Thursday, May 28, 2009

Dealergate: Stats demonstrate that Chrysler Dealers likely shuttered on a partisan basis

The way this is shaping up, it looks as if President Obama has finally left the smoking gun sitting around with his slimy DNA all over it. If the things in this report turn out to be rock solid truth, then the Obama Administration has seized the private property of American citizens for partisan reasons and punishment. 

And, keep in mind, when I say he appears to have seized private property, I'm not talking about Porsche's and Diamonds, I'm talking about productive businesses which employed thousands of Americans.

This would make him a criminal thug, as well as a Communist in the vein of Mugabe and Stalin.

As Reliapundit commented yesterday, if these things are true, then,


Read on. This is astounding research.

(By the way, Epaminondas comments that he believes "what happened is that these people were informed their contracts WOULD NOT BE RENEWED. No assets were seized. Cute but legal." This is a very good point. That would make Obama thuggery legal according to the letter, but not the spirit of the law.)

From Doug Ross:

This work builds upon the research done by numerous parties, most notably Joey Smith. It is a follow-up to my original post, entitled "Did anti-Obama campaign contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered?" The odds that these closings occurred without partisan bias are roughly equivalent to the odds that Jean Claude Van-Damme will grab a Best Supporting Actor Oscar next year for a remake of Terms of Endearment.

How did the U.S. government's "car czar" decide which Chrysler dealers to close and which would remain open? No one appears to know, not even the President of Chrysler:

...Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan...

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."

Follow the evidence trail, below, and judge for yourself.

Dealers on the closing list donated millions to Republicans, $200 for Obama

The initial pass at the list of shuttered dealers showed they had donated, in the aggregate, millions to Republican candidates and PACs and a total of $200 to Barack Obama.

In fact, I have thus far found only a single Obama donor ($200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Another review of all 789 closing dealerships, by WND, found $450,000 donated to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton; $2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama.

Now, and this is important, Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included "sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area."

Dealer Jim Anderer told Fox News' Neil Cavuto he can't comprehend how his dealership can be among those killed: he stated that his sales volume ranking is in the top 2 percent of all dealers.

Furthermore, Anderer says explanations aren't forthcoming. "They won't tell us. They seem to be running for cover right now because they won't give us a solid explanation. They come up with all these reasons, but none of them seem to make sense... This is insanity. The government is stealing my business. And they're telling me there's nothing I can do about it... There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, 'Hey, we cut 25 percent of the lowest performing dealers.' They didn't do that. Nobody will give us a real clear explanation of the formula that they came up with." 

The odds of a non-partisan process being employed can best be illustrated by RLJ.

The Mysterious Case of RLJ

In Smith's research, one company kept popping up on the list of dealerships remaining open. The company is RLJ-McLarty-Landers, which owns six Chrysler dealerships. All six dealerships are on "the safe list."

RLJ's owners "are Steve Landers (long-time car dealer, 4th-generation dealer), Thomas "Mack" McLarty (former Chief of Staff for President Clinton), and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television and co-owner of the NBA's Charlotte Bobcats)... McLarty campaigned for Obama in 2008, and Johnson has given countless amounts of money to Democrats over the years."

Smith examined RLJ's markets, which I've illustrated below.

Bentonville, AR Market

1. Bentonville, AR Landers-McLarty (RLJ owned)
2. Springdale, AR Springdale Chrysler-Jeep (owned by Harold Schwartz)
3. Springdale, AR Steve Smith Country

Springdale is about 15 miles south of Bentonville.

The 2 Springdale dealerships gave no money to any political candidates since 2004. The 2 dealership will close in June while the RLJ-owned dealership in Bentonville will remain open.

The Landers-McLarty dealership will have no other Chrysler dealers within a 20-mile radius of the dealership.

The closest competitors will be in Pineville, MO (22 miles away) and Fayetteville, AR (27 miles away).

Huntsville, AL Market

1. Huntsville, AL Landers McCarty D-C-J (RLJ Owned)
2. Athens, AL Champion Chrysler Dodge (owned by Jeffrey Hamm)
3. Decatur, AL Cloverleaf C-D-J (owned by Kevin Morris)

The dealerships in Athens and Decatur gave no money to any political candidates since 2004. Landers-McCarty and the Athens dealership will remain open while the Decatur dealership will close in June.

Here is a link to the document containing the information gathered on RJL-McLarty-Landers. It appears that the company will benefit greatly from the reduced competition in their markets. For the most part,the dealerships that are forced to shut down in the 5 markets have either given no money to candidates or have donated to GOP candidates in the past...

Branson, MO

There are 4 dealerships within 30 miles of Branson, MO.

1. Branson, MO Tri-Lakes Motors (RLJ owned)
2. Ava, MO Davis Dodge (owned by Larry Davis)
3. Ozark, MO Heritage Chrysler-Jeep (owned by Kay Church)
4. Ozark, MO Ozark Dodge (owned by Kay Church)

Mr. Davis and Ms, Church gave no money to any political candidates since 2004.

The RLJ owned dealership in Branson will remain open while the other 3 dealerships will be forced to close in June.

Tri-Lakes Motors in Branson (RLJ owned) will have no other Chrysler dealers within a 30-mile radius of its dealership...

This is only the beginning of Doug's research. GO READ THE WHOLE THING. 


Epaminondas said...

As a sales agent for a international corp whose name would be instantly recognized, I can tell you that what happened is that these people were informed their contracts WOULD NOT BE RENEWED.

No assets were seized.

Cute but legal.

IF... the same principles as outlined in Corp policy by Chrysler and GM etc were applied across the board.

If not... the dealers can sue .. and get what?

Pastorius said...


I see what you mean. By the letter, but not by the spirit.

This appears to be criminal conspiracy.

As I have been saying, I don't think we will be able to find any impeachable offenses on Obama. He is very smart.

However, if we make it clear to Americans that Obama is really turning out to be a thuggish dictator, and Americans come to understand this fact, then we have a chance of scaring Congress into a sort of "No Confidence" style condemnation of Obama. Obama is not working according to the American Constitution.

We can not have a President who does things like this.

revereridesagain said...

Has this story acquired legs in the MSM at all? I get all my news off the net, but what I'm hearing is that the networks are focusing on stories about layoffs, people left with their injury lawsuits stranded, and the like.

Epaminondas said...

Tammany Hall ...Blago Chicago politics as a byproduct of govt expansion.





McCain (whose lack of future political possibilities should give him extra gravitas)?

Pastorius said...

No, I don't think so. I believe only Fox has covered it.

However, if you read the "Dirty As It Gets" post linked at the bottom, you will see that two Congressman are doing press conferences on the story. One of the congressman (R-Florida) owned one of the dealerships that was closed.

I think this story can not be kept quiet. It's too big.

Epaminondas said...

Malkin is all over it at Hot Air

Anonymous said...

I do not agree that it is legal. The government is not a normal contractual counterparty in this instance. Its control of Chrysler is illegal in the first instance, under the old country's Constitution.

Also, even if its control were to be deemed "legal", its behavior toward individual citizens based on their political affiliations or preferences is illegal. This is not a normal private company basing contracting decisions on economics.

It is more like a government basing its decisions almost solely on an illegal discriminatory basis. Yeah, kinda like Venezuela or Zimbabwe.

Nothing about this is "legal" as we used to use the term in the old country (USA).

Now, of course, in the new country (USSA), whatever Obama says is "legal."

Pastorius said...

I agree with you.

You will note that I have always said that the way to get Obama is through an "American No Confidence Vote".

The problem here is, as I suspected, Obama seems to be too smart to actually violate any specific law. That does not mean he does not violate the Sprit of the Constitution, of the law, or of the American Tradition, as outlined by our Founders.

If you can name me one specific law he has violated, it would be appreciated.

Epaminondas said...

Obama will WIN ANY no confidence vote today or in the near future.

Not renewing contracts in a means which adheres to published policy of private corporations IS LEGAL. Doing so for arbitrary reasons is not.

