"How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days"

I got this from Tommy De Seno posted at the link below on October 09, 2009.

Editor's Note: Although President Obama had only been in office for 12 days before the nominations for this year's Nobel Peace prize closed the entire process actually takes a full year. According to the official Nobel Prize Web site invitation letters are sent out in September. Every year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee sends out thousands of letters inviting a qualified and select number of people to submit their nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The deadline to submit nominations is February 1. -- Two hundred five names were submitted for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, 33 of which are organizations. A short list of nominees is prepared in February and March. The short list is subject to adviser review from March until August. At the beginning of October, the Nobel Committee chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates through a majority vote. The decision is final and without appeal. The names of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates are then announced."

Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. Over the last decade the only requirement to win the prize was that the nominee had to be critical of George W. Bush (see Al Gore, Mohamed El Baradei and Jimmy Carter).

President Obama has broken new ground here. Nominations for potential winners of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize ended on February 1. The president took office only 12 days earlier on January 20.

Let’s take a look at the president’s first 12 days in the White House according to his public schedule to see what he did to deserve a Nobel Peace Prize:

January 20: Sworn in as president. Went to a parade. Partied.

January 21: Asked bureaucrats to re-write guidelines for information requests. Held an “open house” party at the White House.

January 22: Signed Executive Orders: Executive Branch workers to take ethics pledge; re-affirmed Army Field Manual techniques for interrogations; expressed desire to close Gitmo (how’s that working out?)

January 23: Ordered the release of federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries. Lunch with Joe Biden; met with Tim Geithner.

January 24: Budget meeting with economic team.

January 25: Skipped church.

January 26: Gave speech about jobs and energy. Met with Hillary Clinton. Attended Geithner's swearing in ceremony.

January 27: Met with Republicans. Spoke at a clock tower in Ohio.

January 28: Economic meetings in the morning, met with Defense secretary in the afternoon.

January 29: Signed Ledbetter Bill overturning Supreme Court decision on lawsuits over wages. Party in the State Room. Met with Biden.

January 30: Met economic advisers. Gave speech on Middle Class Working Families Task Force. Met with senior enlisted military officials.

January 31: Took the day off.

February 1: Skipped church. Threw a Super Bowl party.

So there you have it. The short path to the Nobel Peace Prize: Party, go to meetings, skip church, release federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries, party some more.

Good grief.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/09/tommy-seno-obama-nobel-prize-win/

Hey liberals! Get off Beck's case - bet you didn't see this!

Stick around for when he talks about McCain/Obama/Hillary


Watch CBS Videos Online

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5330485n

"Fix Health Care Policy"

http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/reality/

Here is an interesting site to check out. In the words of Fox News: You decide.

And my opinion, before anyone starts, is that health care reform is desperately needed. Yes, it is. But it needs to be done right and NOT rushed into. This is something major that will affect even our children's children. We shouldn't be so caddy as to assume this current bill is the best thing in it's present form.

How many tries did it take for Edison to create a light bulb?

Anyone? Anyone?

88 million will see their coverage disappear
Despite claims from the White House that it’s “disinformation,” the Lewin Group — a health econometrics firm that has been cited by think tanks and lawmakers across the ideological spectrum -- forecasts more than 88 million Americans could see their current employer-based health coverage disappear under the House drafted bill that includes a new public plan. Part of the shift would be the result of employers making the economic decision to drop their current plans in response to financial incentives built into the bill.

Plus, a health plan modeled after Medicare won’t necessarily be more efficient. American taxpayers could end up subsidizing a health plan that would have an unfair advantage in the marketplace, driving many insurers out of the marketplace and limiting patients’ choices.



Medicaid has a long history of rationing
The creation of a publicly run health insurance option is no laughing matter. Government-run health care programs like Medicaid have a history of low-quality care. By reducing payments to doctors and hospitals, Americans on these programs have a harder time finding a doctor who will accept them as a patient, thus rationing their access to care. The White House might accuse insurers of rationing care, but research shows patients with Medicaid and SCHIP end up in emergency rooms more often than the privately insured and even the uninsured.



Medicare won't be safe if history is a guide
“Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits,” except the lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have proposed to cut roughly $150 billion from the highly popular Medicare Advantage program, which now enrolls about one out of five senior citizens. These plans in this program provide Medicare patients with richer and more varied benefits than those in traditional Medicare. There are a lot of options the government can do to reign in spending for Medicare, which currently is $38 trillion in the red. But any savings need to go toward lowering Medicare’s long-term cost -- not creating a new government-run health care program.



Obama's plan will hurt small businesses
Proposed solutions to pay for a new public health care program have included taxing the wealthy. In reality, this will impact thousands of small business owners who are creating the jobs and wages for most Americans. These taxes will hurt small businesses by keeping them from expanding and adding new jobs. It will hurt workers by stagnating wage growth or even eliminating jobs. New research from Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis reveals these new taxes could mean 400,000 employees could lose their job each year. Spending and new taxes will not be the way to bend the health care cost-curve downward. It will only exacerbate the problems businesses already face.

Perfect example of why we are fighting Obamacare

The first part is about the awful and incredibly stupid Barney Frank. Pay special attention to the next part regarding healthcare provided to the Native American Indians which is GOVERNMENT run. This is what we are trying to avoid. If the government cannot provide decent care to these people, how are they going to do it for millions and millions of others.

http://www.ihs.gov/

News Busted

Where in the world were they?

Seriously. What in the world were they (democrats, liberals, whatever) where were they while we were "messing it up??" What did they try to do? How did they try to make their voice heard? Oh wait. They didn't huh. I guess that's why "mob" is a perfect way to describe people (republicans, conservatives, whatever) speaking up for what they believe in. Ok, as long as it makes sense right... but does it really? NOPE.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/07/obama_i_dont_want_the_folks_who_created_the_mess_to_do_a_lot_of_talking.html

My Congressman voted AGAINST Cap and Trade!

Yes, that's right my (democrat) congressman, Larry Kissell does have some sense, thank goodness!

Last week, I voted against the Cap and Trade legislation. The Cap and Trade legislation put American jobs at risk and could lead to increased energy costs. I could not vote for a bill which may cost hard-working folks in the Eighth District jobs and increase energy costs for our families.

Here at home in the Eighth District, we face staggering unemployment numbers. Most counties are in double-digits with some edging ever closer to 20 percent unemployment. That is unacceptable. We must do everything we can to reserve this troubled economy.

Some said that the energy bill might have created new jobs in green technology, but I could not support that without protections against employers in our district taking jobs overseas. It is my responsibility to protect our district and this bill could cost more jobs.

I believe energy independence is one of the most critical issues facing our nation. America must find a viable, common-sense, comprehensive policy to encourage green energy technology and end our dependence on foreign oil. This bill did not meet those goals.

Until we have a global plan to curb energy use, we risk losing jobs to countries whose environmental regulations are more lax. Countries like India and China have cheaper energy costs and lack any environmental regulations. We have lost enough Eighth District jobs to other countries.

America is the world’s largest consumer of energy. We spend or borrow more than $700 billion every year to purchase oil from foreign countries. That money could be better spent here at home to develop millions of new green jobs and a sustainable domestic energy plan. But H.R. 2454 was not the solution.

I believe our country’s economic recovery will be rooted in green technology. There are thousands of opportunities for our country’s best innovators to create new jobs in renewable energy. We need to put America’s brightest innovators to work discovering new technology and opportunities.

My commitment to promoting new green technologies, improving energy efficiency and exploring renewable resources such as bio-fuel, bio-diesel and animal co-products remains unchanged as does my commitment to bringing more jobs to our communities and fighting for economic recovery.

Energy reform must not come on the backs of American people who are already struggling to simply put food on their tables. I simply could not vote for a bill which may cost hard-working folks in the Eighth District jobs and hurt our families.

Many of you reached out to my offices to express your interest in this vote, and your voices were heard. I voted no to cap and trade because I believe it was not right for our district.

http://kissell.house.gov/2009/07/this-week-in-washington-16.shtml