So how did President Obama manage to win the Nobel Peace Prize? One might ask if this is a consolation prize for his utter failure to secure the Summer Olympics for his hometown. Considering that flop occurred less than two weeks after the announcement of the award, that seems impossible. Perhaps it is due to his election to the presidency. Was the committee allured by his frequent flagellation of his country in front of audiences while overseas? A review of the previous winners reveals much insight into the minds and motivations of the awarders.  

The Nobel Committee certainly has never shown a propensity to hand out the award to someone for simply being elected to the American presidency. Only three other American presidents have received the award; none of them earned it during the first year of their administration. In 1919, Woodrow Wilson received the prize for breaking his promise to keep the United States out of the First World War. Theodore Roosevelt secured the award in 1906 for convincing Japan to stop further routing the decrepit and inept armed forces of czarist Russia. In 2002, Carter took home the acknowledgement more than twenty years after leaving the Oval Office. Apparently, the committee believed his four years of emasculating the American armed forces and intelligence agencies did not suffice. He needed to perform two decades' worth of denigrating later occupants of the White House in their efforts to combat Communist, Fascist and Jihadist forces around the world. Notably, presidents such as Ronald Reagan’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s efforts to lead the United States to victory over the Soviet Union and the Axis Powers respectively were never acknowledged by an award from this committee.

The committee may have decided that Obama's nascent efforts to undermine free enterprise and help facilitate the destruction of the Free World's notion of representative democracy have merited the award for him. In the past twenty years, others have been rewarded for merely trying in these endeavors. Renowned Marxist, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachyov received the award as a payment for attempting to delay for as long as possible the inevitable implosion of the Soviet Union in 1990. The 1994 Peace Prize went to Yasir Arafat for a lifetime of overseeing bombings, hijackings and other contributions to the International Jihad. In 2001, Kofi Anan and the United Nations secured the prize for successfully swindling billions of dollars from the Free World to provide a forum for Marxist, Islamic and other totalitarians nations to criticize capitalism, representative democracy and freedom in general. In 2005, Mohamad Elbaradei and his International Atomic Energy Agency won the endowment for paying lip service to halting Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear weapons while foot-dragging long enough for the Islamic regime to continue their program. Former vice-president, Al Gore Jr., took home the accolade in 2007 by touting alarmist predictions of gloom and demanding that the free and technologically advanced societies of the world slow down their economies in order for authoritarian countries to seem less backwards. Granted, the committee nominated Obama less than a month after he was inaugurated. Therefore, one must assume that the committee chose the winner based on potential for furtherance of the statists' goals.

So what has Obama accomplished to deserve this prize? He has curried favor with Islamists and their useful idiots around the world by ordering a halt to effective interrogation of jihadis and the closing of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. He announced that he will soon remove most of the American armed forces in Iraq thus, allowing jihadis an easier possibility of toppling the elected government and replace it with an Islamic regime. Much to the delight of statists envious of American prosperity, he has seized considerable federal governmental control over two of the three largest American automobile manufacturers in addition to several of the nation's largest banks. He has won the approval of such prominent dictators such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Libya's Muamar Kadaffy and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinewhackjob.

In conclusion, this decision foreshadows more lurching toward socialism and more dhimmitude for the United States of America. Obama had the influence of Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers plus his indoctrination in an Indonesian madrassa motivating his decisions. After this announcement, he has to prove to the Nobel Committee that he deserves their confidence and will govern up to their authoritarian standards.

Hidden by the ongoing debate and protests over the proposed socialization of the American health care system in addition to the recent death of the man responsible for Mary Jo Kopechne's death, the Obama administration has started its torment of the defenders of American security. The Obama regime has been returning political favors to those that supported his campaign. Among these are the self-loathing Americans who want the United States to accept defeat and retreat on all of fronts in the Islamic war against the Free World. Therefore, the Obamaniacs have demanded that their messiah's henchmen unsheathe their daggers then plunge them into the exposed backs of patriots combating jihadis. 

American service personnel have already been forced to concede to Islamists' demands regarding the treatment of the jihadis. American tax dollars were spent to provide a Koran, prayer rug and prayer beads to every captured jihadi. This funding of religious instruction exists in addition to the highly expensive provision of halal meals to cater to the savages' tastes. All of this undeserved treatment of these criminals flies in the face of the Geneva Convention. None of these goons were wearing a distinguishable military uniform while engaged in such activities as firing on American and allied forces, planting explosives and other acts of war.

