Sunday, September 21, 2008

Appetite For Deception


"I think that's all fine and good but here's what I think, in the next 47 days you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path. Don't just get rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration, Get rid of this philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who's going to fight for you." -Barack H. Obama

With the explosion of news coming out of the financial markets these days you could be led to believe the United States is on the verge of a massive economic collapse on par with the Great Depression. The stock market plunges 500 points one day on the news of AIG's impending failure then rebounds 700 points the next two days. Markets in other countries have to be closed because they are rising too fast! All this on the news that the Federal Government is coming to the rescue with hundreds of billions of our dollars by assuming control of still more of the mortgage industry. Ahh, the smell of socialism comes to America and Wall Street rejoices. With the collapse of the mortgage industry, a lot of politicians are calling for heads to roll. Somebody should have said something...right? Somebody should have done something...right? Well my friends, somebody did say something and somebody did do something. Step inside a twisted tale Hollywood could have never imagined, yet most assuredly, will vote for...

The Federal National Mortgage Association, aka Fannie Mae, was created in 1938 as part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. Ironically, it was originally created to bail out failing banks after the collapse of the national housing market in the wake of the Great Depression. Borrowers were defaulting on mortgages not unlike they are in the current situation. Fannie Mae was established in order to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise the level of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing. It operated like a national savings and loan, allowing local banks to charge low interest rates on mortgages for the benefit of home buyers.

In 1968, due to economic pressure created by the Vietnam War, President Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the federal budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE (Government Sponsored Enterprise), generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing.

The Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, aka Freddie Mac, was created in 1970 also as a GSE privately owned and operated by shareholders and financially backed by the Federal Government. These government protections include access to a line of credit through the U.S. Treasury, exemption from state and local income taxes and exemption from SEC oversight. Freddie Mac was created largely for the purpose of preventing Fannie Mae from operating as a monopoly.

Although these entities have been getting all the media attention due to their recent failures, the true culprit of the mortgage debacle is something called The Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Jimmy Carter in 1977! The CRA allowed banks to lend money based on minority status, not the ability to repay the loans. Banks who were given federal money to lend were assessed ratings that were not based on the soundness of the risk of their loans, but on the number of loans given to minorities. President Bill Clinton took the CRA even farther by committing U.S. banks to make available nearly one TRILLION dollars for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects.

Banks were required to furnish a certain percentage of their loans to low income minorities, regardless of their inability to re-pay the loans, and the banks' ratings were tied to these loans. In other words, the banks could not maintain a high rating unless they participated in this disastrous practice. Government coercion at its finest! The standard 20% down-payment rules were eliminated. New terms of length were installed, abolishing the traditional 20 year mortgage and giving loans of up to 40 years!

Left wing community groups like ACORN were allowed to set up offices to help minorities qualify for loans and banks were required to accept the information provided by ACORN. Information that was often false! Borrowers, who often made as little as $30K a year, were listed as having incomes of over $70K in order to qualify and the banks were required to accept that information without question. There were even loans like NINJA (no income, no job or assets) loans. Unstable income, such as child support payments or welfare payments, were allowed to be considered part of the borrowers income! How dependable is that for a source of income? This was a disaster waiting to happen. Somebody should have said something! Somebody should have done something! Unfortunately those who opposed the Clinton Administration's Financial Modernization bill were often called bigots for opposing these lending practices that were, on their face, designed to encourage minority participation in home ownership. The reality was that this became a pet banking system for the democratic party and some of its most questionable allies.

Enter Franklin Raines, Vice-Chairman at Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1996. In 1996 he joined the Clinton Administration as the Director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget, where he served until 1998. In 1999, he returned to Fannie Mae, but this time it was as the CEO, the first black man to head a Fortune 500 company. In 2004 Raines accepted what was called an "early retirement" after a report from The Office of Federal Housing Oversight found numerous accounting discrepancies in Fannie Mae's operation. Raines tried to take his money and run, but he did not get away.

Raines was accused by The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the regulating body of Fannie Mae, of widespread accounting errors, which included the shifting of losses so senior executives, such as himself, could earn large bonuses. Exactly the behavior that led to the infamous ENRON scandal.
In 2006, the OFHEO initiated a lawsuit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $50 million in payments made to Raines based on the falsified earnings statements. He is accused of overstating Fannie Mae's assets to the tune of 6.3 billion dollars.

Then there is the case of James A. Johnson. The same Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight report from September 2004 found that, during Johnson's tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred $200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998. A 2006 OFHEO report found that Fannie Mae had substantially under reported Johnson's compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received approximately $21 million in compensation.

With all these shenanigans going on in government sponsored entities you would think somebody would have wanted to get involved. Somebody should have said something...right? Well, somebody did, as this report from 2003 indicates:

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt - is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates. -New York Times

Though the President was attempting to take action he was of course met with criticism from the usual cast of characters whose statements now seem rather foolish:

''These two entities are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
-Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing." -Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina

That's keeping your eye on the ball. Why do you think these democrats were so defensive of this particular enterprise? Why would they go out on a limb to defend the indefensible? As always those who sought to criticize the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were accused of bigotry and hostility to the poor. Still, somebody else did dare to say something in 2005:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs-and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Who was this man who dared to present legislation to gain control of these two GSE entities that were running amok? Senator John S. McCain. It looks like he was ahead of the curve on this economic crisis just like he was ahead of the curve on the need for more troops in Iraq. What were the objectives of this bill?

In lieu of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), an independent Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Agency which shall have authority over the Federal Home Loan Bank Finance Corporation, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac); and the Federal Housing Enterprise Board.

Sets forth operating, administrative, and regulatory provisions of the Agency, including provisions respecting: (1) assessment authority; (2) authority to limit nonmission-related assets; (3) minimum and critical capital levels; (4) risk-based capital test; (5) capital classifications and undercapitalized enterprises; (6) enforcement actions and penalties; (7) golden parachutes; and (8) reporting.

Like the Bush administration's attempt to reign in the renegade GSE's two years earlier, this bill failed to get through congress. In fact it died in committee. Is it a coincidence that the ranking Democrat on the committee (and its current chairman) is also the number one recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae? Senator Chris Dodd received $165,400 in contributions from the wayward GSE. It appears to be money well spent as it helped Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac navigate the hostile waters of republican meddling. After the Democrats retook the House and Senate in 2006 it looked like smooth sailing. Well, until the housing market hit its zenith and started to slow down, causing home values to go down and these dubious mortgages to accelerate their defaulting.

Which brings us to the conclusion of our master deception. How does this play out to the voters in this year's presidential election? Well, there is an interesting twist to the final act in this drama. Consider this statement concerning the action the government is now taking to try and rescue the situation:

"One of the central requirements that I have consistently set in evaluating any intervention under this new legislation is that such action protect taxpayers and not bail out senior management from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Multi-million dollar severance payments for the executives who helped steer these institutions into the current crisis situation would violate the spirit of the authority granted by Congress to the Treasury Department and would violate the public's trust." -Barack H. Obama

It would appear from this statement that Barack Obama feels that the executives of these companies are the villains. Strange when one considers that both Franklin Raines and James Johnson, the two CEO's who profited from the fraudulent and misrepresented reporting at Fannie Mae, have found themselves working for... Barack Obama! That's right. Mr. Obama, who claims to be worried about violating the public's trust, has found it within himself to trust these two criminal CEO's to work with his campaign. I guess the reason he did not want the government to bail out the senior officials of these companies is because he wanted to bail them out himself! And this from a man who claims his "judgement" qualifies him for the presidency.

James A. Johnson was tapped by Obama to head his search committee to choose his Vice President. Perhaps another disastrous failure in and of itself considering the result. And though Obama is attempting to deny that Franklin Raines is actually one of his economic advisers, Raines has already confirmed that he has had several "conversations" with Obama regarding economic policy and, ironically, the mortgage crisis. I guess you can say Obama showed good "judgement" by consulting an "expert" on the subject. This is extremely disconcerting when one considers that presidents generally pick their staff and cabinet from the pool of people who advise them during their campaigns. How does the prospect of Franklin Raines' and James Johnson's hands fondling the federal treasury appeal to you?

Obama also has dirty hands when it come to being a recipient of some of Fannie Mae's "generosity" regarding political contributions. Fannie Mae donated $126,349 to Obama. Second only to Senator Dodd, and we know what "favors" they received from him. What, praytell, do they expect to receive from Obama? With the taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars, why would Obama accept contributions from such a source? In fairness, the list of Senators and representatives that have received contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 1989 to 2008 is a long one. John McCain himself received $21,550. But Obama has only been in the senate since 2004! Yet he is the second largest recipient! So much for change you can believe in.

