Could the medias double standard be any more apparent?

Most of us have been following the recent Phil Robertson/ Duck Dynasty saga to some degree or another. I view it as not much more than a flash in the pan, a couple of weeks or months down the road I suspect it will be off the front pages, no longer a topic of conversation at the water cooler, and the Robertson's will have reaped millions in free publicity. What I do find interesting is the increasing frequency that the traditional media and special interest groups target their focus on certain individuals, while giving others who behave no better a free pass.

Take Phils's recent comments, they were made in an interview with GQ magazine in response to his religious beliefs. In discussing homosexuality he referred to it as sinful and likened it to, drunkenness, bestiality, promiscuity, and terrorism (his words, not mine). I have to admit I personally don't see the connection to any of these behaviors and I find the comment "off the wall" to say the least, but Phil is certainly entitled to his opinions. He further elaborated that he thought being gay was “illogical” by questioning in anatomical terms a homosexuals preference for particular parts of the human body over others.

Now let's face it, this was by no definition an interview that should be given a gold seal for tolerance and understanding, nor one I would suggest my offspring watch. It is simply an individuals personal opinion based on their own interpretation of their religious beliefs. At no point did the man go into a hate filled tirade, or suggest any action be taken against those he was referring to. To my knowledge no one is forced to accept these comments as gospel nor watch the television show in question.

However, now we have a witch hunt with many of the more Liberal leaning and special interest groups screaming for Phil's head. A&E, the network that broadcasts Duck Dynasty has made what they consider a politically correct move and catered to the LGBT crowd by indefinitely suspending Phil from Duck Dynasty.

Funny though, Phil's comments are in many ways no worse than what comes out of the mouths of other celebrities or politicians on a daily basis, yet often if the individual is of the Democrat persuasion or a minority they are given a free pass.

The blinders are starting to come off.....maybe

It appears that the love affair between President Obama and many of his loyal supporters is going through a shaky period. For the last 5 years in the eyes of many on the Left their savoir Mr Obama could do no wrong, broken campaign promises, stepping outside the Constitution, throwing gas on the fires of bipartisanship, political scandals, or stumbling on foreign policy, none of this seemed to matter to those that drank the Progressive "kool-aid". He was "the man" who would take them to the promised land.

The poor economic performance under his stewardship was defended by his supporters as something he inherited from the previous president, failure to fulfill campaign promises was blamed on an obstructionist Congress, and occasionally when things got really dire for the President the "race card" was pulled out (Thank You, Oprah). To a large degree what allowed this charade to continue was the outright refusal of Liberal media to out this guy and hold his feet to the fire. Obama was given a free pass by traditional print, television, and radio like no President since Kennedy who the press lauded as a "family man" while every reporter who could draw a breath knew he had a revolving door of models and actresses at his beck and call. Now to be fair, Kennedy's era was a gentler, politer time that held a higher respect for the office and man when it came to reporting on the President.  However that time has come and gone, the media has for most segments of society taken the kids gloves off and in today's world little is sacred when it comes to getting a story and boosting ratings. Add to that the explosion of on-line news, blogs, twitter, etc., where nothing political is taboo and one can only wonder in amazement how Obama with his lackluster performance has avoided being tarred and feathered by the press.

Canada Post's Christmas Gift, Equality for all Canadians!

It's been a number of months since I have felt the need to post an article on this blog. But lo and behold a long term injustice in Canadian life has finally been rectified and today is cause for celebration by millions of us Canadians who have had to "suffer" under it.

So what horrible injustice finally got me back in front of a keyboard and fired up enough to let the world know how I feel? Was this injustice perpetrated by a greedy private corporation focused on putting profits before individuals, or a segment of society desperately clinging to a way of life or prejudices that have no place in today's world? While it may be easy to assume as much, sadly that is not the case.

For the last quarter of a century or so, I and millions of my fellow Canadians have been treated as second class citizens by Canada Post,  a crown corporation that is owned by and exists to serve all Canadians. What was this "horrific treatment" we have been forced to endure?

Guns in the hands of madmen, by who's definition?

Frankly I just don't get it......

America is currently embroiled in a nationwide debate over gun control, pro gun, anti gun, both sides are polarized in their beliefs of what should or shouldn't be done to protect the innocent. Although the two sides are generally light years apart in their proposed solutions they do share one thing in common, a underlying opinion that things must change and the innocent must be protected from the whims of gun toting madmen.

On this issue everyone has an opinion, the Right tends to lean towards protecting the 2nd amendment, while the Left favors (as usual) legislating away the rights of law abiding citizens in the belief that this will have an impact on the occasional madmen. While the Right refers to the Bill of Rights and crime statistics, the Left has the Vice President doing a road show, the President holding press conferences with children, and gun violence "celebrities" such as Gabby Gifford's forming groups and making the speaking circuit. In fact Mr Obama isn't waiting for the normal political course of actions to take place on this issue, he simply issued 23 Executive orders as part of his campaign to disarm the American people. Not only do these Executive orders address actual gun control but in some cases cross into areas that erode civil liberties, case in point turning doctors into informants by ordering them to “ask patients about their guns” and reporting on them.

Whether you consider the above actions right or wrong, it is very apparent that those currently in power see curbing gun violence and it's impact on innocents the political "flavor of the month" with the American people. Now please don't take me wrong, I am certain that many of those speaking out for change do so sincerely and out of passion, and I myself believe that something needs to be done to curb the violence perpetrated by gun toting madmen. However, my opinions on the solutions to this problem are best saved for another time.

What I don't get is this.....

A better perspective on government fiscal stupidity

The fuse is burning

Like most sensible people I often worry where the continuous overspending by all levels of government will eventually lead. Ongoing spending by Municipal, Provincial, or Federal governments seems to indicate a total lack of common sense or any fiscal responsibility on the part of our elected officials. It's almost like they live on a different world where money literally grows on trees and they function using a system of math where two plus two does not equal four. The alternative would be that they are simply stupid or incredibly naive about managing money.

Now while our Canadian Federal or Provincial governments are not by any stretch of the imagination "fiscally responsible" they do not even come close to displaying the free spending mindset and the reckless fiscal abandonment that our American neighbors to the south are engaging in, particularly at the Federal level in Washington. Watching their antics as they battle over adjusting personal tax rates higher, debt ceiling increases, and implementing spending cuts, would be comical if it was not so serious that the outcome has the ability to negatively impact the entire global economy. Even a simpleton knows that you can not continuously spend more than you take in, unfortunately this basic fact seems to be lost on America's elected officials especially the guy currently serving as President.

So if a simpleton can understand the concept, why can't supposedly bright elected officials?
Here's what I think........

Guns, Guns, Guns, What's the answer?

Since the tragedy at Newtown the issue of gun violence in America has been first and foremost in everyone's mind, and rightfully so. This is just one more incident where innocent lives were destroyed and America's love affair with the gun appears to be the culprit.

Pro gun or anti gun, few are suggesting that the status quo is acceptable after this recent slaughter of the innocent by one unsettled individual. The public and Government both feel an immediate urgency to do something, anything to make America a safer place for its citizens and particularly its children. Unfortunately many of the suggestions on how to prevent future horrific tragedies are based more on raw emotion than they are on actual facts or common sense. Prior to making any decisions the country needs a sufficient period to bury it's dead and to mourn. After that there will be time to determine to think things through and hopefully come up with solution that has some chance of actually curtailing the problem.

In my own humble opinion if America truly wants to ensure that its children are protected from random gun violence simply passing more legislation to control guns is not a stand alone solution that will have any immediate affect. Why? I feel there are a number of reasons

Whoohoo...... The world didnt end

When I initially woke up this morning it took me a moment but something dawned on me, I had in fact woken up...the world was still here.

My first thought after this realization set in was, Duh...Stupid Mayans.

However once the cobwebs cleared from my head and I was able to think clearly I realized that it was never the Ancient Mayans that foretold the world ending today, they simply predicted the end of a cycle on their long day calendar. It was ill informed doomsayers that incorrectly interpreted the meaning of the Mayan calendar and predicted the end of us all. Duh....Stupid Doomsayers

None the less, even though this appears to have been a false alarm (remember the day is not over yet), maybe we should view it as somewhat of a second chance, a new beginning, so to speak. So moving forward these are some things I personally would like to see take place starting tomorrow.

A new low even in today's world

While America is reeling from the Newtown shooting tragedy of late last week and decent people are still attempting to come to terms with the horror that took place, there are already individuals finding ways to profit from the loss of life. The unfortunate truth is that most of us have come to the realization that regardless of the magnitude of a tragedy there will always be some lowlife that will see an opportunity in it to better their own lot in life, despite what impact their actions may have on the victims or the survivors.

Sadly the Newtown slayings are no exception to the rule, already the opportunists are surfacing in ways that even the most cynical could not have imagined. However, there is one group who have crossed all lines of common decency and morality by using the tragedy as a fund raising opportunity to further their own cause. This group is one that few amongst us would ever imagine being capable of such action. None the less, this unimaginable loss has shown their true colors, frankly it is beyond disgusting. So who is this group and how are they taking financial advantage of this horrific tragedy?

Political Correctness, Will it ever come to an end?

Just when I think I have heard it all, along comes another example of just how ridiculous the whole issue of being politically correct has become. Maybe I am simply more aware of it because we are heading towards Christmas and the confusion is rampant, Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays... no one is quite sure. Even Santa seems confused, how many times does old St Nick appear in an advertisement wishing everyone "Happy Holidays"' pretty sad when even he is afraid to use the "C" word in public.

But enough about the confusion surrounding "Christmas" (oops, old habits die hard). What got my head spinning this week has absolutely nothing to do with the political correctness surrounding this particular time of year. It appears we have a new word that has been added to the list that we are not allowed to use in polite company. Now this particular word is one that many of us grew up hearing on a regular basis, one that we all took for granted, and one to my knowledge carried no animosity or ill will with it. Even as a very young boy I commonly used the world to refer to a popular sports and even a particular model of sports car.

At this point you are undoubtedly wondering what this taboo word is, well for now lets just call it the "M" word as I am now finding myself having difficulty even using this now demeaning term in my blog, "oh the humanity".

So, Where do I sign up?

A day in the life of a Federal civil servant

When I was growing up, when you heard of someone who worked for the Federal government, you knew a few things right off the bat. One, they were probably not an ambitious individual, two, they didn't make a lot of money, and last but not least they would most certainly be serving a life sentence with the feds. It was a given that while a federal job didn't provide the big bucks that private industry did, it was a very secure position that in the end would provide a comfortable pension for ones golden years. Federal positions tended to attract those that wanted to take little risk on the career path and generally weren't overly eager to expend too much effort in earning a living.

Now fast forward to today's world......Lordy, Lordy, how things have changed and the pendulum has swung! Today's federal civil servant has rocketed ahead of us poor schmoes in the private sector to the point where one has to ask if the inmates are running the asylum in Ottawa. If by this time your beginning to believe that old Frustrated Joe is simply exaggerating the situation, just keep reading.

Another Term, Same Song and Dance Routine

How often have you heard a politician speaking to a crowd and shook your head in disbelief, knowing full well that the individual addressing the group was pandering to the gathered with every word. As you listened you realized that the speech being given was absolutely no reflection of reality, it was simply intended to appease the individuals in the room who stared through glazed eyes, listened intently, and virtually hung on every syllable as they were spoon fed their daily dose of propaganda. Typically this type of performance is presented by politicians who have a captive audience, one that will not ask too many questions, and generally in their ignorance of facts will bring the house down with applause.

Such a speech was given Monday, December 10 by a politician that most have us have come to think of as a master of deception, the King of pandering, and a man so out of touch with reality that nothing he says surprises those of us who keep ourselves informed. This man stumbles around from speech to speech manipulating the facts depending on the audience. So, what was said and who said it?

Our court system is full of surprises, sometimes even good ones

How often have you read an article regarding a legal decision made by one of our public judges and shook your head in disbelief wondering if any sanity still remains within our justice system? Unfortunately it has become far too common an experience to pick up a daily newspaper and read about a court decision that seems to fly in the face of public safety or even basic common sense.

Thankfully, once in a while a judgement is rendered that actually seems to make sense even if it's one that doesn't have a major impact on society as a whole. This particular tale begins in 2011 in the city of Toronto, a place in years past that was often referred to as "Hogtown", (based on the many slaughterhouses in existence at the time, not the residents) but in today's world  it is in fact considered the center of the known universe by many of those that live there.

The Internet, Does it enhance free speech or allow some to limit it?

Along with writing the occasional article on my own blog I tend to surf the internet seeking to broaden my political views and to learn how others feel about important issues that affect our daily lives. The Net is a wonderful place to do this because it provides an incredible platform for individuals to share their own beliefs and ideologies, or comment on those of others without fear of reprisal. It also allows for interaction amongst individuals of similar beliefs or different ideologies, akin to a virtual town hall meeting, only without the risk of a brawl breaking out.

