*(old nfo)


Courage does not always shout . . . Sometimes it is a very quiet voice at the end of the day saying . . . I will try again tomorrow.

Rev 22:20 "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!"

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Barack Hussein Obama—Racist-in-Chief

On the way home from work last night I turned on the radio and listened to Neal Boortz reading this, while frothing at the mouth. By the time I got home I, too was frothing at the mouth and muttering imprecations that cannot be repeated here. I don’t know the source and I’d like to give credit to the author. Unfortunately I don’t know either one. I Googled it as soon as I got home and came up with it on AOL Messageboards. Here it is in its entirety, as posted on the messageboard:

“The Obama administration, already under fire for unprecedented allegations of racial bias, faces a new bias claim from a most unlikely source: one of the administration's own inspectors general.

Decisions on which car dealerships to close as part of the auto industry bailout -- closures the Obama administration forced on General Motors and Chrysler -- were based in part on race and gender, according to a report by Troubled Asset Relief Program Special Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky.

Dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority-or woman-owned dealerships. [Emphasis added.]

Thus, to meet numbers forced on them by the Obama administration, General Motors and Chrysler were forced to shutter other, potentially more viable, dealerships. The livelihood of potentially tens of thousands of families was thus eliminated simply because their dealerships were not minority- or woman-owned.

As has been widely reported, the Inspector General's study skewered the Obama Gang for strong-arming the companies into closing 2,000 dealerships, costing an estimated 100,000 people their jobs during a recession.

But the news media has ignored key elements of Barofsky's report -- elements that are far more damaging, if possible, to Obama. As we reported earlier in the week, a top Obama official, manufacturing czar and "Auto Team" leader Ron Bloom admitted that the dealerships could have been kept open, saving those jobs, "but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President's mandate for 'shared sacrifice.'"

Barofsky says the administration insisted on the closings even though a GM official told him that GM would usually save 'not one damn cent' by closing any particular dealership. ... Furthermore, a GM official stated that removing a dealership from the network does not save money for GM -- it might even cost GM money-and that savings cannot be attributed or assigned to any one dealership.

And a reading of the IG's study makes plain that some dealership closings forced by the administration were based largely on politics.

The report is highly critical of how dealerships were selected for closure, or termination. Barofsky notes that experts said that while metro areas were oversaturated with GM and Chrysler dealerships and reductions were needed in these areas, this was not the case in rural areas where GM and Chrysler had an advantage over their import competitors. [...]

Although sales volume in small towns may be lower, the cost of operating dealerships in small towns is lower as well. In addition, closing dealerships in small towns could ruin the "historic relationship" that GM has had with residents in small towns and force buyers to drive to metro areas, where there are more competitors. In the worst case, the loss of market share in small and medium-sized markets could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler, the (the Center for Automotive Research) representative said. Representatives from the National Automobile Dealers Association also concurred that dealership terminations would cause GM and Chrysler to lose market share in rural areas. [Emphasis added.]

Nevertheless, as Barofsky notes, "ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas."

That is where raw, hard, sewage-filled Chicago politics came into play.

Records indicate that in 2008, Obama lost the vote totals in the nation's 1,300 rural counties by nearly 80%. The Obama administration's insistence on radical numbers of closures ended up shuttering dealerships in those rural areas disproportionately, while dealerships and jobs in metro areas -- Obama's geographical base -- were left open.

Additionally, it has been widely theorized that dealers targeted for closure as a result of Obama's interference were predominantly those who donated campaign contributions to Republicans. Although evidence to date is largely anecdotal, given what we've already reported about the Obama administration's handling of the auto bailout, such speculation does have considerable grounds for support.

While that last point is leaves room for debate, the details contained in the Barofsky report are not. As Barofsky points out, the Obama administration was given an advance copy, and "Treasury [the Obama Treasury Department] might not agree with how the audit's conclusions portray the Auto Team's decision making or with the lessons that SIGTARP has drawn from those facts, but it should be made clear that Treasury has not challenged the essential underlying facts upon which those conclusions are based."

Included among those undisputed facts:

-Dealerships were retained because they were ... minority-or woman-owned dealerships";

-Thousands of jobs were lost, unnecessarily, due specifically to Obama's "mandate for shared sacrifice";

-A disproportionate number of Obama-forced closings were of rural dealerships, in areas unfriendly to Obama, even though such closures could "jeopardize the return to profitability" for GM and Chrysler.

The media, of course, remain mute about these serious allegations in the Barofsky report. They have limited their coverage to the job loss numbers and tried to place the blame on Treasury Secretary Turbo-Tax Tim Geithner.

For now.

Before long, we'll be reading that it was somehow Bush's fault.”

Keep in mind this was early on, within months after the oath of office. We watched it transpire, while the media skirted around the real truth—no surprise there. The media will continue to ignore every vile, underhanded act committed by Obama and his despicable administration, up to and including the (attempted) shutdown of talk radio and the (attempted) confiscation of our guns. Excuse me, but did our forefathers let matters get this far out of hand before they asserted themselves? We have pinned all of our hopes and dreams on the upcoming election. I pray that our dreams come to fruition concerning this. If not, I believe much stronger measures must be taken or we will succumb to a fate we cannot even imagine.




Old NFO said...

"dealers targeted for closure as a result of Obama's interference were predominantly those who donated campaign contributions to Republicans. Although evidence to date is largely anecdotal,"

Anecdotal my ass... Friend of mine back in Arkansas ONLY kept his dealership because he was registered as a democrat... The three GM dealers that were closed were all registered Republicans, AND he was hit up for a 'donation'...

Pamela D. Hart said...

Granny: Having been a Controller in the Automotive Industry for over 20 years, I knew closing dealerships “to save money for GM & Chrysler” was a bogus excuse. The number of dealerships has nothing to do with GM’s or Chrysler’s profitability. Dealerships pay for EVERYTHING, because the Factories charge them, even down to those car brochures. So it doesn’t matter if there are 10 dealerships or 1,000. The dealerships are the ones paying their own bills and ordering from the factory---cars, brochures, tools, etc. The only thing closing dealerships does is put people out of work and helps the dealerships that remain open make more of a profit because now there is less competition.