Friday, July 29, 2011


There are many reasons we should be drilling for Oil and Gas domestically. In the Atlantic, Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico we should be drilling. In Alaska and also in the Oil Shale of the Rockies we should be drilling. In Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and all the other places where we can produce Oil and Gas we should be drilling.

While it is true that drilling for Domestic Oil and Gas would not keep us from being dependent on additional Imported Oil and Gas, Domestic production would decrease the amount we have to Import and IT WOULD CREATE JOBS.

Why aren't we? Ask the Environmentalists, the Liberals and President Obama? They are the one's to blame. This group have prevented Domestic drilling for Oil and Gas. While it is true we could have another disaster as happened in the Gulf of Mexico when the BP well ruptured, or when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, the benefits of Domestic Exploration, Drilling and Production of Oil and Gas far outway the negatives.

The is even more evident in light of the recent debunking, according to a NASA study, that Global Warming is a serious threat. New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism The computer models are wrong! Global Temperatures over the last decade are not rising, although the CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels have significantly increased. So forget Global Warming due to Man-Made Carbon Dioxide.

Now there is an additional reason for Immediate Domestic Oil and Gas Drilling. Cuba has Licensed several Drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Drill, Bebé, Drill
Sometime over the next three months, if all goes according to plan, Cuban workers on a Chinese-built, Spanish-owned rig will start drilling for oil in the mile-deep waters just off the north coast of Cuba, 70 miles from the Florida Keys.
If you think the BP spill was bad, what do you think about the Chinese having a blow-out? We must ask ourselves - Would I rather have US controled, inspected and regulated Domestic Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Or would I trust the Chinese to do that same drilling knowing they do not have the same controls, inspection and regualtion?
An oil blowout in Cuban waters could reprise the nightmare that was last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and send crude spewing to the beaches of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina
.A blowout is more likely in part because the componets are inferior to US parts. In other words, the Chinese will be using second-rate parts and equipment.
They (the Cuban Licensed rigs) will have to buy copycat or second-tier parts,” Lee Hunter, president of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, told National Journal. Hunter and other experts say that, to date, it appears that the Cuban government, fearful of the devastation an oil spill could wreak on its economy, wants to use the lessons learned from the BP oil disaster to develop a rigorous safety and oversight program. But it will be nearly impossible for drillers in Cuba’s waters to legally use the safest equipment. “The Cubans want to use good technology; they want to drill safely,” Hunter said. “But … their ability to drill safely is extremely compromised.”
In light of this development and the loss of an extimated 200,000 US jobs because of the US (Presidential Executive Order and Congressional actions), do we really want Cuba, China, Russia, Brazil, etc to be responsible for Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Production?

We should take immediate actions to Domestically "Drill Baby Drill".

Thursday, July 28, 2011


According to a new study released by NASA, the disaster of Global Warming is rather overheated. New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

The fact is the computer models are wrong.
The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Cooler heads than Al Gore have been exonerated.
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

Monday, July 25, 2011


Joseph Curl writing for "The WASHINGTON TIMES" asks the following question.
Is Obama a pathological liar?"
As we all know, the percentage of Politicians who "expand" or "bend" the truth is close to if not 100%. This is a class of people who want to please everyone. Therefore they promise things they can't or shouldn't deliver.
In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances “rhetoric.”
RHETORIC is an interesting word!
But across the rest of the country, plain ol’ folk call ‘em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you’re saying is patently false, then it’s a lie. Simple.
The article continues and points out President OBAMA'S lies.
And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.
I will leave it to the reader to follow the link above for the rest of the story.

Sunday, July 24, 2011


Terry Keenan has the answer in a piece she wrote for the New York Post Why feds' spending has failed In this article Terry points out this interesting fact.
...if the Obama-era spending increases had just been cut in half to, say, $1.1 trillion extra, the president wouldn't have had to even face a debt-ceiling debate until a second term.
Why is President Obama unwilling to accept a short-term solution to the Debt Crisis? It is clear that he is playing politics because he does not wish to go through another Debt Limit vote before he is re-elected in 2012. Politics.

Government does not create jobs. There is no tax increase that will create a job either. What does create jobs is in the final paragraph of Terry's article. She quotes Lacy Hunt, who is an excellent economic forecaster.
"In the broadest sense, monetary and fiscal policies have failed because government financial transactions are not the key to prosperity. Instead, the economic well-being of a country is determined by the creativity, inventiveness and hard work of its households and individuals." [Emphasis mine]
Lacy also points out the astonishing numbers when she compares the 3years of the Obama administration to the last 3 of the Bush Administration.
"In the three years 2009, 2010, 2011, US federal spending was an astounding $2.2 trillion more than in the three years ending 2008."

