Thursday, May 21, 2009

Tennis Match Head, Obama, Places Country At Peril

President Barack Obama standing behind the HMS Resolute Desk in the Oval Office on May 14, 2009. Image Credit: The Official White House Photostream

Tennis Match Head, Obama, Places Country At Peril

Watching and hearing Barack Obama deliver a speech on National Security from the National Archives, and have him review a lopsided opinion on the facts and direction our efforts took over these last seven years to secure the safety of the country, from a teleprompter, is a scary and frightful experience.

Visually, his head swishes back and forth, from pane of reflective glass to pane of reflective glass, left to right, right to left ... this is really hard to watch. What is even more disturbing, unfortunately, is what this 44th President of the United States actually is reading. He believes that the detention and treatment of non-country connected enemy combatants who seek to destroy the United States and all American citizens needs to match up with how common criminals are treated here on American soil.

War is different than criminal acts and terrorism including destructive terrorist acts are different than chaos of general criminal mayhem.

Yesterday, a terrorist plot was broken up that had targeted Jewish synagogues and the missile attack of commercial passenger jet airliners. These people, even though they were citizens of the United States, planned their attacks in Islamic mosques, and many who were involved, converted to Islam religion while serving time in a general population of criminals in a US prison.

Today, Tennis Match Head went back and forth while he explained that Guantanamo as a prison, needs to be shut down, and these enemy combatants need to be brought into our in-country prison system and be treated to a more normalized approach of detainment. This would include criminal legal representation in our court system, and if successful in being released, welfare support from the Government that would allow the terrorist, caught on a battlefield killing our soldiers, a leg up at stating life over.

When does redefining ACTS OF WAR to common criminal behavior make sense in any world, let alone in Carter's Second Term?

Barack Obama is destroying America through idealistic, radical socialist philosophy. He believes that the rights of non-citizen terrorist that look to destroy the United States, are more important than the sovereignty and the safety of all citizens of the country he was elected, by a majority percentage of voting citizens as chief Executive official, to lead.

Mr. Obama at the National Archives this morning. Former Vice President Dick Cheney also spoke on national security, immediately after the president’s speech. Image Credit: Doug Mills

Text of President Barack Obama's speech excerpted and edited from text provided by The Huffington Post - Remarks of President Barack Obama - As Prepared for Delivery

Protecting Our Security and Our Values

National Archives Museum - Washington, D.C. - May 21, 2009

My single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe. That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.

This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm. We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history. We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again. We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.
But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world.

I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents. My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered. My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land. My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.

I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism. We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe. Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset - in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval.

Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world.
It is the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort.
After 9/11, we knew that we had entered a new era - that enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law; that our government would need new tools to protect the American people, and that these tools would have to allow us to prevent attacks instead of simply prosecuting those who try to carry them out.
But I also believe that - too often - our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us - Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens - fell silent.

In other words, we went off course. And this is not my assessment alone. It was an assessment that was shared by the American people, who nominated candidates for President from both major parties who, despite our many differences, called for a new approach - one that rejected torture, and recognized the imperative of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. Indeed, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law - a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies.
Where demanded by justice and national security, we will seek to transfer some detainees to the same type of facilities in which we hold all manner of dangerous and violent criminals within our borders - highly secure prisons that ensure the public safety. As we make these decisions, bear in mind the following fact: nobody has ever escaped from one of our federal "supermax" prisons, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists.
First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts - courts provided for by the United States Constitution.
Our courts and juries of our citizens are tough enough to convict terrorists, and the record makes that clear.
The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions.
They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot be effectively presented in federal Courts.
I did, however, support the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms. And those are the reforms that we are making.

Instead of using the flawed Commissions of the last seven years, my Administration is bringing our Commissions in line with the rule of law.
And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify.
The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts.
It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have found that there is no legitimate reason to hold twenty-one of the people currently held at Guantanamo.
The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country.
Finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people.

