Obama no-show for National Day of Prayer (surprised? nah...)

So, Obama is a no-show for the National Day of Prayer.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/06/prayer-day-no-show/

Man, you would think that for a guy that swears up and down he's a Christian, he'd at least show up for the thing, right? I mean, talking to God can't be THAT big of an intrusion into his time, right? Then again, this is the same guy that swears up and down he never heard Rev. Wright say inflammatory racist remarks and then say he wouldn't repudiate the man.

Guess they informed him his teleprompter wouldn't work in the early morning prayer service or at the Catholic prayer breakfast the next day. You know what that means. A 15 minute speech turns into an hour and a half long painful ordeal. Maybe he should just pray for God to end his painful blight of stuttering and "um-ing." Then again, that would require recognizing that the is God, which this man of political expediency, might not find so politically expedient. Besides, didn't you hear? He won.

DHS pulls "extremism dictionary"

Ok, so the Dept. of Homeland Security has pulled a dictionary containing terms for extremists.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/05/homeland-pulled-back-extremism-dictionary/?page=2

Apparently the dictionary didn't go over so well after it was released. (Imagine that!)

Poor Roger Mackin, the guy they chose to be the scapegoat this time, has been replaced. I for one would like to see a little responsibility in leadership and see old Pop-Eye Napolitano replaced. She's brutally incompetent. (Just like everyone else in the Obama Administration. - Press Secretary Robert Gibbs anyone?)

But hey, while they are busy doling out names for any and everyone that supports a political agenda, let's create a few of our own.

"Socialist" - Anyone supporting Barack Obama and his governmental strongarming of corporations and the private sector in an attempt to bring everything in the private sector under his control

"Freedom Independance Extremism" - Anyone that supports freedom from independance resulting in the government controlling any and everything

"Ethical Independance Extremism" - Any politician that supports independance from ethical constraints as a daily guide in political activities and governmental contracting practices

"Freedom of Religion Independance Extremism" - Any group advocating independance from the freedom of religion as established in the 1st Amendment. Typically any political group opposing Christianity or any mention of God, etc... Also, any person or group advocating Islam as a legitmate non-violent religion, or a religion of peace. (yeah, that 1400 year history of violence is hard to sweep under the rug)

Drug dealers mocking Obama... (hey, they didn't want to be left out of the fun either)

Ok, ok. So Obama has drug dealers mocking him now.

http://www.krgv.com/news/local/story/Drug-Dealers-Mocking-President-Obama/mWqITbFQpEi3DpFZxvYzRg.cspx

Eh, what else is new. Everyone else is making fun of his incompetence. Why shouldn't they? After all. They might get a new customer out of it. Drug user in Chief. He was apparently a satisfied customer back in the day.

Shocker! ACORN workers charged in voter registration fruad! (No... I thought Mickey Mouse was a legit citizen!)

Well, well, well... It looks like ACORN's chickens are finally coming home to roost.

ACORN nuts are being charged in voter fraud schemes in Nevada

http://www.lvrj.com/news/breaking_news/44307912.html

and in Pennsylvania.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D981H0JG3&show_article=1

In Nevada:

"Scott Levenson, an ACORN spokesman, said the group cooperated in the investigation and that charging the organization is “frightfully absurd.”

“We’re a bit appalled at the political grandstanding on the part of the attorney general’s office,” he said."

Call me crazy, but I'd call registering the Dallas Cowboys and Disney characters as well as any homeless person on a park bench political grandstanding. Then again, I guess you cna do whatever you want when you work directly for the President - er... "the people." Sorry. Not sure how that slipped out.

If it were me, I'd like to see Mr. Levenson thrown in jail for the mere audacity to try and pretend that ACORN was in the right by setting up for massive voter fraud. Nice clothes Emperor.

The bottom line:

"That means almost 40,000 of the new voters registered by ACORN didn’t vote, and of those, almost 19,000 had information on file that didn’t match what was turned in on the forms.

“That’s 48 percent of those forms that I believe are clearly fraudulent,” Lomax said."

Wow, a 48 percent fraudulent rate. I mean, hey, at least they got it right 52 percent of the time. I mean, that's what... almost kind of sort of close to a D in school. Yeah, not really.

Fed Govt. to release dog-and-pony show "stress test" results

Ok, lets be real here. No one ACTUALLY believes that the so called "Stress Test" is to help the banks. the only way someone would believe it is if they are completely and totally ignorant, or feed off the party line like a buffet that's closing in 5 minutes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/04/us/politics/04stress.html?hpw

Here's what you need to know.

1. The Stress Test is to see if the banks have "At the core of the test will be a judgment about whether each of the country’s 19 biggest banks has enough money to withstand a deep recession and, if not, how much more capital it needs to be able to lend at a healthy pace, according to regulators."

2. The regulators are the ones that determine it. (Federal regulators)

3. If they fail, "The administration is expected to make the case that the needs of the troubled banks can be met with the bailout funds that Congress has already approved."

So to re-cap. The 19 largest banks have to go through a Federal Stress Test to see if they will make it. the Federal Regulators will determine if they pass or fail. If they fail, the Federal Government will try and force them to accept bailout money and thus be under the control of the Federal Government. No, that's not a conflict of interest. Not at all.

Here's the bottom line:

-------------------------

"That would be a departure from what administration officials were saying as recently as March and evidently reflects the recent improvement in banks’ conditions.

“None of these banks are insolvent,” said a senior government official, who did not want to be identified before the public release of the test results.

The official added: “These are manageable losses.”

The stress tests are one more example of the extraordinary ways that the government is intervening in the economy, to cushion the blow from the current financial crisis and recession. Having already propped up the credit markets and the automobile industry, officials are now putting the finishing touches on an exercise with no obvious precedent."

---------------------

No. The government certainly isn't making things up as it goes for its own ends and means. Not at all. And btw, the Emperors's clothes - they're lovely. Pay no attention to what that small child in the front row is saying.

Obama strong-arms Chrysler investor into accepting bankruptcy plan

Ok, so what does it mean when an Adminstration threatens to ruin a company's reputation if it doesn't go along with their plans? Isn't that extortion? I was always under the idea that it was illegal - unless of course the Federal Government was doing it, in which case it's legal and there's not much you can do about it.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/05/bankruptcy-atto.html

---------------------------

White House Denies Charge By Attorney that Administration Threatened to Destroy Investment Firm's Reputation*

May 02, 2009 3:17 PM

A leading bankruptcy attorney representing hedge funds and money managers told ABC News Saturday that Steve Rattner, the leader of the Obama administration's Auto Industry Task Force, threatened one of the firms, an investment bank, that if it continued to oppose the administration's Chrysler bankruptcy plan, the White House would use the White House press corps to destroy its reputation.

The White House and a spokesperson for the investment bank in question challenged the accuracy of the story.

"The charge is completely untrue," said White House deputy press secretary Bill Burton, "and there's obviously no evidence to suggest that this happened in any way."

Thomas Lauria, Global Practice Head of the Financial Restructuring and Insolvency Group at White & Case, told ABC News that Rattner suggested to an official of the boutique investment bank Perella Weinberg Partners that officials of the Obama White House would embarrass the firm for opposing the Obama administration plan, which President Obama announced Thursday, and which requires creditors to accept roughly 29 cents on the dollar for an estimated $6.8 billion owed by Chrysler.

Lauria first told the story, without naming Rattner, to Frank Beckmann on Detroit's WJR-AM radio.

Perella Weinberg Partners, Lauria said, "was directly threatened by the White House and in essence compelled to withdraw its opposition to the deal under the 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."

A Perella Weinberg Partners spokesperson told ABC News on Sunday that “The firm denies Mr. Lauria’s account of events.”* The spokesperson would not elaborate.

Perella Weinberg Partners, which owned Chrysler debt through its Xerion Fund, was one of Lauria's clients in this bankruptcy, but no longer is. The firm is led by Joseph Perella. On Thursday afternoon -- after the Wedneday deadline -- the portfolio manager for the Xerion fund decided to join the larger four creditors who are owed roughly 70% of Chrysler's debt and had already agreed to participate with the administration's plan.

Those four financial institutions - JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs -- are recipients of up to $100 billion in federal government bailout funds, though the Obama administration insists the matters were kept completely separate.

Someone familiar with the Perella Weinberg Partners' portfolio manager's thinking told ABC News that the decision to go along with the government plan "was based on an assessment of investment risk and reward and nothing else."

Lauria said his clients "are mainly fiduciaries for pension plans, college endowments, retirement plans and credit unions who invested in low yield supposedly very secure first lien debt" with Chrysler.

President Obama singled out Lauria's clients for criticism when he announced the Chrysler plan on Thursday.

"While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not," the president said. "In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none."

Lauria said the president's assertion that his clients weren't willing to make any sacrifice is false. The clients were willing to take 50 cents on the dollar from Chrysler for their debt, he said.

President Obama also said of Lauria's clients, "I don't stand with them. I stand with Chrysler's employees and their families and communities. I stand with Chrysler's management, its dealers, and its suppliers. I stand with the millions of Americans who own and want to buy Chrysler cars. I don't stand with those who held out when everybody else is making sacrifices."

"He stands my clients up as basically the reason Chrysler is going into bankruptcy," Lauria said. "He wrongly says they're not willing to make any sacrifice. And then he says he does not stand with us."

Lauria said the president saying he doesn't stand with his clients "kind of sounds like 'You're fair game.' In whatever sense. People are scared. They have gotten death treats. Some have been told people are going to come to their houses. God forbid if some nut did something, I'm just wondering how the president would feel."

The Miami area-based attorney describes himself as an independent, and says after waiting in line for six hours last November he ended up not voting in the presidential election. He donated $10,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2008 and $1,000 to then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, in 2006.

-- jpt

-----------------------------

"While many stakeholders made sacrifices and worked constructively, I have to tell you some did not," the president said. "In particular, a group of investment firms and hedge funds decided to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout. They were hoping that everybody else would make sacrifices, and they would have to make none."

Lauria said the president's assertion that his clients weren't willing to make any sacrifice is false. The clients were willing to take 50 cents on the dollar from Chrysler for their debt, he said.

Now isn't that interesting. An "unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout." You mean like all the money that you've given to banks so far? I'd call that unjustified. And taxpayer-funded.

To make matters worse, the Govt. is putting the UAW ahead of property rights. What's this you ask? The Government putting a group that was a huge supporter of the President ahead of companies that legally have claims to property? NEVER! No Democratic politician would EVER do that! (Don't you listen to Chris Matthews? Only Republicans are guilty of corruption. The only thing Obama has ever been guilty of is sending an electric feeling up Matthews' leg!)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/White-House-puts-UAW-ahead-of-property-rights-44415057.html

"Lauria represented one of the bondholder firms, Perella Weinberg, which initially rejected the Obama deal that would give the bondholders about 33 cents on the dollar for their secured debts while giving the United Auto Workers retirees about 50 cents on the dollar for their unsecured debts.

This of course is a violation of one of the basic principles of bankruptcy law, which is that secured creditors — those who lended money only on the contractual promise that if the debt was unpaid they’d get specific property back — get paid off in full before unsecured creditors get anything. Perella Weinberg withdrew its objection to the settlement, but other bondholders did not, which triggered the bankruptcy filing.

After that came a denunciation of the objecting bondholders as “speculators” by Barack Obama in his news conference last Thursday. And then death threats to bondholders from parties unknown."

Oh, well isn't that nice. "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark." I mean, it certainly doesn't appear as if a major campaign contributer is getting a massive payoff in the form of ownership of a company that they've almost killed - all at the tax payer expense. No, not at all.

Anybody else want to see these crooks get what they deserve? I know I do.

Obama wanting to trade U.S. Soverignty to the U.N.

Well now, apparently since Obama has found out that running the country is a bit harder than he thought (SURPRISE!) he wants to let the U.N. do the job for him. Well, not quite, but close enough that it should enrage you.

Let's see:

Parental Rights - Gone

Religious Freedom - Gone

State Soverignty - Gone

Mad yet?

Check it out for yourself:
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/us-sovereignty-on-swap-block-obama-negotiating-for-seat-for-us-on-un-commission/

Hey, Ho! B.O. has got to go!