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.

The NDP, Stupid is as Stupid does

It's no secret that I am not a big supporter of the Leftwing politics of the NDP, but to be fair I do realize that they have a place in the Canadian political landscape. Any political system to be truly balanced  needs to represent both sides of the political spectrum. Besides, in present Canadian Federal politics there is so little difference between the Liberal party and the NDP that even each parties supporters are confused. So if nothing else this tends to keep the Left in disarray, generally a good condition for them to be in as far as most sensible individuals are concerned.

Usually I am not the least bit surprised by any of  the socialist nonsense that the NDP generates on a regular basis, and I long ago stopped scratching my head trying to understand their logic. Having said that, recently the NDP surprised even me.

It's seems that last week the Federal Government announced that they had managed to cut their budgeted spending over the course of the fiscal year by $8 billion. Now generally anytime a government spends less than planned it is a cause for celebration, particularly due to the fact that it occurs on about the same frequency as  a pass by from Haley's Comet. Unfortunately this impudence on the part of the Feds did not sit well with the NDP who naturally felt something was amiss. After all an unspent taxpayer dollar is a wasted dollar in the mind of the NDP,  worse yet is the potential loss of an entitlement program, even one that serves no rational purpose. Never mind the fact that every dollar our Federal government spends is a borrowed dollar that adds to our ever growing Federal debt. So exactly how did the Federal NDP party view this "travesty"?

"It speaks to the lack of transparency and really the fundamental lack of accountability with Canadians," NDP finance critic Peggy Nash stated to the Globe and Mail. "People need to know what programs are being cut, what services are being undermined." 

Too funny....Let me get this straight, the programs that Peggy believes are being cut and the services that she suggests are being undermined are of such great importance that unless the government notifies us what they are, we might miss the entire event?  Really, is this the best she and her party have to offer Canadians? Peggy must be very familiar with the story of Chicken Little!

The ironic thing is that the Feds actually released Public Accounts' documentation last week that clearly indicated where the bulk of the savings were achieved. 

- $6.3 billion was originally budgeted for infrastructure and. $4.5 billion was actually spent.

- Ottawa spent almost $2 billion less than expected on Employment Insurance benefits.

-  The B.C. Provincial government returned $1.6 billion to the Feds after opting out of the HST.

As the official opposition the role of the NDP is to keep tabs on the government, but use some common sense please, there are plenty of places to find fault with our current government, you don't need to create issues where they don't exist. Speaking strictly from the viewpoint of a taxpayer, anytime the government shaves 25% off of a projected annual deficit of  $32 Billion, I am a happy camper. Too bad for the NDP that they don't see this as a good thing as well.

On a last note for my American friends who are reading this,  yes the dollar amounts cited above are correct. I can only imagine knowing this makes you feel even worse about your own Federal governments fiscal irresponsibility that is leading you over a fiscal cliff. You have my sympathy and I hope that Tuesday brings you a positive change in the Oval Office.

Stoking the fires of resentment

With the first snow on the ground I suspect I will be a bit more housebound and spending more time "putting my thoughts to paper", as they say. So here I go, for those of you who have any interest read on.

With the race for the Oval Office in its last days we can expect to see the candidates talking themselves up and talking their opponents down. Now to be very honest I have no problem with a political candidate preying on the weaknesses and and character flaws of their opponents. After all, as Harry S Truman would say, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen".

However where I have a problem is when candidates intentionally stretch the truth, creatively edit the facts, or simply assume that a false message delivered in the right tone will fool us simpletons into believing what they want us to believe. Yes, I know that it is common practice, but the reality is that at times it is taken to the point that it creates undeserved animosity amongst the electorate toward a particular candidate. Animosity to the point where a candidate's character or personal integrity are called into question based on nothing more than "political spin".

You tell them Harry

One case in point is the efforts that have been made by Democrat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid to besmirch Mitt Romney's character, above and beyond the point of common decency.

Really Harry is this the best you can do? " I heard Mitt Romney has not paid tax in the last ten years". The follow up from Harry was even better "It falls upon Governor Romney to prove otherwise by releasing his tax returns"

Frankly if I was a resident of Nevada I would be ashamed to admit that Mr Reid represented my state. This is the same guy that a quick search on the Internet will find hundreds of articles detailing how Harry has somehow managed to increase his net worth from a "paltry" $1.2 Million to the tune of about $11 million during the time he has been a public servant (public servants must be paid very well in Nevada). Interesting as well is the fact that while  Harry was claiming that Mr Romney could  disprove the allegations of tax evasion simply by making his tax returns public, good old Harry has refused all requests to make his own tax records open to the public. I guess Harry doesn't buy into the old adage, "what's good for the goose, is what's good for the gander".

What's really troubling about this is that it is the lowest form of mud slinging and was allowed under the watchful eyes of the President. All Mr Obama had to do to put an end to it was make one phone call. It speaks volumes about the man that he allowed this (and many would say "encouraged "it ) under his watch. I imagine what we have witnessed here is some of the tricks that Mr Obama learned during his tenure in Chicago style politics, not very Presidential to say the least. But on the other hand , pretty much what one would expect from a man who refers to his opponent as a "bulls^^^ter" in a televised interview. Just the kind of guy a nation wants on the world stage.