It seemed the Nobel Committee’s decision to award its Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama has continued to draw some serious mixed reactions instead of the near-unanimous tribute that usually comes with the prize. The Nobel committee is said to have stunned the world when they bestowed the award on Obama, who is just nine months into his presidency and has his detractors point out, has yet to score a major foreign-policy success.

Several newspapers in the corporate U.S.A were deeply divided over the decision, including those that endorsed him during the 2008 presidential election campaign. Papers such as the New York Times called it a “mixed blessing” for Obama that highlighted “the gap between the ambitious promise of his words and his accomplishments.” The Wall Street Journal described the awarding of the prize as “odd,” that it was less recognition of Obama’s achievements than a denunciation of the controversial politics pursued by his predecessor, George W. Bush.


 As if that was a bad thing.

The Los Angeles Times, which had also supported Obama’s presidential bid, said the prize was premature. “The Nobel Committee didn’t just embarrass Obama, it diminished the credibility of the prize itself,” it said.  Across the pond in jolly old England, the very conservative Daily Telegraph called it “one of the biggest shocks Nobel judges have ever sprung, stressing that nominations closed just 12 days after Obama took office.  In China, the unofficial Beijing News said it was very early for Obama to win the prize, which it said will put “great pressure” on him to deliver.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he hoped Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize would provide “further stimulus” to a U.S.-Russian diplomatic rapprochement.  Obama’s administration has pledged to “reset” relations between Washington and Russia, who have disagreed on a range of issues, from Russia’s war with Georgia last year to Iran’s disputed nuclear program.
And Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro described Obama’s Nobel win as a “positive measure,” which he said mostly intended to denounce the Bush administration’s policies.


Still, there was no word from Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or for that matter, Reverend Wright, to name a few. Of course Obama did get support from Israel.


In the land of Ikea and the Nobel Peace Prize, the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society (Svenska Freds) has classified as “shameful” the decision by the Nobel Committee.


“The choice of Barack Obama as the recipient of the world’s foremost peace prize is shocking,” said the group’s chairwoman Anna Ek in a statement. Ek conceded that the US president had sent “positive signals” with regard to his future commitment to global peace.  She also pointed out that “… Obama is the president of the biggest military power in the world and is waging two wars in the world. That should certainly disqualify him from a peace prize”.  This point was echoed by the
Moderate Party parliamentary group leader Lars Lindblad, who said that, though he was glad Obama, had been elected president of the United States, awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize was a “historic mistake”.

“In my view the Peace Prize should go to somebody who has achieved something,” said Lindblad.


The prevailing feelings running through the minds of both the supporters and opponent of President Obama, is that he:


  • Hasn’t done anything significant in his short time as president.
  • He is presiding over a two sided invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan
  • And he has been saber rattling with Iran, Zimbabwe, and Somalia and has still not closed Guantanamo bay… a blight on the ass of America Inc.’s fight against terror.
  • His initiative in North East Africa (the Middle East) continues the America Inc. tradition of backing the illegal settler state, welfare state of terror, better know as Israel.

Many on the political left and right of reason have feelings ranging from confusion, to outrage, yet like most things Obama does always come down to his so called “leftist” policies or the melanin in him. As one enlightened soul declared that it had to be ‘because he was black”, why the award was given. 




“…for their work for the peaceful termination of the apartheid regime, and for laying the foundations for a new democratic South Africa”-


——The Nobel committee awarding the co-prize to
Nelson Mandela and FW DE Klerk


How many people remember the awarding of the co-prize to both Nelson Mandela and F.W. De Klerk? How soon we forget in this world of short attention span. While Mandela was in prison serving as a symbol for struggle against apart-hate in Azania, his wife Winnie and stalwarts like Steve Biko, Albert Sisulu, Oliver Tambo, Robert Sobukwe and the foot soldiers of Umkhonto weSizwe, to name a small few, were holding the burning torch at the foot of the Caucasian dinosaur, which was the government at the time.


Mandela showed his true training as a lawyer and politician upon receiving his freedom by embracing De Klerk, denouncing the violence of the liberation Struggle, divorcing his wife and sanctioning the pile of shit called the truce and reconciliation hearings.

De Klerk came from a family environment in which the conservatism – read Neo Fascist- of traditional European settler politics in Azania was deeply ingrained. His great-grandfather was a Senator, his grandfather stood twice for the white parliament unsuccessfully, and his aunt was married to NP Prime Minister J. G. Strijdom. In 1948, the year when the NP swept to power in “whites-only elections” on an apartheid platform, F. W. de Klerk’s father, Johannes “Jan” de Klerk, became secretary of the NP in the Transvaal province and later rose to the positions of cabinet minister and President of the Senate.

“F.W.”, as he became popularly known, was first elected to the South African Parliament in 1969 as the member for Vereeniging, and entered the cabinet in 1978. As Minister of National Education, De Klerk was a supporter of segregated universities, and as a leader of the National Party in Transvaal, he was not known to advocate reform. However, after a long political career and with a very conservative reputation, in 1989 he placed himself at the head of verligte (“enlightened”) forces within the governing party, with the result that he was elected head of the National Party in February 1989, and finally State President in September 1989 to replace then president P.W. Botha when the latter was forced to step down after a stroke.

By this time, there was so much pressure on the Nazis running Azania that not even back door support from Israel, America Inc and Britain could curtail the world’s outrage. Many of those governments’ supporters in other countries were forced to place sanction against the Apart-hate government’s  beastly acts against the Africans, slowly grinding its mechanism to a crawl.  This was why in 1989, upon assuming the presidency, in his first speech De Klerk called for a “non-racist South Africa and for negotiations about the country’s future”.

He lifted the ban on the African National Congress (ANC) and released Nelson Mandela. According to the Caucasian media…”He brought apartheid to an end and opened the way for the drafting of a new constitution for the country based on the principle of one person, one vote”. They also claimed that his (De Klerk’s) presidency was dominated by the negotiation process, mainly between his NP government and Mandela’s ANC, which led to the democratization of the former South Africa.

Nevertheless, he was accused by Anthony Sampson of complicity in the violence between the ANC, the Inkatha Freedom Party and elements of the security forces. In Mandela: the Authorised Biography Sampson accuses De Klerk of permitting his ministers to build their own criminal empires.

In 1990, De Klerk gave orders to roll back South Africa’s nuclear weapons program; the process of nuclear disarmament was essentially completed in 1991. The existence of the program was not officially acknowledged before 1993. Nor was the information widely disseminated that Israel was the country that helped set up that program with America Inc’s backing.

After the first free elections in 1994, De Klerk became vice-president in the government of national unity under Nelson Mandela, a post he kept until 1996. In 1997 he also gave over the leadership of the National Party and retreated from politics. Today there is a third African male in the highest seat in the land. Yet Caucasians, mostly physical and spiritual left over’s of the Apart-hate era still control the financial, military, Judicial and educational department of Azania.  And they remain beholding to the IMF and the U.N


Politics make strange bedfellows and Obama winning the peace prize is proof positive that yes! this is definitely unusual and the reasons specious, but the hate for the African is still palpable today…even if he is a willing tool for White Supremacy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s