;
Connect with us

Opinion

Why Won’t Trump the Peacemaker Win the Nobel Prize? — An Opinion Piece

Good question…

Published

on

How should we rate and rank America’s presidents? It’s not just an academic question or one just for documentaries. How we rate our past presidents tells us much about the present and probably more about the future. Robert Spencer has come up with a whole new way of rating America’s presidents that deserves wide consideration. His new book, Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster, is a must-read for students of America’s present and past.

As I said, it’s not an academic question. It’s on the table today and every day. A Norwegian politician named Christian Tybring-Gjedde has just nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. The nomination shocked the establishment. But should it? It wouldn’t if they rated America’s presidents the way Robert Spencer recommends.

“I’m not a big Trump supporter,” Tybring-Gjedde explained. “The committee should look at the facts and judge him on the facts – not on the way he behaves sometimes. The people who have received the Peace Prize in recent years have done much less than Donald Trump. For example, Barack Obama did nothing.”

He’s right. Obama campaigned saying he would get American troops out of Iraq but he triggered more wars than he ever stopped. He drone killed innocent civilians. He allowed ISIS to rise up, and turned Libya into a post-apocalyptic wasteland like something out of Mad Max. Obama also set Iran farther down the path toward obtaining nuclear weapons, while he lavished them with billions in untraceable cash. How does enabling an extreme autocracy and its violent terrorist proxies, Hizballah, foster world peace? The Nobel committee should have never granted Obama that prize and should hang their heads in shame now. Historians and the media continue to judge Obama a success, though. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, they say. The lens through which they view his and other presidencies may not be the right one to use.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The fact that Obama was even considered for the Nobel so early in his presidency, never mind that he won it, highlights the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize today is so hyper-politicized that it is essentially meaningless. The Nobel Peace Prize was once rewarded for truly extraordinary achievements that brought about real and lasting peace. Think of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin first establishing peace between their warring countries, and then being honored with the Nobel in 1978. Their countries have remained at peace with each other ever since. That Nobel prize honors real peace.

Obama winning it is more akin to the “everybody gets a trophy” mentality that is ruining our country. Now the Nobel Peace Prize is given to those who share the far-Left views of those who award it, while those who stand apart from the Left’s ideological camp and yet actually work effectively to bring peace are ignored. Trump, accordingly, though he has been nominated has no chance whatsoever to win the Nobel Peace Prize, no matter how transformative his efforts to bring about the accords between Israel and the United Arab Emirates are on the one hand, and between Serbia and Kosovo on the other hand, have been. Just recently, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain announced they will allow Israeli airliners to cross their airspace, knocking down a restriction that had been in place for more than 70 years. They did this because of the Trump-negotiated Israel-UAE peace deal. Trump has built up an astounding record as the first president in decades to not involve America in a new war. But the Nobel committee is likely to just look the other way. Maybe they’ll hand Joe Biden the prize, just because.

This reminds us of how much we take for granted that the gatekeepers in charge of worldly honors are all working from far-Left perspectives, such that only Leftists are ever recognized for their contributions no matter how spurious. This is true not just of the Nobel Prize Committee, or of European honors and awards; it is also true in the United States. The Oscars just turned themselves into quota-obsessed nose counters and will not even consider a movie for its Best Picture honor unless it meets certain arbitrary race- and gender-based criteria. As Mark Steyn noted recently, this marks the death of art in film if it stands.

The Left’s pollutive perspective has infiltrated virtually every conceivable field, even, or perhaps especially, our understanding of who we are as a people, and who we should be. As the Left steps up and more openly demonizes American heroes and paints American history as an unbroken record of racism and oppression, there is an increasingly urgent necessity today for a sober, balanced view of American history, one that does not bow to the Left’s sacred cows or take the likes of the New York Times’ biased word for it. This is where Robert Spencer and his new book come in.

Robert Spencer provides a whole new way to rank and rate America’s presidents in his enlightening new book, Rating America’s Presidents: An America-First Look at Who Is Best, Who Is Overrated, and Who Was An Absolute Disaster (Bombardier Books, 2020). Spencer’s indispensable book provides needed facts and context in the field of presidential politics, and offers a refreshingly patriotic overview of the entire trajectory of American history.

Spencer takes a brisk look at each of the nation’s presidents, giving us a helpful list of their major accomplishments and the principal events of each presidency. He evaluates each one, as the subtitle of the book suggests, on the basis of America-First principles. By that often-loaded phrase, Spencer makes clear that he means no more and no less than this: Did the presidential administration in question benefit Americans, or did it not?

This question is not as easy to answer as you might think. Did, for instance, admitting China into the World Trade Organization and giving it full normalized relations help Americans or hurt them? The answer is not straightforward and does not stick to partisan assumptions. Opening China presented problems for our top enemy at the time, the Soviet Union. But in later years China has presented an economic and strategic threat to the United States. Presidents of both parties dealt with the China issue. How did they do, and how did Americans fare due to those decisions?

Some of what Spencer finds will come as no surprise to anyone who isn’t fooled by the mainstream media: Barack Obama’s presidency was as hollow as his Nobel Prize. Obama left Americans worse off in numerous ways as the much-lauded president continued and intensified the internationalist policies of his predecessors that had weakened America militarily and economically. Trump, in the first three years of his presidency, moved with remarkable dispatch and efficiency to reverse a great deal of this and to restore the nation’s industrial and military power. He did this without entangling the military in any more internationalist adventures that serve no real national security purpose for the United States.

Rating America’s Presidents is also full of surprises. Heroes – at least according to the conventional wisdom up to now – such as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are rated extraordinarily high by historians and mainstream media journalists, while others who historians generally regard as failures and mediocrities, including John Tyler, Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding, rate well by America First principles. Grant, for instance, championed racial integration after the bitter Civil War. Wilson later re-segregated the federal workforce, presided over the Democrats’ introduction of racist Jim Crow laws, and helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, fostering racial strife we continue to suffer from today. Historians and the media tend to love Wilson and disregard Grant.

In the course of his evaluations, Spencer reveals indirectly that the policies Trump is implementing – high tariffs, strong border control, avoidance of unnecessary foreign entanglements – have always made America stronger and Americans more prosperous, while the seemingly unstoppable expansion of the federal government into areas in which it has no business or constitutional authority being involved, and the Wilsonian internationalism that so many of Wilson’s successors have energetically pursued, have only weakened our nation and endangered our people.

That is just some of what makes Rating America’s Presidents so important. In this age, when it has become fashionable to hate the land of our birth and our forefathers, Spencer’s book is a bracing reminder that America has indeed been great, and of what we must do to (in Trump’s indelible phrase) make it great again.

A.J. Rice is CEO of Publius PR, a premier communications firm in Washington D.C. Rice is a brand manager, star-whisperer and auteur media influencer, who has produced or promoted Laura Ingraham, Judge Jeanine Pirro, Monica Crowley, Charles Krauthammer, Alan Dershowitz, Roger L. Simon, Steve Hilton, Victor Davis Hanson, and many others. Find out more at publiuspr.com.

Opinion

Pentagon Reverses Statement on Drone Strike, Admits to Killing Civilians

Has the Biden administration done ANYTHING right in Afghanistan?!

Published

on

In the chaotic last few days of the American occupation of Afghanistan, there were a lot moving parts and quite a bit of calamity.

The Biden administration’s abrupt choice to expedite the withdrawal of US assets caused the Afghan Security Forces to essentially vaporize, and the Taliban conquered the entire country in a meager 11 days.  In the process, hundreds died, including 13 members of the US military after a series of terror attacks amid the throngs of people trying to flee via the airport in Kabul.

On top of that, the Pentagon was carrying out drone strikes meant to suppress the capabilities of new terror group ISIS-K, but, instead, killed innocent children.

Now, after initially denying that the strike was a failure, the Pentagon has decided to come clean.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Head of the United States Central Command Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. announced Friday that it is unlikely any ISIS-K members were killed in a Kabul drone strike on August 29, which led to multiple civilian casualties.

“We now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-K or a direct threat to US forces,” McKenzie said of the airstrike at a briefing, following an investigation by the Military.

“This strike was taken in the earnest belief that it would prevent an imminent threat to our forces and the evacuees at the airport, but it was a mistake and I offer my sincere apology,” Mckenzie said, adding that he is “fully responsible for this strike and this tragic outcome.”

DOD officials also prepared a statement to the family of the deceased.

“On behalf of the men and women of the Department of Defense, I offer my deepest condolences to surviving family members of those who were killed, including Mr. Ahmadi, and to the staff of Nutrition and Education International, Mr. Ahmadi’s employer,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III said in a lengthy statement on the investigation’s findings. “We now know that there was no connection between Mr. Ahmadi and ISIS-Khorasan, that his activities on that day were completely harmless and not at all related to the imminent threat we believed we faced, and that Mr. Ahmadi was just as innocent a victim as were the others tragically killed.

“We apologize, and we will endeavor to learn from this horrible mistake,” Austin added, saying that officials “will scrutinize not only what we decided to do — and not do — on the 29th of August, but also how we investigated those outcomes.”

