CNN: DETROIT AUTOMAKERS . . . "TRADING JABS LIKE JUNIOR HIGH BOYS" OVER HORSEPOWER RATINGS ON FUEL-EFFICIENT V6 PONY CARS?

(Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" Here)

Comment: You mean not everybody agrees with Joe Oldham?
Here’s our choice for who wins the "Battle of the Buzzin’ Half-Dozen" in 2011:

Here’s how most junior high schoolers (and to be totally honest, Truth With Speedzzter) would evaluate the 305-horse V6 Mustang . . .

Over at Bangshift.com, there’s more support for the V6s than you might imagine.

However, Truth With Speedzzter would rather see small DOHC V8s in the 2.0 to 4.0 liter range, not V6s, carry the banner for "entry level" pony car muscle in the future. With technology such as EcoBoost (tm), Ethanol Boosting Systems’ on-demand direct ethanol injection , start-stop, variable-geometry intake manifolds, and cylinder deactivation, V8s could achieve spectacular performance with startling fuel efficiency.

FUTURE SHOCK: FORD START CONCEPT CAR WITH 3-CYLINDER ENGINE PREVIEWS TINY FUTURE

Comment: Nobody will get "Start" confused with a Shelby GT500. A one-liter, three cylinder EcoBoost (tm) engine isn’t exactly the stuff of dreams . . . unless you live in Bangladesh. And without any traditional headlamps, Start looks half-asleep. Still, its design is cleaner than Fiesta. And although it beats a moped or riding a bus, it will be a sad day when "Ford" becomes synonymous with tiny fruit cups like Start. Now if it had a 1.0 liter EcoBoost (tm)V8 and RWD . . . .
FREEP: LET OUR TECHNOLOGY CREATE A GREENER WORLD, FORD ASKS

Comment: William Clay "Li’l Billy" Ford, Jr. accepted his green leader award from the FREEP in style.

Yet the idea that Michigan will emerge as some sort of green technology leader may be a bit wishful. Advantages similar to the catalysts that made Detroit an automotive manufacturing leader a century ago (abundant iron ore, timber, timber baron money) seem to be absent this time.

FORD’S 2011 FLEET VEHICLE LINEUP LAUNCHES WITH 100 PERCENT SUSTAINABLE POWERTRAIN TECHNOLOGY

"Ford, the industry leader in commercial and government fleet sales, will offer 100 percent of its fleet vehicles this year with fuel-efficient powertrains and other sustainable technologies – including battery electric, hybrid, natural gas, propane, E-85, biodiesel (B20) and EcoBoost – making the Blue Oval the industry’s greenest full-line fleet provider."

Comment: Too bad FoMoCo won’t ever build a EcoBoost Coyote V8-powered electric hybrid P71 Police Interceptor.

YOU’VE GOT TO KNOW WHEN TO HOLD IT: JERSEY GOV. CHRISTIE SHUTS HIGHWAY TOILETS TO SAVE MONEY

Comment: $270,000 to operate two restrooms? Of course some New Yorkers would probably quip that the whole "Garden State" is a big toilet . . . .

HOLY MOLEY, MARIA MOPAR! CHRYSLER’S MARKET SHARE MAY DROP TO SEVEN PERCENT AS DETROIT MOVES ON FROM THE BANKRUPTCIES

Comment: Not even Iacocca had to face such market-share headwinds. And that’s before they start trying to sell Americans FIATs. Who knew that when Chrysler bought American Motors that they'd virtually BECOME AMC.

COMMUNIST CHINA: NUMBER ONE IN AUTOMOBILE SALES

Comment: With a billion people and a manipulated currency, it’s not surprising that the CHI COMS have slingshot past the U.S.A. in auto sales. But sales per capita and ownership rates lag far behind the U.S.A. Despite America’s over-taxed and over-regulated auto market and a myriad of assaults on automotive liberty, the U.S.A. is still a better place to be an automotive consumer than China.

JALOPNIK: TOP GEAR USA: WHAT TO EXPECT

COMMENT: A show with all the essential elements of the BBC/UK’s "Top Gear" . . . except Clarkson, May and Hammond . . . A BBC-sized budget on basic cable . . . "absolutely and brutally honest" evaluations of test cars. No kowtowing to automotive sponsors.

R-I-G-H-T. What we’ll likely see is three obnoxious young frat-boys engaged in a mindless, weakly-scripted succession of demolition derbies, gratuitous burnouts, and tired, sophomoric jokes on a show with the production values of a midnight infomercial. Of course, if it’s even that good, it will be a "Fast and Furious" hit.

THE HISTORY CHANNEL MUTILATES THE LEGENDARY “TOP GEAR” FRANCHISE WITH “TOP GEAR AMERICA” NEXT FALL

Comment: “Supercars Exposed” drifter Tanner Foust, internet comedian Adam Ferrara, and the hopelessly annoying “NASCAR TV” weirdo Rutledge Wood could not hope to carry the helmet bags of Jeremy Clarkson, James May and Richard Hammond.

Mr. Clarkson is right: Americans (at least at the History Channel) don’t understand “Top Gear.” If there was any truth in labeling, the History Channel would name this emerging mess “Stripped Gear America.”

“Top Gear America” is likely to make the History Channel’s atrocious “Full Throttle” (which starred “Twins Turbo” dweebs Marc and Eric Kozeluh) look like Emmy Award-winning fare.

(Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here)

“GOVERNMENT MOTORS” PAYS BACK TAXPAYER-FUNDED LOANS FIVE YEARS EARLY

“[S]ales of newer models have improved GM's cash flow and allowed it to make the remaining $5.8 billion in payments early.”

Comment: Whether this is simply election-year politics or “Dial Tone” Ed Whitacre ripping a page from Lee Iacocca’s dusty 1980s “New Chrysler” playbook remains to be seen. But considering the taxpayers still own more than half of the “New” GM, any repayment of the billions borrowed to fix that mostly government-caused mess is good news.

Speaking of Chrysler, the unwanted assets that Fiat didn’t buy were left in the old company, now called Old Carco, L.L.C. The bankruptcy court has approved their liquidation in a plan that reportedly will recover little for the taxpayers.

GEICO VOICE ACTOR FIRED AFTER INSULTING TEA PARTIES
Comment: It’s apparently not the guy who does the gekko or the caveman. And we’re still angry with GEICO for opposing repeal of the 55 m.p.h. national speed limit and its alleged past refusal to insure high-performance cars. But this story is mildly interesting as a barometer of how unhinged some liberals are becoming about the Tea Party movement.

JOE OLDHAM ON THE 2011 MUSTANG: SAVE YOUR MONEY FOR THE V8

Comment: Legendary journalist Joe “Muscle Car Confidential” Oldham knows muscle. After all he was once the original owner of a 1969 427 Motion Phase III Camaro. And he’s smoked the tires on nearly every OEM muscle car of the past four decades. So when he says that serious revheads will bypass the “hype” and pay extra for the Coyote V8, you’d better believe him.

EDMUNDS INSIDE LINE: SUPERCREW SVT RAPTOR COMING!

Comment: Another brilliant move by FoMoCo! Just be sure to get your SVT Raptor before 2016 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards kill all high-performance fun. By the way, Mr. Mulally, where is the DOHC version of the 6.2 Boss?

AUTOWEEK: 2011 SMS 302 MUSTANG: STEVE SALEEN’S BACK (BUT HOW MANY WILL CARE?)

Comment: 440 hp and 400 ft-lb of torque “all motor” and “more than” 535 hp and 450 lbs/ft of torque supercharged is serious Coyote V8 power. But will SMS Mustangs, starting at $54,990 (unsupercharged) be price-competitive with Ford’s revised Shelby GT500 and a host of other tuner ‘Stangs? And some old Saleen customers will probably wonder where all of the “wretched excess” vents and “cheese grater” scoops have gone.

Here’s a photo montage of the SMS 302:


CHINA AUTO SHOW: DID MERCEDES-BENZ MISSPELL “SHOOTING BREAK” ON A CONCEPT CAR

Comment: A “shooting brake” in “Queen’s English” is often viewed as the same as a station wagon or SUV in America. (However, purists cringe when “Shooting Brake” is applied to wagons with more than two doors). Some question Mercedes-Benz’s use of the term “Shooting Break” on its new Chinese Auto Show concept car. But the etymology of the “Shooting break/brake” moniker is far more tortured than it first appears. We say: Give ‘em a break . . .

TASCA’S 2010 FORD COBRA JET MUSTANG RUNS 8.97 AT153 M.P.H.

Comment: Another milestone for the Tasca family and Ford Racing. But when (if ever) is Ford going to “take it to the streets” with a “blue collar” supercharged or EcoBoost (tm) Coyote V8?

Of course, TASCA doesn’t have the only Cobra Jet Mustang. Here’s new video of some Cobra Jets rocking Milan in testing:

And earlier this year, John Rains ripped the inaugural Mojave Mile event with a 182.9 M.P.H. pass in FR500CJ Mustang.

Also at the Mojave Mile event, Jim Hahn made a proud (and oversized) display of Ford’s blue oval on his 1968 Mustang race car.


ROUSH FENWAY AND RICHARD PETTY MOTORSPORTS TO RUN FR9 ENGINES AT TALLADEGA
Comment: We can’t get too excited about the idea of non-production “stock car” engines (or common-template “car of tomorrow” “stock cars” for that matter). But as long as everybody else has them, Ford must have them too. The slow FR9 roll-out continues at Talladega in the Aaron’s 499, with a “majority” of Fords in the field scheduled to use the new NASCAR-only mill. Maybe it will improve Ford’s results.


CARS SPEEDZZTER LIKES (SORT OF): CHUCKLES GARAGE "STRANGE BIRD" 1962 FORD FALCON FUTURA GASSER
Comment: While we can’t approve of a GM powerplant (Buick Nailhead) in a Ford, this video of the under-construction “Strange Bird” gasser shows promise. Of course it’d be better with a wicked FE or Cammer recessed into the firewall and a bit more wheelbase alteration. Still this video shows that McNamara’s Falcon can be built into a wild hot rod.

FORD POPULARITY SOARS BECAUSE OF THE BAILOUTS (BUT SHOULD IT?)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

According to Rassmusen Reports "46% of Americans now saying they are more likely to buy a car from Ford because it did not take government money to stay in business."

Rassmusen also found that "nearly one-out-of-five Americans (19%) say someone in their family or a friend has chosen not to buy a car from GM or Chrysler because they took bailout money."

This is good news for FoMoCo's stakeholders and long-suffering Ford fans. Ford's stock is up a whopping TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR PERCENT over its lowest price of the year. Ford posted posted a profit in the last quarter (albeit based on accounting "special items. "Excluding special items, Ford would have posted a loss of $424 million, or 21 cents per share."). And several analysts believe that Ford's product line-up is one of the freshest around.

BUT . . .

Much of this optimistic news is spoiled by Ford's endless shilling about "recycling your ride" into the V8-smashing "Cash for Clunkers" program.

"Cash for clunkers is a bailout by any other name."

It's "terrible energy policy."

It "incentivizes Americans to take on more debt."

Cash for clunkers is still welfare.

It's laundered bailout money. It's another abandonment of free market principles. It's still borrowing money we don't have to redistribute it to people who haven't earned it. It's still the pillaging and vandalism of thousands of potential collector and parts vehicles built after 1984. It's still a war on V8s and against grassroots motorsports (which depend on the sorts of "clunkers" that Welfare/Beer Bust King Obama, the environmentalists and the greedy public dole sucklings are destroying).

Ford vigorously campaigned for the CARS legislation, so they ARE benefitting from "bailout" money (i.e. Dealers get the CARS welfare vouchers they then spend to help buy the vehicles from Ford -- only the most myopic can't see that this is "bailout" cash to Ford)

Apparently the myopic ones were interviewed by Rassmussen . . . .

AND IT'S ALREADY OUT OF MONEY! (Apparently there's no shortage of welfare lovers in America . . . .)

AUTOEXTREMIST: HONDA INVADES FORMULA FORD?

The Autoextremist is reporting that Honda's push in grassroots motorsports will take a decidedly anti-Ford direction.

Part of this is supposedly targeted at taking on Ford in SCCA's Formula Ford. The Big H claims its going to sell racers a built "Fit" mill and a conversion package, starting in 2010 (pending club approval, of course).">Part of this is supposedly targeted at taking on Ford in SCCA's Formula Ford. The Big H claims its going to sell racers a built "Fit" mill and a conversion package, starting in 2010 (pending club approval, of course).

Supposedly Ford Racing honcho Brian Wolfe says that Ford won't take Honda's "invasion" lying down. (Ford's Walter Hayes invented "Formula Ford" so there's some corporate pride on the line. (Hopefully more than when Ford wimped out on Cosworth, Formula One and Indy Cars))

Maybe Wolfe could just show Honda a photo of the homely 2010 NASCAR NATIONWIDE SERIES MUSTANG and probably scare 'em back to Japan . . . .

MORE BANGSHIFT COMMENTS ON THE "MOTORSPORTS PARK" IDEA AND THE PROBLEM OF NOT ENOUGH LOCAL RACE TRACKS

Yesterday's discussion of the problem of not enough convenient venues for grassroots motorsports prompted further discussion at Bangshift:
TWS's next take: (in response to support for the denial of a public drag racing facility in Forks, Washington)

I think some are missing the big picture here.

* * *
What it's really about is whether hot rodders, racers and other responsible citizens are going to settle for a sparse number of big, private, expensive regional motorsports venues, or whether more smaller, local venues ought to be available.

Clearly the trend over the past three decades has been toward fewer and fewer local tracks and more ostentatious regional tracks. Some states barely have one or two drag strips and/or road courses left. Dirt ovals are perhaps a little more common, but paved ovals outside of NASCAR's orbit are in decline.

It's no answer to the problem of street racing to say "just load your car up in a hauler and drive a couple of hours to sit in long lines at a regional NHRA track, in hopes of making a couple of passes." Moreover, the harder we make it for younger tuners and rodders to get involved in all forms of motorsports, the fewer people will bother to become involved.

In the early '50s, the appliance motorists and "safety counsels" wanted to shut down all hot rodding. But some visionary pioneers started working with the locals to build small, local, non-profit facilities. But for the efforts of these "out-of-the-box" thinkers, our automotive culture would have developed far differently. Creating local facilities was the right thing to do then. And it's the right thing to do now.

Certainly, times have changed in sixty years. Motorsports is more diverse. Environmentalism is a concern. And safety is paramount. But for local officials and racers to settle for the occassional private facility and to put up roadblocks to smaller, more convenient, less formal, public service motorsports venues is counterproductive.

Every town and city over about 15,000-20,000 residents ought to have a legal place to test, tune and race that's no more than thirty minutes away. (I can just about guarantee you that virtually every city that size has one or more golf courses, many of which are managed and funded by local governments) These multipurpose facilities could also be justified to the non-gearhead taxpayers as "driver training" parks for use by law enforcement and new drivers. For example just imagine how many accidents could be avoided and lives saved if more new drivers could be locally trained in car control on a dedicated wet skid pad and on a handling (autocross) course. Such facilities could also include various other "test" areas, including mostly self-service drag strips, a banked track and a road course. Such facilities could also include motocross and 4WD/ATV trails/test areas.

To do any of this, we've got to expand our vision as to what a modern, local motorsports facility ought to be and how it ought to be managed and paid for at the local level.

Of course, Forks isn't that big, so perhaps smaller rural areas would have to scale down their motorsports parks. But to say to all of the gearheads and potential gearheads "Sorry, you can't use the airport anymore, there's a big track 100 miles away, and we don't think the "car culture" is important enough to provide a safe, legal place to test, tune, and race" just doesn't cut it. It's irresponsible. If we took this same approach to building highways, vast sections of America would still be served by unpaved, minimally improved roads. If we took this same approach to parks, trails, and lakes, many areas wouldn't have them.

Of course, the irony is that airports are often heavily subsidized by government in the name of safety. Yet general aviation has only a fraction of the participants and potential participants of motorsports. However, aviators have done a much better job in lobbying for public investment in local public facilities for their avocation.

TWS's next take: (Response to Bangshifter and Friend-of-Freiburger Brian Lohnes point that public funding would be a huge problem in most locales)

Brian,

You're absolutely correct that funding is the proverbial "elephant in the room." It's a bigger problem than even environmental impacts.

Nearly every state and local government is cash-strapped. Lots of things more essential than parks and recreation are being slashed.

And that's part of the reason hot rodders and racers need to "sell" the motorsports park concept on the basis of safety, driver training, and multiple uses. And multiple levels of government and the private sector ought to be involved.

Most certainly, some places would need to start smaller, such as temporarily closing off an underused public street or parking lot on the weekend (e.g. San Diego's "Race Legal" program) or by adding some "test and tune" amentites to fairgrounds or other public facilities. Some of these things could be done in many locales without huge tax increases.

But when we read of the struggles of the Brotherhood of Street Racers and Terminal Island out in L.A. or hear of another historic track folding to zoning, environmental, and "land use" pressures, it seems that we're not making any progress.

What's troubling is that someone like Cameron Argetsinger couldn't even get a hearing nowadays from most local officials. Certainly Argetsinger's original Watkins Glen plan of the late ''40s and '50s wasn't up to modern safety standards, but the idea of public facilitation of safe, legal motorsports activities at the heart of it should still be viable.

TWS's next take:

Quote from: Buickguy on Today at 07:36:22 AM

"So what? the city decided they can't afford it. I decided I can't afford a ZR1 Corvette, does that mean I'm entitled to it because I want it?
There's a bit of a problem with the greenie belief - you might want to see who owns Spokane Motorsports Park..... last I checked, Spokane is in Washington."


It's not a matter of entitlement. Is anyone "entitled" to a public lake stocked with fish? Or the services of game wardens who scientifically manage the population of animals for sport hunting? Or a lighted landing strip at a non-commercial municipal airport? Or a tee time at a municipal golf course. Or swimming at a municipal pool (most of which are subsidized)?

At its most basic level, government is about protecting our liberty and enabling the sorts of projects that are too big and difficult for the private sector. That's why functions such as building roads, public recreation areas, and schools are generally believed to be legitimate functions of government. Many of those functions are not self-supporting (How many of you paid a toll to drive on a city street today?)

We should have the liberty to build and enjoy hot rods and engage in other motorsports if we so choose. That's part of that "pursuit of happiness" idea. But if there's no safe and legal place to do it, our theoretical liberty is meaningless.

Thus, the language of "entitlement" clearly isn't applicable. But that doesn't mean that hot rodders and racers shouldn't promote the development of "solutions" that improve safety and promote greater exercises of liberty. That's going to be a tough sell to those knownothing politicians who believe that "speed kills."

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that the only choices facing most municipalities are: (a) no tolerance and virtual criminalization of motorsports or (b) spend huge sums on national-quality motorsports facilities. It's akin to saying either a city can build either dirt trails or ten-lane interstate highways and nothing else. The starting point for the dialogue ought to be how can the local and state governments work together with all the stakeholders to improve safety and maximize liberty.

OBAMA'S CAFE HIKE AND CA$H FOR CLUNKER$ DOOMS SUVS

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

To most enthusiast motorists, sport utility vehicles are either a nuisance or a necessary evil. Typically, SUVs are rolling chicanes or road blocks for sporting pony car drivers. They've often been the transportation "appliance" of choice by many marginal motorists who value size and perceived safety over handling, acceleration,and fuel economy.

A few SUV drivers are serious off-roading enthusiasts.

Other enthusiasts tolerate SUVs for their practicality. Since Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards killed the large station wagon, SUVs have been the most popular replacement for drivers who need to haul large quantities of people and things without the mind-numbing boredom of a minivan. And SUVs have been placed into service towing boats, race cars, and recreational trailers, which are tasks the current crop of FWD vehicles are not equipped to perform.

Many hot rodders and grassroots motorsportsmen have viewed aging SUVs as donor vehicles for V8-based RWD projects.

But now SUVs are under a winnowing attack. Used SUVs at the bottom of the market stand to be decimated by the welfare/bailout plan known as "Cash for Clunkers." And President Obama's massive acceleration of hikes in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards will likely choke off new supplies of affordable and mid-market SUVs.

Industry observers warn it will be difficult to keep crossovers such as Equinox — never mind traditional SUVs — in the line-up as the result of the Obama administration’s recent move to raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard to 35.5 mpg by 2016.

Further downsizing may be essential, which could drive full-size SUVs like the Ford Expedition, Mercedes GL and Cadillac Escalade off the road entirely. Already, a number of manufacturers have begun paring back SUV projects.

Future SUV sales will compete with high-performance car sales under the new CAFE rules. This stands to drive up the sticker price of each.

And while expensive hybrid, turbo-diesel and exotic lightweight materials technology will keep some of the high-end SUVs on the road (in downsized form, no doubt), many in the middle class will be effectively "priced out" of the SUV market.

Certainly as some of these fuel-saving technologies are applied, they may "trickle down" to V8 RWD performance cars through the aftermarket, if not through the OEMs. But whether the volume of OEM production will be sufficient to reduce the costs of the "trickle down" technologies remains to be seen.

As it is now, only GM's rare and expensive hybrid Tahoe-class SUVs contain any electric hybrid technology that appears adaptable to traditional RWD muscle cars and street rods.

Ford's more conservative approach to SUVs has produced little technology for "trickle down" to muscle car retrofits. Ford's parsimony and short-sightedness stands to put Ford-loyal performance car builders at a huge disadvantage if future fuel price/taxation costs trigger electric hybridization of muscle cars and street rods, or the torque-boosting "electric nitrous" concept catches fire.

Unfortunately, the current sales depression and bankruptcies of GM and Chrysler mean that the pipeline of quality late-model used SUVs will be less-than-full as supplies of new SUVs escalate in price.

In short, artificial market restrictions championed by President Obama and his radical green special interest constituency will dramatically increase the "buy in" cost for SUVs and constrict their supplies in the future. This stands also to restrict developments in the performance aftermarket, as well as putting a crimp in our freedom of mobility.

Now that's "change" we'll all have to pay for.

"Some future!"

"BIG ED" WHITACRE "DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT CARS"

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

On a surreal spring day when a President that was first boosted by the infamous "Chicago Machine," crushed his opponents, shredded the Constitution, and rammed through the transfer of Chrysler to an Italian conglomerate (sometimes known as "Fix It Again Tony") and the U.A.W.'s Voluntary Employee Benefits Association, the proposed chairman of the Obama Administration's other automotive ward, "Government Motors," proudly announced "I don’t know anything about cars.”

Perhaps that made him overqualified for Obama's Car Czar Central Committee of appliance motorists and bus riders.

Of course GM has already tried the "know-nothing-but-it's-just-a-business" approach in 1992-1995 with "Toothpaste King" John Smale. The results were unmitigated disaster.

But among the arrogant looter class of which President Obama was a proud "community organizer," chairing the GM board apparently doesn't require knowing the difference between a Corvette and a Chevette. It certainly does not require any demonstrated comptence or vision in the automotive field or any background in designing, engineering, manufacturing, or selling motor cars.

Perhaps we're lucky that Joe Biden didn't get the job. Of course Gaffe-mouth Joe owns a Corvette, so he's probably overqualified.

All "Big Ed" really needs to know is that Obama, Rahm Emanuel, the greeniacs, and the EPA are "large and in charge." And all "Big Ed" really has to understand is that "the mission" is to build enough tiny, electro-magic fuel sippers (that the market really doesn't want) to pay off the U.A.W. and ensure Obama's reelection.

In other words, it's the "What a Wonderful World" view of management:

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the french I took

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be

[With apologies to Sam Cooke]

Whether the automotive community will really "love Big Ed" remains to be seen. But it is consistent with the entire Inside-the-Beltway approach to the auto business to put someone in charge that hasn't even proven he can change a tire on his own.

Whitacre might be good news for fans of GM's participation in NASCAR, though. Although some have suggested that the Obama Administration will force GM and Chrysler out of NASCAR at the end of 2009, Whitacre's AT&T, nee SBC Communications, nee Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. saw the value of NASCAR racing. Perhaps "Big Ed" was paying attention at the meetings discussing the NASCAR sponsorship. Whitacre is also an Exxon-Mobil board member, which is another company that has dabbled from time to time in motorsports sponsorships.

And NASCAR's BRIAN FRANCE arguably "don't know much" about running a sanctioning body, so that gives him something in common with "Big Ed."

Still, helming the GM board is a poor place to serve an apprenticeship in the auto business. Of course, most of us also thought that the White House was ill-suited for on-the-job training prior to the emergence of the mulatto reprise of "Camelot."

JUSTICE GINSBURG CALLS A "TIME OUT" ON THE FIAT-IZATION OF CHRYSLER

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has temporarily stayed the Section 363 sale of Chrysler's assets to FIAT.

Exactly what caught Justice Ginsburg's attention is unknown. Greedy trial lawyer pirates oppose the deal because it will cut off the products liability gravy train (at least until the "new" FIAT-controlled Chrysler builds something the Naderites consider "unsafe at any speed").

The plight of the Indiana pensioners might have also snagged Justice Ginsburg's attention. The Obama Administration-orchestrated 363 sale has upended normal bankruptcy expectations and stands to crush Chrysler's secured creditors (to the benefit of unsecured obligations to Chrysler's unions).

FIAT has threatened to bail out if the sugary deal isn't closed by June 15, 2009. But with the U.S. Treasury fronting Chrysler's post-petition financing, FIAT's "drop dead date" is clearly artificial.

The pause may be only temporary. Ginsburg could dump the stay on her own (probable if she's sensitive to the liberal trade winds pushing the FIAT buyout). Or a majority of the Supreme Court could rewrite bankruptcy law by pragmatically deferring to the judgments of the inferior courts.

But for the moment, Obama's rocket-sled bankruptcy of Chrysler has stalled like a rust-eaten Plymouth Volare' in rush-hour traffic.

FEW MOURN TILLER, GM, OR CHRYSLER (BUT MITT “SLICK WILLARD” ROMNEY IS STILL ABSOLUTELY WRONG)

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

The rule of law is supposedly a hallmark of the American system. Yet the events of the past few days have shown that the rule of law is under virulent attack.

As expected, the nationalization of General Motors has now moved into the friendly confines of bankruptcy court.

As expected, the Indiana Pensioners and other creditors got steamrolled in Chrysler’s Obama administration-orchestrated “show bankruptcy.” Now the Treasury Department is partners with FIAT and the U.A.W.


Capitalism, anyone?

And on Sunday, May 31, 2009, the heinous and vicious late-term abortionist George Tiller met his Maker somewhere in the aisles of the Reformation Lutheran Church of Wichita, Kansas. Tiller was murdered at the hands of a rogue anti-abortion zealot who cast off the essential philosophy of the pro-life movement to mete out vigilante justice that was “above [the assassin’s] pay grade.”

Meanwhile, President Obama has nominated to the Supreme Court a liberal, pro-abortion, “policy making” identity politician masquerading as a jurist. Judge Sonia Sotomayor has expressed a belief that neutral questions of law and constitutional interpretation are better decided by an inarticulate, brusque, unquestionably liberal, Ivy-league-educated, Puerto Rican woman who grew up in the ghetto, than by any Caucasian male: “ I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

In each of these events, pragmatic, ends-justifies-the-means rationales were clearly at work.

And each of these events is an indicator that the impartial rule of law is dying in America.

Few seem to be mourning that.

The average Obama voter certainly doesn’t.

Deeply imbibing the mellifluous snake oil of “hope and change,” the average Obama supporter blithely wheels her non-union-made Japanese car and sheds no tears for the government-union-regulatory nexus that mostly destroyed GM and Chrysler’s competitiveness over the past seventy years. Instead, she demands increased environmental and organized labor intrusions into the business of American manufacturers, even as she personally consumes products made in dirty overseas sweatshops at record rates.

And as long as the government checks keep coming, the mobs of special interests that support Obama and the power-mad Democrats will scarcely question the costs of current deficit spending spree, or the de facto nationalization of our most basic industry, or the sacrifice of what’s left of the free market and success-through-merit on the altars of forced redistribution, “fairness as justice,” and climate change.

Few will mourn that the creation of “Government Motors” will have the unintended consequence of driving many more short-sighted, selfish consumers into the arms of the predatory Japanese invader automakers in retaliation for the perceived largess toward the U.A.W. and the recent federal interference in the business of GM and Chrysler (notwithstanding that decades of federal interference mostly predicated the crisis to begin with).

Few will mourn the loss of American industrial muscle and of vehicular freedom-of-choice that will result from the polarizing events of the government effectively running over half of the domestic auto industry.

Few will mourn the thousands of family-owned automobile dealerships which will be forcibly closed in “reorganization” (and some will even celebrate that these losses fall most prominently upon Republicans).

Few will mourn that an emerging Climate-Industrial Complex is becoming poised tocontrol or affect virtually every aspect of life in America.
Likewise, few will truly mourn the premeditated murder of an unrepentant, cold-blooded killer-for-hire who crushed the skulls of defenseless children sometimes just days or hours before birth and vacuumed out their innocent brains like some sort of fetal parasite. Many will see the irony that Dr. Tiller’s end was as unwilling and violent as the untold numbers of unborn children he dismembered for profit.

A few misguided souls will attempt to rationalize that Tiller’s quantum of moral evil somehow justified the moral evil of his murder. Such a result would indicate a profound misunderstanding of the underpinnings of the pro-life movement.

Undoubtedly, the Planned Parenthood lobbyists, abortion mills, “pro-choice” activists, and grandstanding leftist politicians (many with politically-motivated crocodile tears flowing) will attempt to elevate Wichita’s most infamous baby butcher into some sort of sick, fetid “martyr” for the pragmatic cause of the “right” to murder unborn children for convenience -- or in the sanitized P.C. vernacular of the pro-abortion movement: for “choice.” Some may even try to link the special-interest campaign to confirm the “Wise Latina” and budding constitutional vandal Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court as the necessary response to Dr. Tiller’s slaying. Yet, few will mourn that the rule of law and valid, transcendent principles of conscience failed to constrain both Dr. Tiller and his assailant.

Few will mourn that an allegedly “Christian” church – the so-called Reformation Lutheran Church – was apparently so devoid of the Gospel and of sound doctrinal teaching on matters of life that a horrific, rebellious, unrepentant serial murderer such as Dr. Tiller could peacefully thrive within their congregation and was even reportedly permitted to assume a leadership role. Certainly, the pragmatism of such a“church” has blinded them to God’s laws and has lead them into an unholy union with the “god of this age.” The inherent idiolatry of popularity has seemingly caused their salt to lose its savor (if it ever had any).

Few will probably mourn that the unlawful, yet sickly “pragmatic” act of murdering Dr. Tiller will distract and detract from decades of righteous, non-violent, law-abiding opposition to the unspeakable horror and manifest injustice of abortion-on-demand.

However, the pragmatists on both sides of the aisle will be out in force maneuvering. A prime example is “Slick Willard” himself, Willard Mitt Romney.

Romney is ever the pragmatist, and is seemingly unguided by consistent principles. Previously, Romney has repeatedly demonstrated his permutability on the abortion question.

And now Romney has conclusively shown his lack of insight on the automobile crisis. On Fox News Sunday, “Romney suggested that the roughly 70 percent of GM that the government could own after it emerges from bankruptcy should be immediately distributed to taxpayers, and the 17.5 percent that will go to a UAW trust fund for retiree healthcare should be handed out to UAW members.”

Romney’s “pragmatic” grandstanding makes absolutely no sense. It is simply transferring ownership of GM to people who have done nothing individually to merit it. The billions of dollars in GM debt held by the Treasury Department that purportedly justify the government acquiring an ownership stake would not flow with the distributed stock under the Romney Plan. Certainly, the only hope for recovering any of the taxpayer money spent thus far is the remote possibility of GM and Chrysler recovering (against the crushing load of Obama’s carbon-reduction, environmental, foreign, and labor policies) and a sale of the new stock to investors. Romney’s plan would be nothing more than a windfall to people who did nothing much to deserve it. Moreover, it compounds one abuse of the rule of law with another one.

The events of the last few days show that the rule of law in America is in grave crisis. And there is no shortage of charlatans, such as Barack Obama, Sonia Sotomayor, and Mitt Romney, who are poised to “pragmatically” take advantage of the crisis for their own benefit. And few will join Truth With Speedzzter in mourning that.

THE CHRYSLER BANKRUPTCY SALE HEARING: DAY 3

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

The hearing for the Section 363 sale of Chrysler's most valuable assets to FIAT has gone into a third day.

The Chrysler hearing is a major test of whether this is a nation of laws, administered impartially, or a nation of men.

If the Obama Administration is permitted to roll over the vested property rights of the Indiana Pensioners and ignore decades of bankruptcy law merely because of political expediency, our Nation will be traveling down a dangerous path.

The Indiana Pensioners are entitled to obtain in chapter 11 at least as much as they would in a chapter 7 liquidation. Moreover, the Chrysler dealers who are being forceably terminated have argued that approximately ONE BILLION DOLLARS in claims against Chrysler will be left virtually worthless if the Section 363 sale is approved.

Using a Section 363 sale to evade the “best interest of the creditors” test and to give the UAW’s unsecured claims a de facto superpriority is contrary to law. The Obama Administration’s actions in the Chrysler bankruptcy, if allowed to stand mock bankruptcy law and shread the Constitution.

The rush to sell Chrysler's assets is poltically motivated. The Obama Administration promised a surgical 30-60 day bankruptcy and apparently it intends to deliver, notwithstanding the property rights of Chrysler's creditors. The Chrysler bankruptcy has admittedy been a trial run for the impending "Government Motors" nee General Motors bankruptcy.

While none of us want to see Chrysler die (and Truth With Speedzzter has placed much of the fault of Chrysler's decline on the hands of the federal government), if the price of keeping it alive is disregarding bankruptcy law, property rights, and the Constitution, its temporary survival is too costly to our Republic.

FORD POISED TO BUILD MORE VEHICLES IN AMERICA THAN ANYONE ELSE

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Now that "Government Motors," nee General Motors has run out of options and is virtually guaranteed to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy on or before June 1, and Chrysler's unconstitutional, Government-sponsored, cherry-picking buyout by FIAT may blow up "on the launch pad," Ford Motor Company is poised to be the last American automaker standing.

But even if GM and OBAMAFIATCHRYSLER somehow make it out of the bankruptcy litigation thicket, Ford is poised to assume the honor of building more vehicles in America than anyone else.

Ford . . . will rank first in 2009 with 1.9 million units, according to data from forecasting group IHS Global Insight, which released its North American light-vehicle production forecast this month.

GM . . . is idling most of its plants over the next couple of months and will produce an estimated 1.7 million vehicles this year.

What about Honda and Toyota? PLEASE! They'll still be behind Chrysler (which is in the midst of a total production shut-down during its bankruptcy) when the 2009 counting is done. And the domestic content of Honda and Toyota still lags far behind Ford.

[A]mong the most popular U.S.-built cars and trucks, the models with the highest domestic content ratings come from Detroit automakers. Of the 35 most popular U.S.-built 2008 and 2009 models — based on sales through May 31, 2008 — 43 percent of GM, Ford and Chrysler contenders had domestic content ratings of 75 percent or higher. In comparison, just 25 percent of the Nissan, Honda, Hyundai and Toyota models on the list achieved that.

Ford is quietly emerging out of the Obamanomics chaos as the only true AMERICAN CHOICE.

OBAMA, TARP AND THE INDIANA PENSIONERS

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter here]

Barack Obama's plan for a 30-60 day "surgical" bankruptcy for Chrysler L.L.C. and a dozen or so affiliates requires forcing secured debt holders to accept less than thirty cents on the dollar for their claims. It's also predicated on a "Section 363" auction of Chrysler's assets on May 27, 2009, to FIAT or some other mythical savior who is willing to out bid FIAT and pony up a couple of billion.

But standing in the way may be:

The Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund, Indiana State Police Pension Trust, and Indiana Major Move Construction, pension funds, which are fiduciaries for the investment of retirement assets for approximately 100,000 civil servants, including firemen, policeman, school teachers and their families (collectively, the “Indiana Pensioners.")

They've secured a top-ten international law firm and filed an interesting objection to the fast track sale of the assets.

Of interest to conservative is their broadside at the Obama Administration's authority to assume "constructive control" of Chrysler and destroy the rights of the secured creditors -- namely the "Indiana Pensioners."

Less than a week after having failed to obtain congressional authority to provide financing to Chrysler, the Treasury Department remarkably declared Chrysler, an automobile company, a “financial institution,” so that the Treasury Department could access TARP Funds. That complete reversal of its prior admission is plainly without merit.

* * * *
[T]he government took a security interest in Chrysler’s assets which was junior in priority to the existing liens of the Indiana Pensioners.

Although the maturity date of the loan was December 30, 2011, the government had the right to accelerate the entire amount due if Chrysler failed to submit a estructuring plan, or “viability plan,” acceptable to the government by February 17, 2009 (after the inauguration of a new president).

* * * *
This loan agreement left Chrysler at the mercy of the Treasury Department in a number of ways. First, the amount of the loan was not nearly enough to fund a meaningful restructuring. The $4 billion was simply an interim lifeline that would postpone Chrysler’s collapse until after the new administration took office in January, 2009. Second, the Treasury Department would have complete discretion to determine whether Chrysler’s viability plan was satisfactory. If the government chose to reject the plan, it would have the right to call the full amount of the loan. Third, even if Chrysler put forth a reasonable viability plan, the government made no commitment to provide the additional funds necessary to allow Chrysler to implement its plan.
****

[On March 30, 2009, President Obama] The President informed the country that the government would give Chrysler thirty days to reach an agreement with Fiat, its unions, and its creditors (including the Senior Secured Lenders) under which Chrysler and Fiat would combine to form a new entity. . . . Also, the President required Chrysler to restructure itself in a way that enabled it to gain access to Fiat’s technology, thus enabling Chrysler to produce the type of smaller cars the government wants manufactured, satisfy the demands of unsecured creditors such as the VEBA trust and union laborers, and provide some of Chrysler’s equity to the government – all components of a political agenda imposed on Chrysler’s management. . . . In doing so, the President reversed the business judgment of Chrysler’s management, which had determined a stand-alone reorganization was in the best interests of Chrysler’s stakeholders.

* * * *

On April 30, 2009, the Debtors commenced these Chapter 11 cases. As with its
other major business decisions, the timing of the filing and the venue were made by the government. (See Press Background Briefing on Auto Industry (April 30, 2009),
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Background-Briefing-on-Auto-Industry-4/30/2009
(emphasis supplied)) Even though the cases were filed under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, it is very clear that the Debtors have no intention (or even possibility) of reorganizing these estates. Instead, the Debtors have filed the Sale Motion seeking approval to sell substantially all of their assets, free and clear of liens, to a newly formed company created for thepurpose of this transaction (“New Chrysler”). . . .

The purpose of this transaction is to transfer value from the Senior Secured Lenders’ collateral to junior Chrysler stakeholders without regard to the well established legal priority of creditor claims. For example, though the Senior Secured Lenders will recover only 29% of their secured claim, Chrysler’s unsecured creditors, including labor-related obligations, will receive over $20 billion over time. Robert Manzo, the Debtors’ Chief Restructuring Officer testified that over $20 billion in liabilities would be assumed and paid out by New Chrysler with respect to worker and retiree healthcare and other benefits, prepetition auto parts and service supplier invoices, warranty and parts obligations, and pension obligations. . . . In particular, the VEBA trust (which has an unsecured claim of
approximately $10 billion), will receive a new note with a value of $4.5 billion as well as 55% of the equity interest in New Chrysler. . . . Fiat, one of the Debtors’ foreign competitors, is slated to receive 20% of New Chrysler (with the right to acquire a total of 51%) in exchange for granting access to its “small car” technology. . . .Fiat is not paying any cash for its stake in New Chrysler. . . .The Treasury Department, a creditor with liens on the collateral that are still junior to those of the Senior Creditors, is slated to receive an 8% equity interest in New Chrysler.

* * * *
Following the sale the Debtors will cease to function as a going concern and will be left with only those assets New Chrysler deems essentially worthless. The Debtors describe the sale as of “substantially all” of their assets.

****
The Debtors did not play any role in negotiating the capital structure of New Chrysler and did not decide what any of its stakeholders would receive as part of the transaction. . . . The Debtors abdicated each of these critical management decisions to the Treasury Department, whose only legally cognizable interest in these cases is that of a third-lien lender.

* * * *
Unlike any other bankruptcy in history, Chrysler’s bankruptcy was announced by
the President of the United States. President Obama’s announcement made clear that he had made the decision to put Chrysler into bankruptcy. He blamed this decision on certain Senior Secured Lenders that had not received TARP Funds and, therefore, had not bowed to government’s pressure to accept an unfair 29 cents recovery where unsecured creditors were receiving all recoveries. The President branded those Senior Secured Lenders with fiduciary duties to their own investors as “speculators” who were unwilling to make “sacrifices.”

(www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-by-the-president-on-the-Auto-Industry
4/30/2009, . . ..) He accused these lenders of refusing to compromise and instead seeking “an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.” . . .. This was not true.

First, the Senior Secured Lenders not accepting the unfair deal are not
“speculators.” They invested in first-lien secured debt, which is (or at least should be) a conservative investment. Second, certain of the Senior Secured Lenders did offer to compromise. They offered to accept a 50% reduction of their debt, even though they might receive a better recovery in chapter 7 liquidation. Their offer was in stark contrast to other Chrysler stakeholders, whose “compromise” will enable them to receive a much larger recovery then they are entitled to receive under the Bankruptcy Code. Finally, the Indiana Pensioners have never sought a government bailout. Indeed, they are among the few Chrysler stakeholders that can make that statement. Unlike Chrysler and the TARP banks, who accepted billions of taxpayer dollars, the Indiana Pensioners have never received a dime of bailout money from the government. To the contrary, it was the government that was taking from them. Under the government’s plan, billions of dollars of collateral belonging to the Senior Secured Lenders will be taken away and given to unsecured and junior lien creditors and (ironically) Fiat, a foreign automaker. Because certain of Senior Secured Lenders asked to be paid for their interests in that collateral, they were vilified.

* * * *

TARP also contains express language prohibiting the impairment of the Senior
Lenders’ rights, which is being attempted through the guise of the 363 sale. Section 119(b)(2) of the EESA provides that “[a]ny exercise of the authority of the Secretary pursuant to this chapter shall not impair the claims or defenses that would otherwise apply with respect to persons other than the Secretary.” 12 U.S.C. § 5229(b)(2).

[I]f the Debtors are successful obtaining approval of the section 363 sale, the estate will receive $2 billion, which would be distributed to the SeniorLenders, representing 29% on their secured debt. Meanwhile, New Chrysler would receive
billions of dollars in new loans based on the very same Collateral which would allow New Chrysler to repay or assume many of the Debtors’ former unsecured creditors at or close to par – and at a higher recovery rate than paid to the Senior Lenders or than those creditors would have received under a chapter 11 plan. As such, the Debtors’ plan is to use section 363 to strip itself of the assets pledged to the Senior Lenders and put those assets to the benefit of unsecured creditors instead of the Secured Lenders even though the Senior Lenders will not have been paid in full (including on any unsecured deficiency claims).

By mandating a treatment of the Debtors’ assets that precludes any unsecured
deficiency claims of the Senior Debt from being paid while allowing inferior creditors to receive substantial value from the estate, the Treasury Department also is causing the Debtors to ignore the priority rules embodied in the Bankruptcy Code as applied by the Supreme Court in Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership, 526 U.S. 434 (1999).

There, the court held that a debtor could not refuse to consider alternative plan structures where the plan proposed permitted debtor’s pre-bankruptcy equity holders, over the objection of a senior secured class of creditors, to contribute new capital and receive ownership interests in the reorganized entity while the senior creditor’s unsecured deficiency claims went unpaid. As noted above, that is exactly what is being mandated here by the proposed 363 sale transaction being scripted by the Treasury Department.

Not only do the Government’s actions far exceed its statutory authority, they also subject the Government to potential lender liability and equitable subordination actions. “[A] creditor will be held to an insider standard where it is found that it dominated and controlled the debtor.” Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors of the Debtors v. Austin Fin. Servs. (in re KDI
Holdings, Inc.), 277 B.R. 493, 511 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1990). When such a creditor
overwhelmingly dominates the debtor, there is a merger of identity and the creditor will be held to a fiduciary standard. Id. at 512; see also Schubert v. Lucent Techs., Inc. (In re Winstar Commc’ns, Inc.), 554 F.3rd 382, 411-12 (3d Cir. 2009) (finding “egregious” conduct where the creditor had exerted such influence and control as to qualify as an “insider” acting to the detriment of other creditors); In re Process-Manz Press Inc., 236 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. Ill. 1964) (upholding the Referee’s ruling that the claimant was “in substance the owner” of the bankrupt
and therefore a fiduciary), rev’d on jurisdictional grounds, 369 F.2d 513 (7th Cir. 1966).

Here, the Government has taken control over Chrysler’s business, and has used
that control to impose its own plan of reorganization at the expense of other creditors. This would normally subject a party to liability. See, e.g., Melamed v. Lake County Nat’l Bank, 727 F.2d 1399 (6th Cir. 1984) (finding that lender’s actions to “salvage” the corporate borrower were sufficient to state a claim of tortious interference with the debtor’s business relationships).

The Supreme Court long ago recognized that a secured creditor’s interest in
specific property is protected in bankruptcy under the Fifth Amendment.

* * * *

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.” . . . That is precisely what the Treasury Department would have Chrysler do here.

The Treasury Department is demanding that the Collateral be stripped away from
the Secured Lenders’ liens – thereby impairing the rights of the Secured Lenders to realize upon those assets – so that it may be put in New Chrysler. The plan is then to use those assets to benefit unsecured creditors in this proceeding, who will then recover substantially more than theSecured Lenders, who also will realize nothing on their unsecured deficiency claims. [Louisville Joint Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555, 589, 594 (1935)]specifically disallowed this type of procedure as antithetical to the idea of a lien on property.

That the Treasury Department would do this 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.”

* * * *
In this case, the Court is being asked to determine whether the proposed sale is
appropriate. The fate of the U.S. automotive industry is high on the national agenda and is being closely monitored by the public. In recent months, high ranking members of the Executive Branch have dedicated substantial time and resources in an effort to rescue this troubled industry.Although the level of public interest and the federal government’s involvement make this case unusual, these circumstances do not change the absolute rights of the Senior Secured Lenders to the protections provided by the Bankruptcy Code.

. . . Nevertheless, apparently ignoring the plain letter of the law, the Debtors and the Government have asked the Court to approve the Sale Motion, which seeks to alter the very priority established by the Bankruptcy Code. The transaction that the Debtors and the Government seek to implement is designed primarily to benefit junior creditors whose claims theExecutive Branch seeks to elevate in contradiction of the law. The system of checks and balances put in place by the United States Constitution should not be influenced or disturbed by
the Executive Branch’s priorities.

* * * *
Here, the Executive Branch has effectively “turned off” the constitutional property rights of the Indiana Pensioners. This “denial of constitutionally protected rights demands judicial protection” . . . .

The Indiana Pensioners’ 42 page brief contains much more “inside bankruptcy” argument.

However, what ought to be alarming to Constitutionalists is the fundamental abuses of due process and the rule of law in this hurried “taking” of vested property rights from the Indiana Pensioners and their discounted transfer to FIAT, the U.A.W. and the U.A.W.-controlled VEBA.

Barack Obama pledged to uphold the Constitution. However He and his Treasury Department are allegedly doing their dead level best to ignore it in the rushed Chrysler bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy court has thus far shut down procedural maneuvering by the Indiana Pensioners, but substantive consideration of the objection remains.