Now, I’m the first guy who likes to see Americans get the Nobel Peace Prize, but don’t you actually have to do something to earn it? So, what exactly did Obama do during the ten days between the time he was sworn in a President and the cut off date for nominations for the Nobel Award? I don’t know about you, but given the size of the White House, my greatest accomplishment in ten days would be to find the kitchen and all the restrooms! Heck, during the first few weeks after his inauguration, Obama was still picking staff and unpacking. So then, perhaps the best place to start is by looking at what Obama did prior to becoming America’s first bi-racial President. Maybe that would give us a clue as to why he was nominated by the Nobel Committee.
As far as I can tell in reading his bio, he was a junior US Senator from Illinois who really didn’t accomplish anything particularly important. He sponsored no world altering legislation. He wasn’t part of any investigative committee examining current financial practices or overseeing military intelligence reports, or even our healthcare system. Ok, how about as Illinois State Senator? Nope, I found nothing there either. He was kinda popular, but didn’t really ever take the lead on much legislation; certainly nothing of a national or international nature. Well then, what does the Nobel Committee look at in making their selections and what about past American Presidents (I’ll give you a hint—there were three)?
The Nobel Peace Prize was established by Alfred Nobel upon his death in 1896 and the first Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1901. Nobel requested that the Norwegian Government, through its Parliament, appoint a committee of five individuals to select individuals for their work in peace related work using the following criteria:
“…during the preceding year [...] 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.”
All nominations have to be submitted by February 1, and based therefore, on the nominee’s work for the previous year. The Committee generally has a list of approximately 200 nominees which is then whittled down to a much shorter (and workable) list. This list is then reviewed by the permanent advisers to the Nobel Institute, consisting of the Institute's Director and the Research Director and a small number of Norwegian academics with expertise in subject areas relating to the prize. The advisers will usually have a few months to complete their reviews, which are then considered by the Committee to select the winner. The Committee seeks to achieve a unanimous decision, which is not always possible.
The current Nobel Committee members are:
Thorbjørn Jagland (the Committee chairman and former Member of Parliament. He is the former Prime Minister for the Labour Party and current Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
Kaci Kullmann Five (a deputy chairman and former Member of Parliament and cabinet minister for the Conservative Party.
Sissel Rønbeck (a deputy director and former Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister for the Labour Party
Inger-Marie Ytterhorn (a former member of Parliament for the Progress Party.
Ågot Valle (a former member of parliament for the Socialist Left Party
So, who were the three US Presidents and what did they do to earn their nomination?
The first was Theodore “Teedy” Roosevelt (my personal favorite). “TR” as he was often called, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for his successful mediation to end the war between Russia and Japan, thus saving tens of thousands of lives. The next American President to receive the Nobel Peace Prize was Woodrow Wilson in 1919. President Wilson received the honor for his work in brokering an end to World War I and for his efforts in establishing the League of Nations, which was the precursor to the United Nations. The central idea behind the League of Nations was to create a forum whereby nations could resolve their disputes peacefully and to foster international cooperation. The third American President was Jimmy Carter, who was given the award in 2002 for his work, while President, in brokering peace between Egypt and Israel (also known as the Camp David Accords) during the 1970’s.
So, where does that leave us? Pretty much right where we started. The Nobel Committee defended their decision to award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize (and its $1.5 million dollar award) based on his speeches and call for international cooperation and peace (since the rules state that the nomination has to be for work one year previous, we have to assume the award was therefore given for his campaign speeches, and we all know about campaign promises). Thus the award would have been based on Obama’s “promises” of change while running for office. If that was the case, every candidate who ever ran for office should have received the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama accepted the award “on behalf of the American People”, which I assuming means that we will get a piece of that $1.5 million dollars (or at the very least, his speech writers should get some of the action).
All and all, the Nobel Committee blundered badly in eyes of the world and greatly diminished the value of this great award. It said to the global community that promises mattered more than deeds. The Nobel Foundation and Institute are going to have to work hard to regain the integrity it has lost. Until then, there is no reason not to expect a Noble Peace Prize at the bottom of every box of Cracker Jacks. I promise.
