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.
Perhaps it could more correctly be called the Nobel Statism Prize.
Why did President Obama receive the prize? Not for what he has done...but for his "efforts," for what he has promised to do. In fact, the deadline for nominations was Feb. 9th, only two weeks after the president was sworn into office, when all he had accomplished were campaign speeches and winning the election.
The Nobel Committee said he won it for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples". The committee highlighted Mr Obama's efforts to support international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament. BBC News
Or as summarized by BBC'c Paul Reynolds:
The award is certainly unexpected and might be regarded as more of an encouragement for intentions than a reward for achievements.After all, the president has been in office for a little over eight months and he might hope to serve eight years. His ambition for a world free of nuclear weapons is one that is easier to declare than to achieve and a climate control agreement has yet to be reached.
Reynolds elaborated further on the rationale for awarding the prize at this time:
The committee "attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." But it also mentioned the UN, climate change and the "strengthening" of democracy and human rights.
But President Obama's "vision" includes includes actions which enable, if not encourage, Iran's continued efforts to develop nuclear weapon capability, as evidenced by Ahmadinejad's missile launch response to Obama's conciliatory UN speech.
The Washington Times points out:
In his 1895 will, Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
There are two paths to peace: victory and surrender. What President Obama promises is the path of surrender.
Surrender of US sovereignty to the the UN and world opinion.
Surrender of wealth and prosperity to the myths of shrinking resources and catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Surrender of the Rule of Law to a Latin American would-be-dictator.
Surrender of the moral basis of all government (the protection of individual rights) to the brute whims of the collective.
And with his refusal to condemn as immoral and evil the tyranny and aggression of our Islamic enemies, surrender of the moral superiority of individual rights and liberty to multiculturalism and ethical egalitarianism. Islam itself means surrender and the surrender of non-Muslim infidels to Islam is dhimmitude.
It is for his promises of dhimmitude to the principles of cooperation and compromise, at the expense of the principles of liberty, individual rights and limited government, that President Obama has been awarded this prize. It is an anti-honor, a mark of of his capitulation to world opinion, a world which includes tyrants, oppressors and growing statism. It is a world in which Mr. Obama feels at home and is determined to impose upon our country: through implementing national health care, and environmental legislation and regulation; through big business and union bailouts, and through ignoring the growing threat of militant Islam throughout the Middle East.
For his Socialism at home and his dhimmitude in foreign affairs, President Obama has earned the Peace Prize, but it is the peace of surrender.