SARAH PALIN- ROGUE OR WIMP?
by Steve Fair

It’s critical that activist Republicans are honest when we evaluate so called ‘leaders’ who want to thrust themselves into becoming the GOP NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s book, “Going Rogue,” is coming out tomorrow and she is making all the talk shows*(even the liberal ones) in order to promote it. Palin is the choice of a lot of conservative activists for the 2012 presidential race, including some of my friends, but let me give you three reasons why she should not be considered:

(1) SHE QUIT! When Palin resigned her office before the completion of her term, she said it was because she was not seeking re-election and would be a lame duck Governor. She believed that she could not effectively govern as a lame duck. The truth is at some point, EVERY elected official becomes a lame duck. That was a ‘lame’ excuse. Vince Lombardi said, "once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit." You can't 'cut and run' when it gets tough. I suspect the real reason Palin quit was to ‘make a few bucks’ by writing a tell-all book. While Palin hasn’t cranked out the books like Neutron Newt Gingrich, her self-promotion is apparent and cheap.

(2) SHE IS INEXPERIENCED! I know Obama has no experience and is a novice, but Republicans should not promote an inexperienced candidate no matter how attractive they may be or how much they can excite the base. Face facts- Palin has little to no experience on foreign policy. She talks tough, but just being tough doesn’t necessarily mean you have the ability to govern the country. Her tough talk may be just a cover (see point 3)

(3) SHE WHINES! One of the most unflattering traits in a leader is when they whine about how they were treated by people. In Palin’s book, she gripes about McCain’s staff and how they mistreated her. She complained about how she was uncomfortable wearing high dollar clothes at the GOP convention. Anyone with a basic understanding of politics knows that ‘consultants’ formulate the message and ‘manage’ the campaign. These hirelings have few convictions and no ethical standards, and while Palin may not have been prepared for their ‘hardball’ tactics, they are nothing compared to a foreign head of state like Chavez or Kim Jong il. If she couldn't take the heat, she shouldn't have been in the kitchen. Lord Jeffrey said, “The tendency to whining and complaining may be taken as the surest sign symptom of little souls and inferior intellects.”

The title of Palin’s book implies she is a ROGUE which is defined by Webster as (1) An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal or (2) One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.

I’m sure Palin prefers the latter definition but neither is acceptable for leadership. Read the book for it's entertainment value, but dismiss the former Governor as a great fundraising tool for the GOP and nothing more.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

OPEN UP THE PROCESS!
by Steve Fair

In this year’s legislative session, Senator Anthony Sykes, (R-Moore) and Representative Mark McCullough, (R-Sapulpa) authored a bill known as the “Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act.” House Bill 2167 would have required Oklahoma governmental agencies to issue and publicly post a “Request for Proposals” for legal services and then publicly list all attorneys and law firms that are awarded contracts. McCullough and Sykes were attempting to stop what the Wall Street Journal called in a May 23rd editorial a “pay to sue” racket. They simply wanted the state to competitively bid the outside legal counsel the state uses. The current system allows the Attorney General to hire outside law firms and retain private lawyers on a contingency basis without a competitive bid.

The bill passed the Senate unanimously with overwhelming bipartisan support. It passed the State House 57-39 and was sent to the Governor, but Henry vetoed it saying, “While HB 2167 is well intended and has many good provisions, the legislation potentially does more harm than good because of its unintended consequences. Many state agencies could easily comply with the contracting restrictions in question, but for those agencies, such as Oklahoma Department of Transportation, that must respond quickly to a lawsuit or that must execute a large volume of legal contracts by virtue of their statutory responsibilities, such mandates would impair their ability to respond to pressing legal issues or to timely complete crucial projects, causing undue delays, increasing costs to the state and causing them to miss court-imposed deadlines. The Legislature should consider legislation that recognizes the unique statutory responsibilities of such adversely-impacted agencies.” Because it was such a close vote in the House, it was not likely the veto could have been overturned, but Sykes has vowed to file a similar bill in the next session.

There are several problems with Henry’s reason for his veto; First, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation has multiple attorneys on their staff? Shouldn’t their internal counsel be handling these “emergencies” that arise? Isn’t that why ODOT and the taxpayer employ them?

Secondly, the Private Attorney Retention Sunshine Act is model legislation developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, and has been passed in Texas, North Dakota, Colorado, Kansas and Virginia. Several other states are considering the same legislation. That means three of our bordering states have enacted this policy to provide more transparency in government. If Oklahoma continues to lag behind the region in dealing with tort reform, we can expect to lose more doctors and health care professionals to states that have enacted true tort reform.

And finally, there is a fundamental moral problem with the practice itself. The head of a government agency should not be able to hire his friends or supporters with taxpayer money without a competitive bid and then solicit campaign contributions from those same friends and supporters. That is a clear conflict of interest and invites corruption.

According to the May 2009 WSJ editorial, “Mr. Edmondson was one of the first AGs to jump into the 1990s tobacco litigation. He gave work to two non-Oklahoma giants of tobacco torts, Motley Rice and Scruggs Millette. Also receiving contracts were three Oklahoma firms, including Riggs Abney -- home to Mr. Edmondson's friend and political ally, another former AG named Mike Turpen. As their part of the tobacco settlement, the firms would ultimately reap $250 million in legal fees. Mr. Turpen's firm collected $30 million.”

Edmondson just announced he is the first candidate for Governor to raise one million dollars in his campaign. A large majority of his contributions came from trial attorneys, many who also just happen to be on retainer by the state as outside counsel.

If the current hiring “outside counsel” process isn’t corrupt, then what’s wrong with opening it up by competitively bidding the process? After all, it is taxpayer money and we have a right to know how our money is being spent. If we are getting a good deal, then why wouldn’t the firms that are getting the business be eager to bid? This ‘good ole boy’ practice and the fact it was not widely known to the average Oklahoman just reinforces that Oklahoma has a long way before we have true transparency in government.

Edmondson has a great Oklahoma political name. His father served in Congress and his uncle, J. Howard, was the youngest governor in Oklahoma history, just thirty three years old when he was elected in 1958. Drew has certainly won his share of statewide elections (three), but his resistance to tort reform makes him a poor choice to lead Oklahoma. Henry’s two terms have shown he doesn’t favor meaningful tort reform- an issue which impacts Oklahoma negatively. Edmondson would be more of the same and Oklahoma can ill afford to hold to a flawed philosophy of continuing to cater to trial attorneys in our state.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial OKLAHOMA’S FOOD POLICE!
by Steve Fair

The “food police” are in Oklahoma. A couple of Tulsa area legislators recently held an interim study on how to get “healthy” grocery stores to come to the Sooner state. State Reps. Seneca Scott, D-Tulsa, and Jabar Shumate, D-Tulsa, want to determine how to incentivize rural and urban grocers that offer healthy, affordable, locally-grown produce and products. In other words, they want to use taxpayer dollars to get “mom and pop” healthy grocers that would compete with Whole Foods or some similar retailer.

During the interim study, Landon Norton of the Oklahoma Department of Health said that a recent Centers for Disease Control report showed Oklahoma state healthy food retail policies would positively impact its residents’ consumption of fruits and vegetables. The report found that Oklahoma had far fewer healthy food retailers than the national average and “food deserts” or areas with little access to healthy foods. “Access is not what it could be, not what it needs to be,” Norton said.

Scott, D-Tulsa, said it is clear that encouraging healthy neighborhood grocers could trigger more Oklahomans to begin living healthier lifestyles. “Oklahomans rank dead last nationally when it comes to nutrition and are the most likely Americans to suffer heart disease,” Scott, D-Tulsa, said. “Though lawmakers can’t force people to become healthy overnight, I think we can make healthy options available to them, while helping to support our local farmers and producers.”

Scott Smith, who spoke during the study, owns the type of store Scott and Shumate want to encourage. The Blue Jackalope Grocery Store is a small neighborhood grocer and coffee shop located in Tulsa’s Crosbie Heights neighborhood. Smith sells locally grown produce and says he has created a “community center” in his store. “The whole thing is the wonderful sense of connectedness that has resulted from what we’ve done at the store,” Smith said.

“Incentivizing healthy grocers helps the economy, lowers health care costs and, most importantly, means Oklahomans won’t have to choose between convenience and health,” Scott said. “One way to incentivize them could be to amend the state’s quality jobs act to benefit grocers,” he said. The Oklahoma Healthy Corner Stores Initiative is the proposed title of the legislation he hopes to carry in the next legislative session.

“In too many areas of the state we lack access to affordable, high quality, fresh foods,” Scott said. “The Oklahoma Legislature needs to help these working families and at the same time help local growers and small businesses, making it a win-win for all Oklahomans.”

