"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower
Barack Hussein Obama has another feather in his cap. Now, he can add a Nobel peace prize to his resume. I predict he will soon be adding the words, "I won the Nobel Peace prize" to his incessant reminders that he is the President.
When I first heard Barack Hussein Obama had won the Nobel peace prize, I was aghast. Had the Nobel prize committee lost their minds?
But then, I decided to objectively consider what Obama's qualifications might be to earn him such an accolade.
What are the qualifications? Who should win a peace prize? What traits should one possess that would qualify him to win a peace prize?
Obviously, it should be someone who accomplishes something extraordinary to establish peace. Someone who ends strife between two warring factions somewhere in the world, shouldn't it?
If I were awarding a peace prize, I believe I'd look for someone who did something substantial to peacefully settle a dispute or two.
What has Obama done that establishes peace?
I don't think it's so much an establishment of peace as a reluctance to make war that made the Nobel committee award the peace prize to Obama.
When Obama took office, the United States were engaged in two wars. One in Iraq, and one in Afghanistan.
Did Obama somehow manage to convince either of our enemies in these two theaters of war to settle their differences with us peacefully?
Well, no, he didn't. We are still at war with terrorists factions in both countries.
But on the other hand, he didn't escalate the wars either. Perhaps that's why he won the peace prize.
Or maybe because he talks a good game. Talking about bringing peace to the world is really the only thing he's done to establish a peace. He hasn't done a thing to make it happen. And if anyone had the power to accomplish such a task, it seems it should surely be Obama.
But, that couldn't be it, could it? Anyone can talk about peace. It seems to me that there are thousands, perhaps millions of people in this world who are at least as deserving of being awarded the Nobel peace prize as Barack Hussein Obama. Thousands can talk about peace as eloquently as Obama. Why weren't any of those thousands considered?
Mark Levin nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize, but Rush didn't win. I wonder why.
Rush Limbaugh is as deserving as Obama.
I myself, am just as deserving of the prize as Obama.
Witness this:
I want world peace.
There. Now, I am qualified to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
I've done nothing to earn the award.
And neither has Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
You can't nominate yourself. You have to have a sycophant to do it for you. The White House could easily have engineered it, because the identity of nominators is kept secret for 50 years.
By the way, a Chinese dissident and a Muslim woman who campaigns for women's rights were elbowed out of the way to give Obama the prize.
Actually, you have done ten times what President BO has done for peace. You have never lawyered for that bully of a hate squad, ACORN, you have never associated with terrorist, Bill Ayers, and you have never called the Constitution a failed document.
Therefore, you are MORE qualified than President BO.
Well, dang! maybe one of my two readers will nominate me.
"you have never called the Constitution a failed document"
And neither has Obama. If your going to try to smear the President, at least use an accurate quote. Obama said the Constitution was flawed. I take it that counting slaves as less than human is perfect and not flawed to you.
Pearls & Ranger: This is actually a good idea. FLOOD THE NPP Committee with ludicrous nominations for next years award and then see if they vett 'em all out in time for the award date.
I predict: Barack Obama will be the 2010 recipient (snicker).
L. A. I've already considered that, thank you. Joe and I have already agreed to nominate each other.
Jim, People who understand the Constitution know why the 1/5 human thing was placed into the Constitution.
You, on the other hand, plainly prove that you do not.
It doesn't matter WHY it was put into the Constitution. It was. And it was flawed. It didn't guarantee women the right to vote either. It was flawed.
It has an amendment process embedded in it because THEY KNEW IT WAS FLAWED.
It doesn't matter why??? The reason slaves were counted as less than a person (not less than human) is that if they had been fully counted, it would have skewed the population count to the South, making them overrepresented in Congress, and the Founders knew that would make it impossible to someday end slavery.
By the way, it was democrats who were pro-slavery and democrats who were anti-women's suffrage. Republicans took care of both injustices.
I don't care what the Democrats or Republicans were 150 or 60 years ago. It has no bearing on what they are today. Your even mentioning it is cheap, but no surprise.
Mark, if I had a vote, I'd surely vote for you as the nominee.
And again, Jim proves one of my Facts About Liberals.
2. Never try to reason with a liberal. They disregard any evidence that conflicts with their beliefs.
Oh, and this one.
4. Liberals don't debate, they argue.
Ooo, and this one.
10. Liberals get older, but they never get smarter.
What the heck, he proves all of them.
Especially 14.
The Nobel Peace Prize was a joke even before BHO was awarded the prize.
Remember that Jimmuh Peanut and Yasser Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize. Pfffft!
I wish that I knew how to create graphics! I'd make one and give myself the Nobel Peace Prize. LOL!
is it just me or is this "Jim" character REALLY annoying? I bet he got beat up on the playground a lot when he was a kid...
Not once. Why, was it your calling to beat up kids on the playground?
"Jim", I wouldn't characterize it as a calling, but I certainly stood up for myself and got in scrapes. Luckily I grew up well adjusted and Happy. I feel sorry for you. You seem to be angry and spiteful--maybe it's from being beaten up in the forums and blogs so much. Perhaps re-evaluation of your positions on certain subjects is called for. Or a freshman level Logic 101 course.
Actually, I don't think you even believe some of the cock-a-mamie things you spout--I think you just like to get people angry at you. Just want to be noticed, eh?
Jim: You parce words to make them fit your world-view. The writers of the Constitution recognized that certain parts of it might need to be changed in the future, so they made provision for that in the form of amendments. That did NOT make it flawed. Its specifics might not be perfect, but its principles are the finest ever constructed by the hand of man.
I did not misquote President BO, because, as a third grade homeschooled student could tell, I did not quote President BO.
You, sir, are the miscreant here.
Mark, what are you doing?
Post a Comment