Monday, March 26, 2012

Want to know where Obama has created 2.5 million jobs? Here is a partial list of some.

This is not a finished post. I wrote last week about a story in ammo.net of the new jobs in the gun and ammo industry that could be attributed to Barack Hussein Obama. Now another field of industry appears to be up and running. Those people who scour the Internet and remove unpopular stories about The Great Impostor himself. Case in point, Forbes.com published a story on March 24th titled: Is There An Imposter In The White House? An Excerpt from "Hope Is Not A Strategy" by John Mariotti that called Barack Hussein Obama a "manufactured candidate" and then a "Manchurian candidate". A few hours later the story disappeared. Forbes.com acknowledges the link to the story title but then reports: "Something's gone awry! The page you requested could not be found" But here is the link in Forbes.com to that same story:

March 24, 2012
  There is something very wrong when the sitting president refuses to divulge huge pieces of information about his background. What is he hiding? Maybe the "birthers" were a little extreme, but is there something wrong with this "manufactured candidate," whose history remains sealed from public view? What is he hiding? Could the "Hawaii birth [...]
Thanks to Obama there must be a whole hoard of people getting paid to clean up the bad news about him on the web sites but thankfully there aren't enough of them to do a completely thorough job. And conversely speaking there must be a lot of people getting paid to write phony stories about him. (Actually the latter group started working several years ago.) That's where the conservative bloggers come in. They capture the stories and repost them before they get taken down. By the way, the Gateway Pundit web site also won't load at the time I write this. From The Right Planet:

Forbes ‘Manchurian Candidate’ Article on Obama Goes ‘Poof’



Via Gateway Pundit:

That’s Weird?… Forbes ‘Manchurian Candidate’ Article on Obama Disappears Down the Memory Hole

Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, March 25, 2012, 11:11 PM
Earlier today Forbes posted an excerpt from the book Hope Is Not a Strategy by John Mariotti and D. M. Lukas. The author provided an excerpt from the book for the article where he describes Barack Obama as a “manufactured candidate” whose history remains sealed. Mariotti then calls Obama the “Manchurian candidate.”
But, after the article was posted for a few hours it suddenly disappeared down the memory hole.

Here is the original article.
“There is something very wrong when the sitting president refuses to divulge huge pieces of information about his background. What is he hiding? Maybe the “birthers” were a little extreme, but is there something wrong with this “manufactured candidate,” whose history remains sealed from public view? What is he hiding?
Could the “Hawaii birth certificate” be a forgery? Is there something much worse—like “sponsorship” by an unnamed special interest? I don’t know. I do know that the man in the White House now is an imposter. The only question is which kind of an imposter: an incompetent “pretender” or a genuine phony, a “Manchurian candidate,” who is a liberal, ½ black and ½ white, and an obvious Muslim sympathizer.
Will this campaign expose him as the imposter, and the pretender his behavior has revealed? Will it expose his hidden history and murky background. We know about his failures and mistakes.
For those who don’t, here is another in this series of revealing excerpts from Hope Is Not A Strategy: Leadership Lessons from the Obama Presidency.
Excerpt from the chapter: Beware the Pretender:

…”No matter how many times President Obama refers to the “problems he inherited,” he has now been in office three years. Certainly many of the current problems can be traced back to events that happened during the eight years that Bush held the top office, and some can be traced back to even earlier presidencies — but far from all of them.
Many of the problems are newly created (or made worse), and Barack Obama owns them. Candidate Obama stepped up and essentially said, “I want the job, and everything that comes with it” by running for president. After three years in office, the problems now belong to him and his presidency. He caused them, made them worse, or didn’t solve them. Either way, they are his now.
…In leadership, you cannot “pretend” to be a leader. You either are — or you aren’t — a leader. One or the other will become apparent very quickly.
If you want the leadership job, you must step up and take full ownership of it. A “pretender” or “poser” is like an actor who has learned all the right lines, but has no idea what they mean. Once the script has been followed (or deviated from), the actor is clueless about what to do next. This is the job of the leader. Unfortunately, in this government, the “directors” often seem clueless, having learned in academia where results and wins/losses are theoretical, or in politics where success (at getting elected) is more a matter of rhetoric than results.
If you are not ready for a position, or do not believe that you have what it takes to rise to the challenge (or clean up the mess even if you believe it is not your mess), then do not take the job. This was Barack Obama’s fundamental mistake. He grossly underestimated the difficulty of the position he was running for, and overestimated his preparedness to actually do the job. Just because he could “talk a good game” (thanks to a phalanx of speech writers and the omnipresent teleprompters) does not mean he actually knew what to do or how to do it. The presidency of the United States of America is not a place for heavy OJT (On-the Job-Training)….”
After the first three plus years of the presidency, it is painfully clear that Barack Obama was a “pretty face,” and “glib speaker” and a lightweight liberal politician with a community organizer/radical background. The American people should be outraged at this man’s behavior and even his candidacy. Why are they not? Because of the misinformation delivered by sympathetic liberal/mainstream media who loves his nonsensical form of governing.
…”Obama’s perceived preparedness for the presidency is a terrible delusion, from which it is difficult to escape. Mistakes build upon each other and result in even more complex problems. Difficult problems that are mishandled become even more difficult to fix. When you have too little experience, lack substance (other than the words of your latest speech), then leading, managing and problem solving simply don’t happen. And that is what has occurred. When you compound the problem by surrounding your self with like-minded theorists, lacking in real-world experience, things become worse yet. The theoretical solutions to problems often don’t work due to the messiness of the real world — and the reasons are almost unfathomable to these rookie executive/politicians. …”
What should Americans think about this “imposter?” Will he divulge his true background so we can all see who he is and where he came from — really? If not, is this just a man who should never have been sworn into the office of President in the first place, and who has crippled Americans miserably during his term?
Will we continue to believe his misstatements (the politically correct term for lies)? Can he simply use the media to “erase and forget the past three years of misery and missteps?” Or will we learn from his imperialistic behavior and terrible results and throw him out in November?
And, this was posted at Courage in America blog before it disappeared.


