http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8299824.stm

The committee said he won for efforts to boost diplomacy and co-operation.

"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," the Norwegian committee said in a statement.

"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."

Since when does a U.S. president govern based on "values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population?"

So, the Nobel Committee believes that to lead the world, you must do so through consensus. That consensus being based primarily in countries other than the one Obama took an oath to protect. After all the U.S. doesn't represent a majority of the worlds population. So if Obama were to govern based on the world's consensus; the U.S. citizens would have much less pull when compared with the rest of the world.

Asked why the prize had been awarded to Mr Obama less than a year after he took office, Nobel Committee head Thorbjoern Jagland said: "It was because we would like to support what he is trying to achieve".

So Obama is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for things he has not yet done. Does this not illustrate the illegitimacy the Nobel Committee?

Obama's response is rather strange:

"I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honour specific achievements," he said.

"It's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century."

How exactly is a prize awarded to Obama "a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st Century?" Were all other world leaders sitting on their hands until the moment that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? This is absurd.

The real reasoning behind this award is that Obama is currently, and will continue, to weaken the United States. Obama's policies have, and will reduce the United States' influence globally.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112777942

Iran's president hit back Saturday at President Barack Obama's accusation that his country had sought to hide its construction of a new nuclear site, arguing that Tehran reported the facility to the U.N. even earlier than required.

Obama and the leaders of France and Britain accused Iran of keeping the construction hidden from the world for years. The U.S. president said last month that Iran's actions "raised grave doubts" about its promise to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes only.

ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has also said Tehran was "on the wrong side of the law" over the new plant and should have revealed its plans as soon as it decided to build the facility.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged that view in a speech Saturday, saying that Iran voluntarily revealed the facility to the IAEA in a letter on Sept. 21. He said that was one year earlier than necessary under the agency's rules.

"The U.S. president made a big and historic mistake," Iranian state TV quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. "Later it became clear that (his) information was wrong and that we had no secrecy."

White House spokesman Tom Vietor said the administration had no comment on Ahmadinejad's remarks.

Iranian officials argue that under IAEA safeguard rules, a member nation is required to inform the U.N. agency about the existence of a nuclear facility six months before introducing nuclear material into the machines. Iran says the new facility won't be operational for 18 months, and so it has not violated any IAEA requirements.

The IAEA has said that Iran is obliged under the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to notify the organization when it begins to design a new nuclear facility.

Iran says it voluntarily implemented the Additional Protocol for 2 1/2 years as a confidence-building gesture, but its parliament passed legislation in 2007 forcing the government to end such cooperation after the country was referred to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.

The IAEA has countered by saying that a government cannot unilaterally abandon such an agreement.

Does Iran have a nuclear program? Yes. Are they using it for peaceful endeavors? Probably not. Should Iran be forced to do what the U.N. tells it to do? No.

I hate to take the side of Iran here, but I think that there is quite a bit to consider here. The U.N. placed more stringent rules on Iran when it comes to reporting on their nuclear activity. So does Iran, as a sovereign nation, have the right to overrule the U.N. measure? I say yes. I think this sets a dangerous precedent; when the U.N. demands that a sovereign nation bend to its will.

Iran made a decision to stop going along with the U.N. protocol. This, because the protocol, led to Iran being turned over to the U.N. Security Council for sanctions. Sanctions were placed on Iran which caused economic problems, so the Iranian government decided to ignore the protocol. Makes sense to me.

Why is this a dangerous precedent?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/5050407/US-backing-for-world-currency-stuns-markets.html

US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner shocked global markets by revealing that Washington is "quite open" to Chinese proposals for the gradual development of a global reserve currency run by the International Monetary Fund.

"The mere fact that the US Treasury Secretary is even entertaining thoughts that the dollar may cease being the anchor of the global monetary system has caused consternation," he said.

Mr Geithner later qualified his remarks, insisting that the dollar would remain the "world's dominant reserve currency ... for a long period of time" but the seeds of doubt have been sown.

The value of the dollar could be controlled --entirely by outside forces.

Other than the fact that the United States Dollar, currently, is the unit of world trade; what is there to keep the U.N. from placing sanctions against the United States?

The U.N. is not exactly filled with U.S. friendly countries if you remember. Polling shows that most Europeans would like to see a weaker United States, or at least a United States with less influence. The vast majority of votes in the U.N. are votes against the United States.

Just something to think about...

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Seen here, Obama is fighting hard to bring the Olympics home to Chicago in 2016.

The coverage surrounding this event is quite telling.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aJGgV4ECYwKs

Obama will attend the final presentation on Oct. 2 before the International Olympic Committee for the bid by his adopted hometown of Chicago, Jarrett said in an interview.

“It strengthens our bid,” she said. “There is nothing like the president expressing what it means to him.”

Chicago is competing against Madrid, Rio de Janeiro and Tokyo. Organizers of the U.S. bid had been lobbying the White House to have Obama make the final pitch, although the president had previously said he was too busy with the battle in Congress over health-care legislation.

“President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama symbolize the hope, opportunity and inspiration that makes Chicago great, and we are honored to have two of our city’s most accomplished residents leading our delegation in Copenhagen,” Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley said in a statement issued by the Chicago 2016 bid committee.

“President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama will both make presentations to the IOC during Friday’s session,” the White House said in a statement. “They will discuss why Chicago is best to host the 2016 Summer Games, and how the United States is eager to bring the world together to celebrate the ideals of the Olympic movement.”

I didn't know that the Olympics were about Obama. I thought that the Olympics were for everyone. Did anyone really think that the Olympic committee wanted to hear about what the Olympics mean to Obama? If Obama were not the President of The United States, this would be hilarious.

This goes back to the story about the speech to school children. Remember the original lesson plan? What can your child do for the president? Does your child understand what the president is doing for him, or her? EVERYTHING is about Obama ALL THE TIME.

Why is everything so personal with this president?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33141209/ns/politics-white_house/

Chicago had seemed to pick up momentum in the last few days, with many IOC members seemingly charmed by Mrs. Obama, who came to Copenhagen ahead of her husband. But when IOC president Jacques Rogge announced the first vote's results, while the Obamas were flying home on Air Force One, Chicago was out.

In making his pitch, the president had said that a nation shaped by the people of the world "wants a chance to inspire it once more." Never before had a U.S. president made such an in-person appeal, and Obama's critics will doubtlessly see the vote as a sign of his political shortcomings.

"I urge you to choose Chicago," Obama told members of the International Olympic Committee, many of whom he later mingled with as some snapped photos of him on their cell phones.

"And if you do — if we walk this path together — then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud," the president said.

Chicago was voted out immediately. This is simply embarrassing. But like Robert Gibbs so often reminds us "Obama won the election."

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

I found this to be quite interesting. Remember how they made handguns illegal in nearly every part of the UK? This is the next step.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8285984.stm

A task force of young anti-knife crime campaigners has been set up by the Home Office.

Ministers have also launched a new set of adverts designed to turn young people away from knife crime.

Home Office minister David Hanson said: "The vast majority of young people are honest and law-abiding and won't tolerate violence in their neighbourhood.

"This campaign targets the small minority who break the law. We are sending out a clear message that people who break the law and continue to carry offensive weapons will face tough penalties."

In addition, two television and online adverts will feature the testimonials of inmates at a young offenders institute serving sentences for knife offences.

The advert will run on youth websites and TV music channels including Kiss, 4 Music and the Box.

And a music video called Don't Shank Just Skank, featuring members of the taskforce and artists including Donaeo, Rollin' G, and DJ Luck and MC Neat, aims to spread the anti-knife message through music and dance.

"We wanted to show that more young people are anti-knife than pro-knife, which is why we've all teamed up on this track."

It Doesn't Have to Happen supports the work of the government's Tackling Knives Action Programme (TKAP) in England and Wales.

Earlier in the summer the Home Office said the number of knife deaths in areas targeted by the scheme had risen.

In nine months, 126 people died after being attacked with a knife or other sharp object - seven more than in the same period the previous year.

Overall knife-related violence fell by 10%, but the number of deaths among teenagers remained unchanged.

I find this to be amazing. Guns are virtually illegal; so, people move to the next best weapon. Knives. What are they going to ban next, toothbrushes?

Did any of these people ever stop to think that the issue with violence has nothing to do with the weapon being used. The simple fact that people moved from guns to knives should have brought this to light. The 16-year-old boy, Derrion Albert, who was beaten to death in Chicago was hit in the head with a 2x4. Rocks are also a very effective weapon. Where does this end, and when do people stop looking for some "magical" outside force for the source all of their problems?

When society fosters collectivism instead of individualism, this is the outcome. The end result is people who will attempt to blame everything on someone, or something else. This, shifting of blame, is a requirement when living in an undesirable situation. How else can one be content with their own ill-conceived actions? If anyone "really" wants to make things better for themself, they have to take responsibility for their actions. If they do, people will expect more of them, and they might be held accountable. In a collective society accountability is a negative thing. Collectivism requires people to remain in a child-like state, for their entire lives. The problem is that when these adult-aged children don't play well you can't just take their toys away.

A perfect example is at the end of the article where it states, "Overall knife-related violence fell by 10%, but the number of deaths among teenagers remained unchanged." Removing the one instrument required to kill will only result in the use of another instrument of some kind. Censuring inanimate objects makes absolutely no sense.

As I said in a previous post. These violence issues are individual issues. Parents are the only way to solve this. If the parents don't care for these kids, why should anyone else? I would assume that these kids see this the same way. Perhaps that's why the kids themselves don't care.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

This entire ordeal is insane. Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. Polanski should serve prison time, as determined by the law. That should be the end of this.

Get a load of the differences in reporting when it comes to this story.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Roman-Polanski-Rape-Conviction-Directors-Appeal-Over-1978-Case-Rejected-By-Los-Angeles-Judge/Article/200905215277599?lpos=Showbiz_News_News_Your_Way_Region_0

Sky News

Fugitive film director Roman Polanski's bid to have a 1978 sex case against him dismissed has been formally rejected by a US court.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Peter Espinoza said he could not consider the case unless Polanski, who fled America for France after admitting rape, attended court.

Lawyers for the Oscar-winning director have said he would not return to the US to contest his conviction because he would be arrested.

Polanski had wanted his guilty plea to having sex with a 13-year-old girl thrown out on the grounds that the judge at the time was improperly coached by a prosecutor.

Judge Espinoza said in February there was "substantial misconduct" in the original case and gave Polanski until May 7 to turn up at court to pursue the matter.

But the director of Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown did not appear.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8282217.stm

BBC

Director Roman Polanski faces more time in jail after his legal team asked a Swiss court to release him and were told a decision could take weeks.

Polanski is being held in Switzerland on a US arrest warrant over his conviction, 30 years ago, for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.

He said the 76-year-old Polish director had been on "red notice" by Interpol, alerting other countries that the US was seeking extradition.

But he said proper legal channels had to be followed, which meant they had to know Polanski's specific whereabouts before a country could be asked to act.

Meanwhile, a petition circulating in France, where the director has made his home, has drawn support from film-makers including Pedro Almodovar, Stephen Frears and The Pianist writer Ronald Harwood.

Polanski pleaded guilty to unlawful sex with an under-age girl following a plea bargain. He had originally been charged with six offences including rape and sodomy.

But he fled the US before he could be sentenced and has not returned to the country since.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/09/29/polanski.filmmakers.protest/index.html

CNN

The filmmaker pleaded guilty in 1977 to having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor but fled before he could be sentenced. He settled in France, where he holds citizenship. Investigators in the United States say Polanski, then 43, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.

ZURICH, Switzerland (CNN) -- Woody Allen, Pedro Almodovar and Martin Scorsese have "demanded the immediate release" of fellow filmmaker Roman Polanski, who was arrested in Switzerland on a U.S. arrest warrant related to a 1977 child sex charge.

The filmmakers objected to his being arrested en route to the film festival, which held a tribute to him this year.

"It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him," said the petition, backed by France's Societe des Auteurs et Compositeurs Dramatiques (Society of Dramatic Authors and Composers).

In the United States, powerhouse movie producer Harvey Weinstein is trying to recruit more supporters for Polanksi.

"We are calling every filmmaker we can to help fix this terrible situation," his company told CNN in a statement.

If you pay close attention you will see a difference in the way the case was treated from story to story. The BBC story is the only one that mentions that Polanski was convicted. That is the most crucial element in this entire debacle. Polanski is not an alleged rapist, he is an admitted, convicted rapist.

This case comes at a very trying time in this country. Will the United States remain a country governed by the rule of law? Some wish it were not. This case will help to determine if the rule of law remains the basis of law in this country, or if the law will be determined by say, film directors.

This should be a non issue. Polanski should serve a prison sentence, as determined by the law. End of story.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.