Many people are concerned about Barrack Obama's birth certificate.
They say because he has not been forthright about the disclosure of his birth certificate it must be because he was not really born in the United States.
At best, they say he must be trying to conceal something about his birth certificate.
Even now, after the release of his birth certificate, some are saying the released birth certificate is not a scanned document as the White House has claimed, but a computer manufactured document.
I have looked at the video making these claims; the speaker does make some good points; the document shown in the video does look strange.
Others say that although he claims to be a Christian, he does not wear jewelry during Ramadan, so he must be a practicing Muslim.
I am not too concerned about either of these issues.
If he was not born in the United States then the fraud and cover up will go down in history as the greatest con job in the history of the world.
It is almost beyond reason to believe that anyone could, or would even attempt to revise a person's birth records 30 or 40 years after their birth.
As far as the Muslim religion, I have known too many good, peaceful Muslims to be very concerned if our President is a Muslim or a Christian.
For me, I am much more concerned about his lack of a resume than I am about his lack of a birth certificate.
Even before the election, I was saying, "What has Barrack Obama done? And where has he done it?From my perspective as a manager with over 25 year's management experience, I felt he had no known management experience.
As soon as Barrack Obama began picking his staff, I knew he was not qualified to be President.
Just no management experience and as time went on, we saw the inability to make decisions, which is quit common with entry level management, and perhaps some immaturity or lack of desire to manage.
As I say, the first clue was how Barrack Obama picked his staff.
Anyone who has any management experience, or observed a successful organization, knows you must have a diversified staff.
If not, everyone is thinking the same way and you never get a different point of view.
Now I hear Barrack complaining that none of his staff gives him any new ideas.
I have news for you Barrack, they do not have any new ideas, and they are all thinking the same way you think.
The second clue was Barrack and his staff continued to complain about the problems that the administration of President Bush had left behind.
It is ok to point out the problems or issues for the first 30 to 60 days.
But by 90 days, you best have the issues identified and solutions in place.
If someone was working for me and complained about the issues left behind by the previous administration six months into the job, I would do two things.
Ask what did they have in place to correct the previous 'errors' and I would begin looking for a replacement, because I would know I had made a mistake in hiring, this young man is in well over his head.
But Barrack not only continued to complain, he continued down the same path that President Bush had established! What was he changing? Nothing, he was just doing more of it! I feel President Bush lost control of spending when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, and President Obama has continued doing more of the same.
Agreeing or disagreeing with the ongoing military action is really not the point, has President Obama significantly changed what President Bush was doing is the question.
If he has changed nothing, how can he continue to complain about the mess President Bush left behind? It has now been two years, any competent manager would have never complained, they would have just taken the necessary action to correct the problems as they saw them.
Still another example is Barrack's lack of leadership and slow decision making, or in many cases, no decision.
Consider the BP Gulf oil spill; eleven of our people were killed, and Barrack took over forty days to talk to the President of BP! Unbelieveable! The President of the United States should have been on the phone within 24 hours.
The conversation should have been something along these lines; President of the United States: It appears we have a problem in the Gulf.
Do you have a handle on it yet? President of BP: Oh yes we have it under control.
(If this was his answer, I would know he was lying) Or President of BP: No, we are still trying to get our arms around this; we do not have any details at this time.
(Now I know I am dealing with an honest person) Either answer, the next statement from President of the United States should be; you are the experts at deep water drilling.
Let me know when you have that well capped.
I am going to be talking to some experts here about how to contain and clean up the spill, but it is your responsibility.
I will let you know what action my experts recommend.
Let me know if we get in your way.
I do not want any of that oil to touch our beaches.
We now know that there were several methods that may have worked very well in containing the oil.
The President of the United States could have received that information within 72 hours.
We had a great opportunity to real world testing of the several different methods.
The President of the United States could have assigned sections to each different method; we could have learned what really works.
Any real manager knows that a crisis gives one the opportunity to learn and correct previous errors.
It is not an opportunity to take advantage of the situation and run through one of your pet projects, such as shutting down oil drilling.
 We also know that Barrack Obama has little, if any, understanding of economics.
To support this statement, I go to none other than Barrack Obama.
Barrack Obama said, "Under my plan energy prices will sky rocket.
" There are only two reasons any leader would lay out such a plan.
1.
They have no understanding of economics 2.
They are attempting to destroy the economy of the country.
