In all due respect for the Presidency, my humble criticism.  Let’s start here:

Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight.

I am not going there on the “Should President Obama have won?” question.  When an American President wins the Peace Prize it is an historic event.  But note some significant omissions among the four laureates cited:   The 1983 winner: Lech Walesa.  The 1989 winner: The 14th Dalai Lama.  The 1975 winner:  Andrei Sakharov.  Even the 1990 winner:  Mikhail Gorbachev.  All of who fought against communism or tried to give it a human face.  I think this was not an omission; I’ll demonstrate below:

Now, check out this passage:

The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. 

So far, so good.  Cong. Ron Paul has said pretty much the same thing on the floor of Congress.  But we then have this defense of unnecessary intervention from the President:

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

There was no business for us to attack Serbia in 1999.  No national interest required it.  I do not condone what either the Serbs did or the Albanians but it was not worth ONE American Soldier’s life.  It was a feel good war.  It was not declared as required by the Constitution.  I want to repeat again what we did in Serbia:  We attacked another sovereign nation that had not nor was about to attack the United States.  This must never happen again.

The President says this about less violent intervention:

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma – there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

I contrast this to a former President who might have well won a Nobel Peace Prize if there were one in 1828:  John Quincy Adams:  “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”  I believe as a follower of Christ, we may have a duty to act as private citizens, but our government needs to mind its own business and take care primarily of our own people and institutions.  We have unfed children.  We have bad schools.  We have infrastructure needs.  We have mountains of debt that is no being used by foreign nations to try to influence our domestic policy.  We do not need to seek monsters to destroy abroad. 

 I promised you that the omission of Walesa, et al, was not unintentional.  Here is what he said about another President who desered but did not get the Nobel:  Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe.

Mr. President, with all due respect, are you kidding me?  Reagan was clear that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire” (This was from the 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, FL; William Safire in his book “Lend Me Your Ears” cited Henry Steele Commager as saying this was the worst Presidential speech ever.  Reagan should consider that a compliment!) and Reagan was clear from his 1987 Berlin speech what must be done: 

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

It is to General Secretary Gorbachev’s credit that he did tear down this wall.  But Reagan did not help liberate Eastern and Central Europe by embracing arms control and perestroika; he did by arming Europe with missiles, fighting the “nuclear freeze” movement, and embracing SDI.  Gorbachev showed his hand when he proposed in Iceland in 1986 deep cuts in nuclear weapons if SDI stayed in the lab.  Reagan also, with the assistance of US labor leaders, helped Solidarity in Poland when that nation was under martial law.  He worked with Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II to keep the flame of liberty burning.  Now, prise be to God, Eastern Europe is freer than it ever has been!

I am afraid President Obama does not get it.  Here’s what he said about Lech Walesa and Pope John Paul II:

Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa.

The Pope engaged with Poland?  He was Polish!  This was poor wording at best.  It demonstrates a weak understanding of the great victory the West won against communism.  it was a miracle of God.  Whitaker Chambers wrote in the great book that is a great read, Witness, that when he defected from the communist underground in 1937 he was leaving the winning world for the losing world.  It may seem that way some times, but Jesus will come again and make all things right! 

Let’s congratulate President Obama on his Nobel Peace Prize.  But let’s realize that this speech, while masterfully written and executed, contains several serious flaws.

 (I thank Reagan 2020 for research help on Reagan.)

Here is the article from Channel 9 WAFB.  A highlight:

“He and the president have gotten along well when they have encountered each other,” Engster said. “It was President Obama who said he was going to be a bi-partisan president. He’s (Jindal) a likeable person and someone I think the president is comfortable having in his presence.”

This is a video from the same station. 

Here’s the NOLA coverage.  

Here’s a great article from CNN International. 

No word on any special moments for the Governor.  Many prominent Indian-Americans were invited.

Without Sandy’s contributions over the past 6 months, this blog would have been long forgotten. Sandy, I appreciate all your efforts in keeping the blog going. You obviously have strong ideals, a passion for politics, and an appreciation for the potential candidate from Louisiana, Bobby Jindal.

I started this site back in November 2008 to be an advocate for Bobby Jindal and for the type of ideals and leadership he brings to office. My hope for this site is that it becomes a consistent voice of support for the Jindal, and for the ideals he represents. And if, and when he decides to make a run at the presidency, I know the Jindal 2012 Blog will be ready and in position to support Bobby in all of his efforts.

Sincerely,

The Jindal 2012 Blogger

But McDonnell will be a national figure in the GOP.  He won convincingly.  Winning is everything in politics.  I did note that he’ll campaign for out of state GOP candidates but not go to Iowa!  I agree.  2012 is too soon for McDonnell in national politics.  But he may be asked to be the VP for another candidate, maybe another governor who has come to Virginia to campaign for him twice – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana.  You saw it here at THIS blog first…

Paul’s amendment, co-sponsored with Alan Grayson of Florida, will be a comprehensive audit of the activities of the Federal Reserve.  The vote was 43-26.  (I thank several places including the Ron Paul News blog.  I think Glenn Greenwald and the Huffington Post explain it best, so I’ll leave it there.

I will add:  No institution in a free republic is above the law or public accountability.  Of course there are secrets that cannot be disclosed to the public or the timing of the disclosure might be injurious; however, the general rule is all are accountable to the people or their representatives.  Find out if your representative is a sponsor of Audit the Fed and if not, let them know.  I personally spoke to Cong. Cantor (I do not claim he saw the light just because of me!) at the Virginia GOP convention last summer. 

PS:  I can’t believe I cited Greenwald, Huffington and Grayson in ONE post!  I might get kicked out as a conservative!  I agree with Greenwald sometimes, almost never with Huffington or Grayson!

UPDATE:  FireDogLake also wrote about the Paul/Grayson amendment.  I’ll surely be expelled as a right-winger now!  If you want REAL bipartisanship, perhaps Paul’s your candidate…

UPDATE II:  I found Greenwald at Lew Rockwell’s blog.  Thanks to Lew.  I don’t agree with him super often but he’s a great source of Ron Paul and related news.

Hoffman has been endorsed not only by the Assistant Blogger but by other conservatives such as former Senator Fred Thompson, former Governors Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty and Congressman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota.  Hoffman has been endorsed by the newspaper Alexander Hamilton founded, the New York Post, the Club for Growth, and former Reagan administration official Gary Bauer.

UPDATE:  Here is Doug Hoffman’s web site.  GO DOUG GO!

I have this terrible Walter Mitty nightmare: Just after Governor Jindal personally asks me to help him with his 2012 campaign, Congressman Ron Paul decides to run for President as well – and wants me to help HIM too!

I am a Ron Paul voter. I was even in a Meetup group for Paul and tried to set up a rally at the state capitol. I collected a few signatures to get him on the ballot and was interviewed by my local newspaper as a leading RP supporter. I think he is correct on just about every question. I have written on libertarian subjects for Style Weekly, the local urban alternative newspaper. However, I support Governor Jindal because of my personal admiration for him and his accomplishments and that he can change the way people feel about Republicans and conservatives. I believe he could implement some of Dr. Paul’s ideas about smaller government and more liberty in Washington.

Let me suggest several ways to try to get some Ron Paul voters to the cause!

Governor Jindal signed into law in 2008 an act making Louisiana the 21st state to refuse to implement the REAL ID (some call it Dangerous ID and they are right ) Act. That act, at Section 1, paragraph 9, refers to the Tenth Amendment:

That the enactment into law by Congress of the REAL ID Act, will cause unneeded expense and inconvenience to those people, and was enacted by the Congress in violation of the principles of federalism contained in the 10th amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, and thus the state of Louisiana will not participate in the implementation of the REAL ID Act.

Great language! Wait there’s more:

Section 2. The Legislature of Louisiana does hereby direct the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, including the office of motor vehicles, not to implement the provisions of the REAL ID Act and to report to the governor any attempt by agencies or agents of the United States Department of Homeland Security to secure the implementation of the REAL ID Act through the operations of that division and department.

Governor Jindal was lauded by a diverse coalition of groups, from privacy advocates (see the Privacy Lives blog of Melissa Ngo ) to the Best of New Orleans Blog:

(http://blogofneworleans.com/blog/2008/07/20/jindal-vetoes-his-vote/#comment-10900

Even the ACLU of Louisiana commended the governor and the legislature for its bold pro-liberty stand:

“The ACLU of Louisiana commends both Governor Jindal and the legislature for standing up to the Bush Administration in a nationwide movement against Real ID,” added Marjorie Esman, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “The residents of Louisiana should be proud that our state officials honor our privacy and have chosen to protect it in spite of the demands of the federal government for greater surveillance.”

Governor Jindal can strengthen his libertarian bonafides by endorsing Congressman Ron Paul’s leading legislative initiative: HR 1207, otherwise known as the Audit the Fed Act. It has exploded onto the political stage with over 220 co-sponsors. It is obvious from a recent testy exchange between Paul and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke that the Federal Reserve is concerned about this matter:

“I will resist any attempt to dictate monetary policy.”

How can any servant of the people in a democratic republic claim they are beyond the accountability of the people’s representatives? The Federal Reserve is our servant – not our master.

Governor Jindal could simply indicate that if he were still in Congress he would co-sponsor and vote for the Audit the Fed Act (HR 1207) and urge the Louisiana delegation to do so.

Another effort that Governor Jindal could do is work on the elimination of useless, wasteful state governmental agencies. As I wrote in a earlier blog entry (May 13, 2009), Governor Jindal intends to ask the legislature to adopt a “Commission on Streamlining Government” to present a list of governmental cuts with an up or down vote similar to the base closing commission.

This is a key effort. By doing this at the state level, Governor Jindal can show real results transferrable to the federal level.

Governor Jindal also should seek a speaking spot at a future Campaign for Liberty or Ron Paul type event. I think he may find a friendly audience. Tanya Diagle blogged at the Campaign for Liberty website that:

“Recently, Republican leaders got together for a little pow wow in Florida to strategize for 2012. From what I read, the only one with any sense was Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Gov. Jindal characterized it best when he said, “When the Republican Party is no longer the party of fiscal conservatism… then clearly I would argue we’ve lost our way. We have to match our action to our rhetoric.” * * * With all the blah blah blah I’ve been hearing, I heard Gov. Jindal LOUD AND CLEAR.”

This is great news for both Governor Jindal and libertarian conservatives. But the governor will have to explain several votes in Congress on items like the original REAL ID act and support for the renewal of the USA Patriot Act. In fairness, most establishment Republicans voted for those acts and some are just now coming around to the harm and threats these increased federal powers bring. Governor Jindal can easily find ways to explain those votes in a more libertarian manner without endangering his standing with national security conservatives.

We’ll see (maybe at this blog first!) how this plays out.

“At this point, it is not a committed run for President and Pawlenty’s stated goal appears to be to provide a fresh face for the GOP.  Black suggests that what Pawlenty may do is a 501(c)4 organization.

According to Black and his source, the 501(c)4 can raise money, advocate issues and even limited polling related to those issues.  They cannot donate to candidates or give the funds raised (not tax deductible donations but it is a tax-exempt organization) to a campaign.  Pawlenty cannot be an announced candidate.  But he can travel around the country and speak on these issues. 

I respect Gov. Pawlenty.  He is from a clean state – Minnesota has very little public corruption and encourages public participation.  Minnesotans have even voted for third parties from time to time – ask former Governor Jesse Ventura.  He also has a great personal story – son of a truck driver, ordinary origins, etc.  He also is a proven vote getter in a blue state.  He was vetted by the press in 2008.  (By the way, if you are looking for negative stuff here – forget it!  We can disagree but not be disagreeable!)  He appears to be a fairly steady conservative.

I still submit that the new face for the GOP is Governor Jindal.  He has as good a story as Pawlenty.  Son of recent immigrants, Indian-American, graduate of high school at 16, Rhodes Scholar, holding several offices including Congress and Governor by the tender age of 37.  I suggest that Jindal will play better than Pawlenty due to his ethnic background with independents and some liberals. 

The infamous response speech in February does not show Jindal as his best.  I submit that he should have had an audience (Remember how exciting the speech Christie Todd Whitman gave as the response to one of President Clinton’s SOTW speeches – she spoke before the New Jersey Legislature in the state capitol.  There was electric excitement.) and he should have a short hard hitting speech after a brfief introduction of himself. 

Perhaps Governor Jindal should consider the same 501(c)4 entity – to promote ideas such as ethics in government, health care, or other issues the governor is interested in.  He can then talk to groups, advocate issues, raise his standing among voters with solid ideas and he can say with perfect truth that he is not running for President.  But, he is not ruling it out, either…

It’s a long way off until 2012…

It has been my theory that if the 2012 election is hopelessly out of reach that Gov. Jindal will not run and wait for 2016 (wonder how easy it is to change a blog name?) but that Gov. Palin will be encouraged to run so the GOP can have the first woman nominee.  But if the 2012 election is contested, Jindal will run and he can win the nomination and the election.  Of course, former Gov. Romney will try to have something to say about it, too.  Maybe Gov. Pawlenty as well. 

I suggest that the liberal/radical attacks on Governor Palin can backfire.  Camille Pagila had a great column in Salon in November on the Sarah Palin controversy.  Pagila says:

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle.

Isn’t she right?  There’s more:

I like Sarah Palin, and I’ve heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is — and quite frankly, I think the people who don’t see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn’t speak the King’s English — big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns — that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.

That is what the Palin haters fear.  A populist conservative mother who will connect with the American People.  While I prefer Gov. Jindal, if they keep it up, they’ll be watching the inauguration of President Palin in 2013. 

Sandy