<?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; Nancy Pelosi</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/nancy-pelosi/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>Proposed ‘Pelosi Provision’ of the STOCK Act unveiled yesterday.</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/proposed-pelosi-provision-of-the-stock-act-unveiled-yesterday/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/proposed-pelosi-provision-of-the-stock-act-unveiled-yesterday/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 04:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>AlvarezDana</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit-card]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from-the-rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator-dianne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speaker-pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stock act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whether-or-not]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[woman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/proposed-pelosi-provision-of-the-stock-act-unveiled-yesterday/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The STOCK Act &#8211; which is short for the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act; honestly, I wish that they&#8217;d stop coming up with cute names for these. This particular one is not really obnoxious, but some of them have really reached for the acronym &#8211; started to get really pushed through last year, once it came out that Members of Congress, including then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, were profiting unduly from legal insider trading* . I call it &#8216;legal&#8217; not in the sense that there was nothing wrong with said insider trading; I call it &#8216;legal&#8217; because Congress exempted itself from the rules that the rest of us have to follow. The distinction is important. It&#8217;s perfectly legal for, say, Senator Dianne Feinstein to buy into a biostock company just before the company picks up a fat government subsidy check, even if she knew about it ahead of time. That&#8217;s the problem . Anyway, one of the more egregious things being done &#8211; again, involving then-Speaker Pelosi in at least one case &#8211; was the practice of offering Members of Congress a favorable position from which to buy into an IPO. Pelosi in particular used this practice to buy into a Visa IPO , right before credit card legislation that hampered Visa g ot somehow sidetracked in Congress for a year ; she ended up making a killing on the (again, &#8216;LEGAL&#8217;) deal. And, naturally, the amendment that would ban this practice in the future has been named the &#8216;Pelosi Provision&#8217; by Republicans. By all accounts, the former Speaker is unhappy about this; I am uncertain whether or not that she is as unhappy about this as I am that the woman made several million unfortunately-legal dollars off of her former position to manipulate and delay legislation, but I somehow doubt it. The bill is largely expected to pass, by the way: the real fireworks will be in conference. If the thing gets defanged, it will be there &#8211; so keep an eye out for that particular problem. It wouldn&#8217;t be the first time that a troublesomely reformist piece of legislation got revised out of existence, while out of camera range&#8230; Moe Lane ( crosspost ) PS: Politico reports that the STOCK Act&#8217;s original sponsors Louise Slaughter and Tim Walz are unhappy that the Republican majority has taken away their bill and are now busily reshaping it. Alas for Rep. Slaughter, it&#8217;s not exactly Eric Cantor&#8217;s fault that she was incapable of getting it passed in the first place&#8230; ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/08/proposed-pelosi-provision-of-the-stock-act-unveiled-yesterday/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Audacity of Obama&#8217;s Secularism</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-audacity-of-obamas-secularism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-audacity-of-obamas-secularism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>FlodinCeglinski711</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[church]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Global Warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-audacity-of-obamas-secularism/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The secularists of the French Revolution regarded the Roman Catholic Church as the last obstacle to atheism's final triumph. Blurting this out, the French dilettante Denis Diderot proposed to his fellow revolutionaries that they strangle the last priest with the "guts of the last king." Under this spirit, the forces of secularism picked up speed in the 18th and 19th century, went into overdrive in the 20th, and now floor it in the 21st. Barack Obama is the one these revolutionaries have been "waiting for." He is the stealth radical, soft in temperament but hard in thought, who seeks to use religiosity without religion to purge all traces of God from public life. Not wanting to repeat John Kerry's electoral debacle -- which even Nancy Pelosi attributed to the leaden senator's undisguised secularism -- Obama worked hard to con the religious into voting for him in 2008. He "valued" religion, particularly the votes of the religious. On his campaign web page, "people of faith" enjoyed their own special slot, a mere two tabs down from the "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community." Obama cast himself as a "post-partisan" politician on matters of the spirit. He found fawning dupes in the religious community to provide him with pulpits and platforms for faux-pensive addresses on his newly conceived "connection between politics and religion." This pretentious throat clearing amounted to nothing more than Alinskyite advice to his fellow Democrats that they exploit religion for secularist and socialist purposes.