Cfp. Appeasing The Great Usurper

EXCLUSIVE TO CANADA FREE PRESS Nobel Peace Prize 2009 for President Obama

Apeasing the Great Usurper By David Dastych

Friday, October 9, 2009

Warsaw, Poland: Out of the blue, President Barack Hussein Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. 'Peace Prize to Obama - big mistake by Nobel committee' commented a Russian RT television station in St.Petersburg and a conservative American columnist Michelle Malkin noted on her blog: "Story of Obama’s life: “Rather than recognizing concrete achievement…” Sure, what achievement could be counted for when the deadline for nominations to the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 passed in January, just two weeks after Barack Obama had been sworn as the 44th President of the United States. Christopher Oei, a reader of Michelle Malkin’s blog put it even more straight: “"If you hate the USA and are a Progressive, you too can win the Nobel Peace prize.” That’s maybe too exaggerated but Greg de Mocskonyi, also a reader, noted that “My alma mater wouldn't give him an honorary doctorate. Said he had to achieve something first...” Melinie Richards remarked: “With the nomination coming shortly after his taking office having achieved nothing and the announcement coming 9 months after achieving nothing I agree that this "honor" is no longer an honor the World still turns their noses up at us.” And finally my own opinion: ”MICHELLE: the Nobel Peace Prize should be granted (and sometimes are) to people acting for peace and humanity, such as MOTHER THERESA, LECH WALESA, MS.AUNG SAN SUU KYI, ANDREI SAKHAROV, MARTIN LUTHER KING,Jr and not to powerful politicians like KOFI ANNAN, AL GORE, HENRY KISSIGER, JIMMY CARTER. So you might be right that: "It’s the final nail in the Nobel Peace Prize Committee’s coffin."” The Nobel Peace Prize has a history going back to the year 1901 (108 years ago), when the first Prize was given to Henry Dunant and Frederic Passy. Jean Henry Dunant of Switzerland was “Founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva; Originator Geneva Convention (Convention de Genève),” and a Frenchman Frederic Passy was “Founder and President of first French peace society (since 1889 called Société française pour l'arbitrage entre nations).” Ever since that, until 2008, the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded 89 times to 119 laureates – 96 times to individuals and 23 times to organizations. It was also awarded to influential politicians, like Theodore Roosevelt ( 1906), Woodrow Wilson (1919), Cordell Hull (1945), George C. Marshall (1953), Dag Hammarskjoeld (1961), Willy Brandt (1971), Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho (1973), Anwar el Sadat and Menachem Begin (1978), Mikhail Gorbachev (1990), Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk (1993), Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin (1994), Kim Dae-jung (2000), (United Nations) and Kofi Annan (2001), Jimmy Carter (2002), Martii Ahtisaari (2008) and other. While some of the awards to politicians were really well placed and honestly documented, some other were just tributes to states or organizations (Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan) or appeased terrorists (Arafat) in hope that they become peace-lovers. I could defend the choice of two politicians I have met: Willy Brandt and Mikhail Gorbachev. The former German Chancellor contributed to peace in Europe, also by recognizing the postwar Polish-German frontier, still contested by some German politicians, at least until the early 1990s. The last Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, in fact dismantled the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and much contributed to peace in Europe and in the world by allowing deep reforms in the communist-dominated countries, by agreeing to the reunification of Germany and reducing the threat of nuclear war. By irony of history,

1

Gorbachev was deprived of his powers and had to allow a peaceful dismantling of the USSR in 1991, outwitted by Boris Yeltzin . As powerful politicians usually have enough influence and money, granting to them Nobel Peace Prize seems to me a great waste of moral values and of Nobel’s funds. Take an example of the late Yasser Arafat, the real “owner” of the PLO and later of the Palestinian Autonomy -- an Arab quasi state neighboring Israel. Arafat was a cunning fox and a talented liar. He knew too well that a lasting peace with Israel would dry out big funds from Muslim countries he was personally receiving at his disposal to…fight Israel. According to former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid, Arafat told him 'we can wait 150 years to push the Jews into the sea'. Arafat, once (and incredibly, until his death) touted as a peacemaker by world leaders, has proven over and over again that he is still a terrorist, with no regard for human life. In 1975, Yasser Arafat told the UN General Assembly, 'I hold the olive branch of a peace-maker in one hand, and the gun of a freedom fighter in the other.' The only thing that was clear then and has been obvious ever since, is that Arafat never truly intended to hold the olive branch. And now a former U.S. President, Jimmy Carter (Nobel Peace Prize 2002). When he was elected, on November 2, 1976, I published a column in Czas weekly, entitled “Jimmy Carter – a New Style,” circulated by the Department of State. I met him in Warsaw in December 1977 during his official visit to Poland. He seemed to present a “new style” of American politics, a kind, open-minded man with a broad knowledge of the nuclear matters. [From Carter’s official bio] “He was educated in the public school of Plains, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a bachelor of science degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, N.Y., where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the precommissioning crew of the Seawolf, the second nuclear submarine.” That knowledge helped him to assess the situation in Poland and around Poland in late 1980. He warned the Soviets that their invasion of Poland to crush Solidarity Movement could end by a nuclear confrontation. And, in fact, the Soviet Polit-Bureau understood the force of his warning and cancelled a military operation of the Warsaw Pact forces planed for early December 1980. Looking at what Jimmy Carter was doing after 2002 Nobel Peace Price award, many people may have doubts about his “peace-promoting” activity, though they recognize his noble intentions. In his Nobel Lecture on December 10, 2002 in Oslo Jimmy Carter said: “…But instead of entering a millennium of peace, the world is now, in many ways, a more dangerous place. The greater ease of travel and communication has not been matched by equal understanding and mutual respect. There is a plethora of civil wars, unrestrained by rules of the Geneva Convention, within which an overwhelming portion of the casualties are unarmed civilians who have no ability to defend themselves. And recent appalling acts of terrorism have reminded us that no nations, even superpowers, are invulnerable.” People ask: should a former U.S. President meet the enemies of the United States and of the American people? Should he meet Hamas leaders killing Israelis and also their own Palestinian opponents? Should he talk to Iranian and North Korean regimes? There are many similarities between Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama. As one columnist wrote before the November elections: “For Jimmy Carter in 1976, the operative word was trust. For Barack Obama in 2008, it is hope (...) Most significantly, both men came along at exactly the right time. Carter’s peanut-farmer-from-Plains simplicity and his oftrepeated promise that he “will never lie to you” were powerful political weapons after

2

Nixon and his wiretapping, his plumbers and his pardon from Ford. And Obama’s message of hope—and his own life story—resonates with an electorate that, after these past eight years, feels utterly disconnected from its government and simply wants to believe in someone again (….) It is not enough to say, ‘Trust me,’” Ford said at one rally. “Trust must be earned. Trust is not having to guess what a candidate means. Trust is leveling with people before the election about what you’re going to do after the election. Trust is not being all things to all people, but being the same thing to all people.” Why does Carter matter? Because in many ways, Carter is the archetype for Barack Hussein Obama. Like Carter, Obama is an unknown who has come out of nowhere. Like Carter, Obama is a creature of the leftist media. And now left-wing members of the Nobel Prize Committee have chosen President Obama for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize --- only a few weeks after the beginning of his presidency, without any assessment of his true achievements. As Don Swartz commented on Michelle Malkin’s blog: “"A socialist committee from a socialist country. I guess we should expect nothing less from the Nobel folks." A half a year ago, there were already some hints that President Barack Obama might become a 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner. A recent gossip is: “Obama will give his Nobel prize money to ACORN.” Really? Why not.

3