US Senators’ average annual stock performance beat the market average by approximately 12.3%, while stock purchases made by corporate insiders on average outperform the market by 7.4% and stock portfolios of the average US household under-perform the market by 1.5%.

In 2007, the 10 wealthiest US Senators traded stocks in a total of 45 different companies spanning finance, insurance, oil, pharmaceutical, telecom, and other industries. Those 45 businesses also received $18 billion in federal appropriations that same year.

“Financial disclosure records show that some of these Financial Services Committee members, including Ohio Rep. Charlie Wilson, made bank stock trades on the same day the banks were getting a government bailout from a program Congress approved. The transactions may not have been illegal or against congressional rules, but securities attorneys and congressional watchdog groups say they raise flags about the appearance of conflicts of interest…

For example, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, a Florida Republican, bought Citigroup stock valued between $1,001 and $15,000 on Oct. 2, the day before the House passed the financial rescue bill and President George W. Bush signed it into law, records show. She opposed the bill.

Eleven days later, she bought $1,001 to $15,000 worth of Bank of America stock. It was on the same day that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told leading banks that he expected them to accept billions in bailout money to prevent a financial meltdown…

Wilson, a Democrat from the eastern Ohio town of Bridgeport, sold between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of Huntington Bancshares stock on Nov. 14, the same day Huntington got $1.4 billion in bailout money from the federal Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, records show. Wilson’s transactions over the course of last autumn also included Bank of America and BB&T, both beneficiaries of the bank rescue program that Treasury implemented after congressional passage.

Wilson’s spokeswoman said the congressman did not personally pick these trades because he leaves day-to-day investment decisions to a money manager who uses a proprietary model in selecting securities to buy or sell…

A spokesman for Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat also on the Financial Services Committee, said she similarly leaves transactions solely to the discretion of account managers. McCarthy’s trades included a $2,275 purchase of bailout recipient J.P. Morgan Chase while Congress was still hammering out its rescue bill.

Another member of the Financial Services Committee, Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier of California, said on a recent financial disclosure report that she bought up to $15,000 in Citigroup stock on Nov. 7. That was 10 days after the bank got a $25 billion bailout.

Her office now says the report was filed in error, the transaction should have been listed as her husband’s — and she wishes he had not made it… Her husband wasn’t the only committee spouse trading on bank stocks.

The stockbroker husband of West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican, sold more than $100,000 in Citigroup stock in several transactions late last year. His brokerage firm was owned by Citigroup and his compensation included Citigroup stock. A Capito spokesman said the House Ethics Committee gave her verbal approval to join the committee despite her husband’s job.

Another committee member, Illinois Republican Judith Biggert, whose husband sold Wells Fargo stock while Congress was helping to shape the rescue bill, said she does not discuss stock transactions with her spouse.”

Stephen Koff and Sabrina Eaton, “Members of U.S. House Financial Services Committee Snapped Up or Dumped Bank Stocks as Bottom Fell Out of Market,”

Plain Dealer, June 25, 2009

“[W]e find that members of the U.S. Senate outperformed the market by almost 100 basis points per month….….When we equally weight the returns of each Senator, the buy portfolio earns a compound annual rate of 28.6% on an equal-weighted basis and 31.1% on a trade-weighted basis compared to 21.3% for the market…….Cumulative abnormal returns for the portfolio of stocks bought by Senators are near zero for the calendar year prior to the date of purchase. After acquisition, the cumulative abnormal return rises over 25% within one calendar year after the purchase date. The cumulative abnormal returns for the portfolio of stocks sold by the Senators are near zero for the calendar year after the date of sale. However, these same stocks saw a cumulative abnormal positive return of 25% during the year immediately preceding the event date. These results suggest that Senators knew the appropriate times to both buy and sell their common stocks…

After being sold by Senators, stocks under-perform the market by 12 basis points per month on a trade-weighted basis….Combining the buy transactions with the sell transactions in a hedged portfolio we find that Senators outperform the market by 97 basis points (nearly 1%) per month on a trade-weighted basis……We find no reliable differences between the returns earned by Democrats and Republicans but seniority appears to be important. Senators with the least seniority (in their first Senatorial term) earn statistically higher returns than those Senators with the longest seniority (over 16 years in the Senate).”

Dec. 2004 – Alan J. Ziobrowski, PhD
“Abnormal Returns from the Common Stock Investments of the U.S. Senate,”

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) – Avg. Net Worth of Household in 2006:  $267,789,805

Kerry sits on the following committees Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Foreign Relations, Finance Chair, Small Business and Entrepreneurship

Top 5 Stocks Owned as of Dec. 31, 2007

COMPANY Exxon Mobil Corp.
AMOUNT $65,002 – $150,000

Additional Information Exxon Mobile Corp. received $1,024,498,594 in government contracts for fiscal year 2007, including over $1 billion from the Defense Logistics Agency.

