No, it isn't.

Let's backtrack to the Clinton presidency. America's first black president (although that's not reality to begin with) decided more minorities should have home ownership.

The government interceded in the private loan marketing process and threatened banks if they didn't lower their standards for buyers who wanted to secure home loans. Sound business practices went right out the window as thousands upon thousands of mortgages were issued to people (especially minorities) who didn't come close to having the means of meeting their monthly mortgage payment.

Of course, what followed is the housing crisis that even to this day is a noose around our neck costing taxpayers billions. For example, if you have a part-time job that pays minimum wage, does that give one the means to make a monthly payment on a $150,000 home? All in the name of how wonderful it would be to have poor people own a home.

Let's fast forward. The above scenario epitomizes what our country is all about as we speak, especially looking at our national election of Nov. 6 giving another four years to a president who failed us completely during his first four years.

I submit that liberalism, which has consumed our American politics of today, is nothing but pie-in-the-sky ideology completely devoid of any kind of realism.

The biggest issue on voters' minds supposedly was the economy, which is worse now than in 2009 when Obama took office, yet voters settled for the status quo voting against Romney who had a proven record of creating jobs needed to improve our economy. Let's be realistic. A majority of voters in this country are unrealistic.

How realistic is it to tax the rich even more when the rich pay the majority of our taxes as is? Will that realistically pay down our national debt or create more jobs? Of course not. As liberals play class warfare, the rich will hunker down to protect their wealth. It is unrealistic to expect the rich to solve our debt problem with higher taxes.

Voters decided Obama was more qualified when it comes to national security than Romney. What? Obama let four Americans die in Libya when Benghazi was attacked by terrorists. There were half a dozen ways to provide help to those great Americans, but the White House gave orders to everybody to stand down. Media completely ignored a humongous scandal that would have cost any Republican the presidency. No way whatsoever is Obama's appeasement of terrorists a realistic way of providing for our national security.

I could name a whole bunch of issues that clearly illustrate liberalism is diametrically opposed to realism.

Let me give one final thought on that score. As one radio talk show host with 50 million listeners put it, the election was all about Santa Claus. Obama is giving away the farm (America in this case) promising to continue giving free "stuff" to every living breathing human being. That's probably the biggest reason he gets another four years. Voters were bought and paid for with your tax money and mine.

We saw on Nov. 6 more people than not unrealistically believing in Santa Claus rather than the work ethic that traditionally made America the greatest nation ever on planet earth.

Let's be real. Another four years like the past four and there will come a day when the well runs dry (call it the gravy train) just as it has in Greece.

Les Knoll

Victoria and Gilbert, Ariz.