<?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; Ronald Reagan</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/category/ronald-reagan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:15:07 +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>Gov’t Data Shows Obama Has Added More to National Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents from Washington Through Reagan Combined…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/09/gov%e2%80%99t-data-shows-obama-has-added-more-to-national-debt-in-first-19-months-than-all-presidents-from-washington-through-reagan-combined%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/09/gov%e2%80%99t-data-shows-obama-has-added-more-to-national-debt-in-first-19-months-than-all-presidents-from-washington-through-reagan-combined%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 06:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-debt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social-security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treasury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel woo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/09/gov%e2%80%99t-data-shows-obama-has-added-more-to-national-debt-in-first-19-months-than-all-presidents-from-washington-through-reagan-combined%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Yes, combined!&#8230; (CNSNews.com) &#8211; In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into  two categories . One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security. At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the  Congressional Budget Office . That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3  billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama&#8217;s inauguration. By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion,  according to CBO . At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89&#8211;which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office&#8211;the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months. When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the  Bureau of the Public Debt , a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion. In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008. Rest here> > > ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/09/gov%e2%80%99t-data-shows-obama-has-added-more-to-national-debt-in-first-19-months-than-all-presidents-from-washington-through-reagan-combined%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fire Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/08/fire-obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/08/fire-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 15:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[youth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/08/fire-obama/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ House GOP Leader John Boehner created a stir last month when he called on President Obama to fire his top economic advisors, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy Larry Summers, because of the Administration's disastrous economic performance. But while Summers is, indeed, a clueless Keynesian, and Geithner is a career bureaucrat, they are not the source of the problem. The source of the problem is the Godfather of the Administration's economic policies, President Obama himself. Consequently, what is needed is not to fire Geithner or Summers, but to fire Obama. While President Obama is not on the ballot this fall, the American people will nevertheless have the opportunity in November to do precisely that, by effectively removing him from power, as explained further below. Reality will continue to punish the American people harder and harder until they do. President Obama's Malaise The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) officially scored the recession as starting in December, 2007. NBER also reports that since World War II, 65 years ago, the average duration of recessions has been 10 months, with the longest previously being 16 months. In April of this year, NBER issued a statement saying it could not yet determine an end to the recession, 28 months after it began. What we do know is that in August, 2010, 32 months after the recession started, double the previous longest recession in the 65 year postwar era, the economy was still losing jobs, and unemployment was still rising. The Labor Department reported another 54,000 jobs lost in August, with unemployment rising to 9.6%. Major Obama voting blocks are being punished by Obamanomics, with African Americans suffering a sustained depression reflected by 16.3% unemployment, even worse for teenagers with unemployment at 26.3%, and Hispanics not far behind at 12% unemployment. The total army of the unemployed remains stuck at nearly 15 million, with 42% of those classified as long-term unemployed, jobless for over 6 months, the highest since the Great Depression. The number of additional workers employed part-time for economic reasons was still rising in August, up by another 331,000 to nearly 9 million. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines these workers as those who "were working part-time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full time job." Another 2.4 million were defined as marginally attached to the labor force, stuck at that total for a year. The BLS explains that these individual "wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job in the prior 12 months," but were not counted among the unemployed because they had not looked for work in the prior 4 weeks. These included 1.1 million discouraged workers, up 352,000 over the past year, who were not currently searching for work, and therefore not counted as unemployed, because they believe that in the economy of hope and change no jobs are available for them. The army of the unemployed and underemployed consequently stands at 26.2 million Americans. That would add up to an unemployed and underemployed rate of 16.7%, almost 3 years after the recession started. The full picture of hopelessness is measured by the precipitous drop in the civilian-employment population ratio from 63% in 2007 to 58% today, fully reflecting the millions who have simply given up even trying to look for work. Moreover, the economic growth we have experienced recently has been less than half the growth we experienced after similarly severe downturns. The economy grew by almost 7% in real terms in Reagan's recovery in 1983 and 1984. Even under President Ford, real GDP grew by 6.2% in the year after the 1974-75 recession. But under President Obama, economic growth is again in a tailspin already, falling from 5% in the fourth quarter of 2009, to 3.7% in the first quarter this year, to 1.6% in the second quarter. Moreover, the stock market is stalled, mired 30% below its record highs over 14000 in the Dow. This deteriorating economy couldn't be a worse time to raise top federal tax rates across the board for every major federal tax, as will begin on Jan. 1 under President Obama's economic policies. If those tax increases go through, the probability will be over 100% for a double dip recession, if not Art Laffer's Coming Crash of 2011. President Obama's Fallacies In his Labor Day speech before a cheering AFL-CIO crowd excited about their prospects of taking over the economy, President Obama revealed the root of the problem. He has no clue as to how the economy works, or what policies would produce economic growth. Indeed, while he may have physically been in America over the last 30 years, his mind may as well still have been in the Indonesia of his youth, for all he understands about what has happened in this country over that time. After last year's "stimulus" costing nearly a trillion dollars that was supposed to be focused on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects, President Obama on Monday announced his "new" economic recovery plan: another $50 billion in increased federal spending for infrastructure. He said, "I am announcing a new plan for rebuilding and modernizing America's roads and rails and runways for the long term." But even this simple statement of his own plan is false. For there is nothing new about it. That is what his stimulus of over a year ago was supposed to be about. But the American people are learning from hard experience that President Obama does not learn from experience. He is all theory and ideology, neo-Marxist ideology. President Obama has made it clear over and over, including in Monday's speech, that what he thinks drives economic growth is increased government spending, deficits, and debt. That is the sum and substance of his entire Keynesian economic theory. And he persists in that even though experience under his own Administration has proven once again that Keynesian economics doesn't work. Indeed, that was proven so thoroughly in America in the 1970s, and again in Japan since the 1990s, that Keynesian economics today is frankly silly, and advocating still more of it now can only be accurately characterized as braindead. Japan suffered its own financial crisis at the start of the 1990s. It responded with Keynesian government spending, deficits and debt, focused on infrastructure spending. The result has been what has been accurately called two lost decades of economic stagnation, very similar to what America is experiencing now. Economic growth is not driven by soaring government spending, deficits and debt. It is driven by incentives to work, save, invest, start businesses, expand businesses, create jobs, and take on the risks of entrepreneurship. Keynesian economics does not work because borrowing or taxing another $50 billion out of the private economy to spend another $50 billion into the economy does not add anything to the economy on net. Nor does it do anything to change the fundamental incentives that do drive the economy, except maybe make them worse. As to those who focus on these fundamental incentives, Obama said on Monday, "These guys, they just don't want to give up on that economic philosophy that they have been peddling for most of the last decade. You know that philosophy -- you cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires…and then you just cut working folks loose -- you cut them loose to fend for themselves." Those poor working folks. Without the wise and all powerful government to take care of them, they are hopeless, like little lambs lost in the wood. President Obama has now accused Republicans of failing to control runaway federal spending and deficits, and of "cutting working folks loose to fend for themselves." In regard to those millionaires and billionaires, even before President Obama was elected, official IRS data showed that in 2007 the top 1% of income earners paid 40.4% of all federal income taxes, almost twice their share of adjusted gross income. The top 5% paid 60.6% of all federal income taxes, while earning 37.7% of adjusted gross income. The top 10% paid 71.2% of all income taxes, while earning 48% of adjusted gross income. Yet, for the working folks, the IRS reports that in 2007 the bottom 50% of income earners paid only 2.9% of all federal income taxes. Indeed, the bottom 95% of income earners paid 39.4% of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1% of income earners paid more federal income taxes than the bottom 95%! That was under the "economic philosophy of the last decade." It is all fully and accurately explained in a study on the website of the Tax Foundation. IRS data also shows that those on whom President Obama wants to increase taxes, earning more than $200,000 a year, constitute just 3% of taxpayers. Yet, that 3% already pays more in income taxes than the bottom 97% combined. Moreover, in regard to the working folks, in 2007, again before President Obama was even elected, the bottom 40% of income earners as a group paid no federal income taxes. Instead, they received net payments from the income tax system equal to 3.8% of all federal income taxes. In other words, they paid negative 3.8% of federal income taxes. The middle 20% of income earners, the actual middle class, paid 4.7% of all federal income taxes. This is the result of Reagan Republican supply side economics that began with Reagan and Jack Kemp in the 1970s and 1980s, continued through Newt Gingrich and his