The truth behind Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
Avi Davis and Christian Whiton of the American Freedom Alliance explain what's really behind President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, and why Americans shouldn't be happy about it. The reality is that the President’s policies have made long-term peace in the world less likely. Prolonged international negotiations with Iran, which started not with Mr. Obama but in fact have gone on throughout the decade, have actually given the Tehran regime time to improve its nuclear and missile capabilities while wars are fought through proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Similarly, the rhetorical and real concessions the Obama Administration has made to Moscow have yet to yield anything tangible in return other than modest verbal praise. The price paid for this volte face recently rose with the betrayal of two friendly governments—those of Poland and the Czech Republic – countries that had made the unpopular decision to host missile defense facilities at America’s earlier request. They must now be content with an expanded future missile threat from Iran, and also an emboldened Russian neighbor. It can’t be too far from the thoughts of the Polish and Czech leadership that just last year Russia invaded a country it borders. Skeptics are right to wonder how any of this contributes to long-term peace and security.Read the whole thing.
Perhaps the Nobel Committee’s most unjustified claim is that because of President Obama, “[d]emocracy and human rights are to be strengthened.” This is not even a claim typically made by the President’s most ardent supporters. Indeed, the unapologetic promotion of human rights and democracy that has had a place in a long succession of U.S. administrations has been disavowed by the Obama Administration. Secretary of State Clinton spelled out the rationale for this in her inaugural trip to China in February: “Our pressing on [human rights] issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis.” Just this week the President refused to see the Dalai Lama during his visit to Washington, the first time in eighteen years the renowned human rights advocate has not been received by a president. The President also refused to support pro-democracy protesters in Iran after the June elections there. Whether one advocates or opposes these policies, it is hard to believe that one can strengthen human rights and democracy while ignoring those actually fighting for them.
What then was the Nobel Committee’s criteria, if not quantifiable achievements for peace? Unfortunately, a look at more recent Nobel Prize recipients shows a bias toward trendy political causes and icons.
...
Any true gauge of the reasons for this Award must necessarily produce some very disturbing truths: The Norwegian parliamentarians awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama because they feel he is one of them. His unwillingness to prosecute a vigorous American foreign policy; his apparent absence of belief in American exceptionalism and his penchant for apologizing for American actions abroad, all seem very much in keeping with a Euro-centric view of the world. For this crowd he is the ultimate un-George Bush, less jingoistic, more calm in temperament and much more likely to act in the pacific, multicultural and appeasement vein they so appreciate.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:59 PM
14 Comments:
In other words, Obama got awarded because he is a European at heart. That's a pretty fair description of an extraordinary award to a President at the beginning of his Administration.
I think people mistake what the committee was trying to say. Peace is something different from liberty. If all dissidents in Iran are crushed, if Israel is destroyed, if Russia re-asserts sovereignty over neighbouring countries, etc...there will be order and peace (probably short term) although liberty will be gone. When you examine Obama's foreign policy, you can clearly see that, as all left-wing doctrinaires, Obama couldn't care less about liberty or freedom. He feels that people seeking independence and freedom are nuisances which slow down his view of a model where governments (national and transnational) make all decisions and provide only as much power and freedom as necessary to allow people to vote to reelect the "progressive" leaders they need. And if an ACORN is necessary to stuff the ballot boxes, so be it.
This is why he favors government-run healthcare, mandatory union memberships, ACORN, didn't support the rebellion in Iran, supports the tyranical PA over the democratic Israeli govt, is friendly with the government of Russia and China etc...
The type of heavy handed government he supports would yield peace with no liberty...that is until people start rebelling of course.
I think the prize represents a new world confidence that America is listening again and willing to help rather than pre-emptively strike out at anyone they think may disagree with them some day.
Maybe they are just thanking God that the era of the three great over-inlfated ego's (Bush, Chenney and Rumsfield)is over! NESO
For some light on the darkness in the White House, merely Google "Obama Avoids Bible Verses."
A funny JOKE.. Is he really deserve this NOBEL PEACE PRIZE??? certainly not.. He & his so-called policies ( same as was in past in Bush's Times) r creating huge Destructions all over the world specially in Pakistan..
A funny JOKE.. Is he really deserve this NOBEL PEACE PRIZE??? certainly not.. He & his so-called policies ( same as was in past in Bush's Times) r creating huge Destructions all over the world specially in Pakistan..
No wonder you got a blogger award! Great writing and observations!
In Response to Andre above, Well said!! I would only add that Peace without Liberty is Tyranny!!
I am amazed at your proclivity for deduction,without a shred of proof.
Did you not read the article, Franky?
Oh, I'd forgotten. Blind Liberals don't like to believe the truth.
Another triumph for our Pres's form over substance. If only word could make it happen. If the Nobel Committee does't notice they have cut the value and prestige of the prize for those who have been awarded for their lifelong body of work.
More on this report here everyone
http://short.to/pgby
Sadly Obama’s view on appeasement fit right in with Neville Chamberlain and the long term result (especially for Israel) are down right frightening.
Ultimately peace will not come from any Obama administration.
His friends such as the Rev. Wright as well as his seeming inability to tell the truth due not bode well for the US or the World as a whole.
See: The Faces of Evil; the history and relationship from Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (Amin al-Husseini) through the modern Islamo- Fascism.
Like Israelis know a thing about peace. Now if we were talking about war crimes.... Israel has no friend in Obama because Obama speaks truth, and Israel is so far into denial it will be lucky to survive. 9/11 can be partially blamed on Israel. Middle east terrorism started with Israel. Israel's greed has caused us nothing but misery. There will be an accounting.
Post a Comment
<< Home