<?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; freedom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/tag/freedom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:25:00 +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>His Abominations Accelerate</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/his-abominations-accelerate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/his-abominations-accelerate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>kalpanaceo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bishop]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/his-abominations-accelerate/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The Republican presidential campaign thus far has been so bizarre and, frankly, depressing, that some of us have failed to adequately cover worrisome developments on a number of other important fronts. By ineptness and, worse, by deliberate design, Barack Obama daily makes this nation weaker abroad, less free (and more authoritarian) at home, economically more feeble, and in the civic realm more bitterly divided than ever. Meanwhile, ominous developments crowd the world stage. In short, we're in a big heap of trouble. The recent litany of Obama's odiousness begins with his growing, unambiguous war against traditional Christianity. He has now left no room for any pretense otherwise to be believed. Right on the heels of a unanimous Supreme Court, including his own two appointees, smacking down his administration's attempt to kill the "ministerial exemption" for employment practices of faith-based institutions, an unchastened Obama has decided that even faith-based organizations must provide insurance that covers contraception -- even including abortifacients. This is not just a narrow policy disagreement; it is, as Bishop David A. Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote , the president's way of saying "To Hell With You" to people of faith -- "To hell with your religious beliefs. To hell with your religious liberty. To hell with your freedom of conscience." Zubik continued: "This is government by fiat that attacks the rights of everyone -- not only Catholics; not only people of all religion. At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom not only with regard to religion, but even across-the-board with all citizens." Obama's broadsides, plural, against religious liberty are only a part of his radical transgressions against the U.S. Constitution. Conservatives are rightly up in arms about Obama's illegal recess appointments . Obamacare, of course, contains several anti-Constitutional abominations , including the "individual mandate" and the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Meanwhile, his administration is flagrantly violating precedent by trying to force explicit hiring quotas on the Fire Department of New York, in a case in which a key amicus brief was filed on January 24 at the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. And so on. Abroad, this man leading the Occupy the Oval Office movement is even worse. He threw away a clear victory in Iraq and may be doing the same in Afghanistan. His fecklessness regarding Iran, perfectly in line with his long record of favoring Shia interests, is now leading to a crisis of the first order. His strange mishandling of the Egyptian revolution has left the United States with very little leverage in a country that for more than three decades was a major American ally, and has left Coptic Christians scared to death . He long ago insulted allies such as Israel and Great Britain, repeatedly and with malice aforethought. He seems to have no real relationship of any positive nature with any allied foreign leader, perhaps with the exception of those in Brazil, whose oil exploration he subsidizes while blocking tens of thousands of jobs that would come from domestic energy production he has snuffed out. And he seems hell-bent on a mission to starve the American armed forces to dangerous thinness. Killing the private college-loan industry. Hobbling private for-profit colleges. Illegally seizing auto companies. Whoring for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Turning public policy over to thuggish union bosses and destroying jobs in South Carolina to do so. Turning the Justice Department into a thoroughly corrupt, lawless, racialist, hyper-politicized, gun-running, vote-fraud-enabling, bullying arm of the left wing of the Democratic Party. Regulating the life out of almost every aspect of the economy. Buying political support by funneling taxpayer money to failing private alternative-energy companies. Lying with the Supreme Court sitting in front of him about what they decided in the Citizens United case. Lying about so many things that one loses count. Roiling racial tensions every chance he gets. This is a man who has no interest in serving the United States that most of us know and love. Instead, he's a man who, by hook and definitely by crook, serves the despicable vision of the utterly foreign America he wants to impose on us. Four more years of this guy in power, and we are doomed. He is a menace, and, by every legal means possible, he must be stopped -- and his maladministration reversed and thoroughly buried.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/02/03/his-abominations-accelerate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reporters Without Borders: U.S. &amp; Argentina Tied for 47th in Press Freedom</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/reporters-without-borders-u-s-argentina-tied-for-47th-in-press-freedom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/reporters-without-borders-u-s-argentina-tied-for-47th-in-press-freedom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[argentinian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[censorship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fernandez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reporters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/reporters-without-borders-u-s-argentina-tied-for-47th-in-press-freedom/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Last week, Reporters Without Borders released its Press Freedom Index 2011-2012 . Out of 179 countries, the