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/07/the-audacity-of-obamas-secularism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Morning Briefing for February 6, 2012</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/morning-briefing-for-february-6-2012/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/morning-briefing-for-february-6-2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>FlodinCeglinski711</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bishop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politicians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sinner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[space]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/morning-briefing-for-february-6-2012/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ RedState Morning Briefing February 6, 2012 Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge. 1. The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama 2. Excommunicate the Bishops. 3. Growing Opportunities on Earth Rather Than Colonies on the Moon 4. Did a Former Nancy Pelosi Aide Screw Up the Komen Decision? Ogilvy Public Relations Should Explain. &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;- 1. The Perversion of the Words of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Sinner Barack H. Obama Hopefully someone at the White House will read this and realize just how ill advised the President was to do what he did this week and we should be praying hard for him to see the error of his ways on this. In the Bible we read these things: “And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” Gen 1:28 (ESV) “Did not he who made me in the womb make him? And did not one fashion us in the womb?” Job 31:15 (ESV) “Your hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may learn your commandments.” Psalm 119:73 (ESV) “For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.” Psalm 139:13 (ESV) These are clear references to God intending people to procreate and recognize that, even in the womb, God played a vital role in the formation of children and we should not casually destroy life God himself created. These passages of scripture are what inspire so many pro-life advocates to defend the unborn. Had the President of the United States stood at the National Prayer Breakfast and uttered any of those passages and then announced his intent to protect the unborn, abortion rights advocates would have stormed the White House and the Courts all in the name of separation of church and state. The media would have had on Barry Lynn to proclaim his outrage that the President was mixing religion and politics. Jim Wallis would have gone on the news to dance around life issues and try his best to neuter God out of them and the media would have treated him as an objective source. But that’s not what happened. Instead, the President went to the National Prayer Breakfast and quoted Jesus Christ himself to defend a tax increase. The President paraphrased Luke 12:48, “Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more.” (ESV) He said it was because he was a Christian that he thought the rich should pay more in taxes. It’s a good thing President Obama did not draw from Matthew 13:12 instead or the poor would really be screwed. “For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” (ESV) It is worth pointing out that the very same people who would have been outraged had the President quoted clear scripture on life to defend the unborn were willing to be silent or even applaud the President perverting the words of Christ to pursue his tax plan. It is also worth pointing out that President Obama sat at the feet of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, so this might be the best he can do. But we must also point out that Christians have an obligation to pray for their leaders and, given how the President of the United State just twisted the words of our Lord and Savior, we should pray all the more fervently for him because in reading Luke 12:48, he clearly ignored or has no understand of Luke 12:47. Please click here for the rest of the post. 2. Excommunicate the Bishops. I, like most other Catholics, got to hear a heartfelt letter from my Bishop — a living examplar of St. John Chrysostom’s famous (possibly apocryphal) maxim — 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. Please click here for the rest of the post. 3. Growing Opportunities on Earth Rather Than Colonies on the Moon Our nation is in economic turmoil, and American families are focused on what matters the most: putting food on the table and keeping the lights on.With economic growth stagnating and over 13 million Americans still jobless, it is clear that our priorities now, more than ever, cannot be frivolous. Our government spending cannot grow further out of control, and our politicians cannot lose sight of what is most important to the hardworking American people. Knowing this, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich chose to blatantly pander to a Florida crowd on the space coast (known for its support for NASA) when he told them that as President, he would use taxpayer dollars to expand the role of the federal government in manned space exploration, with the goal of building a colony on the moon by the end of his second term. After this announcement, many Americans were left scratching their heads especially since Newt is more prone to quoting George Washington rather than George Jetson. And when you factor in that our free enterprise system is at stake, how can we afford for anyone to lose sight of what matters most to the American people and heedlessly pursue more wasteful government programs? Building a federally-funded moon colony would inevitably cost—at the very least—billions of dollars. In addition to our current overspending, this would ultimately saddle our children with the price tag for another one of Speaker Gingrich’s grandiose ideas. Please click here for the rest of the post. 4. Did a Former Nancy Pelosi Aide Screw Up the Komen Decision? Ogilvy Public Relations Should Explain. Judd Legum at Think Progress did what appears to be a pre-emptive strike against former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer claiming that Fleisher was “secretly involved” in the Susan G. Komen Foundations’ strategy on planned parenthood. In fact, according to people I’ve spoken to who are aware of the decision making processes at Komen, Fleischer had nothing to do with Komen’s strategy or decision on this matter. I use the word “pre-emptive” because it seems Think Progress and the left wanted to get this out there quickly, damn the facts, to distract from Brendan Daly. Brandon Daly is Nancy Pelosi’s former press secretary. He now works at Ogilvy Public Relations. According to people close to the Komen Foundation I’ve spoken to, it was not Fleischer who was involved in the strategy and PR related to the Planned Parenthood decision, but rather Nancy Pelosi’s former press secretary and Ogilvy Public Relations executive Brendan Daly. Please click here for the rest of the post. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/morning-briefing-for-february-6-2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Retiring Blue Dog Democrats Say Pelosi Reason They’re Leaving Congress…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/retiring-blue-dog-democrats-say-pelosi-reason-theyre-leaving-congress/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/retiring-blue-dog-democrats-say-pelosi-reason-theyre-leaving-congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:22:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BrennanShawna20</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[million-worth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rerun-helps]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-relative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-speaker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[their-breed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[win-control]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/retiring-blue-dog-democrats-say-pelosi-reason-theyre-leaving-congress/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks, Nancy. Via Politico: In 2010, Nancy Pelosi starred in $75 million worth of negative ads that helped Republicans win control of the House and wrest the speaker’s gavel from her. Now, the relative handful of moderate Democrats left say the fear of a rerun helps explain why so many of their breed are headed ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/06/retiring-blue-dog-democrats-say-pelosi-reason-theyre-leaving-congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Did a Former Nancy Pelosi Aide Screw Up the Komen Decision? Ogilvy Public Relations Should Explain.</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/did-a-former-nancy-pelosi-aide-screw-up-the-komen-decision-ogilvy-public-relations-should-explain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/did-a-former-nancy-pelosi-aide-screw-up-the-komen-decision-ogilvy-public-relations-should-explain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrevorLandon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brendan daly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damn-the-facts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fleischer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[komen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ogilvy-public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press-secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/did-a-former-nancy-pelosi-aide-screw-up-the-komen-decision-ogilvy-public-relations-should-explain/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Judd Legum at Think Progress did what appears to be a pre-emptive strike against former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer claiming that Fleisher was &#8220;secretly involved&#8221; in the Susan G. Komen Foundations&#8217; strategy on planned parenthood. In fact, according to people I&#8217;ve spoken to who are aware of the decision making processes at Komen, Fleischer had nothing to do with Komen&#8217;s strategy or decision on this matter. I use the word &#8220;pre-emptive&#8221; because it seems Think Progress and the left wanted to get this out there quickly, damn the facts, to distract from Brendan Daly. Brandon Daly is Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s former press secretary. He now works at Ogilvy Public Relations . According to people close to the Komen Foundation I&#8217;ve spoken to, it was not Fleischer who was involved in the strategy and PR related to the Planned Parenthood decision, but rather Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s former press secretary and Ogilvy Public Relations executive Brendan Daly. Think Progress seemingly wanted to jump the gun and blame a Republican for a disastrous PR strategy when it was not just any Democrat, but one tied to Nancy Pelosi, who was quick out of the gate condemning the Komen Foundation. Maybe Komen should have gone with Edelman instead. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/04/did-a-former-nancy-pelosi-aide-screw-up-the-komen-decision-ogilvy-public-relations-should-explain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Michelle Malkin Endorses Rick Santorum</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cap and Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[earth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[follow-the-pro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign-policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[frontrunners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gingrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[santorum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Newt Gingrich has effectively called on Rick Santorum to drop out of the presidential race, yet the former Pennsylvania senator continues to poll in the double digits and shows no sign of quitting. Why are so many conservatives dissatisfied with a choice between Gingrich and Mitt Romney? Michelle Malkin's Santorum endorsement is a good primer. [Santorum] didn't cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn't follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd - including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich - and he didn't have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills. Santorum opposed individual health care mandates - clearly and forcefully - as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual health care mandate waters. He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn't written any "Contracts with the Earth." Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement. Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values - not just in word, but in deed. Personally, I think Santorum's big government votes under Bush ought to be given more weight. Republicans tend to be much less fiscally conservative when they hold power or act on behalf of parochial concerns, so candidates who resist that temptation have more credibility than those who don't. Santorum has also given little indication of having learned from the foreign policy blunders of the Bush years. That said, it is a respectable case, especially when compared to the contortions others must go through to justify supporting their preferred candidate. It's also a reminder of why Santorum is going to continue to collect a lot of votes from conservatives uncomfortable with the frontrunners' records. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/michelle-malkin-endorses-rick-santorum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pelosi: “Tea Party Has Taken Us Away From Kind of Progress Country Deserves”…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/pelosi-tea-party-has-taken-us-away-from-kind-of-progress-country-deserves/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/pelosi-tea-party-has-taken-us-away-from-kind-of-progress-country-deserves/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 04:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Markisacopyrightthief</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[achieving-equal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[becoming-law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[est]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nancy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[produce-the-progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subject]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tomorrow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/pelosi-tea-party-has-taken-us-away-from-kind-of-progress-country-deserves/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fear not, Pelosi says if you give her $3 she can &#8220;produce the progressive change&#8221; we need. From: Nancy Pelosi (dccc@dccc.org) Subject: Lilly Ledbetter Date: January 28, 2012 1:18:37 PM EST Drew &#8211; Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act becoming law and an important step to achieving equal pay for ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/pelosi-tea-party-has-taken-us-away-from-kind-of-progress-country-deserves/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Our Bill Clinton</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/our-bill-clinton/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/our-bill-clinton/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 16:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Onoshobishobi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[charm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[closet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[governor-chris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insufferable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prophet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white-house]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/our-bill-clinton/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ WASHINGTON -- How long have I been saying it? At least for 15 years, but in private I have been aware of it longer. Newt Gingrich is conservatism's Bill Clinton, but without the charm. He has acquired wit but he has all the charm of barbed wire. Newt and Bill are, of course, 1960s generation narcissists, and they share the same problems: waywardness and deviancy. Newt, like Bill, has a proclivity for girl hopping. It is not as egregious as Bill's, but then Newt is not as drop-dead beautiful. His public record is already besmeared with tawdry divorces, and there are private encounters with the fair sex that doubtless will come out. If I have heard of some, you can be sure the Democrats have heard of more. Nancy Pelosi's intimations are timely. Newt up against the Prophet Obama would be a painful thing to watch. He might be deft with one-liners but it would be futile. There are independent and other uncommitted voters to be cultivated in 2012 -- all would be unmoved by Newt's juggling of conservative shibboleths. Newt and Bill, as 1960s generation self-promoters, share the same duplicity, ostentatious braininess, a propensity for endless scrapes with propriety and the law. They are tireless hustlers. Now Newt is hustling my fellow conservatives in this election. The last time around he successfully hustled conservatives in the House of Representatives and then the conservatives on the House impeachment committee. He blew the impeachment and in fact his role as Speaker. He backed out in disgrace. He now says Republicans in the House were exhausted with his great projects. Nonsense, I knew many of them, and they were exhausted with his atrocious leadership. He is not a leader. He is a huckster. Today Mitt Romney has 72 Congressional endorsements. Newt has 11. Possibly the 11 have yet to meet him. Now he has found his key for the hustling conservative electorate. He is playing the liberal media