<?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>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:45:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>GOTV: Fighting for Freedom in the Fall</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/gotv-fighting-for-freedom-in-the-fall/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/gotv-fighting-for-freedom-in-the-fall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:30:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bikes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concord]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concord-project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knowledge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/gotv-fighting-for-freedom-in-the-fall/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ promoted from the diaries by haystack&#8230;if we&#8217;re serious about winning, now truly is the time to get off the pot&#8230; On November 2nd, Americans will, once again, head to the ballot box in what may be the most important election facing this nation&#8217;s future in at least a generation.  As in all elections, the outcome will be determined by those who actually vote—which is why it&#8217;s called Getting Out The Vote or GOTV . In a moment, a powerful tool will be shared with you that is being launched today. It&#8217;s called the  Concord Project and it is an extraordinary tool that ordinary, hard-working Americans can use to take their country back in November. It&#8217;s important that you know a little bit about its history, as well as what it is and what it is not . Some History About The Concord Project. Over these past two years, unless you have been hiding under a rock or  seeing double rainbows , you&#8217;ve no doubt noticed the influence of today&#8217;s union bosses on just about every major piece of legislation and executive order coming out of Washington, from the nationalization of health care to bailouts and project labor agreements.  And, unless Americans put a stop to it in November, there&#8217;s still more to come (including the $165 union pension bailout and potential of the job-destroying Employee Free Choice Act ). In late May, a couple of us were on a bike ride (as in V-Twin, for those motorcycle aficionados) and, while sitting in a hotel parking lot on the bikes late one evening, we started talking about how the majority of Americans don&#8217;t understand the power that unions and special interests have to sway elections.  As former (some say &#8216;reformed&#8217;) union activists, we realize that most Americans don&#8217;t know the sheer amount of money unions devote to politics.  For example: As unions collect well over $13 billion per year in union dues (from the private sector alone), it&#8217;s been estimated that unions spent upwards of $1 billion on the 2008 elections .  In addition, the AFL-CIO (which is a federation of 56 national unions) boasted of putting 250,000 boots on the ground in targeted states in 2008. This year, however, the unions are trying to beat what they did in 2008 .  The AFL-CIO has announced it will spend more than it did in 2008 and has created a firewall strategy targeting 27 states to prevent huge losses of its union bought politicians. The AFL-CIO has 17 million members and has already communicated with 1.75 million working people , Trumka said. At least 30 percent of voters in battleground states like Pennsylvania Ohio, and Michigan come from union households, so reaching those voters is crucial, said Democratic strategist Steve Rosenthal, the union’s former political director. “ Making sure they’re maximizing turnout of their members and that they’re doing the important persuasion to make sure that 65 to 70 percent support the union candidate, that’s going to be vital. None of those candidates win without those votes, ” Rosenthal said. “We can mitigate some of the national mood and some of the factors that are playing against the Democrats by changing the equation and turning to those voters.” When you combine the $100 million pledged by the SEIU and AFSCME , $50 million from Organizing for America , and another $53 million from the AFL-CIO , you&#8217;re looking at over $200 million pledged so far. [And that's not counting any of the 60 other individual unions, the other special interests, or George Soros.] When you have the OFA contacting over 568,000 in a single weekend , as well as using all the latest technology to get its boots on the ground, you wonder: what&#8217;s the other side doing to combat this? Moreover, when you have most of the Marxist front groups allying themselves to get out the vote , it makes you wonder whether, despite the passions, the expected tidal wave in the Fall may wind up being less a wave and more a ripple. Back in May, as we discussed the GOTV of unions and the special interests, a suggestion was made to organize a Get Out the Vote for ordinary Americans who love their country, don&#8217;t like big government, socialism or the special interests that are bankrupting the nation. The question was: how? The answer was simple:   Organize a GOTV where all the disparate, but like-minded individuals, activists, and groups could work together, learn about GOTV and coordinate their activities. It was a task, like most, that is easier said than done, to be sure.  However, the concept is simple: Whether individuals are tea party activists, NRA, GOA, VFW, or bikers; whether they belong to churches, knitting clubs, bowling leagues, or the ivy league, if people work together, they can do amazing things through an organized GOTV effort. Well, after sitting on the idea for a few days, the idea was kicked around with some bloggers and other activists who thought it was a great idea and someone came up with the revolutionary name,  the Concord Project . Welcome to the Concord Project: What it is and what it is not. Over the last couple of months, on a shoestring budget, some very dedicated activists (like RedState&#8217;s Cold Warrior and Ron Robinson, as well as several others) donated their time, feedback and, most importantly, commitment to seeing the Concord Project launched. As of now, there are 55 days until November 2nd.  It is time to concentrate on GOTV. Before you go to the Concord Project&#8217;s site , here are some things you should know: The Concord Project is not &#8220;a group&#8221; looking to build members, it is a tool for individuals, activists, and existing groups to use . The Concord Project is a hub where ordinary Americans can learn basic GOTV techniques, coordinate their efforts and work together to take America back. The Concord Project is a platform for bottom-up politics , instead of top-down politics dictated by the ruling class. The Concord Project is based on a &#8216;wiki&#8217; platform that enables people and groups in each state to contribute content and work with others in their state by using message boards to work together, district by district and precinct by precinct. Due to its wiki-based platform, after November, the Concord Project is a tool that individuals, activists and groups can use as a bridge-builder for issue-based education, activism and mobilization at the city, state and federal level to hold politicians (from school board officials to senators) accountable to the people who put them there. This week, when you visit the Concord Project&#8217;s individual state pages, you will see that the state message boards are coming on line, state by state.   However, by the end of the week, each state page should have multiple volunteer moderators to assist in coordinating GOTV and each state will &#8220;go live&#8221; as moderators are added. In addition to going to the Concord Project site , you can also connect to the Concord Project through Facebook , as well as follow Concord Project tweets on Twitter . With labor unions and other left-wing organizations spending hundreds of millions of dollars and coordinating activities to influence elections, the Concord Project is Prometheus’ flame, designed to give you the knowledge, platform, and tools to take back America through GOTV education and open-source coordination. Now, it&#8217;s time to GOTV. __________________ “I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.”  Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776 For more news and views on today’s unions, go to  LaborUnionReport.com . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/gotv-fighting-for-freedom-in-the-fall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Freedom and the Battle of 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/freedom-and-the-battle-of-2010/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/freedom-and-the-battle-of-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barbara Boxer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lyrics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[philadelphia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/freedom-and-the-battle-of-2010/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ At last. Summer ending, autumn looms. The 2010 election is at hand. Let's rock and roll. The other week, Sir Paul McCartney of Beatles fame caused a dust-up while visiting the White House. Accepting the Gershwin Award for Popular Song, McCartney made a distinctly un-classy mention of former President George W. Bush and an alleged (if decidedly not true) aversion to books. But there was another McCartney visit to America that was received with nothing but respect and affection -- this one nine years ago. On October 20, 2001, barely a month after 9/11, McCartney stepped up to the plate to organize "The Concert for New York City." Featuring a veritable platoon of famous musicians including Elton John, Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, The Who, Billy Joel, James Taylor , Bon Jovi and on and on. The concert was a benefit for the members and families of the New York police and fire departments as well as other rescuers. The Concert went on even as the NYPD and NYFD were mourning the loss of colleagues and still pulling bodies out of the wreckage of the World Trade Center. Towards the end of the Concert, McCartney stepped forward, got the huge Madison Square Garden audience clapping rhythmically through their tears and sang a brand new song he had written for the occasion. It was called Freedom . Said Sir Paul: "It's about freedom. That's one thing these people don't understand. That's worth fighting for… to me it's a We Shall Overcome ... That's sort of how I wrote it. It's like, 'Hey, I've got freedom, I'm an immigrant coming to America, give me your huddled masses.' And that's what it means to me, is, 'Don't mess with my rights, buddy. Because I'm now free.'" McCartney, liberal that he apparently is, stopped performing the song after the liberation of Iraq. (One might ask why freedom is OK for Paul from Liverpool but not Aziz from Baghdad, but I digress.) The point here: the lyrics that Sir Paul once found so suitable in the aftermath of a vivid attack on freedom and then so unsuitable at a later time and place. Feel free to sing along. Here they are: This is my right, a right given by God To live a free life, to live in Freedom talkin' about Freedom I'm Talkin' bout Freedom I will fight, for the right To live in Freedom Anyone, who tries to take it away Will have to answer, Cause this is my right I'm talkin' about Freedom I'm Talkin' bout Freedom I will fight, for the right To live in Freedom, yeah oh There's more , but you get the point. Ronald Reagan couldn't have done better. Unintentionally, the McCartney lyrics serve as a potent anthem as millions of Americans gear up to fight what they feel has gone so wildly off-track in America in the 2010 political concert currently playing with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid No Freedom Band. To begin, the lyrics draw attention to the assumption -- the correct assumption -- that the demand for freedom has been around in one form or another for centuries. In fact, the 2010 election is but the next chapter in one of the greatest ongoing dramas in history, American or otherwise. It is a story that has gained force across the centuries, filled with heroes and villains, good and evil. A riveting drama of the life and times of legendary people and millions unknown whose ranks began to swell as they understood over time their instinct for freedom and the very basic human need to have it eventually rising to the very top of the list of fundamental human rights. Whether it was the English Magna Carta in 1215 that forced King John to grant a charter of liberties and rights to his subjects or the Declaration of Independence in the Philadelphia of 1776 that addressed the abuses of another British monarch, George the Third, freedom has been the cri de coeur of mankind. Sometimes desperately, as with the Jews in 20th century Nazi Germany or the Russians of the Gulags. Sometimes proudly, as with African-Americans in the 1960's or supporters of the pro-life movement today . But always, always the demand has come insistently -- the sentiments of that Paul McCartney song expressing but a solitary if eloquent hymn to one of the most basic of human demands:]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/07/freedom-and-the-battle-of-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ovide Lamontagne Rising in New Hampshire</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/06/ovide-lamontagne-rising-in-new-hampshire/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/06/ovide-lamontagne-rising-in-new-hampshire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hampshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kelly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kelly ayotte]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[new hampshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/06/ovide-lamontagne-rising-in-new-hampshire/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ A lot of really good people have come out for Kelly Ayotte in the New Hamphire GOP Senate Primary. I have quietly pulled for Ovide Lamontagne, but supported those who cast their lots with Ayotte. For a good while it looked like Ovide was getting no traction and were he not in the race, Kelly Ayotte would be my pick. The other guy in the race, whose name is not worth remembering, is on video saying he supported abortion rights because if he ever had a kid with a defect, he&#8217;d want the right to kill the kid. That&#8217;s unacceptable. So with Ovide going no where in the polls, people understandably went with Kelly Ayotte. Well, in the past couple of weeks things in New Hampshire have shaken up. The Union Leader endorsed Ovide, new documents have come out showing Kelly Ayotte misrepresented her dealings with Planned Parenthood, and Ovide has momentum taking him into second place. This race is thoroughly winnable by Ovide Lamontagne and he could absolutely win the general election too. I think it is time for conservatives who have not yet committed in New Hampshire to stand with Ovide Lamontagne. A friend of mine has put it better than I can on the differences between Ovide and Kelly. I&#8217;m just going to cut and paste and make this my own. Here are ten points to consider in New Hampshire: 1. On judges. Ayotte said she would have voted yes on Sotomayor. Ovide called for a no vote on Sotomayor, and wrote a compelling piece in Human Events on judges. 2. On stimulus. Ayotte publicly encouraged people to apply for stimulus money, and publicly touted a cold case unit that stimulus funds created in her office, something the Union Leader attacked as a waste because it created no new jobs. Ovide was - and is - opposed to the stimulus. In the 90s Ovide was Chairman of the State Board of Education and was one of two leaders in the country to refuse federal stimulus money, citing the strings attached. In other words, he has a record of rejecting stimulus, not merely rhetoric. 3. On earmarks. Ayotte said in November that she was in favor of earmarks so long as they were &#8220;transparent&#8221;. She reversed course four months later and said she changed her mind and opposed all earmarks&#8230;only after Ovide campaigned for months for no earmarks. Ovide also issued a statement in favor of DeMint&#8217;s effort to institute an earmark moratorium. 4. On life. It was learned this week that Ayotte paid Planned Parenthood of New England $300,000 in NH taxpayer money for PP&#8217;s legal fees in a case she claimed to have won. This was done secretly with no public notice. When the Supreme Court remanded the case to NH, Ayotte refused to testify before the legislature to try and save it. Ovide is pro-life period. He is the father of two adopted daughters and supports a Human Life amendment to the Constitution. 5. On private property rights. Ayotte authored New Hamphire&#8217;s &#8220;JUA&#8221; opinion, which gave the Governor the legal green light to attempt a theft of $110 million in private funds to balance the state budget, a Kelo style taking. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled a few months ago that this attempted theft was unconstitutional. No conservative attorney could have rightly believed this was proper. Ovide is a constitutional conservative who strongly believes in and promotes private property rights. 6. On guns. Kelly actively lobbied Governor Lynch to veto an expansion of the Castle Doctrine, allowing people to protect themselves in their homes. Ovide has been a member of the NRA since 1992 and has earned A ratings from them. 7. On carbon emissions. As Attorney General, Kelly signed a letter with people like Eliot Spitzer and Richard Blumenthal citing her opposition to a clean air bill because it DIDN&#8217;T contain caps on carbon emissions, which she believed would help create jobs . Ovide is opposed to carbon capping/cap and trade schemes. 8. On immigration. Kelly stopped local police chiefs from attempting to prosecute illegal aliens for trespassing when ICE wouldn&#8217;t detain them. She had an opportunity to make a stand and fight like Arizona has. She did not. Ovide is tough on immigration and supports the Arizona law. 9. Health care. As Attorney General, Ayotte signed a letter saying she was opposed to allowing small businesses to pool for insurance purposes , a staple of conservative reforms. She has since flipped and allegedly changed her mind as a candidate. Ovide has consistently opposed Obamacare and would seek its repeal. 10. Politically. Ayotte was appointed Attorney General - never elected. She was a member of Democrat Governor John Lynch&#8217;s Administration for 4 years, who used her as proof of his &#8220;bi-partisanship&#8221; to knock out GOP incumbents in 2006 and 2008. When asked if she voted for the GOP nominee for Governor in 2006 and 2008, she refused to say. Ovide is a proven conservative leader who has led the charge as a conservative reformer and change agent. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/06/ovide-lamontagne-rising-in-new-hampshire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>White House Panicking Over Mid-Term Elections…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/05/white-house-panicking-over-mid-term-elections%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/05/white-house-panicking-over-mid-term-elections%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 01:34:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discontent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heard-it-during]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/05/white-house-panicking-over-mid-term-elections%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The Dumbocrats are about to find out the real meaning of  &#8216;Hope and Change&#8217;&#8230; (CBS) &#8211;  With many polls indicating the Republicans may win back control of the House of Representatives (and possibly the Senate as well) in the upcoming mid-term elections, Jim VandeHei, the executive editor of Politico, told CBS&#8217; &#8220;Face the Nation&#8221; that the Obama administration is in a horrible position. &#8220;Does the White House understand this?&#8221; asked guest host Harry Smith. &#8220;Do you feel any sense of panic or concern&#8221; on the part of the administration? &#8220;They get it. There&#8217;s panic. There&#8217;s concern,&#8221; VandeHei said. &#8220;The reality for this administration stinks, politically and practically, when it comes to the economy. You&#8217;re not going to be able to change that 9.6-percent unemployment figure. You can&#8217;t get anything from Congress in the next couple of months.&#8221; &#8220;Not only are they running away from President Obama, they&#8217;re running away from being Democrats in some cases. In some races you actually see the Democratic candidates not really mentioning that they&#8217;re a Democrat in their campaign ads,&#8221; Cordes said. Smith asked his guests to try to identify the source of the discontent: &#8220;From your experience on the Hill, have you heard any Democrats in private conversations say, &#8216;You know what? We went down the wrong road. We went after health care. We went after so many other things on the Obama agenda as opposed to, in the end of the day, it&#8217;s all about creating jobs?&#8217;&#8221; &#8220;Not only have we heard that, but we&#8217;ve been hearing it for months,&#8221; said Cordes. &#8220;We heard it during the health care debate that dragged on for a year when the economy was so bad; they focused on health care and they focused on financial regulation. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/05/white-house-panicking-over-mid-term-elections%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will the GOP Stand for Life?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/will-the-gop-stand-for-life/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/will-the-gop-stand-for-life/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 02:59:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taxpayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unborn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/will-the-gop-stand-for-life/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Many Red S tate readers probably remember 1994. The GOP launched its &#8220;Contract with America&#8221; six weeks before the mid-term elections and took back Congress with a 54-seat swing on Election Day. While the Contract had many good ideas, a family values agenda was left in the dust, and was ignored once Congress convened. Protecting women and unborn babies from the violence of 4,000 abortions per day was put on the back-burner. Fast forward to today. The GOP is busy crafting a legislative blueprint much like that of the Contract and are expected to release the document to the American people shortly after Labor Day. Jobs. National Security. Spending Restraint. Government Reform. Health Care. According to media reports, those are the planks. But that doesn&#8217;t complete Ronald Reagan&#8217;s three-legged stool. Where is the Family Values plank? Real leaders multi-task. The strongly pro-life GOP leadership should be able to respond to the economic crisis and enact pro-life legislation. That&#8217;s why the Susan B. Anthony List launched http://www.LifeSpeakingOut.com , a grassroots campaign to encourage the Republican Party leaders to make defending the unborn and protecting women a real priority in its upcoming legislative blueprint. I&#8217;ve interviewed nearly 100 candidates this Election Cycle. Judging from my interviews and a detailed analysis of what looks to be the incoming Congress, I am confident it will be one of the most pro-life in history. The votes are there. And the mandate from the American people is there too. Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life. And when polled on specific pieces of legislation, the broad support for common-sense laws becomes even more evident. Consider these pro-life legislative initiatives that should be passed and would save lives: Legislation such as the “Protect Life Act” which would ensure that no federal funds authorized under the health care reform law are used to pay for abortions. 67% of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion in health care. Legislation such as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” which would establish a permanent government-wide prohibition on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion. 61% of Americans support a ban on taxpayer funding of abortion. Legislation establishing parental consent for minors seeking abortion. 69% Americans support parental consent for minors under 18 seeking an abortion. Legislation such as the “Child Pain Awareness Act” which would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that the evidence suggests their unborn child feels pain. 77% of Americans favor such legislation. This shouldn&#8217;t be a heavy lift. All we need is a little leadership. Join the cause today at http://www.LifeSpeakingOut.com to finish building Reagan&#8217;s three-legged stool of conservatism and to ensure the Republican Party speaks for all Americans &#8212; born and unborn. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/will-the-gop-stand-for-life/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Friendly Note to Liberty.com</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/a-friendly-note-to-liberty-com/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/a-friendly-note-to-liberty-com/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:40:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electorate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issues-at-stake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[preferred]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[read-the-news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[says-something]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sound-desperate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sullies-the-tea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tea party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/a-friendly-note-to-liberty-com/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Promoted from the diaries by Aaron Gardner Yeah, I am an O&#8217;Donnell supporter and I am promoting this. Being a player in politics requires you to be mature, Liberty.Com wasn&#8217;t. The ad was atrocious and it may have single handedly destroyed any chance for O&#8217;Donnell. I will be writting a small defense of O&#8217;Donnell over the weekend, as a contrast to Erick - though I agree with him in large part. Regardless of that, the below needed to be said, and said loudly. And I whole heartedly agree. I haven&#8217;t watched the &#8220;Castle is teh gay&#8221; ad posted by Liberty.com as their big splashy opening. And I won&#8217;t. But I know, as anyone should, that bringing that kind of charge into a campaign is bad, no matter with how much class it&#8217;s done. &#8220;Bad&#8221; doesn&#8217;t cover it. It will (not might) cause a backlash against O&#8217;Donnell. It says liberty.com is a sham. It says liberty.com is made of stupid. It sullies the Tea Party name. Again, I don&#8217;t need to watch the ad to say any of those things. Do you guys not read the news? States like Delaware are iffy on whether they&#8217;re going to allow gay marriage , for goodness&#8217; sake. That should tell you something. Being gay, or having a gay affair, are not that big a deal with the electorate. But they may be a big deal within a marriage. That you would sink to saying something publicly about a guy&#8217;s private life says something about you. And it says something about you, and therefore about Christine&#8217;s supporters generally, that you would think having a gay affair would matter. It makes you sound desperate, and your preferred candidate, even if she had nothing to do with it, sound like a desperate sleazeball. There are bigger issues at stake than some candidate&#8217;s morals. So with spending in Washington out of control, with our government suing states for enforcing the law, with Democrats trying to set up a tax and a market for carbon dioxide, with our health care system on the verge of being intentionally collapsed into a single-payer human control mechanism, you want to talk about smut. Stop it. Pull the ad, if you haven&#8217;t. Stick to the issues. Then apologize to your friends, to your donors, to the Tea Party movement, to Mike Caste, and to Christine O&#8217;Donnell. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/a-friendly-note-to-liberty-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Give Obama Credit</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/give-obama-credit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/give-obama-credit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 20:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house-democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mayor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[table]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/give-obama-credit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Yesterday we did a brief commentary on the rather extraordinary swan song of Christina Romer , the recently resigned chairman of Obama&#8217;s Council of Economic Advisers, in which she admitted to not only not having the answers but to not fully comprehending the questions. Today, there is some moderate pushback from the administration trying to counter the air of bovine incomprehension that is beginning to adhere to this administration the way lint welds itself to Velcro. The Washington Post runs a front page called New Tax Breaks For Business on the Table . The story itself is pretty much a nothingburger in which we discover that &#8220;on the table&#8221; means &#8220;ain&#8217;t no way they&#8217;re going to happen.&#8221; Not a huge surprise coming from an administration that casts letting you keep more of the money you earn as a &#8220;cost&#8221; to the government. The article does carry an interesting factoid. The administration believes Obama is not being given sufficient credit for the emphasis he&#8217;s placing on the economy. Last November, Obama announced that he would turn his attention to unemployment, calling it &#8220;one of the great challenges that remains in our economy.&#8221; He declared the same intent two months later, telling House Democrats he would focus relentlessly on job creation &#8220;over the next several months.&#8221; Senior aides went on television pledging that the mantra would become &#8220;jobs, jobs, jobs.&#8221; But other matters - health care, the BP oil spill - continually stole the limelight, creating the impression, some Democrats complain, that the president was barely focused on the economy at all. His advisers described his attentiveness - noting, for example, that he discussed the economy with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I) for 15 minutes before golfing - but got little traction. &#8220;Obviously it&#8217;s going to be hard to get anything done before the election, but it&#8217;s really important for him to try, and to make the case to the American people that he&#8217;s trying to do something and the Republicans aren&#8217;t letting him,&#8221; said Steve Elmendorf, a Democratic strategist. &#8220;We are at the final moments here.&#8221; I DID NOT MAKE THAT UP. So I&#8217;m trying to rectify that problem. It the president talked to Mayor Bloomberg about the economy for fifteen minutes before golfing then let me be among the first on my side to give him credit for it. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/give-obama-credit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Stuart Smalley Thinks You&#8217;re Doomed</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/stuart-smalley-thinks-youre-doomed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/stuart-smalley-thinks-youre-doomed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 19:05:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bills]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comes-the-claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[danish]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moonbattery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oregon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oregon-senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[persuasive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[watch-or-listen]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/stuart-smalley-thinks-youre-doomed/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Channeling Pauline Kael, someone over at The Atlantic says movement conservatism -- a "deeply unserious and corrupt political coalition" -- is teetering at the precipice because he spoke to some other guy who says he no longer considers himself a conservative because he supported Obamacare. While on this basis I tend to share the latter's self-assessment, we're to be very worried because you see]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/stuart-smalley-thinks-youre-doomed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Manufacturing Dissent</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/manufacturing-dissent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/manufacturing-dissent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 21:28:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rush Limbaugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chrysler]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[network]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weather]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/manufacturing-dissent/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ [Posted by Karl] I usually treat the establishment’s media bias like the weather in Forks, WA — sought by vampires, simply endured by normal people. Nevertheless, I was recently tickled by Ace’s twist on Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent : Suppose there are five possible plausible public reactions to an event or initiative. A, B, C, D, and E, ranging from rightist to leftist, and A and E representing the extremes. Media debate tends to package C and D — C, a centrist reaction, and D, a left-center but still mainstream-ish reaction — as the only two possible reactions, and debates the issue without reference to A, B, and E, as if they don’t exist, or, if they do mention them, they are dismissed peremptorily as extremist and wack-a-doo and “not serious.” Thus, at the end of the day, the public does get to “choose”… but only from the two options the media has pre-screened as permissible, C and D. Thus, consent of the governed has been “manufactured” — sure, the public chooses between C and D, but their choice was forced — as a magician forces a card on you — by a media that carefully insulated them from genuine consideration of A, B, and E. However, the toxicity of the current political environment is better explained by the slow collapse of this model. Ace’s model describes how the establishment media attempts to manufacture consent on behalf of the political class with which they identify. However, it was probably more effective 25 or 30 years ago than it is today. The increasing adoption of FM radio for music programming and advancements in satellite technology helped give rise to political talk radio on the AM band, which is dominated by conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. The increasing adoption of cable and satellite tech made cable news possible; Fox News Channel has the highest ratings for that that market segment. The reach of right-leaning media may yet fail to match that of the establishment media. For example, Limbaugh reaches roughly 15-25 million listeners weekly, but the network news — as anemic as it is — still reaches that range nightly. FNC reaches an average of 50 million viewers monthly, but that is fewer viewers than CNN on a cumulative basis. Nevertheless, the trend favors cable and online news (with radio holding steady), while network news and traditional print media slump. The center-left and its media does not like the competition, financially or ideologically. Under the prior Democratic administration, the White House counsel office spent your tax dollars producing a lengthy memo titled, “Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce.” The memo complained about “a media food chain” involving ideologically conservative journals and think tanks, the Internet, British tabloids and occasionally the US media. The Beltway press did not bite on the memo — but only because they already believed it . Thus, when Hillary Clinton later attacked the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” as a defense to the Monica Lewinsky scandal (a story spiked by Newsweek and revealed by the Drudge Report), the establishment media was already onboard. However, the center-left and its media had a branding problem. Labeling the competition as a conspiracy made them sound like, well, conspiracy theorists. Accordingly, under the current Democratic administration, the theory is now advanced more subtly as groupthink, rather than the secret plan of a shadowy cabal. Under the rubric of “epistemic closure,” right-leaning media is characterized as a closed, but organic ecosystem that produces “faux news” — overhyping stories the establishment tries to ignore, and even reporting fake stories. Although people pushing the “epistemic closure” line will admit that it also exists on the left, they do not want to discuss it. Worse, the “epistemic closure” obsessives generally operate from the false premise that the establishment media, operating in the closed mode Ace describes, does not produce “faux news” as a matter of routine. However, the establishment media hyped the “ October Surprise ,” Operation Tailwind and Rathergate , and fears that Diebold was rigging elections (that coincidentally evaporated after Dems won Congress in 2006), just to name a few. The establishment media failed to catch fabulists like Jayson Blair, Janet Cook, Stephen Glass and Scott Beauchamp early on, but would have everyone believe that their political prejudices did not impair their editorial judgment. The establishment media decries false stories about Pres. Obama, but spread false stories about Sarah Palin — and continues to do so years later. The establishment wrings its hands over meaningless polls about Birthers … after ignoring equally meaningless polls about Truthers. The establishment media recently joined in the left-wing’s bogus , but costly attacks on Toyota, just as they did with earlier bogus attacks on Chrysler and Audi . For decades, the establishment media has cranked out a steady stream of overhyped and bogus health and environmental scares — Alar, asbestos in schools , saccharin , silicone breast implants , acid rain , the population bomb , global cooling , etc. Indeed, a neo-Malthusian crank like Paul Ehrlich , publicly and famously discredited, is still treated as an expert by establishment outlets like The New York Times and Wired magazine. Or consider the way the establishment media treats Congressional Budget Office estimates of jobs “created or saved” by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as hard data. In reality, the CBO’s director has confirmed that these reports do not serve as independent checks on the real-world effects of the spending. Indeed, the CBO has reported that “it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.” Why was the establishment media so slow to recognize the turnaround in the Iraq war ? Why did they largely rush to judgment when the Duke lacrosse team members were accused of rape? Why did they get the Jena 6 case wrong? Why was the establishment media narrative about Hurricane Katrina built on myths , including grisly fables about violence and death in the Superdome? And why is the establishment media celebrating it ? These examples are but the tip of the establishment media’s “faux news” iceberg. Folks on the far left probably have an entirely different list, but that is the point — the establishment media’s center-left epistemic closure produces the same problems critics identify in the conservative media. That the critics are only concerned about closure in conservative media — and dismiss the theory that conservative media closure is partially caused by the establishment’s marginalization of conservatives — suggests they are less interested in solutions than they are in further marginalizing the right. In addition to claims of “epistemic closure,” the establishment media is increasingly resorting to attacks on those outside their closed system as racists and bigots : It does a disservice to both sides to say that the left, pure and simple, has radicalized the right. But for too many on the left, the right already is so radical — so unreasonable, irrational, kooky, atavistic, and unthinking — that it hardly matters whether the second America tries to protect and advance its interests politely or viciously. When it plays nicely, they believe, the second America is engaged in the tactic of papering over the bigotry that animates it at a foundational level. The only thing the second America can do to earn goodwill from this influential segment of the left is to abandon and denounce its primitive worldview and its cruel policies. Not quite convert or die , but — almost worse from the far left perspective — convert or be ruthlessly marginalized and stigmatized . Confronted with such a choice, Americans — not just from the second America, as its enemies on the left should know — are inclined to stop being polite and start getting real. As with the epistemic closure obsessives, don’t hold your breath waiting for the center-left to consider that that their shrill stereotyping only adds to the problem. And as with the epistemic closure obsessives, the offense they give to everyone else is fueled in part by the double or triple standards at work. If you think the Ground Zero mosque is a bad idea (as I do), you are deemed a religious bigot, or are empowering religious bigots. In contrast, if you think Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptists protesting at military funerals (or Bill Keller setting up shop near Ground Zero) is a bad idea (as I do, for many of the same reasons ), the center-left does not unleash the same gushing firehose of vitriol. When the passage of California’s Proposition 8 caused people to engage in anti-Mormon protests and boycotts , and to practice the politics of personal destruction against Miss California, the center-left was not denouncing it as religious bigotry. And to bring it full circle, if the folks behind the Ground Zero mosque are not entirely gay-friendly , the center-left media ignores it. The ad hoc nature of these ad hominem attacks only reinforces the perception that the center-left uses them as a cudgel in an attempt to force everyone back into their closed model of public discourse. The center-left is no longer able to marginalize conservative views solely by control over a select number of media outlets. Accordingly, it must resort to stigmatizing those views and trying to arrogate to itself the power of classifying which speech is hateful , to be dismissed without further thought or discussion. Like the theory of “epistemic closure” itself, this does not require any conspiracy, just a media ecosystem with converging economic and ideological interests. Ultimately, these attacks are a marker of the degree to which the establishment has become both reactionary and isolated. The establishment media seethes over issues like the Ground Zero mosque and illegal immigration in no small part because broadly bipartisan segments of the public think the mosque is a bad idea and support the key provisions of Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law. The establishment media is increasingly the public voice of a political class greatly out of step with mainstream opinion, not only on issues like the Ground Zero mosque and illegal immigration , but also health care , the value of government spending , free markets , and the limits on federal power . As the establishment media is exposed as manufacturing dissent on behalf of narrow, unpopular elite, they become marginalized themselves — and act out accordingly. However, the more they try to tighten their grip on the public discourse, the more the audience slips through their fingers . &#8211;Karl ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/manufacturing-dissent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gov. Tim Pawlenty to Accept Medicaid Money, but not Funds for &#8216;Obamacare&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/gov-tim-pawlenty-to-accept-medicaid-money-but-not-funds-for-obamacare/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/gov-tim-pawlenty-to-accept-medicaid-money-but-not-funds-for-obamacare/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 07:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dailyguidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friend-via]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jpeg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pawlenty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/gov-tim-pawlenty-to-accept-medicaid-money-but-not-funds-for-obamacare/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Filed under: Health Care ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/02/gov-tim-pawlenty-to-accept-medicaid-money-but-not-funds-for-obamacare/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
