Other than doing nothing to deserve a peace prize, noble, Nobel or otherwise (ditto Al Gore or Jimmy Carter, of course), Barack Obama is nonetheless now the poster child of the worldwide thought control movement, headquartered in Oslo, New York (U.N.) and Washington, D.C., with roots in every developed nation’s capital (oddly enough, Berlin may be the sole resistance).

Put simply, Obama is the poster child of how we all should think–as cogs in a totalitarian system that will manage us (sometimes perhaps even care for us) from cradle to grave, but at all times to rule us and tell us how to think and live.

The folks at Global Research had a great headline for denouncing the Nobel Peace Prize stunt–"When the Lie Becomes the Truth"–but their fret, though real, is not the real issue. They worry about an unchecked global military machine run by the U.S. and Israel and claim that the peace prize cements this war-mongering deal.

Though progressives have always heavily favored and practiced eugenics (abortion being another front in this war) and covert genocide through disease and starvation (Hitler let out the secret and forced others to go underground by openly conducting genocide), the awarding of the peace prize to Obama is much more a weapon in the war of thought control. (That’s why I half jokingly, half seriously predicted that Michael Moore would win next year’s Nobel Peace Prize).

Tom DeWeese captures it all brilliantly in his speech-turned-essay entitled "’Globally Acceptable Truth’ and the Crime of Thinking.’"

This is must reading, and here’s a snippet to get you going:

So, instead, we must set up a system of thought control. Certain ideas are the only ones safe to think. Globallyacceptable truth. And there must be a top-down control to assure bad thoughts are controlled or obliterated.

For it to work, the rest of us must be convinced or forced to stop thinking or using our own experiences, along with academic and scientific absolutes, to draw our own conclusion.

Once that is established, it is easy to reject morality, and then only a short step to accepting the idea that people of third world nations should live out their days in total poverty – just for the common good. And by way, eventually it would be good for all of us to live that way too.

It is then just as short journey to accepting euthanasia as a means to rid us of the elderly who are no longer useful for the village. And then, it’s an even shorter step to accepting the final solution of forced abortion for population control.

At least Salon thinks so in this made-up interview:

By Michael Lind

Editor’s note: The remarks of Adam Smith are all quotations from his book "The Wealth of Nations," first published in 1776.

Our guest today is Adam Smith, a major figure of the Enlightenment who is widely considered to be the father of modern economic theory. He is a former professor at the University of Glasgow and the author of “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” (1759) and “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” (1776), his best-known book. Professor Smith joins us from Scotland.

Professor Smith, the Obama administration recently imposed tariffs on China, after companies and unions in the U.S. complained that the Chinese tire industry benefits from Chinese subsidies as well as an undervalued exchange rate. Most editorial pages and magazines in the prestige press denounced the tire tariffs as a threat to free trade. You are generally considered the patron saint of free trade. What is your view of the tariffs on Chinese tires?

“The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods is when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country … There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconveniency of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods. To judge whether such retaliations are likely to produce such an effect does not, perhaps, belong so much to the science of a legislator, whose deliberations ought to be governed by general principles which are always the same, as to the skill of that insidious and crafty animal, vulgarly called a statesman or politician, whose councils are directed by the momentary fluctuations of affairs.”

This is going around via e-mail, but I would have to say after reading it, "Just so," to borrow a phrase from my ancestral home of Ireland:

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. 
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. 
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. 
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. 
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels. 
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. 
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. 
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed. 
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. 
A liberal will delete it because he’s "offended."

Shortly after he spoke before the International Olympic Committee in Copenhagen, Denmark, this morning, President Obama learned that Chicago had been almost instantly eliminated from the competition for the 2016 Olympics.

I wonder how much this little jaunt on behalf of Obama’s cronies in the nation’s crookedest city–Chicago–cost the American taxpayer.

I’m sure the New York Times will report on what a magnificient speech the Chief Lawyer made, but his words obviously were seen for what they’ve always been–lies and empty rhetoric–by the committee members.

Besides, when you can hold the event in Rio de Janeiro, why would anyone in his or her right mind vote for Chicago?