Chrysler Non-TARP Creditors File Preliminary Objection; More Threat Corroboration
As allegations that the White House singularly threatened certain Chrysler creditors into taking a less than their current contractual deal regarding their investments in the company, HotAir.com has been reporting that certain non-TARP creditors are taking the situation to court:
If the Obama administration expected the senior creditors of Chrysler to fold their tents under political pressure, they may have gotten a rude shock today. Thomas Lauria, who accused the White House of threatening the creditors withn humiliation at the hands of the White House press corps, has filed a motion to halt the administration’s machinations on behalf of the UAW in the Chrysler bankruptcy. Lauria and his allies claim that the Obama administration has violated the Constitution in their bid to devalue the senior creditors’ holdings on behalf of junior creditors, and have some precedent to support the allegation.
The heart of the argument starts on page 8 (via HA commenter Outlander):
III. The Taking of Collateral through a Direct or Indirect Use of TARP Authority is Unconstitutional.
13. The Treasury Department relies on TARP as the purported authority to justify the disparate treatment under the 363 Sale, even though TARP was enacted after the Senior Lenders’ liens on the Debtors’ property were already in place. The Supreme Court long ago recognized, however, that a secured creditor’s interest in specific property is protected in bankruptcy under the Fifth Amendment. Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 594 (1935). That case involved a Depression-era statute that was intended to help bankrupt farmers avoid losing their land in mortgage foreclosure. The statute in Radford provided that the bankrupt debtor could achieve a release of the security interests either (i) with the lender’s consent, purchasing the property at its then appraised value by making deferred payments for two to six years at statutorily-set interest rates; or (ii) by seeking from the bankruptcy court a stay of the proceedings for up to five years during which time the debtor could use the property by paying a rent set by the court, which payments would be for the benefit of all creditors, with a purchase option at the end of that period. Id. at 856-57.
14. Justice Brandeis noted that the “essence of a mortgage” is the right of the secured party “to insist upon full payment before giving up his security [i.e., the property pledged].” Radford, 295 U.S. at 580. In invalidating the statute, the Court stated that “[t]he bankruptcy power . . . is subject to the Fifth Amendment,” and that the pernicious aspect of this law was its “taking of substantive rights in specific property acquired by the bank prior to the act.” Id. at 589-90 (emphasis added). Thus, Congress could not pass a law that could be used to deny to secured creditors their rights to realize upon the specific property pledged to them or “the right to control meanwhile the property during the period of default.” Id. at 594. That is precisely what the Treasury Department would have Chrysler do here, with respect to the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders’ property rights that were acquired prior to the enactment of TARP.
15. Relying on purported authority provided by TARP, the Treasury Department is demanding that Chrysler’s assets be stripped away from the coverage of the Senior Lenders’ liens – thereby impairing the rights of the Senior Lenders to realize upon those assets – so that those assets may be put in New Chrysler and used to the benefit of unsecured creditors in this proceeding, who will then be paid much more than the Senior Lenders. But, even assuming that TARP provides the Treasury Department with authority to provide funding to the Debtors and impose the transfer of collateral away from the Senior Lenders, TARP was enacted long after the Senior Lenders contracted with the Debtors and received senior liens on the Debtors’ property. Radford specifically disallowed the use of a law to retroactively alter existing liens on property.
16. Here, the proposed sale of the Debtors’ assets will leave the Senior Lenders with a diluted pool of assets and no further interests in the operating assets covered by their specific liens. The Constitution forbids this application of a law retroactively to undercut the Senior Lenders’ pre-existing property rights in favor or inferior creditors.
17. Finally, that the Treasury Department would take these unconstitutional actions to help the United States address difficult economic times is not an answer. Indeed, the same justification was expressly rejected in Radford, where Justice Brandeis noted that a statute which violated secured creditors’ rights, but which was passed for sound public purposes relating to the Great Depression, could not be saved because “the Fifth Amendment commands that, however great the nation’s need, private property shall not be thus taken even for a wholly public use without just compensation.” Id. at 602.
18. What is really striking here is that what is being proposed by the Sale Motion would strip the Collateral away and allow it to be put to use as new capital in New Chrysler for the benefit of existing and other creditors – even though the Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders have been given no opportunity to realize upon that Collateral to the point of full repayment ahead of at least $14 billion of selectively identified unsecured creditors.
One might think that a Constitutional scholar like Barack Obama would have already known that, but either this precedent escaped him or he doesn’t care about it at all. Brandeis acted to uphold contract law, especially in the face of a government interest in paying off politically-connected unsecured creditors ahead of the senior creditors. There is no other reason for Brandeis to make that decision, as only government could insert itself into the contractual relationship during a bankruptcy proceeding — just as Obama has done with Chrysler.
Lauria’s argument seems very compelling here, especially given Brandeis’ rather clear assertion that bankruptcy proceedings have to fall within the 5th Amendment — and that government can’t implement a taking to satisfy its own arbitrary aims by ignoring the relationship of the creditors to the default. We’ll see whether the court rebukes Obama.
What Ed Morrissey comments in the last couple of paragraphs is absolutely critical in the goings-on of the Chrysler/GM/financial industry takeover.
Also consider the following excerpt from FloppingAces (there are plenty more links in the posting at the link):
Just two days ago, No Quarter, a handful of blogs and a thimbleful of major media caught on to the Chrysler holdout firms’ attorney, Tom Lauria, and his accusations that Obama’s auto czar, Steven Rattner, threated to destroy P-W’s reputation if they continued to oppose the government orchestrated sell out of Chrysler to Fiat SpA.
Perella-Weinberg has a stake in Chrysler via their Xerion [Capital] Fund. Chrysler, itself, is currently owned by Cerberus Capital Management LP. Try to keep all these names straight… these players are going to continue to reappear, along with some others you may not know about.
Per Law Shucks, and via Andrew Sorkin at the NYTs Dealbook, Lauria added more detail to that threat in a follow up interview with Jake Tapper.
In a follow-up interview with ABC News’s Jake Tapper, [Lauria] identified Mr. Rattner, the head of the auto task force, as having told a Perella Weinberg official that the White House “would embarrass the firm.”
It’s no surprise that the WH denied the event ever took place. And yesterday Perella-Weinberg issued their carefully parsed statement as well.
Suggestions have been made that the Perella Weinberg Partners Xerion Fund changed its stance on the Chrysler restructuring due to pressure from White House officials. This is incorrect. The decision to accept and support the proposed deal was made by the Xerion Fund after reflecting carefully on the statement of the President when announcing Chrysler’s bankruptcy filing. In considering the President’s words and exercising our best investment judgment, we concluded that the risks of potentially severe capital loss that could arise from fighting this in bankruptcy court far outweighed any realistic potential upside.
We have a very specific mandate from our investors, and that is to carefully weigh investment risks and rewards. It is not our investment mandate to pursue political or risky legal campaigns with our investors’ money. This was our assessment of investment risk and reward, nothing else.
While we did and still do believe that the lenders would be justified in pressing their objections under conventional bankruptcy law principles, we believe a settlement would now be in the best interests of all parties in the context of avoiding a drawn out contested bankruptcy litigation proceeding, and we encourage our colleagues in the loan syndicate to pursue this immediately.
Note very carefully, Perella-Weinberg spokespersons have not denied the charges of White House strong arming. Instead, in no uncertain terms, P-W has chosen to use the promise of heavy litigation costs …. with a questionable outcome… as their reason for a change of heart. Surely they would have known this before signing on to the lawsuit. Could they be this under-informed at the onset?
History… plus their choice of legal representation, belies this possibility. Lauria has been in this same spot for his clientele before with a previous decision in Adelphia Communications.
Here the bankruptcy judge refused requests by Lauria, representing first lien holders, to appoint a trustee to oversee disputes, and to disqualify a chief Adelphia bankruptcy counsel. The bench considered this a “nuclear war button” threatening obliteration of a crucial $17.6 billion deal, selling Adelphia’s assets to cable rivals, Time Warner and Comcast.
Key to the judge’s decision was that a failed sale due to delays could incur higher costs in penalties to Adelphi, and that the assets could be sold prior to the creditor challenges to the planned reorganization by using Section 363 of the US Bankruptcy Code under Chapter 11.
In the same vein, Obama’s orchestrating a forced asset sale to what will be a government and union owned company, [55% to UAW, 10% to government/secured lenders] known as Fiat SpA (or whatever new name they give to this new US entity), prior to Lauria’s Chrysler claims being heard.
But there’s way too much crony’ism going on with Rattner as Obama’s auto czar. As the ever astute Missy pointed out at the end of March, Rattner’s conflicts of interest in oversight are tenacled.
Rattner is co-founder and senior executive of the Quadrangle Group, under investigation for it’s alleged roll in a kickback scheme in concert with Henry “Hank” Morris, and former New York deputy comptroller, David Loglisci, and involving the New York State Common Retirement Fund. Both Morris and Loglisci were arrested in March of this year, charged with 123-count state criminal indictment that included money-laundering, enterprise-corruption and bribery charges.
So far, the most indepth round up of the doin’s between Rattner’s Quadrangle, and Rattner himself with documented meetings with Morris, and Loglisci comes from The New Republic’s Marty Peretz.
I’ll let you read thru the whole unsavory story itself, but it appears that Mr. Loglisci co-produced one loser of a flick called “Chooch” which lost about $700K after a brief run in three theatres. Rattner’s Quadrangle Group decided to do a quid pro quo, and avoided crucial reporting requirements by using a subsidiary to buy the DVD rights to this movie for $88K. Shortly thereafter, magically, Loglisci… in charge of managing some of the NY pension funds… slide $100K from the fund to Rattners Quadrangle Group for investment purposes.
AKA… pay to play. [emphases original]
But wait, there’s more (h/t LogisticsMonster), and it has to do with forboding allegations regarding Smith & Wesson, Cerebrus and Remington (and, yes, there are plenty more links in the post):
Update: I didn’t originally copy LogisticsMonster’s disclaimer at the top of their posting, but since so many of the opposition are freaking out that they started out their posting with a rumor from JumpingInPools, a site known for creating satirical pieces, I’ll post the disclaimer now (which expresses my sentiments exactly):
UPDATE: 5/5/09
This post is creating quite a stir among patriots and obots alike, so if the site is slow -- deal. I still have not been able to reach anyone at S&W to confirm or deny any of what was posted on JumpingInPools as “satire”. I wanted to be thorough, (and my readers know I am that), and check and make sure it was just satire, BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE POST was NOT Smith & Wesson, BUT Cerberus and Remington and what would happen if the government takes control of Cerberus or their holdings, (including gun manufacturers), because Cerberus received TARP MONEY…just like the banks…is any of this ringing anybody’s bell?
…end update…go about your business….
And now, on with the posting:
There is another rumor floating around the internet right now and I have calls and emails into Smith & Wesson to get the real story. I was going to wait until I was actually able to confirm this story one way or another, but ended up going down a completely different path while investigating, and felt that the information revealed required immediate dispersal to the roundtable. I will let you know as soon as I get more information about the rumor. In the meantime, some of you may already know about the second part of this post; most will not.
Here is the rumor…
From Jumping In Pools:
Gov’t Attempting to Seize Smith & Wesson
Marie Llosander
4/29/2009Seemingly in line with other corporate seizures, the United States government appears to be attempting to gain a majority stake in prominent firearms company Smith & Wesson.
Smith & Wesson, one of the oldest weapons company in the United States, is currently on sound economic footing. However, a clause in the 2009 Stimulus Bill calls for the federal government to seize industries and companies that are essential to the economy or ‘government function.’
The Treasury Department contacted the company in March 2009, asking to buy shares at $10 above market price. However, this offer was sharply rebuffed. Similar offers have been made to Remington.
After this rejection, the Treasury Department has declared that it will use mechanisms in the Stimulus Bill in order to override the corporate decision. Smith & Wesson’s board of executives have also been informed that this decision by the Treasury Department could not be appealed to any superior court.
Which brings us to the very interesting part of this story while I wait for confirmation from Smith & Wesson.
“Similar offers have been made to Remington.”
That statement is very interesting since Cerberus owns Remington and bought the gun manufacturer on April 5, 2007. …
I also ran across this interesting tidbit from the New York Observer:
Cerberus Capital Management: You Cannot Be Serious
For reasons that defy both logic and recent history, Cerberus Capital Management, a New York–based private equity firm, has purchased a controlling interest in Chrysler for nothing, while taking the German automaker Daimler off the hook for almost $20 billion in pensions and health-care benefits. The sale comes about nine years after Daimler bought Chrysler for $36 billion in hopes of restoring the company to its former glory. (The biggest joke of all is that Kirk Kerkorian, Chrysler’s then-biggest shareholder, thought Chrysler had made a bad deal, and went on to sue DaimlerChrysler. Now he’s taking a big stake in General Motors—maybe a good short sale.)
