« | »

AP Lies: More Drilling Doesn’t Cut Gas Price

From the Obama re-election campaign staffers at the Associated Press:

FACT CHECK: More US Drilling Didn’t Drop Gas Price

WASHINGTON March 21, 2012

It’s the political cure-all for high gas prices: Drill here, drill now. But more U.S. drilling has not changed how deeply the gas pump drills into your wallet, math and history show.

A statistical analysis of 36 years of monthly, inflation-adjusted gasoline prices and U.S. domestic oil production by The Associated Press shows no statistical correlation between how much oil comes out of U.S. wells and the price at the pump.

And yet history and math show that the price of gas rose dramatically during the Bush administration, then went down by the end of his term to half of what it is today.

During the Bush administration, more than 41,700 drilling permits were approved. President Bush opened up more areas for domestic drilling. But it is just a coincidence that the price of gas went down during his tenure.

If more domestic oil drilling worked as politicians say, you’d now be paying about $2 a gallon for gasoline. Instead, you’re paying the highest prices ever for March.

This is being presented as a ‘fact’ in a ‘fact check’ article.

Political rhetoric about the blame over gas prices and the power to change them — whether Republican claims now or Democrats’ charges four years ago — is not supported by cold, hard figures.

Funny how the AP never made this argument four years ago, or any of the other times the Democrats have blamed a Republican in the White House for high gas prices.

And that’s especially true about oil drilling in the U.S. More oil production in the United States does not mean consistently lower prices at the pump.

Whereas, more oil drilling in Brazil or Saudi Arabia does lower the price of gas. Or the Obama administration wouldn’t be supporting Brazil with loans and begging the Saudis to pump more oil

Sometimes prices increase as American drilling ramps up. That’s what has happened in the past three years. Since February 2009, U.S. oil production has increased 15 percent when seasonally adjusted.

Prices in those three years went from $2.07 per gallon to $3.58. It was a case of drilling more and paying much more.

The AP’s logic here is simply laughable. If the price hasn’t gone down even though we may be drilling slightly more, that does not mean that drilling a lot more won’t drive the price down. This is asinine.

(Also, why does this have to be "seasonally adjusted"? Why can’t we be told the real numbers?)

U.S. oil production is back to the same level it was in March 2003, when gas cost $2.10 per gallon when adjusted for inflation. But that’s not what prices are now.

So we are not drilling more, if are oil production is what it was nine years ago. This article is simply gibberish.

That’s because oil is a global commodity and U.S. production has only a tiny influence on supply. Factors far beyond the control of a nation or a president dictate the price of gasoline.

No sane person suggests that there are not other factors. For instance, the population of the country has grown in the last nine years. (Which is why we have a census every ten years.)

When you put the inflation-adjusted price of gas on the same chart as U.S. oil production since 1976, the numbers sometimes go in the same direction, sometimes in opposite directions. If drilling for more oil meant lower prices, the lines on the chart would consistently go in opposite directions. A basic statistical measure of correlation found no link between the two, and outside statistical experts confirmed those calculations

This is a fact check? This is the same kind of statistical ignorance that gave us the hoax of ‘global warming.’

The statistics directly contradict the title of GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s 2008 book "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less," as well as the campaign-trail claims from the GOP presidential candidates

Which is why this article was written and these statistics were made up in the first place.

The calculations "help make the point that U.S. production and demand have little to do with the price of gasoline in the U.S., and lend support to the notion that there is not a great deal we in the U.S., acting alone, can do to affect the price of gasoline," [Davie] Peterson [a retired Duke University statistics professor] wrote in an email

And that’s the key. It’s a world market, economists say

Who the hell doesn’t realize that? But being oil "a world market" also means that the more any one country drills, the more the price will go down in the world. And that even includes the US.

You can’t claim that if the Saudis produce more oil the price will go down, and still contend that if the US produces more oil it won’t have any effect. That is unless you are in the ‘news’ business.

If drilling activity rises around the globe for a sustained period of time, gasoline prices can fall as that new supply eventually finds its way to market, but the U.S. can’t do it alone, oil analysts say

Notice how far down in their article the AP buries this inconvenient truth.

When Bush and running mate Dick Cheney campaigned in 2000, they argued that as oil executives they could get oil prices down, with Bush saying, "I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply."

Yet it was during the last few months of Bush’s term in 2008 that gas prices hit their highest: $4.27 when adjusted for inflation.

This is another highly misleading figure (AKA lie) that the AP is masquerading as a fact. In reality, when Mr. Obama took office on the last day of Mr. Bush’s term, the average price of gas was $1.83.

But apparently what the AP calls ‘fact checking’ is what we used to call propagandizing.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, March 22nd, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

28 Responses to “AP Lies: More Drilling Doesn’t Cut Gas Price”

  1. ezra says:

    “During the Bush administration, more than 41,700 drilling permits were approved. President Bush opened up more areas for domestic drilling. But it is just a coincidence that the price of gas went down during his tenure.”

    You’re kidding, right?

    • River0 says:

      A complete lie, and it’s been proven over and over again in the real world. All world production, anywhere, directly affects the world price. Whether it’s gold, silver, wheat, or any other commodity, there’s a world market for all of it.

      Fact: When oil hit nearly $150 per barrel, its highest price ever, in the Fall of 2008 and in the middle of the presidential campaign, Sarah Palin and John McCain said,”Drill baby, drill!” They said they would do everything possible to increase oil reserves and supply. The global price of oil plunged, and here’s proof:


      We lived through this and we know. Only children, morons, and brain dead zombies will believe AP.

      High oil prices in 2008 caused global economic collapse and the present recession by contracting spending. This is a deadly serious issue.

    • ezra says:

      So gas prices declined in the Fall of 2008 because Sarah Palin and John McCain said,”Drill baby, drill!”

      Oh! I get it now!

    • tranquil.night says:

      “High oil prices in 2008 caused global economic collapse and the present recession by contracting spending. This is a deadly serious issue.”

      Hm. I see your point about the ripple effect of extended high fuel prices River, but the main catalyst of the financial crisis was the government instigated housing bubble.

      Oil prices dropped precipitously because of the massive contraction in global demand because of the liquidity crunch. But Bush’s drilling permits and drilling on private land are undeniably what had sustained lower prices until the Middle East destabilized, despite moratorium’s across the country from the regime. Arguments to the contrary are statistical manipulation.

    • ezra says:

      I call dibs on brain dead zombie. That leaves child or moron for you, TN.

    • beautyofreason says:

      River0 and TN, I think these dribbling 3-word trolls are best ignored. They are not rational people and their posts rarely go above casual banter when debating the other side. If we had a real Democrat with a concrete opinion and data to back it up then it may be worth a discussion. But we don’t. Instead we have a person who posts a taunting quip or two as a substitute for a reasoned counterargument. Why even waste the time to respond, when it is so clear that such a response is a one-way effort? It’s a little like playing Schubert for my dog. Sure, I may get a whine, maybe a pouting expression and a paw or two to the face. But what’s the point?

      As for gas prices, the effects of supply and demand on the price of a good are obvious to every consumer on the planet, so the misdirection of the mainstream media is even more transparent than usual. It’s great for this site to expose it. Gas was $3.80 in the third year of Bush’s second term and the media hyperventilated about him, devoting full covers to his meetings with the Saudi government. My, how those conditions have reversed. Now we’re told to “eat our peas” while the government tweaks inflation and unemployment. No, surely helping some Islamic rebels overthrow Libya had nothing to do with the oil prices shifting in the global market. And no, stamping out domestic coal plants, pipelines, and new nuclear plants will nave no bearing on future energy sources. My car also runs on fairy dust and I do not forsee any complications in the future.

    • ezra says:

      Sorry if I came off glib.

      This article along with the dozens of others like it are correct in their assertions that domestic oil production is not correlated to pump prices. Saying this does not imply that they are supply-and-demand deniers. Geez! We’re all obviously on the internet, so let’s learn to use it.

      And the example of production and prices during the Bush administration as proof of the counter-claim is just dopey. Or that Sarah Palin’s campaign rally chants drove the market? …. yikes, people! Add a couple “only morons don’t know this” phrases, and you’re sounding like characters from a DNC ad.


  2. tranquil.night says:

    Shaking up that political etch-a-sketch and starting the narrative over with fresh lies and spin.

    • River0 says:

      Your point is valid, TN. However, the actual cause of the meltdown in 2008 was a run on money market funds. Take a look:


      If you recall, McCain and Palin were surging in the polls, and only a catastrophe was likely to change the course of the election. Voila! What do you know? Over $140 billion dollars was suddenly pulled out of money market accounts in September, triggering a crisis that Lehman Brothers and AIG could not begin to overcome. This run on the funds could easily have been engineered by the Chinese and the Russians. It guaranteed that Obummer would be elected.

      Certainly, the housing bubble and the manipulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weakened the economic foundation. But things didn’t have to take the catastrophic path that we saw. The forces behind this plan certainly succeeded, and made billions to boot by shorting stocks.

    • ezra says:

      So it was an orchestrated conspiracy perpetrated so that McCain would lose?

      Wow, this is some great stuff.

      BTW, the linked article has some merit in that the run “signaled” the crisis. The cause, however, was the realization that the underlying assets linked back to the housing bubble were bogus.

    • River0 says:

      The “underlying assets linked back to the housing bubble” were not bogus, ezra. They were deeply flawed, but far from worthless. There were perfectly sound mortgages in the portfolios. But a few so-called ‘tranches’ – or layers – of non-performing loans were blended in. The insurers of these loans – AIG, Lehman, and others – didn’t realize their vulnerability. A mild recession in housing prices wouldn’t have triggered a catastrophic failure. But the run on money market funds caused world panic, probably as intended. Russia and China are not our friends, and they profit greatly from almost every mistake and idiotic policy we adopt. Do you not think they have war rooms where these ideas are dreamed up?
      George Soros has made billions doing this exact thing, and he succeeded in collapsing the British Pound in the 1990’s. The French convicted him “in absentia” for international banking fraud. He will go to prison if they get their hands on him.

      BTW, even the 1929 Wall Street panic would have been another garden-variety selloff if the Federal Reserve, Congress, and Herbert Hoover had done the logical and intelligent things; such as lowering interest rates (the Fed), not raising taxes (Congress), and not signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act (Hoover). Our elected representatives in D.C. have mostly made a bad situation far worse.

      At some point we have to wonder. Is it always stupidity and incompetence? At some point don’t you wonder if these people are following the Saul Alinsky/Frances Fox Piven/crypto-Marxist playbook, by trying to “collapse the system” – as they are so fond of saying?

    • tranquil.night says:

      You’re right River, that was the flash point. I’m glad to see your understanding of the meltdown is up to speed.

      I’ll take it a step further – there was a run on the banks the week after the first set of national polls came in showing John McCain leading Barack Obama following Sarah Palin’s arrival onto the scene.

      More than anything else, this is why I miss Proreason. He called it all pretty much the moment it was happening, and did not let up on the The Big Lie once he understood it in totality.

      The financial crisis has been a true “tip of the spear” issue for this site. A very small percentage of the country has the facts which exist in the archives here:

      Sweetness & Light: “WSJ: George Soros Influence Will Expand” http://sweetness-light.com/archive/wsj-influence-of-george-soros-will-expand#comment-124917

      Sweetness & Light: “$550B Lost In Electronic Run On Banks” http://sweetness-light.com/archive/550b-lost-in-electronic-run-on-banks

      From Pro: “There were 6 overwhelming and unexplainable coincidences, and several other more minor occurences:
      1. Biggest drop in the Stock Market prior to an election EVER
      2. Increase in Stock Market volume beginning Sep 8, matched ONLY ONCE in the last 60 years.
      3. Biggest drop in oil prices EVER
      4. McCain took the lead in the polls immediately prior to items 1 to 3
      5. Bernake and Paulsen declared the biggest emergency of all time 8 days after McCain took the poll lead (probably what Kanjosski is talking about), requiring immediately nationalization of the banks. (note: curiously, Bernake and Paulsen are both big-time democrats).
      6. Obamy then immediately began surging in the polls, even though his and McCains positions had not changed an iota
      7. and other less significant events”

    • River0 says:

      Point taken, and well stated, TN.

    • ezra says:

      “The underlying assets linked back to the housing bubble were not bogus, ezra.”

