Why we don't want universal healthcare...

I was able to experience Socialized healthcare firsthand today. I could have paid $15 a pop to get flu shots for our family at our family doctor. Instead, I decided to be a tightwad and get the free flu shots that the government was giving out today.

I sat in line in my car for two and a half hours with four very unhappy children.

It was miserable to put it mildly. My only thought was that this could be, in the foreseeable future, our only option for healthcare. This time it was my choice.

If the United States adopts a universal health care system, waiting will be the name of the game.

Here are a few examples:

Mark Cannon, 30, from the United Kingdom died eight and a half weeks after being admitted to the hospital with a broken leg. He was clearly distressed and in pain, but he had to wait three days to see the pain team.

Lindsay McCreith, 66, from Canada was told he had a brain tumor but that he would have to wait four and a half months to obtain an MRI to rule out the possibility that it was cancerous. Unwilling to risk the progression of what might be cancer, Mr. McCreith obtained an MRI in Buffalo, which revealed the tumor was malignant. Even with this diagnosis in hand, the Ontario system still refused to provide timely treatment, so Mr. McCreith had surgery in Buffalo to remove the cancerous brain tumor in March, 2006. In Ontario, Mr. McCreith would have waited eight months for surgery, according to his family doctor. Eight months is enough time for a cancer to worsen, spread and progress to an irreversible stage. Had Mr. McCreith not paid $26,600 for immediate care, he might be dead today.

Jordan Johanson, 18, from Canada died at Rockyview Hospital in late March. He died following a 12-hour wait for surgery on his appendix.

Sheila Nunn, A woman from Canada suffering seizures, was told by her doctor that she urgently needed an MRI scan. She was also told she would have to wait three months to have it done locally. Nunn, who had been suffering blackouts, memory loss, confusion and seizures for two months, decided to take action: She paid $1,100 to have the MRI scan done in Michigan.

Gerald Carroll, 46, of Australia had chemotherapy for tumors in his jaw and behind his eye. After that treatment, he had a three-month wait for radiotherapy. “But in the three months it took to get the stereotactic radiotherapy I needed, the tumor had grown too large to treat,” Mr. Carroll said. “The radiotherapist referred me back to my oncologist. I’ve been on chemo since February and now’s it’s reduced the tumor to a point where I can have the radiation. I’m on the waiting list for stereotactic radiosurgery at this time.”

With socialized medicine, doctors will have little incentive to strive to be good at what they do. They will be government employees and have far less accountability, as well as lower pay. Could we still expect the best and brightest to strive to be doctors? Probably not.

Many on the left love to complain that the United States is one of the few industrialized nations without a government health care system. Yet they rarely note that the United States produces disproportional amounts of the new, life-saving drugs, largely because of the profits drug companies make. Will we continue to produce these drugs if we abolish the profit motive? Not likely. Chances are, they will not be produced at all, and more people will needlessly suffer and die as a result.

When we examine countries that have embraced socialized medicine, we find long waits, expansive red tape and little concern for the individual. Do you really want to be told which doctor to go to? Do you want to wait years to have necessary medical procedures performed? If so, then socialized medicine is for you.

Not for me.

In fact, I don’t particularly like ANY kind of socialism!

Let’s define socialism really quickly, because I know there are some of you that are thinking “Aubrey’s being dramatic again...we'll never have socialism.” I will turn to Wikipedia for a definition:

“Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”

“Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly”

"Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs.”

Think Fannie and Freddie and the whole bank bailout.

I am not saying that I think Obama is the one behind all of this. This has been a long lime coming. Our country creeps closer and closer to socialism everyday. My fear is that now we aren’t creeping…we’re sprinting.

I am trying to post a YouTube video of Ezra Taft Benson. He was President Eisenhower’s Secretary of Agriculture. He gave us a warning 50 years ago about socialism. I hope you will go to this link and hear it directly from Secretary Benson’s mouth, because I can’t get it to post!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKFloXeBIwo#

He spoke with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and this is a quote from their exchange:

“You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands!”

I’m afraid Khrushchev has been proven right.

A Dark Day

I didn’t sleep very well last night. I may not sleep well for the next four years. I couldn’t shake the stress and worry as I tossed and turned all night. In one dream that I remember, I went to the ATM to get money. Instead of the usual screen, there was just Barack Obama’s face laughing it me. Hilarious that I would want to access my own money.

Today I will start looking for a contractor to build a false wall somewhere in my house. I want a stash of food and money that the government can’t find. I’m contemplating buying a gun to hide in there. Don’t take the right to bear arms for granted. The Constitution means nothing now.

How about the freedom of speech? That one won’t hang around long.

But the liberals love their freedom of speech, right?

Only when you’re speaking the right things. One of the first things on the agenda is to get rid of talk radio. Talk radio is the only place that conservatives can get news that isn’t filtered by people like Keith Olbermann. The television news, magazines and newspapers are overwhelmingly liberal.

But the Democrats insist that talk radio isn’t fair because it’s too conservative. The Fairness Doctrine would mean that radio broadcasts have to be split fairly between conservative and liberal views. Liberal talk radio has been tried, and nobody listens. Why would they? If you want liberal news, you can turn on any channel. The First Amendment means now means nothing. The Democrats have been chomping at the bit for this, and now they will get their chance.

Even more scary is Obama’s 250,000 person “civilian force” that's going to be just as strong, just as powerful and just as well funded as the U.S. military. No, I am not making this up. This is really his plan.

Let’s go back in history to when Wilson was president. The Sedition Act was passed. This imposed prison terms of up to 20 years and fines of up to $10,000 for "all forms of expression in any way critical of the government.” The Justice Department turned over the enforcement of that act to the citizen "loyalty leagues". Sounds kind of like a “civilian force” to me.

