<?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; massachusetts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.obamashitlist.com/tag/massachusetts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com</link>
	<description>Are you on OBAMASHITLIST?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:45:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Unintended Consequences</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/unintended-consequences/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/unintended-consequences/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 15:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack-obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[california]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[development]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/unintended-consequences/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ It was inevitable. The moment former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman announced his homosexuality publicly, a flurry of journalists eagerly penned the obituary of the Republican Party's stance on traditional marriage. Again. It's happened multiple times since social conservatives responded to activist judges in Massachusetts six years ago by propelling George W. Bush to a second term. Democrats' electoral rampage in 2006 was a repudiation of the GOP's anti-homosexual marriage agenda, they said. Ditto 2008, when Barack Obama -- who could be called the first gay president, like Bill Clinton was the first black president -- coasted to victory. But liberals' celebration was tinged with angst. In 2006, many of the candidates who gave Democrats the majority trended conservative on the marriage issue. And in 2008, California might have voted for Obama over John McCain by a landslide, but 52 percent of voters backed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. That wasn't supposed to happen. Now, in 2010, the frustration continues. Obama's goal of reversing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays serving openly has fallen on hard times. Complainers in the netroots notwithstanding, Obama hasn't changed his mind on gay nuptials, either. He supports civil unions but not marriage redefinition. So, when your own guys aren't helping much, what else to do than falsely portray a seismic shift on the issue in your opponent's party? The Washington Post informs us that older Americans and social conservatives are evolving to support homosexual marriage. Read between the lines: the issue is an albatross around the neck of a GOP trying to refocus on economic issues. Judging by the tenor of media coverage, you'd think traditional marriage was a failing issue for the GOP. But it's not. To date, 30 states have adopted marriage amendments, including several deep blue states. Those campaigns often have aided moderate Republicans by turning out a base that otherwise would have stayed home. Can the GOP point to comparable victories on immigration, tax policy, or gun rights? No. Yet marriage is fast becoming the pariah to top party bosses. Blue-blooded country club Republicans aren't comfortable talking about God, morality, and tradition. Can we get back to railing against illegal immigrants, please? That's not to say political shifts aren't happening. During the past decade, public acceptance of same-sex marriage has tilted slightly to the left, and polls show that young voters tend to favor it. But neither development is significant or shocking. Polling shows a leftward tilt on several of the GOP's pet issues. It's unfair to portray marriage as an outlier. And the fact that young people are liberal, a systemic trait of young people, is hardly a news flash. Politics aside, the reasons for conservatives and Republicans to continue standing for traditional marriage are legion. Glenn Beck doesn't get it when he claims freedom-loving Americans have "bigger fish to fry" than traditional marriage and abortion. "You can argue about abortion or gay marriage or whatever all you want, the country is burning down," Beck said in early August. That sentiment fails to recognize the inseparable connection between America's social and economic ills -- as if the fiscal sphere were solely responsible for the decline of America. It's not. The fall of the traditional family has long been linked to economic instability, the rise of the welfare state, and an electorate that doesn't understand, nor want to defend, freedom, liberty, and tradition. There's also a marked distinction between the public issue of same-sex marriage and the private issue of protecting the rights of homosexuals as citizens. Americans should be protected under the law regardless of sexual orientation. But that's a far cry from re-defining civil marriage to include relationships that nature defines as untenable and God as immoral. Economic concerns are, understandably, at the forefront of voters' minds this fall. But marriage continues to be a winning issue with voters. If GOP bosses continue down the road that leads to total abandonment of this principle, they'll fast discover unintended consequences at the ballot box. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/unintended-consequences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawyers: Making the Swingsets Disappear</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/lawyers-making-the-swingsets-disappear/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/lawyers-making-the-swingsets-disappear/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[banning-outdoor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cabell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cabell-county]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[changed-the-way]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[from-the-monkey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thursday-school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[virginia-record]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/lawyers-making-the-swingsets-disappear/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ From Investor&#8217;s Business Daily : Fearing lawsuits over injuries, a West Virginia county is removing swing sets from elementary schools. A minor, local issue? No. America&#8217;s litigious society has changed the way kids play. Roughly a year after a child broke his arm jumping off a swing like Superman and his parents are settling a lawsuit for $20,000, Cabell County, W.V., schools are yanking swing sets from school playgrounds. The lawsuit was one of two filed in the last year against Cabell County schools over swing set injuries, the West Virginia Record reported Thursday. School safety manager Tim Stewart, who is overseeing the removal, said he sees &#8220;a high potential when it comes to swings and lawsuits.&#8221; What&#8217;s happening in Cabell County is not an isolated case. Local governments, fearful of lawsuits, have been for years closing pools, stripping playgrounds of equipment and banning outdoor games. A Massachusetts elementary school has told students they can&#8217;t play tag. One Boston school forbids handstands while another in Needham, Mass., doesn&#8217;t allow students to hang upside down from the monkey bars. A pool in Hazleton, Pa., closed some years ago after a swimmer sued for $100,000 because he cut his foot running and jumping into the pool, though he&#8217;d been warned not to. There used to be pools. Not only that, they used to have diving boards. When&#8217;s the last time you saw a diving board? Or a jungle gym? Civil lawyers are ruining this country. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/03/lawyers-making-the-swingsets-disappear/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When I Was a 17-Year-Old Socialist</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/when-i-was-a-17-year-old-socialist/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/when-i-was-a-17-year-old-socialist/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[black]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[summer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/when-i-was-a-17-year-old-socialist/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ "I pass the test that says a man who isn't a socialist at twenty has no heart, and a man who is a socialist at forty has no head." -- William Casey,]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/09/01/when-i-was-a-17-year-old-socialist/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gallup: Republicans Take Ten-Point Generic Ballot Lead</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/31/gallup-republicans-take-ten-point-generic-ballot-lead/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/31/gallup-republicans-take-ten-point-generic-ballot-lead/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:20:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[near-the-level]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[primary-turnout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repeat-the-same]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[robert-stacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[triumphalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/31/gallup-republicans-take-ten-point-generic-ballot-lead/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ According to the latest Gallup poll , Republicans now lead by ten points in the generic ballot -- 51 percent to 41 percent. That is the largest lead Republicans have ever had in sixty years of polling on this question by Gallup. Much smaller leads, such as in 1994 and 2002, have translated into significant Republican gains. Yet as one Robert Stacy McCain recently reminded us, polls are not campaigns . The Republican ground game is nowhere near the level of the Democrats in 2008 or the Bush-era GOP in 2004. There is no evidence the Tea Party has compensated for this. Many Republican challengers in key swing districts remain underfunded. The Republicans' national campaign committees are generally at a disadvantage to their Democratic counterparts and it has shown in most of the recent House special elections. Quin mentions some other factors cutting strongly against Republicans here . Then again, I'll repeat the same thing I was saying to Republican dead-enders in 2006: If your base is disenchanted, the other side's base is fired up, and swing voters hate you, you are going to lose elections. We are seeing Republican primary turnout in states like Colorado and Washington exceed Democratic turnout. In Colorado, the losing Republican Senate candidate, Jane Norton, got more votes than the Democratic winner, incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. Republican complacency could still blow the midterms elections. I fully expect Republicans to lose some races that they would have won in either 1994 or 2002. But there does come a point where the national mood is so powerful that not even the Republicans can bungle it. Take a look at the rare special election victory for Republicans, Scott Brown in Massachusetts: it came in a case where the swing voters were fed up, the Democratic candidate was a walking turnout-depresser, and the national GOP got involved too late to screw things up. Whether that happens on a massive enough scale to flip a house of Congress remains to be seen. But the proper Republican mood at this point is neither triumphalism nor despair. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/31/gallup-republicans-take-ten-point-generic-ballot-lead/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Scott Brown Responds to Palin: Yeah, I’m a RINO, “What’s the Big Deal?”