Price-Gouging Investigations in Western Carolinas

The Attorneys-General of North and South Carolina are investigating thousands of charges of price-gouging on the part of gasoline stations in the area.

North Carolina Attorney-General Roy Cooper has already sent subpoenas to dozens of gas stations in western North Carolina alone concerning customer complaints of outrageously unnecessary price increases at the pump.

Henry McMaster, South Carolina's Attorney-General stated on Monday that there appears to be some price-gouging by certain gasoline vendors but that his investigations would need to be completed before any formal charges would ensue.

McMaster stated that he has requested records from the accused vendors which should show that the price they paid for gasoline is reflected in the price at the pump. The mere fact that gasoline is higher, he said, is no indication that the station engaged in price gouging.

Price-gouging is a term that refers to a business that charges customers significantly higher prices than the prices the business paid for the commodity, taking advantage of consumers particularly during emergencies such as the recent hurricane.

In both North and South Carolina, a business that is convicted of price gouging faces a fine of $2000 per customer that was impacted by the gouging. Such fines can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single business, effectively bankrupting that business.

Second Amendment News Roundup for 6/10/08

Focusing on guns, politics, and news of interest, here is today's Second Amendment News Roundup:

David Hardy has great news today about the growth of pro-2nd Amendment groups on college campuses around the country:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/06/college_pro2a_g.php

Freedom Sight comments on the latest news on Red's Trading Post, as reported by David Codrea last evening:
http://freedomsight.net/?p=2563

And for a late-breaking update on Ryan and Red's, David Codrea has this:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/06/reds-looking-forward.html

Mike McCarville reports that at least one Democratic member of the U.S. House from Oklahoma will NOT endorse Barack Obama for President:
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2008/06/dan-boren-wont-endorse-obama.html

JR tells you how you can win a weekend at Blackwater:
http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2008/06/win-weekend-at-blackwater-with-paras.html

Ahab reports that the Governor of Ohio has signed the Castle Doctrine into law:
http://www.nrahab.com/2008/06/10/ohio-governor-signs-castle-doctrine/

Alphecca blogs on some anti-gun loons in Seattle:
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=809

Mark Steyn provides an interesting summary of his trial before the kangaroo court in Canada. And even though this phase is over, the whole sordid mess is not over by a long shot:
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1346/26/

Boy, what a surprise. I mean, I am shocked. Look at what the perennial hypocrites have done now. John Lott reports that Democrats are all for privatization when their own money is at stake (sort of like when they put their own children in private schools but blast the citizenry when they do it):
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2008/06/senate-democrats-support-privatization.html

Michelle Malkin has the scoop on the Democratic Party-Harry Reid-Barack Obama windfall profits tax proposal on oil (these 'compassionate' dopes are trying to add to our burden by piling on the taxes to the already cumbersome costs of gasoline!):
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/10/harry-reids-jimmy-carter-memorial-act-senate-takes-up-windfall-profits-tax/

Clayton Cramer has a thought-provoking piece today on the Washington Post and the 'Bush lied' mantra:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2008_06_08_archive.html#5815329849656581174

Well, she's there. Sister Bitter Bitch is now with Brother Sebastian in Pennsylvania. Good for them!
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/?p=8262

Sebastian reports that a sweeping gun ban has been proposed in New Jersey:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/10/gun-ban-considered-in-new-jersey/

Here is some great news! Our own Squeaky Wheel is going to be on Cam Edwards' NRA radio broadcast this evening! Click on her link here to get the exact time:
http://www.squeakywheelseeksgrease.com/blog/2008/06/10/snark-on-the-radio-with-cam-edwards/

Traction Control has a Lou Dobbs video on the Amnesty Bill and its worst provisions, including the scumbags who proposed it:
http://tractioncontrol.well-regulatedmilitia.org/?p=1108

Robb Allen says that the wolves in sheep's clothing, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, has endorsed Barack 'I Love the Second Amendment But It's Not For You' Obama. But it's the 'other endorsement' that is the interesting one! LOL!:
http://blog.robballen.com/archive/2008/06/10/American-Hunters-and-Shooters-Associations-latest-endorsement.aspx

Uncle reports there's a brand new gun industry blog with plenty of gun pics:
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/06/10/new-gun-industry-blog/

Armed and Safe says it's the citizens of Illinois who are funding the state's attempt to rob them of their gun rights:
http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/2008/06/illinois-taxpayers-footing-bill-for.html

Gateway Pundit has riveting news on the Obama campaign's attack against Jewish Senator Joe Lieberman:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-aide-attacks-jewish-sen-lieberman.html

The Cato Institute, an important libertarian think-tank, is reporting that oil prices will begin to fall very shortly:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9450

Bill O'Reilly WRONG About Oil

I happened to catch part of Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly's radio show this evening, and I must admit I was shocked to hear some of the positions taken by the popular media personality.

