Friday, May 31, 2013

Benghazi turns out to be a big deal, and not for just Republicans (DP: more polls than Fox showing same thing)

Benghazi turns out to be a big deal, and not for just Republicans

By Jennifer Rubin, Published: May 22, 2013

President Obama speaks during a press conference. (Michael Reynolds/European Pressphoto Agency)

The spin that the American people aren’t interested in Benghazi or that it’s only Republicans who think something is fishy isn’t faring too well in a plethora of other polls.
The GOP figures on all these are off the charts (vs. the administration). But independents are much more like GOP voters than Dems. In some cases, they view the president more harshly.
The newest Post/ABC poll finds: “Last year’s deadly attack on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, is shaping up as a real political problem for President Obama, with concern extending well beyond the conservative base. More than half of Americans say his administration is trying to cover up the facts of the attack.” Asked if the White House is engaged in a cover-up, 56 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents say yes.

From the latest Fox News poll (figures for independents are in parenthesis): 75 percent (77 percent of independents) are following closely or somewhat closely the scandal; voters’ approval of President Obama’s handling trails disapproval 32 to 53 percent (29 to 54 percent for independents); 60 percent (same for independents) think there was a cover-up; 62 percent (60 percent of independents) think the president could have done more to help Americans; and by a 50-to-37 percent margin (54-to-28 percent for independents), they think the misstatements were political, not to protect national security.
Earlier this month, Huffington Post reported that its poll showed “that 42 percent of Americans said they disapprove of the way it has been handled, while 27 percent said they approve.” Independents disapproved by a 47-to-19 percent margin.
CNN shows voters disapprove of Obama’s handling of the Benghazi scandal by a 53-to-42 percent margin. Among independents, 58 percent disapprove. CNN is an outlier, however, on whether the administration misled the public intentionally, finding only 44 percent (and 44 percent of independents) think it did. But there, too, 84 percent of all voters and 80 percent of independents think it is important or very important to get to the bottom of it. Fifty-nine percent of all voters and 58 percent of independents think the attack could have been prevented. Only 37 percent of all voters and 37 percent of independents think the GOP is overplaying its hand.
More troublesome for the left in all these polls is the growing distrust of government, no doubt a result of the cumulative impact of Benghazi, the Internal Revenue Service and the media-spying scandals. If you are a Democrat on the ballot in 2014, you might think hard about running interference for the White House. The public is fed up, and they’ll have only Ds to take it out on in the midterms.
Give the public some credit. With most of the media ignoring Benghazi until recently and non-stop spin from the administration and its liberal enablers disparaging those seeking answers, the voters have figured out that it really does matter what happened and if our leaders lied to them.

Obamacare Slowing Job Growth, at Least for Now

by Walter Russel Mead

A new Gallup poll reveals small business owners as wary about the Affordable Care Act. Forty-eight percent of the 603 small business respondents think that Obamacare will be “bad for [their] business.” Fifty-two percent said the ACA will reduce the quality of the healthcare they and their employees receive, while 55 percent believe the ACA will raise the amount the business will pay for healthcare.
But this isn’t even the most notable finding. Opponents of the ACA have long claimed that the new law could repress US job growth. This new poll provides some evidence that, at least for now, small businesses are suspending hiring in the face of ACA provisions:

When asked if they had taken any of five specific actions in response to the ACA, 41% of small-business owners say they have held off on hiring new employees and 38% have pulled back on plans to grow their business. One in five (19%) have reduced their number of employees and essentially the same number (18%) have cut employee hours in response to the healthcare law. One in four owners (24%) have thought about eliminating healthcare coverage for their employees.

It may be that these effects are a kind of initial panic that will ease over time as employers see how the implementation of the ACA plays out. But as an early indicator of the economic effects of the President’s central domestic achievement, this data raises some major red flags.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/05/16/obamacare-slowing-job-growth-at-least-for-now/

Will Somebody Tell Al-Qaida That the Era of Terrorism Is Over?

by Steven Hayward in Al Qaeda, Obama Foreign Policy

So Obama thinks the problem of terrorism has receded to pre-9/11 levels and we can call the whole thing off. Won’t be long now before the New York Times re-runs the Larry Johnson article from July 2001, “The Declining Terrorist Threat,” which confidently proclaimed:

Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism. None of these beliefs are based in fact. . .
Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. . . terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.

Good call, Larry.
Has anyone sent the Obama memo to al-Qaida? Oh, that’s right—al-Qaida comprises “loose networks” of “lone wolves” and other lowlifes, and now that Osama bin Laden is dead, they are as rudderless as a George Lucas Star Wars prequel. There’s no central office to send the Obama memo to.
The AP has a fascinating article out yesterday that explains how al-Qaida is highly organized like a corporate bureaucracy complete with a board of directors, expense reports from the field, and business plans, culminating in the staggering fact that the North Africa chapter raised an estimated $89 million for jihadist activity through kidnappings and ransoms. That starts to look like a serious business model. The AP story relates what amounts to a “performance review” of one of the leading North African terrorists, who left the company for his own startup after a critical annual review:

The complaint reflects how al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, initially considered one of the group’s weaker wings, rose to prominence by bankrolling its operation with an estimated $89 million raised by kidnapping-for-ransom foreign aid workers and tourists. No less than Osama bin Laden endorsed their business model, according to documents retrieved in the terror leader’s hideout in Pakistan.
The letter also confirms for the first time that payments from European governments went directly toward buying arms to carry out attacks against Western targets, as long speculated by experts. The council chides Belmoktar for not following this practice. . .
The list of slights is long: He would not take their phone calls. He refused to send administrative and financial reports. He ignored a meeting in Timbuktu, calling it “useless.” He even ordered his men to refuse to meet with al-Qaida emissaries. And he aired the organization’s dirty laundry in online jihadist forums, even while refusing to communicate with the chapter via the Internet, claiming it was insecure.
Sounding like managers in any company, the Shura leaders accuse Belmoktar of not being able to get along with his peers. They charge that he recently went to Libya without permission from the chapter, which had assigned the “Libya dossier” to a rival commander called Abou Zeid. And they complain that the last unit they sent Belmoktar for backup in the Sahara spent a full three years trying to contact him before giving up.

