A Most Important Lawsuit!

Quitely behind the scenes without fanfare and media attention, the Thomas Moore Law Center and its team of attorneys go about the serious business of defending conservative values in the courts.  On December 15, 2008 the Thomas Moore Law Center, on behalf of its client, Kevin J. Murray filed his Complaint against the United States government in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Specificially, the named defendants are the Secretary of Treasury, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  The Complaint seeks relief from the government’s illegal action of owning and funding a religious organization/business/institution in violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  This lawsuit seeks to force the divesture of billions of taxpayer monies from a business organization that owns/operates and perpetuates religious extremeism.  Without writing another sentence, whether you are a Liberal, Conservative, Independent, Republican, Libertarian, Democrat, or Green, I should now have your attention.  Like it or not, your government is now unconstitutionally entangled with Islam!

Background:

“Plaintiff Kevin J. Murray is a United States citizen, a resident of Washtenaw County, Michigan, a federal taxpayer, and a devout Catholic. Plaintiff is also a former U.S. Marine who served honorably in harm’s way to defend our country (the United States) against Islamic terrorists.”  See  paragraph 11 of Complaint.  The designated federal judge on the case is the Hon.  Lawrence P. Zatkoff.  The magistrate judge assigned to the case is Mona K. Majzoub.1  Federal District Judges are appointed to the bench by the President for life by authority of federal statute.  Federal Magistrate Judges are appointed by the District Court Judges for eight year renewable terms.  Magistrate Judges have about as much power and authority as the District Judges want them to have including that which is conferred upon them by 28 U.S.C. § 636.  The Magistrate can often be the “decision maker” on any number of dispositive procedings or issues in a case notwithstanding that there is a “District” Judge assigned to the case.  The idea behind district judges being appointed for life by authority of a Congressional statute is that judges appointed for life would be free from influence based upon a fear of not being reelected because of how they may decide a case or controversy.  This is not the case for magistrate judges.  Obstensibly because of an overwhelming case load, Congress passed 28 U.S.C. § 631 et seq. which authorized the hiring of magistrates to assist the district court judges in handling their case loads.2

Murray complains that the U.S. Government’s involvement with AIG violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it allows the government to be directly, and indirecly involved with religious activities, specificially, the Islamic Religion by and through Shariah-based Islamic religious practices and activities.  In simpler terms, AIG is directly and indirectly involved with anti-American and anti-Jewish activities—which violates the Constitution and it offends that which is right, just, and moral under the standards and principles that the U.S. was founded. An aside is that if AIG were controlling, funding, and directly or indirectly involved with a Christian organization, the a/k/a  “right-wing” conservative extremistism, I would not likely be writing this article because it would be all over the mainstream media and the Liberals would be screaming daily until it ceased.  Even with that said, which is irrefutable in fact, I am still amazed that Liberals do not appear to be concerned or upset by the funding of AIG by and through their own tax dollars.  After all, there are Liberal taxpayers, right?

Procedure:

A defendant normally has 20 days in Federal Court in which to file and serve and file an answer to a complaint in federal court.  If the defendant is the United States (or one of its agencies), the defendant has 60 days in which to file its answer.  In this case, the Defendants’ Answer was required to be filed and served on Murray in February of this year however, that time line is interrupted if the defendant files a certain type of motion prior to answering the complaint; which is what has taken place in this lawsuit.  Treasury Secretary Geithner and the Federal Reserve have not filed an answer to the complaint but have instead filed a Motion to Dismiss.3  The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss was filed February 27, 2009.  Murray filed his Response to the Motion on March 18, 2009.  The disposition of the Motion by the court is pending.  Of course, we will not know whether the Magistrate Majzoub will rule on the defendants’ motion or whether Judge Zatkoff, himself will rule on the issue.  If Geithner and the Board of Governors’ motion is denied, then obstensibly the defendants’ answer to the complaint will have to be filed with the court within a few days.  If the motion is granted, then I suspect the plaintiff here will appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeals (Sixth Circuit).  In any event, we await the court’s decision on the motion to dismiss.  Although this case is extremely important to all Americans, it is likely that the main stream media will not cover the court’s ruling on the motion therefore, I plan to monitor this case and report on the court’s ruling when it comes out.