There was a huge media campaign where people were asked to anonymously turn in anyone critical of the administration to the Justice Department. By January 1920, they had organized the largest mass arrests in U.S. history, rounding up at least 10,000 individuals.

Obama plans to cut the funding of the military in half to fund his little civilian force. I feel safe, don’t you? I can just see a bunch of people running around wearing a red armband with a big “O” on it.

My biggest concern is that since so much of the military funding will go to the Obama Loyalty League, our country will not be protected. We have been so blessed with safety since the September 11 attacks.

I think a lot of people take that for granted.

I will be praying everyday that when the next attacks occur, and they will, that the target will not be the headquarters of the world’s largest retailer.

I plan to keep this blog going as long as I can…until the people with the armbands come for me.

My Final Plea

The election is tomorrow. Many of you may have voted early, but if you know me, you know I have not. I love Election Day; it’s like a holiday.

The liberal media has worked hard to get Barak Obama elected, and they are working even harder in the final days to make us believe that this election is over, and Obama has it won by a landslide.

Don’t believe it.

Don’t let the media dictate what you think. This election is not over.

Yes, I am aware of the hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes for the Democrats. This will be very hard to overcome. The Obama campaign has insisted that all claims of voter fraud should be investigated after the election. They have written to the Attorney General and insisted that it is the people who discovered and reported the fraud that should be investigated. In one of the letters the Obama campaign states that the attempt to uncover the fraud is an effort to “harass voters and impede their exercise of their rights.” Seriously?

Ohio is a critical state. There have been several instances of people registering and voting on the same day (thankfully most states have better voter protection laws). Unfortunately, they registered and voted with somebody else’s address. They catch a few of these, but thousands get through- enough to swing an election.

But I don’t despair, because this is not over.

Obama is very smart. He only pushes as far as he thinks the electorate will let him. People say “he’s only for universal healthcare for kids”. Yeah…for now. If he is able to get that thorough, he will certainly move on to the entire population. Universal healthcare for kids failed in Hawaii after only 7 months. Everyone was dropping their private healthcare- duh! So they had to get rid of it.

Universal healthcare sounds good. Change sounds good. Helping minorities and poor people buy houses sounded good. It is the same thing. It is the government thinking that they can run our lives better than we can. Did it really help those people to get into a house, only to lose the house and be left with ruined credit?

I would like to give just one reason not to vote for Obama (I have hundreds, but here is the most important)

Please, please, please don’t vote for Obama because you think he will be good for the economy or lower your taxes. If you have other reasons why you think he is the best choice, that is your prerogative. But if your choice is based on the economy, you MUST reconsider.

Here are a couple of quotes from President Clinton:

"We will lower the tax burden on middle class Americans by asking the very wealthy to pay their fair share. Middle class taxpayers will have a choice between a children's tax credit or a significant reduction in their income tax rate." [Putting People First, September 1992.]

On October 19, 1992 he said, "I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other government spending or we will slow down the phase-in of these programs. I am not gonna raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs."

On Aug. 10, 1993, he signed the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY, raising taxes by almost $280 billion over five years.

Now I’m not saying Obama is Clinton. I’m just asking you to think about it. Use your own brain; don’t regurgitate what you hear on the news.

Ask yourself if Obama can really institute all of his new programs and give us all a tax cut.

The first thing he would do is let the Bush tax cuts expire. Then he will tell us that this isn’t really a tax increase, the cuts are just expiring. Bottom line is that my taxes will go up and so will yours (most of you…unless you are that lucky bottom 40% who will be getting a check).

The other way that Obama will kill the economy is through the Card Check Bill. I am willing to bet money that most of you haven’t even heard of this. It’s not something the liberal media wants you to know about. (Do you ever get frustrated that the media controls what information the public gets?)

Anyway, the Card Check Bill has to do with unions. The current policy is that if workers want to unionize, there is a secret ballot. The Democrats and Barack Obama want to take away the secret ballot so that workers don’t get a chance to vote. They will be able to go to workers’ houses and intimidate them into signing a card. If they get half of the workers to sign…poof…they’re unionized. Small businesses will have unions telling them how to run their business, they will have to hire labor lawyers, and their costs will skyrocket.

The really crazy thing is that this is an exact parallel of the Great Depression. The key negative component to deepening the depression was the massive increase in unionization, from 13 percent of the workforce in 1935 to 29 percent in 1939. The coordinated raising of prices by businesses that Franklin Roosevelt allowed after unions organized an industry also played a role in deepening the Depression.

Not only will the Card Check Bill deny employees the right to a private vote, it will lead to a surge in labor costs and reduction in competitiveness for U.S. companies at just the wrong time.

I am positive that Obama policies will be bad for our economy. Don’t vote for what sounds good. Vote for what is good.

Avoid the houses with an Obama sign in the yard!

Just kidding...sort of!

My friend Stefani sent me this and I love it!

Obama's new welfare program...I mean tax cuts

Sarah Palin was on Glenn Beck today. She had some really great things to say. Here is my favorite quote:

"GOVERNOR PALIN: See, Glenn, people have got to hear his words, don't just be there at these rallies or anything else. Listening to what he's saying. You have to really, really hear what he is saying. Barack Obama claims that he will cut income taxes for 95% of Americans. The problem is more than 40% pay no income taxes at all. So how do you cut income taxes for folks who don't pay them? What he's going to do is write them a check and call that a tax cut, even though it's really a tax credit. And where is he going to get all the money for all those checks? By raising taxes on America's families and on our small businesses and folks just like Joe the plumber, and Barack Obama is playing with words to hide his real agenda of redistributing the hard earned money of American families and I mean, you've got to hand it to Joe the plumber in Toledo. He's the one who succeeded in finally getting Barack Obama to, in plain speak, explain what his intentions are for these quote/unquote tax cuts."


Here are some of Obama's ideas for redristributing wealth:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.


"Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut." (Wall Street Journal)

ACORN

ACORN, short for The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, began in 1970 with noble goals. They wanted better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, and better public schools.

They fought and “demonstrated” and were able to push through many of the policies that led to our current financial crisis. Any bank that didn’t lower credit standards and give loans to people that couldn’t pay them back were labeled “racist” and ACORN would conduct strikes against them. ACORN protesters will break into private offices, show up at a banker’s home to intimidate his family, or pour protesters into bank lobbies to scare away customers, all in an effort to force a lowering of credit standards for poor and minority customers.

This wasn’t too big of a problem until the 1990’s. Freddie and Fannie would not buy the bad loans. The banks that got pushed around by ACORN would try to sell their risky mortgages to Fannie and Freddie, and they said “no way!” Unfortunately, ACORN found a friend in President Clinton and many Democratic members of Congress.

In June of 1995, President Clinton announced his new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. He said that: “Our homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.” Clinton meant that these informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to people with bad credit and people without money.

Great plan…we know now that this has indeed cost taxpayers far more than “one extra cent”.

It’s probably important to mention that Barack Obama was the attorney representing ACORN at this time. Just a small detail…

Another small detail to mention is that ACORN is funded by our tax dollars! Seriously!! And Democrats tried to give them more money through the recent “bailout”. Remember…the one that started out at $700 billion…then they added $150 billion in pork. Yeah, that bailout. Well, the first version had more money going to ACORN! Thank heavens that didn’t make it through. At least the pork is just going to NASCAR and wooden arrow makers.

So we have the American taxpayers giving this group lots of money. This has given them the ability to jump into a whole new area.

Voter Registration.

Yep. We are paying for them to register as many liberals as it takes to get Barack Obama elected. Of course, Obama is doing his part too. His campaign gave ACORN over $800,000 for get-out-the-vote efforts. Somehow he initially reported that this contribution was for “staging, sound and lighting.” His campaign says it was a “clerical error” and has amended their report. I’m sure he wasn’t trying to hide the fact that he gave a large sum of money to a liberal organization that has been convicted of voter fraud. No…it was a “clerical error”. (This happened at the end of August…you probably didn’t hear about it…why would the media run a negative story about Obama?)

This year ACORN is spending $16 million to register new Democrats. The question is: how many are real? Mickey Mouse…Tony Romo…probably not very many of them.

Just to prove my point…here are some of the states where the fraud is taking place. Notice all of the battleground states…coincidence? I think not. Why bother trying to win the election fair and square when you can falsely register an entire phonebook and be done with it?

Connecticut - falsifying/forging voter registration cards; Bridgeport, Connecticut estimates about 20% of Acorn's registrations were faulty.

Florida - falsifying voter registration;

Indiana - falsifying/forging voter registration cards; Lake County has already found more than 2,100 bogus applications among the 5,000 Acorn dumped right before the deadline. "All the signatures looked exactly the same," said Ruthann Hoagland, of the county election board.

Michigan - "a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications."

Missouri - looking into hundreds of dubious Acorn registrations.

Nevada - a raid on Acorn's offices, following complaints of false names and fictional addresses (including the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys). Nevada's Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said he saw rampant fraud in 2,000 to 3,000 applications Acorn submitted weekly.

New Mexico - hiring felons to work on registration drives;

North Carolina - fraudulent registrations submitted;

Ohio - 200,000 fraudulent registrations (no, I did not add a zero…it’s really that many. The crazy part is that the election in that state will probably be won by less than 200,000 votes) one man ACORN registered to vote over 70 times; The very liberal Secretary of State is trying to let all 200,000 stay, because legitimate voters will be disenfranchised if they have to prove their information is correct. PLEASE!!!

Pennsylvania - $2k reward offered for ACORN temp charged with perjury, identity theft and vote fraud;

Texas - 40% of 27K registrations from Houston rejected;

Washington - worst case of registration fraud in state history;

Wisconsin - hiring felons as “special registration deputies” and investigating Acorn employees for, "making people up or registering people that were still in prison."

This means that in 2/3 of the states where ACORN ran voter registration drives, they were involved with fraudulent registrations.

That’s just this year!

In 2004, four Acorn employees were indicted in Ohio for submitting false voter registrations. In 2005, two Colorado Acorn workers were found to have submitted false registrations. Four Acorn Missouri employees were indicted in 2006; five were found guilty in Washington state in 2007 for filling out registration forms with names from a phone book. It goes on and on. And did I mention that they are funded by the federal government?

So how does Barack the "community organizer" fit into all of this? Right in the middle of it!

In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn.

He served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995

During his tenure on the board of Chicago's Woods Fund, that body funneled more than $200,000 to Acorn

In a speech he gave to ACORN in December 2007, he said that "before I even get inaugurated, during the transition, we're going to be calling all of you in to help us shape the agenda." Holy cow! They are NOT the ones I want shaping the agenda!

This past November, he applauded Acorn's leaders saying "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work." Did you catch that…"smack dab in the middle of it"

And of course there is the $832,000 donation this year.

Obama says that he has “limited ties” to ACORN. Sure.

There is good news:

The numbers in Ohio are so ridiculously high that the FBI is getting involved. They are investigating ACORN to see if there is a “coordinated national scam.” Hopefully something can be done to stop ACORN.

Today, House of Representatives Republican leader John Boehner called for ACORN to be barred from receiving federal monies, and for a ban on ACORN contracting with candidates for federal office. He said, "ACORN spent decades promoting the housing policies that brought America's economy to the brink, and similarly over the years has committed fraud on our system of elections"

Now that’s a guy I’d vote for!

Love and Logic for Government

Parenting With Love and Logic by Foster Cline and Jim Faye is hands down the best parenting book ever written. I feel qualified to make this assessment because I have read A LOT of parenting books. If you are a parent and have not read this book…go buy it! If you are not a parent yet…you’ll need it eventually!

Love and Logic parenting teaches responsibility by using the natural consequences of a child's behavior and actions to do the teaching. Parents should let children make choices and mistakes in the early years, when the consequences of the inevitable less-than-perfect choices are not too severe or damaging. By the time the child reaches adulthood, he is equipped with the decision-making skills needed for adult life. Parents can rob a child of the ability to grow up making good, responsible decisions. If a parent is constantly BAILING OUT their child, the child never learns from his mistakes. The mistakes will just keep getting bigger.

Earlier this week Aiden forgot his assignment notebook and math homework. My first thought was to BAIL HIM OUT by running it up to the school. I stopped myself, thinking “natural consequences”. Aiden knows that it is his responsibility to put his things in his backpack. If I had BAILED HIM OUT, would he have learned anything? His teacher made him redo the math homework during recess. And boy am I glad she did. Natural consequences. Hopefully he learned from this experience, and will be more responsible in the future.

You’re probably thinking “hey, I thought this was Aubrey’s political blog. Why is she reviewing parenting books?”

I’ve decided that every member of Congress needs this book!

I was very young during the savings and loan crisis of the 1980’s. But I believe very strongly that the taxpayer-funded BAILOUT related to mortgages during the savings and loan crisis encouraged lenders make the same mistakes again by making similar high risk loans over the last several years. That was a $160 billion bailout…if they had suffered natural consequences rather than being BAILED OUT, perhaps we wouldn’t have the much more expensive mess on our hands today.

So have we learned our lesson? Are we going for the natural consequences this time around? Oh no.

Congress is like a really bad parent. They have completely screwed everything up. Congress hasn’t set rules and standards for their “children”. They have given them free reign, and then bailed them out of their mistakes.

Bottom line…Congress is at fault. The crazy part? Congress is in charge of fixing the problem!!! So they came up with this stupid bailout plan.

Our economy is in the toilet, our national debt is soaring, and our currency is weakened. Basically, the credit score of the United States stinks! So…let’s take on $850 billion dollars in MORE DEBT! Great plan. The bailout started as a $700 billion idea. By the time it made it though the two houses of Congress, $150 billion dollars of pork had been added. Seriously.

Here are a few highlights of the pork:

• Makers of wooden arrows for kids. Cost to taxpayers: $2 million over 10 years.
• Speedway owners (yeah…NASCAR). Cost to taxpayers: $100 million over two years.
• Rum-makers in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Cost to taxpayers: $192 million.
• Companies that do research in the U.S. Cost to taxpayers: $19 billion.
• Movie and television producers. Cost to taxpayers: $478 million over 10 years.
• Wool producers and makers of wool clothing. Cost to taxpayers: $148 million over five years.
• Businesses that encourage their employees to commute by bicycle. Cost to taxpayers: $10 million.
• Corporations and producers that donate food. Cost to taxpayers: $149 million
• Groups that donate books to schools: Cost to taxpayers: $49 million.

Regardless of whether you think these are good things…they did not belong in this “rescue” bill. That’s what they’re calling it now. ”Bailout” sounds so negative. Oh, and this is such a positive thing!

I hope I can raise four responsible adults, even though the government is setting a horrible example. Maybe I can get some pork of my own added to the next big rescue bill. How about $10,000 to buy each member of Congress a copy of Love and Logic.

The Financial Mess

I am completely in shock that despite the financial crisis in this country, there are actually people who think it’s a good idea to vote for Barak Obama. I realize that the media is singing his praises. Americans are scared, so they are blindly listening. People…please remember that the media is controlled by a bunch of liberals. Extreme liberals. You must use your own brain to make your decisions; don’t let them make your decisions for you.

I want to start at the very beginning of the “mortgage crisis”. What happened?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This whole mess can be traced back to them. Fannie Mae gave mortgage loans to millions of Americans who couldn't afford them. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the worst offenders in this housing loan crisis, which in turn caused many banking institutions to go down with it. The crisis has had a domino effect throughout our financial institutions. In fact, AIG was in part brought down because it held $600 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But why? Why would they make all of these risky subprime loans?

Fannie Mae is heavily involved with the Congressional Black Caucus. Interim CEO Daniel Mudd described the relationship Fannie Mae and the Congressional Black Caucus shared as a "family" relationship. The Caucus pressured Fannie Mae to make these loans. I am not saying that all of these bad loans belong to minorities. I am also not saying that banks are blameless. I AM saying that race played a big part in this mess.

Congress was pushing their "noble goal" of increasing home ownership for poor and minority Americans. There were lots of new rules that made it possible for otherwise unqualified people to buy homes. This really got going in the 90’s under President Clinton and included eliminating verification of income or assets, little assurance of the ability to pay the mortgage, and virtually eliminating down payments. That sounds great, but what they really did was create a time bomb that was set off as soon as property values began to decline.

Increase in demand (more "qualified" buyers) led to an increase in home prices. As long as housing prices rose, the problems of lowering lending standards were hidden. While prices rose, no one had to default. Instead, if someone was unable to pay the mortgage, the obvious option was to sell the house at a profit. As long as prices continued to rise...it was amazing...the new standards didn’t cause higher default rates than the old standards! Enter time bomb.

Government backing let Fannie and Freddie dominate the mortgage-underwriting. The politicians created the mortgage giants, which then returned some of the profits to the politicians. So it is probably important to know who Fannie and Freddie are giving their money to right?

Recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Campaign contributions 1989-2008
1. Chris Dodd
2. Barak Obama
3. John Kerry

And Obama has only been in the Senate a few years! I wonder why all of the “unbiased” media ignores this little fact?

The media has been successful in making this mess look like it is the fault of “Republicans”. Let’s take a quick look at other Obama/Democrat ties to the Freddie Fannie mess.

1. Former Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO Franklin Raines was the White House budget director under Bill Clinton. He was also cited by the Washington Post as an economic advisor to...Barack Obama. He left Fannie Mae $90 million dollars richer.

2. Jamie Gorelick served as Bill Clinton's Deputy Attorney General. She installed the Intelligence "Wall of Separation" that helped lead to 9/11. Then she served as Vice Chairman at Fannie Mae. In 2002, she told "Business Week" that Fannie Mae was "very, very strong" and was "managed safely". For her efforts, driving the company to the brink, she received $26 million plus bonuses.

3. Jim Johnson is a former Vice-Chairman at Fannie Mae, AND Former managing director of Lehman Bros. It seems BOTH those companies have come into question recently. Barack Obama appointed him to his 3 member Vice Presidential search committee.

4. Penny Pritzker currently serves as Obama’s national finance chairwoman. Pritzker was chairwoman of the board for her family’s bank, Superior Bank FSB, and later director of its holding company. She made the fateful decision to adopt a new business strategy of aggressive subprime lending. The bank went under in 2001; a year after federal bank regulators were alerted of Superior’s subprime lending practices. The bank was accused of poor risk management and of targeting minorities for subprime loans at a rate that far exceeded other financial institutions. The FDIC covered most of the losses, but there are over 1,000 people who didn’t get back all of the money they had deposited in the bank.

Aggressive subprime lending is an important component of the economic crisis we currently face. So when you hear Barack Obama discuss the current problems, don’t forget that his campaign’s top money-woman was one of the actors in this drama, who gambled in the subprime mortgage market, and lost millions for her bank customers.

How many times have you heard Obama say “four-more-years-of-the-same-failed-policies-of-the-Bush-administration”? Drives me nuts.

A little Poli Sci 101: The president can’t make law. Only the Congress can do that. President Bush has been asking Congress to pass laws reforming Freddie and Fannie during his entire presidency...17 times this year alone! Please indulge me here...I have included a few examples of the times that “the evil Bush administration” tried to prevent the mess we are in now. He was ignored. I have to include some examples, or you would think I’m making it up!

April 2001: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE (Government-sponsored-enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity."

May 2002: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)

September 2003: The Bush administration recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago. Under the plan, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 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.

If this had been passed, it could possibly have prevented the current financial crisis. The strongest opponents were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who feared that tighter regulation of the companies would sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing. (NY Times article- September 11, 2003)

February 2004: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)

April 2005: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)

April 2008: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)

August 2007: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)

Why didn't Congress do anything?

In 2005, the Senate Banking Committee, then under Republican control, proposed a strong reform bill introduced by Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole (I love her!), and others. The bill prohibited Fannie and Freddie from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator more authority (such as setting capital requirements. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006. All the Republicans on the Committee supported the bill, and all the Democrats voted against it. John. McCain endorsed the legislation in a speech on the Senate floor. Barack Obama, like all other Democrats, remained silent (he did that a lot). Republicans were unable to get enough Democratic votes for a filibuster-proof majority, and therefore failed in their effort to get the bill out of the Senate. “The same politicians who today decry the lack of intervention to stop excess risk taking in 2005-2006 were the ones who blocked the only legislative effort that could have stopped it”. (Wall Street Journal, September 2008)

The Future

I have seriously fallen down on the job! I have been meaning to post about the "financial crisis" and the "bailout", but I have had a hard time putting my thoughts into words. It's bad...very bad. The whole situation. I promise I will post my thoughts about the new bailout bill (and the $150 billion pork spending that is attached to it) very soon. Right now I am trying to read The Birth Order Book for Book Group tonight. So I am going to post a letter instead. This is from CNN.com; written by Glenn Beck. It's really good.


Dear America:

Happy 300th Birthday!

It's 2076 and we've just invented the time-fax machine. (Actually, "we" didn't invent the time-fax machine, the State did -- they pretty much control everything now.)

I'm faxing this back to you in 2008 because that seems to be the year we had the best chance to reverse our course and get back to the vision laid out by our founding fathers -- a vision that didn't include the government being in the insurance business.

I don't have a lot of time (the State only gives us one 30-minute break per day) so let me give you some advice: Stop worrying so much about who runs the country and start worrying about who runs your towns, your states, and your Congress.

I know you're all distracted by the presidential election, but for all the money and time poured into it, the truth is that you're choosing between two roads that will lead you to the same destination. Sure, one may be the Autobahn and the other a two-lane highway, but you'll end up at the same place either way.

Decades of Republicans and Democrats alike have all chipped in to lead you to where you are today. Believing that one person, from either party, can change that by themselves is a big mistake.

Presidents are like captains of a large ship: They can map out a course and shout out orders, but without the trust and hard work of the people who actually move the rudders, their commands mean nothing.

In retrospect, the lack of trust and confidence you now have in your leaders was really the root cause of everything that's happened since. While our founding fathers designed a brilliant system of checks and balances, separation of powers and democratic elections, trust was the one thing they couldn't mandate in the Constitution.

Unfortunately, it's also the foundation upon which everything else is built and once it began to erode, our whole house inevitably began to crumble.

Looking back now, it's pretty obvious that our trust in government declined at about the same rate as our partisanship increased. People became so concerned about getting their party into power at any cost that the truth didn't even seem to matter anymore.

That's probably one of the reasons why George Washington hated the idea of political parties so much. Here's what he said about them in his 1796 farewell speech:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."

I know that George had a habit for using big words, so allow me to translate into 2008 English: Political parties that put their own success over that of the country's will be the death of America.

If you don't believe him yet, just wait a few more years...you're about to see firsthand how right he was. After all, if power corrupts, then the kind of absolute power gained by political parties (and feared by Washington) corrupts absolutely.

The best advice I can give you is to stop thinking in terms of left and right and start thinking in terms of right and wrong. Demand the best leaders possible, and then demand the best out of them.

Believe me, when you see what's coming your way, you'll realize how little the donkey and the elephant really ever mattered. Oh and while we're on politics, one quick thing that I'm sure you're curious about: Yes, Robert Byrd is still in the Senate. He's 159, but doesn't look a day over 91.

Now, let's talk about the economy. Let me see if I have this right: Money and power made people greedy, so you decided to hand over a bunch of money and power to greedy politicians instead. Smart! After using that money to nationalize a bunch of banks, mortgage companies and insurance companies, they moved on to bigger things.

The airlines came first -- we just couldn't live without them. Then it was the automakers (Detroit would've died), health care (they said they could manage it better), and eventually, the oil companies (I'm not sure where all of those "windfall profits" have gone).

The idea behind it all (an idea that was eventually turned into law with the passage of the Securities Exchange Act of 2011) was to "socialize losses" by spreading them out among all taxpayers. The pain, our leaders argued, would be minimal that way.

They were right. At least until the bills came due. See, we didn't actually have any of the money we were promising everyone; we were borrowing it.

It didn't take long before so many of our tax dollars were going toward interest payments that we couldn't fund even the most basic of government programs without massive tax increases on everyone. People now work most of the year just to pay Uncle Sam (or, as we now call him, "Comrade Sam").

I hear the State censors coming, so let me leave you with a few other quick things:

• Good call on not worrying about protecting our borders. That works out really well for you in 2019.

• You might want to spend a little less time worrying about carbon and a little more time worrying about Iran. We're now in a new mini-Ice Age but, believe me, Iran isn't using their nukes to warm any homes. (PS The International Atomic Energy Agency just revealed to you that Iran appears to be refitting their long-range missiles to carry nuclear payloads. Did you think they were joking or were you just too busy with lipsticks and pigs to notice?)

• The currency of the future is energy. Those who have it are thriving and those who don't -- well, let's just leave it at that. Drill for all the oil you can, but you also better start seriously looking for some other options.

In closing, remember this golden rule and you should be fine: Your Constitution will never fail you, but your leaders will. Be wary of anyone who tries to convince you that it's the other way around.

Best wishes (you're going to need them),

Worker 2744A

PS It's not all socialist doom and gloom here in the future. We just thawed Ted Williams' cryogenically frozen body and he hit 87 home runs for the North Team!

Change

I am reposting this article now that I have a political blog. It is the same article I posted earlier on my other blog. So if you read it there...no need to re-read!


The thought of Obama as president scares the bejeebers out of me! Writing about it makes me feel a little better.

So, why am I terrified of an Obama presidency? Where to start…

I recently finished the book “The Hunt for Red October” by Tom Clancy (Good book…a bit too much submarine/naval technical detail, but good overall). In the book there are a group of Soviet officers defecting to the United States, and you really get a look at what life is like in a socialist country. The captain's motivation for defecting is to punish the Socialist system over the death of his wife, who died from appendicitis. She received inadequate treatment from the state-run health care system.

Oh…but don’t we want state run health care in the US? No! In Canada, the average patient waited more than 18 weeks in 2007 between seeing their family doctor and receiving the surgery or treatment they required. They waited 22 months for a hip replacement. The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks. Aaron needed an MRI a few months ago. He had it done immediately.

The book discusses in detail the control that the government has over the lives of it’s citizens. It’s truly frightening.

Not as frightening as the fact that one of the men running for president wants more government regulation of the economy, more redistribution of wealth, more superiority of international institutions, more nationalization of medicine…more and more control over our lives.

As I read the book, I just kept thinking over and over…this is where Obama wants to lead our country. Obviously, not to the same extreme that existed in the Soviet Union…well, not in 4 years anyway.

Here’s an example. Obama wants to take the profits from oil companies and give them to “working class families”. That sounds good, doesn’t it?

If Obama is elected, and follows through with taking oil profits, do you think it will STOP with oil profits? Their profit margin is only 7-11%. There are tons companies and industries that make WAY more than that. Wal-Mart and Microsoft make a significantly higher margin. Glen Beck puts it this way “As for whether or not states and/or "working families" have the right to take the profits oil companies have made, I guess that depends on whether you adhere to the U.S. Constitution or the Communist Manifesto.”

Obama made a statement during the primaries that people in small towns that fall on hard times “cling to guns or religion …as a way to explain their frustrations.”

I remember enough from college to know how much this sounds like Karl Marx’s line about religion being the opiate of the masses.

Let’s look at a few of his wife’s ideas:

"And Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism, that you put down your division, that you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones, that you push yourselves to be better, and that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed..." (Speech in February, 2008)

"Barack knows that we are going to have to make sacrifices, that we are going to have to change our conversation, we're gonna have to change our traditions, our history, we're gonna have to move into a different place as a nation." (Campaign speech in Puerto Rico)

Let’s see…”require you”, “demand that you”, “will never allow you to”, “have to make sacrifices”. Hmmm…lots of freedom there…

You know what? I like my traditions, my history and my nation. I am proud of all three. I’m sorry Barack Obama; your change is not for me.

In her speech at the DNC she said that her husband is running “to make health care available for every American, and to make sure every child in this nation gets a world class education all the way from preschool to college”. But what if you don’t want to send your child to preschool? You don’t think you should actually get the choice, do you? What if you want to be a plumber, and have no desire to go to college? It’s a good thing the government knows what’s best for you.

I know this is insanely long, but I have to talk about taxes.

Obama has proposed creating a slew of government spending programs that are disguised as tax credits.

Here’s the deal:
The bottom 40% of income earners already pays no income taxes (data from the Congressional Budget Office). Actually, they receive a payment from the federal income tax system (meaning from the taxpayers). This amounts to them paying negative 3.8%. Seriously. Currently, this is in the form of the Earned Income Credit (EIC), but Obama wants to significantly expand these credits so that many are “refundable”. So the people that pay NO taxes will be getting huge checks.

That’s what he means when he talks about tax cuts…redistribution of wealth! Not really the kind of tax cuts that I had in mind.

He would like us to believe that the “wealthy” aren’t paying taxes, while the “middle class” foots the bill.

Actually, let’s look at the numbers…the middle 20% of income earners, the true middle class, pays 4.4% of federal all income taxes. Did you catch that? That means the wealthiest 40% of the nation is paying 99.4% of the income taxes! (Yes, I know that equals more than 100%...remember, we have to make up for the negative 3.8% that is going to the people who don’t pay ANY taxes)

Hitler and Stalin both promised hope and change. Let’s think about the kind of change we want.

Reminder

Monday, October 6th is the deadline to register to vote in Arkansas. Most states have a deadline sometime in October. So if you have recently moved, or have never voted, it's time to get moving!

For Arkansas voters, here is a link to the registration form from the Arkansas Secretary of State's office:

http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/elections/elections_pdfs/voter/voter_reg_ap_ar.pdf

You can mail it in, or take it to the County Clerk's Office or Revenue Office.

This only applies if you plan to vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin. If you plan to vote for Obama, there is no deadline. Also, the election has been postponed to Wednesday, November 5th.

Trivia:
Did you know that we hold our election in November so that it won't interfere with planting and harvesting? The harvest is over, but the weather is still mild enough to allow traveling long distances.

The election is Tuesday so Monday can be used as a travel day to the polls. People can't be expected to travel on Sunday, that's the Sabbath. Man, times have changed!

Gas Prices

Who should we blame for the high gas prices? Let’s see…do we blame “big oil”? That’s who the media would like us to blame. With all of their “windfall profits” that Barak Obama is going to tax the bejeebers out of.

I know that everyone has heard the “windfall profit” buzz word, so I want to take just a minute to explain a little history on it.

In 1980, the United States enacted the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act. It wasn’t actually a tax on profits, it was an excise tax. An excise tax is a tax that is imposed on goods produced domestically. Congress felt like US oil producers weren’t paying their fair share, so they passed this law.

Well…turns out they were dead wrong. In 1988 they repealed the act because they were totally off in their estimates on oil prices. Also, Congress realized that the tax had increased the nation's dependence on imported oil. Being an excise tax, it was only imposed on oil produced domestically in the United States; it was not imposed on imported oil.

Brilliant.

A few months ago a bill was introduced that would impose a 25% windfall tax on an oil company whose profits grew by more than 10%. It came really close to passing.

Well, are the profits “windfall”?

In the second quarter of 2008 (the one that recently ended), Exxon made $11.68 billion in profit. That does seem a little excessive. Unless you also look at this tiny piece of information: they paid $32 billion in taxes. $10.5 billion just in income taxes. (CNNmoney.com)

Seriously. I would think paying 49% in income tax should cover it.

So Congress must have their feathers ruffled because the oil companies’ profits are way out of line with other industries, right?

Exxon's profit margin was 10% for 2007. If that is the standard for “windfall profits”, most of corporate America would also qualify. For example: aerospace and machinery made 8.2% profit in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals: 18.4% and beverages and tobacco: 19.1%. (Wall Street Journal)

It is very clear to me that Congress is using “big oil” as a scapegoat.

Well if we can’t blame big oil, who do we blame?

We need more refineries. Everyone knows that our current gas price spike is due to hurricane Ike. Texas has shut down 14 of its 26 refineries, which amounts to 3.8 million barrels of fuel a day, or 25% of the nation’s gasoline. Even after the storm is passed, the refineries could stay shut down due to power outages.

We need more refineries. And we need them located across the nation so a natural disaster doesn’t cause such upheaval.

There has not been a new refinery built in the US since 1976…that’s over 30 years! Existing refineries have been expanded and patched up, but it is impossible for oil companies to build new refineries because of the ridiculous, unnecessary, and costly Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. The price consumers pay at the pump reflects not only high oil prices due to tight supplies, but also high refining costs due to tight refining capacity.

The environmentalists have made sure that no new refineries have been built. They have enough red tape and lawsuits to block them. You see, they are concerned with the “carbon emissions” that the refineries produce. So you are paying $4 at the pump to reduce theoretical global warming.

(Ok, this post is already really long, so I will save my rant about the global warming theory for another day…it’s killing me, but I can do it…deep breaths…)

So the first reason gas prices are so high is the lack of refineries. The second reason is that we can’t get to the oil that is right here in the US. There are so many bans, we are only able to drill in a teeny tiny portion of the areas with oil. Despite the bans, we are able to domestically produce 30% of our own oil…more than we import from any other country.

Think of the amazing possibilities if more areas were opened to drilling. There was recently a bill that was introduced in Congress (actually it didn’t even make it out of committee) to open up the Continental Shelf. The democrats killed it. (Remember, they have better ideas, like taxing those “windfall profits”.) The day after the bill was killed, this is what Glenn Beck had to say:

“The Government estimates that the outer continental shelf, the one they said no to yesterday, has 76 billion barrels of oil in it that are recoverable and that's with today's technology. Let me put that into perspective. 76 billion barrels is enough to replace every single barrel of oil that we import from everywhere outside of North America for the next 34 years at our current pace. That's in the one place, one, that congress said we couldn't go into yesterday.”

There are many, many other areas that are rich with oil, right here in the US. Oil companies are banned from exploring these areas because of the potential impact on the environment. One of these areas is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska that Sarah Palin favors drilling.

“The United States Department of Energy estimates that ANWR oil production between 2018 and 2030 would reduce the cumulative net expenditures on imported crude oil and liquid fuels by an estimated $135 to $327 billion (2006 dollars), between 2018 and 2030, reducing the foreign trade deficit” (Wikipedia)

This refuge is 20 million acres, and they want to drill in like 2000 acres. The biggest reason against drilling: Porcupine Caribou. It might cut the heard off from calving areas.

And many environmentalists also tack on the risk of oil spills as part of their argument against drilling. In fact, The National Academy of Sciences found that Outer continental shelf operations are more than five times less likely to cause a spill than oil tankers who are importing oil.

We are purposely limiting our own supplies.

That is why you are paying $4 at the pump.

Is Sarah Palin Qualified?

I am excited to start my very own political blog. I didn’t really think anyone cared about my opinions, but apparently I was wrong. I was quite surprised and flattered by all of the compliments and encouragement that I received to continue writing political posts.

So here I go! For my first post, I first thought I would write about some of the Obama thoughts that are swimming around in my head. But I changed my mind. There is something that I just have to get out.

I was on facebook, writing on the wall of one of my friends. Of course, I had to read the previous posts (come on…I know I am not the only wall stalker out there!) My jaw seriously dropped as I read the post directly before mine. I do not know the girl who posted it, and I’m sure she is a perfectly nice person. Perfectly nice, but not necessarily perfectly smart. Did I just say that? OK, here is the actual post:

What's up with the Palin invites? I know I should be in love but I have my own issues playing into this. Doesn't anyone else think that maybe the role of VP is alittle much for a mother of five with an infant at home and a grandbaby on the way? Or that perhaps someone with alittle more experience might have been a better choice in case he kicks the bucket? Ah well, I'm still voting for them, don't worry, but I'm not joining the fan club.

Seriously!?!?

I believe that this girl is just a victim of blindly repeating things she hears on the news. Here are a few recent quotes from the oh-so-“unbiased” media:

“Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make?” Sally Quinn, Washington Post

“There’s also this issue that on April 18th, she gave birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome…. Children with Down’s syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of Vice President, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?” John Roberts CNN

Did you know that Kohn F. Kennedy’s son, John Jr., was born just weeks after his father was elected? Caroline was only three. Man, I just don’t see how he’s going to be able to perform his duties as president with a newborn around. Do you think that question was raised? Of course not! His wife also suffered a miscarriage just months before he was assassinated. Certainly he isn’t fit to be president. His family needed him.

This kind of question would never be raised of a man. The thing is, Sarah Palin has a wonderful, caring husband. I think it is great that the men of our generation share the responsibility of raising children. It’s even better that they do it willingly and happily. Men are capable of rearing children. End of story.

If the Palin family has decided that this family dynamic works for them; who the heck are we to question their decision? These children have two parents that love them very much. If reversing the traditional roles works best for their family…great!

The thing that kills me is that it’s the “feminists” that are yelling the loudest. I read a story about a feminist woman who bragged about returning to work less than a week after giving birth, saying that was all she needed. This same woman is vocal about her opinion that Sarah Palin should spend more time at home with her baby with Downs Syndrome.

These are the same women who have argued that women can “have it all” and “do it all”. I looked up the definition of feminism is “the belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes”.

Equality.

Sarah Palin chose to have a family, and then she chose to enter the political arena. She is a smart and capable woman, and I think she can balance her career and family as well as any man.

I would also like to address the second part of the comment left by my friend’s friend (who will remain nameless).

“…perhaps someone with alittle more experience might have been a better choice in case he kicks the bucket?”

Again, she is just regurgitating what she was fed by the liberal media. First and foremost:

As the chief executive of her state, she is better prepared, and has more experience to bring to the presidency than the man who heads the democratic ticket, who had only a year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for president (these are Glen Beck’s words…he just said it so perfectly I decided to quote him)

At the time that Obama announced that he was running for president, he had been a U.S. Senator for 767 days. When Sarah Palin was announced as a vice presidential candidate, she had been the governor of Alaska for 634 days. Hmmm.

Also, oil and gas prices are a top issue in this election. She has unique energy experience as the governor of oil-rich Alaska where 85 percent of the budget comes from oil revenue. She's also the previous head of the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

Did you catch that she was the head of the commission? Let’s see…head of a city, head of an important commission, head of a STATE!

As Governor, Palin operates a $9 billion budget, and manages $13 billion in revenue. Furthermore, she runs a government that employs 25,000 people.

I guess Obama is the head of his campaign…