Obama gets Nobel Prize for war, too

Just weeks after it stunned the world by giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for setting a "new tone" in international relations after only 10 months (or two weeks) in office, the Nobel Prize Committee in Oslo honored him once again by giving him yet a new one for the even stronger new tone in his domestic agenda - the Nobel Prize for War.

In an effort to adjust to the sad fact that force has its uses, the committee has decided to honor the cases in which it is justified: While the first prize is given for those who end or avoid existing contentions, the new one is given to those who escalate simmering spats into all-out, no holds barred battles, or better still, create mayhem in places where little ill feeling was known to exist.

And while Obama's pacific approach has yet to yield much in the way of results from Iran, North Korea, or Russia, there is no doubt his novel approach to domestic contention has achieved new levels of head-banging rancor at home.

In foreign affairs, Obama's MO is to deploy the fact or the threat of ferocity in inverse proportion to the entity's goodwill towards himself and his country, or to the threat it presents to the country or world.

His compliant "new tone" is for the unfriendly parts of the universe. He gives his hand to the "clenched fists" of Iran and Korea, and the back of his hand to our friends. He insulted the British, watered-off the French, and terrified the Poles, Czechs, and Israelis with his perceived disregard for their imperiled existence.

In domestic affairs, this reversal is amplified: He treats differences with barbarous tyrants as misunderstandings that can resolved peacefully, while normal domestic political quarrels require the equivalent of armed intervention. He may not want "victory" when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan, but wants his foot on the necks of domestic opponents, who need to be vanquished, never to rise up again.

Unilaterally, disproportionately, before trying diplomacy, and without consulting the French, he has unleashed bombing runs upon his own people, accused physicians of cutting feet off for profit, harassed a policeman for doing his duty, tried to carpet bomb the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for minor dissentions on health care provisions, and called Fox News an "illegitimate" news-gathering body, for gathering news that he didn't want known.

Like Colin Powell, he wants to "cut it off and then kill it," but he means domestic dissent, and not Saddam's army. He wants to cut Fox News off from its source of supply, and then watch it perish. Instead of the mullahs, he gets tough with Glenn Beck, and his three million viewers. Saddam he was willing to leave in his place.

George W. Bush, who hailed from Texas, was accused of cowboy diplomacy, as in the Colt 45, "High Noon," and the shoot'em-up westerns, while Obama practices Urban Cowboy diplomacy, as in the machine gun and massacre in the garage in Chicago that opens the movie "Some Like it Hot."

Americans like to see him showing some fight, but seem less than enthralled by his choices in targets. They would rather see him bring a gun to a knife fight with Korea, Iran, and/or Russia, than a bat to a spat with professional talkers.

The threat is people with bombs who oppress and kill other people, not domestic opponents who ding his poll ratings. Obama's emotions seem roused by the latter. He may be pushed by events to make certain foreign commitments, but his visceral rage is for critics at home.

The War Prize Committee thinks this is cool. It perfectly fits with its sense of subjective morality: in making the choice between "peace", and people in pieces, it depends on which people whose pieces those are.

In the spirit of Peace Prize laureate Jimmy Carter, who tried to undermine Presidents Bush, Bush, and Clinton while consorting with tyrants, the people in Oslo endorse his priorities.

With Iran, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, peace is in order. If it's Fox News, cops, and doctors, then bring on la guerre.

Examiner columnist Noemie Emery is contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and author of "Great Expectations: The Troubled Lives of Political Families."

Obama: Homosexual Relationships ‘Just as Real and Admirable’ as Heterosexual Marriage

President Obama delivered an unprecedented message to the Human Rights Campaign Saturday night. Sounding more like a homosexual activist than a sitting president, Obama went well beyond his expected message of “I’m here with you” on the homosexual agenda.

“My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians -- whether in the office or on the battlefield,” Obama told an estimated audience of 3,000. “You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.”

Even Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese was stunned at the breadth of Obama's statement, calling it “something quite remarkable.”

