The Obama is a Big Fat Liar Thread

[jdsmith]

US drilling under President Obama: Fact vs. Fiction

I've seen this debate before. I'm surprised that O is still peddling this line.

I wouldn't accept this kind of "misleading" and disingenuously worded, ie lying, from my own son. Why should have to accept it from an elected, sitting President?

After looking at this interview out of curiosity, it seems to me the most "misleading and disingenuously worded" statements here are coming from Strong. Strong concedes that what Obama said is "technically true," if arguably misleading. That much cannot be said of Strong's comments below:

STRONG: Well, and it's kind of like the drill -- the oil production has increased in spite of his policies, not because of them. And so he -- in the speech, he's also saying, you know, drilling is at its highest rate, but that is also not why gas prices have increased. [Of course "that is also not why gas prices have increased" -- a high rate of drilling means greater supply, helping to suppress rising prices.] He's trying to take credit for something that he says has nothing to do with the price of gas. [This assertion makes no sense. Obama's statements taken in context are clearly aknowledging some connection between the rate of drilling and the price of gas.]

A higher rate of drilling doesn't necessarily mean greater supply. I know that too well, as I own stock in a nat gas drilling company.

The connection between drilling and gas prices though is convoluted. That's why I focus on Obama's "We only have 2% of the KNOWN world's reserves," which is as big a lie as there is.

[jdsmith]

More on the oil lie:

The latest federal data on oil and gas production offer ammunition to both the White House and its critics on whether the Obama administration is out to squelch American-bred energy.

The numbers were both up and down.

It's not really about the spin, though. It's aboot the facts:

Oil production from federal lands and federal offshore waters fell sharply last year, and was also down significantly since 2003. But it's also up 12 percent since Barack Obama became president.

For all fossil fuels from federal lands and waters, 2011 was the lowest-producing year in nearly a decade

Obama’s opponents were the first to pounce Thursday on the new data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, saying the numbers buttress their case that the White House is thwarting domestically produced energy at a time when consumers are writhing under rising gasoline prices.

They said the numbers also shine an embarrassing contrast on the soaring rhetoric from administration officials such as Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who boasted during a White House briefing on Monday that “we are producing more from public lands, both oil and gas, both onshore as well as offshore, than at any time in recent memory.”

Babaam! There it is.

“These nonpartisan statistics show federal oil and natural gas productions are declining as President Obama’s anti-energy policies catch up with him,” Hastings said.

The Institute for Energy Research, an industry-supported think tank, blamed much of the drop in offshore oil production on the moratorium the administration imposed in the Gulf of Mexico after 2010’s BP oil spill. For the big picture, the institute pointed to EIA figures showing that total production of oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids and coal from federal land were at a “nine-year low” last year.

“None of the numbers coming out of this administration seem to hold up once you look at the actual numbers and data,” institute spokesman Benjamin Cole told POLITICO. “It’s all propaganda and spin.”

Another of Salazar’s comments from Monday’s briefing requires a bit more parsing: “Just from the federal lands themselves, gas production in 2011 was one of the best years that we've had in the last decade.” That’s true only if you don’t count offshore gas drilling — and even then, last year had slightly less production than 2008, 2009 or 2010.

The EIA based its numbers on Interior Department data.

Other ways to slice up the same data:

• Last year’s sales of oil produced on federal lands were 7.5 percent below where they were in 2003, as measured by the fuel’s energy content.

• Natural gas was down 31.5 percent during the same period. (On the other hand, total natural gas production in the U.S. hit an all-time high last year, mainly because of the boom of gas production on privately held land in regions such as the Marcellus and Bakken shales.)

• From 2010 to last year, the declines were 14 percent for oil and 9 percent for gas.

• But compared with 2008, before Obama’s election, oil last year was up 12 percent while gas was down 17 percent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/03 ... z1pe0wVscy

And that is today's lesson in Calculated Deception, yo.

[jdsmith]

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. A century of subsidies to oil companies is long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double down on investments in an energy industry that has never been more promising. (Applause.) That’s what we need to do.

So Congress needs to pass more tax credits for projects like this one; needs to provide certainty when it comes to these tax credits. We need to go out there and do what a lot of states are doing right now, which is saying, let's get a certain percentage of our energy from clean energy sources. Because when we do that, that gives a company like this one certainty that they're going to have customers, and they can invest more and build more. (Applause.)