Contract with America, and further played out with the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Reagan and his Republicans abolished federal income taxes on the poor and working class. Moreover, they almost abolished federal income taxes on the actual middle class (the middle 20%). It was, in fact, Ronald Reagan who first proposed in the 1970s the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), his alternative to welfare, which has done so much to reduce income tax liabilities for lower income people. As President, he cut federal income tax rates across the board for all taxpayers by 25%. He also indexed the tax brackets for all taxpayers to prevent inflation from pushing workers into higher tax brackets. In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, he reduced the federal income tax rate for "folks who make less" all the way down to 15%. That Act also doubled the personal exemption, shielding more income from taxation for everybody, exempting from taxation a bigger percentage of the income of lower income workers. Newt Gingrich's Contract With America adopted a child tax credit of $500 per child that reduced the tax liabilities of lower income people by a higher percentage than for higher income people. President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people who do not even pay $1,000 in federal income taxes could still get the full credit. Bush also adopted a new lower tax bracket for the lowest income workers of 10%, reducing their federal income tax rate by 33%. Again, he cut the top rate for the highest income workers by just 11.6%, from 39.6% to 35%. Many conservatives do not think it was a good idea to exempt so many from paying any income taxes at all. Nevertheless, the charge that the Republicans only cut taxes for the rich is factually groundless. Under Reagan Republican tax policies, the share of income taxes paid by the rich has soared to arguably excessive, even abusive, levels, while income taxes were, again, abolished for the poor and working class, and almost abolished for the middle class. In other words, in regard to the economy and taxes, President Obama has no idea what he is talking about. All he is doing is peddling that neo-Marxism he learned in that limousine liberal prep school he went to, still after all these years. But as Churchill said, if you are not a socialist when you are 20, you have no heart, and if you are not a capitalist when you are 40, you have no brains. Carpet Bombing Jobs and the Economy The result today of President Obama's prep school Marxist fallacies are comprehensive, across the board policies that are effectively carpet bombing jobs and the economy. That includes job killing policies such as the top tax rate increases for every major federal tax starting next year, runaway federal spending, deficits, and debt, Obamacare, EPA global warming regulation, the cap and trade tax, financial regulatory reform squelching credit, the Gulf drilling moratorium and other energy production shutdowns, the Card Check specter, the minimum wage increase, the California San Joaquin Valley agriculture shutdown, and others. The only way to stop the killing is through regime change. And even though President Obama is not on the ballot this fall, that can be accomplished by administering a brutal enough spanking to the Democrats this fall that the Washington Establishment will be shaken to its knees. That will require a gain of 60 to 80 seats in the House, and 10-12 in the Senate. With that beat down, enough surviving Democrats will join with the new Republican majorities to effectively remove Obama from power, and implement alternative policies. I am not saying they will remove him from office, though with a double dip recession and a major foreign policy reversal, it is quite possible that the Democrats will demand that he step down. I am saying that enough Democrats will then turn to pass legislation Obama opposes, and even overturn key Obama vetoes. What the polls are showing is that and more is possible. But that requires not accepting any phony baloney Blue Dog Democrat excuses, including from such supposed conservatives as Gene Taylor from Mississippi, Walt Minnick from Idaho, and Bobby Bright from Alabama. If they are running as Democrats, then voting for them is a vote for San Francisco uberliberal Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. If they really are good conservatives, they can run for something else next time, or they can run as Republicans next time, or as Independents who will not vote Democrat for Speaker. Meanwhile, those who really want to make a difference will go into their Rolodex, or Facebook friends, or email contact list now and begin organizing to get out volunteers, fundraising, and the vote in November. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/08/fire-obama/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>Labor Day and Unions: Making America Work</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/06/labor-day-and-unions-making-america-work/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/06/labor-day-and-unions-making-america-work/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 09:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afl-cio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dwight eisenhower]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goldman-sachs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jimmy hoffa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tornadoes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/06/labor-day-and-unions-making-america-work/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Unions helped build the middle class and protect workers. These days, all that is threatened and Big Labor is on shaky ground. But an enlightened role for unions is key to healing what ails us. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/06/labor-day-and-unions-making-america-work/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>Christine O&#8217;Donnell Defended</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/christine-odonnell-defended/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/christine-odonnell-defended/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 22:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[across-the-face]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circumstances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[levin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald-reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traditional]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/christine-odonnell-defended/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Over at Riehlword and on Mark Levin's Facebook page are marvelous pieces defining much more than Delaware's suddenly heated fight between Christine O'Donnell and Mike Castle. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/christine-odonnell-defended/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The GOP could easily be back in the wilderness in 2014</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/the-gop-could-easily-be-back-in-the-wilderness-in-2014/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/the-gop-could-easily-be-back-in-the-wilderness-in-2014/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:44:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transparency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiscal conservatism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paul ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[small government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[white]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/the-gop-could-easily-be-back-in-the-wilderness-in-2014/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ From the Diaries by Erick. Introduction My first political act was attending a Ronald Reagan rally back in 1980. Since then I&#8217;ve watched with great disappointment the ability of the GOP to turn opportunities into wasted piles of crap and to push soft Republicans and weary independents into the arms of the Democrats or those who don&#8217;t vote. Such moves have led to this kind of apathy among even people who would love to be dedicated Republicans: &#8220;Unfortunately neither party, once in power appears to be terribly concerned with limiting their own power&#8221; and &#8220;The only people I see truly dedicated to limiting government are the Tea Party, but I&#8217;m not so sure they can get enough broad support to make it happen&#8221; (both real quotes from friends of mine in response to a note I posted on facebook). Let me ask you this question: If you were to survey ten of your closest friends who you considered soft Republicans (they either voted for Obama or considered it), what would they say the number one issue for the Republicans should be after they win in November? I&#8217;m betting you either said &#8220;cut government spending&#8221; or &#8220;get rid of healthcare&#8221; or &#8220;make government smaller.&#8221; Now ask them a different question. &#8220;Where did the GOP go wrong in the 1990s and the early 2000s when they had control?&#8221; They will probably say one of two things &#8220;they spent too much&#8221; or &#8220;they wasted all their time investigating Clinton.&#8221; At least that has been my experience in talking to my &#8220;soft&#8221; Republican and independent friends who lean conservative in their ideals. Rolling to victory in November The Republicans are rolling to victory in November. I think they will be slightly short when it comes to the Senate but they should be able to make a big enough dent that we can ignore the moderates most of the time and still pull a fillibuster out of the hat. And why are we going to win? Because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is not that the GOP suddenly has a fabulous message (although they are at least back on message) as it is that they are terrified of what Barak Obama is doing to the country and so they are planning to hamstring Barak as much as possible. Don&#8217;t get me wrong, there are definitely some people out there who would love to come back to the GOP for good and the momentum is ours for the taking. I&#8217;m happy and I think we are adding some great conservative voices to the Congress. So why the doom and gloom headline? Because we&#8217;ve been here before &#8212; 2002 &#8212; It should&#8217;ve been great. Control of congress, GOP President and all we got is bigger government and a lot of pissed off independents and soft Republicans. Will we never learn? So what do our leaders have in store for the new congress? 1) GOP plans widespread White House probes Republican staffers say there won&#8217;t be any self-destructive witch hunts, but they clearly are relishing the prospect of extracting information from an administration that touts transparency. And a handful of aggressive would-be committee chairmen — led by Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Lamar Smith, R-Texas — are quietly gearing up for a possible season of subpoenas not seen since the Clinton wars of the late 1990s. Fabulous! Because everywhere I go in America, I hear people saying &#8220;Hey, let&#8217;s take over congress so we can probe the White House.&#8221; That&#8217;s right, people want to probe the White House because that&#8217;s so important to them. No, it&#8217;s not. It&#8217;s important to congressmen and professional politicians who want to take some scalps. We, out here, would like some jobs and some lower taxes and maybe divesting the country of Fannie, Freddie, and GM. 2) As Erick noted here, the GOP plans to allow earmarking again. Really? Because that has worked out so well for both the country and the GOP as a whole. Compare Eric Cantor&#8217;s attitude on earmarks here: “Republicans may roll back their ban on earmarks, as long as the spending items have ‘merit.’” with Reagan&#8217;s approach to earmarks by not only vetoeing bills that had them but by trying to actually use a legal constitutional argument to ignore them (since they were not in the law themselves but were in the report language and not the bill itself). Finally, check that against the attitude of President James Madison when he vetoed the first ever bill that contained earmarks: President James Madison vetoed the bill as unconstitutional. He explains his reasoning to Congress in his veto message: Having considered the bill &#8230; I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling this bill with the Constitution of the United States. &#8230; The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified &#8230; in the &#8230; Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers. &#8230; And regarding the General Welfare Clause, Madison responds: Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms &#8216;common defense and general welfare&#8217; embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. What I wouldn&#8217;t give to get every member of congress on record on their views on that! Talk about made for political ad fodder. 3) The continued love affair with offshoring jobs and H-1B visas The final issue (and I admit that I don&#8217;t have any sure fire way to fix this issue) is the GOP&#8217;s obsession with making it easier to offshore jobs and increase H-1B visas. This may be one of the reasons (along with abortion) that Carly Fiorina lags behind Meg Whitman in California. Carly was the great outsourcer at HP and one of the most vocal supporters of giving away American jobs to cheaper foreigners (sorry folks, with layoffs and the recession, there are no more than a handful of jobs that we couldn&#8217;t find a displaced American IT worker to fill quite ablely). While in its infancy, this may have been a great way to give the top 1% of smart people from around the world a pathway to America, it has become about pandering to the big companies that provide the GOP with campaign money and undercutting workers salaries. How To Prevent the Problem Is there a way to prevent a return to the wilderness? There is although it&#8217;s hard for me to believe that our congressional leaders are smart enough to listen to us when we tell them what it is. Congress should be ruled by three principles: 1) With regards to the use of their time (i.e. to investigate or not to investigate), congress critters should ask themselves &#8220;Is this the best use of my time to alleviate the problems of the American people?&#8221; or &#8220;Am I solving one of the top five problems that affects the American people?&#8221; We don&#8217;t need endless news cycles about subpoenas and and who told who what if we want to stay in the business of ruling the country. If you want to take political scalps, resign from congress and go home and join the local homeowner&#8217;s association. How about taking your time on the government oversight committee to check for wasteful spending and try to find one hundred regulations to cut during the first hundred days you are in congress? How about spending your committee time asking questions about why all of the positions in a given department need to be filled? How about spending your time asking department secretaries which programs could be combined so that the American people could save some money? 2) With regards to the use of our money, congress should ask, &#8220;How can I reduce the size of government?&#8221; and &#8220;Is this a critical need to help the American people?&#8221; and &#8220;Would I donate my own money for a project like this?&#8221; Selling off Fannie, Freddie, GM, etc would quickly reduce the size of government. Earmarks are never going to be the answer in a case like this. Do you know what the polls for 2012 would look like if the House of Representatives passed an earmark free appropriations bill in the coming year? I guarentee that we could push it through the Senate as well simply by shaming people into voting for it (especially Dem&#8217;s up for election in 2012)? This simple act would lead to a huge movement from independents into the GOP tent on a permanent or semi-permanent basis. 3) With regards to taxes, tariffs, visas, illegal immigration enforcement, congressmen should ask themselves this question: &#8220;What policies can I enact that will create the most private sector jobs for America for the next year, ten years, and forty years?&#8221; Realisitically looking at a big reduction in federal regulations, lowering taxes down to level of 20% of GDP, shuttering businesses that hire illegal aliens, and increased border security will all open up opportunities for Americans displaced either through overregulation or through the taking of jobs by illegals. Finally, we need to pick our 2012 presidential nominee with care Finally, when November is done, we need to pick our GOP nominee carefully. I know we all have our favorites (I have mine as well ), but we ALL (myself included) will need to take a hard look at our nominees and find someone who will and HAS fought for smaller government not just talked about it. The last thing we need to do is to turnover a GOP leaning (or hopefully completely owned) congress to a &#8220;big government conservative&#8221; (scare quotes intended to be REALLY scary) in 2012. Or even worse nominate an unelectable Bob Dole type (I know it&#8217;s your turn, but this isn&#8217;t the local deli counter!). There should be at least two or three ELECTABLE, CONSERVATIVE choices out there. Conclusion For now, push those Republicans through to November and then be ready to hold their feet to the fire! Politicians seem to have a gene in their system that turns them from conservatives into trough suckers once they get to Washington. We need to remind them who is boss and push them to choose conservative leaders like Jim DeMint and Paul Ryan and ignore the Mitch McConnells and Eric Cantors of the world. Remember that if we don&#8217;t push our congressmen on a regular basis on how to govern then we will be right back in the wilderness in 2014. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/the-gop-could-easily-be-back-in-the-wilderness-in-2014/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Islands of Lost Boys</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/the-islands-of-lost-boys/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/the-islands-of-lost-boys/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beauty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grownup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kids]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[murder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/the-islands-of-lost-boys/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Most people live on a lonely island, Lost in the middle of a foggy sea. Most people long for another island, One where they know they will like to be. So begins the haunting tune from Rogers and Hammerstein's South Pacific, which sings of fulfilling one's inner hopes and dreams on a faraway island called "Bali Hai." In the 1958 movie version of the show, the beauty of the number is nearly ruined by the cloying colored filters used by director Josh Logan, which gave the disturbing impression that paradise might need embellishment. But in a way, this is a tale of our own time and place. For there is a large segment of our population who live their lives -- and insist that the rest of us live ours -- in a kind of fairytale land where wishing will make it so. These folks live on their island constantly, and they so surround themselves with their fellow dreamers, that they are insulated from seeing the world as it really is. In past ages, it was mostly starry-eyed young people who inhabited these utopian climes; those who have not yet been exposed to the real world with all its scabs. But most of the denizens today are Peter Pan-ian liberals who declared in the 1960s that they had no intention of growing up. And, as long as they are in power, they don't have to. They write the history books, they report the news as they would have it portrayed and they teach our kids that, as in Never-Never-Land, they don't need to fret about responsibility as long as there are evil, rich grownups to be taxed to care for them. And if life really isn't that way, it should be ; and that's the point. This is what enables them to act with such certainty in matters where their positions have either been proved wrong or are mere theories. That is why they can believe wholeheartedly that man can cause changes in the climate; that taxing the rich will stimulate the economy; that the way to foster equality between the races is to favor one over the other; or that the murder of unborn children is somehow liberating to women: because in the islands of their minds, that's the way it should be. The people who populate this island culture have as their anthem, the song "Imagine," written by another lost boy who counsels them to believe in "no religion," "no country" and "no heaven." Given these high moral strictures, it's not difficult to see why they are having trouble in the grownup world, where the Captain Hooks have become distressingly more real in the last couple of years. This is why not only the policies of George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan must be derided, but the men themselves turned into vicious monsters. Because these men have intruded on their fantasy that if they don't love and fight to defend their religion and country, others, like Communists or Islamists, won't either. Given the horrific reality of the lengths to which our enemies will go to annihilate us, it's not hard to see why the islanders have drawn some good people to their side. After all, who wouldn't want to live on Bali Hai? As the 2008 presidential election proved, many folks thought they'd like to dwell there; but as the last two years have graphically demonstrated, real life must intrude into every Never-Land or Camelot. During Republican administrations, we are often told by our betters in the media that a Bush or a Reagan is "out of touch" with the American people, that they are so sequestered away behind closed doors and away for the common folk that they are unfit to lead the country. How infinitely much more true is this of those who live their entire lives on the islands of lost boys and girls? This question will become even more vital the nearer we get to November; do we want representatives of the real world, or those who dwell in fantasy land? Of course in the world of fiction, there is another island which may provide a more helpful example of our current plight: remember, on Gilligan's Island -- where paradise was not all it seemed -- the supreme goal of the castaways was to go home. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/the-islands-of-lost-boys/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Success of the Beck Rally</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/31/the-success-of-the-beck-rally/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/31/the-success-of-the-beck-rally/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rush Limbaugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[concerts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ratings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[television]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/31/the-success-of-the-beck-rally/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ I love watching Glenn Beck on TV. Day winding down, he makes so many good points. As someone who has spent a lifetime studying history, been there in government and politics, I find it great to watch Beck's particular insistence on educating Americans about real history that has gone missing. Having long ago learned first hand the progressive-race connection, for example, by having lived for a couple years in Woodrow Wilson's hometown, I am stunned to see someone have the wit and the chops to detail this particularly disturbing history of America's "progressive" president on popular television. Bravo. So I watched the rally on C-SPAN.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/31/the-success-of-the-beck-rally/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Violating His Oath of Office?</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/25/violating-his-oath-of-office/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/25/violating-his-oath-of-office/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ahmadinejad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[middle east]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear-weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[saudi-arabia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stupid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[syria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/25/violating-his-oath-of-office/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That is the oath of office taken by President Barack Obama, and every other President of the United States, as provided in Article II, Section I of the Constitution. The question I want to ask is can you "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," without "preserving, protecting, and defending" the United States? President Obama's Iran Disgrace President Obama was so self-satisfied during the 2008 election with the avowed brilliance of his innovative Iran policy of "talking" to Iran about their nuclear weapons program. He accused President Bush of stupidly thinking he was punishing the Iranian government by refusing to talk to its leaders. President Obama was going to deliver peace in our time by talking to Iran "without preconditions," even going so far as to engage in "tough diplomacy" if necessary to convince Iran to terminate its nuclear weapons program. Michael Ledeen pointed out in the Wall Street Journal at the time that every Administration all the way back to Jimmy Carter had "talked to Iran," with no good ever coming from it. President Carter had engaged in "tough diplomacy" for over a year to free the American diplomats seized as hostages by the pirates running Iran. The Iranians finally did release them, at the precise moment of the Inauguration of Ronald Reagan, who seemed to be willing to do more than "tough diplomacy." At the very time that candidate Obama was preening all over the country regarding his hot new idea of "talking to Iran," the newspapers were filled with reports of what "carrots" then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was going to offer Iran in the next round of talks on its nuclear program. That never amounted to anything either. Yet lots of yuppie voters were nevertheless fooled into thinking that the fresh, young Obama had indeed come up with a promising new approach, overlooked by the stodgy Bush/McCain curmudgeons. It was obvious to thinking people at the time that "talking to Iran without preconditions," and "tough diplomacy," were never going to amount to anything. What would the American negotiating response be when told that the nuclear program was necessary to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth," and kill all the Jews, as Iran's fascist dictatorship had in fact already stated publicly? All those brilliant yuppies voting for Obama apparently did not know that the name of the country was changed from the historic "Persia" to "Iran" to claim that it was, in fact, the original source of Hitler's Aryan race. So, now, almost two years later, what has come of President Obama's brilliant strategy of "talking to Iran without preconditions"? When the Iranian people rose up in protest against the stealing of a sham election by the country's fascist dictatorship, President Obama sagaciously withheld even rhetorical support, to curry favor with the ruling Islamic theocracy in the vain hope of a nuclear deal. As the mullahs' Brown Shirt henchmen began murdering protesters in the streets, President Obama stood idly by, offering nothing of significance in their support. Even Jimmy Carter supported human rights. That is why President Obama's foreign policies are the worst, most unprincipled, most un-American in our nation's history. Not to worry, though. President Obama had another trick up his sleeve. He yielded to the Russian demand to cancel the deployment of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, after America's newly liberated allies in those countries had suffered the political costs of agreeing to them. Those missile defenses would have been strategically located as advance defenses for America, as well as for Europe, from the threat of Islamofascist nukes. But President Obama's apologists assured us that this ploy would win Russian pressure on Iran to end its nuclear program, and Russian support for serious sanctions if that pressure failed. But just last weekend, there were the Russians in Iran, loading the nuclear fuel rods into the Bushehr nuclear reactor. This provides the Iranians with a second route to nuclear weapons, based on the plutonium produced by the Bushehr plant, in addition to the uranium enrichment now produced by hundreds of Iranian centrifuges. Papa Joe Ahmadinejad announced that this was just the first of 10 such nuclear plants. Even Amy Carter Knew Better During the 1980 Presidential debates, President Carter explained that he had asked his daughter Amy what was the most important issue of our time, and even she understood that nuclear proliferation was the top concern. The spectacle of the President of the United States seeking international strategic advice from his 12 year old daughter drew nationwide peals of laughter. But even the 12-year-old Amy Carter would be a strategic giant in this Administration. That includes the miserable failure of our esteemed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who Washington insiders are already advancing as the future savior of the Democrat party. As Arthur Herman reports in the August 19 New York Post , nuclear proliferation is now spreading to Syria. Herman writes: Last week, the Obama Administration woke up to the fact that Syria has been steadily working on a nuke-weapons program. It is considering asking the United Nations to investigate -- even though Syrian dictator Bashir Assad has been blocking the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency from investigating suspected nuclear sites for years. Sorry: It's not the United Nations that holds the key to keeping Syria from becoming the next Iran. It's the United States -- and it's time to realize American decline has consequences. This represents another disastrous Obama Administration foreign policy failure. As Herman further explains:]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/25/violating-his-oath-of-office/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
