Why Yes, Virginia there is a Death Panel
Sarah Palin’s comments about government rationing leading to “death panels” that would inevitably result in life or death decisions being made by a panel of unelected bureaucrats was laughed at, mocked, scorned, and held up as evidence of her parochial idiocy, hyperbolic extremism, and all purpose buffoonery. For the record, here’s what she said:
The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.
Oh that Sarah! She’s such a moron. How does she manage to get out of bed in the morning? There are no such things as “death panels” in the legislation being proposed by Congress. Hahaha
Except the Wall Street Journal editorial page agrees with Sarah while avoiding her incendiary language:
As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren’t receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending
New commission you say? Hmm, tell me more…
the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for.
Well that’s not so bad. No death panels there…
The commission is mandated to go after “sources of excess cost growth,” meaning treatments that are too expensive or whose coverage will boost spending. If researchers find a pricey treatment for Alzheimer’s in 2020, that might be banned because it would add new costs and bust the global budget. Or it might decide that “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” as President Obama put it in June.
Umm… I’m getting a little uncomfortable here…
the Medicare commission would come to function much like the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which rations care in England. Or a similar Washington state board created in 2003 to control costs. Its handiwork isn’t pretty…
So far, the commission has banned knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis, discography for chronic back pain, and implantable infusion pumps for pain not related to cancer. This year, it is targeting such frivolous luxuries as knee replacements, spinal cord stimulation, a specialized autism therapy and MRIs of the abdomen, pelvis or breasts for cancer. It will also rule on routine ultrasounds for pregnancy, which have a “high” efficacy but also a “high” cost.
Currently, the commission is pushing through the most restrictive payment policy in the nation for drug-eluting cardiac stents—simply because bare metal stents are cheaper, even as they result in worse outcomes. If a patient is wheeled into the operating room with chest pains in an emergency, doctors will first have to determine if he’s covered by a state plan, then the diameter of his blood vessels and his diabetic condition to decide on the appropriate stent. If they don’t, Washington will not reimburse them for “inappropriate care.“
So you mean that a panel of unelected bureaucrats will sit and make life and death decisions about who receives what kind of care? Kind of like a death panel?
Rationing! It's the patriotic thing to do
But what if I don’t want health insurance?
According to Madame Speaker, your existence as a person living within the United States is enough reason for the heavy hand of the state to handcuff you, haul you into court, find you guilty and sentence you to prison unless you purchase this product deemed essential by her and her cronies in Washington.
h/t to Hot Air
Health care for all sounds like a wonderful idea, and indeed it is. However, the reality is that any program run by or required by the state carries with it the threat of force in its enforcement. Scripture says it best, “the power does not bear the sword in vain,” and indeed it does not. There is quite a bit of difference in incentivizing socially desirable behavior (like marriage or home ownership or yes, owning health insurance) and enacting punitive measures if one fails to comply with what someone, somewhere deems to be in your best interest.
While libertarians and some conservatives might balk at the notion of the state doing anything to encourage certain behaviors through the tax code, I am willing to concede that some socially beneficially aims might be rightfully considered, and in any event, there is no punishment for those who do not comply. This is why our tax code encourages, through the deductibility of donations to religious and charitable organizations, philanthropy. Such organizations, religious or otherwise, have proven themselves again and again to be more than capable of delivering at far lower cost and with far greater efficiency, the types of services that liberals insist we need. It would be quite simple (and probably cheaper) for all the bleeding heart liberals who are distressed by the lack of adequate health care coverage to simply band together and create a health care non-profit that would cover the cost of care for the uninsured, for illegal immigrants, and for gender dysmorphic double transsexuals. They could even pay for abortion on demand if they wanted to!!
However this type of giving is not preferred by statists because the individual retains control of his money, as do the organizations to which he gives. And it certainly isn’t preferred by liberals, who could solve the problem all on their own. They prefer rather to mandate “compassion” through the tax code by compelling everyone else to foot the bill for that which they have decided is necessary. And if you don’t agree, or don’t want to comply, well then, you are an enemy of the people and prison is the place for you. Kind of like those kulaks who selfishly horded grain to feed themselves and their families rather than turning it over to the state…
A tale of two presidents
George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush quietly spent time visiting Ft. Hood to meet with families and express their care and condolences in person:
Former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura secretly visited Fort Hood last night and spent “considerable time” consoling those who were wounded in Thursday’s shooting spree, Fox News has learned.
The Bushes entered and departed the sprawling military facility in secret, having told the base commander they did not want press coverage of their visit, a source told Fox News.
The couple was described as “deeply concerned” about military families on Fort Hood after Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly opened fire on soldiers and civilians, killing 13 and wounding 38.
The Bushes, who have a 1,600-acre property known as Prairie Chapel Ranch less than 30 miles from Fort Hood in central Texas, spent between one and two hours visiting the wounded and their families.
President & Mrs. Obama on the other hand made plans for a little time away from it all:
President Obama’s Saturday Schedule
11:25AM THE PRESIDENT addresses the House Democratic Caucus – Cannon House Office Building
2:30PM THE PRESIDENT makes a statement to the press on Health Care – Rose Garden
2:45PM THE PRESIDENT and THE FIRST LADY depart The White House en route Camp David – South Lawn
A vacation? A little time off for him and the family? Now to be fair, the President is planning on attending the memorial service at Ft. Hood on Tuesday, and his presence on site would be quite disruptive in many ways because of security issues. Even so, one would think that he’d recognize the importance of appearances and after his rather odd reaction to the shooting, it really does raise serious questions about Obama’s character. From the Telegraph:
More serious perhaps was Mr Obama’s strange disconnectedness over the Fort Hood massacre of 13 soldiers by an Army major and devout Muslim who opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, had praised suicide bombing and shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire.When the television networks cut to the President, viewers listened to him spend more than two surreal minutes talking to a gathering of Native Americans about their “extraordinary” and “extremely productive” conference, pausing to give a cheery “shout out” to a man named Dr Joe Medicine Crow. Only then did he briefly and mechanically address what had happened in Texas.
On Friday, when most of the basic facts were available, Mr Obama tried again. It was scarcely any better. He began by offering “an update on the tragedy that took place” – as if it was an earthquake and not a terrorist attack from an enemy within – and ended with a promise for more “updates in the coming days and weeks”.
And here’s the key quote which I believe speaks powerfully to Obama’s character:
Completely missing was the eloquence that Mr Obama employs when talking about himself. Absent too was any sense that the President empathised with the families and comrades of those murdered.
Democrats vote to socialize health care, satisfying no one
Well as expected (as least by me) the Democratically controlled House of Representatives has passed legislation so complex, contradictory, and confusing that they likely have no real idea what is in it. By doing so, they have effectively moved our nation closer to socialization of health care; a goal they’ve had for 70 years.
Is anyone happy about this?
I venture to say, NO. Liberals will be dissatisfied because the bill doesn’t go far enough and potentially puts lots of money in the pockets of insurance companies. Conservatives (and anyone with good sense) will disapprove because it isn’t a good plan and besides, it probably isn’t really constitutional (something Congress, the Courts, and the Executive branch have longed ceased caring about).
Just so you know, the bill requires some things:
What the government will require you to do:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a “grace period” to switch you to a “qualified plan,” meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there’s no grace period. You’ll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a “qualified plan” covers and how much you’ll be legally required to pay for it. That’s like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the “qualified plan” is not yet designed, it will be of the “one size fits all” variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a “qualified plan” for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
And that is just the beginning. May God have mercy on us all!
What the h3ll is wrong with this man? Obama gives “shout out” before addressing national tragedy
Somebody please bring the grown ups back!!!
By now you’ve heard the tragic news of the mass shooting that occurred in Ft. Hood Army Base in Texas. As of this writing there are twelve confirmed dead and thirty wounded, including a number of civilians. Officials have in custody Major Malik Nadal Hasan who was himself wounded as he attacking some of America’s finest. Fox News reports:
A military doctor who reportedly feared an impending war deployment is in custody as the sole suspect in a shooting rampage at the Army’s Fort Hood that left 12 dead and at least 30 wounded, an Army official said Thursday night.
The news that the suspect, Major Malik Nadal Hasan, was alive and in stable condition, came as a sudden reversal of early reports that the gunman was among the dead.
Two other soldiers who were taken into custody as possible suspects were released Lt. Gen. Bob Cone told reporters Thursday evening.
"suspected" Ft. Hood shooter Major Malik Nadal Hasan
A female first responder who shot at Hasan and was previously thought to be dead, was also alive, Cone said.
Federal law enforcement officials say Hasan had come to their attention at least six months ago because of Internet postings that discussed suicide bombings and other threats.
Cone said the injuries “vary significantly” among the victims wounded in the shooting. The victims include one civilian police officer.
The shooter’s cousin, Nader Hasan, told Fox News that their family is in shock.
“We are trying to make sense of all this,” Nader Hasan said. “He wasn’t even someone who enjoyed going to the firing range.”
He said his cousin, who was born and raised in Virginia and graduated from Virginia Tech University, turned against the wars after hearing the stories of those who came back from Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nader Hasan said his cousin, who was raised a Muslim, wanted to go into the military against his parent’s wishes — but was taunted by others after the terror attacks of Sept. 11.
He now is believed to have been behind the worst mass shooting at a U.S. military base in history.
We know he is a Muslim, but of course the media wants to make nice and doesn’t want to ruffle any feathers although I’m quite sure if the guy had been remotely Christian they would not have hesitated to mention it or have talking heads on discussing the resurgence of right wing extremism due to racism or something. As it is, the PC police are unwilling to note the obvious connections and raise the right questions. Even more disturbing than this however is the altogether frivolous and immature way our so-called president responded:
You know, the proper time for shout-outs is at concerts, basketball games, and when you win the academy awards, not when you’re about to comment on the massacre of American servicemen by a loony Muslim extremist on our own soil!!!
Ohhhh… It Ain’t my fault
All he needs is a theme song
President Obama is widely recognized as being the “coolest” president in recent history, certainly cooler than George W. Bush and even Bill Clinton, both of whom were variations on the theme of all American good ole’ boys even though they were both educated in Ivy League schools; something most real good ole’ boys can’t relate to. Mr. Obama has it all, according to his fans: good looks, a glamorous wife, pretty children, and the all too necessary strut. The only thing he’s missing to complete the image is a theme song.
Well, I’ve found one, thanks to the musical styling of Silkk the Shocker who released an album in 1998 called Charge It 2 da Game which contained a song whose refrain adequately describes Obama’s approach to the presidency (warning strong lyrics):
Indeed, whatever happens or will happen under President Obama, we can be assured that it ain’t his fault. From Ross Calvin at Reuters:
A year after his historic election, President Barack Obama sought to remind Americans on Wednesday the biggest problems he is grappling with — from the economy to the war in Afghanistan — are the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
So a year almost a full year into the job and Obama is discovering that not only is the job is difficult, but it’s really Bush’s fault. His lack of leadership, the continued struggles in Afghanistan, the soured economy: all of it is Bush’s fault.
So why did he want this job? The responsibility of a president is to solve problems, not to pass the buck. Ed Morrisey at Hot Air says it better than most:
Obama wanted to be President, not to lead, but just to win. Now that he has won, he has no core set of governing principles other than what impacts Barack Obama. He has offered no leadership on any part of his agenda all year long, content to have Nancy Pelosi run it for him. His foreign policy thus far consists entirely of making himself personally popular with the world. On Afghanistan, Obama has thus far allowed Robert Gates and David Petraeus to make his decisions, only balking at the moment because the McChrystal strategy puts him at odds with his base, which could erode his popularity.
We’ve complained a number of times about the cult of personality that surrounds Obama, but as Todd implies with this answer, it’s really all Obama has.
Well said Ed (rhymes doesn’t it?). Eventually though, Obama will have to take some ownershipas William Hughes at the Camden County Conservative Examiner notes in discussing Obama’s campaigninf for Jon Corzine:
At some point our president is going to have to man up and take responsibility. Yes, we get it, George Bush was a horrible monster that sought to kill us all. Even if, however, the wily cowboy from Texas burned the entire nation to the ground, it wouldn’t warrant the constant self-pity and school-girl like whining that emits from the mouth of the great scripted one every time he stutters, er, speaks.
His argument in defense of his own ineptitude and nefarious socialist dealings is weak enough. When you use it to defend a four year incumbent governor, who succeeded another four year Democratic governor, you then have to ignore 8 years of Democratic governance in order to blame the mess on someone else. Try that next time you get into trouble at work. Blame it on the person who held your job 8 years prior to you and see how that goes.
Yep go ahead and try it. And don’t let the door hit you on your way out the door.
Speaking truth to power
One of the most important functions of the American media is to hold to account elected officials of whatever stripe for their words and actions. The Obama administration has received tremendously favorable press coverage from the outset of his campaign and continuing into his presidency. This however is apparently not enough to satisfy them as they have launched a well known attack against Fox News for what they call biased and distorted reporting. Fine, Fox News may or may not be biased, and we can talk about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the president’s actions against them. What we cannot do however, is pretend that the Fox News network is somehow a “power” to be spoken up against, as Obama flak Valerie Jarrett suggests in this CNN interview with Campbell Brown:
CNN, apparently tiring of being too obviously in the tank for Obama and weary of outright lies from the administration, was sharp enough to note Jarrett’s inconsistency:
To the question of whether Fox News is biased, Jarrett replied: “Well, of course they’re biased. Of course they are.”
But when Brown followed up by asking Jarrett if she thinks MSNBC is biased, she quickly downplayed her original remark. “Actually, I don’t want to generalize all of Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis,” she said. “When we see a pattern of distortion, we’re going to be honest about that pattern of distortion….
“We’re actually calling everybody out. So this isn’t anything that’s simply directed at Fox. We just want the American people to have a really clear understanding,” said Jarrett.
Well that’s nice, but as noted on Hot Air, what is truly shocking is that the senior advisor to the President of the United States, arguably the most powerful political person on the planet, is talking about “speaking truth to power.” Ms. Jarrett, YOU ARE THE POWER!!
It is a stunning development, comedic if not so tragic, to see the exceedingly thin skin of the Obama administration be exposed. Here we have a man who hold the nuclear codes for the nations arsenal at his disposal, for whom entire city blocks are routinely shut down to accommodate his date nights, and for whose words entire nations wait to determine their diplomatic response. And yet his panties are in a twist because GLENN BECK doesn’t like him?? I mean seriously? How spoiled and childish can one be? And how obtuse must be Ms. Jarrett and grievance minded her boss, Mr. Obama, to be using phrases like, “speaking truth to power?”
The phrase speaking truth to power is useful when one is oppressed, or when truth is somehow being systematically suppressed by those in power. In this case, it is Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the dozens of talk radio hosts from Michael Savage, to Limbaugh, to Phil Valentine, who are in that position. You Mr. Obama and Ms. Jarrett, ARE the power to whom TRUTH must be spoken. It is obvious that Obama has never had to endure anything other than sycophantic approval from his admirers and little but muted critique from his detractors. Not even John McCain in his campaign brought any big guns to bear against Obama, preferring instead to run a muddled and unfocused campaign that few can remember and which led unsurprisingly to Obama’s election.
Mr. President, it is time to grow up!
The Rage of the Common Man
We're not happy
H/T to the Black Informant for finding this bit of information…
As readers may or may not know, I was in my youth, much closer in ideology to being a full on socialist (though with reservations) than a right winger. Though I’ve since wised up, I retain a healthy degree of socialist skepticism of monied interests (as do all true conservatives) and believe that the two party system is much more of a scam than anyone cares to openly admit. The real divide in this country is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between the ones who dominate government through monetary means and those of us, the vast majority, who do not, but who are often the ones paying the bills.
These lines in particular caught my attention as the Black Informant talks about socialist John Pilger:
If you do not hear anything else I say, just follow the money. While we peons are out here in cyberspace arguing and debating over the latest comment made by Rush Limbaugh, the name given to fried chicken joints, who compared Michelle Obama to a monkey, money is constantly exchanging hands in Washington. It (money) is probably one of the only things in Washington that does not discriminate. Party affiliation does not matter, neither does the color of one’s skin.
This is profoundly and deeply true. Barack Obama in particular (and the Democratic Party in general) benefited from hundreds of millions in corporate dollars in the financing of his campaign. The same monies that poured in to support Bush are the same ones that back Obama, and you can be sure that in politics, as in all things, money buys influence.
Much noise has been made about tea-party protests, the slide in Obama’s popularity, the socialist policies of the new administration, but by and large, many things, indeed most things remain the same. People on both ends of the political spectrum are frustrated with Obama’s governance, for what they believe are very different reasons. I believe however that their anger has more in common than they realize. Pilger is very far to the left, but these words easily resonate on the right as well:
My own guess is that a populism is growing once again in America, evoking a powerful force beneath the surface which has a proud history. From such authentic grassroots Americanism came women’s suffrage, the eight-hour day, graduated income tax, public ownership of railways and communications, the breaking of the power of corporate lobbyists, and much more. In other words, real democracy.
The American populists were far from perfect, but they often spoke for ordinary people and they were betrayed by leaders who urged them to compromise and merge with the Democratic Party. That was long ago, but how familiar it sounds.
Now of course Pilger sees this populism being put to the use of long standing socialist/leftist ideas which as a conservative I reject as being both impractical and inimical to liberty. However, he does touch a very clear nerve and describes well what I believe to be a bipartisan, grass roots frustration with being ignored by a ruling class that sees itself not as our servants, but as our rulers.
In this kind of system, the voter is nothing more than a group to be manipulated by this or that politician or party. Evangelical Christians discovered this (belatedly) during the Bush administration as his embrace of evangelical faith did little to advance their concerns about homosexual rights and abortion. Liberal feminists are likewise waking up to the cynical way their concerns about “reproductive rights” (i.e. abortion) are used to keep them voting for Democrats no matter how much they disappoint. Black Americans it seems are the slowest to begin to wake to see 
that the race politics of the Democratic Party aren’t really serving their interests. Again the Black Informant:
For the Black voter, Obama quickly became an easy sell once Obama won Iowa ( a state made up of mostly Whites). We became willing to ditch all those concerns about the war, the economy, politicians who profited from the same “evil” corporations they blasted on the campaign stump in order to take part in history. Whites loved him–that is all that mattered. We even took it a step further by suggesting that a vote against Obama was a vote against your own race. So despite all the questions a person may have like “Why did Obama and his party continue to court lobbyists even after he repeatedly dissed them publicly”, your loyalty to your race was now on the line. Shut up and vote. Talk about a vote guarantee!
When the economy continued to go south after Obama’s promise that his efforts with his stimulus bill would hold unemployment @8%, criticism has been very light to say the least. In fact, when you do hear criticism, it is directed towards the all-encompassing “government” (even though the listener really know that they are really talking about Obama). When criticisms do make it out of the fold, they are usually confronted with the huge hand of denial that says “It’s way too early to judge Obama.” In the meantime, when a small committee in Oslo decided to JUDGE Obama and give him a Nobel Peace Prize, it was paraded as another “First” that Blacks everywhere should celebrate. Blacks, just like other ethnic minorities, women, members of the GLBT community, the anti-war crowd, the anti/pro-abortion crowd, the disabled, the poor, the uneducated–you name the group–are nothing more than cards in a deck that are played in the game of politics. It’s never about the card itself. Instead, it is all about how the card can be played to achieve a certain goal. Pilger nails it with this quote:
“Real activism has little time for identity politics, which, like exceptionalism, can be fake. These are distractions that confuse and sucker good people.”
The anti-war crowd is only realizing this now.
This is why I always find it interesting to hear how Republicans feel that by engaging in identity politics based on race like Democrats that somehow they will become more liked. Democrats engage in identity politics based on race all the time, yet they cannot point to one city that has improved as a result of their policies under their authority. They had decades of practice and all they can do is blame the other guy.
Right on brother. What he’s saying is very true. Ultimately I believe that the protesters of the tea party movement and the rank and file liberals who were tossed under the bus in the Democratic primary (who mostly dutifully voted for Obama in fear of what McCain / Palin represented) have much in common. They are equally annoyed that their votes, their concerns, their fears, their agenda, their well being don’t matter at all to the powers that be in Washington.
Liberals are hopping mad that universal health care isn’t being passed. Conservatives are mad that years of supposedly conservative governance has led to massive deficits. Both are mad about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, though for different reasons. Obama rode to power on this wave of discontent, but is proving to be more of the same, but worse. God help us all.
Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel and paper by the ton
Yes, I know I’m late on this, but things have been busy and updating this blog has not been top priority. In any event you know by now the pettiness of the Obama White House continues to astound even me. Anita Dunn, White House communications director famously derided the Fox News Channel (known on the left as Faux News).
Unsurprisingly the highly rated cable news network, who does indeed buy ink by the barrel (metaphorically speaking) lost no time in defending itself against Dunn’s (and by extension Obama) outrageous comments.
From Fox News:
Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente, who likens the channel to a newspaper with separate sections on straight news and commentary, suggested White House officials were intentionally conflating opinion show hosts like Glenn Beck with news reporters like Major Garrett.
“It’s astounding the White House cannot distinguish between news and opinion programming,” Clemente said. “It seems self-serving on their part.”
Self serving indeed, and a very bad tactical move exposing again the thin skin of an administration so coddled by the media that CNN has taken to “fact checking” a Saturday Night Live skit.
Fox News, from its business anchors to its commentators, launched a full scale retaliation that will certainly be more effective than anything the White House can muster. Obama’s persona is powerful, but when you get Neil Cavuto riled up, you know you’re in trouble:
That’s right. Neil Cavuto, who used to work for CNBC before coming to Fox and who hosts a business program. When you get folks like that ticked off at you, you’re in trouble.
The real story here is not Cavuto, nor even Fox News, but rather the increasingly obvious ineffectiveness of Obama’s White House which cannot seem to function on anything other than unadulterated adoration from the press corps. His predecessor Bush received terrible press coverage throughout both terms of his presidency and was a terrible public speaker, but he never, despite this, demeaned the office of the presidency by getting the White House involved in arguments with the press corps over coverage.
Here Obama slams Fox News personally, which is a silly strategy and makes him look (or rather reveals) his petty thin skinned sensitivity.
Obama is a whiner. He employs people who complain, and the totality of his approach to the world is based on whining and complaint. Everything is someone else’s fault in his world. He functions as a man who has never or rarely had anyone tell him the truth about himself or question his “good intentions.” Obama, it’s time to grow up.
WHAT. THE. H3LL. Obama receives Nobel Peace Prize for….??
What exactly?
You’re not sure. I’m not sure either. When I turned on the television this morning I saw the crawling headline across the bottom of the screen and said to my roommate (I’m on a business trip), “Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize.” Unlike me, he is a dedicated supporter of Obama and his response was, “This must be some kind of joke.”
Joke indeed. But alas, it is no joke.
OSLO (AP) – President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee said, citing his outreach to the Muslim world and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation.
The stunning choice made Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize and shocked Nobel observers because Obama took office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline. Obama’s name had been mentioned in speculation before the award but many Nobel watchers believed it was too early to award the president.
Now I don’t know much about winning prizes, but in general awards are given in light of some actual accomplishment rather than in a speculative hope about what someone might possibly accomplish at some point. Mr. Barack H. Obama, 44th President of the United States of America has accomplished precisely nothing that can be cited as evidence that he is a man of peace. Nothing that is other than talking in soft tones about nice things.
The prize itself, established by scientist and industrialist Alfred Nobel, was to be given, “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”
I’m having difficulty finding Obama anywhere in that description. In fact, the political left in this country are rather disquieted by Obama’s continued support for G.W. Bush’s policies in Iraq and the potential escalation in Afghanistan, neither of which evince much of a propensity towards peacemaking on Obama’s part. However the committee seems to have been influenced by the school of thought that encourages giving A’s for effort.
Rather than recognizing concrete achievement, the 2009 prize appeared intended to support initiatives that have yet to bear fruit: reducing the world stock of nuclear arms, easing American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthening the U.S. role in combating climate change.
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” Thorbjoern Jagland, chairman of the Nobel Committee said. “In the past year Obama has been a key person for important initiatives in the U.N. for nuclear disarmament and to set a completely new agenda for the Muslim world and East-West relations.”
He added that the committee endorsed “Obama’s appeal that ‘Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.’”
Um… yeah. So basically the committee is awarding him for being NOT George Bush, whom everyone hated. Even on the left there seems to be a great deal of incredulity about the whole thing.
Why else give him the honor now? Whatever one might feel about Obama, he has not earned this singular award. Few American presidents have received it and of those who have it was bestowed after they’d been engaged in something special. Theodore Roosevelt had helped to negotiate peace in the Russo-Japanese War. Woodrow Wilson had tirelessly worked for the creation of the League of Nations — a struggle that was blamed for causing the serious stroke he suffered, which left him disengaged in the last years of his presidency.
Jimmy Carter received the Peace Prize after he left office, but in the wake of huge achievements monitoring worldwide elections and in his efforts with Habitat for Humanity, building homes for the poor.
Former Vice President Al Gore got the prize after years of working for the environment. And whether you appreciated Henry Kissinger’s getting the award it was in response to his efforts to effect a peace in the Vietnam War.
So, at the moment, I believe it is enormously premature for Obama to be getting this great tribute, which to a certain extent cheapens the prior recipients and the work all of them performed over so many years.
At that’s from a guy who supports him! Well since it is a prize, let’s at least consider those people our illustrious and unaccomplished president beat out for the award. They are probably all slackers with razor thin accomplishments. From the Weekly Standard blog:
Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan: “With dogged persistence and at great personal risk, she kept her schools and clinics open in Afghanistan even during the most repressive days of the Taliban regime, whose laws prohibited the education of girls past the age of eight. When the Taliban fell, Samar returned to Kabul and accepted the post of Minister for Women’s Affairs.”
Ingrid Betancourt: French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years.
“Dr. Denis Mukwege: Doctor, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo. He has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.”
Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition: “These organizations are recognized for their consistently serious efforts to clean up cluster bombs, also known as land mines. Innocent civilians are regularly killed worldwide because the unseen bombs explode when stepped upon.”
“Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to a three-and-a-half-year prison term for ‘inciting subversion of state power.’”
“Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system. He now lives in the United States.”
Ahh now I see it. It is so obvious that none of these people deserved the award.
Recent Comments