If the govt passes laws, or sets executive decisions (appropriating control of corps and banks) which violates the constitution, someone with standing MUST CHALLENGE IT, and Chrysler dealers MEET THAT std (IMHO)

That is PRECISELY what happened in 1936 to the NRA. It is THAT SCOTUS decision which inflamed FDR to try and pack the court.

We must adhere to the constitutional mechanisms internally with SCRUPULOUS and DEADLY EFFECT to those who wish to kill private property.

Epaminondas said...


Pastorius said...


You said: If the govt passes laws, or sets executive decisions (appropriating control of corps and banks) which violates the constitution, someone with standing MUST CHALLENGE IT, and Chrysler dealers MEET THAT std (IMHO)

I say: with all due respect, are you agreeing with us, or disagreeing with us. We said Obama had violated the Constitution and that it was an impeachable offense. You said it was not. Now, you are saying it is.

Maybe you are misunderstanding the foundation of the problem here.

Chrysler did not shut down these dealerships. The Obama Administration did.

Epaminondas said...

Pasto you are on the key point.

Who did?

I GUARANTEE you the name on the letters is a responsible Chrylser executive, as is the memo internally.

The real issue is to isolate how these decisions were made.

Obama Admin in the room?
What did they say?

I also guarantee there are notes.

You say the Obama admin did this. We cannot know this is so, we can have FAITH they made their wishes known. Which is what I think is the case. That's what I would imagine them doing. That way they can say, 'how can we help it if a corporation takes actions they deem to be consonant with their best business interests for their stockholders, but they are actually trying to kiss our asses?'

If someone with standing will take this to court, we may find out.

I see NO impeachable offense
I see slyness.
I see power grabbing.
I see Tammany Hall.

If the admin said .. if you want our help, kill this list of dealers .. they are too stupid to rule.

Anonymous said...

One law that comes to mind is that the government cannot grant contracts on the basis of "pay-to-play," for instance. There are probably lots of other ones, but that is the one that first comes to mind. And that is after conceding, for the sake of argument, that the actual grab was ok in the first place, which it was not.

It does not violate the "spirit" of the Constitution. Go back and read the FDR-era supreme court cases invalidating much of the New Deal and the government's attempt to nationalize the steel industry.


No "spirit" about it. It is the letter of the foundational law of the land - oh, sorry - WAS the foundational law of that old country.

Kind of hard to get used to speaking of the Republic in the past tense.

Epaminondas said...

Anonymous... you are making a lot of assumptions based on what you FEEL

Pay for play.. think they are that stupid? That's not how I would have done this.

This is NOT unlike the birth certificate thing

We need HARD testimony and the courts with those of standing making challenges.

Until that appears this is ODS by right wingnuts to the genl public, folks.

Again, if published Chrysler policy was used, over Chrysler sigs, applied equally across the board the only challenge which could be made is to a forced takeover of Chrysler and only THEN actions such as Obama cutting their ability to spend advert dollars (WHICH PS has reversed and they are now spending). Who would have standing in such a suit? ... not you and I ...

People, I believe the Obama admin is RESPONSIBLE, but that is not the same thing as GUILTY in a court or impeachable.

I have seen nothing they have done foolish enough IN THIS CASE SO FAR which would lead me to believe they can be nailed...


We need more digging by soon to be Woodward and Bernstein's who can get inside

Epaminondas said...

Here is the opposing defense line

Pastorius said...

Sadly, I think you are right. I think the Obama Admin. is smart enough to have kept their tracks clean on this.

However, check out the post,


That is not rock-solid, smoking-gun evidence, but it is corroborative.

Anonymous said...

They violate the Constitution every single day by exercising power they don't legitimately have.

That is a fact.

The government is the defacto owner of the company. The company has made decisions based on something other than economics.

If those decisions have a disparate impact on those with a differing political view, those decisions are in violation of lots of laws that say the government cannot discriminate in contracting based on political party.

You don't need to show "intent" other than disparate impact, under most of these laws. The "effect" is enough to show discrimination.

None of that matters, of course, because this administration will likely just ignore it, because the MSM will ignore it, and those who are trying to assert their rights will get steamrolled. Just like in the initial thuggish bankruptcy "agreements."

So it doesn't really matter anyway. Just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

And off to ruin the health care industry next. Or is it energy? Hey - maybe both at the same time!

That is life in the USSA. It is over for the USA. You can try to own gold - they will just seize it (plenty of precedent for that, sad to say). You can try to leave the country - they will just take your assets.

And nobody with any power seems to care. I miss the Republic. But I am in a tiny minority - made up primarily of those who read these blogs, apparently.

Pastorius said...

I would imagine many people will "miss the Republic" once these decisions start to truly impact the life of the ordinary citizen.

It will take time, which is probably not a commodity we have much of right now.

Anonymous said...

Aye - there's the rub.

Pastorius said...


For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause

Epaminondas said...

"They violate the Constitution every single day by exercising power they don't legitimately have.

That is a fact. "

Not unless PROVEN by someone with standing who takes them to court.

Even then the left will say it is because SCOTUS is a tool of the SCALIA's and CHENEY's.

But we need someone with standing to dismantle this, like the Schechter Brothers. I am certain that Scalia, Alito, Roberts and Thomas will emulate SUTHERLANDRead this as well

Anonymous said...

No, facts are facts whether they are acknowledged (or acted upon) or not. Murder is murder whether or not the murderer is ever prosecuted, for instance.

No one with any power (including standing) is willing to fight this, though, apparently.

That does not mean there is no violation of the separation of powers and federalism. There is. On a daily basis.

But the Constitution may as well not exist, as far as protecting the people from a tyranny.

Epaminondas said...

Anon..the Constitution is a political instrument not an oscilloscope.

Facts are only established in real world actions in this venue.

Politics is perception. NOT OBJECTIVE REALITY

It is inconceivable to me that right now, this second, there are no Chrysler dealers talking to their lawyers, who are talking to people like Ted Olson.

If a couple of schlemiel chicken butchers from Bklyn could crash the entire FDR admin's plans, I GUARANTEE YOU there is plenty of support if someone of standing will take this to the limit.

Don't you think guys like Regnery would love to support an an effort stomp on this?

This will take time.

You are too pessimistic.
Jefferson, and the boyz, I PROMISE YOU, thought about this.

There are plenty of vigilant people around, and WE are now in the role the ACLU was in 2002 (minus NAMBLA).

Pelosi:"Every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory"

I promise you 75% of the leftists who want a free lunch and think there IS ONE, do not want that. The only way to stop that is to give up aspects of the free lunch.

They will to stop that.

And when the govt FUCKS the biz they get their paychecks from, in favor of what they suddenly suspect is someone who gave more money to the right guy .. Gitmo, bailouts, tax breaks, all of that won't matter for crap.

Pastorius said...

Hi Epa and Anonymous,
The origin of the argument between the two of you is that Anonymous is arguing morally, while Epa is arguing according the law/politics.

Morally, Anonymous is right.

Law/Politics-wise, Epa is right.

We are a nation of Laws, not a nation of Morals. So, in the larger scope of things, Epa is right, in my opinion.

The reason we can not be a nation of Morals, (though it does sound like Anonymous, Epa, and I are in agreement on morality) is because everyone has a different moral reference and compass. A nation based upon a sense of morality would falter into chaos; it's own tower of Babel, built by people reaching too far to be like God.

We can not be truly moral. "No man is good. Only God is good."

So, we use laws, and the legal process to work towards the good, by remaining vigilant, always analyzing and re-analyzing our laws, and our foundational principles, as articulated in the Constitution.

As Epa says, this process takes time.

I am optimistic along with Epa, though I think Anonymous' pessimism is reasonable considering the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Anonymous said...

Time will tell. My concern is what Pastorius said earlier - the clock may run out before those who have the power to exercise that power do so.

Epaminondas said...

That's why:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.