Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Why Obama Deserved the Prize

Michael Moore, yesterday, talking about Barack Obama's Nobel Prize:
The simple fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be the recipient of this year's Nobel Peace Prize.

Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked. One man -- a man who opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning -- offered to end the insanity. The world has stood by in utter horror for the past eight years as they watched the descendants of Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson light the fuse of our own self-destruction. We flipped off the nations on this planet by abandoning Kyoto and then proceeded to melt eight more years worth of the polar ice caps. We invaded two nations that didn't attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we had gone mad.

And if all that wasn't enough, the outgoing Joker presided over the worst global financial collapse since the Great Depression.

So, yeah, at precisely 11:00pm ET on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. And the 66 million people who voted for him won it, too. By the time he took the stage at midnight ET in the Grant Park Historic Hippie Battlefield in downtown Chicago, billions of people around the globe were already breathing a huge sigh of relief. It was as if, in that instant, one man did bring the promise of peace to the world -- and most were ready to go wherever he wanted to go to achieve that end. Never before had the election of one man made every other nation feel like they had won, too. When you've got billions of people ready, willing and able to join a cause like this, well, a prize in Oslo is the least that you deserve. Get Off Obama's Back ...second thoughts from Michael Moore

Yeah, really -- just a second! The antipatriots can't admit that the President of the United States of America deserved to win the honor of the Nobel Peace Prize, they want to act like it's a big joke. I think Michael Moore nails it right here.

Stop for a minute and think about how this country looked one year ago, two years ago ... eight years ago. Picture George W. Bush's smirking face on the front page of your newspaper, telling the people some bull-oney about the terrists and "our way of life," packing the government with born-agains and incompetents, taking the people's rights away. Think about New Orleans, Fallujah, Jose Padilla, Abu Ghraib, the destruction and the greed, the belligerence that represented the USA. Somebody had to take that pernicious political machine out of office, and it was Barack Obama who did it.

The Nobel Peace Prize was the world's way of saying thank you, and our President deserves every ounce of it.


Anonymous deluxe said...

I think you've got it wrong in a lot of ways here, Jim, but the comment about "born agains" is a little much. Why would people who have been spiritually reborn be disqualified from government sevice?

Fortunately, the President doesn't share your view, having recently appointed Francis Collins to head NIH.

some advice for Barry from a Nobel Peace Prize winner who was deserving:

"SHIRIN EBADI, a 62-year-old Iranian lawyer who won the Nobel Peace Prize six years ago, is generally cautious and measured in her speech. She is a human rights lawyer who says that she does not involve herself in politics. She says that it's not her job to favor one party over another, as long as the government respects people's right to express themselves.

So it was startling this week to hear Ms. Ebadi say bluntly that the Obama administration has gotten some things backward when it comes to Iran. It's not that engaging with the government is a mistake, she said during a visit to The Post. But paying so much more attention to Iran's nuclear ambitions than to its trampling of democracy and freedom is a mistake both tactical and moral.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "is at the lowest level of popularity one can imagine," Ms. Ebadi said. "If the West focuses exclusively on the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad can tell his people that the West is against Iran's national interest and rally people to his cause. But if the West presses also on its human rights record, he will find himself in a position where his popular base is getting weaker and weaker by the day."

Administration officials point out that they have not focused exclusively on the nuclear issue. President Obama has spoken out in support of democracy forces, and Undersecretary of State William J. Burns put human rights on the agenda during his meeting with an Iranian official in Geneva this month. Ms. Ebadi acknowledged that Mr. Obama has said "that the voice of the people needs to be heard. But he needs to repeat the statement again and again, so that people in Iran hear him."

Ms. Ebadi suggested that the nature of Iran's regime is more crucial to U.S. security than any specific deals on nuclear energy. Iran's people are not as wedded to the nuclear program as the regime wants outsiders to believe. A democratic government would be unlikely to build a nuclear bomb, she said, and even if it did, the weapon would not be a threat in the hands of a government that would not view America or Israel as enemies. By contrast, she argued, even a seemingly ironclad nuclear agreement with Mr. Ahmadinejad might be of little value: "Imagine if the government actually promised to stop its nuclear program tomorrow. Would you trust this government not to start another secret nuclear program somewhere else?"

The courage it takes to say such things may be difficult for Americans to comprehend. Ms. Ebadi's husband, 67, and her brother and sister are called in for questioning every week, she said, and pressured to pressure her. Many of her clients are in prison, some now facing the death penalty. She herself intends to return to her homeland. But the events of the summer -- the prematurely announced election results, the shootings of peaceful protesters in the street and on university campuses, the rapes of imprisoned protesters, the ghoulish show trials of alleged traitors to the regime -- seem to have convinced her that she must speak out.

"Mr. Obama has extended the hand of friendship to a man who has blood on his hands," she said. "He can at least avoid shaking the hand of friendship with him.""

If befriending and enabling evil dictators and abandoning those who seek freedom is worthy of a peace prize, let's just call it the Neville Chamberlin award.

October 15, 2009 10:43 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

Disney to recognize ex-gays:

"Disney Stockholders Mull Resolution to Protect Ex-Gays

Bobbie Strobhar, a Walt Disney Co. stockholder, has presented a shareholder resolution asking the organization to include former homosexuals in its anti-discrimination policy.

Michael Brown, director of the Coalition of Conscience, said the group is one of the most discriminated against in America.

“If you’re going to have these discrimination laws in policies, then by all means include these as a special class of people,” Brown said."

October 15, 2009 11:41 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

a ray of sunshine to brighten a drizzly TTF morning:

"WASHINGTON -Delaware was the first state to ratify the Constitution, but since then has not made many waves. It might, however, be part of a political wave a year from now, thanks to a direct descendent of Benjamin Franklin.

The great man's great-great-great-great-great grandson, Mike Castle, 70, a nine-term Delaware congressman, will be next year's Republican nominee for the Senate seat Joe Biden held for 36 years. This and other candidate-recruitment successes make it reasonable for Republicans to hope that in January 2011 the Senate will contain fewer than 60 Democrats.

Biden's seat is currently occupied by a former Biden staffer who, in service to the ancient notion that public offices should be family patrimonies, will disappear when Biden's son Beau, 40, runs. Delaware has not elected a Republican senator since 1994, but Castle, who has never lost a race, has run statewide 12 times: Once for lieutenant governor, twice for governor and nine times for the state's only congressional seat. In the last four elections he averaged 65 percent of the vote.

In 2010, each party will be defending 19 Senate seats. The high number of 38 reflects the fact that six of today's 100 serving senators were appointed, not elected -- one each from Massachusetts (Ted Kennedy's replacement), New York (Hillary Clinton's replacement), Illinois (Barack Obama's replacement), Colorado (the replacement of Ken Salazar, who became Interior Secretary), Florida (the replacement for Mel Martinez, who quit) and Delaware.

In Colorado, where Democrats have won the last two Senate races, the appointed Democrat, Michael Bennet, faces a primary challenger, Andrew Romanoff, a former speaker of the state House. Annoyed because the governor did not appoint him to replace Salazar, Romanoff spurned the plea of a future Nobel Peace Prize winner that he not challenge Bennet. The Republican nominee might be a former statewide winner -- Jane Norton, who was lieutenant governor.

In Illinois, which has not elected a Republican senator since 1998, the front-runner for the Republican nomination is Mark Kirk, a five-term congressman from the Chicago suburbs, where statewide elections often are decided.

Connecticut's Sen. Chris Dodd, seeking a sixth term, has an approval rating of 43 percent and has drawn several serious Republican challengers.

Any incumbent with a job approval below 50 percent should worry; Nevada's Harry Reid's is below 40.

Three seats are currently held by Republicans who are retiring but Republicans have strong candidates in each state.

Regarding House elections, substantial Republican gains are possible. As analyst Charles Cook notes, 84 House Democrats represent districts that were carried either by George W. Bush in 2004 or John McCain in 2008, and 48 of those districts were carried by both Bush and McCain. These and other uneasy incumbents know that Congress' job approval is 22 percent."

October 15, 2009 11:50 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

"Much can change, nationally and locally, before Nov. 2, 2010. But perhaps the most politically salient thing is unlikely to change: high unemployment. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the economy, which has lost 7.2 million jobs since the recession began in December 2007, must create 100,000 a month just to match population growth. Joseph Seneca, a Rutgers economist, estimates that even if job creation were immediately to reach the pace of the 1990s -- an average of 2.15 million private-sector jobs were added each year, double the pace of 2001-2007 -- the unemployment rate would not fall to 5 percent until 2017.

September's 9.8 percent unemployment rate was the worst since June 1983. But robust growth began then and just 17 months later Ronald Reagan came within 3,800 Minnesota votes of carrying all 50 states. Reagan, however, was reducing government's burdens -- taxes, regulations -- on the economy. Obama is increasing them.

The possibility of Republican gains, especially in the Senate, helps explain why Obama is in such a rush to remake the nation and save the planet. His window of opportunity could be closing."

October 15, 2009 11:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim -- You're spinning so fast that no one can see you.

The people of the United States awarded Obama the honor of being their president. However, this is not sufficient enough of a reason to give him the Nobel Peace Prize (based upon the assumption that we'd like the award to mean something special).

Awarding Obama the prize was clearly and unequivocally a political move by a committee of ideologues who clearly want the US to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

October 15, 2009 12:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And P.S. I'm not opposed to getting out of Afghanistan or Iraq, but it's ridiculous that the Nobel Committee went that route....

October 15, 2009 12:41 PM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

the Obama administration hasn't changed or done anything differently in Afghanistan or Iraq than George Bush

October 15, 2009 1:32 PM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

that guy was right


"In late January 2007, fledgling presidential contender Barack Obama made an unequivocal pledge to redeem the dream that had animated Democrats since the days of Harry Truman. Speaking at a Washington conference organized by the liberal advocacy group Families USA, Obama declared, "I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president we should have universal health care in this country."

Two weeks later, as he formally declared his candidacy, Obama repeated that promise virtually word-for-word. On that frigid Saturday morning in Springfield, Ill., Obama uttered the magic words that liberals craved: "health care for all."

Following Tuesday's vote in the Senate Finance Committee, health care reform is closer to congressional passage than it ever was. The expectation is that the final legislation will reflect the contours of the bill cobbled together by Max Baucus.

Many liberals are not satisfied with the Finance Committee's bill. The high-decibel dispute over the public option has far more to do with ideology than it does with universal coverage, since a government-run plan is not needed to provide Americans with health coverage. What matters in terms of coverage is guaranteeing that all Americans can afford to purchase adequate health insurance.

Lost in the rhetorical shouting match over the public option is the true deficiency of the Senate Finance Committee bill. That legislation contains laudable elements, but – make no mistake – it is not "health care for all."

An estimated 16 million Americans and another 8 million illegal immigrants would still lack coverage in 2015 under the Baucus bill, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. Those 24 million people -- roughly equal to the population of Texas -- would be forced to depend on hospital emergency rooms and charity for their meager health care coverage.

As Karen Pollitz, a professor at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute, explains, "How do you get above 94 percent coverage? You spend more money. It's not rocket science."

The underlying problem is that there is the lack of the political will in the Senate and the White House to spend enough money on subsidies to come close to achieving universal coverage.

Expanding coverage rates has gotten lost in the shuffle. There are theoretically funds available, since the Senate bill comes in at $71 billion less than Obama's self-imposed ceiling.

The political promise voiced by Barack Obama and virtually every leading figure in the Democratic Party has been "universal health care." Without entering the realm of cloud castles and political fantasies -- without ignoring the gimlet-eyed realities of getting a health care bill through the Senate -- it is still possible in the weeks ahead to make sure that this landmark legislation covers more Americans who cannot afford to visit a doctor."

But Obama won't.

No, he can't.

October 15, 2009 2:36 PM  
Anonymous chris brown said...

they should really leave Obama alone I mean really.

October 15, 2009 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if he'll leave us alone, we'll leave him alone

he is trying to socialize our country and make the change irreversible

a little dissent is in order

October 15, 2009 3:44 PM  
Blogger David S. Fishback said...

Michael Moore makes very good points here. But I disagree with his statement that "We invaded two nations that didn't attack us." No, we invaded one nation that didn't attack us (Iraq), thus depriving us of the opportunity of properly dealing with the problems in the nation that had a government which did provide the safe havens from which were were attacked (Afghanistan). It is very possible that we would not be in the fix we are now in in Afghanistan had we not wasted lives, resources and good will attacking Iraq.

On another very vital issue involving Moore, there was an excellent discussion about American Capitalism this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe between Moore, Joe Scarborough, Maria Bartoroma, Howard Dean, and Moore. I think thoughtful people ought to listen and consider. discussion begins around 2:50 of this link.

I disagree with Moore that Capitalism is an irretrievable disaster, and, indeed, the substance of his new film demonstrates, to me at least, that the trick is to properly regulate it, to keep it from devouring itself (and the rest of us). In "Capitalism, A Love Story," Moore, himself, uses FDR as the model of how we should approach the economy.

October 15, 2009 3:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea not anon

"Michael Brown, director of the Coalition of Conscience, said the group is one of the most discriminated against in America."

So true- Ex-gays(straight people) are almost as discriminated against as drug addict loudmouthed FOX media whores

October 15, 2009 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"we invaded one nation that didn't attack us (Iraq),"

Don't rewrite history, David. Iraq invaded another country, our ally, and used WMD on a dissident group in Iraq.

We intervened.

After signing a truce, Iraq repeatedly violated the truce by, among other things, firing on our planes patrolling the country under the truce.

"On another very vital issue involving Moore, there was an excellent discussion about American Capitalism this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe"

Sean Hannity tore Moore to shreds a few days ago. I'm sure it can be seen online.

"I disagree with Moore that Capitalism is an irretrievable disaster,"

me, too

some regulation is necessary and occassional balancing interventions but any other system is a disaster

"Ex-gays(straight people) are almost as discriminated against as drug addict loudmouthed FOX media whores"

Also, meth-addled, randomly promiscuous homosexuals on comment on liberal blogs are really looked down on

October 15, 2009 4:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Oct. 15) -- Arianna Huffington has a modest proposal for Vice President Joe Biden to capitalize on all the attention he's getting for his stand against escalating the war in Afghanistan: quit.

The Huffington Post founder's latest column floats the idea that Biden should resign the vice presidency "on principle" if the president decides to send more troops.

Huffington's site, which has shown strong audience growth this year, was pro-Obama during the campaign but has been critical of the White House on certain issues. Now it's positioning itself firmly to the left of the administration.

Huffington's column "underscores the growing split" between many liberals and Obama's administration,'s John Hanlon wrote Thursday. New York magazine's Adam K. Raymond "it's pretty entertaining to watch liberals bicker."

While pundits argued Thursday morning about what the Newsweek cover-boy should do in the Afghanistan debate, Biden's son Beau popped up on "Good Morning America."

The Delaware attorney general confirmed he's thinking about running for the Senate seat his dad held for 36 years.

October 15, 2009 4:26 PM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

how ironic if the VP of a Nobel Peace prize winning President resigns to protest the prize winner decision to escalate war

maybe then Biden would get a prize too!

October 15, 2009 4:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to second the thought that Obama needs to leave us alone.

October 15, 2009 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's an example of a guy that opposes inter-racial marriage but not because it doesn't meet the definition of marriage

I think there were once a lot of people that thought this way

not agreeing with it, but it's not analagous to the attempt to change the definition of marriage to include same gender rubbing partners

"HAMMOND, La. (Oct. 15) - A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have.
Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.
Neither Bardwell nor the couple immediately returned phone calls from The Associated Press. But Bardwell told the Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.
"I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house," Bardwell said. "My main concern is for the children."
Bardwell said he has discussed the topic with blacks and whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society, he said.
"I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves," Bardwell said. "In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer."

October 15, 2009 5:10 PM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

the problem with Obama is he sits back and let's the Dems in Congress do all the heavy lifting

the result is a bunch of broken promises

wow! we have health care reform and estimates are that 24 million will still not have health care

and you know, the situation is always worst than estimated

we must look to Ronald Reagan for wisdom here:

“I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like
if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.”

October 15, 2009 8:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I want to share with you an email I received from my democratic sister ... we ended up on completely opposite ends. She is as passionate about her liberal views as I am about my conservative ones.

I want to emphasize again that this health care bill DOES INCLUDE RATIONING. It will CUT MEDICARE DRASTICALLY.

Even some of the virulently democratics folks have figured this out....

NOTE THIS IS MY SISTER WHO BLASTS ME anytime I bring up politics (we avoid the subject). I was hesistant even to mention it, because I get a blast and then she complains to my 83 year old mother about me. This time however, a simple, "you are correct". I only even brought it up when she somewhat broached the subject by asking for a donation to her autism walk she does...

Bea, you really are being misled.
that is all I have to say.

Can you explain why no tort reform ? Can you explain why no selling insurance across state boundaries ? Can you explain why in the world the democrats refuse to vote on a bill that insists all legislation must be posted 72 hours before a vote ? Jim are you against this ?

why not make legislation available ahead of time ? do you, Jim, believe we the people are too stupid to read bills ?

Raising Money for Autism Research

You are correct. The various autism organizations I get emails from are all over this. I've made my share of phone calls, emails.

Danny's birthday party is......


-----Original Message-----
Raising Money for Autism Research

lisa .
You may want to research this further.
I tried to figure it out but ran out of time.
the house health care reform bill specifically excluded anyone with special needs.
I don't know if that was because they thought they were covered in some other way, or if that was part of the "comprehensive effectivness research" rationing approach in the bill. I ran into this when writing one of my political email blasts and ran out of time to figure it out.
the section on special needs kids is referenced in the legal analysis linked on the email I wrote, I will just forward you the whole thing.

but it does specifically talk about special needs kids in the house health care reform bill, and it does specifically exclude them.
I thought of danny.

don't blast me !

October 16, 2009 12:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

one other comment.
I saw the Moore/Hannity exchange and I thought it was relatively civil.

I noted that Hannity could not cite what the gospel reading was that week. Moore indicated that he is Catholic (as I am) and was quizzing Hannity. The gospel that week was about the importance of marriage, divorce, etc. And that marriage is a bond and that Jesus believed that (someone... can't recall now) was incorrect when he said a marriage could be dissolved by a husband writing his wife papers of dismissal. It was fairly memorable, at least the service I attended at BS in DC.

What I found a little upsetting was that Hannity could not remember the service....

Yet insisted he had gone. and went every Sunday. we go most Sundays...

If he had gone, I would have thought he would remember that gospel...


I came away with a better impression of moore than I had previously, though I still completely disagree with him.

October 16, 2009 12:47 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

uh, guys

Obama not only doesn't deserve the Nobel Prize, he is violating the Constitution by taking it:

"Does the Constitution allow President Obama to accept the award?

Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution, the emolument clause, clearly stipulates: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State."

The award of the peace prize to a sitting president is not unprecedented. But Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson received the honor for their past actions: Roosevelt's efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War, and Wilson's work in establishing the League of Nations. Obama's award is different. It is intended to affect future action. As a member of the Nobel Committee explained, the prize should encourage Obama to meet his goal of nuclear disarmament. It raises important legal questions for the second time in less than 10 months -- questions not discussed, much less adequately addressed anywhere else.

The five-member Nobel commission is elected by the Storting, the parliament of Norway. Thus the award of the peace prize is made by a body representing the legislature of a sovereign foreign state. There is no doubt that the Nobel Peace Prize is an "emolument" ("gain from employment or position," according to Webster).

An opinion of the U.S. attorney general advised, in 1902, that "a simple remembrance," even "if merely a photograph, falls under the inclusion of 'any present of any kind whatever.' " President Clinton's Office of Legal Counsel, in 1993, reaffirmed the 1902 opinion, and explained that the text of the clause does not limit "its application solely to foreign governments acting as sovereigns." This opinion went on to say that the emolument clause applies even when the foreign government acts through instrumentalities. Thus the Nobel Prize is an emolument, and a foreign one to boot.

Second, the president has indicated that he will give the prize money to charity, but that does not solve his legal problem. Giving that $1.4 million to a charity could give him a deduction that would reduce his income taxes by $500,000 -- not a nominal amount. Moreover, the money is not his to give away. It belongs to the United States: A federal statute provides that if the president accepts a "tangible or intangible present" for more than a minimal value from any foreign government, the gift "shall become the property of the United States.""

Of course, technically, if he was born in Kenya or Indonesia, he's not really a legit Prez and doesn't have to follow the Constitution.

That's how a lot of dictators start out: ignoring the law.

October 16, 2009 6:53 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 16, 2009 6:58 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 16, 2009 6:59 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Deluxe, either attribute your quotes, link to them, or copy and paste the important parts. Don't fill the comments here with some newspaper column.


October 16, 2009 7:04 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

Charles Krauthammer pointed how the only thing funnier than Obama getting the Nobel Prize was all the people who said the prize was "premature" as if his brilliance in future peace-making endeavors was a forgone conclusion.

He then reviewed several arenas of foreign policy where Obama's actions have resulted in a lot less shalom.

You guys can read it on the Washington Post's right-wing opinion section on their web site.

Or, what the heck, support the newspaper industry and pop over to 7-11 to pick up a hard copy.

Have a good one, Jim, and let's pray for the rain to stop.

October 16, 2009 7:15 AM  
Anonymous deluxe said...

"I saw the Moore/Hannity exchange and I thought it was relatively civil."

I thought it was, too, Theresa.

When I said Hannity tore him to shreds, I simply meant on debating points.

It was a good-natured debate though with a lot of rhetorical jabs.

I don't watch Hannity, or any cable news, much but just happen across this while channel-surfing one evening. I think Hannity is a genial but persistent interviewer.

October 16, 2009 8:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hillary Clinton Now More Popular Than Barack Obama."

According to the Gallup numbers, 62percent of the voters view Clinton favorably while Obama's thumbs-up rating is down to 53 percent.

October 16, 2009 9:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems that this blog must be renamed the Deluxe Vigilence blog. Does this man ever shut up?

October 16, 2009 9:54 AM  
Anonymous economy model said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

October 16, 2009 10:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's in another manic phase and the lithium's running low.

October 16, 2009 5:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home