Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Obama hearts PeaceJoining such “luminaries” who have won the prize over the last decade as Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and Kofi Annan, President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.  Doubtless the first question that will pop into the minds of most Americans on hearing this is “For what?”  Well here is the statement of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee:“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 has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

“Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

“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. 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.

“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. 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.”

Translation from Nobel Speak:  “Thank God that awful Texan is no longer President of the US! Although Obama hasn’t actually, well, accomplished anything, we really like his leftist Euro-socialist politics so we are going to give him a big publicity boost.”  No doubt this will play well in socialist circles around the globe.  With the American economy still in the tank I doubt if most Americans will be as impressed.

43 Responses to Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

  1. Al says:

    The sound you hear is Mother Teresa & Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King turning over in their graves.

    But I guess refusing to meet with a previous winner, the Dalai Lama, in order to appease a socialist country, China, is what makes you qualified these days. As does supporting the murder of millions of people via abortion.

    1 of thing, even if Obama gave the money to the US treasury, & he won’t, it wouldn’t be more than a drop in the ocean of American debt.

  2. Anthony says:

    War is Peace. Only Obama could get such recognition while simultaneously killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq…. not to mention heading on a collision course with Iran and failing to resolve the Guantanamo situation. Oh, and I’m sure the steady decline of the American dollar will be aces for world peace and stability.

    But hey guys, if they can give Paul Krugman and award for economics and Henry Kissinger a peace prize, might as well give it to the Messiah-in-Chief.

    Today it seems Libertarians, Republicans, anarchists, pro-lifers, anti-war protesters, global warming skeptics, free market economists, Arabs, Persians, Afghanistan and Pakistan can all find something to agree on: The Nobel Peace Prize is a JOKE.

  3. Rather Read says:

    So we have one winner (Norman Borlaug) who developed a strain of wheat that launched the Green Revolution and wiped out famine in India and Pakistan and other countries. Then there’s another winner, Mohammed Yunnis whose bank launched micro-loans which allow the poor (mostly women) to get a start in a small business and work to support their families. Then there’s Mother Teresa who wore out her life nursing the poor and despised, and another former President Teddy Roosevelt, who negotiated the peace treaty that ended the Russo-Japanese War.

    Now, what has Obama actually *done*?

  4. cminor says:

    “The sound you hear is Mother Teresa & Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King turning over in their graves.”

    Since I got up this morning I’ve been wondering if an exhumation of Alfred Nobel might find him face down.

  5. Bob says:

    To all Obama haters: “Love your enemies.”

  6. Anthony says:

    … but no one said anything about liking your enemies.

  7. Bob says:

    ” … but no one said anything about liking your enemies.”

    I guess He didn’t think about that loophole! Ooops.

  8. Art Deco says:

    IIRC, the Nobel Committee has given the award to Eisaku Sato (the Prime Minister of Japan from 1964 to 1972), Yasser Arafat, Le Duc Tho, and Elie Wiesel. ‘Peace’ is defined in these circumstances as whomever the committee fancies this year. (And on that basis I recommend Janeane Garofalo for next year’s prize; she is more pleasant to look at than any of the foregoing and often amusing as well).

  9. Donald R. McClarey says:

    “To all Obama haters: “Love your enemies.””

    A pity Bob that our Nobel laureate President doesn’t seem to heed that admonition for the unborn. Although I doubt he views them as enemies. Merely “punishment” and “inconvenient”.

  10. Bob says:

    —–“To all Obama haters: “Love your enemies.””

    —–A pity Bob that our Nobel laureate President doesn’t seem to heed that admonition for the unborn. Although I doubt he views them as enemies. Merely “punishment” and “inconvenient”.

    Forgive him.

  11. Dale Price says:

    “Forgive him.” Well, sure. All the while refusing for a moment to let up on the pressure and charitable criticism for his failures and refusals on these issues.

    As to the prize itself, eh. It became a debased currency once it was clear that Arafat was an unrepentant murderer, and went into hyperinflation with the Committee’s hatred for the 43rd President. The good news is that they’ve run out of ways to say f-u to George W. Bush.

