<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Obama&#039;s Enemies List: A Growing List of Obama&#039;s Enemies &#187; Barbara Boxer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/barbara-boxer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:30:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Obama to &quot;Retreat&quot; on Birth Control</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/obama-to-retreat-on-birth-control/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/obama-to-retreat-on-birth-control/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>saidyloz416</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[like-charities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rule-requiring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white-house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[will-announce]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/obama-to-retreat-on-birth-control/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The Hill is reporting that "The White House will announce a retreat from its controversial rule requiring religious organizations like charities and hospitals to include contraception in their healthcare plans." They had little choice given how damaging this had become to them politically. If the report is true, let's listen for screams of Barbara Boxer and friends talking about "restricting access" when nothing of the sort is happening. More to come... ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/obama-to-retreat-on-birth-control/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bigoted Barack, Red in Tooth and Clause</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/bigoted-barack-red-in-tooth-and-clause/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/bigoted-barack-red-in-tooth-and-clause/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[catholic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[catholic church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deeply-respects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[totalitarianism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/bigoted-barack-red-in-tooth-and-clause/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Modern liberalism is willfulness writ large -- a godless ideology that rests upon the caprice of central planners. Under it, the fluctuating and often frightening desires of corrupt men, rather than the changeless will of a caring God, form the shaky measure of "good government." As the grim chapters of recent history show -- chapters written in the blood of millions of unborn children and other "undesirables" -- taking God out of "goodness" drains the term of any coherent meaning, leaving mankind at the mercy of power-seeking ideologues. Pope Benedict XVI calls modern liberalism the "dictatorship of relativism," a phrase that neatly summarizes the Obama administration as it moves to crush the freedom of Americans through such monstrosities as the HHS mandate. On one level, Obama is nothing more than a glib and empty pol, who careens from focus group to pollster. But on another level, buried deep within his cold and rootless personality, he is a man of perverse tenacity, a convinced socialist and secularist who was trained long ago to run the ball into the end zone for radicalism. For all his joshing and superficial charm, he remains the creepy child of post-Enlightenment liberalism -- the infant demigod presented between sets of oversized and plastic Greek columns at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, who as the proceedings concluded crawled back into the shadows to watch mutely the adoring crowds below. Such a deluded Democratic president was bound to overreach disastrously. Obamacare is a "big f -- king deal," Joe Biden whispered into his ear. And it is -- an unconstitutional coup disguised as altruistic legislation that was rammed through Congress by reckless partisan hacks who hadn't even read it. But the central planners and social engineers from Planned Parenthood had pored over the bill carefully. The passage of the legislation left them giddy with excitement, as they knew its unread provisions would soon turn into nooses for their religious enemies on the right. The future casts its shadow backwards, said the late British writer Malcolm Muggeridge. Obama, red in tooth and clause, saw the devilish flicker of those shadows in his triumph of social engineering. "Darn tooting," he declared to his most militant supporters -- pro-abortion feminists who demanded to know from him during a campaign stop last fall if he was going to make good on his promise to manhandle the Catholic Church over contraception and abortifacients. The raffish Greg Gutfeld, who, despite his screwing around on the set, remains Fox's deepest and most perceptive observer of politics and culture, made the valuable point on "The Five" recently that one of the sick motivations behind the HHS mandate is a form of eugenics and ironic class warfare: Obama does not want the poor to procreate. To put the point even more directly, Obama does not want the Catholic poor to procreate. Like Planned Parenthood's twisted foundress, Margaret Sanger, Obama is a chilly eugenicist at heart who fears a backwards America "punished" by the babies of unenlightened breeders. China boasts a one-child policy; Obama's is more like a zero-child one. Without a universally subsidized right to sterilization, contraception, and abortion via Obamacare, his Brave New World would falter and fail to materialize. The brutal logic of these bogus rights, as Obama hints in his mumbles about "access" as the trumping value in this debate, is that everyone must recognize them. Who cares if the Church objects to financing the sins of her employees? The Church is wrong, and error has no rights, hiss feminists. The dogmatism of which Obama routinely accuses the religious is on far starker display in his own ideology, a species of raw social engineering that depends for its fulfillment upon bullying conscientious objectors at the point of a government gun. This is a historic moment in the culture war -- a crystallizing flashpoint in which the totalitarianism and bigotry long implicit in secularism rises to the surface and becomes explicit for all to see. In the Senate, it is still the "Year of the Womyn." Barbara Boxer, barreling up to the cameras on Wednesday, unloaded all of the despicable propaganda of Planned Parenthood. At once rude and kittenish, Boxer purred that Obama deeply respects religious freedom. That's why he established a religious exemption for wholly sectarian organizations, she said. Never mind that feminist colleagues across the way on the House side were openly complaining about that "compromise." In other words, left to their own unchecked secularist devices, they wouldn't even grant that insultingly narrow exemption to the Church. Here's how the Hill put it : " Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said there's no need for the White House to adopt a wider religious exemption. Carving out churches and other strictly religious employers 'was in itself a compromise,' she said, noting that eight states have contraception mandates without religious exemptions." The essential character of secularism is totalitarian. For all of its chatter about religion as a "private" matter, for all of its nonsense about the "privacy of the bedroom," nothing under secularism in the end is actually private.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/bigoted-barack-red-in-tooth-and-clause/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Senate Full of Squishes</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/a-senate-full-of-squishes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/a-senate-full-of-squishes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:15:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LautzVanderbeck393</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[before-the-full]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bust-the-budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hold-the-line]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jim demint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mike lee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[name-as-opposed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/a-senate-full-of-squishes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Aside from defeating Obama, the most important goal of the 2012 elections is to win back the Senate.  Or is it? On days like today we should begin to wonder if there really would be much of a difference when there are 51 senators with an R next to their name as opposed to just 47.  In another terrible day on the Hill, Senate Republicans caved on two issues; judicial nominations and the stimulus highway bill. When Obama announced his illegal appointments to executive positions last month, Republicans shook their fists heavenward and pledged to vigorously challenge those nominations.  Well, instead of engaging in vapid rhetorical promises, Senator Mike Lee took action.  He pledged to block all of Obama&#8217;s judicial nominations until he agrees to rescind his illegal appointees and resubmit them for confirmation before the full Senate. Unfortunately, Senator Lee is like a general without an army.  The Senate voted on a nomination for a federal district court, yet only 5 others joined him.  They were Senators DeMint, Crapo, Paul, Risch, and Shelby.  I&#8217;m sure that will send a powerful message to Obama and serve as a strong deterrent against future illegal appointments. Regarding the highway bill, I know this sounds naive, but I&#8217;m stupefied by the number of Republicans who voted for it .  As bad as the House version is, the Senate bill makes it look conservative.  The Senate bill is a brainchild of Barbara Boxer supported by Obama.  It will radically bust the budget, continue to place officious mandates on the states, and fund mass transit at prodigal levels. Now we know that most Republicans are insincere about cutting spending, limiting government, and devolving power to the states, but one would expect them to at least hold the line against tax increases.  This bill contains $7 billion in tax increases to partially fund a small portion of the deficit generated by the higher levels of transportation spending.  Yet, just 9 Republicans (along with 2 Democrats) voted against cloture.  Here are the Republicans who voted no DeMint, Hatch, Johanns, Johnson, Lee, Murkowski, Paul, Risch, Rubio. It has become abundantly clear that we will get nowhere in terms of limiting government unless we elect Republicans like Jim DeMint and Mike Lee. Cross-posted from The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/a-senate-full-of-squishes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Boxer Says She’s Ready To Do “Battle” With The “Right Wing” Over Obama’s Contraception Mandate…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/boxer-says-shes-ready-to-do-battle-with-the-right-wing-over-obamas-contraception-mandate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/boxer-says-shes-ready-to-do-battle-with-the-right-wing-over-obamas-contraception-mandate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:45:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>concernedcoloradoan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compel-religious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[floor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[floor-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moral-ground]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new-rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[provide-insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[raceptives-on-moral]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right-wing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uphold-the-obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/boxer-says-shes-ready-to-do-battle-with-the-right-wing-over-obamas-contraception-mandate/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Settle down, Babs. Via Floor Action: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on Tuesday said she is ready to do battle with the &#8220;right wing&#8221; in order to uphold the Obama administration&#8217;s new rules that could compel religious affiliated employers that oppose contraceptives on moral ground to provide insurance plans that provide contraceptives to their employees. &#8220;We ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/boxer-says-shes-ready-to-do-battle-with-the-right-wing-over-obamas-contraception-mandate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GOProud’s Outing of Rick Perry Pollster Tony Fabrizio Backfires, Outs Them Instead</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/goproud%e2%80%99s-outing-of-rick-perry-pollster-tony-fabrizio-backfires-outs-them-instead/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/goproud%e2%80%99s-outing-of-rick-perry-pollster-tony-fabrizio-backfires-outs-them-instead/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 04:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bullies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fabrizio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goproud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governor-perry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reprehensible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tony fabrizio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[twitter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whether-or-not]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/goproud%e2%80%99s-outing-of-rick-perry-pollster-tony-fabrizio-backfires-outs-them-instead/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this week, Governor Perry released a campaign ad which contained a line about gays being able to serve in the military, but children not being allowed to pray in schools. The theme of the ad was ending President Obama&#8217;s &#8216;war on religion.&#8217;  It was, of course,  met with the usual and expected responses from various quarters. I&#8217;m not going to defend nor bash the ad; it&#8217;s neither here nor there to me. What I found most disturbing, and most telling, was GOProud&#8217;s reprehensible, bullying and bigoted response to the ad. A report surfaced that Governor Perry&#8217;s Chief Pollster, Tony Fabrizio, was opposed to the ad. GOProud jumped on that and ran all the way to Vileville with it, exposing their belief that all gay people must think the same way. Granted I&#8217;m one of those icky breeders, but I&#8217;m fairly certain that gay people are, you know, individuals . With thoughts and beliefs of their very own.  Not so, according to GOProud! Stray too far, and we will shame you into lockstep! You see, in the midst of a stompy foot temper tantrum, GOProud&#8217;s true colors came out &#8211; and the colors are so not fabulous: Between updates he made on his Twitter feed and an interview he gave to The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, the co-founder and executive director of the gay GOP group GOProud, Jimmy LaSalvia, appears to be claiming that Rick Perry’s top pollster Tony Fabrizio is gay &#8212; and using an ugly antigay slur to describe him&#8230;. Reached for comment and offered to appear on my radio progam to discuss the comments, LaSaliva passed, saying that what he said to Stein said enough and that he didn’t want to &#8220;play in the outing sandbox.&#8221; Um. You can&#8217;t say that you don&#8217;t want to &#8216;play in the outing sandbox&#8217; while playing in the outing sandbox . Further, the anti-gay slur appeared on his twitter feed and is pictured below: He followed that up with a tweet confirming that he &#8220; was talking about Rick Perry&#8217;s pollster/strategist .&#8221; He reaffirmed both today , including his use of the F word which I can now only assume is fair game, as it has been GOProud Approved &#8482;. Not content with just putting themselves in identity politics-laden boxes, they decided to &#8216;out&#8217;  Tony Fabrizio in a contemptible attempt to force him into the box they made for him. This is a typical Leftist tactic and one that cannot be tolerated by, or on, the Right. Make no mistake; what GOProud did is  a typical leftist tactic. &#8216;Outing&#8217; is used as some sort of brave action defending the &#8216;gay community&#8217;, for which the outers pat selves on back for being so true to the cause &#8482; and exposing the alleged &#8216;hypocrisy&#8217; of the outees. But there is no hypocrisy! One can be gay and also be opposed to gay marriage or the repeal of DADT, for example. That is allowed; people have this pesky habit of thinking for themselves. So, in actuality the bullying &#8216;outing&#8217; tactic is in no way honorable; it is simply disgusting, nasty, vindictive and super assy. The sole intent is to attempt to shame and marginalize those who don&#8217;t bow to a liberal agenda and stray too far from the plantation (just as they constantly try to sexualize or dehumanize conservative women ). See, even the slightest hint that gay people don&#8217;t all think and believe the same things is a danger to the Left, much like how they believe all African-Americans should think the same. Remember Barbara Boxer, Ma&#8217;am questioning Harry Alford , the chair of the National Black Chamber of Commerce and being all &#8216;but&#8230; but &#8230; the NAACP disagrees! How can you not think the same as they do?!&#8221; She was shocked and in disbelief that he could possibly disagree with the NAACP and the 100 Black Men of Atlanta. How can this be? This does not suit! All y&#8217;all must think the same &#8211; race politics are our bread and butter! Or when Harry Reid was flabbergasted at the very thought of a Hispanic being a Republican. Harry Reid is someone whose ivory tower should be padded. He said &#8220;I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. ” Think independently?! Unheard of. In the same way, gay activists, liberal and faux-conservative alike, want people to believe that political ideology and sexuality are somehow magically and permanently tied together and cannot be separated. One&#8217;s sexuality must dictate  whether or not one believes in gay marriage legislation, repeal of DADT and the like. The same way that a fancy womb must dictate whether or not one is pro-abortion (you are gender traitor if you disagree). Outing is the blackmail and &#8216;punishment&#8217; for not toeing this revolting line. And it&#8217;s disgusting. It&#8217;s vile when the Left does it and it&#8217;s even more vile when an alleged Right group does it. I&#8217;ve supported GOProud in the past and this greatly disappoints me. It would have been one thing had GOProud simply denounced the ad. I would have expected that, even if it had shown them to be a one-note organization. That&#8217;s to be expected with identity politics groups. It&#8217;s kind of the purpose of  organizations founded upon some sort of group identity, no matter how forcefully such groups try to proclaim &#8211; or even try  to be  - otherwise. But they didn&#8217;t stop there and they&#8217;ve supported similar bullying tactics before. They support Human Rights Campaign and their gestapo tactics against Cleta Mitchell , wherein they are going after her law firm for daring to have an attorney at their firm who is openly against gay marriage. Funny how *some* people aren&#8217;t supposed to be &#8220; living openly and honestly &#8220;, huh? You know, this is not the way to make nice-nice and convince people that you are right on an issue. All they&#8217;ve done is engaged in a circle of jerks smugly back patting &#8211; we expose the supposed hypocrisy of men who dare to be both gay and socially conservative! Or who even just work for someone who is. But, in reality, all they&#8217;ve exposed is the reprehensible tactics of gay activists and the Left. Which is, evidently, redundant. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/12/09/goproud%e2%80%99s-outing-of-rick-perry-pollster-tony-fabrizio-backfires-outs-them-instead/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Far-Left Dem. Barbara Boxer Calls Funding Abortion Groups Free Speech…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/09/22/far-left-dem-barbara-boxer-calls-funding-abortion-groups-free-speech%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/09/22/far-left-dem-barbara-boxer-calls-funding-abortion-groups-free-speech%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 04:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>georgiana wren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[answer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[developing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global-abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keep-the-global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[problem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[running-at-full]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator-barbara]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-developing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tough-situation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/09/22/far-left-dem-barbara-boxer-calls-funding-abortion-groups-free-speech%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Democratic party will do whatever it takes to keep the global abortion industry running at full speed. (LifeNews) — Senator Barbara Boxer is in a tough situation: she thinks there are too many children in the developing world, she thinks abortion and contraception are the answer to this problem, and she has to try ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/09/22/far-left-dem-barbara-boxer-calls-funding-abortion-groups-free-speech%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Jerry and Me</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/03/jerry-and-me/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/03/jerry-and-me/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[career]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gender]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governor-brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guyana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mayor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[university]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/03/jerry-and-me/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ As we know from media reports, California is a fiscal mess. The fabled "Golden Land," in Joan Didion's phrase, is broke, currently running a projected $10 billion dollar deficit. Governor Edmund "Jerry" Brown -- despite tough campaign rhetoric -- recently punted on the state budget, bowing to pressure from the state's powerful public sector unions, and seems to believe -- like President Obama -- that higher tax rates will solve the problem. According to the Economist , the governor cut some spending and attempted to extend some temporary taxes, the latter failing without Republican legislative support. Brown lately signed legislation taxing Internet commerce. This brilliant move will only hasten the brain drain to neighboring states. California's 11.8% unemployment rate is already the second highest in the nation. And Governor Brown recently signed California's version of the Dream Act, supporting education aid to illegal aliens. The Sacramento Bee tells us that beginning in 2012 California will close "70 of 278 state parks." As on the national scene, the bad news seems to refresh itself daily. And the Golden State is a cultural mess. Los Angeles -- thanks to illegal immigration-- now resembles the capital of a polyglot third world country. Beautiful San Francisco is fast becoming unlivable from a combination of heavy nanny-state regulation of its housing sector, and a homeless problem constantly dealt with by instituting more bad panaceas. The state legislature lately passed a bill calling for the teaching of "gay history" in California schools. This educational multicultural muddle mandates the expense for ordering new textbooks. The Berkeley City Council recently debated the merits of adding sex-change operations to the city employee medical insurance plan, and tabled the idea for future consideration. Berkeley City employees remain trapped in their gender until further notice. Last fall California voters sent Barbara Boxer back to the U.S. Senate for a fourth term and, more interestingly, reelected Brown governor, 28 years after his last tenure in the office. The question is why in such economically perilous times did these two Democratic dinosaurs survive extinction, one closing the circle of a long progressive career. The pundits have certainly explained it ad nauseam: it seems that 1960s idealistic liberalism is tightly woven into the state's political fabric. But it's almost as if the California electorate momentarily experienced a collective acid flashback last Election Day. For me, well, it brought back memories. The indulgence of following an historically apt metaphor of first traveling to the state on the fool's errand of prospecting for gold in the mountains, left me a college student in Northern California in the mid-1970s, when Governor Brown first served. At the time California was in myriad ways a sunny place (Didion's "Golden Land" again), the very air full of optimism (not mention the sweet stink of marijuana) even in the Ford and Carter years, and able to smilingly absorb the cultural weirdness that seemed to permeate everyday life. As a student, I found it more than geographically far-removed from the upstate New York where I grew up. People wore different clothes, ate strange food (I'd never eaten an avocado until I lived in California; alfalfa sprouts? Forget-about-it), and listened to different music: On the East Coast it was Bruce Springsteen and the Rolling Stones; in Northern California