Now, anyone who reads my own blog regularly knows that I lean to the Right, but I strive to be nonpartisan. I have long ago come to the conclusion that Left, Right, or Middle every political ideology has it's share of both idiots and leaders of men. It's just a fact of life, just as no particular ideology is entirely correct or completely wrong. So, at the end of the day as long as we maintain an open mind there is always the opportunity to share our beliefs and occasionally make a convert, or become one to an extent ourselves. That is, as long as the opportunity to speak freely exists for all. This is one of the internets greatest strengths, free speech.

Or at least I thought so until recently. So let me tell you about the recent censorship I experienced personally, from a source who appears at least on the surface to stand for free speech and an open exchange of ideas.

Trust the Liberals to look a gift horse in the mouth....

At times it strikes me that some on the Left will never truly be happy until all of us are equal in their eyes, equally poor, equally as dependent on government, and equally educated at whatever level they deem sufficient for us common folk. Most importantly they appear to find distasteful the very idea that any individual through hard work, personal risk, and diligence might be in a position to provide a better life for themselves and their family.

Case in point, Alberta MLA and Liberal Education Critic Kent Hehr has presented a motion that would see the elimination of all government funding to private schools in Alberta.

“There is a place for private schools in Alberta, I just don’t think the government should be funding them,” says Hehr. “Government money should be allocated to government institutions, like public schools. We could channel millions to our public education system if we stopped designating dollars to private schools.”

“Public dollars continue to go into the wrong pockets and it needs to stop. By eliminating private school funding we ensure taxpayers dollars land where they are needed, our public education system,” says Hehr.

Now while the above makes for a great sound bite and fits well into the Liberal parties portrayal of themselves as the only party that truly cares about people, it overlooks a couple of pertinent facts.

One can only wonder where it will all lead....

Over the years as I have watched the world go by it has become more apparent on a daily basis that the manner in which our democracy works is at times it's own worse enemy. Although from an early age we are taught that the different levels of government exist to serve the people, unfortunately in practice it seldom works as originally intended. In reality, many basic human traits make the practical application of good government far more difficult to implement than it appears on paper. Greed, lust for power, ignorance, prejudices, and people's general inability to understand that every action has a consequence, all play a role in making perfect government only a dream that will never be achieved.

Those that "serve us" in government rely solely on the electorate process to maintain their seats of power. So our politicians have learnt well that the people's loyalty can be bought with a few baubles and trinkets. Every election brings more promises of what the electorate can expect "in payment" from each of the political candidates if they are elected. What we generally see is a bidding war for votes with every party pulling out the cheque book and removing all stops in their zeal to promise the voter more than their opponent can. The problem is compounded as the demands of the electorate and the promises of those running for office increase with each election and every generation of voters. Now on first glance, one may wonder if this is such a bad thing, after all it is taxpayers money intended to be spent for the common good and the betterment of society as a whole.

This boy is definitely a "chip off the old block"

As the Federal Liberals go through yet another leadership race in the hopes of finding someone to lead the chosen people out of the wilderness, I can't help but marvel at the desperation in their ranks.

Although one has to ask, why would we expect this race to be any different from ones of the past. In the last decade the Liberal party has certainly had some interesting potential leaders, looking back to 2006 they also produced a bumper crop of poor choices for party leadership.

Michael Ignatieff
Half the battle was teaching voters how to pronounce his last name (honestly, I never mastered it), but that was the least of the challenges facing the Liberal party with Michael. Here was a Canadian who moved to the United States, lived there for almost 30 years, crooned publicly about the wonders of living as a pseudo American, and then when he thought he could take the Liberal leadership and possibly become Prime Minister he parachuted back into Canada. Well as we all know he did become the leader of the Liberal party and went onto lead the party into a federal election that resulted in the Liberals almost being wiped of the face of the Canadian political map. Upon being soundly defeated, old Michael stepped down and now splits his time between teaching positions in Toronto and Harvard. Alas, a true Canadian patriot.

Bob Rae
Need I say more? As the former NDP Premier of Ontario, Bob was instrumental in leading that once successful province down the road of financial ruin. Bob made even America's President Obama look like a spendthrift when it came to holding the reins on the public purse. Once he had left a trail of fiscal destruction in his path he moved on and set his sights on the top job in Canada, Prime Minister. Now old Bob knows an opportunity when he sees one, and when the Liberals needed a leader he was not about to let the fact he was a card carrying member of the NDP party stand in his way, he simply jumped ship. However, what he couldn't leave behind was his record as Premier in Ontario, much to his dislike that stench clung to him and he was beat out by Michael Ignatieff. However, after Michael moved on Bob did get the job of acting party leader for the Liberals and the good news is that he could hold most of his caucus meetings in a broom closet.

Now , back to the present leadership race. The shining star in this one as far as most Liberals are concerned is Justin Trudeau, the son of former Canadian Prime Minister (and international playboy), Pierre Trudeau. Now amongst many Liberals, Pierre is held in the same reverence as say John Kennedy is with American Democrats. However most of us remember him better as the guy that flipped Canadians "the bird" from the back of the train on his way out of town or as the Prime Minister who coined the phrase "fuddle duddle". Someone who as a nation we could all be proud of, mind you I understand he did date Barbara Streisand.

So can we expect more from junior?

Spend , spend , spend, where does it end , end , end?

I just read an interesting article on President Obama's recent re-election and particularly his spending habits during his first term. Now while I have for a very long time been critical of the reckless spending of most levels of government (on a global basis, including our own) the numbers quoted in this particular article opened my eyes to the fact the monetary crisis is far worse than I believed.

Here's a couple of facts to roll around in your head, if they don't cause you some sleepless nights you obviously can not comprehend the shear size of money involved, or you are simply naive. Sorry, but if there is a third possible reason for lack of panic I really want you to tell me, but trust me on this one I will need some convincing.

-Every hour - as in every 60 minutes of every day of every week of Obama's first term in office his administration was spending $188 million of money that the United States did not and does not have. This spending spree continued 24/7 for his entire term! Even worse, is the fact that this is just federal spending and does not include municipal or state. I fear if I combined all levels of government spending during that period and published the resulting number many individuals would emulate lemmings and head for the cliff. Who knows, upon seeing that number I might join them myself!

- If second term Obama performs in the same manner the American federal debt will hit $20 trillion by 2014, a figure so immense that there is not enough liquid cash in the world to bail it out. Think about that statement for a moment, "not enough liquid cash in the world".

The above numbers are staggering, but in all fairness Obama can't be blamed entirely for this fiscal disaster. When he walked into the Oval Office the debt was sitting at $10 trillion, his predecessor George W. had taken it up by $4 trillion during his two terms. So the nation is suffering from two wild spenders in a row. Unfortunately President Obama inherited a runaway train and rather than applying the brakes he opened the throttle. In fact, by 2014 he will have personally created as much federal debt as every preceding president combined over a period of over 225 years (including George W). It's ironic that George W and Obama, (two individuals who couldn't be more different in some ways) over the span of 14 years created $14 trillion in federal debt, approximately 70% of what will be owed by the nation in total by 2014.

Now for those Democrats or Republicans that live by the belief that their man in office can do no wrong, if you truly can not see the problem here it is too late to save you. You have already drank the "koolaid" as they say.

I wonder how history will best remember President Obama, as the first African-American to be elected President, as the President that introduced a federal health bill, or as the individual who destroyed America's financial future. Only time will tell.

Stormy Seas Ahead?

Over the last 6 months there has been tremendous focus on the Presidential election and what it's outcome would be. Well it's old news now and President Obama has another four years to fix Americas economy or continue it on the road to no return. Like most individuals I hope it is the former , not the latter, but unfortunately the man doesn't have a great track record up to this point.

My personal feeling is that Mitt Romney was a more qualified individual and better suited for the task ahead, simply based on his past experience. President Obama walked into the Oval Office with no real life business experience, Mitt Romney on the other hand has a lifetime of practical experience  running a large corporation. Now I for one am not against a bit of  "on the job" training in most instances, but I believe that most sensible people would agree that the Whitehouse is not the ideal  place for it.

However, no point in dwelling on what might have been, the fact is that Mr Obama is back for another term, like it or not. So am I just being negative towards the guy, well lets see how others view his re-election

- The stock market took a sharp downturn Wednesday, just a day after President Obama’s re-election. The Dow Jones average dropped about 313 points, or 2.4 percent, as if my writing this it is down 4%!

- How about job creation, or maybe the real indicator is job loss. So how many Americans lost jobs since the President secured another term. Here's a short list of layoffs that have taken place on or since November 6 in about a 3 day period .

Bristol-Myers – 480 Sales Related Jobs in NJ

ING – 2,350

Husqvarna AB – 600

U.S. Cellular – 980

Energizer Holdings Inc – 1500

Ameridose LLC – up to 650 Layoffs

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne – 100

Boeing – 30% of Executives at Defense Unit

Hawker Beechcraft - 240

Vesta Wind Systems - 3000

Now trust me when I say the above list is but a small portion of layoff announcements I was able to find in short order, yet in just the 3 days after the election the list totals over 10,000. What confuses me is the fact that Mr Obama claimed during his campaign that he was the one that could create good paying manufacturing jobs. Seems he forgot to mention his abilities to the companies listed above. My personal belief is that the timing of these layoffs was not coincidental, they occurred right after Mr Obama's election for a very good reason. I suspect many of these companies held off on downsizing hoping beyond hope that the Oval Office would have a new tenant and Obamacare would be repealed. No such luck, so the pink slips went out. Now the count of those seeking government entitlements has increased by over 10,000, throw in the 18,500 jobs the unions killed over at Hostess and there are nearly 30,000 jobs down the pipe simply due to greed and stupidity (on both Obama's and the Unions part). Now the fact is that some of these jobs may come back if business feels a bit of confidence, but some are lost forever (i.e Hostess). But even as jobs come back Mr Obama has already laid the groundwork for a future workforce of part-time rather than full time jobs, he did this through Obamacare which defines a full-time position (for the purposes of health insurance coverage) as 30 hours per week! Think about it, the easiest way for employers to avoid the onerous costs of Obamacare is simply to hire employees on a 25 - 28 hour workweek (just shy of 30 to be safe), so Obama has just reduced the standard 40 hour workweek to 28 in his wisdom. His logic behind this is brilliant, any time the government quotes new job figures all of these part-time positions will fall into them and instead of having two (40 hour workweek positions), and assuming that employers commit to the same umber of work hours (80 per week) they will now count three (25-28 hour workweek positions) and an increase in the number of new positions of 50%! So the government looks like a hero, except of course to the guy that is short 12 hours a week on his paycheck.

Unfortunately while it seems that Mr Obama has the support of a good deal of the population who depend on government entitlements, he is not inspiring any confidence amongst the companies that create the jobs the American population is hoping for. Oops, I hope that statement didn't cause too much grief amongst those of you who are under the delusion that the President or any other politician can actually create meaningful employment, sorry I burst your bubble. All any politician can do is foster an economic and political climate that ensures that employers are confident enough to invest in creating jobs. Unfortunately, continuously bad mouthing the financially successful, and beating the drum of tax increases and additional employer costs (Obamacare) has exactly the opposite affect. I guess that's what one should expect when you have a community organizer in the Oval Office, rather than a successful businessman. Obama's roots as a community organizer are showing through, when he needs more money he just assumes the government will provide it.

The sky is not falling Chicken Little

In the days since the Presidential election the media has been rife with opinions on how and why Mitt Romney took second place. Commentators, talk show hosts, or political pundits all have a wealth of suggestions about what changes the Republican party must undertake to win the Whitehouse in 2016. Most of these suggestions tend to cover the same ground, the  Republicans need to get in touch with and win over the Latino vote,  single woman, African Americans, soften their stance on different issues, or learn to sling mud like their opponents.

This election is lost and there's no changing that fact. However, what a lot of this opinionated discussion overlooks is the fact that what America really needs at this moment in history and for the foreseeable future is a President who has truly bought into and believes in a Conservative platform , who places the interests of the nation before their own or their parties. An individual that fully understands the precarious financial position the nation is in and the dire consequences that it is facing due to a succession of free spending fiscally irresponsible federal governments. What America definitely does not need is a another leader who caters to the whims of every ethnic or special interest group as a means of winning their support and the Oval Office. Unfortunately for the last four years and the next four, America has a guy in the Oval Office with feet of clay whose only goal in life is retaining power long enough to see his personal agenda reshape the nation. As a means to do so Mr Obama will promise and do whatever it takes, something he learnt well in the Chicago political arena. He and his party proved themselves the masters of falsehoods and mudslinging over the last six months.And please don't get me started on his promise of open government and transparency..... sheesh. America has never experienced a more clandestine administration, two great examples are the "Fast and Furious" and "Benghazi" fiascoes. These guys would shame even Tricky Dick Nixon

Was Mitt Romney the man America truly needed in the Oval Office?  Probably not, but on the flip side he was a lot closer than the one they have.

Does such an individual exist and if they do is there even a remote chance they would survive the primaries or have even the faintest hope of becoming President? The primaries would certainly be a challenge as the upper echelon of the GOP are not exactly risk takers when it comes to their candidates and certainly respect a pecking order. What the GOP needs is another Ronald Reagan type individual, someone that stands on his principals knowing full well that in doing so he is bucking the "old boys club" in the party. However the electorate might very well reject just such an individual on the basis they simply have become very used to the idea that government provides everything and nurse maids them from cradle to grave. Americans might not be prepared for or even desire a more self-reliant existence, many of them might be very comfortable in their nanny state stupor.

My personal opinion is that the Right must go back to it's conservative values, and I am not referring to issues surrounding abortion or same sex marriage, these are societal and religious ones, not governmental ones. The conservative values I speak of are those of smaller government and sound fiscal management. The country is heading over the fiscal cliff, yes they may postpone it this year, but with current spending practices it is inevitable. Until Washington begins practicing sound fiscal management, and more importantly until the Oval Office has an individual in it that understands their job is to lead the country, not kowtow to every group that promises support, the country will remain on the same Greece like path. A true leader understands that at times they must make unpopular decisions, ones that look further forward than the next election. A true leader does not check the direction the political wind is blowing every morning upon getting out of bed (frankly I am surprised Obama has not had a weather vane installed atop the Whitehouse).

What the GOP does not need under any circumstances is a candidate that will cater to passing whims of this group or that group in hopes of currying favour and winning the Oval Office.  The GOP can not "outbid" the Democrats with promises, nor should they. After all, if they play that game we will simple see two versions of the Democrat party running for the Presidency in 2016 and the ultimate loser will be the American citizenry and the rest of the world.

On a last note, the good news is that Obama is now in his Legacy term of office, more to the point is the fact that after the first two years or so he will effectively become a lame duck President as Democrat politicians try to put some distance between themselves and him prior to the next election. So hopefully he won't cause much havoc or do too much more harm to the nation and the world.

No relief for democracy on the horizon.....

Well, after spending most of the evening watching the Fox News network coverage of the Presidential election, I am ready for bed. Now barring a miracle akin to parting the Red Sea it would appear that I will awake to four more years of watching the destruction of America under the hand of President Obama.

However, the reality is that as a Canadian I am by default simply a third part observer. Unfortunately, even as a third party observer it saddens me greatly to see the once shining example of democracy, liberty, and free enterprise, so readily and willingly give up the very things that their forefathers shed blood to win. Instead, as a nation it appears they prefer the embrace of an all powerful centralist government that dictates every aspect of its citizens lives, much like the one they fought to escape from over two centuries ago. The vast portion of Americas citizenry have sold their freedom for a handful of beads, much like Native Americans traded away Manhattan in the 17th century. Only the currency has changed, in today's world the beads have been replaced with government entitlement programs.

While it would be easy to simply watch our southern neighbours readily chase after socialism,  a path that for many years it appeared that Canada was all to eager to embrace ourselves, the repercussions of where Americas path is leading are frightening. Unfortunately the failure or success of America has a ripple affect on all nations to some degree, and to Canada in particular. America bears a responsibility to the rest of the world as for so many years they have intentionally entrenched themselves in the very economic fabric of the world economy. They are now to a great degree a large portion of the very foundation of world economics, think about it, is there anymore recognized or accepted currency worldwide than the American greenback? Is there any single nation with greater power to consume? America's credit rating is downgraded and world stock markets fall.

Just a mere 10 years ago if I had suggested that between our two countries that Canada had the more fiscally responsible Federal government, I suspect that someone would have had me committed. Now in the present, I would simply be stating a fact. How has so much changed in just one decade?

I suspect it lies with the fact that after a flirtation with a somewhat socialist agenda we came to the conclusion that it simply was a fantasy that could not exist in the real world if we wanted a prosperous future. A future that would provide the greatest opportunities for the most people. This is something that I imagine America too will discover with time, lets just all hope that hey don't wait too long.

In the meantime if the past four years is any indication of what the next four will hold, President Obama will likely continue to attempt to spend America into prosperity and out of debt. Who knows, maybe over the next four years the man will actually propose a budget that will garner a single vote from members of his own party in the Senate ( unlike his 2011 budget that was voted down by Senate Democrats 97-0). At least that would be a start, a weak one but a start none the less.