Obama and the Nobel Peace PrizeThe selection of Barack Obama for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize should not be a shock, nor should it concern conservative Americans. Since the news hit yesterday, there have been countless references to a Ronald Reagan snub and outright dismay and indignation that someone who helped “end the Cold War” has yet to be recognized while an international newbie like Obama has been awarded the “highest” honor of peace. News flash: the Nobel Peace Prize has always been an award bestowed upon progressive globalists. Progressives have the home field advantage, and the award is often a farce and a rigged selection. A brief analysis of past winners should alleviate the outrage radiating from conservative circles.
Eight Nobel Peace Prize laureates have been members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, a leading progressive globalist organization that predated the United Nations and has as a prime directive the promotion of world democracy and human rights. That sounds nice, but the United States is not a member and several member states violate the core principles of the organization. But, one world government, what George H. W. Bush called the New World Order, has been a primary aim of the progressive movement for generations. Several other laureates have worked with The Hague Tribunal, the progenitor of the International Court of Justice and “legal” arm of the globalist movement, and many American proponents of the ICJ believe the United States Constitution should be superseded by international law and ICJ decisions. Progressives rejoice.
The first American to receive the award, Teddy Roosevelt, was better known for his belligerent attitude toward Latin American through the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine than for his actions for peace. In fact, Roosevelt was a firm proponent of the Spanish-American War and the quest to detach the Philippines and Cuba from Spain. The Republican Party claimed the war was for “humanity’s sake,” but the resulting Filipino-American War and the general rebuke of American involvement in Cuba should have been a clue that most Cubans and Filipinos did not want to be under the yoke of the United States.
Woodrow Wilson, the next sitting American president to be awarded the prize, publically pledged to keep the United States out of World War I, but privately maneuvered into a position where war was the only option. His first Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan, resigned after he concluded Wilson was being disingenuous about his desire to keep the United States out of the war in Europe. Wilson claimed American entrance into the conflict was to make the world “safe for democracy,” though his punitive and dictated peace helped spawn World War II twenty years later. Wilson was ultimately awarded the award for his proposed League of Nations; however, many Americans rightly rejected the League because they believed it would continually involve the United States in wars against “aggression.” Wilson’s pursuit of “peace” was hardly peaceful.
And the list of American progressive globalists does not end there. Elihu Root, Charles Dawes (author of the retaliatory Dawes Reparation Plan following World War I), Frank Kellogg, Jane Addams, Nicholas Murray Butler (who admired Benito Mussolini), Cordell Hall (the “Father of the United Nations”), Emily Greene Balch, Ralph Bunche (friend of accused communist spy Alger Hiss), George Marshall (who potentially allowed for the rise of communist China), Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and now Barack Obama fit the bill. This is not to denigrate all of their particular accomplishments, but simply to make a point. If the American nominee is not a leftist, he or she has a minimal chance of winning the award or of even being nominated.
Focusing on Obama’s lack of accomplishments misses the big picture. In essence, who cares? Progressive globalists have their man in office, and they are not going to let that go to waste. Even those who support him have admitted the award was politically motivated. American conservatives should show indifference over the award, not because international peace is not a worthwhile goal, but because the progressive methods of achieving it has long involved the subjugation of American sovereignty to a world government or world court, and both organizations are typically headed by democratic socialists. Conservatives have no chance of winning. The best thing to do would be to mock the award, continue the fight against progressive globalism, and say thanks but no thanks to “world peace” that involves a New World Order based on socialism. Of course, Americans have to repudiate that at home first.
