Obama wants to increase how much we pay for gas?

Did I hear that correctly from him today? Did he not say that he wants to "tax windfall profits on big oil corporations like Exxon?" Excuse me, but, I thought this guy was supposed to be educated? Isn't he a lawyer or something? Surely he took a business or economics class while he was in college!

You can't tax profits! Profits is what comes AFTER taxes. If you try to tax "profits" it just goes back in to the corporate expenses - which get passed on to the consumer! So..here we are paying $4.02 as a national average for ONE freakin' gallon of gas - expected to get to $4.50 by July and this dipshit is proposing taxing oil even further?

So - the government taxes every gallon of gas at a rate of 16% and the big oil companies make a profit of 4% off of every gallon. So - the government makes 4 times the amount the big oil companies make - and they waste every penny of it on earmarks, failed social programs, and big government bureaucracy - yet they want to tax big oil? Who the hell is he kidding?

The next time the media and the government start complaining about these so-called "gross" profits made by the big oil companies - just remember - multiply that by 4 and you see how much the government takes in for doing nothing! Obama says he's going to take the "windfall profit tax" and give it to those "who can't afford their energy bills." Sounds like a socialist system of wealth redistribution to me!

Well - gee - who's fault is it those people can't afford their energy bills? Could it be....the government? Afterall, isn't it the government who has put up all the roadblocks to drilling and tapping our own natural resources? We have enough natural gas and coal in our country to warm 30 million homes for 60 years - yet - because of government regulation and stonewalling - we aren't allowed to tap in to it. We have enough oil reserves in our country to fuel every single vehicle in this country for 60 years - yet - because of government regulation and bans and kowtowing to eco-terrorists - we can't even tap in to it! We aren't even allowed to drill off the coast anywhere in our country - yet - China is scheduled to begin drilling 70 miles off the coast of Florida within the year! There currently is a bill being pushed through that would ban American companies from drilling within 125 miles off the coast.

So - if that bill gets passed - then a foreign country is allowed to drill for oil off our coast where we are not allowed to?!?!? How freakin' crazy is that! 125 miles is in international waters - hell - anything past 7 miles is considered international waters. How the hell does the government expect to impose this 125 mile ban?

If Obama gets elected and has his way - just remember people - you asked for it and you will most definitely PAY for it!

Gay Marriage: Shut Up, Turek

I just read this article by Frank Turek on Townhall talking about the implications of gay marriage. Here's an exerpt:

"The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling. When marriage becomes nothing more than coupling, fewer people will get married to have children.

People will still have children, of course, but many more of them out-of wedlock. That’s a disaster for everyone. Children will be hurt because illegitimate parents (there are no illegitimate children) often never form a family, and those that “shack up” break up at a rate two to three times that of married parents. Society will be hurt because illegitimacy starts a chain of negative effects that fall like dominoes—illegitimacy leads to poverty, crime, and higher welfare costs which lead to bigger government, higher taxes, and a slower economy."

The opening argument is a little weak. Fewer people will get married to have children? I hope people are getting married for more than just simply having children. Marriage isn't simply a blind attempt to reproduce, as far as I know. I was under the impression that, according to the strict conservative that Turek seems to be, marriage was an expression of love between two people. Once those two married people decided to have children after marriage, they could then cross that bridge; at the time of legal and religious marriage, though, future children aren't meant to be the primary motivation.

Also, "The law is a great teacher, and same sex marriage will teach future generations that marriage is not about children but about coupling." So, because gay people are getting married, I won't want to have children in my marriage? Right... uh... I'm doubting it.

Gay marriage, in fact, will be quite a positive. Their legal bond will open up a whole new venue for adoption (already possible, but isn't often pursued due to legal complications, etc.). All the ideas pursued in the second quoted paragraph will actually go in the other direction.

You lose.

