Posted by: thescoundrel | October 9, 2009

Nobel Created a Joke

Barack Obama stated he was surprised and humbled when he learned that he had been given the Nobel Prize for Peace. I will even give him credit as he admitted that he felt that he did not deserve to be in the company of past Nobel Peace Prize winners. That is a no brainer. The reality is that Obama has done nothing that would qualify him as an agent of Peace or anything else worthy of award, in the several months that he has held office. And many people even among the Obama worshiping press understand that reality. An interesting point brought out by some was that the nominations had to be completed just twelve days after Obama took office. 😳 That is humbling and embarrassing for the Nobel Organization –>as it shows just how political the award actually was and what a JOKE the award has become. Obama was awarded the award not for anything he has done but because his name was not George Bush. That should be humbling to Obama. Of course he was not humbled enough or honest enough to say – Hey – I refuse the honor, as I have not done anything to deserve the prize, why don’t you give the prize to someone that actually earned the accolades! Naw that would be too honest for the False Prophet of Hope and Change. Instead he will now attempt to use the award as a shylocks knee-capper in hopes he can thump his opponents into kneeling before his Marxist agenda. I am sure that is exactly what those whom nominated and voted for him are hoping will occur from Obama’s acceptance of this award– a tool to create a European style Marxist America lead by the False Prophet Obama.



  1. George W. Bush was also awarded a prise for his accomplishments

  2. Inadvertently, Ben makes a good point: Obama getting the Nobel isn’t about Obama, it’s about demonstrating international BDS.

    Obama and his entire administration know this isn’t about him but about bashing Bush. A State Department spokesman said about Obama’s “win” that it’s “better to be thrown accolades than shoes”.

    I just love all the snarky little frat boys who populate the Obama administration—so classy!

  3. It is a tad premature…I mean they should have waited to he actually did something, like Al Gore.


  4. If Obama lives up to their audacious hopes, America may be before long be looking at Europe as being relatively free, compared to the government intervention here.

    The problem may be that we have Marxists TRYING to crash capitalism. They seem to religiously do everything wrong, so as to “prove” their Marx beliefs right.

    There have been several “debunkers” to the Gore and Krugman type belief that the answer is more spending and more credit. Here is one …

    If Karl Marx and V. I. Lenin were alive today, they would be leading contenders for the Nobel Prize in economics.

    Marx predicted the growing misery of working people, and Lenin foresaw the subordination of the production of goods to financial capital’s accumulation of profits based on the purchase and sale of paper instruments.

  5. There is no doubt, except for the extreme delusional of the Obama worshiping disciples, that Obama did absolutely nothing to earn the prize for peace over the real candidates for the prize. The reason Obama won the prize was his name was not George Bush – the person whom the Europeans that decide the winner of the prize – hate beyond rational thinking. I personally have no interest in whether Europe likes or dislike Bush or any other President of the USA. It is none of their business whom the voters elect President. But this is just another attempt by European elitists trying to meddle with US politics. It was their prize to give and they can give it to whomever they wish. But in the case like this it makes it obvious that the prize has no real value to the people deciding who wins – other than how they can use it for personal gain and/or satisfaction. It completely diminishes any real value of receiving the not-so noble nobel peace prize. In comparison the recipient might as well be receiving a pile of dog doo-doo as the not-so noble nobel prize, as both now have the same value.

  6. True …

    They have maybe been a joke for a long time, but more people are finally catching on. If prizes for Carter and Arafat didn’t make people laugh at these Nobel clowns, surely Obama’s prize will.

    They may get a little bit of leverage with Barry, but they have seriously diminished their (undeserved) status.

  7. [The problem may be that we have Marxists TRYING to crash capitalism. ]

    Deregulation has already “crashed capitalism.” In case you haven’t noticed, our economy has been in a free-fall for almost a year now. This is the worst recession since the 1930s. There is still a chance we could go into a full fledged depression.

  8. You need to be more specific Ben. The biggest problem I can think of was the “unregulated” derivative markets, where hundreds of trillions were tossed around. Both parties can share some blame, but those Goldman Sachs boys are more Democrat. For probably a decade, guys like Rick “Tea Party” Santelli screamed that they had to be “regulated”.