The incident is but one of a long list of failures by the Biden administration in recent weeks, and certainly isn’t going to throw cold water on the growing calls for impeachment.

In the chaotic last few days of the American occupation of Afghanistan, there were a lot moving parts and quite a bit of calamity. The Biden administration’s abrupt choice to expedite the withdrawal of US assets caused the Afghan Security Forces to essentially vaporize, and the Taliban conquered the entire country in a meager 11 days.  In the process, hundreds died, including 13 members of the US military after a series of terror attacks amid the throngs of people trying to flee via the airport in Kabul. On top of that, the Pentagon was carrying out drone strikes meant to suppress the capabilities of new terror group ISIS-K, but, instead, killed innocent children. Now, after initially denying that the strike was a failure, the Pentagon has decided to come clean. Head of the United States Central Command Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr. announced Friday that it is unlikely any ISIS-K members were killed in a Kabul drone strike on August 29, which led to multiple civilian casualties. “We now assess that it is unlikely that the vehicle and those who died were associated with ISIS-K or a direct threat to US forces,” McKenzie said of the airstrike at a briefing, following an investigation by the Military. “This strike was taken in the earnest belief that it would prevent an imminent threat to our forces and the evacuees at the airport, but it was a mistake and I offer my sincere apology,” Mckenzie said, adding that he is “fully responsible for this strike and this tragic outcome.” DOD officials also prepared a statement to the family of the deceased. “On behalf of the men and women of the Department of Defense, I offer my deepest condolences to surviving family members of those who were killed, including Mr. Ahmadi, and to the…

Continue Reading

Opinion

Even More Trouble Arrives for AOC After Met Gala Dress Stunt Flops

This one is going to sting a little.

Published

on

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is quite familiar with the way in which the media cycle works, and her place in it.  While her politics aren’t always in tune with the center of our country, her use of social media to cultivate a narrative is nigh unmatched, and it’s something that has to be taken into consideration whenever she catches a headline.

This is all a part of the show, in other words.

This week’s AOC stunt came to us from the posh, $30,000 per ticket Met Gala, at which the precocious progressive from New York was seen sporting a white dress with gaudy red writing on it.  The message?  “Tax The Rich”.

Yes, at an event that costs $30,000 to get in the door.

take our poll - story continues below

Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?

  • Is Biden's Vaccine Mandate Unconstitutional?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

But AOC didn’t pay to be there.  She was a “guest of the museum”, which is a clever trick to get her around all those “impermissible gift” laws that we have in this country.

That’s why the Democrat was almost immediately slapped with an ethics complaint after the stunt.  This week, she picked up yet another.

The complaint from the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) to the Office of Congressional Ethics alleged that Ocasio-Cortez improperly accepted tickets from a table sponsor for herself and her boyfriend.

House rules allow members to take free tickets to charity events directly from event organizers, and The Post reported Tuesday that AOC and boyfriend Riley Roberts were directly invited by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

However, the NLPC argued that “it is the table sponsor who is gifting or underwriting a coveted seat to AOC at the Gala.

“And if … the table where AOC sat was one paid for by one of [the] corporations attending the event, such as Instagram or Facebook, AOC has received a prohibited gift from the corporation that also lobbies Congress.”

The dress and the scene caused a bit of an uproar when it first hit social media, as it didn’t take long for users to point out the obvious irony of it all.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is quite familiar with the way in which the media cycle works, and her place in it.  While her politics aren’t always in tune with the center of our country, her use of social media to cultivate a narrative is nigh unmatched, and it’s something that has to be taken into consideration whenever she catches a headline. This is all a part of the show, in other words. This week’s AOC stunt came to us from the posh, $30,000 per ticket Met Gala, at which the precocious progressive from New York was seen sporting a white dress with gaudy red writing on it.  The message?  “Tax The Rich”. Yes, at an event that costs $30,000 to get in the door. But AOC didn’t pay to be there.  She was a “guest of the museum”, which is a clever trick to get her around all those “impermissible gift” laws that we have in this country. That’s why the Democrat was almost immediately slapped with an ethics complaint after the stunt.  This week, she picked up yet another. The complaint from the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) to the Office of Congressional Ethics alleged that Ocasio-Cortez improperly accepted tickets from a table sponsor for herself and her boyfriend. House rules allow members to take free tickets to charity events directly from event organizers, and The Post reported Tuesday that AOC and boyfriend Riley Roberts were directly invited by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. However, the NLPC argued that “it is the table sponsor who is gifting or underwriting a coveted seat to AOC at the Gala. “And if … the table where AOC sat was one paid for by one of [the] corporations attending the event, such as Instagram or Facebook, AOC has received a prohibited gift from the…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week