This latest sale—if you can call it that—is being hailed as a milestone in the storied history of American automaking. Chrysler, once an icon of mid-century American economic power, will become the first privately owned U.S. car company. The question for Chrysler’s new owners is simple: Why do they think they can rescue the company when Daimler, one of the world’s smartest automakers, clearly could not?
This is not just a question about Chrysler’s future; it’s a question about the entire U.S. auto industry. Chrysler was in bad shape when Daimler bought it, and has only gone south since. Meanwhile, it seems only a matter of time before the Ford Motor Company goes broke, thanks in part to William Clay Ford Jr., the great-grandson of Henry Ford, and his family counterparts, who have managed to fritter away their ancestor’s legacy.
If you are still interested in a thorough bio of Steve Feinberg and Cerberus after all that, go here. I found it fascinating and more names that we have heard over and over before came up.
So I guess the question would be, “what does Cerberus know that we don’t know when it comes to Chrysler and Remington?” Hopefully, I will have some sort of confirmation on the Smith and Wesson rumor soon. Please keep in mind that if Texas passes their firearms freedom act, there will be ground-floor investment opportunities for the brand new gun companies springing up in Montana, Texas, and any other state that wants to shelter them from the feds and big business.
Update: AceOfSpades chimes in on the following corroborating evidence:
Remember, the White House has categorically denied this. As Clinton denied Lewinsky. …
Anyway:
Although the focus has so been on allegations that the White House threatened Perella Weinberg, sources familiar with the matter say that other firms felt they were threatened as well. None of the sources would agree to speak except on the condition of anonymity, citing fear of political repercussions.The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking “end justifies the means” group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was “the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger.” Both were voters for Obama in the last election.
One participant in negotiations said that the administration’s tactic was to present what one described as a “madman theory of the presidency” in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm.
The White House has denied the allegation that it threatened Perella Weinberg.
They both voted for Obama. Proof again of the truism that the government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything away.
Thanks to Anti-Harkonen Freedom Fighter Geoff.
More Intimidation: Perella Weinberg feels the heat, and asks Tom Lauria to start “no commenting” everything.
Note his comment at 3:00 — “I’m sure if people keep pressing, the truth will come out.”
Ah, there’s the rub. Who in the press corps will press? A few here and there. But by and large the press will allow this to slide. After all, they have to conserve their editorial resources for the time when Obama sics them on a creditor who won’t play ball.
Thanks to WTF Capital Investments.
Obama = Nixon: ”The madman theory” was invented either by Kissinger or Nixon or both, and used by Nixon. Nixon’s idea was to scare the North Vietnamese into a truce by having the word put out that Nixon was crazy, he might just use the bomb, everyone at the State Department is worried sick about his stability, etc.
Good to see Bammy has found a good use for it.
Be safe and be vigilant. As I continually say:
“Never trust the government more than the government trusts you.”
-Phil
Lawyer from Missouri:
earl,
There’s really no need for you to do that, as you’ve quite clearly and obviously proven yourself to be a commenter of less than goodwill and candor.
-Phil
Phil says:
May 7, 2009 at 10:36 pm
“My comment was intended as dry humor”
My reply was intended to be even dryer still. I’ll attach a snark tag next time
Lawyer from Missouri:
I’m glad you chose to qualify the statement in parenthesis. Because if you are actually a lawyer, then you know full well that nobody is guaranteed to get their debt paid off at 100% in a bankruptcy.
This is a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and creditors don’t really have a legal right to even offer their opinions on the bankruptcy plan for 120 days. Of course, here they are trying to get their opinion in the press by making goofy accusations, but I assure you the court does not care. If Chrysler proposes a plan acceptable to the court prior to that 120 days (and such a plan often includes payouts to secured creditors at something less than full value), then the secured creditors get to vote on it with everybody else. It may work out for them, it may not. It’s a bankruptcy. All bets are off.
And nobody is guaranteed anything.
earl,
I forgot — you’re very literal. My comment was intended as dry humor. Obviously I didn’t emoticon-ize it to make it overtly so.
