RPT Chairman Munisteri Releases Statement on Texas GOP Presidential Debate

Republican Party of Texas Chairman Steve Munisteri issued the following statement Friday on a GOP presidential primary debate in Texas:

"It has been one of my goals as Chairman to find ways to increase Texas' influence in the Republican Presidential primary process. I have long been frustrated that the voices of Texas Republicans have been minimized by the current primary calendar. The decision by a three-judge federal panel in San Antonio to twice delay our primary until May 29th only increases the importance of trying to find ways to maximize Texas' influence. I believe that a May debate before the Texas & California Primaries (the largest delegate blocs in the country with 155 and 172, respectively), will maximize the attention paid to our state. Consequently, I have been working hard to arrange for such a debate to occur here in Texas."

Munisteri continued, "Today, I am happy to report that I have a commitment of a major television outlet to televise such a debate, if all the candidates show up. There is a significant chance that they will televise the debate even if we are lacking only one candidate. We already have commitments from former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Texas Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Rick Santorum to participate in such a debate. Both my staff and myself have reached out to the campaign of Governor Mitt Romney and have been told that they are considering attending the debate."

"I am disappointed that Governor Romney has not yet committed to attending an official Republican Party of Texas event," said Chairman Munisteri. "This debate will not only benefit the State Party (and in turn, help our entire ticket) but it will also allow the RPT to showcase to the entire nation how Texas is a great Republican state. I believe it is important that whoever heads our national ticket pay attention to our state. We are the largest Republican state in the nation. Texas Republicans have contributed over $40 million to the Republican National Committee over the last eight years and have given millions of dollars to numerous national candidates including Governor Romney. I think it would be disrespectful to all Texas Republicans for a candidate not to attend. Our national candidates need to know that Texas Republicans have long felt ignored by the Republican Presidential primary process as the Presidential races in recent past have been substantially over before our Texas Primary. Attendance at this debate will be seen as a recognition of Texas' importance to the Republican Party, and in some small measure - it will help make up for the past lack of attention paid to our state. I believe that failure to show up at this debate will be viewed by many Texas Republicans as a lack of interest in our state and our State Party. I am hopeful that Governor Romney will show that Texas is important to him by accepting our invitation, and this weekend, I am asking the State Republican Executive Committee to pass a resolution during the Spring Quarterly SREC meeting which requests Governor Romney to accept our debate invitation. I would urge all Texas Republicans to let Governor Romney know how important it is that he accept our invitation by using social media, emailing or calling his campaign."

Senator Rick Santorum responded to the debate invitation by saying, "I am delighted to come to Texas to debate the other candidates for the Republican Presidential nomination. I believe that my conservative values of faith, family and freedom are reflective of the vast majority of Texas Republicans. I look forward to coming to Texas to demonstrate that as the Republican Presidential nominee, I will offer a bold contrast to President Obama. I would hope that all the candidates would see this as a critical opportunity to talk directly to the voters of Texas, and attend."

Jesse Benton, national campaign chairman for Congressman Ron Paul, issued the following statement on behalf of the Paul campaign. "This year's Presidential election is critically important, and Texas deserves to have a fair say. Dr. Paul is committed to the Texas GOP debate and hopes his fellow candidates will join him and show our state the proper respect."

Tentative dates and locations have been discussed with the three candidates who have already accepted. The Republican Party of Texas has suggested a date and location to the three candidates, but will hold off on naming a final date and location until we hear from Governor Romney and get feedback from all the candidates.

Chairman Munisteri stressed the importance of the Texas primary vote in the nomination of a Republican candidate. He challenged all Republicans to contact the Romney campaign and insist that Governor Romney accept the invitation and confirm his participation.

Obama Fails to Scapegoat Big Oil With Tax Increases

Barack Obama managed to bring about a bit of bipartisan support in a vote taken up by the Senate. The problem for him is that this bipartisan support was voting against his wishes. All but two Republicans and four Democrats voted against his desire to scapegoat the oil and gas industry in a political election year. His very last political election.

President Obama thinks it is a nifty idea to stop the tax subsidies given to the oil and gas producers. He gathered a rather motley looking bunch of folks to stand behind him as he delivered a completely ideological campaign speech in the Rose Garden Thursday morning before the vote was taken.

A little over an hour after Pres. Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden challenging Congress to repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for "Big Oil," the Senate went against his wishes and voted down legislation authored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) that would've done just that.

Lawmakers struck down the bill in a vote of 51 – 47, the bill needed 60 votes to pass. The bill was voted largely on party lines, with the exception of two Maine Republicans, Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, who crossed party lines to vote to repeal the tax breaks. They were outdone however, when four Democrats voted against the bill. Alaska's Senator Mark Begich was one of those four. The other three were Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Jim Webb of Virginia.

The failure of the bill came as no surprise, a similar bill voted on last May, also failed, that bill failed on a vote of 52 – 48. Monday, Senate Republicans voted to allow debate on the bill even though they were opposed to the Menendez plan. They did so in an effort to get Senate to consider a handful of GOP amendments, among them a proposal to expand offshore oil and gas leasing. But, Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada cut the debate short.

Gone with the failed bill are extensions for tax incentives for renewable power projects electric cars, energy-efficient homes and biofuels production.

Retiring Democrat Senator Webb voted against the bill, tempering the argument against the Republican candidate for his seat made by former DNC Chairman and now candidate Tim Kaine.

Undercutting Democrats' week of attacks on Republican U.S. Senate candidate George Allen, Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., today voted against legislation that would have stripped $24 billion in tax subsidies from the country's five largest oil companies.

"By rejecting the effort to repeal billions in taxpayer funded giveaways to profitable oil companies, Republicans have again sided with special interests at the expense of Americans," Kaine responded to Thursday's vote.

"These subsidies, which have been consistently supported by my opponent George Allen, are unnecessary for the big five oil companies to turn a profit and do nothing to significantly lower the price of gas that Virginians pay when they fill up their tank," he added. "Instead, today's vote just ensures all Americans are double charged by the richest oil companies – once in their pocketbook at the pump, and again in their tax bill each year."

Never mind that the subsidies are the same as those given to all other businesses.

The real culprit in the high price of gas at the pump is the taxation of the product. No other product on the market is taxed higher.

Reducing the taxation would reduce the price at the pump. Taking away subsidies - in effect, raising taxes - on oil and gas producers will only increase the price at the pump. This is not rocket science. This is basic economics. The problem is, however, that this administration wants a bad guy and that is "big oil". The Obama administration is full of partisan ideologues with no real world business experience. It has been obvious for some time - particularly since the Deepwater Horizon explosion - that this administration is hell bent to destroy the domestic oil and gas industry.

ExxonMobil is now reporting that for its retail gasoline operations in the U.S., it made an average profit of 7 cents per gallon during the first quarter of 2011.

Seven cents per gallon. Before the price increases due to overseas demands, their profit was two cents per gallon. Two cents. To hear the Obama explanation, one would think that the oil companies profits were 99% of the price at the pump per gallon. You, the reader, have to understand that Team Obama simply does not understand the domestic energy industry.

What President Obama is counting on is the fact that he was for subsidies before he was against them. As candidate Obama in 2008, he was all for them in an all of the above approach to our energy needs. Now, however, having to court the hyper partisan far left of his party, he has to try and punish fossil fuel producers to the benefit of alternative energy. He would also like for you, the voter, to think that fossil fuel producers don't invest in alternative fuel solutions. They do.

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer called President Barack Obama‘s plea to end oil tax breaks “staggering cynicism,” explaining how Obama’s rhetoric contradicted his past actions on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report” Thursday.

“I think any objective observer would look at what the president said today in the Rose Garden on this and conclude as I did: it is truly staggering cynicism,” Krauthammer said on Thursday’s broadcast. “Number one, when he was in the Senate, Obama supported the subsidies he’s denouncing today. And when our own Ed Henry asked Jay Carney about that, Carney had no answer. He was looking for a hole to hide in.”

“Second, the Congressional Research Office in March of 2011 showed that if you remove the subsidies, if it has any effect whatsoever on the gas prices, it will be to increase them, and the president is pretending he is trying to lower the gas prices,” he continued.

Ending the tax breaks would do little to solve the deficit spending problems plaguing the federal government, Krauthammer claimed. The Senate bill that Obama supported would have put about $10 billion in “big oil” tax cuts toward deficit reduction.

“Lastly, it is a trivial effect,” Krauthammer explained. “If you collected this subsidy, this tax from the oil companies for the next 100 years, it wouldn’t cover four months of deficit spending under this administration. And here he is in the Rose Garden standing up and saying again and again as he has before, ‘I am for all of the above — all kinds of sources of energy.’”

Cynical, indeed. It is what we have come to expect from this president in this election year.

Sen Coburn Endorses Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate

Wednesday Senator Tom Coburn endorsed Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate. Known for his advocacy of strong fiscal conservatism, Coburn represents a neighboring state, Oklahoma.

“Ted Cruz is a strong conservative and a fighter, not a timid career politician. The fiscal and economic crisis facing our nation is too grave to elect anyone other than a strong conservative fighter. We need Ted in the Senate to stand with us against wasteful Washington spending, the corrupt earmark culture, and the radical Obama agenda.

“Oklahoma and Texas may have our friendly rivalry, but when it comes to fighting for limited government, I’m proud to endorse my neighbor across the Red River. Ted Cruz is exactly the kind of proven conservative that conservatives should rally behind nationally, because we need strong reinforcements to help us defend our free-market system.

“Fiscal conservatives have been badly outnumbered in Washington, but the Senate is right now at a tipping point – send Ted Cruz to the Senate, and we can turn it around. I’m proud to stand with Ted and encourage all friends of liberty in Texas and across the country to support him.”

Texas votes in its primary election on May 29.

Day Three of Obamacare Arguments at the Supreme Court

Day Three of the arguments presented in the Supreme Court over Obamacare involved two separate questions:

1. Whether the individual mandate to purchase health insurance is severable from the remainder of the law.

2. Whether the Medicaid expansion provisions amount to coercion of state funding by the federal government.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation released the following summary:

SEVERABILITY

KEY POINTS FROM THE ARGUMENT: While some justices seemed inclined to uphold the remainder of the law, others appeared open to striking the whole law down or to selectively invalidating parts of the law while leaving other provisions untouched. Justice Scalia: “My approach would say if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute's gone. That enables Congress to – to do what it wants in – in the usual fashion. And it doesn't inject us into the process of saying, ‘this is good, this is bad, this is good, this is bad.’” Justice Ginsburg: “[I]t's a choice between a wrecking operation, which is what you are requesting, or a salvage job. And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.”

OUR ANALYSIS: Both parties advocate that, at a minimum, the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions should be struck down if the mandate is found unconstitutional. Because of this, it is unlikely that guaranteed issue and community rating will survive if the mandate is found unconstitutional. This will lessen the immediate likelihood of an adverse selection spiral. The remaining provisions still have the potential to drive up the costs of health care and health insurance. If the Court strikes down Titles I and II, the remaining provisions will have a much less significant impact. This is feasible considering the intent of Congress to achieve universal coverage. The individual mandate is vitally interwoven with Titles I and II of the law in the effort to provide universal coverage. As such, the Court should move to overturn at least Titles I and II in full along with the mandate.

MEDICAID

KEY POINTS FROM THE ARGUMENT: The law’s challengers received their toughest questions on the Medicaid provision. One quote from Justice Roberts provided a good summary of the states’ current predicament: “[I]sn't [this] a consequence of how willing [states] have been since the New Deal to take the Federal government's money? And it seems to me that they have compromised their status as independent sovereigns because they are so dependent on what the Federal government has done, they should not be surprised that the Federal government having attached the – they tied the strings, they shouldn't be surprised if the Federal government isn't going to start pulling them.”

OUR ANALYSIS: More than 75 years ago, in United States v. Butler, the U.S. Supreme Court warned that unless the power of the federal government to condition federal grants is checked, it could “become the instrument for total subversion of the governmental powers reserved to the individual states.” This warning has proven all too prescient. As Justice Kennedy noted at today’s argument, conditional federal grants also break down the accountability that is necessary to our democratic system. For democracy to function properly, legislators must be responsive to local preferences and the federal government must be accountable for its own policies. Conditional grants may seem helpful, but in fact they subvert state government powers, defeat legislators’ ability to represent those who elected them, and blur accountability. If the Supreme Court does not fashion real restraints on the ability of the federal government to impose conditional grants on the states, action to restore state sovereignty will have to come from states themselves learning to resist the temptation that federal funds pose.

For real-time analysis of the Florida v. HHS argument, please visit www.PPACAction.com.

It's the Trust Issue, Stupid, That Was Highlighted in Open Mic Incident

For a seasoned political person, President Obama sure is showing signs of a person with some issues over open microphones. The latest incident happened recently as he spoke to Russian President Medvedev. It is proof to those who are suspicious of the lack of honesty in the president's behavior towards Americans - the people he serves. It would appear that President Obama just wants to get re-elected and then he can have carte blanche to do as he pleases without worrying about any future elections.

You would never know it by the media's coverage of the international gaffe, as it is buried on pages 11 and 14 on major national newspapers, but the President of the United States asked President Medvedev for "space" until he gets past the upcoming election and then he can work with Russia on the missile defense shield issue. Can you imagine the hysteria if President Bush had been heard pleading for "space" with a foreign leader without presenting his plan to the American people first?

Obama, during a sit-down with Medvedev in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him "space" until after November. The conversation was relayed by a TV pool producer who listened to the recording from a Russian journalist.

"This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility," Obama

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense ... this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space," Obama said.

Not only does Obama presume to expect he will be re-elected in November, but he would like to signal to the Russians that he is willing to overturn the missile defense agreement in eastern Europe. He already has pulled missiles out of Poland.

Obama must answer for this disgraceful gaffe. It is a matter of trust. How can Americans trust him if he continues down this path of arrogance? He does have a history of proclaiming - boasting - that he will re-do agreements. You may remember as candidate Obama in 2008 declared he'd re-do NAFTA and then Canada had to be soothed and reassured that he was all talk.

And the media yawns. The press, however, would have a field day with former President Bush, or any Republican, really, if a Republican had done that. Remember when President Bush was caught on an open mic dropping the f-bomb to Tony Blair as they discussed Hezbollah and Syria? The press played that up for days - how dare President Bush use that word during an international conference! Such tender ears.

Americans are running out of whatever trust there remains for Obama. He has not fulfilled campaign promises from 2008 as most were unattainable. He knew so but he was determined to say whatever it took to be elected. And his voters fell for it all. Hope and Change!

Obama must answer for throwing eastern Europe under the bus. Again.

Tx Attorney General Abbott Issues Statement on Day Two From SCOTUS

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued the following statement after participating as an audience member during the arguments for and against the universal mandate in Obamacare at the Supreme Court Tuesday:

"We had a great day where it seemed like a majority of the justices agreed with Texas’ position. Justice Kennedy in particular said it looks like ObamaCare changes the relationship between government and individuals in a way that intrudes upon individual liberty. He also said that in agreement with Texas that ObamaCare is forcing people do something that is contrary to their prior rulings. Importantly, Justice Scalia agreed that the federal government is supposed to have limited powers. The federal government has only those powers that are enumerated in the Constitution. He can’t find in the Constitution where the federal government has the power to impose ObamaCare. Outside the courtroom, it was completely crowded with people who were chanting opposition to ObamaCare. The people of this country are in agreement with the arguments by Texas against ObamaCare. Just know that we are here in Washington, D.C., fighting for your liberty, fighting for your interest and trying to protect you and your pocketbook. We’ve got one more day of oral arguments and then the decision coming out soon.”

HERE is the video made just outside the Supreme Court Tuesday.

Newt Scales Back Campaign Operation

The cuts have begun and the travel schedule has been re-worked. Newt Gingrich is struggling to hang in the Republican primary contest long enough to be able to head to the convention prepared for battle, should Mitt Romney not have wrapped the whole thing up by then.

Gingrich spokesman Joe DeSantis said about 12 campaign staffers will lose their jobs, and former Campaign Manager Michael Krull has been replaced by Vince Haley, the deputy campaign manager.

The pretense is that Newt has big ideas and they deserve to be heard. Plus, there is the thought that a long primary strengthens the eventual winner.

“We’re of the belief that an interesting and competitive primary will be hugely beneficial to the Republican Party,’’ DeSantis said.

With only 135 delegates at this point in the race, it is impossible for Gingrich to secure the nomination and he knows it. This is Newt being Newt. He doesn't end battles well and he is bitter about Romney's success to date. He has earned a slot at the convention to speak.

Gingrich should exit the race with whatever dignity he has left in tact.

TPPF Summarizes Day Two at SCOTUS for Obamacare

For many concerned about the arguments presented in the Supreme Court this week on the constitutionality of Obamacare, Tuesday's session was perhaps the most crucial. The issue argued Tuesday was whether Congress has the power under the U.S. Constitution to require individuals to purchase health insurance.

The following is an excellent write-up from the Texas Public Policy Foundation in Austin:

KEY POINTS FROM THE ARGUMENT: Several of the justices expressed skepticism about the propriety of the mandate. Justice Kennedy stated that the mandate “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.” Justice Scalia said that a law which violates the principle of limited powers cannot be “proper” within the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause. And Justices Roberts and Alito seemed deeply troubled by the government’s inability to articulate a limiting principle for the federal commerce power.


The Justices who seemed to favor the mandate’s constitutionality did not seem to agree on the basis for sustaining the law. Justice Breyer effectively conceded the challengers’ argument that upholding the mandate would make federal authority unlimited. Justice Ginsburg, by contrast, focused more narrowly on the costs uncompensated care have on the wider health insurance market.


TPPF's ANALYSIS: The federal government was unable to answer the obvious question: if the federal government can require people to purchase health insurance, what can’t it do? The federal government could not articulate a limiting principle. Today’s arguments make it fairly clear that a majority of the justices are likely inclined to strike the mandate down. The Court’s ultimate ruling will hopefully give further clarity to the Constitution’s limits on the federal commerce power, particularly by confining the “substantial effects” doctrine to the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The experts at TPPF are: Mario Loyola is the Director of the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies, and lead author on the four amicus briefs filed by the Foundation in the ObamaCare challenge. Josiah Neeley is a Policy Analyst with the Foundation and co-author on two of the amicus briefs filed by the Foundation with the Supreme Court. Spencer Harris is a Policy Analyst with the Center for Health Care Policy, and one of the lead authors of the Foundation’s Medicaid reform proposal.

You can follow along with continued updates at their new website devoted to the arguments at the Supreme Court: www.PPACAction.com

Obama Then and Now on Individual Mandate in Obamacare

Barack Obama was against the individual mandate in heaalth care reform before he was for it. He was a candidate before he was president.



The constitutionality of the individual mandate is now the subject of debate in the Supreme Court. Barack Obama decided his legacy would be universal health care, even if it was an intrusion into personal freedom and simply unconstitutional. Remember, this is the man touted as a constitutional scholar as he ran for the highest office in the land. No one bothered to notice the egotism of the man, though.

So the laudable goal of universal coverage ought to be balanced against drawbacks. At the margin, the ACA will probably discourage job creation, because mandated insurance raises the cost of hiring and the complexity of the 2,700-page law will intimidate some employers. Requiring younger workers to have expensive, comprehensive insurance (as opposed to catastrophic coverage) expands the undesirable inter-generational transfer from them to their wealthier elders. Finally, the ACA worsens the budget outlook.

The Obama administration has obscured this by arguing the program reduces budget deficits. Though technically true, this is misleading.

Considering the ACA's glaring -- and predictable -- economic and political shortcomings, why did Obama make it his first-term centerpiece? The answer seems to be his obsession with securing his legacy as the president who achieved the liberal grail of universal coverage. In his book "The Escape Artists: How Obama's Team Fumbled the Recovery," Noam Scheiber recounts a telling incident. Obama's advisers tell him he can be known for preventing a second Great Depression. "That's not enough for me," Obama replies.

The ACA is Obama's ego trip, but as a path to presidential greatness, it may disappoint no matter how the court decides. Lyndon's Johnson's creation of Medicare and Medicaid was larger, and he isn't deemed great. And then, unlike now, government seemed capable of paying for bigger programs.

How sad that 1/6 of our nation's economy will be compromised if one man's attempt at a grand legacy pans out.

Documents Show Obama Administration Fully Aware of Solyndra Failures

The disgrace of a continued acceptance of a lack of a real energy policy from the Obama administration doesn't seem to bother them. In deep denial that there is a problem, those working for Obama's re-election are regularly dispatched to the talk shows and spout off the standard stuff - oil and gas is of the past and we must do all we can for green energy production.

Green energy? That's fine. But to claim that progress will be made in time to make a real difference any time soon in our energy demands is silly. And downright cynical. The Obama is totally in the camp that demands the destruction of the oil and gas industry in our nation and to think otherwise is just wrong. Now that he is up for re-election, and quite arrogantly expecting his re-election, Barack Obama is attempting to re-write history.

Even David Gregory on Meet the Press fact checks Plouffe on the swing state campaigning of President Obama on energy production:



It is a sham that Obama had anything to do with the short segment of the pipeline running from Oklahoma to the Gulf coast of Texas. The work was scheduled to be underway by June of this year and no presidential signature was needed. The northern part of the Keystone Pipeline, though, is what the president had a hand in and he took a pass on it. How's that for his proclaimed support of an all of the above approach to energy production?

His green energy pet projects are failing miserably. The poster child for throwing good taxpayer money after bad is still Solyndra. The administration would like to distance itself for this decision and lay the blame elsewhere - a usual ploy from President Obama when things go wrong - but documents delivered in Friday afternoon document dumps show a different story:

Several key White House offices were involved with the Obama administration’s messaging plans and other preparations as the collapse of the taxpayer-backed solar company Solyndra was imminent, newly released documents show.

The latest White House documents delivered to House Republicans on Friday again highlight the extent to which senior administration officials braced for the fallout as Solyndra – a company President Obama had personally visited – was about to go under.

Now we learn that nearly one-third of the pet projects of this administration awarded taxpayer money - in the billions of dollars - are on a watch list for troubled projects.

The Department of Energy has placed nearly one-third of its clean-energy loan portfolio on an internal "watch list" for possible violations of terms or other concerns, according to a copy of the list obtained by The Wall Street Journal, highlighting how such concerns have spread beyond the now-bankrupt Solyndra LLC.

The redacted copy, released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by the Journal, showed that as of Feb. 29 there were 10 projects on the watch list out of 32 loans and loan guarantees made to electric-vehicle and renewable-energy companies.

.The department declined to name the companies on the watch list, saying information about specific loans is confidential. It wasn't clear how much funding the 10 projects received.

Overall, the clean-energy loan program has doled out roughly $8.3 billion, according to a Jan. 31 report by Herb Allison, a former Treasury Department official and Wall Street executive who was commissioned by the White House to review the program after Solyndra's bankruptcy filing.

Loans get placed on the watch list because they have been "identified as higher risk," Mr. Allison said in his report. Reasons for making the list include breaching loan terms, falling behind on agreed-upon performance milestones and being part of "an industry or market sector experiencing challenging market conditions," the report said.

It's no coincidence that those seeking large government (taxpayer) loans are also big contributors to Barack Obama's political career. Remember that when the president chastises anyone else for applying crony capitalism in politics.

Oklahomans Not Buying Obama's Campaign Photo Op Over Pipeline

The people of Oklahoma were not particularly impressed with President Obama's campaign stop in that state to take credit for the southern segment of the Keystone Pipeline project - highlighting the fact that the president had no say-so over that part of the project moving forward. The authors of the following message delivered to him lead Oklahoma City-based large independent oil and gas exploration and production companies Continental Resources, Chesapeake Energy, Devon Energy and SandRidge Energy:

"Welcome to Oklahoma, President Obama. We hope you develop a better understanding of the oil and gas industry, one of the largest and most vibrant sectors in the United States, during your visit. As Americans, we share a mutual desire to power our nation with homegrown energy sources. We join you in wanting to secure our energy future by lessening our dangerous dependency on imported oil. No energy source can do more good for America than domestic oil and gas. You often mention the need for more well-paying jobs. Our companies are creating them - in particular, tens of thousands of every skill level from rig workers and truck drivers to top-flight engineers and Ph.D.s...Mr. President, your words suggest you want the economic benefits American natural gas and oil can deliver. We hope your actions follow suit - to date they have not."

This little campaign visit was the first trip to Oklahoma Barack Obama has taken since he became president. So, yes, it was a bit obvious. The people of Oklahoma didn't appreciate being made into props for a photo op. To them, oil and gas exploration and production is their livelihood, not a political pander.

If you speak up for commonsense solutions for our energy needs, well, prepare to be called names and receive threats from celebrity types looking for a little attention. Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma has been called an "oil whore" from the wee small brained liberal Alec Baldwin and wished various other bad happenings from others.



Energy producers planned a protest to the president's visit - seen as an election year photo op and hypocritical - as the president's approval is not needed for the southern part of the pipeline. The southern section remains without a northern section to connect to, due to President Obama's veto.

From a local television news broadcast in Oklahoma, as the president prepared to visit:

"Mike Cantrell with the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance says, "For the last three years he's been anti-fossil fuels."

Mickey Thompson, an energy industry expert and political analyst, says, "He calls our industry an industry of the past and they'd like us to go away."

The President is expected to mention his support for a pipeline running from Payne County to the gulf; it's the southern end of the “Keystone XL Pipeline.”

Industry experts say while his support for the southern end is welcome, it's not needed.

They build pipelines in the country all the time without needing presidential approval."

TPPF Launches Website for Live Coverage of Florida v HHS in SCOTUS

The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. Friday an announcement was made that a a special website devoted to live coverage of next week’s U.S. Supreme Court argument in Florida v. HHS has been launched by the foundation.

On each morning of the trial, PPACAction.com will have a preview of that day’s argument plus a synopsis of major news coverage. Each afternoon, the site will have a recap of the day’s argument plus a special daily edition of “Texas PolicyCast,” with audio excerpts from the courtroom and expert analysis.

Throughout the day, PPACAction.com will feature real-time analysis from the Foundation’s scholars on the latest developments in the trial. The site will also include links to the Foundation’s research related to the PPACA and the Foundation’s three amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court in this case.

Contributors to the website include Mario Loyola and Josiah Neeley of the Foundation’s Center for Tenth Amendment Studies, and Spencer Harris of the Foundation’s Center for Health Care Policy. Loyola and Neeley are co-authors of the Foundation’s three amicus briefs, while Harris is a co-author on several Foundation research reports on the PPACA’s effects on the states – particularly how the Medicaid provisions decimate state budgets.

This case being argued before the Supreme Court is historic, not just in the length of time being allowed for arguments but also in seriousness of the decision, which will determine if the personal mandate is allowable in Constitutional terms. The question asked is how long is the arm of our government into our personal lives? Does the President have the authority to declare such a mandate?

“The decision in Florida v. HHS will have life-changing consequences for every American, but only a handful of people will have the opportunity to be inside the courtroom as it is argued,” said the Foundation’s president and CEO Brooke Rollins. “PPACAction.com will be a one-stop resource for people who care deeply about the outcome of this case and want to understand what the justices’ deliberations could mean for their health care and their freedoms.”

“Our country is engaged in a robust debate over which spheres of authority belong to the government, and which belong to individuals,” Rollins said. “The Supreme Court’s decision in the ObamaCare case will define that balance for many years to come. We believe this website, dedicated exclusively to this trial, is an important contribution to that debate.”

Obama Touts Southern Section of Keystone Pipeline

This ad is running in three spots targeted by Team Obama for his appearances promoting his handling of our energy needs:



President Obama is playing defense over his disastrous lack of a coherent energy policy. While it is not fair to blame any president for the price of gas at the pump, solely, it is fair to criticize all presidents when there is no viable energy policy that will allow America to travel on a path to energy independence. There is no quick response but if decisions are made and followed through, the results will be felt down the line. That is what we see now with the amount of drilling and production in the oil and gas industry today. It is not thanks to Barack Obama, these barrels of oil being produced domestically, it is despite him.

Now that President Obama is on the campaign trail and appearing in the crucial swing states, suddenly oil and gas production has no better friend than Barack Obama. Though he is famous for saying such silly statements as drilling will not decrease gas prices and that oil and gas are the fuels of the past, he must try to convince voters that he has something other than windmills and solar panels. Or algae. While there is nothing wrong with pursuing research and development of "green" energy, the fact is that none of the alternative energy sources are capable of making a dent in our energy needs now and will not be for the foreseeable future.

Hope is not a policy.

One campaign stop Thursday was in Oklahoma, a state that will play a part in the southern part of the Keystone Pipeline project. This is the part that Obama is now making speeches about in these swing states and trying to take credit for approval of the southern part of the pipeline project moving forward. He is stretching the truth on his involvement, to put it kindly.

Republicans have cast Obama’s visit here as a political play by the president to head off backlash from the Keystone XL decision. Officials from TransCanada, the company behind the project, have said that Obama’s call for a faster review would not alter the timeline.

The southern leg of the project is awaiting final permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the company plans to break ground on it as early as June. Republicans have said Obama should focus on the project’s other stages, where the administration will be decisive.

If it benefits him in any way, the president does enjoy providing a shell game for the voter and his campaign audiences. The fact is, this segment of the pipeline was going forward and President Obama had no control over the process. What he did have control over was the northern section of the pipeline and the agreement with Canada. You may remember he made a great show of vetoing that and caving into bogus claims from his radical environmental left supporters in this election year. Never mind that three studies have been completed on the environmental effects of the pipeline and all have come to the conclusion that it can be safely done.

There are pipelines all across our country. The technology is there.

The president has no energy policy, only political ideology. He now reverts to the standard liberal Democrat position of taxation to help solve our problem at the pump - he wants to increase taxes on oil and gas companies. This is further proof the man does not understand how the economics of energy work. After three years in the office, after being touted as the smartest man ever to hold the office, one would think that he would have some understanding of how the energy sector works by now.

The southern section of the Keystone Pipeline will continue on. It is, however, despite the actions of Barack Obama, not because of them.

Rep McMorris Rodgers Sets Chris Matthews Straight

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers sets Democrat Chris Matthews straight during an interview on his show "Hardball" on the alleged War on Women:



Notice the little logo on the screen? "Party like it's 1959" and the GOP elephant mascot and the symbol for women? Keep it classy, Mr. Matthews. Republicans won the women vote in 2010. Democrats just don't get it.

In the end, Matthews admits he "likes" Rep McMorris Rodgers.  That's big of him, right?  Too bad he is so tied into the left's ideology and a willing shill for the DNC in trying to paint the GOP as angry white men trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant. What has happened is that the liberal community has been exposed for the misogynists that they are - exemplified particularly blatantly in  the Clinton days. And we won't go into Teddy Kennedy and the auto careening into the river. 

You know who has a "war on women"? The Taliban. Al Quada. Chinese dictators. Corrupt men who enslave young girls in human trafficking. African tribal leaders performing genital mutilation. Saudi kings denying women the right to drive a car.  Think about those examples as you hear the nonsense coming from the far left. It is an insult to truly used and abused women around the world.

Remember those examples at the ballot box in November.

Obama Touts Bogus Claims on Keystone Pipeline Fast Tracking

The bogus energy policy touted by President Obama as he tours a few states to boost an illusion that he is actually producing a domestic energy plan is full of fail. Even Bloomberg is writing that the small segment Obama will claim to be fast-tracking in Oklahoma Thursday was already on track to be underway by June. Obama has nothing to do with the process there.

Obama yesterday began a four-state tour to promote his energy policies as Republicans blame him for surging gasoline prices. After stops in Nevada and New Mexico yesterday, Obama plans an appearance at Cushing today to announce that the administration is designating the southern Keystone section an infrastructure priority, according to a statement from the White House. That will make the project eligible for accelerated review of permit applications, according to the statement.

TransCanada’s president of energy and oil pipelines, Alex Pourbaix, said in an interview March 6 that construction on the Cushing phase of Keystone could begin as soon as June. The company doesn’t expect the new review process to change that schedule, Cunha said yesterday.

Is it any wonder that our nation has no cohesive energy policy in place when we hear the president state in his "energy" speech that oil is at $1.25 per barrel? You can't make this stuff up. This is what he said before an audience in Colorado, a swing state in this re-election year.

We have subsidized oil companies for a century. We want to encourage production of oil and gas, and make sure that wherever we’ve got American resources, we are tapping into them. But they don’t need an additional incentive when gas is $3.75 a gallon, when oil is $1.20 a barrel, $1.25 a barrel. They don’t need additional incentives. They are doing fine.

How sad that the president doesn't understand the simple economics of how an oil and gas company makes a profit. He sounds as though he thinks the price at the pump and the amount of profit from the price of a barrel of crude oil is the equation. This is what happens when a candidate with absolutely zero business experience in the real world is elected to the highest office in the land. It is a disaster for our economy and certainly for our domestic energy production when ideology overrules sound, common sense policy.

Romney and the Etch-A-Sketch Moment

Mitt Romney handily won the Illinois primary Saturday. As predicted, the concession speeches of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich were full of hateful musings about lack of money and so forth. Romney's speech, however, may have been the best one yet from him after the results of a primary are in. He was relaxed, smiling and completely on message. No mentions of his opponents in the primary, just taking the fight to Barack Obama.

That is what they are all supposed to be doing. That is why Mitt Romney is now the GOP nominee. Santorum will have a good night in Louisiana when that state's primary results are in on Saturday but there is not a path forward for him after that. He can't catch up to Romney at this point. The math is the math.

Sometime someone should point out to Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich that they sound silly complaining about the money in the Romney campaign. They would do about anything for it themselves and what, exactly, would they do after the primary when they faced the Obama campaign money? That race will make the primary look like a cake walk.

As pointed out HERE Santorum is not expanding his voting base:

Romney was able to stretch a bit into central Illinois, but his growth stopped around Springfield. But Santorum didn’t grow out at all beyond his base of evangelicals, rural voters and “very conservative” Republicans. And exit polling showed them basically tied with a group Romney has struggled with — those who earn less than $50,000 a year.

For all the heat Romney gets for not expanding his base — and he did make some inroads last night — the same has been true of Santorum, who has posed the strongest threat to the front-runner since Rick Perry faded last year. Romney wins states whose demographics favor him — Michigan, Ohio, Illinois. Santorum, meanwhile, wins those dominated by evangelicals and social conservatives — Mississippi, Alabama.

Gingrich as gone back to his early days in the race - he appears to be on a grand adventure around the country instead of working a political campaign. He and Callista are reported to be having a swell time visiting museums and zoos. Sounds like the old book tour mentality. Or maybe the Greek Islands cruise time. If he doesn't take it all seriously, no one else will either. At this point it is simply blocking Romney with whatever votes he can muster and that is not helpful to the party he proclaims to support.

There are plenty of distractions, to be sure. On Wednesday, a Romney staffer made a gaffe and spoke in terms of a childhood toy - an Etch-A-Sketch, when describing differences that would be dealt with when campaigning in the general election after the primary election season. Instead of basking in the glory of a 12 point win over Santorum in Illinois or in the endorsement of Jeb Bush, Romney faced the tauts from the media and his GOP opponents over an Etch-A-Sketch remark.

The news of the day, as ordained by the media, Romney's Republican rivals and the Obama camapaign was a remark by Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior Romney adviser, about the Etch A Sketch, that drawing toy that, like Romney's persona, is reminiscent of the 1950s.

Asked on CNN if he was concerned that the hard-fought GOP primary "might force the governor to tack so far to the right" that he would alienate moderates in the general election, Fehrnstrom responded: "Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again."

This is where we are. Romney's GOP opponents made hay by saying, see, we told you Romney will say anything to win. They will too, of course, but never mind. Santorum, the nastiest personality in the race, distributed mini Etch-A-Sketches to his audiences. Class act, that Santorum. (sarcasm, folks).

A simple Political Science 101 class will teach the student that the number one rule in politics is to win. Period. It's that simple. Unless this is the first election that a voter has paid attention to, that person knows that a primary election and a general election are usually two separate events requiring tweaking of the campaign and its message. It's not diabolical or any indication of the sincerity, or insincerity, of the candidate. The primary is for the base of the party and the most strident ideologists. The general election requires broadening the support and winning those who are Independents and those from the other party who are responsive to the candidate's message. Think "Reagan Democrats" or "Obama Republicans".

It's not rocket science.

So, what was an unfortunate analogy made by a staffer turned into an opportunity for those who were looking for an excuse to criticize Romney, the front runner and the person who will be the GOP candidate against Barack Obama. Maybe that fact doesn't sit well with conservative voters, and I understand that. But, the time has come to rally behind the person who will have the best shot at defeating Barack Obama in November.

That's keeping our eyes on the prize. Allowing silly distractions to take over the news cycle only helps Team Obama and hurts the GOP candidate.

Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate Campaign Releases First TV Ad

The Ted Cruz for U.S. Senate campaign has released the first television ad.

The 30-second spot, “Delivers,” highlight’s Cruz’s successful work as the Solicitor General of Texas defending U.S. sovereignty against the United Nations and World Court in the case Medellin vs. Texas. The ad also reaffirms Cruz’s commitment to leading the fight for fiscal responsibility in Washington.

“Our first TV ad highlights Ted Cruz's proven record as a strong conservative and a fighter,” said James Bernsen, the campaign’s communications director. “Texas primary voters are eager for conservative reinforcements in the Senate to stand for the Constitution, cut spending, and defeat the Obama agenda.”

