On Friday five liberal Norwegian airheads decided that Barack Obama ought to get the Nobel Peace Prize for his nine months of eloquent speechmaking about peace and other stuff.
Many were surprised.
I thought back to when pitcher Bobo Holloman won baseball’s coveted Cy Young award.
Bobo came up from Syracuse to the fabled St. Louis Browns in 1953. He
accumulated an 0-1 record in three relief appearances, with an earned
run average of about 9.
Bobo persuaded Manager Marty Marion that he was a starting pitcher, and Marion send him to the mound on May 6, 1953. Bobo proceeded to throw his only complete game in the majors. The Philadelphia Athletics hit line drives all over the field, but the Browns fielders made dazzling plays to catch every one.
Bobo gave up three walks in the ninth, but a double play and a fly out gave him the first no-hitter in modern baseball history pitched by a pitcher in his first major league start.And they gave him the Cy Young award!
No, of course, I made that up. Bobo was knocked out of the box in his next two starts and never played major league baseball again.Obama was nominated for the prize after twelve days in office. Now let’s see how he advances the cause of peace in the world, in anticipation of which the loony Norwegians gave him their coveted Not Bush Award.
Arafat, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, Obama. Now the table is set for Ahmadinejad or Chavez. Any semblance of integrity was already gone. I guess anything will be used to pressure the Soros puppet into full retreat.
I wonder if Michael Moore will win the Nobel prize for economics?
Posted by: Glenn Eno | October 10, 2009 at 02:05 PM
Clever insults?
Not much thought.
I bet the smoke coming out of your ears looks funny!
Posted by: bob zeliff | October 10, 2009 at 06:56 PM
In the late Twentieth Century no political figure did more bring about peace and prosperity than Ronald Reagan. Almost any Eastern European asked this question will agree. He did not win a Nobel Peace Prize. Pope John Paul II lived a saintly Christian life, promoting reconciliation and peace among faiths, races, nations, individuals, and ideologies. He did not win a Nobel Peace Prize. Take the NPP for what it is: of leftist, by leftists, for leftists.
Posted by: Bill | October 10, 2009 at 09:58 PM
Long live the leftists!
Posted by: G.Cross | October 11, 2009 at 07:44 PM
My favorite quote remains: "Obama is becoming Jimmy Carter faster than Jimmy Carter became Jimmy Carter"
Posted by: Mike Gardner | October 12, 2009 at 09:37 AM
One would think that all Americans would be proud that the President has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But not John McClaughry. Whose side is he on, anyway? Before accusing him of being Anti-American we should take a look at his record.
He says he is for free markets. So far so good. But is he really? Does he support a free market in energy production? Well, no. He has repeadedly shown he favors subsidies, tax breaks, etc. for fossil fuels and nuclear power. And what is the result of this policy? The result is an oil dependency that enriches totalitarian governments around the world. Worse it has allowed the Saudis' to export their brand of fudementalist Islam around the middle east, Africa, and Asia. The Saudis have funded thousands upon thousands of schools that preach terrorism.
So how has McClaughry responded to the terrorism he has funded - support US made renewable energy? No. He has repeadedly come out against renewable energy. Nevertheless, he is happy to spend more of our money to fight the Terrorists he helped create in Iraq and Afganistan. Seems like a good policy...who side is he on, anyway?
McClaughry is against abortion - ok, this is a difficult question and supporting life is a noble thing. However, what is his position on universal healthcare? We can't afford it, he says. 45,000 Americans die each year because they don't have health care and perhaps hundreds of thousands of others suffer from ailments that with proper healthcare could be alleviated. So let's get this straight. McClaughry is willing to have the state reach into the womb of a woman to tell her what she can and can't do, but won't support universal healthcare and help prevent thousands of his fellow citizens from dieing and help alleviate the suffering of hundreds of thousands more. Whose side is he on anyway?
Yet, he says we can't afford universal healthcare or the Obama stimulus - its too heavy a burden on future generations. But does he really care about future generations? The most pressing potential burden we are passing onto our children is not monitary debt but a unlivable planet. So how does McClaughry feel about global warming? Despite overwheleming scientific consensus he is contemputious and denies there is any evidence. He rails against environmentalists and decries the process, but HAS NEVER OFFERED A WHIP OF PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH TO CONTRADICT THE WORLD'S CLIMATE SCIENCE COMMUNITY. He wants us to do nothing - go on burning fossil fuels, fund the terrorists and pass along an unlivable planet to our children. Whose side is he on, anyway?
Posted by: Sandy Hauserman | October 13, 2009 at 09:31 AM
It's necessary for me to point out that Mr. Sandy Hauserman has the very bad habit of simply fabricating positions he thinks other people take. He is dead wrong about my views on abortion, renewable energy, and fossil and nuclear subsidies.
On "global warming", there is NO real world scientific evidence that human GHG emissions have any detectable effect on the global climate. I don't have to produce evidence that the GHG contention is false; its proponents have to produce real evidence (not bogus computer simulations) that there is such a phenomenon. I'm waiting.
Posted by: John McClaughry | October 13, 2009 at 02:47 PM
How's this for science?
"A world-first experiment to try and reduce energy use for the day on the Isles of Scilly was foiled after a turn in the weather caused participants to use more electricity," London's Daily Telegraph reports.
In the day-long experiment, Scilly people were asked to follow "a series of guidelines including switching off unnecessary lights and TVs when not in use and only filling kettles with the exact amount of water required." Result: Energy use dropped, but by only 1%.
The reason: "Organiser Dr Matt Prescott said the experiment was undermined by bad weather--which saw people using more power than usual." The experiment might well have been a success had it been conducted a day earlier, when it was sunny and warm.
Which leads us to a thought. What if there were a way of changing the climate so that the weather was warmer all over the world? We realize this is probably unrealistic, but if it could be done, it would be a great way to save energy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6269718/Weather-foils-Isles-of-Scilly-energy-experiment.html
Posted by: Tea Party Guy | October 13, 2009 at 08:44 PM
Scientific consensus? History is littered with scientific consensus after scientific consensus later proved wrong. Thousands of prominent scientists disagree with global warming "consensus", most notably Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. How many scientists among the consensus crowd are receiving research grants from left leaning foundations or from governments? Not for long will they get them if they declare man made global warming to be suspect or pure baloney. You bet there is plenty of incentive to go along with the crowd. Leftists following the crowd. Stop me if you've heard of that concept before. The new Red is Green. How long will these global warming enthusiasts persist to deny their own senses as the world gets colder and colder?
Posted by: Bill | October 14, 2009 at 07:52 PM