Energy & Environment

Obama’s Simply Not Telling the Truth About Domestic Oil Drilling

Now Obama is posing as the driller-in-chief.

Stung by the savvy American consumer connecting the dots between gas price pain at the pump and Obama’s repeated moratoria on oil drilling, the President did what he’s done so many times.  He told us his words speak louder than his actions.

In his March 30 energy speech, Obama said he supports more domestic oil drilling, and, under his leadership, domestic oil drilling is at an all-time high, but the U.S. only has 2% of the world’s oil, and anyway it’s the oil companies’ fault because they are sitting on a zillion offshore leases that they refuse to drill.

Nonsense.  All of it—a pure head fake.

Obama has shut down, shut off, and canceled more oil drilling than any President since Carter.

After the BP oil spill last year, Obama shut down all offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, idling 78,000 jobs and cutting off billions of dollars of tax revenue to state and local governments in the Gulf Coast region.

After U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman found the Gulf moratorium without factual basis, Obama lifted it, granted no permits, then reinstated the same moratorium.  The same judge then found the second moratorium illegal and held the administration in contempt of court for ignoring the first order.

Seven drilling rigs have left the Gulf for friendlier waters.

Obama also reversed the Bush plan to sell leases off the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and around Alaska, even rescinding leases already granted and paid for in Alaskan waters.

It’s not just oil drilling that Obama opposes.  His actions say he opposes all energy development.

A recent study by the American Consumer Institute concludes that coal, natural gas, nuclear, transmission infrastructure, and even renewables were among 351 energy projects delayed or canceled by Obama.  These projects represented 1.9 million jobs and an investment of $1.1 trillion.

Record drilling under Obama?

Domestic oil production increased until the BP spill because of Bush’s pro-drilling policy.  In 2011, the Energy Information Administration estimates, the U.S. has seen a decline in production of 220,000 barrels a day, and it projects a reduction of 150 million barrels in 2012 from the Gulf.

Two per cent of the world’s oil?

The figure comes from an Energy Information Administration estimate of world proven reserves already being drilled.  The 2% statement ignores federal estimates of likely reserves in the U.S. (placed off limits by Obama) that total more than three times Saudi Arabia’s reserves.

Oil companies sitting on existing leases?

If oil companies are not drilling on federal leases for which they have already paid a fortune, it’s because exploratory wells have not hit oil, or because they have and it has taken years to get a federal permit for production wells.

Obama’s proposed tax on leases “where they aren’t producing a thing” would tax companies for not using a lease the feds have not yet allowed them to use.

If you think actions speak louder than words, Obama’s actions betray a pattern of anti-energy moves that have driven up prices for every American consumer, increased our dependence on unreliable foreign energy sources, and aborted scarce jobs in this “recovery.”

If you believe the words of the presidential teleprompter, you’ll have to shut your lyin’ eyes.

Sign Up
  • Mike_Stephens

    The socialist in the white house knows that private business owners have to balance their budget. By raising operating expenses, profit margins go down and less money is available for political donations. That is their plan.

  • Lance Morrison

    If Barack Obama hates big oil, then he must love little oil.

    * We have too little oil.
    * We exert too little leverage with OPEC.
    * His ideas on wheat grass and wind are themselves too little.
    * We hear little about BP and what they did to us (you realize that?), but we hear even less about our smaller oil companies that are dying, little at a time.

    Just as Big Medicine is getting richer, and Big Finance is getting richer, Big Oil is getting richer. The middle class of oil, independent companies, are taking the hit, and so are small businesses in The Gulf.

    Progressives gut the economy be design, and those of you who used to consider that a paranoid thought are catching on.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Let’s not forget to give Slick Willie of all people a round of applause, for it was he who opened up the Gulf of Mexico to deepwater drilling, which is now a significant proportion of total American energy production. Obama Osama could not make his false boast about record drilling if not for Slick Willie.

    Recently, Obama Osama went to Brazil and praised their own off-shore drilling, and said, when it comes online, the US would be a happy purchaser of this oil.

    By saying that, he exposed his final LIE. Supposedly, he’s trying to cut down on “greenhouse gas” production by restricting oil production. But it makes no difference to the environment WHERE the oil comes from that we burn.

    If it’s any comfort, Obama Osama simply will never be re-elected. No President can survive the doubling of oil prices and $4 a gallon gasoline.

    ENERGY INDEPENDENCE NOW!

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/tm37MVwDr.jkJgKvFTNRks9oCU.CvB8-#93dd9 wearyconservative

    Don’t count on osama being defeated in ’12. I pray every day that you’re right, but I strongly fear that acorn, the seiu, black panthers, and like minded thugs, in conjunction with a society of moochers and dim bulbs will see to it he’s re-elected, regardless of how much fraud is necessary to get the job done.

  • https://me.yahoo.com/a/tm37MVwDr.jkJgKvFTNRks9oCU.CvB8-#93dd9 wearyconservative

    “Obama’s simply not telling the truth…..” Does anyone else see the ironic humor in the title of this column when we all know our great black leader hasn’t uttered a truth since he came on the scene; probably since first grade if the truth were known.

  • Altosackbuteer

    There is also the birther issue.

    Several states are in the process of enacting ballot access laws which will require all persons seeking access to presidential election ballots to prove their native birth.

    All it will take is for one of these states to do it, and then, IF Obama Osama cannot come up with the proof — he’ll simply withdraw. He would NEVER register to run in the 49 states without such a law but not the one state with it.

    I have to admit that Obama Osama doesn’t seem to be one bit worried. He’s proceeding as confidently as any indisputably native-born candidate would.

    Like most people, you may have seen the .jpg facsimile of Obama Osama’s Hawaii birth certificate. Did you know that there are also .jpg facsimiles of his KENYAN birth certificates (there are two of those)?

    Go to http://www.obamanotqualified.com and you will see them.

    Now, my question is simple, because I’m a simple fellow. I am confronted with the REALITY that there are .jpg images of birth certificates from TWO different places. OBVIOUSLY, ONE of them is false — buth WHICH one?

    How am I expected to know, or tell? Like everybody else, I have never seen the originals. All I know is what I can see in the Internet.

    I WILL say THIS much: The .jpg facsimiles from Kenya APPEAR to be MORE genuine than the Hawaii .jpg, because the Hawaii .jpg doesn’t bear any sign of tell-tale creases, stamps, or embossments, but the Kenyan .jpg’s have ALL of those.

    Donald Trump appears to have picked up on this issue. Good for him. But his REASONS are WRONG.

    According to The Donald, he questions where Obama Osama was born, because where are any people from the United States who remember him from when he was a boy?

    But that is not really the issue, because even in the birther world, Obama Osama was born in Kenya, but brought into the United States within days of his birth. He resided in the United States until about age 7, then went to Indonesia for 4 years, then returned.

    I believe The Donald also questions the odd lack of documentation for Obama Osama’s early life, and here he’s on more solid ground.

    I continue to be dismayed that nobody who is serious and respected is willing to take this up. O’Reilly takes a pass on it; the estimable Ann Coulter takes a pass on it; many leading Republicans at CPAC took a pass on it; Human Events itself doesn’t take it seriously.

    It’s like the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. it’s like people are reasoning, it’s not true because it’s not true because it can’t be true.

    All Obama Osama need do to resolve this drama forever, instead of spending a lot of money fighting it, is to publicly waive his rights to privacy and ask the Hawaii Division of Vital Records to release his long-form birth cetificate.

    It is simple. And he doesn’t do it.

    Why?

  • jacket06

    Recently Obama stated in his speech at the Wind Mill Plant that there wasn’t much we (he) could do about the rising price of oil for a number of years, until we develop our alternative sources of energy. It has been estimated that it will take 40-50 years to sufficiently develop these alternatives, if at all, to replace oil. If this be the case, we are saddled with escalating priced crude oil into mid-century. There is an old bromide that states that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Well, it is obvious that this administration and Congress has neither studied history, nor learned anything from it! In the 70′s, we got in line at the gas pump at 5:00 AM – in the dark – in hopes that we could get enough gasoline to drive to work that day because of the Arab Oil Boycott. When Washington announced that the U.S.A. were going to expand our domestic drilling program, not only did the Arabs once again made crude oil readily available to us, it was available at much a much lower cost per barrel.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PYMI4LCBAM7PX5457244M3W6BQ Confused

    When the government can control the message and information, like it can via the MSM, the people can be more easily manipulated. The MSM has allowed this enemy of the state to exist. His lies are daily, the examination is zero.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JQOV2P2ITR56BT6GD666S6HSLQ Bruce

    As long as his mother’s an American citizen, I don’t understand why it matters, at least from a legal standpoint, where he was born. Yes, there’s the question of ethics, but he’s a Chicago politician. He’d probably be hard pressed to define ‘ethics’.

    I’d be far more interested in seeing his college transcripts & the articles he wrote for the Law Review, or whatever the group was he headed up.

  • ironman7

    we are all being duped,bigtime.hear me out..THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF OIL..THERE IS A MASSIVE,UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION OF FUEL BY OUR VEHICLES. WHAT,YOU SAY? Here is what you do not know but should and yet NOT ONE OF the foolish writerss tells us about it, due to their shameful ignorance. There have been multiple genious men who have invented fuel delivery systems that would enable cars and trucks to get mutiple times more mpg!Some as high as 60-80mpg! Big oil and car producers wave millions of $ in these mens faces and…yep,the guys take the bucks, the systems and their designs locked away in order to protect their bottom line!Ask the guys at ‘Popular Mechanics’ and other reputable sources. WE ARE BEING FLEECED AND DECEIVED BIGTIME BY NOTHING LESS THAN PURE WICKED GREED. Now you know, or at least have been alerted.

  • Altosackbuteer

    It DOES matter where Obama Osama was born, from a LEGAL viewpoint.

    I have looked up the state of Immigration Law as it existed when Obama Osama was born, and BELIEVE ME, I KNOW what I’m talking about.

    First of all, when a person has TWO citizen-parents, it doesn’t matter where on earth he was physically born. For example a child born to two citizen parents, one of whom is the Ambassador to Poland, is a native-born citizen even if he were born physically in Poland.

    But Obama Osama has ONE citizen-parent. He status is somewhat different.

    As the Law existed when Obama Osama was born, even with only one citizen-parent, he COULD be considered native-born IF his citizen parent — in this case, his mother — passed a couple of simple tests.

    1) She had to have resided within the USA for at least 10 years of her life. Obama Osama’s baby-momma QUALIFIES.

    2) But, 5 of those years had to be from the time of her 14th birthday to the day when she gave birth. Obama Osama’s baby-momma was 18 when she had him. Therefore, now she does NOT qualify — and neither does Obama Osama.

    Obama Osama STILL could be native-born, but ONLY IF he does it the old-fashioned, anchor-baby way. Obama Osama (unlike John McCani) must be physically born within the United States (and its territories).

    In summary: Because Obama Osama had only one citizen-parent, who was too young when she bore him to confer automatic native-birth citizenship on him, the ONLY way HE gets to be native-born is by being physically born within the USA.

    And THAT’S why it matters, from a legal perspective.

  • Altosackbuteer

    Are these the mythical engines that can burn water, but the wicked Big Oil companies suppress because water is cheap and free, and it would drive them out of business?

  • Altosackbuteer

    As promised, I got some FACTS from a REAL engineer — my twin brother. Here is what he said:

    “I’ve been hearing these fantasies all my life, too. And that’s what they are fantasies.

    “Don’t you think that if there really were engines that could deliver 100 mpg, then someone would have brought them to market and made billions off them? The problem with oil company conspiracy theories is that, it only takes ONE traitor to his class of people to betray the others, and whoops! the secret is out. Some traitor could get the blueprints, patent them, and then set himself up in business. To believe that oil companies have been burying this secret for 60 years is like saying that NASA faked the Moon landings (which is another crackpot theory believed in by many), or that Elvis is alive.

    “There ARE engines that could get over 100 mpg — if some material hurdles could ever be overcome. I mean ceramic engines. The big problem with auto engines is that, in order to prevent heat from warping the metal parts, they have to throw away nearly half of their energy, before that energy is put to use driving the engine. That’s what the “radiators” do — they throw away energy. THIS drives down the Carnot efficiency. If we could everdevelop ceramic engines, we wouldn’t have to throw away energy before it ever gets put to use, and we could get 100 mpg. Unfortunately, the materials for that have never been developed. Too many technical problems, such as how to prevent oxidation and therefore ruination of the ceramic parts.

    “If there really are such engines, then let their proponents study Mechanical Engineering, design the prototype, and then bring them to market themselves. Until then, don’t bother me.”