"This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States,” Solmonese said in a post-speech statement. “It’s simply unprecedented."

But Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, called the president's remarks “appalling.”

“Barack Obama is basically declaring that these relationships are basically equal to the real thing,” LaBarbera told CNSNews.com. “I think this is the ultimate Obama audacity play – for him, just declaring it seems to make it so.”

The president pointedly used the pronoun “we” – not “you” – throughout much of his speech.

“Do not doubt the direction we are headed and the destination we will reach,” Obama said at one point.

"For despite the real gains that we've made, there's (sic) still laws to change and there's (sic) still hearts to open,” the president said at another juncture.

Obama also talked about homosexual “families” – two men and children or two women and children.

“If we are honest with ourselves we'll admit that there are too many who do not yet know in their lives or feel in their hearts the urgency of this struggle. That's why I continue to speak about the importance of equality for LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered) families -- and not just in front of gay audiences,” Obama said.

The president said he and his wife Michelle had made a point of inviting homosexual “families” to the White House to participate in events like the Easter Egg Roll – “because we want to send a message.”

Obama noted that his administration had extended benefits to the domestic partners of homosexual federal workers and that he had appointed an open homosexual, John Berry, to serve as director of the federal Office of Personnel Management.

As expected, he also mentioned his support for a laundry list of homosexual activist issues, including bringing an end to the military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuals serving in the military and overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as being between one man and more woman.

“I will end ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell.’ That’s my commitment to you,” he said.
But the president also characterized those who oppose the homosexual agenda in terminology reminiscent of last year’s presidential campaign, when then-candidate Obama, campaigning in Pennsylvania, referred to “bitter” residents of small-town America who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them.”

Obama told Saturday's event that there are still people "who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted."

He ended by telling the story of a young man struggling with homosexuality -- "wrestling alone with a secret he’s held as long as he can remember.

“I believe the future is bright for that young person,” Obama added. "For while there will be setbacks and bumps along the road, the truth is that our common ideals are a force far stronger than any division that some might sow.”

LaBarbera said Obama's comments went far beyond using the presidency as a bully pulpit.

“The condescension is glaring," LaBarbera said. "He’s really putting down millions and millions of faithful, moral-minded citizens and dismissing traditional beliefs with such arrogance, it is almost indescribable. It really is amazing.”

“It's just hateful rhetoric,” LaBarbera added. “It’s a different kind of hate, to be sure, but it is hate – he hates our Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Clinton: Nobel Peace Prize Recognizes Obama's World Vision

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she thinks President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize because of his view of America's role in the world.

In an interview broadcast Monday on NBC's Today Show, Secretary Clinton said the president was recognized for his willingness to challenge everyone, which she said has restored the image and appreciation of America.

Critics have said Mr. Obama has not done enough yet to earn the prestigious prize.

Clinton said she does not think winning the award will have any influence on the president's tough decisions, including his deliberations concerning the war in Afghanistan.

In the interview, Clinton also called accusations that she is keeping a low profile "absurd." She said her goal is to implement the kind of changes that are in the best interest of the country, but she also believes in delegating power.

When asked if she would ever consider running again for president, Clinton answered "no" with a smile. She said she has a great job now and is looking forward to retirement at some point.

Clinton, 61, lost her bid for the Democratic Party presidential nomination last year in a tough fight with Mr. Obama.



Some information for this report was provided by AP.

Obama Approves 13,000 Support Troops to Afghanistan

A major U.S. newspaper says President Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of at least 13,000 additional support troops to Afghanistan.

he Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Pentagon is deploying the 13,000 new troops in addition to the 21,000 extra combat soldiers approved by Mr. Obama in March. Officials stress that the latest deployment is made up of support troops, such as engineers, medical personnel and intelligence experts, rather than combat troops.

Pentagon officials say the increase of support troops in Afghanistan should not come as a surprise. U.S. presidential administrations have not routinely publicized large deployments of support troops to Afghanistan and Iraq.

For example, former President George W. Bush spoke only of 20,000 combat troops when announcing the Iraq surge and did not mention the 8,000 support troops that would also travel to Iraq.

On Sunday, a key Democratic U.S. lawmaker said he does not support sending more troops into Afghanistan - a request made by the top U.S. commander there.

Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator Carl Levin added that forming a better strategy in Afghanistan is more important than increasing the number of U.S. troops in that country.

But other members of Levin's party, as well as a majority of Republicans, say Afghan security and governance cannot be improved without more troops on the ground.

General Stanley McChrystal has warned that the United States could lose the fight against Taliban insurgents unless more U.S. forces are deployed, a decision that falls on President Barack Obama.

President Obama has been meeting with senior political and military advisers at the White House for a series of strategy sessions to discuss the way forward in the eight-year-old conflict.

U.S. casualties in Afghanistan have risen sharply in recent months, amid more aggressive operations against the Taliban and other militant groups. Opinion polls show the war is steadily losing support among the American public.

Some information for this report was provided by AFP.

Russian Minister Rejects Iran Sanctions

MOSCOW — Threatening Iran with harsh new sanctions to advance negotiations over its nuclear program would be “counterproductive,” Russia’s foreign minister said Tuesday, throwing cold water on the Obama administration’s hopes that Russia had been persuaded to cooperate with its effort to intensify the global pressure on Tehran.

The minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, said after meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton here that diplomacy should be given a chance to work, particularly after a meeting in Geneva earlier this month in which the Iranian government said it would allow United Nations inspectors to visit a clandestine nuclear enrichment facility near the holy city of Qum.

“At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process,” he said. “Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.”

While Mr. Lavrov’s skepticism about sanctions is not new, his comments came just three weeksafter President Obama canceled an antimissile defense system in Eastern Europe that Russia had strongly objected to, raising hopes of cooperation on Iran. Two weeks ago, President Dmitri A. Medvedev told President Obama that “in some cases, sanctions are inevitable.” Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who was in China on a trade mission Tuesday and missed Mrs. Clinton, has spoken out against using punitive measures against Tehran.

At a minimum, the Russian government does not seem ready to contemplate additional sanctions as long as the Iran and the West are still in active negotiations over its nuclear program.

The next milestone in that process is Oct. 18, when Iran and officials of the International Atomic Energy Agency are to meet to discuss the details of a plan to ship a majority of Iran’s stockpile of lightly-enriched out of the country to be enriched in Russia to a higher grade.

Though Mrs. Clinton stressed the importance of diplomacy, too, she reiterated the administration’s view that it must be backed up by a credible threat of sanctions to keep the Iranians from dragging their feet.

“In the absence of any significant progress, we will be seeking to rally international opinion behind additional sanctions,” she said at a joint news conference with Mr. Lavrov.

Mrs. Clinton insisted the United States did not make any specific requests of Russia at the meeting. But a day earlier, a senior official traveling with her said the United States would be looking for “specific forms of pressure” that Russia would be prepared to back.

After the meeting, a senior State Department official said, “They said they were not ready in this context to talk specifically about what steps they were ready to take,” preferring to do so at the United Nations.

Fox News Is 'A Wing Of The Republican Party'

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn slammed Fox News in an interview on CNN with Howie Kurtz this morning, saying that Fox News "is more a wing of the Republican Party" than an objective news organization.

"The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party," Dunn said.

This follows up on Dunn's comment to Time earlier this week that Fox News is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." And as we've reported before, the White House and Fox News don't have the warmest relationship to start with.

But this morning, Dunn seems to have taken the White House's criticism of Fox News to the next level. For instance, she said that when President Obama talks to Fox News, he approaches it differently than other cable networks.

"Let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is," Dunn said.

And this: "They're widely viewed as part of the Republican Party. Take their talking points, put 'em on the air."

As an example, Dunn pointed to last fall, when the United States was grappling with a financial crisis, two wars and a historic election.

"If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election, what you would have seen would have been that the biggest stories and the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN."

We'll be watching for Fox News' response.