Poll Results
In our last poll, we asked if you would support “ObamaCare” if it dropped the so-called “public option” for illegal immigrants. 30% of you said you would. 10% of you said might support it, while an overwhelming 60% said no way. I have to agree. America’s healthcare system is in shambles. We can and should do better but socializing our healthcare system isn’t the answer, and especially if that includes providing healthcare coverage at taxpayer expense to individuals who have come to this country illegally. If they want healthcare coverage, then either take steps to be here legally or feel free to return home.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Illegal Immigration and the Southern Poverty Law Center: Sending the Wrong Message?
Here’s a really interesting article I received from FAIR, the Federation for Immigration Reform folks. I’m sure most of you are familiar with the Southern Poverty Law Center. If not, let me give you a brief history lesson. The SPLC came out of the civil rights movement as way to locate, monitor, and when possible, prosecute so-called hate groups. Over the decades they have been very successful in going after the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and a host of other groups of similar nature. They have been hailed as heroes and vilified as a front group for Leftists or Communists (whichever is in vogue at the time). Personally, I have no time for hate or hate groups, and if you’re a regular reader of this blog, I’m sure you don’t either. However, what this article says about SPLC concerns me a great deal in that it sends the wrong message about border security and enforcement of immigration policy (not to mention national sovereignty or the rights of US taxpayers).
Somehow the Southern Poverty Law Center is now trying to equate anti-illegal movement in this country as being a hate oriented? The SPLC seems to believe that US Citizens wanting secure borders and enforcement of immigration laws is in some way a violation of their “rights”. First off, if you’re here illegally, you don’t have the same rights as US citizens. Their only rights are whatever is covered under the United Nations Provision for Human Rights (humane treatment, etc.). Secondly, a nation has as its most basic sovereign right, safe and secure borders. I don’t care if it’s the United States, Israel, or the Sudan. Third, they’re here illegally for Pete’s Sake! Those that encourage, support, protect, and hire them are in violation of federal law and should be punished accordingly. Lastly, and most importantly, strong and secure borders as well as the enforcement of US immigration policy is in no way racist any more than being American is racist.
New Publication Exposes Tactics Used by Southern Poverty
Law Center to Discredit Immigration Reform Groups
Guide Examines How and Why the SPLC Engages in Widespread Media Disinformation and Slanderous Allegations
October 2, 2009
(Washington, D.C) The Federation for American Immigration Reform today released a Guide to Understanding the Tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center in the Immigration Debate. The publication is designed to help journalists differentiate fact from fiction, and politics from policy in order to improve the accuracy of immigration reporting and foster more meaningful, temperate debate. The guide reveals the unscrupulous methods the SPLC uses to discredit organizations advocating enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. In particular, it examines why the SPLC’s financial motives fuel their increasing use of ad hominem attacks.
Among the key conclusions of the report:
• The SPLC has no self-avowed immigration policy expertise yet they exploit the current national debate to increase fundraising. Their inflammatory charges against FAIR and others are politically driven, factually distorted, and wildly exaggerated for the purpose of making their mission more urgent in order to raise vast sums of money.
• Third party analysis by The Nation, Harpers, and even the SPLC’s hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, all came to the same conclusion; the SPLC is a self-propagating fundraising machine with little regard for the truth.
• SPLC offers no objective criteria for their “hate group” designations nor is there any basis in fact to their claim that hate crimes are rising due to the immigration debate.
• When writing about the immigration issue, journalists have an obligation to test the accuracy of the SPLC’s information, question their motives, seek out responses to their allegations, and clearly distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.
“While once a constructive voice in society, the SPLC is now a deconstructive drone of heresy and baseless allegations designed to shut down debate. The SPLC is an opportunistic outfit, seeking to raise money by smearing mainstream groups and moderate Americans who simply want order restored to our nation’s dysfunctional immigration system,” charged Dan Stein, President of FAIR. “Fabricating labels like “hate group” based on their own set of criteria, playing fast and loose with the facts, and attempting to tarnish reputations is truly the new era McCarthyism. There must be standards and consequences for public debate and public conduct.”
“The SPLC has no record of offering constructive solutions to our immigration problems. FAIR hopes that the Guide to Understanding the Tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center in the Immigration Debate will encourage journalists, legislators, students and others researching the immigration issue to judge independently, claims made by the SPLC. FAIR proudly stands by its 30-year record of advocating for reforms to our immigration policy that are supported by the majority of the American people,” Stein concluded.
About FAIR
Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country’s largest immigration reform group. With over 250,000 members nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.
A Guide to Understanding the Tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center can be located at http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/SPLC_Jounalists_Guide.pdf?docID=3541. Hard copies can be ordered upon request.
Fun Facts
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own Annual Performance Report, of the 8,607 mile border we share with Mexico and Canada, we have only 894 mile under “effective control” with no plans to extend that in the 2010 fiscal year. Makes you feel all safe and sound doesn’t it? And just how many years and how much has been spent dealing with this?
If you live in the Keystone State of Pennsylvania, it’s costing you $660 million dollars to educate the children of an estimated 48,500 illegal residents, including 150 million on English language courses according to a Pittsburg Tribune-Review article by Craig Smith dated August 14, 2009 (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/state/s_638187.html#). You’re also paying an estimated $50 million dollars annually on unreimbursed health care (meaning that Pennsylvanians are picking up the full tab) and another $17.5 million dollars for prison upkeep. Who’s picking up the tap for your school kids? Is anyone paying your medical bills?
If you want to read more about the costs to you and me of supporting illegal immigrants in this country, I recommend you check out read the following article from the Center for Immigration Studies, then go back and reread the article about how the Department of Homeland Security intends to do nothing further through FY2010 to secure our borders. Here’s the link: http://www.cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200.
Poll Results
Our last poll asked if you thought we should focus on America’s problems first. There were three choices. The first was to address our problems first. The second was to continue our current role as the world’s rich uncle and policeman. The last choice was to do a little of both. Well, the results are in and we have a tie! In a 50/50 split, you said that that America should take care of America first and we should continue to do a little for the world too (choices one and three). There were no votes for the second option to continue down our current path. I think the poll results are pretty reflective of America in general. We are an incredibly kind and generous nation (perhaps to a fault), but we can’t continue bailing out nation after nation. Global problems require global solutions and equal partnerships.
Somehow the Southern Poverty Law Center is now trying to equate anti-illegal movement in this country as being a hate oriented? The SPLC seems to believe that US Citizens wanting secure borders and enforcement of immigration laws is in some way a violation of their “rights”. First off, if you’re here illegally, you don’t have the same rights as US citizens. Their only rights are whatever is covered under the United Nations Provision for Human Rights (humane treatment, etc.). Secondly, a nation has as its most basic sovereign right, safe and secure borders. I don’t care if it’s the United States, Israel, or the Sudan. Third, they’re here illegally for Pete’s Sake! Those that encourage, support, protect, and hire them are in violation of federal law and should be punished accordingly. Lastly, and most importantly, strong and secure borders as well as the enforcement of US immigration policy is in no way racist any more than being American is racist.
New Publication Exposes Tactics Used by Southern Poverty
Law Center to Discredit Immigration Reform Groups
Guide Examines How and Why the SPLC Engages in Widespread Media Disinformation and Slanderous Allegations
October 2, 2009
(Washington, D.C) The Federation for American Immigration Reform today released a Guide to Understanding the Tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center in the Immigration Debate. The publication is designed to help journalists differentiate fact from fiction, and politics from policy in order to improve the accuracy of immigration reporting and foster more meaningful, temperate debate. The guide reveals the unscrupulous methods the SPLC uses to discredit organizations advocating enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. In particular, it examines why the SPLC’s financial motives fuel their increasing use of ad hominem attacks.
