I saw this coming. I even told my children not to be surprised if this happened soon and here it is. I do not agree of the need to remove term limits. They were put into place for a reason and what would happen if they were removed, you could get a President that becomes power hungery. The limits are a buffer to help control a corrupt President and when you have a President that is constantly ignoring the Constitution and doing what He wants to do, it is not a good thing to give him that much control and power.

Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?

By Chris Nichols

 

 

The time has come to end presidential term limits, because continuing the restrictions on how long one can serve in the country's highest office is bad for the United States, a university professor argued this week.

In an opinion piece published in the Washington Post, Jonathan Zimmerman, a history and education professor at New York University, says deciding whether a president deserves a third, fourth or more terms should be left to the American people, not the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which placed a two-term limit on the position. As background, here's an excerpt from the amendment, ratified in 1951:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
The amendment came into being a few years after Franklin Roosevelt was elected to the fourth of his White House terms. Known to Americans as the president during the final years of the Great Depression and most of World War II, Roosevelt, a Democrat, died in office before completing his last term. After the war, Republicans made a successful bid to install a two-term maximum for future presidents. But, according to Zimmerman, they limited not only the president's time in office, but also "democracy itself."
With President Obama's job-approval numbers down sharply, Zimmerman indicates that the nation's chief executive is perhaps being hampered by the fact that he's in his final term, giving GOP opponents and even Democrats little incentive to support him on issues that might hurt their own re-election chances.
To illustrate his point, he uses two topics in the headlines: the implemention of the new health care law and the nuclear agreement with Iran.
He writes:

"Many of Obama’s fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from the reform and from the president. Even former president Bill Clinton has said that Americans should be allowed to keep the health insurance they have. Or consider the reaction to the Iran nuclear deal. Regardless of his political approval ratings, Obama could expect Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to attack the agreement. But if Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)? Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear."

Zimmerman adds, "Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?"

On this last point, he invokes George Washington, the first president of the United States. Washington, he says, stepped down after his second term, but not because he was required by law to do so. Zimmerman says Washington didn't support enforced term limits, citing one of his letters. "I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public," Washington wrote. By leaving office, however, he did establish a precedent that would be followed for more than a century.

In his "Presidential Term Limits in American History: Power, Principles, and Politics," Michael Korzi, a professor of political science at Towson University, cites the first president's remark, stating that Washington departed voluntarily after his second term "more for personal reasons than for reasons of philosophy."

Even so, the Founding Fathers had different opinions on whether to impose a mandate on term lengths, researchers indicate. (U.S. senators and representatives don't have term limits.) Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the U.S., felt a maximum had merit. In "Jefferson Himself: The Personal Narrative of a Many-Sided American," edited by Bernard Mayo, Jefferson referenced his dislike of the idea of an entrenched leader:

"That I should lay down my charge at a proper season is as much a duty as to have borne it faithfully ... . These changes are necessary, too, for the security of republican government. If some period be not fixed, either by the Constitution or by practice, to the services of the First Magistrate, his office, though nominally elective, will in fact be for life; and that will soon degenerate into an inheritance."

As for the present, Zimmerman's idea isn't new, and in fact, rumor-researching website Snopes.com notes multiple proposals in recent years to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Republicans and Democrats alike have raised the issue, but none of the attempts have gotten too far. .

You tell us: Do you prefer to have presidential term limits? Or would you rather a president be able to run as many times as they want?

Why does this administration fear the non-profits, churches, and Christians so much? Is it because their agenda goes against the belief of these organizations and people? Is this the group of people that must be defeated by whatever means for them to move forward? Do they fear the truth so much that they will do anything necessary to win and quiet the opposition? I welcome your thoughts.

Obama's IRS Moves to Close Down Political Speech of Nonprofits


The Obama administration moved on Tuesday to rein in the use of tax-exempt groups for political campaigning.

The effort is an attempt to reduce the role of such loosely regulated yet influential super PACS as Crossroads GPS, which was co-founded by GOP political strategist Karl Rove, and Priorities USA, which ran searing ads against rivals of President Barack Obama to support his re-election last year.
 The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department proposed new rules that they said would prohibit such groups from using "candidate-related political activity" like running advertisements, registering voters or distributing campaign literature as activities that qualify them to be tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations.

"This proposed guidance is a first critical step toward creating clear-cut definitions of political activity by tax-exempt social welfare organizations," said Mark Mazur, the Treasury's assistant secretary for tax policy. "We are committed to getting this right before issuing final guidance that may affect a broad group of organizations.

