PRESIDENT OBAMA BY THE LETTERS

The Obama Downgrade, Alphabetically is the title of an article in the Wall Street Journal. The author is BRET STEPHENS. Bret goes through every letter of the alphabet to make the point that, as he points out when he gets to letter "L":

L is for Laden, Osama bin. The president's greatest triumph, which will forever put him one notch—if only one notch—above Jimmy Carter.

It is an interesting way to show the failures of President Obama. Bret has to admit that:

H is for Hillary Clinton, who—I can't believe I'm writing this—would have made a better president than Mr. Obama.

The Letter "D"

D is for—what else—the federal debt, which grew to $14.3 trillion this month from $10.7 trillion at the end of 2008. D is also for the dollar, which has lost almost half its value against gold since Aug. 2008.

The Letter "E":

E is for energy. The average retail price of a gallon of gas hovered near the $1.80 mark when Mr. Obama was inaugurated. It has since more than doubled. E is also for ethanol, the non-wonder fuel the U.S. continues to subsidize to the tune of $5 billion a year

and the Letter "F":

F is for free trade. Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1994, which facilitates $1.6 trillion in the trade of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. George W. Bush midwifed more than a dozen FTAs, from Australia to Singapore to Morocco to Bahrain. Number of FTA's signed by the current president: zero.

One of my personal favorited is the Letter "S":

S is for shovel-ready. Enough said.

However the Letter "W" ranks as my number 1:

W is for the Dubya, whose presidency now looks like a model of spending restraint.

I strongly suggest you read Mr Stephens article. Let me know what your favorite is when you finish the article.

NOW WHAT?

Today is Memorial Day. It is a day to pay tribute to ALL men and women who have or are now serving in our Military. Thank you.

But today is also the day North Korea conducted an underground nuclear test. This test is a violation of the UN Security Council Resolutions. The UN Security Council has called an emergency meeting today.

If North Korea is allowed to continue as in the past, count on Iran and Al Queda as North Korea's partners. The Western World (and ESPECIALLY the US) is therefore subject to Nuclear Attack and Israel is certainly a target. Read Dick Morris' article THE DEATH OF ISRAEL from which the page 2 quotes are taken.

Dick Morris makes clear what will happen if Iran goes Nuclear.

{... Caroline} Glick {deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post} reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, “…we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. {Braces Mine, Brackets and Ellipses in original}

Is President Obama naive enough to believe that Iran's Leadership does not really intend to Wipe Israel the Map if they can? They can with Nuclear Weapons. So how naive is the Obama Administration?

She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that “as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran’s nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself.” [Emhpasis Mine]

While I am not Jewish, I have great respect for the Jewish Religion. To Me Candidate Obama always amazed me in his ability to count Jews as backers, even though his campaign rhetoric has always indicated to me that President Obama was not an ally of Israel. And apparently he was and is able to pull the wool over a lot of others regardless of Religious belief.

Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel.
[...]
Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton.

When the World goes Nuclear, I think we should ask two questions in addition to any questions we may ask of our own Governmental Officials.

The FIRST question is: What will the UN Do? The Scandal Ridden UN does not have a history of doing much. Another Resolution is no real deterrent.

The SECOND question [if the UN takes no meaningful action] is: Why do we continue to Support the UN? The US makes up over 20% of the UN's Budget, but why should we?

APPEASEMENT

Take a look at this picture.


How do you conduct rational meetings with someone who does not recognize your right to exist? Al-Qaeda's terrifying vision of a devastated America in the wake of a nuclear attack paints a graphic picture (both figuratively and visually) of what the Radical Terrorists want to accomplish. Time is on their side. Time which pointless discussions would give them an advantage. Pointless discussions are those without preconditions.

This is what Terror Groups and Organizations dream. Let's hope it doesn't become our nightmare.

Other Related Items:

• U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda
• Chertoff: Hezbollah Makes Al Qaeda Look Minor League - Greatest Risk To National Security
• Report: Iran, al Qaeda in Secret Talks

Who's The Villain?

Oil Prices are through the Roof. Current prices in the Chicago Area are $4.19⁹, and it's easy to blame Big Oil. But are they really the guys in the black hats? The answer has repeatedly been shown to be a resounding NO!

