Posts Tagged ‘obama’

Fox News Ratings Soar After Snub From Obama

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

Once again, we see that ‘68 Chevies aren’t the only things that backfire,

Gee, do you think Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch love being The White House’s least-favorite news channel? Duh, of course they do.

Here’s a chart comparing network ratings from the period 9/28/2009-10/11/09, which is when Anita Dunn slammed the network, and the two weeks after that (”post feud”). The numbers on the bottom right of this chart show the sequential gain for all demos (+9%) and the 25-54 year old demo (+14%).

preandpostfeud4.jpg

As for competition against the cable also rans, Fox News is sweeping the top 11 cable news slots in the 25-54-year old demographic (chart below), and the top 13 slots in all demos. It’s kind of ridiculous. Word is that Shep Smith’s program had its best month for the entire year. It must be depressing for folks like Olbermann and Chris Matthews, on MSNBC, how few people watch them.

nielsencablerankings.png

And here’s all demos.

nielsencablerankings2.png

Obama’s narcissism has struck again.  He thought he’d put his popularity up against FOX’s.  Well, it looks like we can see who’s going to be homecoming king this year. 

Another One Under the Bus

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

Another friend of Obama goes under the bus, this time in the Virginia gubernatorial race,

Virginia Democratic candidate R. Creigh Deeds said Friday that he was confused and frustrated by statements from senior aides to President Obama that Deeds had rejected their advice in running his campaign for governor as some state party activists denounced what they saw as a betrayal by advisers to a president they helped elect a year ago.

Deeds said he was puzzled by the comments from unnamed Obama administration officials who said that he had virtually no chance to defeat Republican Robert F. McDonnell and that such a loss would reflect on Deeds’s failings rather than on Obama’s popularity.

They said that Deeds, who has been trailing in the polls, coordinated poorly with the White House and failed to adequately reach out to the constituencies that helped Obama become the first Democrat in 40 years to win Virginia.

“It is frustrating to read, because that’s not what we’ve been hearing from anybody over there,” Deeds said. “I’m just not sure where the talk is coming from. It just doesn’t make sense… There’s been no disagreements between us of which I’m aware.”

The Democratic National Committee, under the leadership of Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D), has invested heavily in the race, and Obama will rally with Deeds in Norfolk on Tuesday.

Kaine called the remarks “not helpful.”

“You don’t do this for as long as we’ve done it and for as long as Creigh’s done it without having your own internal sense of having good days and bad days,” he said.

The “unnamed officials” are probably panicking over the latest poll by Survey USA which has conservative Republican Bob McDonnell leading Deeds – who has successfully been associated with Obama in the minds of Virginia voters by McDonnell – by a whopping 19%.

At this point, the Obama team is trying to do damage control. Virginia was considered a bellweather for the Obama sweep last year – a state that had been reliably Republican for the past two decades, but which has taken on a much more purplish tint in recent years due to many liberal northeasterners moving into the suburbs around Washington D.C. The fact that Obama won Virginia pretty handily (52.6% to McCain’s 46.3%) showed Obama’s popularity with “moderate” parts of the country.

Conversely, the fact that Deeds is now being smashed by McDonnell, and much of this due to the Republican’s successful campaign to cast Deeds as an Obama-style fiscal whackjob, scared the daylights out of the Obama team. Virginia, once the new wave for Democrats, is now the rising tide for Republicans, where not only is McDonnell easily besting Deeds, but the two other big ticket races are seeing Bolling (for Lt.Gov) and Cuccinelli (for AttyGen) best their respective opponents by similar margins.

As a result, the Obama team seems to be trying to distance itself as much as it plausibly can from Deeds, since an Obama-approved candidate getting roundly thumped in a purple state would be the proof in the pudding of the unpopularity of Obama and his policies – unpopularity that the MSM tries to hide with softball questions, puff pieces, and cooked polls engineered by MSM outlets. But you can’t hide election results (at least not yet) – and those results will make a lot of thinking people think that Obama is definitely past his prime. It’ll be interesting to see if Obama’s rally with Deeds next Tuesday gets cancelled due to some “emergency” that requires the President’s immediate attention.  When Virginia goes solidly conservative GOP, expect a lot of overflow for conservatives in 2010 – especially if Hoffman in NY-23 upsets the left-wing GOP candidate and the Democrat and takes that district for the Conservative Party.

Which can only be a good thing.

Cross-posted at the Baby Seal Club

Obama = Hitler, So Say….the Russians?

