Very few people, aside from the leftist kooks living in the lala land, really believe that President Obama has done anything that merits a supposed honor that a Nobel Peace Price bestows. Putting the political joke of the Nobel Peace Price itself aside, as well as disregarding the previous recipients (Terrorist Arafat, Anti-Semite Carter, Environmentalist Fairy Gore, North Korean Peace Lover Kim Jong Il, etc), and knowing the true nature of the award being in the hands of serious America haters we should understand the potential real world implications of such an award given to our first Black President.

Not being one of President Obama’s biggest supporters I’d like to share a few of my initial impressions of what this means, and it definitely means something. President Obama has not done anything yet to advance the vacuous and disingenuous “cause of world-wide Peace” but there are quite a few big decisions on his enormous plate that are looming over our future.

This award comes right before a hugely important decision on Afghanistan is due. We are at the fork where we will either slowly start abandoning our fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or we will inject the much needed and requested troops into the fight where a chance of winning depends on manpower levels and proper unyielding strategy. This award (or rather the forces behind it) squarely aim to undermine the proper course as unpeaceful.

This award comes at a time when US is engaged on many fronts in the fight against Islamic Extremism and is designed to put a disingenuous thread of shame into any argument defending our war. It was given to undermine the pragmatic continuation of many of our policies from the Bush administration as if to say - “Hey Barack, you are better than this. Be a peacemaker and learn to live with the Islamic Extremists. They are not that bad.”

Ultimately this award is an advance on future policy. A fundamentally anti-American future policy as the people behind the award continuously demonstrated. We will now see how our President responds given this not so subtle push into a very wrong direction.

If you have a shred of decency Mr. President, do not follow on that path.

Two days ago I posted a A Modest Proposal for Social Change which was quite obviously not well thought out. I came up with the idea after talking to a liberal co-worker of mine. We were discussing the reasons for the drop of crime in New York City and he suggested (after reading Freakanomics) that legalizing abortion had a lot to do with it, of course in addition to increasing the police force and changing their tactics.

I did not buy that legalization of abortion had that much of an effect at all, but it brought to mind the point that millions of babies were never born, and what would be a more ideal, non-controversial, and positive way of achieving similar results (of not having poor babies suffering being raised in far from ideal households) without taking those lives.

Unfortunately the easiest way to achieve it is through government intervention and as a conservative I should’ve thought better than proposing such a intrusive, though voluntary, government incentive program that deals with quite sensitive and important reproductive issues. To give any government any control in such an area would be a serious mistake, no matter the initial benevolent intentions. It is a slippery slope and it pretty much amounts to ends justify the means, and the means could be fairly atrocious.

Lots of good civil arguments were made and I agreed with a decent amount of them, though of course being defensive, which prompted some less than sensible exchanges.

I apologize for bringing it up the idea, which while not “liberal/progressive” in nature, with the goal of saving money and reducing suffering, is still a big government utilitatarian program that is ultimately antithetical to my own conservative libertarian ideology.

Social Conservatives mostly oppose abortion, while Liberals mostly support the right to have one. There are few areas of agreement on the subject between the two sides. I have no interest in addressing the subject directy but have an idea that may appeal to most people no matter your views.

The idea of paying for someone else’s abortion is very objectionable to most people, but at the same time the idea of paying for raising someone else’s child that could not have been afforded is, while not as morally objectionable, very unfair and financially painful.

There is a both moral and financially conscious way of taking care of both problems. The government should offer $10,000 (amount modifiable) for any woman voluntarily deciding to undergo a Tubal Ligation surgery (surgical sterilization technique for women). The benefits of such an approach are great. Consider this:

• Lower Class women who have children and can barely afford to take care of what they already have will get a nice bonus and the government will not need to subsidize any new ones.
• Middle Class women who don’t want to worry about the future moral decisions in case of an accidental pregnancy.
• Those who oppose the choice of abortion on moral grounds will see the amount of abortions drop as the amount of pregnancies will drop.
• Those who care about the poor will see less suffering and less unwanted children.
• The taxpayers would benefit the most as the cost of raising a child is easily above a quarter of million right now, and will only go up. The amount of children our government has to subsidize is enormous.
• Crime would go down, since as we all know that a majority of criminals come from the kind of households that produce the most unwanted babies.

The voluntary nature of this proposal, applying to all American women, would ensure that no one could claim discrimination or population control, while providing a civilized way of reducing the number of unwanted babies, abortions, suffering, and governmental waste. It is much less controversial than trying to reduce child assistance to those who keep having babies, or to subsidize abortions. It will save taxpayers a huge amount of money as well as reduce crime in the future.

Tell me why this would not work?

In the American New Left’s eyes, being “democratically elected” absolves you of all evil past, present and future and grants teflon legitimacy impervious to criticism. If you dare to question the actions of the democratically elected leftists (yes it only applies to the Left or terrorists) you will be castigated as an authoritarian fascist.

We’ve seen it with the Left’s insistence on negotiations with Hamas, their love affair with Chavez, and now their new hero - the freshly deposed President Zelaya of Honduras.

To rationally thinking this is nothing but putting lipstick on a pig, which in the above cases is truly insulting to pigs.

Hamas is a terrorist group and their “democratic win” was preceded by terrorism, and followed by terrorism to cement their adherence to democratic principles. Yet the Left screams at both our and Israeli leaders to negotiate with them in good faith and to recognize them because after all they were elected.

Chavez is a authoritarian thug who while winning presidential vote twice (purportedly) has moved to consolidate power and abolish term limits, while suppressing the opposition and packing all elements of government with his own people. Yet the Left excuses it all due to him being “democratically elected” and more insidiously for his communist agenda.

Zelaya, a friend of Chavez, is a wannabe thug. Unfortunately for him, he did not have Chavez’s popularity - even his own party hated him, but his designs on power were the same. He tried to illegally force a referendum on whether the constitution should be changed for him to be able to run again. It’s a common theme in the developing world - thuggish presidents want to hold on to power for as long as possible and by whatever means possible. Obama and the Left immediately started the chant of “democratically elected” and how Democracy must be restored. How much longer will it be until Chavez is spending nights in the Lincoln bedroom?

Democratic elections are neutral tools to let the people decide who should be their leader. They do not grant legitimacy nor absolve all acts, past, present or future. Nor do they turn dictators into freedom loving leaders. Democratic elections do not grant moral value to the people being elected, it is their actions that do.

I just wish that Obama’s committment to “democracy” was the same in the case of Iran.