Thought Police: Employers Will Be Forced to Inform Obama Why They’re Firing Someone

Now businesses will have to go hat in hand to Obama to explain themselves about why they are firing any particular employee. This is just another of Obama’s steps toward the fascist-styled control by Washington bureaucrats over the entirety of the business sector.

As Fox News reported it: “Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions. To avoid ObamaCare costs you must swear that you are not trying to avoid ObamaCare costs. You can duck the law, but only if you promise not to say so.”

Here is what friend and candidate for Congress Dan Bongino said of all this…

Thanks to Obamacare, business owners will now be forced to document to the IRS why they are releasing employees under penalty of perjury.

This new regulation is intended to prevent business owners from downsizing to avoid the heavy fines associated with new Obamacare regulations.

Had enough yet? First Obamacare orders you to pay for benefits you may or may not be able to afford. If you can’t afford to, and must release employees, then you must report to the enforcers at the IRS and pay the piper.

Welcome to the new America.

-Dan Bongino
Candidate for Maryland’s 6th District
http://www.bongino.com/

Exactly right!

We are losing the country to these fascists, America.

(The Heritage Foundation also posted some detailed info on this new rule)

Shortlink:

Posted by on February 12, 2014.
Filed under Asshats, Barack Obama, Big government, Constitutional Issues, corruption, Democrats, Economics, Health Care, Liberals, Obamacare.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events.He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com"The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Walter_Cronanty

    As I posted earlier, he’s doing this to silence critics. No more stories about how businesses are laying off people because of Obamacare – the businesses themselves will be prosecuted for perjury and/or lose their exemption if they confirm. This regulation is meant only to insulate Obama when people act rationally, and predictably, to his unlawful edicts.
    The Obama Administration – Using the IRS to silence critics since 2009.

    • jim_m

      You’re exactly right. This swerves the two fold purpose of silencing critics because they will have a pile of sworn statements that the staff reductions are not due to obamacare.

      It also serves the purpose of putting all these businesses on notice that if they put one foot wrong they will be prosecuted by obama’s corrupt DOJ for perjury.

      So obama gets to unilaterally declare what laws will be enforced and on whom they will be enforced AND he gets to tell people that they can have temporary immunity from prosecution on those laws as long as they sign a document that leaves them vulnerable to a felony prosecution at any time.

      Welcome to the fascist police state, courtesy of Bruce and Chico and their Dear Leader whom they constantly excuse and defend.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    I also previously posted this, but it bears repeating: “This is the most thuggish, partisan, ruthless, anti-free speech administration in my memory. Their “Uncle Joe” Stalin would be proud.”

    • stan25

      Mao too.

  • 914

    Just say no!

  • Hank_M

    So he was right the other day. Obama can do anything he wants.

  • yetanotherjohn

    1) No where in the law is this required. I predict a test case soon.
    2) If allowed and enforced, I see this as a further path for “Chicago style” politics. Employers that Obama likes will have no problem. Those he doesn’t like can expect at a minimum getting questioned on their business decisions and spending money to defend “what were you thinking”.

    • jim_m

      Not only is it not required by the obamacare law, businesses are allowed to act in ways that will maximize their profit.

      Nor has the motivation for an action ever been made a felony.

      But this is exactly what the left wants and will defend.

    • Retired military

      “No where in the law is this required”
      Oh you mean like the dates that are set in stone in the obamacare legislation which Obama is totally ignoring.

  • jim_m

    We are losing have lost the country to these fascists,

    FIFY

    Bruce and Chico are ululating and passing out candy in the streets.

    • Sky__Captain

      Maybe L’il Brucie will come in to troll.

      That’s OK, because I really want to see the little troll try to defend his 0bamaMessiah for making up criminal law by pulling it out of his imperial ass.

      • Brucehenry

        Sorry to keep you waiting, Captain.

        Just to point out two things: One, many businesses are welcoming this move.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2014/02/10/obamacare-will-now-be-phased-in-for-small-business/

        It’s only apocalyptic bedwetters like Jim and yourself who are freaking out, egged on by the usual rabblerousers.

        And two, Warner is displaying his characteristic penchant for bullshit. Reading his headline and the first sentence of his article, we are forced to conclude one of two things. As a man who apparently has no experience in business he does not know the difference between a firing and a layoff. OR, he is deliberately exaggerating and lying about what this new rule will do.

        I leave it to his readers to decide which it is. But it’s one or the other, no arguing with that.

        • jim_m

          Let’s be specific. Businesses are welcoming the move to delay implementation of the law.

          They are not in favor of obama being able to unilaterally amend laws or determine what will be enforced and on whom it will be arbitrarily enforced.

          Nor are they in favor of having to sign a sworn affidavit that ACA is not a factor in their cutting staffing, an act that would leave them open to felony prosecution at the discretion of your criminal DOJ.

          Of course I suspect that you have no problem with putting people at risk of malicious prosecution based on political motivations, as long as those motivations are advancing your agenda.

          • Brucehenry

            AAAAND again you ignore Warner’s dishonest or, charitably, ignorant misrepresentation of the facts in his headline and in his first sentence.

            Because deliberate or ignorant twisting of facts and reality is how you understand the world. You’re warped by your deranged hatred of “the left” and are willing to believe — or allow others to believe even if you’re smart enough to understand the difference — anything negative written about it, whether it is obviously false or not.

            Sometimes it’s funny but often, as here, it’s just sad.

          • alanstorm

            “AAAAND again you ignore Warner’s dishonest or, charitably, ignorant misrepresentation of the facts in his headline and in his first sentence.”

            From the link http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Treasury-IRS-Issue-Final-Employer-Mandate-Rules-Obamacare-69572-1.html:

            “Those that claim the exemption for 2015 will need to certify under penalty of perjury that they did not reduce their workforce to fewer than 100 employees in order to qualify.”

            What part of that is in conflict with the headline?

            Jim is correct: businesses are welcoming the delays, but that doesn’t mean the owners aren’t aghast at the unilateral alterations of the law by “The Most Transparent and Lawful Administration EVAR!™”.

            Sorry. You (and the Obama administration) are again in the wrong.

          • jim_m

            Bruce sees that the “good intentions” of obama in trying to save some businesses from the precipice as all that matters. The fact that people want relief from a disastrous law is all that matters.

            That the relief comes by violating the constitutional separation of powers and putting people at risk of felony prosecution based on the political expediency of this president are unimportant. After all, we know that obama would never abuse his office.

          • Brucehenry

            People are only under the risk of prosecution for perjury if they falsely swear to something that they know isn’t true.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            So how much can they expect to spend in defense costs when the government comes back and says: “We think you’re lying, and you laid them off in order to avoid health care costs.”?
            And realistically, what business is it of the government in the first place, aside from trying hard to be the meddling HOA busybody who’ll go around and check the yards with a ruler to make sure the grass is PRECISELY 1.5 inches in height every single day, and with a color chart to verify that every painted or stuccoed surface is of the approved shade?
            Do you want a government that’ll try to micromanage every aspect of life in the US?

          • jim_m

            Bruce’s answer will be that if you aren’t breaking the law you will have nothing to fear.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            If you aren’t breaking the law, apparently it’s okay to change it until you’ve got no choice BUT to break it.

          • Brucehenry

            Actually I admit that this rule makes me uncomfortable, but I don’t see it as evidence of the End Of Democracy As We Know It. Only pantspissers like Jim do, or pretend to. I think it was promulgated as a “placebo” of sorts and don’t expect it will be aggressively enforced. Feel free to tell me you told me so if my prediction proves false.

          • alanstorm

            “Actually I admit that this rule makes me uncomfortable, but I don’t see it as evidence of the End Of Democracy As We Know It.”

            Why not? How much evidence do you need?

            Why do you think it’s acceptable to force business to operate in this manner or perjure themselves?

          • Brucehenry

            The businesses can hire exactly as many employees as they need to to operate successfully. If they need 99 employees that’s how many they should have. But if they need 100, they need to comply with the regulations that apply to companies employing 100. It ain’t rocket science.

            No one is forcing anyone to perjure themselves. If you only need 99, only employ 99. If you need 100, comply with the regulations.

          • alanstorm

            The amount of ignorance re: business operations displayed by this comment is breathtaking.

          • jim_m

            I admit that this rulecriminalizing thought by making motivation the sole reason that something is illegal, makes me uncomfortable, but I don’t see it as evidence of the End Of Democracy

            FIFY Mr fascist.

          • Brucehenry

            Again with the FIFY thing. Stop it, my sides are splitting.

          • jim_m

            Laugh away. Explain how you are not saying EXACTLY that.

            You are saying that holding someone criminally liable for what they thought just only makes you a little uncomfortable.

            Go and read 1984. Orwell has some thoughts on just this issue.

          • Brucehenry

            As Ronald Reagan said with a grandfatherly twinkle in his eye, “There you go again.”

            You are a hoot.

          • jim_m

            And you’re an apologist for a fascist dictator. I’d rather you find me funny that my being like you and watching while people are stripped of their rights and pretending that it will never happen to me.

            If it were a GOP president it would be you that was screaming. The difference is that I would complain about a GOP president doing what obama is doing. It’s a violation of the constitutional separation of powers, but you don’t care because you want a dictatorship.

          • Brucehenry

            Sure just like how you howled with outrage abot the Patriot Act.

          • jim_m

            What Bush did with it is not what obama has done. obama has significantly expanded it. Even people who previously supported the act have stated that it is now being used in ways that it was never intended.

            So F you and your BS gotcha.

            Once again the lefty resorts to the excuse that his violating of the rights of 316 million people is justified because someone he doesn’t like did something he thought was wrong.

            Your amoral crap doesn’t fly here. Either you believe that it is OK to violate people’s rights in the name of your agenda or you don’t. Clearly you believe that it is OK because you are trying desperately to justify why it is OK to accept this and why it is OK to excuse it

            Simply claiming that Bush was worse doesn’t excuse your fascist take over.

          • Brucehenry

            Didn’t say any of that stuff. The Voices said that, and they kinda SOUND like me in your head.

          • jim_m

            You said that you are only “a little uncomfortable” with criminalizing what people thought and why they chose to comply with a law.

            Show me where that has ever been criminalized.

            (that is show me where it has been criminalized outside of your favorite fascist or communist dictatorship)

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            The problem I’ve got is with ‘placebo’ laws. If you don’t expect it to be aggressively enforced, then why pass it in the first place? You’re essentially saying it’s not needed.

            Why pass unneeded laws?

            The more laws there are, even ‘placebo’ ones, the more lawyers we need to avoid running afoul of them. This may be great for the legal community – but at some point people are going to be going “Fuck it” and they’ll start ignoring the laws where they can.

          • jim_m

            “Let’s pass the law and if obama violates people’s rights and starts making people felons out of political spitefulness then let me know” – Bruce

            You are aware that fully 100% of 501(c)(4) non profits audited by the IRS have been conservative organizations and 83% of those investigate prior to audit are conservative?

            We have valid reason for suspecting that this is nothing but a prelude to politically motivated prosecution

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah I doubt the veracity of Chairman Camp.

          • jim_m

            Yes, you routinely dismiss the complaints of people whose rights are being violated based on their political viewpoint. It is very convenient for you.

          • Brucehenry

            Are Camp’s rights being violated?

          • jim_m

            Maybe you should address the substance of the complaint. Show me where the IRS has audited ANY left wing organizations over the last few years. They cannot all be perfect.

            And tell me that you wouldn’t have complained if the political sides were reversed. I suppose that you never saw anything wrong with Nixon’s enemies list. Hypocrite.

          • Brucehenry

            No audits, but…the first paragraph

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_IRS_scandal

          • jim_m

            In other words you’ve got nothing so you want to change the subject.

            Again, 83% of groups investigated were conservative. I really don’t give a damn about your window dressing since it was all pure BS and no one on the left was denied anything and no one was audited.

            And if you want to get into the FBI investigation I would point out that they interviewed exactly zero conservative groups that had their applications held up or denied.

            Asking Holder’s DOJ to investigate malfeasance by this admin is like asking the Stasi to investigate the East German government. Not credible.

          • Jwb10001

            I’m sure you’ll see the end of our democracy when the next republican uses the executive powers that Obama and assumed.

          • Brucehenry

            Perhaps, and I hope you’ll remind me of it if you get the chance. But as of now it doesn’t look likely in 2017.

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            If the next President decides to unilaterally delay all of Obamacare for 200 years than how would this be different than what Obama has done several times now? I mean if he can do it than why cant any President totally ignore any date written into law?

          • jim_m

            NO. They are under the risk of prosecution if the hyper partisan Holder DOJ determines that it is politically advantageous for the DOJ to take the position that they committed perjury. Which means that if you contribute to or endorse a GOP candidate or cause you are highly likely to find yourself charged with a felony.,

            THAT is the reality and the difference is not insignificant.

          • alanstorm

            You are missing the point again.

            Under what authority does the IRS require this?

          • Brucehenry

            “You are missing the point again.”

            Says Mr Reading Comprehension, lol.

          • alanstorm

            I reiterate my comment. Please answer – if you can.

          • alanstorm

            I wouldn’t go pointing fingers about reading comprehension again, boy, at least until you can demonstrate any such ability yourself.

          • Jwb10001

            People are under risk of prosecution for perfury if they falsey swear to something that is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENTS BUSINESS. What’s next a loyalty oath to Obama? This is unacceptable no amount of lipstick makes this pig acceptable.

          • Retired military

            But businesses are being forced to make business decisions and swear to them for the sole purpose of not making Obama look bad. Where is it in written law that businesses have to make such a declaration prior to making a perfectly legal logical business decision?

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I have downthread conceded that I understand what troubles you about this new rule. Perhaps I would have seen your point before were it not for the apocalyptic rending of garments and gnashing of teeth from Jim and a couple of other bedwetters.

          • jim_m

            No. You would have refused to see the point (and did) regardless. You don’t want to concede that obama is wrong in anything that he does. You don’t want to admit that he is making illegal orders or decisions that violate the separation of powers. You don’t want to admit that he is using the federal government to go after his political enemies and to punish people who hold views he dislikes.

            You make a bogus claim that it is because people employ over the top rhetoric but this is only a bullshit excuse because the truth is that you deny EVERY criticism of obama. If you cannot counter the actual claims you ignore them and go after the source.

            That happens to be the ugly truth about you.

          • Brucehenry

            OK Sigmund Freud ya got me.

          • jim_m

            Truth hurts jackass.

          • Brucehenry

            Apparently since you lose your shit over every butthurt you endure in the comment section.

          • Retired military

            Thanks for the reply Bruce.

          • Brucehenry

            What part? The part where Warner doesn’t know — or pretends not to know — the difference between “firing a particular employee” and a “layoff” of many employees.

            See, the distinction is critical to his scary “Thought Police” meme. He wants us to think we’ll have to explain why we fired the habitual latecomer or slacker to Big Brother when actually the intent of this measure is to make sure employers are complying with both the spirit and the letter of the law.

            So once again we see that Mr Reading Comprehension has a problem with reading comprehension and is so clueless he fails to recognize it in himself but attributes it, mistakenly, to others who DO read and understand English.

          • Hawk_TX

            He wants us to think we’ll have to explain why we fired the habitual latecomer or slacker to Big Brother when actually the intent of this measure is to make sure employers are complying with both the spirit and the letter of the illegal arbitrary political regulations.

            Fify

          • Brucehenry

            That FIFY stuff is hilarious. Is my face red or what?

          • alanstorm

            Once again, you display your lack of reading comprehension. Bruce, we’ve talked about this. Get professional help with your projection issues. (Of course, given your problems, it’s doubtful my message will be understood.)

            Under what authority does the IRS claim the power to require that a business is NOT laying of people for whatever reason?

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer and don’t claim to be. Are you?

            You’re cute when you get angry, and you get all angry and snarky right after you are embarrassed by the fact of your lack of the very quality you deride in others is once again revealed.

          • alanstorm

            I am not embarrassed, nor should I be.

            No such quality has been revealed on my part, as evidenced by your continuing inability to point out my errors.

            I’m sorry you have issues. Maybe you can get help under Obamacare.

            But you’re right, I’m freaking ADORABLE when I get angry. You, on the other hand, just keep getting uglier. Which is a tough standard to beat.

          • Brucehenry

            “I am not embarrassed…”

            No, I don’t suppose you are, you clueless kook. Have a good day.

          • alanstorm

            I decline to accept your gift of designation of “kook”. You may keep it for yourself.

          • Brucehenry

            Suit yourself, Alan.

          • Hawk_TX

            Well if you need the opinion of a lawyer to interpret this for you then how about Constitutional law professor Jonathan Adler.

            “Whatever the stated reason for the new delay, it is illegal. The text of the PPACA is quite clear. The text of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides that the employer mandate provisions “shall apply” after December 31, 2013. The Treasury Department claims that it has broad authority to offer “transition relief” in implementing the law. That may often be true, but not here.

            The language of the statute is clear, and it is well established that when Congress enacts explicit deadlines into federal statutes, without also providing authority to waive or delay such deadlines, federal agencies are obligated to stay on schedule. “

          • Brucehenry

            Does Adler state why it is that that may often be true — “but not here”? WHY not here?

            Something tells me that Adler’s opinion may not be the final word. Appeal to authority, much?

          • Hawk_TX

            Yes, he does.

            ” In some cases, the PPACA grants Treasury or HHS the authority to alter the law’s implementation. Not so here. The law’s deadlines are clear, and these deadlines operate in conjunction with other parts of the law.”

          • Brucehenry

            That sounds pretty persuasive, I agree. Do you have a link so I can peruse his whole article?

          • Hawk_TX
          • Brucehenry

            It’s not coming up Can you just post the hyperlink?

          • Brucehenry

            Thanks, yes, quite persuasive. Except where he just glosses over the position of the adminidtration and states, “but not here.”http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/us/politics/health-insurance-enforcement-delayed-again-for-some-employers.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0

            Again, Adler has an opinion, an informed one, but not necessarily the definitive one. But yeah, OK.

          • alanstorm

            “…the intent of this measure is to make sure employers are complying with both the spirit and the letter of the law.”

            I thought you said elsewhere you weren’t a lawyer – now you are claim to interpret the law?

          • Brucehenry

            You got me. I ASSUME the intent is yada yada.

          • jim_m

            Hey dumbass, where has a court EVER held that the spirit of the law meant anything?

            It is what the law actually says and not what the congress intended that makes the difference. The SCOTUS has made that point repeatedly throughout history.

            I guess for fascists we need to invent different rules.

          • Brucehenry

            Administrative rules are often made for the express purpose of making sure both the letter and spirit of a given law is complied with. That’s part of the reason laws are often written with a built in proviso that this or that agency shall make the appropriate rules and regs.

            Are you saying that Congressional intent is never considered by courts? I beg to differ. That’s exactly what strict constructionists insist must be the standard.

          • jim_m

            We are not talking about administrative law here. We are talking about criminalizing motives and thoughts.

            Intent is important but not the spirit. And if you want to talk about the intent, the intent was that the law be implemented ON TIME not at whatever time is convenient for the political purposes of a fascist president who thinks that his word is a direct revelation from god.

          • Brucehenry

            Oh sorry I thought this whole puddle of pee on the mattress was about a rule that said employers needed to certify they weren’t reducing their workforce in order to skirt the law.

          • jim_m

            Um. Motivation for why someone complies with a certain part of the law is not something you can criminalize.

            Show me where thought has been criminalized before. Where has what one thought about a law ever made a difference about one’s compliance with it?

            You are just excusing fascism.

          • Brucehenry

            I fail to see how it criminalizes thought. Businesses make decisions for rational, explainable reasons. If the reason to reduce a workforce is so that it does not have to comply with a law, that’s the reason. If the decision can be explained by some other logic that’s cool too.

            I can think whatever I want about the criminality of marijuana possession, for instance, but if I posses it, I am in violation of the law. I don’t claim the existence of such a law is “criminalizing my thoughts” about it.

          • jim_m

            The law does not say anything about reasons why people may comply with it. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

            So where does the obama admin get off making a new rule that declares that motivation for complying with the law may be deemed a felony?

            obama is making why people comply with the law a potential felony. Show us where this is the case anywhere else.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I see now what you are saying. And yes you may have a point. Let it be tested in the courts and we’ll see. In the meantime what say you about Warner’s headline and first sentence, which was my original complaint today?

          • jim_m

            Yes, let’s have people lose their life savings proving that this is unfair. After all it is only conservatives that will have to suffer through this and we can rejoice while they slog through the justice system trying to prove their innocence.

            It’s not like 100% of 501(c)(4) organizations audited are conservative groups. There is no evidence that this admin will use the law to punish its political opponents or silence its opposition.

            Let’s wait 3 or 4 years until this can get through the courts so that the next couple of election cycles will go before conservatives can have any voices.

          • Brucehenry

            Says the guy who has no problem holding goatherders in Gitmo for 13 years without charge.

          • jim_m

            Many GITMO releases have been found on the battle field and one of the main reasons for holding some of these people is that their home countries don’t want them back

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            6 of those years were under Obama. So are you saying that he is holding people with no just cause? That he should charge them? If so where? with what? Under what rules (military or civilian)/
            Or do you believe that he would hold them for no good reason.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I believe he should charge them or release them.

            And so would the Founders, I think.

          • Retired military

            If so where? with what? Under what rules (military or civilian)?
            If we charge them in civilian court and they were captured on the battlefield what gives a civilian court authority? I mean we cant go to say Paris and arrest someone there for killing an American, especially not a French citizen.
            Do they get full rights under the constitution as if they had committed the crime in the US? Do you really want that mockery of a trial and the ensuing chaos?

          • Jwb10001

            Did we read them their rights? Did we provide attorneys? The answer is NO and therefore they can not be prosecuted in civilian court unless the government chooses to loose every single case.

          • Jwb10001

            That just can’t be true Obama signed an executive order closing gitmo, don’t you remember, oh wait that didn’t exactly end up being the urgent moral issue we thought it was.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Bruce, since taxes were invented, businesses have acted in a manner that avoided taxes, if possible. You now have a law that says you cannot act to take advantage of this tax break if your motive for acting is to take advantage of this tax break. Thus are rational business judgments countermanded by central planner extraordinaire Obama.

            The only practical effect of this regulation is to insulate Obama from bad publicity when people act in a rational and predictable manner. Are people going to lay-off/fire employees to get under 100 employees thereby avoiding the tax? Certainly.
            Will they have the ability to say so, as many have done in the past – to the embarrassment of Obama? Absolutely not. This regulation is meant to silence critics.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I understand the reason for your thinking so.

            Speaking of thinking so, do you think it is so that Warner knows the difference between “firing a particular employee” and “laying off many employees”?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Yes, I believe he knows the difference. In this context, I think it’s a distinction without a difference [I'm curious - given the context of the article/discussion, what do you see as the difference between the terms?]. Note that the article Warner is citing uses the terms interchangeably, under the general term of “staffing decisions”:
            “Obama officials made clear in a press briefing that firms would not be allowed to lay off workers to get into the preferred class of those businesses with 50 to 99 employees. How will the feds know what employers were thinking when hiring and firing? Simple. Firms will be required to certify to the IRS – under penalty of perjury – that ObamaCare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions.”

          • Brucehenry

            Warner employs the terms “thought police” and “firing a particular employee” to evoke fear and paranoia, and definitely NOT under the general rubric of “staffing decisions.”

            Please. You’re not stupid, don’t pretend to be.

          • jim_m

            Please explain the difference between making your compliance with the law conditional on what you think about the law (ie if you met the <100 employee limit because you wanted to access the delay in compliance you are still breaking the law) and Orwell's Thought Police, who arrested you for thinking forbidden things.

            obama wants to make it illegal to comply with the law for reasons that make him look bad. It is the Thought Police. You only object to it because you hate the fact that we are daily being proven right when we call you a fascist.

          • Brucehenry

            Who is this “we” you refer to? Typically it’s just you slinging around that word, loony.

            Maybe it’s the royal “we.”

            And your clumsy Orwell analogy is explanation enough, lol.

          • jim_m

            Fine. You hate the fact that my calling you a fascist is being proven accurate every day.

            Your claim that it is the over the top rhetoric doesn’t wash. You deny everything that is said about obama straight out. There isn’t anything that you will agree with without first trying to excuse it or to slander the source of the information.

            You have never accepted criticism of Dear Leader. You are a good little fascist follower and I am sure you will be rewarded by being thrown under the bus later rather than sooner.

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah, be comforted by the fact that you and your Aryans will own all the cigarettes in the FEMA camp by the time I’m sent there.

          • jim_m

            Don’t come crying here when someone starts taking your rights away. I’m just gonna laugh. You think it is funny when other people get oppressed in order to make way for your agenda. When the worm turns I am going to love watching you bitch.

          • Brucehenry

            Come on now. That there was funny, I don’t care who you are.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Let’s see – you asked me if I thought Warner knew the difference between “lay-off” and “firing.” I said, yes, I believe he does, but differentiating between the terms was nothing but a distinction without a difference, given the context of the article and discussion.
            I then asked you what you thought the difference in the terms was, again given the context.
            You then move the goalposts by bringing up the terms “thought police” and “firing”, criticizing Warner for evoking “fear and paranoia,” and then chastised me pretending to be “stupid” – yet you never answered my question.
            Are you pretending to be, or are you, a troll?
            By the way, looking into someone’s motives certainly is looking into someone’s thoughts. So “thought police” is an accurate characterization.

          • Brucehenry

            OK Walter if you don’t mind being condescended to you just keep on excusing Warner when he conflates “firing a particular employee” with a “layoff.”

            Warner is pretending, implying, that every time a “particular employee” is fired the employer will be hauled before some government panel and be forced to explain why.

            As for the “Thought Police” meme, I grant that as political rhetoric, I guess, though I think it’s typical wingnut overstatement. It’s about as valid as “Darth Cheney,” I guess.

          • Jwb10001

            Is it also going to be illegal for people to try to avoid getting higher pay so they continue to get their Obama care stipen? Would you like to be one of the poor slobs that makes 1$ too much to get a subsidy? Especially now that the “affordable” care act has increased insurance for so many people?

          • Retired military

            Bruce
            And you are totally ignoring the fact that Obama is changing written law without congress approving it and also you are totally ignoring that Obama is trying to force businesses to not be able to make perfectly logical business decisions because it makes him look bad.

        • Jwb10001

          Business is usually in favor of lower taxes and fewer regulations to. I’m assuming you wouldn’t defend a republican president that proposed those sort of moves without congress. Just because they like doesn’t mean it’s good or legal.

        • Retired military

          Bruce

          “One, many businesses are welcoming this move.


          So since many business would probably welcome lowering the min wage to about $1 an hour would you be okay with that?
          Since many businesses would probably welcome totally ignoring EPA regulations (sorta like Obama is ignoring dates set in written law for Obamacare) then I wonder if you would be okay with that?

  • Sky__Captain

    I really did not expect Li’l Brucie to come in to troll, as any position he would take would be indefensible to an intelligent person.

    I note that at no point in his diatribe does the little troll cite any examples in the Affordable Care Act or in the US Constitution that allows his 0bamaMessiah to make up criminal law by pulling it out of his imperial ass.
    Instead Li’l Brucie doles out obfuscations, deflections, and personal attacks.

    I guess he is here only for the comic relief.

    • jim_m

      He’s only “a little uncomfortable” with forcing people to think the right way when they are complying with the law and holding them under threat of felony prosecution to force them to think in the approved ways.

    • Brucehenry

      No your lurking interspersed with lame potshots provide that.

    • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

      A troll comedian died on Wizbang…