Weekly Opinion/Editorial

NOBEL WAS PREMATURE!
by Steve Fair

Last week, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Established in 1901 by the inventor of dynamite, a Swede named Alfred Nobel, the prize comes with a 1.4 million dollar cash prize- which is close to what Obama will make in salary as President for his entire four year term. The President makes $400,000 annually. It’s unclear what the President plans to do with the prize money.

Obama is the twenty first American to be awarded the prize. Other Presidents that have received the award were Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. Other notable Americans to be awarded the prize include former Vice President Al Gore; civil rights activist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Obama’s selection as this year’s recipient came as a shock, evidently even to the President. Obama said, “I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear, I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize, men and women who've inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. “

Congressman Tom Cole- R, Oklahoma, said that Obama winning the Nobel was like awarding a player the MVP award without playing the game. Fellow blogger Nancy Millers said, “Informed sources tell me that on hearing the good news about her husband, Michelle Obama exclaimed: “Until now, I was never proud of the Nobel Peace Prize.” With the Heisman race so close this year, don’t be surprised if the Downtown NY club awards the stiff arm trophy to the prez. The jokes are piling up about the award, but just how does one win the Nobel?

The selection process starts with the Norwegian Nobel Committee inviting “qualified” people to submit nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The statutes of the Nobel Foundation specify categories of certain elitist, government intellectual types who can nominate someone for the prize. Past recipients can nominate, so perhaps Al Gore or Jimmy Carter submitted Obama’s name, but thus far neither have claimed responsibility, which you would expect.

This year 205 people were nominated for the Nobel. When you consider the deadline for this year’s nominations (February 1st) was just twelve days after President Obama was sworn into office, you have to wonder who submitted his name, but the nomination and selection process is so secretive that the files are not opened for fifty years, so we’ll have to wait for that information.

The five member committee then meets and narrows down the nominations to finalists using Alfred Nobel’s criterion as their guide. In his will, Nobel said the peace prize was to be awarded to "the person who 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". The committee attempts to reach a unanimous decision but that is not always possible. The Chairman of the Committee then awards the Nobel Peace Prize in the presence of the King of Norway on December 10(the anniversary of Nobel's death) at the Oslo City Hall. A huge concert follows the next day.

So how did Barrack Hussein Obama II go from Illinois State Senator to Nobel Peace Prize winner in five years? It seems like a huge leap and Nobel committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland said as much in an interview with the AP. "Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early?" "Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond -- all of us." Jagland said.

The bottom line is the Nobel committee was sending a message to the world that they love this liberal American President and his pacifist foreign policies, but they acted prematurely and inappropriately. To award someone for good intentions is not following Nobel’s criterion for the prize outlined in his will. In 1901, Henry Dunant, a Swiss was awarded the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901 at the age of 73. The Geneva-based International Red Cross was founded by the devout Calvinist, Dunant, who also helped establish the Geneva Convention, was a humanitarian whose life work was substantive. He was not a classic pacifist who advocated world peace, but recognized the nature of man would always produce conflict. Dunant sought a way to be “humane” even in times of war. We still use the principles set forth by Dunant. Obama’s award was pretentious and exaggerated and takes away from the prestige of the once noble Nobel.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

OBAMA IS NO MAVERICK!
by Steve Fair

General Stanley McChrystal has requested President Obama approve the deployment of 30-40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. Currently the U.S. has 68,000 plus troops in the country. McChrystal told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan". In a speech made in London, the General said the delay in getting troops into the country is a mistake. "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support." He told Newsweek he was firmly against half measures in Afghanistan: "You can't hope to contain the fire by letting just half the building burn."




It’s very rare for a commanding General to speak out so bluntly in public, but he is frustrated by the complete lack of a “sense of urgency” on the part of the administration. Why did a disciplined, service academy graduate, highly decorated General speak out so bluntly?
First, McChrystal believes in action and not indecisiveness. He delivered his formal report on Afghanistan more than a month ago, yet the debate in the Obama White House continues. Only two meetings have been held to discuss the issue. Second, since McChrystal’s appointment as the commander in Afghanistan, President Obama has only met with McChrystal twice and once was last week in Copenhagen on Air Force One. After the General made his speech, in London, he was summoned to a face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago's unsuccessful Olympic bid.




When asked about the commander's public lobbying for more troops, General Jim Jones, national security adviser, said: “Ideally, it's better for military advice to come up through the chain of command.” When Jones was asked if Obama asked McChrystal to stop speaking publicly about the issue, Jones said, "I wasn't there so I can't answer that question. But it was an opportunity for them to get to know each other a little bit better. I am sure they exchanged direct views."
Some liberals believe the General's London comments as verging on insubordination.




Bruce Ackerman, an expert on constitutional law at Yale University, said in the Washington Post: "As commanding general, McChrystal has no business making such public pronouncements. It is highly unusual for a senior military officer to "pressure the president in public to adopt his strategy". New York Times columnist Frank Rich has accused the general of an attempt to "try to lock him (Obama) in" on Afghanistan.




And McChrystal is not alone, more and more senior military officials are now openly criticizing the White House for not tackling the issue quickly and decisively. They have made no secret of their view that without the vast ground force recommended by Gen McChrystal, the Afghan mission could end in failure and a return to power of the Taliban. Top US military officer Admiral Mike Mullen and the head of the regional Central Command, General David Petraeus, have publicly endorsed the manpower-intensive strategy set out in a report by McChrystal.
The military leaders are “hedging their bets.” As Lawrence Korb, a former assistant secretary of defense said, "They want to make sure people know what they asked for if things go wrong."




It would appear the President is more interested in trying to play “pitch man” for the United States than “commander in chief.” After his very public failed attempt to bring to Olympics to Chicago, perhaps Obama should get back to the job the people elected him to do- lead the country. Whether you liked his policies or his decisions, no one could fault George W on the speed in which he made a decision.



In the movie, Top Gun, Lt. Pete Mitchell tells Charlie, “when you’re up there, things are happening so fast, you don’t have time to think- instinct takes over.” Our leaders must have good instincts. They must have the education, temperament and background to make quick decisions. Its obvious Obama is no Maverick- he's more like Goose.

ACORN IN OKLAHOMA
ABOUT TO BE CRACKED!

ACORN-Oklahoma was effectively shut down last September, but watch the news media for what was found on the organization's computers and in their abandoned office. Their "political strategy" included two points:

First, build powerful city organizations in Oklahoma City and Tulsa that would control those municipalities.

Second, become an influential organization by shaping a handful of strategic legislative districts that, by themselves, can change who controls the state legislature. In other words, by taking credit for controlling some swing seats that return state senate power to progressives in 2008 and the state house to progressives in 2010, ACORN may not have members in a majority of districts, but we will be seen as the force that is making Oklahoma a progressive state in the way that it was 100 years ago.

All of this with YOUR tax dollars!

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

DOGGONE DOG RETAINS ATTORNEY!
by Steve Fair

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is an office within the Office of Management and Budget that is part of the Executive branch of the federal government. OIRA is staffed by both political appointees and career civil servants, who evaluate economic and regulatory issues for the President. Last week, Cass Sunstein, a Harvard educated law professor, was confirmed to head the office by a Senate vote of 57 to 40. In committee hearings, only Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, voted to not send Sunstein’s appointment to the Senate floor for a vote.

Senator Coburn didn’t vote against Sunstein’s appointment because of his position on economic issues, but because of Sunstein’s radical views on animal rights. Sunstein isn’t just your average pet lover. He is a radical animal rights advocate along the lines of PETA. Sunstein loved his pooch Perry so much that when the Rhodesian Ridgeback died, he created a scholarship at the The University of Chicago Law School in Perry’s memory. Ridgebacks are a South African breed known for their bravery. The scholarship goes to a student with an interest in animal welfare. That in and of itself is not that radical, but some of the things Sunstein has written and stated are.

In a book written in 2004 entitled Animal Rights- Current Debates and New Directions- Sunstein and then girlfriend, fellow University of Chicago prof, Martha Nussbaum, contended that animals should be allowed to sue their human owners. “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf,” Sunstein writes.

Sunstein also says in the book, “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.” He also advocates eliminating greyhound racing, cosmetic testing and meat eating. He has debated in support of veganism on several college campuses.

In 2002, Sunstein wrote, "There should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture.” At a Harvard lecture, he stated, “that the current treatment of livestock and other animals should be considered “a form of unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings.”

Sunstein’s views mirror those of PETA who has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, solely because they support animal-based research aimed at curing life-threatening diseases and birth defects.

No one should be cruel to animals, but those that advocate protection for every animal no matter the cost to mankind and the animals have a distorted, humanist world view. In the scripture, man is given authority over all that was created on the earth. Man is to take care of and use the resources on the earth. We are to assume control and protection over all that was created, which includes the animal kingdom. After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God killed animals and used their skins to cloth Adam and Eve. In Genesis 9, we see a change in the relationship between man and animals. God tells man there are certain types of animals that are acceptable for him to eat, but even with this pronouncement, He still tells man to watch over the animals.

Animal cruelty should never take place if men truly understand the command to be “caretakers” of the earth. We are to control the numbers of animals so disease and sickness do not kill them off; we are to use the animals for our needs; we are to control animals in a manner in which they are not harmful to humans; and finally we should protect them from over-killing and abuse. The problem lies in the fact that many do not understand this balance and tend to over-protect or under-protect animals. Animals were created for us to enjoy, so protecting a remnant for others to enjoy is also proper.

Sunstein’s view is not only radical, but it is frightening. When someone with this radical of a viewpoint rises to a position of influence, it should concern all Americans. If Sunstein has his way, we would all be vegetarians and your dog would have an attorney on retainer in case you purchased the wrong brand of dog food or scolded him to get off the couch.

PLATFORM SUGGESTIONS FROM

AN ORDINARY CITIZEN!

by Franklin J. Sissons

Dear Republican National Committee:
Dear Oklahoma State Republican Party:


Hello, my name is Frank Sissons. I want to propose an idea or platform if you please, for Republican candidates to run on in the upcoming mid-term elections in 2010. Below I have listed some ideas that, if put before the people, will help Republican candidates to be elected. The ideas will not be popular, but they are common sense ideas that most Americans want. I believe that Americans will vote for candidates that have the courage to run on this platform. I hope you will strongly consider these ideas as part of the Republican platform.



1) Term Limits: We need term limits for our elected senators and representatives. Once they have served two terms, they need to return to become a citizen again. Some of our senators and representatives have been in office so long they have lost touch with what it is to receive a paycheck from working an hourly job and what it is to pay social security taxes on every dollar of pay. We don’t need any more career politicians in Washington D.C. making decisions for the ordinary citizens with whom they have lost touch.



2) Social Security: The law needs to be changed so that it will require all elected senators, representatives and federal employees to pay into the social security system just as every other hard working individual in this country does. It is time they should have to give up 7.65% of their salary to support this meager entitlement retirement program. The government agency should also have to pay the 7.65% just as all businesses have to on their employees.



3) Government Retirement Programs (Civil Service): The guaranteed, plush retirement offered to government employees (especially senators and representatives) needs to be replaced with a 401K type saving and retirement system that will match the employee’s contribution up to 4% of their salary. This is the retirement program most companies offer their employees. If the government employees contribute 4% of their salary, the government employer will match the contribution up to 4%. You see, our elected senators and representatives have no idea how many of the working folks have been hurting because they have lost as much as $200K out of their 401K retirement programs, all because of some companies that ran wild with the greed of their executives. They need to see it, feel it and hurt along with all the other ordinary working citizens. If they do, they will not allow such greed to take place. It is time to end their guaranteed and lavish retirement plan that they do not contribute any money to earn.



4) Salaries: No more salary increases voted on by the senators and representative to give themselves a very nice raise. There needs to be an oversight board that decides if senators and representatives salaries should be increased. This oversight board could be made up of: one senator, one representative, six businessmen (women) appointed by the national governors' association, one appointed by the Democratic national committee and one appointed by the Republican national committee. This committee would be responsible for deciding if the senators and representatives were to receive a raise and if so, how much. No more voting themselves a raise.



5) Tax Reform: Tax reform can be accomplished by doing away with the capital gains tax. Why tax the money I risk by investing in companies, using money I have already paid taxes on, and again tax the gains I make from taking that risk? Move to a flat tax or a national sales tax. I read that the original internal revenue code was 13 pages, now it is several thousand pages. Make it simple.



Now as I stated earlier, these issues may not be popular but if Republican candidates will run on a platform similar to this, they will be elected. You see, the ordinary citizens are tired of our senators and representatives having all the special treatments and forgetting about representing their constituents that elected them to office. Once they are elected and again have the majority, they must stick to their platform and enact these changes. When that is completed, other issues can be tackled such as national security, immigration, English as the official language, smaller government, health care reform, foreign affairs, and national energy policy. Politicians must run on a platform that applies the same rules as the common citizens are required to accept. It will take integrity, character and honesty for you to step up to the podium and present a new and fair platform which represents equal treatment for all citizens.


Respectively submitted,


Franklin J. Sissons
Duncan, OK
Ordinary Working and Proud Citizen of the USA from Oklahoma

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

THE GOOBER AND THE DODGER!

by Steve Fair

Does former President Jimmy Carter really believe Americans care what he thinks? Carter, who was arguably the worst president of the twenty century and has been a source of irritation to every president since, is back in the news after accusing those who disagree with President Obama of being racists. Last week Carter told Brian Williams on NBC he believes a major reason that President Obama is facing declining approval ratings and “push back” from citizens on the health care issue is because of his race. Carter said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American. I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African Americans and that racism inclination still exists. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of the belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, an African-American, immediately called for a direct response from the president to Carter's remarks, accusing Democrats of "playing the race card ... from the bottom of the deck." "As the leader of the Democratic Party President Obama should flatly reject efforts by those in his Party...to inject race into our civil discourse in ways that divide, not unite, Americans," Steele said. To Obama’s credit, he publicly said he doesn’t agree with Carter and thought the opposition came from citizens who didn’t support his ideas and race had nothing to do with it.

There are several problems with the peanut farmer from Plains charge. First, Obama won every demographic in November. He won the “white, “brown” and the “black” vote. Carter’s accusation those who oppose the President’s policies are racists is petty and not fact based. Carter’s contention that citizens who are not in total agreement with Obama on every issue are racists is itself promoting a “racist” position.

Carter is not above playing the race card. He did it in his first statewide race for governor of Georgia. Carter, a State Senator, was trying to succeed Lester Maddox, in 1970, who was an admitted segregationist. Maddox was wildly popular in the Peach State but could not run for a second term as Governor, so he ran and won the race for Lt. Governor that year. Matt Towery, one of Carter’s staffers at the time, says Carter proudly proclaimed in public campaign appearances and literature that he was a “Maddox” Democrat. Carter recognized the segregation issue was on the minds of the voters and he needed votes to get elected. If Brian Williams were an honest journalist, he would have asked Carter about that campaign strategy in 1970 and asked him to explain the inconsistency.

Obama, appearing on Letterman Monday said, "I think it's important to realize that I was actually black before the election." "One of the things that you sign up for in politics is that folks yell at you," the president said, noting that "whenever a president tries to bring about significant changes, particularly during times of economic unease, there is a certain segment of the population that gets very riled up." He pointed to the experiences of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan as examples. But Obama is not Reagan, JFK or FDR. They were willing to go into the lion’s den and face their opponents- thus far Obama has not exhibited that characteristic. He is like the undefeated football team that only played unranked opponents, but expects to be in the BSC title game.

On Sunday, the president made the rounds of the Sunday talking head shows, but choose not to appear on Fox News. Fox has more than twice the viewers of the closest competitor, but the prez decided to skip the”fair & balanced network” to “preach to the choir.” That was wrong for a number of reasons, but primarily because if the president expects to persuade citizens on the merits of his programs by doing a media blitz, he can’t ignore Fox. That was a childish, immature decision that exhibits a weakness in leadership. Real leaders take on their detractors- they don’t dodge them.