If you wish to blame someone, blame yourself. It is Congress who made this mess and we elected them. The good news is we can change our vote. Previous posts have made the case that Congress is to blame for the high gas prices. More evidence comes from "The Wall Street Journal" on-line edition in the form of this opinion article: Blame Congress for High Oil Prices.

...[I]f there is a villain in all of this, it is Congress itself. That venerable body has made it impossible for U.S. producers of crude oil to tap significant domestic reserves of oil and gas, and it has foreclosed economically viable alternative sources of energy in favor of unfeasible alternatives such as wind and solar. In addition, Congress has slapped substantial taxes on gasoline. Indeed, as oil industry executives reiterated in their appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, 15% of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. [Emphasis mine]

It is interesting that the Federal Government receives almost 4 times as much of the "Windfall Profits". This article clearly shows the effect of supply and demand. The author says that supply and demand account for 97% of the variation in the pretax price of gasoline.

In other words, "He who has the Gold, makes the Rules". In this case the "Gold" is the available Oil in the Ground. Because Congress forbids most Domestic Production, 80% of the Oil available to the Big Oil Companies comes from Foreign National Companies.

...[S]upply has been curtailed by the cartel-like behavior of foreign national oil companies, which control nearly 80% of world petroleum reserves. Faced with little competition in the production of crude oil, the members of this cartel benefit from keeping the commodity in the ground, confident that increasing demand will make it more valuable in the future. Despite its pious denunciations of the behavior of U.S. investor-owned oil companies (IOCs), Congress by its actions over the years has ensured the economic viability of the national oil company cartel. [Emphasis mine]

Congress is looking for a scape-goat. They are unwilling to accept, or even admit, that they are the problem. Congress continues to outlaw Domestic Oil and Gas Production while world wide demand (principally fueled by China's rapid growth) for Oil products is rapidly growing.

The impact of the Congressional Ban is enormous.

[Congress is] preventing the exploitation by IOCs of reserves available in nonpark federal lands in the West, Alaska and under the waters off our coasts. These areas hold an estimated 635 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas – enough to meet the needs of the 60 million American homes fueled by natural gas for over a century. They also hold an estimated 112 billion barrels of recoverable oil – enough to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years.

And there's more.

This doesn't even include substantial oil shale resources economically recoverable at oil prices substantially lower than those prevailing today. In an exchange between Sen. Orin Hatch (R., Utah) and John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Company during the May 21 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, the point was made that anywhere from 800 million to two trillion barrels of oil are available from oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

There is a rather simple solution. Congress should immediately allow production and exploration to begin of Domestic Supplies. As in the 1970's, the announcement alone would cause the Foreign Oil Cartel's to increase production, before Our Domestic Production could fill the Pipeline. We further need to expand our Oil Refineries. Currently they are operating at near capacity (about 97% I believe).

It is time for us to make our pain at the pump felt in Congress, because they have the solution. Tell them to stop looking for someone to blame and accept responsibility and then ACT accordingly.

Tax Lessons From Real Life

Politicians (especially Democrats) believe that increasing Taxes will increase revenue. And the logic they apply appears on the surface to make a lot of sense. Democrats expect the size of the pie to stay the same (or grow larger). Therefore if the current Federal Corporate Tax Rate of 35% is increased to 45%, the Democrats reason, Tax Revenue will increase by 10%.

The fallacy of this argument is that the pie does not stay the same size. In fact it becomes smaller because that extra 10% was what Corporate Michigan used to expand and grow. It provides the Corporate Dollars to invest in new technology, grow and thereby create new jobs. Tax Increases inhibit growth, investment in technology and cause job loss.

We elect a lot of Lawyers, but few Economists. If our elected officials came from the business schools with MBA's rather than JD's, we might see a better understanding of this Inverse Tax effect. We can hope, and we can now point to an example, the State of Michigan.

Granholm's Tax Warning, from the on-line edition of "The Wall Street Journal" highlights the effect of an Increase Taxes Attitude. The state is lead by a Democrat (Jennifer Granholm) and Democrat Lead Legislature which combined to Increase Taxes on Michigan Activities.

Officials in Lansing reported this month that the state faces a revenue shortfall between $350 million and $550 million next budget year. This is a major embarrassment for Governor Jennifer Granholm, the second-term Democrat who shut down the state government last year until the Legislature approved Michigan's biggest tax hike in a generation. Her tax plan raised the state income tax rate to 4.35% from 3.9%, and increased the state's tax on gross business receipts by 22%. Ms. Granholm argued that these new taxes would raise some $1.3 billion in new revenue that could be "invested" in social spending and new businesses and lead to a Michigan renaissance.

Michigan is in an Ecomomic Hole and should realize that the first rule of Holes. When in a hole, stop digging! This Hole is underlined by what happened after the Tax Increase was put into effect.

Six months later one-third of the expected revenues have vanished as the state's economy continues to struggle. Income tax collections are falling behind estimates, as are property tax receipts and those from the state's transaction tax on home sales.

Currently Michigan's Unemployment Rate is 6.9%. This compares to Illinois' rate of 5.4% and Ohio's 5.6% according to this article. Further reading of this article will reveal the depth of Michigan's Economic Hole.

The tax hikes have done nothing but accelerate the departures of families and businesses. Michigan ranks fourth of the 50 states in declining home values, and these days about two families leave for every family that moves in. Making matters worse is that property taxes are continuing to rise by the rate of overall inflation, while home values fall. Michigan natives grumble that the only reason more people aren't blazing a path out of the state is they can't sell their homes. Research by former Comerica economist David Littmann finds that about the only industry still growing in Michigan is government. Ms. Granholm's $44.8 billion budget this year further fattened agency payrolls.

From this example we can learn that there is a balance between the Tax Rate and Prosperity. Obviously the Governments (Local, State and Federal) need to raise money through some form of Taxation, but if the Tax Burden becomes too great, the Pie and therefore Tax Revenue decline. In real terms we all become poorer when business and individuals are not allowed sufficient income above expenses to grow, invest and provide good paying jobs.

President Bush is not an Attorney. He holds an MBA. Maybe this is the reason his tax cuts have lead to our Economic Growth and Expansion (despite Michigan's Record) during the last 8 years. Not everything went well, but if the Democrats are allowed to execute their Stated plan of Increasing Taxes, Michigan's Situation awaits the entire Country.

The Bush Tax Cuts expire after 2010. The Democrats have pledged not to continue them and to add additional taxes to boot. The Pie is in DANGER.

We Could, But We're Not Producing Oil. WHY?

Cal Thomas has published a column which explains a lot. In Defense of 'Big Oil' is a good example of why we pay more than we should. The cause is our Congress (particularly Democrats) and the Environmentalists.

Senate Democrats last week sought to ingratiate themselves with voters, while doing nothing to produce more energy, with a familiar attack on "big oil." They want to repeal $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies over 10 years and on top of that impose a windfall profit tax on companies that don't invest in new energy sources. This is political expediency at its worst.

Oil Companies are spending LARGE sums of money on alternative energy research.

Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron, told me it's a myth that oil companies are not investing in new energy sources. He says last year alone, Chevron spent $20 billion exploring new sources of energy. [Emphasis mine]

A windfall tax will result in less being spent on energy alternatives. Yet one of the biggest problems is the lack of Congress to allow Oil Companies to search, produce and market KNOWN DOMESTIC Oil Reserves

Robertson said there would be plenty of oil available to the United States if the oil companies were allowed to get it: "Eighty-five percent of offshore oil is off-limits." Responding to objections to offshore drilling by environmentalists and their allies in Congress, Robertson noted that some of the strongest pro-environment nations in Europe - he mentions Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom - lease offshore locations for oil exploration. The technology has become so good, he said, that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "one thousand offshore wells were destroyed (in the Gulf of Mexico), but not one leaked." Australia, he said, has allowed offshore drilling for 40 years without any environmental damage. [Emphasis mine]

Note that 1,000 offshore wells were destroyed, but not one leaked. If this isn't enough, the Environmentalists (with the help of Congress) have prevented construction of new refineries. In fact no new Refinery Capacity has been constructed in the US since 1976. That's 32 years, and demand is going up!

How much Domestic Oil is Available?

According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America - 112 billion barrels - to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. [Emphasis mine]

But we can't touch it, because the Environmentalists, with the aid of CONGRESS, have made such a fuss about so little.

... the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn't, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains "off-limits," we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil.

More things to think about when you fill your tank as I did last night at $3.839 and when you vote. That price is for Regular folks and some stations here are as high as $4.079 this morning.

If Congress was really serious about the Gas Price, wouldn't (and Shouldn't) they do more to allow Domestic production and Domestic Refining?

