Bachmann wins the Straw Poll...

Michele Bachmann wins the Iowa Straw Poll. She was way out in front of Mitt Romney, who came in fourth from the bottom. Only Thad McCotter, John Huntsman and Newt Gingrich had fewer votes.

Who in the hell is Thad McCotter? And who is John Huntsman?

Actually, I have heard some things about Huntsman, most of it I didn't care for.

Newt would probably make a decent president. He does have a rino streak though, and his wife seems to be killing his campaign.

I like Michele Bachmann, I just don't know if she would make a good president. In my opinion, a president should be a former governor. It seems like the next logical step. Congresscritters don't usually have the experience that a governor has.

A governor is responsible for a budget, hiring and firing, keeping lots of balls in the air. Congresscritters have to show up to vote. I don't know.

Bachmann would probably make a great VP candidate.

This next time around, we need to ensure that we:

A. Get rid of obama, first and foremost

B. Don't get a rino

C. Get someone who has the same values as the majority of Americans

D. Get someone who believes in the Constitution and is willing to fight for it

E. Preferably someone with a Military background, it is unfair to our troops to have to salute a guy (or girl) who hasn't been willing to give their life for this Country. While obama was doing coke and smoking weed in college there were lots of men and women serving this Country in the Military.

Congress sets new approval rating record!!

Congrats to Congress!! They have set a new record! Never before in the history of our Country has a congress had a lower approval rating. A whopping 10%.

How do we continue to pay these assholes with a 10% approval rating? I had an idea, I may have posted it before. How about we pay congress a percentage of their salary based on their approval rating? I think that is fair.

Seriously, if I had a 10% approval rating at my job, I doubt I would have one. Unless I worked for the government that is. If you suck at what you do so bad that 90% of your customers don't approve of what you do, you should probably look for another career.

Boehner, you should be ashamed of yourself. You held all the cards and, once again, the democrats screwed you and this entire Country. You should resign, effective NOW...

The Dow drops 634.76 points today...

The Dow dropped 634 points or 5.55 percent of it's value today. It was the biggest drop since December 2008.

Do you think this doesn't affect you? That it is only the Wall Street fat cats that are being hurt? If you have a 401K at work, think again. Chances are, your 401K has lots of stock market investments going on.

There are many factors that contribute to the rise and fall of the stock market. In this particular case it can all be blamed on the complete mismanagement of our economy by obama and congress. The downgrading of our credit rating is 100% the fault of this administration and those in congress without the guts to do the right thing for this Country.

We are in some real trouble here people. Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride. I would suggest stocking up on ramen noodles, rice, beans and ammo. I think we are going to be needing all of them soon, very soon...

democrats are idiots (and so are most republicans)...

Are the democrats REALLY trying to blame the downgrade by S&P on the Tea Party? Seriously?

If I recall correctly, the Cut, Cap and Balance approach was the only plan submitted that was said to avoid any type of downgrade. And who was it that was pushing for that? Oh, that's right, the Tea Party.

Instead Boehner and his cronies decided to fold up and go with the harry reid "compromise" plan.

Here is the group of people from  the senate who are responsible for the downgrade in our credit rating. If your State isn't listed, it's because both of your senators were smart enough to vote NO on this abomination.

Alaska:
Begich, Mark (D), Yes
Murkowski, Lisa (R), Yes

Arizona:
Kyl, Jon (R), Yes
McCain, John (R), Yes

Arkansas:

Boozman, John (R), Yes
Pryor, Mark (D), Yes

California:
Boxer, Barbara (D), Yes
Feinstein, Dianne (D), Yes

Colorado:
Bennet, Michael (D), Yes
Udall, Mark (D), Yes

Connecticut:
Blumenthal, Richard (D), Yes
Lieberman, Joseph, (ID), Yes

Delaware:
Carper, Thomas (D), Yes
Coons, Christopher (D), Yes

Florida:
Nelson, Bill (D), Yes

Georgia:
Isakson, Johnny (R), Yes

Hawaii:
Akaka, Daniel (D), Yes
Inouye, Daniel (D), Yes

Idaho:
Crapo, Mike (R), Yes
Risch, James (R), Yes

Illinois:
Durbin, Richard (D), Yes
Kirk, Mark (R), Yes

Indiana:
Lugar, Richard (R), Yes

Kansas:
Roberts, Pat (R), Yes

Kentucky:
McConnell, Mitch (R), Yes

Louisiana:
Landrieu, Mary (D), Yes

Maine:
Collins, Susan (R), Yes
Snowe, Olympia (R), Yes

Maryland:
Cardin, Benjamin (D), Yes
Mikulski, Barbara (D), Yes

Massachusetts:
Brown, Benjamin (R), Yes
Kerry, John (D), Yes

Michigan:
Levin, Carl (D), Yes
Stabenow, Debbie (D), Yes

Minnesota:
Franken, Al (D), Yes
Klobuchar, Amy (D), Yes

Mississippi:
Cochran, Thad (R), Yes
Wicker, Roger (R), Yes

Missouri:
Blunt, Roy (R), Yes
McCaskill, Claire (D), Yes

Montana:
Baucus, Max (D), Yes
Tester, Jon (D), Yes

Nebraska:
Johanns, Mike (R), Yes

Nevada:
Reid, Harry (D), Yes

New Hampshire:
Shaheen, Jeanne (D), Yes

New Mexico:
Bingaman, Jeff (D), Yes
Udall, Tom (D), Yes

New York:
Schumer, Charles (D), Yes

North Carolina:
Burr, Richard (R), Yes
Hagan, Kay (D), Yes

North Dakota:
Conrad, Kent (D), Yes
Hoeven, John (R), Yes

Ohio:
Brown, Sherrod (D), Yes
Portman, Rob (R), Yes

Oregon:
Wyden, Ron (D), Yes

Pennsylvania:
Casey, Robert (D), Yes

Rhode Island:
Reed, Jack (D), Yes
Whitehouse, Sheldon, (D), Yes

South Dakota:
Johnson, Tim (D), Yes
Thune, John (R), Yes

Tennessee:
Alexander, Lamar (R), Yes
Corker, Bob (R), Yes

Texas:
Cornyn, John (R), Yes
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R), Yes

Vermont:
Leahy, Patrick (D), Yes

Virginia:
Warner, Mark (D), Yes
Webb, Jim (D), Yes

Washington:
Cantwell, Maria (D), Yes
Murray, Patty (D), Yes

West Virginia:
Manchin, Joe (D), Yes
Rockefeller, John (D), Yes

Wisconsin:
Kohl, Herb (D), Yes

Wyoming:
Barrasso, John (R), Yes
Enzi, Michael (R), Yes

And this is how the house voted. Since there are so many of these, I included the yes and no votes. Remember, the people who voted YES are to blame for our current situation. obama and gang of thugs can spin this any way they want, but they are directly responsible for this mess. They have spent and spent and then spent some more, borrowing 40 cents of every dollar being spent.

ALABAMA

Democrats — Sewell, Y.
Republicans — Aderholt, Y; Bachus, Y; Bonner, Y; Brooks, N; Roby, N; Rogers, Y.

ALASKA
Republicans — Young, Y.

ARIZONA
Democrats — Giffords, Y; Grijalva, N; Pastor, N.
Republicans — Flake, N; Franks, N; Gosar, Y; Quayle, N; Schweikert, N.

ARKANSAS
Democrats — Ross, Y.
Republicans — Crawford, Y; Griffin, Y; Womack, Y.

CALIFORNIA
Democrats — Baca, X; Bass, Y; Becerra, N; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, N; Chu, N; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, N; Filner, N; Garamendi, Y; Hahn, N; Honda, N; Lee, N; Lofgren, Zoe, N; Matsui, N; McNerney, N; Miller, George, N; Napolitano, N; Pelosi, Y; Richardson, N; Roybal-Allard, N; Sanchez, Linda T., N; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Speier, Y; Stark, N; Thompson, Y; Waters, N; Waxman, N; Woolsey, N.

Republicans — Bilbray, Y; Bono Mack, Y; Calvert, Y; Campbell, Y; Denham, Y; Dreier, Y; Gallegly, Y; Herger, Y; Hunter, N; Issa, Y; Lewis, Y; Lungren, Daniel E., Y; McCarthy, Y; McClintock, N; McKeon, Y; Miller, Gary, Y; Nunes, N; Rohrabacher, Y; Royce, Y.

COLORADO
Democrats — DeGette, N; Perlmutter, Y; Polis, Y.
Republicans — Coffman, Y; Gardner, Y; Lamborn, N; Tipton, N.

CONNECTICUT
Democrats — Courtney, Y; DeLauro, N; Himes, Y; Larson, N; Murphy, N.

DELAWARE
Democrats — Carney, Y.

FLORIDA
Democrats — Brown, N; Castor, Y; Deutch, Y; Hastings, N; Wasserman Schultz, Y; Wilson, Y.

Republicans — Adams, Y; Bilirakis, Y; Buchanan, Y; Crenshaw, Y; Diaz-Balart, Y; Mack, N; Mica, Y; Miller, Y; Nugent, Y; Posey, N; Rivera, Y; Rooney, Y; Ros-Lehtinen, Y; Ross, N; Southerland, N; Stearns, N; Webster, Y; West, Y; Young, Y.

GEORGIA
Democrats — Barrow, Y; Bishop, Y; Johnson, Y; Lewis, N; Scott, David, Y.

Republicans — Broun, N; Gingrey, N; Graves, N; Kingston, N; Price, Y; Scott, Austin, N; Westmoreland, N; Woodall, Y.

HAWAII
Democrats — Hanabusa, Y; Hirono, Y.

IDAHO
Republicans — Labrador, N; Simpson, Y.

ILLINOIS
Democrats — Costello, Y; Davis, Y; Gutierrez, Y; Jackson, N; Lipinski, Y; Quigley, Y; Rush, Y; Schakowsky, N.

Republicans — Biggert, Y; Dold, Y; Hultgren, N; Johnson, N; Kinzinger, Y; Manzullo, Y; Roskam, Y; Schilling, Y; Schock, Y; Shimkus, Y; Walsh, N.

INDIANA
Democrats — Carson, N; Donnelly, Y; Visclosky, N.

Republicans — Bucshon, Y; Burton, N; Pence, Y; Rokita, N; Stutzman, N; Young, Y.

IOWA
Democrats — Boswell, N; Braley, N; Loebsack, N.

Republicans — King, N; Latham, N.

KANSAS
Republicans — Huelskamp, N; Jenkins, Y; Pompeo, Y; Yoder, N.

KENTUCKY
Democrats — Chandler, Y; Yarmuth, N.

Republicans — Davis, N; Guthrie, Y; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, Y.

LOUISIANA
Democrats — Richmond, Y.

Republicans — Alexander, Y; Boustany, Y; Cassidy, Y; Fleming, N; Landry, N; Scalise, N.

MAINE
Democrats — Michaud, Y; Pingree, N.

MARYLAND
Democrats — Cummings, N; Edwards, N; Hoyer, Y; Ruppersberger, Y; Sarbanes, N; Van Hollen, Y.

Republicans — Bartlett, Y; Harris, N.

MASSACHUSETTS
Democrats — Capuano, N; Frank, N; Keating, Y; Lynch, Y; Markey, N; McGovern, N; Neal, N; Olver, N; Tierney, N; Tsongas, Y.

MICHIGAN
Democrats — Clarke, N; Conyers, N; Dingell, Y; Kildee, Y; Levin, Y; Peters, N.

Republicans — Amash, N; Benishek, Y; Camp, Y; Huizenga, Y; McCotter, Y; Miller, Y; Rogers, Y; Upton, Y; Walberg, Y.

MINNESOTA
Democrats — Ellison, N; McCollum, N; Peterson, Y; Walz, Y.

Republicans — Bachmann, N; Cravaack, N; Kline, Y; Paulsen, Y.

MISSISSIPPI
Democrats — Thompson, N.

Republicans — Harper, Y; Nunnelee, Y; Palazzo, Y.

MISSOURI
Democrats — Carnahan, Y; Clay, Y; Cleaver, N.

Republicans — Akin, N; Emerson, Y; Graves, Y; Hartzler, N; Long, Y; Luetkemeyer, Y.

MONTANA
Republicans — Rehberg, N.

NEBRASKA
Republicans — Fortenberry, Y; Smith, Y; Terry, Y.

NEVADA
Democrats — Berkley, Y.

Republicans — Heck, Y.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Republicans — Bass, Y; Guinta, Y.

NEW JERSEY
Democrats — Andrews, Y; Holt, N; Pallone, N; Pascrell, Y; Payne, N; Rothman, Y; Sires, Y.

Republicans — Frelinghuysen, Y; Garrett, N; Lance, Y; LoBiondo, Y; Runyan, Y; Smith, Y.

NEW MEXICO
Democrats — Heinrich, Y; Lujan, N.

Republicans — Pearce, N.

NEW YORK
Democrats — Ackerman, N; Bishop, Y; Clarke, N; Crowley, N; Engel, N; Higgins, Y; Hinchey, X; Hochul, Y; Israel, Y; Lowey, Y; Maloney, N; McCarthy, Y; Meeks, Y; Nadler, N; Owens, Y; Rangel, N; Serrano, N; Slaughter, N; Tonko, N; Towns, N; Velazquez, N.

Republicans — Buerkle, N; Gibson, Y; Grimm, Y; Hanna, Y; Hayworth, Y; King, Y; Reed, Y.

NORTH CAROLINA
Democrats — Butterfield, N; Kissell, N; McIntyre, N; Miller, N; Price, N; Shuler, Y; Watt, N.

Republicans — Coble, Y; Ellmers, Y; Foxx, Y; Jones, N; McHenry, Y; Myrick, Y.

NORTH DAKOTA
Republicans — Berg, Y.

OHIO
Democrats — Fudge, N; Kaptur, N; Kucinich, N; Ryan, N; Sutton, N.

Republicans — Austria, Y; Boehner, Y; Chabot, Y; Gibbs, Y; Johnson, Y; Jordan, N; LaTourette, Y; Latta, Y; Renacci, Y; Schmidt, Y; Stivers, Y; Tiberi, Y; Turner, N.

OKLAHOMA
Democrats — Boren, Y.

Republicans — Cole, Y; Lankford, Y; Lucas, Y; Sullivan, Y.

OREGON
Democrats — Blumenauer, N; DeFazio, N; Schrader, Y; Wu, Y.

Republicans — Walden, Y.

PENNSYLVANIA
Democrats — Altmire, Y; Brady, Y; Critz, Y; Doyle, N; Fattah, Y; Holden, Y; Schwartz, Y.

Republicans — Barletta, Y; Dent, Y; Fitzpatrick, Y; Gerlach, Y; Kelly, Y; Marino, Y; Meehan, Y; Murphy, Y; Pitts, Y; Platts, Y; Shuster, Y; Thompson, Y.

RHODE ISLAND
Democrats — Cicilline, Y; Langevin, Y.

SOUTH CAROLINA
Democrats — Clyburn, Y.

Republicans — Duncan, N; Gowdy, N; Mulvaney, N; Scott, N; Wilson, N.

SOUTH DAKOTA
Republicans — Noem, Y.

TENNESSEE
Democrats — Cohen, N; Cooper, Y.
Republicans — Black, Y; Blackburn, Y; DesJarlais, N; Duncan, Y; Fincher, Y; Fleischmann, N; Roe, Y.

TEXAS
Democrats — Cuellar, Y; Doggett, Y; Gonzalez, N; Green, Al, N; Green, Gene, Y; Hinojosa, Y; Jackson Lee, Y; Johnson, E. B., Y; Reyes, N.

Republicans — Barton, Y; Brady, Y; Burgess, Y; Canseco, Y; Carter, Y; Conaway, Y; Culberson, Y; Farenthold, Y; Flores, Y; Gohmert, N; Granger, Y; Hall, N; Hensarling, Y; Johnson, Sam, Y; Marchant, Y; McCaul, Y; Neugebauer, N; Olson, Y; Paul, N; Poe, N; Sessions, Y; Smith, Y; Thornberry, Y.

UTAH
Democrats — Matheson, Y.

Republicans — Bishop, N; Chaffetz, N.

VERMONT
Democrats — Welch, N.

VIRGINIA
Democrats — Connolly, Y; Moran, N; Scott, N.

Republicans — Cantor, Y; Forbes, N; Goodlatte, Y; Griffith, N; Hurt, Y; Rigell, Y; Wittman, Y; Wolf, Y.

