Ann Coulter asks: Who Wouldn't Enjoy Firing These People?

Ann Coulter  "Romney's statement about being able to fire people was an arrow directed straight to the heart of Obamacare. (By the way, arrows to the heart are not covered by Obamacare.)"
....

"I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don't like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me a good service that I need, I want to say I'm going to go get someone else to provide that service to me."

....
 "Obamacare employees will spend their days surfing pornography, instead of approving your heart operation. They can steal from you and even physically assault you. And they can never be fired.

"That's one gargantuan difference with "Romneycare" right there: If you don't like what your insurer is doing in Massachusetts, you can get a new one.

"Now, wouldn't you like to be able to fire people who provide services to you?"

GOP Should Just Say No To Biased Debates

Nice Deb  "Brent Bozell is in high dudgeon over these atrocious debates – as well he should be:"

The only thing that can be said in defense of that horrible decision was turning to NBC the next morning and seeing “moderator” David Gregory be even more slanted in his questioning. ABC slanted the ideological questions in their debate by a ratio of 6 questions from the left to each 1 from the right. The NBC ratio was 8 to 1.
Why must the Republicans keep handing over their debate stage in the primary season to the people who desperately want them all to bumble, stumble and fall on their faces on national TV?

floydreports.com

 "I’ve been wondering the same thing. It’s a Republican primary. Why would our candidates agree to hold their debates on hostile ground? Don’t they have a say in the matter? Why not say no to ABC, CNN, NBC, and CBS if they can’t hold a debate in a fair, unbiased manner? Perhaps they think that it would be spun that they are too afraid to answer tough questions. But the ideological questions weren’t tough – they were just stupid – contraception and gay marriage are not the top issues of the day. The questions were  designed to make Republicans look foolish, or outside the mainstream."

AUSTRALIA: MAN LOSES JOB OVER INNOCUOUS FACEBOOK COMMENTS ABOUT CHRISTIANS, NO WAIT, JEWS, NO WAIT, NO WAIT, HINDUS, NO WAIT....

Atlas Shrugs  " This is astonishing. I know it's Australia, but clearly this is coming to America, because we have seen folks lose their jobs over insulting comments about Islam.
"But this? The poor fellow didn't say anything! This is crippling free society. Devastating -- and for what?"
She refers to this article:

A refugee advocacy group says it is unrepentant after it played a role in getting a worker at a Darwin immigration detention centre suspended for spiteful comments he wrote about Muslims on Facebook.

The article quotes the offending words that got this man suspended:

"The man reacted to information about refugee activists' efforts to get Christmas presents to children being detained in Darwin.""Sad for all the Christian kids! Not sure why an Islamist would want a Christmas present????" the man wrote.

 Several hours later he added to his earlier post."Maybe you need to come and face these men who teach their children that women have no rights," he said."I guess you must think there is nothing wrong with domestic violence," he added.

 About SERCO who employs this man.

Romney vs. the “Bitter Politics of Envy”

Commentary Magazine  "Mitt Romney's main challenge going forward, aside from the general need to unite the party, is to find a message that refutes the class warfare arguments without offering up clumsy sound bites. If his victory speech last night was any indication, he may be finding his voice on this. He said:"

President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial. In the last few days, we have seen some desperate Republicans join forces with him. This is such a mistake for our party and for our nation. This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success. In these difficult times, we cannot abandon the core values that define us as unique — we are one nation, under God.

donkeyhotey

I think my frustration with Mr. Romney is not that he would be a poor president; on the contrary, I think in most cases he would be an excellent one. But now many of us are angry at what has been done to this country by Barack Obama: The man has driven a wedge into our society, he has turned most against the very institutions that have made our economy vibrant and prosperous; our military has suffered at the hands of anti-military, anti-American influences; the Obama administration at all levels has reversed good and evil; it has confused allies with enemies and established America as an unreliable partner.
 We want a president who is as angered at what the left has done as we are and I just do not see that "fire in the gut" in Mitt Romney. Democrats move this nation further and further to the left, then Republicans take over to "manage" the changes, reversing nothing. Then comes the left again, taking us even more to the left. The effect of all this is that both Democrats and Republicans are turning America into a European socialistic model with no apparent fear of what Obamaites will do to this nation.
Isn't there someone out there that inspires the ardor that Ron Paul does, only without the Paulite isolationism that the Obamatons endorse? 

Obama’s Arrogant Authoritarianism

Heritage  "Last week, President Barack Obama took the latest step on his road toward an arrogant, new authoritarianism with four illegal appointments that entirely trampled on the Constitution’s requirements. More troubling still, the President chose to shred the Constitution all in the name of serving his Big Labor agenda while killing jobs in the process."
....
"The policy implications of the President’s appointments? The CFPB will now have unmitigated authority to issue regulation upon regulation, contributing to the already-crippling red tape that is strangling business in America. And the NLRB will have the power to advance the President’s agenda to bolster unions across the country at the expense of job growth in a smarting economy."


Jennifer Rubin:  Time for Justice Department transparency  ..."He observes that this shows why Eric Holder “has been a terrible attorney general — he won’t even stand up for his own department’s function as legal advisor to the government, or he has twisted the law so far to please the White House as to render the job meaningless.”....
Quoting David S. Addington:

It is reasonable that people are asking the White House whether a Department of Justice legal opinion was issued before the President made the purported recess appointments."....So, Mr. President, did the Department of Justice issue a legal opinion in relation to your purported recess appointments to the NLRB and the CPFB before you made them?....

"So, Mr. President, did the Department of Justice issue a legal opinion in relation to your purported recess appointments to the NLRB and the CPFB before you made them?"  (Emphasis added)