Barack Obama - From party crasher to invited guest‏

I don't often write on the American political scene. Oh, I touch on it from time to time, and I do keep a close eye on what's happening south of the border. But being Canadian my principal focus is on events this side of the 49th parallel.

I do however have my opinions on American politics certainly, and on how both the Democrats and Republicans choose their eventual presidential nominees. In the case of Barack Obama, I view him as an incredible candidate who basically broke the door down when he beat out Hillary Rodham Clinton for the right to carry the Democratic banner in 2008.

Money, power and influence permeate the political scene, both here in Canada and in the United States. Without the support of powerful and wealthy behind the scenes players, a potential candidate has little hope of gaining the traction necessary to vie for the White House once every four years. Note that I say little hope, not zero.

Back in 2008 the candidate who had that behind the scenes support was Ms. Clinton in my opinion. Of course she would have to go through the primaries and garner the delegates needed for the nomination, but from my perspective it was supposed to be little more than a formality. Call it theatre if you will, not completely staged, but corporate media would provide the required narrative so the great unwashed would believe she was their choice.

Sounds far fetched?

Look at what happened to Ron Paul in the recent Republican primaries. After coming second in Iowa, an early contest capable of boosting a lesser known candidate's profile, major media outlets wouldn't even mention the Texas congressman's name. John Stewart made great sport of it on The Daily Show, just take a look.

Ron Paul was advocating something very dangerous to entrenched and vested interests, a return to the U.S. constitution, ending foreign wars and more importantly, business welfare. He obviously wouldn't be the candidate of choice for the industrial military complex, that's for sure.

But back to Barack Obama.

How did he succeed where Ron Paul failed? How was he able to break down a door that Mr. Paul couldn't budge?

It started back in 2004 with his keynote speech at the Democratic national convention in Boston. If you missed it and haven't yet viewed it...well then you're probably not a political junkie. But if you have an appreciation for great oratory, if words can inspire you and send chills down your spine, then give it a look.

It was at this point that Barack Obama became the political equivalent of a rock star. He was given this prestigious slot to help him win a seat in the United States Senate. No doubt it helped him win in Illinois, but four years later it gave him the national profile he needed for a run at presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

The way I see things Hillary was the establishment choice, the primaries a mere dog and pony show leading to a coronation. The problem was that Barack wasn't given a copy of the script.

Does that mean I think Barack Obama is anti-establishment? Not in the least, I think he's very much an advocate for the establishment now.  The current president has supported the same corporate welfare schemes and bail outs as his predecessor George W. Bush, has kept the Patriot Act on the books and not closed down Guantanamo Bay as he pledged (LINK).  

I do not believe Mr. Obama could have become president if he hadn't agreed to play ball with the wealthy and powerful puppet masters pulling strings beyond the curtain. Hillary would have danced to their tune as well, in fact I think her refusal to drop out of the race for so long was the result of a unwavering belief that she was 'the chosen one' of the American elites.

And from where I sit she was, until Mr. Obama came crashing through the door and demanded the opportunity to be co-opted the same way both Clintons were.

I realize this is a cynical and not too uncommon point of view among many observers of the political scene. Basically the idea is that the agenda is set behind the scenes, with politicians fighting over who will get to deliver (or sell) the pogrom to the great unwashed. Its all great sport, but all the players are all being paid by the same group. If you want to be noticed on the field, you better do as you're told. 

The question might then be asked: ''Why even bother with it, if its all basically rigged''?

Because it does matter in my opinion. There's still a piece of the pie left for Joe Six-Pack and Jane Wine-Cooler, although it seems to me that this slice is getting smaller and smaller. Sticking with the dessert analogy, imagine an apple pie (or pumpkin if you prefer) with one small slice carved out of it. That slice represents a political leader's wiggle room if you will. The rest of the pie has been spoken for.

Presidents and politicians can debate and argue over that small part, so long as the greater pie isn't touched, that big piece belongs to the elites, the behind the scene players..

My prediction for the coming US election is a Barack Obama re-election. Do I think it will be by a landslide or a nose? It doesn't matter, not in a winner take all system. Romney's role is similar to that of John Kerry or John McCain, fight hard and give us a good performance.

I will enjoy the show, but I'll put $100 on the Democrats holding onto the White House for another four years right now. Sitting as I do in the cheap seats, its all I can afford. After that, I think its Jeb Bush's ordained turn, unless someone else comes crashing through the door.

 One can only hope.

Kony 2012 - Grassroots campaign or manufactured outrage?

Disclosure, I haven't watched the Kony 2012 video.  I think I'm one of about 12 people in Canada who haven't. 

I did catch some of it on network news however, and like any person with a heart and a pulse, I was sickened.  It is unbelievable to me the atrocities that continue to take place all over the world.  And violence against children is always reprehensible.

With that being said, I was struck by something tweeted by journalist Eric Margolis back on March 8th:

Amazing coincidence. YouTube viral frenzy over horrors of Lord's Army Uganda - just after US says it will send troops to region -

Sadly Kony isn't the world's only war criminal, what that he were.  The Taliban is brutal and repressive, the Uzbeks are every bit as bad...oops, they're on our side.  Regardless, there are any number or countries that western powers, (primarily the U.S.) could police. 

But at least with the viral nature of this YouTube video, Obama has political cover should this latest foray escalate.  The fact that the U.S. is committing troops isn't really news in fact. 

Africa is a resource rich continent, and has been a battle ground for centuries.  As U.S. president Obama said recently:

"....deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy..."

All I can hope is that eventually children living in this area will be able to live in peace and security.  In many other parts of the world, they're still waiting.

Mitt Romney...Can a Mormon become President of the U.S?

The Canadian political scene is relatively quiet now that Stephen Harper and his Conservatives have finally attained majority status.  For a political junkie that means looking south of the 49th for a fix, and let's face it...no country does politics like the United States. 

The Republican race is heating up and looks to be a two way race at the moment, with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich duking it out.  Interestingly it is Romney's faith which is drawing the most scrutiny, not that of Gingrich who is on his third marriage and also his third religion in Roman Catholicism. 

I know a bit about the faith of Latter Day Saints (LDS), the official name of what is commonly called the Mormon church.  My father's grandmother was a convert, and I used to play basketball with a couple of elder missionaries, and yes they tried very hard to bring me into their fold. 

While my opinion and a bus ticket will only get you a ride downtown, nonetheless I will express my view on a Mormon in the White House. 

Why not?

Religion plays a huge role in American politics these days.  One need only look back to the furor over Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, for proof of that fact.  And you can be certain that for many Americans, particularly evangelicals, Romney being a Mormon is a huge issue. 

Many consider the LDS faith a cult, I do not ascribe to that view.  Those who know a bit about the faith consider Mormon theology to be screwy, but then many fundamentalists think men and dinosaurs walked together on the Earth and that this planet is only 4 or 5 thousand years old....pot to kettle. 

For those who are curious, the Mormon church was started by one Joseph Smith who claims to have discovered golden plates buried somewhere around Palmyra New York.  These plates were said to have contained accounts of Jesus visiting the America's after his ascension into heaven. 

Okay, I see some shaking their heads saying...."Yeah, rigggggggggggggggght".  Fair enough.

But many of those same people also expect to see Jesus coming back some day riding on a cloud.  So if Jesus can come back riding on a cloud, why couldn't he have beamed himself down to this side of the Atlantic to preach the good news to Native Americans?

If morality is an issue I think evangelicals would find they have more in common with Romney as a lifelong Mormon than with Gingrich,  a twice divorced, three times married Lutheran/Baptist/Roman Catholic.

Say what you will about Mormon beliefs and practices, but in my experience you will never meet a more down to earth, friendly and genuinely wholesome religious community.

My own preference is to see Ron Paul win the nomination....yes, yes I know, snowball's chance.  But at least with an Obama/Paul race there would be a clear and definitive choice, big government versus almost no government. 

But if its a choice between Romney and Gingrich, I don't think Mitt's religion even warrants consideration. 

Click the button below to vote for Canadian Soapbox at CanadianBlogosphere, then click green.

(You can vote once every day)

Why is Ron Paul the Rodney Dangerfield of the GOP race?

For those following the Republican Party's nomination proceedings it must be at least somewhat curious how the second place finisher in New Hampshire gets 'no respect'. 

While I've heard the Texas congressman described by some as a 'wacko' for his Libertarian views, I would welcome a Presidential election in November between Mr.  Paul and President Obama.  For once there would be a clear and distinctive choice, Ron Paul his a  HUGE ELL Libertarian.

For those unclear on what it means to be Libertarian, do not confuse it with Liberal, nothing could be further from reality.  Liberal politicians typically  believe that government has a major role to play in running society, be it via taxes or regulations.  From our Canadian lens its obvious we don't have a Libertarian party, with the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP all arguing about how best to run BIG GOVERNMENT.

Ron Paul has been advocating for years that the U.S. federal government stop encroaching on State responsibilities like education.  Ironically, or perhaps fittingly, this is what America's founding fathers had in mind when they drafted their constitution.

Americans typically adore their constitution, sometimes with religious zeal.  So why hasn't this Texas Dr. caught on?

I think the answer is simple.  I don't expect corporate media to tout his candidacy at all, even though they're desperately searching for someone....anyone...who can challenge Romney and juice up the race.  Business interests love the current system in the U.S, as do politicians benefiting from all the lobbying and insider stock trading tips.

Politics is for me a spectator sport  much of the time, and certainly so when it involves our neighbours to the south.  Here's one hoser though who's hoping the GOP is ready for an old style truly conservative Republican candidate for President. 

Click the button below to vote for Canadian Soapbox at CanadianBlogosphere, then click green.

(You can vote once every day)

The Tea Party movement - Defending the undertaxed from the overtaxed

Although the debt ceiling crisis playing out in Washington is an American concern, it is an issue with huge ramifications here in Canada and across the world. 

American historian Bernard Berenson is credited with this famous quote:

"Governments last only as long as the under taxed can defend themselves against the overtaxed". 

The wisdom of that statement is playing out right now as the U.S. rushes head long with August 2nd when they will hit their legislated debt ceiling of $14.3 trillion.  The Obama administration is putting pretty much everything on the table in terms of cuts to government and social programs to bring the debt under control.  That's the carrot for the so called Tea Party element of the Republican party, champions of the Libertarian ideal of smaller government.

The stick is increases to taxes paid by the wealthiest Americans and a closing of loop holes that allow both individuals and corporations to  avoid paying taxes they would otherwise incur.  Somehting to which Tea Party advocates are adamantly opposed. 

That is the beauty of the Tea Party movement.  America's über-rich have trailer park conservatives convinced that asking the wealthy to contribute their fair share is somehow un-American.  The argument is the affluent already do their bit by contributing to wealth creation through investment and hiring.  Increasing or requiring taxes on the wealthy will discourage investment and job creation, that's the argument being put forth.

I for one don't buy it. 

Increased taxation on those most able to afford it would likely mean lower bonuses, decreased dividends, a trimming of massive net worths for a very small percentage of those most able to afford it.  The benefits of increased taxation on millionaires  and billion dollar companies on the other hand would be enormous.

For the economy it would signal to the world that America's wealthy elite are serious about helping their government get itself on solid fiscal  footing.  But sadly I don't think the über-rich are that patriotic.  Its been said by many before me that money knows no nationality, the same can be said by those who possess it. 

Click the button below to vote for Canadian Soapbox at CanadianBlogosphere, then click green.

(You can vote once every day)

Why would anyone doubt the killing of Osama bin Laden?

So Osama bin Laden  is now officially dead, okay. 

Still there are tons of people out there who doubt the story.  Some think he's still alive and others contend he's been dead for years.  There are plenty of American citizens who doubt what their own government is telling them. 

Who can you blame them?

Oswald's magic bullet, the Gulf of Tonkin, "I am not a crook", babies tossed from incubators, weapons of mass destruction....

There's a very long list of 'disinformation' that's come out of Washington over the years, propaganda designed to push public opinion in one direction or another, and frequently at times of conflict or outright war.  They say the first casualty of war is truth, so I won't cast aspersions on anyone who doesn't lap up whatever kool-ade Washington is dispensing. 

Maybe its true, maybe not.

Of course if it isn't true, if Osama was already dead or if he's still hiding out...Why now?  Good question so here are two quick thoughts.

U.S. president Barack Obama should get a very healthy boost in approval ratings as Americans celebrate the killing of this Orwellian Emanuel Goldstein.  Its hard to see this as doing anything to hurt his chances at re-election next year.  The Republicans are just beginning to ramp up their search for their nominee in 2012.  But is anyone paying attention now?

More compelling though is what this means with regard to U.S. relations with Pakistan.  How effective with Islamabad be at limiting efforts to expand the Afghan war to neighbouring Pakistani territory?  With Pakistan's military and intelligence community being accused of colluding with bin Laden it will be difficult if not impossible for them to resist U.S. overtures for greater freedom in breaching Pakistani sovereignty.

NDP deputy leader Thomas Mulcair quickly clarified his thoughts on the matter, after leaving the impression he doubted the story.  Even if he is convinced bin Laden was killed, there are plenty of other people out there who have their doubts, and they're not all wearing tin foil.

 

Click the button below to vote for Canadian Soapbox at CanadianBlogosphere, then click green.

(You can vote once every day)

Harper's photo-op in Washington flops...

Today saw Stephen Harper meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, obviously punctual because with just 40 or so minutes of face time there isn't a second to waste.

While the meeting does absolutely nothing for Obama in terms of gaining or losing political points, for Stephen Harper the chance to be seen on newscasts from coast to coast in the US capital had at least the potential to boost his fortunes at a time of heightened political instability back home.

The U.S. president was perhaps so committed to limiting his time with Harper that he didn't even bother to greet him upon his arrival, as CTV news is reporting.



I did see Harper on NBC news this evening, there was a video clip of Obama being peppered with questions about former President Carter's comments on racism at the Whitehouse. Harper was sitting there and to my eye he was looking like a wall flower at the prom, all decked out nicely and just hoping someone might notice him. I haven't found any video on that yet, but I'll add it here if it becomes available.

Thanks to you Canadian Soapbox is now listed in the Top 3 at Canadian Blogosphere. To help this blog climb even higher click on their icon, then hit the green button to vote - limit 1 vote per day per IP - thank you.

Harper a Twitter heavy hitter but Facebook more Jiggy with Iggy

Barrack Obama's winning presidential campaign demonstrated the potential for the Internet and social networking sites to connect with the electorate, bypassing more traditional media and delivering the candidate's message directly to voters. Obama had more than one million fans on facebook and an equal number following his tweets on twitter.

I thought I'd check on the status of Canada's federal leaders to see how they're stacking up to one another. But with sincere apologies to Messieurs Layton and Ducette as well as to Elizabeth May, the real heavyweights are Ignatieff and Harper.

On Twitter Stephen Harper is far ahead of his rivals with over 16,000 followers. Micheal Ignatieff lags well behind with just under 10,000. Both have alternate names for tweeting in French, with Harper's having just over 500 followers and Iggy at 178. Jack Layton isn't doing too bad comparatively speaking at over 8,600, Gilles Duceppe is just shy of 2,000 (he only tweets en Francais) and Elizabeth May has almost 4,400.

It strikes me that those numbers are actually pretty reflective of the make up of our current parliament...Green leader 'Liz May's numbers notwithstanding.

Facebook, on the other hand, provides a different picture. All the party leaders have fan or supporter pages, like followers on twitter, but on Facebook its Jack Layton with a slim advantage over Harper's 27,300 supporters. The NDP leader's numbers come in slightly higher at just over 27,800. Both are well out in front of Iggy who has a bit more than 15,300. Elizabeth May has just over 6,000, while Gilles Duceppe comes it at about 3,700.

Obviously Iggy, with the least amount of time in at the helm of his party, has a bit of catching up to do in the facebook world. But where you see a real divergence is in the Groups spawned by Ignatieff as compared to those about Harper.

Facebook shows 117 groups listed for Michael Ignatieff, and while there are a few of the requisite "Michael Ignatieff Sucks" variety, the overwhelming majority are supportive. He has a group support pages for individual provinces: BC, NS, Saskatchewan, Quebec...even my own Durham Region has a support page with 65 members.

The Prime Minister by contrast has over 500 groups listed in a search of his name...with many of them strongly Anti-Harper in tone. Canadians United Against Stephen Harper has over 21,000 members, and Stephen Harper Sucks rings in at 328. There's a group of 186 that want Mr. Harper arrested, and another group of 50 highlighting the Calgary MP's lies.

Screw Stephen Harper, Stop Stephen Harper, People Against Stephen Harper...even Stephen Harper Eats Babies.

The degree of animosity generated toward Stephen Harper is off the charts compared to any of the other leaders. Jack Layton has 259 groups, almost all supportive. And the Bloc's Giles Duceppe has 44. A search of Elizabeth May forced me to add the word Green because her name is so common, it came up with 82...again mostly supportive. There is a group entitled 'Elizabeth May has got to go', but it only has 1 member.

What does all this mean? Not much really, its probably as significant as a pocketed communion wafer. The real fun will start when the next election writ is dropped.

They all blow my twitter numbers away, canukgord is followed by a paltry 33 users, and there are no fan or supporter pages for this blogger. But if anyone wants to start a 'Gordie Canuk Sucks' page on Facebook I wouldn't be upset, that's when I'll know I've truly arrived. But please no groups saying I eat babies, that would hurt.

Click on this button to vote for this blog on Canadian Blogosphere.

122 Dead Canadian Soldiers - Obama wants more

The death of Master Cpl. Charles-Philippe Michaud on Sunday brings to one hundred and twenty two the number of Canadians who have sacrificed their lives serving Canada's war effort in Afghanistan. The number doesn't resonate the way 100 did, or the way number 200 will...but every life lost is a tragedy.

Back on February 20th of this year I predicted that U.S. president Barack Obama would eventually be calling on Canada to extend its mission beyond 2011.

And while we're not yet being asked to extend our mission date beyond 2011, only a fool would believe that request isn't coming. Obama's handling of this issue has been masterful, going to great lengths to laud our efforts while not even hinting that Ottawa will be asked to extend our combat operations. Like a good manager who lavishes praise, it will make it very difficult if not impossible to refuse when the eventual request does come. And when it does come, Canada should say no...we shouldn't even be there now.

On June 30th the Globe and Mail reported that U.S. officials are testing the waters, looking for a way to convince their Canadian counterparts to extend our mission.

"U.S. probing ways to keep Canada in Afghanistan"

As the U.S. ramps up its troop levels, and the fighting becomes more intense, we should fully expect and be prepared for an ever increasing number of causalities. Canadians are serving and dying in the most volatile region of that country, Kandahar province, an area of vital importance given the long proposed TAPI pipeline.

When the Soviets invaded this geopolitical hot spot they eventually ramped up to 200,000 troops, backed by another 200,000 Afghan communist forces. They employed the same propaganda we're hearing about fighting terrorism and the improvement of human rights. Yet even with those numbers the Soviets were forced to withdraw.

Obama is committing less than half that number, and is looking for allies to bolster the size of his forces. Pulling out now is likely an impossibility, both politically and logistically. But come 2011 we should stick to our stated objective and withdraw from all military involvement. Who knows how high our death toll will be when that date rolls around, war is an ugly affair. But as Stephen Harper has already admitted, this is an unwinnable war. Its a truth both the Russians and even Alexander the Great learned, eventually Barack Obama will learn it too.


Click on this button to vote for this blog on Canadian Blogosphere.

Give Me Your Thoughts On Obama - In Six Words

I've just put up April's polling question, asking readers how Barack Obama is measuring up to their expectations. I'd also like to generate some feedback via the comment section, but I've decided to throw in a small twist. I'm asking those who post a comment here, to use exactly six words in describing their thoughts on the new U.S. president.

I'd love to take credit for this idea, asking people to post their thoughts using just six words, but actually I've borrowed it from "Six Word Memoirs". That's a site that asks people to tell the world their story, in just six words. Some of them are hilarious, like this one:

"Mother in law joined Facebook...F##K"!!!

I'll start the ball rolling by posting my six word assessment first:

"Elected president, now a car salesman".

Yeah I know, its pretty lame. I'm betting there are readers and other bloggers out there who will top it no problem: No limitations, I don't censor and if you think of more than one feel free to comment away as often as you want.

If you use Twitter and want to follow me I'm CanukGord.

Comments are welcomed and feel free to pass this along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share’ icon below.

Obama Wrong On Afghanistan

Now that the euphoria over Barack Obama's visit to Canada has had time to wear off its easier to take a step back and examine exactly what was said. A large part of the conversation and coverage had to do with Canada's mission in Afghanistan, with Obama heaping praise on Canadians for our commitment and sacrifice, with over 100 of our service men and women killed.

The new President has a ton of political capital to expend, and with his combination of charm, charisma and intellect its difficult to take exception to any of his initiatives. What a contrast to George W. Bush! Even on those very rare occasions where 'Dubya' actually got something right (nothing springs to mind immediately) you still wanted to oppose the dullard regardless.

But make no mistake about it, Obama is wrong on Afghanistan. And while we're not yet being asked to extend our mission date beyond 2011, only a fool would believe that request isn't coming. Obama's handling of this issue has been masterful, going to great lengths to laud our efforts while not even hinting that Ottawa will be asked to extend our combat operations. Like a good manager who lavishes praise, it will make it very difficult if not impossible to refuse when the eventual request does come. And when it does come, Canada should say no...we shouldn't even be there now.
(Blog entry continued after advertisement)

Everyone knows the old saw, 'those who fail to recognize the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them'. Former U.S. NATO commander Dan McNeill is on record as saying that if counterinsurgency doctrine were properly followed NATO would need 400,000 troops to win this war. The Soviets sent in almost 200,000 soldiers backed by about 200,000 more Afghan communist forces when they invaded...and the Soviets were still forced to withdraw.

And why are we there? Obama's tack has been to categorize Afghanistan as a potential incubator for terrorists, one that must not be allowed to resurrect itself under the leadership of the Taliban. This is the same Taliban which enjoyed friendly relations with the United States up until their refusal to approve a U.S. led consortium's bid to build a massive natural gas pipeline. Obvioulsy there's the whole 9/11 issue, but that attack could have been used for justification to invade any number of nations, including U.S. client state Saudi Arabia...which is Osama Bin Laden's country of origin.

Things are bad in Afghanistan and getting worse. Supply routes are so vulnerable to attack that Washington is cutting deals with countries like Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, nations which could easily be labeled 'terrorist states' were they not complying with Washington's foreign policies.

Here we are in the midst of a global economic meltdown that's being compared to the Great Depression...yet both Canadian and US taxpayers are footing a bill in the billions of dollars to secure natural gas and oil pipeline routes. The cost in terms of dollars and human lives is only going to climb higher and higher. Obama is talking about increasing U.S. troop numbers by 30,000 to 60,000....that's a long way from the needed 400,000.

I blogged on this previously here: Afghanistan’s Pipeline – Canada’s War

You can read about General McNeill's comments on troop levels back in June 2008 on BBC: Nato 'needs more' in Afghanistan

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.



Back To Canadian SoapBox Home

Follow On FaceBook

Obama In Canada - Whoop Dee Doo

So Barack Obama is coming to Ottawa, big deal. Canadians' hearts were all a flutter when it was announced that President Obama's first foray outside of the United States would be north of his border. That's as it should be, we are after all each other's largest trading partners. While we may not always agree with our southern neighbours, they are our closest friends and allies. With the relationship we share you'd think at least an overnighter would be warranted, but too bad so sad for us.

No state visit for little Canada, Obama will pull up to the drive-thru window long enough to grab his coffee and bagel, exchange some chit chat...then be back in Washington in time to tuck his girls into bed. I'm not suggesting this visit is totally devoid of significance, photo-ops are after all very important in this modern age. With only a couple of hours of face time between our PM and the US President I just don't see that anything of substance can be accomplished. Why not just talk on the phone until something more meaningful can be arranged?

Would it have been so bad if Canada had been shunted to the 2nd, 3rd or even 10th country that Obama will visit? Let some other countries get the drop-ins and arrange a true state visit, complete with giving us Canucks the oppourtunity to witness at least something of the event. And if Obama is too busy to be out of the US for more than just a few hours, why not have our PM spend a few days down in D.C.? Its not like Ottawa can't afford to be shut down for a few days, hell our national government was on a self imposed time-out for over a month.
(Blog entry continued after advertisement)

Wouldn't it be nice to see our leaders sitting down and mapping out joint strategies on the economy, on our military commitment in Afghanistan, on what to do about Omar Kadar? There are a ton of issues that need to be dealt with, any one of which cannot be truly worked upon with a whirl wind meet and greet.

Don't get me wrong here, I greatly admire the new U.S. president...in fact I consider myself a huge fan. But I'm also a patriotic Canadian and I hate seeing Ottawa being treated like a roadside diner with photos of every celebrity who stopped in for toast and coffee.

Comments are welcomed, I read them all. Feel free to pass this blog entry along via email or through a social network like FaceBook, just click on the ‘Share This’ icon below.

Back To Canadian SoapBox Home Follow On FaceBook