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

Hey, they said it, not me,

Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini were very popular at the time, but they were not presented with the Nobel Prize. Yet, they were nominated for same.

If we look down the history from 1900 to 2009, we will find only one person who was extremely popular and talked about like President Obama. That person is Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party and chancellor of Germany.

Despite both men’s popularity; there are more scary similarities between these two leaders:

Both Obama and Hitler share similar ancestries: Obama German, Hitler Austrian.

Both leaders had been surrounded by many controversies concerning birth certificate, citizenship and religion.

Both had the father figure issues. Obama’s parents separated when he was two years old and they divorced in 1964. His father returned to Kenya and saw him only once more before dying in an automobile accident in 1982. Hitler had a troubled relationship with his tradition-minded authoritarian father, who frequently beat him.

During their teenage years both leaders had problems with alcohol. Obama called the alcohol phase “greatest moral failure”, Hitler called it “most humiliated experience in life”.

Both are unloved by the Jewish, for Hitler is well known why, for Obama, well, his victory in Presidential elections was not received with welcome in Israel.

Time magazine named Obama person of the year in 2008, Hitler in 1938.

Yeah, the rest of the world just loves President Hopenchange, don’t they?

I’m not exactly sure where they’re getting the bit about Obama being German, or the part about Hitler being influenced by Martin Luther (at the link), but the list of similarities between Obama and Hitler is pretty telling.  Not because of any mystical magic-through-time George Noury synchronicity type thing, but just because the traits that make up an authoritarian personality of leftist persuasion seem to be pretty applicable across the board. 

Obama’s Ridiculous Attack On FOX News

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Blogmocracy In Action

Guest Post by “TypicalWhitey”

Perusing the headlines today, I am finding a common thread among them: Man up Obama!

Instead of engaging his opposition he has decided to demonize it. I have been seeing this and wondering…why in the world is Obama doing this? What can he possibly gain from this? Does he think this will bring more folks over to his side of the issues?

What I have concluded though is this.

Obama has never, in his entire career, run into real opposition to what he has to say. Think about it, what other candidate could attend a racist church, associate with past terrorists, make comments such as “my grandmother reacted as a typical white person” and remain a viable candidate? The MSM allowed him to explain each of the instances away, being in such awe of his ability to read off a teleprompter.

So therefore, Obama thinks that just by using words, that people will automatically believe him. This has always worked for him in the past. What Obama doesn’t understand about the American people though is the fact that you can only baffle us with bullshit for so long before people start noticing that there isn’t much meat on the bone.

There’s only one thing dumber than picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel — picking a fight with people who don’t even have to buy ink. The Obama administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman’s advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian — Agnewesque? — aroma at worst. It is a self-defeating trifecta: it distracts attention from the Obama administration’s substantive message; it serves to help Fox, not punish it, by driving up ratings; and it deprives the White House, to the extent it refuses to provide administration officials to appear on the cable network, of access to an audience that is, in fact, broader than hard-core Obama haters.”

The rest of the article.

Does he not notice his approval ratings dropping and his disapproval ratings rising? His advisers must be telling him to attack Fox. They must be telling him that by attacking Fox he will discredit them. Because that is what he is attempting to do.

He apparently has no one who will tell him that this is working against him! That all this is accomplishing is through the roof ratings for his “opposition”!

Instead of discrediting them, he is raising them to the level of the Presidency. He is wasting his time on a news channel, simply because they critique his policies!

This makes him look petty and small. He appears to be a thin skinned and weak; and the LAST thing the American people want in a President is a …..whiner

Bret Stephens Agrees: Obama Is An Anti-Human Rights President

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

Blogmocracy In Action!

Guest Post by “Delectable”

I have repeatedly stated that Obama is at war with human rights around the globe.  On Blogmocracy, I have called him an anti-human rights president.  He backs the oppression of humanity in every country on earth, without any exception I am aware of.  This great article, written by Bret Stephens, explains this well.

Nobody should get too hung up over President Obama’s decision, reported by Der Spiegel over the weekend, to cancel plans to attend next month’s 20th anniversary celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Germany’s reunited capital has already served his purposes; why should he serve its?

China: In February, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton landed in Beijing with a conciliating message about the country’s human-rights record. “Our pressing on those [human-rights] issues can’t interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis,” she said.