Lester Maddox was a quite a character; after Maddox left office, he and a former employee, who was a convicted felon, formed a comedy team called, “The Governor and the Dishwasher” and played comedy clubs. If Obama continues dodging his detractors, he and Carter can do the same thing in 2013 and bill themselves as, “The Goober and the Dodger.”

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

CEILING HAS A HOLE IN IT!
by Steve Fair

When an individual spends more than they make it’s called “deficit spending.” If they continue that over the course of a lifetime, they are called legislators and get public buildings and highways named after them.

According to the Cato Institute, from 1962 to 1995, the federal government spent more than they took in. It wasn’t until 1995 when the Republicans took control of the U.S. House under the leadership of Newt Gringrich as Speaker that a balanced budget was passed. Since 2001, the budget has not been close to being balanced, partially because of the war on terror, but mostly because most of the politicos( in both parties) in Washington lack the courage to say no to entitlement programs.

When the government deficit spends, it increases our “national debt.” A “national debt” is nothing new. Since our inception, the U.S. government has incurred debt. Debts were incurred during the Revolutionary War. We got to zero in 1835 under President Andrew Jackson, but shortly thereafter, the Civil War came along and the country came out on the other side in debt by 2.7 billion dollars. The early 1900s brought WWI and once again the country borrowed for defense and the “national debt” rose to 22 billion. The “national debt” really took off under FDR and Truman when it ballooned to 260 billion. Who do we owe this money to?

The “national debt” is the amount of money owed by the government to holders of U.S. debt instruments(Treasury notes, bills, bonds, and Inflation-Protected Securities) China owns the most of any foreign government, around 800 billion as of June 2009. Most of the US “national debt” (65%) is owned to taxpayers. Government takes money from trust funds like Social Security and leaves an I.O.U. and uses the money in budgeting.

The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 established a statutory limit on federal debt. Up until that time, Congress had to approve each debt issuance separately. The debt limit provided the U.S. Treasury with more flexibility and leeway in the administration of debt, but it also allowed for government to mortgage you and your descendents future income.

When the federal stimulus package was passed in February, the federal debt ceiling was raised to a record 12.104 trillion. Now just six months later, the Obama administration has asked that the debt level be raised to 13 trillion- double what it was just six years ago.

Back in 2006, President Bush was attacked by then Senator Obama on the floor of the Senate for asking for an increase in the debt ceiling. “Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren,” “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership,” Obama said. This is probably the ONLY thing he has said I agree with. But back in 2006, Obama joined his Democratic colleagues in voting as a bloc against raising the debt ceiling. Now Obama is now asking for his second “debt ceiling” increase in six months.

The “national debt” is now projected to double under the Obama presidency to a level close to 97% of Gross Domestic Product. The national debt has increased by one third in the first nine months of Obama’s administration.

Both the White House and the Congressional Budget Office last month said that they expect the “national debt” to increase by another $9 trillion over the next decade. Should the Senate follow the House's lead and set the new debt limit at $13 trillion, lawmakers would probably have to raise the limit again next year, when the Obama administration expects to run a $1.5 trillion deficit. The “deficit” in this year’s budget is projected to be 1.3 trillion dollars.

A ceiling has a purpose- it is to stop things from going too high. The debt ceiling should be made of iron and not toilet paper. Elected officials should be working overtime to find ways to stay under the debt ceiling by laying off government workers and cutting non-essential government programs. Passing a higher debt ceiling weakens the dollar and prolongs our economic woes. At some point, somebody in Washington has to start making some hard decisions before we go bankrupt as a country.

Ignoring the “debt ceiling” and deficit spending are just two of the reasons that two million average citizens marched on Washington last Saturday. Fed up with a government that spends more than it takes it and rewards irresponsibility has awakened a sleeping giant- the American people. If they stay charged up and engaged through November of 2010, change could be coming to Washington, but not the kind Obama campaigned for.