6 comments:

  1. The obvious reason that Forbes Magazine took down the birther claim is that Forbes thinks that it is false.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they thought it was a false claim why did they post it in the first place? Don't they have any content editors? Besides, that wasn't the point. The article contains some known facts and some opinions along with some criticism for the media. Taking down the story is an act of censorship.

      Delete
  2. No it is not censorship. It is Forbes, a privately owned company, making the decisions as to what it will publish and what it will not publish. After the article was posted the editors at Forbes decided that they did not believe it, not at all. They did not consider that the things that you call "facts" are really facts. Sorry, that is the case, and that holds for the rest of the media. The bottom line is that the media will not post birther lies because the media does not believe birther lies.

    And neither does Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck or the National Review.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The original Forbes article begins with this paragraph: "There is something very wrong when the sitting president refuses to divulge huge pieces of information about his background. What is he hiding? Maybe the “birthers” were a little extreme, but is there something wrong with this “manufactured candidate,” whose history remains sealed from public view? What is he hiding?"

    Fact #1 is that for the last 3 or 4 years Obama has spent upwards of 2 million dollars in legal fees fighting attempts in courts to release his personal records which have included his application to Occidental College as a possible Fulbright Scholarship for foreign students and the records for Harvard and Columbia.

    Fact #2 is that the only mention of the "birther" issue is actually to call it "a little extreme" so how can Forbes justify that issue to remove the story?

    Fact #3 is that the rest of the article only questions Obama's lack of leadership which is an acceptable opinion.

    It doesn't matter who or what any conservatives may agree with you, the story offers a valid point of view. In my opinion and many others, the long-form birth certificate that Obama showed to the public last April is a forged document and experts have proved that. And that alone should be reason enough to investigate this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Re: "Fact #1 is that for the last 3 or 4 years Obama has spent upwards of 2 million dollars in legal fees fighting attempts in courts to release his personal records which have included his application to Occidental College as a possible Fulbright Scholarship for foreign students and the records for Harvard and Columbia."

    That is not a fact. It is a repetition of birther lies. There were no lawsuits against Obama for documents, only lawsuits trying to get him thrown off of ballots or to stop elections. A Fulbright Scholarship goes only to graduate students. And Occidental has said that Obama used the name Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wikipedia describes Fulbright Scholarships as: "The Fulbright Program, including the Fulbright-Hays Program, is a program of competitive, merit-based grants for international educational exchange for students, scholars, teachers, professionals, scientists and artists, founded by United States Senator J. William Fulbright in 1946. Under the Fulbright Program, competitively selected U.S. citizens may become eligible for scholarships to study, conduct research, or exercise their talents abroad and citizens of other countries may qualify to do the same in the United States. The first participating university in the United States was George Washington University in Washington, DC."

    So you are wrong saying it is only for graduate students.

    Also, the FEC has records showing continuous quarterly payments to the law form Perkins Coie since 2007 which has been going to courts defending Obama's choice to keep hidden all of his personal records, not just his birth certificate. A lengthy article in Politifact contains this paragraph.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/12/donald-trump/donald-trump-claims-obama-has-spent-2-million-lega/

    So that leaves the funds paid to Perkins Coie. Trump's and Palin's claims assume that the vast majority of the money paid to Perkins Coie since the election was used to defend against lawsuits challenging Obama's citizenship. We agree that some amount of money was spent in legal fees related to those lawsuits -- the letter from Bauer to the plaintiff is an example of that. But, while we don't know exactly how much the Obama camp spent on their private lawyers, there were many, many non-birth-certificate duties that a law firm typically handles in the wake of a presidential campaign, which suggests that any birth certificate work was a small percentage of the overall fees paid to Perkins Coie.

    ReplyDelete

No foreign language comments allowed. English only. If you cannot access the comments window send me an email at Oldironsides@fuse.net.