We need to keep Americans on the job. We need to keep these homes powered by clean energy. We need to support the businesses that are doing it.

And again, I just want everybody to be clear -- because sometimes, when you listen to the news and you listen to some of these other politicians, they seem a little bit confused about what I'm saying. We are going to continue producing oil and gas at a record pace. That's got to be part of what we do. We need energy to grow. That's why we're producing more oil right now, here in America, than at any time in the last eight years -- any time in the last eight years. We're opening up more land for oil exploration. We've got more oil rigs operating. There are more pipelines out there that are being approved. I'll be visiting one of those rigs and one of those pipelines this week.

But an energy strategy that focuses only on drilling and not on an energy strategy that will free ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil, that's a losing strategy. That's not a strategy I'm going to pursue. America uses 20 percent of the world's oil, and we've got 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. Think about -- I wasn't a math major, but I just want -- (laughter) -- if you're using 20, you've only got 2, that means you got to bring in the rest from someplace else. Why wouldn't we want to start finding alternatives that make us less reliant, less dependent on what's going on in the Middle East? (Applause.)

So we've got to develop new energy technologies, new energy sources. It's the only way forward. And here in Boulder City, you know that better than anybody. You know the promise that lies ahead because this city has always been about the future. Eight decades ago, in the midst of the Great Depression, the people of Boulder City were busy working on another energy project you may have heard of. Like today, it was a little bit ahead of its time; it was a little bit bigger than this solar plant -- it was a little louder, too. It was called the Hoover Dam. And at the time, it was the largest dam in the world. (Applause.) Even today, it stands as a testimony to American ingenuity, American imagination, the power of the American spirit -- a testimony to the notion we can do anything.

That was true back then; it is true today. You know the choice we need to make when it comes to energy. We've got to invest in a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of energy. We've got to stay ahead of the curve. We've got to make sure that we're taking some risks. We've got to make sure that we're making the investments that are necessary. We've got to support extraordinary entrepreneurs that are on the cutting-edge. That's who we are. That's what we do. And if we keep on doing it, nothing is going to stop us.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. Thank you. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... ent-energy

It's not so much that I disagree that the US should fund alternative energy sources. I don't. I just HATE this oil lie.

And we haven't even been talking about natural gas:

Alaska’s North Slope has proven reserves of 35tn cubic feet of gas – about one-eighth of US total reserves – and undiscovered resources estimated at 236tn cu ft.

But that is headed to Asia...if they can build a pipeline.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/448b66c6 ... z1pnQu1NE9

[TainanCowboy]

There are more known and proven oil reserves in the U.S.A. than exist in Saudi Arabia.

[jdsmith]

The Solyndra Lie:

Obama Tries to Deflect Blame on Solyndra, Keystone

"Obviously we wish Solyndra hadn't gone bankrupt. Part of the reason they did was the Chinese were subsidizing their solar industry and flooding the market in ways Solyndra couldn't compete. But understand, this was not our program per se."

-- President Obama talking to National Public Radio's "Marketplace."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03 ... z1puETSkyA

Whose was it then?

Obama's first stop was in must-win Nevada, where he defended subsidies for solar energy, a tricky subject given the high-profile debacle at Solyndra, a pet project of big Obama donors that got a presidential visit and lots of public help.

While making his push for solar, Obama explained to a reporter for National Public Radio that the blame for Solyndra was bipartisan and not the fault of the Obama Democrats "per se."

"Congress, Democrats and Republicans, put together a loan guarantee program because they understood historically that when you get new industries, it's easy to get money for new startups," Obama said. "But if you want to take them to scale, often there is a lot of risk involved and what the loan guarantee program was designed to do was to help start-up companies get to scale."

uh-huh, Ds and Rs, er but, not really:

The 2009 stimulus package that provided the funding for a loan of $527 million for Solyndra, which subsequently defaulted, got zero Republican votes in the House and three Republican votes in the Senate -- Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins and former Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who switched parties two months after the vote. There was no Republican input on the structuring of the energy loan program and the specific loan to Solyndra was a Democratic job from start to finish.

OK, so if it wasn't really a Bipartisan choice, why then was the loan given?

Solyndra, the pet project of a major Obama backer, George Kaiser,

Ahhhhh, it's the old bird, crony capitalism. I thought that was a Republican thing.

Come on though. This is FUX News, yo. What's fact check say?

Obama’s Solyndra Problem
Posted on October 7, 2011

President Obama exaggerated when defending his administration’s approval of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now-defunct solar company.

Obama referred to Solyndra’s loan at an Oct. 6 press conference as “a loan guarantee program that predates me.” That’s not accurate. It’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a loan guarantee program for clean-energy companies developing “innovative technologies.” But Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing “commercially available technologies.”

The president also overstated past Republican support for the program, saying “all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program.” Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and some of them even voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005 at a time when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

Lastly, the president deemed the loan guarantee program “successful” overall. But it is too soon to say.

Oh.

Asked whether the Solyndra controversy gave him “pause about any of the decision-making going on in your administration,” Obama first talked about the loan guarantee program.

Obama, Oct. 6: Solyndra — this is a loan guarantee program that predates me that historically has had support from Democrats and Republicans as well. And the idea is pretty straightforward: If we are going to be able to compete in the 21st century, then we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge technologies, we’ve got to dominate cutting-edge manufacturing.

The loan guarantee program that provided financing for Solyndra, however, does not predate Obama.

Liar.

The president also overstated the level of Republican support for the program when he said “all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program.”

Obama, Oct. 6: And by the way, let me make one last point about this. I heard there was a Republican member of Congress who’s engaging in oversight on this, and despite the fact that all of them in the past have been supportive of this loan guarantee program, he concluded, you know what? We can’t compete against China when it comes to solar energy.

The stimulus bill that funded Solyndra received no Republican votes in the House and only three in the Senate — including Sen. Arlen Specter, who later switched parties.

Liar liar

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/10/obamas ... a-problem/

Big fat liar still lying about his old lies.

[jdsmith]

Just some further info on how big the oil lie is:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... eceive.php

President Obama wants to deceive the American people into believing that he’s somehow responsible for the southern segment of the Keystone XL pipeline, much like he wants them to think he’s responsible for increased oil and gas production in the United States. Neither claim is true, and the president knows it.


But in his Prince George’s speech, Obama claimed that even if “we went to your house and we went to the National Mall and we put up those rigs everywhere, we’d still have only 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves.” In New Mexico, Obama declared, “even if we drilled every square inch of this country, we’d still only have 2 or 3 or 4 percent of the world’s known oil reserves.”

That’s just simply wrong.

How long do you think it will be before a White House reporter calls Obama on his constant misrepresentation of the facts relating to energy?

I'm thinking they'll ask him mid-November.

[jdsmith]

The Bowles-Simpson deficit-reduction plan went down to a crushing defeat in the House late Wednesday night in a vote that damages the one bipartisan proposal that just a few months ago had seemed like a possible solution to the country’s debt woes.

The 382-38 defeat, with just 16 Republicans and 22 Democrats voting for it, marks a bad end to what began nearly two years ago, when President Obama tapped former White House Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, and former Sen. Alan Simpson, a Republican, to lead a deficit-reduction committee.

Their report has popped up in every deficit discussion since then, but had never gotten a vote in either chamber until this week, when opponents prevailed.

“This doesn’t go big. This doesn’t tackle the problem. This doesn’t do the big things,” said Rep. Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the Budget Committee. “You can never get the debt under control if you don’t deal with our health care entitlement programs.”

The debate came as the House worked its way through its fiscal year 2013 budget plan, which Mr. Ryan wrote.
The Bowles-Simpson plan was offered as an alternative on the chamber floor.

Minutes earlier, the House also defeated Mr. Obama’s own budget, submitted last month, on a 414-0 vote arranged by Republicans to embarrass the president and officially shelve his plan.

“It’s not a charade. It’s not a gimmick — unless what the president sent us is the same,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a freshman Republican from South Carolina who sponsored Mr. Obama’s proposal for purposes of the debate. “I would encourage the Democrats to embrace this landmark Democrat document and support it. Personally, I will be voting against it.”

