Most Accurate 2011 Market Predictor Says 2012 Will Be A BAD Year

Why should you listen to Adam Parker prognosticating on the market? Because as Business Insider points out:

Morgan Stanley’s Adam Parker was crowned the most accurate forecaster on Wall Street when the S&P 500 closed 2011 within a handful of points of his year-end target of 1,238.

His 2012 year-end target calls for stocks to fall to 1,167. He sees a global economic slowdown hitting corporate profits hard.

And:

Parker called for the S&P 500 to close 2011 at 1,238, making him one of the most accurate, albeit bearish, strategists on the street. Will he be right this time?

Ah, whaddoes he know???

1,167, for the record, represents about a 20% drop from current market value.

Parker expresses some of his views on the coming months and why investors should bail here.  But it’s too bad I couldn’t post video of Adam Parker’s April 2nd visit with Larry Kudrow on his CNBC financial program; because neither man was happy with Obama’s incredibly failed policies.

Kudrow wrote an article on Obama’s failed oil policies that came out the same day, April 2.  Rising oil prices were one of the reasons for Parker’s dour assessment for a tanking economy.

Adam Parker is joined by Congressional Budget Office (CBO) head Douglas Elmendorf, who predicts unemployment will rise to 8.9% by the end of the year and will rise to 9.2% by 2013.

It’s hard to understand how on earth Obama can possibly get re-elected if these men are correct:  Obama will say, “blame Bush, blame Bush, blame Bush and, finally, blame Bush some more,” and people will be thinking, “Wait a minute, dude; YOU’VE been the president for the last four years, haven’t you?”

P.S. Enjoy your next fill-up, and please think of Obama as you watch the dollar amount indicator on the pump skyrocketing upward.  As of April 2, the national average price for regular gasoline was $3.94 – versus $1.79 when the man who appointed an energy secretary who wanted to make American gasoline prices rise to the levels of Europe took office.

Obama’s Policies Are Making Oil And Gas More Expensive And Increasing Foreign Dependence – And You’re Paying For His Stupidity

I’ve posted this video a number of times to document what Democrats really want: socialism and the government takeover of free enterprise and personal freedom.

But the words of the oil industry executive that led to Maxine Waters’ outburst are now equally interesting.

Listen to what he predicts:

Here is the exchange in transcript form:

Oil Executive: I can guarantee to the American people because of the inaction of the United States Congress ever-increasing prices unless the demand comes down – and the $5 will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies.

Maxine Waters: And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing … uh, um, [pause] … will be about [another long pause in which she tries not to document that Democrats are communists] … basically taking over and the government running all of your companies.

The executive explains simple reality: “If you don’t allow us to find and extract new oil resources the price is going to go up and up and up you lunatic idiot.”

And the lunatic idiot issues a threat that Democrat Marxist communist dictator thugs don’t need no stinking reality. They can “socialize” the oil companies by exercise of naked government dictatorship and that will somehow magically make all our problems go away.

On July 14, 2008 – as I’ve amply documented – George Bush ended the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. And on that news gasoline prices IMMEDIATELY DROPPED by nearly $10 a barrel:

Larry Kudlow: In a dramatic move yesterday President Bush removed the executive-branch moratorium on offshore drilling. Today, at a news conference, Bush repeated his new position, and slammed the Democratic Congress for not removing the congressional moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf and elsewhere. Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking, bringing the barrel price down to $136.

In the few days that followed, the precipitous upward climb in the price of oil went down, down, DOWN:

Update: July 18, 2008 Crude Oil has dropped to $128.88 a Barrel

Update: July 17, 2008 Crude Oil has dropped to $130.73 a Barrel

Update July 15, 2008 Crude Oil has dropped to $138.74 a Barrel Biggest drop in 17 years

We had the price of oil dropping by ten bucks a day every day after Bush ended the moratorium.

You can look at the link that has the NYSE prices to follow that very obvious trend.

Liberals try to insinuate that the gas prices going down AS BUSH WAS SPEAKING WHEN THEY HAD BEEN GOING UP EVERY SINGLE DAY PRIOR TO BUSH’S SPEAKING was merely the result of the economy stagnating.  But that is a lie: our economy didn’t blow up until September of 2008.  By the time Lehman Brothers collapse officially triggered the financial collapse on September 14, oil prices were already at $100 a barrel.

It was the hint provided by George W. Bush that ended the speculatory bubble of oil.

We now even have a brand new example that increasing the oil supply will have the effect of immediately lower prices:

After rumors send oil prices falling, Welch renews call on President to tap nation’s oil reserves

BURLINGTON, VT – A day after rumors that the U.S. would tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) spooked Wall Street speculators and sent oil prices falling, Rep. Peter Welch is pointing to that episode as exhibit A of the effect such a move would have on gas prices and is renewing his call on President Obama to take action

Notice that Democrats are demanding that Obama open the strategic reserves, which amounts to a very temporary increase of oil on the market.  Democrats are demanding that Saudi Arabia drill more.  They are demanding that oil supplies be increased to bring down prices even as they deny that the US – which is idly sitting on reserves of 1.6 trillion barrels  of oil – would have any impact on prices.

Democrats want America to be more reliant and more dependent on Arab oil.  They absolutely refuse to allow America to become energy-independent.  That’s the bottom freaking line.

Our strategic petroleum reserve was intended to be stockpiled for time of national emergency or war.  Obama wants to use it as a political slush fund to benefit his presidential campaign.  The fact is, the US government bought that oil at a lower price and will replace that oil at a shockingly higher price.  And since we very obviously can’t keep doing that, it won’t have a measurable effect on gas prices because it clearly isn’t a long-term supply increase.

And all of the above is why during the last three years, gas prices have gone from well under $2 a gallon ($1.84 a gallon on January 20, 2009) to nearly $5 a gallon on Obama’s watch.  Bush gave us low gas prices; Obama took them away.

Obama picked an energy secretary who had said:

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

 Obama said he WANTED oil prices to go up – as long as the increase was gradual so the people wouldn’t get pissed off and hold him personally responsible.

Under Obama’s policies, he has done everything he could to choke off oil production on federal lands:

“Since taking office, [Obama] has declared 85% of our offshore areas off limits, decreased oil and gas leases in the Rockies by 70%, rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, and has 10 federal agencies planning more regulation of hydraulic fracturing…. The president’s ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ approach to energy security is hurting consumers.”

More on that:

[A] study, prepared by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), examined oil production on federal and non-federal land between 2007-2011. Approximately 96 percent of the total increase in domestic oil production occurred on non-federal land, CRS found.

Earlier this month, the Energy Information Administration reported that oil and natural gas production on federal land declined 40 percent over the past decade and 14 percent in 2011 alone.

And so you actually wonder why gas prices have “necessarily skyrocketed” under Obama’s watch???

Just today Obama announced that he was going to end the oil and gas tax breaks – which will amount to a $4 billion increase in gasoline prices as the oil companies get the money Obama is taking from them back.

This is nothing more than a continuation of Maxine Waters’ communist war on the means of production of the American economy.

I’ve written about the so-called “tax breaks” for oil companies.  Note that what little “tax breaks” there were came on the back of tax increases – and the tax increases outweighed the tax breaks.  The bottom line is that if Obama gives the oil industry a middle finger, the oil industry will give the American people who put this fool into office a middle finger.

What Obama is doing would make oil and gas more expensive for US consumers:

a March 2011 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service suggesting that the president’s proposals could actually result in higher gas prices and a greater reliance on imports.

The proposed repeal “would increase tax collections from the oil and natural gas industries and may have the effect of decreasing exploration, development and production, while increasing prices and increasing the nation’s foreign oil dependence. These same proposals, from an alternate point of view, might be considered to be the elimination of tax preferences that have favored the oil and natural gas industries over other energy sources and made oil and gas products artificially inexpensive, with consumer costs held below the true cost of consumption, when the external costs associated with environmental costs and energy dependence, among other effects, are included,” the CRS said.

“The Administration estimates that the tax changes outlined in the budget proposal would provide $22.8 billion in revenues over the period 2012 to 2016, and over $43.6 billion from 2012 to 2021. These changes, if enacted by Congress, also would reduce the tax advantage enjoyed by independent oil and natural gas companies over the major oil companies. On what would likely be a small scale, the proposals also would make oil and natural gas more expensive for U.S. consumers and likely increase foreign dependence,” according to the report

It is ZERO coincidence that on the VERY DAY that Obama announces he’s going to slap down American oil some more, ExxonMobile just got replaced by Petrochina as the number one oil company in the world.  We’re now number two and sinking fast, baby. 

There was a funny line I remember from Big Bang Theory to put this into perspective:

Leonard: Well let me see if I can explain your situation using physics. What would you be if you were attached to another object by an incline plane, wrapped helicly around an axis?
 
Sheldon: Screwed.
 
Leonard: There you go.

We’re screwed as long as Obama is allowed to continue ruining America.

Don’t vote to get screwed.  Reject this fool president and his fool party and fool ideology before they finish imploding America (see here for another example).

Obama Energy Secretary Says ‘I would give myself an A’ For Helping Make Gasoline The Most Expensive EVER

Let’s see:

Obama’s energy policies gave us the highest gas prices for one year EVER in 2011.

Obama’s energy policies have given us the worst January gas prices in American history.

Obama’s energy policies have given us the worst February gas prices in American history.

Obama’s energy policies have now given us given us the worst March gas prices in American history.

And it aint going to be getting any better as we live Obama’s “hope and change” moving forward.

Even the New York Times has acknowledged the grim very possible reality of gasoline averaging $5 a gallon nationwide this year:

HOUSTON — Gasoline for $5 a gallon? The possibility is hardly far-fetched.

For the record, it isn’t very far from that right now where I live in California.  I gassed up yesterday for $4.70 a gallon.

Oh, and conservatives – and frankly Obama and his handpicked energy secretary himself – actually told us that this would happen:

But suddenly the same mainstream media and the same Democrat Party that demonized George W. Bush every single day that gasoline prices were high say none of this catastrophically high gas price business can possibly be messiah Obama’s fault. Even though I pointed out that this was all simply the stated fruition of Obama all along:

You remember that quip Obama gave us that under his policies, energy prices “would necessarily skyrocket“?

Remember that Obama appointed an energy secretary named Steven Chu who said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”??? With gasoline prices in Europe consistently hovering between $7 and $10 a gallon??? Steven Chu said that in explaining the Obama policy of “progressively” making gasoline more and more expensive in order to force Americans to turn to alternative energy sources. And one of the ways Obama wants to accomplish that dream (which amounts to a nightmare for working Americans) is to tax Americans for driving by the mile.

As you contemplate $4 and even $5 a gallon gasoline prices, let me just say one word: KEYSTONE.

Now consider what Steven Chu – Obama’s hand-picked energy secretary – is saying right now:

Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a House panel Tuesday that he’d give himself top marks when asked to grade his policies’ effects on energy prices. Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House committee on Oversight and Government Reform, asked President Obama’s top energy official if he’d grade himself with an “A minus” on “controlling the cost of gasoline at the pump.”

Chu responded by saying he’d give himself a better grade than that.

“The tools we have at our disposal are limited, but I would I say I would give myself a little higher in that since I became Secretary of Energy, I’ve been doing everything I can to get long-term solutions,” Chu said.

Chu would give himself the top grade on gas prices despite that fact that the average price for a gallon of gas just hit $3.87 – the highest ever recorded in the month of March, according to ABC News.

I actually agree with Chu.  He SHOULD get an A – for making gasoline the most expensive over the longest period of time we’ve ever seen.  Which is exactly what he set out to do.

Obama said he wanted gasoline prices to rise – just not so quickly that the frog-in-the-pot-of-water-on-the-stove would notice and hold him responsible:

It was a question from John Harwood at CNBC: “So could the high oil price help us?” and Obama said, “Well, I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment, a gradual increase.”

Obama’s full statement:

OBAMA: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that, ehh, this is such a shock t’American pocketbooks is not a good thing. Uh, but if we take some steps right now t’, uh, help people make the adjustment — first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers.

And yes, Youtube - owned by überliberal Google – has managed to scrub that teeny-weeny little Obama statement of his energy policy.  Because apparently Obama used his same Führer-messiah power to get the media to refuse to cover the news if it makes him look bad that has been very recently demonstrated elsewhere.

Just try to imagine what would have ensued if Bush had asked the mainstream media to literally scrub an already published story from their little Ministry of Truth complex.  The Marxists who write our news would have a) broadcast Bush’s request and framed it in terms of a Big Brother fascist narrative; and b) blared the news Bush had asked them to scrub all over the airwaves just out of pure spite. 

Now, go back to what Obama said and then allow me to explain what Obama SHOULD have said and why his answer is not only deplorable, but depraved.  Obama should have said:

“Could higher gas prices help us?  Absolutely NOT!  High gas prices hurt the American people, it hurts the American economy and it undermines the American way of life.  High gas prices are the worst form of regressive tax – by which I mean it would be a tax that afflicts poor people and particularly poor working Americans – far more than it would harm wealthier people who afford expensive gasoline.  And I will do absolutely everything in my power as president to ensure that the American people are able to purchase gasoline at prices that will enable them to get to work and live their lives.”

Do you see the difference in those two statements?

And which statement do YOU prefer as you consider voting for president this November?  Obama’s or the conservative’s?

When Obama was running for president he openly mocked Bush’s energy plan, saying “ it would not produce a drop of oil for seven years.”  And Obama was right in the limited sense that it takes time for an energy policy to bear fruit tomorrow.  And Obama’s implicit energy goal was that if he was elected president he wanted future Americans to suffer because of his refusal to pursue energy.  And – as Obama’s reverend once said – that future is beginning to “come home to roost.”

