A Term Paper: Landmines, ICBL and Pink Lloyd

The reason I haven’t been keeping my blog up to date is because I have been very busy with essays and studying for finals. With the final exam written and Christmas around the corner, I can now relax and put up a post. Let’s start with my term paper for History of Canadian Foreign Policy (HIST 3306 at Carleton University). My professor, Norman Hillmer helped point me in the right direction and although we don’t see eye to eye politically (votes Liberal and NDP, don’t have a problem though with the first being a registered member of the Liberal Party), I think he did a great job teaching the course. He is the kind of professor who will let right-leaning individuals like myself speak out without being criticized or harshly silenced, and I recommend my readers in Ottawa register for a course he is teaching. One of the more enjoyable professors I have had in a long time, but back to the essay…

I wrote this briefing note on Lloyd Axworthy’s work on the Ottawa Treaty, a treaty to ban anti-personnel landmines. For those who don’t know, he is also known by the nickname “Pink Lloyd” for his left-leaning politics. On this issue, I have to agree with “Pink Lloyd”, anti-personnel landmines have to be banned, and so I felt it wouldn’t be difficult to write a term paper on this (it is far easier to write on a topic you enjoy than one you don’t). Aside from Hillmer’s assistance, I was helped by Tobia Neufeld, Axworthy’s lead researcher in writing this briefing note, so know that what you will see below is very well sourced (this isn’t as dubious as a Wikipedia article). While I do not mind someone using my term paper as a starting point, DO NOT STEAL MY WORK! I worked far too hard for someone to come in and pass this off as their own work, and besides, at the university level, doing so could get you expelled.

*****

Background:
Anti-personnel landmines are a growing problem for the developing world. Not only are they a major cause of disability during and after war, but these countries do not have the means to clear the landscape of landmines. These developing nations also are not able to provide full and adequate rehabilitation for those who have already been, and the many who will become, victims of these weapons. The main concern is that, unlike other types of weapons, landmines, after being placed in the ground, cannot tell friend from foe. The very presence of landmines in a region can have tragic consequences. The Zambia-Zimbabwe border, for example, is the faced with starvation and malnutrition because farmers are afraid to work one million acres of land because it was heavily mined during the Zimbabwe war. Angola, a country which once produced ninety percent of its own food, as well is facing severe food shortages because of an estimated nine million mines which litter its country-side. Even after the wars have ended, these weapons continue to terrorize the developing world.

In the 1990s there was an emergence of a number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which had joined together to push for an international ban of anti-personnel landmines. The United Nations had previously passed the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) Protocol II which dealt with controlling the use of landmines#, but these NGOs were demanding for steps to be taken towards an outright ban. One of the more outspoken of these groups was the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), a coalition of NGOs working at the national level to pressure governments into addressing this issue. In 1992, the United States began the international effort by calling for a moratorium on the export of landmines. Soon after, the Swedish government called for a total ban while the Italian senate demanded that the Italian government pursue an end to the production of landmines, a significant move for one of the world’s largest suppliers of these weapons.

In 1993, the French campaign to ban landmines began picking up momentum. After a state visit to Cambodia, President François Mitterrand pushed for a moratorium on the export of landmines. Soon after, the French President, at the request of French anti-landmine NGOs, officially requested of the Secretary General of the United Nations that a review conference be held to amend the CCW and its Protocol II dealing with landmines. Mitterrand had set the date for 1995, but his failing health and death from prostate cancer in May of that year had derailed efforts to make progress on the issue. When Mitterrand’s successor, Jacques Chirac too office, he was forced to address the criticism from international protest groups of France’s stance on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Instead of discussing the issue of anti-personnel landmines with the United States, Chirac was pleading with the country’s Senate to not reject the CTBT. As a result, when the review conference finally met in April and May of 1996, there were no significant improvements made to Protocol II. In fact, the review conference actually encouraged the production and use of a new types of landmines, further upsetting the NGOs.

In 1995, Canada’s Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien brought up the issue of anti-personnel landmines at the G8 summit in Halifax. While there was very little progress on the issue, it signalled the NGOs that Canada was willing to address their concerns. Shortly after the summit, the Department of Foreign Affairs formed a group of skilled Canadian Foreign Service officers to focus of this issue. In January of this year, Defence Minister David Collenette and Foreign Minister André Ouellet jointly announced a moratorium on use, production, and export on landmines. This moratorium went further than the one proposed by the United States in 1992, but had not called for an outright ban. Further progress was made in May of this year when the ICBL held a joint press conference with the U.N. Department of Humanitarian Affairs, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the government of Canada, calling for a ban on landmines. While this call does send the message about our country’s desire for further action, steps must be taken to prove Canada’s commitment to this issue, it cannot be an empty gesture to the already frustrated NGOs. With this upcoming conference, a decision must be made about how far our country is willing to go to address the issue of landmines.

Options:
Before deciding whether or not to sidestep the traditional disarmament channels, Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy must consider the following options:

1. Return to the U.N. to push for a moratorium on anti-personnel landmines within a forum, where the proceedings are under the direct control of the Security Council. A Security Council resolution is binding forcing all member countries to adopt it, but this motion could be vetoed by either China, Russia or one of the ten temporary members if they believe such action is not in their country’s best interests.

2. Advise Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to readdress the issue at the next G8 summit in the hopes of getting member countries to commit to an anti-landmine policy which would combat the production and use of these weapons through political pressuring. Instead of calling for another moratorium, G8 members should make an effort to pass legislation in their own countries which would lead to an eventual ban. This is a slower process which will most likely meet resistance at the national level.

3. Side-step the traditional channels and work with the United Nations and the NGOs to propose an international treaty that would call for the outright ban of landmines. While not as binding as a U.N. resolution, this “soft power” approach may be more beneficial in the long run as political pressure applied by member countries and NGOs could help convince others to at the very least take steps towards reducing production and use of landmines.

Considerations:
In this instance, Canada must decide not only what action it wants to take, but how it intends to do this. When considering first option, our country has to decide whether or not it is even possible to push for a U.N. Security Council resolution on this issue. Canada does not hold a seat on the council as of this moment, but that does not mean our country has wait till it is once again a sitting member. Canada can turn to United Kingdom, France and the United States, all permanent members, to propose a landmine ban. When considering the second option, our country must decide whether it is looking at another moratorium, further restrictions on the production and use of landmines, or an outright ban on these weapons. While it would be easier for Canada to propose a moratorium or another review of the CCW at the next G8 summit, frustrated NGOs are demanding that the developed world commit to stricter anti-landmine policy which would call for and international ban on these weapons, and the establishment of an international fund, paid into by countries which produce landmines, to promote and finance landmine awareness. If our country does decide upon meeting NGO demands, it must decide whether or not to side-step the traditional channels and push for a “soft-power” approach, as suggested the third option.

The United States has been outspoken in its support of a landmine ban. In 1992, Senator Patrick Leahy proposed a one-year moratorium on the export of antipersonnel mines, the first significant measure from any country to address this issue. In 1993, the U.S. State Department produced the first comprehensive study of the mines crisis, Hidden Killers: The Global Problem with Uncleared Landmines. In 1994, U.S. President Bill Clinton gave a speech at the United Nations calling for an “eventual elimination” of anti-personnel landmines, which lead to a U.S. sponsored U.N. General Assembly resolution endorsing the eventual elimination of mines which was passed later that year. While promising, a midterm election defeat suffered by the Democrats in that same year limited the President’s power to push legislation, including legislations relating to this matter. The U.S. has expressed concern with an outright ban on landmines. In 1995, the Senate passed an amendment requiring a one-year moratorium on use of antipersonnel mines, except along international borders and demilitarized zones, suggesting that they might not support banning their use by countries like South Korea.

While the Republic of (South) Korea (ROK) has acknowledged the humanitarian consequences of antipersonnel mines, it has been one of the more vocal countries in insisting on the legitimacy and military necessity of continued use of anti-personnel landmine.The country has taken on the role of an observer during recent discussions on this issue. It should be noted that although the ROK is a producer of landmines, it produces them for their own defense, not for export. In fact, the country has taken steps to ensure that its weapons are only used domestically. The South Korean government announced a one-year moratorium on the export of anti-personnel landmines last year, which it further extended earlier this year#. This issue does seem to be that the ROK wants some exception for its use, stating the importance of these weapons for their own protection, especially in the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). They have been many incursions by North Koreans over the years, most recently in May when seven soldiers tried to cross the DMZ but withdrew after being fired upon. Since the ROK is now sitting in as one of the U.N. Security Council’s temporary members, without an exception for their situation, it would be unrealistic to assume that they wouldn’t use their veto to block a motion for an outright of ban landmines.

Russia is one of the largest producers of anti-personnel landmines. Though Russia agreed to the amended Protocol II in May 1996, it has not ratified it yet. According to the Ministry of Defense, it would cost 40 billion Roubles (roughly 6.4 million dollars American) annually to destroy all of its non-CCW compliant mines. Due to financial constraints, the government has refrained from submitting the ratification documents to the parliament for consideration. This suggests that the costs associated with destroying their stock piles and stopping production would be too high a price for Russia to pay in order to sign on to a landmine ban. The Russian military has been strongly opposed to the idea, stating that landmines are a necessary weapon. It should be noted, however, that the country has made moves towards restricting exports, calling for a three-year moratorium on the export of anti-personnel landmines that are not detectable or not equipped with self-destruction devices in December of 1994. Russia is more interested in dealing with controls and working toward alternatives than an outright ban, something that could be discussed with Alexander Belonogov, Russia‘s ambassador to Canada. This should be taken into consideration for first two options if chosen since Russia is both permanent member U.N. Security Council and a member of the G8.

The People’s Republic of China, much like Russia, is more interested in controlling the production, use and export of landmines than banning them. The country did ratified the CCW and its original Protocol II on mine in April of 1982. Earlier this year, China announced a moratorium on the export of AP mines which are prohibited by the revised Protocol II of CCW. While this may suggest that they are willing to take further steps, Chinese officials have stated that there is no desire to move towards a ban#. Without exceptions for its use, a proposal to the U.N. Security Council to ban landmines would be seen an act to undermine their sovereignty, forcing the Chinese to veto it. China does not use its veto power often, not feeling comfortable being the single voice of opposition during a vote. If a more moderate resolution could be worked out with the other Security Council members, it is more than likely that China would abstain from using its veto. The country would also abstain from using its veto if promised economic incentives like trade preferences, especially since the country is going through a rough period of economic development, still lagging behind India in per capita GNP.

If Canada is going to sidestep the traditional disarmament channels, it must turn to other governments which has already taken significant steps towards banning landmines. Italy, a temporary member of the U.N. Security Council and a G8 member country, has made progress towards an outright ban. In 1993, the Italian government stopped authorizing the export of antipersonnel landmines, a significant step for one of the major producers and exporters of landmines in the world in the past. In 1994, Italy adopted a unilateral moratorium on the production and trade of antipersonnel landmines. Since ratifying the CCW and Protocol II in 1995, the Italian Parliament has worked closely with the Italian Campaign to Ban Landmines (ItCBL) towards a comprehensive ban. If Canada does choose to pursue the same course, our country should consider working closely with Italy. Cambodia has also made significant progress towards banning landmines. In 1994, Ieng Mouly, the Chairman of the Cambodia Mine Action Center (CMAC), announced that the government desired to legislate a ban on the use of landmines. In 1995, with the assistance of the ICBL, the 340,000 Cambodians, including King Sihanouk, signed a petition calling for the immediate ban of anti-personnel landmines. This effort has sparked other signature drives around the world, bringing the total number of signatures to one and a half million. While landmine laws have been written in 1995 and 1996, due to political changes, none have been adopted as law. It should be noted that since King Sihanouk’s landmine declaration in October of 1994, Cambodia has maintained a formal position against the import or export of antipersonnel landmines. This suggests that the country is willing to work with others, including Canada, towards an outright ban.

Recommendations: Option #3
Canada should side-step traditional channels and work with the United Nations and the NGOs to propose an international treaty that would call for the outright ban of landmines.

If Canada is to push for an outright ban of anti-personnel landmines, it is unreasonable to believe that it could do so through either the U.N. Security Council or the G8. Since Canada does not have a seat as of now on the council, unless our country is willing to wait a few years till it does, it will have to turn to one of our allies to push for a resolution. Even if Canada had United Kingdom, France and Italy’s support, there is no guarantee that the United States would support a ban on landmines, especially without exceptions. There is also no guarantee that Russia, China, South Korea or any other sitting member would support or at the least abstain from vetoing a resolution calling for an outright ban on landmines. After the Prime Minister’s efforts at the last summit, even with the support of United Kingdom, France, Italy and the United States, there is no guarantee that significant progress could be made at the next G8 summit since Russia will not commit to a policy banning landmines. The country has yet to ratify the CCW and Protocol II due in part to financial reasons, so it is unrealistic to believe that it would support legislation that would impose any further financial obligations.

By side-stepping traditional channels, a treaty could be drafted without having to make exceptions for the United States, South Korea, China, Russia or any other country that has expressed concerns with an outright ban. This treaty would be voluntary and its costs and restrictions would only be applied to those countries that are willing to commit to it. With the support of the United Nations and the NGOs, it is more than reasonable to assume that not only could stricter anti-landmine policy be enforced through political pressuring, but an international fund to promote and finance landmine awareness could be established. Due to the importance of this proposal, Canada should inform interested parties of our intentions before the official announcement. This would not only help gather support for our proposal, but also allow those not interested in signing on to the treaty time to decide whether or not to attend the conference as an observer.

Annotated Bibliography:
Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD), “The Landmine Crisis: Designed to kill and injure, to impede”, http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/international/landmines/crisismlpd.

An article taken from a MLD International Committee newsletter, December 1994, discussing the problems posed by anti-personnel landmines. The article discusses the various problems posed by landmines, like the damage done to it victims, the damage done to the countries they invest and the cost of removing them.

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), “Ban History”, http://www.icbl.org/index.php/icbl/Treaties/MBT/Ban-History.

An article from the ICBL website discussion, briefly, the history behind their efforts to ban landmines. The article discusses Frances efforts to reform the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), the failure of those efforts, the following Canadian efforts and the drafting on the Man Ban Treaty.

Axworthy, Llyod, “Chapter 13: Canada and antipersonnel landmines: human security as a foreign policy priority,” Foreign Policy Theories, Actors, Cases. ed. Steve Smith, Amelia Hadfield, and Tim Dunne, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

An article sent to be by Tobia Neufeld, former Foreign Minister Llyod Axworthy’s lead researcher. The article discusses at length earlier efforts to address the landmine issue, the resistance it met, and the innovative strategy of the NGOs to pressure state governments into supporting anti-landmine efforts, culminating with the signing of the Ottawa Treaty in 1997.

Landmine Monitor (LM), “Publications“, http://lm.icbl.org/index.php

Articles from LM stating what a specific country’s policies were towards landmines. Each article discusses the country’s history with landmines, the efforts taken to work towards controlling landmine use and production, as well as policies towards the production, transfer, stockpiling and use of landmines.

Paris, Mary Dejevsky, “France to back total test ban” The Independent, World, (Friday, 11 August 1995), http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/france-to-back-total-test-ban-1595673.html

An article from The Independent’s online publication. Written by Mary Dejevsky Paris, the article goes into detail about the criticism faced by France over the test ban treaty and how the country has shifted views on the issue from being against to supporting it.

Arms Control Association, September/October 1999, “Russia, China, U.S. Allies Condemn Senate Defeat of Treaty”, http://www.armscontrol.org/print/551

An article from the Arms Control Association, an online publication, discussing international criticism of the United States Senate rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Jaksic, Silvija, “Anti-landmines Campaign: Not Much Success So Far!” Peace Magazine, (July-August 1996): 8, http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v12n4p08.htm

An article from Peace Magazine, a small publication, discussing the fight against landmines. Silvija Jaksic discusses the dangers of landmines, their cost effectiveness and the lack of progress to bring about a comprehensive ban on their production and use in this article. While upset with the lack of progress on the issue by the international community, the author points to the efforts by Canada to bring about significant reform to policies like the CCW’s Protocol II.

Jody Williams and Stephen Goose, “Chapter 2: The International Campaign to Ban Landmines”, To Walk Without Fear, ed. Maxwell A. Cameron, Robert J. Lawson, and Brian W. Tomlin, Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1998.

An article from the book, To Walk Without Fear, a comprehensive look at the global effort to ban landmines. The article discusses the ICBL and its efforts to pressure governments into supporting and passing significant anti-landmine legislation. It goes into detail about various efforts like the ICBL push in Cambodia and Canada to bring about the Mine Ban Treaty in 1997.

UN Security Council, “Membership of the Security Council“, http://www.un.org/sc/list_eng5.asp.

A list which identifies which countries have sat on the security council and the dates which they held a seat.

Korean DMZ, “Incursions”, http://koreandmz.org/incursions.

A list of dates of North Korean incursions into the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), going back to January of 1968, outlining what happened during the specific incursion.

United Nations International, Russia, “Alexander Belonogov”, http://www.un.int/russia/new/MainRoot/docs/biographi_en/belonogov/belonogov.htm.

I located this article with the assistance of a secretary from the Russian Embassy in Ottawa. The article outlines former Russian ambassador to Canada, Alexander Belonogov’s service history.

Shichor, Yitzhak, “China’s Voting Behavior in the U.N. Security Council”, Association for Asian Research, (October 31, 2006), http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2947.html.

An article from Association for Asian Research (AFAR), an organization which “seeks to provide the American public with an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of Asian affairs in the interest of peace and prosperity”. The article discusses the People’s Republic of China’s use of their veto power since becoming a permanent member of the United Nations’ Security Council.

Selden, Mark, The Political Economy of Chinese development: Socialism and Social Movements, New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc, 1993.

A comprehensive book which looks at the political and economic development of the People’s Republic of China. It discusses the transformation of the Chinese state after the death of Mao Zedong, the state of agricultural development, economic development, economic conditions within the country, economic policies and the country efforts to move away from its past communist/socialist policies.

*****

As you can see I even included the annotated bibliography for those needed assistance in their own projects. Now, for those who couldn’t understand this paper, it is written as if I was an adviser to Lloyd Axworthy when he was former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien Foreign Minister. All this information in this paper is what would have been known at the time of Axworthy’s decision to work with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) in proposing the Ottawa Treaty. If there are any questions, please leave a comment below.

Now, having written this paper, I feel I should say at least one thing. As stated above, I do support efforts to ban landmines, but there is a difference in how I would go about doing it compared to what Axworthy did. While “Pink Lloyd’s” heart was definitely in the right place, I would have done my best to stay away from the ICBL. Though the Ottawa Treaty has given this non-governmental organization (NGO) a favourable reputation, it is still a politically radical group. Their harassment of South Korea over its use of anti-personnel landmines is a demonstration of their inability to see reason. As stated in briefing note, since the establishment of the Korean Demilitarized Zone (KDMZ), there has been numerous incursions by the North Koreans. Matter of fact, in the same year the Ottawa Treaty was signed, the North Koreans were doing just that, sending eight soldiers into the KDMZ who were later turned away when South Korean soldiers opened fire. The ICBL seems unable to understand this reality and has been pressuring the South Koreans to remove this line of defense out of sheer anti-landmine zealotry. It isn’t just this however, even their own logic is on why landmines should be banned is flawed.

Landmines should be banned for numerous reasons, but I do understand their importance. Anti-personnel landmines have become “smarter” and armies like the United States military have developed procedures for safe deployment and disarming of landmines in war zones. According to the ICBL,

Landmines are not needed by a modern army. While in the past they may have protected borders and slowed advancing troops, now most armies are mobile and can get through a minefield in less than 30 minutes. Modern motion detection equipment, night detection technology and strategically placed guns can protect military installations, borders and other areas better than landmines.

I don’t believe this for one second. If landmines were so ineffective, why would they still play such a key role in military strategy? Landmines are used because they can “keep watch” better than a soldier. Even with South Korean’s monitoring the KDMZ, it is the landmines for the most part that keep the North Koreans at bay. Once again, the ICBL doesn’t seem to understand this, but do provide evidence to support this fact unwittingly in the very next sentence.

Also, landmines injure and kill soldiers – the very people they are meant to protect. For example, in the 1991 Gulf War, landmines caused 34% of USA casualties.

Let me get this straight, although landmines aren’t supposed to be effective and that modern armies would have no problem with them, the United States army, which is the most modern army in the world, has trouble with them? You can’t have it both ways, either they are not effective or they are too effective and should therefore be banned. It is this kind of contradiction in logic that we have come to expect from these kind of organizations. Once again, I don’t blame Axworthy for this at all, matter of fact he deserves his Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, but I still wouldn’t have let the ICBL dictate the terms of any serious treaty.

Aside from the fact that the Ottawa Treaty does come off as another Oil-for-Food Program with its demand that member countries provide financial assistance for developing nations needing funds for landmine disposal (I would like to see who ensures that the money is being spent as it is intended), it is still a very worthwhile effort. I hope this blog post helps those who are working on a project of this nature. Once again, if you have any questions, please feel free to leave a comment below. I will provide any assistance that I can.

A Letter to Diane Francis; Coming back with a rant

I have been away from blogging for the last little while due to a number of exams, essays and projects for school. I am taking a second degree in History at Carleton University, and I intend to post on that later. As for now, I am MAD! I don’t need Hot Air’s Allahpundit to tell me that this is lunacy, but it was his post that alerted me to this nonsense. The “real inconvenient truth” is that the author of this article lacks the intelligence to see that what she is saying is nonsense.

Diane Francis, a columnist for the Financial Post, wrote an article advocating a Chinese-style one-child policy for the Western world to help fight climate change. I have written on this kind of nonsensical thinking before, one article in particular has become one of my more popular posts for Northern Thoughts and Reflections, and seeing how I have not only gone out to educate myself about this controversial policy, but have seen first hand how “effective” the One-child policy has been in China, I felt it necessary to send this twit an email. This is the email I sent her…

*****

Are you mad?

“China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.”

Have you been to China? Have you seen what “housing”, “health care”, education, etc? Of course not, you obviously don’t have any experience in this country, or even a grip on reality. Your column is nothing short of ignorant, extremely naive and downright dangerous.

Having taught it China, having spent a year in Nantong, I can tell you that the One-child policy has little, if not, no impact on the growth of the middle class. The English language, foreign investment, the sacrifice of the past generations to work for whatever wages they can to afford to send their children to better schools, etc has done more for the country than a controversial policy.

I have written about this issue on my blog, and I suggest you do some research before jumping on this bandwagon…

http://clancop.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/chinas-population-problems-the-one-child-polic-and-western-ignorance/

WAKE UP! You look foolish advocating for this as a mother of two. Not only that, you also shame not only the Financial Post, but all Canadians with this kind of nonsense.

*****

Diane Francis’ email address is dfrancis@nationalpost.com and I recommend my readers to follow suit and send her an email reminding her about how stupid this kind of thinking is.

As I mentioned in the email, I find this offensive, especially as a Canadian. We spend so much time trying to convince Americans and people from other countries that we are friendly with that we don’t have these kind of beliefs, that we aren’t naive or foolish and that we are educated. I have said on numerous occasions that stereotypical depictions of Canadians as these far left ideologues are just not true, and yet, here is Diane undermining us. Mrs. Francis is one of the reasons why so few refuse to take Canadians seriously.

As Allahpundit pointed out, it is the developing world that is fueling this population explosion. Instead of blaming the developed world, why not address the damage they are doing? Jim Geraghty of the National Review Online was right in pointing out that this twit, who is advocating for a one-child policy in the West, is a mother of two. It doesn’t surprise me in the least that a person advocating such a radical position would be a hypocrite as well, that seems to be par for the course with the environmental movement doesn’t it? With Climategate still unfolding, with more information getting out about the fraudulent practices of these climate scientists “hiding the decline”, it shouldn’t be surprising that a twit like Mrs. Francis would come out and propose another radical solution to a non-existent problem.

The “real inconvenient truth” of this whole fiasco is fueled by this kind of fringe radical thinking, that “saving the planet” is simply an excuse for these people to propose such extreme social measures. If they really want to save the planet, why aren’t they willing to follow their own advice, why aren’t they willing to lead by example? I doubt “Dimwit Diane” would ever be standing in line to be sterilized to “do her part”, not this mother of two… Pathetic…

Cenk Uygur is a moron; Clueless, creepy and downright disturbing

Seeing how you don’t hear about this guy from anyone else, I figured I might as well lay into Cenk Uygur. The host of TheYoungTurks (TYT) syndicated internet show, he has been scraping the bottom of the barrel for quite some time. After losing co-host Jill Pike in July of 2007, followed by Ben Mankiewicz leaving shortly thereafter, his show was cut from Air America Radio due to poor ratings. After being picked up by XM/Sirius Channel 167, America Left, they were dropped and picked up again. For the most part, it seems this partisan hack spends the majority of his time keeping his show’s “head above water”, struggling to remain relevant by attracting scores of uneducated teenagers, the type that speak about making an impact in politics then don’t show up to vote come election day.

I could spend the rest of this blog post talking about his irrelevancy, about how it took his Youtube Channel four years to get 100 million views, while those he criticizes, like Glenn Beck, have millions of viewers and listeners on a daily basis, but let’s get down to the point. After wasting my time sitting through his videos, reading his nonsense on the Huffington Post, I can tell you that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. A little information can be a dangerous thing, and it is obvious that he has only that. I will pick a handful of his videos and posts and deconstruct them to show just that, so that even the most devoted TYT enthusiast can see that Cenk Uygur is simply wrong. It’s not “blasphemy”, it is the truth…

Part 1: Glenn Beck, Nazis and Cenk’s nonsense

Finished watching? If you can’t stomach it, I don’t blame you. It doesn’t surprise me that he doesn’t know about the treatment of the Jewish people under the Nazi regime, but what do you expect from a man who denied the Armenian Genocide? The Nazis did more than kill the Jews, first they stripped them of their basic rights by passing the Nuremberg Laws in 1935. For those who don’t understand what Glenn Beck is saying, let me start with this…

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me. – Pastor Martin Niemöller

Glenn Beck’s referenced this poem to point out that under tyrannical rulers, there will always be another political enemy to be targeted. It isn’t a secret that the White House has set its sights on the Fox News organization, not after Robert Gibb’s comments and Anita Dunn’s rant on CNN. For this administration to actually attack a news organization for stories which aren’t favourable to them should raise some eyebrows. Now I don’t agree with Beck on this, I actually find myself in agreement with David Gergen and Gloria Borger on this, that it isn’t a smart strategy and that they can only lose a fight with Fox News, but it doesn’t mean there isn’t merit to compare this to other such incidents, not with what the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) “Diversity Czar” Mark Llyod has been saying. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has taken action against media outlets critical of him, as the Open Source Center reported in August. While the reference may be a tad extreme, it does go to show that this government is acting in a way which is counter to the teachings of the country’s founding, a point purposely ignored by Cenk during his nonsensical rant with airhead Ana Kasparian. You have to ask yourself, where did Cenk find this twit?

Part 2: Cenk’s delusions on Afghanistan

Now I found this post on the Huffington Post rather offensive since he purposely ignores that Canada and its NATO allies took the lead in Afghanistan in 2005. This from The New York Times,

NATO troops that will replace American soldiers in southern Afghanistan next spring are planning to conduct counterinsurgency missions against Taliban fighters and other militants despite initial opposition from some alliance members, American and allied commanders said Friday…

…Britain and the Netherlands will join Canada in assuming control in the south, along with a much smaller contingent of American support troops. Maj. Gen. Jason K. Kamiya, the senior American ground commander in Afghanistan, expressed optimism on Friday that all three allies would heed pleas that they not limit troop operations.

Such restrictions, called national caveats, have severely limited the kinds of missions allied forces can carry out in Afghanistan and Iraq, and have been a source of frustration for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his top regional commanders.

With NATO moving into the south, the Pentagon has said it will be able to reduce the overall number of American troops in Afghanistan to about 16,500 troops from 19,000 now. The United States will still have the largest number of foreign soldiers in Afghanistan, and will keep control of the country’s eastern sector, the scene of many firefights and skirmishes along the mountainous border with Pakistan…

How is it that a leftist tool like Cenk didn’t read this article or watch any of the coverage about this on CNN? In 2005 NATO was called in to free up American soldiers in Afghanistan and continue the counterinsurgency operations in the country. By this time, America had given up leadership in Afghanistan to its allies, so from that point onwards, it was the responsibility of NATO to maintain stability in the region. How is former President George W. Bush to blame for this? Cenk purposely leaves this out, citing an article from the Washington Post which doesn’t even discuss allied troop numbers, let alone how many of the 64,500 International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops are American. The number this twit is referring to is most likely the number of non-ISAF American troops are stationed there. Why is this important? Because Iraq was a US-led Coalition effort while Afghanistan was a NATO effort. The reason for the higher US troop levels in Iraq, aside from the 2007 troop surge, was because it was THEIR WAR, not NATO’s. Let’s not forget that the Afghan forces themselves exceed 100,000 troops, while Iraqi forces number only 60,000 (armed and trained). With all the allied troops in Afghanistan, it would be foolish for America not to redeploy some of their forces to Iraq to reinforce its struggling military. Come on Cenk, do your research.

So after getting this wrong, this moron rambles on about how the Bush administration let Osama bin Laden get away, citing opinion pieces he wrote previously about his belief that they would have captured this man by now if they cared. I don’t think prior nonsense you yourself wrote is proof that George W. Bush didn’t care about Afghanistan, not when he is the one going over to that war zone to visit the troops. Not only that, but this talk about Tora Bora is nonsense, an outright lie. They didn’t know bin Laden was there, as Cenk would like his readers to believe, they only thought he could be, and after overrunning the Taliban in the region (that’s right, they did go after Osama), they couldn’t find any sign of the terrorist leader. Instead of debating whether or not the previous administration cared about catching Osama bin Laden, let’s talk about a shift in strategy. After a few years pursuing the al Qaeda mastermind, experts realized that killing him wasn’t going to destroy the terror organization. Aside from his son (who may or may not be dead already), there are a number of potential replacements, including Ayman al-Zawahri, to take up the mantle. Cenk doesn’t seem to care about this as he rants about how Dick Cheney is “downplaying the importance of capturing Osama bin Laden” by repeating what the experts have told him. So why was capturing Saddam Hussein different from capturing bin Laden? Because Saddam was actually an identifiable leader of a state government, and that his capture and execution would in fact mean something, especially to the country he terrorized for decades. There is the different between cutting off the head of a snake versus cutting off one of the heads of the hydra.

This article doesn’t address any of the real issues with the war in Afghanistan, like the Pakistani support the Taliban has, what will become of the mission when NATO allies reach their pullout dates or how the new rules of engagement are hampering the soldiers’ ability to fight. All it is is simply more raving from a moron suffering from the later stage of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)… Pathetic…

Part 3: Cenk’s continuing BDS, passing opinion off as fact.

This moron’s post, “Presidents Kill, Especially Bush” is among the worst anti-Bush columns I have ever read. Cenk comes out swinging like Mike Tyson with just as much regard for decency as the former heavyweight champion. This moron says Bush doesn’t have a conscience, calls him a terrible person, and say that the former President “shows sick indifference to the lives of others”. Really? His proof is a story about a wedding being bombed in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province.

At least 20 people have been killed in a missile strike by coalition forces in eastern Afghanistan.

Locals in Nangarhar province say the group was a wedding party and most of the dead were women and children.

But the US has denied this, saying those killed were militants involved in previous mortar attacks on a Nato base…

…Coalition media officer Capt Christian Patterson told AFP they had received no reports of civilian casualties.

“It was not a wedding party, there were no women or children present,” he said.

In a separate incident on Friday, 15 civilians were reported to have died in a missile attack in Kunar province…

Once again, the TYT host leaves out a few facts. CBS also covered this story, pointing to statements from the military claiming that this is more militant propaganda and that they didn’t bomb a wedding. Could it have been possible that this story is legitimate? Of course, but it isn’t as if we haven’t seen terrorists making up stories to shape public perception on the war. In a time where stories aren’t getting the proper verification, one should be cautious about what they are getting from the news media. Instead of doing this, Cenk throws caution to the wind, claiming this suspicious story as proof positive that former President Bush is a terrible human being. Okay, I’ll see your wedding and raise you a funeral bombing…

An airstrike believed to have been carried out by a United States drone killed at least 60 people at a funeral for a Taliban fighter in South Waziristan on Tuesday, residents of the area and local news reports said.

Details of the attack, which occurred in Makeen, remained unclear, but the reported death toll was exceptionally high. If the reports are indeed accurate and if the attack was carried out by a drone, the strike could be the deadliest since the United States began using the aircraft to fire remotely guided missiles at members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The United States carried out 22 previous drone strikes this year, as the Obama administration has intensified a policy inherited from the Bush administration…

Intensified Bush’s strategy? Doesn’t that mean that Obama is going further than the former President in killing civilians, as per Cenk’s twisted reasoning? The former President and his intelligence officers made it known that they didn’t feel right about bombing funerals, refusing to pull the trigger even if they found high priority targets at Taliban funerals. What does that say about President Barack Obama’s appreciation for life? Once again, following your reasoning, the man in power now must be war criminal for making a decision like that. If that isn’t enough, what about the President not responding to General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops? He doesn’t seem to care about the soldiers dying in Afghanistan since instead of even reading the report which was submitted in late August, Obama ran off to Copenhagen to give a speech to the IOC.

In America, a family is sitting around the kitchen table when they get the news that their family member was killed in a fire fight because this President refused to give his soldiers the support they needed. How can Obama even sleep at night knowing his indecision is killing Americans? And why won’t he act? Political reasons… I can play that game too Cenk… Moron…

Part 4: Cenk’s obsession with a 14-year-old boy’s sexuality.

If anything, this is the most disturbing video I could find from the TheYoungTurks. 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn is still very young, so there is a reason why he has a higher voice than the average political pundit, but Cenk and Ana don’t seem to realize this, nor do they bother actually addressing any of the points he raises (Social Security is going broke Cenk), discussing instead about why is lips are so pink and of course whether or not he will have sex before he is 22. Yes, that’s right, these two perverts are obsessed with whether or not 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn will be having sex soon. As I discussed before, I find it downright disturbing that anyone would sexualize a child, so it is fair to say that I was pretty angry while watching this video. This is just one more reason why TYT won’t be getting a show on MSNBC, because even that network, as awful as is it, has enough dignity to not stoop this low. THEYOUNGTURKS (TYT) BOYCOTT blogged about this story and here is what one commenter, Richard Wagner said,

I saw that clip. He said that the kid is so nerdy that he will never get laid. I thought that was pretty pathetic…I canceled my subscription and haven’t watched them since…there are other liberal sites I can get my liberal fill in everyday. No more tyt for me.

Is it any surprise that Cenk’s ratings on Air America Radio were so low? Common sense dictates that you don’t talk about little boys and sex at the same time, especially in jest, but I don’t think he nor Ana realize this. Instead of sounding like smart and savvy political pundits like Jonathan Krohn does (both Fox News and CNN had this kid on, so you know these two losers were pretty jealous), Cenk and Ana come off as sexually disturbed individuals picking on a defenseless little kid. The only thing that can be said about these two is that they lack even the slightest shred of morality, that their is no line they won’t cross. Sooner or later, it is Cenk who will be sued and it definitely won’t be something to laugh at…

Part 5: Cenk’s anti-gay bigotry and his desire to be sued

As if his obsession with the sexuality of a 14-year-old-boy wasn’t creepy enough, here he is living out his gay conservative host fantasy. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) just tore out Perez Hilton for this kind of nonsense, so what does Cenk think he is doing by repeating it? No one is being fooled by his “not that there is anything wrong with that” disclaimer before and after calling these conservative hosts homosexuals, it isn’t a pass on political correctness, let alone common decency. Instead of further discussing the content (or lack thereof) of this rant, how about we discuss the content of the statements?

In the late 1980’s, there was a revival of talk radio. The repeal of the FCC’s “Fairness Doctrine” by the Reagan administration had allowed editorial commentary to be broadcasted without the need to present an opposing view point, which allowed Rush Limbaugh to host his talk show from KFBK in Sacramento, California. His success brought about the modern talk radio market, which allowed for other conservatives like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck to find their own success. Even Air America Radio owes its existence to Limbaugh’s pioneering, it was because of Rush that there is a market for any kind of political talk radio, something Cenk would know if he bothered researching it.

Rush’s influence is undeniable, and many people including myself, credit those like Limbaugh for our own personal awakenings to politics. My political beliefs were heavily influenced by Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin and Larry Elders, aside from my own experiences in Nantong, China as well as my time following Canadian politics. I will also admit that I am a fan of PajamasTV’s Bill Whittle and Joe Hicks, two pundits I encourage my modest readership to listen to. Just because you enjoy this sort of political discussion, it doesn’t mean you should have your sexuality questioned, especially by those who are confused about their own…

*****

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. Cenk Uygur continues to play the political game “without a full deck”, refusing to report the news honestly or with any sense of dignity, instead substituting fact for fiction and mindless nonsense. Whether it is his Bush Derangement Syndrome, his sexual perversions or simply the fact that he doesn’t bother with the facts, it should be pretty clear that TheYoungTurks isn’t even worth the bandwidth necessary to watch their Youtube videos. Depending on how well this post performs, I might just write more on Cenk’s continuing stupidity…

An endless source of clueless, creepy and downright disturbing material… Mind-boggling…

Deficit Spending Running Wild!

The new season of the Rick Mercer Report has started and Rick is ranting about the ever growing Canadian deficit. This from Bloomberg,

Canada reported a C$5.82 billion ($5.39 billion) budget deficit in July, following a surplus in the same month a year earlier, because of lower tax revenue and spending measures taken to spur growth.

The country’s deficit in the first four months of the fiscal year that began April 1 was C$18.3 billion, the Finance Department said today from Ottawa. Last year, the federal government had a surplus of C$2.18 billion in July and a four- month surplus of C$2.94 billion.

The governing Conservatives have forecast a record deficit of C$55.9 billion this fiscal year because of slowing revenue, increased claims for unemployment benefits and the costs associated with an auto industry bailout.

Program spending increased 30 percent from a year ago in July to C$21.8 billion, and is up 21 percent for the four-month period, the finance department said. Revenue in July was down 15 percent from last year to C$18.4 billion, bringing the fiscal drop to 11 percent in the first four months.

This is the problem I have with the Conservative Party of Canada, when it comes to fiscal matters, they just aren’t conservative. Mind you, the Tories haven’t driven the country off a cliff like President Barack Obama and his administration, but second place in a contest about fiscal mismanagement isn’t something we should be applauding. I am a registered Liberal, but I cannot bring myself to support their policies now, especially when they have been taking them from the NDP platform. If the Harper government would cut back on spending and make a serious effort to balance the budget, I could see myself and many other Canadians feeling better about casting our vote for the Conservatives in the next election. Provide transparency on spending and you might just get your majority in the next election.

I know it is a short post, but I needed to get that off my chest. Instead of addressing Canadian’s concerns about spending, Stephan Harper has been tight lipped about it. Just give us some transparency, we would like to know how our hard earned money is being spent…

As for my feelings on the Liberal Party right now, I turn it over to Rick Mercer once again…

Obama’s Peace Prize; He did what to get it?

The National Post ran this article on their front page, but I figured Americans would rather know how Canadians are feeling about President Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. After all, isn’t that what Northern Thoughts And Reflections is about? Let’s begin…

Absolutely unbelievable. This is pathetic and reeks of socialist dogma. This Prize has just halted all efforts by the United States to bring about freedom to millions of enslaved people around the world. What absolutes fools the Noble Committee have become…

…We have just witnesses the power of the media dominated by the Left. All flash and no substance. This man a few years ago was nothing more than a Community Activist is that cesspool called Chicago. I remain in stunned disbelief at his nomination. He will be the laughing stock of the world in another year. Realty sucks. – MBC26

Let us not forget, so that this “award” does not diminish the value of the prizes already awarded for chemistry, medicine, and physics, that the peace prize is awarded out of Norway, not Sweden. But my reaction to this news this morning was a visceral reaction to puke! – hoppy96

If the Nobel peace prize had any credibility left at all they just flushed it. Not only was the deadline for nomination only two weeks after he took office (Feb 1 ) at which point he hadn’t accomplished anything; he is still entirely accomplishment free. What a joke. – jimk777

The Nobel Peace Prize stopped having value when they gave it to the terrorist Arafat. Obama has done wonders – he’s alienated long standing allies – thrown them in the garbage – and made friendships with our enemies. – Jane1

Arguably, it could be that all those who think this is wonderful are still in bed, but I doubt there will be a dramatic shift in the comment written about this story by the end of the day. Hot Air’s Allahpundit isn’t too impressed and neither am I. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize, like the one given to Al Gore and Jimmy Carter previously, cheapens the meaning of the award. He has done nothing to earn this award and no matter what is being said, appeasement of our enemies, like the Taliban, only makes the world a more dangerous place. I don’t care what Dalia Mogahed, Obama’s Muslim affairs adviser says about Sharia Law being “gender justice”, when you don’t confront oppressive barbarism, you encourage it.

Isn’t funny that the IOC wouldn’t accept this kind of nonsense when Team Obama-Obama-Oprah was in Copenhagen, but the Nobel committee is going to award it? This award seems more like a fourth place ribbon in comparison, especially since Barack didn’t do anything to get it. Maybe we should be comparing the Nobel Peace Prize to those surprises children find in cereal boxes. He put just as much effort into achieving world peace as he would have to sit down and have breakfast. I also feel that receiving this award furthers the belief that Obama is a self-serving elitist. He isn’t President of the United States because he wants to fulfill his duties, not at all, he is there to strengthen his resume so that he can brag to his friends next time he goes down to Martha’s Vineyard. Snobbery at its finest…

As many others have been saying, Obama doesn’t deserve this award. The Nobel Peace Prize should be given to those who work hard to actually achieve peace, and giving a few speeches and appeasing our enemies isn’t that, not even close… Downright pathetic…

UPDATE: More from Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, who is covering the confused reaction by the mainstream media to The One getting the Nobel Peace Prize. This from The New York Times,

…The announcement stunned people from Norway to the White House. “There has been no discussion, nothing at all,” said Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, in a brief telephone interview…

…But while Mr. Obama has generated considerable good will overseas — his foreign counterparts are eager to meet with him, and polls show he is hugely popular around the world — many of his policy efforts have yet to bear fruit, or are only just beginning to do so. North Korea has defied him with missile tests; Iran, however, recently agreed to restart nuclear talks, which Mr. Obama has called “a constructive beginning.”…

Nuclear talks? Last time I checked, Iran was test firing rockets. Doesn’t sound like peace talks to me. Aside from the spin, Sheryl Gay Stolberg makes the point about his policies bearing no fruit. Doesn’t sound Nobel Peace Prize worthy to me…

And no Rahm Emanuel, Oslo doesn’t beat Copenhagen, not when Jimmy “The Racist” Carter has that award too… Pathetic…

UPDATE: Racist or terrorist? It seems that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) it taking the low road again according to Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey. Ed raises a good point on accusing the Republicans for siding with the Taliban, especially after yesterday’s announcement about how they aren’t the enemy. Does that mean they are peace-loving people we can work with or not? It seems, as per usual, this administration can’t make up its mind.

As for Canadian thoughts on this, let’s return to the comments section at the National Post…

Irena Sendler who Saved 2500 Children during WW2 was nominated, but price went to Gore. What can you expect now? – Sig226

What peace has he exactly brought to the world? Nobel has simply become an endorsement machine for those handing them out. “I like you…here have an award.” – freedomwriter

WTH? I thought to get a nobel prize for something you had to do something in area that the prize is awarded for. I can’t remember Obama actually having done much of anything . . . mmm . . . I wonder when I will get it? Or even better, when I will get an award for the great scientific research that I haven’t done!!! – dharok

Aside from one drone spamming DNC talking points, it seems that Canadians are still pretty confused about how a man with no accomplishments could receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama’s supporters can talk all they want about “potential”, but that won’t mean anything once he is booted out of office in 2012… Hilarious…

UPDATE: I almost forgot, what do you think Barack Obama will do with the money he is award with the Nobel Peace Prize? Michelle Malkin would like to know, as would I, but I think we already know a few things The One WON’T be doing with the 1.4 million he will get, like giving it to charity…

I would bet The One would purchase a home near Martha’s Vineyard so that once he is laughed out of office, he can attend exclusive events and brag about how he once was President of the United States while proudly showing off his Nobel Peace Prize. Hopefully neither Jimmy Carter nor Al Gore show up and commit a fashion faux pas by wearing the same award… That would be awkward…

UPDATE: Another from Ed Morrissey, this time pointing to comments made by former UN Ambassador John Bolton and liberal writer Steve Kornacki, two individuals on either side of the political aisle agreeing that this nomination of Obama is nonsensical…

…So when they see that Obama is going to receive the Nobel Peace Prize even though he may soon send tens of thousands of fresh troops to a war that’s probably unwinnable, well, it makes it a lot easier for them to buy into what the right’s been saying—that gullible Americans and socialist Europeans have been seduced by a fantasy.

The early reaction to your Nobel decision here in America is revealing: Even Obama’s own supporters don’t feel too good about this. One of them, a rather liberal friend of ours, just wrote on her Facebook page: “I now have every hope of winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m a great speech writer and I’m full of good intentions.”

This is exactly what the right has been trying to get Americans to say and think for a year. You mean well, Norway, we know. But in one fell swoop, you’ve just advanced their cause immeasurably. Some are even wondering: Can Obama get away with turning this down?

Aside from Kornacki’s sour grapes about former President George W. Bush (he won both elections, GROW UP!), I can agree that awarding Obama the prize for “potential” does more harm than good. It highlights the point that he is more style than substance, and as Bolton stated, it shows people that he got the award for simply representing the kind of American the Europeans want. You know, the kind that hates America?

We don’t need European socialists tell us how to run our respective countries, not after they destroyed their own… Pathetic…

UPDATE: And because I can’t help but agree with this rant, Drinking with Bob…

UPDATE: You would think Barbara Boxer would learn to keep her mouth shut, especially after all the trouble it has caused her lately. Hot Air’s Allahpundit posted a story about how she thinks GOP Republican National Chairman Michael Steele sounds like the Taliban in his criticism of Barack Obama. Is this veiled racism? Knowing Boxer, it could very well be… Disgusting…

UPDATE: A new from Allahpundit. Remember what I said about America hating Americans? This from the Washington Post,

…Mr. Obama sees the U.S. differently, as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger, and so he calls for a humbler America, at best a first among equals, working primarily through the U.N. The world’s challenges, he emphasized yesterday, “can’t be met by any one leader or any one nation.” What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called “American exceptionalism.” This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary…

The end of “American exceptionalism”? Yes, you heard it right, these failed ideologues in Europe don’t like how exceptional the American people are, they don’t like that the United States is a driving force for good in this world because it makes them look pathetic. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh earlier today and I heard him discussing how awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize would be a way for them to force him to make decisions that they believe is in the world’s best interests. Pulling out of both war zones and not disciplining Iran would be the first two that come to mind. It is no surprise these nonsensical ideas about the possible future of the Taliban in Afghanistan are being floated by the White House right now. It is obvious that neither the Nobel committee nor this administration have any idea what is going on outside the bubbles they occupy.

As for Obama saying that the award he will be receiving being dedicated to everyone who’s “dared to hope”, this would be laughable if it wasn’t so disturbing. The campaign is over, all this talk about “Hope and Change” should have stopped a long time ago because that bullshit doesn’t work anymore. We have seen this empty platform cause serious damage in the nine months The One has been in office, so to say this award is for all those who supported his nonsense strikes me as arrogance bordering on narcissism. With that said, knowing Barack, he isn’t the type to share anything with anyone. This award is for him and him alone, but he will let his followers “bask in his presence”…

This is, on top of what we have been seeing from the elementary schools across America, is just downright scary… No single word can describe how disturbing this is…