"It will take time to work through the regulatory process and carefully consider all public feedback as we strive to ensure that the standards for tax-exemption are clear and can be applied consistently," Mazur said.

The rules would become final after a lengthy comment period, the federal agencies said, giving the super PACS ample time to raise millions of dollars from anonymous donors before next year's congressional elections.

Conservative groups bitterly attacked the proposed rules, charging that they represented yet another attack on free speech by the Obama White House.

"This is a feeble attempt by the Obama administration to justify its own wrongdoing with the IRS targeting of conservative and tea party groups,” Jay Sekulow, a lawyer representing more than three dozen of the groups in a federal lawsuit against the tax agency, told The New York Times.

The lawsuit stemmed from the IRS' monitoring of tea party, conservative, and religious groups for extra scrutiny in their applications for tax-exempt status. A Treasury Department inspector general disclosed in May that the agency was doing the special screenings for those groups seeking 501(c)(4) status.

The status allows such organizations to keep their donors private.

The IRS screening had occurred between 2010 and through the 2012 presidential election. During the period, IRS agents had placed groups with words like "tea party and "patriot" in their names on a "be on the lookout" — or BOLO — list for additional screening of its applications for the tax-exempt status.

“Unfortunately, it appears that the same bureaucrats that attempted to suppress the speech of conservative groups in recent years has now put together new rules that apply to (c)4 groups but do not apply to liberal groups like labor unions,” Nick Ryan, founder of the American Future Fund, told the Times.

The organization spent at least $25 million on political advertising last year, according to the Times.

“I wish I could say I am surprised,” Ryan added, “but I am not."

As 501(c)(4) organizations, the groups can raise millions of dollars to influence elections.
They can, however, also be small-scale tea party groups — many had contended that the were singled out by the IRS.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp questioned the White House's decision.

"There continues to be an ongoing investigation, with many documents yet to be uncovered, into how the IRS systematically targeted and abused conservative-leaning groups," the Michigan Republican said. "This smacks of the administration trying to shut down potential critics."

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision lifted the limits on donations by labor unions and companies to 501(c)(4) groups. This allowed Crossroads, the largest of them, to raise large sums outside the limits that apply to candidates' campaigns and traditional party committees.

"Enormous abuses have taken place under the current rules, which have allowed groups largely devoted to campaign activities to operate as nonprofit groups in order to keep secret the donors funding their campaign activities," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which advocates limits on money in politics.

Under current rules, "social welfare" groups may conduct some political work as long as it does not remain their primary activity. The proposed rules would block such activities as running ads that "expressly advocate for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party" as fulfilling their tax-exempt mission.

In addition, spots that simply mention a politician in urging a certain way to vote — for instance — could not be run 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary.

The rules also would limit voter drives and voter registration efforts and the distribution of literature.

According to the federal agencies, the new rules seek to solidify the current regulations, which are confusing and prone to abuse.

"Depending on the details, this could be dramatic," Marcus Owens, a former chief of the IRS’ exempt organizations division, told the Times.

Treasury and the IRS do not yet have a proposal about what specific proportion of a 501(c)(4) group's activities must promote social welfare and are soliciting input. Essentially, they do not have a recommendation as to what percentage of a group's time and money can be spent on politics.

Representatives of both Crossroads and Priorities USA declined to comment to the Times on the proposed rules. The groups, however, are expected to weigh as the process moves forward.

Any changes to the regulations likely would not affect the 2014 elections because of legal challenges, but the rule changes could shape the next presidential election, said Kenneth Gross, a campaign finance attorney and former head of enforcement for the Federal Election Commission.

"Brightening what are now blurred lines — what is political activity — is not only useful but necessary to have some kind of clarity to a vehicle that has been used to the tune of millions and millions of dollars," he said.

But Gross cautioned that "this is a long and winding road before anything is in ink."
The Associated Press contributed to this report

Another aspect of "Obamacare". When will the corruption and all end? This needs to be repealed and this administartion needs to be brought to reality.

Obamacare Loophole 'Legalizes Fraud'

An often overlooked provision of the Affordable Care Act allows Americans to scam the system by taking advantage of a grace period for paying insurance premiums.
Under Section 156.270 of the 11,000-page act, people need to pay a premium for just one month and then can qualify for a three-month grace period during which they don't pay premiums — but continue to get covered medical care.
The insurance company must pay claims during the first month of the grace period, but during the second and third months doctors and hospitals will be left to collect unpaid bills, Watchdog.org reports.
And any doctor who is paid by the insurance company during the last two months of the grace period will have to return that money if the insured don't pay their premiums, according to the website.

"In a sense, it legalizes fraud," declared Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute of Human Exceptionalism. "It legalizes putting your burdens on the insurance companies' shoulders and never paying your premiums."

The only downside for the scammers is that they have to wait until the following year's open enrollment if they want coverage on the insurance exchange.

The loophole is already being exploited in Massachusetts, where a healthcare system similar to Obamacare was enacted in 2006 and signed into law by then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

"People [in Massachusetts] are signing up and getting care and bailing out," said Devon Harris, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

"I was talking to an insurance agent a few years ago. She said once a week she would get a call from a college girl who discovers she's pregnant and wants health insurance. That's an example of a condition you can schedule."

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, predicts the loophole "will help break the system" and "bankrupt people involved."

Whether you like Rush Limbaugh or not this is true and not just with Healthcare.

Rush Limbaugh: Obama 'Playing Dictator' With Healthcare

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh played President Barack Obama's announcement about the troubled healthcare law on his show Thursday, commenting as he went and likening the president to a dictator.

When the president had finished explaining his proposed change to Obamacare, which would allow individuals to keep their plans for another year, Limbaugh told his audience:

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll

"He's doing two things: He's telling the insurance companies, as a dictator would, what they can and can't do or what they must or must not do, or what they have to and don't have to do. He is suggesting … that if you have your plan now and you like it, you can keep it for one more year so that you don't get any angrier at Democrats than you are now and vote against them next November."

The Palm-Beach, Fla., based commentator continued, "If your plan has been canceled, he has just ordered the insurance company to make it available to you, so that you can go back and get that plan. The problem is that that plan was canceled precisely because it conflicts with his law, with Obamacare."

Limbaugh, whose show is the highest-rated talk-radio program in the country, said the president's move was purely political.

"Remember, he's doing this not because he cares about you. He's not doing this because he's upset you've lost your plan. He's doing this because he's losing the media, and he's losing his fellow Democrats, and he's losing the proposition."

Limbaugh also replayed a segment from his Oct. 30 show in which he predicted Obama's about-face:

"If Obama is gonna go out now and play dictator, let's realize he could play dictator in any direction he wants to go… If he has the power to deny you your grandfathered plan, the one you liked and the one you were told you could keep… then maybe Obama can play dictator and re-grandfather your plan. If he can play dictator and take it away from you, then he can play dictator and fix it, I assume."

"This is such a disaster, folks," he concluded after playing the clip. "The original problem with this remains. This is so un-American, this whole thing, and now what's the 'fix'? The fix is for this guy to play dictator again and now command or compel the insurance companies to run their business the way he wants them to for the next year.

"This isn't America, folks," he added

Why does this administration keep "changing the rules"? Are the like spoiled children who can't stand losing at all? Or are they afarid of something else? What are they not wanting the American people to know?

Harry Reid Nukes the Senate; Obama Preps for More Controversial Nominees

Harry Reid and Senate Democrats invoked the "nuclear" option yesterday by voting to eliminate filibusters for the vast majority of presidential nominations, reports the Washington Post. And the fallout will be immediate. Senate Republicans were furious. The New York Times reports Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas called it tragic, "We have weakened this body permanently, undermined it for the sake of an incompetent administration," Roberts said. "What a tragedy." Even liberal columnist Dana Milbank called it a "naked power grab." Meanwhile, Politico reports Obama is prepping for more controversial nominees and the Washington Post notes that changes to the D.C. Circuit Court and cabinet appointments should make it easier for Obama to push his agenda on climate change and financial regulation.  

Affordable Care Act and the Mid-Term Elections

What do the two have in common? Isn't funny that all of the changes lately to Obamacare makes everything happen after the mid term elections. You can "keep you policy" now, but only till after the elections. The sign up time for next year has been pushed back one month. So instead of having to sign up a couple of weeks before the elections it is now a couple of weeks after, the same with insurance companies fixing their rates for 2015. They are not required to do so till after the elections.
We need to show them it does not matter. We need to vote out ALL members that supported Obamacare, whether they be Republicans or Democrats and we need to get in more patriots like Cruz and Lee.

I agree. The whole administration is acting like dictators. They must be stopped.

Rove: US Will Rue 'Dictator' Reid's 'Nuclear Option'




Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acted like a dictator in passing the "nuclear option" in a move the people of the United States will regret, Republican adviser Karl Rove said Friday.

"The country will rue the day that Harry Reid, in dictatorial fashion, changed the rules in the middle of the game, in a hypocritical gesture that he condemned when it was proposed in 2005," Rove, former deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, told Fox News' "Happening Now."

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday passed a measure, known as the "nuclear option," that allows a simple majority to approve executive branch and lower-court nominees.

Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll 

Rove called the action "gross hypocrisy" and recalled that in 2005, Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., suggested the tactic at a time Republicans had a Senate majority. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, both senators at that time, as well as Reid, roundly criticized the tactic.

The change will enable the majority party to pass votes more easily on an ideological basis, Rove said. He said the Senate was designed by the founding fathers to "make it tougher to put things through" by requiring a 2/3-majority vote.

"We're going to see them ramming through people who represent the ideological base of each political party on 51 votes. That is not going to be good for the country," Rove said.
"If this extends further ― the legislation — we will have lost . . . [what the] Senate was designed to be, to be protected a little bit from the passions of people," he said


Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Let's hold the lying politicians accountable. Please sign the petition.

FreedomWorks,

What should happen to politicians who deliberately lie to the American people?

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand admitted that Obama and every Democrat in the Senate lied about ObamaCare. She admitted that she lied to her constituents when she ran for re-election.

And so did every other Democrat who said “If you like your health care, you can keep it.” They knew ObamaCare would destroy health care coverage for millions of Americans. But they lied and covered for Obama anyway.

This isn’t the first time they’ve lied, either. They lied about the failed “stimulus” spending bill. And Democratic politicians lied about the scope of the NSA’s spying program.

Who do they think they are?

We can’t let them get away with this. Millions of Americans are losing their health care thanks to ObamaCare! Tell Congress that you demand accountability.

In Liberty,

Adam Brandon Executive Vice President, FreedomWorks

Hold the liars accountable here!

This is interesting. Why was he fired? Does this administration hate criticism so much or is there something else going on?

D.C. Insurance Commissioner Fired Day After Rejecting Obamacare Fix

Sunday, 17 Nov 2013 07:28 PM

By Greg Richter

The District of Columbia's insurance commissioner was given his walking papers on Friday, one day after he challenged President Barack Obama's fix of the troubled rollout of his signature healthcare law, The Washington Post reports. 

Obama held a Thursday press conference, saying he would allow insurance companies to continue offering people policies they wanted to keep, though they had previously been dubbed substandard because they didn't offer all the benefits required under the new law."

"The action today undercuts the purpose of the exchanges, including the District’s DC Health Link, by creating exceptions that make it more difficult for them to operate," D.C. insurance commissioner William P. White said in a statement on the department's website afterward. 

The next day, White was called into a meeting with the top deputies of Democratic D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray and was told the mayor "wants to go in a different direction."

White told The Post that he was never told his statement was the reason for his firing, but he suspected the timing was not coincidental.

While Obama's order did not require insurance companies to re-offer policies they have cancelled, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners noted that it "threatens to undermine the new market, and may lead to higher premiums and market disruptions in 2014 and beyond."

White wrote that he concurred with that opinion.

Insurance officials have argued that changing the rules could cause rate hikes in 2015 because it would create separate pools of healthy and sick people – the very thing the Affordable Care Act was supposed to avoid.

White told The Post his comments were not intended to say he was either for or against Obama's ruling.

"I didn’t know enough to fully support it," he said. "I want to be clear, and I think it is, I was not speaking for Mayor Gray.

Why do the lies continue? What is their agenda?

This email was sent by: Reagan Reports for America reaganreports.com

Michael Reagan

Evidence Obama Knew You Couldn't Keep Your Plan

As President Obama fights for credibility in the wake of the ObamaCare rollout debacle, Newsmax reports on evidence the president likely knew his promise that "if you like it, you can keep it" was false – an official, but obscure government report from June 2010. And at least one Democrat is confessing –Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) told ABC's This Week, "We all knew" Obama's promise wasn't true.

Why does he continue to blame the Tea Party for the shutdown, when his fellow Democrats and himself refused to sit down and negotiate?

Rallying for McAuliffe, Obama tears into tea party

By PHILIP ELLIOTT and JOSH LEDERMAN November 3, 2013 7:00 PM                                            

  ARLINGTON, Va. (AP) — President Barack Obama cast Republican Ken Cuccinelli on Sunday as part of an extreme tea party faction that shut down the government, throwing the political weight of the White House behind Democrat Terry McAuliffe in the final days of a bitter race for governor.

Seeking an upset, Cuccinelli cast this week's Virginia gubernatorial election as a referendum on Obama's troubled national health care law.
National issues that have divided Democrats and Republicans spilled into the race and colored the final hours of campaigning ahead of Tuesday's vote. As one of just two gubernatorial races in the nation, the results of Tuesday's elections could hold clues about voter attitudes and both parties' messages heading into the 2014 midterm elections.
Obama tore into Cuccinelli as an ideologue unwilling to compromise, while Cuccinelli was telling his supporters that Tuesday's election will be a test for the health care law and McAuliffe's support for it.
"No more Obamacare in Virginia. That's the message we can send," Cuccinelli said in Weyers Cave, a small town northwest of Charlottesville, as he began a day that was taking him from airport to airport, many in Republican-rich regions in southern and western Virginia.

A short time later, in northern Virginia on the outskirts of Washington, Obama said a vote for McAuliffe would be a vote for progress. He said Cuccinelli wanted Virginia voters to forget that the Republican's like-minded counterparts in Congress just weeks earlier had taken the economy, the nation and the economy hostage, hurting Virginians in the process.
"Now he says it's in the rearview mirror. It can't be in the rearview mirror if this is your operative theory of politics," Obama told a crowd of 1,600 gathered in a high school gymnasium in Arlington.
Polls show McAuliffe ahead and campaign finance reports show dramatically lopsided results, with the Democrats outraising and outspending Cuccinelli and his allies by a wide margin. Television airtime was tilted in McAuliffe's favor by 10-to-1.
That has led Cuccinelli, the state's attorney general who led the unsuccessful lawsuit to overturn the health law, to focus on reaching conservative voters almost exclusively. He uses his campaign stops to energize his own backers, many of whom disapprove of the president and detest his health care law.
"If you want to fight Obamacare, if you want to tell Washington that Virginians have had enough of Obamacare, then I need your vote," a hoarse Cuccinelli said at an airport rally in Roanoke.

The race is going to be decided by the few Virginians who choose to vote. The state Board of Elections chief says turnout could be as low as 30 percent of registered voters and the campaigns see 40 percent turnout as the goal.
"If mainstream Virginians from both parties don't turn out to vote, you're letting the tea party decide Virginia's future," McAuliffe said. More than 114,000 Virginians have already voted early.
That doesn't mean Cuccinelli is yielding.
Cuccinelli kept an intense focus on the health care law, knocking McAuliffe for wanting to use the law to expand Medicaid and add 400,000 Virginians to the program. McAuliffe says the program keeps Virginia tax dollars at home, but Cuccinelli says it will be a drag on the state budget and tie future governors' hands.
"Once you get in, there's no getting out," Cuccinelli said, then referred to the popular Eagles' song about a hotel where people could "check in but never leave."

"It's like Hotel California," he said.
Obama's pitch for McAuliffe constituted a last-minute push by the White House and prominent Democrats to close the deal in the race's final days. McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman, has had help from former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Vice President Joe Biden was to do his part Monday, and first lady Michelle Obama lent her voice to radio ads backing McAuliffe.
Cuccinelli campaigned Saturday with Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and former Rep. Ron Paul of Texas were expected to join him Monday.
Obama won Virginia in the presidential election last year by just 3 percentage points, racking up big margins in the Democrat-rich Washington suburbs where he campaigned Sunday, but carrying far fewer votes in the more conservative, southern parts of the state that have been a focus for Cuccinelli. One year later, Obama and Democrats are struggling with a health care rollout that's turned into a political fiasco, and hope a McAuliffe victory will help Democrats regain their footing.
Democrats see Virginia as a test case for other competitive states and are eager for a win there to show their approach to governing is resonating with voters ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.

That's especially true when it comes to the recent fiscal crisis, in which House Republicans refused to approve government funding unless Obama agreed to debilitating changes to "Obamacare." Democrats emerged politically strengthened from the debacle and are looking to Virginia to see whether that advantage will translate into real gains in elections.
Obama has been aggressively fundraising for Democrats, but has sought to limit the risks. He and Biden didn't announce events for McAuliffe until after it was clear the Democrat was far ahead in the polls; the same was true with New York mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio. In New Jersey, this year's only other gubernatorial race, the Democrat is far down in the polls and Obama isn't offering any assistance.

This is Scary - Read

New book: Obama told aides that drones make him 'really good at killing people'

By Jay Busbee                                     

                                                     

President Barack Obama is criticized every day for the problems and difficulties associated with the Affordable Care Act. But in the long term, it's likely history will scrutinize the CIA’s use of drone strikes during his administration with a far more critical eye.

A quote from a new book on the 2012 presidential campaign, “Double Down: Game Change 2012,” will surely stoke that interest. As first reported in a book review by the Washington Post’s Peter Hamby, Obama told aides in connection with the CIA's drone program that he is “really good at killing people.”
It’s the kind of quote likely to make Obama supporters cringe or scramble for justifying explanations, perhaps by rationalizing the quote as either false or out of context, or critiquing the information-gathering methods of authors Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. The writers spent two years interviewing dozens of people connected with both the Obama and Romney campaigns.
Whether uttered in jest or in resignation, the Obama quote will only add to the concerns of those wondering whether the president has embraced the Godlike, life-and-death power of the Oval Office. After campaigning against the intense interrogation procedures pursued under President George W. Bush, Obama has vastly expanded the drone program. Despite its intense unpopularity overseas, in part because of civilian casualties and in part because of its unclear, secretive mandates, the Pakistan drone program continues as it has since 2004.
According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the CIA has conducted 378 strikes in the program’s 10-year history. Of those, 326 are classified as “Obama strikes.” The total number of people killed by drones is estimated at 2,528 to 3,648. Civilian casualties are estimated at 416 to 948, with 168 to 200 of those being children. As many as another 1,545 are estimated to have been injured in those strikes.
"We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats — to stop plots, prevent future attacks and, again, save American lives,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said in February. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise." And, thanks to this book, the motivations of the man who orders them will remain under scrutiny.
“Double Down” is a sequel of sorts to “Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime,” a best-selling book made into an HBO movie. "Double Down" tracks the 2012 campaign through the voices of campaign strategists and other insiders for both President Obama and Mitt Romney, as well as the half-dozen other ancillary campaigns on the Republican side.
What emerges is a look at two men and two campaigns with singular visions and yet singular weaknesses. Here, via the Post’s Hamby, is a summary of “Double Down”’s through-line:

The book’s loose argument is that both Obama and Romney placed their bets about the race early on and “doubled down” throughout the contest. It’s an apt take on Obama World. The “Obamans,” as the authors call them, set out to annihilate Romney almost two years before the election and executed their plan with brutal efficiency. There were hiccups along the way, specifically Obama’s dreary debate-prep sessions and his cringe-worthy performance in Denver, but his deputies in Chicago rarely deviated from their search-and-destroy mission. Romney’s campaign, though, with its bad habit of reacting to news cycles with snap decisions, always felt more ad hoc, with tactics trumping strategy.

Per Hamby, Obama comes off as “brilliant but peevish, allergic to the nitty-gritty of politics,” while Romney “is a decent man but hopelessly ham-fisted on the stump and oblivious to why voters can’t seem to appreciate his private-equity résumé.”
The drone quote will garner notice, but the book actually saves much of its harshest criticism for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is apparently already making plans for a 2016 presidential bid. The book makes use of the research performed by the Romney campaign on Christie; the vetting is termed “disturbing,” with “garish controversies.” A Justice Department investigation into Christie’s spending, a defamation lawsuit, questions about lobbying and contract awards, Christie’s physical health – these were all fair game for Romney’s investigators and in turn for the authors of “Double Down.” Christie’s people could be busy for months trying to mitigate the damage this book will do to his reputation.
The Obama administration has brushed off the book's claims about the back-room dealings of the 2012 campaign, critiquing the sources as much as the content. “The president is always frustrated about leaks,” White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “I haven’t talked to him about this book. I haven’t read it. He hasn’t read it. But he hates leaks.”
But that’s inside-the-Beltway politicking, the kind of give-and-take where reputations, not lives, are the casualties. The debate over drone use has far more dramatic reach and effect. Lost in the day-to-day squabbling over politics is the fact that, for instance, the Justice Department has a disturbingly vague protocol for sending drones to kill U.S. citizens. “Double Down” may open the door to issues far more significant than who likes whom in Washington, issues that speak to the very heart of what it means to stand for American principles. This is a story that’s not going away anytime soon.
Contact Jay Busbee at jay.busbee@yahoo.com or on Twitter at @jaybusbee.