One Reason You Should Care:

The first reason you care is that AIG (American International Group)  has received about $170 billion in government bailout funds (so far), from which it paid $454 million in retention awards and bonuses since March,  That’s approximately $2,300 per U.S. family of their tax dollars being invested in AIG and its subsidiaries.4  The U.S. Government owns a controlling interest in AIG.   If you were being asked to stroke a check for $2,300 right now; wouldn’t you want to know who, what, and how the money was going to be spent?   Of course you would.   It is sad that most Americans still have not woke up and smelled the coffee to the fact that they (the U.S. people) now own the majority and controlling interest in AIG and have a right to know, and control how and where their invested funds are being used.  Regardless of what your political or religious beliefs are, you should care how $170 billion dollars of taxes are being spent just from the veritble amount of $ involved.

Second Reason You Care, or Should Care:

AIG engages in activities that are “antithetical to our Nation’s values.”5   Given the fact that most U.S. citizens are “infidels” as defined by Islamic tenants; the activities that the $2,300 per family is earmarked for are directly against that which the taxpayers themselves believe in and stand for.  How ironic is that?   And of course, I assume that infidels care about the$450 million paid out in bonuses to AIG employees since they became majority owners.  Because taxpayer funds were expended by the U.S. Government to acquire a majority ownership interest in AIG, the Plaintiff here and you are being forced to contribute to offensive anti-American activities not to mention the direct anti-Christian and anti-Jewish purpose of the activities.  You have no choice whatsoever unless you stand up and demand accountability by Congress as to where and how your tax dollars are spent.  Perhaps, in reality, today’s taxpayers are apathetic because it is not this generation that will truly suffer i.e., actually have to pay for the Congressional indiscretion to the degree of pain the next two generations will suffer.  I suspect that you would really give a damm if you truly understood that the money invested is directly supporting Islamic extremeist’ activities whose chickens may come home to roost in your front yard–soon.

Third Reason You Care, or Should Care:

The law passed by Congress that respects the establishment of religion was the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C Sec 5201 et seq.).  The EESA was/is an express mandate by Congress for the appropriation of your funds to be used to purchase troubled assets from any fiancial institution including any insurance company established under the laws of the United States.  Murray v. Geithner seeks to protect one of our most fundamental constitutional rights.  In the First Amendment, therein lies the Establishment Clause; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”   How can anyone argue with this issue which slaps you in the face.  Congress authorized billions of dollars earmarked for the purchase of controlling interest in a business enterprise i.e., AIG.  It is irrefutable that AIG owns subsidiaries, divisions, or whatever which are engaged in Shariah supportive activities.  Moreover, AIG has insurance products that are fully and completely designed to be Shariah compliant.  For a more in-depth description of AIG’s Shariah compliant insurance products see my January post on AIG.   Murray is standing up for your right to demand that your tax dollars are not spent supporting Islamic terrorism.  On one hand we are spending billions in the “war on terror,” yet on the other hand, we are allowing our public owned entity–”AIG” to propagate Islamic beliefs and practices predicated upon Shariah law and/or through its own Shariah compliant financial products offered to the public.

Fourth Reason You Care, or Should Care:

There is a second component to the First Amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... is referred to as the Free Exercise Clause.  Stately simply, the argument should also be made that because the Government is now directly and indirectly supporting Islamic principles, by and through its funding and controlling ownership interest in AIG, it is in effect violating the Free Exercise Clause as well.  Islam and its attendant principles divide the world into two groups diametrically opposed to each other.  One group is the house of Islam where Islamic law rules.  The other group is the Dar Al Harb, the house of war–infidels (huffars, non-believers) which includes Christians and Jews.  The basic fact of the matter is that Islam is comprised of inseparable political and religious dogma which condemns other religions.  Through such condemnation, Islam is blatantly against the very core of both First Amendment clauses.  If you are supporting Islam, you necessarily are prohibiting the free exercise of other religion.  The logic is straight forward.  The Government owns AIG.  AIG owns business enterprises and merchandises Shariah compliant financial products which are specifically supporting Islamic organizations.  Islam and its Shariah compliant organizations and enterprises are anti-American, anti-Jewish and anti-Christian.  Simple logic dictates that if you invest in Shariah compliant companies your investment dollars are being directly used to prohibit the free expression and free exercise of religion. This is a violent attack on the First Amendment.

The Fifth Reason You Care, or Should Care:

The fifth reason you care, or should care, about Murray v. Geithner is that the Government is of course, fighting the lawsuit.  The Government is not yet fighting the lawsuit on the facts or “merits” of the case yet.  Rather than answer the complaint with written admissions or denials, the Government has chosen to date to fight the lawsuit on the basis of procedural arguments i.e., the principles of “standing,” and jurisdiction.  The last thing you should want to see happen here is that a court decides that Kevin Murray does not have standing to sue.  ’Standing” is the legal principle which a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.7  The United States Supreme Court has historically made it extremely difficult for a taxpayer to challenge the expenditure of funds in support of policies or programs that he is forced to support.  However, in a very important case, Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S. Ct. 1942, 20 L. Ed. 2d 947 (1968) a taxpayer was granted standing to challenge expenditures that would benefit parochial schools.

Geithner’s Motion to Dismiss the lawsuit and its attendant arguments are included here .   The Plaintiff’s Response to the U.S.’s Motion to Dismiss the case is available from the Thomas Moor Law Center for your download.  In the meantime at You Tube, The Future of Western Civilization gives you plenty to think about as your tax dollars assist the expansion of culture that wages a Jihad against you.

Leave a comment please and I invite you to Digg it, leave a Kudo, or a give me a Technorati vote even if you disagree with my position. Thanks for coming by.

The second question I have is, “why should we care?” Mr. Lewenza is quoted as being fighting mad. He’s mad because Parliament was suspended before a “stimulus package” was in place for the Canadian automobile companies. Lewenza says, “there’s a battle to wage.”1

I happen to believe its a good thing that Lewenza is mad; I will explain below.

An aside, Lewenza apparently loves the use of hyperbole, and he likes to point with two fingers, sort of revolver style. Lewenza became the Canadian Auto Worker’s union boss just this past September. He was the only candidate in a special election held when the previous CAW president, Buzz Hargrove, was retiring. What’s interesting here is that one of the first things Lewenza is quoted as saying just this past September is:

. . . many [auto industry] jobs have been lost as buyers moved to more fuel-efficient cars made by foreign companies — even though the cars are often assembled in Canada or the U.S.

Lewenza is peeved because we, the buyers, have been purchasing fuel efficient cars and therefore, the government should do something about it. Does that seem logical to you?

A little more background is necessary.

In 2005 then CAW president Buzz Hargrove threatened to make sagging auto sales an election issue. What? Three plus years ago, Hargrove and other union leaders were suffering acute anxiety that the auto companies would soon be demanding labor concessions as a solution to the admitted fact that the “auto industry” was in trouble.2 In 2005, Hargrove offered his solution to the problem of sagging domestic car sales. The CAW’s definition of the “auto industry” appears to only include domestic car manufacturers–not those evil import companies.

The way to solve the problems of the auto industry today is to stop the imports from killing us or get the opportunity to export to those nations that won’t let us sell our products today. 3

Hargrove made the above statement at a CAW leadership meeting in November 2005, which was convened to discuss ways to “fight” the expected demand for labor concessions from auto parts manufacturers. Hargrove failed to offer any explanation as to why concessions should not be on the table; of course the answer to that question is quite obvious. If labor concessions were on the table how would that be in his best proprietary interest or that of the workers. At the 2005 meeting, the CAW formulated its “7 point action plan” which by the way reads like a strategic battle plan in anticipation of a war being declared; and even before any diplomatic efforts have been made. The first of the seven strategies stated below, tells us what we need to know.

1. Resist concessions at all costs: We will demonstrate with actions, when words are not enough, that auto parts companies cannot solve their problems on the backs of their workers through concessions in wages, pensions, and benefits. If this requires demonstrations, plant occupations, strikes, or any other non-violent action by CAW members and their community allies, then the CAW will be ready. Parts makers who attempt to solve their problems by forcibly extracting concessions from their workers, will find their ability to effectively do business in Canada severely constrained.4

Okay, stop right there; a little review is necessary. We know that in 2005 the CAW leadership was acutely aware the “auto industry” was in serious trouble. I am quite confident that Hargrove and the 200 other CAW leaders were acutely aware of the situation long before the 2005 meeting. In any event, the CAW president clearly presented his solution i.e., that someone [government?] needed to stop the import companies from killing us [domestic companies] or “get the opportunity to export more cars to those nations that won’t let us sell our products to them.” [sic] Please note that Hargrove did not offer any facts to support his assertions nor did he identify the countries that he was claiming were not allowing our cars [domestic products?] to be imported. Hargrove also failed to offer any details on who was supposed to stop the imports [companies?] or how to stop the imports, or why Canadian citizens should want to for that matter. It is no surprise that Hargrove failed to take any responsibility for the market conditions, nor did he assume any accountability on behalf of the domestic auto industry for the state of affairs. It’s always someone else’s fault–not ours! It’s not the CAW or manufacturers’ fault that Canadian citizens are buying import products, it’s the government’s fault. It is also worth noting; there never seems to be an explanation from any labor representative why concessions are not a possible partial solution to high labor costs!

Despite the fact that auto industry analysts cite labor and product as the two primary reasons for the sales woes of the domestic auto companies, Lewenza comes out of his corner swinging. He immediately draws a line in the sand vowing to fight the Harper government and demands a stimulus package for the car manufacturers! He says, “ . . . that victory means the union will keep pushing for a stimulus package that suits the needs of Canadians and the auto industry.” What does a stimulus package that suits the needs of Canadians look like? The CAW boss is fighting the minority government on behalf of the auto companies. How oxymoronic is that?

Shouldn’t the CAW Targets Be The Banks?

By the way, why is the CAW not fighting the banks? Should we assume the auto companies that are begging for a taxpayer bailout have already been turned down by the banks? If so, why? If not, why don’t the not-so Big Three car companies go to the banks for additional funding? If the banks have turned them down, maybe it’s because the business plan stinks. Please don’t tell me that the credit market is frozen and there is no money available except from the government.

So What Did Happen To The CAW 7 Point Plan?

What happened to the call for someone to stop those evil import companies from killing us? What happened to the urgent desperate need to get those closed markets open? We can easily see that the 7 point plan has become a one or two point plan. The plan has been reduced to a couple of simple strategies. One, the chosen method of resisting concessions at all costs is preeminent. It obviously includes supporting a government bailout for the same companies that the CAW would never give concessions to. The CAW battle cry is: “Give’em tax dollars not concessions!” The plan to resist concessions at all costs is an easier path to follow than one which would actually solve the “auto industry” long term problems. The question no one seems to be asking is this. How will a government stimulus package solve the manufacturers’ problem of having labor costs too high to compete in a global competitive market? With automobiles being manufactured here and in Japan, Korea, China, and India for less while offering more value, please someone explain how a government handout of tax dollars will solve the “auto industry” problem.

Below are provisions of the 7 point plan developed by CAW leadership in 2005 that have disappeared:

If a CAW-represented plant or employer faces big financial challenges, CAW local and national representatives will meet quickly with company officials to examine the financial and operational facts of the situation and develop an action plan. (emphasis added)5

and

Draw government into the solution: . . . The CAW will work closely with
government officials where appropriate to stabilize and revitalize troubled facilities. (emphasis added)6

Do you see the smoke and mirrors. The CAW offers solutions to a recognized auto industry problem, but then says “IF” there is a problem such that their members’ employers face BIG financial challenges, the CAW will “examine” operational facts to develop a solution. Would outrageously high labor costs be an “operational fact” to examine? I am just wondering: When do you suppose the meetings were held? You know, the meetings between CAW leaders and the not-so Big Three company officials to examine operational facts and to develop an action plan? Perhaps, there were meetings in 2005 and the action plan that resulted is the one being executed right now i.e., blame it all on the government, and demand that the government use tax dollars to bail them all out. This does not comport with the 7 point plan that included a strategy to work closely with government officials when appropriate, but whatever, it simply must not have been “appropriate.”

Recently, Lewenza has spun some different rhetoric. While insisting that the government increase EI benefit amounts for the “auto industry” (not for all unemployed workers) because its not the workers’ fault sales are suffering, he laments:

The union has shown time and time again that it’s flexible and willing to take creative approaches when finding solutions. We welcome the opportunity to join with other industry players in rebuilding the auto industry.7

Would anyone care to offer some evidence of that assertion? Lewenza stayed with strategy number one by going on to say: “. . .slashing workers’ wages and benefits will do nothing to solve the industry’s problems.”

If Lewenza wins his war, the result is likely that in the short term, the companies win, the union wins, and the auto workers win. How do Canadians win, given the fact that we are consistently purchasing cars now with better gas mileage and more value for the price?

The key survivor of the now demised 7 point plan is the win at all cost strategy to save union benefits:

Plant closures or bankruptcies may jeopardize the future pension or post- retirement health benefits of CAW members. The CAW will enlist its Union in Politics Committees and other allies to campaign forcefully to protect the pensions and retirement benefits of CAW members affected by the fight against concessions, and to step up the fight for stronger policies to protect pensions.8

Do not misunderstand me, I’m not against worker benefits. What I have trouble with is the hyperbole that the CAW leaders will use to attempt to bolster public opinion toward their plan to save their salaries, positions, and existence. The CAW will do what is in their best proprietary interest and will resist all concessions at any cost regardless of the conditions on the ground. I have a problem with the fact that the CAW is in denial–its failure to admit that it and the members’ employers are in the position they are in because of their own doing–it is NOT someone else’s fault!

One fact that is not being discussed is this. The Canadian “auto-industry” is not just Ford, Chrysler, and GM. The other automobile companies, some with manufacturing plants in Canada, are not asking for taxpayers to bail them out. Honda doesn’t claim that Toyota is “killing” it with unfair trade and/or labor practices.

Lewenza is fighting mad, well I hope all citizens are as well. The reason it is most likely a good thing for taxpayers that the CAW president is fighting mad is simply this. He wants taxpayer dollars to support companies that have made strategic mistakes. Lewenza wants our dollars to continue to prop up the high labor costs that the CAW has obviously helped bring about. Despite the fact that consumers are buying other products, Lewenza is mad that the government is not using our dollars to subsidize the failed managerial policies of the not so Big Three. So, here’s the way I see it. I’m better off each and every day that goes by that Lewenza is fighting mad. I sure hope he remains mad for a long time.

Post a comment, let me know what you think.

1. See, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/12/05/caw-stimulus.html
2. See http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2005/11/11/caw-parts051111.html
3. See http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2005/11/11/caw-parts051111.html
4. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf
5. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf
6. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf
7. http://www.caw.ca/en/5201.htm
8. http://caw.exmi.ca/whoweare/CAWpoliciesandstatements/pdfs/7PointActionPlan.pdf

The Big Three Automakers Are Using The Airbus Playbook!

Airbus is teaching the U.S. automakers the end around.  On November 7th, in my article Gold Flush (below), I stated there would soon be “stimulus packages available and flushed out regularly from the Treasury” as a result of Obama becoming President.  I also stated that this would happen with the assistance of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Get ready, here it comes, and I’m just wondering if the 160,000 Boeing employees are okay with it?  Even though the U.S. debt just recently exceeded $10 trillion without anyone noticing, I’m amazed there is not already a public outcry!  For a family of four, the current U.S. debt is $140,000.  After you read this post, you might just agree with me that Boeing should be leading the outcry against the stimulus package that will soon be given to General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler.  What do Boeing’s employees have to do with this you ask?  Here’s the connection. Let’s first identify Airbus.

Airbus Industrie, was founded in 1970 as a consortium of the principal aerospace companies of Germany (Deutsche Aerospace, now a Daimler-Chrysler subsidiary known as DASA), France (Aerospatiale Matra), England (Britain’s Hawker Siddeley, later BAE Systems), and Spain (Construcciones Aeronauticas, CASA).1

Airbus and Boeing dominate the aircraft manufacturing business world wide.  Airbus has been, and is a ferocious competitor of Boeing.  The competitive spirit between these two aircraft manufacturers has been ugly at times, to say the least.  The one shot heard around the world so to speak was in 2004 when Boeing launched a blistering attack on Airbus for its receiving billions of dollars in European government loans to help finance its operations.  Is this beginning to sound a bit familiar?  I remember this argument taking place in the news quite vividly.  Boeing began losing some of its world class market share to Airbus.  This dispute started about the same time there was a real populist push in the U.S. with the attendant slogans, “buy American” and “made in the U.S.A.”  The real heat between Boeing and Airbus really surfaces whenever it appears that Airbus might sell aircraft to the U.S. government.  The disputes between these two companies is long-standing, complex, and expensive; especially for the U.S. taxpayers.  Because of direct pressure initiated by Boeing on the government, in the summer of 2004, the U.S. government withdrew from a 1992 Bi-lateral trade agreement signed with the European Union.  This agreement purposely governed subsidies provided to aircraft manufacturers.  Contemporaneously, the U.S. launched its complaint against the European Union because of its subsidies to Airbus. The U.S. government has been involved in this expensive legal trade battle in the World Trade Organization (WTO) ever since.  A key point to note and remember here is that in the WTO dispute, the U.S. argues (on behalf of Boeing) that Airbus received illegal subsidies (loans for an incorrect purpose).  Alternatively, the U.S. argues that the loans (even if proper) were made at preferential rates–patently unfair in the world of free market competition, eh?  By the way, as of February 2007, Airbus has repaid 40% more than the original loans including interest. Airbus continues to pay between $300-400 million euros per year.  The loans to Airbus have turned out to be an excellent return on investment to the participating European governments.2 

Putting it all together here.  Boeing and the U.S. Government stringently condemn Airbus receipt of loans from the various European governments for alleged improper purposes and/or at preferential rates.  All U.S. taxpayers have of course been footing the bill for this legal dispute.  Is this a form of pork barrel spending?  Does anyone care?  Anyway, now Pelosi and Reid will spearhead a stimulus (bailout) package from the U.S. Government to the Big Three automakers.  Undoubtedly, the subsidy will be in the form of loans.  The Big Three are apparently asking for $25 billion.  That’s the number of web pages that Google has indexed if that helps you comprehend the amount.3    Just so everyone is clear on the significance of whether the Big Three actually receive the funds, the bailout will only amount to an additional $1,000 in tax burden (debt) to a family of four.  The question becomes relatively simple, are you okay with an additional G-Note (pun intended) of debt to repay if the Big Three bailout?   Hey, Boeing employees; your portion is $640,000 of the $25 billion, assuming each of you is in a family of four.  That estimate is probably fairly accurate given that there are 460,000 members to the Boeing Credit Union.4 

Although, I am one that would subscribe to the suggestion that the Big Three work it out themselves (Chapter 11 sounds like a good plan), I’m betting that the U.S. Obama Government will cave in.  Pelosi, Reid, and others will act like they care but in the best interest of themselves they will continue to raise the tax debt.  They know, and do not care that it will be some other generation of Americans that will have to worry about the debt if the bailout loans fail.  For a good discussion on the topic of the Big Three filing bankruptcy before receiving bailout funds, see First Bankruptcy, and Then a Possible Bailout.

The U.S. Congress will ignore the blatant inconsistency.

Congress can simply thumb their nose at the EU and Airbus when they point to our government’s inconsistency between battling against subsidies (loans) for Airbus while at the same time subsidizing GM, Ford, and Chrysler with stimulus packages.  Besides, this is different; we have to help our Big Three before they are totally defeated in the free market economy by Honda, Toyota, and those other guys.  I’m now considering on whether I might predict that Toyota, et. al. will launch a legal trade dispute in the WTO against the U.S.  On the other hand, maybe The Big Three will land some Japanese Air Force automobile contracts as a result of being more competitive in the market place because of the stimulus package. Worked for Airbus, it just recently did an end-around on Boeing scoring a touchdown with the Air Force. See Airbus parent beats Boeing for big U.S. Air Force contract.   Your comment is invited and welcome.