o'Ticking Tax Time Bomb: Facts "worst recovery since the great depression" (video 6m1s)

video source: http://youtu.be/pxaXZ4-9xx0

Published on Youtube Apr 16, 2012 by ngingrich: http://www.newt.org

---

o'cap'n tax - Gas prices burn Obama as approval rating plummets (RT.com)

article source: http://rt.com/usa/news/gas-obama-rating-president-405/
     There’s still more than half a year until voters in the US hit the polls to elect a president, and it’s looking more and more likely to be a rough time for the incumbent.  The latest polls have President Barack Obama slipping in support again.
     The Washington Post and ABC News released the results of their latest presidential poll over the weekend, and the verdict isn’t very favorable for US President Barack Obama.  According to a recent survey of 1,003 adults, the president’s job approval rating is at a four-month lull, and more American’s disapprove of Obama’s efforts now than last November.  Additionally, the responses from those polled suggest that the president might have a harder time than expected come Election Day: the published results put the president neck-and-neck with some Republican Party frontrunners, even losing to Mitt Romney if Americans were to vote today.
     High gas prices, a talking point that Obama’s GOP opponents have used time and time again to attack the president, seems to be the impetus for the growing opposition. "Nearly two-thirds of Americans say they disapprove of the way the president is handling the situation at the pump, where rising prices have already hit hard," the Washington Post notes in their report. "Just 26 percent approve of his work on the issue, his lowest rating in the poll."
     Coincidently, the Obama administration readdressed gas concerns moments after the results of the poll were published.
     "Despite the gains we've made, today's high gas prices are a painful reminder that there's much more work to do free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil and take control of our energy future," Obama writes in a release dated Monday. "And that's exactly what our administration is committed to doing in the months ahead."
     Last month, Goldman Sachs said they expected the price of crude to increase by nearly $20-per-barrel during 2012, and others have cited that sanctions and tensions concerning America’s relationship with Iran will only drive prices higher.  Republicans have in turn offered solutions from the right to counter Obama’s failure to fix prices, with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich campaigning heavily over the promise of $2.50-gallon gasoline in his administration.
     Whatever the reason for Obama’s support now slipping, it is not welcoming news for a president who will be up for re-election in a matter of months.  Although the president has previously polled more positively than his opponents, the latest quizzing puts the incumbent two percentage points behind Mitt Romney in a race for the White House.  Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is only neck-and-neck with Obama according to the poll, with a hypothetical race today occurring favoring the current president by only 3 percentage points.  Earlier this month, a separate study published by Rasmussen Reports placed Texas Congressman Ron Paul above Obama in the polls as well.
     According to the latest poll, Obama’s approval rating is only at 46 percent as of March 10, 2012.  The last time he sunk that low was this past November, when only 44 percent of those surveyed suggested they were happy with the administration.  Obama’s approval rating was at 68 percent when he entered office in early 2009, although Washington Post and Pew polls since have put him at 59 percent or lower since July of that year.

---

Super Congress Swindle - Debt Ceiling Fraud Against the Constitution

video source: http://youtu.be/i48sZyIsYus

Americans put on the hook for another 2.4 Trillion with new debt ceiling deal, Super Congress resembles Polit Bureau from Soviet Union, confidence in dollar takes a hit as markets slump.
From hour 1, 8-2-2011, http://www.justin.tv/michaelrivero
http://whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.rense.com

---

o'cap'n tax - You Can Take Away My Incandescent Light Bulbs When You Pry Them From My Cold Dead Hands

 Communiqué by Lou Frenzel

"You can have my incandescent light bulbs when you pry them from my cold dead hands."

Posted @ 7/26/2011 4:53 PM By Lou on http://electronicdesign.com/Blogs/Communique/tabid/731/entryid/182/Default.aspx

     My apologies to Charlton Heston, the National Rifle Association and others who claim the similar expression for guns.  They haven't taken away our guns yet, but they are planning to take away our light bulbs.  They being the Federal government will begin enforcing a new law that goes into effect January 1, 2012, if Congress does not repeal it.  (Fat chance, although some House members did try.)  Incidentally, most of Europe is doing the same thing.

     The light bulb "ban" is part of the Energy Independence and Security Act passed in 2007.  It isn't really a ban as such but it effectively limits the sales of several types of incandescent bulbs (starting with the popular 100 watt bulb) simply because they are too inefficient.  More specifically, there is a planned phase out starting in 2012 and extending through 2014.  Some special bulbs are exempt such as appliance bulbs, 3-way bulbs and those less than 40 watts or more than 150 watts.  The overall push is for light bulbs in general to get more efficient, not only with the CFLs and LEDs but with better incandescent like those with halogen or xenon.  The government believes we can save energy and reduce global warming if we get rid of the offending light bulb.  It appears that most of us have not been replacing our incandescent fast enough with CFLs to satisfy the EPA.  Get ready for a visit from the light bulb police if your house is lighted too brightly.  And hide your hoarded stash of incandescent bulbs well.

