Monday, October 12, 2009

Pro-Lifer puts in Her Two Cents About Obama Winning Nobel On the 'View'

We've heard every ridiculous reason from the notable right-wing fringe as to why they're against Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Everything ranging from 'He isn't George W. Bush' to 'He hasn't done anything' to yes, even the only reason Obama got it was so Europe can re-colonize America: They need America for European Socialism to work. That, by far, is still my all time favourite. 

We heard from King Rush & Prince Glenn, The Tea-baggers & every other Neo-Con. It was only a matter of time before the Pro-lifers would chime in to complete the wingnut hit-parade.

Well, who better to fill in for wingnut Elisabeth Hasselbeck than a brunette version of her?  Rachel Campos-Duffy, a has-been Reality TV star & is a blogger for Anderson Cooper's AC360 blog replaced Lissie today on the 'View'.  She has proven to be the brunette version of Lissie.

When Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar asked her what she thought about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Duffy began with the list of the typical neo-con nay-sayer, finishing off by mentioning Mother Theresa. Following Goldberg's quip about Mother Theresa being a tough act to follow, here is where the fun begins: 

While Mother Teresa worked tirelessly to help the sick and the poor, I think most of us disagree with that statement.  In fact, Mother Teresa's view about never being able to attain world peace until we end abortion,   is  far more radical than  President Obama's views on abortion could ever be. To be fair, Mother Teresa had never met American Neo-cons before. She never met the Evangelical far right. Most pro-lifers are also gung-ho about war and gun toting and, yes, the death penalty. All things even Hasselbeck and no doubt, Duffy support.

If we are going to use a potential nominee or winner's views on abortion as part of the criteria, wouldn't that have also disqualified Al Gore who won it two years ago? Granted, Gore was somewhat pro-life, but never supported overturning Roe v. Wade. He always respected a woman's right to choose. Hell, we may as well even disqualify Jimmy Carter. While he's personally against abortion; he supported the legalization of it and was even criticised by the ACLU for not offering alternatives to abortion

Who cares? Right? That's exactly my point; who cares if any  Nobel Peace Prize winner is pro-choice or pro-life. Obviously, those views have nothing to do with world peace or humanitarian efforts or public service. Apples and oranges here.

Duffy, go home to your perfect Brady Bunch world and leave the debating for bigger minds. Same advice Hasselbeck could use.

I briefly looked at the criteria for picking Nobel Peace Prize winners at their web site. There is the usual predictable qualities they look for such as humanitarian deeds, organizing peace movements and human rights struggles, but nowhere does it say anything about a potential nominee or prize winner having to be pro-life; in favour of abolishing abortion. Again, another point to knock that of Duffy.


deBeauxOs said...

To be fair, ministering to the sick and dying was Mother Teresa's strategy for converting vulnerable people to Catholicism.

That hardly makes her an expert on world peace.

CK said...

I never said she was an expert on world peace. Certainly the pro-life movement in general is rotten example for peace of any kind.

CK said...

deBeauxOs: I think that's the job description of every missionary. They not take care of the poor and the sick & they also minister to them.
While I admire people going to third world countries, often in the middle of war zone to help the poor & the sick, I've never been comfortable with the attempts of a missionary to convert them to Christianity. Not only because they're not recognizing the legitimacy of the religion practised in that country, but it almost seems like a price tag for the help being offered.
Volunteering should only be done for altruistic reasons

Anonymous said...

"I think of Mother Teresa and Mother Teresa said that we wouldn't have world peace until we ended abortion and I think personally, for me, that it's Obama's radical abortion position that makes him the least qualified for the prize."


CK said...

Who are you? That is the most proposterous thing I've ever heard. Go to the Nobel site; I provided a link. Nowhere does it say a nominee's views on abortion is part of the criteria. Non-issue.
I also pointed out with your logic, Al Gore & Jimmy Carter should also have been disqualified.
No, I think you're just plain racist.

CK said...

Oh, and whoever you are, I don't know where you & your looney tune friends get the idea that Obama's views on abortion are sooo radical. What? Because he believes it's a woman's right to choose?