From Ed the details of the bill (which is so large it was split into NINE parts):

(1) IN GENERAL – A State shall keep an accurate accounting of all activities, receipts, and expenditures of any Gateway operating in such State and annually submit to the Secretary a report concerning such accountings.
(2) INVESTIGATIONS – The Secretary may investigate the affairs of a Gateway, may examine the properties and records of a Gateway, and may require periodical reports in relation to activities undertaken by a Gateway. A Gateway shall fully cooperate in any investigation conducted under this paragraph.

His response:

“Gateway” means “provider,” and this appears to do away with that pesky Fourth Amendment, which normally requires search warrants and probable cause to access the records of individuals and businesses. Not under ObamaCare! Now, everyone belongs to the government … rather than the other way around. George Orwell, call your office!

I have yet to look at the bill myself, and unfortunately I doubt I will have the opportunity to anytime soon. The rebut he is given from another blogger however, is way off base, yet Ed calls it a “jab to my ribs”. Jazz states:

A lot of these voices are the same folks that didn’t seem to think it was any big deal for the government to intercept electronic communications without a warrant, even if one of the participants was a U.S. citizen. They also didn’t care much if the Feds checked out what you were browsing on the computers at the local library or even the books you checked out. In fact, it almost seems as if there’s no problem with such activity so long as it’s a Republican president and he’s doing it in the vague and ambiguous name of the “war on terror.”

While Ed does note that it is an apple to oranges argument, he makes the fatal mistake of justifying it as being an eloquent rebuttal.. which it is not. The debate over the FISA wiretaps had nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment, at least not in the way it was written. The wire tap in question were on overseas phone calls, which happened to be routed through the United States prior to reaching their destination. The ACLU and their likes decided that because those calls were routed through the US, they fell under the Fourth Amendment, which they did not.

If a suspected terrorist in Iraq is calling a person in Afghanastan, that particualr conversation does not fall under the Fourth Amednment. Similar, if a suspected criminal in the United States is under legal surveilance and calls their brother, or their best freind, the counter party cannot claim that a court order is necessary to listen to the phone call, simply because of the fact that the counterparty is not a suspected criminal himself.

Bottom line, international phone calls do not fall under the United States Constitution. American Doctors who now fall subject to government investigations, simply because of the career they have chose, do. To argue that overseas phone calls hold a right to privacy, while American doctors do not, is to ludicrous an argument for me to even get involved in. Unfortunately, President Obama believes much as Mussolini did before him, that the the State “accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State”. That is a quote from The Doctrine of Fascism, and I truly belive that is where President Obama’s policies are taking us.

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.

Order to back off investigations of Black Muslim converts? On what grounds exactly did they determine that there was not one Black Muslim convert in the united States that posed a potential risk and warranted an investigation?

…politics have proved obstructive to all facets of counterterrorism policy. And politics may have been at play in the Muhammad case as well as in other cases involving Black Muslim converts…

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad was initially being investigated by the FBI after returning from Yemen. Rather than complete their investigations however, it appears they were ordered to stand down, out of worries that such investigations are politically incorrect. Somehow I doubt the Long family will sleep any better at night knowing that although their son was murdered, at least they live in a Country that is sensitve to the plight of Black Muslim converts.

As Doug Ross notes, Congress should look into this immediately to determine if the Department of Justice or the White House did issue such an order, and for what purpose.

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.”

Initially Chrysler explained the closings would be based on “sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area.” If Chrysler were simply closing down unprofitable dealerships, this would be a non story. After announcing the closing of several “Five Star” dealerships however, even some Congressional Democrats seem a little wary:

[U.S. Rep. Aaron] Schock and about 60 other members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have signed a letter that will go to the Obama administration, protesting the potential closures and demanding more transparency in the decision-marking process, including more rationale into which businesses were picked for elimination and why.

Joey Smith and Doug Ross have done exhaustive research into the political donations of those dealerships being closed, as well as those which will remain open.

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.”

WorldNetDaily went through the numbers as well. Here is what they found:

WND reviewed the list of 789 closing franchises and databases of political donors and found that of dealership majority owners making contributions in the November 2008 election, less than 10 percent gifted to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates.

The listed franchise owners contributed at least $450,000 to Republican presidential candidates and the GOP, while only $7,970 was donated to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign and $2,200 was given to Sen. John Edwards’ campaign.

Obama received a combined total of only $450 in donations – $250 from dealer Jane Baldock in Wenatchee, Wash., and $200 from Waco, Texas, dealer Jeffrey Hunter.

WND points to a commenter at Cars.com who noted:

“This isn’t about business. It’s about politics and control. My dealership is in the top 125 out of the 3,500-plus dealerships nationwide … yet we are on the list. We are not small nor are we rural. We are in a large major metropolitan area. Our new vehicle inventory alone is well over $4.0 million. Is that small?”

This dealer is not alone. American Thinker posted a letter from George C. Joseph whose dealership is also scheduled to be eliminated:

On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as “new,” nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.

Our facility was recently totally renovated at Chrysler’s insistence, incurring a multi-million dollar debt in the form of a mortgage at Sun Trust Bank.

Unfortunately for Mr. Joseph and others like him, Chrysler has no intention of buying back their inventory:

Chrysler is not buying back any inventory, including the vehicles and parts that dealers say they never wanted and bought only under pressure. And the entire process, which gives them only until June 9 to liquidate everything, is far from fair, they contend.

The more I read about these closings, the more I become convinced politics played a large role. Unfortunately for the American people who rely on the media to investigate matters like these, no expose appears to be forthcoming.

As I was browsing the Daily Kos this morning I noticed something funnny, the accusations of racism are already rampant, without so much as a shred of evididence that Republicans intend to block the appointment:

The only arguments the GOP can make against Sotomayor will be on sexist/racist/elitist or flat out ridiculous grounds. This is class warfare. Sotomayor just took center stage.

The diarist follows up that baseless remark with the most absurd accusation I have seen yet:

She will have her ethnicity used against her because, quite frankly, she is not white, and unlike minorities who are acceptable to Conservatives she has no great aspirations to white-ness.

Great aspirations to white-ness? Exactly what the hell does that mean? Ironically this is the type of argument we will see from leftists over the course of the next few weeks. The claim will be that Conservatives only accepted Clarence Thomas because he “acted white”, which in and of itself is a racist statement. Only through sheer ignorance can a person make a racist statement while at the same time accusing others of being racist.

With the president hoping to achieve a crowning accomplishment in his first year with health care reform, advisers pointedly warned against another big fight elsewhere, sources said.

As the first Hispanic nominee, with a compelling life story and rich judicial experience, Sotomayor would be hardest for Republicans to oppose, they argued, and therefore easiest for Obama to get confirmed. . . .

Obama’s advisers also were aware of a political reality on the Left, sources said. Sotomayor has the added bonus of placating his base, which has grown increasingly angry over some of Obama’s recent positions on terrorism.

I would call this being politically expedient, if it were not for the words of Joe Biden who suggested that a minority nominee to the Supreme Court is actually a cynical ploy by the President:

I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don’t believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush.

Exit question: If Mitch McConnell were to say the exact same thing about Sotomayor today, would the media let him get away with it?

“When workers get unionized they earn higher wages. When they earn higher wages, they can spend more and maybe then we’ll get out of this recession faster.”

Raising wages during a recession as a means of ending the recession? Sure why not, in fact lets double the wages of every single American earning less than $100,000 per year. Imagine a worker previously making only $25,000 per year, suddenly making $50,000 per year, thats an additional $25,000 he or she can now spend. Excellent idea, if you overlook the fact that those higher wages will have to be paid by corporations who do not have the luxury of being able to print money on a whim like Barack Obama does. Those companies forced to pay higher wages for low skill jobs will inevitably lay off many of those workers who were expected to benefit from the higher wages, therby worsening the recession, not improving it.

The author is pretending that the Employee Free Choice Act will somehow help to end the recession, despite the fact that just last month a study was released stating that EFCA will cost America 600,000 jobs.