In fact, there has been no pressing whatsoever on human rights. President Obama refused to meet with the Dalai Lama last month, presumably so as not to ruffle feathers with the people who will now be financing his debts. In June, Liu Xiaobo, a leading signatory of the pro-democracy Charter 08 movement, was charged with “inciting subversion of state power.” But as a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing admitted to the Journal, “neither the White House nor Secretary Clinton have made any public comments on Liu Xiaobo.”

Sudan: In 2008, candidate Obama issued a statement insisting that “there must be real pressure placed on the Sudanese government. We know from past experience that it will take a great deal to get them to do the right thing. . . . The U.N. Security Council should impose tough sanctions on the Khartoum government immediately.”

Exactly right. So what should Mr. Obama do as president? Yesterday, the State Department rolled out its new policy toward Sudan, based on “a menu of incentives and disincentives” for the genocidal Sudanese government of Omar Bashir. It’s the kind of menu Mr. Bashir will languidly pick his way through till he dies comfortably in his bed.

Iran: Mr. Obama’s week-long silence on Iran’s “internal affairs” following June’s fraudulent re-election was widely noted. Not so widely noted are the administration’s attempts to put maximum distance between itself and human-rights groups working the Iran beat.

Earlier this year, the State Department denied a grant request for New Haven, Conn.-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The Center maintains perhaps the most extensive record anywhere of Iran’s 30-year history of brutality. The grant denial was part of a pattern: The administration also abruptly ended funding for Freedom House’s Gozaar project, an online Farsi- and English-language forum for discussing political issues.

It’s easy to see why Tehran would want these groups de-funded and shut down. But why should the administration, except as a form of pre-emptive appeasement?

In Massachusetts not long ago, I found myself driving behind a car with “Free Tibet,” “Save Darfur,” and “Obama 08″ bumper stickers.  I wonder if it will ever dawn on the owner of that car that at least one of those stickers doesn’t belong.

There is more – please read it all!

It is important to be aware that Obama is a self-styled progressive.  The anti-human rights nature of our progressive president shows the cognitive dissonance of the trans-nationalists (or “tranzis”) who pretend to believe in universal ideals of “hope” and “change,” only to then later stand for stagnation and despair when they enter office.
It thus is no surprise that Obama should follow this anti-human rights pattern.  And it is no surprise to me that Obama refuses to use his UN veto against the Goldstone defamation report against Israel. He thus will apparently be pushing for action on the Goldstone Report – including possible sanctions against Israel (a democractic state which adheres to the highest ideals of human rights) - while blocking sanctions against Iran (a thugocracy that shoots its citizens in the streets and rapes and tortures its prisoners).
This is where Obama stands today.  He has revealed himself as the anti-human rights president.  The good news is that others are starting to see this.

The Invisible Undergraduate

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Wayne Allen Root investigates, and can’t find anybody who remembers Obama from his days at Columbia U.,

Looking for evidence of Obama’s past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but none remembered him.

Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama, a political science major at Columbia who also graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, “I don’t know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me.

I don’t have a classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia. Ever! Nobody recalls him. I’m not exaggerating, I’m not kidding.”
Root adds that he was also, like Obama, “Class of ‘83 political science, pre-law” and says, “You don’t get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don’t know anyone who ever met him.

At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me.

No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who’s kind of the, as we say in New York, the macha who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him. Is that not strange?

It’s very strange.” Obama’s photograph does not appear in the school’s yearbook and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia, provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia.

You know, as I’ve said before, I’m not really into the birther thing, but the more I actually see about Barack Obama’s past, the stranger it nevertheless seems.  While questions do not equal evidence, I still have to admit that there are a lot of unanswered questions that common sense would suggest shouldn’t really need to remain unanswered.

Why has Obama’s administration failed to produce an actual, genuine birth certificate, one that can be easily obtained from the county in which the birth was recorded for around $10 or so?  Why are the names of three different hospitals floated as places where he was born?  Why do many people over in Kenya claim to have seen his birth?   I don’t know the answer to any of these, but I’m sure there are perfectly good explanations for them all.

What about Obama’s disappearing act at Columbia?  His picture not appearing in yearbook isn’t all that instructive.  Once you get past my freshman year, I doubt that my picture would be in my undergrad university’s yearbook, since I don’t think I was all that interested in wasting the time to have it taken.   BUT.  There are tons of people – professors and students mostly – who would remember me from my undergraduate days.  When you go to college, you’re part of a community, and at a smaller college like Columbia University (which in 2009 admitted slightly less than 1900 students into its freshman class), people know each other, or at least know of each other.  Columbia’s admissions numbers were probably even smaller back in 1979, when Obama would have been entering as a freshman.  In fact, Columbia’s class sizes seem pretty comparable to my own undergrad university’s.  In neither school would a student who did anything besides sit in their dorm room 24/7/365 be an unknown.  Especially not someone as obviously outgoing and participatory as Barack Obama seems to be. 

A sampling of 400 students who were in school at the time Obama says he was, at a school that small, would be a large, inclusive sample.  400 out of, say, 7600 students (taking the 2009 number as a guide) is 5.26% of the putative student body, or slightly more than 1 out of 20 students from that period.  Somebody should remember him, on statistical odds alone. 

Yet they don’t. 

Granted, this doesn’t prove the contentions of the birthers.  But it is odd enough to make you pause and scratch your head.

As does the question of why Americans were dumb enough to elect an enigma wrapped up in mystery like Barack Obama.

Ayers Ghost Wrote for Obama After All?

Saturday, October 10th, 2009

I’m putting this one up quickly, and have to run back to the hospital this morning, but it looks like Bill Ayers may indeed have ghost written portions of Obama’s book,

Anne Leary is a conservative blogger found at http://backyardconservative.blogspot.com/.  She claims to have recently met Bill Ayers at the Reagan National Airport.  She approached him and out of the blue, he claimed to have written Barack Obama’s bestseller Dreams from My Father. Was he joking?  Serious?

I wanted to have Anne Leary on my radio show right away to see if she was reliable and to see what Ayers may have been trying to tell her.  I have been actively tracking Jack Cashill’s investigation into the possibility Bill Ayers was Obama’s ghostwriter for Dreams.  I was very skeptical of the story at first but Jack’s research and Christopher Andersen’s favorable book on the First Couple both supported that Ayers did, in fact, play a significant role in Obama’s book (which President Obama claims he wrote with no help).

You can read Jack Cashill’s comprehensive investigations:

The Improvised Odyssey of Barack Obama

Who Wrote Dreams and Why It Matter

Literary Lion Obama Will Roar No More

When I saw Anne’s blog, it was important to verify her story and make an assessment of her report.  My exclusive interview with her convinced me the conversation with Ayers was real, she reported it accurately and we have a blockbuster story on our hands.

Ayers didn’t just help with the book, it appears he took entire sections of his own past and transformed them into Obama life stories.  Why is this important?  If Barack Obama lied about writing Dreams, and if in fact an unrepentant terrorist and self-described communist did indeed write the book, then all claims by Barack Obama from the beginning must now be reexamined.  Also, the left is already attacking the ghostwriter for Sarah Palin’s new book as a “racist.”  Really?  You want to compare ghostwriters?  This is like Timothy McVeigh ghostwriting John McCain’s book.

Cashill’s research, Andersen’s book and Ayers statement have created an awkward moment for the media.  Do they do their job or continue to deny their readers/viewers/listeners the truth? The President’s credibility is on the line.  It demands our attention.

Oh, don’t worry about the media, I’m sure they will continue to do their job of spinning the news to make it look favourable for Obama, and burying any news that can’t be spun.  And they’ll continue to do an admirable job of it. 

Click on the link to listen to Humphries’ interview with Anne Leary about her airport experience with Ayers (interview link at bottom). 

If this really, truly turns out to be on the level, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit.  Even back when he was just Candidate Obama, I always got the strong sense from watching him speak, especially in interviews where he had to respond off the cuff, that Obama simply was neither intelligent nor genuine enough to credibly write an autobiography of his own that wouldn’t come off sounding like it was written by a narcissistic 10-year old. 

Well, the narcissistic part fits, I guess.   How else do you describe the fact of a 40-something guy with basically no important accomplishments or life experiences at all, having an autobiography?  The guy’s still wet behind the ears, and it shows painfully. 

Speaking To Islamist, Obama Advisor Defends Sharia

Friday, October 9th, 2009

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/061117/061117_burqa_hmed_9a.hmedium.jpg
















Islam has a term for what this Obama adviser is doing; it is called “Taqiyya“. (lying to promote Islam)

Miss Mogahed, appointed to the President’s Council on Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, said the Western view of Sharia was “oversimplified” and the majority of women around the world associate it with “gender justice”.

The White House adviser made the remarks on a London-based TV discussion programme hosted by Ibtihal Bsis, a member of the extremist Hizb ut Tahrir party.

The group believes in the non-violent destruction of Western democracy and the creation of an Islamic state under Sharia Law across the world.