Paris based organization]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/30/reporters-without-borders-u-s-argentina-tied-for-47th-in-press-freedom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>National Park Service Gives Occupy D.C. Until Monday To Vacate Rat-Infested Camp…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/national-park-service-gives-occupy-d-c-until-monday-to-vacate-rat-infested-camp/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/national-park-service-gives-occupy-d-c-until-monday-to-vacate-rat-infested-camp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 03:00:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LanaGalloway</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcing-its]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom-plaza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national-park]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-no-camping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/national-park-service-gives-occupy-d-c-until-monday-to-vacate-rat-infested-camp/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[About time. (WaPo) — The National Park Service said Friday that it will begin enforcing its long-standing regulation prohibiting camping on federal parkland at the Occupy sites at McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza at noon Monday. To comply with the no-camping rules, protesters must remove all evidence of camping, including bedding, storage containers and anything used ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/national-park-service-gives-occupy-d-c-until-monday-to-vacate-rat-infested-camp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Behind the Headlines</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/behind-the-headlines/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/behind-the-headlines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jan 2012 00:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>TrevorLandon</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aids]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[museum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[student-loans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[words]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[world]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/behind-the-headlines/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Here in Washington, it is hard to go anywhere where tourists also go, such as the Metro, without seeing advertising for one of our capital city's most successful tourist traps, which grandly calls itself the International Spy Museum. All of it is marked with the museum's motto: "Nothing is what it seems." The more you look at it, the more nonsensical that claim would seem--that is, if it were a claim and not a slogan. On the contrary, for most of us, for most of the time, nearly everything is what it seems. At least, so it seems to those of us who are not among the increasing number of people who hope to make a profit out of showing people that it isn't, because they know what no one else does. This claim to secret information is of course what spies share with the media, conspiracy theorists, and intellectuals, and those who patronize the supposed possessors of this information are very often prestige-seekers, eager only to claim a precedence over their neighbors by virtue of knowing something they don't know. The opportunities for chicanery and fraud are obviously enormous, as the curious history of the "birther" and "truther" narratives in recent years has shown. Yet even the craziest of stories have some truth value if enough people are prepared to band together in an unspoken pact to believe in them. If these belief-groups are otherwise identified as privileged in some way, say by victimhood or persecution, they are likely to be unmolested in possession of their voluntary absurdities. Thus, according to some estimates, a third of American blacks believe that AIDS was formulated in government laboratories to decimate the black population. Well, since quite a lot of other things have been done by American governments to victimize blacks, nobody is going to spend a lot of time trying to disabuse them of the notion, even if nobody outside their community believes in it either. Believing as they do has other benefits for them with which the mere knowledge of the truth can hardly hope to compete. Lately, however, the claim to victimhood has itself become privileged information. The protesters calling themselves "Occupy Wall Street" and their imitators across the country and around the world are making a claim to victimhood against corporations or banks or Jews or "the rich," or some combination of them that mainstream society, long accustomed to recognize these things and people as respectable and even admirable, does not recognize. If the Occupiers are themselves dysfunctional and unemployable in the corporate world, someone other than themselves must be to blame. Who else but the corporations? With luck and a bit of cold weather, the protests will have fizzled out by the time you read these words, but their claim to legitimacy lingers on, backed by the increasing conviction with which people regard the Spy Museum's claim that nothing is what it seems. Those big corporations might seem to be producing goods and services that people need and want while providing employment to millions, but underneath that benign exterior there must be supposed to lurk the oppressive power that is preventing 26-year-old theatre majors with $50,000 in student loans from enjoying the American dream, as they know they are entitled to do. That kind of thinking is a kind of addiction and must feed itself with the arcana of conspiracy as retailed by the media, respectable and non-respectable, who have in common a pecuniary interest in promoting the belief that nothing is what it seems. But it also requires a constant reinforcement of its most basic assumption from the arts, which are as always the purveyors of our most cherished myths. As the "Occupy DC" protesters gathered in Freedom Plaza in late September, there was opening at the National Gallery just a few blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue an exhibition called "Warhol: Headlines." All or most of Andy Warhol's canvases and other installations ripped, literally, from the headlines were gathered in one place for the first time to demonstrate how the artist sought, in the words of one of the contributors to the exhibition catalogue, to "dramatize the attempts--and subsequent failures--of both contemporary painting and the mass media to structure or give narrative to everyday life." Savor, for a moment, that idea of "giving narrative to everyday life." It's not, of course, that there are not narratives aplenty in the news stories from the papers which Warhol reproduced, often in fragmentary form. It's that those narratives are multiple and superficial. Nothing is what it seems, however, and so Andy Warhol provided new and hidden narratives to these simple tales of disasters and celebrities interspersed with the kind of commercial art in which Warhol got his start by giving them new contexts. The whole show amounts to one facet of Warhol's customary technique of playing with context in order to alter meanings, which is what irony does. A Campbell's soup can means one thing in the supermarket and quite another in Andy's silk-screened repetitions hanging on a gallery wall. Yet, says Philip Kennicott of the Washington Post , "Warhol was no irony-soaked provocateur mindlessly importing pop pizzazz into the sanctums of high art for pure shock value. He was strategic, intelligent and brilliantly adept at analyzing and indicting the world we live in today, a world he seemed to both predict and forge through games of representation we now know by the encompassing shorthand: Warholian." The idea of "indicting the world we live in today"--as if it were possible to live in some other world--is evidence of sloppy thinking on Mr. Kennicott's part, but it is a customary sloppiness of some mythic significance. "Elton John: I want Zachary to grow up in a world without homophobia," headlines this morning's Guardian . Good luck with that, Elton. Those protesters, too, don't want to live in a world where--well, where bad things happen, like mean bosses and moms who kick you out for smoking dope. Mr. Kennicott is doubtless right to give Andy Warhol some credit for the ubiquity of this conceit since he did, indeed, make an implicit claim through his art to a proprietary "world" of his own as a platform--not so much for criticism of the boring old world of those who read newspapers unironically but for mere anarchic mockery of it and them. If only we could all be as clever as Andy, we should none of us have to endure the pain of living life as it must be lived in the world that they used to call real. Now, however, the exciting quality of the Warhol fantasy world has lost some of its "pizzazz," since fantasy worlds have multiplied to the point they have a quarter century after his death, as we can see from a stroll down the street to Freedom Plaza. YET SINCE ART, including popular art, declared its independence from reality, what choice do we have but to live in the new reality of endless fantasy worlds? We have to get what pleasure we can from them, at any rate. What struck me about the movie Anonymous was how it made no attempt to make a serious case for the Oxfordian authorship of Shakespeare's plays, assuming there is one, by integrating its "narrative" with the known facts of the lives of Shakespeare and the Earl of Oxford and Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe and Queen Elizabeth I and William Cecil, Lord Burghley. As, I suppose, not one in a hundred of the expected audience for the film will know or care anything about those facts, Roland Emmerich, the director, and John Orloff, the screenwriter, appear to have decided to make everything up and abandon any pretense of plausibility or truth. Thus, for example, the film has the Queen (Vanessa Redgrave in age, Joely Richardson in youth) giving birth to a string of bastard children, at least one of them incestuously, as if our discovery of the joys of sexual laissez-faire in the 1960s had happened 400 years before it did-- and without anyone ' s knowledge except the scheming villain, William Cecil (David Thewlis), and his bunch-backed son Robert (Edward Hogg), said to be the model for Richard III. But of course this secret--as preposterous as the idea of Shakespeare's true identity being a secret for hundreds of years--is the best thing about it for those who have the addiction catered to by the Spy Museum. That's why those who see the picture will want to see it and why such luminaries of the English stage as Derek Jacobi and Mark Rylance, to say nothing of the Misses Redgrave and Richardson, have lent their names and their talents to such a sorry farrago of historical and literary nonsense. It's not really a movie about Shakespeare or anyone who might be claimed to be the author of his works but about those doing the claiming: their talents, their intelligence, their superiority to the ruck of mankind who accept the world of appearances, mostly, at face value because they haven't the wit to know, as those of the Ruling Class do, that "nothing is what it seems."  ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/28/behind-the-headlines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shootin’ Straight on Our Fiscal Challenges</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/17/shootin-straight-on-our-fiscal-challenges/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/17/shootin-straight-on-our-fiscal-challenges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Bob R</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unemployment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/17/shootin-straight-on-our-fiscal-challenges/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Everybody is talking about fixing earmarks as if they are the sole source of today&#8217;s deficit woes, despite the fact that all of my opponents enthusiastically participated in the process, and that earmarks have now been halted. But what I’m talking about is how to fix America’s economy so that entrepreneurs can create jobs and we as a nation can once again live within our means.  My plan to cut spending and taxes will help hard-working Americans, and by one estimate, create ten million jobs within three years and move unemployment to below 6%.  