    Fannie and Freddie were allowed to run wild, ramping up big profits for the leveraged players, while the taxpayer underwrote the risk. This was almost wholly a Democrat scheme, leveraged up in the Clinton days. Later Republicans in congress were called racists, when they tried to contain the problem, as Democrats claimed regular banking rules shouldn’t apply.

    Enron flourished under Clinton … and Bush got to deal with that mess … I’m not sure which “deregulation” you mean, but more unclear is how Obama tripling the deficit spending is supposed to help. Enforcement and prosecution is necessary, as well as limiting the spending.

    Obama’s answer to corruption is more and much bigger government corruption … but apparently the Nobellians like his wide stance, and they seem to think a weaker US is in their interest.

    Unfortunately our government and personal debt is already a huge problem, and if we don’t face the music, but instead pretend we can borrow trillions more, it may break “the system”.

    The Cloward Piven strategy of manufactured crisis is real, and it seems to be the best fit for what the Obama camp is up to now, regardless of how we got here …

  9. My argument was not Democrat vs. Republican but liberal vs. conservative. Clinton had a lot of conservative tendencies and signed the deregulation the resulted in a lot of the mess.

    The “Enron loophole” was part of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 repealed the Glass-Steagall Act put in place during the Great Depression to prevent banks from engaging in high stakes gambling. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 relaxed media ownership rules and resulted in these massive conglomerates we have now.

    Reagan started the banking deregulation back in the 80s, which resulted in the S&L crisis and bailout. Bush was responsible for even more regulation. And you can’t just blame Democrats for all the sub-prime loans that bankrupted Fannie and Freddie. Remember Bush promoting an “ownership society?”

    Deregulation is at the heart of conservative ideology and caused the housing bubble. Fannie and Freddie were just a small part of it.

  10. That seems a roundabout way to blame conservatives. As I mentioned, Santelli seems pretty conservative, and I heard him screaming for regulation for years. Privatization of profits, and socialization of risk is not part of the fiscal conservative philosophy as I know it.

    Of course I’d abolish the Fed and not let banks leverage even 10-1. And all this shadow banking was never part of a real fiscal conservative ideal, it was fraud and theft, that is still hanging over our head. Thousands should be in prison, but they run the show with their ill gotten gains.

    Fannie and Freddie were no small part of the problem, they were the spearhead, with other banks following along, and it was all the Democrats and a few RINOs that blocked reform. Bush was no hero.

    Back to the present, Obama is taking over companies and wants to take over health care. Yet he has no way to pay for it without major “taxes” on the middle class. Still he forges ahead with his bailouts, payoffs, and expensive promises that can in no way be paid for, especially since they overburden a weak economy.

    This is a power grab … and it looks like it is going to get worse as government can’t even slow down their spending, they are speeding it up.

  11. Citing people who were screaming for regulation isn’t proof of anything. It’s congress that regulates and deregulates. Republicans controlled all branches of government for many years and did nothing. On the contrary, they pushed for more risky lending.

    And Obama is not trying to take over health care. Regulating health insurance companies so people who are sick can still get coverage and creating a public insurance option are not taking over health care.

  12. Santelli represents fiscal (tea party) conservatives I think … you said you were NOT speaking of Repubs and Dems.

    But now you are saying Republicans controlled congress and are blaming them … but Republicans are certainly NOT all fiscal conservatives. If you think Clinton or Bush or the RINO’s are fiscally conservative, I’d strongly disagree.

    It was most certainly the Dem’s with a few RINO’s that pushed Fannie and Freddie, even as they were going over the edge. Fiscal conservatives were plenty angry at Bush and others for too much unfunded spending.

    And yes Obama (and gang) is trying to get “single payer” (the government) health care. He stated that clearly a few years ago, and is now pushing the government option, while legislating private insurance to death, while sparing his trial lawyers.

    Even without the “public option”, they plan to regulate private plans so that I pay for people in high risk groups, AND they want to eliminate the catastrophic policy, so I’ll pay $1000/month instead of $200, or pay their $1500 fine, or go to jail. They plan to throw everyone into the same pool, and make everyone not on Medicaid pay for it … which is a huge tax on many that can’t afford it, and is in effect designed to fail.

    Actually it seems they really want to crash the system, as what they are proposing will be too much for most people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: