Oil "Subsidies" and Stupid Liberal Petitions

---

I got this petition in my e-mail today:
End Big Oil Subsidies!

Some of the crap from the e-mail:

"Dear Friend,

As Americans continue to struggle with outrageous, unstable gas prices, big oil companies continue to benefit from them.

Exxon Mobil announced Thursday a first-quarter profit of $10.6 billion — a 69% increase from last year, and a number so astronomical, Exxon executives felt the need to issue defensive statements in advance.¹ Also unveiling massive earnings were Shell ($6.3 billion, up 30%), ConocoPhillips ($3 billion, up 44%), and of course, BP (7.1 Billion, up 16%). In all, the five largest oil companies have reaped nearly $1 trillion in profits in the last 10 years.

But more outrageous than jaw-dropping oil company profits, is the fact that our government actually rewards these companies with even more of our money for maintaining this disastrous system — to the tune of $4 billion a year in tax credits and subsidies. It's time for that to end." 

My response:

"Big oil, such as Exxon/Mobil, Royal Dutch-Shell, BP, etc. doesn't get these subsidies!  They are specifically excluded from receiving these tax deductions for depreciation (not subsidies, actually).  Only domestic producers, not the big multinationals, get them, so naming Exxon/Mobil, ConocoPhillips, and BP is either a deliberate attempt at misdirection or an indication that you don't know what you're talking about.  I don't oppose eliminating that $4 billion in tax deductions for depreciation as long as we also eliminate the $100 billion in subsidies the green energy scammers get. 

Also, in the world oil markets, the "Big Oil" companies are very small players compared to the nationalized oil companies of Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela, and have minimal influence on oil prices.  So you're barking up the wrong tree.

The current prices of oil are caused by the same thing that is causing the price of other commodities, such as gold, silver, and cotton, to skyrocket--the weak dollar caused by the economic policies of the Obama administration.  So why not create a petition to fix the REAL problem?"

What is the "Failsafe" Provision, Really?

---

According to a news article quoted earlier by BillyBob:

"A White House aide suggested the president's plan would save more than the committee claims in part because of a "failsafe" provision that would trigger additional spending cuts if debt reduction goals are not met. "

What we have here is further proof that the lying bastard in the White House lies, lies, and lies some more. He is a big, stinking, lying, sack of shit. This particular lie incenses me to no end, and should do the same for all you readers once you understand what President Pinhead is saying.

One way to lie is to use a new label to refer to an old idea and hope nobody realizes you're talking about something else. In his recent speeches, Obama referred to "decreasing expenditures in the tax code" and finding ways to "reduce spending in the tax code." There are no such things as "expenditures in the tax code" or "spending in the tax code." What he is referring to is money that isn't being taken in taxes! Any money citizens don't pay in taxes is considered an "expenditure" now in Obamathink. If tax rates are increased, then to Obozo, that's a smaller "expenditure in the tax code." This is such an Orwellian concept that it frightens me to think people are actually falling for it.

What this means is that he truly believes that all income earned by everyone in the country belongs to the government, and any that the government doesn't take in taxes should be considered an expenditure by the government. This idea is so completely backwards that it would boggle the mind if it were anyone else but our Marxist Community Organizer-in-Chief.

The true meaning of this fail-safe provision is that if spending goes over a certain limit, taxes will increase AUTOMATICALLY, without our representatives voting on it. And since when has spending ever NOT increased, especially with the liberal wrecking crew that's in charge of the executive branch and the Senate? We had a revolution 235 years ago over this type of crap.

BUCK OFAMA!

Obamapocalypse Bug-Out Vehicle

I acquired a new (to me) pickup the other day.  The truck is a 1970 Chevy long bed.  It's direly in need of a paint job, but it's not rusted out anywhere that can't be easily replaced.  Some new hoses, fluids, wires, belts, filters, gaskets, brakes, tires, brake booster, bulbs, shocks, lowered coil springs, and battery, along with either a new carburetor or carb rebuild should make it reliable enough to get me anywhere I need to go.  A lot of elbow grease, some paint, new fenders, trim, bumpers, mirrors, windshield, seat, and weather stripping will make it presentable.  In other words, I'm going to be replacing a lot of stuff.  It has some butt-ugly 15" rims on it, but I've already picked up a set of really nice 17" alloy Chevy wheels that came off a 2002 Tahoe, dirt cheap on Craigslist.  Maybe I'll keep the old rims to use in the winter and put some snow tires on them.  I don't think this beast is going to be the best thing in the snow without all the help it can get.  If I put a tonneau cover on it, I can store a half-ton of wood pellets in it for my stove and keep the rear end weighted down in the winter, thus killing two birds with one stone.

Okay, it doesn't have four-wheel-drive, but it's got a big bed, a trailer hitch, a 350 V-8, and a TH350 tranny.  With those, I ought to be able to get me to my friend BillyBob's house, or to my in-laws, or to some of my other country kinfolks when the Obamapocalypse comes.  What it really needs is a pedestal-mounted Ma Deuce.

BillyBob has been so gracious to allow me to domicile it at his place while we work on it and get it up to snuff.  He has a nice collection of '67-'72 body style Chevies and has forgotten more about them than I'll ever know.

---

My Day at the Range

I went to Omaha a couple of weekends ago and took my youngest son Jonathan to the Bullet Hole so we could try out my Kel-Tec PF9. I bought it new at a gun show in Kansas City back in January and hadn't had the opportunity to try it out. The PF9 is a hammer-fired, single-stack 9mm that holds 7+1 rounds. I bought it because it is flat and compact and fits neatly in an IWB holster at the 4 o'clock position.

Once at the range and ready to fire, I aimed and took my first shot. I pulled the trigger, and pulled, and pulled, and finally, BANG! The trigger on this thing isn't too heavy, probably about 5 or 6 pounds, but it has to travel a couple of miles, it seems like, between the time you start applying pressure and it finally fires. That's a safety feature, because the PF9 doesn't have a manual safety. When it does fire, it kicks pretty hard, because it's a polymer-framed, lightweight piece.

It ejected the old round and fed the new one in as expected, but when I pulled the trigger the second time, all I got was a click, and no BANG! I racked the slide to eject the round and load the next one. I inspected the ejected round, and there was no indicated the firing pin had hit the primer. I aimed and pulled the trigger again, and got the expected loud noise and hole in the target. It ejected the casing and fed the next round, but when I pulled the trigger for bullet #4, all I got was the click again. Again, no dimple in the primer. The next round was a "click" also, so I gave up on it. I rented one of the Bullet Hole's Ruger Mark III pistols and we had some fun wasting 100 rounds of .22LR.

My doctor, who, like Big Mullet, has forgotten more about firearms than I've ever known, suggested a broken firing pin. I checked out some web site information, and it seemed to be a common occurence from dry-firing--something Kel-Tec says is a no-no. However, I've never dry-fired mine without snap caps in it. I dismantled the pistol and removed the firing pin, which was still in one piece, so I reassembled everything. Further reading in the Kel-Tec manual said that failure to allow the trigger to return fully to its rest position after firing can cause failure to fire, because the hammer isn't in the fully cocked position. I'll have to go back to the range soon to see if this user error was the problem.

---