The Light: Hillary

“You’re either with us, or you’re not,” so says Dr. Wilmer Leon, a radio talk show host, about Obama and the African American community, in this article by Caroline May in The Daily Caller, “African-American Leaders And Intellectuals Express Dissatisfaction With President Obama.”

Oopsie daisy – sounds like another faction unhappy with Dear Leader. The African American community has been one of the most stalwart groups in supporting Obama in the polls, so this could be a troubling change for Obama. Those days may be coming to an end, at least for some in the community, and with good reason:

[snip]Since Obama has taken office African Americans have faced a number of disproportionate “highs,” few of them good, such as an exceptionally high unemployment rate, a high foreclosure rate, and a high number of African-American political figures deprived of the president’s support or dismissed from his administration (such as former White House social secretary Desiree Rogers, former Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod, South Carolina Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alvin Greene, former green energy czar Van Jones, Democratic Illinois Sen. Roland Burris, Democratic New York Gov. David Patterson, would-be Democratic New York Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., and Democratic Reps. Charlie Rangel of New York, Maxine Waters of California and Kendrick Meek of Florida).

Dr. Cornel West, professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, is one African-American leader who has been far from pleased with Obama’s neglect of African-American issues. West told The Daily Caller that he has been extremely frustrated with the president’s relative disinterest in civil rights
issues.

“He can take the black base for granted because he assumes we have nowhere else to go,” West said. “But we just won’t put up with it. He has got to respect us.”

West is not the only black leader who feels this way. Behind the scenes, West says, many African-American leaders are not happy with Obama’s failure to address issues important to the black community, especially considering the support the community gave the president during the 2008 election. But, according to West, many of those dissatisfied leaders are hesitant to step forward.

“There hasn’t been a lot of talk about it because I think most black spokespeople, at the moment, are scared of the Obama machine,” West said. “A lot of us are trying to put the pressure on him without aiding and abetting the right wing.” [snip]

I just have to say, as someone living in SC, surely no one really expects Obama or ANY Democrat, for that matter, to support Alvin Greene. For heavens sake, the man was just indicted on two counts of showing pornography a couple of weeks ago. He was kicked out of a SC restaurant on Tuesday. Originally, it was a campaign stop – until those pesky little indictments came down. The organizers canceled the meeting, but Greene came anyway. He, and a companion, were, um, ushered out of the establishment. Heck, even I don’t blame Obama, or ANYONE, for steering clear of this guy. Just saying.

As for my former professor, Cornell West, it is a bit surprising that he, and others, like Dr. Leon, are speaking out already. Now, West was a Hillary supporter, just to be clear, prior to Obama’s being given the nomination by the rule-breaking DNC. But that does not mean he wouldn’t have some real expectations about what Obama might do for the African American community in this country.

Shelby Steele from the Hoover Institute, has some thoughts on the matter, as well:

[snip] Steele pointed out that Obama does not owe the black community as much as they believe he does due to the fact that whites were the ones who elected him — specifically by throwing their support to him during the Iowa caucus. Initially, the African-American community was significantly supporting Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

“Once blacks began to see that whites were with Obama they didn’t want to be left standing at the station so they jumped on board,” he said. “They were not his base anyway. So he is not confused about that. That said, blacks will continue to vote for him. They vote for every Democratic candidate at a rate of 90% so Obama can absolutely take them for granted and will.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

This raises a couple of points for me. One, not only are whites the ones who elected Obama, they are also the ones who REARED Obama. It is remarkable to me how completely and fully both Obama’s mother and grandmother have been wiped from history. They are the ones responsible for rearing him. That is to say, he was not raised in a traditional African American community. To pretend otherwise has been one of the most glaring manipulations of the entire election.

Two, yes, many in the African American community were breaking for Hillary Clinton. My first rally in Charleston was easily, easily 1/2 African American, if not more. But, when Obama and his campaign played the race card against Hillary Clinton in SC, employing that turncoat, backstabber, Jim Clyburn, that many in the African-American community turned away from her. She, along with her husband, were characterized as racists by Obama, and for some reason I still cannot fathom, the community, the COUNTRY, bought that, despite their long, long history standing in stark defiance of that claim. But they believed Obama.

Instead of a hard-working Hillary Clinton in the White House, who would indeed have worked on behalf of the African American community, and ALL Americans, who would not be taking vacation after vacation after vacation while the Home sales worsen, more jobs are lost, and the DOW tanks, they got Obama. Even if he IS vacationing in the “historically black section of Martha’s Vineyard” at a gazillion dollars a week, I might add.

Still – it begs the question: just what did the African American community think Obama was going to do specifically for them? Oh, wait – I remember:

Wow. That is still hard to believe, that anyone thought that would happen if Obama became president. But someone clearly spread that word – she was not the only one who seemed to think that was the case.

Anyway, I think Leon sums the issue up perfectly:

[snip] “My take on that is, you have to treat him the same way you would treat any other president,” Leon explained. “Especially since he is not giving you any reason to treat him otherwise. And it is going to be very difficult, whether it is 2012 and he is not reelected or it is 2016 and we’re dealing with a new president — who most likely will not be African American — it is going to be very difficult to hold that new president to a different standard.” [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

There’s a concept – treat Obama like every other president. That would be a change, wouldn’t it? Holding Obama to all the same standards as every other president or presidential candidate? What a novel idea. It’s too late for the latter now, but 2012 is not that far away (it just feels like it is).

I guess we will just see how this continues to play out, and if the dissatisfaction with Obama trickles throughout the African American community, not just the leaders and intellectuals. Time will tell…

Two prominent members of the House of Representatives, Charlie Rangel, and Maxine Waters, are both facing a number of Ethics charges. Both are fighting these charges, and Rep. Waters has also intimated these charges are based on race, not any wrong doing on her part. Yeah. Okay.

I am sure it will not surprise you to learn that when the shoe was on the other foot, a Republican being charged with Ethics charges some time ago, Waters was all too ready to pile on.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, as Bill Hemmer discusses with NPR and Fox contributor, Juan Williams in this clip below:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

So, Rep. Rangel made a 37-minute long speech about his mistreatment by the House. Oh, woe is me, right Charlie? I thought Stephen Hayes made some good points about Rep. Rangel in the discussion below near the end:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Sorry, Charlie, many of us are not buying what you are selling, especially in terms of that half a million…

Well, I reckon we’ll see soon enough what will come of these two trials, though Rangel is right – don’t leave him swinging in the wind. Put him on trial now, or expel him. Go for it. Any day now.

As for the race card Rep. Waters has used, and will be using, I think we all knew that was going to happen during one (or both) of these trials. So, when I happened to catch the following Larry Wilmore segment on Rangel and Waters with on The Daily Show, I was laughing my, um, head, off:

Hilarious, right? I thought so. The race card has been maxed out. Oh, if only that was true…

Consider this an Open Thread. Discuss this or anything else going on.

I’ve always been amazed at how the Democrats cannibalize their former heroes. Every Democrat who has failed in their bids for office or re-election for major office have been repudiated, ridiculed, and forbidden to run again for the races they lost. John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern… all were devoured by their own kind, became objects of ridicule after they failed to win election or re-election. The ridicule wasn’t just “oh dang, he lost.” It was more like “What a LOSER!!” They went for the jugular!

The Republicans don’t do that! That kind of repudiation didn’t happen to Bob Dole, GHW Bush, or Gerald Ford. Of course, the Republicans have the advantage of not losing nearly as many presidential elections. I guess that kind of skews things. Dubya still has plenty of supporters among Republicans, and thanks to Obama’s miserable presidency, even some Democrats nowadays think wistfully back to the good old days of The Dub!

President Bill Clinton hasn’t been completely cannibalized, but many Democrats have tried to cut him off at the knees. I find that hard to understand. Bill Clinton was the only Democratic President since FDR to win and serve two full terms of office (the only other Democrats to do so were Woodrow Wilson, and the founder of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson). He presided over a period of unprecedented prosperity, turned the national deficit into a surplus, and managed to conduct military operations (as part of NATO) in Bosnia and Kosovo without loss of American lives. Despite his accomplishments, many Democrats, those of his own political party, hate the man! And they extend that hatred to his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome, or CDS, is how some of us refer to this bizarre hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Obama is President because the Democrats would have won in 2008 no matter who they nominated, and the leadership of the Democratic National Committee, in the delirious throes of CDS, decided amongst themselves that they didn’t want Hillary to win because they didn’t want the Clintons back in the White House. That’s why so many people blame Bill Clinton’s controversial impeachment for Hillary’s loss.

She was the best candidate in the field of aspirants, but the Clinton’s themselves often promoted the idea that they were “two (Presidents) for the price of one,.” starting with the campaign of 1992. Many people of both parties really disliked that notion for some reason. Perhaps it’s too much like royalty for their tastes, having a family in charge of the country instead of one leader. Maybe it’s just too much of a good thing.

It seems these Democrats, most of whom defended the Clintons in the 1990s, have bought into the Republican propaganda with the militant zeal of the newly converted. We expect it of Republicans, but it just seems weird coming from the those who are still Democrats. The vast right-wing conspiracy against the Clintons won, I guess.

Republicans started trying to take the Clintons down during Bill’s first election to the White House by calling him a draft dodger and Communist sympathizer. They pounced on accusations from women who claimed Bill had affairs with them, or worse. They tried to bring the Clintons down with endless investigations. They couldn’t find any legal wrongdoing by the Clintons, even after years of a Special (Republican) Prosecutor trying to pin the tail on the donkey.

They finally managed to corner Bill into denying, under oath, that he had “sexual relations” with Miss Blue Dress, sparking the national debate over whether oral sex performed by one individual on another constituted “sexual relations” when no intercourse occurred. Many agreed with Bill’s definition, others didn’t. But no other president has ever been forced to testify under oath about his sexual dalliances. If they had, the list of perjurers could be quite long, but Bill was the only one faced with it in the age of DNA testing. So far.

This fudging of the truth, when confronted on camera with evidence of marital infidelity, resulted in his being impeached (accused) on the charge of perjury by the House, but subsequently acquitted (found “not guilty”) by the Senate. How conveniently people overlook that acquittal.

Bill stood his ground, continued as President, and finished his second term. He even remained very popular, with high approval ratings to the end of his term of office.But because he had been impeached, he became anethema to many in the Democratic Party. His impeachment will be forever remembered by both dumbasses and selective-memory types, as “he was thrown out of office for getting a blowjob at his desk.”

Listening to some of these idiots, you’d think Bill so befouled the Oval Office that Dubya Bush had to have it sand-blasted before he’d set foot in it.

Meanwhile, during his travails and after, Hillary won much sympathy from many people, while others got very angry with her for staying with Bill. My own view is that it’s nobody’s business but the Clintons. But talk about class and character! How many of us, of either gender, could keep our chins up as well as she did when Bill’s sexcapades made headlines? I think there were a few news reports that she was furious, maybe even one report (true or not) that she threw something at him. Rumors abounded that the reason Bill strayed was because she was a lesbian, and other rumors that their sexual relationship was definitely over when the Monica story broke. I doubt any of those rumors and reports held much truth. She may have made him sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom for awhile, but I believe their marriage is based on love and devotion, and that they weathered the storm as well as any couple could, or better.

But these opinions carried over into Hillary’s political career, with some saying she had no chance of success because of Bill, or because she stayed with Bill, or just because they’ve always hated her for being too outspoken. So Bill was the albatross around Hillary’s neck as much as he was, as others have put it, her escalator to the Senate.

What I was hearing during the early part of the primaries, in 2007 and early 2008, was that Hillary didn’t stand a chance because of Bill. They just couldn’t imagine Bill keeping his nose clean, let alone keeping it out of her decision-making. Ironically, these are some of the same folks who used to joke about President Hillary being the one who was really in charge in the 1990s.

What my liberal friends kept saying was that they REALLY didn’t want to have Bill Clinton back in the White House. They offered a variety of reasons. Some have always hated Hillary for their own twisted reasons, or they are desperately ashamed of Bill because of his impeachment and all that it entails. Or perhaps they’re just jealous of him because they’ve never had a BJ themselves.

I see the Clintons as a Power Couple, a pair of equals who communicate well and share their opinions with each other openly. I suspect Hillary voiced her opinions to him when he was the POTUS, and I would imagine he is her closest counsel as well. Personally, I like the idea of getting a two-fer.

There’s no doubt Hillary has always been a power in her own right, a force to be reckoned with. Having been a successful high-profile attorney, after a brilliant university performance, she married an aspiring politician who became governor of Arkansas a few years after they married. She was First Lady of Arkansas for ten years, which put her into politics.

To detractors who say she wouldn’t be the powerhouse she is on the national political stage without riding Bill’s coattails, I would say that’s also true of all the (mostly male) politicians who got where they are by hitching their wagons to other (mostly male) politicians already in power. Or perhaps they were born into it. And they say America hates dynasties.

Bill may have made Hillary a star, but she helped make him what he was/is, and she shared with him the experience of being Arkansas’ First Couple for a decade. Did she rise to fame in politics because of him? Certainly. But the same is true of him. It’s definitely true that successful couples nurture each other, bring out the best in each other, and grow together. True, he held the offices, but it’s not like she was confined to the kitchen in an apron and pearls. She’s no Donna Reed. And definitely no Tammy Wynette!

So the questions remain, the speculation continues, and the opinions are all over the road. Did Bill’s notoriety keep Hillary from winning the nomination? Or will he eventually help propel her into the Oval Office? I hope for the latter. But she may have to have it sandblasted first.

It is amazing what comes out from under the rug once it has been pulled back. Recently, DOJ attorney, J. Christian Adams exposed the DOJ’s dismissal of blatant voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. It has been a staggering expose of what is going on inside the Justice Department, especially in terms of voter intimidation and the lackadaisical approach the DOJ is taking to protect our right to vote free of fear or threat of intimidation. The short answer is, they are not, certainly in terms of the New Black Panther Party.

My favorite part of the dismissal against the NBPP in Philadelphia? The guy carrying the nightstick outside a Philly polling place has been banned from carrying “deadly” weapons near polling places. Until 2012. You read that right. He can’t carry deadly weapons around a polling place in 2010, but he can when it’s time for Obama to run again. WHAT a surprise.

The Obama Justice Department has become the “Get Out of Jail Free” Department for the New Black Panther Party.

But another piece of dirt coming out from under this rug of DOJ whistle blowing is something about which a number of us knew for some time. The threats of intimidation and violence toward Hillary Clinton supporters during the 2008 Primaries. The constant refrain that Obama ran a better campaign than Clinton is absurd, unless you think threatening people, lying, and cheating is “running a better campaign.” Personally, I do not, especially from the party to which I gave my loyalty for decades. I dunno, I kinda have a thing against liars, cheats, and thugs – maybe it comes from my vocation. Ahem.

At long, long, last, some in the media are finally paying attention. The documentary filmmaker, Gigi Gaston, was on Fox and Friends recently, speaking out about the corruption associated with the 2008 Democratic Primaries. Her film, “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008″ is a critical piece of history regarding how Obama and the DNC colluded against Hillary Clinton and the 18 million of us who voted for her. Below is Ms. Gaston speaking out about what she found:

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

I was like Gaston, too. A lifelong Democrat, who believed in the Party and for what it stood. I believed that we really did care about one person, one vote, that we cared about the will of the people. I could not have been more wrong, which I now acknowledge, though it was a painful – check that – excruciatingly painful realization.

The worst part was seeing the level of organization behind Obama’s cheating and voter intimidation. And yes, it most definitely came from the top. There is no way on this green earth that what happened in Texas COULD happen without an organized, concerted effort. Others in states like Washington also spoke of the caucus fraud that occurred there, the busloads of people from out of state coming in to vote. There is zero way this could have happened without Obama’s knowledge or acquiescence. No way. That speaks volumes about him, though not news to many of us, I am sure.

And it speaks volumes about the DNC, which received plenty of evidence that this was going on. The Hillary Clinton Campaign also notified the DNC of irregularities occurring to benefit Obama. And what did the DNC do about it? Absolutely nothing. Well, actually, they did do something – they violated the will of the people, acted in the most unethical, immoral way, dismissing the votes of Americans, and stole votes from Clinton to give to Obama.

Many of you know I have recommended Ms. Gaston’s documentary before. It is staggering, maddening, and downright heartbreaking. I recommend this video to you again. It is well worth watching, so that we will be aware, forewarned is forearmed, and clearly, with this president, with this “Justice Department,” prepared is what we must be.

To get you started, here is Part 1:

One last thing: if you or someone you know, experienced caucus fraud during the 2008 Primary, please, please let the good folks at “We Will Not Be Silenced 2008” know about it. They are still working to get this information out there, to expose the massive level of fraud perpetrated to get Barack Obama into the White House.

How have we come to this place in this country so fast?

You may recall that there was quite the upset in SC during the recent primaries in which an unemployed man who did no campaigning, had no real policy platform, had no campaign website, and had no campaign funds, beat out his competitor, an elected official. By a lot, I might add. Greene won with 60% of the vote. Oh, yes.

My representative, Jim Clyburn, pitched a hissy fit, insisting that the Republicans were behind Mr. Greene’s candidacy and filing fee. He claimed voter fraud was responsible for the vote through faulty voting machines. The SC State Democrats tried to throw out the election results (who cares about those pesky votes anyway? We already know the Dems don’t after 2008.). They failed in their attempts, and now it seems Mr. Greene’s funds came from the US Government and the State of South Carolina:

[snip] State law enforcement officials wrapped up an investigation of Greene’s finances after questions were raised about how he could qualify for indigent defense and afford to pay more than $10,000 to seek the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

Greene’s surprise June 8 upset victory over former circuit judge Vic Rawl initially caused many to speculate Republican operatives had secretly bankrolled Greene’s primary entry fee to sabotage the primary. Rawl’s defeat left Greene the Democratic challenger to U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

The source of Greene’s money is none other than the U.S. government and the S.C. state government, said SLED director Reggie Lloyd.

“That’s who bankrolled Greene’s entry fee for the primary,” said Lloyd, whose agency worked with 5th Circuit Solicitor Barney Giese in the investigation. “The U.S. government and the state of South Carolina funded his filing fee.” [snip]

Yes, all of the funds have been accounted for after a thorough investigation:

[snip] Last October, Greene received a $5,843 check from the U.S. Department of Defense in connection with his discharge from the military last year.

“That brought him up to more than $8,200,” Lloyd said.

Greene continued having a checking account balance of about that amount into March, when Greene received a federal income tax refund of $2,173 and a state tax refund of $932, Lloyd said.

“At that point, he had more than $11,400 in his account,” Lloyd said.

Greene was also getting a $1,100 monthly unemployment check, Lloyd said. Since Greene lived with his father and had few expenses other than “haircuts and groceries,” his unemployment check was another source of government income for the discharged veteran, Lloyd said.[snip]

In other words, you and I bankrolled Alvin Green’s filing fee. Hooray for us! Ahem.

I am so sure that a sincere apology to the State Republicans is forthcoming from Rep. Clyburn immediately. Ahahahahahaha. Just kidding.

Now that the funding from Greene’s filing fee has been identified, with no malfeasance on his part, I can now turn to one of his brilliant ideas for job creation. Since Obama has been so busy suing one of the 50 states instead of, oh, working to create jobs, for instance, perhaps Obama could use this idea from Alvin Greene.

And that idea for job creation is – are you sitting down? Crafting action figures of Greene. I am not kidding you. Seriously. He said this. Out loud:

[snip] “Another thing we can do for jobs is make toys of me, especially for the holidays,” Greene said in the article. “Little dolls. Me. Like maybe little action dolls. Me in an Army uniform, Air Force uniform, and me in my suit.”

“That’s something that would create jobs,” Greene continued. “So you see I think out of the box like that. It’s not something a typical person would bring up.” [snip]

Well, I have to give Greene that – this is NOT something a “typical” person would consider. Creating jobs by having action figures made of themselves. Yikes. Though I have to say, I am pretty surprised that Obama has not considered this as a “Works Project.” I mean, the man has already written two autobiographies, so clearly, he thinks pretty highly of himself (my recently departed mother said she couldn’t get through his first one – she thought it was incredibly boring. That from a woman who was a voracious reader and who always finished any book she was reading. Except Obama’s. Telling, that.) Having an “action figure” seems right up Obama’s alley. Just saying. I can’t believe Alvin Greene beat him to it.

That, friends, is the kind of “thinkificating” of the newest Democratic candidate for US Senate from the Palmetto State. Never mind that no one would BUY the damn things, so how the workers making them would be paid is still a mystery. But Mr. Greene has not exactly come off as a Mensa candidate in his interviews anyway (or on his new website). No matter how hard the State Democrats worked, no matter how many (false) allegations they levied, and no matter how much they tried to overturn the will of the people, even if they had no idea for whom they were voting (his name was listed first), Alvin Greene IS the Democratic candidate for US Senator from SC.

You just can’t make this stuff up.

I had a whole other post ready this morning, and then I saw my “illustrious” representative, Jim Clyburn on the tee-vee, talking about Alvin Greene, the certified Democratic Senate candidate from the state of South Carolina. I mentioned the other day that Rep. Clyburn was asserting that Alvin Greene is a plant. He expounds upon that assertion here, or should I say, “belief”:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Let me understand this. Clyburn didn’t SAY Greene was a Republican plant, just that these tactics are the EXACT same ones those mean Republicans use. And, the machines on which we vote here in SC are flawed, deeply flawed machines (with which I actually agree – many of the machines we use in this country are far too susceptible to hacking, a point made by Hand Count Paper Ballots Now). Of course, I am sure Clyburn is not complaining about his own win with those same machines. Just saying. Logic does not seem to be Clyburn’s strong suit as he jumps through one hoop after another trying to blame the Republicans yet trying to claim he isn’t blaming the Republicans. Yeah, okay, Jim.

Greene’s opponent, Vic Rawl, is also claiming there was a software issue, with a “systemic” problem. He has filed a protest against the results.

And then there was Clyburn’s take on the $50 billion additional funding Obama wants for “firefighters and teachers.” They might as well throw in there “and puppies and kittens and baby ducks!” in their attempts to manipulate the masses. Clyburn must have missed his House leader on Sunday saying there was a beaucoup amount of stimulus money left, and they should use THAT instead of adding to the deficit even more. Here is Majority Leader Hoyer, and Minority Leader Boehner, discussing this very issue:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Clyburn seems to be a bit out of the loop on that one. Oops. Must be his focus on those voting machines with which he seems to have had no problems before, and those evil Republicans who are engaging in nefarious deeds though he has no evidence to support that, except his own belief. Then again, this is the same man who believed the Clintons were racist with zero evidence to support that claim, either, so…

And now to another member of the House of Representatives. That would be NC Rep. Etheridge, he of the assault on the young colleges students on the streets of Washington. Etheridge has now issued an apology for his actions:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Huh. Well, I am glad he apologized. He sure needed to do so. Interesting that he keeps injecting “partisan politics” into the apology, though. I appreciate that he has encountered difficult situations before, but that did not seem to be the issue here. Despite the attempts by the one reporter to keep trying to give him excuses (camera in his face, tired, frustrated, etc., etc.), he would not excuse his behavior. My favorite was the reporter asking if the kids were basically Republican plants…Wow. How about those “partisan politics”?

