The Weekend Roundup - The Nobel Peace Prize Jumps the Shark
Posted: 09 Oct 2009 02:56 PM PDT
Part of the fun of living under the Obama Administration is
having your news headlines keep turning into April Fool's Day. This
belated April Fool's Day, a bunch of aging left wing Norwegians decided to
give away the Nobel Peace Prize to one Barack Obama... for just being
himself.
This is actually a brilliant misstep that was meant to
honor Obama, but in reality humiliates him, because not even his defenders
at home can point to anything he's actually done to deserve the
award.
Had the Committee of Eccentric Left Wing Norwegians waited a
bit and handed the award to Obama for pushing for Israeli concessions or
some of his diplomatic roundtrips, it would have significantly burnished
his image. Instead what they've done is turned both Obama and the Nobel
Peace Prize into laughingstocks.
When even the same unfailingly
worshipful media is seriously questioning the award, it's not a good sign.
The Committee of Incontinent Peaceloving Norwegians has said that they
wanted to "encourage" Obama, which is patronizing and condescending. And
it gives the entirely accurate impression of the slow kid who's given a
trophy just for showing up.
Domestically this award is a disaster
for Obama. It's something not even his closest media backers can claim he
deserves. It's not something even he can claim he deserves. It turns him
into a joke. And even ABC is now running a list of Obama Nobel jokes. About the smartest thing Obama could do now would be to decline the award, but he
isn't likely to do it. The award gives him a forum, but not a whole lot
less. Mostly it shows him up as being an empty chair and the Nobel
Committee as being a bunch of dishonest agitators who have no interest in
rewarding achievement, only in promoting agendas.
The prize citation reads, "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." But what "extraordinary efforts" are
those, no one has any idea. And what form has this cooperation taken? No
one has any idea either.
The official Nobel mandate states that the
prize should be awarded, "to the person who shall have done the most or
the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or
reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace
congresses". Does anyone seriously think that's Obama?
The audible gasps, the confusion and the doubts
telegraph what a ridiculous idea the prize is. So do comments like
this,
Poland is stunned to see the Nobel Peace Prize given to
U.S. President Barack Obama. You can always count on Poland’s outspoken
ex-president and its best-known Nobel Prize laureate Lech Walesa to be
undiplomatic:
“Who? What? So fast?” a shocked Walesa said when
reporters told him about the latest Obama win. “Well, there’s hasn’t
been any contribution to peace yet. He’s proposing things, he’s
initiating things, but he is yet to deliver,” he
said.
Even people like Matt Lauer and Ann Marie Cox are stating
up front that Obama won the award for not being Bush.
And then there are the headlines,
Praise and skepticism greet Obama Nobel award -
Reuters
Obama Peace Prize win has Americans asking why? -
Reuters
Analysis: Obama's Nobel honors promise, not action -
AP
The Nobel Prize Committee May Have Done Obama More Harm Than
Good - HuffPo
Nobel Reaction: The Turn-it-Down Trend -
WSJ
Iraqis Question Merit of Peace-Prize - WSJ
Barack
Obama's Nobel prize greeted with cynicism and surprise -
Guardian
A Nobel for a Good Two Weeks? - Washington Post
A Little Soon for the Nobel Peace Prize? - New York Times
Obama Peace Prize Win Draws Mixed Reaction - Voice of America
These are not the type of headlines Obama is used to, but
that's because the Committee of Crazed Left Wing Norwegians managed to
drop this at the worst time possible.
Obama's poll ratings are
low. He's stuck in a prolonged domestic policy battle. And his spokesman
just announced a plan to "take on" the media. And in come the Norwegians
showering him with what used to be considered a high honor... but one that
he clearly does not deserve. Even his supporters had recently begun
questioning his competence.
The obvious result has been cries of THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.
The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus devastatingly sums it up.
“Mom!” my 12-year-old yelled from the kitchen. “President Obama won the Nobel
Peace Prize!”