…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/30/scott-brown-responds-to-palin-yeah-i%e2%80%99m-a-rino-%e2%80%9cwhat%e2%80%99s-the-big-deal%e2%80%9d%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/30/scott-brown-responds-to-palin-yeah-i%e2%80%99m-a-rino-%e2%80%9cwhat%e2%80%99s-the-big-deal%e2%80%9d%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:46:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barack obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surprise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-intraparty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-surprise]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel woo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/30/scott-brown-responds-to-palin-yeah-i%e2%80%99m-a-rino-%e2%80%9cwhat%e2%80%99s-the-big-deal%e2%80%9d%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The big deal is we didn&#8217;t vote for you to caucus with the Democrats, although I do agree with him when he says &#8220;I don&#8217;t know what the surprise is,&#8221; we just didn&#8217;t think it would be this bad&#8230; Who was praising President Barack Obama last week for his handling of the drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq? It was Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown commenting on the end of U.S. combat operations. “I think the president has done a good job on that,” said Brown, who has also backed Obama&#8217;s surge in Afghanistan. However, they part ways on the president setting a timetable to consider withdrawal from Afghanistan next summer. &#8230;Sarah Palin, who is pushing tea party candidates further to the right, dissed Brown, saying he was not conservative enough to pass muster in a state such as Alaska. Brown is brushing off the intraparty attacks, making no apologies for the pledge of independence he preached during his campaign and says he is living out in Washington. “I&#8217;m a Massachusetts Republican. When I go down to Washington, people say, what are you doing? They say, well you are working with the Democrats. I say, so what&#8217;s the big deal? I do that all the time. I&#8217;ve been doing it for 15 years,” Brown said. “I don&#8217;t know what the surprise is,” he said of the attitude of critics from the far right. “I said I was going to go down there and be an independent voice, an independent thinker and vote accordingly,” he said. Rest here> > > H/T: Hot Air ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/30/scott-brown-responds-to-palin-yeah-i%e2%80%99m-a-rino-%e2%80%9cwhat%e2%80%99s-the-big-deal%e2%80%9d%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Laugher Curve</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/30/the-laugher-curve/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/30/the-laugher-curve/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nancy Pelosi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[humor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jokes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secretary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/30/the-laugher-curve/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Many conservatives believe that the principle difference between traditional liberals and contemporary progressives is that the latter lack a sense of humor. In this, however, we do our left-of-center friends an injustice. Progressives are, in fact, a plentiful source of sidesplitting humor. Indeed, for irrefutable proof that they possess a genuine gift for comedy one need look no further than the claims they make for ObamaCare. In their increasingly frantic attempts to justify that big-government boondoggle, they routinely produce thigh-slappers that would have been the envy of any old-time Vaudeville comedian. As the late Jimmy Durante would have phrased it, they got a million of 'em. Among the most hilarious ObamaCare justifications is the claim that it will reduce the federal budget deficit. No less a jokester than Paul Krugman produced this gag in a recent blog post , "the Medicare actuaries believe that the cost-saving provisions in the Obama health reform will make a huge difference to the long-run budget outlook.… All the facts we have suggest that health reform was the biggest move toward fiscal responsibility in a long, long time." The comedy writers from whom Krugman got this quip are the CMS bureaucrats who produced the latest Medicare Trustees Report , which claims "reform" will control Medicare spending enough to keep the program solvent while easing upward pressure on the deficit. Alas, not everyone appreciates this brand of humor. One such stick-in-the-mud is Richard Foster, Medicare's Chief Actuary. On August 5, Foster became the first Chief Actuary in the program's history to openly question the plausibility of a Trustees Report. In fact, Foster authorized an eighteen-page memorandum whose introduction contains this astonishing passage: "[T]he projections shown in the report do not represent the 'best estimate' of actual future Medicare expenditures." Foster's memorandum was a response to the report's absurd assumption that Medicare physician payment rates will be reduced by 30% over the next three years, an assumption that fails… well… the laugh test. And Foster is by no means the only fuddy-duddy who fails to see the humor in the Medicare Trustees Report. Michael O. Leavitt, former Secretary of HHS and a member of the Medicare Board of Trustees from 2005 to 2009, also questions its plausibility : "Despite the report from Medicare's trustees... Medicare is no better off than it was a year ago." There are even fussbudgets on the left who find this particular joke in poor taste. One high-profile progressive consulting outfit has advised Democrats and their allies to avoid it altogether. In a recent presentation organized for Families