Like many people, I was highly critical of the awarding of the Nobel Award to President Barack Obama in 2009 before he had done anything as president. Now the ex-Secretary for the Nobel Prize Geir Lundestad has admitted that Obama did not deserve the prize but rather they thought the award would strengthen Obama. It is a maddening admission that the committee bypassed a list of worthy candidates with proven contributions to humanity to give a boost to someone that the Committee simply liked. That would seem grossly unethical but Lundestad merely acknowledged that it did not seem to work.
As I discussed at the time, Obama beat out various more worthy candidates including Dr. Sima Samar who is an amazingly brave Afghan woman who has risked her life to fight for the rights of women and girls in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The chairwomen of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Samar was the first Hazara woman to obtain a medical degree from Kabul University. She has had to repeatedly flee for her life but has insisted on returning time and time again to treat the poor and fight for women’s rights — in an area where feminists are routinely killed or sprayed with acid by extremists.
Samar also opposed the rise of Sharia law and religious radicals. Extremists forced her out as Deputy President and later Minister of Women’s Affairs.
For civil libertarians, the comparison of Samar and Obama could not be more striking. Where Obama has repeatedly refused to fight for principle and yielded to politics (in areas like torture, privacy, and detainee rights), Samar has refused to yield on principle — even at the risk of her own life. While Obama was in office less than two weeks before his nomination, Samar has spent a lifetime fighting for oppressed women in Afghanistan.
Obama was given an award after a short (and rather unremarkable stint) as a junior Senator and before doing anything as president — the same award given to the likes of Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Jane Addams, Elie Wiesel, Nelson Mandela, and Desmond Tutu.
Geir Lundestad and his colleagues rejected Samar and others because they wanted to boost Obama. In his memoir entitled Secretary of Peace, Lundestad admits “No Nobel Peace Prize ever elicited more attention than the 2009 prize to Barack Obama . . . Even many of Obama’s supporters believed that the prize was a mistake. In that sense the committee didn’t achieve what it had hoped for.”
That is Lundestad’s way of explaining a decision that openly ignored the premise of the prize, ignored humanitarians with inspiring records, and gave the leading humanitarian award to someone without single credible claim to that prize.
Lundestad’s book is lacking any evidence of an ethical commitment to the history of the Nobel or its underling principles.
Ah, the Blog of Fools…
You’re not here, huh?
You’re a genius!
Nobel Peace Prize lost its’ credibility when it was given to Obama.
It lost its cred with Arafat, then doubled down with ManBearPig, but it got obliterated for all time with Kenyan Hussein BH0zo and everyone with half a brain knew it right then. The Nobel Piss Prize is exactly that.
Obama had already committted war crimes before he was given this prize. His prize should be revoked a a person who deserves it should be given it.
The giving of this prize was one in a long list of propagandizing people to idolize Obama. It was very effective. The “left” simply stopped pretending to be antiwar and started cheering for their very own first American Black war criminal president. To this day many Americans and Europeans think Obama was a man of peace. Pretty good for a man who had us in 7 wars and killed a 16 year old boy just to send his father a message (and he bragged about doing it!).
There were no facts about Obama that would get through to his followers. This peace prize helped keep his followers stupid, in thrall and utterly unwilling to see reality.
I have always thought that the Obama presidency was one of the saddest I had ever known. I saw all the pride that black women and men felt about him. I saw white and black people proud together, thinking that our nation had overcome rascism (or at least that it had started to) and that white and black people would start working together for the common good. I saw that. It was something beautiful to behold and it was all based on a lie. Obama did everything he could to drive a wedge of hatred between white and black people. His handlers used his race as a weapon against any person who spoke out about what Obama was really doing.
This is a man who could have brought down the deep state by calling on the people of this nation to come together. He could have united our people, urged reconciliation, helped the poor, helped right so many wrongs. Instead, he brought nothing by cruelty, war and misery to this and other nations.
This prize still being in his possession is a travesty of justice. What a truly evil man.
“Obama had already committted war crimes”
Jill. I don’t like Obama, but where do you get your information from? Al Jazeera owned by Qatar a wealthy country of I think less than 3 million and more than 2 million of those that live there live under slave conditions. It is a terrorist haven for those that kill throughout the world.
I almost don’t want to comment when someone accuses Obama of doing something bad, but you should look at where your information comes from.
Allan,
I don’t know what you will consider a legitimate news source. I would just search for “wars conducted by Obama soon after he assummed the presidency”. Here’s one source I consider well researched:
“Exclusive: President Obama has joked he still doesn’t know why he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, but his record of waging war was no joke to thousands at the receiving end of U.S. bombs, says Nicolas J S Davies.
By Nicolas J S Davies
As President Obama leaves office, much of his foreign policy record remains shrouded in the symbolism that has been the hallmark of his presidency. The persistence of Obama’s image as a reluctant war-maker and a Nobel Peace Prize winner has allowed Donald Trump and his cabinet nominees to claim that Obama has underfunded the military and been less than aggressive in his use of U.S. military power.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/18/obamas-bombing-legacy/
Personally, I’m not afraid to read any source, even the MSM. It is necessary to read alternative media, right and left wing, seek out scholars in the field and try to piece things together. We really don’t have great access to accurate info at this time. Still, certain things are known and knowable. Obama’s war crimes are knowable if you are willing to look into it!
Jill, I have listened to you and how you obtain information criticizing one form and using places like Al Jazeera as the gold standard. Obama wasn’t a war criminal though he did things neither of us may have liked. He was a horrible President domestically and though he verbalized a few good ideas he failed internationally.
Al Jazeera is not the gold standard. One just has to be a little bit more aware than you seem to be.
“Obama has underfunded the military” He did and when we sent our warships off the coast of Korea we had to cannibalize armaments to make those warships into fighting ships. If you want peace remain strong. If you want war make yourself look weak and your enemies will come after you.
Allan,
I don’t think you even bothered to read my reply. I thinkk that is rude of you I didn’t even mention Al Jazeera. I told you what to put in your search term and to look things up for yourself and see what you thought. I then quoted from an award winning site, told you that it was ilmportant to read all kinds of sources and hear what scholars had to say.
What do you do with my thoughtful reply? Pretend I didn’t say what I did and bring up something you had said eariler that had nothing to do with what I wrote.
That’s way too disrespectful for me. I tried to deal with you in an open and honest manner. I won’t make the mistake of bothering with you again.
” I didn’t even mention Al Jazeera. ”
My reference to Al Jazeera had to do with a previous comment of yours that wasn’t very thoughtful at all. I commented then and I comment again now.
Too many people like to spend an undue amount of time bashing the United States with no answer as to how to preserve peace in the world. They know it sells copy and makes money so a balanced approach isn’t taken.
You said: “Obama had already committted war crimes before he was given this prize.” As much as I disliked Obama he was our President. When you say things like that be prepared to provide more than a simple statement that only bashes especially when you quote ideas from a newspaper owned by a terrorist nation who imports workers and treats them as near slaves.
Brilliant reply. Couldn’t agree more with every point. Thank you!
He is a Marxist. He had no desire to “unite”people but to fundamentally change the US; which required pitting Americans against one another and importing as many non-Western immigrants as possible.
He could never have brought down the Deep State. He was groomed and installed to do what he did BY the Deep State!!! He could never have united anyone. The world has never suffered a bigger fraud or scam.
Really????? Don’t have to be a BRAINIAC to figure that one out!! Geezzeeee
“because they wanted to boost Obama” – that is the problem.
The committee saw a black man elected as prez and it was knee jerk. To his credit even Obama seemed astounded by being awarded the prize so early. Unlike Gore who received it easily even though he’d done nada to warrant it.
Since the Nobel has become so politicized I doubt many take it seriously anymore – a shame as there are plenty of folks who work ceaselessly for peace.
Obama’s TERM was a mistake!
That term must be rescinded and expunged entirely from the record. Obama’s term was wholly unconstitutional. As the Constitution establishes Congressional authority to set immigration criteria, the Constitution establishes eligibility for the office of president. With a view to the 2020 election, the same passage in the Constitution applies to Kamala Harris.
– The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, requires the President to be a “natural born citizen,” which, by definition in the legal text and reference of the era, the Law of Nations, requires “parents who are citizens” at the time of birth of the candidate and must be “…born of a father who is a citizen;…”
– Ben Franklin thanked Charles Dumas for the Law of Nations which “…has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting,…”
– The Jay/Washington letter of July, 1787, deliberately raised the presidential requirement from citizen to “natural born citizen” to place a “strong check” against foreign allegiances by the commander-in-chief.
– Every American President before Obama had two parents who were American citizens.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Law of Nations, Vattel, 1758
Book 1, Ch. 19
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than
by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ben Franklin letter December 9, 1775, thanking Charles Dumas for 3 copies of the Law of Nations:
“…I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…”
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To George Washington from John Jay, 25 July 1787
From John Jay
New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir
I was this morning honored with your Excellency’s Favor of the 22d
Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore
Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet,
which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to
provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the
administration of our national Government, and to declare
expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.
Mrs Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect
Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere
I remain Dear Sir Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
President Barack HUSSEIN Obama was the greatest President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces since Harry Truman. Further, prior to his marriage, he undoubtedly had “access” to the white women.
this is to “have goofy conspiracy theory, will travel” georgie
Marky Mark Mark – you are repeating yourself now. You need new material.
There’s an old sayin’ that the rurals, rubes and bucolic swear by: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” My material is quite adequate for its purposes.
this is to “your application for the editor position has been denied” paulie
Marky Mark Mark – the problem is your work is flawed, which I pointed out the first time you used it. It is deeply flawed. You seem to have forgotten my scathing critique of your original missive. However, let us move on since you clearly never made Law Review and will never be allowed to draft even the simplest complaint for your firm. Your logic processes have somehow gone askew.
At this point, and given the litany of ill-considered nobel prize winners in the past, who really cares what the Nobel hacks think. I sure don’t. It’s lost all credibility and has been reduced to a disreputable gaggle of politically correct, elitist, globalist nitwits.
Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is about as silly as these two black clowns winning the 2014 National Cross X Debate Title:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8
There is something strange in liberal white people, where they feel compelled to praise behavior in blacks that they would find laughable or atrocious if done by white people.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, I think their portion of the debate shown was poor but I think the clips of the debate were sped up.
No. According to the information, this kind of jabbering was par for the course even with white debaters. Which the jabbering is bad enough, but the lack of any sort of argument whatsoever is what raises this example above the rest.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Slow the segments down and look at the body movements. The context, very little available, was horrible. Fast talk is seen but I believe this was sped up.
Here’s the blurb from the video:
“The 2014 Cross Examination Debate Association’s national championship was held at Indiana University. The all African American female team from Towson University defeated the all African American male team from the University of Oklahoma. Though this may be a first for African American women, it is not a real win for women or African Americans, but a loss for collegiate debate specifically and America in general. I am not sure what the winners won, but it certainly wasn’t a debate. However, to be fair to the participants, the quality of collegiate debate began to deteriorate long before 2014. All white teams won prior championships using a similar fast-talking style. However from what I can tell, in the past the fast talk, what little could actually be understood, was at least related to the topic supposedly being debated. This farce would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. However it does provide a shocking example as to why America is a nation in decline.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
OMG! Thank God for “Affirmative Action Privilege” and fundamentally supportive “Generational Welfare”.
Where in hell do they find shit like this?
My vote would have gone for Dr Sima Samar, rather than a President based solely on his basal melanin concentration. Could there be any better illustration of the flawed premise of Affirmative Action? Lower the bar in order to recognize someone based on skin color, rather than make it a fair playing field, where skin color doesn’t matter?
This is why there have been credible accusations for years about the Nobel Peace Prize becoming politicized. Tiresome.
I’m truly curious… what HASN’T been GIVEN to this man?
Self-admitted pot and coke head in HS who rarely attended class…
Admitted to Occidental under new Affirmative Action policies and with connections from wealthy banker Grandmother…
Admitted to Columbia and Harvard the same way… without a single transcript showing he’s ever earned a damned thing… but lauded as America’s most intelligent POTUS???
Granted a show position in law school where he had NO respect from fellow professors and was known to be a fraud, granted the position as part of his grooming…
Elected to State Office by blackmailing his opponent with information from the opponent’s divorce records gained illegally…
Elected to US Senate based on a track record if NOTHING… Elected to POTUS the same way.
The man has never accomplished ANYTHING, and his abysmal failures while in office are a testament to the corrupt path he took to get there. EVERYONE has put EVERYTHING on a silver platter for this failure of a man, and the results have been disaster not only for the US, but for the world. The scam that was his career will go down in history as one of the most costly con-games ever perpetrated.
Amen. A perverse version of Hoi Polloi. Some rich person’s idea of a joke on the US. I’d be surprised if Soros were not at the helm of that disaster.
everyone knew when they gave it to Obama.
He should have got the Darwin Award.
I thought it was undeserved then, and find the disclosed reasoning disgusting. The Nobel prize has lost all credibility as it is now a liberal political tool. This is proven by giving Obama the prize to “strengthen” his position.
Insanity and anarchy rules now.
They gave it to him because he wasn’t Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Understandable but ridiculous.