Presidential Hopefuls

[Edward]

I am what I learn ... hmm ... as a teacher, that's a scary thought. How long before they try and make us teach fanatical loyalty mingled with a liberal tolerance of government-mandated philosophy?

Next election I'm voting for Optimus Prime.

[Ian]

believe it or not, obama has been awarded this year's nobel peace prize. i had already lost respect for the nobel peace prize committee after jimmy carter and al gore won, but this takes the cake. here's a good piece about it:

From Times Online
October 9, 2009
Comment: absurd decision on Obama makes a mockery of the Nobel peace prize
Michael Binyon

The award of this year’s Nobel peace prize to President Obama will be met with widespread incredulity, consternation in many capitals and probably deep embarrassment by the President himself.

Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world.

Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.

The pretext for the prize was Mr Obama’s decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. Many people will point out that, while the President has indeed promised to “reset” relations with Russia and offer a fresh start to relations with the Muslim world, there is little so far to show for his fine words.

East-West relations are little better than they were six months ago, and any change is probably due largely to the global economic downturn; and America’s vaunted determination to re-engage with the Muslim world has failed to make any concrete progress towards ending the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

There is a further irony in offering a peace prize to a president whose principal preoccupation at the moment is when and how to expand the war in Afghanistan.

The spectacle of Mr Obama mounting the podium in Oslo to accept a prize that once went to Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and Mother Theresa would be all the more absurd if it follows a White House decision to send up to 40,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. However just such a war may be deemed in Western eyes, Muslims would not be the only group to complain that peace is hardly compatible with an escalation in hostilities.

The Nobel committee has made controversial awards before. Some have appeared to reward hope rather than achievement: the 1976 prize for the two peace campaigners in Northern Ireland, Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, was clearly intended to send a signal to the two battling communities in Ulster. But the political influence of the two winners turned out, sadly, to be negligible.

In the Middle East, the award to Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt in 1978 also looks, in retrospect, as naive as the later award to Yassir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin — although it could be argued that both the Camp David and Oslo accords, while not bringing peace, were at least attempts to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama’s prize is more likely, however, to be compared with the most contentious prize of all: the 1973 prize to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho for their negotiations to end the Vietnam war. Dr Kissinger was branded a warmonger for his support for the bombing campaign in Cambodia; and the Vietnamese negotiator was subsequently seen as a liar whose government never intended to honour a peace deal but was waiting for the moment to attack South Vietnam.

Mr Obama becomes the third sitting US President to receive the prize. The committee said today that he had “captured the world’s attention”. It is certainly true that his energy and aspirations have dazzled many of his supporters. Sadly, it seems they have so bedazzled the Norwegians that they can no longer separate hopes from achievement. The achievements of all previous winners have been diminished.

maybe obama will try to avoid criticism by turning down the award?

[Bryn]

I might think a little better of Obama's intentions, if not his ideologies, if he turns down the award. Though he already seems to think very highly of himself and his "cause." I'd frankly be very surprised if he turns it down.

By the way, did any hear that the 2016 Olympics will be held in Rio de Janeiro. Unfortunately for our President, he was not successful in his bid to host the games in Chicago. Though, according to the press, Michelle Obama won the hearts of the Olympic committee during her speech for the bid. Chicago was not considered passed the first round of bidding, but, according to the press, she stole the show.

[Edward]

That's OK though - the man JUST WON THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!

WHAT ON EARTH IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD?!?!?

[Lily]

I've heard that Obama may have won it for not being Bush.

Ergo, where's MY Nobel Peace Prize?

[Ian]

Oct. 12, 2009, 8:47 a.m. EDT
Obama fails to win Nobel prize in economics
Commentary: Michael Moore, Timothy Geithner also passed over

By MarketWatch

LONDON (MarketWatch) -- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.

While few observers think Obama has done anything for world peace in the nearly nine months he's been in office, the same clearly can't be said for economics.

The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats.

From his $787 billion stimulus package, to the cap-and-trade bill, to the seizures of General Motors and Chrysler, to the undead health-care "reform" act, Obama has dominated the U.S., and therefore the global, economy as few figures have in recent years.

Yet the Nobel panel chose instead to award the prize to two obscure academics -- Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson -- one noted for her work on managing collective resources, and the other for his work on transaction costs. See full story on the Nobel winners.

