Theodore Roosevelt’s Nobel Peace Prize Speech

Monday, January 30, AD 2012

Two Presidents have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  Barack Obama in 2009, for no reason I can discern other than a slap at his predecessor George Bush by the left-leaning award committee, and Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 for being the driving force behind the negotiations that led to the end of the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.   Due to his duties as President, Roosevelt was unable to give his acceptance speech until May 5, 1910.  It is an interesting address.   Peace, he stated, was not the highest good unless it was wedded to righteousness.  Peace is evil if it is merely a mask for sloth and cowardice.  Tyrants have often prattled about peace in order to silence opposition to their schemes.  Individuals, and nations, must ever be ready to defend themselves.  He then offered some practical suggestions for a more peaceful world.  Arbitration of disputes between nations.  The establishment of a tribunal at the Hague.  A League of Peace by the great powers to attempt to keep the peace of the world.  The irony of course is that it was the European Great Powers that would lead the world into War just four years after Roosevelt’s speech, but of course the future was for him an unknown country, just as our future is to us.  The text of the speech of Theodore Roosevelt:

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Theodore Roosevelt’s Nobel Peace Prize Speech

  • Visions of T. Roosevelt, Colonel of the First Reg’t. US Volunteer Cav., mounted charging San Juan Hill, . . . I’m not sure (“some form of international police power”) about him, any more.

    The facts that pharaoh and sub-mongoloid-cretin-with-a-PhD Krugman were awarded Nobel Prizes (funded with mega-profits from HE sales) say more about the Nobel P. awards committee than about the two dastards.

  • “I’m not sure (“some form of international police power”) about him, any more.”

    It always depends on who is doing the policing T.Shaw. Circa 1950 TR would have seemed like a prophet. Circa 2012 not so much. Ideas are tried out in History, one reason to study History closely.

  • I just finished Michael Korda’s book on the Hungarian revolution in which he faults the U.S. for not helping; however, I am sure that if the U.S. had intervened he and others would fault said intervention as imperialism.

    Maybe isolationism should be given a second chance.

  • During the Cold War the US and the Soviets were careful never to have their troops officially shooting at each other for fear that would quickly lead to World War III, which I believe would have been likely. Soviet pilots flew, and were shot down, in Korea and Vietnam, but neither side regarded them as “officially” in combat. In Afghanistan, the Soviets did not regard the CIA agents there as “officially” fighting against them. US intervention in Hungary in 56, directly fighting Soviet troops, could not have been treated in such a manner.

    In regard to isolationism in the modern world, if the US retreats to Fortress America, other nations, almost all very unfriendly, would swiftly enter the vacuum created, and the world would be convulsed by series of wars the likes of which the world has not seen since the Thirties.

  • ” . . . some form of international police force . . . ” As with most things in the worldly, “the devil is in the details.”

    Interesting indirect result of the War of 1812 and the Civil War may be TR’s devotion to strong US naval power – “big stick.”

    In 1882, TR’s book, The Naval War of 1812 was published. He several times visited his uncle, James Bulloch, in England doing research. TR knew weak US navy had adversely affected US “fortunes” in the 1812 fight.

    Uncle Jimmy was a firm believer in strong naval power. He knew weak navies can be disasterous. Bulloch was the “chief architect” of the CSA Navy and especially two notorious commerce raiders, CSS Alabam and Shenandoah. In 1883, James Bulloch published his two volume memoir, The Secret Servcie of the Confederate States in Eurpoe.

  • TR was a fine historian T.Shaw. His the naval war of 1812 was the definitive work on the subject for over two decades and still is very much worth the reading. He poured his heart and soul into his multi-volumed The Winning of the West. Along with everything else he did, his numerous published works would have caused TR to be remembered even without his other claims to fame.

The Nobel Peace Prize Thirty Years Ago

Tuesday, October 13, AD 2009

We are talking of peace. These are things that break peace, but I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a direct war, a direct killing – direct murder by the mother herself.

Thirty years ago the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Mother Teresa.  Here is the Nobel Peace Prize Lecture she gave on December 11, 1979.