Of late I have found myself breaking ranks with O'Reilly on an increasing number of issues, but I was floored that he would spout the common 'blame the oil companies' mantra that one hears from Democrats in Congress.

To get straight to the point, O'Reilly is FLAT WRONG about oil.

In order to 'fix' the problem of rising oil prices, O'Reilly would punish the oil companies, as if they are the ones responsible for the problem, which they aren't. He also came close to spouting the Obama claim that the oil companies are guilty of 'price gouging,' though he stopped just sort of saying that.

Once again, let's set the record straight, shall we?

Out of every dollar we spend at the pump, 70 cents goes to purchase crude oil, most of which is imported from other countries. Crude is up by 100 dollars per barrel since 1998.

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that most of the increases in gasoline prices at the pump over the last 10 years can be traced directly to the price of crude.

The big oil companies must purchase this crude, the price of which is set by the open market, OPEC, and investors/speculators.

Further, out of every dollar we spend at the pump, only about 3 cents goes to the big oil companies in profits.

But here is the biggie. Out of every dollar we spend at the pump, 6.5 cents goes for federal taxes, and anywhere from 15 to 20 cents goes for state and local taxes, depending on the state/municipality in which one lives.

As you can see, this leaves very little profit margin for local gas stations.

Thus, if Mr. O'Reilly wishes to play the blame game, he is picking on the wrong ones. Government at the federal, state, and local levels makes 8 times what the oil companies make in profits. And as long as crude oil accounts for 70% of the price we pay at the pump, Americans will see very little relief until the price of crude comes down.

And instead of brow-beating the oil companies for doing what a corporation is supposed to do--make a profit for its stockholders--why not brow-beat government for raking in multi-billions of dollars in taxes on gasoline? Why isn't anyone talking about or reporting how much government profits from these high gasoline prices?

It's very simple. They don't want you to know.

I can tell you this, the next time you hear a specific number on oil company profits, just multiply that number by 7, and you will get a ballpark estimate of what government is raking in from gasoline prices.

Those are the simple facts regardless of any demagoguery from O'Reilly or the Democrats.

Misplaced Blame

Americans are increasingly enraged about the price of gasoline, and rightly so. Skyrocketing gas prices are beginning to cut into the lifestyle choices to which most of us have become accustomed, forcing drivers to either cut back on driving or ditch their SUVs for small, fuel-efficient autos.

Oil companies and gas stations are easy targets for Americans' rage in the blame game. After all, somebody, somewhere is to blame for this mess. And it just so happens that the oil companies are making excellent profits for their stockholders, which good corporations are supposed to do.

Of course, the mainstream media never reports that the profit margin percentage for companies like Microsoft and Google is much larger than that of the oil companies. In the liberal blame-game, it is always politically correct to blame the oil companies.

But is it fair to blame the oil companies?

Consider some facts. In 1992 the price of a barrel of crude oil was about 15 bucks. By 1998, ten years ago, crude oil cost roughly $25 per barrel.

Within the last 10 years the price of crude on the open market has steadily increased as demand for the commodity has skyrocketed with China and India beginning to use oil increasingly in their growing economies.

That steady increase in the market value of crude reached an unheard-of $127 per barrel this month. That's roughly 100 bucks per barrel higher than in 1998.

Oil companies do not set the price of crude. The open market determines the price based upon investors/speculators. China and India are now using millions of barrels of oil, meaning, of course, that they are now near the top among the countries of the world in the production of 'greenhouse gases.'

Yet the United Nations granted both countries an exemption from its 'mandated' reduction in greenhouse gases.

With these two countries now using as much oil as most any other country in the world, and with our dependence on foreign oil still remaining at a fairly high level, it is no wonder that the markets have created a financial bonanza for crude.

When the oil companies are having to pay 100 bucks per barrel more for crude than they did 10 years ago, is it really a surprise that gasoline prices have skyrocketed when compared to the past?

The solution that many liberals are selling to a gullible public is to place a windfall profits tax on the oil companies. My friends, oil is already taxed at a rate that boggles the mind. For every 8 cents the oil companies make in profits, the federal government alone collects 18 cents in taxes, and that doesn't count state and local taxes.

In short, the federal government is making windfall profits off of the oil company profits.

So, why does the government need or want more?

In addition, the environmentalist nutcases have seen to it that not only are we forbidden from drilling for oil anywhere in the country but that we are blocked from building more nuclear power facilities or new oil refineries. No new refinery has been built in the U.S. for over 30 years.

