well that and 14 consecutive months of private sector job growth (more than 2 million jobs).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/06/employment-situation-april

(see if you can tell were Obama took office on the graph, and when the stimulus passed...)

most of your post makes no sense but here goes.

Obama is "not the one running the show" but he is in charge enough to fake killing Bin Laden for some "stardom"?? (even though it would be really easy to show bin laden alive somewhere and prove the whole thing wrong.)

"if you can not see what the Democratic Party is up too , then you need help"

then help me out - what are they up to? (preferably with some links to things that have happened in reality and not in your head.)

"why has he not done anything about the Illegal aliens problem?"

you mean besides: ref ref ref ref

finishing more than 99.5% of the border fence

Adding more than 3,000 Border Patrol agents

Sending 1,200 national guard to border

increasing money, agents, investigators, prosecutors, surveillence, technology, etc.

why has he not done anything about the Illegal aliens problem ?

If I recall correctly, I remember hearing that he has already signed 2 republican-led bills to increase border security. After a third bill was pushed, he commented that no matter what he did republicans wouldn't be happy with border security until there was a moat with Alligators in it.

Net Zero Illegal Immigration from Mexico.

Inbound immigration was smaller this year than outbound immigration. Much of it is because of unemployment, but it is also because of enforcement by the Obama Administration.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/07/25/ illegal-immigration-from-mexico-declines-to-net-zero/

Deportations hit record number

http://www.mariowire.com/immigration/2011/07/25/deportations-hit-record-number/

So why do you think it is that you believe he has "not done anything about the Illegal aliens problem" when that is so far from reality?

No “boots” on the ground Libya

This one is actually true. Although I would have been very surprised if we didn't have clandestine operatives already in the country, which is apparently the case. Yet "boots" is a term that refers to soldiers, from the more archaic phrase "foot soldiers".

If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it

This one is also true. You only pay for the public option if you want it, otherwise you can keep your current healthcare provider, and in fact most people have.

My father served in World War II.

The Videos and the Facts

I have visited all 57 states.

Snopes

These are just clear misspeaks - certainly not lies.

He had been to 47 states and

His Grandfather (who raised him from age 10 on) did serve during World War II (and so did his great uncle) ref

GWB said a lot of stupid things -- ref ref ref ref ref ref ref ref -- and they were just that - stupid things, not lies.

you should at least attribute the link where you copied and pasted from:

http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

Did you leave out any?

“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009.

This links to an article about federal funding going to Maryland and Pennsylvania's high risk insurance pools.

This requires knowledge of 2 things -

First, an understanding of a property of money - fungibility.

To illuminate: if a woman gets federal money, e.g. a student loan, a pell grant, etc. and puts the money in a bank account and later gets an abortion using funds in that bank account, it does not mean that federal money subsidized the abortion.

Second, what was actually in the bill:

"specifically prohibits the use of federal dollars to fund abortions, except in the case of rape, incest or when the mother's life in peril. Rather, insurance companies would be required to pay for abortion services from a segregated pool of money funded through patient premiums. Essentially, people who select plans that cover abortions would have to pay at least $1 a month of their premiums into a separate account. Any abortion services provided by the insurer would have to be drawn from that segregated account.

On top of that, the national health care law gives states an opt-out of abortion coverage altogether. States could pass laws to prohibit abortion coverage in health plans offered on the state exchange if they chose."

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/mar/17/matt-gaetz/taxpayer-funded-abortions-federal-health-care-bill/

Fence between US and Mexico is “Practically Complete”

Department of Homeland Security says 5%

Actually, the Department of Homeland Security says they have completed 649 out of 652 miles of fence – the 5% number refers to double layer fencing

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ statements/2011/may/16/barack-obama/obama-says-border-fence-now-basically-complete/

All Americans WILL BE were, “surprised, disappointed and angry” about lockerbie bomber

Obama Memo

Here is what the memo said:

“The United States is not prepared to support Megrahi's release on compassionate release or bail.”

“it would be most appropriate for Megrahi to remain imprisoned for the entirety of his sentence”

“Nevertheless, if Scottish authorities come to the conclusion that Megrahi must be released from Scottish custody, the U.S. position is that conditional release on compassionate grounds would be a far preferable alternative to prisoner transfer, which we strongly oppose.”

“any such release should only come after the results of independent and comprehensive medical exams clearly establishing that Megrahi's life expectancy is less than three months. The results of these exams should be made available to the United States and the families of the victims of Pan Am 103”

“the welcoming reception that Megrahi might receive if he is permitted to travel abroad would be extremely inappropriate given Megrahi's conviction for a heinous crime that continues to have a deep and profound impact on so many. As such, compassionate release or bail should be conditioned on Megrahi remaining in Scotland”

“We hope that the Scottish Government would consider every available alternative before considering the granting of Megrahi's prisoner transfer application”

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/07/145142.htm

Here is what Obama said:

“I think all of us here in the United States were surprised, disappointed, and angry about the release of the Lockerbie bomber. And my administration expressed very clearly our objections prior to the decision being made and subsequent to the decision being made.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-cameron-united-kingdom-joint-press-avail

There is no inconsistency.

No signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law

Here is Obama's full memo:

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

SUBJECT: Presidential Signing Statements

For nearly two centuries, Presidents have issued statements addressing constitutional or other legal questions upon signing bills into law (signing statements). Particularly since omnibus bills have become prevalent, signing statements have often been used to ensure that concerns about the constitutionality of discrete statutory provisions do not require a veto of the entire bill.

In recent years, there has been considerable public discussion and criticism of the use of signing statements to raise constitutional objections to statutory provisions. There is no doubt that the practice of issuing such statements can be abused. Constitutional signing statements should not be used to suggest that the President will disregard statutory requirements on the basis of policy disagreements. At the same time, such signing statements serve a legitimate function in our system, at least when based on well-founded constitutional objections. In appropriately limited circumstances, they represent an exercise of the President's constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and they promote a healthy dialogue between the executive branch and the Congress.

With these considerations in mind and based upon advice of the Department of Justice, I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities. In issuing signing statements, I shall adhere to the following principles:

1.The executive branch will take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable, to inform the Congress of its constitutional concerns about pending legislation. Such communication should facilitate the efforts of the executive branch and the Congress to work together to address these concerns during the legislative process, thus minimizing the number of occasions on which I am presented with an enrolled bill that may require a signing statement.

2.Because legislation enacted by the Congress comes with a presumption of constitutionality, I will strive to avoid the conclusion that any part of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional. In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded.

3.To promote transparency and accountability, I will ensure that signing statements identify my constitutional concerns about a statutory provision with sufficient specificity to make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional objection.

4.I will announce in signing statements that I will construe a statutory provision in a manner that avoids a constitutional problem only if that construction is a legitimate one.

To ensure that all signing statements previously issued are followed only when consistent with these principles, executive branch departments and agencies are directed to seek the advice of the Attorney General before relying on signing statements issued prior to the date of this memorandum as the basis for disregarding, or otherwise refusing to comply with, any provision of a statute.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

This memorandum shall be published in the Federal Register.

Here is a list of Obama's signing statements:

http://www.coherentbabble.com/listBHOall.htm

which one(s) do not comport with the above?

USA producing more oil than ever before

Petroleum Insights

I thought I was going to have to agree that he slipped up, but just out of curiosity I looked at the remarks and he specifically states 2 sentences before your (the place where you blindly copied from's) out of context quote that it's since 2003.

"Now, in the short term, we still need to do everything we can to encourage safe and responsible oil production here at home. In fact, last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. So I want everybody to remember that if people ask -- because sometimes I get letters from constituencies saying, why aren’t we just drilling more here? We’re actually producing more oil here than ever. But the challenge is we’ve only got about 2 to 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world’s oil. So we can’t just drill our way out of the problem"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/06/remarks-president-workers-allison-transmission-headquarters

the more I look into all the crap about Obama, the more I see that there is really little if any substance...