As we have gathered here together to thank God for the Nobel Peace Prize I think it will be beautiful that we pray the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi which always surprises me very much – we pray this prayer every day after Holy Communion, because it is very fitting for each one of us, and I always wonder that 4-500 years ago as St. Francis of Assisi composed this prayer that they had the same difficulties that we have today, as we compose this prayer that fits very nicely for us also. I think some of you already have got it – so we will pray together.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to The Nobel Peace Prize Thirty Years Ago

Saturday Night Live on Nobel Peace Prize Award

Sunday, October 11, AD 2009

Fairly gentle satire of the Nobel Peace Prize award to President Obama, although they do get to the only reason for the award:  Obama is not George Bush.   With the satire of a done-nothing presidency last week, Saturday Night Live is helping to inaugurate a new phase in the Obama saga, one in which he can no longer assume that comics will treat him as off-limits simply because of their usually leftist political sympathies.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Saturday Night Live on Nobel Peace Prize Award

  • They seem to not want CNN to fact check the skit! Now, if CNN would fact check, the Nobel prize committee…

  • Fairly gentle, yes. I think I felt the brush of a feather on my cheek, as the opportunity to be really and deservedly funny winged its way past both me, and the SNL writers.

  • This is the worst impersonation of a president ever on SNL.

    I don’t see the effort on the part of Fred Armisen of pulling it off. Will Farrell as Bush set the standard and Fred falls far short. Execution is (almost) everything and Fred just can’t pull it off. They need someone else because if they continue with him, unless he gets a comedic talent transplant, the SNL will have another bad season.

They Like The Look of This Fellow

Friday, October 9, AD 2009

Though I’d disagree with his conclusion that this is in any way “a bold step” (it strikes me rather as a silly but rather conformist step, if you think about the sort of circles the Nobel committee moves in) I think this BBC commentator gets things pretty much right in saying “Obama gets reward for world view“:

In awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, the Norwegian committee is honouring his intentions more than his achievements.

After all he has been in office only just over eight months and he will presumably hope to serve eight years, so it is very early in his term to get this award.

The committee does not make any secret of its approach. It states that he is being given the prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples.”

This is of course an implied criticism of former US president George W Bush and the neo-conservatives, who were often accused of trying to change the world in their image.

It’s tempting, of course, to point out that Obama doesn’t deserve the award because he hasn’t achieved anything, and plenty of people are asking, “For what?” But really, I think it’s questionable that even the Nobel committee thinks President Obama has achieved much of anything yet. Rather, he’s the sort of person they like to see as president of the United States, and so (even though he’d only been in office for ten days as of the nomination deadline this year) he was nominated and selected in order to express approval for the simple fact that someone with his worldview is now president of the US.

Now, if Obama were to be deeply classy, he’d decline the prize saying that he doesn’t want to be awarded a prize when he doesn’t believe that he’s yet achieved what he should in the world and that there were much more deserving nominees. He would then get the recognition of being selected, but the even greater recognition for being realistic about where he currently is in his presidency. I’m not holding my breath, but if he does I’ll be impressed.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to They Like The Look of This Fellow

  • To late.

    President Obama said “I will accept this award as a call to action.”

    He couldn’t help himself I’m sure.

  • But the narcissist told us he was humbled as he accepted it. I beleive that as much as I beleive everything else he says. Joe Wilson and I are in agreement on this.

    Do you know how you can tell when BHO is lying?

    Yup, you guess it – his lips are moving.

  • The other nominees must have been disastrously inapropriate. Who were they? Can’t seem to find them anywhere.

    Actions speak louder than words.

    But I’ve gotta say – the words have been well delivered, well scripted ( by whom), and well teleprompted.

    What more do we need?

    Hey – the actions MUST be better than the words 🙂

    Mustn’t they……….:roll:

  • Don,
    I’m sure you’re being facetious, but as an FYI, I’ve posted a partial list here:

    I caught a bit of Don Gonyea of NPR trying to explain the selection early yesterdayy morning, and his take was fairly close to yours:

    “Well, it really does seem to be an award that honors what he stands for and what he hopes to do, than what he has actually accomplished…He has initiated and worked hard to get the peace process going in the middle east, but nothing has really taken fruit there yet; you can look, Guantanamo is still open, still troubles with Iran and North Korea, but the committee sees this president as giving the world hope for a better future, and that seems to be what this is, an award to encourage him to keep doing what he has been doing.
    It seeems like this is a reward for the President for changing direction in US foreign policy…while the Bush administration is mentioned nowhere here, certainly Europe, much of the world was so critical of Pres. Bush…again, Pres. Obama’s entire campaign …was based on changng that direction. This is the Nobel committee embracing that change, even if we haven’t seen real fruits from that change yet.”
    (Full discussion here:

  • cminor.
    Yes you’re right, and thanks for the list.

  • For the record, the other “disasterously inappropriate” Peace Prize nominees (I know that’s tongue in cheek, Don 🙂 ) include:

    Sima Samar, women’s rights activist in Afghanistan, who “with dogged persistence and at great personal risk” kept her girls’ schools and clinics open in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime which strictly forbade ANY schooling for girls over 8 years old, and later became Minister for Women’s Affairs;

    Ingrid Betancourt, French-Colombian ex-hostage held for six years (and who also has publicly discussed how the experience led her to rediscover her Catholic faith and devotion to Mary);

    Handicap International and Cluster Munition Coalition, two organizations devoted to cleaning up unexploded land mines;

    Hu Jia, a human rights activist and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government, who was sentenced last year to 3 1/2 years in prison;

    Wei Jingsheng, who spent 17 years in Chinese prisons for urging reforms of China’s communist system and now lives in the U.S.; and

    Dr. Denis Mukwege, founder and head of Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo, who has dedicated his life to helping Congolese women and girls who are victims of gang rape and brutal sexual violence.

    I can’t help but wonder if the Nobel was actually a consolation prize for (thankfully) not getting the 2016 Olympics… after all, Mr. and Mrs. Obama came all the way to Denmark (which is pretty close to Norway, isn’t it?) and put all that effort into their Olympic presentation only to get whacked in the first round of IOC voting… so maybe the Nobel committee thought this would cheer him up!

43 Responses to Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

  • The sound you hear is Mother Teresa & Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King turning over in their graves.

    But I guess refusing to meet with a previous winner, the Dalai Lama, in order to appease a socialist country, China, is what makes you qualified these days. As does supporting the murder of millions of people via abortion.

    1 of thing, even if Obama gave the money to the US treasury, & he won’t, it wouldn’t be more than a drop in the ocean of American debt.

  • War is Peace. Only Obama could get such recognition while simultaneously killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq…. not to mention heading on a collision course with Iran and failing to resolve the Guantanamo situation. Oh, and I’m sure the steady decline of the American dollar will be aces for world peace and stability.

    But hey guys, if they can give Paul Krugman and award for economics and Henry Kissinger a peace prize, might as well give it to the Messiah-in-Chief.

    Today it seems Libertarians, Republicans, anarchists, pro-lifers, anti-war protesters, global warming skeptics, free market economists, Arabs, Persians, Afghanistan and Pakistan can all find something to agree on: The Nobel Peace Prize is a JOKE.

  • So we have one winner (Norman Borlaug) who developed a strain of wheat that launched the Green Revolution and wiped out famine in India and Pakistan and other countries. Then there’s another winner, Mohammed Yunnis whose bank launched micro-loans which allow the poor (mostly women) to get a start in a small business and work to support their families. Then there’s Mother Teresa who wore out her life nursing the poor and despised, and another former President Teddy Roosevelt, who negotiated the peace treaty that ended the Russo-Japanese War.

    Now, what has Obama actually *done*?

  • “The sound you hear is Mother Teresa & Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King turning over in their graves.”

    Since I got up this morning I’ve been wondering if an exhumation of Alfred Nobel might find him face down.

  • To all Obama haters: “Love your enemies.”

  • … but no one said anything about liking your enemies.

  • ” … but no one said anything about liking your enemies.”

    I guess He didn’t think about that loophole! Ooops.

  • Pingback: St. Joseph’s Vanguard And Our Lady’s Train » Blog Archive » Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize
  • IIRC, the Nobel Committee has given the award to Eisaku Sato (the Prime Minister of Japan from 1964 to 1972), Yasser Arafat, Le Duc Tho, and Elie Wiesel. ‘Peace’ is defined in these circumstances as whomever the committee fancies this year. (And on that basis I recommend Janeane Garofalo for next year’s prize; she is more pleasant to look at than any of the foregoing and often amusing as well).

  • “To all Obama haters: “Love your enemies.””

    A pity Bob that our Nobel laureate President doesn’t seem to heed that admonition for the unborn. Although I doubt he views them as enemies. Merely “punishment” and “inconvenient”.

  • —–“To all Obama haters: “Love your enemies.””

    —–A pity Bob that our Nobel laureate President doesn’t seem to heed that admonition for the unborn. Although I doubt he views them as enemies. Merely “punishment” and “inconvenient”.

    Forgive him.

  • “Forgive him.” Well, sure. All the while refusing for a moment to let up on the pressure and charitable criticism for his failures and refusals on these issues.

    As to the prize itself, eh. It became a debased currency once it was clear that Arafat was an unrepentant murderer, and went into hyperinflation with the Committee’s hatred for the 43rd President. The good news is that they’ve run out of ways to say f-u to George W. Bush.

    To paraphrase some timeless advice on this thread–“To all Bush haters: ‘Love your enemies.'”

  • Bob’s remark, above, surprises me.

    Who “hates” Obama, here? Who here wishes he’d collapse with an aneurysm, spend the rest of his life in a vegetative state? Who here hopes he’ll fail as a husband or a father? Anyone?


    I don’t hate Obama. I, for one, pray that he will, before the end of his term, anchor himself a sensible political and moral philosophy and govern (very successfully!) from within it.

    But as he’s unlikely to become a libertarian-leaning conservative Catholic any time soon, I realize my prayers are most likely to be answered in a different way: That he’ll have minimal success in achieving an agenda fostered by his current, not-so-sensible philosophy.

    When a politician exercises his powers of governance, he is both the man and the policy platform; he is a person, and also a “performance in office.” This potentially causes confusion in popular thinking and language, for one can justly (while being a good and obedient Christian!) express disapproval in the strongest terms for the exercise of the office or the policies, while having the usual attitude of charity towards the man as a private person.

    I hope Obama’s a good father and husband. I also hope that, barring a reversal of his political priorities and philosophy, that he has no success whatsoever in achieving any of his current policy goals.

    That hope is simply not an expression of hate for the man. Non-Christians may balk at the distinction “hate the sin, not the sinner,” but for a Christian, the distinction should be elementary.

    How much more, then, is it okay to hate a lie not even committed by the man himself?

    For that, of course, is what this Nobel Peace Prize is…or borders on being. That is what is indicated by these imagined visions of the founder and various deserving former winners rolling in their graves.

    It is simply a lie that President Obama merits a Peace Prize, as a man or as a President. He has committed exactly zero acts of heroic virtue, or even of noteworthy insight, which could merit such an award.

    The purpose of the award is to give the committee one last opportunity to exercise their Bush Derangement Syndrome, even when it’s no longer politically relevant. I remember in the movie “Pretty Woman” Richard Gere’s character speaking about his anger with his father, and how, after he purchased his father’s company, broke it up, and sold the pieces, his therapist told him he was “cured.”

    That’s bad therapy in-and-of itself…but what would the therapist have said if Gere’s character still felt compelled, as an act of anger against his father, to break up his father’s company even though his father had already been in the grave for years? There comes a point when revenge looks silly even by man’s standards. If you have a bitter and angry disagreement with a person in this life, and they die before you, you can be forgiven for not putting flowers on their casket.

    But if you can’t stop yourself from showing up periodically to urinate on their grave for months and years later? Something is psychologically out-of-balance.

    I think, then, that it is not poor Obama himself, but the Nobel Committee — along with large swaths of the political elite in Europe — who are the subject of all this “rolling in the grave” criticism. They were scandalized by the Texan-ness of the Bush presidency, and they just can’t let it go.

