o'all about me - New Golf Hat.....

From: thy Subject: New Democratic Golf Hat ...He sure thinks he is!!!

---

o'nocchio - The Mess that Obama inherited EXPLAINED!!!!

`Oh, there's no use in talking to him,' said Alice desperately: `he's perfectly idiotic!' 

...Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

o'campaigner-in-chief - "To lie is to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally.  In some situations, including perjury and some fraud, lying may be punishable by law."

o'lying by omission - "Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception.  Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions.  When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission."

source, Wikipedia: Ways to Lie - In the story of Pinocchio, his nose grows longer when he tells a lie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

---

From: thy Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 Subject: The "Mess" that Obama inherited EXPLAINED!!!!

In the story of Pinocchio, his nose
 grows longer when he tells a lie.

The "Mess" that Obama inherited and how
     This tells the story, why Bush was so bad at the end of his term.
    Don't just skim over this, it's not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in. If in doubt, check it out!!!
     The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd, 2009, it was actually January 3rd, 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
     The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
     For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:
January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.
     At the time:
     The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
     The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%.  The Unemployment rate was 4.6%.
     George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH.  

    Remember the day...
     January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
     The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?  BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
     Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
     Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.
     And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?  OBAMA.

Q - And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
A - OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush...
     REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007. ...THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"
     Budgets do not come from the White House.  They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
     Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
     In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
     For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.  At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.
     And where was Barack Obama during this time?  He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
     If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets.  That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.  After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
     If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.  In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
     There is no way this will be widely publicized, unless each of us sends it on!  I am forwarding it now and then again right before the next election in November.

Pinocchio image, source: Wikipedia

---

o'commie - Reasons not to re-elect o'mam. (redux)

From: thy Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 Subject: I WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED!......
 An old West Virginia Hillbilly saying: "You cannot get the water to clear up until you get the pigs out of the creek."
 *SOME OF YOU MAY APPRECIATE THIS AND SOME OF YOU MAY NOT.* *I DO NOT APOLOGIZE FOR SENDING THIS BECAUSE OF IT'S TRUTH.* *If any other of our presidents had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?* *If any other of our presidents had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? * *If any other of our presidents had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head? *

---

*If any other of our presidents joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had pronounced the Marine Corps like Marine Corpse, would you think him an idiot? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87000 American workers unemployed would you support him? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his First Lady to a play in NYC, would you have approved? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved? *

---

*If any other of our presidents would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in his home town, would you not have thought he was a self-important, conceited, egotistical jerk. *

---

*If any other of our presidents had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, wouldn't you have winced in embarrassment? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?*

---

*If any other of our presidents' administrations had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had created the position of 32 Czars  who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is  happening in America, would you have ever approved. *

---

*If any other of our presidents had ordered the firing of the CEO  of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority  to do so, would you have approved? *

---

*So, tell me again,  what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? *

---

*Can't think of a thing?  Don't worry.  He's done all this in 30 months  so you have lots of time to come up with an answer.* *Every statement and action in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable. *

---

AND NOW-- HE ACTUALLY WANTS US TO RE-ELECT HIM. WAKE UP AMERICA 2012 IS UPON US.  I AM BECAUSE I CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE A CHANCE ON THIS GUY FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS . . . *"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."*

---

*If any other of our presidents had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, wouldn't you have had second thoughts about his capabilities? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia would you have approved? *

---

*If any other of our presidents had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America ? *


Consider too: It's always someone else's fault for all of his failed policies.

---

---

---

---

Consider too: His propaganda campaign to restrict the 2nd Amendment along the Mexican border while secretly arming criminal gangs and drug cartels killing a U.S. Border Patrolman.

Consider too: He supports killing babies ...even if born alive!

Consider too: He has compounded unrest in the mid-east at the expense of our one ally, Israel.
Consider too: He sought out Communists, Marxists, Socialists, and terrorists to surround himself 'back then' and now places them in your government.

Consider too: He said 'The Prettiest Sound On Earth At Sunset' is the Muslim call to prayer.

---

o'amnesty - o'pander's Illegal Immigrants' healthcare

Left-wingnuts often make the claim that o'scamcare doesn't "mandate" that illegal aliens are to receive medical care ... typical '1984 Orwellian' "Newspeak." -- rfh

From: Minuteman PAC  Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 Subject: Stop ObamaCare for Illegal Immigrants

Joe Wilson was right... ObamaCare DOES cover illegal immigrants!      Earlier this week, we let you know about the $8.5 million in ObamaCare funding directed by the Department of Health and Human Services solely to provide free or reduced healthcare to migrant workers and their families - in other words, illegal immigrants!      Remember all the flak Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina took from the Obama-loving leftwing media back in September 2009 when he yelled "You lie!" when Obama promised the nation that ObamaCare would not cover illegal immigrants?      Now, we have our answer.  Wilson was right and Obama continues to be a liar...

     Sadly, providing illegal immigrants with free healthcare subsidized using YOUR tax dollars is nothing new.
     In 2007, we learned about Mexico's Ventanillas de Salud (Health Windows) program that directs MEXICAN citizens who illegally live in the U.S. to use taxpayer funded clinics in a dozen cities which have Mexican consulates.
     In Los Angeles County alone, illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $440 million in health services annually and whopping $1.1 billion statewide.
     The Mexican consul in Los Angeles proudly announced that nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants hailing from Mexico and living in the area benefited from the referral program.

     To really rub salt in the wound, the whole referral operation promises to assess "consulate clients" (illegal immigrants) for eligibility to government-funded (that's U.S.-funded) health insurance and other primary care services and offers free legal assistance to those who are denied coverage.
     That must be nice.
     One of the most memorable quotes during the process of passing ObamaCare was Nancy Pelosi's "We need to pass Obamacare so that the public can find out what's in it."  One of the more memorable results of ObamaCare thus far was all of the friends and loyal lobbyists in the Obama Club who have received ObamaCare waivers.
     Now, with healthcare funding and services for illegal immigrants and cuts for the care of U.S. Citizens, we have one more reason to add to our laundry list for defeating Barack Obama in 2012.
     Thanks to Americans like you, who care about the safety and future of our country, there is mounting pressure to stop Obama from transforming America into a socialist state jam-packed with illegal immigrants benefiting from our tax dollars.  But it will take the lead of an emboldened House and Senate to turn up the pressure.  THEY MUST HEAR LOUDLY FROM PATRIOTS LIKE YOU!      Our mission is clear: Help elect candidates who carry out their constitutional duty to defend our borders and oust those who do not.
      Everyday Washington tells us we can no longer afford to care for our own citizens in need, so why are we caring for Mexico's?
For America, Minuteman PAC

          P.S.  As you well know, Minuteman PAC is an independent Political Action Committee of the Minuteman civilian border security movement, supported by many volunteers of the nation's oldest, largest and most-effective citizen's border vigilance group, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.  ... If you can afford it, please generously give a contribution of $20, $30, $50, $100 or more to Minuteman PAC to get this word out to your fellow Americans!  We will need funds above and beyond $250,000 to help make our case on radio, TV, in newspapers and on the Internet to in order to secure our border with Mexico, crush Obama's plans to grant mass-Amnesty, and nix ObamaCare for illegal immigrants.

---

bcc'd "red diaper babies" & RINOs

email Congress & W.H.: http://capwiz.com/congressorgfb/issues/alert/?alertid=41045506

government contacts: http://harrold.org/rfhextra/contact_the_us_government.html

o'redistribute - Poverty in America

From: baja Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 Subject: Poverty in America

Study: Americans "in Poverty" Are Seldom Poor

     Most of the Americans the federal government defines as "in poverty" are "not poor in any ordinary sense of the term," according to a new study - especially when compared to the poor in less developed countries.

     "To the average American, the word "poverty" implies significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter, and clothing," the study from The Heritage Foundation states.

     "The actual living conditions of America's poor are far different from these images."

     The Census Bureau reports that there are 43 million Americans living in poverty.  To help them, taxpayers spend some $900 billion a year in federal and state dollars - over $20,000 for each person deemed poor - through more than 70 means-tested programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care and more.

     But according to the government's own survey data, in the past decade the average household defined as poor by the government lived in a house or apartment with air conditioning and cable TV, The Heritage Foundation study found.

     The household had a car - one-third had two or more cars -  two color televisions, a DVD player, and a microwave.

     "The home of the average poor family was in good repair and not overcrowded," the study observes.

     "In fact, the typical poor American had more living space than the average European - average, not poor.

     "When asked, most poor families stated they had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs."

      Study authors Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield cite U.S. Department of Energy data showing that in 2005, the most recent year on record:

• 62 percent of poor American households had a clothes washer in the home, and 53.2 percent had a clothes dryer.

• 65.1 percent had more than one TV.