The central case discussed in the ad is Medellin vs. Texas. Jose Ernesto Medellin brutally gang-raped and murdered two teenage girls in Houston. When the World Court tried to order the United States to reopen Medellin's conviction (along with the convictions of 50 other murderers),Cruz fought the World Court and the U.N. all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won 6-3.

“It’s been incredibly encouraging that Texans across the State are responding to Ted’s proven conservative record and his passion for fighting for liberty and defending the Constitution,” Bernsen added. “Voters are rightfully weary of being let down by politicians in both parties. That’s why a proven record is so important. You know what you’re getting.”

Ted Cruz has been endorsed by conservative leaders across Texas and nationally, including: Cathie Adams, David Barton, George P. Bush, Dr. James Dobson, Senator Jim DeMint, Gun Owners of America, Tim Lambert, Senator Mike Lee, Mark Levin, Senator Rand Paul, George Strake, Senator Pat Toomey, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks, Young Conservatives of Texas, Kelly Shackelford, and Tea Party Express. In addition, the campaign is publicly supported by over 200 Republican Women leaders across Texas.

Energy Secretary Chu Gives Himself an A In Handling Rising Gas Prices

Secretary Chu is in no danger of suffering from low self-esteem. The Noble prize winning physicist thinks he has done a bang up job as Secretary of Energy. He gives himself an A for his handling of rising gas prices.

On March 20, 2012 Sec. Chu stated during a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he would award himself an "A" grade on handling higher gas prices.

Really. I'm not kidding. Watch for yourself:



Amazing.

DOJ Confirms Pre-Clearance on RPT Rules For Convention

The Republican Party of Texas issued the following statement Tuesday:

On Monday, the Republican Party of Texas received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice that confirmed federal pre-clearance of the temporary and emergency changes to the RPT rules that were adopted on February 29 at the emergency meeting of the State Republican Executive Committee.

As was reported in previous redistricting updates, during the February redistricting trial, the three-judge federal panel in San Antonio indicated to Chairman Munisteri that the RPT needed to obtain USDOJ pre-clearance on the party's convention process. The DOJ attorney at the trial testified that his office would expedite the review of the changes and could reduce the approval time from a couple of months to a couple of weeks. The rules changes made by the SREC were submitted to the USDOJ on March 5, 2012 and this week the RPT received a letter verifying that the pre-clearance had indeed been expedited and approved.

Thus, the final legal obstacle has been overcome in the 2012 Republican Party of Texas convention process. The county and district conventions are moving forward on the dates of April 14 or April 21 (will vary by county), and the State Convention will be held on June 7-9 in Fort Worth. For a full list of RPT Rules governing the 2012 Election Cycle, you can visit www.TexasGOP.org and view the updated document.

Obamacare Turns Two - What Have We Learned?

On the second anniversary of Obamacare, the RNC has released a little video.



Remember when then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said they had to pass the bill so we could find out what was in it? Turns out they did pass it and we don't like it much at all. The vast majority of Americans are not so happy about it, the more they learn. Most agree that the passage of Obamacare was directly responsible for the historic Republican victories in Congress in the 2010 elections. Even in deep blue Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown won the sacred "Ted Kennedy" seat in the U.S. Senate. Now that was historic.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows that 56% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-nine percent (39%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed.

From the office of Speaker Boehner:

Here are just a few of the broken ObamaCare promises that have come to light recently:
Denying Access for Seniors with the ObamaCare Rationing Board. Today, the White House is reportedly focusing its PR campaign on American seniors – an effort made necessary by the broad, bipartisan criticism of ObamaCare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). IPAB gives a panel of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats the unchecked authority to deny care for seniors, a provision in the health care law that a coalition representing more than 350,000 doctors says “will ultimately threaten the ability of our nation’s seniors and disabled to obtain the health care they need, when they need it.” Republican legislation repealing the rationing board, the Medicare Decisions Accountability Act (H.R. 452), has already garnered bipartisan support in three House committee votes. The full House is expected to vote on H.R. 452 this week, “putting pressure on the Senate to follow suit” as more members of the president’s own party consider lining up in support of the bill over the White House’s objections.

Making It Harder for Small Businesses to Hire. At a recent field hearing, one small business employee said the uncertainty created by ObamaCare “is part of the reason that we are using temporary services … rather than adding additional employees.” Her testimony is backed by a recent Gallup survey that found that, amongst the 85 percent of small businesses that aren’t hiring, “nearly half…point to potential healthcare costs (48%) and government regulations (46%)” as the reasons they are unable to put more Americans back to work.

Jeopardizing Health Care for Up to 20 Million Americans. One of the central promises President Obama made time and again during his campaign to pass ObamaCare was that “if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.” Not so, says the Congressional Budget Office. According to a report released by the non-partisan Congressional budget scorekeeper last week, “as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage because of President Obama’s healthcare reform law,” The Hill reports.

Adding More Than $1 Trillion to the Law’s Cost. The CBO had even more bad news for ObamaCare last week, revealing in a separate report the “shocking new sticker price of $1.8 trillion” for the government takeover of health care, according to the House Energy & Commerce Committee. The House Ways & Means Committee adds that “once the Medicaid expansion and exchange subsidies are fully in place, the Democrats’ health care law is certain to top more than $2 trillion.”

Hiking Up Premiums on American Workers & Families. Under the headline “Health Insurance Costs More, Covers Less, Survey Says,” the Huffington Post reports on a recent Towers Watson survey that found “the average amount employees paid for health insurance through work rose 9.3 percent to $2,764 in 2012, a 40 percent increase from 2007.” “The new survey says more firms also are charging extra for workers’ spouses and children, restricting access to the most expensive prescription drugs, and offering choices from fewer insurance companies,” according to the Huffington Post. Another survey released last week suggests there’s more bad news ahead for American families, as health insurance premiums are expected to “surpass the median U.S. household income in 2033.” (U.S. News & World Report, 3/12/12)

Undermining the Constitution with the Widely-Unpopular Individual Mandate. A new ABC News/Washington Post survey out today finds that “two-thirds of Americans say the U.S. Supreme Court should throw out either the individual mandate in the federal health care law or the law in its entirety, signaling the depth of public disagreement with that element of the Affordable Care Act.” The individual mandate – the “linchpin” of Democrats’ government takeover of health care – is considered unconstitutional by an overwhelming majority (72 percent) of Americans, according to a Gallup survey released last month.

This week, the House will vote to repeal the ObamaCare rationing board – the 26th vote taken as part of the sustained Republican effort to repeal, defund and dismantle the law in its entirety. Republicans made a Pledge to America to protect families and small businesses from the disastrous impact of the government takeover of health care, and will continue the unyielding effort to do so. Follow our progress by “liking” the Pledge to America on Facebook. Facebook.com/pledgetoamerica.

GOP Candidates Respond to Rising Gas Prices

The price of gas at the pump is a hot topic among those running for president this year. Here is what the GOP candidates are saying:

Mitt Romney's website proclaims:

Three of President Obama’s top energy advisors have supported policies that make it harder for the United States to utilize our natural resources and keep energy costs low. It is clear that the “Gas Hike Trio” are only interested in raising energy prices and should resign.

The Newt Gingrich campaign page encourages donations of $2.50, the price at the gas pump he claims his energy policy will produce. Recent interviews point to the fact that President Obama has taken to directly refuting Gingrich's ideas in his campaign speeches.



Rick Santorum calls for more use of natural gas, domestic drilling and pipelines:

NFRW Refutes Democrats' Claim of 'Republican War on Women'

More than 250 Republican women leaders from across the nation gathered at the National Federation of Republican Women’s (NFRW) spring board meeting in New Orleans on March 15-17 to prepare for the 2012 elections and to declare that the latest Democrat media strategy is just a cheap political ploy.

“Democrats are running around squawking about a ‘Republican War on Women,’” NFRW President Rae Lynne Chornenky said. “They are ignoring the indisputable fact that the NFRW has more than 75,000 female members whose leadership, influence, skill and passion for conservative principles form the backbone of our party, and have for more than 70 years. This liberal campaign scheme is clearly a sign of desperation and is simply not rooted in fact.”

Chornenky encouraged attendees to stand strong during this critical campaign year. “It will take all of us, working as a unified team, to restore effective leadership to our great nation. We must elect a Republican president and U.S. Senate in November, and maintain our numbers in the U.S. House and in state and local governments.”

Puerto Rican Primary Important to GOP Candidates

The Republican presidential primary is Sunday in Puerto Rico. Governor Luis Fortuño has thrown his support behind Mitt Romney in the GOP primary. Why is the Puerto Rico primary important? There are 23 delegates up for grabs and the winner will have the acknowledgement of an important constituency - the Latino voter.

All of the candidates have stated that when the vote for statehood happens in November, they would work with Puerto Ricans for statehood, should that be the decision of the people.

This year the leading Republican candidates have all said they would work with Puerto Rico to become a state if that is what its citizens decide. Some Puerto Ricans favor becoming a state, while others oppose the idea, preferring to remain a commonwealth or to become independent. In January, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were confronted with the issue at an event in Miami only days before the Florida primary.

“I expect the people of Puerto Rico will decide that they want to become a state and I can tell you that I will work with [Puerto Rico Gov. Luis Fortuno] to make sure that if that vote comes out in favor of statehood that we will go through the process in Washington to provide statehood to Puerto Rico,” Romney said.

Gingrich, for his part, said that “if the people of Puerto Rico make the decision that they want to be a state, I will work actively to help them negotiate the process of accession to the United States, but the people of Puerto Rico have to decide their future.”