The deficit in the first three years of the Barack Obama administration will total 28.3 percent of GDP, versus 6.3 percent the last three years President Bush was in the White House.
If government created jobs, that should have done it, and I think we can all see why? If you don't understand yet refer back to the 1st Lacy Hunt quote.

Friday, July 22, 2011


We are facing a default condition on August 2nd according to the Department of the Treasury. That's less than 2 weeks from today. Both the Senate and the House are gone for the weekend.

But at least the House, under Republican leadership, has acted responsibly by proposing 2 solutions to solve our Debt Limit crisis. Representative Paul Ryan, a Republican, has proposed a plan and the House has passed the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation. That's 2 different proposals to solve the crisis.

On the other hand the Democrats have done nothing except make grand speeches about possible ideas to be considered. There is nothing specific from either President Obama or the Democrat controlled Senate. In fact, the Senate has not passed a budget for 2 years, and the House under Democrat Nancy Pelosi also failed to pass a budget.

Where is the leadership the American people deserve from the Democrats? It is one thing to disagree with a proposal, but how can anything be solved if all the Democrats are willing to do is say the Republican proposals are not acceptable. Where is the Democrat Plan? If you are going to say something is unacceptable, then at the very least you should be willing to propose something, anything. Nothing is not acceptable.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says it this way:
Senator Rubio: “I have watched the President give press conferences, I have watched the President give speeches, but I have yet to see a plan from the President. And with all due respect to my colleagues in the other party here in the Senate, I haven't seen a plan from them either. They are the majority party. They control this chamber. They control the Senate. And I haven't seen a plan from them.

The Senator goes on to say this:

“A moment ago we heard this talk about – well we have to compromise. Well it's really hard to compromise when the other side doesn't have a plan. What do you compromise on? Where is your plan? You can't compromise if only one person is offering plans. There is only one plan that has been voted on by any House to deal with this issue, and it's the one we're on right now, Cut, Cap and Balance. I would submit that if you don't like Cut, Cap and Balance, if you don't think we need to cut spending, cap spending and balance our budget, then show us your alternative. [Emphasis mine]
As a final thought. When the Democrats controlled the House under Nancy Pelosi, the Senate under Harry Reid and the Presidency under Barack Obama, they could not get a tax increase through. Therefore, what would allow a tax increase to pass now?

Tuesday, July 19, 2011


In America when we hear the word poverty we form a mental picture. A picture of a dismal, bleak existence. But says the Census Bureau that's not the real picture of Poverty in America.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE lays-out what Poverty In America really looks   like.

"When the Census Bureau defines “poverty,” though, it winds up painting more than 40 million Americans — one in seven — as “poor"

That is a lot of people. But are most of them really poor by the standards we think of a Poverty Level? Here is what the Cencus Bureau says is typical of a Poverty Level household.

"Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless."

Well-Housed and Adquately Fed. From other Government Agencies these items are found in the Poverty Level Home.

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.
Makes one wonder.

Monday, July 18, 2011


To many cutting Taxes sounds like Revenue would also be cut. But History says otherwise. Who says tax cuts kill jobs? Our history sure doesn’t

"When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the top tax rate in America was 70 percent. Reagan cut that to 50 percent in 1982, then to 38.5 percent in 1987, and finally to 28 percent in 1998. What happened? Unemployment dropped from 9.2 percent (exactly what it is today) to 5.3 percent and inflation plummeted from 13.5 percent to 4 percent. At the same time, real income for Americans grew by an average $4,000."

That's one example. Here is another.

"John F. Kennedy — a Democrat! — had the right idea. He slashed the capital gains tax in 1962 and dropped the top tax rate to 70 percent. Federal tax revenues went up 50 percent, from less than $100 billion in 1961 to more than $150 billion in by 1968"

And yet another example.

"Reducing taxes, historically, has driven up federal revenue. In the 1920s, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent to 25 percent; revenue rose from just more than $700 million in 1921 to $1.1 billion by the end of the 1920s."

One other lesson from history.

"One of the real problems is the tax-paying base. A whopping 43 percent (some say nearly 50 percent) of Americans — 66 million “lucky duckies” out of 151 million taxpayers — don’t pay a cent, according to the Tax Policy Center. That’s a far cry from the past: From 1950 to 1990, that number averaged 21 percent, dropping to 18 percent in 1986, according to the Tax Foundation."

So when President Obama says "Fair Share" he means the Richest among us, but he should be talking about the bottom of the Heap. 43-50% pay nothing. Does this sound like paying a "Fair Share"?


My Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), says we don't know how the Social Security Trust Fund works. According to her there is apparently no LOCK BOX the payments of Social Security may be held up because there is no money.

What happened to the money which was paid into the Trust Fund all these years? Who took it out of the LOCK BOX? Why are millions of employees and self employed people still making payments in excess of what is paid out, yet there may be no money to write the checks? Why were we told that Social Security was not broke, but suddenly the Government can't make monthly payments?

It will be President Obama's decision which prohibits the payment to Social Security receipitents even if we don't raise the Debt Limit by August 2nd.

Therefore, this President Obama and the Democrats are using scare and fear to get what they want.


Much is heard from the Liberals in Congress and especially from President Obama that we need a "Balanced Approach" to control our Budget. As part of the "Balanced Approach" the tax rate on the highest earners needs to be raised so they pay their "Fair Share". Highest earners are those making over $250,000 for a Married Couple and $200,000 for a single earner.

So what is the "Fair Share" for these people? According to the IRS, for 2008 (the latest year available) the top 1% paid more than 38% of all Income Taxes while the top 5% paid almost 59% of all Income Taxes. (source The Tax Foundation) To be in the top 1% you have to have at least $380,354 Adjusted Gross Income while $159,619 and above is the top 5%. It might be noted that the bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all Income Taxes. These represent Adjusted Gross Income of less than $33,048. (Nice to know that if your Adjusted Gross Income is more than $33,048 you are in the top half of all Income Tax Payers and you are part of the group that pays better than 97% of all income taxes.

To me a "Balanced Approach" would mean more Income Taxes on the 50% who pay less than 3% not higher Income Taxes on the 50% who pay over 97%. There may be a growing difference between the richest and the poorest in America, but the emphasis should not be on limiting the top, but rather raising the bottom. If this happened, we would have a better distribution of the "Fair Share" for Income Taxes paid.

We need to eliminate the Loopholes in the Tax Code which carve out special individuals and groups to receive unfair Income Tax Benefits. We do not need to limit the top earners who are the job creators. We need to make more opportunity for the rest of us to reach the top earning levels by letting everyone retain more of their earnings through a more fair and lower Tax Rate.

Increasing the Tax Rate for the Richest Taxpayers will have the same effect as cutting the top off most plants. Growth Stops because (except for the Grasses) the top is where all the growth happens.

Sunday, July 17, 2011


Let me make this very clear. If by August 2nd the Debt Ceiling is not raised, there will still be money comming into the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury decides who and what gets paid with this money. The Secretary of the Treasury works at the pleasure of the President. Therefore, IT IS PRESIDENT OBAMA WHO WILL DECIDE IF SOCIAL SECURITY, MILITARY, AND OTHER GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS ARE MADE. Read that last sentence again.

Pop quiz.

Who decides who gets paid?

We do not have to default. We do not have to withhold Social Securtiy Checks. President Obama will decide.

Next question: why hasn't the President or any Democrat made any specific proposals (other than tax increases) which would be acceptable? Why have they not put forth on paper specific items? The Republicans have. So how does anyone negotiate without knowing what's open for discussion? To only say Social Security, Medicare and Increasing Taxes are off the table is not a plan which allows anything to move foreward.

When we the American People get actionalble specifics rather than scare tactics?

Why has the Senate, under Democrat Harry Reid, not passed a budget in 2 years? They haven't even brought a budget out of committee!

Saturday, July 16, 2011


President Obama thinks 80% favor a Tax Increase Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal No poll figures support this.

Scott Rassmussen shows 55% oppose a Tax Increase 55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal

Gallup Poll Numbers are similar where only 11% believe Tax Increases are the sole answer and 50% say mostly spending cuts are the answer On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

In 2006 EVERY Democrat Senator (including Obama) voted against raising the Debt Limit Senate Roll Call What changed such that they are prediction dire consequences if the debt limit is not raised?

Friday, July 15, 2011


Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) claims the Debt/Budget problems President Obama is currently having is because of his race. (Jackson Lee: Congress complicating debt ceiling because Obama is black)

In case the Congresswoman is reading this, the truth is it is not the color of President Obama's skin. It is the color of his ideas.

Have you noticed that whenever our President is in trouble, the Race card is played?