it was the Grateful Dead and whatever else was musically emanating from the distinctly countercultural Bay Area. It was a politically crazy place. Patty Hearst was famously kidnapped. There were two attempts on the life of President Gerald Ford while he made separate California visits. San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone were murdered by Dan White. Congressman Leo Ryan was gunned down in Jonestown, Guyana, the site of the San Francisco-based Peoples Temple mass suicide in 1979. The small two year "community college" that I attended was in Quincy, a town of 5,000 people in the Sierra Nevada. Most of the students were hip kids who had grown up in the Bay Area in the late 1960s-early '70s, which was a rather different experience than mine in exurban New York. These were kids who, if they didn't march in anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, might have witnessed them. I heard stories of cutting school to hear Janis Joplin or the Jefferson Airplane play for free in Golden Gate Park on a weekday afternoon. Kids in high school took LSD every weekend as a recreational activity. At the time a college education in the community college or California State University systems was free to state residents (the University of California system required tuition). I got a student loan to pay the roughly $1,000 tuition (it seems such a paltry sum today) for my first year until I achieved residency. In the end I never went on to a four year school for a bachelor's degree, and I regret this because in the 1970s getting a college education in California was as easy as plucking an orange from a tree. Today that same educational system is in extreme fiscal distress. Considering that these were the Carter years, I was relatively prosperous thanks to part time jobs, mostly in restaurants back in the day when they fed the help for free. I was a dishwasher, then a waiter, and then spent a summer working for the U.S. Forest Service. These jobs weren't especially lucrative, but they kept a few bucks in my pocket. And things were cheap: rent, gas and groceries, a movie date, a six-pack of beer. I lived in a furnished trailer with giant Ponderosa pines in the backyard that rented for just $90 per month. California wasn't the bread basket of the nation, but it was the produce section of the supermarket. Meanwhile in Sacramento, Governor Brown lived an ascetic life. He refused to inhabit his predecessor Ronald Reagan's recently constructed governor's mansion, instead renting a small apartment near the state house. He eschewed the convenience of an official limousine, preferring to drive his Plymouth Satellite around town. "Governor Moonbeam" aside, Brown -- especially in his 1975-'79 first term -- was very much a fiscal conservative. California at one point enjoyed a $5 billion dollar surplus, which in 2011 dollars is impressive. The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 giving Californians property tax relief eroded that surplus. And yes, Brown was known for some wacky environmental ideas and judicial appointments (does anyone remember Rose Bird?), but it's almost as if he started out center-right early in his career, and from then on moved progressively left. That's it: I started out left and moved right, and Brown started right and moved left. At some point in the last thirty years we passed each other. Jerry and I have come a long way. And I still have hair. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/08/03/jerry-and-me/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Time to End Bipartisan Profligacy of Transportation Spending</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/18/time-to-end-bipartisan-profligacy-of-transportation-spending/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/18/time-to-end-bipartisan-profligacy-of-transportation-spending/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Cougar01</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chamber of Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[houses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[john mica]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pork]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trust]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/18/time-to-end-bipartisan-profligacy-of-transportation-spending/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ One of the preferred methods liberals use to tax and spend is to create special &#8220;trust funds&#8221; for particular expenditures, with the intent of hiding the funds within the Treasury&#8217;s general fund.  The system goes something like this: levy a tax that is supposedly earmarked for a specific expense and impounded in a trust fund (lock box); gradually purloin the fund by using it for general expenditures, while using general fund monies (and debt) to overspend on the trust fund expenditures; demand that taxpayers contribute more to the trust fund that has gone broke.  This is ostensibly what has happened with the Social Security Trust Fund.  It&#8217;s also what Big Business and Big Labor desire to do with the Highway Trust Fund, which was modeled after the SS fund. The Highway Trust Fund, much like the SS Trust Fund, is maintained by money from the general treasury that is credited to the fund.  It was established in the &#8217;50s to fund the Interstate Highway System.  Beginning in 1983, Congress began siphoning off some of the gas tax revenue for the great inviolable sacred cow; the urban mass transit system.  Today, mass transit receives $10.2 billion in annual appropriations. The extent of the credit from the general treasury was supposed to be commensurate to the revenue generated by the gas tax, paid by all motorists and users of the highway system.  Not surprisingly, the demarcation between revenue sources became muddled over the years, and as pork barrel spending grew ubiquitously among our esteemed leaders, the funding authorized for the trust fund far outpaced the revenue from the gas tax.  In 2008, the trust fund was completely depleted, compelling Congress to replenish the fund with an additional $35 billion over the past few years. The authorization for funding the Highway Trust Fund is typically renewed every six years in a transportation reauthorization bill that creates six years&#8217; worth of mandatory spending that is not subject to the annual appropriations process.  The Department of Transportation then takes this money and doles it out to the states.  States with more aggressive porkers inevitably receive more funding.  These bills were always bipartisan endeavors of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as both parties enjoyed unlimited pork and goodwill with their constituents. The 2010 elections and the Tea Party changed all that. As a new spirit of fiscal discipline slowly seeps into Washington, John Mica, Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has drafted the framework for a new highway bill that will cap the funding for highway and transportation projects to the amount of revenue supplied by the gas tax and other highway user fees.  His bill would authorize $230 billion for the next six years, down from the $286 billion of the 2005 highway bill, and well below Obama&#8217;s prodigal $556 billion plan .  The proposal would eliminate 70 duplicative projects and focus the trust fund on the one federal transportation priority; the Interstate Highway System.  Other projects, such as planting flowers, creating bike lanes, and beautification projects that are not covered by the block grants to states, will be shouldered by those localities that deem them necessary. Additionally, the Mica proposal would reinstate the original objective formula for allocating funds – a system that distributes the money based upon factors, such as population and geography, as opposed to the political porking system that has been in place during the past two decades.  The bill would also restrict the ever-growing migration of funds from the Federal Highway Program to the urban transit programs, a pet project of the left.  Our gas taxes were supposed to fund our usage of the nation&#8217;s highways, not mass transit.  Mica&#8217;s bill would limit funding to mass transit and lift barriers that prevent private companies from offering public transportation. Unfortunately, along with the Democrats, labor unions, and usual rent-seeking parasites, the Chamber of Commerce is condemning the new austerity measures in transportation funding.  Concurrently, they are calling for an increase in gas taxes to fund their construction projects that are either gratuitous or should be funded by the localities that so desire them.  The Chamber&#8217;s Executive Director of Transportation and Infrastructure Janet Kavinoky offered this very &#8216;unChamberesque&#8217; comment regarding Mica&#8217;s highway bill earlier this month: &#8220;It is clear the Committee has been constrained by the House-passed budget as the investment levels are unacceptable. Cuts will destroy – rather than support — existing jobs and will not enable creation of the additional jobs needed to put the 16.3% of unemployed workers in the construction industry back to work.&#8221; For an organization that purports to be pro-growth, the Chamber should have learned that superfluous Keynesian construction projects don&#8217;t create jobs.  The 16.3% unemployment figure persists even after the Porkulous bill unleashed almost $1 trillion dollars&#8217; worth of &#8220;investments&#8221; into our infrastructure.  We are left with needless repaving projects which induce pervasive and intolerable traffic juggernauts on our interstate highways. Unlike the Chamber, Big Labor&#8217;s push for a second stimulus ensconced in the highway bill is par for the course.  AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka bemoaned that the Republican transportation bill, which cuts about $15 billion in annual transportation funds, will &#8220;obliterate over half a million jobs in the next year alone.&#8221;  Well, if $15 billion in annual cuts will cost over 500,000 jobs on a year over year basis, then the $821 billion stimulus should have created over 27 million jobs! Three cheers to the Keynesian crony capitalist alliance of Big Labor and Big Business. Tom Donohue and Richard Trumka The last 6-year highway bill expired almost two years ago, forcing Congress to pass eight short-term extensions in the interim.  Barbara Boxer, who chairs the committee with jurisdiction on the Senate side, is balking at Mica&#8217;s bill and plans to introduce yet another short-term extension.  The problem with short term bills, as Congressman Mica astutely observes, is that they encourage poor planning by state governments.  In their alacrity to gobble up the short-term money before it runs out, state and local governments tend to use the funds on small time and indivisible projects, such as incessant road repaving, instead of better planned long-term projects. Republicans are now signing onto a balanced budget amendment; however, we will never achieve a balanced budget unless we make things like transportation funding leaner, more efficient, and more centered around local governments – with an emphasis on privatization.  Since the completion of the interstate system in 1991, the federal government really needs to reduce its carbon footprint in transportation issues.   At a minimum, Republicans in both Houses should hold the line and support Mica&#8217;s highway bill in the face of self-centered special interests who are clamoring for more Porkulous. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/07/18/time-to-end-bipartisan-profligacy-of-transportation-spending/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Not a Ma’am) Gushes Over Navy Decision to Name Ship After Leftist Icon Cesar Chavez…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/18/sen-barbara-boxer-d-not-a-ma%e2%80%99am-gushes-over-navy-decision-to-name-ship-after-leftist-icon-cesar-chavez%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/18/sen-barbara-boxer-d-not-a-ma%e2%80%99am-gushes-over-navy-decision-to-name-ship-after-leftist-icon-cesar-chavez%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 21:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amelia-earhart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cesar chavez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision-shows]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medgar-evers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary-mabus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/18/sen-barbara-boxer-d-not-a-ma%e2%80%99am-gushes-over-navy-decision-to-name-ship-after-leftist-icon-cesar-chavez%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Shocker! (DC) — While the idea of naming a U.S. Naval ship after labor leader Cesar Chavez has roiled some, California Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer is thrilled that the activist will be receiving the honor. Boxer called Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus Tuesday night to thank him for the decision. “I applaud Secretary Mabus for continuing the Navy’s rich tradition of naming these supply ships after pioneers, explorers and visionaries by honoring César Chávez, who worked tirelessly to promote fair working conditions and equal rights for all Americans,” Boxer said in a statement. “This is a fitting tribute to Chávez, who served in the Navy, and follows the Navy’s recent decisions to name other supply ships after American visionaries from Medgar Evers to Amelia Earhart to Lewis and Clark.” Republican California Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Marine veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, had a very different opinion. He said that it was indicative of the Navy’s politicization. “This decision shows the direction the Navy is heading. Naming a ship after Cesar Chavez goes right along with other recent decisions by the Navy that appear to be more about making a political statement than upholding the Navy’s history and tradition,” he said. Keep reading&#8230; ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/18/sen-barbara-boxer-d-not-a-ma%e2%80%99am-gushes-over-navy-decision-to-name-ship-after-leftist-icon-cesar-chavez%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An Inconvenient Truth: A Fifth Anniversary Tribute</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/17/an-inconvenient-truth-a-fifth-anniversary-tribute/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/17/an-inconvenient-truth-a-fifth-anniversary-tribute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2011 15:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[documentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal-life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[review]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/17/an-inconvenient-truth-a-fifth-anniversary-tribute/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ &#038;quo This month is the fifth anniversary of the release of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth . The documentary film became a sensation among the political left, the easily impressionable segments of the public and a majority in Congress that was all too eager to enact legislation to solve the global crisis. The film won an Oscar for Best Documentary Feature and the audio version received a Grammy. For his efforts to save the planet, Gore received the Nobel Peace Prize. This is a very good haul for a film that grossed a rather paltry $23 million in domestic box office receipts. There is no denying that Gore and his film deserve the lion's share of the credit (or blame) for launching the wild hysteria to combat "manmade global warming" that swept the nation in 2006. The U.S. House of Representatives created an entirely new committee "The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming" because " global warming is an urgent problem that requires action now" such as hastening the nation's "transition away from a fossil fuel-based economy." Congress passed legislation banning incandescent light bulbs by 2014. Americans will soon exclusively use CFL (curly-fry light) bulbs that will keep a home as dimly light as a Third World hospital room. On several occasions Congress was unsuccessful in enacting "cap and trade" legislation that would be a financial windfall for some groups but would also kill thousands of American jobs. Common sense prevailed as the legislation failed to move in Congress but, the Environmental Protection Agency has threatened to implement the legislation via regulatory edict. After the film was released, a number of strange bedfellows jumped onto the manmade global warming bandwagon. In one public service announcement, Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich, who sat together on a sofa like a pair of love-struck lab partners before they were to head off to the senior prom, demanded a solution to global warming. A year later the always-evolving Gingrich would abandon his newfound fossil-fuels-are-evil buddies and publish a book titled Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less in which he advocates pumping as much oil from the ground as is humanly possible. Going Green became the catch phrase. There was a rush to purchase hybrid vehicles such as the two-seat Honda Insight , the impractical compact that is not much larger than a circus clown car, and the overpriced Toyota Prius that has been plagued with numerous battery and service problems . The Discovery cable network launched Planet Green channel whose star celebrity is Ed Begley, Jr. That's right, who? That came on the heels of NBC Universal airing "green" theme programming on its stable of cable and broadcast channels during the month of April. Even Time magazine offered a "Going Green" column. Green expos, exhibits, conventions and bazaars popped up around the country. Green was in. Not content with his role as Chicken Little, Gore went on to co-found a "carbon credit" company that has made him millions. He even used the carbon credit service for himself. He deems his extravagant, high-energy use home as being "carbon neutral" because he purchases "carbon offsets." From himself. This review comes five years after the film's original release but, I confess the timing is only a mere coincidence. My primary goal in watching the film was to determine if I was correct in what I remembered of my 2006 viewing. I began to have doubts. That is because practitioners of manmade global warming hysteria have attempted to correct me again and again in recent years by claiming Gore's film was not about manmade global warming but, instead, was about "climate change." I had been told this so many times that I had begun to doubt what I saw five years ago. The catch-all phrase "climate change" happens to be politically convenient because it allows manmade global warming enthusiasts to deposit every single climate event (highs, lows, and the status quo) into their CSI evidence bag as proof that man -- particular Western man and more specifically, American society -- is evil and is the cause of most of the world's ills. Gore tells us so in the film. He said, "We are still, by far, the worst contributor to the problem." Why can't Americans be more like the Chinese he asks? For example, he claims they build more efficient automobiles and "Chinese scientists are right on the cutting edge" in environmental matters. Maybe Gore has confused East German and Chinese automobile ingenuity . In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, the basis of An Inconvenient Truth , Gore fell back on his Malthusian beliefs that there are far too many people for a healthy world to support. "[W]e have been producing increasing quantities of CO2 , and we are now dumping vast amounts of into the global atmosphere," he wrote. Gore then reminded us that the "human lung inhales oxygen and exhales carbon dioxide, and the engines of civilization have, in effect, automated the process of breathing." (No matter how many times I read that statement I have no idea what it means.) He reinforces this point in the film by emphasizing that population growth places profound pressures on the planet. Surprisingly, he did not plug the Chinese's one-child per family rule as another brilliant advancement by the Asian nation. I heard the phrase "global warmingt; (or "manmade global warming") in An Inconvenient Truth on 24 occasions. "Climate change"? Not so much. In fact, I only heard the phrase twice. Even if I missed a "global warming" here or a "climate change" there the fact-of-the-natter is the film is all about global warming. Score one for my memory and zero for the revisionists. While watching the film, one has to practice (in the words of Hillary Clinton) the "willing suspension of disbelief" in order to accept many of Gore's claims and the nexus he insists is between world events and manmade global warming. For instance, he says, "Global warming not only paradoxically causes more flooding but also more drought." He argues global warming will cause drought in one region and flooding in a neighboring region. Huh? He asserts polar bears are an endangered species. They aren't . And he states, "Within the decade there will be no more snows of [Mount] Kilimanjaro." The blame rests with manmade global warming he claims. But this isn't true either. Kilimanjaro's mountaintop temperatures never rise above freezing. The ice pack is not melting away due to increased temperatures but is disappearing due to sublimation in which frozen ice converts directly into water vapor. This is caused by solar radiation. And it has been occurring for more than a century or about 125 years before I bought my SUV. Gore claims an increase in mosquitoes is due to manmade global warming but he conveniently ignores that worldwide bans, led by American environmentalists, against the very effective mosquito-killing insecticide DDT most likely played the largest role in increased mosquito populations. He recounts a trip to the Antarctic where a researcher shows him an ice core sample from a glacier and then points to the exact spot in the sample that coincided with date of when the U.S. Congress passed the 1963 Clean Air Act. As he explained in Earth , "[E]ven a small reduction in one country's emissions had changed the amount of pollution found in the remotest and least accessible place on earth." Really? There are dozens of other errors, misstatements of fact, and bizarre claims in An Inconvenient Truth , which makes the film title even funnier when one thinks about it. In the film, Gore appears to be just as focused on resurrecting his moribund political career as he is on spreading his alarmism regarding manmade global warming. His opening on-camera statement is, "I am Al Gore. I used to be the next President of the United States." One doesn't get the sense this was delivered Rodney Dangerfield-like in that "I don't get no respect" vein that is intended to elicit belly laughs. The film includes clips of network news announcements that Gore won the 2000 Florida vote followed by Florida election officials examining dimpled and hanging chads from punch card ballots. Liberals still whine that the U.S. Supreme Court stole election victory away from Gore and gave it to George W. Bush even though a gaggle of liberal newspapers reluctantly reported that ballot recounts firmly gave Bush more votes than Gore. The film does carry Gore's statesman-like comment that he eventually accepted the high court's ruling in Bush v. Gore . "While I strongly disagree with the court's decision, I accept it. I accept the finality of this outcome," he said. Still, Gore delivers slights and tosses insults at Bush and other prominent Republicans including Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK). (Inhofe is a leading Congressional skeptic of manmade global warming claims.) Gore portrays a grade school science teacher as bordering on incompetent and then adds, "The teacher went on to become the science adviser in the current [Bush] administration." He alleges Bush broke a campaign promise to combat a cause of global warming. "In 2000, my opponent pledged to regulate CO2 and that was not a pledge that was kept." Gore disciples might experience a case of déjà vu over that statement. In Earth , Gore made an identical claim but that time it was directed against the first President Bush. "George Bush declared in one speech that he would, if elected, exercise leadership on global warming and 'confront the greenhouse effect with the White House effect.' It was, as we now know, an empty promise." Gore comes across as someone delivering little digs to his audience throughout the film as if to say, "Don't you feel guilty for not electing me President?" Unfortunately for the former Vice President, while Americans like a good sport they have little patience for sore losers and pouting martyrs. Portions of the film have a campaign feel. The film is peppered with little vignettes about Gore's personal life that appear to be attempts to engender sympathy for the man. He discusses the day his son was struck by an automobile and the boy's hospital stay, which was the epiphany that it was Gore's duty to combat global warming. "It brought into clear focus the mission that I had been pursuing for all these years." In Earth , Gore described his global warming alarmist mission in historical terms. "It is already clear that our information about the global environmental crisis does fall into a discernable pattern. For many, this pattern has become painfully obvious. But for others, it is still invisible.… Galileo was charged with a form of subversion for describing a pattern he saw in the heavens." Gore is Galileo, eh? In the film, Gore also mentions the 1984 death of his sister Nancy after she lost her battle to lung cancer after a lifetime of smoking cigarettes. He ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2011/05/17/an-inconvenient-truth-a-fifth-anniversary-tribute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