I told her she had to be mistaken.
This is ridiculous -- embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like
President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This
is supposed to be for doing, not being -- and it’s no disrespect to the
president to suggest he hasn’t done much yet. Certainly not enough to
justify the peace prize.
"Extraordinary efforts to strengthen
international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples?” “[C]aptured
the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future?”
Please. This turns the award into something like pee-wee soccer:
everybody wins for trying.
Obama gets the award for, what, a good
nine months? Or maybe a good two weeks -- the nominations were due Feb.
1. The other two sitting presidents who won the prize --Woodrow Wilson
in 1919 for founding the League of Nations, Theodore Roosevelt in 1906
for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War -- were in their second
terms
I imagine that Obama, when they woke him up this morning to
deliver the news, grasped the bizarreness of it all. Back in 2006, when
he was only a star senator, he mocked his instant celebrity at the
Gridiron Dinner.
“I’ve been very blessed,” he said. “Keynote
speaker at the Democratic Convention. The cover of Newsweek. My book
made the best-seller list. I just won a Grammy for reading it on tape.
And I've had the chance to speak not once but twice before the Gridiron
Club. Really what else is there to do? Well, I guess, I could pass a
law, or something.”
If the Nobel Committee ran out of worthy
candidates, it might have engaged in a bit of recycling. Nothing wrong
with a second prize to Aung San Suu Kyi (1991). And I suspect it did not
actually do the president any favors. Obama’s cheerleaders don’t need
the encouragement -- and his critics will only seize on the prize to
further lampoon the Obama-as-Messiah storyline.
Speaking of
which, what does he do for an encore? Somebody, quick, call the pope.
.
Mind you this is not FOX news talking. This is the
Washington Post.
Then there's the New York Daily News with President Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize win mocks award; GOP has ammunition on Iran, Afghanistan
In one fell swoop, the Nobel Prize jury just made a
mockery of the world's most revered honor and handed Barack Obama's
opponents a great talking point. They wounded two doves with one
stone.
Obama should say "Thanks, but no thanks. I really didn't
earn this. It's far too early to know whether my efforts will further
the cause of peace. There are countless people more deserving in America
alone. And besides, I'll worry about prizes after I'm the President. For
now, I have a job to do."
Do the folks in Oslo realize what a
gift they just gave to the Republicans, who have been hammering away at
what they view as Obama's weak-kneed foreign policy, at his flying all
over the planet to curry favor while he (in their analysis) neglects the
economy and capitulates on basic American national security
interests?
Thanks to the Nobel committee, less than a year into
his presidency he's President of the World, a label he won't be able to
shake.
Even as Iran pursues a nuclear weapon, the war in
Afghanistan worsens and China rises ominously in influence. And in all
these trials, the jury is out as to whether Obama's efforts will succeed
or backfire.
It gets even sillier; nominations had to be received
much earlier this year, when Obama had fewer notches on his brand new
belt. This -- the warrantless adulation of elites around the world -- is
a recipe for intense U.S. populist disdain.
Obama's fault? No.
Obama's problem? Yes.
The Nobel Prize for Peace had already
fallen far in the estimation of much of America. It was already seen as
captive to the political left and a handful of crazy causes. For many
years and many prizes, that was unfair.
The carping got louder
when Al Gore shared the prize, even though that was based on a real body
of important work.
Now, there's no more debate. Even the
left-wing will have to acknowledge they put ideological sympathies ahead
of achievements.
The Prize - which meant something once - is now
officially a late-night joke. And like it or not, Obama is part of the
punchline.
This is not the 3 a.m.phone call Obama and Hillary
Clinton were arguing about in last year's campaign, but the consequences
to his public image could be equally significant if he mishandles
it.
Any adviser with 10 brain cells will tell him he has only one
alternative: to decline the prize and urge it be re-awarded to someone
whose life is a true tribute to peace. Like the dissidents who bravely
flooded the streets this summer to protest Iran's election. Or a leader
in nuclear non-proliferation.
