Blog @ MoreWhat.com

As the healthcare debate drags on more questions are raised than answered. Perhaps good news for drug companies and bad news for the insurance industry. The partisan bill and vote in the Senate Finance Committee last week may lead to a rewrite this week. The last estimate on the cost of the bill was over $800 billion. And about the only sure thing is that it will cost taxpayers more money. Covering uninsured with tax credits and expanding Medicaid will raise tax bills for the rest of us.

If mandates from Congress force insurers to payout more claims with lower premiums anyone’s math should arrive at the obvious conclusion. Politicians will dictate who wins and who loses yet they have the audacity syndrome to label insurance companies as the villains. Simply because they oppose the idea of losses created by Congress.

One self-proclaimed winner from so-called healthcare reform is from David Snow of Medco Health Solutions, Inc. You may find it interesting to follow the Merck spinoff history of this company. There are those who would say the history of Merck and Medco Health Solutions produced a dark cloud in the trustworthy department. That may raise more issues about the winners and losers in reform.

The ten year eighty billion dollar plan between the White House and Big Pharma is as suspect as the Obama Administration’s claim that the insurance industry opposition to reform is ’smoke and mirrors’. The White House should use those mirrors to check their own claims in the debate.

Read the WSJ piece referenced below to arm yourself with more information for the battle in the weeks ahead. And if you think it is alright for insurers to get beat down by politicians with healthcare reform stop to think who else stands to lose. That might be another job for one of those mirrors mentioned earlier.

CEOs Tally Health-Bill Score
Drug Makers and Hospitals Figure to Benefit, While Insurers Brace for a Big Hit

The drug industry stands to gain in a health-care overhaul by getting tens of millions of newly insured customers, while insurance companies — especially those that cater to the individual market — look like they are in for a tougher time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Upbeat Conservative News, More proof US leaders are wrong

Upbeat Conservative News, Rockefeller on Snowe, Obamacare

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems Support RINOs, duh

Upbeat Conservative News, Nobel Comm ‘pressured’ on Obama

Upbeat Conservative News, Nader disses Obama

Upbeat Conservative News, Liberals Upset with Obama

Upbeat Conservative News, report: Abortion is bad

Upbeat Conservative News, Diversity Chief is ‘troubling’

Upbeat Conservative News, Senate Finance lies???

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems don’t like ethics….

Upbeat Conservative News, Hillary Will Not Run Again

Upbeat Conservative News, Throwin’ gas on Obamacare

Upbeat Conservative News, MSM does Hillary

Upbeat Conservative News, McConnell Supports More Troops

Upbeat Conservative News, McCain Supports More Troops

Upbeat Conservative News, Feinstein Supports More Troops

Upbeat Conservative News, Asia Export Woes Prop Up US$

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems Clueless on Economy, Jobs….

Upbeat Conservative News, Frank disses homosexuals

Upbeat Conservative News, Tax-funded abortions HOT button

Upbeat Conservative News, LeMieux Nixes Obamacare

Upbeat Conservative News, Nobelol pressures Messiah

Upbeat Conservative News, NObel, NObama, political damage?

Upbeat Conservative News, Good intentions… oh, please

Upbeat Conservative News, Audacity of Nobel Comm (CBS)

Upbeat Conservative News, More on lib embarrassment

Upbeat Conservative news, Nobel Obama embarrasses libs

Upbeat Conservative News, Obama throws ACORN under the bus

Upbeat Conservative News, Public still opposes Obamacare

Upbeat Conservative News: Reid, Pelosi at odds = demlemma

Upbeat Conservative News, Go figure, Obama’s mum too!

Upbeat Conservative News, FCC Czar: Mums the Word

Upbeat Conservative News, Pay Czar Justifies Criticism

Upbeat Conservative News, O’s Audacity Not Lost on Illegals

Here’s a story about Russia that mirrors some of the peculiar approaches to real or perceived problems and how people address them. The United States is not exempt from this sort of problem-solving. Beyond the curious choice of limiting container size for beer a familiar addition of taxes enters the picture. And some wonder in the US why President Obama and the liberal agenda are occasionally compared to socialism.

So is this a case of Russia copying liberal practices in the US or vice-versa?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered new restrictions on the sale of beer and similar beverages last month in an effort to battle Russia’s rampant alcoholism. Questions are arising about why he is not targeting Russia’s drink of choice, vodka.

Russia is one of the world’s largest per-capita consumers of alcohol. The average Russian drinks 18 liters of alcohol a year. That is more than twice the maximum amount considered healthy by the World Health Organization.

The Lancet medical journal reported last month alcohol-related diseases caused around half of all deaths of Russians between the ages of 15 and 54.

In an effort to battle Russia’s rampant alcoholism, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced restrictions barring the sale of beer in cans or bottles larger than one-third of a liter. The new rules apply to ‘’light alcohol'’ beverages, but not to wine, vodka or other hard liquors.

The head of the Moscow-backed research group the New Eurasia Foundation, Andrei Kortunov, says it is no surprise Mr. Medvedev introduced the measure. “This is a tradition in Russia. That practically every new leader who comes to power in Moscow wants to do something about alcohol. Everyone understands that it is a national problem and something has to be done about that,” he said.

But some say his efforts fall short of addressing the real problem.

Anna Boguslavskaya is in her 20s, lives in Moscow, and loves the nightlife. She says she goes to clubs and bars on a regular basis and thinks the restrictions are ineffective. She says limiting the size of containers will not solve the problem, it will have the opposite effect. She says people will just buy more bottles of beer.

Kortunov also says limiting the size of beer cans probably is not going to make people drink less. He says he thinks the government’s anti-beer campaign is not targeting Russia’s drinking problem. “You know, beer is not the only drink which Russian population consumes in plenty. I think one of the reasons it happens paradoxically is because most of the beer production is now controlled by foreign companies,” he said.

Russia is the world’s fifth-largest beer market. Danish brewer Carlsberg has about 41 percent of the market share and analysts estimate the rest is shared by other imported and domestic brands.

The government has also submitted legislation that would increase the excise tax on beer by an average of 50 percent per year from 2010 to 2012. The proposal has already affected Carlsberg, which brews Russia’s No. 1 beer, Baltica. The company’s shares recently dropped to a four-week low.

Kortunov says the Kremlin needs to address the real root of the problem. “We should do something about education about enlightening people. We should develop this infrastructure that will allow people to go to sports and fitness centers. We should also advertise a healthy lifestyle,” he said.

In recent months, there have been sporadic government sponsored events at sports complexes throughout Moscow, encouraging people to exercise instead of drink.

Moscow resident Svetlana Andreeva, 25, says promoting sports is a good strategy, but it only targets young people. She says the program is not going to help solve alcoholism for guys 55 years old, whose lives are boring.

Kortunov says he doubts the government’s campaign will have a real effect on the problem. “If it is just the first step, we can give Medvedev the benefit of the doubt, though this step is probably rather a clumsy one. If it is all that they can offer, I think the results are not likely to be that great,” he said.

If history is any indication, Kortunov may be correct. In 1985, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev ordered dramatic cuts in the production of wines and spirits and introduced strict controls on the public consumption of alcohol. The campaign triggered a massive surge in illegal production of low-quality home-brewed alcohol.

Ah, the audacity word comes to mind again in a recent report on, you guessed it, President Barack Hussein Obama. “Our economy is in better shape today than it was when I took office; when we were hemorrhaging 700,000 jobs a month; when our financial system was on the brink of collapse; and economists from just about every part of the political spectrum were predicting that we might be sinking into a Great Depression,” he said.

On the topic of jobs or a more relevant description, job losses, information is so suspect that drawing conclusions or making statements on current or recent conditions is extremely difficult. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recently announced that they will be making downward benchmark revisions to past monthly nonfarm employment data that casts doubt on the validity of the recent figures as well. As we will explain, it is highly likely that substantially more jobs are now being lost than is currently reported.

If President Obama is serious about jobs he should reconsider cap and trade legislation. You don’t have to agree with the report represented by the excerpt below. But we all need to carefully examine that which is proposed in the current legislative agenda from the Democratic party majority. In terms of cap and trade job losses one estimate suggests this policy is seriously flawed. Some of the workers forced out of manufacturing will find employment in the service sector, but overall, the economy loses jobs. In some years, this overall job loss exceeds 800,000.

In healthcare reform the costs to employers and employees may not decrease. Any suggested savings can be eroded by tax increases, penalties for not participating and added costs for additional coverage for those defined as unable to pay. It may be true that healthcare in the US needs change. But the changes proposed or planned to be force fed to Americans may not be the answer. Again, you may not agree with opposition to the current agenda in American politics but blindly accepting any solutions offered is a prescription for disaster.