    They’d sooner give an Olympic medal to three-year-old who shows signs of being athletically gifted, or a Pulitzer to a first-grader whose formation of “See Spot Run” was especially good, or a Peace Prize to a President whose administration is still in its infancy and whose policies are not yet even implemented except as bland expressions of good will, than give up expressing their contempt for Obama’s predecessor.

    Time to call in a shrink. Why delay? Their socialized medical system will pay for it, won’t it?

  • This is just amazingly silly.

    Though I suppose it takes the duty of finding winners off them for the next several years, they can just keep giving the prize to Obama every years for continuing his “accomplishments”.

  • I for one think Obama deserves the award. After all, he made peace between Henry Louis Gates and Officer Crowley, right?

  • “This is just amazingly silly.”


  • Given the behavior of Gates it does indeed qualify.

  • Hmm. The Nobel Prize web site states that the deadline for nominations for Peace Prize is Feb. 1. Did Pres. Obama do anything in his first 12 days in office, to warrant this recognition?

    A few nominee names have leaked … Nicolas Sarkozy, Greg Mortenson (a fine choice for his educational work in Afghanistan and Pakistan), Pete Seeger (?). But Obama?

    Says more about the Prize committee than about Obama, and more about appeasement than peace.

  • So what happens when you give an ego inflating prize to a narcissist?

  • This is a great day for American patriots! Even the Vatican has congratulated Obama for his efforts to bring people together. I hope this will encourage him to help bring peace to the Middle East.

    An NCR translation from the Italian of the Vatican message follows:

    “The awarding of the Nobel Prize for Peace to President Obama is greeted with appreciation in the Vatican, in light of the commitment demonstrated by the President for the promotion of peace in the international arena, and in particular also recently in favor of nuclear disarmament. It’s hoped that this very important recognition will further encourage that commitment, which is difficult but fundamental for the future of humanity, so that the desired results will be obtained.”

  • The time to complain is next year, when he wins the Nobel Prize for Medicine based on his intention to cure cancer.

  • This is remarkably telling of the kinds of values espoused by today’s society: “Engage in a Crusade to Kill Children, Win a Nobel Peace Prize!”

  • Phillip:

    Beijing, China ( — An attorney who is one of several human rights activists in China working with Chen Guangcheng against forced abortions is one of the nominees who lost the Nobel Peace Prize award to pro-abortion President Barack Obama. The committee awarded the prize to Obama after him serving just 11 days in office.

    Hu Jia, an activist on other issues, is an attorney for Chen and an outspoken critic of the Chinese government in part because of the forced abortions and sterilizations that occur in its one-child family planning campaign.

    He is one of the nominees the Nobel Peace Prize considered along with Obama and legitimate human rights activists.

    In other words, murdering children as opposed to saving them is proof positive of serving the Cause for Peace!


  • You have to realize that promoting abortion is essential to the global elite’s (for lack of a better phrase) vision of “progress” and even “peace”.

    It is a key element of population control, and as we all know from our science czar and his wacky friends, population control is at the top of the list of things that cause all of the world’s problems.

    Abortion isn’t considered violence, only surgery.

  • So true, Joe. We need to control those populations “we don’t want too many of.” Can’t have peace when those unwanted populations are constantly on your doorstep begging for help.

  • Abortion isn’t considered violence, only surgery.

    Yeah–and Genocide isn’t violence, just necessary social subtraction.

    Whatever Joe.

  • e., Joe was describing the mindset, not embracing it. Joe is an individual whose passion for the pro-life cause cannot be overstated.

  • Why does anybody pay attention to the Nobel Prizes in any field but the sciences? And even then.

    Have a look at the prizes awarded for literature.

    How comes it that a secret committee of unknown Norwegians is considered competent to award such prizes?

    Tom Lehrer said that the stopped playing because he could not compete with the Nobel Committee awarding the peace prize to Henry Kissinger.

  • This is just as bad, if not, even worse than when Al Gore got the Nobel Peace Prize for his scaremongering instead of Irena Sendlerowa, a Polish Catholic nurse who worked for the health and care department of the city of Warsaw in 1940 against the tyranny of its German Governor who ordered the confinement of the city’s jews to the infamous Warsaw Ghetto.

  • I thought the Nobel committee couldn’t have been more tainted when they gave it to Jimmah’ Carter, but I stand corrected now that President Obama has won.

  • Tito Taco:

    Awarding a Peanut Farmer the Nobel Peace Prize in spite of his nuttiness is one thing; awarding a vicious Pro-Abort precisely for his children-killing crusade is another thing entirely.

  • Actually a case could be made for Carter receiving the award on the basis of the Camp David peace accord between Israel and Egypt in 1979. Unlike Obama Carter had done something which helped bring peace, and a lasting one, in one area. It is probably the major achievement of the Carter administration which otherwise was rather barren, to put it charitably, of accomplishment.

  • Yeah I always considered Carter kind of harmless. It’s difficult for me to take him seriously, though I’ve felt his peace efforts have some merit. Giving the award to Al Gore I found more unnerving. But even in Al Gore’s case at least he MADE SOMETHING, no matter how incredible faulty and on the verge of being proven wrong.

    This award essentially goes to Obama for the emotional merits of his political campaign in 2008, hardly a beacon of peace. During the campaign he fought to protect the right to murder unborn children all the while promoting increased military action in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are not the markings of someone wishing to spread peace.

  • Fortunately, it would appear that the ‘World’ is not actually that stupid:

    World cheers, puzzles over Obama’s Nobel: From Britain to Afghanistan to China, congratulations come in — but seem to be overwhelmed by confusion about why the U.S. president won this prize.

    By Adrienne Mong, NBC News Producer

    KABUL, Afghanistan – News that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize came as a surprise to people we spoke to in Kabul…

    But when we asked whether he thought the U.S. president deserved the prize, he replied, “He just became the president. Things are just the same as the way they were by the administration of Mr. [George W.] Bush. Things are not better, things are worse and worse.”

    By Lawahez Jabari, NBC News Producer

    Still, both Israeli and Palestinian officials welcomed the news and offered congratulations.

    But, in the street, the reaction was much different. The news that Obama won the peace prize was met with surprise. It was a shock for both sides and the major question is: “For what?”

    By Bo Gu, NBC News Producer

    Very few people applauded the president’s honor on the comment thread. After any comments that say something like, “I think Obama deserves the prize,” the comment was immediately followed by angry replies. Comments like, “Yeah the whole country and Iraq and Afghanistan are laughing at you!” Or “Why don’t they just give it to Adolf Hitler?” Quite a few Chinese netizens raised the same question: “Is today April Fool’s Day?”

    By Mary Murray, NBC News Producer

    U.S.-Cuba politics aside, Esteban Morales, U.S. Studies professor at Havana University, thinks the Nobel committee’s choice was “inappropriate.”

    “I find it paradoxical that he won this prize when the U.S. is currently embroiled in two wars and has practically declared its intention to attack Iran,” said Morales. “While I give him the benefit of the doubt with his talk about tolerance and unity, in real life he’s done nothing to solve the problems at hand. Maybe he would deserve this down the road, but I have to ask today: What peace does this award represent?”

    By Paul Goldman, NBC News Producer

    LOKICHOGGIO, Turkana District, Kenya – In this village in northern Kenya aid workers were shocked when they heard the news that native son President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    “Why?” asked a logistics officer of the World Food Program. “What has he done to deserve it?”


  • The translation from NobelSpeak is very accurate.

    Which demonstrates again for the umpteenth time that the UN and its affiliated bodies are a joke.

    The next recipient will praobably be Kim Jung Il for stopping his county’s nuclear program. That would be more meritorious.

  • Don, don’t give them ideas!

  • “This is a great day for American patriots!”

    Hey Ann,

    Remember, dissent is patriotic.

  • Pingback: Saturday Night Live on Nobel Peace Prize Award « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Obama wins peace prize - Page 9 - Christian Forums
  • Pingback: Obama Negotiates With Wild Fire « The American Catholic
  • ????????????? ?????????. ???????? ?? ??? ????-?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ??.