Obama Prepares for Crucial Health Care Speech

Photo of Barack Hussein Hoover Muhammad bin Obama rehearsing before speaking to a
joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Barack Hussein Hoover Muhammad bin Obama spent the majority of Tuesday and Wednesday this week preparing for his 28th scheduled speech on the issue of health care, to be broadcast Wednesday night, September 9, to a joint session of Congress.

The last time that a president addressed a joint session of Congress was consequent to the September 11 attacks on September 20, 2001.

While billed as a way to seize momentum as Congress returns to work after their summer hiatus (during which the stock market rocketed higher), officials at the major networks, scrambling to accommodate The Messiah's fifth major prime-time address in less than eight months as president, are suggesting that Obama simply accede to production of his own reality show. Insiders suggest that initial plans for "The Obamas" will be modeled on one of the original reality shows, "The Osbournes," which gave an insider's view of the home life of heavy metal artist and bat gourmand Ozzy Osbourne.

"We think that there will be a lot of similarities, which works for us," said an unnamed source at ABC, which recently ran a pre-recorded special plugging Obama's health-care socialization scheme. "For instance, it is well-known that Ozzy did a lot of drugs - so there's that angle. I mean, the health care angle... uhhhh, that similarity with Barack. And then of course, we expect there to be family dynamics issues, the whole 'strong woman really runs the house' theme, and the whole angle of there being a lot of indecipherable communication. Yeah, a lot of pointless rambling and people scratching their heads and asking, 'What the devil is he talking about?' - more than MTV had with Ozzy Osbourne."

Earlier in the day, Barack Hussein Hoover Muhammad bin Obama had devoted several hours to speech preparation.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs noted, "The President has been focusing more on the greater principles than the minutia of what he intends to say. He will really be prepared tonight. This may be the most crucial speech of his presidency thus far - or at least in the top 24." When asked to expand on the "great principles" Obama has been reviewing, Gibbs replied, "Well, I saw him skimming Oratory for Dummies."

White House officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, also reported that assorted teleprompters were being prepared for the address.

"We are aiming for a certain level of redundancy, just in case we have a teleprompter faint, as has happened numerous times. We'll have another teleprompter step right in and take over."

On background, officials have admitted that Obama's endless droning on about nothing is causing even his teleprompters to nod off in mid-speech. Those same officials promise that measures are being taken to ensure that tonight's speech contains, as one administration official put it, "more twists than that oh-so curvy, luscious, Sarah Palin. Wait - that tape recorder isn't ON is it? Van Jones? NO COMMENT!"

Though this will be a special "joint" session, Larry Sinclair is not expected to attend.

Credit Where the Credit Crisis Is Due

I have demonstrated previously on the hallowed pages of Obama Watch that the economic crisis as it now exists is fully the fault of the Democratic party in the United States. Their semi-retarded politics designed it and, while it is certain that some Republicans cooperated with and facilitated their (always) hare-brained ideas, it is also true that Democrats intentionally stepped over the bodies of protesting Republicans to enact the policies that have brought on the current economic morass.

A crisis of the magnitude of that which the country now faces has the interesting consequence of producing stark honesty where one would not necessarily expect to find such honesty. In reading the book, A Colossal Failure of Common Sense: The Inside Story of the Collapse of Lehman Brothers, author Lawrence G. Mcdonald, who seems generally very sympathetic to Bill Clinton personally and to his administration, nevertheless writes (from the historical perspective of an industry insider - Mcdonald was a Vice President at Lehman Brothers):

Roberta Achtenberg, the daughter of a Russian-born owner of a Los Angeles neighborhood grocery store, was plucked by President Clinton from relative obscurity in 1993 and elevated to the position of assistant secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Roberta and Bill were united in their desire to increase home ownership in poor and minority communities.



And despite a barrage of objections led by Senator Jesse Helms, who referred to Achtenberg as that "damn lesbian," the lady took up her appointment in the new administration, citing innate racism as one of the main reasons why banks were reluctant to lend to those without funds.

In the ensuing couple of years, Roberta Achtenberg harnessed all of the formidable energy on the massed ranks of the United States bankers, sometimes threatening, sometimes berating, sometimes bullying - anything to persuade the banks to provide mortgages to people who might not have been up to the challenge of coping with up-front down payments and regular monthly payments.

Between 1993 and 1999, more than two million such clients became new homeowners. In her two-year tenure as assistant secretary, she set up a national grid of offices staffed by attorneys and investigators. Their principal aim was to enforce the laws against the banks, the laws that dealt with discrimination. Some of the fines leveled at the banks ran into the millions, to drive home Achtenberg's avowed intent to utilize the law to change the ethos of providing mortgage money in the United States of America.

Banks were compelled to jump into line, and soon they were making thousands of loans without any cash-down deposits whatsoever: an unprecedented situation. Mortgage officers inside the banks were forced to bend or break their own rules in order to achieve a good Community Reinvestment Act rating, which would please the administration by demonstrating generosity to underprivileged borrowers even if they might default. Easy mortgages were the invention of Bill Clinton's Democrats.

However, there was, in the mid- to late 1990s one enormous advantage: amid general prosperity, the housing market was strong and prices were rising steadily. At that point in time, mortgage defaults were relatively few in number and the securitization of mortgages, which had such disastrous consequences during the financial crisis that began in 2007, barely existed.

Nonetheless, there were many beady-eyed financiers who looked askance at this new morality and privately yearned for the days when bank policies were strictly conservative, when credit was flatly denied to anyone without the proven ability to repay.

And at the center of this seething disquiet, somewhere between the persuasive silken-tongued members of the banking lobby and the missionary zeal of Roberta Achtenberg, stood William J. Clinton, whose heart, not for the first time, may have been ruling his head.

Emphasis added throughout. But catch the specific wording: "innate racism" is the reason that loans were not extended to "those without funds"? The Clintonistas were willing to do "anything to persuade the banks to provide mortgages to people who might not have been up to the challenge of coping with up-front down payments and regular monthly payments"? Achtenberg's intent was to "change the ethos of providing mortgage money"? Banks and mortgage companies were "forced to break their own rules"?

Now hear this: "Easy mortgages were the invention of Bill Clinton's Democrats." And all those mortgage companies, investment banks, and community banks that are now getting the blame were nonetheless peopled by "beady-eyed financiers who looked askance at this new morality."

Remember, the same people who designed this economic earthquake are in the process of taking over large swathes of American business, the energy industry, and health care - and in the case of Congressional Democrats, it is not merely the same party, but actually the same people involved.

The Democratic party is either populated by the largest concentration of morons in the universe, or is populated by an exceedingly large contingent of wholly evil individuals who are bent on pursuing their utopian political goals in the face of reality and at the expense of their constituents. What idiot actually believes that racism is the reason that banks won't lend money to people who can't pay? What fool thinks that it is a positive step forward to compel banks to forsake their own rules and extend loans to those who have not even demonstrated an ability to regularly and fully pay rent? Only Democrats are capable of these anti-intellectual paroxysms into mental disease. Or at least they are the only ones who can do it and escape being committed....

Are these the people that you really want to trust to do what is best for you and the country in regard to your health care? Have these same individuals not already demonstrated their inarguable inability to get anything right? Look around....

Democrat, thy name is guilty. See what thou hast wrought.

What Real Americans Think About Obamacare

Lloyd Dogget (D-TX) shouted down and flees his own town hall meeting:





Arlen Specter shouted down when he excuses not reading bills by saying, "We have to make judgments really fast..." because of a plethora of "many" "thousand page" bills! The odd thing is that this weiner actually seems to think this is an excuse....

These Trillions are Starting to Add Up!

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) yesterday released its initial evaluation of the Democrat-sponsored "Affordable Health Choices Act." This analysis did not factor in the entire cost of the legislation, a point that the CBO director is at pains to make, as only the major provisions of the bill were evaluated.



As if the trillions of dollars already introduced into the federal deficit by Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama were not enough, the initial, and incomplete estimate of the CBO for this preliminary Democrat-Socialist health care legislation confirms two major points that skeptics of Obama's fantasyland health plans have been making.

* The U.S. cannot afford a major restructuring of the health care system, as the (again, preliminary) estimate is that the cost of the Democrat plan would add more than $1 trillion to existing deficits.

* That any plan such as the nationalization of health care favored by Democrats and Obama would effectively function as a disincentive for private insurance.

In other words, those who now are paying for private insurance would drop their own coverage in preference for the subsidized or free health care offered by the government. This last point undeniably indicates that the socialization of health care has very little to do with the uninsured, and rather has to do with inflicting a command-and-control economy on the United States.

The CBO director wrote on the CBO blog:

According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million.

In addition, the CBO frets that the total cost for social welfare/socialized health care spending is not likely encompassed even by the outrageous Democrat proposal at issue, since Democrats are also proposing an expansion of Medicaid, the fiscal consequences of which will not be known until the extent of the expansion is decided.

Honesty, From An Unlikely Source

The February 23 double issue of Time magazine contained an article by Nancy Gibbs titled "25 People to Blame: The good intentions, bad managers and greed behind the meltdown." In it, a "murderer's row" of 25 people (not surprisingly heavy on placing corporate blame, sometimes in the most ludicrous manner; Angelo Mozilo is listed for merely co-founding Countrywide in 1969!) whom the masses may sharpen their pitchforks and skewer in their rage over the recent housing meltdown.

But buried within the usual journalistic [sic] pablum is a heaping big admission - one of the primary souls responsible for the meltdown was Bill Clinton.

"[Bill Clinton] loosened housing rules, putting added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods."

It has been repeatedly alleged on the sanctified pages of Obama Watch that Clinton and the Congressional Black Caucus (and their social-engineering fellowtravelers, like Barney Frank) are in fact primarily responsible for the housing meltdown.

Journalists are now officially catching up to the vaunted knowledge available on the blogosphere from conservative bloggers.

Arlen Specter, No Longer a RINO

Following an apparent recruitment in which Joe Biden, Barack Obama and other Democrats were involved, Arlen Specter today abruptly switched to the Democratic party, actualizing what Republicans have said about him all along.

"I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate," said Specter in a statement.

Unfortunately, that is all that is left for you, Arlen.

Specter became well-known for his defense of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in the hearings dominated by the false allegations of Anita Hill. However, his voting record on both fiscal and social issues has always been far more Democratic than Republican.

Specter was one of the original members of Congress to earn the moniker of "RINO," a Republican In Name Only. Does his defection make him a "DIRA," a Democrat In Reality, Actually?

With Al Franken apparently leading in the Minnesota Senate race, still not decided as of this date, Specter's defection (or, admission?) would give the Democrats enough senators to overcome a filibuster.

Interestingly enough, Arlen Specter attempted to have a rule passed in Congress to prohibit inter-term party defections when Jim Jeffords had his Benedict Arnold moment in 2001.