Exposing a Notorious non-Christian

5/25/07

A NEWS ITEM WE ARE BOUND TO SEE IN THE (NEAR) FUTURE:


The Reverend Billy Bob Howell, chairman of the newly formed Committee to Purify Christianity, has issued the Committee’s final determination that Jesus of Nazareth was by no means a Christian. Reverend Howell’s statement:

“After a careful search of the four gospels, we failed to find evidence of a single-minded focus of Jesus on abortion, or even one instance in which he used the word “abortion;” therefore, his stance on life issues was clearly out of step with that of believing Christians throughout our nation. Further, not even once did Jesus even refer to homosexuality or homosexual marriage, let alone make clear his revulsion at the very idea of homosexuality or at the preposterous notion that homosexuals be allowed to marry. Clearly, he was not in step with Christian values on the all-important issues of marriage and family. So how did that charlatan feel empowered to call himself a Christian?

“As a side-note, Jesus’ follower Paul was somewhat better on the issue of homosexuality, but he, too, failed to even mention abortion, so we also doubt the genuineness of his self-proclaimed faith.

“Jesus’ admonition to ‘render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and render unto God those that are God’s’ is clearly a call for his followers to forsake political involvement, or at least to give it a lower level of priority than devotion to what he mistakenly understood as Christian principles. This preaching is diametrically opposed to unquestioning devotion to the Republican Party, an unyielding tenet of the Christian faith. Further, Jesus’ incessant yammering about loving one’s neighbor and serving the needs of the poor clearly indicate that he was a liberal. Didn’t that mountebank realize that being a liberal is wholly incompatible with Christianity, which has as its key membership requirement blind devotion to conservatism as defined by God’s herald Rush Limbaugh?

Further, there is little talk of smiting one’s enemies, very common in the good part of the Bible (i.e., the Old Testament), in the gospels. This indicates to us that Jesus would not be behind (here we must all replicate the otherwise anathemic papist practice of genuflecting) President Bush’s efforts to smite the terrorists in Iraq. How could someone who opposes the most sanctified initiative of perhaps the holiest man ever to grace our fallen and ungrateful planet call himself a Christian?

“We have even found unusual common ground with orthodox elements of the Roman church on this issue. The papists have even established a chapter of the Committee to Purify Christianity. Here is the statement of Father Clement C. Farisi, better known as Clement the Inquisitor, on our finding regarding Jesus:

‘We have found that our brothers in the heathen churches, though clearly misguided on most other issues, are correct in their contention that Jesus indeed was not a Christian. In addition to the points that the Reverend Howell has made regarding Jesus’ lack of clarity on abortion and that other thing that I can’t even mention, along with Jesus’ non-Republican politics, we have a few other points of contention with this pretender from Palestine. First, he preached to his followers not in Latin but, rather, in the vernacular of his time and place. Second, he did such preaching while actually facing his listeners. Every real Catholic knows that God intended His priests to, when saying Mass, turn their backs to their people and speak to them in a language they don’t understand. That’s the way it was always done before that clearly misguided John XXIII called the perfidious Vatican II. Further, there is no evidence that Jesus ever even attended, let alone said, Mass. How can one call one’s self a Christian, let alone a Catholic, if one does not attend the Mass said as we have determined it be said? Some have argued that the Last Supper was indeed a Mass. But all the right thinking people (except for the evangelist John, whose never-ending blather about loving one another was clearly out of step with modern Christianity anyway) know it was a Seder, and we think that any Catholic who even considers attending a heretical Seder should burn eternally in Hell. But even if the Last Supper was a Mass, Jesus violated the rules. He distributed Communion immediately after dinner, not allowing for the one hour waiting period required after eating before one can consume Communion! In fact, that one hour time period itself was a vicious dilution of real Catholicism emanating from the abominable Vatican II. But Jesus did not see fit to comply even with that watered-down regulation. Just who did he think he was? He sounds to us like some sort of secular humanist, if not, heaven forefend, a Jesuit. Clearly, he wasn’t a Catholic. A Catholic follows the rules, and we make the rules.

Thank you, Reverend Howell, for allowing us to join your group. Though you will rot in hell for not recognizing the primacy of the Church and its never-erring hierarchy, we are happy to join you in exposing this fraud that was doubtlessly perpetrated by liberals and other heretics bent on destroying God’s kingdom on earth.’

“We also thank Father Farisi for his contribution. Though it is he and his papist followers who will be providing the fuel for our eternal marshmallow roast in the hereafter, he clearly sees the truth in this crusade to purify Christianity, and we pray that he and his will repent while there is still time.

“Concluding, we think Jesus had the right idea when he talked about fiery Gehenna where the worm dies not and the flames are never extinguished, but when he failed to address the family values issues and started incessantly babbling about liberal values like love and peace, he exposed himself for what he is: a liberal secular type who was clearly anything but a Christian. Jesus’ most blatant heresy, however, was his incessant contention that eternal salvation could be gained through faith in him. Real, genuine, believing Christians know that all that is required to gain eternal life is opposition to abortion, vilification of homosexuals, and blind devotion to President Bush and the Republican Party. We pray also that Jesus, too, may somehow repent in the afterlife and become a real Christian, like me and my followers.”

The Pontificator

The Dems (Surprise!) Sit Up and Beg

5/23/07

The Democrats have abandoned their former insistence on a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and have given the President a more or less free hand in Iraq. In response for this lapdog trick, the Democrats have been allowed to spend about $17 billion more than Mr. Bush requested, only about $9 billion of which can be in any way identified with defense or veterans’ issues. The Democrats also got an increase in the minimum wage in exchange for their obeisance.

So the Democrats were given control of Congress in 2006 in order to get us out of Iraq. Once comfortably ensconced in their accustomed positions of power, they promptly abandoned the major issue on which they had conned the American people and returned to doing what they do best—spending other people’s money on programs favored by their constituencies, which, in Washington, is any political hermaphrodite capable of writing a check.

This argument by no means exonerates the Republicans. The GOP is generally put in office to be parsimonious with the public purse and to, until this bunch occupied the White House, pursue a sober foreign policy. Instead, the Republicans have turned a Democratic (!) surplus into a deficit and have put our kids in the middle of an interminable civil war, seemingly to enrich the GOP’s puppet masters in the defense and oil industries.

What is abundantly clear is that both parties pursue a pro-growth agenda: a pro government growth agenda. Yet the typical voter, who gets little from the federal government but the bill, continues to vote for one of the parties merely because the prospect of voting for the other is too frightening to contemplate.

What is the voter who is fed up with picking up the tab for the callow preening of the popinjays and poltroons who have been ceded control of our political system to do? Ron Paul, who has throughout his career displayed sympathy for the small government point of view, is the longest of shots for the Republican nomination, largely because he actually believes in for what the Republicans is mere banausic propaganda and because he talks sense about Iraq specifically and about America’s role in the world generally. Right now, the latter is about as welcome in the GOP as is a temperance crusader at a frat party. The party of which Dr. Paul used to be standard-bearer, the Libertarians, is clearly a flawed vehicle, but, for now, is about all we have. GOPers love to castigate those who vote Libertarian for chimerically “throwing away their votes.” However, one cannot help but think that those who voted for the nascent Republican Party in the 1850s were subject to the same excerebrose abuse.

This writer doesn’t know what the answer is, but I am quite certain that voting for either of the major parties will only keep us on the path to supergovernment. The major parties present us only with alternative directions for ever accelerating growth of government.

The Pontificator

IT'S EVEN WORSE FOR DAIMLER THAN I THOUGHT

5/15/07

FULL DISCLOSURE: I AM LONG DCX JANUARY 80 AND 85 PUTS AND AM AMENABLE TO ADDING TO MY DCX PUT POSITION.

In yesterday’s comments on the Cerberus deal, I listed as a possible counter to my negative view of DCX the possible perception of Daimler’s getting $7.4 billion for a worthless asset as a huge positive. I offered a few counterarguments to this counterargument, if you will, but information came out subsequent to my comments that cast an even more negative light on DCX in the wake of this deal.

Yes, Cerberus is paying $7.4 billion for Chrysler, but of that $7.4 billion….

$6.05 billion will be contributed to Chrysler
$5.0b to the industrial operations
$1.05 b to Chrysler Financial, which will probably be combined with GMAC
$1.35 billion will go to Daimler.

So Daimler is only getting $1.35 billion for Chrysler. However, it gets worse. Daimler is contributing:

$1.6 billion to subsidize negative cash flow and PORB liabilities at Chrysler
$400 mm in the form of a loan to the new company for the same purposes.

So Daimler is netting a negative $650mm for Chrysler, effectively paying Cerberus to take part of the $19 billion in Chrysler PORB debt off its hands. As has been repeated ad nauseam in the press, Daimler paid $36 billion for Chrysler in 1998. I wonder if Kirk Kerkorian’s anger at his getting paid too little for his Chrysler stake in 1998 has abated somewhat, but I digress.

Cerberus also plans to raise $65b to refinance Chrysler’s debt, most of which is on the books of Chrysler Financial. So, with this financing, and the financing needed to do the deal in the first place, one could also list as potential negatives for Daimler the possibility that the deal doesn’t get done, but there is almost nothing that doesn’t get done in today’s junk bond market.

Overall, this new information makes the deal slightly more attractive for the new Chrysler, somewhat akin to telling a cancer ridden patient that, good news, life support will keep him alive for one more week of agonizing pain. The new information, though, makes the deal even less attractive for DCX.

Cerberus Sinks the Ship

5/14/07

Full disclosure: I am long January ’08 DCX 80 puts and am looking to buy more puts.

So Cerberus is going to buy 80.1% of Chrysler for $7.4 billion. Obviously, I have some opinions on this:

• Clearly, the Cerberus people are smarter than this lone scribe toiling away in obscurity in suburban Chicago. They are certainly more knowledgeable about Chrysler, if only by having access to information that I don’t. All that having been said, I wouldn’t come near this deal with a barge pole. As I have said before on numerous occasions, given its sorry sales, banal (I’m probably being generous in my use of adjectives here.) product line and gargantuan (as high as $19 billion) PORB liabilities, Chrysler is worthless as it stands. Piling on the debt necessary to buy the company will surely sink it, and relatively quickly. It is very telling that the potential bidders in the best position to evaluate Chrysler’s value, Magna and Tracinda, took a pass on the Pentastar at anything like Cerberus’s bid price.
• Most of the talk about Chrysler’s problems this morning has centered on its PORB liabilities and getting concessions from the UAW on this point. As I have said on numerous occasions in the past, Cerberus, and virtually everyone else in Detroit, is focusing on the wrong problem. The major problem facing the Big 3 is not their PORB liabilities, but the JOBS bank which, by making labor a fixed cost, leads to overproduction and decimates the resale value of even the best of the Big 3’s products. Note that, while health care adds about $1,800 to the cost of a Big 3 car, the average incentive on a Chrysler Group vehicle was $3,994 in April. Incentives on Dodge vehicles averaged a whopping $5,000 per copy. Bringing these incentives down to the industry average of $2,342 would go a long way toward covering PORB liabilities. Solving the JOBS bank problems thus gives the new Chrysler owners, and all of the Big 3, a way out of their current morass without screwing the workers, or at least not screwing them as badly as current talk would indicate.
  Cleary, neither Cerberus nor the people who run Ford and GM are unaware of the importance of the JOBS bank, but the emphasis has clearly been misplaced on the PORB liabilities.
• Why am I still so negative on DCX? Wouldn’t one think that getting $7.4 billion for a worthless asset would be a big positive? Of course, but, as I said in my April 3 comment on this topic:
  o Even if Chrysler is sold, the DCX investor will be left with Mercedes. When did Mercedes become such a prize? Remember, as recently as 2005, Mercedes was the sick partner, losing $660 million, which had to be carried by Chrysler, which was making $2 billion. Though is has improved somewhat on this score, Mercedes is still plagued by quality problems. The luxury car market is very crowded. The car market itself will be very tough in the upcoming year as the economy slows and as the typical car buyer’s (including the luxury car buyer’s) piggy bank is drained; i.e., the value of his or her home, and the ability to borrow against it, declines.
  o Even if none of the prior three points prove valid, there is always the old “buy on rumor, sell on fact” rule.
  Further, bear in mind that DCX will still own 19.9% of the doomed new Chrysler.
• How would I like to play this deal, other than by buying DCX puts? I would like to be part of the group that buys Chrysler assets when they are sold out of the bankruptcy that will result from the Cerberus deal. While these aren’t great assets, but they will be sold cheap, and without the accompanying PORB liabilities.
  
  The Pontificator

Senator Obama in Detroit

5/8/07

In his speech to the Detroit Economic Club on May 7, presidential contender Senator Barack Obama blamed most of the domestic auto industry’s woes on the Big 3 automakers themselves. In making his argument, the Senator displayed the lack of economic depth that so concerns his handlers and supporters.

Senator Obama argued that if the Big 3 had invested less in SUVs and other large vehicles and more in fuel saving vehicles and technology, and had not resisted CAFÉ changes that “could’ve saved their industry,” domestic carmakers would not be facing many of the problems they face today. Senator Obama did not point out that the Big 3 put a lot of money into big vehicles because that is what the market demanded. For better or worse, the American people simply wanted, and continue to want, larger vehicles. Further, even when presented the choice of a more fuel efficient V6 engine in such large vehicles, customers clamor for the more powerful and thirstier V8. That was true when gas was $2.00 or less per gallon and it remains so today. Even last month, when gas was climbing steadily toward the astronomical heights we are living with today, sales of small cars fell 12.6% while sales of large SUVs climbed 0.2% and sales of only slightly more fuel efficient small SUVs (not crossovers) increased 16.7%. If Senator Obama had had his way, and the Big 3 abandoned large trucks in favor of small cars years ago, leaving the profitable truck market to the Japanese manufacturers, we wouldn’t be bemoaning the problems of the Big 3 today; we would be reading their obituaries. Those who think from reading the hagiographic coverage in the business press of Toyota and its counterparts that the Japanese manufacturers are far too virtuous to have jumped on such an opportunity were it presented to them should take a close look at the Toyota Tundra, Sequoia, and FJ Cruiser, all of which guzzle gas like a Chicago politician laps up largesse from corrupt developers and government contractors.

Some would argue that the American people demand larger vehicles because of Detroit’s extensive advertising and marketing of such vehicles. This is the school of thought that holds that people are mere witless automatons, blindly being led around by the pied piper of Madison Avenue induced popular opinion. People have no responsibility for their individual choices; they simply can’t resist doing what they are told. There may be something to this argument; after all, Senator Obama is in the very thick of the presidential race.


The Pontificator