For the President to suggest that things are better and his policies or positions are correct requires one to take much on faith. That would be similar to the President offering you a sure set of winning numbers for the lottery. And we all know the chances of that proposition working out successfully. While the battle for adopting agendas in Washington DC may not be a lottery the two items have something in common. The winners are on a very short list and you are likely not one of them.

Time to get involved if you haven’t already and push for the truth.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Stimulapalooza: 3.6 Million Jobs Lost is “Quite Positive;” Update: Errors galore (Michelle Malkin)

Update:

The Stimulus Jobs Inflation Index (Michelle Malkin) 

While the recent decision by the Nobel committee to award the 2009 peace prize to President Obama focused more attention on the US leader no more will be said about it in this post. US diplomatic strategy, success or failure, foreign policy and the role of the US State Dept and White House will be. All the talk about rebuilding America’s image, hope and change, a nuclear free world and ends to conflict needs a reality check. How are things going so far?

Not necessarily in order of importance what is on most peoples’ minds these days in terms of international relations or foreign affairs? From the US perspective the countries of note would include Russia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, North Korea and Iran. Of course the perennial favorites not yet mentioned would be any country in the Middle East. Israel and its neighbors are still without solutions. Russia and China are still vying for top dog honors with the US on the world stage. Upstarts Iran and North Korea at the very least want a seat at the cool kids table. So nothing much has changed.

Here’s a brief recap of events in US diplomatic strategy with a ‘new’ President and Secretary of State.

Still no progress in Palestinian/Israeli peace talks

NECN/ABC) - President Barack Obama’s Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, left the region Sunday after failing again to get Israelis and Palestinians back to the bargaining table. The breakdown of peace talks is taking a toll on Obama’s prestige among Palestinians.

President Obama’s Middle East peace envoy on another trip to the region - more meetings - more handshakes with Israelis and Palestinians - but still no progress, no movement in the peace process.

Not a surprise to see a headline expressing failure in Middle East diplomacy no matter who is involved.

What about Iran?

Putin Says Iran Sanctions Talk Premature

By VOA News
14 October 2009

Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin says it is premature to discuss sanctions against Iran for its controversial nuclear program.

And the view from the US Secretary of State…..

“I believe if sanctions become necessary, we will have support from Russia,” Clinton told ABC television in an interview on Wednesday.

This is merely a continuation of the impotent international community’s response to Iran’s nuclear weapons program that was essentially confirmed again with yet another lie exposed with admission of the previously hidden enrichment facility already known to the Obama Administration. And no one will visit the plant until later this month. Like that will solve anything.

Which makes this next sham almost laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic.

Obama to Preside at UN Security Council

By Margaret Besheer
The United Nations

The United States has taken over the rotating presidency of the 15-member United Nations Security Council for the month of September. U.S. President Barack Obama and other top U.S. political figures will be at the world body this month to highlight issues of importance to the United States.

Another rhetorical masterpiece expressing the desire for a nuclear free world without the substance to support such a notion. The exclamation point is provided by the appeasement strategy reminiscent of a similar process that helped usher in WWII.

And what was the defining achievement by press accounts for the SoS Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Hillary Clinton Helps Turkey, Armenia Open Border - ABC News

Clinton uses diplomatic muscle in Turkey-Armenia row | Politics …

Turkey, Armenia Agree to Ties; Clinton’s Skill Tested (Update1 …

The Daily Star - Politics - Clinton hails Turkey, Armenia steps …

Clinton Helps Save Historic Turkey, Armenia Accord - International …

A more accurate appraisal of Clinton’s participation may be the following…..

Clinton to Attend Turkey-Armenia Normalization Deal Signing

By David Gollust
State Department

The State Department said Thursday Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will fly to Zurich to attend Saturday’s signing of accords to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia.

A simple visit to the US State Dept website would bear this out. At least in terms of demonstrating that this State Dept is essentially no different from any other feeble attempt by heads of state to display their conviction to foreign relations or determination to improve conditions in the world. A visit to the website while producing this post featured the following items:

Positive Future for U.S.-Russian Relations

Finding Common Ground With Russia

Secretary Clinton Travels to Europe

U.S. Supports Peace in Northern Ireland

U.S. Supports Emergence of Afghan Government

U.S.-U.K. Advancing Shared Values

U.S.-Ireland Working Together

and travel puff pieces?

So much for the hope and change of a new administration in the US and statements expressed to suggest foreign policy would be successful.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The land of fruits and nuts is a well-deserved moniker for the state of Schwarzenegger. Some call it America’s failed state. And now California’s First Lady is taking some heat off her husband by operating while under the influence of a cellphone. Will Arnold terminate her? Is Maria Shrivering? A report suggests this is the third time she has offended.

The only reason for this post is to point out stupid things in politics. Certainly the Shriver story fits. A report about other stupid things related to this story features a list of ‘idiotic laws’ recently signed by the Governator.

Here’s an excerpt……

The non-haha part of the story, aside from how it provides yet another example that nuisance laws are made to be followed primarily by people who look like criminals, is that Schwarzenegger this week, in the midst of his state’s ongoing financial free-fall, signed still another round of largely idiotic laws. A surface-scratching list: [follow the link for the list]

Let’s not forget to add the cellphone laws. Sure, we have to do something. Too many idiots are jeopardizing safety by texting or other use of wireless devices while driving. The problem is you cannot make life idiot-proof by passing laws to control idiots. You only look like an idiot for doing so.

From childbirth, assuming the new human has not been aborted, parents have a set of responsibilities regarding the child. Not the least of which is teaching it how to behave and act in a manner compatible with intelligent living. It is obvious and there are many examples of how this process has been a failure. Based on all the idiot laws on the books it would be reasonable to suggest failures in raising children require we outlaw having sex.

Don’t laugh. It could happen.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This year’s Nobel peace prize ‘winner’ and Chicago 2016 Olympics ‘loser’ took a break from doing nothing on healthcare reform, managing Gitmo, supporting the troops in Afghanistan or anything else on his deficit busting, debt-laden. tax-increasing government expansion agenda to target American business as his latest villain for the World Apology Tour.

With a key vote nearing, the president slams banks and business groups, saying they want only “to maintain the status quo that has maximized their profits at the expense of American consumers.”

Yes, Mr President, banks and business groups want to maintain the status quo. If that means leaving the free enterprise system in tact. If that also means not trashing the US Constitution and following the rule of law. And where do you get off claiming the pursuit of profit is at the expense of consumers? All this rhetoric of your’s does is support the notion you are a socialist bent on redistributing wealth to create a cradle to grave nanny state in which the government controls everything.

BTW, Mr President, we already have government entities to handle the regulation you claim we need. More agencies, more departments or more government in general is not the answer. Your efforts to be a community organizer from the White House by intimidating and demonizing those who take the risk to be the economic engine of our nation demonstrates your disdain for free markets. Job numbers alone indicate your agenda is not helping. Those jobs are for the consumers you claim to champion. Opposing those who create the jobs will be at the expense of the consumers you mention.

President Obama on Friday scolded business groups that have fought his plan to create a new federal agency to oversee mortgages, credit cards and other consumer financial products casting the debate as a battle between his administration and Wall Street.

Since the 2008 presidential campaign Barack Obama has targeted Wall Street as one of his central villains to the cheers of liberals across the country. Villains are necessary for liberal agendas. And while there is no doubt that some are attracted to the lure of a quick dishonest buck Wall Street is not alone in that regard. Those in government equally responsible for the mortgage meltdown as well as consumers willing to take excessive risk for profit share in the blame that the President seeks to distribute along with the wealth of those who should be held harmless.

You’ll notice that the President is selective in building his list of villains. He is careful not to mention what big labor contributed to the current demise of the once mighty American automotive industry by adding unsustainable pay and benefit packages to contracts over many years. The cost per vehicle of these concessions by management along with unrealistic government regulation of the industry played a major role in the decline of this sector.

It is about time the American consumer engages in those personal practices which increase the probability for success. The President’s call for new agencies and additional regulation is a farce. It is simply a decoy to expand the control by government. If you want to improve the oversight capability we already have, fine, but adding more government entities or programs to regulate business is absurd. Fix the ones you have. And stop creating new villains for your political aspirations.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here comes a rare but necessary crticism for the GOP from this blog. It starts with a review of a recent news story about tort reform. Congressional budget analysts said Friday that lawmakers could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade by imposing an array of new limits on medical malpractice lawsuits — 10 times more than previously estimated. A paltry $54 billion over ten years when the smallest estimates of reform will be near a trillion dollars? And this is a tenfold increase in previous estimates on the tort reform savings?

The idea that a Senate version of BaucusCare would save 80 some billion dollars over ten years was laughable. And this is less. So that would make it more laughable.

New report boosts backers of lawsuit reform
Fri Oct 9, 2009
By Donna Smith

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Limiting medical malpractice lawsuits could save the U.S. government $54 billion over a decade, congressional budget analysts said on Friday in a report that could boost a Republican push to include lawsuit reform in President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul.

How does this news boost ‘backers of lawsuit reform’? Sure, you could make the case that a five percent savings here and a five percent savings there could add up to serious money. The nagging problem is the estimates provided by the CBO are understandably based on the information they are given at the time. So every time the proposals change so does the estimate. And as we all know, or should know, any legislation involving money coming out of Congress is subject to change. And that change typically includes the buyer’s remorse year’s later. Why, the costs always exceed the forecasts or estimates. It is not unusual for those cost overruns to exceed 8 to 10 times of the original proposals.

Another dumb report comes from the LA Times…..

Medical malpractice reform savings would be small, report says

Medical malpractice reform is unlikely to cut healthcare spending significantly, the Congressional Budget Office reported Friday.

Enacting a cap on pain-and-suffering and punitive damages, changing liability laws and tightening the statute of limitations on malpractice claims would lower total healthcare spending by about one-half of 1% each year — $11 billion at the current level — according to an estimate by the nonpartisan agency.

The highest ten year cost estimates typically associated with healthcare reform are around a trillion dollars and some have reached as high as $2 trillion. BaucusCare came in recently at around $800 billion. To make it easier, assume a ten year cost of one trillion dollars.or 100 billion per year. The 54 billion dollar ten year tort reform savings would be 5.4 billion per year. That is about five percent per year not one-half of one percent.

The point is, if you have a five or ten percent savings overall with one or two aspects of healthcare reform it does little to reduce costs. Find eight or ten of these five percent savings and you’re talking serious improvements. The problem is finding them and keeping them effective over the life of the legislation. The amount by which tax increases and lmited options for consumers would change as reality hits reform over time would surely cancel any current estimates of benefit.

Sorry folks, both GOP and Dems will not be able to make this thing work. The best they can do is keep their hands off healthcare.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama is said to be struggling over what to do in Afghanistan. Does the rookie believe ignoring intel, military and state warnings is the answer? What does this say about his campaign rhetoric to get elected and his desire to maintain favor from the far left antiwar liberal standard?

Officials: Obama advisers are downplaying Afghan dangers

By JONATHAN S. LANDAY, JOHN WALCOTT AND NANCY A. YOUSSEF
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration reconsiders its Afghanistan policy, White House officials are minimizing warnings from the intelligence community, the military and the State Department about the risks of adopting a limited strategy focused on al-Qaida, U.S. intelligence, diplomatic and military officials told McClatchy Newspapers.

His worry about public opinion ,aka far left support, and resistance to his own advisors is of such concern the report cited here mentions the problem twice in the first seven paragraphs.

However, the officials said, in their effort to muster domestic support for a more limited counterterrorism strategy that would concentrate on disrupting and dismantling al-Qaida, White House officials are neglecting warnings from their own experts about the dangers of a more modest approach.

Given the antiwar sentiment on the left that both candidate Obama and Clinton pandered to in 2008 their ability to do the right thing and at the same time protect their political futures are at odds with each other. With their own ‘experts’ and others suggesting the simmering conflicts are providing renewed strength for al-Qaeda now is not the time for indecision. Biden’s warning of a test for Obama may be just around the corner contrary to the original forecast.

Instead of national security and defense the liberal new direction is focused on an ill-conceived domestic policy Those issues can and should wait based on the pathetic proposals offered to date. The other matters are of immediate concern and need to be handled effectively. And yes, elections have consequences.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.

September 10, 2009

The average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. August was also below the long-term average. The analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.

U.S. Temperature Highlights – Summer

* For the 2009 summer, the average temperature of 71.7 degrees F was 0.4 degree F below the 20th Century average. The 2008 average summer temperature was 72.7 degrees F.

* A recurring upper level trough held the June-August temperatures down in the central states, where Michigan experienced its fifth, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota their seventh, Nebraska its eighth, and Iowa its ninth coolest summer. By contrast, Florida had its fourth warmest summer, while Washington and Texas experienced their eighth and ninth warmest, respectively.

* The Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota region experienced its sixth coolest summer on record. Only the Northwest averaged above normal temperatures.

As links in an earlier post on this topic indicate the bulk of reaction to President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 demonstrates the validity of all crticism to date for the new American leader. Those who offer rebuttal to this criticism are fighting a losing battle. Given the simple criteria for Nobel’s peace prize and rules of the process for selecting the winning nomination the following excerpt exposes the sham.