During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular “man-made law” and the West’s “lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism”.

They called for Sharia Law to be “the source of legislation” and said that women should not be “permitted to hold a position of leadership in government”.

Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that “promiscuity” and the “breakdown of traditional values” were what Muslims admired least about the West.

Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women.

It also includes the controversial “Hadd offences”, crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft.

The video of the broadcast has now been prominently posted on the front page of Hizb ut Tahrir’s website.

Miss Mogahed, who was born in Egypt and moved to America at the age of five, is the first veiled Muslim woman to serve in the White House. Her appointment was seen as a sign of the Obama administration’s determination to reach out to the Muslim world.

{The Article}

Hmmm. Ok, well let’s look into Sharia in action around the world. (from American Thinker’s Top Ten Reasons Sharia Is Bad…)

10. [Sharia] commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
-In 2001, Iranian officials sentenced three men to flogging not only for illicit sex (see reason no. nine), but also for drinking alcohol.

After going through two previous confusing stages before coming down hard on drinkers and gamblers, the Quran finally prohibits alcohol and gambling in Sura 5:90—91…

9. [Sharia] allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
- In 2004, Rania al—Baz, who had been beaten by her husband, made her ordeal public to raise awareness about violence suffered by women in the home in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi television aired a talk show that discussed this issue. Scrolling three—fourths of the way down the link, the readers can see an Islamic scholar holding up sample rods that husbands may use to hit their wives.

The Quran says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (MAS Abdel Haleem, the Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

5. [Sharia] commands that homosexuals must be executed.
-In February 1998, the Taliban, who once ruled in Afghanistan, ordered a stone wall to be pushed over three men convicted of sodomy. Their lives were to be spared if they survived for 30 minutes and were still alive when the stones were removed.

In its 1991 Constitution, in Articles 108—113, Iran adopted the punishment of execution for sodomy.

In April 2005, a Kuwaiti cleric says homosexuals should be thrown off a mountain or stoned to death.

On April 7, 2005, it was reported that Saudi Arabia sentenced more than 100 men to prison or flogging for ‘gay conduct.’

These homosexuals were lucky. Early Islam would have executed them, as these hadith demonstrate.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith, reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . .

‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done’ (Abu Dawud no. 4447).

This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, ‘Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.’ In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)

I could go on…..

Sunday morning linkage

Sunday, October 4th, 2009

UN praises Iranian ‘co-operation’ -of course they do.

The head of the UN nuclear watchdog has said relations with Iran are shifting from confrontation to co-operation.

Woman sues over publication of photo

Dubai: A winner of a government academic excellence award is suing three of the award’s executives for publishing a photograph of her not wearing a niqab (face cover) without her consent.
[...]

“Over and above, the photo was presented in a slide show presentation during the ceremony which was being aired live on local and Arab satellite televisions. My family and husband were shocked and devastated when they saw my picture& they even asked me to quit my job as a teacher and stay at home,” claimed the plaintiff in her lawsuit.

[...]

The claimant alleged that publishing her photo without her niqab damaged her reputation amongst her conservative family and husband and ruined her status in her community.

Making a buck off Obama not as easy anymore

They cashed out retirement funds to build their business during the 2008 presidential campaign. Now they have 3,000 jack-in-the-boxes with smiling Barack Obama puppets inside — all sitting in a California warehouse, waiting to be sprung open for $29.95 apiece.

For Barack-in-the-Box creator Heather Courtney and her husband, David Manzo, the Obamamania that drove sales so fast they could barely keep up during the inauguration is over now. Sales have slowed to a “sporadic drizzle,” the 36-year-old artist said, in part because the president just isn’t as popular.

Patriotism Does Not Mean Blindly Supporting Obama

Saturday, October 3rd, 2009

Roland Martin, a columnist for CNN, gets his faketriotism on,

I don’t care if Republicans want to rip President Obama over going to Copenhagen, Denmark, to pitch for the games. This isn’t about politics. It’s not about ideology. This is about America. OUR pride. Our chance to shine. Our loss of the games.

So, to all the critics happy about us losing the 2016 games, turn in your flag lapel pins and stop boasting of being so patriotic. When an American city loses, like New York did in the the last go-round, we all lose. And all you critics are on the same level as the America haters all across the world.

You should be shouted down for not backing your own country. The next time any of you bang out a press release about “Buy American” or “Support our troops,” remember this moment when your cynical, callous and small-minded brains happily rejoiced when America lost the 2016 Olympic Games.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.

