Barack Obama Hates Black People
Aug 29, 2012 Political
There is a terrible hurricane beating the hell out of New Orleans while Barack Obama is out holding campaign events. His FEMA is not on the ground and they are not in route. People are stranded and are being rescued by local responders in boats as 18 or more inches of rain causes flooding in the streets. Nearly 650,000 people are without power and Barack Obama has yet to go down there and turn the power back on.
Silly, you say? Definitely but isn’t this the kind of stuff we heard about Bush when Katrina hit seven years ago to the day?
George Bush was not doing anything. He hated black people. He was allowing them to die. FEMA was not on the ground and on and on.
The topper was that Bush caused the storm and blew up the levees to flood the place. Yes, some of the loony liberals actually said this.
Maybe we should blame Obama for bringing this hurricane to the mainland. We all know he did it to disrupt the Republican Convention. /sarc
The truth of the matter is that a hurricane is making its way across that region and there is not a lot anyone, even the great and powerful Ozbama, can do about it. If the people there were not prepared prior to landfall then they are going to be riding out a storm and getting help when it is able to arrive. The same doctrine that was in place during Katrina is in place now and that is the 72 hour YOYO. In other words, you’re on your own for about 72 hours while emergency responders and people from other agencies make their way in. They will arrive when it is possible AND SAFE to do so.
From all reports it looks like the folks in that region of Louisiana are better prepared than they were when Katrina hit. A Republican governor is in place and things are running smoother.
It is fairly ironic that a storm like this is hitting the same region that left an undeserved mark on George Bush (while leaving local Democrats unscathed). It is happening during Obama’s reign and while the place is being flooded he is out raising money for his reelection campaign.
I wonder how many of the Democrat media will take him to task for this…
I hope and pray the folks in that region are OK and that the storm does not cause the disruption that Katrina did.
I know that no matter what happens the media will make it appear as if Obama walked across the water to save those poor folks (though he would really only go there for campaign donations or to get a prime tee time). It just might be possible that this entire mess will give Obama the same opportunity Bush had.
The opportunity to get blasted for things that are not in his lane of responsibility (state issue), the opportunity to get blamed for any federal response that is deemed too slow regardless of the actual response and the opportunity to get painted with a broad brush that does not accurately reflect the situation.
I know I blame him for it all as a matter of fair play (Obama always wants a level playing field and equal outcomes). George Bush was accused of hating black people because of Katrina. I guess Isaac will prove the same about Obama.
You know what they say about karma…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Obama To Overhaul Government Contracting
Mar 6, 2009 Political
Barack Obama ran on a platform of changing the way the federal government does business and his latest venture is into the government contracting process. The government is not necessarily interested in changing the way contracts are awarded and though there might be new rules from The Evil One, the reality is Congress will do what it wants. When contracts are awarded using the appropriate procedures and the contract is not awarded to whom a particular politician wanted then there are calls for investigations and a do over.
The Democrats have cried for 8 years about sole sourcing contracts to Halliburton by the Bush administration while ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton sole sourced to the same company for the same reason. They were the only one large enough to handle what was needed. Obama stated the other day that the rules were going to be rewritten to save the country billions of dollars:
President Obama on Wednesday ordered his administration to change how government contracts are awarded to private businesses, saying he intended to reverse some practices of the Bush administration and do away with no-bid contracts that have cost billions and led to corruption investigations.
~snip~
“The days of giving defense contractors a blank check are over,” Mr. Obama said. “We need more competition for contracts and more oversight as they are carried out.” New York Times [emphasis mine]
I commend Obama for indicating that there needs to be competition in the contracting process. He should exercise caution though because he will not be able to eliminate no bids all together. There are some companies who are the only ones that do what they do and others will not be able to compete. However, the competition needs to be there when practicable. Lowest bids should not be the sole determination of awarding a contract but it should play a part.
Given Obama’s statement I have a challenge for him. Barack Obama, if you truly want competition then you need to eliminate the government set asides for special groups. The government sets aside contracts for small, minority, veteran or female owned businesses and this is not necessarily the way to get the best service for our money. These businesses should be able to compete but they should not be the only ones allowed to do so. From Small Business:
GSA, like all Federal agencies, has established goals for awarding contracts to small, minority-owned, women-owned, HUBZone, veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran- owned small business owners. To meet these goals, GSA uses “small business programs”?. These programs include contact with the small business community, both to inform them about what GSA has to offer, and to help in locating and working with GSA procurement offices. Some small business programs also have “set-asides”? under which certain contracts are reserved for competition among small businesses.
Some agencies are required to purchase from these entities even if a better price is available elsewhere. I have seen many purchases for items that cost quite a bit more than the item could have been purchased for from a local store. The answer to any question is always, we have to buy from this organization.
If Obama is interested in restructuring the process then he needs to ensure that all set asides are removed and the process is opened for every business that can provide the service and who wants to compete. The goal is to save taxpayer money and to be good fiscal stewards so keeping practices that do not save money should be out of the question. That would be business as usual which is not the change we can believe in.
One thing is intriguing though. No bid contracts are the focus of this though the larger picture is to improve the entire process. The article cites over runs in the no bid process:
A review of 95 military projects by the Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan auditing arm of Congress, found that they [no bid contracts] exceeded the budgeted amounts by $295 billion over the course of several years.
This failed to mention how much over runs in competitive contracts cost but in any event the no bids are quite expensive. Or are they?
Given how much money the government spends on contracts this 295 billion over several years must represent only a very small percentage of the total cost.
Democrats say not to worry about pork in Congressional bills because the pork is a very small percentage of the entire bill. Harry Reid made that claim very recently and we have heard it a number of times. If the small percentage of pork does not matter and is no reason to overhaul the legislative process in DC then why is the small percentage of no bid over runs a good reason to overhaul contracting in the government?
I am all for making the contracting process more competitive and more cost effective but in total.
I am not in favor of window dressing and lip service which is generally what we get when government talks about change.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: contracts, fairness, no bid, Obama, small business
Make Obama and Clinton Live by the Rules They Want for Us
Feb 4, 2008 Political
We need to make Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama run their campaigns by the very same rules they want to impose upon us. I heard Obama say that he is not ashamed to proclaim that he wants to raise the cap on which people pay social security to make the rich will pay more so that the average guy will be able to draw social security benefits. This is nothing more than wealth redistribution, taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I would not have a problem with them raising the cap if rich people could draw social security. Once you have a certain amount of retirement income you are not entitled to SS benefits. Therefore, all the money a person pays in ends up going to someone else. Basically, what they gave us was Socialism Security.
Hillary Clinton has stated that she wants to give health care to every person in this country and she will raise taxes on the rich in order to do it. The money taken in will be used to pay for health care for those who cannot afford it. Rich people will still have to pay for their own. This again, is redistribution of wealth. To top it off, Hillary will garnish wages to gain compliance.
Here is my plan. They both have to run their campaigns on the same terms they want for us. Obama received $32 million in January and that is more than Hillary took in. So, in order to make things fair we need to raise the cap on what she is allowed to take from a donor and we need to cut in half the amount he is allowed to take in. This will level the playing field so that his rich campaign will not have an advantage over her not as rich campaign. And, since they both want equality in life where there is no gap between the rich and the poor, Obama will have to give the Clinton campaign enough money to make their war chests exactly even. This is fair and I am not ashamed to say that we need to cap Obama, the rich campaign, so that Hillary, the average campaign, will have campaign money.
Here is how it goes for Hillary. Hillary leads in the delegate count. It is not fair that Obama works just as hard as she does and does not have as many delegates as she so Hillary will have to give Obama enough delegates so that they will be even. Also, there will be a penalty if Hillary gets more of the popular vote in any state. If she gets more votes then we will garnish her total and give him extra delegates. It is not fair for two people who work just as hard as each other to not get the same exact thing for their efforts so we will penalize Hillary if she gets more votes or more delegates. Also, since it is discrimination for the Super Delegates to take sides in this issue (it must be discrimination because a black guy is on the short end) the Super Delegates will be divided by giving Obama three quarters and Hillary one quarter. This is affirmative action for the primary and it ensures Obama is compensated for the slavery that occurred a long time ago. He will be compensated for that and if it hurts Hillary, well she will have to suck it up.
I am willing to bet that neither of them would agree to such terms but they have no choice in the matter because I have mandated that it be so.
After all, these kinds of plans are what they want to do to us and they will achieve them by force.