As my husband came downstairs Friday morning, groggy and half-asleep, he asked, “What’s new?”

“Well, did you hear Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize?” I replied.

He stopped. “You’re kidding.”

“I’m not.”

“For what??”

“His potential, apparently.”

My husband burst out laughing. “That’s hilarious. In a scary sort of way.” He accepted a mug of coffee and took a sip. “I tell ya, this has a sort of anti-Christ-ish ring to it, doesn’t it?” He walked around for the rest of the morning shaking his head and muttering, “Amazing …”

Shortly thereafter, a friend remarked, “Getting kind of Old Testament–ish around here, isn’t it?” My husband answered, “More like New Testament–ish. Specifically, Revelation.”

In asking a neighbor whether she’d heard the news, her reply was, “Yes, I’ve had diarrhea all morning.”

Putting aside our personal opinions of Obama, I must echo my husband’s question: “For what?” How could Obama – who has been in office well under a year amid massive protests from disgruntled citizens – win the most-coveted award in the world for peace efforts when he hasn’t done anything to achieve peace? Let us remember, too, that when nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize were taking place, Obama had been in office for 12 days. Again I say, for what?

This sentiment, we found out, was being asked across blogs and news sites around the world.

Justifications for awarding the prize include his decision to “strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.” (In other words, his potential, as defined by the Nobel Committee.) Apparently it doesn’t matter that he hasn’t achieved these, or any other, goals. I suspect his real accomplishment was replacing George Bush in the White House, something he had no say in.

“Many observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency which began less than two weeks before the February 1 nomination deadline and has yet to yield concrete achievements in peacemaking,” observed Karl Ritter of the Associated Press.

That’s the understatement of the year.

“President Obama has changed very dramatically international politics,” said Geir Lundestad, director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute. “We feel he has emphasized multilateral diplomacy, he has addressed international institutions, dialogue negotiations. He has inspired the world with his vision of a world without nuclear arms. He has changed the U.S. policy dramatically. There’s a whole list.”

Oh, and get this – the decision to award Obama the prize was unanimous.

Predictably, some comments left by liberals on a social networking sites include “Cool! Very cool. Ignore the naysayers – Obama has already changed the world for the better.” “Wow, our President won The Nobel Peace Prize! He won for not being George Bush and that is so cool.”

“They should have given the prize to me,” my husband joked. “I have potential too! Maybe some day I’ll do something important!” He added thoughtfully, “This is just like those kid’s sports in which every kid gets a trophy merely for showing up. The meaning of a trophy is gone.”

It’s pretty obvious that Obama has achieved no significant accomplishments in the nine months of his presidency, beyond humiliating the United States by overseeing its economic decline through massive deficit spending and by apologizing to Muslims for our moral deficiencies. To be perfectly fair, he hasn’t had the time to accomplish much – which makes it clear that the Peace Prize is little more than a farce and a tool to advance a liberal left-wing agenda. Rush Limbaugh asserts that the prize is a carrot to keep Obama beholden to the European liberals at the expense of American sentiments.

Supposedly, Obama has dramatically improved the image of the U.S. around the world. “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” said Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the decision is the embodiment of the “return of America into the hearts of the people of the world.” I don’t suppose it matters to Mr. Jagland or Mr. Sarkozy that Obama has accomplished the exact opposite sentiment within his own country by dooming us to multi-generational debt, proposed massive cap-and-trade taxes and scrapping the best medical system in the world in favor of the failing socialized medicine of Europe.

“You have to remember that the world has been in a pretty dangerous phase,” Jagland said. “And anybody who can contribute to getting the world out of this situation deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.” In my opinion, pandering to terrorists will hardly contribute to world peace. But hey, what do I know?

The trouble with the Nobel Peace Prize is it enjoys a (perhaps undeserved) reputation for pinpointing superior accomplishments. Sometimes the Nobel Committee gets it right – Mother Teresa comes to mind – but throughout its history it has awarded the prize to some extremely controversial and unworthy people while bypassing truly worthy recipients. In other words, we shouldn’t read much more into Obama’s winning the Peace Prize beyond a left-wing group’s attempt to give credence to a radical man who sucks up to international acclaim at the expense of his own country.

It’s clear that the liberal Nobel Committee is encouraging Obama to continue neutering our nation and reducing its super-power status by awarding him this prize. As Glenn Beck points out, the Committee is supporting situations where people have lost their lives and surrendered their freedoms for the cause of world peace. Seldom can such an openly biased sentiment garner international attention in so short a time. The fact that this award diminishes the status of the Nobel Peace Prize to the level of mockery doesn’t seem to occur to the committee in Oslo.

So pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, folks. Like the Wizard of Oz, Obama will soon be exposed as the fraud he is.

It just bugs me that he’ll be a millionaire because of it.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.