If it happened, it would constitute one of the truly astounding developments of what has been a truly astounding, unpredictable, rollercoaster or an era of American history: Donald Trump, Nobel Peace Prize winner.
TMZ reports, “Lindsey Graham says President Trump might not be deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize just yet, but if he wins it anyway … liberals are going to lose it. … Graham says [Trump has] done a lot to deserve it by fighting ISIS and taking on Iran, but needs a little more help from North Korea.”
“As for the libs, Sen. Graham thinks if 45 manages to nab the Nobel, they’ll be so distraught they’ll head for the nearest window … and take the leap.”
“Lindsey also throws some shade at past Peace Prize winner Barack Obama …”
“The 2018 Nobel Peace Prize winner will be announced in Oslo Friday. BTW … Kim Jong-un is the top favorite. What a world. ”
Graham’s conduct, indeed, reveals lots about conservatives, liberals and honorable conduct.
Honest observers and analysts — even those who are not the biggest Trump fans — ought to be willing to grant our current President credit where it is his due. That would be called intellectual consistency. (For the record and conversely, that would also include a willingness to say it when one takes issue with DT on a particular matter.)
Curiously, the same approach could be suggested — and it seems is unfolding — towards Senator Graham himself.
Would it be an understatement to acknowledge conservatives and many Republicans have had their beefs with the Senator from South Carolina over the years?
Not a few times, along with his good friend John McCain, Graham’s paeans toward “bipartisanship” and “moderation” have functionally translated into infuriating outrages against constitutional/limited-government principles.
But lately? Look up the words “Lindsey Graham” in the dictionary and you’ll find the definition: “rock star”. His blistering and fact-based drubbing last week of his unscrupulous, hypocritical Democratic peers on the Senate Judiciary Committee was nothing-less-than historic stuff. Riveting. Unforgettable. And I meant that in the best way.
The sixty-three-year-old lawmaker’s willingness put aside any offense he may have absorbed from then-candidate Trump during the 2012 Oval Office campaign is striking. Recall, Graham ran for the position (and went pretty much nowhere for his efforts); and the two most definitely were at barbed odds with one another. That said, Graham has rejected any temptation to obstruct, for sheer, vengeful cussedness’ sake, the laudable policies the President has advanced. That kind of magnanimity from people in positions of power? It’s something the general public sees far too infrequently in our increasingly fraught, polarized age.
Graham’s statement also brings to mind Barack Obama’s receiving of the Norwegian award. Mind-bogglingly, he had officially occupied the White House mere days when he was nominated for it (his name was submitted barely under the deadline), and he’d been in office less than ten months when he snagged the honor.
Why’d BHO win the thing? Citing Wikipedia’s concise summary, it was for his ” ‘extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples’… promotion of nuclear nonproliferation … and [for fostering] a ‘new climate’ in international relations … especially in reaching out to the Muslim world.” In other words, the famously pontificating former president said a bunch of nice words in public about getting along with everyone else.
Yes, words do matter — but rarely, all by themselves, are they enough. Here we are, a couple years removed from his two terms at 166 Pennsylvania Avenue – and we get it: Barack Obama could give a decent speech. But beyond that? Inarguably, he stands one of worst presidents in the United States’ two-hundred-forty-two-year history.
Letter-writer Joel Darmstadter in, of all places, the Washington Post(!) put it well: “Then-President Barack Obama had barely had an opportunity to appreciate and meet the qualifying test laid down in Alfred Nobel’s will: having ‘done the most or best work for fraternity between nations.’ ” Then citing “[n]ot a trivial list of Obama administration failings,” he recommends, “An honorable, if belated, step would be to return the prize to Oslo marked ‘unused.’ ”
Even Trump critics have to admit, not a few welcome things have been happening on the domestic and, more pertinent to the Nobel Peace Prize speculation, international front since his tenure kicked off in January 2017. Senator Graham — one of those formerly sharp critics and someone still willing to mention when he takes issue with “45” — would be an example of a high-profile person willing to acknowledge that.
As Graham’s jest implies, too many Leftists won’t tip the hat to Donald Trump under any circumstance, in no instance, no matter what he does or doesn’t do. That would be providing the American people with a ghastly snapshot of unedifying pettiness.
Graham is probably also correct that the world-community jumped the gun conferring the Peace Prize on Obama — and Democrats did the same in cheering that choice. Republicans and conservatives, alternatively, can display some much-needed circumspection in encouraging a bit more time before DT receives the same citation.
One other thought: Mass murdering megalomaniac Kim Jong-un is a top horse in this contest? If that’s the case, President Trump genuinely might want to consider turning down the prize if it should be offered to him. If someone like the North Korean maniac is under serious consideration by the Norwegian committee, how much can the Nobel Peace Prize be worth no matter who finally snags it?
Let’s hope Trump is nominated at any rate, because it would be the next best thing to him winning in 2016 in terms of how liberals respond.
Share this if you want Trump to win the Nobel Peace Prize!
Trending Now on Right Wing News
Pelosi: ‘I Didn’t Know What Ilhan Omar Said When I Defended Her 9/11 Remarks’
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) did a major backpedal today when she admitted she didn’t know the content of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) recent remarks about 9/11. That didn’t stop her from defending Omar to the hilt in the wake of criticism from President Donald Trump. Pelosi gave an interview to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour where she rejected charges of anti-Semitism against Omar and pushed back against criticism that the Democrat Party isn’t doing enough to combat it.
“I don’t think the congresswoman is anti-Semitic. I wouldn’t even put those in the same category,” Pelosi told Amanpour in Ireland. “We have no taint of that [anti-Semitism],” she added. “And just because they want to accuse somebody of that doesn’t mean that we take that bait.” No one is making accusations… it’s all out in the open for everyone to see. This woman is delusional.
Then Pelosi went on to dismiss criticisms that she hasn’t done enough to defend Omar, conceding, “Until I talk to somebody, I don’t even know what was said.” Really? You didn’t take the time to even find out? “I do know that what the president did was not right,” she added. But not Omar. Trump did nothing wrong. In fact, he did the right thing in saying we should never forget 9/11 while Omar insulted all Americans by her “some people did something” slur.
“Omar is facing blowback for downplaying the September 11, 2001, terror attack, describing it last month private fundraiser for Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a day on which “some people did something,” before adding “and that all of us were starting to lose our civil liberties.”
“In reaction to the Minnesota Democrat’s remarks, President Trump shared a video to social media of Omar’s remarks and scenes of the World Trade Center engulfed in flakes shortly after it was attacked by radical Islamic terrorists. The video’s caption reads: “WE WILL NEVER FORGET!”
“She’s got a way about her that’s very, very bad, I think, for our country. I think she’s extremely unpatriotic and extremely disrespectful to our country,” the president said at an event in Minnesota on Monday.
“Several Democrats, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and 2020 Democrat candidate Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke, said President Trump was inciting violence against Omar by tweeting the clip. In a statement Saturday, Pelosi demanded the president remove the video and said Capitol Police are conducting a security assessment to safeguard Omar amid a growing number of death threats.
“Following the President’s tweet, I spoke with the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure that Capitol Police are conducting a security assessment to safeguard Congresswoman Omar, her family, and her staff. They will continue to monitor and address the threats she faces,” Pelosi said.
“The President’s words weigh a ton, and his hateful and inflammatory rhetoric creates real danger. President Trump must take down his disrespectful and dangerous video,” she added.”
WE WILL NEVER FORGET! pic.twitter.com/VxrGFRFeJM
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 12, 2019
This knee-jerk defense of someone simply because they are in your political party is hypocritical and just wrong. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi scolded Trump for using the “painful images of 9/11 for a political attack” against the first-term Minnesota Democrat. So, pretend it did not happen when a leftist such as Omar intimates there were no terrorists involved and just brushes off nearly 3,000 deaths? I don’t think so.
From Fox News:
“Many Republicans and conservative outlets expressed outrage at Omar’s remarks. Fellow Democrats, including some who have disagreed with Omar in the past, defended her.
“First Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as ‘some people who did something,'” tweeted Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas. The retired Navy SEAL lost his right eye in 2012 in an explosion in Afghanistan.
“Here’s your something,” the New York Post blared on its cover beneath a photograph of the flaming towers.”
“Several of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates condemned Trump’s tweet.
“Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, said the Republican president’s tweet was an “incitement to violence” against Omar, who is Muslim-American, and others like her. O’Rourke, campaigning in South Carolina, likened the tweet to Trump’s rhetoric about Mexicans, described in the past by Trump as murderers and rapists. O’Rourke said “there is a cost and there is a consequence” to Trump’s comments.
“Warren, a Massachusetts senator, said Republican leaders in Congress “cannot take a pass on this, cannot look the other way and pretend it isn’t happening. It is happening. And those who don’t speak out in the Republican leadership are complicit in what he is doing. It’s wrong.”
“Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar noted that a New York man recently was charged with threatening Omar’s life.
“The video the president chose to send out today will only incite more hate,” Klobuchar said. “You can disagree with her words — as I have done before — but this video is wrong. Enough.”
“Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said Omar “won’t back down to Trump’s racism and hate, and neither will we.”‘
What a bunch of anti-American schmucks. As for Pelosi, I think she knew exactly what Omar said and what she meant. She’s trying to straddle a fence here and is going to wind up impaled on it. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving feckless Marxist.
DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW:
In First Year Bernie Made Over $1 Million He Donated Less Than 1% To Charity
Vermont Senator and 2020 presidential candidate Bernie Sanders had the utter gall to go on Fox News to show off that he had released ten years of tax returns and to demand that President Trump do the same. Bolshevik Bernie is one socialist who has become a millionaire thanks to American capitalism but he doesn’t want the masses to prosper the way he did. His answer to all of this is a so-called 52 percent ‘wealth tax’.
As for charity, Sanders is lousy at it as most Democrats and leftists are. Sanders earned an average of $280,975 per year from 2009 through 2015. His income skyrocketed to $1,062,626 in 2016 due to sales of his best-selling book, “Our Revolution.” Ironic, no? He gave just $10,600 in charitable contributions in 2016, making up slightly less than one percent of his reported income and falling under the $21,365 average charitable contribution for Americans who earned $250,000 or more that year, according to the latest available IRS data.
The self-avowed Democratic-socialist purchased his third home in 2016. It is a $575,000 lake-front property in Vermont, according to Fox News. He’s also got a penchant for racy cars. Bernie’s an ‘elite’ socialist don’t ya know. During his 2016 presidential campaign and beyond, Sanders declared that wealth inequality was “the great moral issue of our time.” What a hypocrite.
The following year, Sanders donated $36,300 of his adjusted gross income of $1,131,925 to charity. That’s still a pittance. Behold the benefits of being a Democratic Socialist with no morals or ethics.
The filings showed that Sanders has been among the top 1 percent of earners in the U.S. According to the liberal-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Families in the U.S. earning $421,926 or more a year are part of this group.
From The Daily Caller:
“From 2009 through 2015, when Sanders was earning on average $280,975 per year, he contributed 2.06 percent to charity.
“His charitable giving rose slightly to 2.39 percent of his income from 2016 through 2018, when his average income soared to $918,615 per year.
“My wife and I do give money to charity, and we’re proud to do what we did,” Sanders said at a Fox News town hall Monday.
“A campaign spokesperson for Sanders said in a statement to the Daily Beast that while the senator believes voluntary charitable donations are commendable, they can’t make up government investment in social programs, which his platform calls for.
“Over the last decade, Bernie and Jane Sanders have donated more than $100,000 to charity. Their overall charitable giving rates have been roughly in line with the average rates in America as a whole,” Sanders’s campaign spokeswoman Arianna Jones said.
“In some years, they gave more than 3 or 4 percent of their income to charity. They have given to senior centers, low-income organizations, educational entities, and environmental and housing advocacy groups. They also believe that while voluntary charitable donations are commendable, they can never replace ongoing public investments in major social programs and services that improve people’s lives.”’
Sanders really meant what he said in 1981 when he told attendees at a local United Way fundraiser in Vermont, “I don’t believe in charities.” Sanders, then serving as mayor of Burlington, “went on to question the ‘fundamental concepts on which charities are based’ and contended that government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs,” according to the New York Times.
Leftists like Sanders knocked Trump for charitable giving and he gave many times over what Sanders donated. Socialism is inherently anti-charity. It’s anti-job and anti-freedom. Charity is a form of love for your fellow man. Not something socialists are known for.
DONATE NOW TO BUILD THE WALL WITH BRIAN KOLFAGE, CLICK BELOW: