Prior to President Obama only three presidents had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, they were: President Theodore Roosevelt, who won his prize in 1906 for negotiations that led to the Treaty of Portsmouth which ended the Russo-Japanese war in 1905. President Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in December of 1920 for the year 1919, the award was given for his work as the founder of the League of Nations. In 2002 President Jimmy Carter was awarded a Peace Prize for his tireless efforts to promote peaceful solutions to international conflicts, and for his mediation between Isreal and Egypt which helped to achieve the Camp David Accords. These presidents were awarded their Nobel Prizes for actual achievement.
It seems that the Nobel Committee has seriously dropped its standards. President Obama is awarded his Peace Prize in 2009 for essentially achieving nothing. What has he done to deserve this? According to the Norwegian Nobel Committee the Prize was awarded for his creation of a “New climate in international politics” for his work in nuclear disarmament, they go on to say 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.” Lets keep in mind here that he was president for just 37 weeks when he won. One must wonder why the Committee would give an award for nothing. I think that Saturday Night Live best summed up why Obama won the award in the following clip.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Toddler in the White House
Then candidate Obama made a great showing of strength during the 2008 campaign when he rightly sited the need for more troops in Afghanistan, after all that is where the real war on terrorism was going on. Why then did it take him so long to approve the additional troops asked for by Gen. McChrystal in August? I cannot help but think that the Administrations waffling on the subject has served only to embolden our enemies, and is directly corrollary to the recent upstroke in American deaths in Afghanistan. America has already lost 241 American Soldiers in 2009 compared with 155 for the whole year of 2008.
In the face of the growing threat of a nuclear Iran and the already existing threat posed by North Korea our president thought it wise to scrap a missile defense site in Eastern Europe intended to protect the American east coast and our European allies from any Iranian attacks, in favour of a less cost effective mobile land-based and sea-based missile defence system, which according to the CBO will take two more years to develop and deploy. These defensive systems will not be able to address the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile threat until 2020.
The president made good on his campaign pledge to weaken America by eliminating spending on future weapons systems such as the super stealth fighter designed to replace the ageing f15 fleet, the f22 and missile defense in the 2010 budget. While he did increase the Defense Budget by 1.4 percent such an increase is laughable when compared with the increases enjoyed by other departments.
The President further shows weakness and a willingness to appease by attempting to negotiate with Iran without precondition. Even President Sarkozy of France is beginning to see the dire ramifications of the Obama Presidency as is evident by the following statement that he made at the UN:
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons ... but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite. Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993. I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map.”
President Obama means well but I can't help but think that last November the American people gave a gun to a toddler who is more likely hurt to us than anyone else.
In the face of the growing threat of a nuclear Iran and the already existing threat posed by North Korea our president thought it wise to scrap a missile defense site in Eastern Europe intended to protect the American east coast and our European allies from any Iranian attacks, in favour of a less cost effective mobile land-based and sea-based missile defence system, which according to the CBO will take two more years to develop and deploy. These defensive systems will not be able to address the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile threat until 2020.
The president made good on his campaign pledge to weaken America by eliminating spending on future weapons systems such as the super stealth fighter designed to replace the ageing f15 fleet, the f22 and missile defense in the 2010 budget. While he did increase the Defense Budget by 1.4 percent such an increase is laughable when compared with the increases enjoyed by other departments.
The President further shows weakness and a willingness to appease by attempting to negotiate with Iran without precondition. Even President Sarkozy of France is beginning to see the dire ramifications of the Obama Presidency as is evident by the following statement that he made at the UN:
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons ... but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite. Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993. I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map.”
President Obama means well but I can't help but think that last November the American people gave a gun to a toddler who is more likely hurt to us than anyone else.
On Health Care
In a nation of over 300 million people we have an estimated 46 million uninsured or about 18 percent of the population. This number was generated in a 2007 Census Bureau Report; however, with only a cursory look at the numbers in the report we find that 9.7 million of the uninsured are non citizens.
According to a 2003 study by BlueCross BlueShield Association 14 million uninsured people were actually eligible for Medicaid but had never signed up for the program. A further 17.6 million had annual incomes between $50,000 and $75,000, and could likely afford coverage. About 18 million of the uninsured were young and may have opted for no coverage based on their age and health. The same study concludes that only about 8.2 million Americans are currently without coverage because they cannot afford it or earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. This means that approximately 2.7 percent of the population is currently uninsured, a far cry from the 18 percent reported by the administration.
According to the CBO The current Health Care Bill under consideration will have a price tag of $829 billion dollars, and will cut the deficit by $81 billion through reforms, said reforms of course are not specified in any bill nor are they likely to occur. The bill will cover only 94 percent of Americans this means that after the bill is enacted we will have 6 percent of Americans uninsured instead of the current 2.7 percent. I thought we were trying to insure more people not less?
Why don’t we simply adjust the rules for Medicaid to allow more people to participate in the program? We could create a means tested premium system to allow those who need coverage to obtain it through Mediaid if they pay some minimum monthly premium. Create tax incentives for employers who provide medical coverage to their work force. Allow Health insurers to compete across state lines. The system is already in place to provide health care coverage for all Americans, it just needs a little tweeking. We should seriously consider these kind of reforms instead of increasing the size of an already bloated government.
John Rosenauer
According to a 2003 study by BlueCross BlueShield Association 14 million uninsured people were actually eligible for Medicaid but had never signed up for the program. A further 17.6 million had annual incomes between $50,000 and $75,000, and could likely afford coverage. About 18 million of the uninsured were young and may have opted for no coverage based on their age and health. The same study concludes that only about 8.2 million Americans are currently without coverage because they cannot afford it or earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. This means that approximately 2.7 percent of the population is currently uninsured, a far cry from the 18 percent reported by the administration.
According to the CBO The current Health Care Bill under consideration will have a price tag of $829 billion dollars, and will cut the deficit by $81 billion through reforms, said reforms of course are not specified in any bill nor are they likely to occur. The bill will cover only 94 percent of Americans this means that after the bill is enacted we will have 6 percent of Americans uninsured instead of the current 2.7 percent. I thought we were trying to insure more people not less?
Why don’t we simply adjust the rules for Medicaid to allow more people to participate in the program? We could create a means tested premium system to allow those who need coverage to obtain it through Mediaid if they pay some minimum monthly premium. Create tax incentives for employers who provide medical coverage to their work force. Allow Health insurers to compete across state lines. The system is already in place to provide health care coverage for all Americans, it just needs a little tweeking. We should seriously consider these kind of reforms instead of increasing the size of an already bloated government.
John Rosenauer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)