Other surprise losers include celebrity noneconomist and filmmaker Michael Moore; U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner; and Larry Summers, head of the U.S. national economic council.

It is unclear whether the president will now refuse his peace prize in protest against the obvious slight to his real achievements this year.

-- Tom Bemis, assistant managing editor

[Tuly]

So let me get this straight. Does someone nominate one to to the Nobel Prize? or can one nominate themselves to the Nobel Prize?

[Edward]

I hereby nominate myself for the Nobel Prize in astrophysics! Vote for me!

[Ian]

it's interesting that the deadline for nominations was february 1 of this year, so the latest date on which obama could have received a nomination was about a week after his first day in office.

[Steve]

[John]

For your consideration:


Link

[Tuly]

Maybe we should just have an Obama blunders post. This decision by Obama is more than a blunder to me. Why is Obama comparing this law to the civil rights legislation empowering blacks?. I do agree that no one should be involved in any hate crimes towards any one, but I also will remember the violence some of us received for defending Proposition 8.

Obama signs first major federal gay-rights law
By Margaret Talev, McClatchy Newspapers Margaret Talev, Mcclatchy Newspapers Wed Oct 28, 5:30 pm ET

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Wednesday signed the first major piece of federal gay rights legislation, a milestone that activists compared to the passage of 1960s civil-rights legislation empowering blacks.

The new law adds acts of violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people to the list of federal hate crimes. Gay-rights activists voiced hope that the Obama administration would advance more issues, including legislation to bar workplace discrimination, allow military service and recognize same-sex marriages.

Congress passed the hate crimes protections as an unlikely amendment to this year's Defense Authorization Act. Obama, speaking at an emotional evening reception with supporters of the legislation, said that more than 12,000 hate crimes had been reported the past decade based on sexual orientation.

He spoke of President Lyndon Johnson signing protections for blacks in the 1960s and said this was an extension of that work. "We must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones but to break spirits," Obama said. "No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love."

Legislation barring firms from firing employees on the basis of their sexual orientation could win passage in the House of Representatives by year's end, gay-rights advocates said. More than half of U.S. states currently allow employers such freedom.

Obama has promised to push Congress to repeal the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that prohibits being openly gay while serving. A Senate panel is expected to hold a hearing on that issue next month, and legislation could be debated next year.

Gay-rights activists also hope for repeal next year of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which would give federal legitimacy to gay marriages recorded in states that allow them.

The amendment signed into law Wednesday was named partly for Matthew Shepard , a 21-year-old student at the University of Wyoming who died after a 1998 beating targeting him because he was gay, and whose parents were instrumental in leading the fight for such legislation. The law also was named for James Byrd Jr. , a black Texas man dragged to his death in a racially motivated killing the same year.

The measure also extends protections to those attacked because of their gender or disability.

Federal hate crimes law already covers race, religion and national origin. The new law strengthened it substantially however, by removing a requirement that a victim must have been participating at the time of the assault in some federally protected activity, such as voting, for it to apply.

Matthew Shepard's parents joined Obama for the bill signing, as did the family of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts , who until his death in August was deeply involved in pushing the legislation.

The Shepards' fight took a decade. With recent elections adding more lawmakers who are supportive of gay rights, by 2007 the Congress had sufficient votes to pass the legislation, but then- President Bush indicated that he'd veto it.

Obama, campaigning last year, promised to sign it.

Judy Shepard issued a statement saying that she and her husband, Dennis, "are incredibly grateful to Congress and the president for taking this step forward on behalf of hate crime victims and their families, especially given the continuing attacks on people simply for living their lives openly and honestly."

She also called on Americans to look beyond legislation and work in their own lives to advance acceptance of gays.

Critics of the legislation, including several Republican congressional leaders, argued that an attack against another person is an attack, regardless of motivation and that no special categories are appropriate.

Many also voiced concerns about "thought police" and fears that the new legal protections could curb free speech if those who oppose gay rights fear they could somehow be prosecuted for publicly voicing their thoughts. The law punishes acts, however, not thoughts.

Gay-rights advocates said that the legislation will enable the Justice Department to step in when states can't or won't, and will make extra federal money and resources available to local law enforcement officials who need help preventing or prosecuting such attacks.

They also predicted that it would affect American society in a meaningful way.

"It sends a number of messages across America: that hate will not be tolerated, that this Congress and administration value all Americans," said Joe Solmonese , the president of the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay-rights advocacy group.

Malcolm Lazin , the founder of another advocacy group, Equality Forum , said the legislative progress comes at a time when reported violence against gays is on the rise. Last year, he said, 29 gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans were killed because of their sexual orientation.

"This is really the first federal gay rights bill," Lazin said. "So it is a literally historic moment. This is America acknowledging homophobia as a social problem."

Lazin, who helped organize a demonstration outside the White House on Wednesday calling for more protections, said the legislation "really is the beginning of a process of addressing homophobia in our schools, our communities, our culture. We learned from the black civil rights movement: In 1964, there was the Civil Rights Act, but that didn't mean it ended violence or created equality. It was the beginning of a process that's ongoing. That's how we view the Matthew Shepard Act."

[John]

I found this article refreshing:

Washington Post article written BY JOHN MARK REYNOLDS | FEBRUARY 9,
2011; 7:29 PM (Mr. Reynolds is not LDS)

The Christian case for Mormon values

With former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney both believed to be gearing up for a run for the presidency, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has again found itself answering questions about what these two prominent members believe.

Post reporter Sandhya Somashekhar wrote in a story published Tuesday that Mormon leaders see the ascendancy of these and other Mormons (such as convert Glenn Beck) as a sign "that the community has finally 'arrived,'" but added "researchers say there remains a deep mistrust of Mormons and that little has changed in public opinion to suggest that voters will be more open this year than they were in 2007." If conservative Christians and Mormons share a political agenda, why do suspicions still plague Mormon politicians? Do media personalities such as Glenn Beck help or hurt the cause?

God works in mysterious ways to perform His wonders. Old Testament prophets complained about the instruments God chose, but God went on being God despite their complaints. 2012 is likely to give Americans two serious candidates for president that are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). Many conservative Christians, for good and bad, get inspiration and information from Glenn Beck, who is also a member of the Church.

Should Americans be concerned? Bluntly, no, though those of us who are not Mormon should be depressed that such a small group has outworked, out thought, and out hustled us. Mormon success should spur traditional Christians, who outnumber Mormons by tens of millions, to do better.

Sadly ignorance of the LDS Church is widespread in our culture. Despite over a century of faithful citizenship and embracing family values, stupid stereotypes remain. Magically much of the media easily remembers Glenn Beck is Mormon, but keeps forgetting that Harry Reid is as well. Sacred garments on Christians and Jews are normal, but sacred garments on Mormons?

Of course, there is a vocal fringe of Americans who think any religious person is nuts. These equal-opportunity offenders can be ignored as invincibly ignorant. They don't respect Mormons, because they don't respect Christians, Jews, Muslims, or anybody who thinks we are more than computers made out of meat.

There is another group, sadly not so tiny, that cannot be friends or co-laborers with anyone who does not share their theology or ideology. This sectarianism is the bane of any movement, but most Americans know we can learn and work with almost anyone if they share our values in some area.
There are no good reasons not to consider voting for a Mormon. Theologically, I disagree with the faith's teachings. My professional speaking has included pointed academic encounters with LDS professors about our areas of disagreement. Simultaneously, serious disagreements have not prevented our making common cause on many issues.

Studying Mormonism closely did not make me a Mormon, to the contrary, but it did give an abiding respect for certain things the LDS Church gets right. They have demonstrated things worth knowing. If this is a Mormon moment in American history, there is a reason for it. Their virtues have particular civic relevance today and their theological vices (from my point of view) do not. The LDS I know love America , urge good behavior on their members, and promote many traditional American values. If that bothers you, vote for somebody else--the LDS will fight and die in the American forces for your right to do so.

The LDS Church made North America sacred space. With Native Americans and Spanish mission builders in California , they have loved this land and made it part of their story. The Mormon revelation, whatever its origins, is centered in North America .

Part of that epic is actual Mormon history: born, bred, and thriving in the United States of America . Mormonism is old enough by American standards to feel "ancient," but young enough to make the founding stories easy for Americans to understand. Joseph Smith received his revelations closer than four score years after the American founding. Any literate English speaker can read founding Mormon documents without the need for much translation or scholarly explanation, but knowledge of American history is vital. Most Americans look abroad for "holy land," but Mormons look here.