It could be Obama's Sister Souljah
moment to scold his fans in Oslo. He would be going against the grain to
dress down those who love him too much for his own
good.
Yup folks, it's bad. And in a moment of wonderful irony, it
may turn out that one of the worst blows to Obama's image did not come
from Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or the Tea Party protesters... but from
the Nobel Prize Committee.
This is the moment that the Norwegian
Nobel Prize Committee destroyed the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize
and badly damaged Obama's own credibility. Not only did the Nobel Peace
Prize jump the shark. But so did Obama himself, if he accepts the
award.
And now Obama is caught in the worst trap an egotist can be
in. His only smart PR move is to decline the award. That way he gets the
award and gets to play humble and give a speech seen around the world. But
that requires passing up a major honor, and throttling his ego a bit for
his own greater good. And he may not be able to do that.
If he
accepts the award however, he will devastatingly embarrass himself. He
will turn into Jimmy Carter, and the media already understands that, even
if he himself does not.
And the laudatory headlines just keep on
coming
First thoughts: He won what? - MSNBC
The Audacity of
the Nobel Committee - CBS
Syria Reacts Warmly to Obama Peace Prize
- WSJ
George Packer of the New Yorker explains why he think the
prize is premature, and the President may want to turn it
down.
Schieffer: Obama's Nobel Win May Widen Political Chasm -
CBS
Obama award sad - NI Nobel winner - BBC
Mrs Maguire said she was "very sad" to hear of the
award.
Mrs Maguire won the 1976 Nobel award along with fellow
Belfast peace campaigner Betty Williams.
"President Obama has yet
to prove that he will move seriously on the Middle East, that he will
end the war in Afghanistan and many other issues," Mrs Maguire
said.
"The Nobel committee is not meeting the conditions of
Alfred Nobel's will, because he stipulated that the award is to be given
to people who end militarism and war and are for disarmament."
After the Norwegian Nobel Committee took the world by
complete surprise this morning by awarding President Obama it's vaunted
Peace Prize, America, especially, is trying to get its bearings. Almost
universally, regardless of political ideology, people are, at the very
least, skeptical and a little confused. And that's pretty much as
favorable as it gets. The much more popular feeling seems to be that the
award is, as Woody Allen memorably put it in Bananas, "a travesty of a
mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a
sham." Herewith, reactions from around the Internet, from the most
forgiving to the most caustic.
In a stunning announcement, Millard Fillmore Senior High
School chose Shawn Rabinowitz, an incoming junior, as next year’s
valedictorian. The award was made, the valedictorian committee announced
from Norway of all places, on the basis of “Mr. Rabinowitz’s intention
to ace every course and graduate number one in class.” In a prepared
statement, young Shawn called the unprecedented award, “f---ing
awesome.”
And again in a stunning coincidence, the Motion Picture
Academy of Arts and Sciences announced the Oscar for best picture will
be given this year to the Vince Vaughn vehicle “Guys Weekend to Burp,”
which is being story-boarded at the moment but looks very good indeed.
Mr. Vaughn, speaking through his publicist, said was “touched and moved”
by the award and would do everything in his power to see that the
picture lives up to expectation and opens big sometime next
March.
At the same press conferences, the Academy announced that
the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award would go this year to Britney
Spears for her intention to “spend whatever it takes to save the
whales.” The Academy recognized that Spears had not yet saved a single
whale, but it felt strongly that it was the intention that counted most.
Spears, who was leaving a club at the time, told People magazine that
she would not want to live in “a world without whales.” People put it on
the cover.
The sudden spate of awards based on intentions or
plans or aspirations was attributed to the decision by the Norwegian
Nobel committee to award the peace prize to Barack Obama for his efforts
in nuclear disarmament and his outreach to the Muslim world. (The
committee said next year it will honor a Muslim who reaches out to the
non-Muslim world.) Some cynics suggested that Obama’s award was a bit
premature since, among other things, a Middle East peace was as far away
as ever and the world had yet to fully disarm. Nonetheless, the
president seemed humbled by the news and the Norwegian committee packed
for its trip to the United States,
where it will appear on Dancing
with the Stars.
When Washington Post writers make these kind of jokes for
me, it's like I can almost retire now.
And from Asia
Many people in Asia had thought the prize might go to
Chinese dissidents, to mark the 20th anniversary of the student
democracy protests that the Beijing government brutally crushed in
1989.
Wang Dan was one of those protesters. He spent years in and
out of jail in China after 1989 and was sent to exile in the United
States in 1998. He is now a visiting assistant professor of history at
Chengchi University on Taiwan. "Of course, I congratulate President
Obama. But I still feel sorry for Chinese dissidents because they didn't
win the prize," Wang said.
Wang also says he thinks giving the
prize to the dissidents might have done more for world peace. "This is a
crucial time for the whole world, and the Chinese," Wang noted. "China,
as a rising power, really needs democracy. So the Peace Prize can be a
great encouragement for democracy of China. And the democratization of
China will be the greatest contribution for world
peace."
There is a slight whiff of condescension attending the
announcement that Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. There is
the sense that he has won simply by not being George W. Bush. Effete
Europe is congratulating rowdy America for cleaning up its act and not
bringing guns to the dinner table.
--but let's face it: this
prize is premature to the point of ridiculousness. It continues a
pattern that holds some peril for Obama: he is celebrated for who he is
not, and for who he might potentially be, rather than for what he has
actually done. If he doesn't provide results that justify the award,
this Nobel will prove a millstone come election
time.
The Nobel committee has handed out some puzzling Peace
Prizes over the years--Henry Kissinger and Yassir Arafat come to
mind--but even given a few scratches and dings, the Nobel retained its
luster as the most prestigious award of any kind in the world. Long
after the "red carpet" pretty much destroyed the idea of prizes in
general, the Nobel Peace Prize was still seen as rare and precious. By
cloaking its deliberations and through brilliant P.R., the committee
gave the prize a supranatural aura, as if the name of the winner name
were spit out of the mouth of an ancient volcano.
That's all over
now. The Nobel Peace Prize is finished. It's just another "prize," like
a Teen Choice Award for old people. No matter what you think of Obama,
the man has done nothing, at all, to deserve it. He may deserve it
someday, but the Nobel prize isn't supposed to be a bet on the hope of
the possibility of greatness at some point in the future. And it can no
longer be taken seriously. From now on, no matter who wins, no matter
how deserving, people will say, "Yeah, but they also gave it to Obama."
The 1.4 million bucks is still nice, though.
SLO, NORWAY (The Borowitz Report) - As the world
responded with a mixture of surprise and amazement to the announcement
of President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, Nobel insiders revealed that the
President's "beer summit" at the White House put him over the
top.
"The committee was definitely split down the middle right up
until the end," said Agot Valle, a Norwegian politician and member of
the five-person Nobel committee. "Some of them were still quite upset
about that nasty business with the Somali pirates."
But,
according to Ms. Valle, "someone brought up the beer summit, and we all
agreed that that was awesome."
Ms. Valle said she hoped that Mr.
Obama's victory would be seen not only as a victory for him, but "as a
tribute to the healing power of beer."
Ms. Valle acknowledged
that the President's win was widely considered an upset, with most
pundits having expected the prize to go to Mad Men or 30
Rock
I could keep on going, but the roundups have become
redundant.
Somewhere in the White House there is a frantic
scrambling to spin the story the right way. The talking points will be
distributed to emphasize that Obama deserves the award for "changing the
paradigm", one of those fun business conference terms that means
absolutely nothing... and for his commitment to peace.
The media
will back off a bit, but you can't take back ridicule. Obama has never
been ridiculed like this by his biggest backers. The only thing he can do
to save himself from Jimmy Carterdom is to decline the award. But if he
fails to do that, he's screwed.
What may be the most prophetic take on the award comes from Benjamin
Kerstein
The news that the Nobel Prize Committee has just awarded
the coveted Peace Prize to President Barack Obama immediately put me in
mind of an anecdote recounted by Margaret MacMillan in her book Nixon
and Mao,
During the Cultural Revolution, an American remarked
casually on an attractive view to a Chinese diplomat, who promptly
answered, “Yes, it is; but not as beautiful as it is in Beijing where
the glorious sun of Chairman Mao Tse-tung shines upon the Chinese people
twenty-four hours a day.” Years later, after Mao’s death, the two men
met again in Tanzania. The Chinese looked at the American and said, “It
is a beautiful day, but not as beautiful as it is in Beijing where the
glorious sun of…” and started to laugh. “I look back often on that
conversation,” he said. “By God, how stupid it was.”
Besides
being amusing, this story illustrates an important point: All cults of
personality begin as high drama and end as low
comedy.
...
Given all this, it is difficult to conclude
that the Nobel committee’s decision is anything other than the final
nail in the coffin of Obamamania, a “we’re bigger than Jesus” moment
scripted like the final scene from Duck Soup, with the committee and all
who sail in her replacing the “Hail Freedonia!”-singing matron being
pelted with mud by the Marx Brothers.
...
And there is a
strong possibility that the real hilarity is yet to come. It now seems
likely that once the Obama era is over and the decadent, half-senile
establishment that created and sustained him has finally collapsed under
the weight of its own absurdity, we may well look back on the whole
thing and, like the Chinese diplomat, laugh about how stupid it all was.
Unfortunately, as any good comedian will tell you, comedy is always
funniest because its true. The sight of a committee of diplomats
reducing themselves to a blubbering gaggle of loons in the hopes of
propping up a ludicrous mediocrity is momentarily hilarious, and the
upcoming uninhibited goonery from Obama’s admirers threatens to outdo
even this, but it is also somewhat sobering. When powerful people make
fools of themselves, it behooves us to remember that when the fools are
powerful, there is a strong chance that we are all in serious trouble.
Obama and Obamamania are a joke that, in the end, is also on
us.
A Democrat is struggling to unseat the mayor of the
nation's largest city, but top party leaders are staying on the
sidelines.
The Democratic National Committee has said nothing
about William Thompson Jr.'s uphill battle to unseat Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, the popular billionaire who has spent $64.8 million of his
own money on the race, or 16 times what Thompson has spent.
By
this point in the last mayoral campaign in 2005, the DNC had dispatched
its then-leader, Howard Dean, to campaign with Bloomberg's Democratic
challenger. Other prominent Democrats, including John Kerry and John
Edwards, also crossed state lines to help four years ago, when Bloomberg
was just as popular, almost as rich and had crossover appeal to
Democrats despite his Republican registration.
And in the 2001
race, DNC head Terry McAuliffe was involved on a number of levels, at
first trying to smooth party tensions over a bitter runoff for the
nomination, and later rallying for the nominee.
But the DNC has
said nothing about Thompson, the city comptroller.
The
committee's head, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia, has not come to campaign
here. President Barack Obama, who has not been shy about helping
congressional and state-level candidates, has stayed out of it. So has
Vice President Joe Biden, who has been traveling coast to coast to help
Democrats.
The short answer is that Bloomberg helping Obama bought him
a DNC free third term election. The Democratic party is not helping
Thompson, and its effective neutrality instead helps Bloomberg.
This is not unusual for Bloomberg who has been very effective at
buying off the opposition. But in this case it proves that Obama is
willing to sell out fellow New York democrats to gain political
support.
There's an interesting piece in a Jordanian magazine about a non-Muslim woman
living in Amman and her experiences wearing a Hijab for protective
reasons. The article is positioned as an attack on France's Hijab ban, but
if anything it makes the case for the Hijab as a tool of social
oppression.
In the early spring of 2009, I began wearing the
hijab when leaving my house in Amman. I am a non-Muslim woman with a
drawling American accent and Slavic heritage—and no, I don’t think
“Russian Natasha” jokes are cute, just so we’re clear. I was trying to
appear to be someone else. It started when I realized that the
compromises I had originally expected to make when coming to Jordan—more
conservative clothing, no alcohol on my breath, no smiling at strangers
in public, and so on—were not enough to allow me to feel
safe.
...
I’m cool then, I decided. Sure, I’d known plenty
of women who’d been coerced into wearing the hijab, and they all told me
how unpleasant it was, but my situation was different, right? I’d be OK.
Right?
Indeed, I felt the more aggressive episodes of harassment
did become less frequent. But in my scarf I became even more miserable
than before.
I could see the confusion in men’s eyes as they sized me
up, and overheard hilarious debates as to the subject of my identity. I
never ceased to look out of place, but I was no longer conforming to
their expectations. I would have thought this would bring me some
relief, but I began to feel lost and defeated, as if some fundamental
part of me had come unmoored and was floating away.
Looking at my
reflection in a shop window at one point, I asked aloud: “Who are
you?”
The woman staring back was like a chimera. It was a small
relief to find out that it wasn’t just me, when I spoke to foreign women
who hadn’t had much success with wearing scarves either. One woman said
she didn’t even see a difference in the level of sexual harassment.
Another did, but said she felt there was something really wrong with
having her inner person validated through dressing like someone
else.
I quickly came to learn that when we try to disguise
ourselves as someone else, the experience of being “found out” can be
even more traumatic than whatever it is we were trying to escape in the
first place.
Once, I found tears streaming down my face and
destroying my over-priced mascara as I yelled at a construction worker
who had whistled at me on the street as I passed by in my
scarf.
...
IT’S EASY TO BELIEVE that one is fundamentally
“safe” in a hijab. It’s a pleasant fiction propagated by those clerics
who compare uncovered women to “uncovered meat” or candy, and by people
who romanticize Muslim dress. Yet more often than not, the muhajabat I
“came out” to in Amman when asked if I was also Muslim completely
undermined this fantasy.
“My family didn’t believe me when I told
them I was being harassed at my new place of work,” said Layla, who
asked me not to use her real name. “My aunt finally said, ‘But you’re
covered. You must be attracting attention by misbehaving.’ I didn’t talk
about it anymore. I gave up.”
Under the category of "Gosh this article seems
familiar", the Radio Globo Hitler story has hit the media, with
condemnations from Zelaya and the US Ambassador. WSJ's Mary Anastasia
O'Grady
wrote a fairly decent article on the same topic... which seems a touch
familiar.
Meet one of Honduras's most vocal advocates for the
return of deposed president Manuel Zelaya to office. He's not your
average radio jock. He started in Honduran politics as a radical
activist and was one of the founders of the hard-left People's
Revolutionary Union, which had links to Honduran terrorists in 1980s. A
few years ago he was convicted and served time in prison for raping his
own daughter.
Today Mr. Romero Ellner is pure zelayista, hungry
for power and not ashamed to say so. This explains why he has joined
Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Mr. Zelaya in targeting Jews. Mr. Chávez has
allied himself with Iran to further his ability to rule unchecked in the
hemisphere. He hosts Hezbollah terrorists and seeks Iranian help to
become a nuclear power. He and his acolytes cement their ties to Iranian
dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by echoing his anti-Semitic rants.
Now this is a highly compressed recitation of
the same points I made in a widely distributed article about David
Romero Ellner, and which I really haven't seen brought together anywhere
else.
1. In writing about him, I used his full name of David Romero
Ellner. The vast majority of outlets are using the name David Romero, not
his full name of David Romero Ellner. The Mary Anastasia O'Grady WSJ story
appears to be the only English language media source using Ellner.
2. The WSJ story appears to be the only current media source
listing the things I described about Romero-Ellner, including the abuse of
his daughter and his terrorist background. It's certainly possible that
Mary Anastasia O'Grady did her own research in that regard.
3. The WSJ story's second paragraph make the same points my article did linking
together Zelaya, Chavez, anti-semitism and Iranian terrorism.
None of this is again particularly definitive, Mary Anastasia O'Grady could
easily have reproduced this on her own without relying on my original
article. There's no way to know or tell. And I don't usually make an issue
of these things. But it is annoying to deliver a piece of investigative
reporting, only to have a major media outlet suspiciously duplicate the
same thing.
I experienced that with the story of Obama's other
mentor Pfleger, a story I broke months earlier, only to have the media and
major blogs fail to provide any real credit. ABC and WND ran stories on it
that were suspiciously similar in recapitulating my material point by
point.
While I'm happy to contribute to the good fight, even
without credit, it would be nice to see some ethics when "borrowing"
material. I linked to my original sources in the piece. It would be nice
if others did the same.
In the blog roundup, Sheikyermani has a roundup
of the blog reactions to His Highness winning the Norwegian Wuss
Prize
Britannia Radio reports the news as Barack
Obama Wins the Yasser Arafat Prize
Well done, Norwegians! Not since Quisling have you
achieved so much for civilisation.
You'd have to have a heart of
stone not to laugh.
Obama won what? This is embarrassing. Who's next? Bill
Ayers? Stuart just pointed out this Nobel Fun Fact: This year's Nobel
Peace Prize winner (Our Esteemed President, peace be upon him) recently
refused to meet with the winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize (the Dalai
Lama), in an attempt to suck up to China.
and
Definition of worthless: "Irena Sendler saved 2,500
Jewish children during the Holocaust. In 2007 Irena was up for the Nobel
Peace Prize ... She was not selected. AL GORE WON, for a slide show on
Global Warming. (hat tip Maureen via the Cincinnati Post
blog)
Israel’s own version of Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter
combined into one, Shimon Peres, is even worse than many of the
Obamessiah worshippers on U.S. soil in gushing over today’s Nobel Peace
Prize to Obama. Peres, who basically destroyed Israel and yet has 109
lives in Israeli politics, is the man behind the disastrous Oslo
Accords, the “Road Map,” and the “two-state solution” and other measures
that have given Islamic terrorists multiple orgasms over the past two
decades. For those deeds, Peres was awarded his own
Nobel.
I’ve decided that we have the Miss America President. He
looks pretty, he speaks nicely on deep subjects (but not too deeply),
and he has to pull out a bit of talent for the competition now and then,
but ultimately, he’s just another smiling face trying to win the prize.
And now he has. Barack Obama gave a speech, and the Nobel committee gave
him first place.
The Nobel Committee announced Friday that the
annual peace prize was awarded to Barack Obama, just nine months into
his presidency, “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen
international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”
The
award cited in particular Mr. Obama’s effort to reduce the world’s
nuclear arsenal. “He has created a new international climate,” the
committee said.
In other words, Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize
for giving a speech.
Give.me.a.break.
Barack Obama wins the Nobel
Peace Prize? For what?
I get it: they’re making up for his loss
of face in Copenhagen.
Oh, wait. I forgot. Jimmy from the Ummah
won it, too. And so did “Biggest Damn Carbon Footprint You Ever Saw”, Al
Gore. And let’s not forget that piece o’ peaceful endeavor, Yasser
Arafat, or ol’ Kofi “Corrupt is my middle name” Annan.
How did
they miss Idi Amin?
Look at it this way, if Hitler had shown more patience, he
could have had one too.
Fiery Spirited Zionist has her own take
Now let's look at obama's achievements at peace so far.
He cowardly remained silent while Iranian protesters were slaughtered on
the streets for trying to bring democracy to their country. He sided
with the Honduran marxist president who violated his own country's
constitution to declare himself president for life al la hugo chavez. He
caved to Russia and betrayed our allies, Poland and the Czech Republic
by backing down on placing a missile defense, leaving them vulnerable to
Russian aggression. He made pandering, flattering speeches full of lies
to appease the muslim world and bowed to a saudi king. He has been
indecisive about Afghanistan, endangering our soldiers. He has displayed
impotence towards Iran while it continues to develop nuclear weapons. He
has been out to punish our CIA agents while granting more rights to
captured terrorists. And finally he pressured Israel and demanded Jews
not be allowed to live in certain parts of Jerusalem, thus emboldening
the palestinians to launch a possible third intifada, starting on the
Temple Mount. All of these things, weakening America, Israel and the
free world and strengthening terrorists and tyrants of course makes him
perfectly eligible for the nobel peace prize.
We parrot "Never again," but for the most part, we have
forgotten what that means. This year, the United States of America took
a mighty step backwards and now teeters on the abyss of hell. The man we
call President counts himself amongst the tyrants and evil dictators of
the United Nations who close their eyes to the reign of arab terror
perpetuated against Israeli citizens in complete mockery of the UN human
rights charter as they declined the complete and total rejection of the
Goldstone report. Instead, they choose to support and embrace terrorism
and the efforts of those who vow to destroy the State of Israel and
murder the six million Jews who live there.
What does "never
again" mean? It becomes ever more obvious every day that the meaning of
those words has been forgotten and how close the world is to coming full
circle once again to closing its eyes to the murder of yet another six
million Jews. The plan has been announced, the ways and means are being
prepared, and nothing, nothing is being done to prevent it.
In
April of 2009, Marek Edelman said “Don’t forget that evil can grow
bigger."
I fear that warning has come too late, and no one is
listening.
But if you require a little more racism with your
blogpost, let me remind you that an Arab born to American citizens in
Israel can have "Israel" removed from their passport.
So, just to
be clear...Arabs can take Israel off the passport. Jews born in
Jerusalem cannot put Israel on the passport. We wouldn't want anyone to
be prejudged...unless they're a Jew. And the real reason for this is, of
course: oil. This policy is not about negotiations. It's about angering
the Arab League and OPEC. Any Jew in America who thinks their blood is
worth more to Washington than Arab Oil is a colossal
ignoramus.
And since this whole racist nonsense centers around
the White House and the Department of State, let's go right to the
horse's mouth. I already mentioned Ian Kelly's whitewashing of Marek
Edelman's Jewishness in an earlier post, but let's run the instant
replay, complete with the Israeli Foreign Ministry's contrasting
statement.
Israel's statement:
The Jewish people and the
State of Israel are mourning the death of the last surviving leader of
the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Marek Edelman was one of the commanders of
the heroic rebellion of Jews against Germans; a rebellion which salvaged
human dignity at the Holocaust's time of complete
darkness.
And Ian Kelly's statement:
On behalf of the
Department of State I wish to express our sympathy and solidarity with
the people of Poland upon the death of Marek Edelman, the last surviving
leader of the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and an activist in the
Solidarity movement. We extend our sincerest condolences to the family
and friends of Mr. Edelman and salute his life dedicated to the defense
of human dignity and freedom. The United States stands with Poland as it
mourns the loss of a great man.
Thanks Ian for so thoughtfully
and thoroughly erasing Edelman's Jewishness. We wouldn't want anyone to
think that someone as respected and upstanding as Marek Edelman was
....gasp!...a Jew. And I guess we wouldn't want anyone to think of Jews
as people who stand up for themselves. I understand. You like us much
better when we're bleating, breathing in poison gas, or falling dead
into open graves.
Well, that's just too damn bad.
-- Note to readers, due
to Simchat Torah and the conclusion of the Sukkot holiday, regular blog
posting and comment moderation will return at the end of the weekend on
Sunday Night--
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment