Obama Wins Nobel Prize for Liberalism

The Norwegian Nobel Committee's decision to award the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama merely demonstrates the continued politicization of the once noble award. The original intent of this prize--ironically established by the inventor of Dynamite--was to reward the efforts of those who sought to encourage fraternity among nations and the reduction of standing armies. Unfortunately, as time has passed the Nobel Committee has lost sight of this objective. Obama is yet another unqualified recipient of an award that no longer represents is original purpose. What was once a respected accomplishment has been hijacked to promote a radical Leftist agenda.

Though there have certainly been deserving recipients--one of the initial winners founded the Red Cross--recent laureates have often failed to match the award's description.  Too often, this prize has been used in an attempt to legitimize policy unsupported by factual evidence.  In 2002, the award was granted to former President Jimmy Carter whose legacy is one of both domestic and foreign failure.  He is consistently rated among the worst Presidents in U.S. history.  While Carter's foreign policy may have sounded good in speeches, it failed to produce results, and his decisions arguably led to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Middle Eastern nations[1. Silverberg, Mark.  "Jimmy Carter: The Untold Story."  http://digg.com/d316wvR].

In 2007, the award was split by Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Council on Climate Change.  He was commended for his attempts to propagandize global warming through his film which has been repeatedly criticized for its plethora of factual and scientific errors.  If that weren't enough, this is a man who preaches conservation for others yet takes no action himself.  If he were truly committed to his cause, then he would sell his private jet, move out of the mansion, and start driving one of those electric cars he's constantly promoting[2. Schweizer, Peter.  "Gore Isn't Quite as Green as He's Led the World to Believe."  USA Today.  http://digg.com/d32Hiq].

Finally, we arrive at the most disgraceful abuse of Alfred Nobel's legacy.  President Barack Obama was the 2009 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for his potential accomplishments.  The fledgling President has yet to accomplish anything with his "five-and-a-half minute career."  In fact, on the foreign policy front things are looking fairly gloomy.  In Afghanistan, the President has been asked to increase troop levels by tens of thousands, we're still in Iraq despite his anti-war rhetoric, and tensions between Israel and Iran are reaching the boiling point.  Currently, the Israeli army stands prepared to execute a massive aerial campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear development sites in response to the Iranian President's claims that he wants to wipe Israel off the map[3. Frenkel, Sheera. Times Online.  "Israel Stands Ready to Bomb Iran's Nuclear Sites."  http://digg.com/d3p0aV][4. Boulding, Chris.  "Will Israel Bomb Iran?"  BBC.  http://digg.com/d316x0A].

Which of Mr. Obama's aforementioned "accomplishments" has lead to greater peace or the reduction of standing armies?  Like Carter, Obama loves to talk about peace and equality among nations, but he is unwilling to take the necessary precautions to ensure real security for his own constituents.  Like Carter, Obama is naive and inexperienced; he is so confident in negotiation skills that he is prepared to sacrifice our defenses in order to appease a brutal dictator.  Most importantly, he is willing to cast aside our allies in order to sustain his insatiable ego.  Since when did appeasement and surrender become synonymous with peace?

[print_link]