This gives them a passion for this place difficult for anyone else to match. Other religious groups must work harder to match this sense of place that the LDS Church has naturally.

A great weakness of our lives today is isolation and loneliness. Mormonism is one solution to that problem for many. LDS church services to members and communities are a free market model for private charity. I have personally seen LDS charity help families that were not LDS, but related to a member. The charity gave work-centered help that met needs without sacrificing dignity. The commendable community found in Mormonism should be imitated not attacked.

For good and bad, Mormonism is deeply American. Born on our frontier and nurtured in our wilderness, American values are Mormon values. And yet, no LDS swaggers into the culture assuming he will be accepted. Mormons know the imperfections of American life. An American mob murdered their founder. As a result of their history, Mormons have a thoughtful and subtle take on religion in the public square. This last week Dallin H. Oaks, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, gave an important speech at the Chapman University School of Law in California on religious liberty.

I am sure Glenn Beck would agree that more Americans should read that speech, even if it meant turning off his program. Oaks, a professor and judge, not Beck, represent the best civic face of the LDS Church .

If this is, as the Washington Post suggests, a Mormon moment, it is because Mormons clung to truths now unfashionable and addressed questions others ignore. They suffered exile in their own land, persecution, and the need to change important ideas to be part of the broader culture. This American experience taught them good lessons about America . Being right is powerful and most LDS are right on many of today's big issues: the nature of family, the protection of life, defense of religious liberty, and republican values.

Traditional Christians should learn from their example and patriotic Americans should celebrate their effective service. Mormons like Harry Reid will never get my vote, because his policy ideas do not match with mine, but a Mormon like Mitt Romney could, because I support his good ideas.

Providence works in peculiar ways and it is particularly odd for an evangelical and Orthodox Christian to be grateful for this Mormon moment in American history. But if a Biblical prophet could celebrate the pagan emperor Cyrus for being God's man to free His people, surely we can praise our Mormon countrymen for sounding a trumpet call to rally America to life and liberty.

[Tuly]

This is a big year for our presidential hopefuls. I like this article from the national center of constitutional studies. On how to select a president.
Productive super Tuesday in my opinion.

http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/mar12nl.html

America 's Search for a Constitutional Executive

The Founders of America did not have a very good experience with executives, either in their study of history or in their own day. Whether they were known as kings, monarchs, protectorates, dictators, tyrants, or whatever else, the Founders knew that once a person comes into some authority either by choice of the people or by conquest, he almost always begins to accumulate more and more authority over those whom he governs. They knew it was the nature of mortal man.

A Hard Lesson results in a Wise Decision

As happens with many lessons in life, the process of learning those lessons is a great teacher. Perhaps the Founders had to learn this way, but it almost made them lose the Revolutionary War. During the war they always seemed to be on the razors edge of defeat. When the Founders finally decided to do something about the Articles of Confederation, one of the first problems they tackled was the lack of an executive. They decided an executive branch was necessary. But should it be a multiple executive? And how should the executive be chosen? All of those questions took a lot of debates to answer. In the end, the decision was reached by consensus that there should be one president, but only if the Constitution held him tightly to a very few enumerated areas of responsibility. They also invented a system of checks to make it as tight as possible to prevent a president from amassing too much power. He could not do the things that kings were so fond of doing throughout history. He could not make law, he could not build himself an army, he could not decide to go to war, he could not interfere with the economy, etc. In fact, the Founders gave him the power to function in only six areas:

He is the Chief of State and represents America to the world.

He is the Commander-in-chief of the military which Congress would control.

He is the CEO of the executive branch.

He is the chief diplomat of the United States , but any agreement with another nation must be ratified by the Senate.

He recommends to Congress legislation he feels the nation needs.

He represents the conscience of the nation in granting pardons and reprieves.

[Tuly]

In my opinion all elections are important. It is the time were we get to vote on issues that will affect our families and communities. I hope that if you are fasting this coming Sunday that you will fast for this up coming election day. That you will study the individual issues that will affect your community, state and country. This thread is a good way to post any concerns or questions you might have as you are deciding on our presidential hopefuls. I myself an endorsing the Romney/Ryan ticket.