“I don’t see any reason why they should be paying a special tax.” Supporters of the plan to tax the banks “are trying to punish people,” he said. “I don’t see the rationale for it.” “Look at the damage Fannie and Freddie caused, and they were run by the Congress,” said Buffett. “Should they have a special tax on congressmen because they let this thing happen to Freddie and Fannie? I don’t think so.”¹

Buffett held a fundraiser for Obama and advised the future president on economic issues during his campaign.

In addition to levying an additional tax on certain financial institutions, President Obama intends to impart new restrictions on banks. ² These are two factors that explain in part why the “Dow Turns Negative for ’10.”

1. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPdhurDmpnhE&pos=1
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703699204575016983630045768.html

“during the preceding year [...] 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.”  ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize))

It is unclear what Obama did to merit the prize.  It is also interesting why he was awarded the prize, while individuals such as Mohandas Ghandi (who led the India independence movement through non-violent opposition), Pope John-Paul II (who, inter alia, was instrumental in the fall of communism in eastern Europe), Irena Sendler (who saved 2,500 Jews during World War II), and Liu Xiabo (a human rights champion in China, who is currently in prison), were not awarded the prize for their efforts.

It seems likely based on the statement issues by the Nobel Comittee², as well as the known political persuasion of the Nobel Committee, that this prize was given to ensure that Obama did not back out on his promises, and he follows through with his agenda.  Thus, instead of awarding the prize for accomplishments, it is instead used as a political tool to influence Obama’s policies.

Not everyone in Norway agrees with the controversial decision.  Siv Jensen, leader of Norway’s Progress Party, was quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

“It is just too soon.  It is wrong to give him the peace prize for his ambition. You should receive it for results.”  She said that the decision to bestow the award on the president was the most controversial she could remember and was one of a number that had moved the prize further away from the ideals of Alfred Nobel.³

Former Polish President Lech Walesa, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 was also quoted as stating,  ”So soon?  Too early.  He has no contribution so far,” ”He is still at an early stage.”  Bestowing this honor upon President Obama so early in his presidency is a disservice to the former Chicago Senator as well.  Awarding the prize so early, without providing the former Chicago Senator with an opportunity  to prove the impact he can make on the world, diminishes the prize to a “call to action.”  Nobel Peace Prize recipients have been controversial in the past, and the current decision affirms that the prize is not an award for accomplishment, but instead, a political tool.

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html
2. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html

You have spoken out against abortion in the past and articulated the importance of furthering the Gospel of Life.  In fact, on the diocese of Peoria website you speak of the increased importance of  witnessing to the Gospel of Life as a result of the election of a pro-choice president:

This year’s march took place two days after the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Bishop Jenky said the election of a pro-choice president made the witness to the Gospel of Life in Washington, D.C., especially necessary this year.¹

Despite asking the members of your diocese to take a stand for the Gospel of Life, you have failed the Diocese of Peoria and The University of Notre Dame.  As a Trustee of The University of Notre Dame, and Bishop of the Diocese of Peria, you have a responsibility to stand up for what is right.  You have failed by choosing not to join the courageous Bishops who have publicly spoken out against President Barack Obama’s visit to Notre Dame.² Passive consent to the conferment of an honorary degree upon a radical supporter of abortion, President Barack Obama, is not acceptable.

We pray for you at every Mass, and I hope you will rise to the calling of your office and publicly condemn President Obama’s invitation to the University of Notre Dame.

Respectfully,

John Telthorst

1. http://www.cdop.org/post/PostArchiveArticle.aspx?PublicationID=37&ArticleID=642
2. http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/04/round-up-bishops-who-have-responded-to.html

These two candidates experience and familial obligations are very comprable, and yet Barrack Obama is not questioned where Sarah Palin is.  This is clear evidence of reticent sexism that exists in the mainstream media; and the double standard that still exists.