-Phil
Historian Dude: Please read the bankruptcy code before you make a non-sensical response. In the federal bankruptcy code, it specifically states that SECURED CREDITORS (those who have contracts attached to collateral) get their debt paid off at 100% (or get first tabs on the bankruptcy estate property).
Next, come priority claims like tax liens, student loans, etc… Then, you have unsecured creditors.
UAW does not have a secured interest in Chrysler. What BHO or Totus is trying to do is rewrite the federal bankruptcy statute with Al Capone tactics.
Well, he thinks, since he got elected (or defrauded) as POTUS by ignoring the natural born citizen clause, it gives him a right to just ignore every freakin law we have.
Well, like Chester Arthur, he better hope he can hide and burn more of his records than think people who have secured interests are going to lie down for The One. Even King Abdullah will not help him on that.
Simple lesson, don’t mess with Americans and their money or they will take out vengeance on you for real.
Has 6 months occurred yet?
This is off the subject but……Just watched Fox News….Brett Bair….guest,Bill Kristol says a report sent to the White House in a press release says in Sept. 2002 two top officials were briefed on the enhanced interrogations and guess who one of them was….you guessed it….Nancy Pelousy!!!! Guess this proves just how BRAIN DEAD she really is and we are paying good tax money for this kind of representation!!!! This is a crime and she should be raked over the coals in the MSM….we’ll see who gives us a full run down on it!!! DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH!!
On a side note; Did the US gov. file for bankruptcy?
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
Phil says:
May 7, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“Tread lightly”
Sorry, that was I. Could be you share some beliefs with us DFH’s! Some day we’ll all be together, holding hands, singing kumbaya, watching the sunset….( ok, ok, I’ll stop, I know you want to keep your lunch down.)
Anonymous,
Tread lightly. You never know when someone could accuse you of agreeing with a “right-wing fringe extremist.” Especially DHS.
-Phil
Phil says:
May 7, 2009 at 10:28 am
“Where did Laugh say they were Catholic.”
He didn’t. I didn’t say he did. He alleged the Catholic Church had a document that testifies that Obama went by the name Soetoro, was adopted by Soetoro and was a muslim. My point was that the Catholic church wouldn’t keep such a “document” at all about anyone, and particularly not about people who were never Catholic. The only records the Catholic Church keeps are baptisms, first communions, confirmations, marriages, holy orders and death record. Of members. No adoption records, no records of legal names. I was calling out Laugh for making up stuff.
I am glad that you point out that religion doesn’t matter, as you know there is no religious test for holding political office in the US.
earl,
Where did That’s Laugh ever make that claim?
My suspicion is that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim at heart, not a Christian. There’s nothing unconstitutional about that, and he can believe what he chooses, but I do find it funny people get so upset when the label “Muslim” is in any way connected with the man.
-Phil
That’s Laugh says:
May 6, 2009 at 10:58 pm
“a document of the Catholic Church testifies to it”
Oh, Laugh, keep those laughs coming. Where do you guys get this stuff? Obama was never a Catholic, his mother and father weren’t Catholic. Why in the world would the Catholic Church have a document ‘testifying’ about Obama? The reason the “he’s not eligible” crowd is so easily scammed is because you suspend your test of reasonableness for anything that is negative about Obama. Or are you exaggerating the content and significance of a copy of a handwritten piece of paper that is purported to be from a Catholic school record book? Priceless.
And those emails from the Nigerian businessman that wants to give you $100,000? Those are a scam Laugh.
Phil –
I read LMs entire post. I’ve read the Jumping in Pools post.
There is a world of difference between satire and rumor. Satire is not true. Not even remotely. It is a literary device that uses circumstances so bizarre that it could not possibly be true to prove a point. Directly from Merriam-Webster:
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
Phil,
I do not believe that what you said is farfetched. Maybe Montana knows something we don’t…
Phil,
All these Obots who don’t read and who are anxious for a witch trial, show that there are not true liberals at all, but puritantical leftist pro-dictatorship self-appointed brownshirts….
Anyone with 1/10 of a brain can see that the article clearly states that the Remington story was put out as a joke, satire, etc..
Its the Obot reaction which is most enlightening. While they harp all day against the facts and evidence of Obama’s fraud and usurpation, they invent charges and false claims against their oppositiong, change definitions categories and argument to suit whateve truth they feel compelled to deny at the moment.
Like Revistionist Guy’s attempts to deny that B.O. never went by the Name Soetero, was never adopted, was never muslim, even though a document of the Catholic Church testifies to all of this.
Or the sames argument that there is no definition of NBC so Obama is legit, and his same argument that the DoS is not lying when they say O is a NBC because there is a definition of NBC….for them to use, that fits him.
Earl is in the same category….
There is no greater comedy than to watch these guys contorted confabulations to support their Kenyan Idol.
Yeah, that $750,000 in legal fees the usurping clown is paying out to protect his crooked ineligible past was a fiction too. Remember?
Excellent post, Phil. Keep them coming.
MaineSkeptic,
OK, why don’t we back up just a bit, shall we? Let’s once again look at what I said:
Notice that I am addressing the intent of such stories, whether they be originating from a blog for the purposes of potential deception, or all the way to an Executive Order, which clearly was exercised as a political move on the Administration’s part. Either way, nothing has, in fact, happened at this point, even though the intention for all was to get people stirred up.
My apologies for not being more clear over my own intentions concerning my commentary.
-Phil
TollandRCR,
Of course “[t]his is not without consequences,” especially for people such as yourself who failed to read the entirety of LogicMonster’s post, wherein they also blatantly labeled the post as a rumor (I’m not sure how more obvious these things can be).
Furthermore, if you actually took the time to read through the entire posting (of which I excerpted roughly half), you’ll see that LogicMonster went even further through the myriad of links that they provided.
Wow. It seems to me like much ado about nothing!
-Phil
Phil said:
Really, Phil? “Just like”? The pledge story was “just like” the closing of Gitmo? A satire intended as a joke is “just like” an official administration policy because they’re both things “being bandied about”?
That’s a little far-fetched, don’t you think?
~Sigh~ Phil, there’s no story to confirm or deny or cross-link or research. It is a satirical piece, tagged as satire by the website. It’s a made-up story. Fiction. Just for fun. YOu know, HAHA.
They got so much uproar from the Obama oath piece, they had to put a disclaimer at the top of that story that says “THIS IS SATIRE”.
Sheesh, Phil IT”S A JOKE! YOU missed the point.
Write to everyone! Put up the S&W article on Free Republic and on every board you can find!
If you have ANY concern or doubt, SPREAD THE WORD!
HistorianDude says:
May 6, 2009 at 12:15 pm
It’s called “bankruptcy.”
So yes, creditors will receive less than their current deal.
That’s the whole point of declaring it.>>>
==================
Wrong MR. freedomphobe.
Bankruptcy doesn’t give controlling interest to the Union that was the major cause of the company going under in the first place.
Get a life.
No, Phil. It’s not a rumor, and there is nothing for you to “check out.” It’s satire or, less technically, a joke. That is, while most readers took it as what it is — a mocking of the rumors circulating within the extreme right wing — somebody could swallow this hook, line, and sinker. You turned out to be the one who did (sadly, not the only one).
Jonathan Swift did exactly the same thing in his 1729 essay, “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public.” His “modest proposal” was that the Irish eat their children, thereby solving their problem of a rapidly growing population, improving the nutrition of both the parents and the other children, and helping mothers to avoid the burdens of childcare. And yes, some of his readers thought he was serious. Wikipedia is informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
This is not without consequences. You now have some people believing that this joke is true. And one of them might be loony enough to try to do something violent about it.
Phil – the issue was simply pointing out the story might not be real, coming from a satire site. As a gun owner myself, I try to keep an eye on anything to do with that industry. I simply wanted to give you a heads up that it might very well be false.
As long as the this whole mess is kept out of the MSM the court will throw out the action brought against Hussein and his comrades.
sus,
I was hoping that you, too, were able to figure out that LogisticsMonster blatantly used the posting as a basis of presumed opinion — rumor — and then went through copious amounts of linkage to either confirm or deny the story. That’s what the blogosphere’s all about.
And yes, I am aware of the oath story RE: Obama. However, the truth even to that story — inasmuch as it was true or false — was that the President was never cited as saying that he required a direct pledge. Rather, the story was careful to suggest that it was an idea essentially being bandied about, just like closing the detainment facilities at Gitmo is being bandied about (even though it hasn’t happened yet), just like many other things are going around.
-Phil
earl,
Yet again, I think you — and others — have missed the point of the entire posting. Even LogisticsMonster admits that the story’s a rumor at this point, and goes on to show copious amounts of other linkage to go about either affirming or denying the story.
-Phil
Phil said:
“Yeah, and?
Both of the above links are perfectly legitimate commentaries on for-real stories.
Not only this, but the original poster over at LogisticsMonster already said that there was no direct confirmation of what was going on. There are, however, plenty of links for further research.
The issue is what, pray tell?
-Phil”
Well, Phil, this issue is that another “Jumping in Pools” article made the rounds not too long ago. That one said that President Obama wanted soldiers to stop taking an oath to the Constitution and instead pledge their loyalty to the president himself. Now, that article was also tagged as “Satire”, but it spread like wildfire amoung the righty boards. Not as satire, but as fact.
And, here we are today. And your article does not reflect that the “Jumping in Pools” piece is satire.
You can figure out the rest.
Collectively we have to stop this government from its fascism. Its intent is clear: to seize private businesses, one industry after the other, nationalize them, and keep Obama in office indefinitely. This is the same thing Hugo Chavez did. That’s why the two of them get along so well.
Good for P&W – they should sue over the constitutional issues involved in the payoff agreement, and THEN they should bring up the issue of Obama’s constitutional INELIGIBILITY FOR OFFICE! Why not bring up everything…that would compel discovery to see if the emperor has clothes or not. And we know he does not.
I faxed House Minority Leader John Boehner, my two senators and congressman today demanding that they investigate Obama. I included the two-page complaint from Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick. He is a decorated navy veteran who is accusing Obama of TREASON.
Phil, the Smith Wesson Story is tagged at the bottom as satire. The other stories aren’t. They always tag their satirical pieces as satire, so when you’re not sure, scroll to the bottom and check the tags. Ans what applies to anything from that site is if it tweaks your conservative sensibilities or outrage, it’s probably satire. ( Just a note to you, you don’t have to post if you don’t want, but let peeps know it is a satire piece.)
MaineSkeptic,
You, too, need to check my response to Patrick McKinnion.
-Phil
GeorgetownJD,
See my reply to Patrick McKinnion on this.
-Phil
Patrick McKinnion,
Yeah, and?
Both of the above links are perfectly legitimate commentaries on for-real stories.
Not only this, but the original poster over at LogisticsMonster already said that there was no direct confirmation of what was going on. There are, however, plenty of links for further research.
The issue is what, pray tell?
-Phil
It should be noted that one of the tags for the S&W article was “satire” on the jumpinginpools page. So hopefully, this is just a bad joke.
Phil-
Jumping in Pools is a satire site. It’s a joke. Why don’t righties recognize satire?
Hey, Phil, the Smith & Wesson story is a joke.
Check the jumpinginpools link — it’s tagged as a satire.
Hey, Phil. You do know, don’t ya, that Jumping In Pools is a SATIRE site?
Umm….Phil, you do know that “Jumping in Pools” is a satire site, right?
Ummmm, that’s how bankruptcy works. Big surprise. I was hoping they could work it out outside bankruptcy. But, Weinberg played chicken… and lost. A shame too.
Also, perhaps you want to check the “Tag” at the “Jumping in Pools” article where it says “Satire”.
An Open Letter to US Senator Leahy
Leahy wants to probe ‘chain of command’ on torture
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/26/torture.debate/index.html
U.S. Senator Leahy: “I want to know who was it who made the decisions that we will violate our own laws; …we will even violate our own Constitution”
If Leahy wants to investigate the “Chain of Command” because he is concerned about violations of the US Constitution with regard to interrogating jihadists, then perhaps we need to have an investigation of the current “Chain of Command” to see if Obamahadinejihad, the “Usurper in Chief”, is constitutionally “eligible to the office of President”.
Article VI of the Constitution: “The Senators and Representatives …shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support [DEFEND] this Constitution”
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: “No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President”
U.S. Senator Leahy: “Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen”
Great reporting, Phil! Now everybody, write to your senators and congressmen.
It’s called “bankruptcy.”
So yes, creditors will receive less than their current deal.
That’s the whole point of declaring it.