Thus, if the answer is weaning ourselves off of foreign oil, how can that be done when a few very powerful extremists have tied our hands?

It should be noted that one of the environmentalists' favorite countries, France, is powered almost exclusively by nuclear energy to the tune of at least 80% of its energy needs.

With new technology that makes nuclear energy as safe as any type of energy on the planet outside of solar, there should be no reason why the U.S. should not build more nuclear facilities and shift to that form of energy as quickly as possible. Nuclear power also ranks with solar as the cleanest form of energy available.

But the answer is not 'taking oil company profits' out of the hands of stockholders in order to fund these alternative energy sources. We were ALREADY funding alternative sources until the environmentalist nutcases put a stop to it.

Ted Kennedy will not even allow windmill-generated wind power to be developed on the shoreline of Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Thus, who IS to blame for the current crisis? Look no further than the environmentalist movement, liberals like Ted Kennedy, and countries like China and India. The oil companies and your local gasoline vendor are no more to blame for the rising prices than your grocer is to blame for rising food prices due to the environmentalist insistence that we take crops and turn them into bio-fuel instead of food.

Democrats Hide the Truth About Big Oil

To hear Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats tell it, the big oil companies are the biggest enemies to American society since Hitler decided to bomb Great Britain.

Almost on a daily basis someone in the majority Party can be heard denouncing, demonizing, and denigrating the oil companies, mainly due to high gas prices but also due to the notion that big oil is the supposed biggest contributor to 'global warming,' despite the fact that this year the globe has had the biggest and deepest snow cover in a number of years and the planet has enjoyed the coolest year since 2001.

Hillary Clinton has stated repeatedly that she wants to 'take that money' from the oil companies (that is, rob their profits) for the purpose of starting a government fund to push alternative energy sources. Barack Obama wants blacks and whites to come together to topple the business-industrial complex. Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) wants to slap a 50-cents-per-gallon tax increase on gasoline because, well, he wants people to stop driving.

The truth of the matter, however, is that in all likelihood Clinton, Obama, Dingell, Kennedy, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, and all of the rest of the majority Party probably have invested heavily in 'big oil.'

How do I know this for a fact? Because I know for a fact that a full 40% of Americans are heavily invested in big oil. And the real figure is much higher than that.

If you have mutual funds, stock market funds, or if you have a pension fund, a 401-K, an IRA, or even a bank account, you are invested in the big oil companies because these companies have had the greatest return on investments.

The more money a person has invested in the various financial markets, the more money they have tied up in the big oil companies. And pension funds routinely put that money in stocks that have the biggest return.

Thus, when Hillary Clinton speaks of socking it to the oil companies, she is speaking out of both sides of her mouth. Surely she would not want to give up the profits from her investments, yet she does not want average Americans to know this. She wants to tap in on the misplaced anger many Americans have toward the oil companies.

It is actually big government that is responsible for most of the increases at the pump...at the rate of 7 times the amount the oil companies get in profits.

And, let's face it, Barack Obama is as rich as all get-out. Where do the rich put their money? They invest it in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc. Thus, in all likelihood Obama is making a good profit on his investments, part of which are in the oil companies if his broker has any sense at all.

In addition, at present big oil companies are the single biggest source for developing alternative forms of energy that are eco-friendly and that greatly reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.

These companies do not want to go out of business. They owe it to their millions of stockholders--people just like you and me--to look forward to the future when using oil for energy may not be feasible or prudent.

The oil companies at present are investing billions in developing these alternative sources of energy. It only makes sense. They already have the infrastructure in place to do so, and they have thousands of outlets by the roadside to make these alternative sources readily available.

In this way the oil companies not only protect themselves from going out of business, but they protect our pension plans, stock investments, mutual funds, etc.

Thus, the next time you hear the majority Party lambaste the big oil companies, remember they are engaging in rank demagoguery.

More on Hillary's Gas Problem

Not only has Hillary Clinton opened herself to endless jokes, centering on the unfortunate pun that many with periodic juvenile tendencies like me will use as fodder, but she has also demonstrated in the waning days just before the Iowa Caucuses that she will do anything to get elected, including the obvious demagoguery inherent in her claim that a vote for her is a vote to lower oil prices.

As if she has any control over that whatsoever...

Nonetheless, she now has a major problem on her hands--a gas problem of mammoth proportions. OK, for you prudes out there, a gasoline problem.

Several points of consideration become readily apparent:

1. The candidate is so desperate that she will risk alienating thinking people by claiming that if she is elected oil prices will automatically and immediately drop.

2. She is also arrogant enough to assume that Iowans will accept her assessment that Jimmy Carter was 'on the right track' with energy policy and that Ronald Reagan ruined it all by dismantling Carter's work, which by the way, was quite a job. During Carter's tenure gasoline prices more than doubled, not to mention the shortages and long lines at the pump.

3. The fact that she used one of the most unpopular and discredited Presidents in U.S. history to bolster her views on energy policy is not exactly the most prudent course in an election. And then, to turn around and bash one of the most popular Presidents in U.S. history is simply nuts.

4. The candidate knows that most voters are NOT going to know the facts and figures about taxes on gasoline as opposed to the profits of the oil companies. She can thus lie to them and deceive them. But right here on The Liberty Sphere you will get the facts. Better still, do your own research. The oil companies make 13 cents per gallon in profits on gasoline sold in America. The federal government, and state and local governments, get roughly 60-80 cents per gallon (depending on the area of the country) in gasoline taxes.

It would seem, then, that if anyone is making a 'windfall profit' on gasoline, it is most assuredly the government.

Yet Mrs. Clinton wishes to raise the federal tax on gasoline even further, brow-beat the oil companies into lowering prices, and thus cut into the profits of the shareholders, and then further take much of whatever profits remain in order to set up a fund in Washington for 'alternative fuels.'

This is a recipe for disaster at the pump with regard to prices, not to mention that Venezuelan Communist Hugo Chavez would be most proud.

Perhaps citizens in Iowa will catch on to Hillary's latest scheme and send her a strong and clear message during the caucuses.

Hillary Claims Oil Prices Drop Immediately if Elected

In a stunning display of desperation, Hillary Rodham Clinton claimed on Sunday in Iowa that if she is elected oil prices will experience a dramatic sudden drop.

FACT CHECK! In actuality, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly stated during her campaign for President that the federal tax on oil should be dramatically increased and that she plans on 'taking that money from oil companies,' referring to robbing the corporations and their stockholders of millions of dollars of profits in order to set up a federal fund to explore alternative fuels.

These proposals will do anything but cause oil prices to drop.

The government already gets roughly 6 times the amount per gallon in taxes than the oil companies make in profits. Yet Mrs. Clinton proposes raising the federal tax on gas at the pump, where by the time you add local, state, and federal taxes we are already paying between 50 and 60 cents per gallon.

The oil companies make a mere 13 cents per gallon in profits.

In addition, if Mrs. Clinton is going to raid the profits of the oil companies and their shareholders, you can bet your last drop of Texas-T that gas prices will go through the roof. This kind of anti-capitalism and anti-business, closely akin to Hugo Chavez, will not exactly reassure oil company execs that they can safely reduce prices.

Mrs. Clinton went further to make some of the most outlandishly erroneous statements she has ever uttered. She claims that Jimmy Carter was 'on the right track' in the late 70s in reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

FACT CHECK!! I remember those days very well because I had to travel by car extensively. During Jimmy Carter's term in office, 1976-1980, gas prices went from roughly 44 cents per gallon to over ONE DOLLAR per gallon in 1979.

There were long gas lines and shortages as well.

Yet Hillary states that Brother Jimmy was 'on the right track.'

Well, if that was the right track, I would surely hate to see what the WRONG track would have been. And if we were 'on the right track' then Ronald Reagan would not have beaten the socks off of politically impotent Carter.

But stay with me. There's even more.

Hillary went further to state that Ronald Reagan 'dismantled' the 'good work' Carter was doing with regard to energy.

FACT CHECK!! The only thing President Reagan dismantled was the asinine, boneheaded, and imbecilic policies of the Carter Administration, which led to gas shortages, long lines at the pump, and gas prices that more than doubled.

After Reagan had been in office less than a year, gas prices settled back down to below 75 cents per gallon. Long lines at the pump vanished. And there were no more shortages.

You see, my friends, liberals/socialists like Hillary Clinton believe that the citizens should be forced to endure pain and suffering as a means of mandating a change in their lifestyle. And, since they have always had a Freudian issue with oil, the objective is to make it as expensive and hard to get as possible so that Americans will be forced to turn to something else.

The only reason husband Bill didn't do this in the 1990s is that he is much more of a shrewd politician than Hillary. Even so, Clinton raised federal taxes on oil.

No doubt Hillary sincerely believes the balderdash she has just unleashed. But I never thought she was dumb enough to say so right out in the open just days before the Iowa Caucuses.

She is desperate, no doubt. And she is betting on picking up some votes from those who merely hear the 5-second sound-byte, 'Oil prices will drop immediately if I am elected.'

But then again, maybe the stress of the campaign trail is really starting to get to her. This is the stuff of loony-'toons, not serious leaders.