The new legislation, the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

Rep Al Grayson in his infinite naivity believes that only corrupt lawmakers will vote against this bill. Wrong Congressman! Only lawmakers whot hemselves do not respect the rule of law will vote for this bill. Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

In an effort to appease the ignorant masses, Democrats now wish to break existing contracts between employers and employees. Many will argue that Rep. Grayson is right, and employees of these companies should not be paid so well, yet they disregard one plain fact. It was the incompetence of Congress that allowed these contracts to stay in place as they were to busy stuffing the stimulus bill with pork to worry about how monies will be spent.

If Congress wishes to have control over private contracts for all companies taxpayers have bailed out, that should have been made clear prior to writing those checks. Doing so ex post facto is unlawful, and an excessive reach by the legislative branch into the private sector.

The bill is expected to come up for a vote later this week, call your Congressman and tell them to vote NO!

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

In order to make Americans feel safer, homeland security will no longer use the word terrorist, or terrorism… instead they will refer to disasters, and presumably disaster causers. To that end, I suppose Osama Bin Laden and Timothy Geithner are one in the same, as Getihner has been a complete and utter disaster ever since his appointment, and well… it is no longer politically correct to refer to Bin Laden as a terrorsist.

Hat Tip NewsBusters.

As it helps push for legislation that would make it easier for workers to organize, the country’s fastest-growing union is engaged in its own labor dispute with employees it is seeking to lay off.

The Service Employees International Union, considered the most influential union in the nation, has notified the union that represents about 220 of its national field staff and organizers that 75 of them are being laid off. In return, the workers’ union, which goes by the somewhat postmodern name of the Union of Union Representatives, has filed unfair labor practices charges against SEIU with the National Labor Relations Board. The staff union’s leaders say that SEIU is engaging in the same kind of practices that some businesses use — laying off workers without proper notice, contracting out work to temp firms, banning union activities and reclassifying workers to reduce union numbers.

“It’s completely hypocritical,” said staff union President Malcolm Harris. “This is the union that’s been at the forefront of progressive issues, around ensuring that working people and working families are taken care of, but when it comes to the people that work for SEIU, they haven’t set the same standards.”

SEIU’s national office has been contracting out more and more work to a staffing agency, Harris said, including advocacy for card check. To his union, it looks as though SEIU is trying to phase it out of existence. “I would want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but the direction they seem to be moving in is union-busting,” Harris said.

If I remember correctly, this is the exact argument unions use to advocate for card check. They are worried about employers hiring temps, and outside contractors to avoid paying benefits to employees. Now that the SEIU is doing the same to their own employees, are we really expected to take them seriously when they advocate the need for unions?

Barney Frank, while not going as far as to declare the system wasn’t “broken”, did declare that the lack of regulation was worth a gamble:

Rep. Frank: I do think I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OCC [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and OTS [Office of Thrift Supervision]. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing

As any gambler will tell you, sometimes when you roll the dice they come up craps. Now that Barney Frank effectively ‘crapped out’, he is willing to admit that the system is broken and needs to be fixed (although he has yet to acknowledge his own role in the crisis):

Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he hopes to introduce legislation later this year to restructure government-backed mortgage investors Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“The current model is broken,” the Massachusetts Democrat said in an interview Tuesday.

But how is it possible that Congressional oversight of Fannie and Freddie fell so short? Let’s flash back to the House Financial Services Committee hearing, on Sept. 25, 2003:

Rep. Frank: Let me ask [George] Gould and [Franklin] Raines on behalf of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, do you feel that over the past years you have been substantially under-regulated?

Mr. Raines?

Mr. Raines: No, sir.

Mr. Frank: Mr. Gould?

Mr. Gould: No, sir. . . .

Mr. Frank: OK. Then I am not entirely sure why we are here. . . .

Well, as long as the CEO’s of Fannie and Freddie believe they were not under regulated, I suppose there was no problem after all! While we are at it, let’s ask the CEO’s of oil companies if they believe they are over taxed and pass legislation according to their response.