Home The Weekend Roundup - The Nobel Peace Prize Jumps the Shark
Home The Weekend Roundup - The Nobel Peace Prize Jumps the Shark

The Weekend Roundup - The Nobel Peace Prize Jumps the Shark

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."

Reactions to Obama's Peace Prize, on a Continuum of Dismissiveness - New York Magazine

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.

And we can conclude the virtually endless roundup of people in the media who think this award is a joke with the Washington Post's Richard Cohen

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."

Well who needs democracy in China anyway, or to honor the people who died to try and bring peace and freedom to their country?

No Peace, No Prize - Time Magazine

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 Peace Prize Is Over - Newsweek
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.

Yup. The Nobel Committee put a clown wig on its own award. It's all downhill from here.

Nobel Insiders: Beer Summit Sealed it for Obama - Huffington Post

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.

There's no better way to end this endless roundup... and move on. This weekend the media seems to have begun doing our job for us.

Meanwhile we also learn why New York's Mayor Bloomberg campaigned for Obama in the first place during the 2008 election.

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.

IsraPundit reports it as Obama Finds Prize in Cracker Jack Box

Avid Editor takes a similar tack with Obama Shares More in Common with Arafat

Atlas has her own take on it

Because nothing means anything anymore. Because good is evil and evil is good. Because we live in a morally bankrupt world.

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.


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)

Debbie Schlussel links together Obama and Peres

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.

Meryl Yourish paints it as The Miss America President Wins the Miss America Peace Prize

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.

At the Gates of Vienna


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.

Gateway Pundit finally sums it up

Beyond the Obama pageant, Boker Tov Boulder asks if the fall of the dollar is the result of an economic Jihad

Something and Half of Something remembers the death of the last living leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in an unforgettable post.

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.

WorldOReason names me as one of his top 10 pundits

Samurai Mohel takes on the new Killing Kasztner documentary

Oh My Valve looks at Washington's Racism

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--


  1. Well.. not only did he accept the award but also decided it to give it to charity. That will provide him some charm...

  2. http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/authors/21-Bruce-Kesler

    Giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize is an even more political act than giving it to Arafat. More shrewd as well.

    The Nobel committee hopes to influence Obama's decisions on Afghanistan. Now that he is an internationally recognized man of peace, he is not going to order a surge in Afhanistan. McChrystal won't get the troops he says he needs.

    The White House has been preparing this ground for weeks, suggesting that since Al Qaeda is now weak a Taliban return to power needn't worry us. We can live with that, they say off the record. The great military thinkers Joe Biden, John Kerry, Rahm Emanuel, and David Axelrod have developed a long-range John Murtha strategy that will operate along the lines of a video game: if you see movement on the screen, push a button.

    And with the Taliban back in power, we won't have to worry about messy elections. But what about those who fought with us? What has the Taliban in store for them? If Afghanistan were not a land-locked country, we could expect thousands of boat people.

    But not to worry. When asked about a possible bloodbath following a hasty withdrawal from Iraq, Obama said he didn't really have a problem with it and its possibility should not determine policy. He won't have a problem with it in Afghanistan either. After all, we've been told, Afghanistan, like Vietnam or Iraq before the surge, was always unwinnable. We'll accept a certain number of refugees to help ease the short-term sting of conscience over betraying an allly. But as with all vices, repetition makes the practice easier. This won't be the first time we've betrayed an ally.

    It will destoy the military, of course, but by the time that becomes clear Obama will have passed from the scene.
    Also read this on Obama's attitude toward bloodbath in Iraq, and this commentary on the political award to President Obama.

  3. bless you sultan...i knew i would feel better after reading your blog...vey

  4. Anonymous11/10/09

    "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."


    No offense, but the leader of the Warsaw Ghetto resistance by the name of Edelman?

    I could imagine that it does not need a further expaination that he is jewish.

    This is really a weird comment.

  5. When I first heard the "news" that Obama had won the Nobel,
    I thought surely I had misheard. At the same time I also began
    thinking about Obama's, Gaddaffi's and Ahmadinejads collective UN speeches. Equating their delusional ramblings with those of the cool, calm and collected Jewish PM, Bibi Netanyahu. Thinking to of those 11 countries out of the 192 got up and left. I want to know who those countries are as I for one would like to write a note of
    gratitude to them that in a world of people that have gone so wrong,
    it was refreshing to see that there remains some with moral certitude. I found it to be inspiring that common decency is still to be found among those nations. Obama and many of the rest of us could learn a thing or two from them. The president, as always was too "full of himself" at the United Nations.I wonder if when he passes a mirror he is able to keep going by it, or
    does he have to stop and gaze mesmerized into his own eyes? I am sick to death of Obama slamming America, And Americans.
    He said "America has acted unilaterally withoutregard?"What?
    WHERE did this person come from who sits in OUR oval office degrading Almighty G-d whose principles we were, and are,
    no matter what Obama says, founded upon. This person disses the US,and his followers do not even seem to realize that they too are part of this country he is denigrating before the world. We, being who we, founded upon Judeo/Christian principles, as citizens of this country have always gone to help those in need around the world as
    catastrophes have struck. Obama so thinks he is the "answer" when in fact he has become the albatross around our country's
    neck. I saw the comment above that said Obama had donated the Nobel top a charity. What charity and which teleprompter did he read that directed him to do that. With an ego the size of his--it was a political move because of all the bad press about it-nothing more. As much as I wish it were a signal that the man has a conscience? I highly doubt it. Although...what is impossible with men is always more than Possible with G-d. I still believe in the One Who does miracles. After all...I am one of them. :) G-d Bless you Sultan!

  6. susan h12/10/09

    The Nobel Committee lowered its standards by choosing Obama? Maybe they figured the U.S. already did that by electing the empty man in the suit, so their choosing him was the next logical step. It's amazing, those who actually voted for Obama are now admitting he has not done anything, yet that didn't seem to bother them when they voted him in.

  7. I just have a hard time thinking of Barack "Crack User" Obama and ego maniac among the likes of people like Mother Teresa.

    I'll bet my life the award didn't come as a shock to Obama. He's been campaigning for it for nine months, just as Al Gore campaigned for his award (which apparently is against the Nobel prize rules).

    You have to wonder, also, if the committee is fearful of the Muslims in their land and gave the award to an unworthy but Muslim-friendly candidate.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like