Upon eight occasions in the 20th and 21st Centuries the Olympics have been held in the United States of America: 1904 Summer Olympics, St. Louis, Missouri, 12 nations participating; 1932 Winter Olympics, Lake Placid, New York, 17 nations; 1932 Summer Olympics, Los Angeles, 37 nations; 1960 Winter Olympics, Squaw Valley, California, 30 nations; 1980 Winter Olympics, Lake Placid again, 37 nations; 1984 Summer Olympics, Los Angeles again, 140 nations; 1996 Summer Olympics, Atlanta, 197 nations; 2002 Winter Olympics, Salt Lake City, 77 nations.
No President of the United States or Federal bureaucracy contributed to the eight victories in choosing an American site. Something is becomingly increasing obvious about the Barack Hussein Obama Administration, fortified by the largest national debt in history and a Chief of State who fancies himself a world leader - it will intrude, take over, grab the ball, run the track (however one wants to phrase it) whenever and wherever possible.
That many other sovereign governments - some socialist, some dictatorships, some absolute monarchies, so forth - directly seek to influence the location of the Games is an irrelevant fact. They do not function under the Constitution of the United States of America or an equivalent; they have little or no separation of functions in a tripartite national government; almost none is a federalist system.
There may be few, if any, activities or functions which the Obama Administration and/or the President personally would not like to lead or, even preferably, dominate. Thus, perhaps it is not surprising that the Administration has created the White House Office of Olympic, Paralympic and Youth Sport - yes, that’s the title!
Beyond that, guess what? For the first time in history, the President appears before the International Olympic Committee. The President goes to Copenhagen, uses American - and his own - prestige and influence, spending American taxpayers’ money, to attempt to capture the 2016 Olympic Games for Chicago. The result is dramatic disaster. On the first ballot he strikes out. Chicago receives only 18 votes, while Tokyo gains 22, Rio de Janeiro 26, Madrid 28. According to the balloting rules, Chicago at the bottom is eliminated. On the third ballot Rio de Janeiro is chosen.
To what extent is the dramatic defeat an insult to the United States of America? To what extent a personal insult to the President himself? To what extent a commentary upon the notorious politics of crime-ridden Chicago?
Whatever the evaluations, the result is an embarrassing defeat. Let the result also be yet further proof of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and of the Constitution in establishing what is supposed to be a limited Federal Government.
Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.
Gasps echoed through the Nobel Hall in Oslo yesterday as Barack Obama was unveiled as the winner of the 2009 Peace Prize, sparking a global outpouring of incredulity and praise in unequal measure.
Mr Obama was sound asleep in the White House when the Norwegian Nobel Committee made the shock announcement. It said that he was being honoured for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”.
In a clear swipe at his predecessor, George W. Bush, the committee praised the “change in the international climate” that the President had brought, along with his cherished goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future,” it added.
International reaction ranged from delight to disbelief. The former winners Kofi Annan and Desmond Tutu voiced praise, the latter lauding the Nobel Committee’s “surprising but imaginative choice”.
But Lech Walesa, the dissident turned Polish President, who won the Peace Prize in 1983, spoke for many, declaring: “So soon? Too early. He has no contribution so far.”
Mr Obama’s domestic critics leapt on the award as evidence of foreigners fawning over an untested “celebrity” leader. Rush Limbaugh, the US right-wing commentator, said: “This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama."
Speaking later, Mr Obama said that he was “surprised and deeply humbled” by the unexpected decision and announced that he would donate the £880,000 prize, due to be awarded in December, to charity.
“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," he said.
The Nobel Peace Prize is a notoriously difficult award to predict, but yesterday's decision was clearly a political choice, with three of the past six peace awards going to Bush adversaries.
In 2002 the prize went to Jimmy Carter as an explicit rejection of the Bush presidency in the build-up to the Iraq war. In 2005 Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN atomic agency chief who had clashed with Washington over the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was honoured. In 2007 Al Gore received the prize for his warnings on climate change, denounced by President Bush as a liberal myth.
The award is also an example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for.
Thorbjørn Jagland, the committee chairman, made clear that this year’s prize fell in that category. “If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do,” he said. “It could be too late to respond three years from now.”
But Bobby Muller, who won the Nobel Prize as co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, told The Times: "I don't have the highest regard for the thinking or process of the Nobel committee. Maybe Norway should give it to Sweden so they can more properly handle the Peace Prize along with all the other Nobel prizes."
Surprise Nobel Win, Just 37 Weeks Into Presidency, Draws Praise, Scorn, Bafflement
By NEIL KING JR. and PAUL SONNE
The Nobel committee provoked surprise, delight, and indignation around the globe Friday by awarding its Peace Prize to President Barack Obama -- with the recipient himself calling it less a recognition of his accomplishments than a "call to action."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the 48-year-old president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population," the committee said.
The award to Mr. Obama just 37 weeks into his presidency stunned much of official Washington, and drew a range of reactions world-wide. "So soon? Too early," said former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the peace prize in 1983. "He has no contribution so far. He is only beginning to act."
Said John Bolton, who served as ambassador to the United Nations under former President George W. Bush: "It is indicative of the politicization of the Nobel Peace Prize process. This just carries it to the n-th degree."
Supporters said the award affirmed the vision the president brought to office, one that is popular overseas. Former President Jimmy Carter, who won the 2002 Peace Prize, called it "a bold statement of international support for his vision and commitment."
The prize also inspired heated debate about whether it would give Mr. Obama a boost at a difficult political moment or be a liability for a president whom opponents have criticized for having more "star power" than substance. At home, the administration is grappling with challenges ranging from high unemployment to a soaring federal deficit, while public support for the president has dropped to nearly 50% in polls. Abroad, the White House is rethinking its military strategy in Afghanistan, including the prospect of a big troop increase, while trying to build support for action to stem Iran's nuclear program.
Obama aides said the White House had no time to discuss the ramifications of the prize, good or bad, or how it might alter his presidency or his standing. "There wasn't a lot of time to contemplate the magnitude of this," said senior White House adviser David Axelrod. Mr. Axelrod said he knew nothing of the president's candidacy; it wasn't clear Friday who had nominated him.
Speaking in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said he was "deeply humbled" and didn't feel he deserved to be among "so many of the transformative figures who've been honored" by the prize. But he would accept the prize, he said, "as an affirmation of American leadership."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who called Mr. Obama at around 6 a.m. to break the news, said the president never considered declining the award, as some critics -- on the left and the right -- began suggesting he do almost immediately.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said Mr. Obama had nothing to fear from raised expectations or possible attacks from critics that the prize outstrips his accomplishments, "because this is associated with the content of his work."
The commitee's decision made Mr. Obama the third sitting U.S. president to win the prize, after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. It came 45 years after the prize went to Martin Luther King Jr., the last African-American to win.
Recent Peace Prize Winners
2009 -- U.S. President Barack Obama for efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation.
2008 -- Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari for peace work from Namibia to Kosovo.
2007 -- Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
2006 -- Muhammad Yunus and Bangladesh's Grameen Bank for work to end poverty.
2005 -- The International Atomic Energy Agency and its head, Mohamed ElBaradei.
The committee that chose President Obama is comprised of five Norwegians, mostly former lawmakers and politicians, who are elected to six-year terms by Norway's parliament. The committee received 205 nominations for the peace prize this year, more than ever before.
All nominations had to be submitted by Feb. 1, just 12 days after the president took office. Members of the committee selected him after holding seven meetings and eliminating nominated candidates at each one.
Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician and member of the committee, said in a phone interview that the choice of Mr. Obama was primarily related to his stance on nuclear disarmament. Ms. Valle said the committee last met on Oct. 5, and that the decision to choose him was unanimous. She said his recent work at the United Nations in late September to pass a resolution calling for a strengthened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty helped his candidacy.
"There is a criticism about the war in Afghanistan, and I understand that," said Ms. Valle. "But this was primarily an award on his work on, and commitment to, nuclear disarmament -- and his dialogue. Of course there will be criticism, because he hasn't achieved his goals yet. It will take time, but this is a support."
It is possible Mr. Obama was nominated by the committee itself, or at least its Social Democrat members. The committee accepts nominations from former peace prize winners; current and former members; members of national governments and parliaments; professors of law, theology, social sciences, history and philosophy; leaders of peace research and foreign affairs institutes; and members of international courts of law.
Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland has been an enthusiastic Obama supporter in Norway. He was recently elected to the post of Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the continent's leading human-rights watchdog, and would like the Nobel committee to play a more political role.
In the handicapping before the announcement, there was no clear favorite, though Zimbabwean Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai was seen as a potentially strong candidate. Other names included the Vietnamese Buddhist monk and democracy advocate Thich Quang Do.
Mr. Obama's win includes a cash award equal to $1.4 million. The White House said he plans to give the money to charity.
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer recently devoted time to fact-checking a Saturday Night Live skit that cast a less than favorable light upon failure of The One to deliver on his campaign promises.
Surely Mr. Blitzer will follow up with an analysis of the lack of basis for the Nobel committee’s awarding its Peace Prize to President Obama.
He will find his rebuttal work easy.
The President has done exactly nothing in the way of concrete action to stabilize volatile foreign conditions or to restrain rogue states (Iran, Russia, North Korea) that continually work to destabilize world political and economic conditions. No effective action, just talk, talk, talk. All of that talk has been ignored by rogue states, which have contemptuously dismissed Obama’s empty words and continued unrestrained in their campaigns to dominate Asia and the Middle East.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
President Barack Obama said Friday that he is honored to win the Nobel Peace Prize and will accept it as a “call to action” to work with other nations to solve the world’s most pressing problems.
Should the Peace Prize be awarded as an incentive to action, rather than as a recognition of things done?
Why did the Committee award the Peace Prize to Obama? or, for that matter, to Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and Yassar Arafat?
The answer appears to lie in the Scandinavian worship of the socialist political state and its aspirations to world government. As world government is a long way from reality, the Peace Prize goes to propagandists who most loudly mouth platitudes or jeremiads about perfecting all of humanity through the UN’s socialist control of the world’s economic and political institutions.
Why not a retrospective award to socialist stalwart Joseph Goebbels for his work in bringing Hitler’s National Socialist Third Reich into being, with its “tomorrow the world” promise of a new world order?
