| |
|
| | Post New Topic | | Nobel Peace? prize | Views: 319 | | Oct 09, 2009 6:45 pm | | Nobel Peace? prize | # | 
Ron Sam | |
Obama's
Highly Questionable Nobel Peace Prize
Anyone who
fails to see the irony in The Norwegian Nobel Committee's
decision to award President Barack Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize at
a time when he is deliberating about possibly the most important
military decision of his young presidency just isn't paying attention.
This isn't
the only reason the committee's award is so questionable,
and it's not just conservatives who are shaking their heads in
disbelief.
There are a
multitude of reasons why Obama is unfit for the prize,
but the most glaring one is that he has accomplished virtually nothing
in the way of international peace-keeping. As my colleague, Pierre
Tristam (About.com's Guide to Middle East Issues), points
out, Obama hasn't even been president for 10 months, and his
record on peace-keeping is sketchy at best.
Sure, Obama
has given a lot of fancy speeches about his hopes for
peace, but they're based primarily on broad platitudes to which most of
us cannot help but agree. After all, who among us does not
wish to see peace come to the Middle East. Sure, the president's policy
statements are grand gestures focused on promoting peaceful relations
throughout the world, but what new president hasn't
had that
goal in those bright, sparkling days just following his oath of office?
Even hawkish President George W. Bush, who campaigned upon a platform
of "compassionate conservatism," was desirous of creating worldwide
peace during his first months in office ... those noble plans ended,
however, when terrorists flew our own planes into the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.
More than 205
nominees were considered by the Nobel committee, according to its web site. For
all those people who have an acutal demonstrated record of accomplishments,
the committee's decision can't be seen as anything other than a slap in
the face. In its
announcement,
the committee claims the basis for its decision was Obama's
"extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and
cooperation between peoples." These efforts have been largely based on
one thing and one thing only -- words, not deeds.
Interestingly,
it is Obama's status as president which has given him
the world-wide stage upon which he has launched these so-called
"efforts," and which has afforded him the opportunity to reap the Nobel
Prize. In terms of concrete results, there is very little to validate
the Nobel committee's bewildering decision.
Obama has
actually done more damage to the diplomatic process than many people
realize -- especially
as it relates to the Middle East. His soft approach toward Iran has
actually emboldened that nation's erratic leadership and his hands-off
policy toward North Korea has given its unstable leader free reign to
rattle his nuclear saber at the entire world. Meanwhile, the
president's shrinking-violet approach has put an icy chill on
relationships with traditional American allies like Israel and China.
The
consequences of awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama so early
in his presidency may actually have negative repercussions for the
prize itself. While many of the committee's recipients have been either
obvious or forgettable, none have been quite so dubious. The committee
had better hope Obama's diplomatic efforts work, or that there isn't
another terror attack on US soil, because if his approach to
international affairs should waver or the fickle international climate
should change (as it so often does), there is no way the committee can
repossess its most sacred prize.
Regardless of
what happens, the committee's decision to honor Obama
with the peace prize already devalues the awards given to previous
recipients like Mother Theresa, Eli Wiesel and Nelson Mandela, whose
unquestionable credentials, unwavering commitment and long list of
peaceful accomplishments has traditionally set the standard for the
award. By giving the peace prize to a man whose greatest accomplishment
in life was winning the 2008 presidential election, the Nobel committee
has lowered the bar for its future nominees.
Perhaps the
greatest measure of a man is the way he takes care of
his domestic responsibilities, and while Obama may have impressed many
outside the US with his savoir faire and ability
to read a teleprompter, his popularity in America has reached its
lowest point yet, according to the latest Rasmussen
Daily Presidential Tracking poll.
Which
basically means that people around the world can give Obama all the
awards they want ... they don't have to live with him.
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 09, 2009 7:55 pm | | re: Nobel Peace? prize | # | 
Denis Gibbon | | As much as I understand what the author of this article is saying, I do not believe that he is qualified to make the statements he has made. My reason for this is very simple. He does not know what is going on behind the scenes. President Obama's plans are very understandibly classified information. The demands of diplomacy in a very complex world make this essential. Unless you have all the facts you can't make a valid judgment.So you might ask why he was awarded the prize.
There are two answers to this question. The first is the answer provided by the judges and the second answer which is the real one, we may never know. We can only speculate.
President Obama was elected by the American people and was installed into office without the provision of his birth certificate. This certificate is what we need to focus on, not his Nobel prize. All this talk about the Nobel prize is a divertion from this much more important question. The man may not even be qualified to hold office. The American people have a RIGHT to know. If he is unqualified for office it would arguably be the greatest con hob in the history of mankind.
My suggestion is to get down to the basics. Don't concern yourself with inconsequentia like this award. Relatively, it has no importance at all.
