IT IS TOO BAD THE ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE DID NOT THINK CHRYSLER BOND HOLDERS DESERVED THE SAME PRO

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

Saturday, November 28, 2009

If the American public had any doubt where the loyalties of the Obama administration were before yesterday. There is no doubt about it today.

As you will recall when we had the controversy over the government take over of General Motors less than a year ago. During the GM process the issue of bankruptcy for Chrysler was not allowed, by Obama’s Car Czar, to go through the normal bankruptcy process, but a “special” government bankruptcy was pushed through by the Car Czar that was in direct violation of the Constitution!

This travesty ignored the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution that guarantees that the bond holders are prime recipients for any payment that results from reorganization. But in the Chrysler manipulation, the CAR CZAR appointed by, and beholden to only Obama, decided that the bond holders came last and the workers of the auto union came first. A direct violation of the Constitution! In fact Obama called the Bond holders unpatriotic because they were not willing to accept 20 cents on a dollar for their bonds and had threatened to sue to get what they thought they were due !

Now the issue of contracts between the government and ACORN has been addressed by the Attorney Generals office.The issue is, should the government pay monies owed ACORN for services that were contracted(arranged) before the President signed a Bill forbidding the payment of taxpayers money to this corrupt organization.

Remember that when they were contracted to register voters they not only registered dead people, they registered Mickey Mouse!!

In a direct contrast to the Chrysler bond holders deal, the Attorney General’s office ruled that ACORN must be paid because the contracts were in force before Obama signed the Bill forbidding payments to ACORN

The following is an excerpt from an article on the internet written by Charlie Savage.

“Acorn, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has received about $53 million in federal aid, much of it grants from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for providing various services related to affordable housing.

But the group has become a prime target for conservative critics, and on Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer money — including money authorized by previous legislation — could be “provided to” the group or its affiliates.

A Housing and Urban Development Department lawyer asked the Justice Department whether the new law meant that pre-existing contracts with Acorn should be broken. And in a memorandum signed Oct. 23 and posted online this week, Mr. Barron said the government should continue to make payments to Acorn as required by such contracts.

The new law “should not be read as directing or authorizing HUD to breach a pre-existing binding contractual obligation to make payments to Acorn or its affiliates, subsidiaries or allied organizations where doing so would give rise to contractual liability,” Mr. Barron wrote”.

The deputy director of national operations for Acorn, Brian Kettenring, praised Mr. Barron’s decision.

Of course he would and so should all the recipients for the government (tax payer funded) bail outs including the Wall Street bankers, Brokerage houses(AIG,etc.) and other Obama supporters who helped elect Obama, and now are being paid back!

The decision by the acting assistant Attorney General reminds me of the testimoney of Bill Clinton when he was questioned whether he had sex with “ML”. He said it all depends on the meaning of the word is, is? Of course I am paraphrasing his words, but the result is the same. The parsing of words using Semantics to confuse the issue.

Here is what the AAG said: “Mr. Barron said he had based his conclusion on the statute’s phrase “provided to.” This phrase, he said, has no clearly defined meaning in the realm of government spending — unlike words like “obligate” and “expend.”

Citing dictionary and thesaurus entries, he said “provided to” could be interpreted as meaning only instances in which an official was making “discretionary choices” about whether to give the group money, rather than instances in which the transfer of money to Acorn was required to satisfy contractual obligations.

Since there are two possible ways to construe the term “provided to,” Mr. Barron wrote, it makes sense to pick the interpretation that allows the government to avoid breaching contracts”.

I believe the reason why Obama and Democrats are pushing so hard for Health Care reform to be rushed through Congress is to reward large Unions and AARP and other ilk who will gain from Socializing 1/6th of our GNP. Not to cut the cost of health care or provide health insurance to those who cannot afford it!

Wake up Americans !! How long will this corrupt adminstration go without Americans marching in the millions on the Capitol screaming enough already!!