WASHINGTON
Democrats — Dicks, Y; Inslee, Y; Larsen, Y; McDermott, N; Smith, N.

Republicans — Hastings, Y; Herrera Beutler, Y; McMorris Rodgers, Y; Reichert, Y.

WEST VIRGINIA
Democrats — Rahall, Y.
Republicans — Capito, Y; McKinley, Y.

WISCONSIN
Democrats — Baldwin, N; Kind, Y; Moore, X.

Republicans — Duffy, Y; Petri, Y; Ribble, Y; Ryan, Y; Sensenbrenner, Y.

WYOMING
Republicans — Lummis, Y.

Be sure to call, write or email the yes votes and thank them for further damaging our fragile economy...

Cut, Cap and Balance...

If you haven't already done so, you should write your congresscritters and tell them to support Cut, Cap and Balance. If you don't know what it is, it is a bill being voted on today in the House that says government has to CUT current spending, CAP future spending and put forth to the States a BALANCED budget amendment.

Without these measures in place, congress is going to continue to spend TRILLIONS of dollars we don't have. This bill will put measures in place that makes government accountable to the real bosses, us, the tax paying Citizens of this Country.

If you need another reason, obama opposes it. Anything obama is against has to be good for this Country.

Call your congresscritters, write them, email them, anything. Just tell them that we demand this runaway freight train be brought under control. And CUT, CAP and BALANCE is a good place to start...

The number to the congress switchboard is 202-224-3121

Your tax dollars at work...

Read the headline below...

NIH-Backed Study Examined Effects of Penis Size in Gay Community

There is an article over at FoxNews that talks about how our tax dollars were used to study the size of gay men's penis's and how it affects their sex life. This has really got to fall into the WTF category. Who exactly is this study for? Did the national institutes of health really think this was a study that should be funded by taxpayers? Don't you think this is information that fags already have? And who the hell else cares?

Shit like this is exactly what put our Country into borderline bankruptcy. The people that we entrust to spend our money wisely DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK. They will spend our money on the most idiotic things and then wonder where it all went.

Imagine a 10 year old with a credit card. Take his little ass to the mall first thing in the morning and before lunch he will have charged up ten thousand dollars worth of nintendo games, bubble gum and rap cd's. This is our government, a ten year old with OUR credit card.

If you want to read the article,  here it is.

The NRA visits the u.n.

Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, visited the u.n. today. He spoke to the u.n. regarding the proposed small arms treaty. Here is the text of that speech...

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America's 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We've reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We've listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced. We've watched, and read ... listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen - not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them ... but they've proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms." Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and - perhaps most importantly - proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms." Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told "Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms." But then we're told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms." Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That's nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy." Well, that's exactly what is now being proposed -- with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms." But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, "Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms." However, he would have to get a so-called "transit permit" merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned.

Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is critical and not subject to negotiation - civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone's right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I'd be remiss if I didn't also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President's power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate's power to approve them.

To that end, it's important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate - the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this - rejecting a proposed treaty before it's even submitted for consideration - but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection - infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

Thank you.

I would trust rattlesnake before I would trust the u.n. or hillary clinton. Neither of them give a damn about me and you. They care about power and the doors that power will open. The u.n. will never take my firearms, not as long as I am still breathing.

 

And to all the naysayers, claiming that the recent rise in frequency of articles concerning this treaty are scare tactics by pro-gun groups in order to raise, do you still think so? If this weren't an issue of legitimate concern would time had been allowed at the u.n. for LaPierre to speak?

 

Wayne LaPierre is correct, Americans will never give up our guns or gun rights to a foreign body. We won't even give up those things to the government of our own Country.

 

And just a word to those who don't own guns or are even anti-gun. Those of us who do own firearms continue to ensure the freedoms you enjoy every day. The 2nd Amendment is what guarantees all of our other rights. As long as there are those of us that do exercise our right to Keep and Bear Arms, all of us will remain citizens instead of subjects...

3 Myths About the Oil and Gas Industry

I don't like the price of gas any more than the next guy, but is there really blame to be placed? Could the price of gas be simply a product of supply and demand? Why does congress feel it is necessary to call executives from oil companies in and talk to them like naughty children? Why does congress think it is correct to deny oil companies the same tax incentives than many other large corporations get? Is it really fair to single out one industry and penalize them for making a profit?

And the oil companies do make a profit, there is no doubt. But their profit margin is less than that of many other companies, like Walmart or Apple. Oil companies pay about 40% of their revenue in taxes, much more than a lot of other industries. Take General Electric for example, last year GE actually got more money back from the government than they paid in taxes. And the oil companies are the bad guys. It sure didn't hurt GE that their ceo at the time, jeffrey immelt, is an advisor to the crooked obama administration.

The "evil" big oil companies make less on a gallon of gas than the federal government, yet they are demonized by the left at every opportunity, and have been for years.

What do you think increasing taxes on oil companies will do to gas prices? I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm betting it would make prices go up by about the same amount as the tax increase.

Maybe if oil companies were allowed to do what they do best, drill for oil, supply and demand would equal out and we wouldn't be paying 4 bucks a gallon to go back and forth to work...

By Bob Beauprez - FoxNews

As voters around the country wince at rising gas prices, panicked Democrats, in a rush to cover the failure of their all-or-nothing bet on the alternative energy industry have started singing a familiar tune – blame the oil and gas industry. Instead of facing the reality of his owned failed policies, President Obama is calling for an end to the "tax giveaways" he claims amount to $4 billion in “subsidies” to the energy industry.

This tactic isn’t surprising given the effect that rising gas prices have on the president’s approval ratings and his obsession with re-election. But, less-than-truthful innuendos and political spin hardly helps America's working families who are getting hammered at the pump.

If our leaders are going to have an honest discussion about energy, it's important to clear up a few rumors, misconceptions and outright falsehoods being perpetrated about the oil and gas industry. Let's begin with three of the more common ones:

1. The industry doesn’t receive any taxpayer funded subsides. None.

2. Rampant speculation and Wall Street tricks aren’t driving up gas prices.

3. The oil and gas industry is not dodging the taxes they owe and withholding “their fair share.”

I'll say it again; contrary to popular opinion and the president's spin, the oil and gas industries do not receive any taxpayer funded subsidies. The tax code does allow them to claim certain tax credits and deductions to encourage continued investment in an industry that is heavily front-end loaded with capital expense.

These are the same kind of incentives available to Coca-Cola, General Electric, Ford, and Microsoft and other companies doing business in the U.S. Or, for that matter, like the deduction for mortgage interest payments enjoyed by homeowners. But, importantly these are tax credits, and markedly different from direct taxpayer cash subsidies like the 45 cent per gallon payment blenders get to put ethanol in fuel mixes.

When businesses invest in America, we all benefit. The oil and gas industry plows about $300 billion into domestic projects per year – that's 75 times more than Obama's phantom "taxpayer giveaways" amount -- and employees over 9 million people. Those are real numbers; not Washington spin, and if government would allow and encourage even more domestic production there would be more jobs and more investment – and more total taxes paid, too.

Another argument that often circulates when gas prices go up is that a phantom class of “Wall Street speculators” is to blame for the increase of prices. In 2008 this school of thought was so persuasive that President Bush commissioned an exhaustive review, via the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, looking into the effect that speculators had on market prices. Their conclusion was surprising, according to The Wall Street Journal, “The agency concluded that speculators—otherwise known as traders—were putting downward pressure on prices. The liquidity they provide helps to smooth volatility.”

Not satisfied with the 2008 study, President Obama recently resurrected this school of thought, even tapping Attorney General Eric Holder to police perceived illegal activity and price gouging. Yet within the presidents’ own administration, the Federal Trade Commission found that the recent spike in oil prices is due primarily to normal market forces, including booming demand from developing economies in India and China and not because of any questionable behavior from Wall Street.

Read the rest at the link above...

Congressional Inquiry Reveals ObamaCare's Billion Dollar Give Away to AARP

If you are an aarp member or are considering membership, be sure to give this a read.

Before you send in your dues, consider that the biggest interestof the aarp is the aarp. From everything I have read over the last couple of years, the aarp doesn't give a damn about Seniors. They do care quite a bit about the huge salaries that the executives get. They care about obamacare, since they fought so hard to get it passed, at the expense of those they claim to care about.

Do your research with this organization. Find out where you really stand before you send them any money.

by Lee Habeeb - Guns & Patriots

Forget the Cornhusker Kickback. Thanks to a House Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Investigation, we finally know why AARP worked so hard to get ObamaCare passed. Congressman Charles Boustany (R-La), a real life MD, released the findings of a nearly year-long investigation that revealed how AARP stands to make nearly $1 billion over the next 10 years if ObamaCare remains in affect.

“As one of the country’s most well-known non-profits, many of America’s seniors trust AARP to represent their interests,” Boustany said in an appearance on Salem Radio Network’s The Mike Gallagher show. “But in light of AARP’s dependence on its income from insurance products, there is good reason to question whether AARP is primarily looking out for seniors or just its own bottom line.”

“This should be called The Great Senior Swindle,” Gallagher told Boustany. “Conservatives who are members of AARP should quit immediately. And those who are not members should not join.”

AARP’s revenue in 2009 was a stunning $1.4 billion, with over $700 million of that revenue coming from the royalties they receive from the licensing of insurance products.

Worse, the investigation revealed that ObamaCare will cause 7 million seniors to lose their Medicare Advantage plans, resulting in a migration to Medigap plans.

“AARP is the nation’s biggest Medigap plan provider, the report revealed, “and AARP will gain between $55 and $166 million in 2014 alone as a result of new Medigap enrollees thanks to ObamaCare, which AARP strongly endorsed.”

AARP’s financial gain from ObamaCare could exceed $1 billion during the next 10 years,

“That’s 1 billion reasons why AARP supported ObamaCare,” explained Dan Weber, President of AMAC, a conservative alternative to AARP. “AARP took the deal Rahm Emanuel and President Obama offered them, and left seniors holding the bag.”

Fireworks on Capitol Hill

There were some real fireworks when AARP’s President, A. Barry Rand, testified on Capitol Hill. Congressman Tom Price (R-Ga), another real life doctor, and Congressman Wally Herger (R-Ca) exposed the sheer duplicity of AARP.

“It is troubling that the AARP – that supposedly exists to advocate on behalf of seniors – would fight for a health care law that cuts Medicare by over $500 billion and limits insurance coverage choices for seniors,” said Price. “The report reminds the American people of all of ObamaCare’s sweetheart deals. Health reform should always be about putting patients first and not be built for any group’s political or financial advantage.”

The hearing revealed some other surprises. It turns out that AARP makes big money from the interest it charges while premiums sit in AARP coffers for undetermined amounts of time. AARP collected and processed over 6.8 billion in insurance premiums in 2009 alone, and AARP’s President, after a relentless grilling by Congressmen Herger, revealed that interest on those premiums were as much as $60 million a year, thus making AARP a bank, as well as an insurance company.

In addition, the hearing revealed the staggering salaries of AARP executives, some of which topped out at over $1.6 million, and even more lucrative benefit and pension packages.

In some very tough exchanges, AARP was accused by multiple members of the panel for not cooperating with members of Congress during the nearly year long investigation.

Congressman Herger was particularly angered by AARP’s foot dragging, and expressed alarm that AARP was still considered a non-profit, when so much of the operation acts like a for profit.

“The facts show AARP no longer operates like a seniors’ advocacy organization; instead it more closely resembles a for-profit insurance company. In 2009, AARP raised 46% of its revenue from royalty payments, versus just 17% from membership dues. While questions have indeed been raised in the past about AARP’s reliance on royalties, the amount of these payments has nearly tripled just over the past decade.

AMAC President Dan Weber was not surpised by the investigation, or anything he heard at the hearings. “The fact is that AARP has been misleading its members for a very long time, especially its conservative members, and they need to know that they can get insurance elsewhere – and at competitive rates - where their values won’t be sold.”

“AARP spends millions to create the impression that they are the only game in town for seniors when it comes to their insurance needs,” explained Lee Habeeb, a content and policy producer for some of radio’s biggest shows, including Mike Gallagher’s, Bill Bennett’s and Michael Medved’s. “The good news is, conservative seniors are no longer hostages to AARP, and can join a group like AMAC.”