He says they recruited him for "safe schools czar"

It makes sense to me, they would be the ones to do it.
CNSNews.com
Obama Administration Specifically Recruited Homosexual Activist to Be 'Safe Schools Czar'
By Fred Lucas
Kevin Jennings, the long-time homosexual activist who is now the Obama administration’s safe schools czar, never sought public office. Rather, he said, the Obama administration recruited him.
Jennings became a lightning rod of controversy last year because he was the co-founder and president for a decade of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which promoted homosexual clubs in high schools.
Read more.

The True Goals of Healthcare

From the Washington Examiner

GOP on Pelosi: Whose door is she kicking in?

by Byron York

In a conference with left-wing bloggers Monday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that passing the current Democratic health care bill is the beginning, not the end, of the process of creating a national government health care system. "Once we kick through this door, there'll be more legislation to follow," Pelosi said, according to an account by Washington Post reform advocate Ezra Klein.

Democrats have often taken offense when Republicans have accused Pelosi and her fellow Democrats of trying to "ram" the health care bill through Congress. Now that Pelosi herself has used an equally violent term to describe her work, Republicans are left with new questions. "Whose door is the Speaker kicking in?" asks Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for Republican Whip Rep. Eric Cantor. "People tend to prefer a polite knock, and after a year of having their doors bashed and kicked in by Speaker Pelosi, President Obama, and Harry Reid, we'll see how the American people respond this November. Right now, they are trying to reinforce those doors with steel."

"The American people aren't stupid," says Kevin Smith, a spokesman for House GOP Leader Rep. John Boehner. "We know this is just the beginning for Speaker Pelosi and her comrades. Their government takeover of health care is the first step toward a single-payer system, and that's another reason we are doing everything within our power to stop this bill and start over with real reforms that actually lower health care costs."

"She's got a long way to go before she kicks down the door," says Matt Lloyd, a spokesman for House Republican Conference Chairman Rep. Mike Pence, "and if she wants to keep going against the will of the American people, I guess that's her prerogative, but I think folks are going to have long memories."

Read more at the Washington Examiner:

Just Honk No

Sign-up for a Honk Against The Health Care Takeover Rally!

AFP Urges Constituents to ‘Honk No’

Monday, March 8th, 2010

For Immediate Release – March 5, 2010 Contact: Amy Payne, (703) 224-3200 or (703) 585-4584 (cell) Americans for Prosperity Urges Constituents to ‘Honk No’ Outside Congressional District Offices March 16 effort puts pressure on House members as critical health care vote looms ARLINGTON, Va. – Americans for Prosperity, whose project Patients First has held hundreds of rallies against a Washington takeover of health care, is encouraging Americans to make their voices – and their horns – heard on March 16. “Our hard-working activists can’t make it to Washington to rally every ...

http://honkno.com/  to find out more.
.

Sarah Speaks - People Listen

From the Daily Caller:

Sarah Palin speaks at Glenn Beck and country singer John Rich’s kickoff of the “Taking Our Country Back” tour

It’s not every day that people in America’s heartland hear “Redneck Woman” Gretchen Wilson sing Heart’s “Barracuda” to Sarah Palin.

On Saturday, nearly 5,000 people in Tulsa attended Glenn Beck’s and country singer John Rich’s kickoff of the “Taking Our Country Back” tour.

The three-and-a-half hour show featured Beck with his chalkboard and Palin with daughter Piper in tow heralding what’s wrong with America. The consensus? Washington.

Read it all.

Why the Current Healthcare Bill Must Not Become Law

The current healthcare bill is a massive, contrived, dysfunctional political document that has very little to do with reforming the parts of our health care system that need fixed. A bill like this would achieve very little toward the issues it purports to address. And it would create a lot of bad. A lot of bureaucracy. Intrusions and expenses.

We must start over. Here's why:

The current bill attempts to win the war in one fell swoop. And believe me, everything the bill takes on, makes it a campaign of unprecedented breadth and scope. It's like World War III, with an enemy that is as vague and undefined as the war on terrorism. (Which, by the way, is being fought in small battles all over the world.)

Wars are won battle-by-battle and any leader who has tried to take on a massive foe in one great effort has failed. You can't do it all at once.

We need many separate pieces of legislation that are fairly simple and segmented -- taking on each major issue by itself in a clear, direct way; unencumbered with political favors, earmarks and special interest dispensation.

Divide and conquer.

Medicare now loses something close to $150 million PER DAY to waste, fraud and abuse. Ok, fix it.

Poor people need more healthcare options. Many states and counties have got a very good handle on the problem for those who seek care. Embrace solutions that are working, and support them with federal money. Help them to evolve into better solutions -- through changes in regulation and federal funding -- and help them to be adopted by other states. We can't force people to seek care. We can't force people to eat (much less eat right) or drink water, much less force them to buy insurance. Some people just don't take care of themselves. Perhaps you've noticed this. You cannot legislate it. And we should not make buying insurance like paying taxes.

Health insurance for pre existing conditions is different according to where you live. Some places do it without running the insurance company bankrupt. They use high-risk pools and other programs. If it works, adopt it. Support it. Incentivize innovation to make it better.

Drug and device companies need profits to keep driving innovation that keeps us alive longer and better. Meanwhile, they set prices like airlines, as a moving target all over the place. Smooth it out.

There are not enough primary care physicians. Not enough family doctors and internal medicine people. We actually need more medical schools -- and more kids that qualify. That's a big problem. But you can make it more desirable to be a family doctor with incentives. Many people want to be a family doctor, but cannot afford to be one by the time they get out of medical school with their average of $150,000 in school loans. It's a big mortgage. I don't know the answer, but it is as important to healthcare improvement (or reform if you want to call it that) as any of the other factors in this current piece of legislation.

Divide and conquer the problems of this country -- whether healthcare, high unemployment, immigration or energy needs.

Take each major problem by itself. Break it into pieces that can be tangibly defined and addressed. Look at what is working well for some states, and help states do it better. Spread it from one state to the next.

Forget this ridiculous, massive bill that is an embarrassment. It will not do what it claims. It will make things worse. It was achieved only through multiple abuses of what is otherwise an excellent system of government in this great country of ours.

I heard some conservative radio guy the other day saying America wants big, sweeping, changes. No we don't. We want the broken things fixed. We want new belts and hoses. Otherwise, the car and the engine is just fine. (85% of Americans are happy with their healthcare.)

Fix it, piece by piece. Yeah, it's a lot of work. But that's how big things get done. And that's how big wars get won. Big work on small things. Not small work on big things.

And Now for the rest of, er, uh, Real Story

From the American Thinker:
The Real Tea Party Story: Community Builders vs. Community Organizers
By Kyle-Anne Shiver
In less than a year, the MSM has gone from ignoring Tea Parties to mocking and insulting their participants to grudging coverage with ridiculing overtones. Finally it has arrived at giving wide attention to the movement, albeit grudgingly and ungraciously. A once-highly esteemed fourth estate, they have become talking-head dilettantes on a mission to save the disgruntled masses from democracy itself.
David Brooks, token toy conservative at the NYT, wrote his explanation for the Tea Parties without ever mentioning them by name, even. He wrote a whole diatribe on the meaning of it all. It's a knee-jerk reaction by us commoners, you see, against the "educated class." It has nothing to do with real issues, don't you know. This whole wave of discontent is simply a revolt by the common man against his intellectual betters.
What a bunch of myopic poppycock.
Read the rest.

Wind Power equals Jobs Loss

UPDATED
I suspect you are not reading this in many places. The MSM is not interested in it. An Editorial from Investors business Daily:
The Big Wind-Power Cover-Up
Posted 03/12/2010

Scandal: Spain exposed the boondoggle of wind power in 2009, discrediting an idea touted by the Obama administration. In response, U.S. officials banded with trade lobbyists to hide the facts.

It was a cold day at the Energy Department when researchers at King Juan Carlos University in Spain released a study showing that every "green job" created by the wind industry killed off 4.27 other jobs elsewhere in the Spanish economy.

Research director Gabriel Calzada Alvarez didn't object to wind power itself, but found that when a government artificially props up this industry with subsidies, higher electrical costs (31%), tax hikes (5%) and government debt follow. Fact is, these subsidies have the same "Cuisinart" effect on jobs as wind-generating propeller blades have on birds. Every green job costs $800,000 to create and 90% of them are temporary, he found.

Alvarez made no bones about the lessons of Spain for the Obama administration, which has big plans for "green jobs." His report warned of "considerable employment consequences" from "self-inflicted economic wounds." It forecast that the U.S. could lose 6.6 million jobs if it followed Spain, and it "should certainly expect its results to follow such a tendency.

A few months later, Danish researchers at the Center for Politiske Studier came to the same conclusion about subsidized wind power from their own country's experience.

"It is fair to assess that no wind energy to speak of would exist if it had to compete on market terms," their report said.

Why or why do we not use what we have? We have nuclear,oil, gas, and coal.  We have many years of these products. We have engineered safe, clean ways to produce all the energy we need. Yet, we keep looking for something to appear that does NOT use these means.  Sure solar power and wind power are nice.  They are not the answer. All of the above can and should be used. Let's do some rational thinking on this.
This is a three page editorial, read it all.

UPDATE

From the Houston Chronicle:

The natural gas story

The nation has been given a gift by our energy sector. Let’s unwrap it carefully

HOUSTON CHRONCLE

March 13, 2010, 6:40PM

If there's a headline from the recent CERAWeek conference here that deserves to be flashed in neon to President Barack Obama and the rest of the nation, it is this one: “Domestic natural gas is clean, cheap and plentiful — look here for answers, Mr. President, as you seek energy security.”

Indeed. Natural gas appears to be all those things — and maybe much more. A report by IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, released here last week, confirms that North American gas potential has tripled in just the past three years.

Thanks largely to the opening of large shale gas areas across North America, there are more than 100 years of supplies at current consumption rates. Daniel Yergin , the respected author and energy analyst and father of CERAWeek, calls this the most significant energy innovation of the 21st century. But it will reach full potential only if policymakers in Washington are paying attention.

Are they listening? Not closely enough, we would judge. That is the real heavy lifting ahead for natural gas advocates: getting the message about this plentiful, clean-burning resource to the highest levels of the Obama administration. It is not there yet.

This isn't all they have to say, read it all.

This is what Nick Ramirez thinks of the Dems Healthcare bill

From Investor's Business Daily

Victor Davis Hanson on Modern Warfare

Tomorrow’s Wars
Enormous, massively destructive engagements may again be on the horizon.

Have we not seen, then, in our lifetime the end of the Western way of war?” Two decades ago, I concluded The Western Way of War with that question. Since Western warfare had become so lethal and included the specter of nuclear escalation, I thought it doubtful that two Western states could any longer wage large head-to-head conventional battles. A decade earlier, John Keegan, in his classic The Face of Battle, had similarly suggested that it would be hard for modern European states to engage in infantry slugfests like the Battle of the Somme. “The suspicion grows,” Keegan argued of a new cohort of affluent and leisured European youth—rebellious in spirit and reluctant to give over the good life to mass conscription—“that battle has already abolished itself.”

Events of the last half-century seem to have confirmed the notion that decisive battles between two large, highly trained, sophisticated Westernized armies, whether on land or on sea, have become increasingly rare. Pentagon war planners now talk more about counterinsurgency training, winning the hearts and minds of civilian populations, and “smart” interrogation techniques—and less about old-fashioned, “blow-’em-up” hardware (like, say, the F-22 Raptor) that proves so advantageous in fighting conventional set battles. But does this mean that the big battle is indeed on its way to extinction?
Much more to read, go here.

City Journal is a quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson

The Pollster the Dems Want to Believe

Yesterday the Washington Post had pollsters who were warning Democrats against the healthcare bill.  Today they have an editorial by the one they apparently listen to.

Most Americans want health care reform

By Joel Benenson

It is ironic that Democratic pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen felt "compelled" to "challenge the myths" about public attitudes on health care by simply restating one of the most commonly stated -- and patently wrong -- Republican myths [Washington Forum, March 12].

No pollster, including me, could look at the recent data and responsibly say anything other than that the American public is closely divided when it comes to supporting or opposing various health-care plans. The most recent Washington Post poll (from Feb. 10) shows a narrow gap between support and opposition: 46 percent favor; 49 percent oppose. This data is consistent with eight of the 12 most recent independent public polls reported on Pollster.com.

In light of this data, it is irresponsible, and wrong, for Schoen and Caddell to assert that a "solid majority of Americans oppose" health-care reform.

In fact, two recent polls, including one with the most negative ratings on health care, reveal through follow-up questions that a significant number of people who oppose current plans do so because they don't go far enough rather than because they go too far. Not only is it absurd to suggest that these people would rise up against Democrats for passing the president's plan, it is far more likely that they would join others who support the plan and punish those who tried to block reform or voted against it.

Let's take the CNN poll from early January -- the most negative independent poll on health care and one that predated President Obama's proposal. Only 40 percent supported the bills passed by Congress, while 57 percent opposed them. But in a crucial follow-up question, a net of 10 percent of all Americans opposed the bill because it was "not liberal enough." If one makes the reasonable assumption that these people are far more likely to side with supporters of the president's plan than with Republicans who are obstructing it, the results would show that 50 percent favor the plan or want a broader one, while only 45 percent oppose the plan.

Similarly, a more recent poll by Ipsos showed that among the 47 percent who initially said they "opposed health care," more than a third of opponents said they "favor" reform overall but think the current plan doesn't go "far enough." Shifting these people to the group in "favor of reform" would reduce opposition to current reforms to under 40 percent.

I printed all of the editorial yesterday. Today I'm doing just a part. To read the rest go here.

Oh, What a Tangled Web...

We heard about one brief, well here is the full story, it is from Reuters. via Drudge Report..

Att'y general failed to give legal briefs to Senate
(Reuters) - Attorney General Eric Holder failed to tell the Senate about seven legal briefs he signed when lawmakers considered his nomination to his current job, according to a letter released on Friday.
Barack Obama
Two of the briefs involved appeals to the Supreme Court for Jose Padilla, who sought release from a military prison in South Carolina where he was being held after then-President George W. Bush designated him an "enemy combatant."
Padilla was held in a military brig for three years before his case was moved to a criminal court in Miami, where he was convicted on charges of offering his services to militants.
The Justice Department sent the Senate Judiciary Committee, which vets presidential nominees, a list of briefs that were omitted on Friday. "We regret the omission," Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said in a letter to the panel.
Holder has been facing intense scrutiny as the Obama administration tries to decide whether to prosecute terrorism suspects like the self-proclaimed mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in military or criminal courts.
The attorney general had been spearheading that effort but concerns about holding those trials in criminal court forced the White House to intervene and officials are now weighing whether to prosecute Mohammed and four of his alleged co-conspirators in a military court.
Previously, Holder has disclosed to the Senate five briefs he submitted to the Supreme Court during his law practice. From July 2001 until being confirmed by the Senate as attorney general, Holder worked at Covington & Burling in Washington.
Earlier this week, the Justice Department said Holder failed to tell the Senate about one brief he signed related to the Padilla case, prompting outcries from Republicans who said it offered more details about Holder's views on key policies.
The other six briefs related to issues such as race discrimination and a challenge to a prison sentence.
(Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, editing by Todd Eastham)

Do As I Say, Not As I Shoe...

Rockport Conservative received this in an email. We checked Snopes and didn't find it, checked the Huffington Post for the shoes and didn't find them. We did find they have photos of shoes, shoes, shoes for Mrs. Obama. All Obama fashion is discussed on the Huffington Post and just too many to search each one. Because it is a radical liberal blog I never go there except to check something. I do believe this article was rightly attributed to one of their posts. Notice is says to do it fast before it is pulled. The Huffington Post is known for taking down posts that might put liberals in a bad light.

The email attributes the photos to Huffington Post and New York Magazine. I do not know when it ran, recently or a year ago. I looked up the shoes and found them here:
http://www.shopstyle.com/browse/womens-shoes/Maison-Martin-Margiela#60_0
They are on sale- now $304 were $608 at this site, still much more than most of us would ever pay for any shoes.

Here is what the post in the email has to say:

Photo: Huffington Post.
Photo: New York Magazine.
Barack Obama enjoys living like a king, so why shouldn't Michelle Obama live like a queen?
The First Lady was photographed last night in Hawaii wearing $635 per pair designer shoes by Maison Martin Margiela.
A woman lucky enough to have a job in this economy and working for the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would have to work 88 hours (without taxes taken out) to make enough to pay for Michelle Obama's shoes.
The Obama's are staying at an $8.9 million estate for an estimated $4000 per night. To cover the Obama's ten night stay, the minimum wage worker would have to work two-and-a-half years (before taxes) to come up with the $40,000 Obama is reportedly laying out.
Obama has lectured Americans about how they can not expect to live their lives as indulgently as they have in the past.. He has lectured businesses about their travel and pay. Yet Obama and his wife live like kings and queens.
The news media has yet to call him out on his extravagance when there is 10% unemployment with no sign of the employment picture improving this coming year.
The way they spend OUR MONEY is an insult to every hard working
citizen of this country. GREED is their CREED !

Certainly there is nothing wrong with wealth, prosperity, and treating yourself to the luxuries of life that you have earned. But when her husband spends so much time villifying wealth and planning to take wealth away from people who have earned it -- this seems like another example of "do as I say, not as I do" from the White House.

All I can say to this is Bring back Laura Bush!

This is a joint post by Rockport Conservative and Ray H.

Who Spends the Most?

Bookwormroom has this post on an article from the SF Chronicle.  It is about California spending but it is so telling. And appalling. And shameful.

Two unions spend $319.2 million over 10 years to affect California political process

Here’s a list of the the biggest spenders in California politics for the past decade:

These 15 groups spent more than a combined $1 billion over the past 10 years to influence public policy:

– California Teachers Association: $211.8 million

– California State Council of Service Employees: $107.4 million

– Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: $104.9 million

– Morongo Band of Mission Indians: $83.6 million

– Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians: $69.2 million

– Pacific Gas & Electric Co.: $69.2 million

– Chevron Corp.: $66.2 million

– AT&T Inc.: $59.6 million

– Philip Morris USA Inc.: $50.7 million

– Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians: $49 million

– Southern California Edison: $43.4 million

– California Hospital Association: $43 million

– California Chamber of Commerce: $39 million

– Western States Petroleum Association: $35.2 million

– Aera Energy LLC: $34.6 million

Source: California Fair Political Practices Commission

Bookworm lives in the San Franciso area and sees first hand what the union control of a state can do. Note the unions are the biggest spenders by far.  She has written much more about this. Read it all.

Heritage has a blog, today it is a must read

The Constitution: Another Victim of Obamacare

Reports yesterday indicated that the Senate Parliamentarian “ruled” that the President must sign the Senate passed version of Obamacare before the Senate can act on a reconciliation measure. This ruling would have blown up plans in the House to use a very complicated procedure to pass both a Senate passed health care reform bill and a reconciliation measure to make change to the bill all at once. This scenario would have allowed the House to avoid a vote on the Senate passed Obamacare bill and they could have avoided the filibuster rule in the Senate (see Health Care Nuclear Option). The liberals are intent on passing Obamacare at any cost.

Reports have come out today that the Parliamentarian has not ruled that the President must sign a law before it is considered a law for reconciliation purposes. First, they came up with a strategy to get Obamacare passed in the House without the House ever voting on the bill, now they have come up with a strategy and a ruling to get the Obamacare bill to qualify as law without the President signing the law. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid should not support efforts to violate the clear words of the Constitution to pass Obamacare.

Go read it all.

"Git er Done, " The Jawa Report" blog does just that

This is a blog I get updates with RSS feeds (Bloglines, so I read it probably several times a day. ABC has this to say about it:

'Net Posse Tracked 'Jihad Jane' for Three Years

Civilian Monitors Warn of Others Like 'Jane' on the 'Net Who Are More Dangerous

By EAMON McNIFF

While the rest of America was stunned to hear that a suburban Pennsylvania woman allegedly used the Internet identity of Jihad Jane and tried to join militant jihadists, for a group of 'Net vigilantes it was old news.

In fact, at least one of the Web sleuths claims to have alerted the feds to Colleen LaRose's alleged efforts to raise money and recruit fighters for Islamic terrorists and to carry out her own jihad.

Groups like Jawa Report, Quoth the Raven and the YouTube Smackdown Corps claim they had been monitoring LaRose's growing militancy for three years, and watched as the Internet -- particularly YouTube -- fed her fervor.

They also said "Jihad Jane" is not the only one on the Internet that the groups are monitoring.

"There are certainly many others out there who are more eloquent and appear to be more dangerous from the way they talk," a man calling himself Rusty Shackleford told ABC News.

Shackleford, a pen name, says he is a libertarian college professor who created the blog JawaReport in 2004 after he was enraged that Iraqi Islamists had beheaded an American named Nick Berg.

"It was my way of venting. But mostly it was about countering violent Islamist propaganda, specifically the videos that were being produced by al Qaeda in Iraq and other Salaafist jihadists fighting our troops," he said.

Shackleford said his goal from the beginning was combating violent Islamist material and support on the Web.

"I'm a blogger, but also an activist against violent Islamism. One of the things we do is try and pressure Webhosts to remove Websites that belong to terrorist organizations. An example of this would be the dozen or so times we've successfully had the Taliban's website removed. The websites sometimes pop back up, sometimes not," Shackleford said.

Shackleford and other contributors to JawaReport and sites like it noticed YouTube had become a hub for videos and comments in support of violent extremism and attacks against the West and its allies, leading to the creation of the YouTube Smackdown.

Shackleford said the groups identify videos in support of violent Islamism and pressure the Web site to take them down, "as they would child pornography or other obscene material."

According to the "Quoth the Raven" blog, since the "smackdown" movement began in 2007, users have had over 31,000 videos removed from YouTube, and 695 users suspended. They say LaRose was one of those suspended.

Isn't it great that these people are looking our for us. This is only page 1 of a three page article.  It's interesting. Read the rest here.

On Facebook from Michael Yon

And yes, this mother, grandmother, great grandmother is on facebook. My grandson is no longer in Afghanistan but my nephew, Eric Scherrer, is still there. Read this thoughtful post from Michael.

Michael Yon

Last evening, I jumped on a Stryker convoy from Shah Wali Kot to FOB Frontenac to be at Anthony Paci's memorial. Memorials are important to attend. First it's about respect. Secondly, they remind you of many things, and underline so many things for now and the future. The memorials are never for one man or woman, b...ut for everyone involved. The memorials remind you of your ultimate duty, and who it's to. If you sense the war cannot be won, the time to say it is now. I sense the war can be turned around. We have a winning team. Every memorial or ramp ceremony is a stark reminder of duty. Duty to these troops, and to their families.

When we arrived at Frontenac last night, a soldier named Zach stood on his Stryker and said his mom reads this Facebook. Firstly, he couldn't believe his mom is on Facebook and we laughed. I said I would put his photo up last night for his mom. Later that evening, I tried for an hour to post for Zach's mom, but the thing wouldn't upload.. Let's try it now. This is for Zach's mom. (click the link above to see that photo)

Now this is what I'm talking about!

From the Washington Post:

All earmarks should be banned in the House and Senate

SEVEN HOUSE members, including Northern Virginia Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D), collected more than $840,000 in political contributions from employees and clients of a lobbying firm, Paul Magliocchetti and Associates Group (PMA), during a two-year span. In that same period, the lawmakers, strategically situated on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, directed more than $245 million in earmarks to clients of PMA.

If you think those two facts are unrelated, you are qualified to be on the House ethics committee. The panel recently found that "simply because a member sponsors an earmark for an entity that also happens to be a campaign contributor does not, on these two facts alone, support a claim that a member's actions are being influenced by campaign contributions."

The ethics committee acknowledged that "there is a widespread perception among corporations and lobbyists that campaign contributions provide enhanced access to members or a greater chance of obtaining earmarks." Gee, how could anyone have gotten that impression? Maybe because the lawmakers targeted those seeking earmarks for campaign contributions? Sent their key appropriations staffers to fundraisers?

Gee? Ya think?  You just have to read it all.

A Noble use for an un Nobel Prize

Not many people thought it was a good thing when our new president received the Nobel prize when he had yet to do anything to deserve one. It is a noble thing he does for the distribution of those funds.  Here is his list from the Washington Post.

Obama picks charities to which he'll donate Nobel prize cash award

By Scott Wilson

.....The largest share of the Nobel funds, $250,000, will go to Fisher House, which provides housing for families of patients receiving medical care at major military and Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers.

About $200,000 will go to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, which is raising money for long-term relief efforts in that country after the devastating earthquake.

Six charities working to prepare students for higher education and help them pay for it will each get $125,000: the American Indian College Fund, the Appalachian Leadership and Education Foundation, College Summit, the Hispanic Scholarship Fund, the Posse Foundation and the United Negro College Fund.

And two charities involved in global outreach will each receive $100,000: Africare and the Central Asia Institute.

A good and thoughtful distribution of those funds. To read the whole article go here.

Pat Cadell Pleads with Democrats in an Editorial in the Washington Post

Along with Douglas E. Schoen.  These are noted Democratic pollsters who see the Democrats marching blindly over the cliff. Here in it's entirety is what they say:
(note: all emphasis is Rockport conservative's)

In "The March of Folly," Barbara Tuchman asked, "Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests?" Her assessment of self-deception -- "acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts" -- captures the conditions that are gripping President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership as they renew their efforts to enact health-care reform.

Their blind persistence in the face of reality threatens to turn this political march of folly into an electoral rout in November. In the wake of the stinging loss in Massachusetts, there was a moment when the president and the Democratic leadership seemed to realize the reality of the health-care situation. Yet like some seductive siren of Greek mythology, the lure of health-care reform has arisen again.

As pollsters to the past two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively, we feel compelled to challenge the myths that seem to be prevailing in the political discourse and to once again urge a change in course before it is too late. At stake is the kind of mainstream, common-sense Democratic Party that we believe is crucial to the success of the American enterprise.

Bluntly put, this is the political reality:

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate's reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats' current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.

However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week, while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.

The White House document released Thursday arguing that reform is becoming more popular is in large part fighting the last war. This isn't 1994; it's 2010. And the bottom line is that the American public is overwhelmingly against this bill in its totality even if they like some of its parts.

The notion that once enactment is forced, the public will suddenly embrace health-care reform could not be further from the truth -- and is likely to become a rallying cry for disaffected Republicans, independents and, yes, Democrats.

Second, the country is moving away from big government, with distrust growing more generally toward the role of government in our lives. Scott Rasmussen asked last month whose decisions people feared more in health care: that of the federal government or of insurance companies. By 51 percent to 39 percent, respondents feared the decisions of federal government more. This is astounding given the generally negative perception of insurance companies.

CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, as was also reported last month, we face an alarming crisis.

Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters' minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.

Voters are hardly enthralled with the GOP, but the Democrats are pursuing policies that are out of step with the way ordinary Americans think and feel about politics and government. Barring some change of approach, they will be punished severely at the polls.

Now, we vigorously opposed Republican efforts in the Bush administration to employ the "nuclear option" in judicial confirmations. We are similarly concerned by Democrats' efforts to manipulate passage of a health-care bill. Doing so in the face of constant majority opposition invites a backlash against the party at every level -- and at a time when it already faces the prospect of losing 30 or more House seats and eight or more Senate seats.

For Democrats to begin turning around their political fortunes there has to be a frank acknowledgement that the comprehensive health-care initiative is a failure, regardless of whether it passes. There are enough Republican and Democratic proposals -- such as purchasing insurance across state lines, malpractice reform, incrementally increasing coverage, initiatives to hold down costs, covering preexisting conditions and ensuring portability -- that can win bipartisan support. It is not a question of starting over but of taking the best of both parties and presenting that as representative of what we need to do to achieve meaningful reform. Such a proposal could even become a template for the central agenda items for the American people: jobs and economic development.

Unless the Democrats fundamentally change their approach, they will produce not just a march of folly but also run the risk of unmitigated disaster in November.

Patrick H. Caddell is a political commentator and former pollster. Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster, is the author of "The Political Fix."

It Pays to be David Letterman

From 4 Block World:
And So Once Again, David Letterman Will Be Free To Harass All His Female Interns and Sarah Palin Too