    And, “As for engines, I was just thinking more of this silly silly bleep of the 100-mpg carburetor. (Bleep) (bleep) (BLEEP). For efficient fuel burning, there are about a dozen parameters that define efficiency of any fuel burn. These include atmospheric pressure (which itself for cars can vary from 30″ Hg to 21″ Hg), air temperature (which dictates how well fuel atomizes), to humidity, to the power demand placed on the engine. There are about half a dozen others I can’t even think of offhand, but I know they’re there. A carburetor can be optimized to burn best at some average condition for about two of the dozen parameters, but loses efficiency when conditions diverge from the optimum. Auto engineers try to compensate for the inherent inefficiency of any carburetor, by resorting to computer-driven fuel injection, in which the computer is taking continuous readings of all the dozen parameters and is constantly adjusting fuel injection to optimize efficiency. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a carburetor-aspirated engine in automobiles any more, because they’re just too inefficient. NO carburetor can match the performance of computer-driven fuel injection. So when I hear someone talking about the 100-mpg carburetor, I know without looking any further that he’s just a silly dilettante who really ought to be looking for fairies to communicate with, or ghosts, because there is better evidence for believing in haunted houses, perpetual-motion machines, fairies, and leprechauns than there is for believing in the 100-mpg carburetor. Period.

    And, ” was thinking more of the morons and their 100-mpg carburetor. I first heard about it in 1968, when DICK MERKI told me of the theory. When I mentioned it to the Old Man (our dad), he replied he had heard the same thing in the 1940s. So much for these morons’ theories. You mean to tell me, it’s been 70 years now, and the oil companies have been able to stifle the secret that long? Bull (bleeping) (bleep).

    “A carburetor is nothiong more than a crude Venturi tube. It’s 19th-Century technology at its best — and I in no way denigrate the Victorians who invented it. It was ingenious for its day. A carburetor is optimized for STP — that is, Standard Temperature (68F or 20C) and Pressure (29.92″ Hg or how many millibars that comes to [ I think, 1014]). At higher or lower temperatures or higher altitudes, it works less well. And it is NOT optimized in any way to take into account humidity, headwinds, vehicle weight, or air density.

    “Air density is the most interesting. In my first car, the 1971 Vega, I would get around 30 mpg in the summertime, and about 23 in the middle of winter. I asked my thermodynamics teacher about this. Why?, I asked. Was it because fuel atomizes less well at low temperatures? After all, the Carnot cycle should work BETTER at low temperatures, because it’s a lower-temperature heat sink. Carnot efficiency should go UP in wintertime. So why did my mpg go DOWN?

    “The professor didn’t know. He agreed that Carnot efficiency would definitely go up, but he couldn’t tell me why mpg would go down.

    “It took me about 20 years to figure out the reason: the gas laws. You know, PV = nRT. A corollary says that P ~ density times temperature, where, of course, temperature is on an absolute scale.

    “Well. An Iowa summertime temperature is often 95F. And wintertime temperatures can easily drop to -10F. This is a drop of 105F. And, on the Rankine scale, absolute zero is -453F.

    “This means that air density can increase 20% between summer and winter. In winter, the car has to bash its way through a fluid that is 20% denser than in summer.

    “No wonder mpg goes down in winter, despite the advantages that I also certainly get from greater Carnot efficiency.

    “Diesel Trucks. I get about 6.2 mpg in my semi, usually. I have gotten as high as 10, however. I consistently get 10 when I’m bobtailing, between 8 and 10 in I have an empty trailer, about 6 when under a big load, and 4.5 if I’m fighting a cold headwind. Tailwinds definitely do help.

    “Now: what difference should it make whether I’m empty or loaded? As far as air resistance goes, it shouldn’t make any at all. But I do definitely get lower mpg if I’m hauling 45,000 lbs. The only thing I can figure out, is that at high weights, I’m causing the tires to flex more and heat up more. This has to be paid for in fuel. The surprise is that it takes that much to pay for the extra weight as it seems to.”

    So there you have it, Moron.

  • Altosackbuteer

    (PS: My twin used a number of barnyard expletives. I tried to filter them out before I Copied-&-Pasted my responses to you. One of them slipped through and you can find it. However, I have edited it out, so DON’T Flag me; it’s no longer present in the online version.)

  • Altosackbuteer

    My response to Ironman7 apples to you as well. Here it is:

    As promised, I got some FACTS from a REAL engineer — my twin brother. Here is what he said:

    “I’ve been hearing these fantasies all my life, too. And that’s what they are fantasies.

    “Don’t you think that if there really were engines that could deliver 100 mpg, then someone would have brought them to market and made billions off them? The problem with oil company conspiracy theories is that, it only takes ONE traitor to his class of people to betray the others, and whoops! the secret is out. Some traitor could get the blueprints, patent them, and then set himself up in business. To believe that oil companies have been burying this secret for 60 years is like saying that NASA faked the Moon landings (which is another crackpot theory believed in by many), or that Elvis is alive.

    “There ARE engines that could get over 100 mpg — if some material hurdles could ever be overcome. I mean ceramic engines. The big problem with auto engines is that, in order to prevent heat from warping the metal parts, they have to throw away nearly half of their energy, before that energy is put to use driving the engine. That’s what the “radiators” do — they throw away energy. THIS drives down the Carnot efficiency. If we could everdevelop ceramic engines, we wouldn’t have to throw away energy before it ever gets put to use, and we could get 100 mpg. Unfortunately, the materials for that have never been developed. Too many technical problems, such as how to prevent oxidation and therefore ruination of the ceramic parts.

    “If there really are such engines, then let their proponents study Mechanical Engineering, design the prototype, and then bring them to market themselves. Until then, don’t bother me.”

    And, “As for engines, I was just thinking more of this silly silly bleep of the 100-mpg carburetor. (Bleep) (bleep) (BLEEP). For efficient fuel burning, there are about a dozen parameters that define efficiency of any fuel burn. These include atmospheric pressure (which itself for cars can vary from 30″ Hg to 21″ Hg), air temperature (which dictates how well fuel atomizes), to humidity, to the power demand placed on the engine. There are about half a dozen others I can’t even think of offhand, but I know they’re there. A carburetor can be optimized to burn best at some average condition for about two of the dozen parameters, but loses efficiency when conditions diverge from the optimum. Auto engineers try to compensate for the inherent inefficiency of any carburetor, by resorting to computer-driven fuel injection, in which the computer is taking continuous readings of all the dozen parameters and is constantly adjusting fuel injection to optimize efficiency. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a carburetor-aspirated engine in automobiles any more, because they’re just too inefficient. NO carburetor can match the performance of computer-driven fuel injection. So when I hear someone talking about the 100-mpg carburetor, I know without looking any further that he’s just a silly dilettante who really ought to be looking for fairies to communicate with, or ghosts, because there is better evidence for believing in haunted houses, perpetual-motion machines, fairies, and leprechauns than there is for believing in the 100-mpg carburetor. Period.

    And, ” was thinking more of the morons and their 100-mpg carburetor. I first heard about it in 1968, when DICK MERKI told me of the theory. When I mentioned it to the Old Man (our dad), he replied he had heard the same thing in the 1940s. So much for these morons’ theories. You mean to tell me, it’s been 70 years now, and the oil companies have been able to stifle the secret that long? Bull (bleeping) (bleep).

    “A carburetor is nothiong more than a crude Venturi tube. It’s 19th-Century technology at its best — and I in no way denigrate the Victorians who invented it. It was ingenious for its day. A carburetor is optimized for STP — that is, Standard Temperature (68F or 20C) and Pressure (29.92″ Hg or how many millibars that comes to [ I think, 1014]). At higher or lower temperatures or higher altitudes, it works less well. And it is NOT optimized in any way to take into account humidity, headwinds, vehicle weight, or air density.

    “Air density is the most interesting. In my first car, the 1971 Vega, I would get around 30 mpg in the summertime, and about 23 in the middle of winter. I asked my thermodynamics teacher about this. Why?, I asked. Was it because fuel atomizes less well at low temperatures? After all, the Carnot cycle should work BETTER at low temperatures, because it’s a lower-temperature heat sink. Carnot efficiency should go UP in wintertime. So why did my mpg go DOWN?

    “The professor didn’t know. He agreed that Carnot efficiency would definitely go up, but he couldn’t tell me why mpg would go down.

    “It took me about 20 years to figure out the reason: the gas laws. You know, PV = nRT. A corollary says that P ~ density times temperature, where, of course, temperature is on an absolute scale.

    “Well. An Iowa summertime temperature is often 95F. And wintertime temperatures can easily drop to -10F. This is a drop of 105F. And, on the Rankine scale, absolute zero is -453F.

    “This means that air density can increase 20% between summer and winter. In winter, the car has to bash its way through a fluid that is 20% denser than in summer.

    “No wonder mpg goes down in winter, despite the advantages that I also certainly get from greater Carnot efficiency.

    “Diesel Trucks. I get about 6.2 mpg in my semi, usually. I have gotten as high as 10, however. I consistently get 10 when I’m bobtailing, between 8 and 10 in I have an empty trailer, about 6 when under a big load, and 4.5 if I’m fighting a cold headwind. Tailwinds definitely do help.

    “Now: what difference should it make whether I’m empty or loaded? As far as air resistance goes, it shouldn’t make any at all. But I do definitely get lower mpg if I’m hauling 45,000 lbs. The only thing I can figure out, is that at high weights, I’m causing the tires to flex more and heat up more. This has to be paid for in fuel. The surprise is that it takes that much to pay for the extra weight as it seems to.”

    So there you have it, Moron.

  • Altosackbuteer

    I wanted to respond to K Reed’s rebuttal of OBama Osama’s birthplace posting to me, but Disqus timed-out a direct response, and K Reed’s posting is the first he’she ever did, so I have to do it this way.

    K Reed wrote as follows, above:

    “April 14, 2011

    Once again, while Altosackbuteer is correct about the law of derivative U.S. citizenship at the time of President Obama’s birth (Not “Osama”, his name Is Barack Hussein Obama, thank you!), that law is irrelevant! The president was born in the United States of America, the state of Hawaii. Hawaii was a full-blown state of the union, not even a mere outlying possession or territory, at the time! Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution principle of Jus Sanguinis, guarantees U.S. citizenship at birth to our President!! Do you get it now, Altosucker?! Let’s stick to facts, and avoid these pejorative terms such as “anchor baby”,which you obviously use to evoke your own prejudice from others. The only possible basis upon which you can stand is quite shaky! It requires us all to believe in the fantastical notion that the our president’s late mother somehow gave birth to him in Kenya, then smuggled him into Hawaii, coordinated a conspiracy with Hawaiian hospital officials and newspapers to issue false birth registrations and announcements, and then even enlist the corroboration of the state’s future governor to falsely attest to the president’s native birth, all so that he could be the Manchurian candidate for leadership of this nation over four decades later. What could possibly be the motive?! Such nonsense could not possibly convince any rational person!! Get out of Fukushima, Mr. altosackbuteer, for the sake of your own sanity. ”

    ***

    I respond:

    1) K Reed says the law I correctly cited, about derivative US citizenship, as it was when Obama Osama was born, is “irrelevant.”

    Since when is law “irrelevant”?

    2) K Reed states as a fact, that Obama Osama was born on Hawaii. But of would personal knowledge does K Reed state this? Did K reed witness the blessed event personally? Or, does K Reed really know nothing more than any of the rest of us?

    3) I don’t care whether Hawaii were a territory or a full-blown state when Obama Osama was born. Being born in a territory CAN confer native-birth status, which is why Martin van Buren was eligible to be President, and why Gramps McCain was too. Raising this issue is what is therefore irrelevant.

    4) I fully agree — IF Obama Osama were born on Hawaii, he IS eligible to be President. In fact, in HIS case, it is THE ONLY WAY he is eligible, because his baby-momma did NOT confer automatic citizenship on him when he was born, because she was legally too young to do so.

    5) For this reason, Obama Osama IS eligible ONLY via the anchor-baby route — HE HAD to have been born within the territory of the United States, unlike any citizen who was born with TWo citizen-parents.

    6) I don’t believe for a moment that any of Obama Osama’s relatives had any notion he could one day become President. I do not believe at all that they concocted this scheme because they knew that in the distant future, it would enable the baby to become president — hell, if they really WERE thinking that far ahead; don’tcha think they have made sure he WAS born on Hawaii?

    I believe they concocted the scheme for a much simpler reason. They simply wanted the baby to go through life with a presumption of automatic US citizenship, and not have to be bothered with the hassle of going through any kind of naturalization.

    7) Hawaii’s future governor (now its present governor) recently did indeed claim that he knew the blessed family personally, knew Obama Osama himself personally, and can attest of personal knowledge thaty Obama Osama was born on Hawaii.

    This is an EXTRAORDINARY claim, in that the blessed family itself only stayed on Hawaii for a couple of weeks after the blessed event. Both departed before the end of the month to the mainland, when Obama Osama attended Harvard, and Obama Osama’s baby-momma matriculated at Washington State U.

    For THIS reason, the Governor’s claim has very little weight or credibility.

    8) I did not invent the name “Obama Osama.” Credit for that belongs to the late Sen. Teddy Bare Kennedy, who mangled Obama’s real name in that fashion the first time he ever tried to use it on the Senate floor.

  • Altosackbuteer

    The proper spelling, which is not Flaggable, is “teat.”