Saturday, October 10, 2009

Just Another NOT-Bush Nobel Peace Prize

American State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley says the Nobel Peace Prize garnered by President Obama is a clear improvement over having shoes tossed at his head, as happened to President Bush:

“From our standpoint, you know, we think that this gives us a sense of momentum … when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley told reporters on Friday.

Crowley was referring to a 2008 incident in which an Iraqi reporter hurled his shoe at Bush during a news conference in Baghdad. The act of protest struck a chord with millions in the Arab and Muslim worlds who had been captivated and angered by daily images of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

And there you have the difference between Bush and his successor: Bush acted and was willing to take the consequences. Obama speaks but he doesn’t do anything. Ask General McChrystal, who has been stiff-armed by the President of late.

What Crowley doesn’t acknowledge about Obama’s award is that it is a blatant attempt at manipulation of American foreign policy. The Nobel Committee has now passed out its third NOT-Bush Peace Prize to an American:
- - - - - - - - -
In 2002, Jimmah from the Ummah got his medal for being a wuss. In the words of the Committee:

“for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.”

This is the fearless leader who claimed, during his tenure, that we’d be out of petrol by the turn of the century, the same one who claimed America lacked confidence while he permitted Iran to keep hostage the Americans it took - in violation of international laws - from the embassy in Tehran.

Worst of all is Carter’s easy virtue when it comes to taking money from the Saudis in exchange for vilifying Israel. This man should be given the Lifetime Brass Hypocrisy Award. Just ask the former members of his Center who resigned in disgust because of his Israel-bashing.

Ah, yes. The man of peaceful resolutions who has made the situation between the Israelis and Palestinians materially worse, and has been bribed to do so.

Then there was the consolation prize to Al Gore. Since he’d had the presidency stolen from him by the belligerent Bush, certainly he deserved a boost from Norway, right? Until the advent of Obama, Gore was the ultimate NOT-Bush, so he got a medal, too, in 2007, along with the IPCC:

“for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

Hmmm…the IPCC has been caught fudging its data. But think of it as lying for a good cause. Their partner in crime the award ain’t no saint either. In fact, maybe Gore and Carter ought to duke it out for the Brass Hypocrisy Award.

During the 2000 elections, Gore was so disliked in Tennessee, his home state, that Bush carried the vote. Maybe it’s because they know how he lives. Hint: there are environmental laws for us, and there are special dispensations for al-Gore because…well, because he’s special. After all, Al’s got that Nobel Prize for “laying the foundations” for measures that are needed to counteract our wanton use of energy. You have to give it to Al, though; he’s made a killing off the environment.

And what’s George W. Bush been up to since leaving office? Not much, and liking it. He calls his post-presidential life “liberating”. I think he most enjoys not talking to the press. Unlike Carter, Clinton, and Obama, Bush refrains from criticizing - even as Obama uses him as a handy foil for all his mistakes. Poor Nixon, who never could accept the press-bashings he endured, famously sniffed on losing an election,

You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because gentlemen, this is my last press conference.

That was in 1962. He would later be elected by a landslide. But the media was the same then as now. So they tarred, feathered, and ran him out of town on a rail. They followed him back home and continued the bullying. Unfortunately for Nixon, he was too thin-skinned; the media’s blathering made him reactive.

The rout of Nixon from office was the beginning of a ratcheting up of the MSM power base and its conversion into an echo chamber for the Left. They loved Clinton and ignored his perjury, preferring to see his problematic relation to the truth as a Republican fustiness about Clinton’s sex life. They pumped for Gore, for Kerry, and they turned their impotent fury on Bush.

Unlike Nixon, Bush wouldn’t react, which further drove their fury.

Obama does react, and that may be his eventual downfall. Right now he’s basking in the heady glory of his Nobel Prize. The whining about the press’ treatment of him has abated, but the Nobel Committee has just increased Obama’s narcissistic quotient immeasurably. Now he can say “I won” with even more dismissive emphasis.

For Obama, winning means never having to negotiate with your peers. And he has definitely proved in his time in office that he's clueless about bi-partisan negotiations with the Republicans. The irony is his reputation as being a leader who negotiates. In reality, he capitulates and calls it dialogue. The Russians are still gloating over that one.

This man does not play well with others. Receiving this prize may lead him into further delusions about his messianic rôle. There will be even more blaming of Bush for the crushing deficits that Obama & Co. have created all by themselves in their push to invade every aspect of American life.

Norway didn’t do Obama any favors, but they sure will get what they’ve paid for: a United Nations-loving internationalist who does not see his own country as worth saving.

In a few months, let’s see what the press has to say about the Golden Boy…it will take at least that long for reality to set in.


Sean O'Brian said...

One of the sucky things about anti-Bush hysteria is that it makes it harder for sensible, non-leftist criticisms of Bush from the right to be given a fair hearing. In the same way the rise of conspiracy theorising means that lots of people tend to dismiss true information about actual, documented conpiracies because they have become inured to hearing anything revelatory.

Malcolm said...

Reality jumped the shark.

Anonymous said...

All three - Carter, Gore and Obama, won the Nobel prize as a reaction too Bush.

If they have any honour, they should give 1/3 of the money to Bush, as a token of their gratitude. That is the least they can do, for without Bush they most certainly would not have got the Nobel prize.

Dymphna said...


True...but reality is going to come back to bite him in the gluteus maximus. It's just too difficult to know what form that will take.



You're talking karmic reparations there. It'll never happen. These are venal politicians. At least obama is giving the money part of his award to charity. I hope it isn't a partisan group. Would be nice to see it go to something effective -- say Grameen, whose founder won the prize in 2006.



Agree on all counts. We'll have a long time to wait until there can be any substantial assessment of Bush's years. Until then, it's all hotly defensive partisans on one side and Bush Derangers on the other.

The conspiracy theories are arising now, I think, because uncertain economic times hit a fundamental chord of fear. If I'm up to it, I may post a few of them.

Papa Whiskey said...

Great comment on the New York Times letters-to-the-editor page this morning:

"I'm a college teacher who voted for President Obama, but I know grade inflation when I see it."

Hear! Hear!

Godffrey said...

First we find out that 1 in 4 people in the whole world are Muslim and then Barry Obama wins a Nobel Peace Prize. Could someone tell me why we should keep caring about the survival of western civilization when it looks like we're pretty much done for?

Fjordman said...

Larry Auster has, as usual, a politically incorrect take on this by pointing out the fact that all the current members of the Nobel Committee are women, except one "man" who is a notoriously clueless person anyway. Let's face it: Women have disproportionately supported almost all bad ideas in the Western world since the Second World War. There is a very strong correlation between female political influence and Western cultural decline. It is simply too powerful to ignore. We can debate whether it is a cause or an effect of Western decline; it is probably a little bit of both.

Women are, on average, less rational than men, and the fact that our institutions of learning, which are supposed to uphold reason, are now often numerically dominated by the least rational sex has contributed to the decline of the Western education system. All healthy cultures are patriarchal. The difference is that some of them are extremely repressive whereas others grant women a high degree of freedom yet retains most political and economic power in the hands of men. This is a healthy society.

Anonymous said...


Arrests as rival race demonstrations clash

A demonstator is arrested as anti right wing groups and members of the English Defence League hold opposing rallies in Picadilly Gardens on October 10, 2009 in Manchester.

Police have arrested 34 people amid tense scenes at an anti-Islamic demonstration in central Manchester.

The English Defence League (EDL), which opposes "radical Muslims" and Sharia Law, staged the protest, but the anti-far right group Unite Against Fascism (UAF) arranged a counter demonstration bringing both sides together in the city centre .

Arrests as rival race demonstrations clash

Note that the demonstration was against sharia but the Times headlines it as "race demonstrationa".

It is hotting up in the UK by the day, and the pressure on the system will increase. How it responds will set the tone.

Michael Servetus said...

How utterly disgusting a comment by the State Dept. spokeswoman.
How surface imbecilic and ensnared in dead ends of reasoning those people must be.
To say that to receive accolades ifs better than receiving a shoe thrown at you, as an indication of anything is worthless babble.
That non statement can be translated as, we had rather receive praise for doing the wrong thing than "shoes"(criticism) thrown at us for doing the right thing. Or similarly, we would rather that idiots and fools think well of us than have the commendation of the few wise. Of course that is not what she meant, but that is the point.
Uninterpreted facts and lack of disclosure make her statement ridiculous.

She doesn't overtly speak about differ3ence of opinions on policy and justify or establsih anything instead she places the emphasis on the least important issue, assuming that having a shoe thrown at you is all the assurance one needs that you are in the wrong and the attacker is in the right. So blind passion, ignorance and vehemnece somehow justify a person and win over logic. Which pretty much sums up the modus operandi of the left and Muslims and other vermin.

Dymphna said...


Whowee! That boy really goes for the jugular, doesn't he?

There must be some tertium quid between women as second-class citizens and women runnning things into the ground. Don't know what that would be though.

Maybe it's the fact that these are socialist women...I can think of some strong women who held leadership positions and did well. Jeanne Kirkpatrick was one.



I didn't know the spokesman was a woman. It just gave initials --P.J. Crowley. But with the State Dept., it's a nest of vipers anyway. John Bolton said that if any reform ever took place, it would have to happen over a generation.

Come to think of it, people were complaining about the temporizing and shoddy thinking at Foggy Bottom since the founding of our government. State Dept is way too French for me.

Michael Servetus said...

I don't know what I was thinking, that's funny. Thanks for the correction.

OBAMA= One Big Ass Mistake America

Fjordman said...

Dymphna: The question is whether women are Socialists by nature. The traditional role was for the man to be the primary breadwinner and the woman to run the family with part of the money he earned. Or, to put it a different way, the role of women was to redistribute wealth generated by others. Isn't that what female voters are doing now?

Homophobic Horse said...

I told you he is a yob.

MauserMedic said...

Just remember, Mr. Obama is only 48 years old. Do you think he'll be able to quietly sequester himself when his administration has passed, as G.W. Bush has done?

More likely, we'll have an American Mandela to deal with: a corrupt, narcisstic,"elder statesman" of the left that will project himself onto the national and international scene at the cost of his nation at every opportunity until infirmity or senility renders him an embarrasment to his cause.

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

About the demo in Manchester. As usual SR (Sveriges Radio) referred to the original demonstrators as rightwing extremists while the leftists where labeled as activists. I really f***ing hate MSM!

Chechar said...

Yeap: Fj goes right to the jugular. But isn’t he right? If most guys have higher IQs than gals this makes lot of sense even if there are some women more intelligent than men (the best person I’ve met in my life is a woman). There’s no question about it. We got to turn the clock back to 1950s values: the golden mean between Islamic oppression of women, and today’s false Amazons in the West who don’t give a sh*t about the fate of women in the Muslim world. Every time I see a black-and-white movie of the ’50s something moves deep inside me…

WAKE UP said...

Getting back to the Nobel, just a note:

Just as record, book and film reviews tell us as much about the reviewer as about the subject, this Award tells us as much, or more, about the Nobel Committee as it does about the recipient.

Dymphna said...


They're grooming him to take over the U.N. I think he's a one term president anyway. The shine on that medal is going to have dulled come election time.


One political economist divided it this way for the US:

The Democrat Party is the Mummy Party. Wants everyone to play fair and share their stuff.

The Republican Party is the Daddy Party. Wants everyone to learn to stand on their own two feet and act responsibly.

BTW, that's one area Bush failed--he was far too Big Government during his time in office. I don't think he was like that during his two terms at governor of Texas.


Nice as it would be, we can't turn the clock back. We have to perhaps retrieve some things we valued, but there is no more common cultural glue. Anti-religionists have become belligerently secularist and they push the envelope a little more with each passing year. That's just one issue.

Then you could try getting those promiscuous young women to dress a little less like sluts. That would help.

But the biggest hurdle is the underclass. Its relative size has ballooned since LBJ started his War on Poverty.

Our culture is erotoxic to children. They can view porn anytime they want -- sometimes when they don't want. The damage to young brains from this exposure is permanent.

I sure don't want to go back to the "separate-but-equal"myth of the 1950s. I'm glad there are no more seperate water fountains, waiting rooms, etc. Used to give me nightmares.

It's amazing that conservatism has survived at all, given the way the Left controls the schools,media, political bureaucracies (the permanent ones), corrupt unions -- you name it.

It shows how tough we are and how resilient our political pov. However, we may not be able to survive the corrupt Chicago machine. It's a monolith.

One reason Obama doesn't practice bi-partisanship is that he doesn't know how. Chicago is owned by the Democrats. In fact, they own most of the large cities and they're bankrupting them.

Michigan and California will probably go under before the year is out. Democrats and union control (same thing).

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

"They're grooming him to take over the U.N. I think he's a one term president anyway. The shine on that medal is going to have dulled come election time."

Hopefully you'll be right on that. However, one term might need to "windex and glass" your country and the rest of our civilisation before his term is up. A lot can happen in three years. He has in one year only managed to screw up a lot. I shudder at the thought what he might do in the next couple of years. Like Jacques Closeau he is a walking disaster. Only difference is Closeau doesn't have nukes and is a lot funnier than President Hussein.

ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

Correcting the typo-gnomes:Hopefully you'll be right on that. However, one term might be all he need to "windex and glass" your country and the rest of our civilisation before his term is up.

Pappy said...

Well stated. So many real peace candidates to chose from and the committee politicized the award once again. They mirror the blatant political motives of the Olympic committee. The award goes to a man who is virtually mute without his teleprompter and without provable accomplishment in his shrouded past. When Obama's relatives in Kenya were asked about the award, they replied it was the second time it had been won by a Kenyan. Good luck with rooting out the Muslims. I'm afraid we've elected one to be our president. Pappy

Homophobic Horse said...

Stupid seditious women with childlike admiration of the powerful writes more on the "Peace" prize here.

Félicie said...

"Giving all political and economic power to men" doesn't sit well with me. What does it even mean - especialy the "economic power"? Does it mean that women should not hold jobs? Or that they should not hold important, high-paying jobs (because then their economic power would be the same)? What if a woman is talented and competent? There are some such, you know. Why should the society, as a whole, voluntarily deprive itself of the talents and contribution of its members? Let's say that without affirmative action and aggressive promotion of traditionally male professions among the females, the percentage of women in mathematics would be 20-25%. These 20-25% would be in this field based strictly on their merit. (The number is very conservative, as I assess, having come out of the math-schools-olympiads circuit). Even though this is a great deal lower than the number of males, it still represents A LOT of people overall. Would the society be better off by depriving itself of so many talented contributors in a key field of intellectual achievement based on some misguided idea of "healthy conservatism"? What other working ideas from historically stable ancient societies should we go back to?

Félicie said...

Chechar, the average IQ of men and women is the same. There are more "outliers" among males.

Chechar said...

Hi Félicie,

Everything has to do with the comment I posted in your blog a couple of days ago. We need to stop the Demographic Winter in the West. And this can only mean not only stopping immigration from alien cultures. We must recover our reproductive rates of the 1950s and before. And only with a ruthless reversal of the 60s revolution can we do that, including the rejection of the feminist “liberation” (liberalism is a suicidal ideology, as any reader of Larry Auster knows).

No problem for me to see a *few* intelligent women, like you, in places of power. But healthy demographics trumps everything, and no feminist that I know has invented clone labs yet (like the one we saw in Star Wars II) to massively compensate, with a clon army of babies, the feminists’ refusal to breed. We got to get again to the old ways.


ɱØяñιηg$ʇðя ©™ said...

Of course women has a place in the sun as well as men. The problem is the feminist-movement, not the women themselves. The feminist and queer-movements seriously needs to be decontructed. All these minority movements including the cultural enrichers has far too much power and therein lies the problem. As any minority that is forcing their agenda on the majority is a problem. I don't say that everyone that is female, gay or an immigrant is extremists but those who are are a problem which needs to be solved. And the only solution I can think of is removing these extremists from power.

Unknown said...

okay this is a little far fetched but it's the only thing that makes sense I've heard so far.

Frequently they give the award to world leaders to pressure them to keep promises of peace.

He got it as a form of international pressure to guarantee he pulls out of Iraq and Afghanistan and keeps his promises. That is why he was nominated after less then two weeks in office

It worked for Stalin after WW2. Some might say it pressured him to keep the cold war cold, and not go into all out war with the uprising eastern Europeans whom he oppressed.

To some degree Arafat held back some suicide bombers after he got his prize pressuring him to stop terrorist acts against Israel and Jews. The Norwegians even nominated Hitler once upon a time for similar reasons, although that time it was not as successful.

He didn't win for making peace. He won to pressure him into making peace.

does this make sense or am I grasping at straws?

Dymphna said...

Myahon --

I agree with what you say. However, I find it unconsionable that a foreign committee would attempt to bribe the head of another sovereign state...

...umm, at least we're sovereign at the moment. Who knows what the Dems will attempt in the future. None of them ever met a fence or border they respected.

Must not have read Robert Frost on the subject...oops, he's a dead white male. Of course he's not in their canon of acceptable poets.

Anonymous said...

The question is whether women are Socialists by nature.
But who invented socialism in the first place? Mrs. Karl Marx?

And how many women were on the Nobel panels that gave the prize to Yassir Arafat and Le Duc To?

The Obama prize is a ludicrous joke but at least he isn't a murderer like Arafat and To.

Actually, giving the prize to Obama is a testament to the efficacy of the US military as global policeman: there are no credible candidates to give it to, because there are hardly any wars going on anymore anywhere in the world. At least not big wars, like we knew in the 20th Century.

Henrik Ræder said...

Frequently they give the award to world leaders to pressure them to keep promises of peace.

Pressure doesn't work well, and is frequently expensive, too. Putting 'pressure' on Pakistan, for instance, usually also means increasing 'monetary support' (bribes) to a corrupt regime.

Peace is achieved by respecting the rights of people in various countries. It used to be socialist countries in East Europe that were the most obvious offenders. Stalling the Soviet Union and de-legitimizing its rule worked well.

Now our enemy is more diffuse, targeting religious groups (in particular) in many countries.

Our politicians are much worse, too. I want Reagan back - MeThinks he could figure out what to do. Or someone of similar stature.

Henrik R Clausen said...

But who invented socialism in the first place?

Socialism was originally a reactionary movement aimed at the horrifying freedom that capitalism and free markets had provided in the early 19th century. Socialism constituted a promise to return to the safe, womb-like state of the feudal state, where an elite would run things and citizens did not need to think critically, take risks and work hard.

Socialism sucks. Frequently turns racist, too.

Chechar said...

@ I want Reagan back – MeThinks he could figure out what to do. Or someone of similar stature. --Henrik Ræder

This is naïve. Reagan should have invaded Iran after the ayatollah released the hostages (yes, taqiyya!) the day he arrived in office; the day Reagan asked “Where’s the war room?” mistakenly believing that Kubrick’s war room in Dr. Strangelove existed.

But Reagan did not even dare to invade Nicaragua. The pedophile Daniel Ortega is still in charge there (hadn’t Americans been emasculated after Vietnam, he’d be dead by now).

I wonder if you have read the slim “book” by the GoV commenter known as Conservative Swede? He believes that the problem with Western civilization is abysmally profound to solve it with our current paradigm or moral grammar. A cataclysm is needed in order to revaluate the current values, the current meta-ethics or Matrix in which we are sleeping, yes: including us GoV-ers. Reagan for one tried but couldn’t nominate Robert Bork, a sitting judge who, if elected, would have tried to reverse Roe vs. Wade’s 1973 abortion bill. But even had Reagan succeeded in nominating Bork, that would still have fell too short to save the West. In a healthy America the reversal of non-Caucasian immigration would be obvious, something unthinkable for Reagan who, for economic reasons, accepted the Mexicans to immigrate into his state when he was the governor of California.

Reversing feminism for a healthy demographics goes beyond Reagan (actually, this goes way beyond Geert Wilders, even beyond the British National Party, the Sweden democrats and even beyond Le Pen!). In other thread I proposed that what the US needs is a first dictator, like England had her Cromwell in treasonous times. When I posted that I had in mind someone like Alexander Haig as the first American dictator, Reagan’s secretary of state.

But we are living in pitch-dark times. The common people don’t even perceive that treason is everywhere: in the political elites, the media, the academia and yes: even among the peoples themselves, especially the feminists (refusing to breed can only mean to betray your ethnic group and Western culture).

I do recommend reading Swede’s “book” linked above, or at least my preface. It’s the only way to fully grasp what I’m trying to say. To reverse Islamization or today’s suicidal reproductive rates among our people means nothing less than debunking democracy. Dictators running Europe moved by a new myth, something similar to Germany’s mystique of the 1930s (those Germans promoted breeding among themselves) but without a single atom of anti-Semitism, might save us.

Otherwise the West is indeed done and we will put a fork on it.