Obama has put 85% of the outer continental shelf off limits to drilling and is making only 3% available for petroleum exploration and development.  Drilling in regions like the Colorado Rockies is down fully 70% due to Obama’s policies relative to George Bush’s policies.

Why does Obama and his energy secretary Steven Chu want oil prices to be the same (about $10 a gallon now) as Europe?  It’s very simple: they have a Marxist red version of a radical environmentalist green vision of energy: they want to force the American people to “choose” the energy they WANT them to choose.  And if they can’t simply mandate that “choice” like the fascists they are – which would amount to political suicide – their only option is to price gasoline out of the ballpark and force Americans to buy the little green clown cars and the electric golf cart cars that they want.

People like Barack Obama and Steven Chu sit in their limousines and see an average American driving down the road in a halfway cool car and say, “That’s unacceptable.  There should be a much bigger difference between the elites who run the world and the proletariat masses.”

Let’s sum it up in a picture.  This is a Soviet Union proletariat car:

It’s the same damn kind of clown car with the same damn kind of radical environmentalist green clown car marketing that Obama and Chu want us in today.  It’s a little tiny gutless piece of crap.  And you ought to be driving one instead of something better, because frankly you’re a faceless nobody AND YOU SUCK.  That’s the statist view of “an automobile for the people.”

So please reflect on the man that Barack Obama appointed to “get an A” with his current energy prices.  Consider that Obama knew Chu had said:

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Consider that the very same Obama who is now our president said that he was going to make energy prices “necessarily skyrocket.”

And decide what kind of future that you want.

Six In Ten Americans Think Obama’s Policies Are Driving Gas Prices Higher; Half Say Unemployment Is Going To Go Up

It’s long past time that Americans started blaming the Blamer-in-Chief:

Poll: 58% say Obama’s policies driving gas costs higher, 48% expect unemployment to rise
posted at 11:35 am on March 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

While the national media focuses on polls from Reuters and Pew that use skewed samples to show Barack Obama’s approval rating going back up, The Hill takes a look at what might come in the future — and it’s not pretty for the President. In a survey of 1,000 likely voters in the 2012 general election, almost half expect the Supreme Court to overturn ObamaCare, with only 29% confident of its constitutional legitimacy. And that’s not the worst of the poll, either:

Half of likely voters expect the Supreme Court to strike down President Obama’s signature healthcare law, and strong majorities see other major policies coming from the White House making life more difficult for themselves and the country, according to this week’s The Hill Poll.

The poll indicated that 49 percent of likely voters said they expect a court ruling that is unfavorable to the Affordable Care Act, while just 29 percent think it will be upheld and 22 percent aren’t sure.

On economic issues, 62 percent of voters say Obama’s policies will increase the debt, while 25 percent think they will cut it, and by a 48-percent-to-38-percent margin, voters believe those policies will increase joblessness rather than put people back to work.

On energy, 58 percent say Obama’s policies will result in gasoline prices increasing, while just 20 percent expect them to cut prices — and by a 46-percent-to-36-percent margin, voters believe they will cause the United States to become even more dependent on foreign oil.

The sample in this case is a little skewed, but in an unusual direction. The D/R/I is 32/36/32 for an R+4 advantage, one of the rare occasions when a pollster favors Republicans. The four-point advantage for the GOP has low odds of becoming reality in the fall, though; the midterm elections, without a Democrat defending the White House, had a 35/35/30 split in CNN exit polling. Republicans will do well if they get to that kind of parity in November with Obama at the top of the ticket.

Even adjusting for the R+4, these numbers look very bad for the President, especially on gas prices. Overall, blame for increases in gas prices falls on Obama by 38 points, which means he’s especially vulnerable if prices shoot up this summer as they did in 2008 and 2010. Younger voters put even more blame on Obama, 70/8, as do lower-income earners ($40-60K is the worst for Obama, 75/13 but the under-$20K is almost as bad at 62/15), perhaps because they feel the loss of disposable income and capacity for independent travel even more. Independents blame Obama 61/13, while only a plurality of Democrats think Obama has made gas prices lower, 31/42.

Rasmussen also polled likely voters on ObamaCare, and finds that support for repealing it has remained remarkably consistent:

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the constitutionality of the national health care law next week, and the number of voters who Strongly Support the law’s repeal is now at an eight-month high.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows that 56% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-nine percent (39%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording,click here.)

Overall support for repeal is up three points from two weeks ago and is at its highest level since last September. The number that Strongly Favors repealing the law is at its highest point since July of last year. Since the law’s passage, most voters have favored repeal in nearly every survey, with support running as high as 62%. Opposition to repeal has ranged from 32% to 44%.

Strong support for repeal hit an eight-month high, but the range on overall demand for repeal in those eight months has been very steady indeed. Today’s number is 56%; the lowest it has gone in those eight months is 51%, and the high was 57%. Opposition to repeal has never gone above 42% in the past two years. At the moment, independents back repeal 57/39, with almost half (48%) strongly supporting its repeal. Even among Obama’s natural constituencies, support for repeal is strong or at a dead heat with support for ObamaCare: women (51/42), 18-29YOs (47/45 split), black voters (48/49 split), under-$20K income (50/35), $20-40K (53/39), and so on.

Given that the only real accomplishments of the Obama term has been ObamaCare, the failed stimulus bill, and Dodd-Frank, the fundamentals of this election look very bad for Obama — and will get worse if the Supreme Court throws out ObamaCare and gas prices continue to rise.

Update: I almost missed this from the Washington Post, which looks even worse:

Most Americans want the Supreme Court to invalidate at least part of the landmark health-care law that was passed in 2010, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. …

More than four in 10 — 42 percent — want the high court to throw out the entire law, 25 percent want to do away with the mandate alone and a similar proportion wants the justices to uphold the entire law.

Overall, among general population adults, 67% want the Supreme Court to partially or completely overturn Obama’s signature accomplishment. That number rises to 70% among independents, and it’s 48% among Democrats.

Hope ObamaCare goes down in flames and then Obama goes down in flames right along with it.

Tax Breaks For Oil Companies? Barack Obama Continues To Be A Liar And A Demagogue On Energy

Let’s provide the facts first before we hear what the Liar-in-Chief has to say:

Are oil companies benefitting from tax breaks???

The record says otherwise:

FACTCHECK.ORG
Oil and Gas Company Tax Breaks
Posted on February 28, 2008

Q: What kind of tax breaks does the U.S. give to oil companies and to corporations that send jobs overseas?

A: Companies with overseas subsidiaries can keep their income untaxed by the IRS if they don’t transfer that revenue back to the U.S. Oil and gas companies received tax breaks and subsidies from a 2005 energy bill, but the bill led to a net tax increase for them.

FULL QUESTION:

When Democratic presidential candidates talk about tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas and tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies, what are they referring to and are they accurate?

FULL ANSWER:

It’s true that Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have associated the transfer of U.S. jobs overseas with tax breaks, or loopholes, for companies that practice off-shoring:

Obama, Nov. 3, 2007: When I am president, I will end the tax giveaways to companies that ship our jobs overseas, and I will put the money in the pockets of working Americans, and seniors, and homeowners who deserve a break.

Clinton, Nov. 19, 2007: And we are going to finally close the tax loopholes and stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. Enough with outsourcing American jobs using taxpayer dollars.

Both candidates are referring to a feature of the U.S. tax code that allows domestic companies to defer taxes on “unrepatriated income.” In other words, revenue that companies earn through their overseas subsidiaries goes untaxed by the IRS as long as it stays off the company’s U.S. books.

But economists, including left-leaning ones, do not agree that eliminating this provision will bring an end to off-shoring. And here’s why: In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that’s not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring.

We first addressed this popular theme in 2004, when we reported on a John Kerry campaign ad in which he blamed President George W. Bush for providing tax incentives to companies “outsourcing” jobs overseas. At the time we found that such tax breaks, which do exist, pre-dated the Bush administration and that even Democratic-leaning economists did not support the idea that changing the corporate tax code would end the movement of jobs overseas.

Three years later, in Dec. 2007, we reported on an ad launched by a labor group in support of John Edwards. The ad implied that corporate tax breaks were responsible for the shipment of jobs overseas from an Iowa Maytag plant. We found that the jobs were actually sent to Ohio and that, again, eliminating such tax breaks would not go far in stanching the flow of jobs overseas.

Oil Company Tax Breaks?

Both leading Democratic candidates have referred to tax breaks to oil companies:

Clinton, July 23, 2007: First of all, I have proposed a strategic energy fund that I would fund by taking away the tax break for the oil companies, which have gotten much greater under Bush and Cheney.

Obama, June 22, 2007: In the face of furious lobbying, Congress brushed aside incentives for the production of more renewable fuels in favor of more tax breaks for the oil and gas companies.

Both candidates are referring to H.R. 6, the 2005 energy bill that contained $14.3 billion in subsidies for energy companies. However, as we’ve reported numerous times, a vast majority of those subsidies (all but $2.8 billion) were for nuclear power, energy-efficient cars and buildings, and renewable fuels research. In addition, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the tax changes in the 2005 energy bill produced a net tax increase for the oil and gas companies, as we’ve reported time and time and time again. They did get some breaks, but they had more taken away.

-Emi Kolawole

Sources

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A Change We Can Believe In. 3 Nov. 2007. Obama for America. 26 Feb. 2008.

ECONOMY: Policy Address on America’s Economic Challenges. 19 Nov. 2007. Hillary Clinton for President. 26 Feb. 2008.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Taking Our Government Back. 22 Jun. 2007. Obama for America. 26 Feb. 2008.

Democratic Presidential Debate. 23 Jul. 2007. CNN Transcripts.

Congressional Research Service. “Oil and Gas Tax Subsidies: Current Status and Analysis.” Washington: GPO, 2007.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. “Offshoring of Services: An Overview of the Issues,” Nov. 2005.

Which is to say that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were dishonest pandering liars in 2008 and both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue to remain pandering liars to this day.

Note that to whatever extent oil companies get “tax breaks,” they got them in conjunction with a tax policy that takes more away than it gives them.  Some “break.”  And I would personally enjoy it very much if every Democrat got the same kind of “break” the oil companies got where we give them a free monocle just before we gouge one of their eyes out.  Oh, and then afterward I could demand that we take the monocle back.

Here’s an ad from Barack Obama in which Obama personally demonizes George Bush for $3.50 gasoline (note: it’s going on $4 a gallon under Obama now):

Now let’s hear what our lying demagogue slandering weasel in chief has to say now:

Obama : End tax breaks for oil companies
By Dave Boyer – The Washington Times
Saturday, March 17,

President Obama said Saturday he can’t do much to lower gas prices, and renewed his call for Congress to end tax breaks for oil companies.

“The truth is, the price of gas depends on a lot of factors that are often beyond our control,” Mr. Obama said in his weekly address. “Unrest in the Middle East can tighten global oil supply. Growing nations like China or India adding cars to the road increases demand.”

The president didn’t mention one of the few direct actions he could take to try to lower gas prices in the short term — releasing oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Mr. Obama called for that solution as a candidate in 2008 when gasoline prices neared $4 per gallon, and he reportedly discussed the option earlier this week with British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Instead, Mr. Obama said his administration is cracking down on oil profits — on traders who “distort the price of oil, and make big profits for themselves at your expense.” And he called on Congress again to eliminate $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil companies.

“Your member of Congress should be fighting for you,” Mr. Obama said. “Not for big financial firms. Not for big oil companies.”

A report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service last year found that eliminating the subsidies would likely result in higher gas prices in the short term.

The address was the president’s second speech on gas prices and energy in three days. Public opinion polls are showing that the president’s job-approval rating, on the rise earlier in this election year, has dipped again as gas prices have risen. Retail prices on Friday rose a penny to a national average of $3.83 per gallon.

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has pledged to enact policies that he said should lower gasoline prices to $2.50, a notion that Mr. Obama scoffs at.

“It’s easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices,” the president said in his address. “There just isn’t one. Anyone who tells you otherwise — any career politician who promises some three-point plan for two-dollar gas — they’re not looking for a solution. They’re just looking for your vote.”

In 2008, Mr. Obama stood in front of a gas station near Indianapolis and pledged to “take steps to reduce the price of oil.” He focused on long-term actions such as increasing fuel efficiency standards and promoting clean energy, which he has done as president.

“I will work to solve this energy crisis once and for all,” he said at the time.

And let me repeat: Barack Obama is a lying weasel.

Do you notice that the same dishonest liar who said, “I will work to solve this energy crisis once and for all” – and the same dishonest lying demagogue who attacked George Bush for gas prices when they were less than what they are now under Obama’s regime – is now saying, “It’s easy to promise a quick fix when it comes to gas prices.”  He should know – given all the damn quick fixes this lying hypocrite promised when he was lying and demagoguing his way into the White House.

Here’s more of Obama being Obama (read: here’s more of a dishonest lying demagogue being a dishonest lying demagogue).

For those of you who are more intelligent than a rodent (i.e. for those of you who don’t vote Democrat), let me ask you a question: if Obama increases taxes on oil companies, just why in the hell do you not think that the oil companies won’t pass those taxes right on to your dumb ass in the form of higher gasoline prices???  Which is another way of pointing out that not only does Obama want you to pay more for your gasoline, but he thinks you’re a complete idiot, too.

It’s past time for you to swing by the neck from your own damn noose, Obama you little weasel.

Make Him Wear His Own Words: Video Of Barack Obama Demonizing George Bush Over $3.50 Gas

I’ve written a few articles on gas prices (here’s one example).  And in every one, liberals have swarmed like cockroaches and said, “How DARE you hold the president responsible for the price of gas?”

I dare because Barack Obama dared before me.  And, yeah, I’m a guy who says, “Do unto Obama as liberals did unto Bush.”

Obama in his own demagogue words:

“Since the gas lines of the 70′s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing has changed except Exxon is making $40 billion dollars a year and we’re paying three fifty for gas. I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyist and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits; will invest in alternative energy; will create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it is time Washington worked for you not them.” – Sen. Barack Obama 2008

If you’ve got any decency in you (yes, I know that qualifier excuses you, Democrats), you will hold this lying demagogue responsible for his own lying demagoguery and vote this turd out of office this November 6.

Barack Obama has given $100 billion to his crony capitalist fascist buddies in the green energy boondoggle industry.  And a whopping load of it has been pissed away to corrupt companies like Solyndra who gave a little to Obama and got a LOT back.

‘Obama’s Approval Rating Has Hit The Lowest Level EVER In CBS News Polling’ – That’s A Quote From CBS

America won’t actually be safe until Obama sees a giant crowd of millions of Americans banging on the gates of the White House and he decides he’d better flee the country like many of the banana republic-style dictators have done before him.

March 12, 2012 6:30 PM
Poll: Obama’s approval rating sinks to new low
By Stephanie Condon

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.

(CBS News) President Obama’s approval rating has hit the lowest level ever in CBS News polling, according to the latest CBS News/New York Times survey. The drop may be partially attributable to rising gas prices.

Just 41 percent of Americans approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing as president, according to the poll, conducted from March 7 to 11. Another 47 percent disapprove of his performance, up from 41 percent last month.

Mr. Obama’s approval rating was 50 percent last month.

The average U.S. price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 12 cents over the past two weeks. The poll found that most Americans, 54 percent, believe gas prices are something a president can do a lot about.

Americans have historically felt that a president can control gas prices, though experts attribute changes to a variety of factors, many outside of a president’s control. They also felt this way when gas prices spiked during the administration of former President George W. Bush.

(Credit: CBS)

When asked Tuesday by CBS Pittsburgh affiliate KDKA whether he can impact gas prices, Mr. Obama said, “Understandably people are frustrated when gas prices are going up, and there are things we can do, but they’re not going to result, provide results overnight.”

The president noted that the U.S. has reduced its dependence on foreign oil under his administration and that fuel efficiency standards for cars are being raised. The administration is exploring other ways to reduce prices, but Mr. Obama said the biggest contributor to the current high prices is rumors of war in the Middle East.

“Which is part of the reason I said a couple weeks ago let’s stop with the loose talk about war,” he said. “Because a lot of what’s driving this is people’s concern and fear that there might be major disruptions in the Middle East oil markets.”

Attacks from the Republicans running to replace Mr. Obama may be having an impact on his approval rating as well. His disapproval rating has risen to 89 percent among Republicans (from 82 percent last month), and more independents now disapprove of his job performance than approve. Though Mr. Obama’s approval rating among Democrats remains high, it has dropped seven points – from 85 percent last month to 78 percent today.

Of the four remaining GOP candidates, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has hit Mr. Obama particularly hard on high gas prices, promising on the campaign trail to bring down the price to $2.50.

Jim Ritterbusch, president of an oil trading advisory firm, told CBS News there are no quick fixes.

“It’s become somewhat of a political football,” Ritterbusch said. “But none of the candidates or the current president can flip a switch and drive gas prices down to $3 a gallon.”

Mr. Obama’s job rating on the economy remains about the same as it was last month – 39 percent approve, while 54 percent disapprove.

The economy and jobs remains the most important problem facing the country today, according to 51 percent of Americans. Three in four Americans think the economy is at least somewhat bad, including 30 percent who say it is very bad.

More Americans, 30 percent, say the economy is getting better; 24 percent say it is getting worse. The public’s economic outlook was slightly better last month, when 34 percent said the economy was getting better.

Most GOP voters expect Romney nomination
Most support U.S. military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons
Most say employers should be allowed not to cover contraception
Poll: Romney, Santorum narrow gap on Obama
Obama’s approval rating sinks to new low

Just 20 percent of Americans feel their family’s financial situation is better today than it was four years ago. Another 37 percent say it is worse, and 43 percent say it is about the same.

While his rating on the economy is about the same as last month, Mr. Obama’s rating on foreign policy has dropped 10 points. Now, just 40 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, while 41 percent disapprove. This is the first time since the killing of Osama bin Laden in May 2011 that more Americans disapprove than approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing handling foreign policy.

Amid speculation that Israel may consider attacking Iran to stop its nuclear ambitions, Americans are split on the president’s handling of the situation in Iran: 42 percent approve, while nearly as many – 39 percent – disapprove. Nineteen percent don’t know.

CBS Radio News’ Rob Mank contributed to this report.

---

This poll was conducted by telephone from March 7-11, 2012 among 1009 adults nationwide.

878 interviews were conducted with registered voters, including 301 with voters who said they plan to vote in a Republican primary. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The margin of error for the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three points and six points for the sample of Republican primary voters. The error for subgroups may be higher. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

As we speak, both Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum lead Barack Obama, according to most-reliable pollster Rasmussen:

With Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney adding to their primary wins Saturday, the latest Rasmussen poll shows both of them capable of posing a challenge to President Barack Obama in the November election.

According to Rasmussen’s poll of likely voters, the updated numbers show Romney ahead by five points in a hypothetical 2012 battle with the president. While Romney sits at 48 percent to Obama’s 43 percent, Santorum sits at 46 percent to Obama’s 45 percent. His one-point lead over Obama is Santorum’s second time ahead of the president.

Romney, Rasmussen reports, is the only other candidate to lead the president more than one time in the polls.

Obama’s approval index history shows a swing in his approval numbers, from 44 percent strongly approving of the president’s performance in January 2009, to 25 percent strongly approving now. The new numbers show that 44 percent strongly disapprove of the president’s performance, up from 16 percent in January 2009. Obama’s presidential approval index rating is -19.

Hopefully, this will at least shut the pie holes of the talking head fools who have asserted that “Obama is unbeatable.”

As Gasoline Prices Soar Out Of Control, Yet ANOTHER Obama Energy Boondoggle Pisses Away Taxpayer Money By Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars

Barack Obama giving away $2 billion in stimulus money on July 4, 2010:

“In fact, today, I’m announcing that the Department of Energy is awarding nearly $2 billion in conditional commitments to two solar companies.

The first is Abengoa Solar, a company that has agreed to build one of the largest solar plants in the world right here in the United States. After years of watching companies build things and create jobs overseas, it’s good news that we’ve attracted a company to our shores to build a plant and create jobs right here in America. In the short term, construction will create approximately 1,600 jobs in Arizona. What’s more, over 70 percent of the components and products used in construction will be manufactured in the USA, boosting jobs and communities in states up and down the supply chain. Once completed, this plant will be the first large-scale solar plant in the U.S. to actually store the energy it generates for later use – even at night. And it will generate enough clean, renewable energy to power 70,000 homes.

The second company is Abound Solar Manufacturing, which will manufacture advanced solar panels at two new plants, creating more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs. A Colorado plant is already underway, and an Indiana plant will be built in what’s now an empty Chrysler factory. When fully operational, these plants will produce millions of state-of-the-art solar panels each year.

Obama’s “investment” today:

Earlier today I mentioned Energy Secretary Chu’s statement to Congress that the administration didn’t care about lowering gas prices, just pushing alternative energy. Now we have the latest failure as part of that scheme, Abound Solar Manufacturing, has announced it will lay off 70% of its workforce. The company received a $400 million loan guarantee through the Obama stimulus.

Oh, and by the way, Abound got that $400 million loan even though it was obviously a huge credit risk:

A month before Abound Solarannounced it would be laying off nearly half its workforce, Congressional Republicans alerted the U.S. Department of Energy that they had questions about the decision to loan the Colorado firm $400 million.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform asked Energy Secretary Steven Chu to explain how the solar panel manufacturer had qualified for the loan after the ratings firm Fitch had determined the company would make a “highly speculative” investment.

“Fitch describes Abound as lagging in technology relative to its competitors, failing to achieve stated efficiency targets, and expecting that Abound will suffer from increasing commoditization and pricing pressures,” wrote Rep. Darrell Issa, R.-California, the committee chairman. “DOE’s willingness to fund Abound, despite these concerns, calls into question the merits of this loan guarantee.”

Obama is demonizing oil companies (you know, the people who are the only reason ordinary Americans are able to get into their cars and drive somewhere) while he continues to give away billions of dollars to his crony capitalist fascist friends at the useless green energy companies.  Oh, and he’s demonizing the $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies that keep this country going while he is proposing to give away $5 billion more to green energy that produces virtually nothing.

That should seriously piss you off, because gas prices – you know, the stuff that the oil companies Obama demonizes produce – have more than DOUBLED under this failed president’s failed policies:

The day Barack Obama took office, the average national price of gasoline was $1.84 a gallon.

As of today, March 1, 2012, the average national price of gasoline is $3.74 a gallon.

Oh, and gasoline may very well hit $5 a gallon by Memorial Day.

While even Bill Clinton is urging the Failure-in-Chief to “embrace” the Keystone Oil Pipeline that Obama has refused to alllow even though it wouldn’t have required ONE PENNY in taxpayer money.

Beyond Solyndra – which devoured more than half of a BILLION dollars in taxpayer money before going completely bankrupt – there have been many other massive Obama failures.

Just a couple:

Green energy company given federal stimulus funds lays off 125 workers, gives pay raise to executives
Published February 26, 2012 | FoxNews.com

An electric car battery company reportedly has laid off 125 employees since receiving $390 million in government subsidies, but is still handing out big pay raises to company executives.

A123 systems, which was touted as a stimulus “success story” by former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Mich., had a net loss of $172 million through the first three quarters of 2011, according to the Washington Examiner’s “Beltway Confidential” blog, citing a report from the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

A123′s primary customer, Fisker Automotive, is also struggling financially. “Yet, this month A123’s Compensation Committee approved a $30,000 raise for [Chief Financial Officer David] Prystash just days after Fisker Automotive announced the U.S. Energy Department had cut off what was left of its $528.7 million loan it had previously received.”

This month has seen significant pay boosts for other A123 executives, as well, including vice presidents Robert Johnson and Jason Forcier.

The raises were reported by the company in its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to the Mackinac report.

“It looks highly suspicious,” Paul Chesser, associate fellow for the National Legal & Policy Center, told Mackinac. “It looks like they are trying to pad their top people’s wallets in case something really bad happens.”

Click to read the Washington Examiner blog.

Click to read the Mackinac Center for Public Policy report.

And far, FAR worse:

Obama Gave Billions to Green Energy Companies with Ties to His Administration and 2008 Campaign
Posted by Jim Hoft on Thursday, February 16, 2012, 1:13 PM

The RNC released this infographic today showing that billions in taxpayer dollars were were given to firms with close ties to the Obama Administration.

The Washington Post reported:

Overall, the Post found that $3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama administration staffers and advisers.

Obama’s program to invest federal funds in start-up companies — and the failure of some of those companies — is becoming a rallying cry for opponents in the presidential race. Mitt Romney has promised to focus on Obama’s “record” as a “venture capitalist.” And in ads and speeches, conservative groups and the Republican candidates are zeroing in on the administration’s decision to extend $535 million to the now-shuttered solar firm Solyndra and billions of dollars more to clean-tech start-ups backed by the president’s political allies.

White House officials stress that staffers and advisers with venture capital ties did not make funding decisions related to these companies. But e-mails released in a congressional probe of Obama’s clean-tech program show that staff and advisers with links to venture firms informally advocated for some of those companies.

David Gold, a venture capitalist and critic of Obama’s investments in clean tech, said that even if staffers had been removed from the final decision-making, they had the kind of inside access to exert subtle influence.

“To believe those quiet conversations don’t happen in the hallways — about a project being in a certain congressman’s district or being associated with a significant presidential donor, is naive,” said Gold, who once worked at the Office of Management and Budget. “When you’re putting this kind of pressure on an organization to make decisions on very big dollars, there’s increased likelihood that political connections will influence things.”

Energy Department spokesman Damien LaVera said the companies won awards based on merit, not political connections. He said the staffers and advisory board members reviewed by the Post had no role in funding decisions, nor did they have any personal financial stake in the companies. One of those administration advisers had first been appointed to his position by the Bush administration, LaVera said…

…Thousands of agency and White House e-mails released as part of the Solyndra investigation show that venture capitalists who held advisory roles with the Energy Department were given access to Obama’s top advisers.

Read the whole thing. It will make you ill.

Obama is selling this country out even while he works to implode it by starving us of energy while spending us into bankruptcy.

Democrats Are Hypocrite Demagogue Fools When It Comes To Gas Prices

Rush Limbaugh offers a rather entertaining look into how the Democrats 1) managed to demonize George Bush when the gas prices were actually far less of a problem/crisis than they are now under Obama while simultaneously asserting that Republicans have no right whatsoever to do to Obama what they themselves did to George Bush; 2) believe that Obama should a) open the strategic petroleum reserve and/or b) push Saudi Arabia to increase drilling – both of which are means to increase the supply of gasoline – yet simultaneously insist that the US’  increasing its own gasoline supply by drilling would have absolutely no impact on gas prices whatsoever; 3) are somehow conveniently forgetting how astonishingly stupid and vacuous Obama’s “solutions” to the problem of high gas prices truly were.

The Democrat Gas Hypocrisy
February 27, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Michael Janofsky at the New York Times, April 24th, 2006, about six years ago: “Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices.” This is back in 2006. The Democrats were running for office in the midterm elections trying to talk us into a recession. This is after they had failed at trying to talk us into failure in Iraq. “Democrats running for Congress are moving quickly to use the most recent surge in oil and gasoline prices to bash Republicans over energy policy, and more broadly, the direction of the country. With oil prices hitting a high this week and prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places…” We’re now over $5 in California. In 2006, with “prices at the pump topping $3 a gallon in many places Amy Klobuchar, a Democratic Senate candidate in Minnesota, is making the issue the centerpiece of her campaign. Ms. Klobuchar says it ‘is one of the first things people bring up’ at her campaign stops. To varying degrees, Democrats around the country are following a similar script that touches on economic anxiety and populist resentment against oil companies.”Yep!”‘It’s a metaphor for an economy that keeps biting people despite overall good numbers,’ said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York…” What else do we have, Chuck-U? Oh, Chuck-U is in the news today, folks. Chuck-U tells Clinton to pressure Saudi Arabia to pump more oil. Senator Chuck-U Schumer “wants Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press…” She’s got her own section in the program todayfor her own rampant hypocrisy. (We’ll get to that in due course.) Chuck-U Schumer “wants Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to press Saudi Arabia to boost output as rising prices are hitting consumer at the gasoline pump.” Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!Wait a minute. More oil? Chuck-U wants more oil? Is that what he’s asking the Saudis to do, pump more oil? Is that right? Is that what that means? Senator Schumer tells Clinton to pressure Saudis to pump more oil? He wants more oil? Then how come this regime vetoes the Keystone pipeline and has a drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico and makes fun of/mocks the concept of producing more oil in the United States? So Senator Chuck-U Schumer is asking Senator Clinton to make us more dependent on foreign oil! That’s what he’s doing when he’s asking her to pressure the Saudis, pump more oil. He wants us to be more dependent. He doesn’t want to use our own oil. Obama doesn’t want to use our own oil.How come Chuck-U is not out there saying, “Everybody go buy a Volt?” How come Chuck-U’s not saying, “Hey, everybody go buy a Prius, go buy a hybrid”? How come Chuck-U’s not out there saying, “Get your tire gauge out and make sure the pressure is right and get a tune-up”? That’s what Obama does. So the Democrats want more oil. They want the price to come down with more supply. Funny how that never works domestically. So 2006, New York Times: “Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices” — at $3 a gallon. From BigGovernment.com Wynton Hall with the story: “Seven Gas Facts Obama Cannot Escape — “1. In September 2008, Barack Obama’s ‘Nobel-prize winning physicist’ of an Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, told the Wall Street Journal: ‘Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,’” which is much higher than what we pay. Obama has said he wants high prices. Why don’t these guys come out and say, “This is exactly what we want”? Steven Chu, the energy secretary, Nobel-prize winning physicist has advocated for higher prices. So has Obama. Now they’re getting higher prices. You know why? They want higher prices so you’ll have to go out and buy a Volt or a hybrid or get on a bus or get on a subway or take mass transit and become like a number. A robot. An interchangeable part of the system, like a Chinese citizen taking orders and dictates from the state and their command-and-control economy.

The truth is, they want higher prices. The problem is it’s an election year. Can’t advocate for higher gas prices in an election year. “2. In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama admitted that, like his future Energy Secretary Mr. Chu, he believed that high gas prices would be a good thing because they would force Americans to ween [sic] themselves off of oil, but that he would have ‘prefered [sic] a gradual adjustment.’” We had the sound bite last week. We reminded you of it when gasoline hit four bucks and Obama said: It’s okay; it’s okay. I’m just a little upset how fast it got there. “3. On January 19, 2009, the day before Barack Obama [immaculated] gas prices were $1.84 a gallon. As of February 20, 2012 a gallon of gas cost $3.59,” and now it’s close to $5 a gallon. And don’t forget, in 2006 it was $3 a gallon, and the Democrats are out exploiting it and trying to turn it into a big political issue. “4. As Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson points out, ‘Offshore drilling permits are being issued at less than half the rate of the previous administration. The average number of leases issued on public lands is less than half than during President Clinton’s term.’ 5. In 2008, Barack Obama seemed perfectly comfortable with soaring energy prices if they meant curbing greenhouse gas emissions.

“As Mr. Obama confessed: ‘Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.’” In their hearts and minds, Obama and the left are LOVING gas prices go up. They just can’t say so. But they love it. And that’s why there’s not a huge effort to bring them down. There’s a huge effort to make you think they want to, but how many stories have you seen where Obama says, “Ah, there’s really not a whole lot the president can do”? And Jay Carney says, “Well, there’s not a whole lot the president can do.” In 2006, don’t forget, Chuck Schumer and John F. Kerry (who, by the way, served in Vietnam) were mocking Bush for asking the Saudis to pump more oil! Arabs producing more oil makes prices go down, but somehow the US pumping more oil won’t make any difference.

That’s what they tell us. “Nah-nah-nah. That’s the stupidest thing we ever heard of! That’s a tired, worn-out cliche. ‘Drill, drill, drill,’ and for 30 years they’ve been saying that. That’s what the Republicans always say. Just drill, drill. That’s gonna take us two to three years!” Well, where would we be if 30 years ago we had just started drilling, drilling, drilling? Chuck-U Schumer in 2008: “Schumer to Bush: Stop ‘Coddling’ Big Oil, Saudis,” and get on ‘em and make ‘em pump more. And Chuck-U wants Hillary to do the same thing now. Obama, he can lower the sea level but he can’t lower the price of oil. “7. Try as he might, President Obama’s campaign will try to distance themselves from the fact that a central pillar of Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign was a pledge to reduce the ‘pain at the pump’ caused by high gas prices.”

We can go back and we can get all of that audio that was a centerpiece of his campaign, a pillar, to reduce pain at the pump. But missing no opportunity to invoke class warfare, Obama said, “For the well-off in this country, high gas prices are mostly an annoyance, but to most Americans they’re a huge problem, bordering on a crisis. Here in Indiana gas costs $3.60 a gallon,” he said in 2008. Now it’s 2012, we’re over $5 a gallon, and there’s not much we can do about it.

And from MSNBC: “8 Reasons Why Gas Will Hit $5 a Gallon This Year.” I’ll just read through them. Not gonna give you details. Number one, Strait of Hormuz. Number two, Iran. Number three, refiners raising prices. Number four, other geopolitical risks. Number five, the European Union may save itself. Number six, the US economic recovery means higher oil prices. Number seven, summertime. Number eight, supply risk. In all eight of these reasons, not one of them mention Obama or his energy policies. So we have every effort in the world being made to shield Obama from any relationship to high gasoline prices, despite what the Democrats did all during ’05, ’06, ’07, and ’08. We even have some Republicans now saying, “We really don’t want to try to tie the president to this, market forces no president can control.”

