Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Breaking: Supreme Court lifts stay on Chrysler-Fiat deal


The Associated Press: "Supreme Court clears way for Chrysler's Fiat sale".

Other Chrysler headlines:

Congresswoman Assails Chrysler's Bankruptcy Plan: CBS4
Chrysler's handling of closures 'outrageous': PB Post
The Car Dealer Time Bomb: Reuters

Hoyer: no benefit in closing dealers: WSJ
Dealergate 10: The cost of closing dealers: Red State (Painter)
At jilted dealer, the pain is raw: N&O


Hat tip: TigerHawk.

The Obamacare Poster Contest


These are my favorites from Michelle Malkin's website.





And here's my entry:

Check 'em all out.

Update: Best quote among Michelle's comments: "Freddie Mac, bankrupt. Fannie Mae, bankrupt. Social inSecurity, bankrupt. Medicare, bankrupt. Medicaide, bankrupt. Postal Service, bankrupt.

And some idiots STILL think the government can run healthcare!"

Indeed - although they prefer the term "Democrats".

The '47 Million' Lie [Mister R.]


Mister R.'s latest dispatch on health care:

One of the most disingenuous uses of statistics has come with the use of the figure "47 million" when referring to the number of people without health insurance.

By continuing to pound the number "47 million", advocates of a single-payer system are implementing Alinsky's rules in order to affect change. But their number is specious.

Let's break down the 47 million:

During her campaign for President, Hillary Clinton admitted in questioning that, of the 47 million, at least 25 percent could afford health insurance but choose not to purchase it (those with a household income of more than $75,000 a year). I believe the number to be slightly higher, closer to 30 percent, but let's use Clinton's number. That's 12 million.

Let's count illegal aliens. Believe it or not, illlegals are counted in this number, however, statistical models vary and have ranged from 5 to 12 million. Let's take the middle. 8 million.

Then there are those who are already eligible for government programs but not participating. That number is estimated at 12 to 16 million. Let's take 12 million.

Another group of people are those who self-fund. These are people with the financial resources to handle high medical claims. That number is estimated at 1 to 2 million. We'll take one for arguments sake.

Then there are those who are between jobs. When people are fired or leave a job, they can opt for COBRA (an extension of their health benefits under the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act, I believe 1996). When electing COBRA coverage, the premium is covered by the member. When someone is between jobs, or have obtained a job and have to wait 90 days for coverage, the government counts you as not having health insurance. That number is estimated at 5 million.

These are not exact figures, and may vary, but they are pretty widely accepted.

Add the numbers up and you get 38 million. That leaves 9 million without coverage (although they really do have coverage since the federal government, along with the states, administer medicaid and charity care).

So the real number of uninsured is 8-10 million. There are 300 million Americans.

So we want to break the system because 1 out of 30 people cannot afford coverage. That's absurd.

One last point: When politicians control your health care, they will politicize it, and use it to get elected. More on that later.

However, Obama has shown all Americans that he has already politicized the process. When he called all the health care providers and carriers together to promise savings in the system, he exempted lawyers. They were never called to the table. Tort reform is directly tied to the reduction of costs in the system (consider, for example, how Texas instituted Tort Reform).

Obama railed against "special interests" in his campaign, but has shown he will protect entire special interest classes. Like the UAW and ACORN. In this case, trial lawyers also happen to be among the largest donors to Democrats.

More to come.


Related: Mister R. on Heath Care Insurance.

May 2009 Contractor Award Nominees


Sent in by Jan.



Outreach


Rubicon3 has a must-see, illustrated reaction to President Obama's apologia to the Muslim world.

Click here now.


Hat tip: Soccer Dad

Larwyn's Linx: 'Told Ya So'

Have a great link you'd like me to review? Drop me an email!

Nation

Palin to Obama: 'Told Ya So': Drudge
Obama Tells American Businesses to Drop Dead: Bloomberg (Hassett)
That Was Quick: More Trust GOP on Economy: GWP

The Opposite of Health: Doc Zero
GOP Seizes Control of NY State Senate: JWF
The Big Black Lie: Sphere

'Cutting the deficit': Cue the laff track: BlogProf
Unemployment spike "a sign we're moving in the right direction": GWP
A faint apology for World War II: ¡No PasarÃn!

Know thy enemy: This is not your mother's Democrat Party: Breitbart
DHS adds adviser with ties to terror backers: WND
Lowest common denominator: AT (Smith)

Climate & Energy

Cap and Trade Regulates Light Bulbs, Hot Tubs, and Nationalizes Building Codes: PatRoom
Things are stormy when labor strikes hit Enid: BMW

World

Escapee gives glimpse into North Korean prison camps: Japan Times
Big Day for Sarkozy, Merkel and the Anti-O's: Canto
Three minutes on Israel: Matzav

They never mention those who fled the Arab countries: Rubicon3
On the Beach: Dr. Sanity
When the Extreme becomes the Norm: Hitchens

Media

Blogger threatened over connection to Memphis Mosque: LiberRep
Joblessness spikes, AP elated: S&L
Media Takes Whitewashing of Islam to a Whole New Level: PJM (Bawer)

Cornucopia

The Intern: Jack-in-the-Box
If looks could kill: JWF

The top twelve indicators that the economy is bad


Papa B sent this one in:

The top twelve indicators that the economy is bad

12. CEO's are now playing miniature golf.

11. I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail.

10. I went to buy a toaster oven and they gave me a bank.

9. Hotwheels and Matchbox car companies are now trading higher than GM in the stock market.

8. Obama met with small businesses - GE, Pfizer, Chrysler, Citigroup and GM, to discuss the Stimulus Package.

7. McDonalds is selling the quarter-ouncer.

6 People in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and are learning the names of their kids.

5. The most highly paid job is now jury duty.

4. People in Africa are donating money to Americans. Mothers in Ethiopia are telling their kids, "finish your plate; do you know how many kids are starving in America?"

3. Motel Six won't leave the lights on for you.

2. The Mafia is laying off judges.

And my most favorite indicator of all.

1. If the bank returns your check marked as "insufficient funds," you have to call them and ask if they meant you or them.

Monday, June 08, 2009

Photo o' the day




Via: IZI.

Why every Republican must oppose Sotomayor


It's not just one incident. Or two. Or three. It's a consistent pattern of disregard for the most basic tenets of jurisprudence.

Sotomayor's infamous 'Wise Latina' remark

During a 2001 lecture, Sotomayor opined "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."

Consider the reverse of that comment, say, if it had been uttered by a white male: "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

And I'm confused: is there a pecking order of the races? What happens if a Latina woman confronts an African-American male? Whose experience wins out?

Perhaps she could draw a chart for me explaining the stratification of the races and genders.

As for taking the remark out of context: it was reported that she has uttered similar phrases on multiple occasions.

Sotomayor's comments violate the ABA's Model Code of Judicial Conduct

BiW observes that, in his opinion, Sotomayor's comments are not just overtly and breathtakingly racist, but they also violate the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct:

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor... A judiciary of integrity is one in which judges are known for their probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character. An independent judiciary is one free of inappropriate outside influences.

How would you, as an Asian man, feel if you were pitted against a Latina woman in Sotomayor's court?

'Would Judge Sotomayor Qualify as a Juror?'

Andy McCarthy notes that Sotomayor's comments might cause her problems as a potential juror.

In every trial... judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively — without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused.

McCarthy goes on to ask whether we should consider a justice who could not qualify for jury service in many venues.

Activist Judge Sotomayor

Notwithstanding the racial and gender preferences endemic in her remarks:

...she believes appellate courts are "where policy is made." This link goes to a short clip of Sotomayor flaunting her huge brain and careful reasoning... Which hardly inspires the confidence of people bringing cases before her, as they will (quite reasonably) believe that she will use any opportunity to use cases to shape policy in a leftward direction, rather than judge their cases fairly and according to established law. Thus eroding the public trust and confidence in the judiciary. Which according to the Code, is a major no-no.

Not to mention a teensy weensy violation of our form of government. At least, that is, if we're trying to maintain even a semblance of fidelity to the constitution.

Reprimanded in Reverse Discrimination Case

Judge Sotomayor's record in racially charged cases is a problematic one.

