By now even the increasingly ridiculous and irrelevant Nobel Peace Prize Committee, a stinking stain on the face of Scandinavia, must be wondering what possessed it to give Black Jesus its annual Donald Duck prize for being fashionably left-wing.
Previous holders of the four-boxtops cuddly toy include a peanut farmer and a global-warming profiteer, both of whom, like Obama, are “Democrats.”
The Christmas-cracker trinket has also been awarded to an Arab terrorist and to a South African terrorist.
Recently, the Peace Popsicle has been given – fatuously – to the European Tyranny-by-Clerk and also to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, two closely linked institutional terrorist groups whose global fraud and racketeering have driven hundreds of millions into fuel poverty and are killing hundreds of millions more by deliberately slowing the pace of economic development in Third World countries, denying them the use of fossil fuels to generate the electricity they need to lift them out of starvation and disease.
I suppose I’m a thousandth of a Nobel Mickey Mouse Laureate myself, because I prevented one of the more stupid errors in the IPCC’s “Fourth Assessment Report.” I share in its reflected ignominy, though, like other contributors to that indigestible and reliably wrong report, I haven’t seen any of the cash, and I don’t even have a pretty Boy Scout certificate to put up on my vanity wall. You don’t get one of those if you save it from itself by correcting its errors.
But why, O why, did the Nobel Wooden Spoon Committee award the thing to Black Jesus? To the very same Black Jesus who, if reports are to be believed, proposes to send U.S.-made weapons to stoke the war between one Islamic extremist faction and another in Syria, of all places?
The Nobel Free Picnic Set With Every Four Gallons is supposed to be awarded “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity among nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies or for the holding of peace congresses.”
So here is your exam question for today.
In what sense is sending military materiel to arm a rebel army on the other side of the world contributing to “the abolition or reduction of standing armies”? Discuss.
Perhaps the Lotto Jackpot Committee rewarded Obama for the deep cuts in U.S. defense capability “Democrats” can generally be relied upon to make. For America’s standing army, like that of Britain, is being run down to the point where they are not numerous enough or well enough equipped to fight off even a limited invasion.
But where is the sense in giving the Nobel Million Dollar Scratchcard to an international nitwit who is reducing his adopted country’s standing army while increasing the standing army of one of its enemies?
According to a British TV journalist who recently spent six months deep undercover among the Syrian rebels, well over half of them are Islamic fanatics who hate the West and will turn against it as soon as it has given them enough weapons to overcome their immediate enemy, Assad the Younger.
Swapping one dismal regime for another is not the way forward in Syria. Best thing to do is stay out of the way and let them fight each other to a standstill. It would certainly not be advisable to put in troops on the ground, for then we might find ourselves fighting a proxy Cold War with Russia.
The threat from militant, oil-fired Islam is real. But experience first in Iraq and then in Afghanistan shows that taking sides in their internal conflicts does not pan out as intended.
Islam was first spread by violence. Now, its violence is directed not only toward the infidel but also towards other factions within itself. Christianity was first spread by peace. Then it directed violence toward unbelievers during the Crusades, and against itself during the Reformation. Now it has returned to its peaceful origins.
Islam, however, has no book of peace to rival our Bible, whose message of love is on every page. Instead, it has the Quran. The message of the Quran – again on every page – is of hatred, contempt and violence toward anyone who does not believe in the Prophet. The Quran condemns the infidel over and over again.
I have searched the online database of religious texts at the University of Michigan to find all references to “unbelief” or “unbelieving” or “unbeliever” in the Quran. I have listed each mention of the infidel, by sura and verse here.
Fortunately, most Muslims today pay no more attention to the Quran’s message of hate than the Christians once did to the Bible’s message of love.
If there is to be peace, the Christians must heed the Bible, and the Muslims must disregard the Quran, to the extent that it preaches hatred.
The “Muslim” occupant of the White House ought not to heed the Quran. Of course he is shocked, as are we all, by Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his opponents. Obama’s indignation is genuine and justifiable. But his remedy will only make the patient sicker.
America – and Britain, for that matter – should stay out of Syria.