To Obama’s starry-eyed throng the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t meaningless at all.

It is further validation (as if they needed any) of their conviction.

It is further justification (as if they needed any) to persist in adulating their God-king.

…whereas to us on the Right, while the prize itself has (once again!) been revealed as meaningless in terms of what its meaning was originally and purports to be still, we don’t delude ourselves that its awarding is meaningless. It IS, in fact, a bribe, attempted and accepted. Is the President an honest politician – does he stay bought? If so, well, I guess Norway owns our foreign policy now… If not, I won’t be surprised, but as Dennis says upthread, I will be wondering at his motivation:

1. It is the right one
2. He has to prove he is not being manipulated by outside forces who seek to influence American policy
3. He wants to prove that he deserved the Nobel?

In any case, accepting the award, even or perhaps especially on the grounds on which he accepted it, is only further evidence of his naivete – at best. At worst, I’d have to venture into the realm of conspiracy theories, a place I don’t like to go. So I’m sticking with naivete.

The amusement would be easier to muster up if so much didn’t ride on this man’s judgment.

Best line by Seth Meyers IMHO: “Obama said in his acceptance speech that this was a call for action. Isn’t that what the election was for?”

Cracks me up because at the same time he both mocks the prize as meaningless and mocks the president for calling it meaningful.

Uh oh. More fact checking coming up from AP and CNN!

Neville Chamberlain will be given a posthumous Nobel Peace Prize along with Obama. When contacted at his resting place at Westminster Abbey, the former Prime Minister had this to say.

“Good morning. Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning. I received the news when Neil, my dead son walked in and said, “Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and you will be sharing it with some man named Barak Obama.” And then added, “Plus, we have a three-day weekend coming up.” So it’s — it’s good to keep things in perspective.

I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear, I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, having failed to achieve ‘peace in my time’. I rather view it as an affirmation of the further decline of western civilization and the almost total collapse of western values under the feckless and callow American leadership of this Barak fellow. Who is he anyway? On behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. Especially the people of Afghanistan, who are about to be sold out like I sold out the Czechs. I do feel that this Barak fellow deserves to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize, men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous (nudge nudge, wink wink) pursuit of peace. People like Henry Kissinger, Yassir Arafat, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

And that is why this Barak fellow should accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to rally behind the United States as they vacillate and retreat from the common challenges of the 21st century. To blithely put faith in endless talk and empty process as an end in itself, regardless of outcome. These challenges can’t be met by any one leader or any one nation. They require the collective cravenness of the United Nations.

My good friends, for the second time in a month, this callow Barak fellow, who did you say he was, has returned from Europe bringing peace with honour. But no Olympics. I believe it is peace for our time. Or rather his time, I have you see, been dead since 1940. So with that I bid you adieu, go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”
However, don’t expect to go to the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in Chicago any time soon, just joking old chap and what ever you do, stay out of Afghanistan. Those Taliban are such beastly fellows, remind me of some Germans I knew once…..”

Dennis Says: One is “logern” and the other I forget because his stuff, I cannot find an apt word to describe such drivel, is so poorly written as to make wonder whether he has even an inclination as to what ratiocination means.

I hope you don’t mean me ’cause I had to go look ‘ratiocination’ up.

1. It is the right one
2. He has to prove he is not being manipulated by outside forces who seek to influence American policy
3. He wants to prove that he deserved the Nobel?

I think Obama and the left recognize that the Nobel committee did Obama no favors and that is why they are busy obfuscating.