Entirely unsurprising:

A contract worth nearly $6 million in stimulus funds was awarded by the Obama administration to two firms run by Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton’s pollster in 2008.

Why? Because Penn is connected and Hillary had debts and when liberals are in charge they don’t think of taxpayer funds as being the property of the taxpayers.

As I’ve said before, once we pull the lid off this Administration, I bet we’ll find it to be the most relentlessly corrupt in history.

According to an Obama nominee, it does:

Does “sexual liberty” trump the Constitutional right to religious liberty? Chai Feldblum, President Obama’s choice for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, believes so. This week a senate committee will vote on her nomination to this important commission that rules on issues of “discrimination” in America’s workplaces.

Feldblum is the primary author of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill designed to give preferential consideration to homosexuals in the workplace. She noted, “We want to change the American workforce and revolutionize social norms. … Our current public policies undermine the moral and political unit of same-sex couples and families and that’s a moral wrong that needs to be rectified.”

She also said, “Marriage is not the only worthy form of family or relationship, and it should not be legally and economically privileged above all others.”

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee (CWALAC), sent a letter to senators today opposing Chai Feldblum’s appointment. It notes:

“Chai Feldblum has a long history of radical ideology which would negatively shape the EEOC and its decisions. She flagrantly disregards the Constitutional right of religious liberty and attempts to replace this foundational freedom with her bizarre view of ‘sexual liberty.’

The worry is that the EEOC will go after religious employers – most notably places like Catholic hospitals and religious schools, though you can bet they’ll turn a blind eye to Moslem institutions; PC has its odd rules, ya know? – and force them to accommodate actions held to be immoral. No one disputes the right of a gay person to do as he wishes in the privacy of his own home – but if a gay person wishes to do that, and make it public, then religious institutions must be allowed to discriminate based solely upon theological grounds.

In other words, if the organization is headed up by, run by, supported by a religious group and that religion holds that homosexual sex is immoral, then that organization must have the right to deny employment – and all other forms of access – to homosexuals. Or, for that matter, adulterous heterosexuals or, indeed, for pretty much any reason a religious body decides. In our faith we must have no government oversight – that is the true meaning of separation of Church and State: that the State may not interfere with the religion (though, sorry liberals, the religion may interfere with the State…as all parts of the body politic may do).

As for me, I’ve had quite enough of liberal attempts to denigrate and attack my religion: we must have a religious liberty restoration amendment to the Constitution which clearly spells out that the First Amendment prohibits government restrictions on religious practice, in the private as well as in public.

I seriously have to wonder, given the information that has come out recently.

It is curious why White House officials and Education Secretary Arne Duncan believe it’s worth it politically to continue taking arrows for defending Kevin Jennings, who is Mr. Obama’s controversial “safe schools czar.” The evidence suggesting he is unfit to serve as a senior presidential appointee is startling and plentiful. It was revealed this week that Mr. Jennings was involved in promoting a reading list for children 13 years old or older that made the most explicit sex between children and adults seem normal and acceptable. This brought up anew Mr. Jennings’ past controversies, such as his seeming encouragement of sex between one of his high school students and a much older man as well as his praise for Harry Hay, a notorious supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association.

But there is more. There are shocking new revelations this week of tape recordings from a youth conference involving 14-year-old students. The conference, billed as a forum to encourage tolerance of homosexuality, was sponsored by Mr. Jennings’ organization and was held at Tufts University in March 2000. Mr. Jennings was executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) from its founding in 1995 until August 2008. The conference sessions appear to have had less to do with promoting tolerance and more to do with teaching children how to engage in sex.

The worst thing about this situation is that the Obama administration is protecting the guy. Is Mr. Jennings the kind of person you would trust with your kids? What does this say about Obama’s judgment of character? Even if you excuse the appointment as a mistake due to incompetence and lack of vetting, the way Obama’s administration defends and protects this man, who may very well be a pedophile, is just unfathomable.

This is something far bigger than the Joycelyn Elders scandal, that was a major headache for President Clinton, yet, Barack Obama is hardly sweating over this Kevin Jennings situation, and beside FOX News, who is even really reporting on it?

So, let’s start asking the questions that need to be asked. Why, would Jennings promote, what is essentially pedophilia, if he is not a pedophile himself? It’s one thing to nominate tax cheats to your cabinet, it’s another thing entirely to appoint a pedophile to a high level non-accountable position in federal government.

Obama needs to explain himself.

Which will make our liberals shake with fear:

Sarah Palin has erased her drop in the polls that followed her resignation as Alaska governor, according to new national survey.

But when it comes to opinions of Palin, a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Monday suggests a partisan divide and a gender gap.

The survey indicates that Americans are split on Palin, with 46 percent saying they have a favorable opinion of her and an equal amount saying they have an unfavorable view of last year’s Republican vice presidential nominee.

Which approval rating, by the way, is very close to Obama’s right now…and he’s on the way down.

Methinks the demonization of Palin just went too far – she’s really just an all-American girl who represents what is best in our nation: our faith in God; our faith in our people; our can-do spirit. She’s hated on the left – and on the elite right – because she is just one of the people…and that scares the living daylights out of some people. They know darn well that if she were to get in to the White House, they would have no hold over her – no way to hold her down and make her compromise with the sick, nauseating mess in DC.

Whether she’ll end up running in 2012 is still an unknown – also unknown is whether I’ll back her or, indeed, anyone in the GOP primary for that year (as a good Republican, I’ll support the eventual nominee, but I’m not inclined, at the moment, to commit myself to any particular candidate); its all very much up in the air and, of course, the 2010 results will play a large role in who chooses to run and what they’re prospects really are. But regardless of what the future holds, Sarah Palin has shaken up American politics (and let us remember to thank John McCain at least for this) – the Powerful know that the people are angry and willing to storm the barricades of complacent, corrupt DC politics-as-usual. Palin may not end up leading the charge, but the charge will be done.

Why we are wary of Obama and the various utopian ideas of liberalism:

If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? – Frederic Bastiat

Unless you think you’re perfect, then you have to immediately understand that Obama is just as lousy as you are – and thus just as likely to screw up on any given issue – and thus it is best that those in charge have as little power as possible…because one man ruining his own life is one thing, one man ruining everybody’s life is quite another.

From The Nation:

Obama also spoke on how it will be crucial for the federal government to continue helping state and local governments facing deficits that are forcing them to slash jobs and services, and to make “investments in infrastructure, in education, in clean energy.”

“Now’s the time actually to make sure that we’re prioritizing properly and pushing even harder on that front,” said Obama.

It’s in vogue in DC these days to treat the deficit as if it is a sign of the End of Days. It seems the President was, in fact, significantly more rational in taking on job creation than the media coverage would have you believe.

One has to ask: spend what money? Where is there actual money to spend? Who can we really borrow it from? I don’t think our liberals are really grasping the fact of national bankruptcy. Even if one wants to believe that you can borrow via government and create net wealth, the fact remains that we are so far in the hole that no conceivable level of government-created growth will exceed the level of total debt repayment. If we were sitting with a balanced budget right now and/or little or no government debt, there might be something to be said for deficit spending – but that isn’t the case.

For just a moment, lets all realize where we are: we’re broke. It could very well be that our national wealth is less than it was 30 years ago, when you think in terms of what we make, mine and grow. But even if you wish to believe that our net wealth is greater than it was, say, 30 years ago you can’t escape the fact that we’re massively more in debt than before. Some calculations of total US debt reach $70 trillion dollars – if you count the unfunded mandates of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is not the time to spend more – it is time to create wealth and pay down debt.

Now, how do we do this? Lots of ways – but most importantly, not by increasing government debt. The best way would be to remove the obstacles to the creation of new wealth in the US – the wall of taxes, regulation and NIMBYism which essentially forbids us to use vast amounts of our land and materials for the creation of wealth. Remove these obstacles, and the seed money necessary to create the wealth will come pouring in – from both American and foreign sources. Once we start creating wealth, we can start paying off debt – and it is vitally important that we pay off our debt and never, ever allow ourselves to get in to this state again.

But our liberals don’t even want to listen to this – because they simply don’t understand what wealth is. When Obama said he wanted to spread wealth around he was thinking like a typical liberal – that the fake money we have in our wallets is wealth. Its not – its just money and its worthless as it isn’t backed by anything. You can spread trillions of it around and you won’t do any good – but allow someone to get to work making a new farm, new factory or new mine, and you’ll have created some new wealth.

We’re in for a very bad time, because Obama and his liberals really do seem to be bent on ever more spending. Each new dollar borrowed or printed just puts us further in the hole and will make it harder to get out. While the free flow of fiat dollars might pump up the economy and give some positive GDP numbers, it is and will remain nothing but smoke and mirrors. And it will come crashing down – I’m still expecting this around March, but it could go on for even a year or two from now. But the crash will come – and it will be catastrophic. Hopefully, we’ll have then learned our lesson.

This will certainly make things interesting:

The Senate narrowly rejected an amendment that would have restricted abortion coverage in the pending health-care bill, leaving in question whether Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) has the 60 votes needed to move the bill toward final passage.

The measure, which failed 54-45, addressed the scope of restrictions on coverage of abortion services for people who receive subsidies to buy insurance. The outcome was expected, but could cost the support of Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who has threatened to filibuster the $848 billion bill unless abortion restrictions are tightened.

Pro-life or pro-choice, a majority of Americans has consistently opposed federal funds for elective abortion.

Question: Does this kill the bill? Can Reid get 60 votes for cloture without a ban on abortion funding? If he can swing it, are there 218 votes in the House to pass a health care bill without an explicit ban? That 54 voted against the ban shows that the pro-abortion fanatics are pressing hard for this – we’ll have to see how this comes out.

When 56 newspapers march in fascist lock-step, you know you’ve got a problem:

A ‘Profound Emergency’ Not Worth Writing a Sentence About

“Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial,” announces that editorial, produced by London’s Guardian. “We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency. Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet” blah blah blah, etc.

To put it another way, this is such a dire emergency that the editorial boards of 55 newspapers (including, in this country, the Miami Herald) cannot be troubled to write a word about it. It’s the equivalent of just filling space with wire copy–and in fact, that would work just as well, since the Associated Press has its own global-warmist editorial.

A sad joke to some, perhaps, but there should be a thrill of fear down your back as you read that. The mindless conformity is already there in the MSM – all it would take, now, is a government subsidy to turn Rush’s semi-joke about ‘State run media’ in to a reality. And don’t think these MSM outfits won’t take a government subsidy – first off, from a liberal government like Obama’s, they’d consider it an honor; secondly, from any government they’d consider it worthwhile because its better than losing their jobs as their dinosaur media model becomes more irrelevant.

This is just a blatant example of the liberal group-think of the MSM which results in the media bias we talk about.

Sticking to the story:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson dismissed GOP calls to delay a critical finding on greenhouse emissions in light of hacked e-mails from climate scientists…

…“There is nothing in the hacked e-mails that undermines the science upon which this decision is based,” Jackson said in announcing the finding this afternoon.

Thus the sad, sad spectacle of a person who has given over their mind and soul to an ideology. It doesn’t matter that “Climategate” calls in to question the basis of anthropogenic global warming – ideology requires that AGW be taken as a matter of faith, and off she goes.

Terrible to see fellow human beings so willingly become the slaves of others.

UPDATE: After all, it fits so well with Carbonhagen.

Entirely unsurprising:

Politics in Law Firm and Law School Hiring: Time for some Tit for Tat?

The following question was posed to the NY Times‘ resident ethics expert:

While interviewing law students for jobs as paid summer interns and full-time associates for my firm, I noticed several had résumés listing their activities in the Federalist Society. Some of my partners have conservative views similar to those of the society, but I do not. These students’ politics would not affect their professional function, but my review is meant to consider their judgment and personality (though I don’t need to give reasons for the assessments given). May I recommend not hiring someone solely because of his or her politics?

To his credit, Randy Cohen of the Times answered that you cannot discriminate – but the larger issue is: how could anyone even ask such a question? Only in a politicized society in which people are to be judged on ideological purity as opposed to competence. Remember, we’re not asking here if we should hire the crazed, Islamist zealot as security guard for our nuclear weapons – we’re talking about a law firm. As far as Federalist views go, plus or minus, they have no effect on a lawyer representing his client – the law is what the law is. The lawyer with a Federalist background might be offended at any one of a hundred laws currently on the books – so might a lawyer with an ACLU background – but as long as a lawyer can do his job, that doesn’t matter. Not hiring based on ideology is a reflection of hatred, pure and simple.

The person who asked the question just doesn’t want people of the “wrong” view to have, well, anything – its the sort of attitude which informs the socialist elites in totalitarian societies. There they divvy up the people between “socially friendly” and “socially hostile” elements, and woe to those who are rated “hostile”. This is what we’re in for if we don’t win this battle against the left – eventually, we’ll be forced out, everywhere, simply because we don’t toe the leftist line.