Obama 2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Obama Accepts Nobel Peace Prize


Oslo Norway




Simon Frantz interviews Geir Lundestad, Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee






Criticism of the Nobel Committee in Choosing Barack Obama for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize


By


Bhakta David Nollmeyer


The following critique discusses the criteria used by the Norwegian Nobel Committee in selecting President Barack Obama for it's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The material is from an interview of Geir Lundestad, Secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee taken by Simon Frantz.


In contrast I have been, in my opinion the world's most severe unrecognized human rights prisoner. I have lived under manifest Chemical Assault Scorched Earth since June 17, 1987 in Dover, Delaware the year of the 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution. It is from this perspective that I am challenging the Nobel Peace Organization as to their legitimacy and if they are indeed following the will of Alfred Nobel as is assertively claimed here by Geir Lundestad.


Concrete Events in 2008


Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2008. At this time I was living in Desert Shores, California along the Salton Sea. The lake itself was contaminated as were the stores where I had to purchase food. The food products themselves had to be chemically despoiled from the factories. It was and is impossible for me to purchase bottled water. Law enforcement officials did and will pour chemicals in the plumbing of buildings if I was or am physically in the area. The tap water is therefore poisoned. Air in these structures and homes would also be contaminated through the ventilation. Cars and other sources of combustion engines also had chemicals placed in their fuels to contaminate the air.


I am based out of Big Pine, California. I spend only a few months there as I now transition from the Eastern High Sierras to the Salton Sea – Colorado River, summer to winter, where I am now writing at the present.


In May I moved to Westwood, California which is about 100 miles north of Reno, Nevada. Several bodies of water, particularly Lake Almanor were contaminated quite severely.


I returned to Big Pine for the month of October. The Owens River Canal was severely contaminated. There are wheat fields that were irrigated and will exist as evidence for quite some time. I was here when the announcement of Obama's selection for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was made. I travelled to Blythe, California near the beginning of November.


The Colorado River is ruined.


There are cotton and wheat fields here that are ruined and will also function as evidence.


Geir Lundestad is committing serious fraud and sanitization. The interests of Norway and the Nobel Organization are suspect. Mr. Lundestad has been considered a very serious historian and expert on American and Western European relations.


These interests becomes more of a focal target as his so called research into President Obama's achievements in the preceding year become historically and legally challenged.


Interview


The interview essentially begins with Simon Frantz making summary observations over Barack Obama's selection. The initial atmosphere surrounding the the announcement of Barack Obama as the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was one of “collective shock and and take a breath,” according to Simon Frantz.


The choice of Barack Obama by the Nobel Committee for it's 2009 Peace Prize was met with a range of responses from parties throughout the world. Geir Lundestad responds that there is much approval and that, "this is a wonderful situation to be in.” There have been reactions from all over the world. In making President Obama it's choice, Nobel Secretary Lundestad stated that the selection was made deliberately based on Alfred Nobel's will for accomplishments in the preceding year. There are three criteria which were used:


Fraternity between nations


Reduction in standing armies Vision of nuclear free world Expecting substantial arms control treaties


The holding of peace congresses Modern version is international diplomacy


President Barack Obama has produced a new international climate. This is based on the United Nations not electoral structures stated Lundestad.


The emphasis is on dialog and negotiations. The emphasis is on arms control and disarmament and the zero option. The emphasis is on a new climate agreement with the United States being a very important partner. The emphasis is on democracy and human rights.


Lundestad argues that creating a new climate and defining a new order is a concrete achievement. These are the ideals of the Norwegian Nobel Committee that have been followed for 108 years. This Nobel Committee in selecting Obama has a “wonderful spokesman for these ideals” and is attempting to give the president support for the ideals of which he is the primary spokesperson, stated Lundestad. Under these circumstances the committee wishes to give Obama whatever support it can.


Simon Frantz states that Barack Obama has been in office for less than nine months.


Lundestad asserts that awarding the prize so early is not unprecedented. Nobel's will states that achievements should be in the preceding year. Usually this is not possible but this year with Obama it is possible. Oscar Arias received the prize within for presenting a peace plan within two months.


Simon Frantz argues that Obama is already under high expectations and that this could add to the expectations for one who is under these pressures.


The Nobel Committee will support Obama in the future. The committee is willing to give any support to create concrete ideals. There is no doubt that “there will be failures,” states Lundestad. Once the committee makes it's selection it will continue to support it's laureates in the future.


President Obama does not have to worry that in the future he will awake and that the Nobel Organization will not support him.


Mr. Frantz argues that the United States is at war with two countries.


The Nobel Committee recognizes that the United States is a superpower. It is not trying to dictate concrete acts to the United States. It is attempting to point out the principals for which it stands, Lundestad added.


Obama follows the ideals of the Norwegian Nobel committee very closely. This can be construed as an overt message in selecting Obama for the prize. The prize is not a magic wand. It will not transform the world.


Summary


Simon Frantz's observation that President Barack Obama winning the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was one of “collective shock and take a breath” is an understatement. For whatever manifest short term benefits the Norwegian Nobel Organization has in selecting Obama for representing the ideals of Alfred Nobel's will the risk in sacrificing justice in equal treatment to other natural persons and states is very disturbing. There is also the negative future externality to the Nobel Peace Prize itself.

The use of non military grade chemical weapons is and has been quite severe. The past five United States Presidents

have been blackmailed and intimidated by the use of non military grade chemical assault:


Ronald Reagan


George H.W. Bush


William Clinton


George W. Bush


Barack Obama


The panorama of essentialist thinking by Ronald Reagan and Ayatollah Khomeini has developed a polarization in diplomacy to the present. Jimmy Carter pursued a mechanistic approach using an idealistic and pragmatic diplomacy. Regardless the emergence of free trade even though the GATT Rounds failed to lead and economics based on flexible currency, balance of trade, and counter cyclical federal reserve banking emerged as overt weapons of choice in creating and maintaining the Old World Order. My rights to citizenship and legal person under the UDHR, ICCPR, and CAT are not recognized by the Norwegian Nobel Committee or President Obama or the United States.


The Convention Against Torture was ratified by President Clinton in 1994.


Geir Lundestad argues that Barack Obama has created fraternity between nations. The Colorado River has headwaters in the State of Arizona; it is a main source of agriculture and drinking water for Los Angeles, San Diego, and Mexico. I have to BATHE AND WASH MY CLOTHES IN POISON.


Geir Lundestad has cited arms reduction and zero options. This in particular is nuclear arms. If he had done the research he had claimed he would have found a world of chemical assault chemical stalking carried by what is now called homeland security officers viz. Policemen.


The awarding of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama as a wonderful spokesman for these ideals sets an alarming precedent for a spokesman for Change. Are we ready for Change? Why should we continue doing the same thing again and again?


The circular folly is perhaps one the oldest informal fallacies and certainly the most used in power plays. Here I do not see the concrete transformations in progress in spite of Barack Obama superficially appearing able and willing to implement actions on the side of democracy, peace, and human rights. I am 48 years of age, exactly one day older than Obama being born August 3, 1961 in Roswell, New Mexico.


My life is held in the balance as I endure systematic human rights violations. The United States is an Informant State. I would trust a reading of the United States Constitution to restore my primary rights and identify culpable actors.


I do not believe that Geir Lundestad or the Nobel Organization are partners in good faith in recognizing the suffering of millions of persons and the despoiling of territory vastly larger that the country of Norway here in the United States.


I finish writing this critique recognizing that the theater of defection and interests in concrete political realities is quite pronounced. The denial of writ of certiorari cv 98-7015 was yesterday January 18, 1999. This date, as happened yesterday is Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Soon in the future in spite of the claims of Geir Lundestad, an accurate discovery into the record of President Barack Obama will be made. The politics of sanitization and censorship for which he has emerged as a symbol is no more than Poison in the Well.


David Nollmeyer


Blythe California Ehrenberg Arizona


January 19, 2010




Stone Unturned: A Critique of Obama’s Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech


David Nollmeyer


President Barack Obama has won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. The texture will remain open as to whether the interests of the Nobel Organization bear out in making this choice in the history of the human race. The honor was rationalized on the belief that creating an environment for dialog concerning nuclear disarmament vis a vis with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran justified the prize in spite of a lack of tangible accomplishments that usual accompany laureates.


The Nobel Committee has stated that it researched many qualified candidates from the past year and the winner was Obama.