Of the top ten “health conscious grocers ranked by Health.com only one operates in Oklahoma. Whole Foods (279 stores in 38 states) has a store in Tulsa and has announced they will soon build a store in OKC. The new Classen Curve shopping center near the Chesapeake Energy campus is the likely location, but no formal announcement has been made. But what Scott and Shumate want to give incentives to are “mom and pop” healthy grocers, not Whole Foods. The two challenges for the smaller “healthy” retailer is a consistent source of supply- finding a niche wholesaler who specializes in “healthy” products and could they generate sufficient volume to make money? There are a few wholesalers, but none in the central part of the United States and the issue of volume would be anyone’s guess. While Scott and Shumate’s actions don’t raise to the level of some of the nation’s food police, they still need to mind their own business and stop trying to tell us how to eat.

Consider some of the radical actions by the “Food Police.” The Public Health Advocacy Institute served notice to eight of the largest food producers in America they will sue food producers if they do not change formulas to help “slim down” America. That explains why Oreos don’t have as much delicious filling as they used to.

A group of lawyers have said they plan to start suing doctors who do not adequately warn patients about obesity. In several states, including Texas, soda pop has been banned in schools, even diet, but fruit juice, which contains more calories than pop remains. In one Massachusetts city, fast food restaurants are “banned” from coming to town. The Center for Science in the Public Interest advocates treating candy like porn and putting it behind the counter to discourage sales. Texas Agricultural Commissioner Susan Combs, who calls herself the “Food Czarina” says, shared sweets like birthday cakes should not be allowed in schools.

And it’s not just in the U.S. Did you know that in Canada, there is a “sin” tax on meals under $4 and in New Zealand, they “card”(check ages) when someone want to buy candy?

No matter how noble Scott and Shumate’s motives are, they are misguided. It is not the job of state government to tell Oklahomans what to eat and where to shop. With Oklahoma’s crumbling infrastructure and budget shortages, taxpayer dollars can be better spent dealing with real issues. Scott and Shumate should stay out of our cupboards.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

TOO MANY QUESTIONS WITH SQ 744!

by Steve Fair

In November 2010, Oklahoma voters will vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would tie common education funding to a regional average of Oklahoma’s bordering states. The so-called HOPE amendment would force the state to fund common education at the same per student level as the surrounding state average. According to hope4ourkids.org, the regional average spent for common education per student is $9,078 and Oklahoma’s funding is $7,615 per student- the lowest in the region.

Currently common education gets thirty six percent of the Oklahoma state annual budget- by far the largest allocation of any agency. If SQ 744 passes, common education would receive nearly one half of the state budget.

The actual ballot language for SQ 744 is:

The measure repeals a Section of the State Constitution. The repealed section required the Legislature annually to spend $42.00 for each common school student. Common schools offer pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade.The measure also adds a new Article to the Constitution. It sets a minimum average amount the State must annually spend on common schools. It requires the State to spend annually, no less than the average amount spent on each student by the surrounding states. Those surrounding states are Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Colorado and New Mexico. When the average amount spent by surrounding states declines, Oklahoma must spend the amount it spent the year before. The measure deals with money spend on day-to-day operations of the schools and school districts. This includes spending on instructions, support services and non-instruction services. The measure does not deal with money spent to pay debt, on buildings or on other capital needs.The measure requires that increased spending begin in the first fiscal year after its passage. It requires that the surrounding state average be met in the third fiscal year after passage.The measure does not raise taxes, nor does it provide new funding for the new spending requirements.

The last sentence of the measure is very revealing. Passage of the proposal would create an “unfunded” mandate. SQ 744 would require the state to provide funding, but suggests no method on how to get those funds. Chairman of the House Appropriations and Budget committee State Representative Ken Miller, R-Edmond, says, “While the petitioners of State Question 744 may be well-intended, the question is irresponsible-it is a zero-sum game where one budget component benefits to the detriment of the other vital state service like transportation, public safety and health care. If this state question is approved, the people’s representatives will not be able to prioritize competing needs and will have no say on the largest single component of the state’s budget. Instead education policy will be arbitrarily set by a rigid regional formula.”

Realistically, if SQ 744 passed, the legislature would be forced to either raise taxes or reduce funding to other agencies to meet the requirement 744 would mandate. Some estimates of other agency cuts range as high as twenty percent. According to the State House fiscal staff, if SQ # 744 passes, personal income tax would have to be raised from its current level of 5.5% to more than 7% to raise the money SQ 744 mandates.

Here are just three reasons State Question 744 should not be approved:

First, forcing state government to increase funding to common education based on what bordering states are doing will not improve Oklahoma education. Oklahoma has a more fundamental problem- it is how we spend our education dollar. We have too many school districts. Oklahoma has 554 school districts, Kansas 304, Arkansas 271, Colorado 178 and New Mexico only has 84. Each of Oklahoma’s five hundred plus districts have buildings, buses and bosses. Consolidation is not a word anyone likes to utter, but if education wants to get serious about education and get the money to the classroom where it really makes a difference, the “C” word will have to discussed.

Second, education funding is not the only thing we need to improve in Oklahoma. Our state has crumbling infrastructure that is dangerous for school buses(or any other vehicle) to travel on. Oklahoma also ranks high in mental health issues, obesity, and drug use. If SQ 744 passes, either huge tax increases would need to be implemented or those infrastructure and social ills would face funding cuts. Neither alternative seems wise concerning these tough economic times.

Third, Oklahoman’s tax burden is high enough. According to The Tax Foundation, Oklahoma's taxpayers have gone from the 42nd highest state and local tax burden in 1977 to the 19th highest in 2008. Estimated at 9.8% of income, Oklahoma's current state/local tax burden is above the national average. Oklahomans pay $3,761 per capita in state and local taxes.

It is true that teachers are underpaid in Oklahoma. They rank a dismal 47th in the country among their peers, but all Oklahoma workers are unpaid. The average Oklahoman earns $5,000 less than the average American doing the same job. US Census data indicates that only two of our bordering states have lower per capita income than Oklahoma, but SQ # 744 is not the answer- it just creates more questions.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

ENGLISH SHOULD BE OKLAHOMA OFFICIAL LANGUAGE!

by Steve Fair

In November 2010, Oklahoma voters will be casting their ballot on a State Question authored by State Senator Anthony Sykes, R-Moore. The State Question, if passed, will amend the State Constitution to require that Oklahoma state government conduct business in the English language. According to a poll by Bill Shapard of Soonerpoll, 86% of Oklahomans support making English the official language of states government. The joint resolution passed the State House by a vote of 89-8 and the Senate by a vote of 44-2 back in May during the later part of the 2009 legislative session.

“Making English the official language of state government is not only the humane thing to do, it’s also cost-effective. Right now, Oklahoma taxpayers can be forced to pay for government materials to be printed in up to 300 different languages or even pay for individual translators in every language. We are already seeing large sums spent on Spanish-language driver’s manuals no one uses while facing a shortage of English manuals. It’s time to eliminate that waste and be efficient with taxpayer funds.” I’m certain that the people of the state of Oklahoma will support the resolution as drafted and it will be part of our constitution,” Sykes said confidently.

The actual ballot language for the SQ is: “This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It would add a new Article 30. This amendment states that English is the common and unifying language of the state. All official actions of the state would be in English, except as required by federal law. No one would have a cause of action against an agency or subdivision of the state for failure to provide actions in any other language. The amendment could not be construed to diminish or impair uses of Native American languages. The Legislature would be able to enact related laws.”

Note that Sykes and the House authors made a provision for Oklahoma rich Native American language heritage, which had been a controversial issue in the 2008 legislative session.
Already thirty other states and more than fifty nations have adopted official English laws. Sykes has worked long and hard on this issue. He campaigned on the issue when he ran in 2006. But getting it to a vote of the people did not come without difficulty.

In a letter dated April 14, 2009(in the middle of the "English" debate in the legislature) from Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, the DOJ letter states, “As you know, recipients of federal financial assistance must comply with various civil rights statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin.” The letter continues, “State agencies and other entities in Oklahoma that receive federal financial assistance thus would be precluded by federal law from abiding by an English-only requirement where it conflicts with their obligations under Title VI.”

The not so veiled threat from the feds that Oklahoma would lose federal money if voters chose to make English the official language of state government raised the hackles of the Oklahoma Congressional delegation. Senators Coburn, Inhofe, and U.S. Reps Lucus, Cole, Fallin, Sullivan, and Boren fired off a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder pointing out that several other states have passed similar legislation and asked if they too have been “accused by the Department of Justice to be in violation with Title VI, or formally threatened with funding termination?” The delegation letter asked for an explanation for what prompted the DOJ to write the state of Oklahoma on this issue and seeks explanation for what funds would be eliminated should Oklahomans pass the English only amendment.

Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. said, “Attorney General Holder owes the residents of Oklahoma an explanation as to why this thinly veiled threat was issued to Oklahoma on a state matter. The last thing Oklahoma needs is a bureaucrat in Washington dictating more of what we can and cannot do. Officials at the Department of Justice should focus on more pressing matters under their jurisdiction before issuing statements about a state issue that has yet to become law.”

On October 9th, the Congressional delegation received a response from the DOJ. The explanation stated the Department learned of the Oklahoma Constitutional amendment through media reports and said, “Please be assured that voter approval next year of Oklahoma’s official English amendment would not affect the state’s eligibility for federal financial assistance from the Department.” U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe said, “I am pleased that the Justice Department has backed off its threat over Oklahoma’s proposed English-only constitutional amendment.”

Voters should vote to approve the State Question next November and the reasons are clear. First, by making English our official language we encourage immigrants to assimilate into American society. President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans." Secondly, Official English would also reinforce America's historic message to new immigrants - that we expect them to learn English as the first step in that assimilation.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

CELL PHONE LAWS ARE UNNECCESSARY!
by Steve Fair

In June, Oklahoma State House Speaker Chris Benge- R, Tulsa, authorized one hundred and twenty “interim” studies to study issues. One of the studies was requested by State Representatives Sue Tibbs, R-Tulsa, and Danny Morgan, D-Prague to study cell phone and texting use while driving. Tibbs chairs the House Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, in which Morgan is a member.



Morgan, who is the House minority leader, has filed bills to ban cell phone use in cars the past two legislative sessions, but it hasn’t gotten anywhere. Morgan remains undeterred in his attempts to emphasize the risks of distracted driving. "Erratic driving due to cell phone use is only getting worse as drivers continue to overestimate their own ability to juggle phone use while behind the wheel," Morgan claims.



Currently six states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington) as well as Washington DC ban handheld cell phone for all drivers. With the exception of Washington State, these laws are all primary enforcement—an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense-taking place.
No state completely bans all types of cell phone use (handheld and hands-free) for all drivers, but many prohibit cell phone use by certain segments of the population.



For example, twenty-one state and DC ban all cell phone use by novice drivers (under 21). Eighteen states and the District of Columbia now ban text messaging for all drivers and nine states prohibit text messaging by novice drivers.



At last week’s interim study at the State Capital, an emotional Jennifer Smith told the story of how her mother was killed in a car accident last September by a driver distracted on a cell phone who ran a red light. The emotional and passionate Smith advocates banning all cell phone use in moving vehicles.



Scott Watkins, director of the Oklahoma Highway Safety Office, also spoke at the meeting and said there is no evidence to show that talking on a cell phone is more of a distraction than other distractions. Watkins said that in 2008 only 2.3% of car wrecks were due to driver distracted with cell phones.



That number may be higher because currently cell-phone use is self-reported at the time of an accident. That means drivers can admit or deny they were on their cell phone or texting. Current Oklahoma law requires that a subpoena or court order be issued to get cell phone records to find out if a driver was using their phone using the phone/texting. Law enforcement would like to be able to get that information without getting a court order or subpoena.



In 2008, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were 34,017 fatalities in 2008 from auto accidents. According to the NHTSA, thirty one percent of fatal crashes in 2008 were alcohol related. Mark Edwards, Director of Traffic Safety at the American Automobile Association, believes driver distraction is a close second. Edward says, "The research tells us that somewhere between 25-50 percent of all motor vehicle crashes in this country really have driver distraction as their root cause." Distractions include rubbernecking, driver fatigue, kids/passengers, reading maps or other documents and grooming. The AAA study said that talking on your mobile while driving will increase crash risks fourfold.



In a study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, people who send text messages while driving are 23 times more likely to be in a crash (or what they call a near-crash event) than nondistracted drivers. Prevention magazine says that at least eighty five percent of cell phone users talk on their phone while driving.



Technology has advanced at such a rate that lawmakers believe it essential they deal with it. Not only is the Oklahoma state legislature taking up the issue of cell phone use while driving, but so are state cities and municipalities. The Duncan City Council already has the issue on their radar screen.




The problem of people not excercising common sense and using electronics of all types while driving is certainly a problem. I drive over 50K miles each year and have seen about every “distraction” you can imagine by passing drivers. It’s also true that modern communication technology has made it almost seemingly impossible for some people to be “off the grid” for even an hour while driving, but with the amount of traffic laws on the books, I’m not sure adding another is the answer.




It seems rather discriminating for us to single out just one cause of distraction for possible ticketing. Shouldn’t we make it illegal for people to “groom” while driving? How often have you seen a woman putting on make-up or a guy shaving while passing you at 75? How about making it illegal for people to “look back” (rubberneck) while driving?




These proposed “cell phone” laws take away individual personal liberty in the name of personal safety. Individual personal security can’t be legislated and these laws are intrusive and unnecessary.

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.