card and saying he embodies conservative values. Like Bill with his credulous fans, Newt is hoping conservatives suffer amnesia. Possibly some do. Perhaps they cannot recall mere months ago when this insufferable whiz kid was lambasting the great Congressman Paul Ryan for "right-wing social engineering" -- more evidence of Newt's not-so-hidden longing for the approval of the liberal media. After his Ryan moment Newt's campaign was a death wagon, and it will be so again -- hopefully before he gets the nomination. Conservatives should not climb onto his death wagon. He is a huckster, and I for one will not be rendered a contortionist trying to defend him. I did so in his earliest days and learned my lesson. After Newt's and Bill's disastrous experiences in government both went on to create empires, Bill in philanthropy and cheap thought, Newt in public policy and cheap thought. As an ex-president Bill has wrung up an unprecedented $75.6 million since absconding from the White House with White House loot and shameless pardons. I do not know how much Newt has amassed, but he got between $1.6 million to $1.8 million from Freddie Mac, and he lobbied for Medicare Part D while receiving, according to the Washington Examiner 's Tim Carney, "Big Bucks Pushing Corporate Welfare." Now after a lifetime in Washington he is promoting himself as an outsider. Contending with Newt for the Republican nomination are Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney. All three are truer conservatives than Newt. I like them all. But John Bolton, former ambassador to the United Nations, and John Lehman, Ronald Reagan's secretary of the navy, are for Mitt, and they are solid conservatives. Governor Chris Christie and the economic pundit Larry Kudlow laud Mitt on taxes, on spending, and on attacking crony capitalism. Kudlow calls Romney "Reaganesque." Ann Coulter seems to loathe Newt. Back in 1992 I appeared with Chris Matthews on some gasbag's television show. Was it Donahue? At any rate, I said candidate Clinton had more skeletons in his closet than a body snatcher. It was a prescient line then, and I always got a laugh. I can apply the same line today to Newt, though he has skeletons both inside and outside his closet. Conservatives should not be surprised by the scandals that lie ahead, if they stick with him. Those of us, who raised the question of character in 1992, were confronted by an indignant Bill Clinton, treating the topic as a low blow. To listen to him, character was the "c" word of American politics. It was reprehensible to mention it. By now we know. Character matters. Paul, Santorum, and Romney have it. Newt has Clinton's character. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/our-bill-clinton/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pelosi’s Spokesman: Nancy Pelsoi Doesn’t Know Anything At All</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/pelosis-spokesman-nancy-pelsoi-doesnt-know-anything-at-all/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/pelosis-spokesman-nancy-pelsoi-doesnt-know-anything-at-all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:15:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confirmation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[granny]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[her-keen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[simply-familiar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spokesman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/pelosis-spokesman-nancy-pelsoi-doesnt-know-anything-at-all/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Thanks for the confirmation. He clarifies that Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants is simply familiar with the publicly-available facts of the ethics case, and based on her keen intellect, she can therefore predict it&#8217;s enough to sink him. Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s office&#8230; Read more: Pelosi&#8217;s Spokesman: Nancy Pelsoi Doesn&#8217;t Know Anything At All ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/26/pelosis-spokesman-nancy-pelsoi-doesnt-know-anything-at-all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>#SOTU Recap: SSDD (Or, Something Sounded Familiar)</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/sotu-recap-ssdd-or-something-sounded-familiar/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/sotu-recap-ssdd-or-something-sounded-familiar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 17:15:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LogemannCid284</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[both-baffling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congressional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hearts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[martha stewart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sotu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[union]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/sotu-recap-ssdd-or-something-sounded-familiar/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Listening to Barack Obama&#8217;s State of the Union Speech last night was like listening to just about every one of his SOTU speeches&#8230; Actually, with the exception of Obama&#8217;s promise to sign a law making Congressional insider trading illegal [Martha Stewart may have some resort recommendations for Nancy Pelosi], listening to Obama&#8217;s SOTU speech really was listening to his other speeches, as this RNC video points out. Oddly enough, there is no writers&#8217; strike going on, so the lack of originality is both baffling and amusing at the same time. __________________ “Socialism has no place in the hearts of those who would secure the fight for freedom and preserve democracy.” Samuel Gompers, American Federation of Labor, 1918 ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/25/sotu-recap-ssdd-or-something-sounded-familiar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

