After hearing that President Obama was chosen for the Nobel Peace Prize all I could do was yawn. Not because I am really that familiar with the prize, but more so because of everyone’s continuing naivety about his platform as president. Although, to his credit, I don’t think he has any real principles guiding him, except maybe to try to appease as many people as he can. To clarify, his platform is an authoritarian view of a democracy whose basis for laws is relative, and is only supported by past laws and mistakes, yet more importantly, the national misguided belief in the executive powers. What’s his goal? To make sure everyone is on a level playing field? Well, like my colleagues Michael and Peter have been explaining in their articles this past week, big government can only ever work with an unlimited supply of funds. This conclusion leads me to my next investigation. What does it mean for Obama to win?

Inevitably, I did the whole Wikipedia search for Nobel Peace Prize.  Alfred Nobel, was a Norwegian man who invented dynamite. With his great fortune he wanted to award the worlds greatest for their accomplishments in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace. After his death in 1896, some pretty big names were nominated (But not necessarily awarded) including Adalf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Benito Mussolini. However, there were some great winners. My favorites are Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, etc… Most have incredible stories of bringing about “Peace” to others through their lives.

I started noticing an interesting trend within the winners. They’re not all from America! I think Obama’s winning, is more or less to remind us of other peoples’ and countries’ definition of “peace”. To me, and I hope you agree, peace is not an attainable end for any country that puts it as it’s main cause. Let me remind you that countries, whether it’s America or a third world country in Africa, are made up of individuals. To bring about any meaningful “peace” as a leader of a country, disrupts the definition. It takes rules and laws to enforce peace. Or, it takes all individuals acting as responsible human beings for themselves. Which do you prefer? One requires you sacrifice some of your God-given freedoms to the whimsical morals of a pseudo-dictator (in this case) and the other allows you to practice your freedom to do what is right while having the right to your own life.

Maybe you think I’m jumping to conclusions. Maybe I am. I would love to find out in a few years that everything Obama won the award for would solve the world’s problems. But, unlike the winners of the past like Martin Luther King Jr., these days someone like Al Gore can win for over dramatizing a global crisis like climate change. All-in-all, don’t let yourself be fooled by the latest suck ups in the world, who in my opinion, are using this award as a tool to publicize a more globalized, spread-to-thin, world government. Will it work? You will have to decide what you think.

Here is a video by Ron Paul that inspired my view point on this subject.

Source: the great wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize