Compare And Contrast
By Mitch Berg
Three weeks ago, hundreds of thousands of Americans, driven by a campaign that started on Twitter, drew endless defamation from the mainstream and lefty (pardon the redundancy) media; some, when not taking part in juvenile giggling, insinuated that the Tea Parties had roots and followers with various violent groups (indeed, the DHS report was released just in time for the run-up to the media’s suspiciously synchronous campaign of defamation).
Nationwide, the arrest figures were extremely low – about half a dozen, mostly for the kind of petty-drunkenness and public urination sorts of things that’ll happen anytime 600,000 people get together around a nation like this; the typical evening at “Drinking Liberally” draws more drunk and disorderly and public urination arrests.
Compare with The One, threatening a group of legal investors, with all sorts of extralegal sanctions, including siccing his mobs of drooling fanboys and fangirls on them:
A group of lenders to troubled automaker Chrysler asked a bankruptcy court judge Tuesday to keep their identities secret, saying they could face “public attack” and “threats to their safety.”The petition was filed by the group that objected to a government plan to reduce the ailing company’s debt to help create a partnership with Italy’s Fiat…Represented by lawyer Gerard Uzzi of the firm White & Case, the group said its members may be subjected to threats and intimidation in part because of comments made by President Barack Obama, who chastised the opponents of an attempted deal to keep Chrysler out of bankruptcy.
“Never before has the president of the United States announced a chapter 11 filing in a national address,” the petition said.
“The president publicly chastised these secured creditors for having the temerity to enforce their constitutional rights in this court of law…”
It is important to understand what is happening here. Many think that Obama is merely engaging in crony capitalism, favoring his political supporters (most notably the Auto Workers Union) at the expense of others. That’s true, of course, but it is much worse than that: Obama has tried to bully those who have not bought his favor–Chrysler’s non-TARP secured creditors–into giving up their legal rights by threatening to use the powers of the White House to damage their businesses. This sort of lawlessness is common in some of the more corrupt Third World countries, but it is brand new to the United States.
We just spent eight years with the left claiming conspiracies against the Constitution under every rock – and now we have an Administration that’s actually giving them to us; the DHS blacklisting Americans; the government running roughshod over the law and, let us not forget, looking for loopholes to carry out the very same policies (tribunals, “aggressive interrogation”) that the left spent the last eight years howling about.
Just remember Berg’s Seventh Law; “Whenever lefties defame conservatives’ ethics or commitment to liberty, they are projecting”.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:18 am
It’s ironic that at the same time President Obama is flagrantly violating the Constitution with Chrysler, the media is drooling over the fact that for the first time in history we will have a ‘constitutional scholar’ picking a Supreme Court nominee.
Is is possible that when he was ‘studying’ the Constitution he was really looking at which articles and sections to dismantle first?
May 6th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Rumor has it that Obama is being pressured into naming a lesbian to the high court. Today’s St. Paul paper said Amy Klobuchar is a possibility to said court. Not sure if there is any tie-in between the two stories.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Uzzi (even with 2 z’s) is a great name for a lawyer. I hope he lives up to the connotation.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Wow, legal briefs sure can be persuasive! Especially if you don’t bother to check out the other guy’s story. Here it is:
“The only evidence they have provided is a series of four or five anonymous rants on a Washington Post Web site,” [Chrysler’s lawyer] said. “Anyone with a passing familiarity with the hyperbolic rants on such boards on the Internet would not take such comments seriously.”
The judge agreed.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:30 am
True enough, Clown.
To be fair, that’s more evidence than the media had against the “teabaggers”, or than Napolitano has against her list of conservative dissidents.
But other than that, an excellent point.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:14 am
I will agree with you, when I heard Obama’s speech I thought, “Wow, sure wouldn’t want to be those guys right about now!” It was pretty heavy-handed. Then again, so was Reagan’s smackdown of PATCO back in the day.
The names of the holdout Chrysler investors are on the record now. We’ll know soon enough if the rabble go after them with torches and pitchforks.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Last I heard, clown, PATCO did a criminal act. I don’t recall that the Chrsyler creditors did anything other than offend Obama.
Shouldn’t matter either way, the senior creditors lost their bid before the judge — he subordinated them to the UAW and rubberstamped Obama’s solution last night. Unless reversed, Obama won again.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
So, AC, do you, or do you not agree that 0bama trampled over Chrysler’s senior creditors’ rights in clear violation of the Constitution?
And did you applaud 0bama when he forgave Chrysler $7B of taxpayer’s money he so magnanimously loaned earlier this year?
May 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Liberal Fascism
May 6th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
JPA, not everything you disagree with is a clear violation of the Constitution. No need to set you shrillness amp to 11 on every single issue.
May 6th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
AssClown cowered: “JPA, not…..ah, I got nuthin'”
May 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
AssClown can’t answer two simple questions from JPA. Typical.
COWARLY LION SHUNS ASSCLOWN FOR TAKING HIS JOB
May 6th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Angryclown advised “No need to set you shrillness amp to 11 on every single issue. ”
Which in context is pretty damn (unintentionally?) funny.
Carry on, silly wingnuts!
May 6th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
You know, I haven’t seen word one about the fact that Fiat’s bond rating reflects it’s reputation for quality.
Bloomberg:
“Fiat raised 1 billion euros in financing this year from its banks, less than originally planned. Its bonds were cut to junk status in March. …”
And ‘Bammy has the nerve to criticize people that don’t want any part of *that* marriage? A “public attack” is definately in order, alright.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
“Reagan`s heavy-handed smackdown of PATCO.” Not at all. They were by law forbidden to srtike, which they of course did. Reagan could have legally fired them all the first day, but gave them 72 hrs to return to work. It was like immigration laws- the Dems were amazed that someone was enforcing the law as it was written.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
…the Dems were amazed that someone was enforcing the law as it was written.
Some things never change: Geithner, Rangle, Murtha, etc.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:53 am
Examples of endless defemation by the main stream media, please.
May 7th, 2009 at 6:57 am
In what way is the handling of the Chrysler situation a violation of the Constitution, Thul?
May 7th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Uncle-
the easy answer is he is violating the 4th amendment in that he is seizing or attempting to seize assets owned by third parties and dictating the compensation to be paid for those assets. Unless you want to try to tell me that Chrysler is a case of eminent domain?
Also, he is usurping the authority of Congress to regulate commerce and trade (Article 1 Sec 8), not to mention failure to enforce laws duly passed by Congress and signed by the president (Article 2, Sec 3)in regards to the legally binding contracts between Chrysler and its debtors.
Technically, blackmail by threat of media coverage that would make Sarah Palin look like Mother Theresa is not unconstitutional, but it’s damn sure un-American.