I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country.
These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture - like other prisoners of war - must be prevented from attacking us again.
As our efforts to close Guantanamo move forward, I know that the politics in Congress will be difficult.
Several weeks ago, as part of an ongoing court case, I released memos issued by the previous Administration's Office of Legal Counsel.
The argument that somehow by releasing those memos, we are providing terrorists with information about how they will be interrogated is unfounded - we will not be interrogating terrorists using that approach, because that approach is now prohibited.
On the other hand, I recently opposed the release of certain photographs that were taken of detainees by U.S. personnel between 2002 and 2004.
In short, there is a clear and compelling reason to not release these particular photos. There are nearly 200,000 Americans who are serving in harm's way, and I have a solemn responsibility for their safety as Commander-in-Chief.
In each of these cases, I had to strike the right balance between transparency and national security.
Along those same lines, my Administration is also confronting challenges to what is known as the "State Secrets" privilege. This is a doctrine that allows the government to challenge legal cases involving secret programs.
We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrasses the government. That is why my Administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.
Now, this generation faces a great test in the specter of terrorism. Unlike the Civil War or World War II, we cannot count on a surrender ceremony to bring this journey to an end.
Reference Here>>

War can not be won through apologies, and President Barack Obama delivered a speech that was little more than a dangerous apology to terrorists throughout the world.

As for the adherence to the "Rule Of Law", where is the rule of law when it comes to Free Enterprise and protecting investor rights in the face of a Government ordered Bankruptcy in the auto industry and the nations banking systems?

As for Guantanamo standing as a recruitment tool for terrorists, the prison did not exist until well after 9/11/2001.

The biggest recruitment tool for terrorists is a SUCCESSFUL ATTACK, not the calculation as to what might happen after an attack. To be frank, if a terrorist is successful, they are dead (along with the thousands of innocents if it is a large scale attack) and do not worry about where they will be on this Earth.

Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney speaks at the American Enterprise Institute today in Washington, DC. Image Credit: Mark Wilson

Lastly, this excerpted and edited from Text of former V.P. Dick Cheney's National Security Speech at AEI from FOX News -

The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism. They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum. If liberals are unhappy about some decisions, and conservatives are unhappy about other decisions, then it may seem to them that the President is on the path of sensible compromise. But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed. You cannot keep just some nuclear-armed terrorists out of the United States, you must keep every nuclear-armed terrorist out of the United States.

Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. When just a single clue that goes unlearned … one lead that goes unpursued … can bring on catastrophe - it's no time for splitting differences. There is never a good time to compromise when the lives and safety of the American people are in the balance.
---- You can sense the problem in the emergence of euphemisms that strive to put an imaginary distance between the American people and the terrorist enemy.

Apparently using the term "war" where terrorists are concerned is starting to feel a bit dated. So henceforth we're advised by the administration to think of the fight against terrorists as, quote, "Overseas contingency operations."

In the event of another terrorist attack on America, the Homeland Security Department assures us it will be ready for this, quote, "man-made disaster" - never mind that the whole Department was created for the purpose of protecting Americans from terrorist attack.

And when you hear that there are no more, quote, "enemy combatants," as there were back in the days of that scary war on terror, at first that sounds like progress.

The only problem is that the phrase is gone, but the same assortment of killers and would-be mass murderers are still there. And finding some less judgmental or more pleasant-sounding name for terrorists doesn't change what they are - or what they would do if we let them loose.
Reference Here>>

Additional Synapsis HERE>>

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

When A Pay Cut, Is A Fake Pay Cut

California State Capitol building in Sacramento, January 2008 lit up for breast cancer awareness. After the vote to dispatch (reject) Propositions 1A-E by over a 60% margin on Tuesday, March 19, 2009 in a State mandated Special Election, the Capitol may just be pink with a hue of embarrassment. Image Credit: Media USA

When A Pay Cut, Is A Fake Pay Cut

This morning in Burbank, on the very day after the Special Election called to vote on Propositions that would increase taxes (again) for everyone, the board of the California Citizens Compensation Committee acted on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's wishes in a bigger way than anticipated. The Governor had been working on getting concessions in salary from the group(s) that represent the state elected officials and officers of about 10% ... he got 18%!

