About Me

Name:Defend America
Email: guy.ratki@gmail.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

Search

Blog Roll

 
Tygrrrr Express

Where is the FEC?

Posted by Defend America on Wednesday, August 06, 2008 8:10:03 PM
Disclaimer: The names you find below are not jokes, they are actually donations made to Senator Obama's campaign. I wonder where is the Federal Election Commission (FEC) when you actually need them? I'm truly against McCain-Feingold, but people should have to register their names and since the law exists people should not be giving more then the allotted amount per person especially not foreigners who have ties to terrorist organizations. Foreigners should not be influencing America's presidential elections. This is a disgrace by the FEC and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Meet Obama Donor Jkbkj Hbkjb

Intrepid and indispensable blogger Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs has been uncovering some interesting donors to Obama’s campaign.  My favorite is Jkbkj Hbkjb from the city of Jkbjnj.  His (or her) occupation is listed as “Balanon Jalalan.”  Back in October, Mr. (or Mrs.) Hbkjb gave the campaign $1,077.23.  One commenter points out that the odd donation amount could be because it was a foreign donation originally given in a round amount, but affected by the exchange rate when put in U.S. dollars.  FEC regulations allow anonymous donations, but only if they are less than $50.  Anything above $50 can’t be used in a federal campaign.

 

Some other donors that Geller has uncovered include:

-    Good Will (employer: Loving You)
-    Doodad Pro (employer: FDGFDGF)
-    81 donations from foreign countries ranging from 75 cents to $250 (on just one list)
-    $24,321.41 from Monir and Hosam Edwan of Rafah, Gaza (a refugee camp)
-    Over $500,000 from donors that are “not employed”
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It Should be Obvious

Posted by Defend America on Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:34:16 PM

More Taxes Will Mean Less Oil

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Energy Policy: Democrats say there should be a limit to the profits oil companies can make. Should there also be a limit on the taxes government can take? Just who's the profiteer here?

Part of the article more people should be talking about:

Speaking in support of Obama's proposal to revive the windfall profits tax, Illinois' senior senator, Dick Durbin, recently declared that, "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." Why is there no limit to the increased taxes Obama and the Democrats want to take in this economy?

Obama once called the McCain-supported plan for a gas-tax suspension a "stunt." Now he wants to take a "reasonable amount" of oil company profits and rebate, a la George McGovern, $1,000 to families and $500 to individuals as a part of a second stimulus package to offset high gas prices, a big part of which is federal, state, and local taxes on both oil producers and consumers.

Obama does not define what a "reasonable amount" is. Nor does he define at what point profit, which is an indicator of success and not greed, becomes a windfall. Exxon made a dime on a dollar in 2007. The oil and gas industry as a whole made 8.3% compared with 8.9% of all U.S. manufacturing. Meanwhile, the federal government operated at a huge loss.

Electronics company LG saw its profits grow by 505% in 2007. Abbott Laboratories saw its profits soar 110% Google had a profit margin of 25.3%, more than double Exxon's. GE's profit was 10.7%, about the same as Exxon's, but do its subsidiary media outlets such as NBC and MSNBC report that?

In the first half of this year, Exxon Mobil's after-tax income rose 15% to $22.6 billion. The operative word is "after-tax," for what advocates of a windfall-profits tax to redistribute income ignore is that Exxon Mobil also paid a record $61.7 billion in taxes. The feds already are taking more than a "reasonable amount."

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302829283496153



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Most Ethical Congress

Posted by Defend America on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:07:33 PM
I should have posted this when it came out, but here it goes. The Young America's Foundation spokesman,  Jason Mattera, asks Representative William "Cold Cash" Jefferson of Louisiana asks how to hide 90,000 dollars of cash. Many of you know that Rep. William Jefferson was arrested for many things involving bribery and for the purpose of this discussion hiding 90,000 dollars of cash in his freezer. As Republicans in the House have been protesting about Nancy Pelosi's decision to adjourn instead of dealing with America's energy crisis, this video will make you just as happy as what the Republicans are doing now. This is disgusting that William Jefferson did not decide to resign, but as the trial starts this September, hopefully justice will be served. The most ethical congress, yea right.

Here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2wmiIMpTSA
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I'm not Surprised

Posted by Defend America on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:07:00 PM

Pelosi: At-risk Dems back drilling

By MARTIN KADY II & PATRICK O'CONNOR | 8/5/08 4:49 AM EST


California Democrat Nancy Pelosi may be trying to save the planet — but the rank and file in her party increasingly are just trying to save their political hides when it comes to gas prices as Republicans apply more and more rhetorical muscle.

But what looks like intraparty tension on the surface is part of an intentional strategy in which Pelosi takes the heat on energy policy, while behind the scenes she’s encouraging vulnerable Democrats to express their independence if it helps them politically, according to Democratic aides on and off Capitol Hill.

Pelosi’s gambit rests on one big assumption: that Democrats will own Washington after the election and will be able to craft a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling. Democrats see no need to make major concessions on energy policy with a party poised to lose seats in both chambers in just three months — even if recess-averse Republicans continue to pound away on the issue.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

So Really Diplomacy with Iran Does not Work? I'm Shocked

Posted by Defend America on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 3:28:01 PM
US: Iranian response on nukes unacceptable
Aug 5 02:22 PM US/Eastern
By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Iran's response to an incentives package aimed at defusing a dispute over its nuclear program is unacceptable, U.S. officials said Tuesday, making the prospects of new sanctions against the country more likely.

The officials told The Associated Press that a brief one-page document Iran presented to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana is not, as had been sought, a definitive reply to the offer from major world powers to suspend uranium enrichment and reprocessing in exchange for economic and other benefits.

So what did the United States and the rest of EU expect from Iran. Diplomacy does not work with countries who don't want it to work. As much as you wish and hope that the party in question might have changed their minds it is not so easy to do that. The United States thought along with the EU that economic incentives were more important to Iran than their nuclear program, well by this statement clearly their nuclear program is more important to them. So what now? More talking with the terrorist backed regime? Nobody knows what to do next, but one thing that hopefully the United States learned is that talking aggressive diplomacy  with a country that has no desire to listen and change is hopeless. Senator Obama claims that President Bush failed in dealing with Iran and not pursuing aggressive diplomacy, well Mr. Obama I ask you what would you have done for change. Well, we probably know one thing if you were elected president you would sit down personally with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So really diplomacy with Iran does not work? I'm shocked.




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »