The Bamboozler-in-Chief Takes Credit He Doesn't Deserve

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Real shocker, eh? The essence of a good con, or so I'm told, is to include an element of truth, something the mark can identify as true, so that you build credibility for when you start lying through your teeth. So, in the Obama ad pictured above, the statement being made is entirely factual, and perhaps one of the biggest lies you'll hear all year.

The graphic says that US oil production is at an eight year high. The question they hope you do not ask, is "Was Obama responsible for any part of it?" I think I can answer that with an illustration: Oprah Winfrey and I have a combined net worth of over three billion dollars, the highest it's ever been. And, even though I suspect that my contribution to that is a mere rounding error in Ms. Winfrey's assets, it is similar to Mr. Obama's oil claims.

The bulk of the production on federal lands, where Mr. Obama had control, has actually decreased. The federal leases producing oil were developed under George Bush and even Bill Clinton. Obama's policies did not result in the "eight year high", but rather production on state and private lands that are not under Obama's control.

And even though production is at an eight year high, worldwide demand for oil has increased even faster. Had Obama not obstructed oil drilling in the Gulf, the extension of the Keystone pipeline, and continued the bans in ANWR, the nation would have been able to supply even more, which, according to the laws of supply and demand, would have helped to bring energy prices down.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
Graphic via Roger Kimball
And the renewable energy Obama touts in his ad? Heard this on the radio today:
A Canadian firm will receive up to $50 million in Obama Stimulus cash for a Nevada solar plant that hires two people. And, the energy produced at the plant costs three times as much as energy from natural gas.

Is Obama really the guy you want in control of the nation's finances for the next four years? He spends $50 Million on a project that creates energy at three times the cost of natural gas and creates two (2) whole jobs. Had Obama simply signed the papers for the Keystone XL pipeline, the initial estimate of 20,000 jobs would be created. The cost to the taxpayer? A 39 cent Bic pen.

If you ran your household the way Obama runs the country, exactly how long do you think it would last?

Cross posted at Proof Positive


  1. one would think romney has too much ammo to attack with.

    1. It would be easy to become overconfident, were it not for the fact that too many Democrat drones will buy this line of bilge.

  2. Facts are facts, but I'm guessing not a single Obama progressive advocate understands a word of what you present here. Hooked on Hopium they will continue to buy the con.

    1. My apologies. Most of it was written in English, which is a second language to many Democrat voters in the US, and might be a first for others, had the liberal establishment not dumbed down the schools for so long.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. .

    So who is trying to bamboozle whom?

    ""Was Obama responsible for any part of it?"" Yes. It is his administration.

    Do you not give President Reagan all the credit for bringing down the big bad Soviet Union all by himself? Do you not give Mr Bush/Mr Chaney all the credit for protecting USA _AFTER_ 11 September 2001?

    In a world where oh so many are willing to make-up lies about all imagined evils the President has not done (take away peoples' guns, not created a single job, killing bin Laden, etc.) and even more are willing to spread what they know are blatant flat-out lies, is it not reasonable for honest people to point to the facts and truth?

    When one uses lies to try to bring down a person, facts are always a good tool to defeat the lies and the liars.

    Ema Nymton

    1. "facts are always a good tool to defeat the lies and the liars." I take it you are joining us in our opposition to the Bamboozler-in-Chief, then?

      "Do you not give President Reagan all the credit for bringing down the big bad Soviet Union all by himself? Do you not give Mr Bush/Mr Chaney all the credit for protecting USA _AFTER_ 11 September 2001"

      As a matter of fact, no. What are you babbling about now, Ema? Fact is, you can't built straw men fast enough to keep up with the truth. If it were not for false comparisons, you'd have none at all.

      Tell the pretty nurse it's past time for your meds.

    2. First of all, I'd like to say I'm glad that you had the courage to come here in the face of all opposition, and post.

      Secondly, The oil production on Federal lands which Obama has control over has decreased by 14%. He issued the oil moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. After the court ordered him to stop, he did not. Then he stopped the Keystone oil pipeline. Oil production is up on private lands because of fracking, a new way to get oil made possible by new technology. Obama has actively worked to stop oil production and wasted our money on "Green" energy while saying oil is the fuel of the past...a man who said before the election that he would make energy prices skyrocket. I don't see how he gets credit for increased oil production by not succeeding in destroying the oil industry.

  5. I suggest you ad an note that the U.S. has more recoverable oil than all the rest of the world proven reserves combined at 50% recovery. So we actually have more than twice the recoverable oil than all the rest of the worlds proven reserves of oil combined. Source Government Accountability Office.

  6. "in spite of" vs "because of" is very confusing for team obama


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.