I will do this with your help by cutting $5 trillion in five years of federal spending we cannot afford, and passing a Balanced Budget Amendment so that we don’t do this again to future generations.  More important to our fiscal health than a smokescreen on earmarks, I will reform Medicare and Social Security and end other entitlements for the able-bodied just as I have already done with welfare reform. Some specific spending cuts I will make include eliminating all energy subsidies while unleashing America’s domestic energy sources, eliminating at least half of the U.S. funding contribution to the United Nations while standing for America’s interests and values around the world, and downsizing the federal bureaucracy by eliminating at least 10% of non-defense related workers.  The only government jobs President Obama is willing to cut are military jobs, the men and women who have served our nation in harm’s way, undermining our core constitutional responsibility to defend America.  The one thing I will not cut is defense; the top responsibility of the federal government is to keep America safe. The real fiscal challenge that we face as a nation is the fact that President Obama and Congress are spending more than 40% more than we take in each year; racking up deficits of more than a trillion dollars a year on top of our 15-trillion plus debt which holds back our economy and undermines our future.  The federal expansion of entitlements under ObamaCare significantly worsens this problem.  President Obama thinks he can tax his way to growth to cover up his extreme over indulgence of hard earned taxpayer money.  His theory and practice is to “spread the wealth” which actually spreads poverty and economic decline. In 2008, John McCain, whose impressive military service to the nation, one I greatly respect, based an entire presidential campaign attacking the earmarking process.  Apparently he is bringing this back again as attempted cover for Governor Mitt Romney’s big-government ways such as the freedom-undermining insurance mandate in RomneyCare embraced in ObamaCare.  Senator McCain, a moderate in many areas, did that in part in 2008 to shift the focus from his weak record on addressing the financial burden of growing entitlements, the real challenge to our long-term economic viability. I don’t recall Senator McCain joining me in leading the fight to reform entitlements on Welfare Reform, or arguing around the country for Social Security reform, or successfully embedding fundamental health-care reforms in Medicare, later undermined by ObamaCare.  Having said that, Senator McCain is right about at least two things; Mitt Romney was significantly more moderate and big government than he, and, the earmarking process was being abused and had to be stopped.  Just listen to Mitt Romney on earmarks: &#8220;I&#8217;d be embarrassed it I didn&#8217;t always ask for federal money whenever I get a chance.&#8221; That’s why I supported a moratorium on earmarks. The real straight-talk express on fiscal issues is the message I’ve been delivering: the need for sustainable entitlement reform. I have been riding around in a truck telling seniors in nursing homes in Iowa, and retirees in South Carolina, of the need to reform Medicare and Social Security, in particular.  Entitlement programs represent nearly 60% of government spending, growing further on an unsustainable path as more people are in poverty under Obamanomics and more of our citizens become seniors. Let’s clear the record on earmarks with the help of Congressman Ron Paul whose passion I admire but who captures well the Massachusetts big-government flip- flopping on earmarks and spending, and Texas-sized grandstanding of my fellow candidates on this issue. During an interview with Neil Cavuto, after his second run for the presidency, Congressman Paul pointed out that eliminating earmarks wouldn&#8217;t cut one penny from the federal budget. Cavuto asked: “But would you argue, then sir, that, when John McCain was here saying the whole earmark thing itself is what’s out of control?”  Paul: “Oh, no, no.  He – he – totally misunderstands that.  That’s grandstanding.  If you cut off all the earmarks, it would be 1% of the budget.  But if you vote against all the earmarks, you don’t cut one penny.” Here in 2009 Congressman Paul is telling it straight.  Properly done, earmarks don’t add to total spending numbers, they take a percentage of dollars from the control of Washington bureaucrats and let local officials decide what is most important for their community instead, like those in South Carolina did in support of improving Charleston Harbor.  You may not have heard that in 2009 Congressman Paul had more earmarks in a spending bill than any other Republican that same year.  Paul, representing a single district, made over $157 million in earmark requests for 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks.  Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. I’m sure Governor Rick Perry, many of whose values I share, also agrees that his 1,180 plus special requests for funding from the federal government and his 26 years of Texas government service doesn’t mean that he no longer supports the 10 th Amendment.  This adds up to about one federal funding letter request to Washington every four days.  To say it’s OK to lobby for local projects &#8212; just not vote for them, or to ask for special projects but not to support the constitutional role of the legislature to provide them &#8212; doesn’t pass the test. While I share cowboy boots and many values with Texans, that’s not straight shootin’ where I come from in Pennsylvania.  This is Texas-sized grandstanding to quote Congressman Paul.  The real gateway drugs and the real challenge to America are not earmarks but exploding overall spending and rapidly growing entitlement liabilities which grow government, dependency, and economic decline. I’m not ashamed that I fought to have local officials and county commissioners in Pennsylvania decide the best use of their tax dollars rather than Washington bureaucrats. The question of who decides where to spend federal taxpayer dollars has already been decided by the Constitution &#8212; it&#8217;s the Congress.  Abuse should be stopped and corruption should be prosecuted.  I raised my hand and swore to uphold the Constitution for 16 years as a member of Congress, and I still passionately support it and thank God for the wisdom of our founders to let the representatives of the people decide rather than bureaucrats.  The real question for our nation is who will lead us back to fiscal and economic strength.  My focus is not on debating 1% of our fiscal challenges but on facing 100% of them.  This abdication of leadership and smokescreens rather than telling the truth will only increase insecurity for seniors, limit the opportunities of young people, and put our nation’s security at risk. I have held more than 380 public events and town hall meetings in Iowa, more than 100 in New Hampshire, and I’ve already held nearly 150 public events in South Carolina.  In every meeting, the American people are responding to real answers because they know the truth and they want the games to stop.  They want the real challenges to be addressed head on. They want problem solving and a brighter future for their children.  As far back as 1995 I was taking heat from the establishment for “rocking the boat” when I called on the Republican Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee to resign after he switched his vote to defeat the Balanced Budget Amendment by just one vote. Had he joined me and those who voted for it, we could have worked together to take away the credit card and put America on a budget. I can promise you this: nothing has changed since then except our growing debt. I am prepared to take the heat in order to lead our country once again to fiscal health and to restore America’s greatness for the future.  Let’s keep our focus on the real spending problem: entitlements that need to be modernized, restrained, and made sustainable, the real need for a Balanced Budget Amendment, and the real goal which is defeating Barack Obama and restoring America&#8217;s future together.  Game on. Rick Santorum, a former representative and senator from Pennsylvania, is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/17/shootin-straight-on-our-fiscal-challenges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Richard Viguerie Endorses Santorum</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/17/richard-viguerie-endorses-santorum/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/17/richard-viguerie-endorses-santorum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Onoshobishobi</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ronald Reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conservative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criticized-even]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[household-name]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[respect-more]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[richard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ronald-reagan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[santorum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[viguerie]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/17/richard-viguerie-endorses-santorum/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ For people like me, who revere the history of the conservative movement, this is huge: direct mail pioneer/Young American for Freedom impresario/conservative movement founder Richard Viguerie today endorsed Rick Santorum for president . There are few people in conservative politics I can think of]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/17/richard-viguerie-endorses-santorum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Prayer in Carolina</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/16/a-prayer-in-carolina/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/16/a-prayer-in-carolina/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HigleyLocklear930</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[night]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[santorum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/16/a-prayer-in-carolina/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ MYRTLE BEACH, S.C. -- Political ads are now running almost constantly during the commercial breaks on TV here, and most of them are attack ads. Mitt Romney's "super PAC" Restore Our Future is attacking Newt Gingrich and Gingrich's "super PAC" Winning Our Future is attacking Romney. And, as if to validate his newfound status as a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, Rick Santorum is now being attacked in TV ads, one by Ron Paul's campaign and another by Romney's "super PAC." Asked about one of those ads during a town-hall event in Florence on Sunday, Santorum struggled to find words for the pro-Romney PAC's ad, which accuses him of wanting to extend voting rights to felons. "That is a lie," the former Pennsylvania senator said at Percy &#038; Willie's restaurant. "To go and mislead the people of South Carolina as to what our record is on this is just… yuck. I expect that from Barack Obama. I don't expect it from a Republican running for president." Santorum's own ads are relentlessly positive. One of his ads running here features images of Santorum with his wife and seven children and calls him "a trusted conservative who gives us the best chance to take back America." Even the ads from the pro-Santorum "super PAC" (the Red, White &#038; Blue Fund) are positive, portraying him as "a principled conservative" who is "determined and will never waiver." That ad features footage of Santorum's speech on the night of the Iowa caucuses, in which he said, "What wins in America are bold ideas, sharp contrasts, and a plan that includes everyone… a plan that says we will work together to get America to work." Santorum is not afraid to draw "sharp contrasts" with Obama. During his speech Sunday morning at the Faith &#038; Freedom Coalition's prayer breakfast here, he spoke of America's transformational influence in the world: "We're the wealthiest country in the world and the world is wealthier because they have become more like us. We've transformed humankind. And we have a president who sees all of that as a mistake." In a speech that highlighted themes of faith and American exceptionalism, Santorum told the audience of more than 350 at the Sheraton Convention Center, "People ask, 'How are you going to unite us together?' Remind every American who we are. This president reminds us of what divides us, not what unites us." His ambition of uniting Americans, however, is dependent upon Santorum's ability to unite conservatives behind his campaign. That ambition got a boost over the weekend when a group of evangelical leaders meeting in Texas voted to endorse him . Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said it was a "strong consensus" in Santorum's favor and, while some wondered whether the endorsement might be too late in the campaign to help, Perkins said it "could be exactly the right time," given the influence of social conservatives in South Carolina. That influence was apparent during the Sunday afternoon town-hall event in Florence, where the crowd inside the restaurant applauded when Santorum said, "America is a moral enterprise, not an economic enterprise." And they applauded again when Santorum took aim at Obama, saying the way the president is "constantly pitting one group against another" is "disgusting." Most polls currently show Santorum in third place in South Carolina, but his campaign believes they will finish strong here, as they did with their phenomenal last-minute surge in Iowa. "We are on fire," former congressman Gresham Barrett, Santorum's state campaign chairman, said while introducing the candidate in Florence. Santorum will have two chances to add fuel to that fire this week, with televised debates tonight in Myrtle Beach (9 p.m., Fox News) and Thursday in Charleston (8 p.m., CNN). And the debate stage will be slightly less crowded, because former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman will reportedly drop out of the presidential race today and endorse Romney. Many pundits saw that development as further evidence of Romney's "inevitability," but Santorum clearly believes that South Carolinians are willing to ignore the pundits who have discounted his chances of scoring an upset victory here. "Vote your conscience. Vote your values," he told the people crowded inside the restaurant in Florence. "Stand up and fight for what you know is right." ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/16/a-prayer-in-carolina/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood Says It Agrees With Salafi Islamists on Application of Sharia Law…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/16/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-says-it-agrees-with-salafi-islamists-on-application-of-sharia-law%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/16/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-says-it-agrees-with-salafi-islamists-on-application-of-sharia-law%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 06:28:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>LegacyVankampen375</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alyoum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mohamed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mohamed-gheith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-intend]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sunday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel wonk]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/16/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-says-it-agrees-with-salafi-islamists-on-application-of-sharia-law%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(Almasry Alyoum) — Mohamed Gheith, MP for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, on Sunday said his party would not act like the disbanded National Democratic Party (NDP). “We do not intend to dominate parliament,” he said. “All committees will be headed according to a consensus.” He added that his party would only form ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/16/egypt-muslim-brotherhood-says-it-agrees-with-salafi-islamists-on-application-of-sharia-law%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New York Times Ponders: “Are We Biased Enough?”</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/the-new-york-times-ponders-%e2%80%9care-we-biased-enough%e2%80%9d/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/the-new-york-times-ponders-%e2%80%9care-we-biased-enough%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 07:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>georgiana wren</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reporter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth-vigilante]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wife]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[writer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/the-new-york-times-ponders-%e2%80%9care-we-biased-enough%e2%80%9d/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The lefties on Twitter are very upset with their favorite paper, The New York Times .  They&#8217;ve even started a hashtag ( #NewNYTSlogans ) attacking them for the apparent lack of dedication to truth that the paper has exhibited of late in its pages. An article titled, &#8220; Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante? &#8221; is what has sent them into full fledged mock mode and, as best I can understand it, they believe that the Times has basically acknowledged that the truth and fact checking are not top priorities in The New York Times newsroom. They don&#8217;t sound too terribly off from opinions expressed on the right about the Paper of Record.  Perhaps we&#8217;ve reached a point where we can all agree that this old world rag is nothing but a liberal front and about as unbiased Dan Rather? Not exactly.   These folks are actually upset that the newsroom isn&#8217;t inserting their opinion enough .  And it looks like the Times is interested in hearing out their complaint. In the article, New York Times Public Editor, Arthur Brisbane, is asking readers pointedly whether or not their &#8220;hard news division&#8221; is inserting enough of their personal perspective into articles outside of the editorial section. I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about. I assume &#8220;facts&#8221; is put in quotes to indicate that they are anything but &#8220;facts,&#8221; which would leave only a handful of possibilities: they are opinions, interpretations, theories, or lies.  