We said back in 2006 there’s nothing Bush can do about it. The president does not have a magic wand. Releasing from the strategic reserves doesn’t make a significant long-term difference in the price of oil. And people who said that back then want us to say something consistent now. “Well, come on, let’s not jump on Obama for this. We all know honestly that presidents can’t do anything about it.” Bush was not choking the supply, however. Obama is. Obama is a factor in the price of gasoline. See, that’s the difference, Obama is a factor in the price of oil. Obama wants higher oil prices, his energy secretary and he have both said so. They want higher oil prices. This is not making it up. They want higher oil prices. It’s less freedom. It’s less mobility. It forces you into alternative buying decisions when it’s time to get a new car. So, Obama does have something to do with high oil prices.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Eric in Glen Arbor, Michigan, you’re next on the Rush Limbaugh program. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Longtime listener from the early Clinton years.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: The reason why I’m calling is about the oil prices and what we’re paying at the pump. Lots of news about it, and if we go to five-, six-dollar-a-gallon oil, that’s gonna sink the economy, and I think it’s time to fight back, and I think we can fight back by several perspectives. One, we, as a consumer, can cut back slightly on our fuel usage. And, two, instead of just releasing 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic energy reserves, we need to do it in a strategic manner. For example, release seven million barrels of oil at, say, $89 a barrel. It’s about 109 bucks a barrel today. Release it at below the market price and then make several subsequent releases without telling anybody –

RUSH: There’s not enough oil there to make any difference. The real question is what is the price of algae by the gallon, because Obama has suggested pond scum as the next alternative fuel for oil. We cannot, by the way, and I appreciate the big-heartedness here in wanting to conserve, but there’s gonna be forced conservation at five dollars a gallon. There was a four. People will drive less because they can’t afford it. By the way, the economy’s already sinking. But you get to five or six dollars a gallon, the choice to conserve will not be something you have to force on people, it’ll be happening naturally. But even at that, conserving is not growth, and growth is what our economy needs. Growth and supply, growth in expansion, demand, all these things, that’s what this country and this economy needs. We can’t conserve our way to growth of anything.

END TRANSCRIPT

One look at the record of gas prices between George Bush and Barack Obama is all it takes – it is literally as simple as looking at a picture to understand how badly Obama has failed America.

2011 was THE most expensive year for gasoline prices in the entire history of the United States.  And then Obama began 2012 by giving us THE most expensive January in the history of the country, and followed that up by giving us THE most expensive February in the history of the country.

And Obama just threw the Keystone oil pipeline into Canada’s face and demanded that Canada sell its oil to China.

Gasoline prices have now DOUBLED in the three years of the failed Obama regime.

“Hope and change” means $6 a gallon gasoline in Florida and gas prices that are very likely going to be that high across the entire nation by Memorial Day.

And consider how this president DEMONIZED his predecessor in speeches like this one in which he said:

What Washington has done is what Washington always does – it’s peddled false promises, irresponsible policy, and cheap gimmicks that might get politicians through the next election, but won’t lead America toward the next generation of renewable energy. And now we’re paying the price. Now we’ve fallen behind the rest of the world. Now we’re forced to beg Saudi Arabia for more oil. Now we’re facing gas prices over $4 a gallon – gas prices that are decimating the savings of families who are already struggling in this economy. Like the man I met in Pennsylvania who lost his job and couldn’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one. That’s how badly folks are hurting. That’s how badly Washington has failed.

And now the same man who attacked Bush isn’t responsible for the very same thing he attacked Bush over even though the situation is now WORSE under his completely failed leadership.

Because – to quote Obama himself – “that’s how badly OBAMA has failed.”

Obama ‘Hope And Change’ You Can Take Right Out Of Your Own Pocket: Florida Drivers Are Paying Nearly $6 A Gallon For Gas (You Will Too Soon)

Many Americans heard allof Obama’s “promises” and listened to the mainstream media praise him as a “transformational candidate” who was “sort of God.”  They wanted to know what an Obama presidency would be like.

Well now they know:

Florida Drivers Shelling Out Nearly $6 A Gallon At Some Gas Stations
By Matthew L. Higgins
February 22, 2012 11:47 AM

TAMPA (CBS Tampa) — Talk about pain at the pump! Some Florida drivers are spending nearly $6 a gallon to fill up their gas tanks.

According to GasBuddy.com, motorists are shelling out $5.89 for a gallon of regular gas at a Shell station in Lake Buena Vista, topping out at $5.99 a gallon for premium. It doesn’t get better at a Suncoast Energy station in Orlando, where drivers are paying $5.79 for a gallon of regular.

“Prices over in the Disney World area are much higher than any other place in Florida,” Jessica Brady, AAA spokeswoman, told CBS Tampa, adding that people regularly complain about gas prices in that area.

The Sunshine State is opening up its wallet, paying an average of $3.67 a gallon of unleaded gas, 12 cents more than the national average. And it’s only expected to go up.

“It doesn’t look like we will have relief at the pump anytime soon,” Brady told CBS Tampa. “I do think we will see prices surpass $4 a gallon. I think we will see that closer to spring time.”

One reason for the high prices is the conflict with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has threatened to disrupt oil shipments through the waterway due to the European Union sanctions leveled against the country over its nuclear program, causing the price of crude to skyrocket. Trading on a barrel of crude today is a little over $106.

Another reason for the high gas prices: positive economic news. The drop in the unemployment rate and improved housing market numbers have caused gas and oil prices to rise.

“I know it frustrates quite a few consumers why positive news will lead to higher prices,” Brady told CBS Tampa. “It really just comes down to speculation.”

A third culprit behind the gas price boom is Greece. The EU’s bailout for the indebted country only adds to the global fuel demand.

And because of these reasons, Brady believes that Florida and the rest of the U.S. could see historic gas prices.

“I think this year we will see much higher highs.”

Believe it or not, those prices aren’t the highest in the nation. According to GasBuddy.com, motorists in Alaska are paying a whopping $6.34 for a gallon of regular at some gas stations. The cheapest gas can be found in Wyoming at $2.75 a gallon.

Obama is a pathologically dishonest weasel who is trying to take credit for BUSH’S ENERGY POLICIES to claim that we’re drilling more of our own oil than ever before.  Meanwhile, Obama has doubled down on PREVENTING drilling over every federal area that he can control:

“Since taking office, he has declared 85% of our offshore areas off limits, decreased oil and gas leases in the Rockies by 70%, rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, and has 10 federal agencies planning more regulation of hydraulic fracturing…. The president’s ‘Jekyll and Hyde’ approach to energy security is hurting consumers.”

As one fellow furious blogger notes:

Here are the facts. Offshore is down 30% since Obama took office. Rocky Mountain federal lands are down 70% under Obama. He has held 85% of the outer shelf off limits. Only 3% of federal lands are available for lease. Obama says domestic production is up. It’s up due to francking and many in his party and administration want to stop that.

Here’s a quote from his energy secretary, Chu. President Barack Obama’s Energy secretary unwittingly created a durable GOP talking point in September 2008 when he talked to The Wall Street Journal about the benefits of having gasoline prices rise over 15 years to encourage energy efficiency.

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Obama is a truly evil man.  He lies so outrageously it is beyond unreal.

Four years ago he was demonizing Bush for the price of gas.  Now all of a sudden everyone and everything is to blame except the same office of the president.