COPYRIGHT 2009 Denis Gibbon.
http://drpg.biz
My Company ID = 20829071
VOICEMAIL: +1-877-501-3399
Private Reply to Denis Gibbon | | Oct 10, 2009 9:02 am | | re: Nobel Peace Price? | # | 
Peter Boaz Jones | | The point is President Obama is approaching world peace from another angle, and though he never overall slanted President Bush’s office, has decided on different tactics as Denis alluded, and that needed a lot of guts if previously the Senate has gone along with the previous tactics. It is in this spirit I believe he was awarded the Nobel Prize, for brokering a newer approach which has albeit alleviated a defence system in Czechoslovakia, and has placed the ground rules for monitoring Iran, even while having already sent more troops to Afghanistan, is considering in the pipeline whether to send more. Also, he has showed himself to be humble in character while strong, which is a prime quality in enabling others to inherit the earth.
Pete :-) Moderator of: Exploring Belief Systems, God, & Spirituality
http://beliefsystemsgodspirituality-network.ryze.com
Author of The Gospel of the Four
http://www.new-millennium.co.uk
Private Reply to Peter Boaz Jones | | Oct 10, 2009 3:20 pm | | Nobel Peace Price? | # | 
Mike Fesler | | POTUS was given the NB Prize.
Now he must earn the right to keep it.
The NB Prize has now been forever blatently politicized and seriously diminished in the worlds view.
Much like the medias that have a overt love affair with the present POTUS. Just ask Dan Rather. . . .
POTUS having secrets??
Yes so secret that his own cabinet don’t even know or understand the game plan.
Give me a break. . . .
I want some of what those Norwegians have been taking, because reality is becoming too nauseous.
I wonder if POTUS will award the NB Prize money to Acorn since they now need a few more bucks?
M.
Change you voted for!!!
Enjoy.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Oct 10, 2009 3:27 pm | | re: re: Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Ron Sam | | I'd rather Obama had won it after Congress agreed to substantial cuts in greenhouse gases comparable to what Europe is proposing, after he brought Palestinians and Israelis together to accept a two-state solution, after he got the United States out of Afghanistan and reduced the nuclear arm's threat between Pakistan and India, or after he was well on the way to eliminating the world's stockpile of nuclear weapons. Any one of these would have been worthy of global praise. Perhaps the Nobel committee can give him half the prize now and withhold the other half until he accomplishes one or more of these crucial missions.
from article: Why Obama Should Not Have Received the Peace Prize -- Yet. http://3.ly/Li1
Denis,
Justin Quinn is not speaking out of place, he is repeating what has been in the news or is fact and supports it with references.
I agree with you regarding Obama's Birth place and being rightfully qualified or as you said a "con job".
Speaking about Obama's birth certificate, there will be a Federal Court hearing this case on January 11th (next year). The judge is David Carter in Santa Ana, Calif. Obama's Kenya birth certificate has been found by Orly Taitz a lawyer.
Also, there is now documented proof that while Obama attended Occidental College in CA he was receiving foreign student financial aid that showed that he was a citizen of Indonesia. That hopefully. proves he is not a natural born US citizen.
Peter,
Did you know that Obama was nominated for this prize only 11-days into office? That says a lot of for mis-judgment or false priorities.
Obama may not have outwardly mocked GWB but has provided much for his supporters to mock Bush. However, is this your measure for a Nobel Prize? Do you think he rates with Mother Theresa, Eli Wiesel and Nelson Mandela in his ACCOMPLISHMENTS?
Maybe the fact that on June 28, 2006 Obama made statements that are anti-Christian anti-Bible in the way our Nation should be guided. Is this not mocking the Bible? Why didn't Obama use the Ten Commandments as a guide for our Nation?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w
Ron
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 10, 2009 3:48 pm | | Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Mike Fesler | | Why should he read the Bible?
Remember he has had the great and distinguished Rev. Jeremiah Wright to lead him spiritually for how many decades now?
Remember. . . if you really want to know him. . . . see who he has surrounded himself with.
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Oct 11, 2009 7:33 pm | | Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Mike Fesler | | Our European arrogance in alphabetical order
1. The American Cemetery at Aisne-Marne, France. A total of 2289 of our military dead.
2. The American Cemetery at Ardennes, Belgium. A total of 5329 of our dead.
3. The American Cemetery at Brittany, France. A total of 4410 of our military dead. Excuse us.
4. Brookwood, England American Cemetery. A total of 468 of our dead.
5. Cambridge, England. 3812 of our military dead.
6. Epinal, France American Cemetery. A total of 5525 of our Military dead.
7. Flanders Field, Belgium. A total of 368 of our military.
8. Florence, Italy. A total of 4402 of our military dead.
9. Henri-Chapelle, Belgium. A total of 7992 of our military dead.
10. Lorraine, France. A total of 10,489 of our military dead.
11. Luxembourg, Luxembourg. A total of 5076 of our military dead.
12. Meuse-Argonne. A total of 14246 of our military dead.
13. Netherlands, Netherlands. A total of 8301 of our military dead.
14. Normandy, France. A total of 9387 of our military dead.
15. Oise-Aisne, France. A total of 6012 of our military dead.
16. Rhone, France. A total of 861 of our military dead.
17. Sicily, Italy. A total of 7861 of our military dead.
18. Somme, France. A total of 1844 of our military dead.
19. St. Mihiel, France. A total of 4153 of our military dead.
20. Suresnes, France. a total of 1541 of our military dead.
Apologize to no one. Remind those of our sacrifice and don't confuse arrogance with leadership.
If I added correctly the count is 104,366 dead.
And we have to watch an American elected leader who apologizes to Europe and the Middle East that our country is "arrogant"!
HOW MANY FRENCH, DUTCH, ITALIANS, BELGIANS AND BRITS ARE BURIED ON OUR SOIL, DEFENDING US AGAINST OUR ENEMIES??
WE DON'T ASK FOR PRAISE ... BUT WE HAVE ABSOULUTELY NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE!!
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Oct 12, 2009 1:13 am | | re: Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Peter Boaz Jones | | Kind of like the analogy that in a hundred years everyone should have a degree and even a Nobel Peace Prize - really, like Birth Certificates they are only pieces of paper.
Moreover, a lot of President Obama’s credentials as far as peace goes were known before his inauguration, like the video on Youtube three years ago needs to be taken in context of the whole address and not just a highlight, since President Obama was sworn in on the Holy Bible.
Though, President Obama knows Rev. Jeremiah Wright he certainly does not go along with everything he says.
The picking out of the soldiers who sacrificed themselves for our freedom, does nothing to take away from the fact that President Obama and Prime Minster Brown this week are considering the options of sending more troops to Afghanistan in the effort to save more lives and finish the job of neutralising the Taliban in safe guarding Pakistan and not allowing the terrorists the ability to get their hands on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
Pete :-) Moderator of: Exploring Belief Systems, God, & Spirituality
http://beliefsystemsgodspirituality-network.ryze.com
Author of The Gospel of the Four
http://www.new-millennium.co.uk
Private Reply to Peter Boaz Jones | | Oct 13, 2009 1:04 am | | re: re: Nobel Peace Price? | # | 
Ernie Martin | | There always is a giver and a receiver. Things must balance out. In this case president Obama is the receiver of the Noble Peace prize. He is donating the $1.4 million to a non-profit organization. That's very altruistic.
Suddenly he has also become a giver to a worthy cause, which badly needs the finances to pay the bills and salaries of the non-profit organization.
Cheers,
Ernie Martin
Private Reply to Ernie Martin | | Oct 13, 2009 2:38 am | | re: re: re: Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Ron Sam | |
Barack
Obama and the Nobel peace prize
Even greater
expectations
Oct 9th 2009
From Economist.com
Is it
premature to give Barack Obama the Nobel peace prize, less than a year
into his presidency?
BARACK OBAMA,
who has been America's president for just nine months,
has won the 2009 Nobel peace prize. Perhaps the Nordic judges felt it
was a suitable consolation after Chicago lost out to Rio de Janeiro in
its bid to host the 2016 Olympic games. Or the prizegivers might have
felt moved by Mr Obama’s personal story: that a mixed-race man is
president says much about the peaceful progress on race relations in
America. Instead they emphasised Mr Obama’s aspirations and his
commitment to diplomacy, even if, so far, he has achieved little that
is concrete.
Most broadly,
he has sought to engage with opponents, saying that
America would “extend a hand, if you unclench your fist”, for example
to those who were earlier dismissed as an “axis of evil”. Somewhat to
the discomfort of Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who had
bolstered his domestic support by vilifying America as an aggressor, Mr
Obama has proposed holding talks about nuclear affairs, removing a
precondition that Iran first abandon enrichment of uranium. Mr Obama
made withdrawal of American forces from Iraq one of the main pledges of
his election campaign and has since overseen a slightly quicker run
down of troops than was envisaged by Mr Bush. Towards North Korea, too,
Mr Obama has dangled the prospect of bilateral talks and closer
engagement.
Regarding
Russia Mr Obama has developed a policy of notably warmer
ties, dubbed “hitting the reset button”. Relations had become
especially frosty towards the end of Mr Bush’s presidency when war
broke out between Georgia, an ally of America, and Russia. Since coming
to office Mr Obama has also overseen talks aimed at reducing the
nuclear arsenals of Russia and America, while speaking of his ultimate
wish to “get to zero”—somehow ridding the world of all nuclear weapons.
Most substantially (and to the dismay of the Polish and Czech
governments), he has scrapped an earlier plan to deploy a
missile-defence shield on land in eastern Europe, which had been seen
as a provocation by Russia.
Yet Mr
Obama’s main achievement is a change of tone in foreign
policy. A speech given in Egypt in June was an eloquent call for a new
understanding between America and Islam. It was designed both to assure
Muslims, now thought to number 1.6 billion around the world, that
America is not set on a crusade. Similarly it was intended to convey to
any Americans (and others) who believe in the notion of a “clash of
civilisations” that friendly ties between religions is eminently
possible.
Similarly,
American policy towards small and repressive regimes,
ranging from Myanmar to Cuba, has shifted in mood, if not yet
substance, by offering the prospect of engagement if governments
demonstrate progress towards democracy. Some may also see Mr Obama’s
push for more action to tackle climate change as a factor—he is urging
Congress to pass a cap-and-trade bill and has said that his
administration would decree new environmental rules if Congress fails
to do so. (Al Gore, another Democratic figure, also won the Nobel
prize, for his campaigns against climate change.)
Yet critics
will have plenty to complain about. The prize-giving
committee was at pains to emphasise Mr Obama’s “extraordinary efforts
to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between
peoples”. In the citation, the committee argued that his “diplomacy is
founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so
on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of
the world's population.” But is the award premature? Although the prize
may be given in the spirit of encouraging Mr Obama’s government, it
might have been better to wait for more solid achievements. With so
many good intentions, and so many initiatives scattered around the
world (and an immensely busy domestic agenda, including health-care
reform and averting economic collapse), Mr Obama appears to be racing
around trying everything without yet achieving much.
One might
point to Mr Obama’s lauded decision to close the military
prison for terrorist suspects in Guantánamo Bay, and his explicit
rejection of the use of torture by American spies and interrogators.
Both are welcome, but for now Guantánamo Bay remains open. Carrying
through on promises is proving far harder than making them. Similarly
Mr Obama made progress in encouraging Israeli and Palestinian leaders
to hold talks about peace earlier this year, but as he is distracted by
other concerns both parties have since drifted away from negotiations.
And so far North Korea, Iran, Cuba and Russia—among others—have offered
nothing of substance to demonstrate that a policy of engagement will
bring more results than Mr Bush’s tough line.
More
troubling is Afghanistan. Although the Nobel committee has now
rewarded Mr Obama with a title of peacemaker (plus $1.4m or so), he
remains a war president. He must shortly decide whether to deploy an
additional 40,000 soldiers to fight against Taliban and other
insurgents in a conflict that has lasted for eight years. With no
obvious means of ending that war, there is a serious possibility that
Mr Obama's presidency will become dominated by worsening conditions
there.
Mr Obama’s
aspirations may be laudable, but he has several tough
years ahead. The Nobel committee evidently wants to encourage him but
it might have been wiser to hold judgment until he has achieved more.
In America itself, the decision has already infuriated conservative
commentators, ensuring there will be no peace on the home front, at
least.
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 13, 2009 10:49 am | | re: Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Peter Boaz Jones | | Thanks Ernie for your positive words.
I felt the Economist article very negative and premature in it’s analysis, since President Obama has already had the Nobel Prize, and Prime Minster Brown and Hillary Clinton on President Obama’s behalf are already discussing the arrangements this week in sending more troops to Afghanistan, along with talking with Russia about sanctions if Iran is building a nuclear arsenal.
Pete :-) Moderator of: Exploring Belief Systems, God, & Spirituality
http://beliefsystemsgodspirituality-network.ryze.com
Author of The Gospel of the Four
http://www.new-millennium.co.uk
Private Reply to Peter Boaz Jones | | Oct 13, 2009 8:53 pm | | re: re: Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Ron Sam | |
Regarding
Ernie's comment on Obama giving the large sum he will receive to
charity - yeah that's nice but even presidents have rules to follow.
There may be ethics issues. Josh Gerstein, a writer for the
political Web site Politico, said Mr. Obama could face ethical and tax
questions that could muck up his charitable ambitions.
"Traditionally,
presidents have returned gifts of this magnitude, as
any other federal employee would be required to do if the gift were
given because of official position, but I am not sure what would be
done with this one," said Richard Painter, a White House ethics counsel
under President George W. Bush.
See
article.
By law he
can't make the decision to do that, it has to go to the government,
otherwise it's like a bribe. What if he wanted to give it to
Acorn? or
"How bout he keeps the 1.4
million . . . and our children keep the trillions he’s stealing from
them."
Peter thought
the Economist article was very negative. Yet there was
nothing in that article that was inaccurate or untrue.
In truth, the Norwegians did the US president no favors by giving him
the peace prize after less than a year in office. The award will only
embellish a portrait of the president that has been painted in ever
more vivid colors by his political enemies. The right argues that Mr
Obama is a man who has been wildly applauded and promoted for not doing
terribly much. Now the Nobel
committee
seems to be making their point for them.
Peter
mentioned that Obama and Brown will be meeting to discuss plans
in Afghanistan says to me Obama is stalling and addressing the
wrong party. He needs to stop ignoring our military
commanders and put their concerns into top priority if we don't want to
loose even more credibility!
Re:
... talking with Russia about sanctions if Iran is building a
nuclear arsenal
See:
Iran
nuclear proposal rejected as Russia dismisses sanctions
Russia’s
statement comes as a setback for President Barack Obama, who
had hoped to build an international consensus about sanctions before
the United Nations General Assembly meeting in two weeks.
I wonder if Peter agrees with Obama on the Bible as not a guide for US
and does not even mention of the Ten Commandments?
Why is that Peter?
Hear other
remarks from hot spots around the globe, Obama is not exactly producing
peace anywhere on the planet.
Al
Jazeera
Inside
Story - Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
Ron Paul's
Commentary on Obama and Nobel Prize and promotion of peace
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 14, 2009 9:48 pm | | Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Mike Fesler | | I have four extra tickets for the Robbie Knievel (son of Evil Knievel)
Event at the Ford Center next weekend, if anybody
wants them.
Robbie is going to try to jump over 1,000 Obama czars with a Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer.
Please see:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/Caterpillar%20D-9%20bulldozer%20Photos/raymondnewberry/image001-2.jpg
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Oct 15, 2009 3:07 am | | re: Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Peter Boaz Jones | | The continual knocking of President Obama in not only clearly very negative, whether from the Economist’s picking out certain facts and ignoring others, but the incessant nitpicking by others also proves the point. The health plan reforms are step by step being formulated, and regardless, the amount of troops being sent to Afghanistan will be decided shortly. Many things in politics change from week to week and whatever Russia’s stance, the USA and Great Britain as well as Europe, and Israel, will not allow Iran to build a nuclear arsenal.
As I said earlier, a lot of President Obama’s credentials as far as peace goes were known before his inauguration, and the video on Youtube three years ago needs to be taken in context of the whole address and not just a highlight, since President Obama was sworn in on the Holy Bible.
Many conveniently forget while hypocritically welcoming a big uptick in their bonds portfolio, that one of the most severe global financial crisis in decades was also one of the shortest lived in decades.
I must give credit to Lucas Wyrsch on Ecademy for highlighting these facts:
http://www.ecademy.com/node.php?id=134073#c655986
We can both measure that all global markets, and all global stock exchanges trust Barack Obama, simply because he has contributed to more global wealth in only ten months more than any other President ever!
Through a statistic evaluation, between February and August 2009 all the world's stock exchanges increased the market capitalization of their publicly listed companies by 43.1% or over twelve trillion dollars.
Just connect to the website of the World Federation of Exchanges http://www.world-exchanges.org/statistics/ytd-monthly and go to the statistical section!
Chose the relevant parameters:
Year: 2009
Month: August
Individual data series: Domestic
Market Capitalization
Currency: USD (to convert all local currencies in one to compare)
Document type: Excel
Click on Download
You now will get the total figures of each stock exchange and the monthly totals below:
February 2009: US$28'670'368.1 Million
August 2009: US$41'030'838.7 Million
Increase: US$12'360'470.6 Million or 43.11%
Never in human history has a US President been able to get all the global stock exchanges to have so much trust and faith in him that the markets increased in only seven months by 43.1%!
Contrary to the negativity on here, Barack Obama is more trusted than any other President in the world!
Pete :-) Moderator of: Exploring Belief Systems, God, & Spirituality
http://beliefsystemsgodspirituality-network.ryze.com
Author of The Gospel of the Four
http://www.new-millennium.co.uk
Private Reply to Peter Boaz Jones | | Oct 15, 2009 10:15 am | | re: re: Nobel Peace Price? | # | 
Claire Solt | | The Nobel peace Prize has status because of the high calibre of many of its recipients. The first responsibility of the committee is to maintain its stature. If it is used to comment on American politics, it loses its cache. Fair or not, nobody much cares what the Norweigan parliament thinks. So, I don't think this is about Obama. It is not something he did. A few Norwegians stepped into the light and got tomatoes thrown at them,
Private Reply to Claire Solt | | Oct 15, 2009 11:20 am | | re: re: re: Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Mike Fesler | | Interesting view. . . .
Don’t criticize the leadership.
POTUS is my shepherd, I shall not want. . . .
If the flock all fall in line and follow blindly???
How good is life?
Here in the US it is common to discuss, to even passionately debate. . .
It is not only our right, but a patriotic duty to review. . . think. . . and question.
Some have been doing just that, and the flock seems to want to chastise the silent majority and call them every name in the book and even some new ones like Astroturf, Mob, etc. to attempt to keep them in line. . . anesthetized to the reality of the obvious.
The inconvenient truth? Has become the inconvenient question.
Amazing how the parties will question and teardown each others leader. . . . without fail as to the consequences of the constituents. This is not an attempt to tear down. . . If we do?
We all lose.
This is an attempt to question, to expose truth.
Remember a little word called transparency? Remember a campaign promise involving that little word?
The world has selective memory loss when it comes to the underdog, and the insatiable
desire to see the underdog rise, , and not only survive, but win and conquer adversity.
This POTUS has been given a free ride from every new exposure, every new discovery, every miss statement, all because of the luster of his appearance, his mannerism of speech, (Used car salesmanship) etc. All because of our wanting. . . dare I say, need to elect a person of color or gender finally to the highest office in the world.
We rushed in with the best intentions. . . looking for the best candidate. . . and our eyes and eventually our hearts fell on the most flashy, the most polished, the most poised one in the lot.
But in reality. .
Not the most practical.
Not the most poised at the ready to fulfill our needs? (the most proven).
Not the one we went out for.
Sound familiar??
Like a used car sales lot?
Mind you. . . it is not a crime to make the wrong decision if you were deceived. . . but admit it. . at the very least it is a crime against yourself if you try to justify that you made the right decision when the uncovered evidence is becoming ever increasing, and ever blatantly hidden through a web of non-transparency.
Who wins?
Who looses?
We all loose if this is experiment called the US is not successful.
The one party has had control of the votes for some time now.
Their resultant deliverables? Are dismal to say the least. This is not wishing failure on one party or another, this is just documentable fact of the lack of deliverables.
Poor leadership because of a rudderless ship flailing in the winds and tides of today’s world.
The markets will fluctuate as the greed runs rampant and unchecked. Yesterday they (The markets) were high, the greed will sell off and take a quick profit the next day. . . usually.
If you want a true barometer of the economy?
Look for stability.
Look towards the small business, as they collectively pay the bulk of the taxes to support this animal called the government.
The bailout was originally positioned for what?
To prop up the banking, to loosen money flow to the masses (small business loans).
How many small business loans have you heard of lately?
How many loans for housing have you heard of lately?
How many loans for auto, appliances etc have you heard of lately?
Sounds like a resounding success for bailout #1 doesn’t it?
When you do start of hearing of your neighbor, and friends getting these loans without a FICA score of 700???? Then you can honestly say that the recession is turned around.
Until then?
It is only more Used Car Sales tripe.
Get ready for bailout #2 soon to be in your face and in your bank accounts soon.
As far as the NB peace prize. . .
It is like the checkered flag after the race.
Presented to the winner.
Not presented prior to the race to the team that has worked hard, and had many of adversity that they have overcome to get there. It is not for hoping the desired team wins and enticing performance through coaxing on your team, but for deliverables that have been proven through time, adversity, and results.
By the way the U in US stands for United. . .
The S Stands for States.
My fear is that soon the US will officially become the United Socialists.
On our worthless money? In Obama we trust.
The questions?
Yes they may be inconvenient, but they will still keep coming and they through time and exposure to truth. . . they will be answered.
Change you voted for. . .
Enjoy.
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Oct 16, 2009 5:02 am | | re: re: re: re: Nobel Peace? (prize) | # |
Ron Sam | | It's illogical that Obama is credited with global economic growth (43% x 7-months). Making a statement like that and expecting it to be believable is dishonest. Who endorses that statement, the WFE? How do you calculate POTUS trust with other nations and convert that into economic growth?
Please take this one question survey on Yahoo Polls; it's totally unbiased.
http://js.polls.yahoo.com/quiz/quiziframe.php?poll_id=46067
Where are the jobs that Obama promised? That is something that he has control over as opposed to something as gargantuan as world economic growth. Remember his speech when he made promises?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWgS7Q9rEr4
WSJ charts Obama's travels + meetings(not accomplishments) during his 37 weeks in office. What did I miss?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125507885722575625.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us#project%3DOBAMA_TIME091009%26articleTabs%3Darticle
Stratfor: Nobel Geopolitics
George Friedman reports on Obama's political stance with all the major global powers. Any trust in there?
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20091012_nobel_geopolitics?utm_source=GWeeklyS&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=091012&utm_content=readmore
Robert Fisk: Obama, man of Peace?
This piece contradicts Obama's building of 'trust' with Middle East leaders and Asian leaders and why.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-obama-man-of-peace-no-just-a-nobel-prize-of-a-mistake-1800928.html
The references are all top line sources of facts, not made up ill conceived claims. You need to look beyond the gloss, the big smile, the fancy suits, the rhetoric and dig into reality.
Question to anyone living outside of the US: How has Obama affect any change in your life?
Ron
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 16, 2009 6:13 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: Nobel Peace? (prize) | # |
Ron Sam | | Interesting comments from another Ryze group.
http://www.ryze.com/posttopic.php?topicid=1047513&confid=2472
Hope you can see it - it might require membership.
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 16, 2009 8:56 pm | | re: re: re: re: re: re: Nobel Peace? (prize) | # |
Ron Sam | |
Here
is additional information on Obama's exorbitant spending causing
unsustainable rise of US Debt.
this
is a link to a GAO
paper on their findings.
Can
someone explain how the rising debt affects our foreign neighbors who
trade with us?
Ron
Nation's 'Long-Term Fiscal
Outlook Remains Unsustainable,' GAO Says
Friday,
October 16, 2009 link
By Susan
Jones, Senior Editor
(CNSNews.com)
- Weaknesses in the economy and financial markets--and the government's
response to them--have helped boost federal budget deficits, which
reached a record level in fiscal year 2009, the General Accountability
Office reported on Thursday.
The
situation probably won't improve any time soon: "While a lot of
attention has been given to the recent fiscal deterioration, the
federal government faces even larger fiscal challenges that will
persist long after the return of financial stability and economic
growth," the report says.
The
GAO has been publishing long-term fiscal simulations since 1992, in
response to a bipartisan request from Congress. According to the GAO,
lawmakers asked for the projections because they were concerned about
the long-term effects of fiscal policy.
Lawmakers
were right to be concerned, the latest report indicates:
"GAO's simulations continue to show escalating levels of debt that
illustrate that the long-term fiscal outlook remains unsustainable,"
the August-October 2009 assessment said.
Under
one GAO scenario that looks ten years ahead, debt held by the
public as a percent of Gross Domestic Product is projected to exceed
the historical high reached in the aftermath of World War II and grow
at a steady rate after that.
The
GAO says the nation’s fiscal challenges are driven by the growth in
health care costs as well as demographic trends. It also notes that
without reform, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will account for
a growing share of the economy in coming years.
"The
longer action to deal with the nation's long-term fiscal outlook
is delayed, the larger the changes will need to be, increasing the
likelihood that they will be disruptive and destabilizing," GAO
concludes.
The
report suggests that lawmakers should consider easing in policy
changes – “so that the tax increases or spending cuts would grow over
time and allow people to adjust.”
(See
GAO
report on
nation’s “unsustainable” long-term fiscal outlook.)
Private Reply to Ron Sam | | Oct 17, 2009 9:18 am | | Nobel Peace? (prize) | # |
Mike Fesler | | Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from its death throes? He's now 82 years old and has a new book, 'Where Have All The Leaders Gone?'.
Lee Iacocca Says:
'Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder! We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, 'Stay the course.'
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America , not the damned, 'Titanic'. I'll give you a sound bite: 'Throw all the bums out!'
You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore..
The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs.. While we're fiddling in Iraq , the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving 'pom-poms' instead of asking hard questions.. That's not the promise of the ' America ' my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?
I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have. The Biggest 'C' is Crisis! (Iacocca elaborates on nine C's of leadership, with crisis being the first.)
Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.
On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. A hell of a mess, so here's where we stand.
We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving.
We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country
We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia , while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs.
Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble.
Our borders are like sieves.
The middle class is being squeezed every which way.
These are times that cry out for leadership.
But when you look around, you've got to ask: 'Where have all the leaders gone?' Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, omnipotence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.
Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo?
We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single da y evaluating the response to the hurricane or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm.
Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when 'The Big Three' referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen, and more important, what are we going to do about it?
Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debit, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.
I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity.. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bonehead on NBC news or CNN news will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?
Had Enough? Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here.. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope - I believe in America . In my lifetime, I've had the privilege of living through some of America 's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises: The 'Great Depression,' 'World War II,' the 'Korean War,' the 'Kennedy Assassination,' the 'Vietnam War,' the 1970's oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11.
If I've learned one thing, it's this: 'You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a "Call to Action" for people who, like me, believe in America '. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the crap and go to work.. Let's tell 'em all we've had 'enough.'
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Oct 17, 2009 9:40 pm | | re: Nobel Peace Prize?? / An Unconstitutional Nobel: | # |
Mike Fesler | | By Ronald D. Rotunda and J. Peter Pham
Friday, October 16, 2009
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."
This is at least the second time that Obama has run afoul of the emolument clause. On June 3, 2009, the day before he gave his speech in Cairo on relations with the Muslim world, he accepted (and even donned) the bejeweled Collar of the King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit, Saudi Arabia's highest honor, from the hands of King Abdullah. (President Bush was awarded the Order in January last year.)
Aside from whether a president shows questionable judgment in accepting any preferment from the House of Saud named for its anti-Semitic modern founder, there is another issue: The Collar is clearly a chivalric "order" of the Saudi monarchy conferring a rank in that system of titled royalty and nobility. It is not a mere decoration or campaign ribbon. There does not seem to be any record of congressional permission asked for, much less granted, for the president to accept this bauble. Washington, Madison and Hamilton would have clearly understood that the Abdul Aziz Order falls under the same ban they had in mind for any public officials coveting awards made under the honors system of the British monarchy.
Taking President Obama at his word that the Nobel award is "an affirmation of American leadership," Congress should allow him to accept the award. The prize money, which legally belongs to the United States, ought to be applied by Congress to some worthy cause, such as reducing the deficit.
As for the Abdul Aziz Order, Congress should withhold approval and return the chain -- until the Saudis show their support for international peace by recognizing the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders. That would honor Alfred Nobel's desire to promote "fraternity between nations" and fulfill the intent of the Framers that congressional approval would guard against attempts by foreign governments to meddle in American politics by dangling presents, titles or any other emoluments in front of our public officials.
Ronald D. Rotunda is distinguished professor of jurisprudence at Chapman University Law School. J. Peter Pham is senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Please see:
http://www.ryze.com/posttopic.php?topicid=1047568&confid=2158#3433217
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Oct 18, 2009 1:22 am | | re: re: re: re: Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Ernie Martin | | Mike:
"On our worthless money? In Obama we trust."
I think the US economy especially international business is going through some balancing act.
It's like a teeter totter. For all the decades in the past, US was esteemed as a great "almighty" dollar nation. The other nations such as China, India, Japan were still up in the air while the US almighty dollar was grounded firmly or still grounded firmly. We need to lighten up the load so that US can reach some balance in the middle.
I've a feeling other big nations such as India, China, Japan, S. Korea and parts of Europe will force US businesses and it's monetary value to co-equal.
Pretty soon we all will be world citizens and no passports!
Peace & Blessings,
Ernie Martin
Private Reply to Ernie Martin | | Oct 18, 2009 1:33 pm | | Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Mike Fesler | | Ernie,
I see what you mean . . .
Equal for everyone. . . .
I would really like to see that as well.
Wow that means that if a country like China charges a $1,000.00 tariff on a product to enter its country. . . Then a special tax to unload the product on its shore. Then a processing tax / fee paid to the locals to keep the product secure and not just disappear from the docks.
And yes and lets not forget about the country ordering the product / material/ commodity at a certain price then after it arrives charging additional enormous prices for getting the product unloaded. . . otherwise it can just sit there off shore until the harbor master finally allows the ship to enter and in most cases begin negotiations to lower the original agreed / contracted price of the cargo, then the permission will be given to unload possibly after renegotiations. I mean after all the ship will be charged in some cases $100, 000.00 / day mooring fees if they do not unload. And if the owners of the cargo do not agree???? Then the ship returns to port of origin with cargo intact. . . . Unless it is sugar or produce, then the product is rotted or moisture levels have destroyed the cargo’s integrity.
Maybe the US should be charging the same way for the very same product entering our shores?
OH and yes . . . . . to all those countries that have special status on tax havens?
Maybe the US could finally start doing the same there as well.
Yes Ernie. . . . I see the vision. . .
Finally equal trading for the US.
You see; the tables have been turned in favor. . . ., the illicit actions have been overlooked. . . ., the mounting fees have been added arbitrarily for so long. . . . that now it is just thought of; That’s the way business is done.
Entitlement to do whatever, however, and to whomever the other countries want. That is their right. . .
It is also our right not to do business with that country.
It is also our right as citizens to wake up and expose the wrong doing the unequal playing field with all the charge taxes, tariffs, extensions, addendums, etc. for same products leaving our shores.
The US has not been on equal playing field when it comes to trade for a few generations now.
The reason the US has prospered?
Not from greed. . . . we prospered because of opportunity and freedom.
The other countries do not have the same.
How many times have you heard of a boat load of Long Islanders or Miamians, or Catalinians.
defecting to the shores of Shri Lanka ? Or Ethiopia, or Mexico?
It is about time this country was run as a company. . . not the World Welfare Department.
They want equal footing and representation. . . lets help out.
They want to abuse and bastardize every law that is set for everyone. . .
Sorry about their luck.
And as for “Pretty soon we all will be world citizens and no passports!”
Remember 9-11?
Only after the Extremists that have smuggled a nuke into the targeted countries and murdered and contaminated the rest of the world will that be a fact. Because their world will have shrunk down to the very hell hole that they crawled from originally.
They do not want to create and build upon. . . They couldn’t if their very life depended upon it.
They only want to take and destroy.
M.
Private Reply to Mike Fesler | | Oct 24, 2009 11:41 pm | | re: Nobel Peace Price? | # | 
Jawad Laraki | | HIS INTENTIONS WERE AND ARE WELL AIMED, REALITY IS DIFFERENT. BUT "we" let it happen. With the Nobel Prize, HE WILL HAVE TO MAKE "IT" HAPPEN, I mean Peace, in the Middle easet, to be more precise. It is a very difficult task to do, but that's why he got a Nobel Prize. He should give more consideration to the U.N. resolutions as an Initiator of PEACE, before the G20 takes over a Peace March, starting with the one source of major emerging conflicts across the world. PEACE WILL COME BACK IF U.N. RESOLUTIONS ARE TO BE ! OBAMA must give back the U.N. its "lettres de noblesse"!
JEWS ARE GREAT PEOPLE, THEY MUST NOT BE FRIGHTENED! We are a brotherhood society. And cousinhood! too!
Dreaming of a better world!
Jawad
Private Reply to Jawad Laraki | | Nov 21, 2009 8:39 am | | re: Nobel Peace Price? | # |
Peter Boaz Jones | |
Welcome Jawad, and so well said! Sorry it took me over a month to reply as somehow the post got lost in my emails. Anyway, it saves me commenting any further on the topic. Thank you so much for commenting, and here’s hoping you can Ryze to the occasion again.
Pete :-) Moderator of: Exploring Belief Systems, God, & Spirituality
http://beliefsystemsgodspirituality-network.ryze.com
Author of The Gospel of the Four
http://www.new-millennium.co.uk
Private Reply to Peter Boaz Jones |  | |
| |
|