I further assume that such &#8220;facts&#8221; are therefore the responsibility of the &#8220;fact&#8221; giver to back up and would be subject to the counter &#8220;facts&#8221; from the Paper of Record if there is a verifiable way to disprove what is being said. Brisbane helpfully provides some examples of the &#8220;facts&#8221; in question so that we can see what this brave new world could look like if the Times writers were to become &#8220;Truth Vigilantes&#8221; as the headline calls them: One example mentioned recently by a reader: As cited in an Adam Liptak article on the Supreme Court, a court spokeswoman said Clarence Thomas had “misunderstood” a financial disclosure form when he failed to report his wife’s earnings from the Heritage Foundation. The reader thought it not likely that Mr. Thomas “misunderstood,” and instead that he simply chose not to report the information. Interestingly, this reader seems to completely miss what a &#8220;fact&#8221; is.  In this entire excerpt there is only one fact: that Clarence Thomas is expressing what he personally did or did not understand, a perspective which he alone is capable of knowing.  If there were documents that could show something to the contrary (perhaps an email with Thomas saying &#8220;Dude, I totally knew that I had to report that) then I would agree that Liptak would be completely within journalistic standards to present that information as counter evidence. But, let&#8217;s use this new method that the Times is playing with and the leftosphere is so intent on and see how it works out.  The following will be my attempt at rewriting the article while addressing the concerns that the reader had. From the original article : Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions.” Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible.” As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.” And now the &#8220;Truth Vigilante&#8221; version.  Changes in bold: Justice Thomas said that in his annual financial disclosure statements over the last six years, the employment of his wife, Virginia Thomas, was “inadvertently omitted due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions. What a load!11! ” Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, said he found Justice Thomas’s explanation about the omission to be “implausible,” as I, the writer of this article do as well. As a Supreme Court justice who regularly hears complex legal cases, “it is hard to see how he could have misunderstood the simple directions of a federal disclosure form.”   Given that this expert agree s with me, I will now accept his statement as a fact and subsequently call Clarence Thomas a liar liar pants on fire. Brisbane plays the what if game as well with another critique: Another example: on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected  in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage. As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same? If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less: “The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.” This is also an interesting example.  While it perhaps would&#8217;ve been fine for a journalist to note that the word &#8220;apology&#8221; has never been uttered by President Obama in a speech about America&#8217;s position in the world (instead he just toured the world listing everything he viewed as utter American failures without ever actually saying he was sorry on our behalf), Brisbane goes on to show what the Times version of &#8220;truth vigilante&#8221; would look like. The &#8220;fact check&#8221; in this instance would&#8217;ve resulted in the writer asserting that anything hinting at an apologetic Obama, leans towards manipulation of the truth.  Brisbane asks the readers if this is what The New York Times should move to, and the left on Twitter resoundingly screamed in unison &#8220;yes!&#8221; What the Times will do remains to be seen.  Brisbane acknowledges that being so openly interpretative would present its own problems:Is that the prevailing view? And if so, how can The Times do this in a way that is objective and fair? Is it possible to be objective and fair when the reporter is choosing to correct one fact over another? No, it&#8217;s not Mr. Brisbane.  But why should that stop you now when it never has before? Cross-Posted at Big Journalism &#038;  BenHoweShow.com ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/13/the-new-york-times-ponders-%e2%80%9care-we-biased-enough%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Rats and Child Cruelty</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/obamas-rats-and-child-cruelty/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/obamas-rats-and-child-cruelty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>DixiePeters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asher-embry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child-cruelty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drug-overdoses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[embry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political-verse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public-safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rat-infestation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[residents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/obamas-rats-and-child-cruelty/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Death, rape, drug overdoses, lice, and other public safety and health emergencies shut down "Occupy" encampments all over the country. Yet in Washington, the Obama administration (which controls the federal land seized by the DC Occupiers) continues to be unmoved -- and so are the residents of the Occupy shantytowns at McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza. Will child cruelty and rat infestation change that? Obama's Rats and Child Cruelty]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2012/01/12/obamas-rats-and-child-cruelty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