I can understand why CNN adds the disclaimer – I wouldn’t want to have to bear sole responsibility for this nonsense either.

Martin is reiterating a meme that is growing firmly implanted in the rhetoric of the Left: If you laugh at Obama for losing the Olympics, then you really just hate America and are unpatriotic.  This is, of course, ridiculous nonsense.

First of all, I want to say this – “America” didn’t lose anything.  Obama lost face by investing his own imaginary personal popularity and magnetism into trying to strong-arm the IOC into giving the games to Chicago, when apparently they already had no such intention of doing so, and in fact, Chicago hadn’t had a serious hope of getting the games for months. 

Don’t make the false equation of “Obama” with “America.”  The two are not the same.  Obama is not America.  He’s merely an American President who rode into office on a wave of emotionalistic hullabaloo, with a heaping helping of ACORN-related vote fraud to boot.  Many of those who were on an emotional high when voting for him have since come to realise that he was lying to them, and resent him for it.   I repeat, Obama is not America. 

Further, what did “America” really lose?  The chance to host an expensive bauble that always ends up losing money for the host country and especially the host city?  One which, as of late, has been turning into an increasingly anti-American spectacle anywise?  Why should we pay to host a bunch of foreigners to come to our country and tell us how evil we are?  If we wanted to hear about how evil America is, we’d just send President Obama overseas on another apology tour.  

Which is another reason why the “Obama = America” meme fails so badly.  You can’t call somebody “unpatriotic” for not supporting Obama’s foreign policy disasters overseas when the President’s foreign policy is predicated on the need to “atone” for how doggone bad America is in the first place.  Obama himself thinks America is evil – he thinks we’re evil because we’re capitalist, because we fight terrorism, and because we (until recently) didn’t coddle rogue regimes nearly as much as he’d like for us to have.   Obama doesn’t automatically become “patriotic” just because he’s the President, and opposition to his foolish and childish policies doesn’t render one “unpatriotic.”  In fact, as with so much else, when Obama loses, America wins. 

Further, when Martin says,

“The next time any of you bang out a press release about “Buy American” or “Support our troops,” remember this moment when your cynical, callous and small-minded brains happily rejoiced when America lost the 2016 Olympic Games.”

He shows just how shallow those who are supporting Obama in this fiasco really are.  “Support our troops.”  If only the President did that.  But instead, while America is in the middle of trying to deal with a number of important questions, including the fact that we’re apparently losing the Afghanistan War that had previously been the “good” war that we were winning, Obama decides to waste millions (literally) of taxpayer dollars flying himself and his wife over to Copenhagen to lobby for the Olympics bauble.  If Obama and his supporters want to be taken seriously as “patriotic,” how about they stop kowtowing to Europeans, and start focusing on issues that actually mean something for America’s future?  And if the lefties want to talk about supporting the troops, then they should try giving General McChrystal the troops and material support he needs to get the job done in Afghanistan.  Or at least try meeting with General McChrystal more than once every nine months.

Let’s face it – this Olympics thing had nothing to do with “America.”  It was all about President Obama flexing his popularity muscles to show everyone how much the rest of the world just loves and adores him.  And he found out that they really don’t.  He found out that while they may agree that he’s not the evil Bushitler crazy cowboy unilateralist, all the same, they’re not exactly starstruck by his all-thatness.   The Copenhagen visit was merely an outlet for Obama’s voluminous narcissism – and he was struck across the face with the mackerel of reality. 

It was also an attempt to swing some payback towards the corrupt Chicago Democrat machine.  They gave Obama his rise to power, and the Olympics – which always come with abundant opportunities for graft, kickbacks, and the chance to skim off the top – was the way to give a little back to the community of union thugs, mafia members, and Democrat Party hacks who have made Chicago the harmonious, idyllic utopia we see today.   This Olympics bid wasn’t about “America,” it was about lining the pockets of those who took Obama from being just one community organising race-agitator among many, and set him on the path to the Presidency.  In a sense, it was private, opportunistic corruption writ large – there was nothing “good for the country” about it. 

So please, lefties, spare us the hypocritical self-righteous huff-and-puffery about our being “unpatriotic.”  Maybe when you and the President start pursuing a truly pro-American foreign policy, when you and the President get serious about winning the war in Afghanistan, when you and the President get serious about not damaging the prestige and credibility of America’s treaty commitments to our allies overseas, maybe you’ll be taken seriously.  Until then, don’t waste our time blathering at us about the Olympics.