I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt and go with number 1.
Some say there is a third, that Barrack Obama is pursuing an environmental policy.
If that is the case, I will still go with number 1.
Increasing energy costs has a negative effect on all of us, and because the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on energy, it has a larger impact on the poor than the rich.
Increased energy prices will cost you more when you pay your utility bill; it will cost you more when you put gas in your car.
It also costs the farmer more to raise and harvest their crops, this increasing everyone's food costs.
(Have you noticed that the government has taken the cost of food and the cost of energy out of the statistical bucket that measures inflation?) Of course, any company that uses energy to produce a product must increase the cost of their product or lay off people, thus negatively impacting jobs.
(Have you noticed that the government does not count people as unemployed once they stop collecting unemployment insurance?) It is a marvel what one can do with statistics.
As my college statistic professor said; "Statistics are like a bikini swim suit, what they revel is suggesting, but what they conceal is vital.
" There are some who point out that the United States is now producing 11 percent more oil than we were in 2008.
They say this as if Barrack Obama has accomplished something.
However, many of that same group has in the past, rejected more drilling because it takes five years to get the oil into production.
If it is true that it takes five years to get the oil into production after we start, then the 11 percent increase must be credited to President Bush.
I believe I have made my case that, "Under my plan energy prices will sky rocket.
" is not a good plan or statement.
What I fail to understand is why anyone would vote for a politician who has such a plan.
If people really understood the ramifications of this statement Barack Obama would not get one vote.
Michele would not even vote for him.
Barrack Obama also feels that the government can "Level the playing field, by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
" If that were true, why is it that when someone poor wins the lotto, winning millions of dollars, within just a few years, in almost every case, they are broke and often filing bankruptcy.
The exceptions are when they are smart enough to get a good attorney and accountant to help them handle the money.
No Barrack, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, does not make the poor rich, you make the poor rich by educating them to behave like the rich.
So this takes us back to the Muslim question.
As I have stated before, I have known too many good, peaceful Muslims to be very concerned if our President is a Muslim or a Christian.
However, everyone should be concerned if he is lying about his religion, for if someone will lie about their religion they will lie about anything.
Perhaps that could be said about any lie, for without integrity, you have nothing.
They say because he has not been forthright about the disclosure of his birth certificate it must be because he was not really born in the United States.
At best, they say he must be trying to conceal something about his birth certificate.
Even now, after the release of his birth certificate, some are saying the released birth certificate is not a scanned document as the White House has claimed, but a computer manufactured document.
I have looked at the video making these claims; the speaker does make some good points; the document shown in the video does look strange.
Others say that although he claims to be a Christian, he does not wear jewelry during Ramadan, so he must be a practicing Muslim.
I am not too concerned about either of these issues.
If he was not born in the United States then the fraud and cover up will go down in history as the greatest con job in the history of the world.
It is almost beyond reason to believe that anyone could, or would even attempt to revise a person's birth records 30 or 40 years after their birth.
As far as the Muslim religion, I have known too many good, peaceful Muslims to be very concerned if our President is a Muslim or a Christian.
For me, I am much more concerned about his lack of a resume than I am about his lack of a birth certificate.
Even before the election, I was saying, "What has Barrack Obama done? And where has he done it?From my perspective as a manager with over 25 year's management experience, I felt he had no known management experience.
As soon as Barrack Obama began picking his staff, I knew he was not qualified to be President.
Just no management experience and as time went on, we saw the inability to make decisions, which is quit common with entry level management, and perhaps some immaturity or lack of desire to manage.
As I say, the first clue was how Barrack Obama picked his staff.
Anyone who has any management experience, or observed a successful organization, knows you must have a diversified staff.
If not, everyone is thinking the same way and you never get a different point of view.
Now I hear Barrack complaining that none of his staff gives him any new ideas.
I have news for you Barrack, they do not have any new ideas, and they are all thinking the same way you think.
The second clue was Barrack and his staff continued to complain about the problems that the administration of President Bush had left behind.
It is ok to point out the problems or issues for the first 30 to 60 days.
But by 90 days, you best have the issues identified and solutions in place.
If someone was working for me and complained about the issues left behind by the previous administration six months into the job, I would do two things.
Ask what did they have in place to correct the previous 'errors' and I would begin looking for a replacement, because I would know I had made a mistake in hiring, this young man is in well over his head.
But Barrack not only continued to complain, he continued down the same path that President Bush had established! What was he changing? Nothing, he was just doing more of it! I feel President Bush lost control of spending when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, and President Obama has continued doing more of the same.
Agreeing or disagreeing with the ongoing military action is really not the point, has President Obama significantly changed what President Bush was doing is the question.
If he has changed nothing, how can he continue to complain about the mess President Bush left behind? It has now been two years, any competent manager would have never complained, they would have just taken the necessary action to correct the problems as they saw them.
Still another example is Barrack's lack of leadership and slow decision making, or in many cases, no decision.
Consider the BP Gulf oil spill; eleven of our people were killed, and Barrack took over forty days to talk to the President of BP! Unbelieveable! The President of the United States should have been on the phone within 24 hours.
The conversation should have been something along these lines; President of the United States: It appears we have a problem in the Gulf.
Do you have a handle on it yet? President of BP: Oh yes we have it under control.
(If this was his answer, I would know he was lying) Or President of BP: No, we are still trying to get our arms around this; we do not have any details at this time.
(Now I know I am dealing with an honest person) Either answer, the next statement from President of the United States should be; you are the experts at deep water drilling.
Let me know when you have that well capped.
I am going to be talking to some experts here about how to contain and clean up the spill, but it is your responsibility.
I will let you know what action my experts recommend.
Let me know if we get in your way.
I do not want any of that oil to touch our beaches.
We now know that there were several methods that may have worked very well in containing the oil.
The President of the United States could have received that information within 72 hours.
We had a great opportunity to real world testing of the several different methods.
The President of the United States could have assigned sections to each different method; we could have learned what really works.
Any real manager knows that a crisis gives one the opportunity to learn and correct previous errors.
It is not an opportunity to take advantage of the situation and run through one of your pet projects, such as shutting down oil drilling.
 We also know that Barrack Obama has little, if any, understanding of economics.
To support this statement, I go to none other than Barrack Obama.
Barrack Obama said, "Under my plan energy prices will sky rocket.
" There are only two reasons any leader would lay out such a plan.
1.
They have no understanding of economics 2.
They are attempting to destroy the economy of the country.
I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt and go with number 1.
Some say there is a third, that Barrack Obama is pursuing an environmental policy.
If that is the case, I will still go with number 1.
Increasing energy costs has a negative effect on all of us, and because the poor spend a larger percentage of their income on energy, it has a larger impact on the poor than the rich.
Increased energy prices will cost you more when you pay your utility bill; it will cost you more when you put gas in your car.
It also costs the farmer more to raise and harvest their crops, this increasing everyone's food costs.
(Have you noticed that the government has taken the cost of food and the cost of energy out of the statistical bucket that measures inflation?) Of course, any company that uses energy to produce a product must increase the cost of their product or lay off people, thus negatively impacting jobs.
(Have you noticed that the government does not count people as unemployed once they stop collecting unemployment insurance?) It is a marvel what one can do with statistics.
As my college statistic professor said; "Statistics are like a bikini swim suit, what they revel is suggesting, but what they conceal is vital.
" There are some who point out that the United States is now producing 11 percent more oil than we were in 2008.
They say this as if Barrack Obama has accomplished something.
However, many of that same group has in the past, rejected more drilling because it takes five years to get the oil into production.
If it is true that it takes five years to get the oil into production after we start, then the 11 percent increase must be credited to President Bush.
I believe I have made my case that, "Under my plan energy prices will sky rocket.
" is not a good plan or statement.
What I fail to understand is why anyone would vote for a politician who has such a plan.
If people really understood the ramifications of this statement Barack Obama would not get one vote.
Michele would not even vote for him.
Barrack Obama also feels that the government can "Level the playing field, by taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
" If that were true, why is it that when someone poor wins the lotto, winning millions of dollars, within just a few years, in almost every case, they are broke and often filing bankruptcy.
The exceptions are when they are smart enough to get a good attorney and accountant to help them handle the money.
No Barrack, taking from the rich and giving to the poor, does not make the poor rich, you make the poor rich by educating them to behave like the rich.
So this takes us back to the Muslim question.
As I have stated before, I have known too many good, peaceful Muslims to be very concerned if our President is a Muslim or a Christian.
However, everyone should be concerned if he is lying about his religion, for if someone will lie about their religion they will lie about anything.
Perhaps that could be said about any lie, for without integrity, you have nothing.
Source...