     I doubt that there are too many of us who are not implementing some kind of "green" program to cut energy costs and reduce pollution by replacing these retro lights that have been around since Edison and Swan invented them during the 1870s.  Despite being dated technology, these bulbs work great and we are all familiar with them.  They are cheap, reliable and readily available.  But let's face it, lighting eats up about 8 to 12% of our home energy bills depending upon house size, lighting types, and how frugal we are.  Roughly 50% of that home energy is taken by things with motors like refrigerators, HVAC and other appliances.  But going with a more efficient lighting solution will save some energy and money especially if everyone does it.
     I am already on the way to replacing my incandescents with CFLs.  I don't necessarily like it but I am doing it.  I now use them in porch lights, ceiling/fan lights, and a few lamps.  I still use incandescents in my reading lamps as I prefer the coloring and the fact they are just brighter.  That whitish/blue light is irritating, but I guess that's just me.  I did recently find a CFL with a more incandescent glow which I am trying out.  Not too bad but still not bright enough even in the highest wattage size.  There are also no good CFL replacements that I have found for recessed floods and spots which are common in kitchens and some light fixtures.
     While the CFLs do save energy, they are much more expensive, at least 5 to 10 times what an incandescent costs.  I am sure that those who are less affluent certainly balk at the price when food is more important, even if the CFL is cheaper if amortized over a longer period.  Do most consumers amortize their purchases?  Of course not.
     Other CFL downsides besides less overall light and color are the time it takes to come up to full brightness as well as the declining illumination over time.  CFLs also do not work with most dimmers.  There are some CFL dimmers but they are not as good as the old fashion incandescent kind.  I have also heard that CFLs do not work well in cold environments, like outdoors in winter or in refrigerators.
     One big issue is that some CFLs really interfere with shortwave and ham radio communications with a horrible noise spectrum that makes listening impossible.  It took me a while to figure that out until my wife turned off a lamp while I was trying to listen one day and suddenly all the radio noise went away.  And let's not forget the disposal hazard.  CFL disposal recommendations are a real pain and inconvenience.  I doubt that most consumers are going to discard a bad CFL with the local disposal facility as recommended.  I did break a CFL not too long ago and some of that mercury vapor got free.  I didn't die and I have no ill effects from the clean up but maybe it's going to get me later somehow.  I am not going to worry about it.
     The bottom line is that we are replacing an accepted cheaper product with one that is more complex and expensive and has many downsides.  Doesn't seem like common sense to me but I keep reminding myself that it is for the collective good.  We all need help with our energy and pollution problems.  CFLs are an easy solution, still it seems like a high price to pay.  Most consumers are short term vs. long term thinkers as they go for the immediate gratification.  They are trading off low price for brighter lights now for the savings over five to ten years.
     As for LEDs, they certainly seem to be the best choice as almost any desired intensity and color can be had.  But at a price.  I have only tried one LED bulb ($20) and it is certainly bright enough although I still could not find the color spectrum I wanted.  Even though this bulb will last probably longer than I will, it is still way too expensive for the average person.  We can all assume that the LED will be our future as prices abate.  In the meantime, enjoy your CFLs.  And don't spend all those savings in one place.

---

bcc'd "red diaper babies" & RINOs

Déjà Vu - ELC gas prices (Fr.1Apr11, GasBuddy.com) "An April Fools' Joke? No!"

Since o'tax'n spend / o'cap'n trade has been in office, gasoline prices have, on average, doubled from $1.79/gal. to $3.85/gal. nationally.

In the last month alone gasoline prices averaged a 6.8% per gallon increase.

---

Gas Prices Double Under Obama
March 31, 2011, By James S. Robbins, Washington Times

     "Feeling pain at the pump?  Gas prices have doubled since Mr. Obama took office.  According to the GasBuddy gasoline price tracking web site, the price of a gallon of regular gas was around $1.79 when Mr. Obama took office. Today the national average is $3.58. The lowest average price in the continental United States is $3.31 in Tulsa Oklahoma, the highest is $4.14 in Santa Barbara, CA.
     Consumer price index (CPI) figures from February show an unadjusted 12 month gasoline inflation rate of 19.2%, but in the last month alone prices consumer price index (CPI) figures from February show an unadjusted 12 month gasoline inflation rate of 19.2%, but in the last month alone prices jumped 6.8%, probably because of oil price increases due to instabilities in the Middle East.  If the trend continues, gas prices would double again within a year.  100% gasoline price inflation is nothing to brag about, but imagine Mr. Obama going into the 2012 election having to explain why gas costs $7.00 a gallon.  I'm sure the White House would spin it as one of their "Green" initiatives.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/30/gas-prices-double-under-obama/

---

Who stops U.S. oil drilling but, using taxpayers' monies, pays foreign countries to drill (and drill deep!)?

Who has redesignated lands over coal reserves to prevent extraction?

Who has created corn shortage (prices double to $7.00+/bushel?) raising food & fuel prices?

Who has sold 50% of uranium ore rights to the Soviets?

Who is holding back development of oil reserves in AK, the Dakotas, CO, the Gulf, east/west coasts?

Why? -- o'dangerous, I opine. "Why?" ( http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2011/02/odangerous-i-opine-why.html )

---

The "Obammer'' Administration with their strangling regulation of government and business across America are who is stifling job growth, employment, as well as America's energy independence. (source: http://warrantonegirl.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/obama-stifling-job-growth-and-choking-off-energy-independence-in-america/ ) 

UPDATE…OF COURSE:  Brazilian Oil Drilling

Even though President Obama is against offshore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan $2 Billion of our taxpayer dollars (which we can't afford to loan since we're broke) to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil! (Petrobras).  The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA !

Now here's the real clincher…the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil this field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels" … We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever!

Wait, it gets more interesting.

Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company andwho would benefit most from this?  It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign.  If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am.  Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks!  Are they doing their job?  Think about it.

The  Wall street Journal article confirming this information: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.htm

---

bcc'd "red-diaper babies" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_diaper_baby )