This may sound good ...

But the pay cuts the panel approved won't start to go into effect until December, 2010, because the California constitution prohibits state officer salaries from being cut in the middle of their terms.

The cut will drop the annual pay of a legislator from $116,208 to $95,291.

So, when is a pay cut a FAKE pay cut? When it does not take effect for about one and one-half years from the time the decision is made. There is plenty of time between now and December 2010 for this ruling to change, or be overturned!

This excerpted and edited from the Sacramento Bee -

Commission slashes state officials' pay
By Peter Hecht, Sacramento Bee - Wednesday, May. 20, 2009 - 10:55 am

Declaring that elected officials must share the pain of California's fiscal crisis, an independent commission voted today to impose an 18 percent pay cut for statewide elected officials and all members of the Legislature.

The California Citizens Compensation Committee, which sets salaries for state officers, earlier voted in favor of a more modest 10 percent pay cuts in an April 29 meeting in Sacramento. But the action couldn't stand because the seven-member board lacked the required four votes.

But today the commission voted 5-1 to make a deeper reduction in elected officials' salaries because of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's announced plans to lay off 5,000 state workers.

They also said they were influenced by voters' overwhelming approval of Proposition 1F - a ballot measure that will ban increases in lawmaker salaries - in any budget deficit year.
Reference Here>>

NO American citizen should allow the Federal Government to move in and take-over the States as they have the Banks and Automobile industry.

Look, on the Federal level, this is all about CONTROL - not help or assistance - and they do not care what it takes to allow them to do this. Take taxpayer money that THEY do not have to pay back, and print as much money they feel they will need (about one Trillion dollars to date) in order to pull off this PONZI scheme of central, and socialist CONTROL.

Don't let Washington D.C. bail out any state, especially one as large as California. The politicians in California should be allowed to fail or correct themselves here during this ... Carter's Second Term.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Driving The Debt Car During Carter's Second Term

The National Debt Roadtrip - A graphic illustration on the proportion of Federal Government spending under Barack Obama, his Administration and the current U.S. Congress [Crtl-Click image to launch video]. Image Credit: PDF Conversion by Edmund Jenks (2009)

Driving The Debt Car During Carter's Second Term

How did the national debt get so big? How do the Obama deficits compare with past presidents?

This video attempts to illustrate the answer to those questions by looking at the debt as a road trip and seeing how fast different administrations have been traveling.

A common reaction many of us hear who are upset and concerned with the huge expansion of federal spending and thus a dramatic increase in the national debt is, "What about W's [George W. Bush] rampant spending!" To which us fiscal conservatives will say, "We didn't like that either, and said so at the time." (NOTE: Barack Obama as a Senator, voted for and approved the rampant spending of the Bush Administration)

Many "PROGRESSIVES" dismiss this, mistakenly assuming fiscal conservatives believe and behave the same as the Republican members in Congress. To be honest, this issue of debt accumulation and spending is neither Conservative or Liberal ... but it is Progressive.

This brief YouTube video does a superb job of showing why most level headed citizens are so upset over the fiscal policies of the Obama Administration and Congress (started under Bush last fall). The expansion of Federal Government and the massive spending passed over the first 100 days of the 44th Presidency is historic, and not necessarily in a good way.

This excerpted and edited from PoliticalMath -

The National Debt Road Trip – Complaint 1
May 16, 2009

I had a commenter for the National Debt Road Trip call BS on some of my numbers, so I wanted to run some sample numbers to make sure that I’m being as transparent as possible.

Complaint: “Obama’s projected to add about 9 trillion. That isn’t three times as much as Bush’s nearly 5 trillion.”