JOHN adds: This is Michael Ramirez’s cartoon today:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/will-somebody-tell-al-qaida-that-the-era-of-terrorism-is-over.php

The Mainstream Media Obama Psychodrama

By Thomas Lifson

Do not underestimate the psychological shock currently being processed by many members of the mainstream media and the low-to-medium information voters who rely on them for political analysis. To them, the election and re-election of Barack Obama, the first African American to hold the office of President of the United States, was a cause, a fulfillment of heartfelt dreams.

With his Ivy League pedigree and ability to deliver a speech, Obama charmed the liberal media folk into believing that he was the one they had been waiting for, an inspiring black man on a white horse who could heal our

lingering racial wounds, if only given the chance. They hoped he could change an America their progressive belief system held to be flawed by racism, history, and greedy businessmen, and by helping him do so, they too could nudge history along in a positive direction. Perhaps in their own minds making up for whatever personal flaws or unfair advantages they might have possessed along their way to the top of the media food chain. Everyone wants to believe he or she is a good person, doing good things in the overall scheme of things, after all.

So they invested themselves in making the dream come true, attaching their self-concept to his cause. This is why information that was dissonant tended to evoke a rather widespread hostile reaction. Only racists and birthers could doubt any of the official Obama narrative. The Tea Party became an object of hatred, slander, and even physical attacks when it first appeared and threatened the Great Obama Project. When the tea partiers inflicted a serious blow to the political standing of Obama and the Democrats in the 2010 election, taking over the House, they became an obstacle to be removed.

People react with discomfort and hostility when their self-concept, their source of self-esteem, is threatened. It is subconsciously received as a challenge to one's status as a good person.

Three serial shocks (and their continuing aftershocks) are sufficiently grave to produce a form of trauma in those who hitched their hearts to Obama:
1. Facing proof from one of their own that Obama and his administration lied and then continued to lie to the faces of the White House Press Corps through Jay Carney about Benghazi casts serious doubt on other claims of his they have supported and defended;
2. Continuing revelations of the IRS's misbehavior toward the hated tea partiers and conservatives calls into question which side are the good guys (see point 1);

3. And finally the revelation that all their loyalty bought them no consideration at all when it came to secretly grabbing records of their communications in AP, tells them loyalty is one way street with this guy and his crowd.

The big question now is how many of the liberal media will return to form as this process unfolds itself with more whistleblowers emerging, and with documents subpoenaed and witnesses put under oath over the coming months. To be sure some already have reverted to their default position of excuse-making support, floating rationalizations to minimize the damage: Obama is too remote and disconnected (even, it may even be intimated as a fallback concession, a bit lazy what with all that golf and partying) to have actively instigated these shocks.

This would be the face-saving option for both Obama and the journalists who wish to remain invested in his cause, albeit at lower intensity now that they have conceded incompetence and perhaps sloth. He has disappointed them a little, but any overestimation they may have engaged in was out of the best of motives.

But others will take a different tack. Having devoted five plus years to the narrative of Obama the good, they will be ready to follow a new story line now, because it has the ultimate virtue in the news business: it is new. If the special committees which will investigate the scandals do their job, there will many veins to mine in uncovering and telling the stories of wrongdoing. In the 1970s, nobody made a good career move defending the Nixon administration's use of the IRS against its opponents, after all.

Professor Charles Lipson of the University of Chicago shared with me his thoughts on how those in the journalistic world who think in terms of institutional survival might understand the situation they face:

How did the reporters keep from getting killed when they did stories on the Mafia in the bad old days? Answer: They had what international-relations specialists call "Second-strike capability," which served as an effective deterrent. Concretely, the Mafia knew that any strike against a reporter would lead to a devastating response, namely a whole slew of stories by newspapers on all aspects of the Mafia's local business. If a reporter was killed, all the newspapers would assign a slew of reporters to investigate and publish everything they could about the whole Mafia organization. That implicit threat kept reporters safe. In Chicago, Jake Lingle was the only reporter ever killed by the Outfit, as our Mafia is called, but it turned out that he was a Mafioso himself. (It happened in 1930, during the Capone era.)
Following this line of reasoning, the AP's best response to the DOJ's intrusion is to assign as many investigative reporters as they can to all aspects of DOJ's activities, including Fast and Furious, the Minnesota scandal involving Tom Perez, Eric Holder's life history (including an armed take-over at Columbia during his college years), and everything else they can think of. That should even-up the scales the next time the DOJ or other government agencies think about overstepping their bounds.
It might also get the AP back in the habit of actually investigating an incumbent administration that is not Republican.

The mainstream media psychodrama that is about to unfold before us promises to be amusing and even gratifying or those of us who have been frustrated for years by the ability of the Obama organization to make its storylines stick in the face of contrary data. No doubt there will be a certain amount of "I told you so" gloating. But we should also be prepared to welcome and encourage those former inhabitants of the media plantation who venture out into the intoxicating realm of uncovering the deceptions that enabled a program to fundamentally change America to get as far as it has.

If enough members of the media see the light and join in the discovery of all the deceptions proffered over the last few years, we may see the partisan divide actually diminish, as common revulsion at the dishonesty and abuses brings people together. In a way that he never anticipated, Barack Obama finally may become what he promised to be: a uniter not a divider.

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Obama ratings dip, voters say government 'out of control'

Fox News poll: Obama ratings dip, voters say government 'out of control'

By Dana Blanton

Published May 21, 2013

FoxNews.com

After a week of revelations about government spying on reporters and the Internal Revenue Service targeting conservatives, most voters feel “like the federal government has gotten out of control and is threatening the basic civil liberties of Americans.”
At the same time, a new Fox News poll finds disapproval of President Obama’s job performance is above 50 percent for the first time in a year, his honesty rating is at a new low and half of voters already think he’s a lame-duck.
More than two-thirds of voters -- 68 percent -- feel the government is out of control and threatening their civil liberties. About one quarter disagree (26 percent).
Nearly half of Democrats (47 percent), as well as large numbers of independents (76 percent) and Republicans (87 percent) feel Uncle Sam is taking liberties with their liberties.
Those who identify with the Tea Party movement, one of the groups targeted by the IRS, are among those most likely to say things are out of control and civil liberties are being threatened: 92 percent of Tea Partiers feel that way.
Six in 10 Americans say the Justice Department “went too far” when it seized the phone records of reporters working at the Associated Press (AP) without prior notice. That’s almost twice as many as the 31 percent who think the actions were “justified” because the government was looking for leaks about a terrorist plot.
Most Republicans (77 percent) and a majority of independents (62 percent) feel the Justice Department went too far. Nearly half of Democrats agree (45 percent), while almost as many say the government was justified (44 percent).
The recent controversies have taken a toll on the president’s standing with voters.
Overall, 45 percent of voters approve of the job Obama’s doing, down from 47 percent last month. Just over half -- 51 percent -- disapprove of his performance, up from 45 percent last month. This is the first time disapproval of Obama has topped 50 percent since April 2012.
The increase in disapproval of Obama is driven mainly by independents (+ 7 percentage points) and Republicans (+8 points). Disapproval among Democrats remained mostly unchanged (15 percent).
The poll also finds more voters questioning Obama’s honesty. Some 49 percent think Obama is honest and trustworthy today. That’s down from 51 percent last July -- and the first time in a Fox News poll that less than half of voters said Obama was honest. Obama’s highest honesty rating was 73 percent in April 2009, when he had been in office about 100 days.
A record number also now thinks Obama is not honest: 48 percent in the new poll, up from 46 percent last summer.
Nearly half of voters now consider Obama a lame-duck president. Less than a year into his second term, 49 percent of voters say Obama is a lame-duck, including 25 percent of Democrats.
Almost as many voters -- 47 percent -- say Obama still has the power to get things done.
Views on Obama’s leadership closely track his job performance rating. Forty-five percent rate his leadership skills positively: “excellent” (15 percent) or “good” (30 percent). Another 19 percent say “only fair.”
More than twice as many voters rate Obama’s leadership skills as “poor” (36 percent) as rate them as “excellent” (15 percent).
Many more voters disapprove (40 percent) than approve (28 percent) of the job Eric Holder is doing as attorney general. A third are unable to rate him (32 percent). Approval of Holder is down eight points from 36 percent in May 2010, when voters were last asked about his performance on a Fox News poll.
Holder is the head of the Justice Department. He has recused himself from the current AP investigation.
Which of the current Obama administration scandals is the most troublesome to voters? The largest number says the IRS targeting of conservative groups (32 percent), and that’s closely followed by Benghazi (27 percent). About one in five say the Justice Department seizing the phone records of reporters concerns them the most (21 percent).
Even if voters had known before the election what they know now about the Obama administration controversies, the consensus is he still would have won: 62 percent say Obama would have still won re-election, while 33 percent think Romney would have won.
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,013 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from May 18 to May 20. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Marco Rubio is “our Republican,” says Chuck Schumer — and with good reason (DP: Powerlineblog's entries under "Marco Rubio" are must reads)

Marco Rubio is “our Republican,” says Chuck Schumer — and with good reason

by Paul Mirengoff in Immigration, Marco Rubio

In his chronically disingenuous media appearances on behalf of amnesty, Marco Rubio always insists that he wants to improve the Schumer-Rubio bill. Rubio has to say this to retain credibility among conservatives who doubt the government’s ability and willingness to enforce all but the most airtight border security measures — a doubt that Rubio purports to share. Thus, Rubio pledges that he is open to, and even desirous of, sensible amendments to his legislation.
What Rubio doesn’t say is that his vote on all amendments is directed by Chuck Schumer and the other Democratic members of the Gang of Eight. Yet, that is the case, as this report from the Washington Post makes clear.
Actually, it was Chuck Schumer who made it clear. When Jeff Sessions proposed an amendment to bar illegal immigrants from receiving welfare until they obtain a green card, Schumer leaned over to an aid and whispered, “Do our Republicans have a pass on this one?”
The import of this comment, which was picked up an open microphone, was obvious — Rubio could only vote for amendments that Schumer and his fellow Democrats oppose if Schumer gave him “a pass.” In that case, the Gang of Eight would split its vote and the amendment would be defeated by the Judiciary Committee, which the Dems control. This is what happened to Sessions’ amendment on welfare benefits for illegal immigrants.
Schumer, however, did not grant “his Republicans” many passes. Instead, the Gang almost always voted together. And, of course, the only amendments that passed were ones backed by Schumer and his fellow Democrats.
Thus, when Rubio tells conservatives that he welcomes amendments and that he has insisted on a process under which such amendments will receive fair consideration, what he means is this: he welcomes amendments that Chuck Schumer permits him to welcome, and the process is such that no other amendments will be adopted.
The result is a bill with border security provisions whose effectiveness Rubio cannot, and does not, defend. And the position that Rubio offers in lieu of a defense — let’s improve the bill through amendments — is fraudulent. Unless you trust Chuck Schumer to call the tune on border security.
UPDATE/CORRECTION: Sen. Rubio’s office reminds me that Rubio is not a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thus, he did not vote on any amendments to his bill. I thank the Senator’s staff for prompting this correction to my post.
Nonetheless, Rubio is sponsoring this legislation, and says he would like to see it improved through the amendment process. Thus, it seems incumbent on Rubio to speak out in support of amendments he favors. To my knowledge, he hasn’t spoken out in support of any amendments not backed by Chuck Schumer and the other Democrats in the Gang of Eight. If I’m wrong about this, I hope the Senator’s office will correct me.
Moreover, the Washington Post, in the story linked to above, reports that “the eight [members of the Gang of Eight] met in private before each committee hearing hashing out which amendments they would support and which oppose as a united coalition.” If this is true, then Rubio clearly was in the loop on the amendment process, even though he couldn’t vote.
But even if Rubio wasn’t at the meetings where amendments were hashed out, it still appears that he will not break ranks with Schumer on amendments unless Schumer gives him a “pass.” He thus allows Schumer to call the shots on border security and all other issues.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/marco-rubio-our-republican-says-chuck-schumer-and-with-good-reason.php

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun? (DP: these pages lay out the path to the answer to "what did the president know...")