    To paraphrase some timeless advice on this thread–“To all Bush haters: ‘Love your enemies.'”

  12. R.C. says:

    Bob’s remark, above, surprises me.

    Who “hates” Obama, here? Who here wishes he’d collapse with an aneurysm, spend the rest of his life in a vegetative state? Who here hopes he’ll fail as a husband or a father? Anyone?


    I don’t hate Obama. I, for one, pray that he will, before the end of his term, anchor himself a sensible political and moral philosophy and govern (very successfully!) from within it.

    But as he’s unlikely to become a libertarian-leaning conservative Catholic any time soon, I realize my prayers are most likely to be answered in a different way: That he’ll have minimal success in achieving an agenda fostered by his current, not-so-sensible philosophy.

    When a politician exercises his powers of governance, he is both the man and the policy platform; he is a person, and also a “performance in office.” This potentially causes confusion in popular thinking and language, for one can justly (while being a good and obedient Christian!) express disapproval in the strongest terms for the exercise of the office or the policies, while having the usual attitude of charity towards the man as a private person.

    I hope Obama’s a good father and husband. I also hope that, barring a reversal of his political priorities and philosophy, that he has no success whatsoever in achieving any of his current policy goals.

    That hope is simply not an expression of hate for the man. Non-Christians may balk at the distinction “hate the sin, not the sinner,” but for a Christian, the distinction should be elementary.

    How much more, then, is it okay to hate a lie not even committed by the man himself?

    For that, of course, is what this Nobel Peace Prize is…or borders on being. That is what is indicated by these imagined visions of the founder and various deserving former winners rolling in their graves.

    It is simply a lie that President Obama merits a Peace Prize, as a man or as a President. He has committed exactly zero acts of heroic virtue, or even of noteworthy insight, which could merit such an award.

    The purpose of the award is to give the committee one last opportunity to exercise their Bush Derangement Syndrome, even when it’s no longer politically relevant. I remember in the movie “Pretty Woman” Richard Gere’s character speaking about his anger with his father, and how, after he purchased his father’s company, broke it up, and sold the pieces, his therapist told him he was “cured.”

    That’s bad therapy in-and-of itself…but what would the therapist have said if Gere’s character still felt compelled, as an act of anger against his father, to break up his father’s company even though his father had already been in the grave for years? There comes a point when revenge looks silly even by man’s standards. If you have a bitter and angry disagreement with a person in this life, and they die before you, you can be forgiven for not putting flowers on their casket.

    But if you can’t stop yourself from showing up periodically to urinate on their grave for months and years later? Something is psychologically out-of-balance.

    I think, then, that it is not poor Obama himself, but the Nobel Committee — along with large swaths of the political elite in Europe — who are the subject of all this “rolling in the grave” criticism. They were scandalized by the Texan-ness of the Bush presidency, and they just can’t let it go.

    They’d sooner give an Olympic medal to three-year-old who shows signs of being athletically gifted, or a Pulitzer to a first-grader whose formation of “See Spot Run” was especially good, or a Peace Prize to a President whose administration is still in its infancy and whose policies are not yet even implemented except as bland expressions of good will, than give up expressing their contempt for Obama’s predecessor.

    Time to call in a shrink. Why delay? Their socialized medical system will pay for it, won’t it?

  13. This is just amazingly silly.

    Though I suppose it takes the duty of finding winners off them for the next several years, they can just keep giving the prize to Obama every years for continuing his “accomplishments”.

  14. Blackadder says:

    I for one think Obama deserves the award. After all, he made peace between Henry Louis Gates and Officer Crowley, right?

  15. Kyle Cupp says:

    “This is just amazingly silly.”


  16. Phillip says:

    Given the behavior of Gates it does indeed qualify.

  17. Mary in CO says:

    Hmm. The Nobel Prize web site states that the deadline for nominations for Peace Prize is Feb. 1. Did Pres. Obama do anything in his first 12 days in office, to warrant this recognition?

    A few nominee names have leaked … Nicolas Sarkozy, Greg Mortenson (a fine choice for his educational work in Afghanistan and Pakistan), Pete Seeger (?). But Obama?

    Says more about the Prize committee than about Obama, and more about appeasement than peace.

  18. Phillip says:

    So what happens when you give an ego inflating prize to a narcissist?

  19. Ann says:

    This is a great day for American patriots! Even the Vatican has congratulated Obama for his efforts to bring people together. I hope this will encourage him to help bring peace to the Middle East.

    An NCR translation from the Italian of the Vatican message follows:

    “The awarding of the Nobel Prize for Peace to President Obama is greeted with appreciation in the Vatican, in light of the commitment demonstrated by the President for the promotion of peace in the international arena, and in particular also recently in favor of nuclear disarmament. It’s hoped that this very important recognition will further encourage that commitment, which is difficult but fundamental for the future of humanity, so that the desired results will be obtained.”

  20. Zak says:

    The time to complain is next year, when he wins the Nobel Prize for Medicine based on his intention to cure cancer.

  21. e. says:

    This is remarkably telling of the kinds of values espoused by today’s society: “Engage in a Crusade to Kill Children, Win a Nobel Peace Prize!”

  22. e. says:


    Beijing, China (LifeNews.com) — An attorney who is one of several human rights activists in China working with Chen Guangcheng against forced abortions is one of the nominees who lost the Nobel Peace Prize award to pro-abortion President Barack Obama. The committee awarded the prize to Obama after him serving just 11 days in office.

    Hu Jia, an activist on other issues, is an attorney for Chen and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government in part because of the forced abortions and sterilizations that occur in its one-child family planning campaign.

    He is one of the nominees the Nobel Peace Prize considered along with Obama and legitimate human rights activists.

    In other words, murdering children as opposed to saving them is proof positive of serving the Cause for Peace!


  23. Joe Hargrave says:

    You have to realize that promoting abortion is essential to the global elite’s (for lack of a better phrase) vision of “progress” and even “peace”.

    It is a key element of population control, and as we all know from our science czar and his wacky friends, population control is at the top of the list of things that cause all of the world’s problems.

    Abortion isn’t considered violence, only surgery.

  24. j. christian says:

    So true, Joe. We need to control those populations “we don’t want too many of.” Can’t have peace when those unwanted populations are constantly on your doorstep begging for help.

  25. e. says:

    Abortion isn’t considered violence, only surgery.

    Yeah–and Genocide isn’t violence, just necessary social subtraction.

    Whatever Joe.

  26. Donald R. McClarey says:

    e., Joe was describing the mindset, not embracing it. Joe is an individual whose passion for the pro-life cause cannot be overstated.

  27. Gabriel Austin says:

    Why does anybody pay attention to the Nobel Prizes in any field but the sciences? And even then.

    Have a look at the prizes awarded for literature.

    How comes it that a secret committee of unknown Norwegians is considered competent to award such prizes?

    Tom Lehrer said that the stopped playing because he could not compete with the Nobel Committee awarding the peace prize to Henry Kissinger.

  28. e. says:

    This is just as bad, if not, even worse than when Al Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize for his scaremongering instead of Irena Sendlerowa, a Polish Catholic nurse who worked for the health and care department of the city of Warsaw in 1940 against the tyranny of its German Governor who ordered the confinement of the city’s jews to the infamous Warsaw Ghetto.


  29. Tito Edwards says:

    I thought the Nobel committee couldn’t have been more tainted when they gave it to Jimmah’ Carter, but I stand corrected now that President Obama has won.

  30. e. says:

    Tito Taco:

    Awarding a Peanut Farmer the Nobel Peace Prize in spite of his nuttiness is one thing; awarding a vicious Pro-Abort precisely for his children-killing crusade is another thing entirely.

  31. Donald R. McClarey says:

    Actually a case could be made for Carter receiving the award on the basis of the Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt in 1979. Unlike Obama Carter had done something which helped bring peace, and a lasting one, in one area. It is probably the major achievement of the Carter administration which otherwise was rather barren, to put it charitably, of accomplishment.

  32. Anthony says:

    Yeah I always considered Carter kind of harmless. It’s difficult for me to take him seriously, though I’ve felt his peace efforts have some merit. Giving the award to Al Gore I found more unnerving. But even in Al Gore’s case at least he MADE SOMETHING, no matter how incredible faulty and on the verge of being proven wrong.

    This award essentially goes to Obama for the emotional merits of his political campaign in 2008, hardly a beacon of peace. During the campaign he fought to protect the right to murder unborn children all the while promoting increased military action in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are not the markings of someone wishing to spread peace.

  33. e. says:

    Fortunately, it would appear that the ‘World’ is not actually that stupid:

    World cheers, puzzles over Obama’s Nobel: From Britain to Afghanistan to China, congratulations come in — but seem to be overwhelmed by confusion about why the U.S. president won this prize.

    By Adrienne Mong, NBC News Producer

    KABUL, Afghanistan – News that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize came as a surprise to people we spoke to in Kabul…

    But when we asked whether he thought the U.S. president deserved the prize, he replied, “He just became the president. Things are just the same as the way they were by the administration of Mr. [George W.] Bush. Things are not better, things are worse and worse.”

    By Lawahez Jabari, NBC News Producer

    Still, both Israeli and Palestinian officials welcomed the news and offered congratulations.

    But, in the street, the reaction was much different. The news that Obama won the peace prize was met with surprise. It was a shock for both sides and the major question is: “For what?”

    By Bo Gu, NBC News Producer

    Very few people applauded the president’s honor on the comment thread. After any comments that say something like, “I think Obama deserves the prize,” the comment was immediately followed by angry replies. Comments like, “Yeah the whole country and Iraq and Afghanistan are laughing at you!” Or “Why don’t they just give it to Adolf Hitler?” Quite a few Chinese netizens raised the same question: “Is today April Fool’s Day?”

    By Mary Murray, NBC News Producer

    U.S.-Cuba politics aside, Esteban Morales, U.S. Studies professor at Havana University, thinks the Nobel committee’s choice was “inappropriate.”

    “I find it paradoxical that he won this prize when the U.S. is currently embroiled in two wars and has practically declared its intention to attack Iran,” said Morales. “While I give him the benefit of the doubt with his talk about tolerance and unity, in real life he’s done nothing to solve the problems at hand. Maybe he would deserve this down the road, but I have to ask today: What peace does this award represent?”

    By Paul Goldman, NBC News Producer

    LOKICHOGGIO, Turkana District, Kenya – In this village in northern Kenya aid workers were shocked when they heard the news that native son President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    “Why?” asked a logistics officer of the World Food Program. “What has he done to deserve it?”

    SOURCE: http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/09/2093914.aspx

  34. Don the Kiwi says:

    The translation from NobelSpeak is very accurate.

    Which demonstrates again for the umpteenth time that the UN and its affiliated bodies are a joke.

    The next recipient will praobably be Kim Jung Il for stopping his county’s nuclear program. That would be more meritorious.

  35. Donald R. McClarey says:

    Don, don’t give them ideas!

  36. Phillip says:

    “This is a great day for American patriots!”

    Hey Ann,

    Remember, dissent is patriotic.

  37. […] gentle satire of the Nobel Peace Prize award to President Obama, although they do get to the only reason for the award:  Obama is not George Bush.   With the […]

  38. […] Night Live on Nobel Peace Prize Award Fairly gentle satire of the Nobel Peace Prize award to President Obama, although they do get to the only reason for the award: Obama is not George Bush. With the satire […]

  39. […] the only reliable source of news on the net, the Onion.  I guess the President is attempting to earn the Nobel Peace Prize he has been […]

  40. Действительно интересно. Хотелось бы еще чего-нибудь интересного об этом же.

%d bloggers like this: