10/09/2009 (3:19 pm)
The Nobel Prize committee claims it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama because of “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” A friend points out that nominations for the Nobel closed as of 2/1/2009, so the extraordinary efforts apparently took place during his first 2 weeks in the White House, or while he was still a candidate. Hmmm…
Regardless, in the category of international relations, the President has spent the 9 months of his presidency touring the world apologizing for the US’ arrogance. Consequently, I found the cartoon to the right apropos of the Nobel committee’s esteem for the President, since it seems likely that the string of foreign misadventures listed in the cartoon are foremost among the arrogant acts for which the President is apologizing, and the sort of thing he will ensure the US will never perpetrate again. We all know how much the Nobel committee, composed as it is of adherents to World Socialism of one sort or another, finds this sort of pugnacious behavior a thorough-going hindrance to its own agenda of World Peace.
This cartoon, like the one in the previous post, is an Australian cartoon apparently not published in the US.
7 Comments »
Comment by RC Metcalf
Great comments, Phil! Unfortunately, too true…
Comment by Horatius
You know there was a time when I was willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt. As I have said before when I first heard of him his humility over the adulation showered on him after his first major speech at the democratic convention in 2004 was quite refreshing in my mind.
I admit when I did research on him, his voting record on abortion did pretty much turn me off, however, his manner still seemed somewhat refreshing in light of the jihad-like fervor common among so many on the left.
Then as time went by and I observed how he really conducted himself, he “looked fair, but felt foul.”
His reaction to the advent of Sarah Palin seemed to be more that he was offended that this upstart WOMAN (who was a hick, blah, blah, etc.) could dare try to derail his coronation. To me his reaction, especially in the first few days revealed a lot about his character.
One of the first acts being striking down the Mexico City Policy.
Selling the Poles and the rest of the former Soviet satellites out to Russia by stopping the missle shield. Not only doing this, but doing it in a symbolic manner by killing the program there on the anniversary of their invasion by the Soviets. If ever there was a more obvious signal we could send to Putin, I cannot think of one.
And then there is the newest one, where an aide said the administration was willing to allow the Taliban to have involvement in the government within Afghanistan, signaling that we would be more than willing to surrender it’s people back to their tender mercies.
And then there is this. Honestly I do not think this says as much about the President as it does about the Nobel committee and the fact that it is a joke. Heck, we all should have known this after they gave YASSER ARAFAT one. However, his response to it is but further proof of his truly Odysseus-like ego and hubris. More will be found out by how he accepts the prize when he flies over there. However, that he is going tp fly over there (showing much more eagerness to accept an award than he has displayed in dealing with the Afghanistan situation) in person also says something.
Comment by suek
A worthwhile interpretation of the committee’s motives, and what O has done to deserve it:
I said earlier that we needed to consider the meaning of treason and sedition. Throw “coup” in there. Obama has done what he is legally entitled to do. He was (as far as we know) legally elected. What he is doing and intends to do, however, is in direct contradiction to our founding father’s intentions, and those basic principles we followed at least until FDR. Well…Wilson was a Progressive. He was probably the first to initiate Progressivism in the US. Given that the Progressives ideals are completely different from the ideas of the Founders, are they treasonous when they win politically and put their ideas into place? what if the muslims succeed in increasing their population to numbers that permit political dominance…will the Progressives – or the rest of us – accept Sharia law?
Comment by Phil
I think your western rifleman friend and I agree. And since he’s quoting Powerline quoting Krauthammer, I guess I agree with Chuck and the Powerline boys as well.
If the President fails to remain within the bounds of the Constitution, it’s not treason, but it is certainly an impeachable offense.
If the President gives aid and comfort to America’s enemies, it’s treason. Holding office does not absolve citizens of the obligation to obey the laws. However, it’s difficult to discern the difference between aiding enemies and simply bad policy. I am against anything that has the smell of criminalizing policy choices, whether they’re the policy choices of Democrats or Republicans.
But I’m fully in favor of impeaching Presidents whose policies are so rock-headed stupid that you can’t tell them from the acts of traitors… and I’m even more in favor of impeaching Presidents who treat the Constitution like something on a little cardboard roller in a water closet.
Comment by suek
>>I’m fully in favor of impeaching Presidents whose policies are so rock-headed stupid that you can’t tell them from the acts of traitors>>
Heh. Not likely to happen with this congress – even if he could be proven to be a traitor. In fact, I think some of them should be up there in the dock with him… Even if the majority changes hands in the next election, I suspect you wouldn’t have enough of a majority to impeach. The best we could hope for is the birther issue – and that it turns out that he’s actually not eligible to be president. That might not be likely, but I think it’s more likely than impeachment – which I think is zero to none.
The thing is…if you have fully legitimate votes, and if the majority really wants a form of government which Obama and some of congress want to inflict upon us but which is in direct opposition to the Constitution…is it a coup? What is it?
The problem I have (aside from the fact that I’m in total disagreement)is that I think the majority has been deceived. I don’t think they’re getting what they bargained for. I could be wrong, heaven knows – but do we really have to wait and find out?
Comment by suek
Heh. We’re not the only ones considering this…!
Comment by suek
Not exactly on topic, but not off either…