February – Deadline for submission. The Committee bases its assessment on nominations that must be postmarked no later than 1 February each year. Nominations postmarked and received after this date are included in the following year’s discussions. In recent years, the Committee has received close to 200 different nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize. The number of nominating letters is much higher, as many are for the same candidates.

Assuming the rules were followed President Obama’s nomination was received less than two weeks after his inauguration. If he has not achieved even one goal related to the criteria to date how did the committee justify their winning selection so many months ago? It is obvious this sham was perpetrated for political purposes as suggested elsewhere. The next item presented below offers no logical support for the committee’s action but certainly provides evidence of the lengths to which some will go in pursuit of indefensible agendas.

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

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. 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.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Oslo, October 9, 2009

The connection to all things Obama with the word audacity reaches another milestone. Shameless promotion of the community orgranizer whose presidency presents a clear and present danger to the United States attracts another partner willing to exploit the weakness.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For the man who invented dynamite and whose legacy includes a peace prize the contradictions keep piling up by those charged with honoring his wishes. Does the 2009 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize fit Nobel’s simple criteria below? And what about the others?

‘and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. ‘

(related items)

Upbeat Conservative News, NObel, NObama, political damage?

Upbeat Conservative News, Good intentions… oh, please

Upbeat Conservative News, Audacity of Nobel Comm (CBS)

Upbeat Conservative News, More on lib embarrassment

Upbeat Conservative news, Nobel Obama embarrasses libs

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

DNC humor czar condemns Nobel Prize jokes (Michelle Malkin)

Nobel Peace Prize Laureates….

2009 - Barack Obama
2008 - Martti Ahtisaari
2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore
2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 - Wangari Maathai
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
2002 - Jimmy Carter
2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
2000 - Kim Dae-jung
1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev
1989 - The 14th Dalai Lama
1988 - United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
1987 - Oscar Arias Sánchez
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1984 - Desmond Tutu
1983 - Lech Walesa
1982 - Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles
1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1980 - Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
1979 - Mother Teresa
1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
1977 - Amnesty International
1976 - Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan
1975 - Andrei Sakharov
1974 - Seán MacBride, Eisaku Sato
1973 - Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho
1972 - The prize money for 1972 was allocated to the Main Fund
1971 - Willy Brandt
1970 - Norman Borlaug
1969 - International Labour Organization
1968 - René Cassin
1967 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1966 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1965 - United Nations Children’s Fund
1964 - Martin Luther King Jr.
1963 - International Committee of the Red Cross, League of Red Cross Societies
1962 - Linus Pauling
1961 - Dag Hammarskjöld
1960 - Albert Lutuli
1959 - Philip Noel-Baker
1958 - Georges Pire
1957 - Lester Bowles Pearson
1956 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1955 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1954 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1953 - George C. Marshall
1952 - Albert Schweitzer
1951 - Léon Jouhaux
1950 - Ralph Bunche
1949 - Lord Boyd Orr
1948 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1947 - Friends Service Council, American Friends Service Committee
1946 - Emily Greene Balch, John R. Mott
1945 - Cordell Hull
1944 - International Committee of the Red Cross
1943 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1942 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1941 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1940 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1939 - The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section
1938 - Nansen International Office for Refugees
1937 - Robert Cecil
1936 - Carlos Saavedra Lamas
1935 - Carl von Ossietzky
1934 - Arthur Henderson
1933 - Sir Norman Angell
1932 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1931 - Jane Addams, Nicholas Murray Butler
1930 - Nathan Söderblom
1929 - Frank B. Kellogg
1928 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1927 - Ferdinand Buisson, Ludwig Quidde
1926 - Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann
1925 - Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles G. Dawes
1924 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1923 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1922 - Fridtjof Nansen
1921 - Hjalmar Branting, Christian Lange
1920 - Léon Bourgeois
1919 - Woodrow Wilson
1918 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1917 - International Committee of the Red Cross
1916 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1915 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1914 - The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section
1913 - Henri La Fontaine
1912 - Elihu Root
1911 - Tobias Asser, Alfred Fried
1910 - Permanent International Peace Bureau
1909 - Auguste Beernaert, Paul Henri d’Estournelles de Constant
1908 - Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Fredrik Bajer
1907 - Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Louis Renault
1906 - Theodore Roosevelt
1905 - Bertha von Suttner
1904 - Institute of International Law
1903 - Randal Cremer
1902 - Élie Ducommun, Albert Gobat
1901 - Henry Dunant, Frédéric Passy