Among the key conclusions of the report:
• The SPLC has no self-avowed immigration policy expertise yet they exploit the current national debate to increase fundraising. Their inflammatory charges against FAIR and others are politically driven, factually distorted, and wildly exaggerated for the purpose of making their mission more urgent in order to raise vast sums of money.
• Third party analysis by The Nation, Harpers, and even the SPLC’s hometown newspaper, the Montgomery Advertiser, all came to the same conclusion; the SPLC is a self-propagating fundraising machine with little regard for the truth.
• SPLC offers no objective criteria for their “hate group” designations nor is there any basis in fact to their claim that hate crimes are rising due to the immigration debate.
• When writing about the immigration issue, journalists have an obligation to test the accuracy of the SPLC’s information, question their motives, seek out responses to their allegations, and clearly distinguish between advocacy and news reporting.
“While once a constructive voice in society, the SPLC is now a deconstructive drone of heresy and baseless allegations designed to shut down debate. The SPLC is an opportunistic outfit, seeking to raise money by smearing mainstream groups and moderate Americans who simply want order restored to our nation’s dysfunctional immigration system,” charged Dan Stein, President of FAIR. “Fabricating labels like “hate group” based on their own set of criteria, playing fast and loose with the facts, and attempting to tarnish reputations is truly the new era McCarthyism. There must be standards and consequences for public debate and public conduct.”
“The SPLC has no record of offering constructive solutions to our immigration problems. FAIR hopes that the Guide to Understanding the Tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center in the Immigration Debate will encourage journalists, legislators, students and others researching the immigration issue to judge independently, claims made by the SPLC. FAIR proudly stands by its 30-year record of advocating for reforms to our immigration policy that are supported by the majority of the American people,” Stein concluded.
About FAIR
Founded in 1979, FAIR is the country’s largest immigration reform group. With over 250,000 members nationwide, FAIR fights for immigration policies that serve national interests, not special interests. FAIR believes that immigration reform must enhance national security, improve the economy, protect jobs, preserve our environment, and establish a rule of law that is recognized and enforced.
A Guide to Understanding the Tactics of the Southern Poverty Law Center can be located at http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServer/SPLC_Jounalists_Guide.pdf?docID=3541. Hard copies can be ordered upon request.
Fun Facts
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own Annual Performance Report, of the 8,607 mile border we share with Mexico and Canada, we have only 894 mile under “effective control” with no plans to extend that in the 2010 fiscal year. Makes you feel all safe and sound doesn’t it? And just how many years and how much has been spent dealing with this?
If you live in the Keystone State of Pennsylvania, it’s costing you $660 million dollars to educate the children of an estimated 48,500 illegal residents, including 150 million on English language courses according to a Pittsburg Tribune-Review article by Craig Smith dated August 14, 2009 (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/state/s_638187.html#). You’re also paying an estimated $50 million dollars annually on unreimbursed health care (meaning that Pennsylvanians are picking up the full tab) and another $17.5 million dollars for prison upkeep. Who’s picking up the tap for your school kids? Is anyone paying your medical bills?
If you want to read more about the costs to you and me of supporting illegal immigrants in this country, I recommend you check out read the following article from the Center for Immigration Studies, then go back and reread the article about how the Department of Homeland Security intends to do nothing further through FY2010 to secure our borders. Here’s the link: http://www.cis.org/IllegalsAndHealthCareHR3200.
Poll Results
Our last poll asked if you thought we should focus on America’s problems first. There were three choices. The first was to address our problems first. The second was to continue our current role as the world’s rich uncle and policeman. The last choice was to do a little of both. Well, the results are in and we have a tie! In a 50/50 split, you said that that America should take care of America first and we should continue to do a little for the world too (choices one and three). There were no votes for the second option to continue down our current path. I think the poll results are pretty reflective of America in general. We are an incredibly kind and generous nation (perhaps to a fault), but we can’t continue bailing out nation after nation. Global problems require global solutions and equal partnerships.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