Obama and the IRS: The Smoking Gun?

By Jeffrey Lord/American Spectator

President met with anti-Tea Party IRS union chief the day before agency targeted Tea Party.

“For me, it’s about collaboration.” — National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelleyon the relationship between the anti-Tea Party IRS union and the Obama White House
Is President Obama directly implicated in the IRS scandal?
Is the White House Visitors Log the trail to the smoking gun?
The stunning questions are raised by the following set of new facts.
March 31, 2010.
According to the White House Visitors Log, provided here in searchable form by U.S. News and World Report, the president of the anti-Tea Party National Treasury Employees Union, Colleen Kelley, visited the White House at 12:30pm that Wednesday noon time of March 31st.
The White House lists the IRS union leader’s visit this way:

Kelley, Colleen Potus 03/31/2010 12:30

In White House language, “POTUS” stands for “President of the United States.”
The very next day after her White House meeting with the President, according to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General’s Report, IRS employees — the same employees who belong to the NTEU — set to work in earnest targeting the Tea Party and conservative groups around America. The IG report wrote it up this way:

April 1-2, 2010: The new Acting Manager, Technical Unit, suggested the need for a Sensitive Case Report on the Tea Party cases. The Determinations Unit Program Manager Agreed.

In short: the very day after the president of the quite publicly anti-Tea Party labor union — the union for IRS employees — met with President Obama, the manager of the IRS “Determinations Unit Program agreed” to open a “Sensitive Case report on the Tea party cases.” As stated by the IG report.
The NTEU is the 150,000 member union that represents IRS employees along with 30 other separate government agencies. Kelley herself is a 14-year IRS veteran agent. The union’s PAC endorsed President Obama in both 2008 and 2012, and gave hundreds of thousands of dollars in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles to anti-Tea Party candidates.
Putting IRS employees in the position of actively financing anti-Tea Party candidates themselves, while in their official positions in the IRS blocking, auditing, or intimidating Tea Party and conservative groups around the country.
The IG report contained a timeline prepared by examining internal IRS e-mails. The IG report did not examine White House Visitor Logs, e-mails, or phone records relating to the relationship between the IRS union, the IRS, and the White House.

(DP: this is the first of very quick read 8 pages; if you want to get the whole "smoking gun" read it all--I did): http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/20/obama-and-the-irs-the-smoking/

For Obama, image is everything and the only thing

By Jennifer Rubin,

The biggest scandal regarding Benghazi may be that the president was not at the helm on 9-11-2011 and was not directing the response to an attack. His aides insist he was getting updates, but the president is supposed to be more than an inbox for messages from his advisers. Was he peppering them with questions? Was he insisting they run through the available rescue options? The answer to both seems to be no, and for that dereliction of duty he needs to be held accountable. Maybe he would have been more accurate in his statements after the fact if he had had been plugged in and paying attention during the attacks.

President Obama speaks during a press conference. (Michael Reynolds/European Pressphoto Agency)

Likewise, the president’s apparent inattention to the deteriorating security situation in Libya suggests that he, once again, was not in command. He was a passenger on the ship of state. Hillary Clinton wanted to go in; let her keep an eye on it.
With Obama it is all stagecraft and no state craft. He’ll chest-thump about the assassination of Osama bin Laden and be happy to leak details of “kill lists” (president, with brow furrowed, sits deciding life-and-death issues), but in fact he’s mostly talk. In this light we can see that part of the motive for cracking down on the media is to eliminate and deter information-gathering that is not White House-approved. It’s fine to leak favorable images and information. But if the media dare to put forth data that are inconsistent with his play-acting, then the retribution is fierce and swift.
That is most apparent with regard to Iran and Syria. Obama talks a big game on the former (“unacceptable” to have a nuclear weapon), but his policy is adrift. Iran moves swiftly toward acquiring nuclear capability. On Syria, Obama talks tough but is paralyzed when it comes to action. Elliott Abrams perfectly captures the blather we hear:

“Syria is a humanitarian tragedy, but there are no good answers. It is so complex. The rebels are such a mixed bag; there are thousands of jihadists, so how can you really support giving arms to that side? You’d never know who was getting them. And we don’t want to raise the level of violence. We do support them; we give them money and other things, and we are in contact all the time with them through our embassies, and now through the CIA too. The answer here is to persuade the Russians that Assad must go in the end, and get them to ease him out; those discussions with the Russians continue. Lots of countries have interests here and they need to be balanced. American intervention would be a nightmare; after all, the Syrians have a very developed air defense system and we could lose pilots. And in the end Syria will be a mess. Anyway, what legal basis do we have to intervene, without a Security Council resolution?”

In other words, he’s not interested in really being commander in chief; he just likes to play one on TV. He “ends” wars as if it doesn’t matter whether they are won or lost, whether aims are achieved or not. Ending a war requires a single order; running a successful one requires constant attention and effort and expenditure of political capital. It also forces one to come to grips with the tough decisions his predecessor made.
In the case of Syria, Obama must be grateful indeed that while he is ducking and playing police detective (no chain of custody!), the Israelis have acted in ways to punish Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons and made clear it will not tolerate movement of WMDs and/or further militarization of Hezbollah. If not for Israel, the pressure on Obama to do something (heaven forbid!) would be even greater. I hope he has properly thanked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (He’ll need him again to spare his legacy — “who lost Iran?” — when the Israelis eventually need to eliminate the Iranian threat.)
The president’s eerie detachment from actual events and hyper-concern about image have led to a series of foreign policy blunders on everything from Iraq (no status-of-forces agreement) to Benghazi to Syria to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And it has led to the unprecedented crackdown on the media.
The secret drone war may be less than meets the eye. (We don’t know since it’s all a secret.) In any case, it is no substitute for a coherent foreign policy, for a network of information-gathering, the proper funding of the military and the willingness, when appropriate, to use American hard power.
In some ways Obama wants to have it both ways: He’ll not be George W. Bush, but he is more secretive and less transparent than Bush was, and is unwilling to cooperate with Congress or tolerate an independent media. Bush and senior White House staff submitted to interviews with the 9/11 Commission; in this administration we can’t even figure out what Obama was doing on the night of the Benghazi attack. In short, Obama doesn’t want to do very much, but he wants to perpetrate the image of a tough guy.
The speak-loudly-carry-a-small-stick routine (and do it in secret) makes for bad policy. And it requires him to clamp down on the media, demonize critics, spin cover stories, stonewall investigators and control the message. For if he does not, it becomes apparent from a variety of figures not compelled to spin the Obama line just how poorly he is doing his job and how badly he has let threats get out of hand.
Bush made gutsy calls and never flinched from action, although his public diplomacy and communication skills were poor and he was racked by unremitting leaks. Still, that’s a better deal than a president who never wants to do much of anything but has been, until now, quite adept at snowing the public and abusing the media. Maybe if Obama’s policies were better he’d have to spin less and not crack down on the media.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/05/26/obama-image-is-everything-and-the-only-thing/

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Scandalous Ignorance

by Garrett Fahy

by Brian Fahy & Garrett Fahy
“Everything comes from the top.” This quote from an anonymous source in the IRS Determinations Unit explains why the IRS targeting of conservative groups did not likely originate with low level staffers at a remote IRS outpost. The truth is far different.
In March of 2010, the IRS offices on tax exempt entities, headed by Obama appointee Sarah Hall Ingram, began targeting conservative groups applying for tax exempt status by screening them based on impermissible criteria such as their political orientation or their names, names like “patriot” and “tea party.” The IRS denied these groups’ applications, burdened them with onerous document requests, demanded unnecessary personal information, or just ignored the applications.
The bulk of the harassment was carried out by the Orwellian sounding IRS Determinations Unit in Cincinnati, Ohio, which in January of 2012, began unlawfully screening organizational applicants according to their policy positions, instead of according to tax-exempt laws and Treasury regulations. IRS offices in other states got in on the act and slow-walked or denied applications for tax exempt status by conservative groups.
Thus, just in time for the 2012 election, the IRS’ political war against conservative groups was in full swing. The cover-up unfolded as follows.
In February of 2012, then director of the IRS Douglas Shulman testified before Congress that there was absolutely no targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. Yet only three months later, in May of 2012, the IRS finished its internal investigation into this allegedly non-existent targeting.
On June 4, 2012, Treasury’s general counsel, William J. Wilkins, learned that the Inspector General of the IRS was auditing the IRS for targeting politically conservative groups. Neal Wolin, the number two at Treasury and deputy to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, was informed of the investigation shortly thereafter.
Cindy Thomas, the program manager for the tax exempt division who leaked confidential application details on conservative groups to the liberal site Pro Publica, oversaw this abuse. Ms. Thomas has not been fired, summoned to Congress to testify, or faced criminal charges. Her time may yet come.
On May 10, 2013, Lois Lerner, head of the IRS Exempt Organizations division, acknowledged that her office had singled out conservative groups for legal and bureaucratic harassment.
On May 22, 2013, Ms. Lerner told the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, “I have not done anything wrong.” She made this statement then invoked her 5^th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The problem is that she can’t have it both ways: She can’t proclaim her innocence, and then claim a privilege that requires silence.
The same duplicity is seen in the White House’s shifting explanations on the IRS scandal. The White House claims the president was not aware of the IRS targeting of conservative groups until news reports broke the story. Yet Kathryn Ruemmler, the president’s top lawyer, knew of the IRS investigation and the IG’s report, and she apparently failed to notify the president.
If she knew, that likely means many other White House officials on the president’s senior staff also knew. Did none of them inform the president? If not, why not?
The IRS scandal, the most recent of many to conveniently emerge after the 2012 election, demonstrates a consistent administration pattern: when the facts don’t fit the Obama political narrative, the truth is buried, ignorance is claimed by those at the top, and no senior staff is held accountable.
Prior to the election, the White House calculated that the president could, under the guise of campaign finance concern, demonize conservative groups, question their funding, and then claim ignorance and outrage when low level functionaries took actions consistent with his comments. We now see the fruits of this strategy in the IRS scandal. But the strategy goes beyond the IRS.
Obama claimed during the 2012 campaign that the War on Terror was over so the administration could not acknowledge terrorism at work in Benghazi. The Administration lied about what happened, lied about the explanation, and no one has been held to account.
Similarly, on immigration reform, the White House has been so obsessed with granting amnesty to illegal immigrants that it covered up the Fast & Furious gun running debacle, which proved the border is lawless and the government hapless to address it.
The law holds individuals responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their actions. But not in Washington, where truth and accountability give way when they conflict with the political narrative. No senior political appointees lost their jobs as a result of Fast & Furious, Benghazi, or the IRS scandal.
In a more just world, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Sarah Hall Ingram and Lois Lerner would have been fired. But this isn’t that world. This is the Obama administration, where everything – the Fast & Furious debacle, the Benghazi deception, the IRS targeting – comes from the top.

http://www.hughhewitt.com/scandalous-ignorance/#more-18849

Beyond the Pale (DP: I read every word of anything I post; this may be beyond your patience but given you will encounter this thinking, read it all)

At ‘white privilege’ conferences, a lengthening list of victims issue an ever-more-detailed indictment of Western civilization

By CHARLOTTE ALLEN

SeaTac, Wash.
The DoubleTree Hotel, a sprawling complex just a quick shuttle ride away from the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, mostly hosts stranded passengers, pilots, and flight attendants whose shadowy silhouettes can be glimpsed at insomniac hours rolling their suitcases down the plushly carpeted hallways, and windbreaker-clad locals from nearby Puget Sound towns, for whom the hotel’s sports bar and decent cheeseburgers are a draw during the Pacific Northwest’s long, chilly rainy season. The SeaTac DoubleTree also, this year, hosted the Fourteenth Annual White Privilege Conference (WPC14) from April 10 through April 13.

Thomas Fluharty

White privilege—what’s that? It was a question I was asked several times by the non-White Privilege hotel guests whom I encountered in the DoubleTree’s elevators and stairwells, since I was required by conference rules to wear at all times my official badge, conspicuously hand-lettered and yellow-highlighted “PRESS” by me. I always answered the question as honestly as I could, drawing on the four days’ worth of White Privilege keynote speeches and workshops I attended over a long, wet, April weekend near the airport. “It’s where you learn that white people oppress everybody else,” I said. This seemed fair enough. WPC14’s own website declares that “the WPC has become a venue for fostering difficult and critical dialogues around white supremacy, white privilege, diversity, multicultural education and leadership, social & economic justice, and the intersecting systems of privilege and oppession.”

Obama Speaks, The Heart Sinks

by Michael Ledeen

He’s actually getting worse. This president will not admit that we are in a war, as President George W. Bush defined it, with various terrorist organizations and with countries that support them. In his overlong, rambling speech to the National Defense University on terrorism and national security, the president never even mentioned Iran, which happens to be our main enemy and the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism. Not one word.

You may well ask how it is possible for the president to talk about his counterterrorism “strategy” without addressing the main source of terrorism. You would be right to ask, and you should also ask how it is possible that, so far as I can see, not one of the pundits, experts and commentators noticed the omission. They were so busy with the future of Gitmo and where captured terrorists should be tried, and how many drones can fit on the head of a jihadi, that they missed the biggest thing.

Talk about a dog that didn’t bark!
The speech was bizarre, to put it mildly. It was often incoherent, as when he gritted his teeth and actually admitted that there is an ideological conflict between us and the terrorists. “Most…of the terrorism we face,” he said, ”is fueled by a common ideology…that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West.” Without taking a deep breath, he hastily added that the “common ideology” was “based on a lie.” Why? Because “the United States is not at war with Islam…”
It’s typical of the president’s world-view that he would assume any such war to be instigated by us, but in this case the jihadis have it right, and he’s got it backwards. There is indeed a war, it is theirs, the jihadis’ war, and they are waging it because they firmly believe they are commanded to do so by the Almighty. They aim to destroy or dominate Western infidels and apostates. Those commands are in the Koran, and are repeated by a great mass of imams, ayatollahs and mullahs. Those thousands of Iranians or Hezbollahis who chant “death to America” mean just that. It’s the reason for their jihad against us.
But President Obama could not bring himself to mention that. Indeed, the one time he used the words “violent jihad” he wasn’t talking about the Quds Force, or Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad, or the other terrorist organizations. He was talking about–listen very carefully–”radicalized individuals here in the United States.” Yes, if we take the text seriously, he’s saying that violent jihad is a homegrown American thing.
I know it’s hard to believe, but here’s the full context:

…we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City – America has confronted many forms of violent extremism in our time. Deranged or alienated individuals – often U.S. citizens or legal residents – can do enormous damage, particularly when inspired by larger notions of violent jihad. That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood, and the bombing of the Boston Marathon. (my emphasis)

Notice the sly use of “appears to have led” in the last sentence. And notice that he is only talking about “deranged or alienated” individuals. Lone wolves. Disturbed people. Not a mass movement that intends to destroy us.
It’s all backwards. After all, this president welcomes illegal immigrants to the White House, and shuns US border agents.
No surprise, then, that the main weapons to be used against terrorists are: close Gitmo, send captured terrorists to places like Yemen, kill a few more al Qaida types with drones, and, for heaven’s sake, keep giving foreign aid to countries that have gone over to the dark side.
I half expected him to call for an end to sanctions on Iran. Or at least to show some understanding for Ali Khamenei and his gang. But Obama didn’t have to do that. John Kerry had already begged Congress to withhold further action against the Islamic Republic until a new president had been chosen.
This sad sortie into the wonderland of our foreign policy goes hand in hand with the Cairo speech that hailed the accomplishments of the Muslim world and promised a new relationship with the United States. That hasn’t worked out very well, but the president won’t admit it. Just as his solution for runaway debt is more debt, his solution for the war against us–the one whose existence he denies–is to accept our culpability, and withdraw from the battlefield. He bragged about the retreat from Iraq–as that unhappy land is overrun with terrorists–and promises a speedy retreat from Afghanistan.
And then he invoked a “lesson” from history. “All wars end.” Someone should have leaped to her feet at that moment and quoted an ancient wise man, Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus: “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Not this guy. Obama is in full retreat, and will have more war. That’s the way it usually works.
Instead, a leader of Code Pink leaped to her feet and demanded the immediate closure of Gitmo. It was almost certainly a set-up, and nicely encapsulated the whole farce.

http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2013/05/24/obama-speaks-the-heart-sinks/?singlepage=true

The IRS is deeply political — and very Democratic

Tim Carney: The IRS is deeply political — and very Democratic

Photo - Tim Savaglio, a member of the Liberty Township Tea Party, displays one of the letters his group received from the Internal Revenue Service, Wednesday, May 15, 2013, at his home in West Chester, Ohio. (AP Photo/Al Behrman) — Tim Savaglio, a member of the Liberty Township Tea Party, displays one of the letters his group received from the Internal Revenue Service, Wednesday, May 15, 2013, at his home in West Chester, Ohio. (AP Photo/Al Behrman)

Federal officials used the power of the state to intimidate and harass critics of President Obama and the federal government. When the higher levels of the Internal Revenue Service learned that one office was inappropriately targeting Tea Party groups, these officials nevertheless denied it -- until they were forced to fess up.
If you needed another reason to distrust your government and oppose its expansion, the IRS just gave it to you.
Judging by available evidence and an inspector general's report released this week, the story here is not a Nixonian White House using all of government's tools to punish critics.
The story is instead one of government power so great that, even in the hands of nonpolitical career civil servants, politically motivated abuse is inevitable. And the ultimate problem is that our tax code and campaign finance laws put the IRS in the business of policing political speech. Politics inevitably comes into play.
The Cincinnati office of the IRS, which covers tax-exempt groups for the whole country, created inappropriate standards to determine which nonprofits it would target for added scrutiny.
If your group set off one of Cincinnati's red flags -- say, by having the words "Tea Party" in your name -- the IRS would pummel you with probing questions, including asking about your donors' political intentions and your book club's reading lists, and threaten you with taxes and penalties if the agency deemed you to be overly political.
After Tea Party groups complained, IRS officials in Washington repeatedly insisted that there was no political targeting. The IG report suggests these officials knew otherwise and thus were lying.
White House spokesman Jay Carney dismissed the idea that singling out Tea Party groups was politically motivated. "The IRS is an independent enforcement agency with only two political appointees," Carney said at a news conference.
The Wall Street Journal set the record straight: "The IRS is many things, but 'independent' isn't one of them. It is formally part of the Treasury Department and is headed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, who is appointed by the President. The Commissioner is accountable to the President reporting through the Treasury Secretary."
And while it's true that the IRS is populated almost entirely by career civil servants, that doesn't preclude it being stacked with political partisans.
To see how meaningless the career-vs.-political distinction can be at the IRS, consider the case of Mark Ernst. He was H&R Block's CEO as recently as 2007, but when Obama took office in January 2009, Ernst joined the IRS as a deputy commissioner and helped craft new regulations governing tax preparers -- H&R Block and its competitors. How did this not violate Obama's revolving-door rules? "Mark Ernst is a civil servant at the IRS," an IRS spokesman explained to me. "He is not a political appointee."
But Ernst had spent decades in the private sector. He came in with the new administration. His stint at the IRS lasted less than two years. And he certainly was political: Federal Election Commission records show he contributed more than $49,000 to federal candidates and political action committees. His donations favor Democrats.
So, being a "career civil servant" doesn't mean you're making a career out of the job, or that you're not political.
In the past three election cycles, the Center for Responsive Politics' database shows about $474,000 in political donations by individuals listing "IRS" or "Internal Revenue Service" as their employer.
This money heavily favors Democrats: $247,000 to $145,000, with the rest going to political action committees. (Oddly, half of those GOP donations come from only two IRS employees, one in Houston and one in Annandale, Va.)
IRS employees also gave $67,000 to the PAC of the National Treasury Employees Union, which in turn gave more than 96 percent of its contributions to Democrats. Add the PAC cash to the individual donations and IRS employees favor Democrats 2-to-1.
The Cincinnati office where the political targeting took place is much more partisan, judging by FEC filings. More than 75 percent of the campaign contributions from that office in the past three elections went to Democrats. In 2012, every donation traceable to employees at that office went to either President Obama or liberal Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
The IRS officials whose names appear in the IG report are also Democrats with partisan histories. William Wilkins, IRS general counsel and one of the agency's two explicitly political appointees, is a former Democratic congressional aide, lobbyist (clients included the Swiss Bankers Association), and Democratic donor.
Joseph H. Grant, who ran the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division that includes the Cincinnati office, is a former Democratic staffer on the House Ways & Means Committee.
Many dedicated and professional civil servants serve the IRS. But the recent revelations still aren't surprising. If you give people the terrifying power to tax and the right to police political speech, some partisans will abuse that power.
Timothy P. Carney, The Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at tcarney@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears Monday and Thursday, and his stories and blog posts appear on washingtonexaminer.com.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tim-carney-the-irs-is-deeply-political-and-very-democratic/article/2529758?utm_source=DITTO+TEMPLATE%3A+Political+Digest+TEST+-+05%2F16%2F2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington+Examiner%3A+Political+Digest

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

The Inevitable Decline of Great Britain (Cont.)

by John Hinderaker in European Decline, Islam, Terrorism

The brutal murder of an off-duty soldier by two Muslim activists continues to dominate the news in Great Britain. The scene was utterly bizarre: in broad daylight, in a busy section of London, the two Muslims apparently ran the soldier down with a car, within a block or two of his barracks, and then attacked him with knives and a meat cleaver. They attempted to behead him, apparently not quite successfully, as hundreds of passers-by looked on. No one stopped them–private ownership of firearms being illegal in the U.K.–but three random women, who have been extravagantly praised for their bravery, tended to the soldier’s body and engaged the murderers in conversation, in hopes of diverting them from killing anyone else. This went on for quite a while.

I was puzzled by early reports which indicated that police were present at the scene from the beginning, but also suggested that the killers waited for something like 20 minutes for policemen to arrive, whereupon they attacked them. It turns out that the reports were not inconsistent. There were policemen on the scene from the beginning, but they were unarmed:

Although other bystanders watched in horror and police waited helplessly for armed officers to arrive, Gemini modestly insisted her [sic] and her mother were not heroes and had done what anyone else would do.

The idea of policemen in one of the world’s major cities “wait[ing] helplessly for armed officers to arrive,” while murderers parade up and down the street soaked in blood and the body of a half-beheaded soldier lies in the street, is almost unbelievable. And yet that is the state of law enforcement in Great Britain. The average American household is better armed than a London policeman, and as a result, it was left to a few women from the crowd of bystanders to try to deal with cleaver-wielding murderers.
But that doesn’t mean the British are entirely lax with respect to law enforcement. No, not at all: it just depends which laws you are talking about. If you mean laws against carving up innocent people on the street with knives, well, the Brits have a problem. But if you complain about such an outrage on Facebook or Twitter, you’re going to be crushed by the full majesty of the law. (Via InstaPundit):

A 22-year-old man has been charged on suspicion of making malicious comments on Facebook following the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby.
Benjamin Flatters, from Lincoln, was arrested last night after complaints were made to Lincolnshire Police about comments made on Facebook, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.
He was charged with an offence of malicious communications this afternoon in relation to the comments, a Lincolnshire Police spokesman said.

That’ll show ‘em! There is more:

A second man was visited by officers and warned about his activity on social media, the spokesman added.
Flatters has been remanded in police custody and will appear before magistrates in Lincoln tomorrow.
The charge comes after two men were earlier released on bail following their arrest for making alleged offensive comments on Twitter about the murder.
Complaints were made to Avon and Somerset Police about remarks that appeared on the social networking website, which were allegedly of a racist or anti-religious nature.

I take it that the men on whom the law has descended like a ton of bricks made some adverse comment about Islamic terrorism. Like, they may have mentioned that it is Islamic. We certainly can’t have such lawlessness in a country where crazed murderers, soaked in blood past their elbows, cow unarmed policemen! In England, arresting you for disapproving of murder is what passes for law and order.
It reminds me of the story about the guy who is crawling around on the ground under a street light, late at night. A passer-by stops and asks what he is doing; the guy says he is looking for his watch. The passer-by asks whether this is where he lost it. The guy says No, I lost it over there–pointing some distance away–but the light is better here.
Likewise, in Great Britain, the authorities have no idea what to do about the real problem, an endless series of murders and attempted murders by fanatics yelling “Allahu Akbar!” So they do the next best thing: they go for the easy targets, searching where the light is better: arresting those who haven’t beheaded anyone, but who have expressed their outrage at those who do. Thus does civilization end with a whimper.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/05/the-inevitable-decline-of-great-britain-cont.php

Why are Obamacare supporters attacking job creators?

When seemingly organized Obamacare supporters attack small business leaders who express concern about the health-care law, job creators are no longer just uncertain about how their business will be impacted by the law. They are afraid – for their businesses and to speak out.

By Bernie Marcus,

Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, speaks at a groundbreaking ceremony for the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta May 29, 2003. Mr. Marcus writes in an op-ed here: 'Small businesses are affected by the health-care law’s mandates, but small businesses – especially restaurants – have less maneuverability to pay for them.'

On a Monday morning in March, small business owner Mike Ruffer told a group at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C, how his eight Five Guys Burgers and Fries franchise restaurants in North Carolina were faring under the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Five hours later, the backlash was so intense he had to wonder if that 15-minute speech might kill his company.

In fact, Mr. Ruffer is the most recent victim in a troubling pattern of seemingly orchestrated campaigns to silence small business owners who speak out about President Obama’s agenda. CEOs have told me they see disturbing parallels in the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Justice scandals, where the administration pursued political opponents and the press. And, quite frankly, these business owners are afraid.

Ruffer is in the same tough spot most job creators are today: stuck in the limbo of uncertainty about the future of Obamacare. He told the audience in Washington on that Monday morning that Mr. Obama’s health-care reform was so expensive he had to cancel expansion plans and may raise burger prices.

Like many in his business, Ruffer set up his restaurants as separate corporations a decade ago. As Obamacare emerged, he was not concerned because none of his companies had enough employees to suffer the mandate that all employers of a certain size provide health insurance to their employees.

When more details were revealed, he found out his multiple corporations did not protect him at all. Today Ruffer believes the costs of health-care reform will eat the entire profits of one of his restaurants. Just like his peers, he is uncertain about imminent costs and requirements under Obamacare and cannot plan accordingly.
All businesses are affected by the health-care law’s mandates, but small businesses – especially restaurants – have less maneuverability to pay for them. As Ruffer told his audience, passing the cost to customers risks pricing his products beyond perceived value. As a result, he would have to cut his expenses: employees, investments in new locations, and more.
When Ruffer’s comments hit the Internet, calls and emails from Obamacare supporters rained into executives at Five Guys headquarters – Ruffer’s bosses. Social media started to turn against the popular brand, and progressive bloggers filed the first wave of negative stories.
Within hours, corporate headquarters was distancing themselves from their North Carolina business partner, stating that his views did not reflect the corporate position. Ruffer stopped answering his telephone; emails went unanswered. The business he had built after retiring was suddenly in danger. He probably wondered why he opened his big mouth – and he’s not alone.

In late 2012, executives from Darden Restaurants – owner of The Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse, and Red Lobster restaurants – were planning for future compliance with the new health-care law and tested the impact of putting more workers on part-time schedules. No permanent changes ever took place, but after media reports about the testing and commentary about the cost of Obamacare by Darden’s CEO, the company was rapidly rebuked via telephone, email, and social media.

At the same time, John Metz’s Palm Beach-based RREMC Restaurants, owner of 30 Denny’s franchises, announced he might put an Obamacare cost line on diners’ checks. Then came the deluge of emails and telephone calls and the social media backlash. Again, the franchise headquarters and Denny’s brand were targeted, not just the franchisee. Within a day, Denny’s corporate offices expressed “disappointment” with Mr. Metz’s comments and Metz issued a public apology.
The list goes on: Applebees, Papa John’s, even golfer Phil Mickelson. When a business owner speaks up about the costs of Obamcare, he is quickly singled out for a public thrashing. Each attack has similar fingerprints and the marks of a professional operation: telephone banks and email campaigns that erupt moments after a business leader speaks out, all focused on pressuring the exact people who can effectively slap the offender down.
And the president's supporters certainly are organized. While Ruffer was buried in backlash, Organizing for Action was holding a two-day summit two blocks from the White House. The nonprofit group formed from Obama’s reelection campaign was charting its future. According to press reports, attendees were talking about applying campaign tactics to support the president’s domestic agenda.
Of course, those on the left aren’t the only ones to organize campaigns to target those who go against their platform. But when Obamacare supporters target small business owners – the backbone of US job creation – I have to wonder if they’ve crossed a line.
Is this new era of the permanent campaigning why Mike Ruffer believes his business is at risk? “Of course this is orchestrated, and clearly by the president’s supporters,” Democrat pollster Pat Caddell told me. “This passes the duck test: It looks, swims, and quacks like a duck. Every political operative in the country knows this is a duck.”
Mike Leven, president of Sands Casino, summed it up recently: “For the first time in my long career, I feel like a target.” He is not alone. A recent Job Creators Alliance poll showed 70 percent of small business owners feel Washington has become more hostile to them in recent years. Their peers at Five Guys, Denny’s, Applebee’s, Red Lobster, and more would certainly agree.

OPINION: Beyond Obamacare: 5 opinions on health care reform

Today, job creators across the country are staring into the depths of Obamacare uncertainty. New problems keep coming, with little or no warning. Facing the same questions as Ruffer, they cannot plan. But when seemingly organized forces of Obama supporters attack small business leaders, disrupt commerce, and risk jobs to make a political point, job creators are no longer just uncertain. They are afraid – afraid for their businesses and afraid to speak out
Bernie Marcus is co-founder and former CEO of Home Depot and co-founder of the national Job Creators Alliance.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0516/Why-are-Obamacare-supporters-attacking-job-creators

polecat news and views

Friday, May 31, 2013