No Prize

What should embarrass Barack Obama most about winning the Nobel Peace Prize? That it necessarily invites people to compare him to other winners whose sacrifices and achievements make his life seem flimsy? That it extends and magnifies his unbroken streak of unearned distinctions? That it proves more egregiously than ever the brazenly dishonest agenda of the Nobel Prizes?

Barack Obama, who already seemed ridiculous bearing the title "President," has inspired even more laughter since breaking another historical barrier and winning a Nobel Prize for doing absolutely nothing, zilch, bupkus. But as the surprise wears off I find less and less in it to laugh about.

Obama himself is something of an innocent bystander to this travesty. After all, he didn't choose himself. Was that Oslo committee simply swept off its girlish feet by the American president's charisma? Were they so snowed by his windy cliches, or rebounding so hard from their last presidential relationship, that they momentarily imagined that Obama's promises were accomplishments? Actually, there was nothing naive about the Nobel committee's choice of Obama. They didn't award the new U.S. President the Nobel Peace Prize because he's irresistible. They did it to influence him, by paying him in advance for his performance in the international play they have planned. Many commentators have mentioned the possibility that the award might influence the president. But so far only a few have used the correct word for it. Obama's Nobel Peace Prize is an open bribe in symbolic currency.

As an American I am deeply insulted that the Nobel Peace Prize committee should even think that the President of the United States could be bribed with the offer of an honorary title. Do they think this is North Korea? Don't they know that the President is elected by the people and sworn to serve them and uphold the U.S. Constitution? Don't they know that the President's authority in conducting foreign affairs is shared with the elected houses of Congress? The president doesn't own the United States. He isn't even the CEO. The role of the U.S. in international affairs ultimately depends upon the wishes of the American people. So it is an insult to the United States and its people for the Nobel Peace Prize committee to imagine that they could influence the policies of this country by bribing the guy that we have entrusted with the nation's business. The nerve of them.

Of course it was no compliment to Barack Obama either, imagining that a statesman lucky enough to have won the trust of the world's most experienced democratic citizenry would allow his head to be turned by a pompous-sounding title conferred by a pretentious little committee. They must think Mr. Obama's quite a sucker for prestige, as little respectful of the American people as they are, and easily corruptible. I'd hate to think our president could have done something to give them that idea.

No doubt plenty of people and entities would like to exercise improper influence on an American president, and some have succeeded to one degree or another. But a president who accepts a bribe openly places his integrity under permanent suspicion. President Obama stated yesterday that he would accept the Nobel Peace Prize, but he should be encouraged to change his mind. Indeed there is a provision of the U.S. Constitution that subjects the President's acceptance of titles and gifts to the approval of Congress. If President Obama is not honest or smart enough to drop this bribe like a hot potato, members of Congress, including his friends, should slap his wrist before he burns himself even worse than he has already. I hope our representatives in Congress are keeping abreast of their responsibilities. For my part, I shall be writing to Senators Voinovich and Brown to point out that a foreign entity has offered the President a coveted title as a bribe to influence his conduct of the nation's business, and that the Congress has the power to prevent him from accepting it.

Our president should tell the Nobel Prize Committee publicly that their prize is an insult to him and the people he represents, because it is an insult, and everyone knows it, including and most of all the Nobel committee itself. Of course there is little chance the president will do that, or that the Democrats in Congress, so deep in lies and corruption themselves, would suddenly decide to declare the nudity of their own emperor and prohibit him from accepting the poisoned gift from Oslo. But for the rest of us, it's important that we tell the truth, now, the next day, and often: the President of the U.S. has been offered a bribe, publicly, for all to see, and when he accepts it in December, he will have accepted a bribe. Let him spend the rest of his life explaining that it never influenced his conduct of the Presidency.

Top Ten Titles for Friendly Leader's Infomercial

After welcoming himself into our homes last night to tell Americans who we are, celebrity self-endorser Barack Hussein Obama seems well positioned to add more statuary to the Grammy he won for reading the audiobook of Dreams from My Father. (And every word he read was his own!) Will that be an Oscar gracing the Green Room mantelpiece? An Emmy? Golden Globe? Whatever. But Obama's cinematic masterpiece will need a title before Barbra can announce "the winner is". Hmmmm....The Postliberal has a few suggestions.

1. "The Night the Earth Stood Still"
2. "A Convenient Lie"
3. "Dependence Day"
4. "No Sudden Moves"
5. "A Joe Named Barack"
6. "Barack Obama's Day Off"
7. "Invasion of the Money Snatchers"
8. "The Plot Against Amerika"
9. "Ocean's 14: The White House"
10. "Triumph of the Nil"

Readers of The Postliberal are invited to submit their own suggestions, before the high wears off.

Can Random House and Obama Be Sued? Ask Arista Records and Milli Vanilli

If Barack Obama didn't actually write Dreams from My Father himself, could Random House and Obama be sued on behalf of consumers? I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't venture to say. However, the case of the early '90s rock act Milli Vanilli might offer some precedent. Here a promoter created a sound with certain performers, but since he didn't like their stage presence, he hired other performers to act as a front. The act became very successful (like Barack Obama they won a Grammy) but a technical malfunction during a "live" performance revealed that the guys on stage were lip-synching. Evidently the country wasn't ready for Milli Vanilli in the White House, since the media made much hue and cry about the deception, and the promoter eventually confessed. In the aftermath at least 26 lawsuits were filed on behalf of consumers (according to the Wikipedia article linked above) and substantial damages were awarded.

In principle the cases of Milli Vanilli and Dreams would appear to be similar, if it could be shown that Obama was not the author of Dreams, which I deem reasonably suspected. In the Milli Vanilli case the promoter's confession made things easy for consumers and their advocates; but one doubts that Barack Obama will put the interests of consumers ahead of the royalties he's collecting. Anyone concerned about whether a President Obama will redistribute wealth need only consider how much wealth author Obama has redistributed from consumers into his own swollen bank accounts.

Stop the Smears: Obama's Middle Name

I heard recently that a newspaper formerly fit to print has published an article revealing the source of the vile rumor that Barack Obama is Muslim. The alleged source is one eccentric person who has spread the rumor via the Internet.

This piece of investigative trivialism is a perfect example of the disinformation that the MSM has spun around the Obama campaign. It should be obvious to anyone that the source of the rumor that Obama is Muslim is none other than Obama himself. His name is Barack Hussein Obama. Duh! Is it any wonder that he has to go around insisting "I am a Christian, I am a Christian, I am a Christian," like a broken record? Maybe he could send the message more efficiently by adding another middle name that would symbolize his putative Christian faith. It's been done; the Pope's name wasn't always Benedict. But unless Obama either augments his nomenclature or loses the "Hussein," some people will think that he's Muslim. And not unreasonably.

One of the small but telling symptoms of the MSM's official war on free speech is the prohibition against mention of Barack Obama's middle name. It's like Holocaust denial in Europe (except not yet illegal): mention "Hussein" and you're a bigoted nut, a public menace who must be silenced. Of course there are problems with this. One is that in this country we don't silence people unless very special circumstances justify it. Another is that Hussein is Obama's middle name. How can it be forbidden to refer to someone by his actual name? Most accepted restrictions on speech concern statements that are untrue: you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there isn't a fire, and you can't spread harmful lies about people. But this case is different: the MSM is forbidding Americans to tell the truth. It may seem like a small matter. I hope that with the perspective of time it seems even smaller. But I think there's a chance it's a symptom of something bigger.

Personally I am not too concerned about Obama's middle name, and I am not too concerned about whether he is Muslim. I am concerned about whether he is truthful, and given that his middle name is Hussein I don't think he should hide it. Americans like to use the middle names of presidents, and since Obama is hoping to be president, he's hoping to be called by his middle name. (Americans also like to use initials for their presidents, and if Obama and the MSM aren't comfortable with BHO, BO will be their only other option.) I also don't think Obama should welcome or accept the MSM's effort to restrict the speech of Americans when they talk about him. But he does accept it.

Now if Obama and the MSM had concocted a little title for the leader and insisted that everybody use it when referring to him, that would be offensive in a very obvious way. Insisting that references to the leader not use a certain word is much more subtly offensive. But there is a common principle at work, the principle that we can and should be told what to say. So I must confess that I have grown resentful of the way the use of Obama's middle name has been prohibited. What is a name, anyway? It's what you're called. If it's OK for Hussein to use Hussein, then it's OK for everyone else to use it too. From now on, I'm calling him Hussein. Why not? It's easier to say than "Dubya".

MSM Exclusive: Katie and Ayers, One-on-One

Just kidding.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that nobody has interviewed Bill Ayers and asked him about his relationship with former neighbor Barack Obama? Find out what it was like to have an accidental brush with a talented Chicagoan before anybody imagined he could run for president? Get Ayers' ironic perspective on the way his practically nonexistent relationship with someone he hardly knew has been blown all out of proportion by the capitalist-controlled media? With Ayers' name on everyone's lips, wouldn't journalists want to get the story? It's a natural!

I wouldn't think getting an interview with Bill Ayers would be hard. He's a public figure, and not just because he was a terrorist in the Weather Underground. He was "Educator of the Year" in Chicago. Was praised by Mayor Richard Daley. Ayers has given lots of interviews, including one right after 9/11 if I'm not mistaken. Had his picture taken in his University of Illinois-Chicago Circle office. Posed with his foot on the American flag. The guy's not unknown and he's not shy. Ayers loves to talk. He's a journalist's dream. The story is ripe for the plucking.

So when are we going to see it?

I did notice somewhere on the web that Ayers has declined to give interviews until after the election. I don't know whether this is true or not, since I haven't tried to interview him myself.

If it's not true, then I repeat my plea to the MSM: what's holding up the Ayers interview?

If it is true that Ayers declines to be interviewed, then I have some other questions.

Like, how do we know it's true? Who has sought to interview Bill Ayers? Has Brokaw invited him to appear on "Meet the Press"? Does Matt Lauer call every day to try to get him on "The Today Show"? Did the NY Times contact him for their front-page story about his non-close-relationship with Barack Obama? And if they did, and Ayers declined to be interviewed, why haven't they reported Ayers' refusal?

And this question: why would Bill Ayers decline interviews? He's not what you'd call a private person. Normally when a figure is in the news but they decline interviews, it means they're hiding something. What could Bill Ayers be hiding? It's not illegal to be on a foundation board. And it's not illegal to be a not close friend of Barack Obama. You'd think the worst that could happen would be that the interview would be boring.

Maybe I've watched too many movies, but if Bill Ayers isn't talking, he thinks there's something he isn't talking about. Therefore, his silence is all the more reason that journalists should want to talk to him. Of course they can't make him submit to an interview. But they don't need his permission to surround his house, follow him everywhere, and shout at the camera about his evasions. Why aren't they doing that? (Not even Fox.)

The public needs to demand an interview with Bill Ayers. Even if we don't get it, we can call attention to the fact that we aren't getting it, and what that implies. And we can also call attention to the fact that the MSM, by all appearances, has collaborated with Bill Ayers in keeping whatever secret he's keeping.

Let's everyone spread this question around the web: When will they interview Ayers? And let's inundate every medium we know of with the question: When will you interview Ayers? When? When? When? We demand to know. We won't stop filling your inboxes until you tell us!!!!!