Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

Oct 11, 2009

I was certainly quite shocked to learn that US President Barack Obama had just won the Nobel Peace Prize. My thoughts immediately turned to just how it was that he has promoted peace. Indeed, three areas immediately sprang to mind.

The first obvious one is abortion. He is certainly bringing no peace to the millions of unborn babies who are killed each year under the mischievous banner of ‘choice’. Given that Obama is perhaps the most pro-abortion US President ever, this is not bringing peace but war on the unborn.

And having just attended yet another pro-homosexual function, Obama is doing little to bring peace to the institutions of marriage and family. He instead is seeking to undermine and destroy these venerable institutions by pushing the homosexual agenda big time.

And with the threat of Islamic jihad ever present, I fail to see how the President is in any way bringing peace into the international community. His constant stance of appeasement toward Islam, coupled with his regular denigration of Christianity, does not bode well for dealing with international terrorism. Neither does his cozying up to the enemies of Israel mean that real peace in the Middle East will easily be attained.

In fact, the guy has not even been in office a whole year yet. He has not been around long enough to contribute to peace in any meaningful way anywhere. So all this award does is demonstrate the paucity of judgment and political correctness of the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Others have expressed their concerns as well. Richard Viguerie said, “Freedom-loving people should no longer respect or take seriously the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, as they have become an arm of the worldwide Marxist cause, evidenced by their previous selections of Yassar Arafat and Le Duc Tho and now Barack Obama.”

He continued, “It’s clear that the Marxist leaders in Europe know what most Americans don’t know–that the American president is a kindred spirit who they recognize as one of their own.”

Even Fidel Castro, not usually known for saying anything sensible, was close to the mark when he said that the award “was more a repudiation of former President George W Bush than a recognition of anything concrete Mr Obama had done,” as one press account put it.

British commentator Michael Binyon of the UK Times was also flabbergasted: “The award to Obama is arguably one of the most absurd awards that the Nobel Committee has ever made. Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent.” And the Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele complained about “how meaningless a once honourable and respected award has become”.

The comments of Paul Kengor are also worth presenting here. He says, “I knew the Nobel Committee would at some point award Barack Obama its hallowed prize. That was a given. But right now, only nine months into Obama’s presidency, when Obama himself would surely agree that he cannot name a single foreign-policy accomplishment? Actually, the situation is worse than that: According to news reports, nominations took place eight months ago, only weeks into Obama’s presidency. How could that be? Does this make any sense at all?”

He continues, “This award is not a statement on what Obama has done but a rubber-stamp approval of his plans for America and the world. The committee wants to lend cover to Obama as he pursues a global course opposed by conservative Republicans back home and his generals and commanders abroad. To be sure, this is the kind of meddling in domestic politics that the Nobel Committee usually decries.

“That said, I’m actually quite pleased with this action. Why? Because it further undermines the credibility of the Nobel Committee as an allegedly impartial organization. This further shows that the group is inherently political and unabashedly left-wing. In other words, this gesture has the noble effect of exposing the ignoble Nobel Committee for what it really is.”

Indeed, if we focus simply on the issue of abortion alone, this man was not at all a worthy recipient. Consider who the Prize went to in 1979 – Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Recall the words of her reception speech: “I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing – direct murder by the mother herself. … Because if a mother can kill her own child – what is left for me to kill you and you kill me – there is nothing between.”

As Judie Brown of American Life League put it, “I am utterly shocked. It just seems to me this is one of the most political moves ever made and that it justifies the fact that Obama can be pro-abortion, in favour of killing millions of people, and still be recognized as a leader of peace, which is simply ridiculous.”

She continued, “In awarding the prize to Obama, the Nobel Committee is announcing that abortion is the cornerstone of a hellish ‘peace’ – the damning silence of 51 million aborted children in the United States alone. The Nobel Committee has bestowed the ‘Peace Prize’ on a man dedicated to war in the womb.”

OK, so we all now know that this Prize is a joke and a sham. But it is not a joke that every year in the US alone well over one million babies are killed in their own mothers’ wombs. And with some 45 to 50 million abortions carried out every year worldwide, this is genocide on an unprecedented scale.

I suppose we should not expect any better from these European bureaucrats and politicians. This decision is simply par for the course, a reflection of the sad truth that for the most part the continent has well and truly lost its way.

[964 words]

10 Responses to Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

  • Bill, I agree 100% with your sentiments and have blogged twice already on the matter. Trying to put the best spin on this as possible, the Nobel Committee may have done the USA and the world in setting Obama up to failure. Messiah’s can go in one of two directions. The true Prince of Peace has already come to earth and ascended into heaven where He currently reigns. Nothing disillusions the masses more than a messiah that cannot deliver on the promised peace. I believe, therefore, that Obama has been set up for failure in three year’s time. He will be a one-term president. I guess though, he could become UN Secretary General if that other great solar-luminary, Al Gore, does not beat him to the position.
    Steve Swartz

  • It has seriously diminished Obama not only as the president but as a man. By accepting an award he must surely know he does nothing to deserve shows that he is either totally delusional or utterly cynical. Either way I think the US is in for a rough ride as the cult of personality only deepens – and we know how much fun they can be from recent historical examples.
    Phil Twiss

  • I completely agree, Steve – awarding Obama this prize only means it will almost certainly become a term of derision in the future. That is actually a positive. As far as diminishing the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize, that was surely done years ago – Bill mentioned Arafat, but recent winners also include Jimmy Carter & Al Gore. Some might be interested to know that Adolf Hitler was nominated in 1939 by Swedish parliamentarian Erik Brandt, but retracted it days later.

    (Maybe a personal lesson we can draw from this is the meaninglessness of many of these public awards. I have to remind myself that it is only one crown that really matters.)

    The committee stated that there was “special importance to Mr Obama’s vision and work for a world without nuclear weapons”. Sorry, but to me that means that the committee is capable of giving the award to someone who publicly declares he has his head in the sand about foreign policy and as a result clearly makes the world less safe by emboldening any number of evil regimes and organizations.

    But it is the main reason given for Obama’s award that is so laughable: “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” extraordinary? There’s certainly no cooperation between him and the unborn, or even just-born, “peoples”. So pardon me as I cough and splutter at that masterstroke of public head-in-the-sand declaration by the committee.

    Obama thinks it OK to define pregnancy as being “punished with a baby” and voted several times to allow babies who survived the best attempts of so-called medical professionals to murder them to be left in utility rooms to die. Jill Stanek, the nurse at the centre of that controversy, has her own take on the award.

    The original story of Obama and BAIPA is here:
    another excellent video:

    Here’s a cartoon I find unnervingly poignant by Eric Allie:
    I can barely look at it without getting upset. I can’t imagine what God thinks of all this.

    A brilliant quote off the prolife blog, voicescarry:
    “How far we’ve come from the days when it was thought that black people were not developed enough to be treated as human beings and therefore could be bought and sold at will. The irony is that this black man, Barry Obama, doesn’t believe the unborn are developed enough (even after they are born) to be considered human beings.”

    It was ironic that this happened on Friday night/Saturday morning Melbourne time. Later that morning I went on the pro-life march that marks the first anniversary of Victoria’s blackest day, where our elected representatives told us it is OK that the unborn are able to be legally killed throughout all 9 months of pregnancy. And that doctors and nurses are forced by law to at least be complicit in this planned death. But abortionists are not required to report suspected child abuse. And an amendment banning partial birth abortion was voted down. Even giving a late-term fetus an anaesthetic before it gets torn to pieces was considered somehow a threat to women’s ‘reproductive rights’. And these same people think they are the ‘compassionate ones’. Spare me.

    What kind of world do we live in where people have lost their humanity like this? I’m not a parent, and even I can’t stomach it – but I especially can’t fathom what kind of mental disconnect it takes to have children and yet support these kinds of things. Blokes like Victorian Premier John Brumby and Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu are clearly unfit for office until they have learned that basic rights are meaningless unless they apply to all equally. And a host of other politicians too.

    (Another great quote from Mother Teresa was this:
    “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”)

    And that is where we get back to Obama. Abortion is evil and has spawned an industry that runs on blood money. Obama supports it totally. It kills more every three years globally than both World Wars combined – which covered a total of 10 years. Draw your own conclusion about the Nobel ‘Peace’ Prize.

    Mark Rabich

  • I was just reading about Irena Sendler who just died at 98 and was in line for a Nobel Peace Prize for her incredible courage to save 2500 infants from the Warsaw Ghetto. She was ultimately caught and the Nazi’s broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Guess who won the prize instead of her?
    You guessed it: Al Gore for his “Inconsistent Lie”
    Jonathan Foster

  • Bill,
    I agree with the quote attributed to Castro. Mere months after Rudd was elected he was #10 in the Time 100 most influential people, without actually doing anything. Back then I blogged about it here:

    A big part of this “popularity” is backlash against Bush, Howard etc.

    I think we need to ask the question why is this backlash so strong? I suspect part of the answer is that they did a lot of things right. That is objectionable to the left, to the lazy, to the soft, to the selfish, etc.

    But I think conservatives (politically and theologically) need to ask ourselves the question, “What mistakes did they make that fed this fire?

    We need to not make those same mistakes as we seek to lead our culture and our nation back to sanity.

    God Bless,
    Michael Hutton, Ariah Park

  • Apparently, we now have a new Prince of Peace.

    Never mind that Obama’s presidency was but 11 days old when nominations for the prize closed on February 1st.

    Michael Watts

  • And now his majesty, the Nobel Peace Prize winner stands before a mass of militant gays and lesbians giving his blessing.
    Anthony McGregor

  • Thanks Anthony

    Yes, nothing new there. Indeed, at this moment I am writing up an article on Obama and his radical pro-homosexual agenda. Stay tuned.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • How disgusting is this award? What a farce! People are utterly deluded.

    The man that so many worldwide appear to be toting as the Messiah, the peace maker, is actually sponsoring the destroying of the unborn.

    He cares more about stray dogs at the animal refuge.

    I am sure that under his ‘leadership’ we are all in for a rough ride.

    God help us all, especially the unborn.

    George Kokonis

  • Time Magazine’s Person (or Man) of the Year is also an intersting read, although it is compiled by journos.

    Wikipedia at least shows that Time have attempted integrity by stating, “In 1998, professional wrestler Mick Foley led the online poll to be voted Time Man of the Year; however, he was removed as a candidate after Time felt he had not done enough to deserve the accolade.”

    If only the Nobel Peace Prize committee had considered that truth should be promoted, instead of being the casualty in this ridiculous nomination.

    By their standards, Daryl Somers deserves the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for ‘Hasty Apology for Upsetting Visiting Politically Correct American Entertainer Promoting His Latest Musical Release on an Australian TV Program.”

    It would be the equivalent of Barry Hall of the Sydney Swans winning the Brownlow Medal for being the AFL Fairest and Best Footballer for 2009. (At least he scored some goals!)

    Mike Evans, Alice Springs.

Leave a Reply