And how about those faux reporters trying to give this guy an out anyway possible (someone stole your lunch money! You didn’t get enough sleep! Someone called you a stupid head!)? Holy cow. Why didn’t they just give him a script of their own making, for pete’s sake? Though to his credit, Etheridge did not take any of their ready-made excuses for his actions. He is right – it is inexcusable, and he is LUCKY that those kids didn’t file charges against him, though I suppose they still could.

I don’t know what is in the water in the House of Representatives, but it is some good stuff. Wow.

This is an update, but feel free to consider it an Open Thread, friends!

Recently, we have been focusing on our neighbors to the south as we discuss issues of illegal immigration. But while we have been focusing our energies down there, something has been going on up in Canada. And it’s big.

What is it, you may ask? Well, this: Soaring Costs Force Canada To Reassess Health Model. Oh, dear. Isn’t this the model the Democrats claimed worked so well, and was one to emulate here in the States? Wasn’t that the constant rallying cry to shove through Obamacare, whether we wanted it or not (and “or not” was what we wanted)? Were not those of us who tried to point out that there were very real problems with the Canadian system scoffed at, derided, and dismissed? Yes, yes we were.

Well, here’s the thing. Once again, we were right, as the article mentioned above demonstrates:

Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate “incentive fees” to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit — an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.

It’s likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

“There’s got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years,” said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.

“We can’t continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.

“At some stage we’re going to hit a breaking point.”

Huh. Here Canada is having problems, and their relationship with drug companies seems to be a tad bit different from the one Obama has. That is to say, they are actively fighting them, and fighting FOR their citizens, as opposed to Obama making a deal with Big Pharma from the Get-go which definitely was in Big Pharma’s favor. Yt, Canada is having problems:

MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE

In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.

Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all “medically necessary” hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.

Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.

But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.

“As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance … one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed,” said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.

Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including “means-testing” and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

“Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There’s going to be a finer look at what we’re paying for and, more importantly, what we’re getting for it,” he said.

Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.

Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.

SEVENTY PERCENT?? Well, I don’t have to be a Nobel Prize Winner in Economics to know THAT is not good (though these days, accomplishments have become passe – ahem):

“Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them,” Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.

The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.

In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.

Those sound like some possible options, but the outcome is unclear:

WINNERS AND LOSERS

The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.

“Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them,” said U of T’s Golden. “We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now.”

Scotia Capital’s Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. “(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it’s costing,” she said.

“If it’s absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?”

But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada’s national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.

“It’s an area that Canadians don’t want to see touched,” said TD’s Burleton. “Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist’s standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost.”

($1=$1.05 Canadian) (Reporting by Claire Sibonney; editing by Janet Guttsman and Peter Galloway)

Isn’t that the single biggest issue right now? Once a social program has begun, people do not want to give them up? Isn’t that what happened in Greece? Isn’t that a big problem for the US, too? We continue to expand and extend programs that have massive benefits we cannot afford. For example, did you know in some states Unemployment Benefits were extended to 99 weeks? I’m sure you can do the math, but that’s almost 2 years! Could that money not have been better used in a WPA sort of way? Or some other jobs-creation plan? There are claims that the EUC is actually expanding unemployment. That is, simply put, problematic.

But here’s the biggest problem with the whole Canadian health care crisis compared to ours – our financial numbers were fudged. Only after the bill became a law did the REAL numbers start coming out, and they are NOT good. Check out what former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin stated recently:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Yikes. Again, this is what happens when a bill is rammed through without people bothering to read it first, filling it full of pork and giveaways, and expecting more service for less money. That is to say, it was fraught with problems from the beginning. We can only hope that before it is fully implemented, there is a massive overhaul or repeal.

I am all for people having health care, but as I have said before, let’s be smart about it. Do our homework first. REALLY look at the numbers, get out of Obama’s Big Pharma deal, and do right by all of our citizens, not corporations or political parties. Let Canada be a warning to us.

By now, you have surely heard about Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s claim that he served in Vietnam:

“We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam,” Mr. Blumenthal said to the group gathered in Norwalk in March 2008. “And you exemplify it. Whatever we think about the war, whatever we call it — Afghanistan or Iraq — we owe our military men and women unconditional support.”