However, when Rick Santorum weighed in on the issue this week in a campaign swing through Puerto Rico, the former Pennsylvania senator sparked controversy by introducing an important caveat: the island territory must adopt English as its main language. Puerto Rico currently lists both English and Spanish as its official languages, but the latter is clearly the dominant one there. Adopting English, Santorum said, should be “a condition” if the island becomes a state.

Santorum received criticism all around for his remark that adopting English should be a requirement for statehood. It was a blunder, to be sure, as while it is a fact that English is our country's established language, it is not declared as "official" by law. It was offensive to Puerto Ricans. Governor Fortuno spoke out that the languages spoken in Puerto Rico should not be politicized.

“Since the very beginning of the 20th century, English and Spanish have both been official languages in Puerto Rico. We’re proud of that,” Fortuno said in an interview with ABC News. “I don’t think language should be used in any partisan context or certainly regarding status.”

Here is a radio ad for Romney touting Fortuno's support running in Puerto Rico. Romney's son, Craig, is the narrator.

Obama Calls Republicans Flat Earthers on Energy Policy

President Obama is feeling a bit defensive lately, what with the rising price of gas at the pump and the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans have awakened and blame him for our utter lack of a cohesive energy policy. No longer is he able to simply say that fossil fuels are the fuel of the past or that his green energy initiatives will save the day. Now he is challenged by those listening to his empty words presented solely for his re-election campaign efforts.

There is no there there.

A new report has been released which the House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings says is further proof that the actions of President Obama and his Energy Department have hindered, not helped, energy production for our country's needs.

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings released the following statement after the Energy Information Administration, the non-partisan data collection branch of the Department of Energy, released updated data on federal energy production. The data shows President Obama’s anti-energy policies are starting to take effect as total fossil fuel production (oil, natural gas and coal) dropped by 7 percent since President Obama took office and is down 13 percent since 2003. From 2010 to 2011, total federal oil and natural gas production is down 14 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

The reported decline in federal energy production reveals America’s increasing reliance on oil and natural gas production from state and private lands. This increase can be attributed to regulations, red tape and President Obama’s policies that are driving production off of federal lands, which Bureau of Land Management Director Bob Abbey recently admitted is happening.

“These non-partisan statistics show federal oil and natural gas productions are declining as President Obama’s anti-energy policies catch up with him. President Obama has been more than happy to take credit for his predecessors’ actions to advance energy production on federal lands, however, we know that while bringing federal oil and natural gas production online can take the better part of a decade, slowing production can happen relatively quickly.

“House Republicans have passed a bipartisan all-of-the-above energy plan that opens federal waters with the most known oil and natural gas resources to increase American energy production, create jobs, lower gasoline prices and make America more energy secure. If President Obama is truly interested in an all-of-the-above energy plan, he should abandon his policies that are strangling American energy production and embrace this bipartisan plan to help ease the pain at the pump that more American families are feeling every day.”

On the campaign trail Thursday, President Obama devolved into his standard campaign speech - mocking his critics and name calling Republicans. He called those who object to his continued non-existent energy policy while bestowing his cronies with fat government checks to experiment with green energy solutions part of the Flat Earth Society. Nice, huh?

President Obama blasted his Republican critics Thursday for their resistance to investing in alternative energy sources, comparing their stance to the beliefs of those who thought that Christopher Columbus would sail off the edge of the world.

In another in a series of speeches defending his energy policies, Obama touted his push for green energy growth — including wind and solar power, electric cars and biofuels — as a way to help wean the nation from a dependence on foreign oil. And he mocked his rivals for failing to embrace his ideas.

“If some of these folks were around when Columbus set sail, they probably must have been founding members of the flat earth society. They would not believe that the world was round,” Obama told an enthusiastic crowd of hundreds of students at Prince George’s Community College in Largo. “Maybe they would have agreed with one of the pioneers of the radio who apparently said, ‘Television won’t last. It’s a flash in the pan.’ ”

Obama’s remarks marked his latest attempt to win public support for what he calls an “all of the above” energy strategy aimed at boosting domestic production of oil and natural gas, while also improving auto efficiency and investing in green energy.

Some reaction from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:

"I do want to start off with the president's comments. He has said there are no silver bullets many, many times and that is absolutely true but the reality is that we as a country should certainly at least be firing all the bullets we do have. We as Republicans do believe in an all-of-the-above strategy, unfortunately, this administration's actions today have contributed to rising energy prices.

"I want to go through several things the president in his administration could be doing differently to drive down the uncertainty in energy markets and also to increase domestic supply, therefore relieving pressure in prices, increasing our national security, making us less dependent on other countries. We certainly approve of an all of the above strategy but I want to focus on some of the things he's done when it comes to oil and gas, especially natural gas as well as coal, and things they could be doing differently.

"You look at 2011, the average price for the year for a barrel of oil and a gallon of gas it's higher than any time in a hundred and fifty years. That's bad for consumers; it's bad for the economy; it's bad for manufactures.

"The reality is you look at several things: one the president talked again today about how we're producing more energy, more oil today than any time in the last eight years. That's only half the story. What he doesn't say is that much of that production is based on decisions made before he became president. What he doesn't tell you is that much of that production is actually happening on non-federal lands, on private and other non-federal lands. The reality is when you look at the leasing activity, you look at the permitting activity, down here we're certainly impacted by both those policies. When you look at off-shore permitting, that process has slowed down even before the BP oil spill, but even today that permitting activity is still down 30% from the 3 year average, the historical norm prior to the spill. You look at onshore leasing, it is now down to the lowest amount since 1984 for leasing on federal lands for onshore drilling. So, the president likes to take credit for production that's due to decisions made before he took office. What he's not saying is the slowdown in granting permits, the slowdown in granting leases is helping to create uncertainty in the marketplace and again is contributing to the rising prices.

"There's clear bipartisan local support for additional domestic energy production. For example, in the Eastern Gulf, in Anwar, along certain parts of the Mid-Atlantic coast, at the very least the president should be telling his agencies to open new fields to allow more energy production in those areas..."

Here is the truth - Obama's claims of supporting an all of the above approach to energy independence is a hoax. He and his administration have clearly made it their mission to destroy the oil and gas industry in our country and concentrate solely on green energy sources.

There is no energy policy coming from Barack Obama. There is only political ideology. Think about that the next time you fill up your car or truck's gas tank.

Dr. Conservative

Found this on Pinterest via Twitter:

Source: facebook.com via Chris on Pinterest

Thanks, Chris Percival. Social media runs the world.

Some Facts About Oil and Gas Production and Profits

Remember this little slap at the Bush White House? "Because, frankly, the president hasn't had an energy policy". In 2008, Barack Obama thought it would be peachy to push for higher gas prices so that alternate energy would be in the forefront.



While no one in the energy industry discourages alternative energy sources, despite what the current occupants of the White House would have you believe, the dirty little secret is that big energy leaders are supporting and financing alternative energy research and policy. It plays well to his liberal base, but President Obama's continued demonizing of "big oil" and the energy producers is a smoke screen. It is pure politics and just more of Obama's love of straw men arguments when he fails to make his case to the voters on the strength of his own philosophy.

"Big oil" is not the boogie man. It is the source of the fuel that powers our nation and makes our lives quite comfortable. Absolutely nothing in your life is not touched by oil and gas production. We are a petroleum based world.

With the price of gas rising to uncharted territory, President Obama is fighting back the only way he knows - he is demanding that the oil and gas industry be made the bad guys. He wants the oil and gas tax breaks cut off. He calls them subsidies to encourage a negative reaction from his audiences on the campaign trail but they are the same tax breaks every company gets, in all industries, across the board. Facts are stubborn things.

Obama likes to declare that oil and gas companies are simply making too much money. He likes to play the game of choosing winners and losers in government favors and he enjoys being the decider when it comes to how much a company should make in profits. Here's some facts:

President Obama says he wants to end subsidies for what he calls "the fuel of the past," but lucky for him oil and gas will be the fuels of the future too. His budget-deficit blowout would be so much worse without Big Oil, because the truth is that this industry is subsidizing the government.

Much, much worse, actually. The federal Energy Information Administration reports that the industry paid some $35.7 billion in corporate income taxes in 2009, the latest year for which data are available. That alone is about 10% of non-defense discretionary spending—and it would cover a lot of Solyndras. That figure also doesn't count excise taxes, state taxes and rents, royalties, fees and bonus payments. All told, the government rakes in $86 million from oil and gas every day—far more than from any other business.

Not paying their "fair share"? Here's a staggering fact: The Tax Foundation estimates that, between 1981 and 2008, oil and gas companies sent more dollars to Washington and the state capitols than they earned in profits for shareholders.

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil and gas company, says that in the five years prior to 2010 it paid about $59 billion in total U.S. taxes, while it earned . . . $40.5 billion domestically. Another way of putting it is that for every dollar of net U.S. profits between 2006 and 2010, the company incurred $1.45 in taxes. Exxon's 2010 tax bill was three times larger than its domestic profits. The company can stay in business because it operates globally and earned a total net income after tax of $30.5 billion in 2010 on revenues of $370.1 billion.

The oil and gas industry is the most taxed of any in this country. And, there's this:

Specific oil and gas investments are also taxed at higher rates than other energy plays, which were surveyed in a 2009 paper by economist Gilbert Metcalf, now a deputy assistant Treasury secretary. He found that oil drilling (for an integrated company) clocks in at a 15.2% tax rate, refining at 19.1% and building a natural gas pipeline at 27%.

For comparison, nuclear power comes in at minus-99.5%, wind at minus-163.8% and solar thermal at minus-244.7%—and that's before the 2009 Obama-Pelosi stimulus. In other words, the taxpayer loses more the more each of these power sources produces.

As for the "subsidies" that Mr. Obama says the oil industry receives, these aren't direct cash handouts like those that go to the green lobby. They're deductions from taxes that cover the cost of doing business and earning income to tax in the first place. Most of them are available to other manufacturers.

What Mr. Obama really means is that he wants to put the risky and capital-intensive process of finding, extracting and producing oil and gas at a competitive disadvantage against other businesses. He does so because he ultimately wants to make them more expensive than his favorites in the wind, solar and ethanol industries.

When the facts are spelled out, Americans can read for themselves. The phony profit war that is waged by Team Obama is detrimental to the entire country. Oil and gas exploration and then production is hideously expensive. To act as though every penny made goes directly into an oil and gas executive's pocket - or even to the shareholders - is ridiculous. The president should be laughed off the stage.

NFRW Demands Obama Super Pac Return Maher Donation

Rae Lynne Chornenky, President of the National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW), issued the following statement regarding a recent $1 million donation from Bill Maher to Priorities USA Action, a pro-Barack Obama Super PAC.

“We have a message for President Obama. It's difficult to take you seriously, Mr. President. You make a media spectacle out of personally contacting Sandra Fluke, saying that you did so because you want your own daughters to be able to participate in public debate without the threat of being personally attacked. But then you refuse to criticize your own supporter, Bill Maher, for the vile, sexist names he has called prominent Republican women. And, even worse, you accept a $1 million donation from him. Are we to assume that only liberal, Democrat women deserve civility in the public square? This is either the height of hypocrisy, or a phony, political gesture -- or both. Put your money where your mouth is, Mr. President, and return this donation.”

Founded in 1938, the NFRW has thousands of active members in local clubs across the nation and in several U.S. territories, making it one of the largest women’s political organizations in the country. The grassroots organization works to promote the principles and objectives of the Republican Party, elect Republican candidates, inform the public through political education and activity, and increase the effectiveness of women in the cause of good government.

Holder Blocks Texas Voter ID Law

As predicted, super partisan and political operative Attorney General Eric Holder has blocked the new voter id law approved by the last Texas legislative session. In the minds of liberal Americans, providing a photo identification card before being allowed to cast a vote is discriminatory. To some who would ratchet the partisan political hype to fever pitch, the new law is akin to Jim Crow laws.

Modern day politics know no shame.

The argument is a simple one - the right to vote is precious. It is a citizen's civic duty to get out and give voice to the path a community or country will take. It is precious. To deny that malfeasance does not happen or cannot not happen is to hide one's head in the sand.

In the eyes of liberal America, the new law is "controversial". Here is one example of how the denial is being reported:

A controversial new Texas law requiring voters to present personal identification before going to the polls has been blocked by the Obama administration.

In a letter Monday to state officials, the Justice Department said the legislation could have a discriminatory effect on Hispanics and other minorities.

Texas is among eight states to require official photo identification in an effort to stop what officials say is voter fraud. Opponents of the laws say they disenfranchise poor, minority, and disabled voters.

The department concluded there is little evidence of voter fraud in Texas warranting the legislative changes.

"We note that the state's submission did not include evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state's existing laws," said Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general.

The Hispanic population is growing at a rapid pace. In states like Texas, the Hispanic vote will become more and more important for a candidate to win office. Democrats are terrified at losing this support. Former Governor and President George W. Bush was popular with Hispanic voters and as he ran for president, received 40% of the Hispanic vote. It is no coincidence that before this election, Holder is doing what he can to claim that Texas - led by Republicans - is trying to deny minority (read Hispanic) voters the right to cast a vote.

And, this:

Perez noted that the Texas law allowed voters to show military ID, a U.S. citizenship certificate, a U.S. passport or a license to carry a concealed handgun, but the state did not provide any statistics noting how many people lack state ID but have the other allowable forms.

"Nor has the state provided any data on the demographic makeup of such voters," Perez wrote.

Texas is the second state to have its voter ID law challenged. The Justice Department already blocked a similar law from taking effect in South Carolina.

For what transaction in today's world does a person not need a photo identification? To open a bank account, apply for a drivers license, receive government benefits, board an airplane, to pick up a medicine prescription and just about everything else, a person has to show a photo identification. That is why this law allows multiple ids to be presented. Plus, the state of Texas was to provide those without photo identification with one, free of charge to them.

To act as though people are incapable of getting photo identification is a farce and cynical at best. This is an ideological administration pitting Texans against each other.

ShePAC Video Refutes Liberal Narrative About Women

Here's a dirty little secret coming to light by the mainstream media. Finally, after all of these years of conservative women trying to educate that liberals are just as big misogynists as anyone, the message is being received.

As I have written in a previous blog post, conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh opened up a hornets nest with some truly vile and unnecessary diatribes against a 30 year old law student. Don't get me wrong - clearly, I think her political philosophy is dead wrong and she looked fairly pathetic in her testimony for the few Democratic members of Congress she testified before, but that didn't justify Limbaugh's overreaction. And, it played right into the hands of liberals wanting to make Limbaugh the topic of discussion, not the violation of freedom of religion invoked within Obamacare mandates.

Some honest women on the left side of the political aisle are beginning to come forward and point out the utter hypocrisy of the standard Democratic talking points that it is conservatives that are disrespectful to women and all that nonsense. How any self-respecting Democratic woman voter can still vote for Democratic candidates after the heinous years of Bill Clinton is beyond me, if it is promoting rights and respect for women that motivates them. The Clinton years laid bare the misogynist ways of Democratic men in power in Washington, D.C. That's a fact.

Are you ready to fight back? Is so, you may want to check out his video put out by a new political action committee (PAC) that was formed to promote and support conservative women running for political office. ShePAC is the place to go for a dose of reality. For far too long, liberal women have been the voice of political women and they do not speak for all women. Conservative women demand better.

HERE is the video:


It is past time for conservative women to take the narrative. Check it out and join in.

Obama By the Numbers

Obama by the numbers:

$45.1 Trillion: Total Federal Spending Proposed By Obama’s FY2012 Budget Through 2021. (OMB, 9/1/11)

$24.0 Trillion: Projected Federal Debt In 2021 Due To Obama’s Binge Spending. (OMB, 9/1/11)

$15.3 Trillion: Current National Debt ($15,351,406,294,640.49). (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 2/6/12)

$9.1 Trillion: Amount Obama’s FY2012 Budget Would Add To The Debt Through FY2021. (OMB, 9/1/11)

$6.4 Trillion: Cumulative Deficits Caused By President Obama’s Deficit Reduction Proposal. (OMB, 9/19/11)

$5.2 Trillion:Total Interest Payments On The National Debt Due To Obama’s Proposed Budget, FY2012-2021. (OMB, 9/1/11)

$4.7 Trillion: Added To The National Debt Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 2/3/12)

$2.6 Trillion: True Cost Of ObamaCare Once Fully Implemented. (Office Of The Speaker Of The U.S. House Of Representatives, Report, 1/6/11)

$1.75 Trillion: Annual Cost Of Federal Regulations. (Small Business Administration, September 2010)

$1.57 Trillion:Tax Hikes In Obama’s Deficit Reduction Proposal. (OMB, 9/19/11)

$1.416 Trillion: Federal Budget Deficit For FY2009 – Highest In U.S. History. (CBO, 10/7/10)

$1.334 Trillion: Projected FY2012 Budget Deficit Under Obama’s “Deficit Reduction” Proposal. (OMB, 9/19/11)

$1.298 Trillion:Federal Budget Deficit For FY2011 – Second Highest In U.S. History. (CBO, 10/7/11)

$1.294 Trillion:Federal Budget Deficit For FY2010 – Third Highest In U.S. History. (CBO, 10/7/10)

$1.17 Trillion: Total Cost Of Obama’s First Stimulus With Interest. (CBO, 8/24/11, CBO, 1/27/09)

$1.13 Trillion: American Debt Held By China. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 1/9/12)

$1.079 Trillion: Projected FY2012 CBO Baseline Deficit. (CBO, 1/31/12)

$825 Billion: Price Tag Of Obama’s First Failed Stimulus. (CBO, 8/24/11)

$763 Billion: Net Interest Payment On Our National Debt In 2021 Due To Obama’s Proposed Budget. (OMB, 9/1/11)

$575 Billion: Amount Of Medicare Cuts In ObamaCare. (CMS Chief Actuary Richard S. Foster, Memo, 4/22/10)

$535 Million:Stimulus Loan To The Failed Solar Company Solyndra. (The Oakland Tribune, 11/4/10)

$491.7 Billion: Amount Of Taxes In ObamaCare. (Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10; Joint Committee On Taxation, 3/2/10)

$447 Billion: Price Tag Of Obama’s Second Stimulus. (The White House, 9/8/11)

$347.1 Billion: Debt Service Costs For Borrowing To Pay For Obama’s First Stimulus. (CBO, 1/27/09)

$231 Billion: Burden Of New Regulations Imposed In 2011. (American Action Network, 1/2/12)

$175 Billion: Increased Spending In Obama’s Second Stimulus. (CBO, 10/5/11)

$141 Billion: Taxpayer Funds For Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac. (The Hill, 10/27/11)

$23.8 Billion: Amount Government Expects To Lose On Bailouts Of Auto Industry. (The Detroit News, 1/30/12)

$24 Billion: Stimulus Funds Sent To Tax Cheats. (Government Accountability Office, April 2011)

$1.3 Billion: Amount Taxpayers Will Not Recover From Bailout Of Chrysler. (FactCheck.org, 6/6/11)

133 Million: Annual Paperwork Burden Hours Imposed By Regulators In 2011. (American Action Network, 1/2/12)

$77.4 Million: Obama Campaign Cash Raised By Bundlers. (ABC News, 1/31/12)

49.1 Million: Number Of Americans Living In Poverty (Supplemental Poverty Measure). (US Census Bureau, 11/7/11)

46.2 Million: Record Number Of Americans Living In Poverty (Official Measure). (U.S. Census Bureau, 9/13/11)

46.1 Million: Record Number Of Americans Receiving Food Stamps. (Department Of Agriculture, 2/1/12)

$18 Million: Cost Of The Stimulus Website Recovery.org. (ABC News’ “The Note“ Blog, 7/8/09)

$15.6 Million: Amount Obama Has Raised From Wall Street – More Than All The GOP Candidates Combined. (Dan Eggen And T.W. Farnam, “Obama Still Flush With Cash From Financial Sector Despite Frosty Relations,” The Washington Post, 10/19/11; TW Farnam, “MF Global Ties Awkward For Obama Campaign,” The Washington Post, 11/2/11)

12.8 Million: Unemployed Americans. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

8.2 Million: Americans Working Part-Time For Economic Reasons. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

7.7 Million: Foreclosure Filings Since Obama Took Office. (RealtyTrac, Accessed 1/9/12)

6.3 Million: Number Of Americans That Fell Into Poverty Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Census Bureau, 9/13/11)

6.2 Million: Number Of Mortgages Either 30 Days Delinquent Or In Foreclosure. (Lender Processing Services, 1/19/12)

5.5 Million: Americans Unemployed 27 Weeks Or Longer. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

$5 Million: Obama Campaign Cash Raised By Bundlers In The Lobbying Industry. (The New York Times, 10/27/11)

3.6 Million: Workers Granted Waivers So That ObamaCare Would Not Outlaw Their Health Care Plan. (HHS.gov, Accessed 1/9/12)

2.3 Million: Foreclosure Starts During 2011. (Lender Processing Services, 1/20/12)

1.59 Million: Personal Bankruptcies In 2010. (United States Courts, 2/15/11)

$1.5 Million:Stimulus Funds Sent To Indonesia To Discourage Air Pollution In Jakarta. (The Daily Caller, 7/7/11)

1.47 Million: Personal Bankruptcies In 2009. (United States Courts, 2/15/11)

1.35 Million: Personal Bankruptcies In 2011. (Los Angeles Times, 1/5/12)

1.2 Million: Jobs Lost Since Obama Took Office. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

1.1 Million: Americans That Have Given Up Looking For Work. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

986,000: Construction Jobs Lost Since Obama Took Office. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

690,000: Manufacturing Jobs Lost Since Obama Took Office. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

549,000: Private Sector Jobs Lost Since Obama Took Office. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

428,000: Jobs Lost Since Obama’s Stimulus Was Passed. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

$278,000: Cost Per A Stimulus Job. (The Weekly Standard, 7/6/11)

176,000:Private Sector Jobs Lost Since Stimulus Was Passed. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

149,900: Number Of Local Government Education Jobs Lost Since Obama Signed A $10 Billion Teacher Union Bailout He Said Would Save 160,000 Teacher Jobs. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12; The Washington Post, 8/10/10)

89,000: The Number Of Stimulus Checks Sent To Dead Or Incarcerated People. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/7/10)

81,405: Record Number Of Pages Added To The Federal Register In 2010. (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2011)

66,800: Number Of Heavy And Civil Engineering Construction Jobs Lost Since The Stimulus Was Passed. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

$49,655: Your Share Of The National Debt. (U.S. Treasury Department Accessed 2/3/12; U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 2/3/12)

45,696: Pages Of New Rules Added To The Federal Register During Obama’s First Two Years In Office. (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2011)

23,000:The Number Of Jobs Obama Knew His Drilling Moratorium Would Kill. (The Wall Street Journal, 8/21/10)

$15,500: Annual Cost Per Household From Federal Regulations. (Small Business Administration, September 2010)

$15,235: Increase In Your Share Of The National Debt Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Treasury Department Accessed 2/3/12; U.S. Census Bureau, Accessed 2/3/12)

$11,300: Negative Effect Of Debt On Gross National Product Per Person In 2035. (CBO, 6/22/11)

$10,585: Cost Per Employee That Federal Regulations Place On Small Businesses. (Small Business Administration, September 2010)

3,700: Number Of Tax Delinquents Who Received Stimulus Funds. (Government Accountability Office, April 2011)

2060: Year Federal Spending Will Reach 50 Percent Of GDP. (CBO, 6/22/11)

2037: Year That Federal Debt Will Reach 200 Percent Of GDP. (CBO, 6/22/11)

2036: Year That The Social Security Trust Fund Will Be Exhausted. (The Trustees Of Social Security & Medicare, 5/10/11)

2022: Year That The CBO Predicts Medicare’s Trust Fund Will Be Exhausted. (CBO, 1/31/12)

1,722: Number Of Waivers Granted To Unions And Businesses So That ObamaCare Would Not Outlaw Their Health Care Plans. (HHS.gov, Accessed 1/9/12)

1,603: Number Of Regulations That Would Impact Small Businesses Proposed By Obama Administration In First Two Years In Office. (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2011)

1,014: Days Since Harry Reid’s Senate Has Passed A Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 13, Roll Call 173; 4/29/09)

408: Number Of Regulations Proposed By Obama During First Two Years That Have An Economic Impact Of Over $100 Million. (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2011)

104: Current Or Former Registered Lobbyists In The Obama Administration. (Center For Responsive Politics, Opensecrets.org, Accessed 2/6/12)

94.2%: Federal Debt Held By The Public As Share Of GDP In 2021. (CBO, 1/31/12)

92: Number Of Bank Failures In 2011. (FDIC, Accessed 2/3/12)

89%: Americans Who Rate The Economy As “Not So Good” Or “Poor.” (The Washington Post/ABC News Poll, 2/6/12)

80%: Small Businesses That Could Be Forced To Change Health Care Plans As A Result Of ObamaCare. (NFIB, 7/11)

79%: Stimulus Funds For Wind, Solar And Geothermal Energy Projects That Went To Foreign Firms. (Investigating Reporting Workshop/ABC’s World News Tonight/Watchdog Institute, 2/8/10)

72.5%:Federal Debt Held By The Public As Share Of GDP By End Of The Year. (CBO, 1/31/12)

72%: Americans That Are Worried The Economy Will Get Worse Rather Than Better Over The Next Year. (Gallup, 1/25/12)

70%: Americans That Say The Country Is Headed In The Wrong Direction. (CNN, 12/23/11)

65%: Voters Who Say The Nation Is On The Wrong Track. (CBS, 1/9/12)

57%: Americans Worried That The Value Of Their Home Won’t Increase. (Gallup, 1/25/12)

51%: Americans Worried About Maintaining Their Standard Of Living. (Gallup, 1/25/12)

48.5%: Households That Receive Some Form Of Government Assistance. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/5/11)

44.8%: Top Tax Rate By 2014 Under Obama’s FY2012 Budget. (The Washington Post, 5/16/11)

44.5%: Increase In National Debt Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Treasury Department Accessed 2/3/12)

44%: Americans Who Approve Of Obama’s Handling Of The Economy. (The Washington Post/ABC News Poll, 2/6/12)

40.1: Number Of Weeks That It Takes To Find A Job. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

38%:Americans Who Approve Of Obama’s Handling Of The Budget Deficit. (The Washington Post/ABC News Poll, 2/6/12)

36: Record Number Of Straight Months With Unemployment Rate Above 8 Percent. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

34.2%:Households That Receive Either Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing, Cash Welfare Or Medicaid. (The Wall Street Journal, 10/5/11)

32%:Share Of Existing Home Sales In December That Were Distressed Properties (Foreclosures And Short Sales). (National Association Of Realtors, 1/20/12)

29.2%:Unemployed Workers Out Of Work For Over A Year. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

24.4%:Federal Spending As A Share Of GDP By 2022. (CBO, 1/31/12)

22.1%: Home Loans Underwater (Negative Equity) In Third Quarter Of 2011. (Reuters, 11/29/11)

18%: Amount GNP Would Be Lowered Due To Debt’s Effect On Economic Growth By 2035. (CBO, 6/22/11)

17%:Cut To Medicare Benefits When Trust Fund Is Exhausted. (House Ways & Means Committee Hearing, 6/22/11)

15.1%: Workers Unemployed, Underemployed Or Marginally Attached To The Labor Force. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

15.1%:Americans Living In Poverty. (U.S. Census Bureau, 9/13/11)

8.3%:Unemployment Rate. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, Accessed 2/3/12)

8.15%:Percent Of Home Loans Delinquent In November. (Lender Processing Services, 1/27/12)

4.11%:Percent Of Mortgage Loans In Foreclosure During December 2011. (Lender Processing Services, 1/27/12)

2.5%:Decline In Median Home Sale Price In The Last Year. (National Association Of Realtors, 1/20/12)

3:Record +$1 Trillion Deficits On Obama’s Watch. (CBO, 10/7/11)

2.3%: Decline In Median Household Income In 2010. (U.S. Census Bureau, 9/13/11)

0: Other People Obama Will Have Left To Blame For The Failures Of His Economic Policies In 2012. (The American People, 11/6/12)