THE NOBEL PRIZE COMMITTEE GOT IT WRONG, OBAMA SHOULD BE GIVEN THE PRIZE FOR PROMOTING ABORTION ON A WORLDWIDE SCALE

SHOCK AND AWE It is hard to describe my reaction this morning to the news that the Nobel Prize Committee has awarded the 2009 Peace Prize to Barack Hussein Obama.  Disbelief, yes!  Disgust, yes!  Incomprehensibility, yes! My initial reaction was to ignore it as something so absurd as not to be worthy of comment.  But then I listened to various commentators compare Obama with previous presidient winners of the Award and the thought occurred to me that everyone was overlooking the greatest contrast:  that between Obama, the most abortion supporting President ever, and Mother Theresa, the most pro-life winner of the award ever.  Before I could begin to compose my own commentary, I was privileged to read the commentary by Maria Vitale o LifeSiteNews.  She said it so perfectly I decided to simply add he editorial here:

****************************

Pro-Abortion President Obama Not Fit to Share Nobel Prize With Mother Teresa

by Maria Vitale
LifeNews.com Editorial Columnist
October 9
, 2009

LifeNews.com Note: Maria Vitale is an opinion columnist for LifeNews.com. She is the Public Relations Director for the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation and Vitale has written and reported for various broadcast and print media outlets, including National Public Radio, CBS Radio, and AP Radio.
// President Barack Obama and the late Mother Teresa have something in common—both were named part of the elite class known as Nobel Peace Prize winners.

In accepting the 1979 Nobel Prize, the little nun with the big heart said, “I choose the poverty of our poor people. But I am grateful to receive (the Nobel) in the name of the hungry, the naked, the homeless, of the crippled, of the blind, of the lepers, of all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared-for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.”

The Nobel Committee cited her respect for the individual human being, that she believed in the dignity of all people and acted on that belief. The Committee noted that the struggle against poverty is a means for obtaining peace in the world.

One of the greatest advocates for the poor the world has ever known, Mother Teresa recognized that true and lasting peace begins not at the United Nations, but in the home. And she steadfastly believed that peace could not be attained while children were being killed in the womb.

In her Nobel lecture, the diminutive woman who was a spiritual giant famously said, “the greatest destroyer of peace is abortion.”

Contrast that to the rhetoric and record of President Obama.

In his political career, he has consistently supported legal abortion—even going so far as to oppose the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which provided basic legal protection for children born alive as a result of botched abortions.

In less than a year as President, he has forced taxpayers to support organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas; signed an executive order forcing taxpayers to pay for anti-life embryonic stem cell research; promoted an unlimited right to abortion at the United Nations; promoted taxpayer-funded abortions in the nation’s capital; and nominated a host of pro-abortion zealots to top Administration posts.

While the President has claimed that no federal dollars would be spent on abortions in health care reform, the health care plans now on Capitol Hill would do just that. It is no stretch of the imagination to claim that the Obama Administration is the most pro-abortion Presidency in U.S. history.

No matter what elegant speeches the President might deliver on Middle East peace, nuclear arms reduction, or combating global poverty, his words ring hollow, so long as he is willing to promote policies that promote and finance life-destructive activities such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

President Obama should learn from a past Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Mother Teresa’s contention that abortion destroys peace is as true today as it was 30 years ago. If the President wants peace, he must work for justice—justice for preborn children, for anguished and abandoned mothers, and for fathers who are powerless to protect their babies in light of Roe v. Wade.

***************************************************************

Friday, October 9, 2009, 12:47 PM
Joe Carter
FIRSTTHINGS.COM

The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barack Obama today for ending the tensions between Professor Henry Louis Gates and Office James Crowley during his Beer Summit. Only kidding, of course. That was an actual accomplishment and according to the Nobel citation, he won because of efforts.

The reaction to the announcement—from both the left and right— has been generally negative. But the comittee was only following the lead of the American people. They may have given him the Nobel Prize despite doing nothing to deserve it—but we gave him the Presidency based on even fewer accomplishments.

My favorite part of the announcement, though, is finding that he was nominated for the Peace Prize before he had been in office two weeks. According to the Washington Post: “Though Obama’s name surfaced early among contenders, the announcement astonished observers—drawing gasps from the audience in Oslo — in part because Obama assumed office less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 deadline for nominations.”

Here are some other noteworthy reactions to the news:

The Times of London: “Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world. Instead, the prize risks looking preposterous in its claims, patronising in its intentions and demeaning in its attempt to build up a man who has barely begun his period in office, let alone achieved any tangible outcome for peace.”

Mark Halperin: “Obama has been in office less than a year, and has few tangible accomplishments deriving from the speeches he has given or the preliminary talks his young government has engaged in. And the award comes at a time in which Obama’s role as a war president—in Afghanistan—is front and center. It isn’t quite as inexplicable as Marisa Tomei’s Best Supporting Actress Oscar, but it seems pretty close.”

Vox Day: “What on Earth can they possibly be thinking? The man hasn’t even ended the two military occupations he promised to end!”

Fred Thompson: “Shouldn’t the Nobel Peace Prize have a higher bar than high expectations?”

Peter Beinart: “I like Barack Obama as much as the next liberal, but this is a farce. He’s done nothing to deserve the prize. Sure, he’s given some lovely speeches and launched some initiatives—on Iran, Israeli-Palestinian peace, climate change and nuclear disarmament—that might, if he’s really lucky and really good, make the world a more safe, more just, more peaceful world. But there’s absolutely no way to know if he’ll succeed, and by giving him the Nobel Prize as a kind of “atta boy,” the Nobel Committee is actually just highlighting the gap that conservatives have long highlighted: between Obamamania as global hype and Obama’s actual accomplishments.”

Andrew Sullivan: “If any person has done more to advance some measure of calm, reason and peace in this troubled word lately, it’s president Obama. I think the Cairo speech and the Wright speech alone merited this both bridging ancient rifts even while they remain, of course, deep and intractable.”

Nicholas Kristof: “I admire his efforts toward Middle East peace, but the prize still seems very premature. What has he done? . . . [I]t seems to me that it might have made sense to wait and give Obama the Nobel Peace Prize in his eighth year in office, after he has actually made peace somewhere.”

Emanuele Ottolenghi: “If President Obama gets the Nobel Peace Prize less than one year into his presidency, what can he aspire to by the time he leaves office? If fate allows it, the seat of St Peter will be vacant — and if not, we are sure the pope will graciously resign. Short of that, one can always count on the UN secretary-general’s post to be on offer.”

Daniel Pipes: “My prediction: The absurdity of the prize decision will harm Obama politically in the United States, contrasting his role as international celebrity with his record devoid of accomplishments”

Frank J: “And for the record, this makes a mockery of the prize. There is no way Obama has had time to accomplish as much peace as Arafat did.”

Democratic National Committee spokesman: “”The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.”

Buzz up!

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Abortion and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.