I was camping in a field south of Big Pine, California on October 9 when news of the prize broke. I have been living under constant attack since April of 1986, with totalitarian electronic surveillance and Chemical Assault Scorched Earth since June 17, 1987, the year of 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution.


My alienation has engendered the most successful censorship and sanitization of history to date. My argument is that the manifest concrete condoning of my systematic torture will transform the thinking and methodologies of leadership and warfare.


I will end my preface on the panorama of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize with closing statements of the president:


Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.


The Stone Unturned: A Critique of Obama’s Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech


After acknowledging his audience Obama spoke the following words:


I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.


A centerpiece of Obama’s speech is that he was awarded the prize while he is acting as commander in chief of a nation in war. He argued that this war was an act of collective security not just one nation defending itself in a unilateralist posture.


But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander in Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.


Obama then proceeded to discuss the basic concept of jus belle or just warfare. This also acknowledged the emergence of international law and human rights. Obama also began to foreshadow another key concept of his doctrine: the building of institutions to create peace. After recapitulating the past centuries failures of two world wars and the League Of Nations, the president also pointed out that war is not the conventional use of armies and alignments but now of terror. Here we have a convergence which begins to demonstrate the apperception and lack of volition of both the Nobel Organization and Barack Obama.


And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.


Presidents usually are evaluated on their skill on identifying and solving the nation’s problems. This has lead to the first presidents being seen favorably as Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln being seen in a positive light. This is due to state creation and human rights. Due process is a right. Persons who often plead in forma pauperus use the 14th Amendment, the due process clause, to civilly petition the government as a last resort if criminal actions are not recognized by the state itself on it’s citizen’s behalf. This amendment reflects the rise of Jim Crow Laws in the Deep South after the Civil War. Obama points out that he does not have solutions to war. Obama quotes Martin Luther King Jr. to reason that, “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones."


Following this statement a crest of tension or arsis is presented:


But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.


Here I will state that Obama confirms his role as a sophist, he also introduces his apologetics, of a consequentialist nature, invoking a strongman posture derived from Plato’s Thrasymachus in his The Republic. Here I am not changing the subject. Obama speaks of al Qaeda. I am speaking of censored violence and EVIL here against myself in the United States and other living life.


Obama is correct in that self defense after exhausting resources against a recalcitrant enemy is justified. He is grossly in error in his axiology and duties as Head of State and Commander in Chief of the United States.


Obama then begins to build another arc of tension with his historical acknowledgement over structures and processes and the concrete zeitgeist that the United States exists in at the present time.


I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.


The president seeks to then build consensus over the role the United States is performing by stressing that the sacrifices American servicepersons have made is in the collective interest. His statement that the future’s children and grandchildren will be better if others offspring are secure is hypocritical. I am under severe CHEMICAL ASSAULT SCORCHED EARTH.


I HAVE NEVER MARRIED AND HAVE NEVER HAD CHILDREN. This statement is simply an abstract straw man. There is severe fallacy of separation from this idealistic statement and the real world condition under which natural persons and citizens exist in the United States.


But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened selfinterest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.


In the context of being a Commander in Chief Obama acknowledges what apparently seems counterintuitive that war is necessary and also a folly. Here there is a materialist self evident truth that human systems are differentiated and that the benefit to cost ratios determine correct leadership choices. Obama invokes a trajectory from Kennedy to make a concrete statement in the direction and goals in which he intends to lead the United States and the world.


So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.


Before Obama clarifies this activity, he recapitulates his role as a sovereign head of state. This is centered on the unilateral right to use deadly force. This is an issue that deeply divides the United States and the majority of the world. He reasserts his position as Thrasymachus the sophist in Plato’s The Republic. Hence, that Justice is in the interest of the stronger, to help our friends and harm our enemies. Plato's Socrates' answer is that Justice is in the interest of the weaker. Here this means rights. Justice means that the good or the strong take up the argument for the weak and defenseless to see the good or truth. This is the Greek philosophic basis for the human rights of the UDHR and the Bill of Rights of the United States.


Here my criticism is based on concrete objective empirical history. This is not stating a correct abstract principle. Obama and the analysis must not be totalitarian and isolate reality from perception. (I am writing along the Colorado River near Blythe CA Ehrenberg AZ, and the river is despoiled.)


To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.


Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.


The unattractive truth emerges. Barack Obama states in the affirmative that the use of deadly force is justified against a sovereign nationstate is culpable against attacks against it’s own citizens and natural persons living in it’s territory.


And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond selfdefense 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's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.


Duplicity is the lack of respect of persons. Here the world is condoning the attack in the United States as most of the free world is dependent on the United States to maintain the peace and economic prosperity. This type of mass defection is irrational. It is however the main choice of action where the immediate short payoff is for everyone to defect to receive a payoff in prisoner’s dilemma. Obama divides the argument. Unity is strength and fragmentation is weakness. The best efficient optimization is to uphold the Bill of Rights and stop the Chemical Assault Scorched Earth here. Then, international security of which the United States has lesser control and whose legal jurisdiction is more questionable will be STRONGER!


America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.


Obama is preparing to close his presentation. In doing so he is clearly positioning himself as a hypocrite who states one thing and does the other. Obama exhorts a legal moral posture for other nationstates and natural persons while he looks the other way as a Prefect Dictator while secret police actions carry out abuse against his own citizens.


Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.


Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.


Obama signals that the arrival of his thesis is to begin. This is a three step plan to achieve future peace. This will reconcile the tensions he evokes. He ends his acceptance with some embellishments in the style of a codetta. Here there is tough talk about nuclear weapons and human rights that he claims will be backed up in deeds. He states that he can cooperate with Russian President Medvedev in constraining Iran and it’s nuclear program which has pitted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Obama in brinkmanship similar to Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis during the early 1960s.


First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.


It is interesting to note that Obama states that he favors a approach to disarmament in his détente. It is not clear how much diplomacy will occur between the United States and Iran and Korea. To do such would escalate the prestige vis a vis with the United States. This is not desirable to the nuclear and economic status quo. Here is another recurring concrete act of hypocrisy. How can Obama keep these two actors clean and not game the system when HE IS GAMING THE SYSTEM ON CHEMICAL ASSAULT SCORCHED EARTH.


Barack is handling his oratory with kid gloves. As street smarts and unattractive realities persist,If you play the game, YOU BECOME THE GAME…


But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.


The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.


Obama’s second point is a manifest and latent function operating in unity.


This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.


Obama on defining point two also refers to differentiation and externalities. He is tacitly acknowledging to his audience that his leadership will have elements of pragmatism and sin to become good tradeoffs. I am not begging the question or creating a red herring and defeating such. One has to acknowledge the CONCRETE. Barack Obama is going to enter nuclear disarmament without establishing his legitimacy on internal problems as my persecution which is also an act of warfare. If the United Kingdom is the Origin and authorship than we are at War with a external democracy something he early states the United States has never done.


…There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.


Obama’s point three affirms socioeconomic justice as well as the right to legal person before one’s government. He directly mentions the need for clean medicine, shelter, and clean water is something I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE. THE COLORADO RIVER IS CLEARLY CONTAMINATED AND HEADED INTO MEXICO!



It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within. Barack Obama recapitulates the thesis.


Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.


Barack then asserts with his oratory skills that substance is the principle that is behind all of assumptions and activities of which he will lead into the future. He is also a man of faith and morality which is essential for the success of the human race.


For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.


...Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)


Barack Obama closes his speech by pointing out the faceless average persons who will not get recognized for their sacrifices in the context of war and peace. His role is that of a sovereign head of state and Commander in Chief.


Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.


Thank you very much. (Applause.)


Summary


The panorama in which President Barack Obama has received the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 contains a very deep and compelling concrete history that the Nobel Organization nor Obama and the United States has recognized.


Within this zeitgeist the values of leadership and accountability have become suspect both for the United States and the Nobel Organization.


His exposition of his doctrine that defines how he will act as a head of state at war are not promoting democracy but convergent totalitarianism. On June 17, 1987, the year of the 200th Anniversary of the United States Constitution in Dover, Delaware, I was systematically alienated from constitutional rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.


On this day a manifest act of War was waged against this country and continues to this day in continuo. The trajectory of impunity of five presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama confirms a Perfect Dictatorship is in place in the United States.


(The Nobel Organization also in 2004 awarded a prize to Vice President Al Gore for Global Warming.)


The concrete analysis will identify marginalization towards atomization of an individual in my instance. This is embedded within a systematic hate crime that is gender and identity based. The alleged authorship Cambridge University and agents Scotland Yard and Los Angeles Police Department pertain to the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intrasex Platform. I am a lifelong heterosexual. For simplicities purpose I will state my ethnic background is Japanese American. I am spiritually practitioner of Gaudiya Vaishnavism (Hare Krishna Movement) in the ritvik branch of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada.


I am being attacked for being a heterosexual in the United States by Chemical Assault Scorched Earth.


Obama attempts to confirm that interests are not the major criterion to base another actor's intents. Here there is nothing else to go on other than the concrete reality.


What are the motivations and strategic mission goals of this pattern of defection and who are it’s authors which necessitates for Barack Obama to condone an act of was as Commander in Chief of the United States? Why is the Nobel Organization for the second time awarding a Nobel Prize to a high American official while concrete behaviors are anti ethical to the once widely respected tradition of the Nobel Prize?


If war is a theater than the stage that President Barack Obama plays on is redefining that the best form of government as absolutist. His being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize also confirms that sovereign boundaries are only for the weak and not the powers that keep one in awe. Hobbes' Leviathan states that this struggle is a battle of, "All against All".


Obama is acting in folly by not opposing CONCRETE EVENTS IN THE UNITED STATES. This is evil and these acts of impunity are beyond the legal punishments for good and evil by constitutional processes of the United States and international standards of credibility.


The folly of totalitarian isolation does not substantiate creating an environment for nuclear deterrence, diplomacy or human rights.


The entrapment of Obama and myself involves the transformations that occur between a sovereign and the citizen under his protection.


The context of Barack Obama’s acceptance speech glosses over the realities of the sworn duty of the president of the United States. This is to protect the United States Constitution, citizens, and the territory of the homeland.


Obama argues that there are legal rules and consequences await for those who do not conform to these accepted norms of behavior. Where does the United States’ complicity in gross and egregious acts of Chemical Assault Scorched Earth configure in the Obama Doctrine being unfolded before an expecting world?


If philosophy and projecting ideals would solve the problems than this event would of not happened and there would be a Palestinian State or at least a bad peace. The concrete world shows that these public displays of statesmanship are usually only tactics used to buy time to rebuild for the fight. Here we are dealing with the arc of lifespan. My condition is debilitating and one if duress as are the woman and children in refugee camps in Darfur or a child awaiting food in Somalia. There are rogue actors that are adept in fighting war by other means. The stalling tactics of dialog are contrasted with due process and the right to legal person before the court.


I announce that I am STATELESS PERSON within the boundaries of the country to which I was born a citizen on August 3, 1961 in Roswell, New Mexico. This is one day prior to the ruse affecting Barack Obama’s birth one day hence in Honolulu, Hawaii.


Primary law defines one substantive rights under citizenship. Secondary law defines the duties which obligate one to recognize rights of citizenship. This is also particular to code enforcement officials who are citizens first and duty bound competent authorities secondarily.


Totalitarianism occurs when the interests of the Secondary law is placed before the Primary Law.


Accountability should await Obama under the Bill of Rights and the United States Federal Code. The international community should invoke the Convention Against Torture which President Clinton ratified in 1994.




Barack Obama Accepts Nobel Prize


Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech. Transcript.


Office of the Press Secretary


For Immediate Release December 10, 2009


REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

AT THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE


Oslo City Hall

Oslo, Norway


1:44 P.M. CET


THE PRESIDENT: Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:


I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.


And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.


But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander in Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.


Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.


Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.


And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: 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.


Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.


In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.


In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.


And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.


Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.


I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.


We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.


I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.


But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.


I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.


But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.


So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that noi matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.


So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly unreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.


What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?


To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.


The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.


Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.


And 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's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.


America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.


The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.


Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.


Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.


I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.


First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.


One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.


But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.


The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.


This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.


It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.


And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.


I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.


So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.


Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.


In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. 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. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.


Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.


It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.


And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.


Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.


As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.


And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.


And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.


Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.


But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.


For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.


Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."


Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)


Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.


Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.


Thank you very much. (Applause.)