USA and other pro-ObamaCare advocacy groups, the Herndon Alliance admonished them to stop claiming that the Democrat health care bill "will reduce costs and the deficit." Nonetheless, progressive wits still have plenty of good material, including the claim that ObamaCare will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs. This howler has long graced the repertoire of that talented comedienne, Nancy Pelosi, who advised the public last February that the health care bill would immediately create 400,000 new jobs . And it is still being told by a variety of ostensibly nonpartisan farceurs. National Journal , for example, plans a September policy summit in which various participants will be asked to maintain straight faces while discussing ObamaCare "as an economic engine" and whether it will "serve as a jobs creator and accelerate growth in health-related industries." If it seems self-evident that the $1 trillion "reform" bill will create jobs in the health care sector, you might want to talk to Patrick Muldoon. He is the CEO of HealthAlliance Hospital in Leominster, Massachusetts, which was forced to eliminate 50 jobs as a direct result of ObamaCare's passage. Muldoon explains that the staff reductions are necessary because "health care reform is expected to result in the loss of $24 million in Medicare reimbursements." Thus, the effect of Obama's "economic engine" on that hospital has been to add many of its employees to the ever-growing rolls of the unemployed. This is a story that will be repeated over and over again throughout the hospital industry as ObamaCare ramps up. The loss of productive jobs in the health care sector will inevitably be accompanied by similar losses in the health insurance industry. As ObamaCare's perverse incentives herd privately insured patients to Medicaid and other government-subsidized coverage programs, many small insurance companies will find it necessary to lay off employees. Among the first victims are the employees of HealthMarkets, which provides insurance plans to the self-employed, individuals, and small businesses. The Texas firm just laid off 70 employees and will need to eliminate 180 more positions in 2011. Why? Its SEC filing cites "national healthcare reform and related legislative developments." Presumably, these unemployed health and insurance workers will be a "tough room" for progressive comedians telling their ObamaCare jokes. And the mood of the crowd will not be elevated much by the presence of their employed brethren. The latter will not be amused, for example, to hear the hoary "you can keep your health plan" yarn. That routine increasingly dies on its feet, even when the comedian-in-chief himself tells it . All successful humor contains a kernel of truth, and that feature is conspicuously absent in this particular jape. This reality has become all too apparent to workers who stand to lose their current coverage because it doesn't meet the requirements of the new health care law. And yet the jokes keep coming, proving that progressives do have a very real -- if somewhat malicious -- sense of humor. Indeed, the very name they have given the health care law is a study in snide humor. The "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," which manifestly fails to protect patients from anything -- except the ability to make their own health decisions -- and actually renders health care more expensive, is a cruel joke at the expense of the electorate. But the voters get it, and opinion surveys increasingly suggest that they are preparing to issue a scathing review on November 2. They will, in effect, paraphrase an old Henny Youngman gag by telling Congress, "Take ObamaCare… please." ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/30/the-laugher-curve/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon and DOJ Travesty:  Troops Can Serve and Die …</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/pentagon-and-doj-travesty-troops-can-serve-and-die-%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/pentagon-and-doj-travesty-troops-can-serve-and-die-%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ground]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ground-zero]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[votes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/pentagon-and-doj-travesty-troops-can-serve-and-die-%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ but their votes won&#8217;t necessarily count. Pentagon Grants MOVE Waiver to Five States .  (What a surprise. The states getting the waivers are ALL Blue States.) In Washington, politicians always like to release bad news on a Friday, as fewer people notice. Today, the Pentagon announced that it had granted the waiver requests of five states seeking to escape requirements to protect military voters.  I have written previously here at PJM that all waiver requests should be denied. Unfortunately, if you are an overseas servicemember from Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, or Washington , the protections in the MOVE Act aren’t going to apply to you this year. And if you are from one of the states who still aren’t in compliance with MOVE — like Colorado, Wisconsin, or Alaska — don’t be surprised if you get scant help from Attorney General Eric Holder. Waivers can be granted from MOVE only if states find a way to make sure the votes of servicemembers are still counted. Washington , despite having plenty of time after an August 17 primary to get the job done, received a waiver today. Washington was unwilling to change their schedule of ballot preparation to allow for 45 days mailing time. Though modern printing technology makes the Washington waiver unnecessary, it was granted. Delaware election director Elaine Manlove says the state can get ballots out in time — but applied for a waiver “just in case.” Delaware’s waiver was motivated by caution, but caution isn’t a basis for the granting of a waiver. The law says “undue hardship.” However, waiver granted. Rhode Island shared Delaware’s risk aversion: Spokesman Chris Barnett says they asked for a waiver in case they had a recount in the primary. A hypothetical “undue hardship.” Waiver granted. Since MOVE passed last October, Massachusetts did nothing to adjust their late September 14 primary to comply. (This was the same state that introduced and passed legislation in mere days so that Senator Paul Kirk could be sworn in to vote for ObamaCare. The legislature previously stripped Republican Mitt Romney of the power to appoint replacements and required a special election.) It’s a shame soldiers aren’t as important as Senator Kirk’s vote was. Waiver granted. New York sought a waiver. No surprise there: seven years after the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, New York still wasn’t in compliance. Waiver granted. J.Christian Adams reveals the whole, long, (but worth your time) sordid mess here at PJM . No surprise. Eric Holder&#8217;s DOJ has been &#8220;actively undermining MOVE Act protections throughout the spring&#8221; encouraging states to apply for waivers. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/pentagon-and-doj-travesty-troops-can-serve-and-die-%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pentagon and DOJ Travesty:  Troops Can Serve and Die …</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/pentagon-and-doj-travesty-troops-can-serve-and-die-%e2%80%a6-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/pentagon-and-doj-travesty-troops-can-serve-and-die-%e2%80%a6-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Eric Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ground]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ground-zero]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[house]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spokesman-chris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weasel woo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/pentagon-and-doj-travesty-troops-can-serve-and-die-%e2%80%a6-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ but their votes won&#8217;t necessarily count. Pentagon Grants MOVE Waiver to Five States .  (What a surprise. The states getting the waivers are ALL Blue States.) In Washington, politicians always like to release bad news on a Friday, as fewer people notice. Today, the Pentagon announced that it had granted the waiver requests of five states seeking to escape requirements to protect military voters.  I have written previously here at PJM that all waiver requests should be denied. Unfortunately, if you are an overseas servicemember from Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, or Washington , the protections in the MOVE Act aren’t going to apply to you this year. And if you are from one of the states who still aren’t in compliance with MOVE — like Colorado, Wisconsin, or Alaska — don’t be surprised if you get scant help from Attorney General Eric Holder. Waivers can be granted from MOVE only if states find a way to make sure the votes of servicemembers are still counted. Washington , despite having plenty of time after an August 17 primary to get the job done, received a waiver today. Washington was unwilling to change their schedule of ballot preparation to allow for 45 days mailing time. Though modern printing technology makes the Washington waiver unnecessary, it was granted. Delaware election director Elaine Manlove says the state can get ballots out in time — but applied for a waiver “just in case.” Delaware’s waiver was motivated by caution, but caution isn’t a basis for the granting of a waiver. The law says “undue hardship.” However, waiver granted. Rhode Island shared Delaware’s risk aversion: Spokesman Chris Barnett says they asked for a waiver in case they had a recount in the primary. A hypothetical “undue hardship.” Waiver granted. Since MOVE passed last October, Massachusetts did nothing to adjust their late September 14 primary to comply. (This was the same state that introduced and passed legislation in mere days so that Senator Paul Kirk could be sworn in to vote for ObamaCare. The legislature previously stripped Republican Mitt Romney of the power to appoint replacements and required a special election.) It’s a shame soldiers aren’t as important as Senator Kirk’s vote was. Waiver granted. New York sought a waiver. No surprise there: seven years after the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, New York still wasn’t in compliance. Waiver granted. J.Christian Adams reveals the whole, long, (but worth your time) sordid mess here at PJM . No surprise. Eric Holder&#8217;s DOJ has been &#8220;actively undermining MOVE Act protections throughout the spring&#8221; encouraging states to apply for waivers. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/pentagon-and-doj-travesty-troops-can-serve-and-die-%e2%80%a6-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>America&#8217;s Unjust Revolution: A Second Rejoinder to Mark Tooley</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/americas-unjust-revolution-a-second-rejoinder-to-mark-tooley-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/americas-unjust-revolution-a-second-rejoinder-to-mark-tooley-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[america]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[declaration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[french]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[source]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[victims]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/americas-unjust-revolution-a-second-rejoinder-to-mark-tooley-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Mark Tooley's second attempt to