Frank Ricci is a dyslexic Connecticut firefighter who quit a second job in order to study up to 13 hours a day and paid someone to read his textbooks onto tape in preparation for the New Haven Fire Department's exam for promotion to lieutenant or captain. Though he received the sixth-highest score out of 77 applicants vying for eight vacancies, the city decided to deny him [and 16 other whites and one Hispanic their] earned promotion[s] because no black applicants passed, even though the exam had been carefully constructed to ensure race neutrality.

Sotomayor issued a highly unual opinion (called "per curiam"), which adopted the district court's ruling without explanation.

A fellow Clinton appointee, Judge Jose Cabranes, was disturbed by Sotomayor's ruling and wrote, "The core issue presented by this case -- the scope of a municipal employer's authority to disregard examination results based solely on the race of the successful applicants -- is not addressed by any precedent of the Supreme Court or our Circuit. … What is not arguable … is … that this Court has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal."

If you still doubt that she would base judicial decisions on her personal feelings and experiences, David Limbaugh reminds us that in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she claimed that it is perfectly acceptable for judges to consider their "experiences as women and people of color" in arriving at decisions.

She also said, for example: "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."

"My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas in which I am unfamiliar," she said. "I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Executive Summary: Sotomayor Is Unfit

Republicans must stand firm in refusing to allow Sotomayor to pass out of committee.

Her consistently injudicious behavior would be unacceptable had it had been exhibited by a white male candidate. It is unacceptable in any nominee for the highest court.

As for impacting the Hispanic vote?

Many Hispanics still remember the outrageous Borking of Miguel Estrada by Democrats.

There was no good reason for opposing Estrada, other than the fact that he was Hispanic. The Democrats themselves said so. In stonewalling Estrada, an 11-7-2001 memo to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated:

"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

Put simply, the Democrats blocked Estrada because he was Hispanic and for no other reason.

The current crop of Democrat leaders are racially divisive ideologues, plain and simple. And Sotomayor must be blocked because she is simply unfit; so unfit, in fact, that she would be booted off most jury pools.

Republicans must stand united and strong in opposing this biased nominee. They must fight Obama tooth and nail on this nomination. She is unacceptable.



Here is the contact information for the Senate Judiciary Commitee. Please call every Republican on the list and politely remind them of Sotomayor's outrageous behavior. Ask them to be as tough on her as Democrats were on Miguel Estrada. Keep her in committee and off the highest court in the land.


Obama Administration to Supremes: We are Above the Law. Supremes to Obama: Go Pound Sand.


The outstanding Zero Hedge points us to a SCOTUS blog report on the Chrysler-Fiat deal. Thomas "The Terrorist" Lauria* -- attorney for various Indiana state pension funds and senior Chrysler creditors -- had filed a stay with the Supreme Court.

Through Lauria, three Indiana state pension funds argue that their status as secured creditors should not have taken a backseat to the UAW. The union's debt is unsecured and therefore should not have received preferential treatment over the pension funds.

In response and on behalf of the feds, Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued that no court, not even the Supreme Court has an authority to overrule the Obama administration on the use of the TARP funds. Those funds, of course, had been exclusively designated for bailouts of financial institutions. Instead, the administration had used the money to shore up the UAW's coffers at the expense of more senior creditors like Lauria's clients.

The Obama Administration argued Monday that no court, including the Supreme Court, has the authority to hear a challenge by Indiana benefit plans to the role the U.S. Treasury played in the Chrysler rescue, including the use of “bailout” (TARP) funds. The Indiana debt holders, U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan wrote, simply have no right to raise that issue, thus putting it out of the reach of the courts.

Although arguing that the courts may not rule on the validity of Treasury’s decision to shore up a new Chrysler company with funds from the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the Solicitor General did argue that those funds may go to a troubled auto company, and not just to banks or other regular financial institutions.

Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge, rightfully worried, observed that, "this chain of events will inevitably set off a precedent of unintended consequences for not just domestic, but also foreign lenders, when it comes to investing into any US companies."

Fortunately, the high court ruled this afternoon that the administration is full of s*** and that indeed it does have the authority to delay the Chrsyler sale.

Memo to self: never argue to the Supreme Court that your legal authority is greater than theirs.

The future of Chrysler LLC may be in jeopardy after the U.S. Supreme Court Monday delayed the auto maker's sale to Fiat SpA at the request of several Indiana pension funds and consumer groups opposed to the transaction.

Ahead of the decision, Chrysler LLC and the federal government warned such an intervention might lead to the liquidation of the automaker. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a brief order, said the court will extend a temporary stay put in place by an appeals court "pending further order of the undersigned or of the court."

The administration -- who always seems to be in a hurry, whether it's spending trillions of dollars on useless government pork, destroying the health care system, or simply nationalizing automakers -- argued that the delay would scuttle the deal. But dissenters were equally clear-cut on reasons to oppose the deal.

...Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Tex., who has criticized the Obama administration's bailout of GM and Chrysler as an improper use of taxpayer money, praised the Supreme Court's move. He said the case raises fundamental questions about due process, equal protection under the law and the possible misuse of financial-rescue funds on auto makers, and that those questions must be resolved before the sale goes through.

"The smallest bondholder in GM who may be part of the Indiana pension funds - they deserve their day in court," Hensarling said in an interview with Dow Jones Newswires. "This is about their retirement. This is about their children's future, and they shouldn't be browbeaten by the administration, the UAW" and company executives, he said.

The bankruptcy laws were written so that companies could dramatically overhaul themselves, becoming leaner and more efficient enterprises.

The Obama administration's payoffs to the UAW are preventing those changes and instead simply delaying the inevitable overhaul... while transferring taxpayer funds to the union high command.


* As reported in The Wall Street Journal: "Thomas Lauria, the attorney who represents dissident lenders in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy case, was called “a terrorist” by a member of the Treasury Department’s automotive taskforce in an e-mail exchange with a Chrysler adviser."


Update: Legal Times has an excellent explanation of the situation.

Larwyn's Linx: Sotomayor's financial irresponsibility

Have a great link you'd like me to review? Drop me an email!

Nation

"Hey, Alaska! Wanna swap governors?": Surber
Yes, they think you're stupid: Corner
The UAW is the AARP in an Edsel: Steyn

An outrage (if Bush had proposed it): Maguire
More Politicians weigh in on Dealergate: Joey Smith
Suspect in soldier's slaying tried to sell guns before: Knox

Sotomayor's financial irresponsibility: PoliPundit
Obama's man called shots on Chrysler bankruptcy: Freep
Concordance of Obama's Cairo Speech: Schlussel

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain: This Ain't Hell
A first step towards Sharia law in the U.S.: HyScience

Climate & Energy

Freeman Dyson Takes On The Climate Establishment: Yale
Climate Depot responsible for 'unspeakable misery' for billions: Depot
If you pay a lot for power...: Green Hell

World

Hizbullah Loses Lebanon Elections: LegalIns
Flunking Islam 101: GWP
Reaching Out To Apartheid Regime Purging Families From Their 2,500 Year Homes: Mere Rhetoric

AQ-linked terror group likely killed Minnesotan: Fox
Good news from Lebanon - but not to the Huffington Post: PJM (Simon)
Hillary and a Weakened Commitment: Klinghoffer

Media

Insane Leftoid Journalist: Yes, the Taliban raped me, but they also respected me: Corner
Outer Objects To Outing: LegalIns
Maybe this is why Obama sounds like he's running for President of the World: AIM

Liberal Media on Life Support: Examiner (Emery)

Sunday, June 07, 2009

Industry Insider on Obamacare: the Questions We Must Ask! [Mister R.]


On April 2nd of this year, The New York Times published a scathing indictment of Medicare. The article -- "Doctors Are Opting Out of Medicare" -- described some astonishing statistics related to the program, which -- despite its poor reimbursement rate -- is $30 trillion in the red.

...Many people, just as they become eligible for Medicare, discover that the insurance rug has been pulled out from under them. Some doctors — often internists but also gastroenterologists, gynecologists, psychiatrists and other specialists — are no longer accepting Medicare, either because they have opted out of the insurance system or they are not accepting new patients with Medicare coverage. The doctors’ reasons: reimbursement rates are too low and paperwork too much of a hassle.

...The solution to this problem is to find doctors who accept Medicare insurance — and to do it well before reaching age 65. But that is not always easy, especially if you are looking for an internist, a primary care doctor who deals with adults. Of the 93 internists affiliated with New York-Presbyterian Hospital, for example, only 37 accept Medicare...

Mister R., a medical industry insider with a background in health insurance programs, offers the following observations and questions.

I believe that Republicans in Congress must ask these questions of the Democrats who would foist a disastrous socialized medical system on an unsuspecting public. Heaven knows, the mainstream media won't do it.

The government runs two programs now: Medicare and Medicaid. As you can see, doctors are opting out of Medicare because the reimbursement is too low and the paperwork tedious.

Reimbursements will be a huge issue under the government program, and this is why insurance companies are complaining about Obama's plan for a government alternative.

Here is how it works: Insurance companies either have their own network or lease networks of health care providers. Within those networks, reimbursement fees are negotiated. In an HMO, patient discounts are greatest, but the network is limited, so the provider is counting on volume. In a POS, the network is still the gatekeeper, but can refer outside the network and the insurance company will cover the cost. The discounts are not as great as the HMO. In a PPO, the discounts are not great because the patient can choose any doctor, which is why if you opt for a PPO, it costs more.

Let's say a certain doctor performs procedure "A'. Although the Doctor may charge $175 for the procedure, he agrees to accept $100 as payment under the contractual agreement.

In Medicare and Medicaid, there is no negotiated fee. The government determines the rate of reimbursement. In this case, the government gives the Doctor $40 for procedure "A". The Doctor complains that doesn't cover his cost, but not only must the Doctor accept the $40, he must also treat the patient. There is no choice. So the Doctor then opts out instead of losing money treating government patients.

Now, the big question: Under Obama's plan, who determines reimbursement?

If it's the government, then no matter what private insurers to, they will go out of business. They will never be able to compete when they negotiate the reimbursement and pay more than twice the government is paying. Everyone will migrate to the government plan.

Let's take it a step further. Let's say everyone does migrate to the government plan. If Doctors unionize, they can hold the entire health care sector hostage. And the first thing they'll do is complain about the level of reimbursement. Reagan was able to fire the air traffic controllers because there were other air traffic controllers available. I don't think that's the case with Doctors.

In short:

• Will reimbursement be negotiated or will the government set a flat rate.

• If it's negotiated, who manages the network?

• Who adjudicates the claims?

• what is the process to determine fraud in the system?

Another huge issue:

• Does the government exempt itself from HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act)?

If the government runs the program, then it is self-insured, which means it is a claims adjudicator and not entitled to any medical information. Confused? The government health program would be run from revenue received from the people participating in the program. That is a classic self-funded program. Third party administrators are not entitled to any medical records under a self-insured program.

Please forward these questions to your representatives in Washington.

It's high time we put a stop to the Statist agenda.


Antonin Scalia: The United States Constitution is "Dead"


Now this is a Supreme Court Justice.

Question: Antonin Scalia, quote: "The Constitution that I interpret is not living, but dead." Close quote. Explain that one.

Scalia: Much of the harm that has been done in recent years by activitist Constitutional intepretation… is made possible by a theory which says that, unlike an ordinary law, which doesn't change -- it means what it meant when it was enacted, and will always mean that -- unlike that, the Constitution changes from decade to decade, to comport with... quote "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society".

In other words, we have a morphing Constitution and, of course, it's up to the court to decide when it morphs and how it morphs! That's generally paraded as quote 'The Living Constitution' and, unfortunately, that philosophy has made enormous headway not only with lawyers and judges but even with John Q. Public.

..."Does the equal protection clause require states to permit same sex marriage?" That is not a hard question for an originalist. Nobody ever thought that is what the equal protection clause meant. … Is there a right to an abortion? For Pete's sake, it was criminal in every state for 200 years. If you want a right to abortion, create it the way most rights are created in a democracy. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and enact it into law. Don't tell me the Constitution confers such a right."

...For the living Constitutionalist, there are no answers. I have sat with four colleagues, one still on the Court, who thought that the death penalty was unconstitutional. It's mentioned in the Constitution! But [for proponents of "the living Constitution"] every day is a new day. If [the death penalty] used to be constitutional, maybe tomorrow it won't be."

...[On a resurgence of originalism,] I am not optimistic... I will put it that way. We got here. We ought to be able to get back. ... Harvard Law School now has three originalists on the faculty. I never thought I would see one. ... And there are other [originalist] federal judges, not just on the Supreme Court but on the Courts of Appeals, judges like Larry Silberman [Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia]. But I have to say it's a hard fight.

...[My] legacy doesn't matter. What matters is the Constitution. We had a wonderful thing here. We have a wonderful thing here. I truly believe it cannot continue if we turn over so much of our democratic self-governance--so much of what makes us great--to unelected judges.

That is what I care about.

Hat tips: Forbes' Peter Robinson and Fora.tv.

Other Items of Interest

Somali Coast Cruise Brochure
Dealergate: 40 Democrat-friendly Dealerships Become 42
Star Trek: The Stimulus Doomsday Machine
Prescription for Disaster
An open letter to Colin Powell
Illustrated Results of Barack Obama's Community Organizing
True Life Fannie Mae Testimony
Jamie Gorelick, Mistress of Disaster
The Bidens: Hedge Funds, Hair Plugs and Ponzi Schemes
Unintended Consequences

Yoo hoo! 538.com and Keefus Olbermann: Congressional members of both parties react to Dealergate


Despite the mainstream media's best efforts at suppressing the scandalous and selective closings of Chrysler dealerships -- also known as Dealergate -- Congress is now involved in the debacle. The Democrat Party's public relations arms -- including 538.com, MSNBC, Media Mutters, and The Huffington Post -- organized a set of attacks on the "statistically noticeable" favoritism demonstrated by the selective closings.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) is outraged and expressed his anger on the House floor:

[Dealerships were] closed under questionable circumstances... the question remains: what is the criteria for closing these dealerships? The auto task force gang picks winners and losers, but they refuse to tell America how those decisions are made. Well, neither they or the administration are talking. The blissful silence makes us wonder what's going on.

It's not just Congressional Republicans complaining.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer and Reps. Chris Van Hollen and Daniel Maffei have circulated this letter today ...


... to Obama expressing “growing concern” with the closures of GM and Chrysler dealerships across the country. The lawmakers say they’re asking for a “compelling justification as to how closing healthy dealerships will make the automakers more financially sound. The lawmakers are asking for lawmakers to sign this letter by 5p.m. today.

And a certain wise Latina woman might have observed that Hispanic-owned dealerships were closed at a far higher clip than those owned by African-Americans.

Dealergate looks real. It looks, in the words of Rep. Poe, "Nixonian".

And frequent commenter Troi Patterson could not be reached for comment at press time.

Update: Josh Painter has additional detail. And Autospies published a letter from an outraged Kentucky dealer.

Raytheon's Military Exoskeleton: Working Inside the Robot


We've seen Exoskeletons in the movies -- Iron Man and Aliens come to mind. But now a unit of Raytheon is trying to bring the technology to life for use on the battlefield.

The exoskeleton is essentially a wearable robot that amplifies its wearer’s strength, endurance and agility.

Built from a combination of sensors, actuators and controllers, the futuristic suit enables a user to easily carry a man on his back or lift 200 pounds several hundred times without tiring.

Yet, the suit, which is being developed for the U.S. Army, is also agile enough to let its wearer kick a soccer ball, punch a speed bag, or climb stairs and ramps with ease.

Development of the exoskeleton has been underway since 2000, when [inventor] Jacobsen realized that if humans could work alongside robots, they should also be able to work inside robots.




Hat tip: Rusty Ware.

Larwyn's Linx: Dems weigh in on dealership closings

Have a great link you'd like me to review? Drop me an email!

Nation

What Obama Taught Me: Post (Peters)
Obamacare plan finally released: Goodbye, 4th Amendment: Morissey
US Job Losses: Fastest Rate In History Under Obama: GWP

Dems to Obama: Let the Market Decide Dealership Closures: PatRoom
Video: Ronald Reagan On 40th Anniversary Of D-Day: BlogProf
20,000 turn out to see Palin in upstate NY: GWP

No apologies necessary: Driscoll
Cold Cash Jefferson Trial Starts Tuesday: Prairie
Sotomayor fails to disclose racial death penalty memo: AT (Kemp)

Judging Sotomayor's Racial Hierarchy: AT (Thier)
Shotgun Wedding: Government pushed Chrysler into Fiat's Arms: BizzyBlog
Pandering continues, now includes DOJ: Creeping Sharia

World

‘The Muslim World’: One-way multiculturalism: Steyn
'Inner Muslim' at Work in Cairo: Times (Pruden)
What About The Right Not To Wear Head Covering: LegalIns

Disrupting the Israel Day Parade in NY: BNI
They shoulda listened to me: AT (Feldman)
Russian Bling Bling, Putin-style: Lamb

Climate & Energy

Global warming and a tale of two planets: Telegraph
Influential climate journal: Global cooling admitted: STACLU
America's Energy Future (PDF): Icecap

Media

The Despicable Tom Brokaw: Matzav
Our Liberally Racist Media: PJM (Farrow)
Newsweek's Thomas: Obama a 'sort of god': NewsBusters

Finke: GE-NBC-Universal Stifling Media Coverage Of Company: Driscoll
The Left Loves Diversity — Except When It Comes to Political Views: PJM (Chapin)

Sci-Tech

Kaguya’s jaw-dropping Moon video: Discover

Saturday, June 06, 2009

Summer Home


In Russia, a summer home is called a "dacha".

This is one such dacha.


A Mosque in Memphis and Eric Holder


Blue Collar Republican has tracked down some interesting connections between a mosque in Memphis and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who is accused of shooting two U.S. military personnel in Arkansas last week. In doing so, it became clear that Memphis may be linked to a pattern of anti-American and pro-Jihad activities.

Even more disturbing, Attorney General Eric Holder has singled out Muslim-Americans for specific -- and perhaps preferential -- treatment when it comes to law enforcement and domestic counterterrorism operations. On June 4, the DOJ website published this missive:

The President’s pledge for a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community takes root here in the Justice Department where we are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans. A top priority of this Justice Department is a return to robust civil rights enforcement and outreach in defending religious freedoms and other fundamental rights of all of our fellow citizens in the workplace, in the housing market, in our schools and in the voting booth.

There are those who will continue to want to divide by fear - to pit our national security against our civil liberties - but that is a false choice. We have a solemn responsibility to protect our people while we also protect our principles.

"Takes root here?" This aligns perfectly with intelligence gleaned from a recent Stratfor report, which stated:

Several weeks ago, STRATFOR heard from sources that the FBI and other law enforcement organizations had been ordered to “back off” of counterterrorism investigations into the activities of Black Muslim converts. At this point, it is unclear to us if that guidance was given by the White House or the Department of Justice, or if it was promulgated by the agencies themselves, anticipating the wishes of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder.

I think that's entirely clear now.

Many FBI supervisors are reluctant to authorize investigations that they believe may have negative blow-back on their career advancement. In light of this institutional culture, and the order to be careful in investigations relating to Black Muslim converts, it would not be at all surprising to us if a supervisor refused to authorize a full-field investigation of Muhammad that would have included surveillance of his activities... Had the FBI opened a full-field investigation on Muhammad, and had it conducted surveillance on him, it would have been able to watch him participate in preoperational activities such as conducting surveillance of potential targets and obtaining weapons.

Put simply, Holder's public memo is circumstantial evidence that Stratfor's sources are spot on. Orders were very likely given to put the lid on counterterror operations involving Muslim converts -- of the exact sort to which Blue Collar Republican alludes.

This plainly marks a return to the Clinton-era practice of treating Jihadists as common criminals. And Americans will die because of these woefully misguided principles.


Update: Huffyton Poast and Media Mutters could not be reached for comment.

Hat tip: Dan from New York.

Just when you thought everything was invented


Papa B sent this one in.