<?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; Congress</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/congress/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 Increase Spending Again</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/obama-to-increase-spending-again/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/obama-to-increase-spending-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:15:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>apgreco</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[article]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jones-newswires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/obama-to-increase-spending-again/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ On Monday, Obama is slated to release his annual budget proposal for FY 2013, along with a 10-year budget (2012-2021) outlook.  One would think that after talking incessantly about cutting spending, Obama would spend less money next year than this year.  Yet, in Obama&#8217;s world, a spending cut means spending less than you were slated to spend, even though it is still higher in nominal terms.  The Wall Street Journal has already obtained the outline of his budget: President Barack Obama&#8217;s budget request to Congress on Monday will forecast a deficit of $1.33 trillion in fiscal year 2012 and will include hundreds of billions of dollars of proposed infrastructure spending, according to draft documents viewed by Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal. The projected deficit is higher than the $1.296 trillion deficit in 2011 and also slightly higher than a roughly $1.15 trillion projection released by the Congressional Budget Office last week. Hence, even though revenues are projected to go up by $220 billion this year, the deficit will still tick up another $37 billion.  Using CBO&#8217;s baseline, that would mean spending will rise $257 billion this year under Obama.  And that&#8217;s during an election year.  You can imagine what he would pull out of the hat if he wins a second term. The specifics aren&#8217;t published yet, but we have these nuggets from the article: The budget includes more than $350 billion in short-term measures for job growth; a six-year, $476 billion proposal for roads and other surface-transportation projects; and more than $360 billion in savings in health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The budget also calls for a 5% increase in nondefense research-and-development spending over the previous year and proposes $2.2 billion for advanced manufacturing research and development—a 19% increase over 2012. Surprise! More stimulus spending, plus more top-down federally-managed transportation, not unlike the Republican proposal in the House (yeah, we&#8217;re looking at you), and almost identical to the Senate proposal, which raises taxes (supported by all Republicans except for 9).  So how does Obama plan to reduce his $1.6 trillion deficit from last year?  We&#8217;ll wait and see, but undoubtedly, it will come out of the military. Regarding the healthcare cuts, until we reform the entire healthcare system to reflect the free-market, these cuts are either notional or will squeeze Medicare patients even further. Finally, what would an Obama budget be without tax increases: The draft documents don&#8217;t include all the details of the president&#8217;s budget but show similarities to the budget plan the White House laid out in September 2011. The budget proposal, for example, repeats a call for $1.5 trillion in new revenue, mostly from ending Bush-era tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year. Let&#8217;s pray with all our might that this will be Obama&#8217;s final budget. Cross-posted to The Madison Project ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/obama-to-increase-spending-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spencer Bachus And The Insidious Poison of Corruption</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/spencer-bachus-and-the-insidious-poison-of-corruption/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/spencer-bachus-and-the-insidious-poison-of-corruption/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:00:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al-6th district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alabama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[career]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insider trading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judge standridge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scott beason]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spencer bachus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/spencer-bachus-and-the-insidious-poison-of-corruption/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ It is a rare and unpleasant day when I feel it is necessary to call for the destruction of a Republican politician’s career for the sake of the decency of The Conservative Movement. It is even more unpleasant when that individual represents a district in my own home state (when he isn’t representing only himself). Such is the sordid case of Representative Spencer Bachus (R-AL) who’s ethical standards sadly took a dirt nap long before he chose to hang up his career. It seems Representative Bachus has discovered the power of information. In particular, he has been accused of leveraging his position in Congress to learn things that other participants in the stock market would have no way to possibly learn. This is called Insider Trading, it is highly illegal and carries significant penalty. The Washington Post (which never seems to fail to rapidly identify the partisan affiliation of a !REPUBLICAN! under an ethics investigation) is dutifully on the case. Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), who holds one of the most influential positions in the House, has been a frequent trader on Capitol Hill, buying stock options while overseeing the nation’s banking and financial services industries. The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent investigative agency, opened its probe late last year after focusing on numerous suspicious trades on Bachus’s annual financial disclosure forms, the individuals said. OCE investigators have notified Bachus that he is under investigation and that they have found probable cause to believe insider-trading violations have occurred. The case is the first of its kind involving a member of Congress. It comes at a time of intense public scrutiny of congressional ethics, with the House passing legislation Thursday to tighten rules against insider trading by lawmakers. The impetus for the legislation, a version of which passed in the Senate a week earlier, came from a “60 Minutes” report and a book mentioning Bachus’s trades, “Throw Them All Out,” by Peter Schweizer. Blatant embarrassment and public humiliation work wonders in getting The House of Representatives motivated and doing their jobs. Perhaps a similar scourge needs to be applied to the backsides of the voters who kept saying “Bah-Bah!!” and returning this ethical Philistine to the House of Representatives for ten terms. Spencer Bachus’ inexcusable career longevity is a prime example of the evils resident in our current systems of gerrymandering and seniority. I’ve previously pointed out the base moral turpitude of Democrat James Moran of The Great State of Virginia. It wouldn’t be right or fitting to cut a Republican any more slack. Thus I call upon the membership of the Republican Party of Alabama to primary Spencer Bachus. A process that is fortunately beginning to get underway. Three candidates have announced plans to oppose Congressman Bacchus. Perhaps the most formidable challenge is from State Senator Scott Beason. He is the author of Alabama’s Immigration Reform Bill and is also hated by The Alabama Democratic Party for role in sending several of their richest backers to jail during the Alabama Gambling Scandal of 2010. He has also aggressively intervened in the corrupt affairs of Jefferson County and championed legislation to resist Obamacare and restrict abortions. Local salesman and military veteran Al Mickle has also joined the race to replace Spencer Bacchus. He argues that his experiences in combat and in running a business make him uniquely qualified to represent the average American. He further states that the experiences from his daily life will make him more representative of the average American than someone who is a career politician. The 3rd candidate, Judge David Standridge has worked in law enforcement, served as a County Commissioner in Blount County, Alabama, and is currently a Probate Judge in Blount County. Judge Standridge reminds potential voters that as a County Commissioner in Blount County, he helped pay off a major debt that the locality had accrued. He claims the National Deficit is America’s biggest problem, and that as a member of Congress, reducing the debt by reducing government spending will be his number one priority. For Redstate readers in the State of Alabama, the three candidates seeking to end the corrupt shenanigans of Spencer Bachus will be speaking at an Alabama District 6 Candidate Forum. The event is sponsored by Rainy Day Patriots which describes itself as a Tea Party organization that operates in and around Birmingham, Al. It takes place 1 March and offers you an opportunity to get involved in securing our nation’s precarious future. The man the Republican Party has sent to Washington, DC from the 6th Congressional District in Alabama is both corrupt and venal. He is a parasite; not a patriot. He needs to be replaced, and not by a Democrat who would probably be no better. The Republican Party has got to police its own. The 6th District Primary offers us many options to do this. (One of whom is even as ex-cop). This needs to happen. We have the means in our hands. Let’s get it done. . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/spencer-bachus-and-the-insidious-poison-of-corruption/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sockpuppet Friday (a la carte edition)</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/sockpuppet-friday-a-la-carte-edition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/sockpuppet-friday-a-la-carte-edition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LegacyVankampen375</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign-during]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jennifer-rubin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peggy noonan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thread]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[top-executives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white-house]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/sockpuppet-friday-a-la-carte-edition/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [Posted by Karl] As usual, you are positively encouraged to engage in sockpuppetry in this thread. The usual rules apply. Please, be sure to switch back to your regular handle when commenting on other threads. I have made that mistake myself. And remember: the worst sin you can commit on this thread is not being funny. &#8212; Nothing really leapt out at me today, so let&#8217;s see what leaps out at all of you: The White House seems likely to annonunce a compromise accommodation clarification of the HHS mandate that Catholic institutions provide their employees with free access to contraceptive and abortifacient drugs.  It likely won&#8217;t make a difference , as evidenced by the president of the National Organization for Women&#8217;s apparent endorsement . Newt Gingrich is running out of money and Sheldon Adelson isn&#8217;t writing more checks to Gingrich’s super-PAC. Jennifer Rubin (shocka) hypes a &#8220;gaffe&#8221; by Rick Santorum suggesting that putting women in combat might create situations where emotions (on the part of men and moen, as I read it) harm the mission. Peggy Noonan joins those freaking out over low turnout in the GOP nominating contests, but suggests people are also tuning out Obama. (BTW, there’s not much evidence that high turnout in presidential primaries produces a good result in the general election.) Former Re p. Ron Klein (D-FL) &#8212; on-again, off-again lobbyist and Obama bundler &#8212; won stimulus grants and contracts worth nearly $18.5 million for a firm whose top executives were major contributors to Klein’s campaign during his two terms in Congress from 2007 to 2011. Have at it. &#8211;Karl ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/sockpuppet-friday-a-la-carte-edition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>RS at CPAC: Karen Harrington (R CAND, FL-20 PRI)</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/rs-at-cpac-karen-harrington-r-cand-fl-20-pri/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/rs-at-cpac-karen-harrington-r-cand-fl-20-pri/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:30:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cpac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debbie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from-yesterday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[karen harrington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[redstate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schultz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-district]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/rs-at-cpac-karen-harrington-r-cand-fl-20-pri/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ This is from yesterday: Karen Harrington is goig up against Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who doesn&#8217;t quite have the district that she used to. We&#8217;ve talked before , and she had some thoughts on CPAC this time: Karen&#8217;s site is here . Moe Lane ( crosspost ) ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/rs-at-cpac-karen-harrington-r-cand-fl-20-pri/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Day Ahead: Friday, February 10</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/the-day-ahead-friday-february-10/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/the-day-ahead-friday-february-10/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kalpanaceo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dependence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infighting-over]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[passes-insider]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[random-people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trading-bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/the-day-ahead-friday-february-10/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Day 2 of CPAC: Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum speak today ( CPAC ) White House will modify birth control mandate ( The Hill ) CPAC cool to Republican congress ( Examiner ) Houses passes insider trading bill ( NYT ) Heritage Foundation releases Index on Dependence on Government ( Heritage ) Obama bundler earmarked stimulus]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/the-day-ahead-friday-february-10/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Render Unto Caesar (Obama?)</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/render-unto-caesar-obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/render-unto-caesar-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:00:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>GlendaAnastasia803</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[picture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[priestess]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/render-unto-caesar-obama/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [ The following post was submitted via e-mail by a regular reader of the site who wishes to remain anonymous. -- Patterico ] As most readers of PP know by now (astute as you are), Secretary Sebelius released guidelines under ObamaCare that make it mandatory for all employer-provided health insurance to include (free) birth control. There is an exemption proposed for religious groups who find such to be against their beliefs, but the exemption is defined quite narrowly to those within the religious order itself, not to institutions or organizations that until now have operated under the constraints/freedom of their religious convictions. Some have said that Jesus Himself, always involved hob-knobbing with people “outside” of the church, would not qualify for the religious conscience exemption. The history of “church and state separation” significantly predates Jefferson’s wording on the issue in his letter to the Danbury Baptists (nope, not in the Constitution). In fact, history records such conflict even before there was “church.” One early incident involved Moses and Pharaoh. Moses requested a brief time-off from work for the Jewish people so they could go into the wilderness and worship. Pharaoh, claiming governmental and divine authority in addition to being their chief employer, was not too keen on the idea, resulting in much commotion and tumult &#8212; to Pharaoh’s chagrin. Later there were incidents in the Kingdom of Babylon. The Jewish exiles Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were skilled and wise in their service to the king. But once again being king was not enough and he made a gold statue of himself, demanding that people bow down and worship him as god as well. Once again, the demand for loyalty to the government over loyalty to God did not work out too well for the king. Some years later the rulers of a new empire again muddled the distinction between human authority and loyalty to the divine. The Roman Empire had a noble start. It was a republic, governed by a Senate and proconsuls who were elected, not a monarchy. But along came a man who felt he knew better than the founders, had no need of a senate to advise him, and decided he needn’t share his power with anyone. So powerful was he that his name became synonymous for the ruler of the empire, Caesar. As happened before, Caesar took unto himself the claim of deity as well. Perhaps the most well known episode of the “church and state” strife in this time occurred when an itinerate preacher named Jesus was asked whether it was all right for the people to pay taxes to Caesar. Although this predated the age of news networks, sound bites, and “gotcha” questions, he knew a trap when he heard one. So, much to the disappointment of the RNN (Roman News Network), he asked the surrounding folk whose picture was on the gold coins. When told the picture was that of Caesar, he then replied, &#8220;Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar&#8217;s; and unto God the things that are God&#8217;s.&#8221; The Roman soldiers in attendance, interested only in the money anyway, saw nothing to make a fuss about. The Roman Republic, to my knowledge of history, was the greatest republic on earth, until our own. But the Roman Republic was taken by force of will to become the Roman Empire. Perhaps it was with that in mind that upon being asked about the proposed United States Constitution, Benjamin Franklin answered that we had a republic, “…if you can keep it”. Please bear with me for a moment while I draw a parallel. Barack Hussein Obama was elected as President of the United States, and as such declared an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of our Republic. However, prior to the election he clearly voiced his opinion that the Constitution was inadequate and flawed. Now, multiple times in history our government has seen the need to amend the Constitution, to make adjustments where necessary, but has any President suggested that it was inherently “wrong” and should have been made different, not amended? Can someone with such a low opinion of the Constitution seriously pledge to defend it? Just as Julius Caesar demonstrated his disdain for the Senate by crossing the Rubicon against their orders, so President Obama first demonstrated his disdain for the Senate by appointing a new class of executive officials, honestly enough referred to as “czars,” without any approval by, or guidance from, the legislative branch. One could argue that such a move at least avoided a direct insult to Congress, but he then went further by making appointments without the required Senate approval, by “deeming” them in recess (which was news to them). In other words, Obama loudly proclaimed: “Your presence doesn’t matter!” Chastising the Supreme Court Justices in public gave President Obama the opportunity to demonstrate the fact that his contempt for the other branches of government was not limited to Congress. Whether his directions to AG Holder over which federal laws to defend and which to ignore is an action directed at the legislature or the judiciary is a question that people could debate, I suppose. In either case it is a show of disregard for the American people, who elected representatives to make the laws &#8212; and expected the judiciary to uphold them fairly. But he has further made the comparison appropriate even to the extreme of essentially claiming the prerogatives of divinity. While he did not claim power to heal the sick or control the oceans directly by himself, he clearly stated that the time had come to witness these events with his rise to leadership. But he has now shown a quality clearly reserved to the Divine, that of overruling the petty gods of the people. This is what the HHS High Priestess Sebelius announced from on high recently. You are free to “exercise” your religious beliefs, just as long as you keep them to yourself. Whatever your deeply held religious convictions may be, when they try to get in the way of the will of Caesar, it is the will of Caesar that must prevail. If no one will be able to limit his power, the comparison to Caesar will be complete. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/render-unto-caesar-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rand, The Better Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/rand-the-better-paul/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/rand-the-better-paul/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>richwas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[father]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[union-chairman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virtual]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/rand-the-better-paul/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ At the start of the Conservative Political Action Conference yesterday, American Conservative Union Chairman Al Cardenas said : This week at CPAC, the American Conservative Union is honored to host former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and Senator Rand Paul, a powerful surrogate for his father Congressman Ron Paul. Cardenas similarly characterized Rand Paul as representing his dad in a press conference before his speech. It's easy to see why; contested primaries inject CPAC with a special energy, attracting large (and lucrative) crowds, and the absence of Paul]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/rand-the-better-paul/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>Neo-Disarmament</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/neo-disarmament/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/neo-disarmament/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>apgreco</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/neo-disarmament/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The Partnership : Five Cold Warriors and Their Quest to Ban the Bomb By Philip Taubman (HarperCollins Books, 478 pages, $29.99) Just as an Israeli airstrike against Iran appears increasingly likely, author Philip Taubman has published a book celebrating a growing movement among movers and shakers aiming to abolish nuclear weapons as soon as possible. The effort is spearheaded by some big names: Nixon-era national security adviser and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, prime architect of American foreign policy during the Nixon years; Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz, who became an advocate of nuclear weapons abolition during his tenure; Clinton-era Secretary of Defense William Perry, also a key architect of the development of Stealth technology; and former Georgia Democrat Senator Sam Nunn, who became a top defense and foreign policy expert during his two dozen years on Capitol Hill. Joining them as an adviser was physicist Sidney Drell, who was a nuclear weapons designer and close confidant of Soviet scientist Andrei Sakharov, called "the father of the Soviet H-bomb" by many historians. A sixth Cold warrior, diplomat Max Kampelman, also played an important role in getting the group together. Following biographical portraits of his subjects, the main part of Taubman's book narrates how the five men came to collaborate on the cause of promoting global abolition of nuclear weapons. The final section of the book explains the specific steps the five have taken to date, via articles, speeches, conferences, and tête-à-têtes with myriad prominent personages decorating their immense power Rolodexes. The book offers interesting anecdotes that add color to what otherwise would have been a dry read. Nunn, as a 24-year-old Congressional intern, visited NATO's massive Ramstein Air Base (in what then was West Germany) during the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. He was told by an Air Force general that in event of a Soviet attack he had one minute to get his planes aloft so they could escape destruction. Visiting NATO sites in 1974 as a freshman senator, Nunn was stunned to learn that ground commanders facing far more numerous Warsaw Pact forces envisioned early recourse to nuclear weapons, to prevent the Soviet Union's huge army from overrunning Western Europe. On that same visit Nunn was told by one base security officer that a team of terrorists could conceivably storm the base and make off with a nuclear weapon -- not three or four, but a team of ten could succeed. Taubman, whose thirty years with the New York Times included stints as chief of the Gray Lady's Moscow and Washington bureaus, makes no effort to conceal his enthusiasm for the project. Noting early efforts to block the group's initiative, Taubman writes that "entrenched interests… in the nuclear weapons priesthood are already mobilizing to block the disarmament movement." He cites Nixon/Ford Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger as "mockingly" telling one audience of defense analysts: "The dividing line between vision and hallucination is never very clear." Taubman notes that such skepticism is shared by Jimmy Carter's Secretary of Defense, Harold Brown, and Clinton-era CIA Director (albeit briefly) John Deutch. Taubman offers a harrowing chapter on nuclear theft, lax security and careless handling of bombs and warheads. If you are looking for a good night's sleep, skip this chapter. In a follow-on chapter he informs us that some 160 of 200 research reactors built worldwide run on bomb-grade fuel. There is, he writes, enough highly-enriched uranium -- four and a half tons worldwide -- to provide fuel for 170 nuclear bombs. (Their explosive yield is not specified, but presumably these would be Hiroshima-size bombs.) He also recounts several near-nuclear confrontations between the U.S. and Soviet Union, besides Cuba in 1962: during the Vietnam War over U.S. escalation; in 1969 between Russia and China over border disputes; a mistaken radar alarm that triggered a launch of B-52 bombers; and the sudden confrontation in the Mediterranean towards the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, over Israel's having trapped an Egyptian Army division on the west side of the Suez Canal. When the Nixon administration declared a nuclear alert during the confrontation, only Kissinger and then-presidential assistant Gen. Alexander Haig supported the move. Taubman reports that Kissinger told Haig, of the reluctant officials: "These guys were wailing all over the place." Taubman wistfully recounts Ronald Reagan's near-acceptance of "nuclear zero" at the 1986 U.S. -- Soviet Summit in Reykjavik as a missed opportunity to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2000. Gorbachev had offered it, subject to Reagan limiting his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) to laboratory research alone. But Reagan refused. The end of the Cold War gave strong impetus to superpower disarmament, with several arms reduction treaties passing. Nunn found himself in Russia during the August 1991 coup that unseated Gorbachev for a few days and led to the rise of Boris Yeltsin, who became the hero of the popular revolution that led to the demise of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991. Nunn was appalled that during the days of the coup he could not get a straight answer from Russian officials as to whether the Russian nuclear arsenal remained under secure control. This was one of the spurs that led Nunn to collaborate with Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar in the hugely successful Nunn-Lugar nuclear threat reduction project, securing by 2011 nearly all the loose nuclear material inside Russia and finding employment for thousands of nuclear scientists. In 2001 Nunn and Lugar joined forces with funding from billionaire Ted Turner to form the Nuclear Threat Initiative, to promote new solutions to nuclear issues. It is in the final section that Taubman argues his case for proceeding towards nuclear zero. The ascension of Barack Obama to the presidency put in the Oval Office a passionate advocate of total disarmament, only two years after the high-profile disarmament supporters published and op-ed in the Wall Street Journal . In broad brushstroke, key ideas already floated by the group include de-alerting missiles and bombers from Cold War high alert status; securing loose nuclear material; creating a collaborative inspection program; and extending international control over nuclear facilities, under the aegis of the United Nations. The advocates further stress that the United States must set an example by taking the lead in reducing their own nuclear arsenal to a very low level (a few hundred). Failing this they say it will be impossible to persuade other nations to do the same. Taubman lauds the New START Treaty, ratified in December 2010, and the 2009 Nuclear Security Summit as examples of success in the direction of zero. But New START was a unilateral U.S. strategic arms reduction agreement, as the Russians were already below the treaty limits. The Russians can actually build newer, more modern missiles and add to their arsenal. And New START's verification provisions are more limited than the treaty it replaced (the Bush Moscow Treaty of 2002). The Washington, D.C. Nuclear Security Summit featured four dozen world leaders. Forced to attend was Israel, whose arm was twisted by the Obama administration. Israel got more attention for its arsenal than did North Korea for having exited the Nonproliferation Treaty and joined the nuclear club. Iran, meanwhile, continues to march towards nuclear capability. And thus we see the three elephants standing hardly noticed by abolitionists in the proverbial room. First, rogue states will not only decline to follow our good example; they will be induced to increase their arsenals, which become more valuable as our arsenal shrinks -- 100 nukes in Pakistan matter much more in a world with the U.S. at the same number, than in a world with the U.S. having a few thousand weapons. This runs counter to the psychology of civilized people who see nuclear weapons as being for deterrence only, but a nuclear Iran eager to destroy the Great Satan (U.S.) and Little Satan (Israel) will think differently. Proof of this was provided by the Soviets in the eleven months between the November 1985 Geneva Summit and the October 1986 Reykjavik Summit. In that short span the Soviets capped off their 25 year strategic buildup by adding 5,300 warheads, topping out at some 45,000 warheads -- this despite the U.S. having frozen the total number of its warheads in 1967 at just over 31,000, and reducing them constantly. So much for setting an example. Yes, Gorbachev came around, as Russia's economy imploded. Do not expect the fanatical mullahs to do the same. Second, absolutely confident verification of a clandestine stockpile of warheads and missiles is simply impossible at present, and likely will remain so for a long time. We failed to find a dozen jet planes Saddam hid in the sand, until after his overthrow. Concealing cruise missiles with nuclear warheads would be, by comparison, child's play. Finally, there is no justification for confidence in the UN's ability to stop any determined nuclear aspirant. The worst nations will simply ignore entreaties and evade inspections. What can work -- the only thing that can -- is positive regime change. The Soviet Union evaded arms treaty obligations for years, and concealed the full size of its massive strategic buildup; only with the accession of Mikhail Gorbachev late in the Cold War did things change for the better. Until similar change comes to Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, expect abolition to remain what Schlesinger obliquely hinted it is: a hallucination masquerading as a vision. It was precisely this opportunity -- positive regime change -- that President Obama spurned in June 2009 when the Iranian opposition formed in fury at the stolen election that returned Islamist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Iranian presidency. Instead of siding with the demonstrators and uniting a coalition to put maximum pressure on the mullahs Obama stood aside; he contented himself with feeble verbal sallies. He pursued arms talks with a leadership that had never honored an agreement made, and clearly was determined to pursue its nuclear ambitions. And he allowed Russia and China to water down several rounds of sanctions. Only in the past two months have sanctions against Iranian oil and financial interests become strong enough to bite. Which brings us to the emerging showdown in the Persian Gulf, as Iran defiantly marches forward, Israel prepares to strike if, as is likely, sanctions fail, and America and Europe prepare for the convulsions likely to follow, which could include multiple wars in the Mideast and global economic disaster. Nuclear zero creates another danger: that public desire for abolition trumps practical obstacles to verification and pushes Western nations to disarm first. Were a nuke to detonate anywhere on the planet, momentum for unilateral disarmament could snowball. Nuclear zero advocates fan such emotional flames. Put simply, elephants in the room do not go away if you ignore them. And if not stopped, they can trample us all. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/neo-disarmament/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UNESCO: Love It and Don&#8217;t Leave It</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/unesco-love-it-and-dont-leave-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/unesco-love-it-and-dont-leave-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communication]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[czech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[czech-republic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[modern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[netherlands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/unesco-love-it-and-dont-leave-it/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Joseph A. Harriss' recent article (" The United Nations' Rogue Agency ," TAS , February 2012 ) expresses appropriate concern about certain recent events at UNESCO. At the same time, the piece mischaracterizes events that are portrayed as stains on the organization when they were actually triumphs for UNESCO -- and U.S. interests. For example, Harriss alleges that the election pitting Mubarak's corrupt henchman]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/unesco-love-it-and-dont-leave-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