First of all, let’s get the numbers right. In raw unadjusted dollars, Bush increased the debt from $5.674 trillion to $10.024 trillion. That is $4.35 trillion, not five. And Obama has projected that he will increase it from $10.024 trillion to $20.004 trillion, which is $9.979 trillion … far closer to $10 trillion than to $9 trillion.
But still, $10 trillion is not three times $4.35 trillion. But that’s where inflation adjustment comes in. According to this inflation calculator, $5.674 trillion in 2000 dollars is the same as $7.035 trillion in 2008 dollars. This makes the inflation adjusted difference between the 2000 debt and the 2008 debt just $2.94 trillion.

I gave Obama a break by assuming that his team didn’t adjust for future inflation, so I made adjustements to his numbers, which meant cutting about $1.6 trillion off the debt leaving us with $18.4 trillion. This means he plans on increasing the debt by about $8.2 trillion (rounding down).

8.2 / 2.94 = 2.79 (the coefficient determining the speed calculation)

64 mph * 2.79 = 178.37 mph

Which is actually a shade faster than I said Obama was going.

I know most liberals aren’t going to believe this, but I really am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. In this video alone, I underestimated the inflation adjusted debt and I rounded everything down for him. If he still doesn’t look good, it’s not my fault.
Reference Here>>

For more information, follow the Twitter account - PoliticalMath - or visit -

Thursday, May 14, 2009

The Tripe With TARP & The Obama-Nation

If you're fed up with the Presidential politics, and want to get away from it with a little Xbox escapism, don't play Burnout Paradise. The racing game features VIRTUAL BILLBOARDS URGING GAMERS TO VOTE FOR OBAMA. Is the addition of political ads in console games change you can believe in? Caption & Image Credit:

The Tripe With TARP & The Obama-Nation

The Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP) was originally created by the Bush Administration to help as a buffer for homeowners, who were in trouble of loosing their home when the flexible interest rates of the “sub-prime” mortgages they had used to initially purchase their home … increased. The idea was to be able to have the mortgages reset, or better, renegotiated to a level that the mortgages providers would not have their financial instruments be defaulted on by the people who had committed to pay the mortgages.

By having about 700 Billion dollars of TARP (read that as taxpayer money) set aside, the Federal Government felt that banks would be less inclined to foreclose on, or end the financial contract and the economy would remain relatively level and undisrupted.

This may have been effective … MAY … if the Federal Government applied the monies only where there they were needed. What has happened, however, is a massive level of “mission creep” where the Federal Government has decided to force all financial institutions to take money TARP money in exchange for specialized preferred stock, and if these banks did not participate, they would suffer additional activity brought about through audits and other Governmental investigative activity that hinders a bank from transacting a profitable business.

Further, the Federal Government unilaterally converted the Preferred Stock (non-ownership type) to Common Stock (ownership type) and now own an interest in the banks themselves … and remember, many of these institutions never participated in the issuing and selling of mortgages that are the topic of the TARP monies and/or do not have any loans in default.

The Federal Government forced a transition of ownership of privately held, once profitable businesses to be under the management control and influence of Federal Government bureaucrats who have never managed a private business for profit … in the first place.

The above description is an ugly enough scenario without looking at the additional uses of the original Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP).

Transportation Stock and Bond Certificates - Chrysler Corporation, Delaware, USA, 1970: $1,000 Sinking Fund Debenture certificate featuring the famous "Chrysler" radiator cap flanked by allegorical female character and company logos. Also includes traffic scenes showing old trucks and vintage cars in the background. Walter P. Chrysler, formerly of Buick and Willys, acquired Maxwell-Chalmers in 1923 and the first car bearing his name was produced in 1924. Chrysler laid the foundations for a motor empire to rival General Motors and Ford when he took over Dodge and launch the Plymouth Four and the De Soto Six in 1928. Punch cancelled. Scarce. VF+ - Red (12" x 8") $95.00 - Image Credit:

This item published three days before Barack Obama took office excerpted and edited from the Washington Post –

U.S. Expands Aid To Auto Industry

Chrysler Financial Gets $1.5 Billion From Treasury; Ford Credit in Talks

By David Cho and Kendra Marr - Washington Post Staff Writers - Saturday, January 17, 2009; Page D02

The government expanded its bailout of the nation's troubled auto industry yesterday, announcing a new $1.5 billion loan for Chrysler Financial while Ford Credit said it was in talks to obtain federal aid.

The money for Chrysler Financial will come from the government's $700 billion financial rescue program. Senior officials from the Treasury and Federal Reserve are hoping the assistance, combined with earlier support for General Motors' chief lender GMAC, will keep auto loans flowing until the two agencies can make more funds available for credit cards, student loans and small business loans.

The developments came on a frantic last work day at the Treasury Department, as officials pushed out the door several key deals and announcements related to the rescue program, known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP.


Last fall, Paulson told lawmakers that the TARP would be used to buy bad assets. But soon after the bill was approved by Congress in early October, he moved away from the idea to provide more direct aid to financial institutions.


The moves to aid the financing arms of the nation's automakers draw the federal government more deeply into Detroit's troubles.

To date, the government has committed TARP money to provide $17.4 billion for General Motors and Chrysler, $6 billion for GMAC, and now the new loan to back Chrysler Financial.


"We're still funding our business," said Ford Credit spokeswoman Margaret Mellott, who confirmed the talks, which have been going on for months. "We have strong liquidity . . . It's an ongoing dialogue to free up credit."

Although Ford has said it can survive without federal aid or intervention, it continues asking to be treated the same as its struggling cross-town rivals GM and Chrysler.


The support for Chrysler Financial is structured differently than most other loans the Treasury has made from the TARP. Instead of investing money directly into Chrysler Financial, the company is creating a special entity that will receive the government loan. Chrysler Financial can then withdraw those funds to make new auto loans.


In addition, Chrysler Financial agreed to reduce by 40 percent the pool of bonus money for its senior executives relative to the 2007 levels, among other limitations on what it can pay its top officials.


"This will provide a great economic stimulus for car buyers across the country," Jim Press, Chrysler vice chairman and president said in a statement.

Chrysler Financial applied for TARP funds in November. In December, Chrysler's sales slid 53 percent compared with the corresponding month a year before.

"This funding will better position us to withstand the current economic challenges until funding becomes available through more traditional commercial sources," said Thomas F. Gilman, vice chairman and chief executive of Chrysler Financial in a statement.


Yesterday was supposed to be their last day of work, but many senior Treasury officials kept their government-issued BlackBerrys rather than turn them in. They were given Federal Express envelopes to ship their devices next week, in case they had to work over the weekend.

Reference Here>>

So, just about three months down the road, Chrysler declares bankruptcy!

The company is broken up into several parts where the United Auto Workers Union becomes the majority share owner – surprise, surprise.

Oh, and the people who invested their money in good faith in the company to get a return on their investment protected by our country’s bankruptcy laws which stipulate that the primary share owners are first honored? The Obama Administration shafted their interests and moved them to the back of the line only allowing them, the investors, a chance at a loss on their investment.

MODERN TIMES: If only the UAW were such a victim as they are depicted here in this R.J. Matson cartoon. The worker caught in a web of gears waiting to crush them up - the truth is that with a 55% ownership of Chrysler, THEY ARE the gears ... they had created through negotiation and now own. Image Credit: R.J. Matson, The New York Observer

This excerpted and edited from CBS News –

Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics

Declan McCullagh: Obama Calls Creditors Who Lent Money To Chrysler "Speculators," But What About the Rule Of Law?

May 7, 2009 | by Declan McCullagh

Chrysler's sad tale that led to this week's bankruptcy hearing in New York is not only an important business and political story. It also encompasses morality, the rule of law and strong-arm tactics used by some politicians.
During its slide, Chrysler borrowed money from lenders and in return signed a contract promising that as so-called senior creditors, they'd get paid before anyone else if the company went under.

These creditors, by the way, represent something of a cross-section of America: the University of Kentucky, Kraft Foods' retirement fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, pension funds, teachers' credit unions, and so on.

A normal bankruptcy filing would be straightforward. Senior creditors get paid 100 cents on the dollar. Everyone else gets in line.

But President Obama and his allies don't want that to happen. So they interfered on behalf of unions (the junior creditors) and publicly upbraided the senior creditors who were asserting their contractual rights and threatening to head to bankruptcy court.

Last week Mr. Obama lambasted them as "a small group of speculators" who "endanger Chrysler's future by refusing to sacrifice like everyone else."

Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, sent reporters a statement calling the creditors "vultures" and "rouge hedge funds." Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm piled on, taking aim during her radio address at a "few greedy hedge funds that didn't care how much pain the company's failure would have inflicted on families and communities everywhere."

It must be a coincidence that the United Auto Workers has handed $25.4 million to federal politicians over the last two decades, with 99 percent of that cash going to Democrats. And that Mr. Obama's final campaign stop on Election Day was a UAW phone bank.

If those politicians thought about this a bit more, they'd probably realize their mistake. Creditors didn't force Chrysler's management to head to the capital markets and beg for funds: It was poor management, uncompetitive wages, and a union that opposed pay cuts.

Without those greedy "vultures" and "rogues" injecting sorely-needed cash into a business they knew was risky, Chrysler might have been forced to declare bankruptcy much earlier. (And now that lenders know they may be demonized by the president, will they be as likely to help out next time?)

One of the better critiques of this unusual situation comes from Clifford Asness, managing partner at a $20 billion hedge fund named AQR Capital Management. His essay responds to what he called "toxic demagoguery" and says "the president's attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him."
A document that the non-TARP creditors filed with the bankruptcy judge about the proposed sale to Fiat says: "The sale is far from an arm's length transaction, but rather, is the result of a tainted sales process dominated by the United States government... It is a sale that was orchestrated entirely by the Treasury and foisted upon (Chrysler)... Well before the filing, (Chrysler) had ceased to function as an independent company and had become an instrumentality of the government."

So if you're keeping score, you have a bankrupt company depending on the government for money negotiating with some TARP-funded creditors depending on the government for money and still more creditors who may hold insurance policies with AIG, which depends on the government for money. And we're already hearing similar allegations about General Motors and political interference.

One disturbing report came from a well-respected attorney representing the dissident Chrysler creditors. Thomas Lauria, the head of White & Case's bankruptcy practice, says that he was threatened by Steven Rattner, the White House's auto task force chief. (A White House spokesman denies making any threats.)

"I represent one less investor today than I represented yesterday," Lauria said on a Detroit radio show. "One of my clients was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under threat that the full force of the White House press corps would destroy its reputation if it continued to fight. That's how hard it is to stand on this side of the fence." Lauria said that his clients were willing to compromise on 50 cents on the dollar, but the government offered them only 29 cents.

In the Federalist Papers in 1788, James Madison wrote that "laws impairing the obligation of contracts are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation." Unfortunately, Washington politicians seem to pay little attention to history, morality, or the rule of law.

Reference Here>>

All of this economic upheaval and Federal Government takeover of private enterprises are only the beginning of the misuse of tax money and the trust of the American people.

Within the first six weeks, a "Stimulus" appropriations bill was passed that increased the budgets of all Federal Government entities by an average of nearly 80% followed by the "Omnibus" appropriations bill that increased the budgets of all Federal Government entities by an additional 8%.

Some agencies in six weeks, saw a 100% increase in the amount of tax money they could spend ... this at a time of under 4% inflation here at the beginning of Carter's Second Term.