He is right that we need to support our military. But he is wrong about his own service. He received five deferments, and served in the Marine Reserves Stateside. Oops.

Over the years Blumenthal has embellished his record, something that caused concern for his old friend, Christopher Shays, as detailed in this article, “Shays Watched As Blumenthal’s Claims Evolved.” Apparently, this was over a period of years:

[snip] Mr. Shays, a 10-term incumbent who lost a re-election bid in November 2008, was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. He said he and Mr. Blumenthal began their careers in politics at roughly the same time and frequently addressed the same groups. He recalled that early on, Mr. Blumenthal spoke humbly about his military record, rarely discussing it and always making clear that he had held only desk jobs and had not been in the line of fire, though he remained proud of having been a Marine.

“But as time went on, he would mention it more often, and Vietnam would show up,” even when Mr. Blumenthal was not speaking to veterans, Mr. Shays said.

Eventually, Mr. Shays said, he began hearing Mr. Blumenthal refer to having served in Vietnam. Mr. Shays said he assumed, wrongly, that Mr. Blumenthal had perhaps been a military lawyer there. That alone, he said, was enough for him to have had the impulse to advise Blumenthal to be careful, that people could interpret his remarks as a claim to have seen action there.

“I felt inclined to go to him and say, ‘Dick, in your service in Vietnam, you weren’t on the firing line, you don’t want to overstate that,’ ” Mr. Shays said. “I just felt like he was raising the stakes in a way that was inconsistent with what he’d said in the past. I was actually going to go up and speak to him. And I wish I had.”

Oh dear. Well, CT AG Blumenthal finally addressed his claim:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Um, no one is impugning your character, AG Blumenthal. You did that all by your very own self when you flat out LIED and said you served in Vietnam, and by your dissembling now. I commend you for your decision to join the Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. So did my uncle, only he actually DID go to Vietnam. You dishonor those who actually did serve overseas, who lived through a horrendous war, from which many never recovered even though they made it back to these shores. And you blame OTHERS for pointing out what you yourself said, and what is on video?

Blumenthal’s opponent, Rob Simmons, actually did serve in Vietnam, and has this to say about such a claim:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

I think Mr. Simmons summed this up beautifully. And, the additional insult of Blumenthal appearing at a VFW post did not pass Simmons by. Blumnthal had no right to be there, and compounded his infraction by choosing that locale.

Why can Mr. Blumenthal not just admit he lied?? He DOES owe an apology to those who did serve in country. Moreover, he owes an apology for taking the victim stance he is claiming now. It is unbecoming of someone of his stature, and someone who is a Marine (once a Marine, always a Marine).

Perhaps Mr. Blumenthal has forgotten the motto, Semper fidelis:

Semper Fidelis distinguishes the Marine Corps bond from any other. It goes beyond teamwork – it is a brotherhood and lasts for life.

Latin for “always faithful,” Semper Fidelis became the Marine Corps motto in 1883. It guides Marines to remain faithful to the mission at hand, to each other, to the Corps and to country, no matter what.

Becoming a Marine is a transformation that cannot be undone, and Semper Fi reminds us of that. Once made, a Marine will forever live by the ethics and values of the Corps.

I think that says it all, don’t you?

That’s what is going on with our current elected officials. More and more incumbents are at the end of their terms, either through retirement (i.e., reading the writing on the wall), or through primary races going on now.

The latest to lose his seat is West Virginia representative Alan Mollohan, who has served for 28 years now. Anti-incumbent fever knocked him out, and may very well knock out Arlen Specter in about a week from now. Judging from the comments made by the winner in the WVA race, State Senator Mike Oliverio, Pelosi might watch her back, too:

On the campaign trail, Democratic nominee Mike Oliverio told voters that if they sent him to Washington he wouldn’t vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

And if this trend continues, Oliverio might not have to.

True that. And her losing the Speakers position could not happen to a more deserving person. She has been a disaster as Speaker, IMHO.

I tell you who else I would like to see get his pink slip is my representative James “The Clintons Are Racists” Clyburn. Not only did he stab the Clintons in the back repeatedly, but he just voted to give the House their pay raise, one of 14 to do so. I’m sorry, say, Whaaaa?? Our state is struggling mightily, as many are. Just today, our paper had an article discussing a possible property tax increase with decreased services because we have lost so much money in state funding. Our taxes went up last year, too, so we’re paying out more, getting less, and Clyburn wants a raise? Spare me.

And then there is this HUGE change that occurred Tuesday across the pond. PM Gordon Brown stepped down, and Conservative David Cameron stepped up. This ended 13 years of Labour as the ruling party in the UK.

Prime Minister Cameron had this to say about what type of government he would like to establish:

Well, that’s an intriguing start. Cameron has made the Opposition leader, Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. And this was Clegg’s response at the same press conference:

What is this concept of “working together”? I am unfamiliar with that whole idea not having seen it in action of late. This will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the UK. It would be refreshing if they are able to work as a coalition for the good of the country, and not just their respective parties. Time, as they say, will tell.

I think this says it all:

And Fannie Mae are not included in the big Financial Reform Bill? I am just curious since they helped create this economic situation in which we find ourselves, and have drained billions of dollars from the coffers over the past couple of years. Now they want MORE.

Oh, yeah – Freddie Mac is asking for TEN Billion Dollars. I reckon they just want to add it to their tab:

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe reports:

Government-backed mortgage giant Freddie Mac today asked for $10.6 billion in additional federal aid after reporting a loss of $8 billion in the first three months of this year.

To date Freddie Mac has been provided with around $51 billion in government funds. The new aid would bring the total assistance to the lender to over $61 billion.

Late last year the Treasury Department essentially agreed to provide a blank check to Freddie Mac and fellow government-backed lender Fannie Mae when the agency controversially removed the cap on federal support for the lenders.

A “blank check”? That is what Geithner wants to give Freddie and Fannie? I reckon that’s what happens when you have someone in charge who can’t even fill out his own tax forms properly (or, as I like to say, a Tax cheat). Some folks aren’t happy about it, though:

Republicans have blasted the administration for that move, as well as for not putting forth a plan to overhaul the government-sponsored enterprises. Thus far the administration’s only action has been the April 14 release of a series of questions for public comment on what to do with the mortgage giants.

In addition, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has acknowledged that the government expects to suffer “very substantial losses” on its investments in the lenders, with recent estimates ranging around a minimum of $85 billion.

Well, that’s just jake – “a minimum of $85 billion.” That’s our money, folks.

And let’s not leave Fannie Mae out of this mix. Oh, no – now Fannie is asking for some more cash, too, a cool for $8.4 Billion more?:

Fannie Mae requested another $8.4 billion from the federal government on Monday, saying that it expects its deficits to continue due to trends in the housing and financial markets.

The government-controlled mortgage giant said it lost $13.1 billion applicable to common shareholders in the first quarter of 2010. In the year-earlier quarter, Fannie suffered a $23.2 billion loss, but an accounting change makes comparing the year-over-year losses difficult.

Fannie’s request for more federal funds comes just four days after Fannie’s twin Freddie Mac also asked for a handout – to the tune of $10.6 billion – after posting an $8 billion quarterly loss.

In using Fannie (FNM, Fortune 500) and Freddie (FRE, Fortune 500) to prop up the mortgage market, the government in December lifted a $200 billion limit on their bailouts, essentially giving the twin housing lenders a blank check. Fannie Mae has already received $76.2 billion from the federal government and Freddie has gotten $50.7 billion.

“In the first quarter, we continued to serve as a leading source of liquidity to the mortgage market, and we made solid progress in our ongoing efforts to keep people in their homes,” Fannie Mae President and CEO Mike Williams, said in a press release.

Just to recap, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were largely responsible for bringing down the housing market (click HERE to read the rest of the article).

Yes, indeedy, so no doubt the new Finance Reform Bill begins with Fannie and Freddie, right? Oh, so wrong. Chris Dodd, who benefited mightily from Fannie Mae and Countrywide says, “Nooooooooo.” Dodd thinks it should wait:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said Friday that legislation to address troubled mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have to come after the current financial-reform effort.

Fannie and Freddie, which are known as “government-sponsored enterprises” (GSEs), have been a lightning rod for criticism of Democrats during the financial reform debate.

Dodd, who is chairman of the Banking Committee and has led the effort to craft a financial regulatory reform bill, said that there was not enough room in the legislation for rules covering Fannie and Freddie.

“Fannie and Freddie and the whole GSE system and it’s a great question and a legitimate one in desperate need of reform,” he said on CNBC. “But candidly there’s only so much I could only take on with this bill, and so that comes up. But not in this round. It’s in the next wave here we have to deal with GSEs.”

Well, sure, that makes sense, right? If you live in Upside-Down World, anyway (click HERE to read the rest). What a glaring, blatant, prop-up for those two entities that have done SO much to destroy the housing market. Unbelievable.

Frankly, I think this is a dereliction of duty on behalf of our Congress people. They refuse to hold accountable the very companies who wreaked havoc with our economy. They are in collusion with them. Even worse, they continue to throw money down the money hole.

I have used this video before, but it seems mighty timely given the requests of Fannie and Freddie (Onion video alert):

In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole?

If only this were a joke…