I need to point out the obvious. WE ELECT OUR CONGRESS.

Taxpayer Dollars Well Spent on Energy?

How does the Government spend our tax Dollars for energy production, research and development. The Wall Street Journal On-Line edition gives us an idea in this article - Wind ($23.37) v. Gas (25 Cents).

Congress seems ready to spend billions on a new "Manhattan Project" for green energy, or at least the political class really, really likes talking about one. But maybe we should look at what our energy subsidy dollars are buying now.

Most of us can agree that a reasonable look at any project needs to be free of emotion. Green is a Politically Emotional Term. So it is fair to go beyond the emotion and look at reality.

First let's start with the total Tax Dollars expendated by our Government concerning energy.

Some clarity comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent federal agency that tried to quantify government spending on energy production in 2007. The agency reports that the total taxpayer bill was $16.6 billion in direct subsidies, tax breaks, loan guarantees and the like. That's double in real dollars from eight years earlier, as you'd expect given all the money Congress is throwing at "renewables." Even more subsidies are set to pass this year.

Now what are we getting for our $16.6 Billion spent? So that we are really comparing apples to apples the Wall Street Journal article points out that the taxpayer cost per unit of energy is one way of standardizing expenses. And here are the results.

For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

Since the research into alternative (green) energy has been going on for several years, it is clear that without a technological break-through solar, wind and clean coal don't deserve the bulk of the research money.

Notice I did not say cut off all funding. I'm only suggesting we insist on a more Fiscally responsible way to allocate our Tax Dollars. Research needs to continue, but reality needs to govern how the Research Tax Dollars are spent so that we get the most bang for our Tax Buck.

Where then should we put the bulk of our tax dollars?

... nuclear power provides 20% of U.S. base electricity production, yet it is subsidized about 15 times less than wind. We prefer an energy policy that lets markets determine which energy source dominates. But if you believe in subsidies, then nuclear power gets a lot more power for the buck than other "alternatives."

The figures up to this point have been for Electrical Energy Production. However the study also calculated the tax dollars spent on federal subsidies for non-electrical energy production. For fuel the figures are:

... ethanol and biofuels receive $5.72 per British thermal unit of energy produced. That compares to $2.82 for solar and $1.35 for refined coal, but only three cents per BTU for natural gas and other petroleum liquids.

Even with the high cost of oil, natural gas and petroleum liquids are ONLY 3 CENTS PER BTU. Remember these figures next time any of the politicians talk about expendatures for Green Energy Production. Our Tax Dollars are truly best spent on Oil and Gas.

Another Hillaryism - How Will She Do That?

Politicians have become experts at saying things which sound great, but mean nothing. I have found Hillary one of the best at Political Double Speak. I refer to this post Clinton: OPEC 'can no longer be a cartel' which was posted by Ben Smith.

"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get to gether once every couple of months" at a hotel in "some plush place in the world" to set prices, she told a crowd a volunteer fire house in Merillville, [Indiana].

How will she do that remains the big question.

Hillary would make Yogi Berry proud. (For those of you who don't remember Yogi was an "All Star" and is a "Hall of Fame" baseball catcher for the New York Yankees. He is currently featured in some Aflec Insurance Commercials getting a Hair Cut. His comments such as "And they give you cash which is just as good as money" are typical Yogi-isms.)

Note: Ben Smith's Blog is found at Politico.com

Oil Company Profits

A couple of days ago, I posted some Thoughts About Oil Company Profits. Today the On-Line Version of "The Wall Street Journal" published this article - "Windfall Profits for Dummies".

This is one strange debate the candidates are having on energy policy. With gas prices close to $4 a gallon, Hillary Clinton and John McCain say they'll bring relief with a moratorium on the 18.4-cent federal gas tax. Barack Obama opposes that but prefers a 1970s-style windfall profits tax (as does Mrs. Clinton).

Again we have a case of the Democrats pandering for votes. This despite the fact that we have tried to place a Windfall Profits Tax on Oil Companies, and it failed to:

• reduce prices
• increase Domestic production
• reduce our dependence on Foreign Oil

Alas, those who fail to learn from History, are doomed to repeat it.

