The Obamas are doing all they can to bring the Olympics their beloved Chicago.
Michelle Obama even used the word "sacrifice" to explain it. In Denmark Wednesday, she said: "That's what excites me most about bringing the games to Chicago... as much of a sacrifice as people say this is for me or Oprah or the president to come for these few days."
Wow, what a sacrifice: Flying on your private jumbo jet to go have lunch with the queen — how do you do it?
But, sacrifice or not, you can see why everyone wants the games — we'll get to watch the Bolivian and the Guatemalan canoe squads paddle down the harbor! And be treated to Cameroon and Micronesia squaring off in the table tennis finals.
And it can all be yours for just $5 billion!
Oh Glenn, stop! The Olympics will help the city make the money back. I saw a study that showed they'd make $22 billion!
Yes, I saw that study too. It was an "independent study" from the group Chicago 2016 — so you can trust that figure, just like you can trust Mayor Daley:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHICAGO MAYOR RICHARD DALEY: At no time will taxpayer money be used that is the key.
DALEY: The Olympics must not be a financial burden to taxpayers.
DALEY: There will be no government money, taxpayers' money regarding the Olympics
DALEY: The risk of taxpayers hosting the games is small.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Here's a guy who told taxpayers they wouldn't pay a dime for the Olympics, but two days later taxpayers were suddenly on the hook for "up to $500 million of any Olympic shortfall." Then back in June, Daley guaranteed that the city would cover "any shortfalls" even those beyond the $500 million.
Look, I'm sure it's just the Olympic thing — you can trust Mayor Daley: Only 47 in his administration have been convicted on corruption charges since 2004.
But let me cut the White House off at the past, because I can see their blog correction now and I want to make it clear: Only 47 other people have been convicted — not Daley.
Chicago residents have had enough: 84 percent oppose funding the Olympics in any way; because they know their politicians — they'd be funding shady deals and they're sick of it.
They're sick of being humiliated by corrupt politicians. They're sick of massive tax hikes. They're sick of the $225 million city deficit.
They're sick of colossal screw-ups like the parking meter deal, where the city leased its parking meters to a private company, who then quadrupled the rates. If the city just kept the meters and raised the rates they would have made another $974 million (on top of what they leased it for).
Is it any wonder Chicagoans are skeptical the city can pull this off and not blow past the Olympic budget by, say, $25 billion, like they did in Beijing last year; or Montreal's $2.8 billion in 1976; or the billions Athens went over in 2004; or the $8 billion London is already over-budget on?
Why risk $5 billion (or likely more) for the best-case scenario of breaking even or making a couple hundred million like Los Angeles in 1984? Would you risk $20,000 for the best-case scenario of getting about 500 bucks?
Leading the opposition charge is the group Chicagoans for Rio — a group whose viewpoint is shared with at least 45 percent of Chicago residents. Rio de Janeiro is one of the three other cities competing against Chicago for the 2016 games — Madrid and Tokyo are the other two. It's a tough choice: Who should get it?
A good way to choose, and the way the International Olympic Committee normally does it, is to select the city which presents the superior plan; makes the most sense logistically; does the best job organizing; is well-equipped to handle major crowds and sporting events — all of that would make sense, but would it be "fair"?
Why not apply a little "progressive logic" in deciding who gets the games? A little "social justice" as Obama likes to say.
So let's start a segment here on the Olympics: What Would Sotomayor Do?
Rio de Janeiro has a strong case in the social justice world. For 200 years, they were routinely invaded and oppressed by French pirates and buccaneers. Six million out of the 14 million population live in poverty. They have a very high crime rate — about 30 homicides per week in 2007 — progressives everywhere are weeping.
But, on the down side (as progressives see it), Rio is home to many large oil corporations and are the largest oil producer in Brazil. Plus, they have a 125-foot tall statue of Jesus.
What would Sotomayor do?
How about Tokyo? They've had major catastrophes that few other cities would have ever recovered from. A massive earthquake in 1923 that killed about 140,000. Nearly the entire city was wiped out by a World War II bombing campaign (by the evil U.S.) almost as deadly as the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The WWII bombings alone (to progressives) should equal a Lifetime Award of Reparations — even though we helped rebuild the city which less than two decades later hosted an Olympic Games of their own.
What would Sotomayor do?
Let's move on to Madrid. In 2004, their public trains were bombed by Al Qaeda, killing 191 and wounding 1,800 — of course the bombing was because of Spain's initial support of the evil Iraq occupation by the evil U.S. occupiers. So naturally progressives feel very guilty about the attack.
Spain is also "culturally diverse" and in recent years has experienced a massive immigration boom.
On the downside, they engage in and revere animal cruelty — with bullfighting.
What would Sotomayor do?
And then you have Chicago. Chicago ranks the 21st in the U.S. in poverty. They led the nation in murders in 2008. It's called "The Second City" because residents experience mental anguish over constantly being told they are second best. They boast a "multicultural" make-up: White Americans 37.6 percent; African-Americans 35 percent; Asian Americans 5 percent, and 20 percent "other."
On the down side, Chicago was founded in 1833 after a series of wars with the native Indians.
So, who gets the Games? What would Sotomayor do?
Chicago: They oppressed the Indians — so they are out.
Madrid: They are inhumane to animals.
Rio: They were oppressed by the Europeans, but they have big oil.
I think it has to be Tokyo, because while we are good friends now and the big bad United States made our biggest error there.
Here's what Sotomayor would do: She'd have the president go over to Denmark, give a speech on how bad America is for bombing Tokyo, spend all of our money to help them get the games over in Tokyo as reparations and of course, social justice.
Man, I feel so much better. I'm starting to see how this works!
— Watch "Glenn Beck" weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel