<?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; Health Care</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/health-care/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>No Double Play</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/no-double-play/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/no-double-play/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HigleyLocklear930</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[catholic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[edict]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frame-the-issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health-insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human-services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxpayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/no-double-play/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ In two areas the Obama Administration has been proving itself too clever by half. It had hoped to score a double play by subsidizing "green" energy companies and forcing Catholic institutions into a once-size-fits-all contraception policy. Instead, both efforts have produced unwanted results. Almost from Inauguration Day, Obama's Department of Energy has been giving loans and loan guarantees to solar, wind and car battery companies. Normal due diligence by a private venture capital company would have denied (and probably did) loans to several of these, but this didn't stop the DoE. It was driven, after all, by the religion of Environmentalism, whose worshipers had given Obama so many votes in 2008 and continued to insist that Americans must be made to use less gasoline and industry must be made to use less energy to produce its goods. Today seven or so of the energy companies that received the taxpayer-funded loans are now in bankruptcy, led by Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer, which received half-a-billion dollars. The fact that the Bush Administration had decided against a loan to Solyndra was ignored by Energy Secretary Steven Chu. Mr. Chu is a respected physicist, but has no known business experience. What business does the U.S. Government have dabbling in venture capital investments? None. Private providers are very careful in assessing risks before investing in new ventures. Even then, some don't pan out. Most do and, in either case, it is private money at risk, not yours. Just as ideology drove the unwise energy loans, so it has driven the Department of Health and Human Services edict that Catholic-owned hospitals, schools, colleges and charities must provide free contraception devices and services (including "morning after" pills) in all employees' health insurance policies. This is in opposition to the Catholic Church's long-held position on contraception.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/no-double-play/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Defense Of Life</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/in-defense-of-life/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/in-defense-of-life/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:16:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>richwas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alive-infant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illinois]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[links]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[yuval-levin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/in-defense-of-life/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jill Stanek and Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois Jill Stanek and Barack Obama in the Illinois Legislature Links to Barack Obama’s votes on IL’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act The Obama Debate Every American Should See Robert P. George, October 14, 2008  Obama&#8217;s Abortion Extremism Robert P. George and Yuval Levin, October 16, 2008 ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/10/in-defense-of-life/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Origins of Romneycare and Coultercare</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/the-origins-of-romneycare-and-coultercare/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/the-origins-of-romneycare-and-coultercare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>clarenbachvanderkam718</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cnn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[denied-on-cnn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[individual]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[local-newspaper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandate-during]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[santorum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[swept-the-right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-individual]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/the-origins-of-romneycare-and-coultercare/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Avik Roy has posted what may be the most comprehensive account of the individual mandate mania that once swept the right (or at least the subset of the right made up of health care policy wonks). Roy also points out that a lot of serious conservatives were actually anti-mandate way back in the 1990s, when Newt Gingrich felt they were necessary to combat Hillarycare. I do have two quibbles, however. Roy writes: "Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who were both House backbenchers in 1993, were also in favor of an individual mandate in those days." Gingrich was minority whip, the second-ranking Republican in the House, in 1993. He was no backbencher. Second, I find the evidence Santorum supported an individual mandate inconclusive. There are at least two local newspaper accounts that I am aware of, both dating back to his 1994 Senate race, that say he supported a mandate of some kind. One says he supported an individual mandate specifically. No Santorum campaign then or now has, to my knowledge, disputed this. Yet the papers don't provide any direct quotes either, which makes me wonder if they were describing his position correctly. UPDATE: Roy updates the record on Santorum's alternative to the individual mandate. Santorum denied on CNN supporting such a mandate during his 1994 Senate campaign. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/the-origins-of-romneycare-and-coultercare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Religiously Supporting Obama&#8217;s Mandate</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/religiously-supporting-obamas-mandate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/religiously-supporting-obamas-mandate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Onoshobishobi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious-left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[southern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unitarian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/religiously-supporting-obamas-mandate/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Many Protestant and evangelical leaders are standing with the Roman Catholics bishops against the Obamacare mandate to compel religious hospitals, schools and charities to purchase insurance coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/09/religiously-supporting-obamas-mandate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>President Barack Obama:  “The Dependency President”</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/president-barack-obama-the-dependency-president/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/president-barack-obama-the-dependency-president/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 00:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[college-tuition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government dependency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numbers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[past]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/president-barack-obama-the-dependency-president/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Government dependency is on the rise according to a new Heritage Foundation study.  Americans can thank President Barack Obama for a huge spike in the numbers of Americans dependent on government resources, but both parties can share in the blame.  If the federal government does not make government smaller and less intrusive, then there may not be much private sector wealth creation for government bureaucrats to take to redistribute to dependent Americans.  American are relying on government handouts rather than hard work for many of the necessities of life.  One in five Americans rely on the federal government for housing, health care, food, college tuition and retirement resources.  The 10th year of The Heritage Foundation government dependency study, the 2012 Index of Dependence on Government , proves that members of both parties need to take a hard look in the mirror and figure out a way to slow, then end, the creeping expansion of the federal government into every aspect of our lives. John Merline of Investor&#8217;s Business Daily writes that that the Obama presidency can take credit for 23% of the surge in dependency.  The American public&#8217;s dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation. Merline points out that the Obama increase is the largest two-year jump since the Presidency of Jimmy Carter.  The reason for the stimulus in government dependency was President Obama&#8217;s and Congress&#8217; efforts to increase housing subsidies, expand Medicaid and more welfare spending including food stamps.  If more people become reliant on government, expect Americans to go down the road of our European friends who have relied on big welfare states for years.  With a big welfare state and less people working to pay for big government, the federal government&#8217;s natural inclination is to raise taxes on job creators to engage in wealth redistribution.  The take away from this study is that big government and a shift to a dependent society will be the death of free markets and the idea of a relatively unencumbered version of capitalism.  Get ready for the slow walk to socialism that we can see every day destroying Europe. As Patrick Tyrrell of The Heritage Foundation, my employer, puts it &#8220; Dependence on Government at All-Time High .&#8221;  Tyrrell points to some facts in the new study that should shock Americans. Dependent Americans &#8211; One in five Americans—the highest in the nation’s history—relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance. That’s more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington. Government Stimulus for Dependency &#8211; Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement. Record High Dependency Spending &#8211; The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446). Almost 50% of Americans Don&#8217;t Pay Income Tax &#8211; At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes. Future Dependency Spending Projected to Explode &#8211; In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care. 70% of  Federal Budget Dedicated to Dependency &#8211; As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed. Government debt stands at about $15.2 trillion; a number higher than the economic output of the United States for an average year.  Dependency is growing as government grows.  These trends are bad for freedom and the future of America. Although this trend toward government dependency has accelerated under President Obama, he is not wholly to blame.  Both parties have supported a massive expansion of welfare programs over the past few years.  The food stamp program is the fourth largest entitlement program and stands at about $89 billion for this year.  There are 72 means tested welfare programs that grow in size and scope every year.  Bailouts have made big corporate America dependent on government money when they can&#8217;t make ends meet.  Medicare Part D was a creation of a Republican administration that expanded dependency of the elderly on government subsidized prescription drugs.  If both parties don&#8217;t stop promising more government largess in an effort to buy off American voters, our nation is endanger of insolvency. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/president-barack-obama-the-dependency-president/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Day Ahead: Tuesday, February 7</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-day-ahead-tuesday-february-7/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-day-ahead-tuesday-february-7/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LogemannCid284</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beacon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[document-dumps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donations-tied]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[launched-today]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[market-takes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[near-lawmakers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[return-major]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super-bowl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[usa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-day-ahead-tuesday-february-7/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The Washington Free Beacon launched today ( Free Beacon ) Once considered "a threat to our Democracy," Obama embraces Super PACs ( CBS ) Obama to return major donations tied to fugitive ( NY Times ) Friday night Solyndra document dumps ( Politico ) Army tries to silence chaplains about birth control mandates ( CNS ) Underemployment is up to 18.7% ( Gallup ) On health care, Heritage Foundation awkwardly defends itself ( USA Today ) Another Romneycare-driven tax hike ( Boston Herald ) Earmarks often used for projects near lawmakers' properties ( WaPo ) Serious pessimism]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-day-ahead-tuesday-february-7/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Excommunicate the Bishops.</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/excommunicate-the-bishops/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/excommunicate-the-bishops/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BrennanShawna20</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[easter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thoughts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/excommunicate-the-bishops/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Promoted from the diaries Most of my writing is on foreign policy. There are few other topic areas other than the law on which I&#8217;m comfortable writing. However, as streiff notes , I, like most other Catholics, got to hear a heartfelt letter from my Bishop &#8212; a living examplar of St. John Chrysostom&#8217;s famous (possibly apocryphal) maxim &#8212; explaining that clear out of nowhere, somehow, the Obama Administration decided to make Catholic institutions pay for abortifacents, birth control, and sterilization procedures, all of which are actually explicitly mortal sins in my faith, which is to say, one can be in danger of Hell merely for helping to provide them. As Sts. Nicholas and Chrysostom would not, in their unenlightened days, have likely had warm feelings for His Excellency, it is perhaps incumbent upon me to note that my Bishop neglected a few details in the sermon he had our deacon read aloud. His Excellency was absolutely silent on the possible election of a man who actively defended the post-uterine execution of neonatal infants, which I ascribe to moral laziness and cowardice, though it may have been instead interest in funding a short lived billboard campaign in Atlanta extolling Catholics who believe him and the Pope evil to come on back for a quick round of communion. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is a self-professing Catholic who is one of the most ardent defenders of the abortion license in our country. Obamacare was passed through the good offices of numerous nominally-Catholic Senators and Representatives, despite warnings from Catholic groups (such as the Knights of Columbus, who fought tooth and nail) and without so much as a peep of the same from our esteemed Bishops, that maybe, just maybe, the Obama Administration might be vaguely interested in making free abortion on demand and contraceptives available to all, conscience exceptions be damned. No pun. Instead, in that pastoral letter, there was a general note that this was bad, and we should all be aware of it. In the background, I believe I heard someone dropping bread into a bowl of milk. I may have also heard someone washing his hands before a condemned man, but I&#8217;m not sure about that. Back when there was a New Ledger , I wrote a now long-forgotten piece excoriating the Bishops in this country for complicity in its passage, for not speaking up, for not excommunicating the public officials who actively fight for the abortion license despite the infallible teachings of our Church &#8212; and by extension, for enabling a culture of license that enables the Culture of Death. (Piece stolen here ; TNL no longer publishes essays.) I stand by every word, and would like to add a few things. Let me start with the most basic one. You can all, each of you, and I say this after a week of prayerful meditation and with all of the respect I can give, go straight to the darkest pit in the lowest valley of the Ninth Layer of Hell and burn there. It was easy to sell out the unborn, wasn&#8217;t it? To just wish away an infallible teaching that &#8212; let&#8217;s be honest &#8212; has been such a headache since a Catholic Supreme Court Justice helped its mass breaking, and Catholic Democrats abandoned everything else to protect that breach, right? To let others commit a sin that our Church treats as so grave that it incurs the automatic sanction of excommunication? All in return for a goal you&#8217;ve shared with your Democrat masters since the 1940s &#8212; a chance to drive healthcare costs through the roof with the fig leaf of social caring. All so you could work with the sorts of people who are elected to office by publicly calling you theocrats and misogynists for more-or-less upholding the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of our Church. Thirty pieces of silver must buy one Hell of a lot more for you than it does for me. Who among you has stepped forward to say, Whoops! Or, We are infallible on matters of faith expressed through the Tradition or through an ecumenical Council, but we can err on policy, and hoo-boy, did we blow this one . Who among you spoke out last week and said, Attention my flock: I must now inform you that the Democratic Party has proven once and for all that if you vote for a Democrat in this country, you engage in material cooperation with evil. We will now be holding weekly mass Confession to handle the backlog until it clears. Because that is truth. In 2009 and 2010, nominally faithful Catholics who value all of the policy choices you do &#8212; labor unions, forced charity, high rates of taxation, urban ghettoes, and of course, universal &#8220;health care&#8221; &#8212; and who claimed to be ardent defenders of the unborn sold out to a one , sacrificed millions of babies and betrayed the infallible teaching of their faith so they could get one gigantic step closer to the social justice you so crave. And for that, for that moment when they put aside their baptismal and confirmation vows, repeated every Easter, and their recitation of whatever version of the Nicene Creed you&#8217;ve settled on this week, your response was &#8230; applause. Silence. Satisfaction. A professed willingness to work with the Administration. You made all of this possible. For almost my entire life, you have given my fellow Catholics every reason to believe they can freely sin, and hey, no problem, so long as they favor higher taxation and government spending. They can murder the unborn, and I have had all of two homilies, two, in my entire time as a Catholic, which is to say from birth and for the thirty-five years after, in parishes and dioceses across the country, in which a priest has said, If you have had, caused, or aided in obtaining an abortion, and you take communion today, you will go to Hell . You look out into your emptying pews, terrified of the wood you see and the flesh you don&#8217;t, through families of one, two, or sometimes amazingly three children, and think, Well, at least they&#8217;re still coming , as if you do not understand the connection between these things. In the wake of the sex abuse scandal, I got to hear read to me and my wife and small baby a heartfelt letter from a bishop not even in office when the terrible events at issue took place, making a sincere apology. In 2006, I got to get lectured at Easter about the importance of having lots of illegal immigrants in our country, from the same Bishop who told me last week he&#8217;s kinda confused about what happened with this whole Obama thing. As a child, the only time I read of the bishops taking a unified stand was on the evil of Ronald Reagan attempting to dismantle the greatest threat Christianity has known since the height of the Ottoman Empire. While I&#8217;m to the left of many of the readers and writers here on the issue of illegal immigration and how to resolve it, I&#8217;m struck by the fact that my Church seems to care more about defending the right to stay here of people whose first act on entering this country is to break its laws &#8212; a right not dogmatically defined by my faith &#8212; and on the evil of producing nuclear weapons than what it by its very teaching describes as the slaughter of one million innocent babies year in and year out. I am utterly appalled to realize that they are either too gullible, too cowardly, too stupid, or too dishonest with themselves and others to realize that if they tell Catholics that abortion can be traded off for more social welfare, a significant number of Catholics will make that trade, today, now, this instant. You have materially cooperated with evil, and I have yet to hear mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa . (Try the older Confiteor if you prefer: I confess to Almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault. In my thoughts, and in my words ; in what I have done, and what I have failed to do . ) You are abetting scandal. You are aiding in the all-but-literal poisoning of political discourse in this country. And you are lying . You are lying by your words, by your acts, by your omissions. Whatever your rationales, you hide from the truth of what has been before you for forty years , and you aid in that deception to your flock. And the net result is that you now need to either (1) give in; (2) dump all of your employees into public healthcare (a double win, right?); or (3) disband . Given how you acted when Mitt Romney&#8217;s reign in Massachusetts forced you into the same corner, I fully expect (1). Heck, if you can provide abortifacents and prophylactics in New England, why not in Arizona? In a purer time, you would have been haled before an Ecumenical Council and been required to give an account of yourself, or been summarily excommunicated on the spot. In an emergency, the Pope would do this thing. I was born into the Faith. I was confirmed before my twelfth birthday. I nearly applied to seminary twice. I married in the Church. I am raising my many-more-than-two-children in the Faith. And every time I see something like this come down the pike, complete with passive-voice verbs and hand washing everywhere, the only things keeping me from joining one of the Orthodox Churches are my dislike of incense, my desire to avoid being as dim as poor Donatist Rod Dreher , and my firm belief that the Church teaches Truth, even though its princes are men by genetics only. But as you now reap what you have sown for twice my lifetime, I say, with all the charity I can muster, that you can rot. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/05/excommunicate-the-bishops/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama’s failed promises: Nevada edition</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/obamas-failed-promises-nevada-edition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/obamas-failed-promises-nevada-edition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:37:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HigleyLocklear930</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012-elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press-release]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[street]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/obamas-failed-promises-nevada-edition/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The good folks at the RNC took a look  at what candidate Obama promised in Nevada during the 2008 presidential campaign &#8230; and the record of failure that followed. The result reveals President Obama&#8217;s failure to live up to candidate Obama&#8217;s promises. In a new video the RNC reminds us of how Obama&#8217;s failed promises impact Nevada. Nevada has the highest unemployment rate in the country &#8212; 12.6%, the highest foreclosure filings in the country and more than 58% of properties with mortgages underwater: Research proving Obama&#8217;s failed promises is provided below the fold courtesy of the RNC. FAILED ON HOUSING PROMISE: Obama Promised Nevadans That He Would “Act Quickly To Help People Stay In Their Homes”  “I&#8217;ll also act quickly to help people stay in their homes, something that&#8217;s especially critical here in Nevada where foreclosure rates are five times the national average. I&#8217;ll help responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages on affordable terms, and put in place a three-month moratorium on foreclosures to give folks the breathing room they need to get back on their feet. And I won&#8217;t let banks and lenders off the hook when it was their greed and irresponsibility that got us into this mess.” (Senator Barack Obama,  Remarks At A Campaign Event , Reno, NV, 10/25/08)   FAILURE:   Obama’s “Mosaic” Of Housing Policies Is “ Entering Its Fourth Year Of Weak Sales And High Foreclosures.”  &#8220;The proposal, to be released in the coming weeks, is the latest addition to a mosaic of Obama administration programs aimed at boosting the housing market, which is entering its fourth year of weak sales and high foreclosures.&#8221; (Lorraine Woellert, &#8220;Obama Pushes Proposal To Streamline Refinancing For Homeowners,&#8221;  Bloomberg , 1/25/12) Under Obama’s Housing Programs “ Fewer Than 1,000 Loans Have Refinanced.”    &#8221;Haven&#8217;t similar programs been tried before? Yes. But those programs put in place a series of rules designed to ensure that government entities weren&#8217;t taking on more risk by allowing investors and banks to offload risky mortgages onto the government. In 2010, for example, the Obama administration rolled out a program to let underwater borrowers refinance through the FHA, but that program required banks to first write down loan balances so that borrowers could qualify under existing rules. Fewer than 1,000 loans have refinanced through the program. Congress approved a more complicated version of this idea in spring 2008 called Hope for Homeowners, but it also resulted in just a few hundred refinances.&#8221; (Nick Timiraos, &#8220;Six Questions On Obama&#8217;s Mortgage Refinance Proposal,&#8221;  The Wall Street Journal , 1/25/12) Four Years Later Housing Is Still “ Especially Critical Here In Nevada”   “For 60 Consecutive Months, Nevada Has Had The Highest Foreclosure Rate Of Any State. That&#8217;s Five Long, Painful Years.”  (Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, “No Silver Lining In Housing Market As Nevada Votes,”  CNN , 2/3/12)   “More Than 6 Percent Of Nevada Housing Units (One In 16) Had At Least One Foreclosure Filing In 2011, Giving It The Nation’s Highest State Foreclosure Rate For The Fifth Consecutive Year”  (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,”  Press Release , 1/12/12)   “[L]as Vegas Posted The Nation’s Top Foreclosure Rate For The Year Among Metropolitan Statistical Areas…”  “With 7.38 percent of its housing units (one in 14) with at least one foreclosure filing in 2011, Las Vegas posted the nation’s top foreclosure rate for the year among metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 200,000 or more.” (RealtyTrac, “2011 Year-End Foreclosure Market Report: Foreclosures On The Retreat,”  Press Release , 1/12/12) In Nevada, Nearly Two-Thirds Of Homeowners Are Underwater On Their Mortgages.  &#8221;Data earlier this year from CoreLogic.com showed that nearly two-in-three Nevada homeowners owed more on their property than their homes were worth &#8211; a situation also known as being &#8216;underwater.&#8217; Nevada was followed by Arizona (51 percent), Florida (47 percent) and Michigan (36 percent) in terms of underwater loans.&#8221; (Aaron Blake, &#8220;Obama And The Politics Of The Housing Foreclosure Crisis,&#8221;  The Washington Post &#8216;s “ The Fix  ,“ 10/24/11) FAILED ON AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED NEVADANS THAT HIS HEALTH CARE PLAN WOULD LOWER PREMIUMS PROMISE: Obama Said That Under His Plan, Americans Would See “Lower Premiums.”  “If you have health insurance, the only thing that will change under my plan is that we will lower premiums.” (Senator Barack Obama,  Remarks At A Campaign Event , Reno, NV, 10/25/08) FAILURE:  Factcheck.org: ObamaCare Is Actually Making Health Care &#8220;Less Affordable.&#8221;  &#8220;At the moment, the new law is making health care slightly less affordable. Independent health care experts say the law has caused some insurance premiums to rise. As we wrote in October, the new law has caused about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans because of requirements for increased benefits. Last year&#8217;s premium increases cast even more doubt on another promise the president has made &#8211; that the health care law would &#8216;lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.&#8217;&#8221; (D&#8217;Angelo Gore, &#8220;Promises, Promises,&#8221;  Factcheck.org , 1/4/12)   The Washington Post   &#8216;s The Fact Checker: “Insurance Premiums Have Gone Up . . .”  &#8220;Moreover, at this point it is debatable whether the law has made health care more affordable. Insurance premiums have gone up, in part because of new benefits mandated by the law.&#8221; (Glenn Kessler, &#8220;The Fine Print In Obama&#8217;s &#8216;Promises Kept&#8217; Ad,&#8221;  The Washington Post&#8217;s  &#8221;  The Fact Checker ,&#8221; 1/6/12)   Kaiser Study Found That Costs Of Family Coverage “Climbed” 9 Percent In 2011.  “The average cost of a family policy climbed 9 percent in 2011 to $15,073, according to a poll of 2,088 private companies and state and local government agencies by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation in Menlo Park, California, and the Chicago- based American Hospital Association’s Health Research and Educational Trust.” (Jeffrey Young, “Health-Benefit Costs Rise Most In Six Years,”  Bloomberg , 9/27/11) Workers Paid An Average Of $132 More For Family Coverage In 2011 Than They Did In 2010.  &#8220;Although premiums rose, employers kept the percentage of the premium workers pay about the same: An average of 18 percent for single coverage and 28 percent for family plans. Still, with rising costs, workers paid more, up an average of $132 a year for family coverage. Since 1999, the dollar amount workers contribute toward premiums nationally has grown 168 percent, while their wages have grown by 50 percent, according to the survey.&#8221; (Julie Appleby, &#8220;Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,&#8221;  Kaiser Health News , 9/27/11) The Cost Of Single Employee Coverage Grew 8 Percent According To The Kaiser Survey.  &#8220;Family plan premiums hit $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees grew 8 percent to $5,429, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research &#038; Educational Trust. (KHN is an editorially-independent program of the foundation.)&#8221; (Julie Appleby, &#8220;Cost Of Employer Insurance Plans Surge In 2011,&#8221;  Kaiser Health News , 9/27/11)   Nevada Received A Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “Destabilization” The Obama Administration Gave Nevada A Statewide Waiver From ObamaCare To Avoid “ Destabilization Of The Individual Market .”  “The Health and Human Services Department announced late Friday that Nevada had secured a statewide waiver from certain implementation requirements of the Obama administration’s health care law, because forcing them through, the department found, ‘may lead to the destabilization of the individual market.’” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,”  Las Vegas Sun , 5/16/11) Nevada Received A Waiver Reducing The Requirement Of Revenue Spent On Medical Expenses From 80 Percent To 75 Percent Due To Fears It Would Drive Golden Rule And Aetna From The Insurance Market.  “Nevada’s Insurance Division had appealed to the feds to reduce the federal requirement that health plans serving people who buy insurance on their own must spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect on medical expenses. Under the national rule, companies that don’t spend that percentage of revenue on medical costs have to cut policyholders rebate checks starting this year. Nevada asked that requirement be reduced to 72 percent for one year, arguing that top insurance providers would be so strapped to make the payments that they’d exit the state market. Health and Human Services didn’t fully buy that argument, but did agree to reduce the requirement to 75 percent for a year, expressing concern about what might happen to people with policies from insurers Golden Rule and Aetna if they didn’t.” (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada Secures Partial Waiver From Federal Health Care Law,”  Las Vegas Sun , 5/16/11) FAILED ON GREEN ENERGY JOBS IN 2008, OBAMA PROMISED TO CREATE GREEN ENERGY JOBS AND REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL PROMISE: Obama Said He Would “Create Five Million” New Jobs And “End Our Dependence On Oil From Middle East Dictators.”  “If I am President, I will invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new, green jobs over the next decade &#8211; jobs that pay well and can&#8217;t be outsourced; jobs building solar panels and wind turbines and fuel-efficient cars; jobs that will help us end our dependence on oil from Middle East dictators.” (Senator Barack Obama,  Remarks At A Campaign Event , Reno, NV, 10/25/08)   FAILURE:  Obama Has Taken Credit For 2.7 Million Green Energy Jobs That He Did Not Create.  “The Brookings Institution study refers to 2.7 million workers currently employed by the clean economy — not the number of jobs created by Obama, which a viewer might interpret from the ad. The report found that ‘clean economy establishments’ added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, comprising six years of the Bush administration.” (“AdWatch: Obama’s 1 st  Campaign TV Ad Defends His Energy Record Without Feel-Good Images,”  The Associated Press ,  1/20/12) Obama’s $38.6 Billion Green Loan Program Created Only 3,500 Jobs, But Obama Had Predicted It Would Save Or Create 65,000.  “The Washington Post reported in September that Mr. Obama’s $38.6 billion green loan program had created a mere 3,500 jobs over two years. He had predicted it would ‘save or create’ 65,000.” (Editorial, “The Non-Green Job Boom,”  The Wall Street Journal ,  11/28/11) Obama’s $500 Million Program Designed To Train Workers For Green Jobs “Has Come Up Far Short Of Its Goals.”  “The Labor Department&#8217;s inspector general says a $500 million program designed to train workers for green jobs has come up far short of its goals. A report finds that only about 8,000 people participating in the program have actually found work so far. That&#8217;s just 10 percent of the target goal of placing 80,000 workers in careers in energy efficiency or renewable energy by 2013.” (“Report Says Green Jobs Program Far Short Of Goals,”  The Associated Press , 10/3/11) It Is “Absolutely Not True” That Obama’s Policies Have Helped Wean The U.S. From Foreign Oil.  “When asked, though, whether the Obama administration&#8217;s policies have helped wean the U.S. from foreign oil, [Oppenheimer &#038; Co. energy analyst Fadel] Gheit was equally emphatic. ‘Absolutely not true,’ Gheit said. ‘It was all market driven and all through American ingenuity….It was no thanks to Washington, not thanks to lobbyists, not thanks to anybody.’” (Josh Gerstein, “What Obama’s First Ad Doesn’t Say,”  Politico’s  &#8220;Under The Radar&#8221; , 1/19/12) The Obama Administration Denied A Permit To Build The Keystone Pipeline.  “The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will deny a permit to build the Keystone XL pipeline, an important link between a U.S. market that&#8217;s thirsty for energy and a rich source of petroleum in nice, stable, neighborly Canada.” (Editorial, “Pipeline Politics: Misguided Obama Blocks Keystone Pipeline,”  Chicago Tribune , 1/19/12) “The Oil From Canada Could Ultimately Supplant Much Of The Oil The United States Imports From The Middle East And Other Unstable Regions. It Could Give The Country A Measure Of Energy Security.”  (Editorial, “Pipeline Delay An Insult To Jobless,”  The Detroit News , 11/14/11) Previous editions of Obama&#8217;s failed promises: Obama&#8217;s failed promises: Florida edition Obama&#8217;s failed promises: Iowa edition ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/obamas-failed-promises-nevada-edition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Last Republican?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:11:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>WhittleseyObyrne184</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[times]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The earth has become small, and on it hops the Last Man, who makes everything small. His species is ineradicable as the flea; the Last Man lives longest. -- Nietzsche So it seems it will be Mitt. And good thing he won't be offering his main rival the second spot on the ticket. "Mitt &#038; Newt" sounds like the name of a comedy act or a network sitcom. Not right for something epic or tragic. Which is to say… not right for the times. Not even close. When you think about this election -- and you must, there is no escaping it -- you wonder if it is not just the same old, same old. Is this just another "most important election of our lifetimes," or something, actually, a little more important than that? Is it business as usual or are we entering a pre-revolutionary phase of history when, soon, nothing will be the same again? Who knows? But to ask the question is to point out how unfit Mr. Romney may be to lead during these times. To begin with, he has never given any indication that he even understands, or appreciates, the mood of these days. You can listen to Mr. Romney debate or speak for hours (some have, poor souls) and never get the feeling that he senses the fear, the uncertainty, and the outright dread that is loose in the land. People, millions of them, are not merely frightened; they are terrified. Mr. Romney's message of assurance? "I'll fix things. Trust me, I'm a businessman." An example of Mitts's insouciance would be that line about how the health care mandate isn't something to "get angry about." Nah. Geeze, man. Chill. And on the existential (sorry, only word that will do) choices about just how much government the nation can afford and how much debt it can endure (or visa versa), Romney has never exhibited the slightest sign that he appreciates what a big deal it is. Nothing, he seems to believe, to get your knickers in a twist over. He'll fix it. He's a businessman. Mr. Romney has captured the Republican flag and will carry it into battle this Fall. If he loses, those people who believed devoutly that the times require something more than a standard-issue Republican for whom all things political are negotiable and to whom there is no dispute that cannot be settled by compromise … those people will be saying, "Never again." They will have seen it before and one suspects they will be finished with a party that repeatedly sends out for slaughter candidates who do not represent their beliefs, positions, and ideas with conviction. If it is about common ground and compromise, they will say, then the hell with it and leave the Republican Party to people who consider it a boast to say, "I could work with Teddy Kennedy." If, on the other hand, Mr. Romney wins, what then? Does anyone expect that when he gets to Washington and starts running the government like a business, entitlements will reform themselves, the deficit will shrivel on its own accord, and Leviathan will shrink to a size where it can be domesticated and housebroken? Has Mr. Romney demonstrated, ever, any convictions regarding the proper size and the rightful powers of the government? Does anyone believe he shares the fear millions feel about government power and their angry indignation at its arrogance and overreach? His overriding sentiment about government seems to be that it would be nice if he were in charge of it … so it would be run (all together now) like a business. In short, does anyone think that Romney will ride into Washington next January determined to tame the town… or die trying? Mr. Romney's aim will almost surely be to take Washington on its own terms and try to "make it work." Whatever anti-Washington sentiments he might express during the campaign, the odds are they will be discarded and forgotten within weeks of his taking the oath of office in a replay of George H. W. Bush and "read my lips." The people who voted for Romney in the belief that he would take on Washington will be patronizingly told by the political class that "Governing is not the same as campaigning." "No stuff, Sherlock," the betrayed will say. "Governing is a lot more important and a lot tougher and the guys like Bush, Dole, McCain, the other Bush and, now, Romney never understood that. It is they who govern as though they were campaigning for the approval of Washington and the political class. "We never thought that electing them was the whole point and that if, afterwards, you got 'Big Government Conservatism' or 'Compassionate Conservatism,' it was no big deal because, praise Jesus, the Republicans were in charge. We always thought that the governing would be the hard part. Look how tough it was to get rid of ethanol subsidies. It is you who are confused." The betrayed will leave if Romney makes it his mission to manage his way to a second term. He'll have an easier path, this time, getting the nomination. But he will likely be the last Republican. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/the-last-republican/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Total Recall</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/total-recall/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/total-recall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Onoshobishobi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salaries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[walker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wisconsin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/total-recall/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Wisconsin, the birthplace of the American socialist movement and the first state to allow public employees to unionize, has a blunt conservative governor named Scott Walker who has become a familiar face in the national spotlight. Walker, who signed Republican-backed legislation last year to eliminate most public sector unions' abilities to collectively bargain while requiring employees to start contributing to their pensions (5.8% of their salaries, on average) and double their health care premium (12.4% of their salaries), has balanced a budget that started with a $3.6 billion deficit. So far, the modest changes in state law are working. For example, Walker's reforms allow schools to take private bids on health care insurance, saving schools hundreds of dollars per pupil. In addition, school districts have been able to implement performance-based payment systems, which has saved hundreds of teachers from being laid off. For his efforts, Walker now faces a recall effort. Supporters recently filed more than 1 million signatures (twice as many as required). Walker will now be forced to defend himself in a special election. According to Democratic and Republican Party officials, the spending on the recall by both sides is expected to total $100 million. That does not include $9 million in processing and software costs to taxpayers, according to estimates from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the agency tasked with verifying petitions. This week, the MacIver Institute informs TAS , the agency failed to fulfill its promise to post the signed petitions online for inspection, which will only encourage additional expensive legal battles. Thanks to Wisconsin law that allows political committees to raise unlimited funds for recall campaigns, Walker last month added an impressive $5.1 million added to a $12 war chest built up since January of last year. A notable $500,000 donor is Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, a conservative activist and major funder of 527s, such as American Crossroads and the Club for Growth. Recalls in Wisconsin have been permitted since 1926, but only four were held until last year. In an August special election, Democrats and outside union groups spent $44 million trying to recall six state senators. They succeeded only in removing two of them, and thus failed to win back a majority in the state senate. Now, with labor unions making it a high priority to spend heavily in Wisconsin, Democratic consultants are concerned about using so many resources just months before the 2012 general election. Gov. Walker, seeing the political challenges ahead, is proposing a major income tax cut, but he has backed off supporting right-to-work legislation of the sort that has just passed in Indiana. His approval number is at 51% (higher than President Obama's 47% in Wisconsin), and Democrats are yet to find a strong, well-known candidate to challenge him. Former Senator Russ Feingold was the most popular name floated as a potential opponent, but he is not interested. Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk announced her candidacy in mid-January, but has a record of defeat and extreme-left views. Likely candidates Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and former Rep. David Obey, according to a recent Marquette Law School poll, trail Walker 50-44 and 49-43 percent, respectively. And State Senator Tim Cullen, a candidate who's won the backing of the increasingly RINO-ish Republican Senate candidate, former Governor Tommy Thompson, also trails 50-40. Walker faces an additional problem: a widening corruption investigation stemming from his tenure as Milwaukee County executive, which has led to the arrest of some of his former top aides. Although Walker himself is not under suspicion, former deputy chief of staff Tim Russell faces embezzlement charges involving more than $21,000 from a nonprofit Walker asked him to run. During the investigation, Russell's domestic partner Brian Pierick, who has donated $250 to Walker, was charged with a felony child enticement after seized phones and computers showed him trying to lure young children into his van. In addition, prosecutors have charged former aid Kevin Kavanaugh with stealing $43,232 in donations while serving as treasurer of the local Military Order of the Purple Heart. Democrats will certainly make political hay as more details emerge from the investigation that is being led Milwaukee County district attorney John Chistholm, a Democrat. It remains to be seen how badly the corruption investigation will hurt Walker's chances. But it is clear that the outcome of recall election will set the tone for the rest of the country as states continue to wrestle with the interests of unions and serious fiscal crises. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/total-recall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