rebut my case that America's War for Independence was unjust fares little better than his first . It is stronger on rhetoric than reason, not least because it evades central questions raised in my paper in the Journal of Catholic Social Thought and engages with ethically irrelevant questions. He begins by questioning my passing comment that 2 out of 3 American colonists did not support the Revolution. He writes that I was probably referring to an observation by John Adams. There is nothing probable about it: the source for my comment (clearly identified in footnote 140 of my paper) is none other than David McCullough, author of the celebrated biography of Adams. Tooley, who suggests that Adams was referring to the French Revolution, cites a maximum figure of only 1 in 5 colonists remaining loyal to Britain during the American Revolution. But even if Tooley knows more about Adams' statement than Adams' biographer, it matters not. A figure of 1 in 5 would confirm the reality that the rebellion was not simply a war between the colonists and the British (as Hollywood history would typically have it) but was America's first civil war. And even if all the colonists had supported the rebellion, this would hardly have made it just. Whether a rebellion is just is not to be determined by a poll of the rebels. Tooley digs himself deeper into irrelevance when he writes about the perseverance of the rebels and the divisions in Parliament. None of this shows the rebellion was just. Many unjust wars have exhibited popular support for, and perseverance by, aggressors, and division among the victims. The fact that the American colonists' complaints attracted the support of prominent MPs like Edmund Burke serves only to illustrate that those complaints received a full and fair hearing in Parliament. And while Tooley notes Burke's opposition to the imposition of colonial taxes he is silent about Burke's endorsement of Britain's sovereign right to legislate for the colonies in all matters. (For good measure Tooley tosses in references to the rebellions against Kings Charles I and James II. He appears to assume not only their justice but also their analogy to a colonial rebellion against King and Parliament.) Tooley asks whether the just war tradition permits governments "unlimited license upon their colonists, while allowing the colonists no resort at all, except to suffer endlessly until both law and liberty are extinguished?" Of course not. Such rhetoric echoes the groundless charge in the Declaration of Independence that the British were seeking to impose "absolute tyranny" on the colonies. No one has even begun to show that the British exercised, or intended to exercise, "unlimited license" over the colonies. He claims stirringly that the rebels were asserting "inalienable rights rooted in British custom and law and further refined in the Declaration of Independence." He fails, however, to articulate these alleged "rights," let alone to locate them in the just war tradition. He fails, moreover, to answer a central question I put to him in my previous reply: why was it unjust for the mother country to tax its colonies? ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/27/americas-unjust-revolution-a-second-rejoinder-to-mark-tooley-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Palin: Massachusetts Voters Will “Put up With” Scott Brown’s RINO Antics…</title>
		<link>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/26/palin-massachusetts-voters-will-%e2%80%9cput-up-with%e2%80%9d-scott-brown%e2%80%99s-rino-antics%e2%80%a6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/26/palin-massachusetts-voters-will-%e2%80%9cput-up-with%e2%80%9d-scott-brown%e2%80%99s-rino-antics%e2%80%a6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:06:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>markboabaca</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evening-on-fox]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[former-alaska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[people]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scott brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-people]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/26/palin-massachusetts-voters-will-%e2%80%9cput-up-with%e2%80%9d-scott-brown%e2%80%99s-rino-antics%e2%80%a6/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ She&#8217;s right. There&#8217;s not enough of us here and we know the alternative to Brown is going to be much, much, much worse&#8230; (The Hill) - Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said Wednesday evening that Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown (R) might not face a primary challenge like other GOP lawmakers who have voted with Democrats. Palin has backed a number of candidates in congressional races this cycle who are favorites of the Tea Party movement. One of her beneficiaries, Joe Miller, leads Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) in the state&#8217;s Senate primary with vote counting still underway. But Palin suggested Brown might not face the same type of scrutiny. “That’s Massachusetts and perhaps they are not going to look for such a hardcore constitutional conservative there, and they are going to put up with Scott Brown and the antics there,&#8221; she said Wednesday evening on Fox Business Network. &#8220;But up here in Alaska and in so many places across the U.S., where we have a pioneering independent spirit and an expectation that the representative in D.C. will respect the will of the people and the intelligence of the people; we wouldn’t stand for that.&#8221; ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.obamashitlist.com/2010/08/26/palin-massachusetts-voters-will-%e2%80%9cput-up-with%e2%80%9d-scott-brown%e2%80%99s-rino-antics%e2%80%a6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
