Deconstructing the Teleprompted Bloviator

A reader asked me to comment on President 0bama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. This was in response to an earlier column in which I explained why I felt that the idiot messiah (did he just say idiot messiah?) should turn it down – not that he hadn't earned it, which he hadn't and certainly never will, but that it was a thinly-disguised bribe. Well guess what, he took the bribe, and now we have to spend the next (dear God please not more than) three years with him living up to his side of the bargain.

I was not too keen to take on this assignment as it would require me to actually read the speech. I can't stand listening to the guy – his voice gives me the same cold, clammy feeling as slick willie's - so naturally I didn't get it the first time around. Here's a link to it if you're inclined to read it for yourself, which I don't recommend doing within an hour following a meal.

It's a somewhat passable speech, as speeches go, IMHO. Were it delivered by a legitimate world leader who actually meant it, some parts of it would actually be pretty good. But to be clear, I don't believe that zero (a) had any idea what was in the speech before it showed up on his teleprompter, (b) meant a word of it (or even knew what it meant – he's no Alfred Einstein you know), except “the great religion of Islam,” while he was reading it, nor (c) remembered a syllable of it after its conclusion.

The good parts:

- The fact that he admits right up front that he doesn't deserve it.
- Observations about the seriousness of war
- Generally optimistic message about how we should strive for peace

The bad parts:

- The fact that, right after admitting he didn't deserve it, he didn't end the speech immediately and hand the medal back to the Nobel committee.
- Page after page of self-righteous navel-gazing, lifted directly from college sophomore humanities textbooks
- His reference to the global warming hoax, which has now morphed into “climate change” as the “globe” quit “warming” quite some time ago.
- Using “the Crusades” to implicitly equate Christians with violent radical Muslims (are those darned crusades ever going to end???).
- His inaccurate assertion that the Golden Rule is at the heart of all major religions. Wrong. It's only in the New Testament. Some similar teachings appear in the Old Testament (“love your neighbor as yourself”), plus some other non-J-C religions, but guess what, not in Islam! The best they can do is prescribe reciprocity to fellow believers.

But don't just take my word for it, read it for yourself. Why should I be the only one around here to suffer?

The most telling thing to me about the speech, and of course it comes as no surprise, nor would it to anyone with a modicum of spiritual awareness, was not what was in the speech, but what wasn't:
1)God's part in mankind's redemption
2)A transcendent moral system
3)America's connection to 1 or 2 above.

1)He did mention God a few times actually, but only in the negative context of contention between adherents of religions with different gods. And of course religion was mentioned a few times as well, mainly in the context of its supposed part in armed conflict.
2)It was a deliberately secular speech, whose only mention of a moral framework was one devised by man – if we would only try harder, so to speak. No mention of any God-inspired moral order that may transcend man's abilities and aspirations, nor for that matter, any mention of transcendent evil. Whether or not the kenyan believes in these things himself, he knows better than to bring it up in front of his taskmasters on the Nobel committee!
3)And of course, the worldwide apology tour goes on unabated. There were a few defenses of America, but purely in the pragmatic context, and certainly with no mention of how our relative power and prosperity might have something to do with our faith and values.

Finally, the one statement whose absence I was dismayed to observe: “I respectfully decline your flagrant bribe disguised as a venerable 'peace' prize. I intend to execute my responsibilities and authorities as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its armed forces for the remainder of my term in office unshackled by influences from your committee or any other anti-American cabal.”

Oh well, maybe next time.