Michelle Malkin asks why President Obama did not acknowledge the two officers who stopped the Fort Hood terrorist shooter even though they were sitting next to the First Lady during the State of the Union address.
That one is easy. The “shout-out” wasn’t on the teleprompter.
Obama’s response acknowledges his lack of accomplishment:
“I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments but rather an affirmation of American leadership. I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.”
Alfred Nobel set up the Peace Prize in his will to be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
The purpose of the prize is notably not a “call to action.” It is intended to be a recognition of accomplishment.
Here’s a look at one of the other 172 nominees for the 2009 Peace Prize:
A bipartisan group of six members of the U.S. Congress have nominated humanitarian Greg Mortenson of Bozeman for the Nobel Peace Prize.
Mortenson, 51, founder of the Central Asia Institute and co-author of the bestselling book “Three Cups of Tea,” has built nearly 80 schools, especially for girls, in remote areas of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past 15 years.
Instead of giving the prize to a man who has built schools in remote areas where education had been denied to young girls, the committee gives it to a man who has to concede that he has done nothing that deserves the prize. His prize is for what he might do in his “call to action.”
The Nobel Committee confirmed it is completely detached from reality by awarding President Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace prize. This prize is so much of a joke that the press in attendance literally gasped at the announcement of the totally undeserved award.
The AP notes:
Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking.
Some around the world objected to the choice of Obama, who still oversees wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and has launched deadly counter-terror strikes in Pakistan and Somalia.
Even the New York Times questions the award:
Reporters at a news conference to announce the prize pressed the committee’s chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, to explain the reasons Mr. Obama had prevailed over other candidates who included human rights activists in China and Afghanistan and political figures in Africa.
Specifically, reporters asked whether Mr. Obama might not become mired in a war in Afghanistan as Lyndon B. Johnson was in Vietnam.
But the committee said it wanted to enhance Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts so far rather than anticipate events in the future.
So this award is not about peace at all. The Nobel committee has admitted it is awarded to promote Obama as if their prize has the ability to grant credibility. Now those Iranians will take him seriously and drop their nuclear ambitions. After all, Obama now has a peace prize!
We have known for quite a while that the Nobel Peace Prize no longer has anything to do with the promotion of peace. After all this is the group that gave the same prize to Al Gore for writing a book for of false environmental claims.
The shocker here is seeing how the press that has unabashedly supported Obama to the point of actively suppressing bad news about his policies sees the Peace Prize award as undeserved. The press is even saying, “we love Obama and even we see this as a travesty.” That is how bad this award is.
Update: Best response I have seen so far – Where is Kanye West when you need him?
President Obama was inaugurated yesterday as the 44th President of the United States of America. I was in a training class and later had an unexpected invite to go to a Denver Nuggets game (to sit in a suite no less) so I didn’t have time to write on that momentous day. It is time for me to note my observations now.
Our training class did get a break to watch the swearing in and the inaugural address. It was a great moment to be an American. And I’m not talking about Obama’s race. Yes, it was historic to see the first black man sworn in. I’ve also said before that true racial equality won’t exist until there is a “first black to do X” and not be labeled as the “first black to do X.”
What I appreciated even more was witnessing the 43rd consecutive peaceful transfer of executive power in this country – a streak the runs over 200 years. That is a stretch unparalleled in the world.
I disagree with Obama’s stated economic policies. I’m convinced his Keynesian economic policies will only worsen our economic recession like FDR’s policies extended the Great Depression.
Even so, our society has accepted that elections determine which leaders. Those who claimed that “Bush is not my President” were wrong, just as those who want to say “Obama is not my President” are wrong. Obama is my President. I will vote against him in 2012 but that doesn’t change the reality that I am an American and we one President – no more, no less and that President is Barack Obama.
Let us pray that God grants him wisdom.
It seems that my powers of prognostication fell short of the mark with my 2008 predictions. Instead of admit defeat, I am just going to follow the lead of other “psychics” in the prediction business by dismissing these seemingly apparent failures as simply the inability of the unenlightened minds of others to grasp my brilliance. In other words, I wasn’t wrong, you just don’t understand how I was right.
So without further ado, here are my nine predictions for 2009:
1. President Bush will leave office after the end of his second term in January. The fringe left will continue to exercise their uninterrupted right to free speech and claim to celebrate the end of “tyranny.”
2. Barack Obama will serve six months of his elected term as President before resigning in order to compete on the TV show “Dancing with the Stars”. He will make it to the semi-finals before being voted off the show and will lose to eventual winner Danny DeVito.
3. The zombie invasion will finally be launched from the Midwest and will explain why dead people have been voting in Chicago for so long (sleeper cells).
4. My family and I won’t move to Las Cruces, New Mexico (this one is an attempt at reverse psychology – let’s hope my string of failed predictions holds).
5. Water polo will be the new basketball.
6. Media will continue to be amazed over Catholics who actually hold Catholic beliefs and sympathize with former Catholics who don’t.
7. Twitter will be the new Google. Google with be the new Walmart.
8. ‘A little chubby’ will be the new thin.
9. Global cooling will be viewed as more proof of global warming.
I haven’t written much on this year’s presidential campaigns but I have been following them. I’ve been amazed at how McCain’s campaign has been energized by his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Even more amazing is how the Obama campaign seems to have lost its collective mind by this news. So much so that Obama keeps comparing Palin’s experience to his own. Obama has forgotten he is the candidate for the top office while Palin is running for Vice President.
Like this quote reported by Politico last Saturday:
“I know the governor of Alaska has been, you know, saying she is change,” Obama said at a town hall meeting here. “And that is great. She is a skillful politician. But when you [have] been taking all these earmarks when it is convenient and then suddenly you are the champion anti-earmark person.
“That is not change, come on,” Obama continued. “I mean, words mean something. You can’t just make stuff up. You can’t just make stuff up. We have a choice to make and the choice is clear.”
The comments were his harshest attack yet on Palin . . .
Obama’s campaign was comparing his experience as a “community organizer” against her experience as a “small-town mayor” (ignoring that she is a current sitting governor) on the very day she was announced as McCain’s running mate. That was the first indication that Palin scared them.
Karl Rove wrote an article about it today:
Of all the advantages Gov. Sarah Palin has brought to the GOP ticket, the most important may be that she has gotten into Barack Obama’s head. How else to explain Sen. Obama’s decision to go one-on-one against “Sarah Barracuda,” captain of the Wasilla High state basketball champs?
It’s a matchup he’ll lose. If Mr. Obama wants to win, he needs to remember he’s running against John McCain for president, not Mrs. Palin for vice president.
Aaaghh! Karl! Don’t go giving the opposition advice for victory. We want Obama to keep comparing himself to the candidate for the lesser office. It shows the public that he is not qualified to be president. It is why Obama will lose in November.