that he was here today because he heard the president say that he believed what Lincoln stood for and he then tried to explain Lincoln's attitude toward taxes. Rather than interviewing this guy, Roesgen started to argue with him: "Sir, what does this have to do with taxes? What does this have to do with your taxes?" Then she asked "Do you realize that you're eligible for a $400 credit ...?" At that point the man said "let me finish my point?"

Wait a minute! Read that again? This guy is protesting taxes, and this ignoranus CNN reporter asks him if he realizes that he is eligible for some type of $400 credit? What is she saying? I'll tell you what she's saying. This guy shouldn't be protesting taxes because he's going to be getting a check!

The interview proceeds. The man says that Lincoln believed that people had a right to the fruits of their own labor and that "government should not take it." Roesgen then stuck her finger in his face and said "Do you know that the state of Lincoln gets $50 billion dollars out of this stimulus, that's $50 billion dollars for this state." At this point someone in the crowd says something and the man becomes a bit frustrated. Roesgen turns away and starts talking to the anchor. Now listen to this gem from this wonderful, objective CNN reporter:

"OK, Cara, we'll move on over here. I think you get the general tenor of this. It's anti-government. Anti-CNN since this is highly promoted by the right wing conservative network Fox, and since I can't really hear much more and I think this is not really family viewing it's time to come back to you Cara."

The CNN anchor ... Cara or Kara or whatever ... then says "Wow, that is a prime example of what we're covering here. Susan pointed out everything plain and clear what she's dealing with."

Well .. there you have it. These tax protestors are "anti-government." The don't want to be taxed out of fifty percent of everything they earn .. and they're anti-government. They're also anti-CNN. Where did THAT come from? Do you know that Pew research did a poll last year and found that more Democrats and independents watch Fox News than Republicans? But to Susan Roesgen Fox is right wing and conservative.

The fact is Roesgen was saying just what the Democrats wanted her to say. Last night the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was reporting that "...critics -- especially Democrats -- have labeled the gatherings as frauds created by Republican advocacy groups with the backing of deep-pocketed lobbyists and Fox News." Yup ... these idiots at these rallies couldn't possibly have opinions of their own. They're just a creation of the Republican Party and Fox. Roesgen handled the Democrat message a little clumsily ... but handle it she did.

It was also rather odd that when Roesgen would look into the camera when she was talking about stimulus checks for Illinois. Why? Because she was making her own statement. She was the person being interviewed ... not the actual protestor. She wasn't really that interested in what this guy had to say ... she had her own opinions and she wanted to make sure they got aired.

There you have it folks. This is the way much of the liberal media will be covering the protests today. These are anti-government right-wing kooks

A resolution has been introduced in the Georgia Legislature to condemn a modernization project for Chicago's O'Hare airport. They are calling it the "Runway to Nowhere." Representative Joe Wilkinson introduced the resolution, calling attention to the Georgia Congressional delegation to stop wasteful spending projects approved for Obama's "stimulus" package.

The Georgia legislatures are upset that Chicago's expansion project is estimated to cost $20 billion, while Atlanta's request for Hartsfield is a mere $500 million.

Wilkinson explains, "Why should the people of Georgia and the rest of the nation cough up $20 billion to build an airport in Chicago, when their own state won't even pay for it?" continued Wilkinson. "Compare Chicago's project to Atlanta's request of $500 million for the new Hartsfield-Jackson international terminal. Atlanta and Chicago have virtually identical airports with identical traffic volume, yet Chicago's terminal will cost more than $19 billion more the proposed Atlanta project, and the airlines have affirmed that it will do very little to alleviate flight delays. The American people were right to stand up against the 'bridge to nowhere,' and it's time to do the same with the 'runway to nowhere.'"

Now if the Georgia Legislature really wanted to do something for the people, it would seize operational control of Hartsfield International Airport from the City of Atlanta and then put it up for sale or lease. The Georgia legislature could then use the proceeds of that sale or lease to fund tax relief for Atlanta's hammered home owners. But really, that makes too much sense ... so let's hammer O'Hare.

Yesterday during the program we were graced with the news that Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (a Democrat) was arrested. The very short story is that the guy is a complete corrupt footstool. I mean, seriously .. the FBI says it has phone call recordings of this guy - a sitting governor - trying to sell of Barack Obama's senate seat. And that is just the first page! There are 76 pages full of different schemes this guy had going .. like telling the Chicago Tribune that he would give the paper financial help if it agreed to fire some of its editorial writers that were critical of him.

So there are a couple of issues at stake here. Let's start out slow.

First of all, what do you do about Barak Obama's senate seat? The seat still has to be filled. Clearly this creep isn't going to be appointing anyone, so now what? There are talks of the Senate taking over the process. Either way, we know the rules .. It's a black seat now ... a historical black seat ... so at least we know that whoever is appointed or selected or chosen or whatever to fill that seat is going to absolutely, positively, without question have to be black. And no ... there no discrimination here, is there now?

But on to far juicier things .. did Barack Obama's transition team know this was going on? Heck, did Barack Obama himself know this was going on? That question is already getting testy. Yesterday Obama said that he hasn't had any contact with the governor or his office. But there is a statement out there from David Axelrod that he made on November 23, 2008 saying, "I know he's talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them." Of course now the Obama transition team has come out and said that Axelrod "misspoke" back in November. Don't you just like this "misspoke" angle? I think "screwed up" is more appropriate. But that is about all we will get for now until the FBI releases more information about the recorded phone calls.

So the next step is .. let's try to figure out how close was Barack Obama to this guy. Even if they weren't close, shouldn't this say SOMETHING about the political culture that produced Barack Obama? From what I can tell, Obama endorsed Blagojevich for governor in 2002 and 2006. He also happened to serve as a top advisor to him during his 2002 run. Guess who was also in the picture? Rahm Emanuel. It can be said that Obama and Emanuel were among Blagojevich's top strategists when he won in 2002.

In 2002, on a Chicago TV show, Obama had the following exchange:

Obama: "Right now, my main focus is to make sure that we elect Rod Blagojevich as Governor, we..."
Host: "You working hard for Rod?"
Obama: "You betcha"
Host: "Hot Rod?"
Obama: "That's exactly right"

And more recently, in 2006, Obama spoke at the Illinois State Fair on behalf of Blagojevich.

Bottom line .. you need to remember that our next president came from the same political culture as did this corrupt governor. Most of Obama's myrmidons don't realize it, but Obama won his first race for office not by getting more votes than the other folks, but by arranging to have his opponents - ALL of them - kicked off the ballot. Now if that doesn't carry the stench of Chicago-style politics ...

Since Friday of last week, workers at a Chicago window and door maker factory have refused to leave. Last week, Bank of America canceled financing for Republic Windows and Doors and the workers were given three days' notice. So they decided to stay in order to ensure that they would receive their severance and accrued vacation pay.

Yesterday, Bank of American finally came through and extended credit to the Chicago factory. "A limited amount of additional loans" has been given so that the company can resolve the claims of the employees.

Now, in this case I am on the side of the workers. They earned this money, this severance, this vacation pay. The taxpayers of this country sent mucho dinero to Bank of America just so that they would continue making loans like this ... loans to businesses so that they could fulfill their commitments. What was BOA going to use this money for? Executive bonuses? This time, unless you give me a good reason not to, I'm saying the unions got one right.