Mr. Obama is right to oppose the gas-tax gimmick, but his idea is even worse. Neither proposal addresses the problem of energy supply, especially the lack of domestic oil and gas thanks to decades of Congressional restrictions on U.S. production. Mr. Obama supports most of those "no drilling" rules, but that hasn't stopped him from denouncing high gas prices on the campaign trail. He is running TV ads in North Carolina that show him walking through a gas station and declaring that he'll slap a tax on the $40 billion in "excess profits" of Exxon Mobil.

Actually there are no "excess profits" being made by the Oil Companies. The raw numbers only look like like an excess because the Oil Companies are so big. By the way the Government already takes 35% of the Oil Companies Profits. That's the Income Tax Rate the Big Oil Companies pay on Profits.

Exxon's profits are soaring with the recent oil price spike, but the energy industry's earnings aren't as outsized as the politicians seem to think. Thomson Financial calculates that profits from the oil and natural gas industry over the past year were 8.3% of investment, while the all-industry average is 7.8%. And this was a boom year for oil. An analysis by the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor finds that between 1970 and 2003 (which includes peak and valley years for earnings) the oil and gas business was "less profitable than the rest of the U.S. economy." These are hardly robber barons.

Let's put these figures into perspective. The 5 Largest Oil Companies (Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips, BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC) earned $36.9 Billion in 1st quarter profits. Gross Sales were over $400 Billion, and they paid over $140 Billion in Income Taxes.

Now suppose we apply the same percentages to a family making $40,000 per year. The Government takes $14,000, other expenses are $22,310 and we have $3,690 "EXCESS PROFITS. How would you feel about a tax on your "excess profits" of $3,690? Does taxing your "excess profits" make you want to earn more?

I mentioned we tried an excess profits tax on energy previously. Here is what resulted.

You may also be wondering how a higher tax on energy will lower gas prices. Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics. We tried this windfall profits scheme in 1980. It backfired. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3% to 6% and increased oil imports from OPEC by 8% to 16%. Mr. Obama nonetheless pledges to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, which he says "costs America $800 million a day." Someone should tell him that oil imports would soar if his tax plan becomes law. The biggest beneficiaries would be OPEC oil ministers.

Right now Gas Prices hurt, but an excess profits tax would hurt a heck of a lot more in the long run.

This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion – or perhaps we should say cynicism – of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply. They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?

As these figures show, we all need to think beyond the emotional political speak coming out of the current Democratic Presidential Candidates.

What Ifs

Dick Morris points out a fatal flaw in the Democratic Iraq strategy. (See "O’Reilly-Clinton Interview Shows Dem Flaw") The question of "What Ifs" is what will enable the Republican Party to retain the White House for at Least another 4 years.

Bill O'Reilly asked Hillary Clinton the key question about the war in Iraq: What happens if we pull out and the Iranians move in? She talked around the issue, but never gave a convincing answer to O'Reilly's question. She said she would replace force with diplomacy. But, as Frederick the Great said, “Diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.” If our troops are long gone from Iraq, the Iranians will snub our diplomacy and laugh at our entireties. They will add Iraq to their other trophies in the region: Syria, Lebanon and Gaza.

The Democrats have long maintained that the fighting in Iraq cannot be solved Militarily. For anyone who takes the time to think about Military actions in time of Battle or War, realizes no conflict is EVER WON by Military means alone. And the Point Dick Morris is making is the same one I have stated many times before - Diplomatic negations end the conflict, BUT the Military Wins the Battles which make the enemy want to negotiate piece. One cannot exist successfully without the other.

What do the Democrats propose? Obama and Hillary both want to pull out as soon as technically feasible. OK. But what happens if Iran moves into the vacuum and takes over Iraq? And what if Al Qaeda takes advantage of the American absence and sets up a permanent base and sanctuary in Iraq, beyond our reach — a situation akin to the Taliban in Afghanistan where they could develop the capacity to hit us on 9-11 in their privileged, protected home territory? And what if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who used to work with us start to be killed as happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? And what if the Iraqi oil falls into Iranian hands, sending the price even higher? And what if … The list goes on.

As the flaw in the Democratic Strategy becomes more obvious after the Nominations are finalized, John McCain's policy win in Iraq becomes the only viable course of action.

The truth is that the Democrats are cashing in on a mindless impatience with Iraq and an unwillingness to think through the consequences of pulling out. They are capitalizing on an emotional “no” in reaction to the war. But when the alternatives are carefully explained and examined, as they will be in a presidential debate, they are not going to embrace the answers Obama or Hillary will have to the “what ifs.” They will see the Democratic position as extremist and unworkable and will come to see the Democratic candidate who is pushing them as unprepared and unrealistic. If the candidate is Obama, their concerns will resonate with their perception that he is inexperienced and doesn't know his way around foreign policy. This will raise more and more doubts about his ability to lead us in a time of crisis.

The same can be said for candidate Hillary. The course of action does not involve making a bad situation worse by withdrawing the Military before the Diplomatic process is complete. The Democrats have played only to the emotion of the people. They are not talking about the reality of the world situation.

The question of how or why we became involved in Iraq is irrelevant in today's world. This is a question for the Historians to answer. For us the question which we need to consider is What do we do now? and What happens after that. To pull out before the Diplomatic win is achieved will be a much bigger disaster than anything you think has happened up to now.

Thoughts about Oil Company Profits

The five largest Oil companies showed an increase in profits from the 1st quarter last year. Chevron, Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips, BP PLC and Royal Dutch Shell PLC earned $36.9 billion in the first quarter. This represents a 25% increase in profits from last year. The figure $36.9 BILLION sounds like a lot of money. It is! And it represents a profit margin of about 9%.

So does $410,000,000,000.00 ($410 BILLION), but that's what it takes in Gross Sales for the Big Oil Companies to show a profit of $36.9 BILLION. The Big Oil Companies are called Big Oil because, well because they ARE BIG.

But wait a minute. Let's put this into perspective. If the Oil Companies were not so big, would we be as outraged by the BILLIONS of Dollars of profit? I think not. For example if you or I owned a company which had gross sales of $100,000.00, the same profit margin would mean we would take home only $9,000.00. Nine Thousand dollars on sales of One Hundred Thousand Dollars.

That represents the same profit margin, but it doesn't bother us as much does it? Why? Because we have a somewhat different perspective, when the numbers are smaller. There is a saying which all of us should remember. Figures don't Lie, but Liers do figure.

The moral of this story is - don't just look at the bottom line. Dig a little deeper, And Don't let the Politicians who use emotion instead of logic to fix a problem. The fix is not to tax the Big Oil Companies more. The fix is to drill in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge and the Gulf of Mexico. The fix is to increase the capacity by expanding the oil refineries. The fix it to use Nuclear Power, Wind Power and Solar Power. The fix is to find a way to use something other than corn and other food crops for ethanol production.

Hillary's Past

"Political Punch" is the title of a Blog by ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper. For information on Hillary's 1960's past, read this blog article ("Tom Hayden Looks at Clinton's 60s Past") in which Mr. Tapper refers the reader to a piece by 60's radical Tom Hayden which contains information such as this.

....after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others 'tolerated communists'. [emphasis mine]

To be clear, I'm not, nor do I believe Mr. Tapper is trying to claim Hillary is a Communist, but most rational people would acknowledge that Hillary supports and proposes Socialistic Ideas.

For example, Hillary is willing to force everyone to pay for Medical Care. She has said she will use the Courts to legally take Health Insurance premiums by garnisheeing the wages of anyone who does not voluntary pay. (see my previous post "Our Government")

Think carefully before you vote.

Questions for The Candidates

For Obama:

1. Why do we need a tax increase is we pull the troops out of Iraq and save Billions a year?
2. Why doesn't your voting record match your rhetoric? You talk bipartisan, but vote extreme left liberal.
3. Why do you continue to support a church which espouses racism?

For Hillary:

1. What changed from the time you supported NAFTA to now cause you to oppose it?
2. How do you reconcile you view of the Freedoms Guaranteed by the Constitution with Requiring everyone to have Health Insurance, to the point of garnisheeing wages if necessary?
   

For McCain:

1. Which side of the Border are you now on?
   

Hillary's List of Lies

In light of the following article, consider Hillary's words during ceremonies to mark the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's death.

Hillary claims to have "thrown her book bag across her dorm room in despair" when she heard about Martin Luther King's death, can we believe her?

Read the following article, which is reprinted in its entirety, before you answer.

Hillary's List of Lies

Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:40 AM

By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is losing. Asked whether the candidates were “honest and trustworthy,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)


• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)


• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)


• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Admit

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.


• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.


• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.


• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.


• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.


• She opposed NAFTA at the time.


• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.


• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.


• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.


• The billing records showed up on their own.


• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.


• She was always a Yankees fan.


• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).


• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll?

OK, Obama has had the Rev. Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie — that she endured sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.

McCain's virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others.

Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.

It took Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter's simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush's personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.

When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if but when) the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama's patriotism or love of America. It will be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).

The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a “strong, decisive leader,” 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama, and 61 percent said it of Hillary. Obama has looked weak handling the Wright controversy.

His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad.

We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.

© 2008 Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Things Which Don't Belong

I am currently watching Senators Feinstein and Durbin talking about the Clinton/Obama issues. Senator Feinstein supports Clinton and Senator Durbin supports Obama.

Unbelieveably Senator Feinstein has cited Hillay's Sex as a reason to vote for her! Being a woman is not a qualification to be considered for the Next President of the United States. Being a man is also not a qualification the voters should consideration for our nations highest office.

Vote for experience, intelligence, knowledge, philosophy and beliefs. The best leadership qualities are what this country needs.

Too much is at stake to vote gender, color or age. Choose wisely please

Our Government

In my opinion the United States Government SHOULD be a functional Democracy. In simplest terms, each citizen SHOULD have the right to determine his or her future by making the choices which they feel are best for them. Our government should place minimum restrictions on our freedoms and then only for the purpose of allowing equal opportunity for all.

A Socialistic Government on the other hand severely restricts each citizens right to make choices which will determine his or her future. Again in simplest terms, each citizen can only make choices about their future which the GOVERNMENT feels is best for them. Heavy restriction are placed on freedom of choice in order to force equality for all.

Now consider a government which will "...garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans". That quote is taken from this article (Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay). These are the words of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment." [emphasis mine]

This is a description of a government on the road to Socialism. It is government telling us what is best for its citizens and imposing punishment for not following the party line.

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, "it will be affordable for everyone."

We do not need a govenment deciding what we can afford. We need a government which allows each citizen to determine what they can afford. We need a government which allows choice and yes a chance to fail as well as succeed.

Hillary's Ethics

Hillary's Ethics may be an oxymoron to some and Dick Morris has published an article which clearly shows why her ethics are in question. Donations to Hillary Unethical reveals some of the Hillary hypocrisy involving her ethics, and for that matter Bill's too.

As American banks go hat in hand to foreign financial institutions and governments, begging for capital to help them get out of the mess into which their subprime loans have landed them, the question arises as to whether the United States should permit nations like China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) and the banks they control to acquire part ownership of our leading banks.

Could Hillary have a hidden motive to favor such foreign financial control of our banking and finance? She has stated that she would not 'stand in the way' of such investments, but said that they needed to be vetted and called for more disclosure and 'transparency'. [emphasis mine] Please note the bolded portion you just read. This is important because Hillary Clinton has not been willing to disclose her financial dealings and therefore is anything but transparent. Hillary will not release her tax returns as so many candidates have done in the past, and as Bill did when he ran for President.

Should the Saudi monarchy be permitted to purchase an important equity position in some of America’s leading banks? How can Hillary be objective when the very same monarchy donated $10 million to the Clinton Library and Foundation? [emphasis mine]

Dick Morris has known the Clintons for a long time. He was a chief political adviser to Bill Clinton while he was President. He is, to put it mildly, not a supporter of Hillary. As such his judgment may be biased, but his facts are not in question.

Should the U.A.E. be allowed in? How can Hillary decide fairly when Bill — and therefore herself — have been getting a reported $10 million per year from a fund that administers the investments of the Emir of Dubai, the largest component state in the U.A.E.?

The money links to the Clintons by these foreign countries is reason to question Hillary's objectivity on this matter. Foreign donations to a political campaign are not permitted by law, and for good reason.

But these nations have used the porous ethics of the Clinton family to acquire positions of massive influence by making contributions, not to her campaign, but to her personal bank account — either through Bill or through the Library and Foundation, which the Clintons directly control.

The extant to which Hillary and the Clinton family is financially obligated to Foreign Interests should be public domain information so that the voters can accurately judge the suitability of her candidacy for President. Yet the Clintons refuse to allow their tax returns to be made public. Since Hillary called for "these investments to be fully veted and transparant", why shouldn't Hillary make her Financial Dealings and Tax Returns available?