The House also defeated an alternative offered by the Congressional Black Caucus that would have included $4 trillion in additional tax increases on top of those Mr. Obama proposed, and used that money to boost spending on domestic programs. That plan was killed 314-107.

http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/ ... wn-defeat/

On top of this lie from last month, for those of us paying attention still:

Obama's budgeteers have claimed that their new document achieves $4 trillion in deficit reduction. Budget panel Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., however, pointed out to Zients during his testimony that more than $2 trillion of that purported "savings" results from Obama claiming credit for a debt-ceiling deal that Congress enacted over the president's objections last year. Zients replied disingenuously: "We started the race months ago. So taking credit in this budget for the $2 trillion that we've worked together to achieve, I think, makes a lot of sense."

Ryan then pointed out that an additional $850 billion in "savings" from the budget results only from pretending that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would have otherwise gone on for another 10 years. When Zients groused that the Bush administration had waged those wars without putting them in the budget, Ryan smacked him down: "If these wars are unpaid for, how can you claim savings from them?"

But Zients' worst performance came the day before yesterday. His predecessor at the Office of Management and Budget, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew, had given audiences of two different Sunday talk shows an unabashedly dishonest explanation of why Senate Democrats have failed to pass a budget for nearly three calendar years. "You can't pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes," he told CNN's Candy Crowley, "and you can't get 60 votes without bipartisan support."

That is false. And coming as it does from an experienced and knowledgeable budget man like Lew, who headed the OMB under both Presidents Clinton and Obama, it is a premeditated, pants-on-fire lie. Budget resolutions require only a simple majority (at most 51 votes) to pass the Senate, and cannot be delayed or blocked by Republican filibusters. But it fell to Zients to defend this lie before the Senate Budget Committee on Tuesday. He did not cover himself with glory when he equated an actual budget resolution with a totally separate matter -- the debt-ceiling deal that Congress passed last year, known as the Budget Control Act. "It takes 60 votes to pass a budget, um, like the BCA," Zients began. "No, no," replied Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. "That's not a budget. You know that." Zients had no choice but to abandon his feeble talking point and admit that Toomey was correct.

Obama's budget adds to the national debt in each of the next 10 years. It does nothing to reform the entitlements, which, along with debt service, already consume over 90 percent of the federal government's annual tax revenues. Like Zients, the Obama White House knows better than to tout the budget it proposed Monday as a gusher of new savings for taxpayers.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/e ... get/276496
Flex this, yo.

[jdsmith]

I hope you Obama ball handlers are reading this. I really do. How you can support such a misleader/liar even when the facts, irrefutable facts are thrown in his face and he still maintains the lie.

Today, Senators David Vitter, Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn called Obama on his lies in the form of a letter to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Their indictment is devastating:

Dear Secretary Salazar:

We are concerned with the veracity of statements you made in recent weeks regarding domestic energy production on our federal resources. These statements are similar to claims made by other members of the Administration including the President himself. As you may know, the federal government owns almost 2.5 billion acres of mineral estate, an area larger than the entire land mass of the United States. As director of the Bureau of Land Management, Robert Abbey, testified this month, oil production on our federal property is actually down 14% and offshore production from federal areas is down 17% from only a year ago. Just last week, the Congressional Research Service issued a report revealing that 96 percent of the increase in domestic oil production since 2007 has occurred on non-federal lands. It further revealed that in 2011 production on federal public lands has actually declined by an average of 275,000 barrels per day. Oil production on private lands is indeed up year-over-year, but the Administration does not manage private lands and should not attempt to take credit for private market decisions.

Oil production on federal lands increased in 2009 and 2010 as a result of leasing and permitting decisions made before your Administration took office. However, the falloff in leasing and permitting actions under the Obama Administration is apparent, and even your own Energy Information Administration anticipates continued falloff in production in 2012 and beyond.

