King Harald and Crown Princess Mette-Marit of Norway Team Up to Host Former President Barack Obama
President Barack Obama had a royal visit during his trip to Norway.
The former U.S. leader visited with King Harald V, the King's daughter-in-law Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre at the Bygdø Kongsgård royal summer estate in Bygdøyveien on Tuesday, May 13.
The visit came as Obama was in Norway for a lecture at the Oslo Spektrum on Monday, May 12. Moderated by Sofie Høgestøl, a podcaster and former member of Norwegian parliament, the discussion delved into 'some of the most pressing issues of our time, as well as his thoughts on the challenges facing the world's democracies in the future.'
Obama and King Harald were well acquainted during his time in office. The monarch presented the former president with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for his efforts in international diplomacy.
The meeting came just over a year after King Harald reduced his royal duties following a lengthy sick leave and an operation to install a permanent pacemaker.
"The King will make adjustments to his program in the future, out of consideration for his age. This will entail a permanent reduction in the number and scope of activities in which the King participates," the Norwegian Royal House announced on April 22, 2024.
Princess Mette-Marit's husband, Crown Prince Haakon, is next in line to the throne and has assumed some royal duties due to his father's health limitations.
The couple married in 2001 and share two children, Princess Ingrid Alexandra, 21, and Prince Sverre Magnus, 19. Princess Ingrid is currently second in line to the throne thanks to Norway adopting absolute primogeniture in 1990, allowing for eldest female children to come before their brothers in the order of succession.
Though the King of Norway has had several health issues in recent years, including hospitalizations for infections in December 2022 and May 2023, he stated in January 2024 that he had no plans to abdicate.
The issue was top of mind after Queen Margrethe of Denmark voluntarily stepped down from the throne in January 2024.
'No, I don't really have it. I stand by what I have said all along. I have taken an oath to the Storting, and it lasts for life,' King Harald said at the time, referring to his promise to the Norwegian Parliament when he acceded at age 53 in 1991.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Michelle Obama couldn't be more wrong about women Trump voters
I'm a pro-choice feminist — and a Democrat — who just happened to vote for Donald Trump for president. And I resent Michelle Obama's sneering, demeaning, strangely ignorant and massively sexist remarks about women, our reproductive systems and, especially, our vote. In the latest episode of the podcast, 'IMO with Michelle Obama & Craig Robinson,'' the former first lady and lefty pro-abortion activist mounted her high horse and disgracefully disparaged a woman's decision to exercise her right to choose what to do with her body. That is, when that choice is to have a baby. On the podcast she shares with her celebricat brother, the 61-year-old mother of two daughters, insanely breathed strength into the pro-life crowd by declaring bizarrely that creating life is 'the least' of what a woman's reproductive system does. Advertisement 'I attempted to make the argument on the campaign trail this past election was that there's just so much more at stake and because so many men have no idea about what women go through,' Obama said, delving treacherously close to Democratic-style word salad. 'Women's reproductive health is about our life. It's about this whole complicated reproductive system that the least of what it does is produce life.' When does a reproductive system have nothing to do with reproduction? Willful ignorance Mrs. O showed stupendously willful ignorance about her fellow ladies' inner workings. Advertisement 'It's a very important thing that it does, but you only produce life if the machine that's producing it — if you want to whittle us down to a machine — is functioning in a healthy, streamlined kind of way,' Obama added. I guess she missed that day in biology class. Speaking with OB/GYN Dr. Sharon Malone, whose husband, Eric Holder, served as attorney general under former President Barack Obama, Michelle then took aim at the male of the species. Advertisement She attacked guys who, she said, 'sit on their hands' over abortion and are choosing to 'trade out women's health for a tax break or whatever it is.'' But the crescendo came when she denounced women like me of handing the election to President Trump because — get this — we were too stupid or timid to vote for the worst candidate ever to grace a ballot, simply because she is female. In Obama's world, we voted for Trump to please men. Seriously? Advertisement 'There are a lot of men who have big chairs at their tables, there are a lot of women who vote the way their man is going to vote,'' she actually said. 'It happened in this election.' So there it is. Michelle Obama, pretend women's rights warrior, is so condescending to the fairer sex, she insults millions of people bearing XX chromosomes by claiming they were merely trying to please 'their'' man by going for Trump. Hey Michelle — sorry to stick a fork into your Trump Derangement Syndrome — but I, for one, simply voted my mind, my heart, my pocketbook and, yes, my reproductive organs. Despite Democratic hysteria, it's clear to me that the president has no intention of eliminating abortion rights throughout this country. Own opinions There also exist many other issues that concern me. These include runaway crime, the largesse afforded by the previous presidential administration to countless numbers of illegal immigrants, including violent criminals. There's also epic inflation and unchecked antisemitism on college campuses and elsewhere. There's more, but that's a start. In each case, things got so out of hand, I believed Trump had the best chance of saving this nation. Advertisement He couldn't do any worse. I'm no shrinking violet, Michelle. I believe in equal rights — for everyone. And I believe my man is entitled to his own opinions.
6 hours ago
Bangladesh opens trial of deposed ex-Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina
DHAKA, Bangladesh -- A special tribunal set up to try Bangladesh's ousted Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina began proceedings Sunday by accepting charges of crimes against humanity filed against her in connection with a mass uprising in which hundreds of students were killed last year. The Dhaka-based International Crimes Tribunal directed investigators to produce Hasina, a former home minister and a former police chief before the court on June 16. Hasina has been in exile in India since Aug. 5, 2024, while former Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan is missing and possibly also in India. Former police chief Chowdhury Abdullah Al Mamun has been arrested. Bangladesh sent a formal request to India to extradite Hasina in December. State-run Bangladesh Television broadcast the court proceedings live. Hasina and her Awami League party had earlier criticized the tribunal and its prosecution team for their connection with political parties, especially with the Jamaat-e-Islami party. In an investigation report submitted on May 12, the tribunal's investigators brought five allegations of crimes against humanity against Hasina and the two others during the mass uprising in July-August last year. According to the charges, Hasina was directly responsible for ordering all state forces, her Awami League party and its associates to carry out actions that led to mass killings, injuries, targeted violence against women and children, the incineration of bodies and denial of medical treatment to the wounded. The charges describe Hasina as the 'mastermind, conductor, and superior commander' of the atrocities. Three days after Hasina's ouster, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus took over as the nation's interim leader. The Yunus-led administration, which has already banned the Awami League party, amended relevant laws to allow for the trial of the former ruling party for its role during the uprising. In February, the U.N. human rights office estimated that up to 1,400 people may have been killed in Bangladesh over three weeks in the crackdown on the student-led protests against Hasina, who ruled the country for 15 years. The tribunal was established by Hasina in 2009 to investigate and try crimes involving Bangladesh's independence war in 1971. The tribunal under Hasina tried politicians, mostly from the Jamaat-e-Islami party, for their actions during the nine-month war against Pakistan. Aided by India, Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan under the leadership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, Hasina's father and the country's first leader. In a separate development, Bangladesh's Supreme Court on Sunday cleared the path for the Jamaat-e-Islami party to regain its registration as a political party after a decade — a decision that would enable the party to take part in elections. The country's top court overturned a previous High Court verdict and said it is now up to the Election Commission to formally restore the registration of Bangladesh's largest Islamist party and their election symbol. Yunus said his administration would hold the election by June next year, but the Bangladesh Nationalist Party headed by former Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, Hasina's archrival, wants the election to be held in December this year. The relation between Zia's party, which is the largest in absence of Hasina's party, and the Yunus-led government has recently been frosty over the polls schedule.
New York Post
11 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump's budget bill cuts off the green-energy cash spigot — and it's about time
The 'big, beautiful' budget bill passed by the House of Representatives, if enacted in its current form, will eliminate clean-electricity tax credits, including for wind and solar power, starting in 2029. It will require projects seeking to receive those subsidies to begin construction within 60 days of the legislation becoming law, and to start operating by 2028. This is great news for both fiscal sanity and energy reality, both of which have been in short supply for far too long. This 'temporary' tax credit was first enacted in 1992 to help the then-nascent onshore wind and solar industries. Congress always set it to expire years into the future, providing ample opportunities for politicians to extend and enlarge it. They have done so 12 times. The Investment Tax Credit used by offshore wind developers like the Norwegian government-owned Equinor, which is relying on it to build Empire Wind off the coast of New York, has been around even longer — it was first enacted almost a half-century ago. But the ITC was greatly expanded under President Joe Biden's ill-named Inflation Reduction Act, enabling offshore wind developers to qualify for up to 50% of their construction costs. Far from being temporary, these tax credits have become a permanent crutch. As Warren Buffett commented back in 2014, the only reason his MidAmerican Energy company built wind turbines was to capture the tax credits. Wind and solar developers have been allowed to stick taxpayers and ratepayers with the bills, assuming they would continue to do so for many years. Consequently, the proposed rapid demise of these tax credits has ignited howls of outrage from green energy advocates, as well as politicians from both sides of the aisle, who contend it will devastate state economies and destroy thousands of jobs. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul claimed that transforming the South Brooklyn Marine Terminal into the nation's largest offshore wind port would be 'a large step forward in our commitment to build a sustainable future and foster economic growth.' In New Jersey, where Gov. Phil Murphy's dreams of an offshore wind nirvana have sunk, officials lamented the House bill's passage. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters 'It's very strange to me, very, very strange,' said Tim Sullivan of the NJ Economic Development Authority. 'I've never seen a situation where elected officials are celebrating something that is killing jobs.' It's not just Democrats: Iowa's Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley has been a consistent defender of wind-energy subsidies. But whether it's tax credits or long-term contracts that force ratepayers to pay above-market prices for these intermittent energy resources, the pro-subsidy crowd ignores economic reality. Sure, subsidizing an industry or an individual firm can 'create' jobs — but those subsidies must be paid for by someone. We pay in the form of soaring electricity rates. In New York, residential customers paid an average of over 24 cents per kWh last year, 50% higher than the US average and 25% percent more than they paid in 2020. Commercial customers, including thousands of small businesses, also paid rates 50% higher than the rest of the country. It's basic economics that, if you are forced to pay more for electricity, you have less money to spend on everything else. Whether it's households forced into energy poverty or businesses that cannot afford to invest and expand, the adverse effects of high-priced electricity ripples through the entire economy. Moreover, the subsidized jobs the green-energy advocates and their political enablers wish to create are hugely expensive. Over the life of an offshore wind project, including the now-greenlit Empire Wind, the average costs are over $1 million per job — each and every year. That's obviously far more than any of the project's workers will be paid. It's an overarching economic fallacy to justify any green-energy subsidy on the promise of new jobs — because an investment's economic value isn't measured by the number of jobs it creates. The purpose of investing in electricity-generating resources and infrastructure is to ensure that our power supplies are adequate, reliable and affordable. If job creation was the goal, the most valuable energy resources would be the most labor-intensive ones. Subsidy advocates ignore these basic economic realities. And campaign contributors are the loudest voices in many politicians' ears. Eventually, however, reality always wins. Senators would be wise to remember that as they debate the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' in the coming weeks. Jonathan Lesser is a senior fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics.