• 54.5 percent had a cellular phone.

• 38.2 percent had a personal computer.

• 36.6 percent had an answering machine.

• 29.3 percent had a video game system.

• 25 percent had a dishwasher.

• 5.2 percent had a photocopier - and .6 percent even had a Jacuzzi.

     The study also found that 5.9 percent of households "sometimes" did not have enough food, and just 1.5 percent "often" did not have enough.

"Some poor Americans do experience significant hardships, including temporary food shortages or inadequate housing, but these individuals are a minority within the overall poverty population," the study authors concluded.

     "Poverty remains an issue of serious social concern, but accurate information about that problem is essential in crafting wise public policy. Exaggeration and misinformation about poverty obscure the nature, extent, and causes of real material deprivation, thereby hampering the development of well-targeted, effective programs to reduce the problem."

     Former Congressman Ernest Istook, now a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation, echoed that sentiment in a recent Newsmax blog: "By defining poverty so broadly, we drain resources that instead could be focused on those who truly are in dire straits.   And we spend billions that could be cut from the budget instead."

---

o'quantitative - Why QE2 Failed: "The Money All Went Offshore" (Ellen Brown, GR)

From: kd Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 Subject:  Ellen Brown: Why QE2 Failed - The Money All Went Offshore

We all knew we had been had but what could we have done about it?

Remember when we next vote out every rat incumbant. ...KD

---

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25566

Why QE2 Failed: The Money All Went Offshore

By Ellen Brown, Global Research, July 9, 2011

     On June 30, QE2 ended with a whimper.  The Fed's second round of "quantitative easing" involved $600 billion created with a computer keystroke for the purchase of long-term government bonds.  But the government never actually got the money, which went straight into the reserve accounts of banks, where it still sits today.  Worse, it went into the reserve accounts of FOREIGN banks, on which the Federal Reserve is now paying 0.25% interest. 

     Before QE2 there was QE1, in which the Fed bought $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities from the banks.  This money too remains in bank reserve accounts collecting interest and dust.  The Fed reports that the accumulated excess reserves of depository institutions now total nearly $1.6 trillion.    

     Interestingly, $1.6 trillion is also the size of the federal deficit – a deficit so large that some members of Congress are threatening to force a default on the national debt if it isn't corrected soon. 

     So here we have the anomalous situation of a $1.6 trillion hole in the federal budget, and $1.6 trillion created by the Fed that is now sitting idle in bank reserve accounts.  If the intent of "quantitative easing" was to stimulate the economy, it might have worked better if the money earmarked for the purchase of Treasuries had been delivered directly to the Treasury.  That was actually how it was done before 1935, when the law was changed to require private bond dealers to be cut into the deal.   

     The one thing QE2 did for the taxpayers was to reduce the interest tab on the federal debt.  The long-term bonds the Fed bought on the open market are now effectively interest-free to the government, since the Fed rebates its profits to the Treasury after deducting its costs.   

     But QE2 has not helped the anemic local credit market, on which smaller businesses rely; and it is these businesses that are largely responsible for creating new jobs.  In a June 30 article in the Wall Street Journal titled "Smaller Businesses Seeking Loans Still Come Up Empty," Emily Maltby reported that business owners rank access to capital as the most important issue facing them today; and only 17% of smaller businesses said they were able to land needed bank financing.      

How QE2 Wound Up in Foreign Banks 

     Before the Banking Act of 1935, the government was able to borrow directly from its own central bank.  Other countries followed that policy as well, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand; and they prospered as a result.  After 1935, however, if the U.S. central bank wanted to buy government securities, it had to purchase them from private banks on the "open market."  Former Fed Chairman Marinner Eccles wrote in support of an act to remove that requirement that it was intended to keep politicians from spending too much.  But all the law succeeded in doing was to give the bond-dealer banks a cut as middlemen.   

     Worse, it caused the Fed to lose control of where the money went.  Rather than buying more bonds from the Treasury, the banks that got the cash could just sit on it or use it for their own purposes; and that is apparently what is happening today.

     In carrying out its QE2 purchases, the Fed had to follow standard operating procedure for "open market operations": it took secret bids from the 20 "primary dealers" authorized to sell securities to the Fed and accepted the best offers.  The problem was that 12 of these dealers – or over half -- are U.S.-based branches of foreign banks (including BNP Paribas, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, UBS and others); and they evidently won the bids.   

