Nobel Peace Prize Awarded to American, Conservatives Go Crazy With Rage

Today President Obama was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary efforts to create diplomacy throughout the world. While many individuals question the award, only three groups outright objected to it: the Taliban, claiming he has done nothing to pursue peace in Afghanistan; Hamas, because the American government still does not recognize the nation of Palestine; and American Conservatives, because he is President Obama.

It is a stark, and possibly even radical, comparison to make of Conservatives and radical Muslim groups however their unwillingness to admit wrong or defeat and their eagerness to use radical means towards a goal is strikingly similar. Over the past year Conservatives have abandoned their unmatched patriotism that supported two wars for an unprecedented 'hate' for President Obama. After laughing and cheering when the United States of America loses the Olympics, and then throwing a fit of rage when he President of the United States of America wins the Nobel Peace Prize, some organizations such Media Matters are compelled to ask the question "If not America, then who are the Republicans rooting for?". It is a question that should be asked.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee their choice was one of confidence in Obama to gain global support for his diplomatic policies such as nuclear non-proliferation. They praised the President for creating " new climate in international politics.". This justification, although, is not enough for critics of the award who claim Obama has done nothing in office. However, just by taking a look at America alone, one can see that criticism is unfounded. Just in the time Obama took office until now, according to a poll of 25 countries from Pew Global Attitudes Project, America has found itself with double digit boosts to the percentage of people who view America favorably all across the world. In Germany , over 90 percent of people approve of America, compared to the 12 percent that approved America a little over a year ago. This is no minor accomplishment. Obama is being awarded for setting the stage for a most peaceful world in the history of the Earth--a world where America can recognized as an active leader and participant.

Take the word of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, "[The peace prize confirms, finally, America's return to the hearts of the people of the world...".

If the new approval ratings don't convince you of Obama's impact on international community, the praise he has received will. Upon receiving the prize Obama received praise from leaders all across the world including: Mikhail Gorbachev, the regime of Hamid Karzai, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, just to name a few.

However, to Republicans, overwhelming international praise and major feats not enough for the Nobel Peace Prize, and they are quick to offer their opinion on the issue-- even more proof that the GOP is disconnected with the rest of the nation. Glenn Beck said that Obama setting a new stage in the world for peace was not enough for the award, and that it really should have been awarded to a movement he started that featured posters and propaganda that depicted Obama as a Nazi and witchdoctor. RedState's Erick Erickson credited Obama's award towards affirmative action-- does that even make sense?

In the past week we have seen a peak into the conservative party that is shocking and disturbing. The Olympics and the Nobel Peace Prize have shown the world that this unparalleled patriotism conservatives claim to have was never for the United States of America, it was for a rich white America, and right-wing America, a Conservative America. Anything else is the enemy.

The defense of liberalism

For as long as President Obama has been in the public eye, he has refused to criticize the conservative movement or the republican party as whole. Never has he spoken about an issue on ideological terms, defending or attacking one side of the political spectrum or another. He has, despite not receiving the same gracious courtesy from his critics and despite pressure from his own identifying party, stayed steadfastly above the fray.

That is, until the end of his speech last night. For the first time ever--since this President has been in the eye of the American public--he has offered up a defense of liberalism. But when relentless badgering and distortions of his own ideological views, constant nagging from his identfied party, and an agenda full of issues that boils down to essence of the liberal/conservative debate has failed to stagger his stead fast mentality, what possibly did?

Here is the inspiring, emotional, defensive and beautiful letter Ted Kennedy wrote to President Obama. A letter that was so influencial, President Obama did something so unprecendeted for him, it has caused the media a stir.

May 12, 2009

Dear Mr. President,

I wanted to write a few final words to you to express my gratitude for your repeated personal kindnesses to me — and one last time, to salute your leadership in giving our country back its future and its truth.

On a personal level, you and Michelle reached out to Vicki, to our family and me in so many different ways. You helped to make these difficult months a happy time in my life.

You also made it a time of hope for me and for our country.

When I thought of all the years, all the battles, and all the memories of my long public life, I felt confident in these closing days that while I will not be there when it happens, you will be the president who at long last signs into law the health care reform that is the great unfinished business of our society. For me, this cause stretched across decades; it has been disappointed, but never finally defeated. It was the cause of my life. And in the past year, the prospect of victory sustained me — and the work of achieving it summoned my energy and determination.

There will be struggles — there always have been — and they are already under way again. But as we moved forward in these months, I learned that you will not yield to calls to retreat — that you will stay with the cause until it is won. I saw your conviction that the time is now and witnessed your unwavering commitment and understanding that health care is a decisive issue for our future prosperity. But you have also reminded all of us that it concerns more than material things; that what we face is above all a moral issue; that at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.

And so because of your vision and resolve, I came to believe that soon, very soon, affordable health coverage will be available to all, in an America where the state of a family's health will never again depend on the amount of a family's wealth. And while I will not see the victory, I was able to look forward and know that we will — yes, we will — fulfill the promise of health care in America as a right and not a privilege.

In closing, let me say again how proud I was to be part of your campaign — and proud as well to play a part in the early months of a new era of high purpose and achievement. I entered public life with a young president who inspired a generation and the world. It gives me great hope that as I leave, another young president inspires another generation and once more on America's behalf inspires the entire world.

So, I wrote this to thank you one last time as a friend — and to stand with you one last time for change and the America we can become.

At the Denver Convention where you were nominated, I said the dream lives on.

And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

With deep respect and abiding affection,

(Ted)

Huffington Thanks Beck For His Smear Campaign.

That's right, Arianna Huffington, founder of the notably liberal Huffington Post, thanked Glenn Beck for his vicious smear campaign of Van Jones in her latest blog. Now, now, before you start throwing your wine glasses at your computer screen, it is not what you think. Huffington, despite claiming the contrary, was shedding a positive light on a bad situation. Huffington argues in her blog that despite Jones' being the best qualified person for the position, she feels the the job was not the best position for Jones. She argues that Jones' unique mind and great charisma was ultimately put to waste behind a desk, and that he would be better utilized rallying troops and furthering "green" movements. Ultimately she argues, Glenn Beck running this smear campaign on her long time friend, was for the best.

She is wrong. I don't disagree that Jones' was better suited for a job that utilized his incredible ability to influence minds and further a cause. There is no question in my mind that man who was listed in Time's Magazine 100 most influential people in the world, would be better utilized influencing people rather than punching numbers.

But while Van Jones' may be a good guy, that is better suited away from a desk, as Arianna relentlessly points out in her blog with countless bumper sticker quotes and high achievements, Arianna seems to be missing the big picture. The message sent from the resignation.

The question is not, and never was, is Van Jones suited for the job, or if the job was the best fit for Jones, or even if Jones is really a communist. The question always was is how war can the GOP cross the line and get away with it? How far will the Obama administration let elected officials and political pundits on the right distort the truth and spew nonsense? Will those on the left take a stand and say "enough with your bullshit."? The answer to these questions is no. At least that's the message the left is sending to the right.

This whole thing is bigger than Van Jones, because like Huffington points out, he is better utilized in a job away from the desk anyways. Because if that was the only issue, Arianna would be spot on. But, again, its not.

As the saying goes, you give someone an inch, they will take a mile. And that's exactly what the conservatives have been doing. Over and over the Obama administration, and the left in general have been really giving conservatives a pass over and over when it comes to hypocritical statements, far-fetched notions, and bold faced lies. And those on the right, eagerly accept the lenience on the left and begin their marathon of bullshit. Even those on the left who are supposedly "rock hard" and "immovable" buckle at the conservative incessant wave of smears. Van Jones was supposedly the strongest of the left, one of the few who advocated being "assholes" like the conservatives. So much for that... To make matters worse, it wasn't just Van Jones that ultimately buckled, it was the entire Obama administration that let him fall. Gibbs declined to defend Jones, and the administration as a whole let Jones' go without objecting to his resignation.

Think about the message that sends to the right. If the strongest of the liberals folds to the likes of Glenn Beck, it really is no surprise conservatives are trying to bring down Obama's entire agenda with, really, nothing more than a more elaborate smear campaign. I know what some of you are thinking to yourself right now, only the extreme right really believes these smear campaign crap. Only those on the extreme right is really "mistaken" enough to believe such far fetched notions of fascist communists and indoctrinations. To which I have two questions. The first is: If it is really those only those on the right that believe what comes out from conservative pundits, then why does Jones feel the need to resign and why does Obama not object to it? It is not like the extreme right, or even the moderate right for that matter is the majority. Really what the smear campaign came down to was Fox news. Secondly, what do you think the perception is of Jones and the Obama administration is to those moderates who are really to smart to believe the far-fetched lies of the GOP? The answer is simple, its the same thing me and you are thinking right now. The left is too weak. If Van Jones and the left can't handle Fox news, who can they handle? Ultimately what happens are things like Obama's decreasing poll numbers. People begin losing faith in the administration, and in the left in general.

So, while Arianna makes the best of a bad situation, this is still nothing more than a bad situation. The only thing that will fix it, is a new spine for the left.

Not to cool for school?...Your a Communist.

Yesterday the notion that Obama's address to school children all across the nation is a scheme to indoctrinate students into Obama's "socialist ideology" really hit the fan. I really can't justified why I am surprised this notion exploded from pundits of Florida's Republican Party to actual legitimate republican elected politicians such as Minnesota Govenor Tim Pawlenty, but honestly I am. I am surprised for two reasons: 1) I am surprised this blew up into such a big issue, or an issue at all and, 2) it is hard to fathom the rhetoric being used against this address.

I mean lets take a look at what Obama actually plans on talking about. Well first, he plans of addressing the children to give them motivational instruction to stay in school, to set goals for themselves, and to stay motivated to succeed. Originally, that's what opposition was against...this apparent, far fetched, socialist agenda to motivate children. Anderson Cooper did a wonderful interview of Jim Greer, Florida Chair of the Republican Party, to which he asked Mr. Greer, how can you claim Obama will be pushing his agenda onto children when 1) You haven't seen his speech or have any hard evidence to to support your claim, and 2) Obama has already told you what he will say, and that is.... well this motivational stuff. Coopers point is valid one, how can people cause such a riot over a fear they are basing off of pure whimsical irrationality. Its not like this is the first a President addressed the school children of America. George Bush sr. addressed the schools of America...and when he received political criticism (which was incredibly mild to what we are seeing now) the Republicans were quick to their feet to defend him. George W. Bush soon followed suit with a double-whammy. Not only did he address the school children, but he actually was promoting his agenda of No Child Left Behind.

So then the pundits turned their argument around. Its not the speech anymore. Its the curriculum. Now the republicans focused their attention on an assignment the White House suggested schools: Have the kids write a letter explaining how they can help President Obama. Keep in mind these kids are well, kids. Its highly unlikely the topic of their letter will be creating left wing "socialist" propaganda for health care reform, or the new cap and trade bill. I think its safe to say the majority of these kids will be writing about generic ways they can help the country and the president as whole. Such as stay in school, don't commit crimes, try to do good...maybe if they get real radical socialist(y) they will write about supporting the country. This assignment should be viewed as what it is... a reflective writing assignment to strengthen critical analysis and writing skills, rather than a secret plot to bring communism/socialism to America.

As if it was bad enough that this blew up into an issue in the first place, the magnitude of the rhetoric used is a bit extreme...and its not exclusive to the pundits either. This speech promoting staying in school, setting goals, and being motivated, its being compared to ...wait for it...fascism. That's right. Fox News Channel and other right wing bloggers compared Obama to "Chairman Mao [Zedong]" creating the Red Guard, to North Korean and former Soviet Union dictatorship. But the Fox News channel is always pretty radical, as are the right wing bloggers; unfortunately it didn't stop there. Elected officials such as Oklahoma state senator Steve Russel made the same comparisons he said, " this is akin to something you see in North Korea or under Saddam Hussein's Iraq"

Like I said, we shouldn't be surprised...this summer has been filled with ridiculous falsities to say the least. But when the right compare a motivational speech about staying in school to fascism and totalitarian dictatorships like Stalin, Mao, and Saddam I just cant help but shockingly say, "What the fuck?!

Ruining the Sanctity of Marrige...

So I was watching Rachel Maddow today and she brought something, totally non-health care related, that was very, very interesting about Massachusetts.

For those who don't know, Mass. is the first state to legalize same-sex marriage. Now this was back in 2004...since then there has been all eyes on Mass. to see what results the highly controversial bill would yield.

To religious conservatives same sex marriage is the end of all things civil. Many on the right have made pretty radical comparisons to legalizing homosexual marriage to things like bestiality and polygamy. Some have even argued that quality of life, in general, will decrease. Yet all these, rather radical statements have been topped off with the argument used most against same-sex marriage: it will ruin the sanctity, or definition, of marriage.

Never mind the fact that the definition of marriage has changed quite a bit (polygamy used to be legal and black marriage was illegal), lets take a look at the big fish: ruining the sanctity of marriage.

Maddow reported in her segment on MSNBC that the divorce rates in the Mass. has actually declined to pre-World War II levels. Back when stereotypical perfect families like the "Stevens" or the "Johnson's" existed. Yeah. The sanctity of marriage is that good in Mass.

To make matters worse for anti-gay marriage activists, the number of divorces in Mass is declining. So not only is the sanctity of marriage being preserved....its getting better.

I guess I just really don't understand the argument against same sex marriage. They claim same sex marriage will, disarm the quality of life...yet the only proof relevant to this claim, is proof against it! Massachusetts is doing fine.

Then they say...well gay marriage will ruin the traditional lifestyle of Americans . I have two problems with that argument. 1) I don't really see why it matters if there is no consequence for doing so. 2) the tradition of American lifestyle is reforming outdated ideals! Such anti-gay activist ideals...

My favorite is that if gay marriage passes...the definition of marriage will fundamentally change. To which I respond...are you holding a definition above the undeniable rights of a human. But in all seriousness, unless changing the definition has some sort of invisible consequence we are not aware of...why does it matter?

I invite any conservative reading this, to give me one good reason same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed. Anything is fair game.


But to be honest...I don't think there really is any merit behind anti-gay marriage activist ideals. If Massachusetts has taught us anything... its that gay marriage 1) does nothing but allows gay marriage, 2) preserves the "sanctity of marriage" the same if not better than straight marriage, and my favorite... 3) makes an entire population happy.