We also ask that you rectify the President’s claim that we only have 2% of the world’s oil. Nothing could be further from the truth, as even the Washington Post reported last week.[1] He bases this statement on U.S. “proved reserves” but the U.S. Energy Information Administration has stated that proved reserves is “not an appropriate measure for judging total resource availability in the long-term.” As Secretary of Interior, surely you are aware of the vast oil resources we possess both onshore and offshore that are currently off limits due to this Administration’s combined actions. America is endowed with resources that exceed a TRILLION barrels of oil.[2]

According to the Institute for Energy Research, “USGS estimates that unconventional U.S. oil shale resources hold 2.6 trillion barrels of oil, with about 1 trillion barrels that are considered recoverable under current economic and technological conditions. These 1 trillion barrels are nearly four times the amount of oil resources as Saudi Arabia’s proven oil reserves.
We provide the following examples of what we would view as further inaccurate statements by the Administration regarding the state of federal energy production and resources:

1. Claim: “Expanding offshore oil and gas production is a key component of our comprehensive energy strategy to grow America’s energy economy, and will help us continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs here at home.” Secretary Ken Salazar, DOI Press Release 1/26/2012

Fact: You made the two most pivotal decisions to shrink domestic offshore energy production over the last three years that could have been made. First, you eliminated the 2010-2015 OCS lease plan that would have opened areas of the Atlantic, four geologic basins off S. California, one geologic basin off N. California, while expanding areas in Alaska, including the Cook Inlet. Instead, you have proposed a new 5-year plan that excludes all of the areas of the OCS where the moratorium was lifted in 2008, and reduces the number of planned lease sales by roughly half. Essentially, the moratorium lifted by President Bush and a Democrat Congress in 2008 will continue in effect for a decade under your plan.

2. Claim: The proposed 5-year offshore lease plan will “make more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas estimated on the OCS available for development.” Secretary Salazar, DOI Press Release 11/08/2011

Fact: These numbers distort the facts. The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is 1.76 billion acres. Of that 1.76 billion, less than 35 million acres are actually leased (less than 2%). Your proposed 5-year lease plan does not open a single new lease planning area, and therefore we have no way of knowing what estimates of “technologically recoverable” oil in all of the areas that remain off limits are because you have chosen to keep them off limits. Most of our OCS has not been explored for decades, and providing access to only a fraction gives us no clue what is truly there.

A more accurate statement is that your 5 year plan opens 75% of the oil and gas in areas where we think it exists because we have drilled there. We don’t know about the vast majority of the OCS that isn’t leased, much of which has not been assessed with the benefit of new information for a quarter century.

3. Claim: “Since we put in place new safety standards in the wake of the Gulf oil spill, we have approved more than 400 drilling permits. In fact, we are now permitting at levels seen before the spill, all while meeting these important new standards.” Secretary Ken Salazar, 3/12/2012

Fact: There exists no evidence that permitting for production has indeed reached pre-moratorium levels. In fact, the families impacted in the Gulf are still reeling from the impacts of the slowed pace of permitting. Exploration and permitting have yet to recover to pre-2010 levels on account of the moratorium and ensuing permitorium on shallow and deepwater permits. According to one recent study, “Prior to the deepwater drilling moratorium, the U.S. oil and natural gas offshore industry was forecasted to grow significantly due to identified prospects, mostly in the deep water. With the establishment of the moratorium and the subsequent slowdown in the issuance of drilling permits at all water depths, an estimated $18.3 billion of previously planned capital and operational expenditures did not occur in 2010 and 2011.”[3] The study further concludes that the permitting challenges have already cost 90,000 jobs. It is of importance to note that the moratorium was never endorsed by the National Academy of Engineers, as you had attempted to represent. An Inspector General investigation was required to uncover the political influence and misrepresentation by the White House and your office in an important scientific document.

4. Claim: “The fact of the matter is that we are producing more from public lands, both oil and gas, both onshore as well as offshore, than at any time in recent memory. And when you look back at the years of 2009, 2010, and 2011, we’ve continued to make millions and millions of acres of the public estate available both on the land, as well as on the sea.” Secretary Ken Salazar, 3/12/2012

Fact: As we pointed out earlier in this letter, there is significant lag time to production after the process of leasing. Presumably this is the reason for your repeated observation that “there is no immediate fix” for higher gas prices. After a company has leased property they then have to explore, develop and produce, with each stage requiring new permits and compliance with federal processes. The production gains we saw in 2009 and 2010 were the result of leasing and permitting that occurred in the Clinton and Bush Administrations, and was just beginning to come online. However, by 2011 we began to experience the impacts from the moratorium and falloff of leasing and permitting under your leadership. Total oil production on federal lands is down 14% over the previous year, offshore is even worse at down 17%, and federal lands saw the fewest number of new onshore leases since 1984. You also failed to hold a single offshore lease sale in fiscal year 2011.

As a further example, in 2008 the industry spent $2.6 billion to obtain 487 leases in the Chukchi Sea for production offshore Alaska. So far, not a single well has been drilled on any of these leases. There have also been numerous new regulatory roadblocks and permit withdrawals from federal onshore production since you took over leadership of the Agency. Examples of onshore leasing challenges include your withdrawn and slowed leasing in the West, including Montana and the Dakotas.

In July of 2008, then as a United States Senator, you had an opportunity to support increasing domestic energy production, if the price of gas increased beyond a certain threshold. You repeatedly objected to increasing domestic energy production, even if the price of gas were to have reached $10 per gallon.

Although gas prices are not $10 per gallon, they are increasingly impacting our economy and fellow Americans, particularly low-income and middle-class families. We are hopeful that similarly to Secretary Chu, you have reevaluated your position on gas prices and will redirect your efforts to alter what the agency has done to limit future production, and will instead work to develop our truly vast domestic oil resources, resources that well exceed “2%” of the world’s oil.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... y-lies.php

[TainanCowboy]

Huh?
Is there anybody still carry water for that 'Sotero/Obama' fella?
Amazing.

Here are some things the American public would like to know. How about some true info on these items?

1. The Original Birth Certificate - Yes, the absolute original, examined and certified by three independent forensic experts.

2. Please produce your Columbia University transcripts.

3. Please, your original Columbia thesis paper.

4. Please produce your Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups

5. Please produce your Harvard University transcripts.

6. Please produce your Illinois State Senate records including your voting record.

7. Please produce your Illinois State Senate schedule.

8. Please produce your Law practice client list and billing records/summary.

9. Please produce the locations and names of all half-siblings and stepmother.

10. Your complete Medical Records (we've only seen the one page summary released so far). Have you had drug tests done? Are you still using coke? Please, your liver function tests to clarify alcohol abuse. Have you had an AIDS test?

11. Please produce your Occidental College Transcripts. Also, any records of student aid received and under what names(s) and nationality.

12. Please show us your Parent's original Marriage Certificate.

13. Please produce your record of Baptism.

14. Please produce your Selective Service registration records.
(Did you actually Register for Selective Service? Why is the 19 missing from the date stamp? Why is the date of the stamp earlier
than the date of the person's signature?)
14a. Also, why does your Social Security number, 042-68-4425, not pass E-verify?

15. Please provide us with schedules for all trips outside of the United States before 2007.

16. Please produce all Passport records for all passports, US and otherwise - before the scrubbing.

17. Can you show us a list of your scholarly articles?

18. Your SAT and LSAT test scores please. Did you even take the SAT and LSAT?

19. What's with no access to your grandmother in Kenya?

20. Please list of all campaign workers that currently are lobbyists.

21. Please produce Punahou grade school records.

22. Why are Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education?

23. Please produce page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham's divorce decree.

24. Why did you, President Barack Obama, resign from the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?

25. Why did Michelle Obama resign from the Illinois bar after only about four years of practice and where are all of the relevant documents?

Why are these records hidden? Who are you President Obama? Will these records be revealed before November 6, 2012?
We the People care about our country deeply and are very concerned about a POTUS who has hidden every scrap of information about his life.

Keep in mind, this is regarding a fella that is currently holding the Office of the President of the United States of America.

[jdsmith]

Yay, the MSM is picking up the trail. Those bloodhounds!

Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... on_LEADTop

Something's happening to President Obama's relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I'm referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.

It's not due to the election, and it's not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn't happening.

What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault.

The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You're kidding me. That's not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it's not even constitutional!" Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church's religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.

What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who'd been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.

Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he'd been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.

Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president's response were, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon" At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: "Hey buddy, we don't need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it's not about you."

Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?

Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history's time. He wasted time that was precious—the debt clock is still ticking!—by following an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole.

The high court's hearings gave off an overall air not of political misfeasance but malfeasance.

All these things have hardened lines of opposition, and left opponents with an aversion that will not go away.

I am not saying that the president has a terrible relationship with the American people. I'm only saying he's made his relationship with those who oppose him worse.

And it's a wonder really how people who support him can dismiss his BLATANT LIES.