• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

CHANGE you can believe in

Tam

Well-known member
Updated January 25, 2010
Obama Administration Steers Lucrative No-Bid Contract for Afghan Work to Dem Donor
By James Rosen
- FOXNews.com

The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

Despite President Obama's long history of criticizing the Bush administration for "sweetheart deals" with favored contractors, the Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

The contract, awarded on Jan. 4 to Checchi & Company Consulting, Inc., a Washington-based firm owned by economist and Democratic donor Vincent V. Checchi, will pay the firm $24,673,427 to provide "rule of law stabilization services" in war-torn Afghanistan.

A synopsis of the contract published on the USAID Web site says Checchi & Company will "train the next generation of legal professionals" throughout the Afghan provinces and thereby "develop the capacity of Afghanistan's justice system to be accessible, reliable, and fair."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R37ASqUQ1gg
 

Tam

Well-known member
Notice how he said he was going to answer to the American people as it was them with their $5 donations that was funding his election BUT BUT

top donors to Obama
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, Service Employee International Union President Andy Stern had this to say about last year's presidential election: We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we're proud of it.
 

Steve

Well-known member
simple answer.. if I am limited to $2500 per donation.. then corporations, pacs and unions as an entity should be limited to the same amount..

make them spread the Wealth!
 

Texan

Well-known member
The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bids, Fox News has learned.

Where are all of you Cheney-haters and Halliburton-bashers? How long do you intend to stay in hiding and pretend you don't see these things?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Tam said:
Notice how he said he was going to answer to the American people as it was them with their $5 donations that was funding his election BUT BUT

top donors to Obama
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, Service Employee International Union President Andy Stern had this to say about last year's presidential election: We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we're proud of it.


On all these donations one would have to know if the totals were that of indviduals who donated. I'm sure many organizations have the option for individuals to contribute at each pay period if they desire, with the money being used to elect the candidate of their choice regardless of party.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Yep--fff-- but these same folks that scream now that the government is trying to build US infrastructure- and give programs to assist US citizens to go back to work--- all sat on their hands- and did nothing while GW raped and pillaged the country- and emptied the countries pocketbook to funnel it to his buddies at Halliburton/KBR/etal-- so they could steal it playing in a sandpit....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=397737#397737


Where are you on this issue now, Oldtimer? Are you sitting on your hands and doing nothing - like you accused others of doing? How long are you going to remain silent while BO rapes and pillages the country and empties the country's pocketbook to funnel it to his buddies so they can steal it playing in a sandpit?

Why are you so silent on these issues now that your "chosen champion" is in the White House? If issues like this were important to you during the Bush presidency, they should be equally important to you now. Don't you think it's time for you to man up and speak out?

You've still got your head so far up Obama's ass we're gonna have to change your name to Oldgerbil. :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
TSR said:
Tam said:
Notice how he said he was going to answer to the American people as it was them with their $5 donations that was funding his election BUT BUT

top donors to Obama
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, Service Employee International Union President Andy Stern had this to say about last year's presidential election: We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we're proud of it.


On all these donations one would have to know if the totals were that of indviduals who donated. I'm sure many organizations have the option for individuals to contribute at each pay period if they desire, with the money being used to elect the candidate of their choice regardless of party.

an individual is "limited" to how much they can directly donate, but by donating to a PAC, Union, or corporation, they can bypass the law,

thus making them able to buy a candidates' attention... why should a PAC, union or corporation have more say then a voter?
 

TSR

Well-known member
Steve said:
TSR said:
Tam said:
Notice how he said he was going to answer to the American people as it was them with their $5 donations that was funding his election BUT BUT

top donors to Obama
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, Service Employee International Union President Andy Stern had this to say about last year's presidential election: We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama — $60.7 million to be exact — and we're proud of it.


On all these donations one would have to know if the totals were that of indviduals who donated. I'm sure many organizations have the option for individuals to contribute at each pay period if they desire, with the money being used to elect the candidate of their choice regardless of party.

an individual is "limited" to how much they can directly donate, but by donating to a PAC, Union, or corporation, they can bypass the law,

thus making them able to buy a candidates' attention... why should a PAC, union or corporation have more say then a voter?

Didn't mean to imply that they should. If we could do away with all donations except individual donations and limit the dollar amount on those, then I think we would have a fairer system. I would even be for adding $1-$5 on my income tax return to be evenly distributed among the top three political parties, provided we could have nothing but individual donations. I'm not so sure that the candidates shouldn't all have to run their campaign on the same amount of money. Lets equal the playing field. I say all this being a pro union guy btw.
 

Liveoak

Well-known member
TSR said:
Didn't mean to imply that they should. If we could do away with all donations except individual donations and limit the dollar amount on those, then I think we would have a fairer system. I would even be for adding $1-$5 on my income tax return to be evenly distributed among the top three political parties, provided we could have nothing but individual donations. I'm not so sure that the candidates shouldn't all have to run their campaign on the same amount of money. Lets equal the playing field. I say all this being a pro union guy btw.

Bingo!! It often seems like the candidate that spends the most, wins. That's not right in my book. Thought Ron Paul had some pretty good ideas but he didn't have the $'s to get enough exposure.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
This is why I have maintained Obama didn't 'inherit' anything,
he bought and paid for it.

And I'm still waiting for a comment from the person who bashed
Bush and Cheney over and over for Haliburton getting the Iraq
contract. (Notice I didn't mention names, don't want to be attacked
like last time.)
 

Steve

Well-known member
The Washington, DC-based Judicial Watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, released its 2009 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes nine Democrats and one Republican:

1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat.

2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year’s worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence.

3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank’s intervention for federal dollars.)

4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn’t until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties.

5. Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won’t be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro’s Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism.

6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama’s then- vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama's seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat. According to Reuters: “Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich -- later charged with trying to sell Obama's Senate seat -- at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor's aides about his desire to be appointed.” Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.

7. President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration “lowlights” from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the President’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.)

8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel.

9. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions.

10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow “forgot” about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way out of trouble.

read more at;
http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m12d31-Top-10-corrupt-politicians-list-for-2009-released
 

katrina

Well-known member
Texan said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep--fff-- but these same folks that scream now that the government is trying to build US infrastructure- and give programs to assist US citizens to go back to work--- all sat on their hands- and did nothing while GW raped and pillaged the country- and emptied the countries pocketbook to funnel it to his buddies at Halliburton/KBR/etal-- so they could steal it playing in a sandpit....

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=397737#397737


Where are you on this issue now, Oldtimer? Are you sitting on your hands and doing nothing - like you accused others of doing? How long are you going to remain silent while BO rapes and pillages the country and empties the country's pocketbook to funnel it to his buddies so they can steal it playing in a sandpit?

Why are you so silent on these issues now that your "chosen champion" is in the White House? If issues like this were important to you during the Bush presidency, they should be equally important to you now. Don't you think it's time for you to man up and speak out?

You've still got your head so far up Obama's ass we're gonna have to change your name to Oldgerbil. :lol:

I don't think Obama is what Ot thought he was... Or that's what I would like to think anyways. And the millions of others who voted for him...We've all been a fool somethime or another.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Interesting that OT is so absent.

They have been fooled by Dems. before. They haven't learned thus far that rhetoric is not as important as substance.


Honesty and integrity is quite important in a political rep./leader Dems/liberals/progressives are all about the "ends justify the means"
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Faster horses said:
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Interesting that OT is so absent.

They have been fooled by Dems. before. They haven't learned thus far that rhetoric is not as important as substance.


Honesty and integrity is quite important in a political rep./leader Dems/liberals/progressives are all about the "ends justify the means"

Never waste a disaster :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Once Exposed/Obama Cancels No Bid Contract Given To His Buddy

The recent awarding of a lucrative federal contract to a company owned by a financial contributor to the Obama presidential campaign -- without competitive bidding -- "violated" President Obama's many campaign pledges to crack down on the practice, a top State Department official told Fox News.

Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley, familiar to many Americans from his erudite delivery of the State Department's daily press briefings, made the admission in a telephone interview Saturday night.

Reminded of Obama's many pledges during the 2008 campaign to crack down on the use of no-bid contracts, and of the memorandum the president signed last March instructing the Office of Management and Budget to curb the practice, Crowley said: "You make a valid point. If you want to say this violates the basis on which this administration came into office and campaigned, fair enough."


....However, Crowley insisted the cancellation of the contract had nothing to do with Fox News' reporting but rather was the result of a protest lodged by ARD Inc., a Vermont-based competitor of Checchi and Company. Crowley said the contracting officer in Kabul decided to renew the contract to Checchi and Company on a no-bid basis without being aware of ARD's protest.

"What was missing here," Crowley said, "was a determination that there was an urgent and compelling reason" for the contracting officer to have arrived at that decision. Crowley added: "No one is saying that the performance by Checchi over the last five years has been anything but satisfactory.

Yet when USAID first responded to Fox News' questions about the Checchi deal, more than 72 hours after the agency was first contacted by a Fox News reporter, USAID Director of Public Information Joseph A. Fredericks made no mention of ARD's protest, nor of the decision to cancel the contract.

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/01/once-exposedobama-cancels-no-bid.html
 
Top