In an effort to better understand the mind-boggling announcement that Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, it is helpful to read the announcement line by line, and try to place the carefully drafted speech in context with background information.
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
The committee consists of five white Norwegians, hailing from a country that is homogeneous, rich, and socialist -- i.e., with a narrow vision. Even from that perspective, however, it's difficult to fathom what "extraordinary efforts" they think Obama has made to warrant the Nobel prize. Perhaps the efforts to strengthen international diplomacy had to do with his speeches outside the U.S. during his election campaign, the most remarkable of which was his address in Berlin in July 2008 to a crowd of more than 200,000 -- far exceeding the crowds he drew within the United States. Obama spoke about "hope" and "peace" and said: "Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century...This is the moment to stand as one." Apparently this speech struck a chord in people who were sick and tired of Bush's unilateralism, and feeling helpless to impact the policies of the most powerful nation in the world.
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
The committee consists of five white Norwegians, hailing from a country that is homogeneous, rich, and socialist -- i.e., with a narrow vision. Even from that perspective, however, it's difficult to fathom what "extraordinary efforts" they think Obama has made to warrant the Nobel prize. Perhaps the efforts to strengthen international diplomacy had to do with his speeches outside the U.S. during his election campaign, the most remarkable of which was his address in Berlin in July 2008 to a crowd of more than 200,000 -- far exceeding the crowds he drew within the United States. Obama spoke about "hope" and "peace" and said: "Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century...This is the moment to stand as one." Apparently this speech struck a chord in people who were sick and tired of Bush's unilateralism, and feeling helpless to impact the policies of the most powerful nation in the world.
Photo from Obama's 2008 speech in Berlin from SpiegelOnline along with a story on "The Triumph of the Anti-Bush."
"The committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
Maybe one day Norway will regret firsthand that Obama did away with the planned missile shield of Europe, but to get in the head of the committee members, let's just note that Norway of course has no nuclear weapons, and has long been a vocal opponent of nuclear weapons on the international stage. If nuclear weapons were banned, however, and a rogue military dictator developed them anyway with the intent of destroying other countries, who would be able to stop them? Norway?? Norway's population is less than that of greater Atlanta, and its total population available to fight a war barely exceeds two million. Could the United States stop a nuclear-armed dictator without having its own nuclear weapons? Could a European country stop the aggressor without its NATO-supplied U.S. nuclear weapons?
To suggest that governments like the United States do away with nuclear weapons would be like saying police should face criminals entirely unarmed and defenseless. It wouldn't be long before criminals ruled society, just like it wouldn't be long before military dictators ruled the world if democratic governments all gave up their arsenals. Good guys need 'em, to ensure bad guys don't get 'em. If Obama is sincere in wanting a world without nuclear weapons, as the Nobel committee seems to think, and is not just being a politician making good speeches, then he is up to no good, and is after the destruction of the free world, because certainly aggressive military dictators around the world will not lay down their arms willingly and hug their neighbors while espousing peace and love. Instead they will move into the void created by Western military weakness -- a West without nuclear weapons -- and take over with their own nuclear arsenals developed or stolen on the sly.
"Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. (That was the announcement as written. The way it was actually spoken is: Obama has as President created a new international climate.)"
Yes, he has, which is why Muslims throughout Africa, Indonesia and the Middle East celebrated his election, and why some Africans have called his Nobel Peace Prize award "a victory for Africa." This "new climate," however, is at the heart of why Obama won the award. It's difficult for Americans to understand the hatred of George "W" around the world, and how relieved everyone is to have a different U.S. President to deal with. The disgust didn't begin and end with the demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people around the world against Bush and his foreign policies. It lived on in graffiti plastering all the major and many minor cities of the world. Check out Street Art and the War on Terror to get an idea of the contempt the world has for Bush. In fact, during his presidency, European media entertained stories speculating whether the leader was schizophrenic. The relief felt by the collective masses over the election of Obama, the Anti-Bush, is clearly behind the award.
Cover of Street Art and the War On Terror.
"Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play."
The U.N. is made up of and controlled by more and more countries opposed to the core values of the United States. It is therefore not unusual for the U.S. to simply boycott certain meetings of the U.N. that discuss nothing other than advancing agendas that Americans are completely opposed to. Do these Nobel committee members want the U.S. to abandon its own agenda in pursuit of what the majority of world leaders want, within the context of the U.N. and other international institutions? That would be a dangerous plan of action for Americans and the world, but the Norwegians have placed their bet on this and made their investment. In fact, the $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize, along with all the prestige that goes with it, can be seen as a bit of a bribe to get Obama in the pockets of non-Americans.
The point here is that powerless Norway would like to have more say in international affairs, and thinks that getting the U.S. to bow to the wishes of international institutions will help achieve that goal. The aim is more control and influence over the United States and its leader. This is a sickening abuse of the Nobel Peace Prize, but then, how relevant is the award really when it was not given to people like Gandhi and Mother Teresa, the true heroes in seeking peace, or any of the other 204 nominees that did more to deserve the prize this year.
"Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."
Clearly, these words come from five Norwegians inexperienced and rather ignorant of how international conflicts are actually resolved, today and throughout history. Dialogue and negotiation did nothing to stop Hitler, who was happy to sign peace treaty after peace treaty with his neighbors prior to rolling in the tanks and taking over. Brute force alone, or the threat of it, is what truly resolves "the most difficult international conflicts."
"The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations."
Yeah, right, and they all lived happily ever after. The world will never be free of nuclear arms any more than it will be free of electricity or computers or any other technological development. We cannot go back in time, or let's hope not. Certainly some terrorist groups hailing from the Middle East would like to take us back four thousand years, and institute worldwide such great laws as stoning people to death, but let's hope they don't succeed.
"Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting."
Note the word "constructive." The implication is that prior to Obama, our role in the world was destructive for the climate. That's odd, considering this same committee recently awarded Al Gore, another American, a Nobel prize for efforts to fight "climatic challenges." Obviously, the USA has already been playing a constructive role in this area, so why imply otherwise? Enough said.
"Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
It's all too obvious that the Iraq War, which brought on all the world's derision of Bush and celebration of Obama, strengthened "democracy and human rights." Without question. It has yet to be seen whether anything Obama does strengthens democracy and human rights around the world. So far, however, rights within the United States have been threatened and diminished since he took office. For example, the Obama-backed Hate Crimes Bill currently attached as a line item in a defense spending bill will greatly decrease our most basic and cherished rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. How can a President squelch rights in the country he rules and at the same time increase rights abroad?
Bowing and cowing to enemy leaders of countries where democracy does not exist and human rights are routinely abused certainly won't do anything to help. No peace-loving country in Europe was able to strengthen democracy and human rights in the face of Hitler's blitzkrieg. Military might and actions have a place in achieving good goals. They are not inherently evil, but are only used for evil in the wrong hands. As gun rights proponents say, it isn't the gun that kills, but the person holding it. Norway should look more at results rather than means, and not judge a book by its cover if they truly believe in strengthening democracy and human rights.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
Obama is certainly an icon around the world, but so is Sarah Palin. Having enough charisma and PR smarts to capture attention hardly warrants an award for peace. Creating "a better future" does not hinge on the popularity of a leader, but rather on having the means and determination to actually take actions to improve the world, even if those actions are unpopular. In fact, popularity of a leader can be a huge detriment. You cannot be all things to all people and please everyone. A ruler must instead be willing to be unpopular with rulers of other countries with different values and goals. Is Obama? There are many indications that what he cares most about is not serving the United States and protecting its interests and values, but rather serving himself, and protecting his own interests and values, including his status as a much-beloved world icon. Only time will tell in the end whether he helps create a better future or does nothing more than offer hope for one -- the time that the Nobel committee should've waited before making any award to Obama.
"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
Truly scary. The President of the United States should lead the country on the basis of values and attitudes shared by the majority of American citizens, regardless of what the citizens of Norway, Kenya, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba or any other country think. Who cares about the "values and attitudes" of "the majority of the world's population?" But read the full statement above again. It is at the very heart of Obama's selection for the Nobel Peace Prize. He is referred to as not a country leader, but as one who is "to lead the world." Therefore, according to this theory, he should listen to and heed the world's opinions. The U.S. President is so powerful in the world, that whoever serves in this role is seen as the ruler of the world. People outside the U.S., like Norwegians, feel helpless in this context, because they are unable to vote for this ruler.
The committee members for the Nobel Peace Prize are trying to send a message to this world leader to heed the world. Let's see, that encompasses more than a billion Chinese communists; about two billion Muslims; and billions of others who would espouse ideas that are totally contrary to everything the United States stands for. Perhaps they are counting on Obama's statement to the Berlin crowd that he sees himself as a "citizen of the world," and counting on the possibility of his divided loyalties among countries as diverse as the United States, Kenya and Indonesia. Maybe this U.S. President can be manipulated, they must be thinking, and bought for a mere $1.4 million. However, one good thing to say about Obama in this regard is that he immediately announced he would donate that money to charity. Not what the Norwegians were counting on perhaps, but a clear indication from Obama that he does not want to be seen as financially benefiting from the award, nor have any obligations as a result of it.
"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman."
Note the re-statement of the U.S. President being depicted as "the world's leading spokesman."
"The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'"
Actually, with the United States remaining the world's only superpower, and with Norway being inconsequential by comparison, it really doesn't matter if Norway takes on a share of the responsibility. Maybe these five Nobel committee members feel important by stating that they will join Obama in his "global response to global challenges." Let's hope Obama does not feel obligated to return any favors, or earn after-the-fact the award they have bestowed on him. To the contrary, you would think that getting this prize before doing anything -- as the SNL parody so aptly pointed out only a week before the Nobel Prize was awarded -- would actually free Obama up to stop trying to impress so many other country leaders around the world, and start trying to impress U.S. citizens, who will be the ones to actually vote for him or against him down the road, and vote for or against the people in Congress who can back his plans. In the meantime his fairytale continues, where he becomes President of the world's greatest country without anything to merit it, including allegedly citizenship, and where he becomes a Nobel Peace Prize recipient without anything to merit it.
My lingering and parting thought is just how wrong it is to hand out peace awards prematurely. Winston Churchill was the main person stating how Hitler was a danger long before that was evident to the masses, and at a time when most people saw Hitler as a beacon of hope for peace and positive change, resulting in his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. In the United States, a huge chunk of the population -- termed "extremists" by the administration, but in actuality concerned citizens of every walk -- see Obama as a danger to every Western ideal and American value, and are highly concerned and sounding the alarm bells. Let's hope for the good of the country and the world that the five Norwegians have it right, and not the millions of Americans who know and understand the President better, and can see firsthand what he's up to, which arguably is nothing related to strengthening "democracy and human rights," or generating peace and unity at home and abroad.
"The committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons."
Maybe one day Norway will regret firsthand that Obama did away with the planned missile shield of Europe, but to get in the head of the committee members, let's just note that Norway of course has no nuclear weapons, and has long been a vocal opponent of nuclear weapons on the international stage. If nuclear weapons were banned, however, and a rogue military dictator developed them anyway with the intent of destroying other countries, who would be able to stop them? Norway?? Norway's population is less than that of greater Atlanta, and its total population available to fight a war barely exceeds two million. Could the United States stop a nuclear-armed dictator without having its own nuclear weapons? Could a European country stop the aggressor without its NATO-supplied U.S. nuclear weapons?
To suggest that governments like the United States do away with nuclear weapons would be like saying police should face criminals entirely unarmed and defenseless. It wouldn't be long before criminals ruled society, just like it wouldn't be long before military dictators ruled the world if democratic governments all gave up their arsenals. Good guys need 'em, to ensure bad guys don't get 'em. If Obama is sincere in wanting a world without nuclear weapons, as the Nobel committee seems to think, and is not just being a politician making good speeches, then he is up to no good, and is after the destruction of the free world, because certainly aggressive military dictators around the world will not lay down their arms willingly and hug their neighbors while espousing peace and love. Instead they will move into the void created by Western military weakness -- a West without nuclear weapons -- and take over with their own nuclear arsenals developed or stolen on the sly.
"Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. (That was the announcement as written. The way it was actually spoken is: Obama has as President created a new international climate.)"
Yes, he has, which is why Muslims throughout Africa, Indonesia and the Middle East celebrated his election, and why some Africans have called his Nobel Peace Prize award "a victory for Africa." This "new climate," however, is at the heart of why Obama won the award. It's difficult for Americans to understand the hatred of George "W" around the world, and how relieved everyone is to have a different U.S. President to deal with. The disgust didn't begin and end with the demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people around the world against Bush and his foreign policies. It lived on in graffiti plastering all the major and many minor cities of the world. Check out Street Art and the War on Terror to get an idea of the contempt the world has for Bush. In fact, during his presidency, European media entertained stories speculating whether the leader was schizophrenic. The relief felt by the collective masses over the election of Obama, the Anti-Bush, is clearly behind the award.
Cover of Street Art and the War On Terror.
"Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play."
The U.N. is made up of and controlled by more and more countries opposed to the core values of the United States. It is therefore not unusual for the U.S. to simply boycott certain meetings of the U.N. that discuss nothing other than advancing agendas that Americans are completely opposed to. Do these Nobel committee members want the U.S. to abandon its own agenda in pursuit of what the majority of world leaders want, within the context of the U.N. and other international institutions? That would be a dangerous plan of action for Americans and the world, but the Norwegians have placed their bet on this and made their investment. In fact, the $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize, along with all the prestige that goes with it, can be seen as a bit of a bribe to get Obama in the pockets of non-Americans.
The point here is that powerless Norway would like to have more say in international affairs, and thinks that getting the U.S. to bow to the wishes of international institutions will help achieve that goal. The aim is more control and influence over the United States and its leader. This is a sickening abuse of the Nobel Peace Prize, but then, how relevant is the award really when it was not given to people like Gandhi and Mother Teresa, the true heroes in seeking peace, or any of the other 204 nominees that did more to deserve the prize this year.
"Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts."
Clearly, these words come from five Norwegians inexperienced and rather ignorant of how international conflicts are actually resolved, today and throughout history. Dialogue and negotiation did nothing to stop Hitler, who was happy to sign peace treaty after peace treaty with his neighbors prior to rolling in the tanks and taking over. Brute force alone, or the threat of it, is what truly resolves "the most difficult international conflicts."
"The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations."
Yeah, right, and they all lived happily ever after. The world will never be free of nuclear arms any more than it will be free of electricity or computers or any other technological development. We cannot go back in time, or let's hope not. Certainly some terrorist groups hailing from the Middle East would like to take us back four thousand years, and institute worldwide such great laws as stoning people to death, but let's hope they don't succeed.
"Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting."
Note the word "constructive." The implication is that prior to Obama, our role in the world was destructive for the climate. That's odd, considering this same committee recently awarded Al Gore, another American, a Nobel prize for efforts to fight "climatic challenges." Obviously, the USA has already been playing a constructive role in this area, so why imply otherwise? Enough said.
"Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened."
It's all too obvious that the Iraq War, which brought on all the world's derision of Bush and celebration of Obama, strengthened "democracy and human rights." Without question. It has yet to be seen whether anything Obama does strengthens democracy and human rights around the world. So far, however, rights within the United States have been threatened and diminished since he took office. For example, the Obama-backed Hate Crimes Bill currently attached as a line item in a defense spending bill will greatly decrease our most basic and cherished rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. How can a President squelch rights in the country he rules and at the same time increase rights abroad?
Bowing and cowing to enemy leaders of countries where democracy does not exist and human rights are routinely abused certainly won't do anything to help. No peace-loving country in Europe was able to strengthen democracy and human rights in the face of Hitler's blitzkrieg. Military might and actions have a place in achieving good goals. They are not inherently evil, but are only used for evil in the wrong hands. As gun rights proponents say, it isn't the gun that kills, but the person holding it. Norway should look more at results rather than means, and not judge a book by its cover if they truly believe in strengthening democracy and human rights.
"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future."
Obama is certainly an icon around the world, but so is Sarah Palin. Having enough charisma and PR smarts to capture attention hardly warrants an award for peace. Creating "a better future" does not hinge on the popularity of a leader, but rather on having the means and determination to actually take actions to improve the world, even if those actions are unpopular. In fact, popularity of a leader can be a huge detriment. You cannot be all things to all people and please everyone. A ruler must instead be willing to be unpopular with rulers of other countries with different values and goals. Is Obama? There are many indications that what he cares most about is not serving the United States and protecting its interests and values, but rather serving himself, and protecting his own interests and values, including his status as a much-beloved world icon. Only time will tell in the end whether he helps create a better future or does nothing more than offer hope for one -- the time that the Nobel committee should've waited before making any award to Obama.
"His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."
Truly scary. The President of the United States should lead the country on the basis of values and attitudes shared by the majority of American citizens, regardless of what the citizens of Norway, Kenya, Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Venezuela, Cuba or any other country think. Who cares about the "values and attitudes" of "the majority of the world's population?" But read the full statement above again. It is at the very heart of Obama's selection for the Nobel Peace Prize. He is referred to as not a country leader, but as one who is "to lead the world." Therefore, according to this theory, he should listen to and heed the world's opinions. The U.S. President is so powerful in the world, that whoever serves in this role is seen as the ruler of the world. People outside the U.S., like Norwegians, feel helpless in this context, because they are unable to vote for this ruler.
The committee members for the Nobel Peace Prize are trying to send a message to this world leader to heed the world. Let's see, that encompasses more than a billion Chinese communists; about two billion Muslims; and billions of others who would espouse ideas that are totally contrary to everything the United States stands for. Perhaps they are counting on Obama's statement to the Berlin crowd that he sees himself as a "citizen of the world," and counting on the possibility of his divided loyalties among countries as diverse as the United States, Kenya and Indonesia. Maybe this U.S. President can be manipulated, they must be thinking, and bought for a mere $1.4 million. However, one good thing to say about Obama in this regard is that he immediately announced he would donate that money to charity. Not what the Norwegians were counting on perhaps, but a clear indication from Obama that he does not want to be seen as financially benefiting from the award, nor have any obligations as a result of it.
"For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman."
Note the re-statement of the U.S. President being depicted as "the world's leading spokesman."
"The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that 'Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.'"
Actually, with the United States remaining the world's only superpower, and with Norway being inconsequential by comparison, it really doesn't matter if Norway takes on a share of the responsibility. Maybe these five Nobel committee members feel important by stating that they will join Obama in his "global response to global challenges." Let's hope Obama does not feel obligated to return any favors, or earn after-the-fact the award they have bestowed on him. To the contrary, you would think that getting this prize before doing anything -- as the SNL parody so aptly pointed out only a week before the Nobel Prize was awarded -- would actually free Obama up to stop trying to impress so many other country leaders around the world, and start trying to impress U.S. citizens, who will be the ones to actually vote for him or against him down the road, and vote for or against the people in Congress who can back his plans. In the meantime his fairytale continues, where he becomes President of the world's greatest country without anything to merit it, including allegedly citizenship, and where he becomes a Nobel Peace Prize recipient without anything to merit it.
My lingering and parting thought is just how wrong it is to hand out peace awards prematurely. Winston Churchill was the main person stating how Hitler was a danger long before that was evident to the masses, and at a time when most people saw Hitler as a beacon of hope for peace and positive change, resulting in his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. In the United States, a huge chunk of the population -- termed "extremists" by the administration, but in actuality concerned citizens of every walk -- see Obama as a danger to every Western ideal and American value, and are highly concerned and sounding the alarm bells. Let's hope for the good of the country and the world that the five Norwegians have it right, and not the millions of Americans who know and understand the President better, and can see firsthand what he's up to, which arguably is nothing related to strengthening "democracy and human rights," or generating peace and unity at home and abroad.
test test
Posted by: www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=607477946 | 11/07/2009 at 06:12 AM
he's up to, which arguably is nothing related to strengthening "democracy
Posted by: Moncler jacket | 08/10/2011 at 11:01 PM
That the things which this prophet Zenos spake, concerning the house of Israel, in the which he likened them
Posted by: beats by dr dre | 11/23/2011 at 12:11 AM
both old and young, the first and the last, and the last and the first, that all may be nourished once again for the last time.
Posted by: Christian Louboutin Outlet | 11/23/2011 at 12:14 AM
And if it so be that these last grafts shall grow, and bring forth the natural fruit, then shall ye prepare the way for them, that they may grow; and as they begin to grow
Posted by: coach online outlet | 11/23/2011 at 12:17 AM
I cause to be burned with fire.And now, behold, my brethren, as I said unto you that I would prophesy, behold, this is my prophecy
Posted by: beats by dr dre | 11/23/2011 at 09:23 PM
but as many as will not harden their hearts, shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I beseech of you in words of soberness
Posted by: coach online outlet | 11/23/2011 at 09:30 PM
These land site are need on the web, someone with a little creativity. Useful work to bring any new Internet!give thanks you let us see this content!
Posted by: Christian Louboutin Outlet | 02/03/2012 at 08:40 PM
Cheers for all your efforts that you have cast in this. very interesting information. i like with express my support of your ideas in your article, and counting forward to your side by side article.
Posted by: Christian Louboutin Outlet | 02/03/2012 at 08:46 PM