Conservative Outpost

Why can't we be friends?

SteelerNation43 — Wed, 23 May 2012 00:33:20 +0000

Tonight is the second part of a two-night Dancing With The Stars finale. Donald Driver will probably win, because he is a good dancer, and his freestyle last night was just that awesome.

Next season is the long awaited all-star season. Tom Bergeron has said that the participants will be a mix of former champions, former runners-up, fan favorites, and controversial contestants.

By "controversial," they could mean Kate Gosselin. She tried to get her professional partner, Tony Dovolani, fired from the show. He probably would have been relieved to be done with her, and gone off to do toothpaste commercials or something. But asking for someone's head on a platter is surely not a good way to nurture a dance partnership.

It is far more likely, though, that "controversial" is code for Tom DeLay and Bristol Palin.

The last song Tom DeLay danced to before he was forced to withdraw from the competition due to stress fractures in both feet was Why Can't We Be Friends? It was a fun, and funny, samba that featured him with a sparkly elephant on his costume, and his professional partner Cheryl Burke had a donkey on hers.

Follow @coutpost

Obama raised most from private equity, hedge funds in 2008

admin — Tue, 22 May 2012 19:41:30 +0000

Source:

The Hill

Original article:

Obama raised most from private equity, hedge funds in 2008

President Obama raised far more cash from hedge fund and private equity donors than any other candidate in the 2008 election cycle.

According to an analysis by the nonprofit group Open Secrets, Obama took in nearly $3.5 million from large private-equity donors that year — nearly twice what his general-election rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), pocketed.

The data bring into focus the thin line Obama must walk in attacking presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s background in the industry, which has sparked criticism from allies including Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker.

Obama is working hard to make the case that Romney’s background in private equity does not qualify him to be president. In fact, Obama and his campaign, in a series of ads, have sought to turn that background into a weakness by highlighting companies that failed after their purchase by Bain Capital, the private equity group founded by Romney.

The danger for Obama is that he’ll turn off the backers who helped his campaign in 2008. It’s a risky strategy, especially in an election year in which Obama will have to compete not only with the Romney campaign but with GOP super-PACs expected to play an outsize role in political attack ads this fall.

Obama sought to draw a distinction between the role of private equity and the role of a president at a Monday press conference following the NATO summit. It was the first time Obama broached the topic, and his message was that a background in private equity led one to focus on creating wealth, not jobs.

People who work in private equity “do good work” and “there are times where they identify the capacity for the economy to create new jobs,” Obama said. ...

Follow @coutpost

Barack Obama’s Arkansas primary problem

admin — Tue, 22 May 2012 17:16:23 +0000

Source:

Washington Post

Original article:

Barack Obama’s Arkansas primary problem

Two weeks after an imprisoned felon received 41 percent of the vote against President Obama in West Virginia’s presidential primary, Arkansas could provide another potential embarrassment for the incumbent.

That’s because only Obama and John Wolfe, a Tennessee lawyer, are on the Democratic presidential primary ballot in the Razorback State. (Wolfe took 12 percent — and nearly 18,000 votes — in a four-way fight in the Louisiana Democratic presidential primary in late March.) And a recent independent poll showed Obama running just seven points ahead of Wolfe in the southern Arkansas 4th district, which covers one-quarter of the state.

All of this takes place on a backdrop that is decidedly less than friendly for Obama. Even while he was sweeping to a national victory (and 365 electoral votes) in 2008, Obama received just 39 percent in Arkansas — six points worse than Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry did four years earlier.

“Arkansas voters are informed voters and are fully aware that John Wolfe will not make it out of the primary,” said one well-connected Arkansas Democrat. “However, if John Wolfe has a strong showing tomorrow, it’s a sign that Democratic voters in Arkansas are frustrated with the administration’s policies and further reiteration that Southern Democrats simply cannot identify with President Obama.”

And, if the press coverage of Keith Judd’s surprisingly strong showing two weeks ago in West Virginia is any indication, you can expect Wolfe to draw significant attention in the immediate aftermath of today’s vote.

Follow @coutpost

Obamacare: A plan of, by and for special interests

admin — Tue, 22 May 2012 13:36:21 +0000

Source:

Tim Carney

Original article:

Obamacare: A plan of, by and for special interests

For a law that supposedly sticks it to big business, President Obama's health care overhaul sure has a lot of industries counting on it for profits. In recent weeks, plenty of new evidence suggests Obamacare was a boondoggle for special interests.

Hedge fund honcho Larry Robbins told the crowd at the prominent Sohn Investment Conference last week to buy hospital stocks. Obamacare, Robbins argued, would boost profits for the industry.

Insurers might be in the same boat. A Bloomberg Government study released last week found insurers would lose out on a trillion dollars in revenue between 2013 and 2020 if the Supreme Court struck down Obamacare in its entirety. Most of the trillion at stake comes from federal subsidies created by Obamacare.

At a high-dollar Obama fundraiser in late April, former President Clinton told of his experience discussing Obamacare with the health care industry. Clinton described a health-sector crowd made up of insurers and providers, and said that after his defense of Obamacare, "they said, you're preaching to the saved -- even those of us who don't like certain provisions of the health care law would be mortified if it were repealed."

But at the Obamacare trough, insurers and hospitals get a far smaller portion than the drug industry, which spent more than half a billion dollars lobbying between 2009 and 2010 -- far more than any other industry.

Since the Obamacare debates began in the spring of 2009, we've known drug lobbyists had a privileged seat at the table, but we didn't know exactly what the drug industry got from the "reform" -- and just how the industry repaid Democrats.

Now the veil is lifting. Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee spent the last year pressuring the White House to turn over documents relating to drug industry-White House negotiations. Last week, committee Republicans began releasing the details.

Follow @coutpost

Hey, Romney, Get Some…

Skip MacLure — Tue, 22 May 2012 13:09:49 +0000

I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard Mitt Romney ‘repudiate’ a Super PAC message that hadn’t even been produced yet. It was a jolt of deja vu, harkening back to the bleak political tapestry created by the entrenched Republican beltway establishment. We’ve seen this entire story played out time after time, where the supposed champions of constitutional governance have been rolled over by the DeMarxists, simply because the agents of freedom have utterly failed to stand for the very principles they espouse.

John McCain’s candidacy was a joke to anyone who followed politics closely. What I saw in John McCain was the reincarnation of the hapless Bob Dole ‘good old boy’ presidential run. This ‘next-in-line’ mentality of the beltway establishment has utterly failed the Republican Party and the American people. Had it not been for the introduction of Sarah Palin to the national political scene, McCain would have suffered one of the greatest defeats in party history.

Follow @coutpost

Dozens of Catholic Groups Sue Obama Admin Over HHS Mandate

admin — Mon, 21 May 2012 20:03:19 +0000

Source:

LifeNews

Original article:

Dozens of Catholic Groups Sue Obama Admin Over HHS Mandate

Notre Dame, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and dozens of Catholic hospitals and organizations have filed a total of 12 lawsuits today against Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Obama administration over the controversial HHS mandate.

The lawsuit challenges the Obama administration’s unprecedented mandate that attacks the freedom to practice religion without government interference. Under the HHS mandate, employers must provide insurance coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs, as well as contraceptives and sterilization procedures.

Franciscan University maintains that the requirement to fund and facilitate such activities violates its core religious and moral convictions as a Catholic university.

“Franciscan University’s mission is and always has been to teach from the heart of the Church,” said University President Father Terence Henry, TOR. “The Obama administration’s mandate is a grave threat to our ability to carry out that mission. It makes it impossible for us to operate freely as a Catholic institution without overbearing and invasive governmental interference.”

Other plaintiffs are all Catholic organizations and include Catholic dioceses, schools, universities, and charitable organizations. Numbered among the plaintiffs are the Archdioceses of New York, Washington, D.C., and St. Louis, as well as the Dioceses of Dallas, Ft. Worth, Rockville Centre, Pittsburgh, and the Michigan Catholic Conference, which represents all seven dioceses in the state.

“The Church is speaking with one unified voice on this issue,” said Father Henry. “Every single American bishop has condemned this unjust mandate as an unconscionable violation of religious liberty. If allowed to stand, it will coerce Christians into cooperating with acts that violate core tenets of our faith.”

Follow @coutpost

GOP freshmen press for contempt vote on Holder

admin — Mon, 21 May 2012 17:59:40 +0000

Source:

Susan Ferrechio

Original article:

GOP freshmen press for contempt vote on Holder

House conservatives, fearing that Republican leaders may try to avoid an election-year confrontation with the Obama administration, are insisting that House Speaker John Boehner press ahead with contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Eric Holder over the Fast and Furious gun-running operation.

Five House Republican freshmen wrote to Boehner, R-Ohio, demanding that he schedule a vote on the contempt charges, something Boehner has so far resisted.

"It's time for the House to formally recognize the obvious: That Attorney General Holder has not and will not cooperate with the legitimate investigation launched by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and is therefore in contempt of Congress," the freshmen said in the letter.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wants Holder to turn over additional information, including internal Justice Department emails related to Fast and Furious, an operation in which U.S. officials allowed American guns to flow to Mexico in hopes of following the guns to drug cartel leaders. One of those guns was used to murder U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in 2010.

Boehner has not scheduled a vote on the contempt charges against Holder and is instead trying to keep the Republican-controlled House focused on election-year issues like the struggling economy, the national debt and unemployment.

"Listen, the campaign is going to be about economics, going to be about jobs, as it should be," Boehner recently told reporters.

Boehner's qualms about starting a legal battle with the Obama administration just six months ahead of a pivotal election may be justified, political experts said. Such a fight could backfire against Republicans just as they're fighting to retake the White House and Senate, they said.

Follow @coutpost

The Paul Clement Court

admin — Mon, 21 May 2012 15:12:03 +0000

Source:

New York Magazine

Original article:

The Paul Clement Court

A little before noon on March 23, 2010, President Obama sat at a desk in the East Room of the White House, where—surrounded by Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy’s widow, among others—he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law. It was, as Biden memorably told Obama, “a big fucking deal.” Seven minutes later, at the U.S. Courthouse in Pensacola, Florida, thirteen state attorneys general—all but one of them Republicans—filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Obamacare. It was, as one legal expert told the Pensacola News Journal in the next day’s paper, “a political lawsuit [likely to] be dismissed.” In fact, most papers on March 24 barely reported on the suit’s filing; the New York Times devoted just one sentence to it.

Two years later, that lawsuit—which now includes 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and two small-business owners as plaintiffs—sits before the Supreme Court. Next Monday, the Court will begin hearing an extraordinary five and a half hours of oral arguments, held over three days, in The United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. v. The State of Florida, et al. It is now seen as quite probably the defining case of John Roberts’s expected decades-long tenure as chief justice.

Follow @coutpost

Nope. Not going to ram the iceberg twice.

SteelerNation43 — Sun, 20 May 2012 23:22:32 +0000

I received a hilarious email that said reelecting Barack Obama would be like backing up the Titanic and driving it into the iceberg a second time. I laughed, and laughed, and laughed. Then I somberly realized something.

The death of America at the hands of Barack Obama is not a laughing matter.

Is "death" a bit of hyperbole? Well, that depends. (No, I'm not going to crack a joke about what the meaning of "is" is.) The Obama vision for the country is Zombie America, still walking around, but not alive. It's a place where the very much alive people are at risk of having the life sucked out of them by the tax code, the regulations, and the zombies who won't deign to work.

I was hoping someone dynamic, charismatic, and electable would show up. Alas, Ronald Reagan is dead. So instead, we get Mitt Romney.

He was by no means my first choice. That would have been Gary Johnson, before he fled to the Libertarian nomination. He believes in a lot of what I do: Reforming the tax code, auditing the Federal Reserve, school choice, standing up for Israel if they are attacked, reforming entitlements so the whole thing doesn't go bust, and creating a business-friendly environment so the economy can prosper. But there was no room for him, because there were other parts of his message that offended Republicans.

So instead, I'll be voting for Mitt. And so will a lot of other people who aren't in love with him. It isn't perfect, but it could be worse.

Follow @coutpost

How's that Sarbanes–Oxley working out for you?

SteelerNation43 — Fri, 18 May 2012 23:28:00 +0000

I unabashedly confess that I made a lot of money on tech stocks in the 90s. I'm a techie, and I knew what to buy and when to sell. It's like Las Vegas, except a little pertinent knowledge doesn't help you when you've bet hard 8s on the craps table, but it is extraordinarily valuable when wagering on technology stocks.

It is wagering. Don't fool yourself. And there's nothing wrong with it, any more than there's something wrong with making a reservation at the Wynn and fiddling with your mad money. At the Wynn, they ply you with free refreshing adult beverages. In the NASDAQ, the wins are bigger, but there's no free booze.

The NASDAQ lost a quarter of its value in one day when the internet stock bubble imploded. Most of the problem was that technology companies are long on ideas and programmers from India, and very short on physical assets. So when they die, there's not a lot of wreckage for the investors to divide up.

The ever so helpful government came up with the Sarbanes–Oxley Act to keep asset-light companies from achieving pre-IPO valuations way out of line with reality. The law is so complex in its reporting requirements that pretty much every compliance person admits that he doesn't understand every facet, and stays up nights planning his shuffle off this mortal coil rather than go to prison for something that honestly isn't his fault.

Follow @coutpost

(Ann Coulter) Sacrificial scams

admin — Fri, 18 May 2012 18:00:09 +0000

Source:

Ann Coulter

Original article:

Sacrificial scams

The real class warfare in this country isn't rich vs. poor, it's government employees vs. we, the taxpayers, who pay their salaries.

Working for the government is supposed to be a trade-off: You can't be fired and don't have to exert yourself, but you will receive smaller remuneration than in the private sector, where layoffs are common (especially in the Obama economy!). Instead, government jobs are safe, secure, pressure-free -- and now, amazingly lucrative!

Whether it's in Wisconsin, Illinois, California or the nation's capital, today's public sector workers expect to do little or no work (I'm not counting partying in Las Vegas as "work"), and then be lavishly compensated. Often, the only heavy lifting they do all week is picking up their paychecks.

When government employees mobbed the state capitol in Wisconsin last year, the upside was: They got to bully people. The downside: Voters finally found out what these public servants were being paid.

Their compensation included not only straight salary, but also lavish overtime benefits, pensions, health care plans, sick days and vacation time (most of which they spent protesting).

The unions thought they could fight back against Gov. Scott Walker's tiny pension rollbacks without anyone finding out the details. Most people saw what public employees were getting and assumed it was a misprint.

Two years ago, seven bus drivers in Madison, Wis., made more than $100,000 a year.

Follow @coutpost

U.N. human rights advocates want a ‘Robin Hood Tax’ on wealthy nations

admin — Fri, 18 May 2012 14:57:25 +0000

Source:

CNS News

Original article:

U.N. Human Rights Advocates Urge G8 to Take Up ‘Robin Hood Tax’ on Wealthy Nations

Ahead of the G8 summit in Camp David on Friday, a group of United Nations human rights “experts” are throwing their weight behind a longstanding campaign for a so-called “Robin Hood tax” on international financial transactions.

In a statement issued in Geneva – home to the U.N.’s human rights apparatus – the five called the financial transaction tax (FTT) a way “to offset the costs of the enduring economic, financial, fuel, climate and food crises, and to protect basic human rights.”

It would provide “a pragmatic tool for providing the means for governments to protect and fulfill the human rights of their people,” they said.

“The FTT is an opportunity for governments to move beyond rhetoric in their commitments to sustainable development, and to give flesh to their noble pronouncements of solidarity,” said one of the five, Virginia Dandan, whose title is “independent expert on human rights and international solidarity.”

The decades-old idea of levying a small charge on financial transactions – dubbed a “Robin Hood tax” since it supposedly taxes rich nations to benefit poor ones – has animated a wide range of advocacy groups, who see it as a way to help tackle everything from poverty to the cost of HIV/Aids care, to the emission of gases blamed for climate change.

High-profile proponents include Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams – and German Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s new socialist president, Francois Hollande, both of whom will be at the G8 event and the subsequent NATO summit in Chicago. (British Prime Minister David Cameron is skeptical.)

The U.N. human rights figures urged E.U. leaders to take the lead in pushing the proposal at the G8.

Follow @coutpost

What is this "self-interest" of which you speak?

SteelerNation43 — Thu, 17 May 2012 21:43:59 +0000

Everywhere you look, somebody or other is accusing republicans of "voting against their own self-interest." It's on TV, in print media, and all over the internet. Why, it sounds like you could practically call it waging war on self-interest!

But what does it mean? What are people really trying to say when they play the 'voting against one's self-interest' card?

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but "self-interest" seems to be a pretty euphemism for "other people's money." Voting for the people who promise you more of someone else's stuff, instead of the people who want you to keep more of your own stuff, is all the rage across the land. And really, what's the harm? Richie Rich has way more money than he needs, so why not take it from him? Why would anyone vote against that kind of "self-interest"?

We could start with "because it's excruciatingly unethical." Yes, that's right, boys and girls of the collective. I'm going to throw down the gauntlet and challenge your ethics. The law says you can vote yourself a lifetime supply of free cheese and beer at someone else's expense, and then vote for someone else to pay for your triple bypass and liver transplant too. But is that ethical behavior? Just because the system says you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD. So yeah, paying your own way is more ethical than robbing Richie to pay for 100 strangers whose only claim on his assets is that they want them.

Follow @coutpost

“War on Women” Rhetoric Backfires, Romney Leads With Women

admin — Thu, 17 May 2012 19:43:54 +0000

Source:

LifeNews

Original article:

“War on Women” Rhetoric Backfires, Romney Leads With Women

The “War on Women” rhetoric President Barack Obama and top Democrats have used to attack GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney and pro-life advocates standing up for religious freedom has backfired.

A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows Obama’s support among women has dropped five percentage points over the last two months, going from 49% to 44%. Romney has seen his support with women go up three percent from 43% to 46%, according to the survey.

Mike Flynn, of the conservative Big Government web site, noticed the poll and writes, “Mind you, that isn’t GOP woman or even independent women, but ALL women voters.”

“More importantly, today’s poll finds a notable shift among women in just the last month. In April, Obama was leading Romney by 6% among women. No other group saw an 8 point shift in their support,” Flynn writes. “Turns out women’s top concern is the same as men’s: The Economy. All the contrived outrage about contraceptives and women’s health can’t mask the fact that 73% of voters listed either the economy or the federal deficit as their number on issue. Looks like its going to be a long, hot summer for Team Obama.”

Looking further at the poll, the race for president remains close, but Republican Mitt Romney now has a three-point lead over President Obama, despite positive movement on the economy.

“Romney now leads the President among independents; they were nearly tied among this group last month. Obama beats Romney among moderates. Both candidates continue to perform well with their political base: the President gets solid support from Democrats and liberals, while Romney is running strong with Republicans and conservatives. More than seven in 10 white evangelicals are backing Romney – similar to last month,” the poll reveals.

Follow @coutpost