How They Voted on the Farm Bill

After a wink and a nod from the President, letting Republicans know it was OK to vote for the Farm Bill, it passed by a veto- proof margin in both houses of Congress. President Bush who was reluctant to veto any spending bill passed by a Republican Congress, apparently feels he needs to go though the motions of vetoing at least some excessive spending bill passed by a Democratic Congress. However, it is all a game and the President did not intend for his veto to be sustained. Apparently, he thinks we are so stupid, we will not see how the game is really played.

The farm bill was an absolutely terrible bill. It increased spending by 44% above last year’s level. It contains millions in non-farm pork spending, it subsidizes multimillionaire farmers, it increases food prices to the consumer, it makes corn syrup so cheap that it is added to products that don’t need corn syrup, it undermines American leadership on trade and puts farmers in undeveloped countries at a competitive disadvantage which keeps poor countries from developing a modern agricultural sector.

I have below a list of how each Senator voted. I have also listed the vote of the Tennessee Congressmen. To see how congressmen in your state voted, click here.

I did not expect better from the Democrats but I am deeply disappointed in a good many Republicans. You will note that some prominent Republicans, many who will brag about their conservative credentials and blast their opponents as "liberal", voted for this bill. I have highlighted a few of their names. While I am not going to turn against someone over one single vote, anyone who voted for this bill should not be taken very seriously if they rail against wasteful government spending.

In looking at the list below, I am very disappointed in my own two Senators, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. I have admired and respected both of these men. I have thought they were rational, moderate, responsible, fiscally conservative public servants. I have voted for them and made modest contributions to their campaigns. They disappoint me.

Pleased to see voting against the bill in defiance of his own party is my own representative, Congressman Jim Cooper. Representative Cooper is a Democrat. If the next time we have a senatorial election in Tennessee, Democrat Jim Cooper should challenge either of our Republican senators, I might just vote for Cooper. This disgruntled Republican might just become a conservative Democrat.

How the Senate Voted:

Alabama
Aye Sessions, Jefferson[R]
Aye Shelby, Richard [R]
Alaska
Aye Murkowski, Lisa [R]
Aye Stevens, Ted [R]
Arizona
Nay Kyl, Jon [R]
No Vote McCain, John [R]
Arkansas
Aye Lincoln, Blanche [D]
Aye Pryor, Mark [D]
California
Aye Feinstein, Dianne [D]
No Vote Boxer, Barbara [D]
Colorado
Aye Allard, Wayne [R]
Aye Salazar, Ken [D]
Connecticut
Aye Lieberman, Joseph [I]
No Vote Dodd, Christopher [D]
Delaware
Aye Carper, Thomas [D]
No Vote Biden, Joseph [D]
Florida
Aye Martinez, Mel [R]
No Vote Nelson, Bill [D]
Georgia
Aye Chambliss, C. [R]
Aye Isakson, John [R]
Hawaii
Aye Akaka, Daniel [D]
Aye Inouye, Daniel [D]
Idaho
Aye Craig, Larry [R]
Aye Crapo, Michael [R]
Illinois
Aye Durbin, Richard [D]
No Vote Obama, Barack [D]
Indiana
Aye Bayh, B. [D]
Nay Lugar, Richard [R]
Iowa
Aye Grassley, Charles [R]
Aye Harkin, Thomas [D]
Kansas
Aye Brownback, Samuel [R]
Aye Roberts, Pat [R]
Kentucky
Aye Bunning, Jim [R]
Aye McConnell, Mitch [R]
Louisiana
Aye Landrieu, Mary [D]
Aye Vitter, David [R]
Maine
Aye Snowe, Olympia [R]
Nay Collins, Susan [R]
Maryland
Aye Cardin, Benjamin [D]
Aye Mikulski, Barbara [D]
Massachusetts
Aye Kennedy, Edward [D]
Aye Kerry, John [D]
Michigan
Aye Levin, Carl [D]
Aye Stabenow, Debbie Ann [D]
Minnesota
Aye Coleman, Norm [R]
Aye Klobuchar, Amy [D]
Mississippi
Aye Cochran, Thad [R]
Aye Lott, Trent [R]
Missouri
Aye Bond, Christopher [R]
Aye McCaskill, Claire [D]
Montana
Aye Baucus, Max [D]
Aye Tester, Jon [D]
Nebraska
Aye Nelson, Ben [D]
Nay Hagel, Charles [R]
Nevada
Aye Reid, Harry [D]
Nay Ensign, John [R]
New Hampshire
Nay Gregg, Judd [R]
Nay Sununu, John [R]
New Jersey
Aye Menendez, Robert [D]
Nay Lautenberg, Frank [D]
New Mexico
Aye Bingaman, Jeff [D]
Aye Domenici, Pete [R]
New York
Aye Schumer, Charles [D]
No Vote Clinton, Hillary [D]
North Carolina
Aye Dole, Elizabeth [R]
Nay Burr, Richard [R]
North Dakota
Aye Conrad, Kent [D]
Aye Dorgan, Byron [D]
Ohio
Aye Brown, Sherrod [D]
Nay Voinovich, George [R]
Oklahoma
Aye Coburn, Thomas [R]
Aye Inhofe, James [R]
Oregon
Aye Smith, Gordon [R]
Aye Wyden, Ron [D]
Pennsylvania
Aye Casey, Robert [D]
Aye Specter, Arlen [R]
Rhode Island
Nay Reed, John [D]
Nay Whitehouse, Sheldon [D]
South Carolina
Aye Graham, Lindsey [R]
Nay DeMint, Jim [R]
South Dakota
Aye Johnson, Tim [D]
Aye Thune, John [R]
Tennessee
Aye Alexander, Lamar [R]
Aye Corker, Bob [R]
Texas
Aye Cornyn, John [R]
Aye Hutchison, Kay [R]
Utah
Aye Hatch, Orrin [R]
Nay Bennett, Robert [R]
Vermont
Aye Leahy, Patrick [D]
Aye Sanders, Bernard [I]
Virginia
Aye Warner, John [R]
Aye Webb, Jim [D]
Washington
Aye Cantwell, Maria [D]
Aye Murray, Patty [D]
West Virginia
Aye Byrd, Robert [D]
Aye Rockefeller, John [D]
Wisconsin
Aye Feingold, Russell [D]
Aye Kohl, Herbert [D]
Wyoming
Aye Barrasso, John [R]
Aye Enzi, Michael [R

How Tennessee’s Representatives Voted.
Aye TN-1 Davis, David [R]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay TN-3 Wamp, Zach [R]
Aye TN-4 Davis, Lincoln [D]
Nay TN-5 Cooper, Jim [D]
Aye TN-6 Gordon, Barton [D]
Nay TN-7 Blackburn, Marsha [R]
Aye TN-8 Tanner, John [D]
Aye TN-9 Cohen, Steve [D

How Black is Obama? Let the Hillary Campaign Show You.

Isn't the Hillary-Obama contest fun? I don't know the truth of this matter obviously, but it is alleged by the leftist kooks at Daily Kos that the Hillary campaign has doctored pictures of Obama to show him with a wider nose and darker complexion than he really has. Would Hillary really stoop that low to win the vote of "hard working white Americans?" Follow this link to see how they did it and read all about the controversy.

A Turd in the Libertarian Punch Bowl

The Libertarian Party will be holding its convention in Denver over Memorial Day weekend. I know this is not an earth shattering event in the political life of the nation, the Libertarian candidate for president is always just a very small asterisk in the final election results. But, even if you are not a libertarian it matters.

This time there are a couple of D list politicians vying for the nomination-- non-libertarian Mike Gravel, and douche bag Bob Barr. Many hope that someone like Barr, who could garner the support of some social conservatives, Paulites, White supremacists, homophobes, Know Nothings and paleoconservatives, would get enough votes to make an impression.

That is not the route to success of the libertarian message. Did the candidacies of Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, John Anderson or George Wallace change the political landscape at all?

And do we really want to send out a package of damaged goods, who has recently started spouting a few lines from the Libertarian platform, just so the party can get some fleeting attention?

To succeed the party has to broaden its base beyond the old white guys, and fellows with disturbing haircuts, that dominate it. The Libertarian Party Platform is by far the most progressive when it comes to the rights of women, minorities, and gays—as well as white males.

You see, Libertarians do not believe there is a finite reservoir of rights, that will run low if they are shared with others.

A couple years ago I was trying to convince some converts to the Party. They were Idaho panhandle conservatives and were none too keen on any of this gay marriage type stuff. I explained to them that libertarianism meant there would be naked pot smoking lesbians frolicking on the shores of Lake Coeur d'Alene , but they would also be able to keep their Uzis and semi-automatics.

The guys thought they could get down with that.

When there are gay pride parades, the Libertarian Party should be as prominent as they are at gun shows. And they need to make a concerted effort to explain to both gays and women—that guns are not just a constitutional right—but life insurance.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have forsaken any real pretense of being fiscally conservative. Small government frugality used to be axiomatic in the Republican Party. These fiscal conservatives don't really care about all the social crap that has come to dominate modern Republicanism. Libertarians need to reach out to the country club Republicans and small business owners—and when there is a Republican that is with the program openly support them.

There are still Goldwater Republicans, who were betrayed by Reagan, and then totally forsaken by both Bushes. They are looking for a party.

Most African-Americans are not European Socialists—but they are also uncomfortable in the hypocritical party of Clarence Thomas. The Libertarian Party stands for everything the civil rights movement was, before it was captured by leftists who successfully sold the peculiar idea that greater control by a central government will somehow enhance the individual freedoms of minorities.

Libertarians should be hooking up with the NAACP—and when Al Sharpton happens to be right—say it, and when Obama is saying something intelligent and uplifting don't just dismiss him as another socialist.

The Libertarian Party is not going to win a single state in the electoral college for a long time, but there is a lot we can do at the local level.

In many places with just two or three hundred votes we can gain control of local governments. If there was a libertarian on the Canton city council I doubt they would be throwing people in jail for not mowing their lawn.

Gilbert, Arizona would not have built a 40 million dollar Little League ballpark on the taxpayer's dime--nor banned Victoria's Secret posters at the mall or yard signs advocating the recall of the mayor.

The Shreveport police would not be unleashed on the baggy pants crowd.

Los Angeles would not be harassing street cart Taco vendors.

Nor would they ban construction of fast food restaurants.

And San Francisco would not ban the sale of cigarettes in drug stores.

Arizona would not prohibit poker playing in social clubs, and it would not be a felony in Washington State to sit in your undies and play a few hands of online poker in the privacy of your home.

Assbag school administrators would not ban hugging, but their ass would be in a sling if they stripped searched a fourteen year old girl to find out if she is concealing a Motrin pill..

We should be lobbying for, and raising awareness of, the American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 and Representative (R-Arizona)John Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act.

And at the local level, neither of the major parties cares about individual property rights one bit.

When some hippies organize a peace march, go with them, we agree on that issue.

And Latinos—they are predominantly conservative—but the Republicans lost that gigantic chunk of the electorate with their vile xenophobic hate---don't be ashamed of, or minimize, the party's immigration platform—there is a natural constituency, uncomfortable in either major party.

We need to get out the message that the big spending federal government and the policies of the Federal Reserve are the the cause of the tax that is beginning to strangle the Republic and destroy the poor and middle class—inflation.

There is much real work that can be accomplished, beyond a never ending bitch fest.

And yes, we should run a presidential candidate—one who is truly a principled libertarian—one who has worked the bakes sales, peace marches, petition drives, gun shows, and backyard barbecues.

Someone who Thomas Jefferson would vote for.

Not a turd in the punch bowl--like Bob Barr.

Mexican Slaves up for Auction Tomorrow!

Yes, that's what I said, Mexican Slaves - Illegal Immigrants - whatever you want to call them, but they are slaves to corporate America. Those slimeball politicians in Washington are at it again. As you all know, the Emergency War-time Spending Bill was approved by the house last week. It comes before the Senate tomorrow (Wednesday, May 21, 2008). Included in that WAR-TIME spending bill is what the Dems are calling an "Ag-jobs measure." Here's how it is described:

Congress including in the domestic-programs amendment a provision that would help pave the way for undocumented agriculture workers to win legal status, an amendment that could reopen Congress’ rancorous debate over immigration policy.

The supporters of the so-called Ag-Jobs measure, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Larry Craig (R-Idaho), say the five-year program is needed to keep farms operating and crops growing. The provision was added by a 17-12 vote.

Notice how they've changed the term from Illegal Immigrants to undocumented workers to "Undocumented agriculture workers." They say they need this extra money in a WAR-TIME spending bill in order "to keep farms operating and crops growing." Wait - I thought you guys just passed a farm subsidy bill last week? You mean that wasn't enough to keep the farms operating? If not, you guys suck even more than I thought!

So, even though 80% of Americans have already said NO to Amnesty - they are trying to sneak it in and backdoor it in an EMERGENCY WAR-TIME spending bill. So, they are holding our troops hostage again! Either we say yes to amnesty or they so no to our troops!

Call your Senators tomorrow and tell them to either take this measure out of the WAR-TIME spending bill or vote NO on it. Freakin assholes! Again, they are trying to make it easier for those who come here ILLEGALLY to circumvent the whole system and jump ahead of those who have been here for years following the rules and doing it right.

Here is a link for finding out how to contact your Senators:

To find your Senator, click here

Now, tell everyone you can think of to contact their representatives tomorrow (Wednesday, May 21, 2008). Link back to this post or blog it yourself. In any case, we need to get the word out there again that America says NO to AMNESTY!


Top Stories

Obama Blames Loss on Fox News

Obama, maybe there are other reasons you lost the white vote in some recent primaries. Maybe your comment about frustrated people clinging to guns and religion offended some religious gun owners. Maybe your wife's comment about being proud of America for the first time in her life had something to do with turning off patriotic middle Americans who love their country. Maybe that picture that shows you as the lone candidate on the stage who does not have his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem made some middle Americans think that you do not share their values. Despite your eventual disavowal of Reverend Wright, do you think that perhaps your former pastor, who referred to America as the U.S.K.K.K.A. and said AIDS was a government created illness designed to kill Black Americans and who said "God damn America" could have turned some people off? After all, prior to disavowing him, you did call him your spiritual advisor and you did sit in the pews of his church for 20 years and contributed over $27,000 to that church.

Maybe some white Americans would simply prefer to vote for a white American just as some Blacks prefer to vote for a Black American and some females would prefer to vote for a female. Maybe they are just not that into you. You have the Blacks and the college educated elites but maybe the white middle class are just not ready to vote for a Black man who is also rated as the most liberal person in the U. S. Senate. Maybe it is because you don't have as much testosterone as Hillary Clinton. You can't put back shots of liquor and mingle in the pool hall as good as Hillary. You don't love guns and you are not a hunter. You are just not the "good ole boy" that Hillary is. Hillary is just better at playing the redneck. Maybe Hillary just knows how to pander better than you do.

When Bill Clinton got caught in a scandal, Hillary blamed his problems on a "vast right-wing conspiracy". Back when there were a lot fewer media outlets and less diversity in News reporting, Republicans used to blame a lot of their losses on the "liberal media." Fox is only one network. You still have the fawning MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN plus the quasi-news comedy shows that love you. Surely you can do better than blame your recent losses on little old Fox news network.