     The fact that foreign banks got the money was established in a June 12 post on Zero Hedge by Tyler Durden (a pseudonym), who compared two charts: the total cash holdings of foreign-related banks in the U.S., using weekly Federal Reserve data; and the total reserve balances held at Federal Reserve banks, from the Fed's statement ending the week of June 1.  The charts showed that after November 3, 2010, when QE2 operations began, total bank reserves increased by $610 billion.  Foreign bank cash reserves increased in lock step, by $630 billion -- or more than the entire QE2.  

     In a June 27 blog, John Mason, Professor of Finance at Penn State University and a former senior economist at the Federal Reserve, wrote:  

     In essence, it appears as if much of the monetary stimulus generated by the Federal Reserve System went into the Eurodollar market. This is all part of the "Carry Trade" as foreign branches of an American bank could borrow dollars from the "home" bank creating a Eurodollar deposit. . . .

     Cash assets at the smaller [U.S.] banks remained relatively flat . . . . Thus, the reserves the Fed was pumping into the banking system were not going into the smaller banks. . . .  

[B]usiness loans continue to "tank" at the smaller banking institutions. . . .

     The real lending by commercial banks is not taking place in the United States. The lending is taking place off-shore, underwritten by the Federal Reserve System and this is doing little or nothing to help the American economy grow.  

Tyler Durden concluded: 

. . . [T]he only beneficiary of the reserves generated were US-based branches of foreign banks (which in turn turned around and funnelled the cash back to their domestic branches), a shocking finding which explains . . . why US banks have been unwilling and, far more importantly, unable to lend out these reserves . . . .  

. . . [T]he data above proves beyond a reasonable doubt why there has been no excess lending by US banks to US borrowers: none of the cash ever even made it to US banks! . . . This also resolves the mystery of the broken money multiplier and why the velocity of money has imploded. 

     Well, not exactly.  The fact that the QE2 money all wound up in foreign banks is a shocking finding, but it doesn't seem to be the reason banks aren't lending.  There were already $1 trillion in excess reserves sitting idle in U.S. reserve accounts, not counting the $600 billion from QE2. 

     According to Scott Fullwiler, Associate Professor of Economics at Wartburg College, the money multiplier model is not just broken but is obsolete.  Banks do not lend based on what they have in reserve.  They can borrow reserves as needed after making loans.  Whether banks will lend depends rather on (a) whether they have creditworthy borrowers, (b) whether they have sufficient capital to satisfy the capital requirement, and (c) the cost of funds – meaning the cost to the bank of borrowing to meet the reserve requirement, either from depositors or from other banks or from the Federal Reserve. 

Setting Things Right

     Whatever is responsible for causing the local credit crunch, trillions of dollars thrown at Wall Street by Congress and the Fed haven't fixed the problem.  It may be time for local governments to take matters into their own hands.  While we wait for federal lawmakers to get it right, local credit markets can be revitalized by establishing state-owned banks, on the model of the Bank of North Dakota (BND).  The BND services the liquidity needs of local banks and keeps credit flowing in the state.  For more information, see here and here.  

     Concerning the gaping federal deficit, Congressman Ron Paul has an excellent idea: have the Fed simply write off the federal securities purchased with funds created in its quantitative easing programs.  No creditors would be harmed, since the money was generated out of thin air with a computer keystroke in the first place.  The government would just be canceling a debt to itself and saving the interest. 

     As for "quantitative easing," if the intent is to stimulate the economy, the money needs to go directly into the purchase of goods and services, stimulating "demand."  If it goes onto the balance sheets of banks, it may stop there or go into speculation rather than local lending -- as is happening now.  Money that goes directly to the government, on the other hand, will be spent on goods and services in the real economy, creating much-needed jobs, generating demand, and rebuilding the tax base.  To make sure the money gets there, the 1935 law forbidding the Fed to buy Treasuries directly from the Treasury needs to be repealed. 

---

Ellen Brown is an attorney and president of the Public Banking Institute, http://PublicBankingInstitute.org. In Web of Debt, her latest of eleven books, she shows how the power to create money has been usurped from the people, and how we can get it back. Her websites are http://webofdebt.com and http://ellenbrown.com.   Please support Global Research -- Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.  Your endorsement is greatly appreciated -- Subscribe to the Global Research e-newsletter

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article. -- To become a Member of Global Research -- The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com  --- www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. -- For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com © Copyright Ellen Brown, Global Research, 2011 -- The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25566 © Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca -- Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

---

bcc'd "red diaper babies"

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 )