The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

The Nobel Committee’s Wishful Thinking

October 9th, 2009 by Galileo Blogs · 5 Comments · Foreign Affairs

I thought it was a joke in The Onion this morning when I read the headline, “Obama Wins 2009 Peace Prize.” For what? He has been in office for nine months and before that was a one-term United States senator. What could he have possibly accomplished so soon that merits such an award?

The answer is: nothing.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, “It is an award that speaks to the promise of President Obama’s message of hope.” So, the President got the award for the promise of his message, but no actual accomplishment.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy said that the award confirmed, “America’s return to the hearts of the people of the world.” How is that?

The answer comes from a member of the Nobel committee that awarded the prize, who said, “His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

A plurality, perhaps even a majority of the world’s population, despises the values that America has stood for, the fundamental value of an individual’s right to his own life, and all that it implies: property rights, the right to the pursuit of happiness… capitalism. The Nobel Committee is acknowledging their fervent wish that Obama will stand for those angry masses, whose values are antithetical to America. And by doing that, America will be “loved” instead of hated.

The Nobel Committee has given this prize to Obama as a moral downpayment, an advance recognition, if you will, of future “accomplishments” they expect him to make.

Let’s hope that Obama does not live up to their wishful thinking.


I almost did not write this commentary because the Nobel Peace Prize, in fact, merits no respect and its award is therefore hardly noteworthy. It is more of a booby prize than an honest recognition of something good. Among its recent past recipients are Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter, a terrorist and the American president who passively acquiesced to terrorism. For the current award, the Nobel Committee apparently passed over a Chinese dissident, among many other honorable and dishonorable nominees. This “prize” has nothing to do with peace, and everything to do with advancing the cause of statism and destroying the values that America stood for. A man of proper integrity would have rejected it.

5 Comments so far ↓

  • Mike

    Your post prompted me to look up Alfred Nobel himself and look at the origin of the Nobel Prizes. It’s interesting. The man is a 19th-century Henry Rearden. An absolute genius in physical science, who allowed the world to bludgeon him socially (for “getting rich by finding ways to kill people”) until he offered up, in addition to the legitimate scientific Nobel Prize categories, one prize to be given to the person who “…renders the greatest service to the cause of international fraternity….”

    If only he had a Francisco d’Anconia to open his eyes, his legacy might not be defiled by coupling the likes of Yassir Arafat with people who genuinely advanced the fields of chemistry or medicine. The latter saved uncounted lives and relieving suffering for many more; the former destroyed lives in order to enrich himself through corruption.

  • Myrhaf

    I commented on this news on another thread before I realized Galileo Blogs had written this post, so I’ll repeat my comment here:

    I just woke up to read the news of O winning a Nobel Peace Prize. As corrupt as the prize it, this is still surprising because usually the winner has done something, made some accomplishment, however meaningless and appeasing of evil it is. What has Obama done but give a series of speeches apologizing for America to the world? I guess that’s enough, considering that it should be called the Nobel Appeasement Prize.

  • Embedded I

    I presume Mike mis-typed “former” and “latter”.

    That is, d’Anconia, as the *former* saved uncounted lives, whilst the *latter* (Arafat) destroyed lives for the sake of his own wealth.

  • Mike

    Embedded I,

    I pretty much screwed up that entire sentence. 🙂 I meant that those winners of the NP for medicine and chemistry and physics had enriched life for many and earned just rewards in so doing, while Arafat, indeed, pillaged the lives of others for his own gain.

  • Mike N

    I don’t rant very often but…If one runs around the world cowering in front of the worlds most hate filled thugs, one will be awarded lots of prizes. And prizes are what all children want. Obama should be in his glory now. Santa, the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy all showed up on the same day.