In conclusion, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, combined with enhancements to The Community Reinvestment Act, have been creations and favored pets of democrats and Clinton administration appointees. It was an illusion that on its face appeared to be designed to make mortgages available to people who were ill suited to pay for them. Hidden from public view, it was a banking system to funnel money to left wing operations and democratic operatives who were handsomely rewarded for their misreporting and misrepresenting of the going's on within their criminal enterprise.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi came in as Speaker of the House and promised the most ethical House of Representatives ever? Where are the prosecutions? The investigations? Funny how she loses interest in such ethical matters when its the Democrats who are on the take. Gotta restart those "impeach Bush" hearings again!

Try as he might, there is no way Barack Obama can lay this crisis at the feet of the Bush administration or John McCain. Both men made valiant attempts at intervening. Somebody should have said something. They did. Somebody should have done something. They did. Unfortunately too many others were looking out for their own interests and not the taxpayers. Don't be deceived any further. It is Barack Obama and his sycophants whose lips are firmly wrapped around Fannie Mae's nipples...and you know what that sucking sound is!

Sunday, September 7, 2008

The Audacity Of "Obamanomics"


"We've all got some unfinished business to attend to: The business of shaking things up, and asking hard questions, and insisting on the hard truths. The business of embracing those who struggle and making their struggles our own. The business of refusing to settle for anything less than what's right and what's fair and what's just." -Barack H. Obama

Well there is no way I can get around it. I am finally going to have to deal directly with the ideas and ideology of presidential hopeful Barack H. Obama. He titled his book "The Audacity Of Hope" and make no mistake about it, he is an audacious man. However, a more honest title might have been "The Audacity Of a Socialist," for everything he has said reeks of a true believer in pure, unadulterated socialism. As the above statement indicates, he has no problem with using the government as a tool for intervening and interfering with the lives of American citizens. Always, of course, in the name of doing "what's right and what's fair and what's just." Lets look at what this portends for us all…

"We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more." -Barack H. Obama

Well if you are a socialist it is imperative that you generate a crisis that needs immediate attention. Unfortunately for socialists America truly is not in bad shape. Therefore they must construct an illusion to try and motivate public perception to see "turmoil" where there is none. The economy is always a profitable place to hunt for grievances as there will always be some people who feel they are not as well off as they would like to be. The socialist must therefore create a sense of covetousness within our society and then capitalize on the envy and inferiority that is generated as many people feel that they have been "disenfranchised" from something that has never belonged to them.

EXODUS 2:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

Ahh yes, the tenth commandment. I will have to forgive many of you for being unfamiliar with it since teaching such things is considered undesirable in modern America's socialist schools. Yet I cannot help but feel that removing such moral instruction from the lives of our citizens has proven quite useful in convincing so many that they are worse off than they really are. The mortgage "crisis" being a perfect example. In order to allow more people to "participate in the American dream" laws were crafted to reduce the qualifications for loaning money for home-buyers. This of course leads to those once unqualified for such loans, to then fulfill these initial suspicions by defaulting on their loans. According to Barack Obama this is an economy in turmoil because close to a million people are having trouble paying these mortgages. The American dream therefore must be failing, and of course this is the fault of George W. Bush.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, what he failed to mention was the fact that during the Bush administration there have been 17 million first time homebuyers. That means 95% of first time home-buyers under the Bush administration are actually paying for their houses without any complaint or government help. Combine that with the report that the GDP grew by 3.3% from April through June, the highest growth rate in the industrialized world for that period, and you are left with an economy that just will not drop into a recession in spite of all the attempts by the media to fabricate one through fear and misreporting of facts. So much for an economy in turmoil and its subsequent threat to the "American promise." And as for that war the senator referenced, we are winning it, in spite of Senator Obama's proud opposition to it.

"We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma." -Barack H. Obama

Here is a problem with socialists: They have to intrude into every facet of your life. Why should government be concerned with your job, your mortgage or your child's college education? That is none of their business. Already we see some of the fruits of this poisonous way of thinking with the government passing a bill that will aid homeowners who are defaulting on their loans. But what of the 95% of homeowners who aren't defaulting? Why should they have to subsidize others who bought more house than they could afford? Why should we the taxpayer have to be involved in financing the college educations of children other than our own? This is Mr. Obama's idea of "what's right and what's fair and what's just?"

"Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95% of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class." -Barack H. Obama

Good luck with that! I am starting to think that a college degree from Harvard University is a bit over-rated. The economics department obviously needs some work as Mr. Obama fails to understand that it is the higher taxes that are CAUSING the jobs to be lost overseas. According to figures from the CATO institute the United States has is surpassed only by Japan for the highest tax rates in the developed free world with a rate of 40%. This is AFTER the much maligned Bush tax cuts. Ireland, whose economy is booming, has a corporate tax rate of 12.5%. They have been steadily lowering their tax rates and steadily watching their economy grow.

If Mr. Obama is elected and insists on repealing the Bush tax cuts, as he regularly claims that he will, that will make the United States the country with the highest corporate taxes in the free world. What does Mr. Obama think is causing corporations to move their jobs and their money overseas? Rising unemployment is one element of the economy that genuinely needs to be dealt with, but not by raising taxes on the very corporations you need to create new jobs. If he wants to bring jobs back to America and entice the creation of new ones he should be cutting corporate taxes, but that doesn't sound so well when you are trolling for votes among the least productive elements of our society. You must convince them that its and "us against them" game and that the rules need to be changed.

There is good news for Mr. Obama on that front too! By raising taxes on corporations and driving more of them to overseas markets there will be fewer working families to receive the tax cuts that he is offering them in exchange for their votes. Fewer working families will mean an increased in the aggrieved classes who always vote for democrats, and of course, fewer people to actually receive the phantom tax cuts he is baiting them with.

Mr. Obama likes to say he will only raise taxes on those people making over $250,000 a year. That sounds good until you understand that almost everyone works for someone making that kind of money. They will have to cut some expenses to pay the new taxes. Your job just may be that expense.

"And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East."
"As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced." -Barack H. Obama

My oh my aren't we optimistic, and just a little bit plagiaristic too. It seems that he is, in a somewhat half-hearted manner, adopting John McCain's energy plan. McCain has long since been on record as calling for more production of U.S. resources. However he had the courage to call for 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 and another 55 shortly thereafter. Now that is a commitment. He is also calling for a streamlining of the process for obtaining licenses and permits to build them. This is generally the biggest obstacle in their construction. Obama by contrast is speaking in generalities and promising only lots of "restrictions" and "regulations" that are sure to delay production.

One place Mr. Obama does not speak in general terms is in his call for a whopping 150 BILLION dollars to subsidize new and unproven potential sources of energy. It appears that when Mr. Obama sees oil he is clearly aware that there is a finite reserve of those resources, but when it comes to taxpayer funding Mr. Obama sees nothing but vast untapped reserves. Unfortunately those reserves consist of yours and my money. But in Mr. Obama's world this is "what's right and what's fair and what's just."

"Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education." -Barack H. Obama

When did it become our "moral obligation to provide every child with a world class education?" I always find it hard to tolerate a lecture on morality from a party dedicated to the tolerance and perpetuation of every form of immorality and decadence it can find. Is it the president's job to invest our money on recruiting an "army of new teachers?" My constitution must be missing that part. It is especially distressing to see that Mr. Obama believes that America owes every child a college education. The colleges are filled with people who can't read or tell you what happened at Gettysburg thanks to government intervention in the K-12 educational system. How does he feel they merit more responsibility, and more money?

"Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent." -Barack H. Obama

That is some sweet sounding altruistic garbage. The government has no right or authority to be dictating the day to day operation of either a place of business or the family life of its citizens. This is just another example of Mr. Obama's complete acceptance of socialist dogma. Freedom is entirely built upon the making of choices. Remove them, and you will remove your freedom. You have a right to be paid for work that you do. This policy is the equivalent of forcing someone to pay you for not being at work at all. Is this "what's right and what's fair and what's just?" You are not owed sick days or family leave from anyone.

"Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations." -Barack H. Obama

I guess its not enough to bail out a million homeowners who defaulted on their loans, now the government must backup the pensions of private businesses and regulate their behavior. Once again we see Mr. Obama's inclination to grow the government's responsibility and intrude on the operations of businesses. Between increased regulation and increased taxes is it any wonder corporations would seek to move their operations elsewhere. CEO bonuses, however outlandish they may be, are private business and not a matter for government.

Social Security is, of course, the flagship of socialism in America. It was an illegal, unconstitutional program when Franklin Roosevelt started it. Privatization, with an intention to move toward its elimination, is the only solution to fixing this program. It has grown to the point that it is unsustainable and everyone knows it. Yet it is the immorality of the program that has always bothered me. Old and sick people should be cared for by their families. Not by the government.

"Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most." -Barack H. Obama

If Social Security has been the flagship of the great socialist invasion fleet then Universal Health Care is the armor that is coming ashore. Once again I ask: who promised "affordable, accessible health care for every single American?" The government should not be in the health care business. If you think health insurance companies are hard to deal with wait until you get health care administered by the government. There will always be people who lack in health care for one reason or another. Health care is one of the choices that free people either choose to enter into or not. Often their lack of ability to acquire health care is a result of other choices they freely made beforehand. People who engage in high risk behavior are going to be more expensive to care for and therefore cost more to insure. That is simple enough that even a Harvard graduate should understand it.

If you grant everyone the right to health care then the doctors offices will be filled with people with marginal sicknesses and they will prevent truly sick people from being able to get attention. That is the natural consequence of anything "free." Rationing is the next direct consequence of government health care in order to address that situation. Rationing of health care services has occurred in every government health care system ever created. That makes the government the distributor of health care. Think about that! How well do you think they will do it? Do you really want to hand over all the decision-making of your health in exchange for affordable or free health care?

Once the government becomes the distributor of health care they will be able to set the parameters for its operation. Did you know they then can and will decide what you should eat? Why not? What you eat and how you behave becomes EVERYONE'S business when the cost is bore by everyone. Do you really want that much intrusion? Is that your idea of "what's right and what's fair and what's just?"

The democratic party is an amalgamation of peoples and associations that perceive themselves as having grievances with the United States. The democratic party has always catered to these types but in recent years it has thrown any semblance of responsibility to the wind in an attempt to cater to these groups and try to build a voting coalition that will get them back into power. They have always had a tendency toward big government socialism. Which brings me to this famous quote:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." -Alexander Tyler

Now we have reached that point where a presidential candidate has opened up the treasury of his future administration to attempt to meet the demands of these self-aggrieved people in exchange for their votes. This is the entitlement culture. Those who believe that they have rights and entitlements to things that do not and have never belonged to them. I present to you, the messiah of the parasite class. A man who dares demand something, nay everything, for nothing: Mr. Barack Hussein Obama!

He is the entitlement culture's version of Robin Hood. Like Robin Hood he is charismatic. Also like Robin Hood, he is a thief. Just because you organize yourself into a political party, vote yourself into office and then redistribute the property and wealth of others who have worked for it, does not alter the fact that you have taken that which does not now nor has it ever belonged to you. Theft is theft no matter the method. A moral society would not tolerate such behavior. The day that those who do not produce can legally demand that those who do produce must provide for their welfare, will be the last day of the United States.

If elected president, Barack Obama looks likely to have a majority in both houses of congress, and perhaps even a filibuster-proof senate. The last day of the United States may be closer than you think. Those who love their country, and all that it stands for, will be morally bound to destroy it rather than see it succumb to the parasite classes. That is always the natural end for parasites. They always kill their host, which ultimately kills them. Perhaps we will learn from it and build a better America the next time.

If you still persist in believing that an Obama presidency would be a change for "what's right and what's fair and what's just," then consider the belittling that the messiah of the parasites has displayed to his intended victims. This is how he describes both John McCain and those who would vote for him:

"It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it."
"For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own."
"Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America." -Barack H. Obama

Failure!! How dare he call the very people, whose success he wishes to pillage, failures. The prosperous and the producers in America are not failures. The failures are socialist entitlement seekers who are out to rob the successful by creating all sorts new of rights for themselves and making demands for free health care, free college educations, loan bailouts, bankruptcy protection etc. What they are in effect demanding is freedom from the consequences of their own actions. They fear freedom because freedom has both consequences and responsibilities as well as rewards. The socialists see only the rewards and make their criminal demands in the name of "Social Justice," or, as Barack Obama says "what's right and what's fair and what's just." Do you really want this man and his cohorts to "change America?" Moral people will not allow themselves to be made the victims of their "social justice."

In his convention speech Barack Obama also ridiculed a statement by former Texas Senator Phil Gramm in which he said:

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners. You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

Well, he's almost right. America really hasn't become a nation of whiners. It has become a nation of housecats. The housecat is a creature that likes to act as though it is independent and doesn't need anyone. Yet as soon as some difficulty presents itself, the housecat will hiss and spit at the very people to whom it is completely dependent for its existence. At the democratic convention the housecats of America demanded free and universal everything as they hissed and spit at the very people they need to provide them with it. Perhaps the cats need to be put outside.