The National Father’s Day council (haven’t heard of it? Me neither) recently announced that former president Bill Clinton will be the 2013 recipient of their ‘Father of the Year’ award, to be presented in June.
From Huffington Post:
-National Father’s Day Committee chairman Dan Orwig commended the politician and philanthropist for his "profound generosity, leadership and tireless dedication to both his public office and many philanthropic organizations."
OK. Since when are ‘tireless dedication to public office’ and ‘dedication to philanthropic organizations’ qualifications for being an exceptional dad? And did anybody else realize that Bill Clinton had some kind of public office? This is 2013 we’re talking about, not 1994 or even 2000.
If any father has shown any tireless dedication to any office that’s worth highlighting as ‘being a good dad’, it’s because the family needs dad to be tirelessly working to feed the family. That is commendable. Bill Clinton doesn’t need the money and neither does his daughter Chelsea…and dedication to philanthropic organizations? That’s worthy of being a ‘Father of the Year’? Since when?
What is it with these liberal organizations and their propensity for giving these awards that are without merit?
What about family life? Are being a good husband and being a good father somehow linked together? They are in my world. If I’m a politician that has been accused of sexual misconduct by more than one woman, and then gets busted for cheating on my wife (and lying under oath about it), I’m just guessing that there will be no ‘Father of the Year’ awards coming my way. Ever. There are enough dads out there working two jobs, taking care of mom (who has cancer) and still giving his kids all the love and attention he can, and not getting any recognition for his efforts that are standing in line.
Yet the National Father’s Day Committee picks Bill Clinton. You know Bill Clinton will give a good acceptance speech, so they got that going for them.
This reminds us of the Nobel Prize for Peace that was given to Barack Obama in October, 2009 after he accomplished…barely anything worthy of this formerly prestigious honor. Obama himself was “shocked” and “deeply humbled”. Even the New York Times termed it as a “stunning surprise”. Let me tell you something, if the NYT calls any award given to an unabashed liberal ‘stunning’, then it was ‘stunning’…along with undeserved.
We shouldn’t have been surprised. At all. The Nobel people gave Al Gore the Nobel Prize for Peace just two years earlier for his attempts to fly around the world to save the planet.
Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary on global warming, won an Academy Award this year. He had been widely expected to win the peace prize.
"His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change," the Nobel citation said. "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."
Yes, Al Gore pontificated ‘tirelessly’ and railed against the use of fossil fuels as they are burning up the planet. He produced a documentary that has since been denounced as fear mongering and full of lies. Yet, he got full accolades for doing so. It fit the narrative. The narrative always triumphs in the world that liberals live in.
Al Gore recently sold his cable network (Current TV) to one of the wealthiest oil men in the world for a profit of $100,000,000. Try to reconcile that one, climate alarmists.
Personally, I like to see these awards go to people I’ve never even heard of. It piques my interest enough to read their bio.. wonder why they got the award. It usually reinforces my feeling that man is good and man will go beyond his limits to accomplish great things.
Seeing Bill Clinton win Father of the Year reinforces my opinion that many of these awards are total b.s.