END 2:20 P.M. CET




Websites


MOEC: Mobilization of Empire and Civilization


Facebook: MOEC Studies


https://www.facebook.com/david.nollmeyer


Google Plus


https://plus.google.com/+davidnollmeyer


MOEC Studies


http://powereality.net/moec-journals.html


http://powereality.net/


http://powereality.net/moec-position-papers.html


http://powereality.net/origin.htm


http://powereality.net/lycurgus.htm


http://powereality.net/lycurgus-II.htm


http://powereality.net/mocm.htm


http://powereality.net/mocm-pt.ii.html


http://powereality.net/mocm-pt.III.htm


http://powereality.net/garden-of-enchiridion.htm


http://powereality.net/anglo-american.html


http://powereality.net/anglo-american-pt.II.html


http://powereality.net/anglo-american-pt.III.html


http://powereality.net/nollmeyer.htm


HIV AIDS Position Paper


Citations


Methodology


Political Figures


http://powereality.net/irrationalistpresidents.htm


Ronald Reagan


http://powereality.net/reagan.berlin.wall.html


Barack Obama


http://www.powereality.net/obama-inaugaration-2013.htm


http://powereality.net/obama.2016.html


http://powereality.net/obama-nollmeyer.htm


http://powereality.net/obama-nobel-prize.htm


http://powereality.net/obama-gadhafi-killing.htm


http://powereality.net/obama-mlk-memorial.htm


http://powereality.net/obama-farewell.html


Joe Biden


http://powereality.net/biden-shepard.htm


Donald Trump


http://powereality.net/trump-sotu-2017.html


Arnold Schwarzenegger


http://powereality.net/schwarzenegger-usc.htm


http://powereality.net/storyboard-half-life.htm


Hillary Clinton


http://powereality.net/hillary-lgbt.htm


Geir Lundestad


http://powereality.net/geir.lundestad.2009-peace-prize.htm


Miscellaneous


http://powereality.net/gore-fraud.htm


http://powereality.net/kerry-bush.htm


Universities, Police Agencies, & Locations


http://powereality.net/cambridge.htm


http://powereality.net/university-california.htm


http://powereality.net/lapd.htm


http://powereality.net/delaware.htm


http://powereality.net/se.california.htm


http://powereality.net/n.california.htm


http://powereality.net/inyo.htm


Supporting MOEC Sites


http://powereality.net/ritvik.vedas.htm


http://powereality.net/journals.htm


http://powereality.net/strawman.htm


http://powereality.net/singularity.htm


http://powereality.net/aboveground.htm


http://powereality.net/baltimorestudio.htm


http://powereality.net/deification-lgbti.htm


http://powereality.net/moec-singularity.htm


http://powereality.net/singularity-convergence.htm


http://powereality.net/collegeoftheredwoods.htm


http://powereality.net/cuestacollege.htm


http://powereality.net/mesa-college.htm


http://powereality.net/scores.htm


https://www.flickr.com/photos/vamanadeva/


http://powereality.net/Compositions.htm



Law


http://powereality.net/universal-jurisdiction.htm


http://powereality.net/rico.htm


http://powereality.net/capital-punishment.htm


http://powereality.net/daubert-factors.htm


http://powereality.net/eskridge.supreme.court.htm


http://powereality.net/maritime-piracy.htm


http://powereality.net/rehnquist.htm


http://powereality.net/dna-fappiano-exoneration.html


http://powereality.net/dna-spencer.htm


http://powereality.net/dna-pool.htm


http://powereality.net/criminal-justice.htm


http://powereality.net/faith-rights.htm


Social Science


http://powereality.net/hume-kant.htm


http://powereality.net/impunity.htm


http://powereality.net/dehumanization.htm


http://powereality.net/antisocial.htm


http://powereality.net/jean-piaget.htm


http://powereality.net/ecological-systems.htm


http://powereality.net/euthanasia.htm


http://powereality.net/wto.htm


http://powereality.net/economics.htm


http://powereality.net/mentoring.htm


Other Sites


Chemical Assault: Challenge to Leadership


http://www.facebook.com/d.nollmeyer


Gaudiya Vaishnava


http://www.facebook.com/vamanadeva


Scribd


http://www.scribd.com/dnollmeyer


Blogs


http://twitter.com/BhaktaDavid


http://twitter.com/dnollmeyer


http://vamanadeva.wordpress.com/


http://moec-singularity.blogspot.com/


http://i-singularity.tumblr.com/


http://kronin.blogspot.com/


http://humanrightsdiscussion.blogspot.com/


http://future-state.blogspot.com/


http://belle-indifference.blogspot.com/


http://corporate-history.blogspot.com/


http://www.myspace.com/powereality