Senator Kerry sits on the following committees that may present a conflict of interest with this investment: Commerce, Science, and Transportation//Foreign Relations//Finance//Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Chair)

COMPANY Procter & Gamble Co. (P&G)
AMOUNT $30,002 – $100,000

Additional Information Procter & Gamble Co. received $312,449,362 from government contracts for fiscal year 2007, including approx. $312.2 million from the Defense Commissary Agency.

Senator Kerry sits on the following committee that may pose a conflict of interest with this investment: Commerce, Science, and Transportation

COMPANY General Electric Co. (GE)
AMOUNT $17,003 – $80,000

Additional Information General Electric Co. received $3,176,850,382 in government contracts for fiscal year 2007, including a total of approx. $2.6 billion from the Navy, Air Force, and Army.

Senator Kerry sits on the following committees that may present a conflict of interest with this investment:  Commerce, Science, and Transportation//Foreign Relations//Finance//Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Chair)

COMPANY American International Group, Inc. (AIG)
AMOUNT $16,002 – $65,000

Additional Information American International Group, Inc. received $1,783,492 in government contracts for fiscal year 2007.

Senator Kerry sits on the following committees that may present a conflict of interest with this investment:  Commerce, Science, and Transportation//Finance//Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Chair)

COMPANY Intel Corp.
AMOUNT $16,002 – $65,000

Senator Kerry sits on the following committee that may present a conflict of interest with this investment:  Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Top 10 Richest US Senators’ Top Stock Trades in 2007 and Potential Conflicts of Interest  http://insidertrading.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=001580

Stuart P. Green, JD, Professor of Law and Justice Nathan L. Jacobs Scholar at Rutgers School of Law, wrote in his May 13, 2008 email to ProCon.org:

“People in many fields of endeavor are privy to valuable confidential information before it is made public: For example, business executives, investment bankers, and lawyers have access to information about impending corporate mergers and acquisitions; Judges, juries, and court personnel have access to information about the probable outcome of court decisions; and officials at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], and other administrative agencies have access to information about the likely outcome of regulatory proceedings. All of these individuals are prohibited by law from using such confidential information in the purchase and sale of publicly traded stocks. Likewise, members of Congress and their staffs are also privy to valuable confidential information not yet made public. They have information about the likely outcome of various votes, committee proceedings, and investigations. Such information can be extremely valuable to investors. Those who buy and sell stock on the basis of such non-public information will have an obvious advantage over those who lack such information. This is not the sort of information that even the most savvy and sophisticated investor would be able to obtain legally. From a moral perspective, such informational advantages are indistinguishable from those enjoyed in more familiar forms of insider trading.”

May 13, 2008 – Stuart P. Green, JD

For a heterosexual person, what if society told you that your natural emotions and love for the opposite sex was wrong and that you needed to be cured through therapy? Could you, or would you even want to be gay only because the majority told you that is what you should be? The religious followers have a tendency to think that people have a choice to be gay or not. So to them I ask, why would anyone choose to be persecuted and shunned?

I had a discussion, in length, with a Southern Baptist. I was trying to point out that if what you feel is natural, how could it be wrong. It was her assertion that sexual orientation was a choice. After some debating over what people feel, versus what people do, we came to the basic understanding that it was a choice to “Act” on your emotions, but it was not a choice to have them. With that, I gave the example, “you mean it’s not a choice if a priest is gay, but it is a choice if he acts out by molesting little boys?” After that, I guess you could say that we came to a point in which we could agree to disagree.

If society told me that it was wrong for me, as a man, to be with a woman, then society would have to find me guilty because I have no control over being attracted to the opposite sex. If I had to hide that or not pursue those feelings, my life would not be a happy one.

I can see why there is confusion though. If you’re a woman and you’re only attracted to other women, then why would you make yourself look and act like a man? Same on the other side, if you’re homosexual man and only attracted to men, then why would you make yourself look and act like a woman? As we all know, perceptions can mean everything to a lot of people; especially to those with tunnel vision.

I have a family member who just happens to be gay. When they told me about it, I had no idea because we had not seen each other in years. Even though I was accepting because I loved them, they wanted to explain what it was like for them. They said, “You know that feeling you get when you hold someone close to you that you love and you can feel the bond of emotion flowing between your heart and theirs? Like when you got married and you felt like your wife was apart of who you were?” and I said yes. “That is what it is like for me, I don’t see the outside of my mate, only the entity of who they are.” And with that, I understood.

American Psychological Association: What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?

All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.

en.wikipedia.org/The lists of famous gay, lesbian and bisexual people from all over the world. Only people who are out or who were outed after their death are included.

Since when did this become OK? Since when was it alright for our children to be indoctrinated into the hell that is socialism? Since when did the country stop caring what kind of people ran it? What a sham… Even more, what a shame… I would rather eat stewed vomit than listen to this again. The people that taught this to these school children should be fired. Politics are something to be taught. Not forced. In school, you give BOTH sides of the argument and let the students figure it out on their own. THAT is education. What these children got was indoctrination.

Shame…