      By August 2008, about $500 billion were written down and several large banks had already failed. Estimates at that time put the total required write-down at $1.5 trillion, so the entire financial sector was on pins & needles. These value write-downs were real numbers based on the sub-market collapses of ’06/07. When you are writing down $1.5 trillion on one asset class, then yes that asset class is “bogus”.

      Capital requirements were being tripped left & right, and when it was discovered that Lehman was cheating to meet requirements, the runs commenced … and for good reason!

      This, of course, is the mainstream story. You have a conspiracy theory. To the rest of us, any orchestration was merely by the guys shorting the market, and can you blame them? Is there any proof that they were trying to influence the election? I’d like to see it.

      One thing, though: The supposed conspiracy-theory “coincidence” of Obama’s victory is dopey. After his convention bounce, McCain (for whom I voted) imploded because the incumbent party was being blamed for the economic mess and (unusually for a vice presidential nominee) the Palin picked proved to have a significant impact … unfortunately a negative one.

      Best thing to come out of all this is the movies: Inside Job, Margin Call, etc.

    • tranquil.night says:

      It seems we’re all pretty over your smugness and unnecessary political cheap shots, ezra. Try engaging us again if someone ever pierces the veil of your own self-regard and effectively informs you that there might be people out there who .. gasp .. know more or are smarter than you.

    • ezra says:

      OK, Pot.


    • tranquil.night says:

      “One thing, though: The supposed conspiracy-theory ‘coincidence’ of Obama’s victory is dopey. After his convention bounce, McCain (for whom I voted) imploded because the incumbent party was being blamed for the economic mess.”

      The conspiracy is that the media, the Democrat Party, and Obama for years after and to this day successfully blames the economic mess on Bush and the banks, when they as the policymakers were the architects of it and they were the ones blocking oversight when the problems started becoming apparent. That’s the scam.

      The timing, which to be clear, I never said I had proof was orchestrats – as far as my incomplete knowledge of all the nuanced events that September goes – just happened to be circumstantially fortunate for the Democrats. And they sure didn’t let their crisis go to waste.

  3. BannedbytheTaliban says:

    I read this article on a local news site. They had a graph that accompanied the story showing oil output and gas prices. The claim that increase output doesn’t lower the prices is science/math illiteracy. Almost everywhere the price of gas is decreasing, the slope of the rate of oil production is positive, meaning oil production is increasing. The data they present actually refutes the entire articles claims. AP writers must have attended a government school.


  4. Astravogel says:

    TCP (The Current President) was in Oklahoma to
    celebrate half of an oil pipeline from Cushing to
    somewhere on the Texas coast. Seems nobody
    thought to notify the REPBULICAN Governor, so
    she was off somewhere else, as were the Lt. Gov.
    and other top politicos, so it was left to the Cushing
    Mayor to welcome him. Such competency! (If I was
    the mayor, I’d have sent the sewer plant operator!)

  5. canary says:

    OBAMA lies when he tried to credit himself on oil drilling. OBAMA lies that Republicans are acting funny and Republican’s are holding up the pipe-line up.

    OBAMA’s Big Blame now, he clearly stated the reasons gas has gone up is because of IRAN. He is going around with a few people holding up signs “Peace with Iran”.

    Tulsa Channel 8 KTUL: Gov. Fallin on Obama Oklahoma Visit: “He Has Lost His Way On Energy Policy”

    Mar 21, 2012 by Homa Quazilbash

    Gov. Fallin Speaks Out

    “Unfortunately, President Obama and his administration are practicing exactly this kind of obstructionism on the northern leg of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have carried oil from the Canadian oil sands and several U.S. markets to Cushing. As a result, the United States must go without the hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment that would have otherwise been available to stimulate our economy. Just as importantly, the administration’s decision undermines U.S. energy security and alienates our closest trading partner, Canada.

    “… – his administration has undermined it at every turn.

    Rep. Sullivan Reacts

    Rep. John Sullivan, Vice Chairman of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, also issued a statement Wednesday afternoon, calling out the President’s possible announcement.

    “President Obama claiming credit for speeding up the Keystone pipeline is like Al Gore saying he invented the internet – it is claiming credit where credit isn’t due.

    The southern portion of Keystone XL doesn’t cross international lines and doesn’t need presidential approval. In fact, this administration has done everything in their power to delay the Keystone process – just last week the President personally lobbied members of Congress to vote against it.”

    “Simply put, the southern portion of keystone – from Cushing, OK to the Gulf Coast – is being built in spite of the Obama Administration, not because of them. This portion of the pipeline does require numerous permits, but those come from state authorities, army corps of engineers and fish and wildlife services, not the president,” said Sullivan’s statement.

    (entire statement and article)

    HERE are some good facts that show Obama lies about oil.

    Tulsa Channel 8 KTUL: Rep Sen. Coburn on President’s Visit: “All Hat, No Cattle”

    Mar 22, 2012 by Homa Qauzibash

    Cushing -“Today, the President will visit Cushing, Oklahoma – home of the largest oil storage facility in the world – to tout his administration’s energy policy. While I am always happy to welcome any president to Oklahoma, taxpayers should understand that the Obama administration has been hostile to the very sector of the economy he wants to take credit for supporting.

    “In Oklahoma, we have a phrase to describe the president’s position: ‘All hat, no cattle.’ The president offers big talk on domestic energy production but has offered little action to back up his claims.

    “In word and deed, this administration has consistently expressed an illogical and ideological hostility to oil and gas….

    (entire statement and article)

    The Blaze: ‘You Used Your Time to Slam Our President’: Boxer Gavels Down Inhofe

    March 22, 2012 at 5:40pm by Mytheos Holt

    Barbara Boxer has had her share of embarrassing moments in the Senate – perhaps most noticeably, telling a Brigadier General to call her “Senator” rather than “Ma’am.” And as the Washington Free Beacon reports, she has apparently just added another one – that is, deciding to gavel down Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe when he tried to correct her regarding the Obama administration’s energy policy. Watch the exchange below:

    Here’s the transcript of the relevant piece as well, with emphasis added:

    BOXER: Well, do we—we have 2 percent of the world’s—

    INHOFE: That’s not true—

    BOXER: Proven, proven supplies. We’re not going to go off on this—

    INHOFE: I can’t leave it at that, though.

    BOXER: No, no, we’re not going to do this. You raised—

    INHOFE: The largest recoverable reserves of any country in the world—

    BOXER: [bangs gavel] Sen. Inhofe, my dear friend. [bangs gavel] I just want to say, this is not the Energy Committee, this is the Environment Committee. You used your time to slam our president, and I take offense at it. And I will tell you right now, if he’s so punitive, why are the oil companies making more money than ever before in history? Record profits—they’re singing in the boardroom. We’re going to move off this and we’re going to go to Sen. Lautenberg.

    Inhofe was trying to explain how they could get the prices down quickly, but of course was cut off.

  6. Anonymoose says:

    ….or the US production could just stay in the US and not be transported halfway around the world as part of the “global market,” which would be cheaper than just letting prices spiral out of control. I thought the liberals were all against world spanning corporations?

    And, anyone notice prices seriously spiked when the Democrats came back into power under Bush? Back then they were blaming it all on him and screaming their heads off about how it was ruining the economy with all of 5% unemployment?

    Now it’s not Obama’s fault, I’m better off, I should actually be paying $8 a gallon like Europe, and the trouble I have affording groceries is just an illusion.

  7. canary says:

    Obama’s speech for 1st visit to Oklahoma at Cushing; U.S. oil capital was actually a campaign


    Obama lies and lies, and says people shouldn’t watch their TVs go tell your aunts and uncles, and neighbors what you heard Obama tell you. Wrongfully takes credit for pipes done without him.

    A few people came with signs “Peace in Iran” and “Pinkie protestors”,. Obama bragging we are drilling all over the place did led to no cheering, which kind of tripped Obama up.

    When Obama came to (pause for cheers) and there were none, he grew awkward and started “uh “uh” “uhing..cough…”

    When Obama made joke of drilling on White House Lawn, only a couple of muffled hee hees.

    End small cheers from a few people. No doubt Obama brought them, and told them don’t boo me when I mention drilling, I’m just trying to trick the people who watch TV and can read.

    Word first came out that Governor Mary Fallen would not meet the President. Lt. Governor Lamb said he was not invited by Obama. And this lead to they were out of town as to not offend the President.

    • canary says:

      While Obama pretends U.S. get’s oil from Iran and we have a shortage, Obama agriculture companies aiding Iran to stockpile wheat to compensate for sanctions are “keeping secret” about the trade.

      CNN: Iran gobbles up U.S. wheat

      By Tim Lister and Emily Smith CNN

      Iran is buying American wheat for the first time in three years as it seeks to hedge against the growing impact of sanctions and weather-related crop shortages. Some 120,000 tonnes of hard red winter wheat grown in the Plains is on its way to the Islamic Republic, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The sale of another 60,000 tonnes has been finalized, according to trade sources, and Iran may ultimately buy some 400,000 tonnes of U.S. wheat this year.

      The major U.S. commodity traders – Bunge, Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill – won’t comment on whether they were involved in the deals, but Cargill told CNN that it “does sell agricultural commodities to Iran as food is specifically excluded from the sanctions” implemented because of Iran’s nuclear program.

      “We take great care to ensure that these sales respect both the spirit and the letter of the law while trying to make sure that ordinary people are not deprived of basic foodstuffs,” a Cargill spokeswoman said.

      According to USDA figures, 1,564,000 tonnes of U.S. wheat were exported to Iran in 2008, when the country was suffering a drought, and 312,000 tonnes the following year. Iran has also bought smaller amounts of U.S. soybeans and corn.

      State-owned and private Iranian companies are devising ways to overcome the shortage of hard currency, using barter, gold and currencies such as the Indian rupee and Russian rouble. Traders say it also appears that Iran’s Central Bank has stepped in, making foreign exchange available to facilitate imports.

      ….Pakistan’s Ministry of Water & Power, Tanveer Alam, told CNN Monday that Pakistan was planning to export one million tonnes of wheat in exchange for iron ore and fertilizer.

      CNN’s Reza Sayah contributed to this report


  8. xdannyh says:

    I am so glad that the AP thru Fact check has finally stood the law of supply and demand on it’s head….where it can reside with all of the other progressive, socialist, communist, oh yeah and democrat operatives

  9. beautyofreason says:

    Supply and demand have no influence on prices. So ignore when Saudi Arabia claims they will lessen the global recession by increasing production of oil, aiming to reduce the price of a barrel to about $100. Who are we to harshly expose reality when there is a great man in office. He was even nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize after 15 days in office, no doubt for his admirable skill at golfing, giving speeches, and adjusting the AC.

  10. mr_bill says:

    What this propaganda piece fails to note is the difference between oil and [natural] gas wells. There are some wells which produce both or that produce “wet” gas with condensates that can be stripped and refined into petroleum products.

    With discoveries of new fields, new drilling technoligies, and better recovery techniques, natural gas inventories have increased substantially and gas has dropped by more than 50% in the past few years. Why wouldn’t these same market forces apply to oil and gasoline? The problem is that some crude-rich areas have been declared off limits by the nerobama admin, the EPA, etc. etc.

    In addition, more refining capacity wouldn’t hurt. Oh, but the EPA won’t let that happen and hasn’t let it happen for decades.

  11. P. Aaron says:

    From Zero Hedge:

    GDP in constant 2005 dollars is essentially unchanged since 2007.

    In constant (2005) dollars:

    GDP in 2007 (pre-recession): $13.23 trillion
    GDP in 2008 (recession starts): $13.31 trillion
    GDP in 2009 (recession officially ends in mid-2009): $12.88 trillion
    GDP in 2010: 13.04 trillion

    GDP in 2011: $13.3 trillion

    In constant (2005) dollars, the economy actually shrank in the three year span of 2008-2010 and is back to 2007 levels. That’s what we bought with $6.1 trillion in additional debt and Federal spending.

    Just as a refresher:

    Federal revenues

    2007 $2.56 trillion
    2010 $2.16 trillion

    Federal spending

    2007 $2.72 trillion
    2010 $3.72 trillion

    In three years, Federal spending jumped almost exactly $1 trillion, or 36.7%.

    In 2011, the Federal deficit is 11% of the nation’s GDP.

    In 2011, the Federal government borrowed 42% of its expenditures.

    As the recession ended in mid-2009, we’re almost three years into a “recovery.”

  12. Hahahahaha

    I love the job his advance people did.

    The President thought he was in front of an oil rig. Its really a sewage lift station!!


    … sniff..

    ok. maybe not, but it was a funny thought.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »