The Nobel Appeasement Prize (Blast From the Past)

(Editor's Note: I've been going back through my files and updating the labels, and I've come across some worthwhile articles that are still relevant today. This is one of them.  RK)

By Rachel Ehrenfeld @ American Center for Democracy

The Norwegian Nobel Committee  bestowing the Peace Prize on Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, for his concessions to the narco-terrorist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), reinforces the trend to legitimize terrorism, legalize drugs, and reward criminals. This contradicts the instructions Alfred Nobel gave in his will, which clearly states the Peace Prize should be rewarded to those who “have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

Had Nobel been alive today, he, like the Colombian people, would have voted against the Cuban and Venezuelan-sponsored deal, which was negotiated and signed in Havana. The agreement, as well as the Nobel Peace Prize, is aimed at whitewashing the violent drug-trafficking FARC. Over the past fifty years, the group has claimed the lives of more than 220,000 Colombians and displaced some six million people. The agreement, however, re-labeled the FARC members as “fighters” and “rebels,” whose cause was to “[improve] the country’s rural areas.”  Not surprisingly, Raul Castro, John Kerry, the Obama Administration, the European Union, and the United Nations, among others, hailed the agreement, as did the international media. All were “shocked” when the agreement was rejected in the plebiscite held on October 2, 2016.

This is not the first time that negotiations with the FARC have failed. The first initiative to negotiate with the narco-terrorists began in 1997, during the Bill Clinton Administration. Peace talks have been chosen to resolve a criminal conflict and to appease dangerous criminals under the guise of a political agenda. In 1999, Colombian Pres. Andres Pastrana told the Argentine newspaper, Clarin, “there is no evidence that the FARC are drug traffickers.” On the contrary, Pastrana claimed, “The FARC have always said they are interested in eradicating illegal crops.” To boot, then Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, used the Left’s favored “blame America first” motto, claiming the extensive growth drug supply from Colombia is not the FARC’s fault, but the fault of “our [America’s] demand for drugs.”

Indeed, this slogan has become the mantra of drug traffickers smuggling ever growing quantities of illegal drugs to the United States, as well as the international movement to legalize drugs, which has been launched and funded by Bill and Hillary’s long-time and generous supporter, George Soros. In the early 1990s, after he made at least one billion dollars bidding against the Bank of England, Soros positioned himself as a social reformer and set out to create an “open society.” Since then he has been using his philanthropy to “change” or more accurately deconstruct the moral values and attitudes of the world’s leading democracy. He declared war on the “war on drugs’ because, like the Castro brothers in Havana, he understood that corruption by drugs and ultimately drug money, can take advantage of even the most advanced, democratic, capitalistic system.

The Clinton administration failed in its efforts to negotiate between the FARC and the Colombian government, and the narco-terrorists has increased its drug trafficking activities and violent attacks on the civilian population. In 2002, the Colombians elected Álvaro Uribe, who swore to fight the nano-traffickers as their new president. And Uribe delivered. During his time in office, the FARC was pushed back. But not for long. Instead of continuing Uribe’s successful fight to defeat the weakened narco-terrorists, Andres Pastrana, who succeeded him as president in 2010, chose to negotiate with them and the Obama administration – which has abandoned the “war on drugs” early on, and tacitly supported the efforts to legalize drugs -supported him and his sponsors, the totalitarian Cuban and Venezuelan governments and the Left-leaning Europeans.

The Colombian people, however, asserted their will to live in a free society. They objected to rubber stamping the agreement that does not hold the narco-terrorists responsible for their crimes.

Instead of congratulating the Colombians for their courage, the European Union, which for decades has been funding Palestinian terrorism and supports the Islamic Republic of Iran, has announced its decision to stop some €600 million in development funds to Colombia. Moreover, it keeps the FARC off its terrorist list, because “after the referendum, the FARC did not denounce the peace accord they had signed. In fact, they confirmed their desire to continue to search for a peaceful solution.”

The Norwegian Nobel Committee rebuked  the Colombian  “no” vote and admonished the people for not approving President Santos’s efforts in appeasing the FARC. In consolation, Santos was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in hope it “will give him strength to succeed” in his appeasement efforts.

Iran and the Nobel Peace Prize Presidents

By Dennis L. Weisman January 15, 2020

I. Introduction

For the second time in 40 years, a Republican President was forced to clean up the mess left by his Democrat predecessor’s failures in Iran. The first time was when a group of Muslim “college students” overran the U.S. embassy in 1979 and paralyzed the Carter administration for more than a year. The second time was when the Obama administration, in a move reminiscent of British PM Chamberlain’s futile attempt to appease Hitler, sent a plane-load of cash in the middle of the night to Tehran to induce the rogue nation to stand down on its nuclear program. The irony with Carter and Obama, both Nobel Peace Prize recipients, is that their policies precipitated “war” not peace.

Aesop's fable of the scorpion and frog captures the essence of the problem:

"A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a babbling stream. It's too treacherous to cross, so the scorpion nicely asks the frog to carry him across on its back. This makes the frog a little suspicious. It asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion says, “Because if I do, I will die too.” That sound reasoning relaxes the frog's nerves. So he allows the scorpion to climb aboard and they shove off across the flowing water. They get halfway across the stream and the scorpion stings the frog directly in the middle of his back. The frog feels the onset of the scorpion's poison and starts to sink. He manages one dying breath: "Why?!" And the scorpion replies: “It’s my nature…”

 II. James Earl Carter Jr. ............ To Read More

My Take - This piece was a good one, but the author was entirely too understanding, too kind and too forgiving of the motives and actions of both Carter and Obama. Carter's administration was a disaster, both in foreign policy and the nations economy.

Most are too young to remember the gas lines, running out of natural gas in the middle of a very cold period, and the 20 percent inflation his administration created with his policies.

A foreign policy disaster that allowed the current terrorist mess by his abandonment of the Shah of Iran. His signing of the Community Re-investment act was what caused the housing bubble that exploded and created a massive worldwide recession, thirty years later.

As for his "righteous" image. Carter is a subscriber of the "social gospel" which in effect promotes the idea socialism is the practical application of Christian ethics.  How brain dead is that?

Obama was either a criminal or ignorant and stupid, or all of the above. Take your pick, because the amount of corruption surrounding Obama was impossible to avoid noticing. He was a talented speaker, but he was an even more talented liar. He has put in place things that may not come to negative fruition for years. That's the problem with these guys. They put things into place that create disasters after they're gone.

Nixon was just as bad, if not worse, with his creation of OSHA, the EPA, and passage of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act and more. He's been long gone and his actions still haunt America. But at least he didn't receive that paragon of leftist hypocrisy the Nobel Peace Prize.

Both Carter and Obama are anti-semites whose only accomplishment was to undermine America, America's allies, the American identity, the American culture and the American economy. Their goal? Overturning the Constitution and imposing a socialist state, and preferably under the auspices of the most corrupt incompetent organization the world has ever known. The United Nations. Everything either of them did borders on treason.

No wonder he never got the Nobel prize: Tom Wolfe made the left look stupid

By Monica Showalter May 16, 2018

It's couched in oh, so delicate terms, as pretty much everyone mourns the death of the great Tom Wolfe. Tom Wolfe was a reporter; Tom Wolfe was an observer. Tom Wolfe eyed status-seeking. Tom Wolfe skewered the establishment. And through his incredible mastery of words, he entertained the hell out of us. Yes, true enough. But somehow he never got a Nobel Prize in literature, despite vastly outranking almost everyone else who has.

So I guess I am corrupting things a little when I state the obvious about Wolfe: he did write; he did observe; he did skewer; and by gosh, it all added up to making the left look stupid, particularly the cultural left, because it is the establishment. There is no way a writer this honest could not find them.

And because he was a ferocious believer in and chronicler of American exceptionalism, he got them good. Oh, he made the left look stupid. It's why reading his work is such a delicious pleasure.................Read more

Once Again, Americans Dominate the 2017 Nobel Prizes

By Alex Berezow — October 4, 2017

When I was in high school, I was part of a community service organization (Key Club) that literally was one of the best in the world. We won international awards, and at the state level, it wasn't uncommon for us to sweep nearly all the awards.

Maybe I was the only one who felt this way, but after a while, it started to get a little uncomfortable. Everybody already knows you're the best, and winning every award year after year feels a little like rubbing it in. Public accolades paradoxically make me feel proud but also a little embarrassed.
It's a good thing that the scientific community in the United States doesn't share my conflicted feelings about the spotlight. Because, once again, Americans have dominated the Nobel Prizes.....To Read More.....

Nobel prize winner got poor marks in science

From the San Francisco Chronicle 

Teacher knows best? hat doesn't appear to be the case for one teacher who called a future Nobel Prize winner's dreams of becoming a scientist "quite ridiculous" in a scathing report card. John Gurdon's future success was almost nipped in the bud in 1949 when a schoolmaster at elite Eton College wrote on his report card that pursuing science would be a waste of time. 

"His work has been far from satisfactory," the teacher wrote. "If he can't learn simple biological facts he would have no chance of doing the work of a specialist, and it would be sheer waste of time, both on his part, and of those who have to teach him." 

The teacher said that the teenage Gurdon had gotten into trouble several times and didn't listen. The scientific community could argue it's a good thing he didn't.After starting out studying classics at Oxford, Gurdon switched to zoology. In 1962, he showed that the DNA from specialized cells of frogs, like skin or intestinal cells, could be used to generate new tadpoles — a breakthrough rewarded Monday with the Nobel Prize for Medicine, which he shared with Japan's Shinya Yamanaka. 

Scientists are trying to build on the work of Gurdon and Yamanaka to create replacement tissues for treating diseases like Parkinson's and diabetes. This Appeared Here…..   

My Take - It is clear that some come into their own later than others.  The important part of this story in my view is the thing that has been obvious to me for many years.  In so many cases advanced formal education teaches people what to think; not how to think.  The system then forced them not to think outside the "consensus".  Once they were properly molded.... then and only then would they be "eligible" for government grant money. 

It takes a strong personality to be the rock in the current of conventional thinking, but those with intelligence, courage and fortitude will eventually win through......if they're right.  One of my personal heroes in the Pest Control industry has been Chuck Steinmetz.  He once told me that "the only thing you needed to be successful in business was brains and guts; and you can hire brains!"   I think that is true in so many venues.  A pound of guts is worth a ton of brains.