There is no precedent for this appeasement of Islamists' demands for undeserved treatment. German prisoners during the Second World War never received free copies of <i>Mein Kempf</i> during their captivity. During that same war, the few Japanese soldiers captured by American  were not issued any means to commit ritualistic suicide as their ideology mandated. Additionally, captured communist forces during the wars in Korea and Vietnam never were issued copies of <i>The Communist Manifesto</i> or any other Marxist literature supplied by the country that they sought to defeat. One must ask why do adherents to Islam deserve complementary implements of their ideology when adherents to other strains of totalitarianism were denied similar luxuries. Not only were Axis and Communist forces never pampered in captivity, those who engaged in military operations while not in uniform were frequently executed. Anyone involved in acts of sabotage or other hostility while not in uniform are considered as spies; those have no protections under the Geneva Convention.  Instead of bowing down to Allah five times per day, these jihadis should reserve some gratitude for Uncle Sam for his naive and short-sighted magnanimity.

So what practices have drawn the ire of the useful idiots more concerned about pleasing Islamists than preventing further acts of jihad against the United States? Some of these prisoners were strip-searched, had ink smeared on their faces, were held in solitary confinement, were deprived of shoes, had cigar smoke blown in their faces or saw an interrogator squat over, stand on or kick a Koran. Can anyone hand-wringing over these incidents name just one person who has ever died or suffered disabling injuries from any of these actions?

Mohamad al-Kahtani, the would-be twentieth hijacker of the plot on the eleventh of September in 2001, faced annoyances such as sleep deprivation, exposure to cold  and insults to female members of his family. Many of the members of the American armed forces have endured the same treatment during their training. When will any member of the ACLU or any other jihadi-coddling group lift a finger to halt to rough treatment meted out to American service personnel?

In a pursuit of justice, someone should conduct of poll of survivors of jihadist violence. The question would ask, “Would you rather undergo the same treatment suffered by the prisoners at GITMO or would prefer the fate of the passengers of the hijacked planes and by the occupants of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon?” Maybe such an undertaking would open the eyes of the “Hate America First” crowd to see the folly of their myopic and self-destructive agenda.

COPYRIGHT CHARLES KASTRIOT SEPTEMBER 2009

Whenever politicians run for office, they regularly promise favors and special treatment for those who have supported them. Over the course of American political history, such paybacks have varied from secretly provided to openly proclaimed. While not yet mentioned in an official White House press release or in a joint statement by the Democrats in Congress, the dervishes of political correctness are on the verge of reaping their rewards for their presidential jihad on behalf of Barrack Hussein Obama.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. The bill awaits widely expected passage by the Senate. President Obama's signature on the bill transforming it into law appears to be a foregone conclusion.

This bill perpetuates the Orwellian campaign against lines of thinking deemed punishable by the thought police. Despite the doublespeak about the value of freedom of speech and the right to hold unpopular opinions from the proponents of this bill, its provisions will be implemented as a weapon to punish those with politically incorrect viewpoints. These include, but are not limited to, opposition to legalization of homosexual marriage, normalization of homosexuality in general, support for at least some legal restrictions on abortion, opposition to racial quotas and preferences and criticism of Islam. Therefore, when a member of a politically correct group such as "sexual minorities" and "persons of color" has been involved with a violent incident with a non-member of these groups, the non-member faces a ten year prison sentence or possibly a life sentence. The prosecutors need only persuade a jury that the non-member was thinking about the "privileged" person's actual or perceived membership in one or more classifications prior to or while engaging in seemingly illegal acts. We will be told to never mind the fact that the "sexual minority" member or "person of color" may have instigated a violent confrontation. The more politically incorrect traits someone possesses (Caucasian race, male gender, Christian faith, European ancestry or heterosexual preference), the more grounds for accusation of "hate" will become available for the thought police.

One might ask what is the purpose of this proposed law. It would allow federal money and other forms of assistance to be sent to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies. This aid would only be available if someone is accused of committing a crime against someone who is "different" as long as the "difference" has been consecrated by the thought police. Someone targeted based on his preference for engaging in anal intercourse can demand prosecution based on this law. However, someone attacked because of his preference for eating meat does not have such an option. A group of thugs who attacked a man for wearing a mini-skirt and cosmetics faces additional punishment for doing so; the same group of thugs who attacked a man for wearing a military uniform does not risk more punishment for their choice of target.  This subjective legal protection for behaviors like sodomy and cross-dressing but not consumption of meat or service in the armed forces proves that some minorities are more equal than others.

Numerous Obamaniacs faulted former President Bush for engaging America's enemies militarily instead of diplomatically. They believed that if only their Messiah had the opportunity to speak to hostile nations and their leaders, then peace, prosperity and utopia would soon follow. Recent events have demonstrated the folly of believing conversations will end anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and terrorism. 

Obama strode into the Summit of the Americas with the self-assurance of an actor on the red carpet of the Oscars, anticipating his impending plethora of awards and plaudits from the Academy. Apart from an opus of Ameriphobic rubbish from Hugo Chavez, a deceitful diatribe from Daniel Ortega and some empty rhetoric about political prisoners from Raul Castro, Obama left empty-handed. In fact, he lost the few remaining strands of his cloak of invincibility by his attendance. The phony Messiah revealed more glaringly his unwillingness to the defend the honor of the country that elected him. Additionally, his incapability of speaking without a script showed as he could only offer anemic responses to Ortega's "Blame the U.S.A. for Everything Wrong in Central America" speech. Even Obama's conversations with the Marxist leader of Venezuela resulted from Chavez slyly orchestrations to bolster his amount of time in front of the cameras, not Obama's efforts to take charge of the agenda of the Summit of the Americas and actually accomplish something of note.

At the recent United Nations' Summit on Racism, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once again displayed his Islamic brand of lunacy. He reinforced his previously expressed delusions about the historical reality of the Nazis' efforts at genocide directed at the elimination of Jews. He blamed the U.S. and Western Europe for "occupying" a country referred to as "Palestine", which never existed prior to its invention as a part of a plot to deny the existence of Israel. Some people have suggested that Ahmadinejad only needs to see videos and photographs of the death camps; others have proposed his meeting with survivors. Clearly, this Islamist has fully stepped through the looking-glass so any view of reality would become so distorted beyond all recognition. So what could Obama utter that would enlighten this Jew-hating snake? Such a task would prove Herculean, even for the Messiah and his magical teleprompter.

While Obama' administration continues to exceed the ineptitude of the Carter Administration, his devotees continue to hope for change. They spin his every word and deed as obviously successful then point to the next opportunity to awe the enemies of liberty. Much like other adherents of Stalin, Mao and other demagogues, paradise lies always just around the corner, if only the lackeys continue to believe and submit to the party's agenda. Unfortunately, the pervasive Ameriphobia and threatening jihad will not cease by their warm and fuzzy fantasies.

President Barrack Hussein Obama's obvious bowing down to the King of Saudi Arabia at the G20 Summit has caused much discussion. His inner circle has denied what the video images clearly showed: a fully horizontal bending at the waist with his head down while standing in front of Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud. The Obamaniacs in the media and at-large attempted to downplay his act of submission as a mere sign of respect. They conveniently ignored the fact that he did not bow to the Queen of Great Britain. So one may conclude that Obama only respects absolute monarchs from totalitarian kingdoms. On the other hand, he may disdain monarchs who only perform ceremonial functions in an otherwise representative democracy.

The egregious display of kowtowing to the leader of particularly oppressive Islamic regime served as the most visible sign of Obama's latest endeavor. Obama's tour of Europe and the Middle East evidently comprise part of his challenge of former President Jimmy Carter's world record in the category of denigrating the United States in the most locations across the world. Granted, Obama has not quite reach Nobel Peace Prize standards for backstabbing. Nevertheless, he is on the verge of shattering this mark following his whirlwind tour of Ameriphobic strongholds.

Obama secured some halal points with Islamists and their useful idiots in Europe. Obama apologized for the U.S.A's toppling of a fascist regime in Iraq. He lamented the detainment of jihadis involved in violent attacks on Americans and others. His expressions of guilt for American supremacy in military and financial matters soothed the egos of Mohamadans and Marxists alike. His obfuscation of the inherent Islamic underpinning of terrorism yielded smiles of willful denial of reality. His intention to yield to their demands, no matter how detrimental to American security or economy, earned for him numerous rounds of applause and glowing media coverage.

Obama did let some scoring opportunities slip through his grasp. He failed to decry American influence with proliferation of fast-food restaurants around the world. He could have at least thrown rock through a window of a McDonald's location; Euro-trash tradition mandates this custom whenever a meeting involving financial matters occurs. He did not beg their pardon for their adolescents' obsession with music, films and television series written and produced by Americans. His omission of regret for the continued American indifference toward soccer stands out as another missed chance to add to the ledger of pusillanimity. His teleprompter will have to shoulder the blame for those since his cult of personality insists that he never commits any errors.

Since Obama needs another display of cravenness to solidify his grasp on the title of "Most Dhimmified Lackey of the Year", an obvious option has presented itself. The Somali jihadis engaging in piracy off the east coast of Africa could certainly use a bailout. The global economic recession has curtailed the number of ships loaded with goods for them to plunder. Of course, they would demand a Sharia-compliant, interest-free loan that would be eventually forgiven without ever paying back a penny.

This price to pay to please the Islamic Bloc will continue to grow expediently. In this case, it is the dignity and self-respect of the United States of America.