Obama Interior Department Closing Off Nearly Half Of Alaskan National Petroleum Reserve From Drilling
President Obama is campaigning as a champion of the oil and gas boom he’s had nothing to do with, and even as his regulators try to stifle it. The latest example is the Interior Department’s little-noticed August decision to close off from drilling nearly half of the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
The area is called the National Petroleum Reserve because in 1976 Congress designated it as a strategic oil and natural gas stockpile to meet the “energy needs of the nation.” Alaska favors exploration in nearly the entire reserve. The feds had been reviewing four potential development plans, and the state of Alaska had strongly objected to the most restrictive of the four. Sure enough, that was the plan Interior chose.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says his plan “will help the industry bring energy safely to market from this remote location, while also protecting wildlife and subsistence rights of Alaska Natives.” He added that the proposal will expand “safe and responsible oil and gas development, and builds on our efforts to help companies develop the infrastructure that’s needed to bring supplies online.”
The problem is almost no one in the energy industry and few in Alaska agree with him. In an August 22 letter to Mr. Salazar, the entire Alaska delegation in Congress – Senators Mark Begich and Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don Young – call it “the largest wholesale land withdrawal and blocking of access to an energy resource by the federal government in decades.” This decision, they add, “will cause serious harm to the economy and energy security of the United States, as well as to the state of Alaska.” Mr. Begich is a Democrat.
The letter also says the ruling “will significantly limit options for a pipeline” through the reserve. This pipeline has long been sought to transport oil and gas from the Chukchi Sea, the North Slope and future Arctic drilling. Mr. Salazar insists that a pipeline could still be built, but given the Obama Administration’s decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline, Alaskans are right to be skeptical.
Alaskans also worry that the National Petroleum Reserve will become the same political football as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, or ANWR, which Washington has barred from drilling because of dubious environmental objections. The greens now want Congress to rename the energy reserve the “Western Arctic Reserve” to give the false impression that it is a fragile wildlife area. Some parts of the area are environmentally sensitive, but those 1.5 million acres (around Teshekpuk Lake) had already been set aside. Most of the other 11.5 million acres are almost indistinguishable from acreage owned by the state that is being drilled safely nearby.
The feds and Alaskan officials disagree about how much oil and natural gas is in the petroleum reserve. Some early federal estimates put the range between six and 15 billion barrels of oil, but in its latest survey the Bureau of Land Management projects closer to one billion. State officials and industry experts put the figure much higher based on the earlier surveys and improved drilling techniques.
The truth is no one knows. Prudhoe Bay turned out to be much more productive than originally believed, but surely the best strategy is to allow private drillers to risk their own money to find out. The oil and gas industry isn’t in the business of drilling dry holes on purpose.
The Interior power play couldn’t come at a worse time for Alaska, whose economy and government are heavily reliant on oil jobs and revenues. As recently as the 1980s, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline carried some 2.2 million barrels of oil a day from the North Slope to the port of Valdez. Yet as the once-rich fields of Prudhoe Bay and the Kuparuk River have declined, oil flow has dropped to one-third of that volume. North Dakota recently passed Alaska as the second highest oil-producing state behind Texas.
The problem isn’t that Alaska is running out of oil but that federal rules are preventing the state from developing those resources. No matter what Mr. Obama says now, in a second term his great Alaska energy shutout will continue.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
A new chart from the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee details the fact that, since January 2009, for every person added to the labor force, 10 have been added to those not in the labor force. Here’s a chart showing the dwindling labor force:
“For Every 1 Person Added To Labor Force Since January 2009,” the chart reads, “10 People Added To Those Not In Labor Force.”
That is, in nearly the four years, since President Obama took office in January 2009, only 827,000 people have been added to the labor force, while during that same time period, 8,208,000 have been added to those not in the labor force.
The chart relies on data available from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
“The numbers represented in the chart are a measure of growth from January 2009 through September 2012,” the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee explains. “The data is sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey, a sample of 60,000 households conducted by personal and telephone interviews. Basic labor force data are gathered monthly. The labor force consists of all people aged 16 and over either employed or actively seeking work. It does not include discouraged workers, people who have retired, or those on welfare or disability who are no longer looking for work. The ‘not in the labor force’ group is defined as the total civilian non-institutional population minus the labor force.”
Since January 2009, the labor force has grown by 0.54 percent, or 827,000 people (from 154,236,000 to 155,063,000). Those not in the labor force grew by 10.2 percent during the same period (8,208,000 people), from 80,502,000 to 88,710,000. In other words, for every one person added to the labor force of the United States since January 2009, the size of the U.S. population not in the labor force grew by 10 people.
And the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee concludes, “These figures reveal several troubling trends: That the jobs market is not keeping pace with U.S. population growth; that not enough younger Americans are joining the labor force to account for retirement among an ageing population; and that a large number of workers have become so discouraged that they simply stopped looking for work and left the labor force entirely. These factors pose serious fiscal challenges for the United States. A historically low labor force participation rate – together with an ageing population and a record number of people drawing federal welfare benefits – puts severe strain on the federal budget in both the near and long term.”
UPDATE: Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, comments: “The essential point of this chart is not simply how many people are employed or unemployed, but to illustrate that more and more people are simply not part of the U.S. labor force. This confirms that we are on the wrong track. It is unsustainable to have such a large and growing number of people who are not part of the productive economy. This is not a political argument, but a description of the underlying instability in our economy that has so many Americans worried about the future. The question is what can we do to reverse these trends and start moving in the right direction.”
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Benghazi in 5 Sentences: “One of the most sophisticated military attacks ever launched at a diplomatic facility.”
At 8:30 p.m.,when Ambassador Stevens strolled outside the gate and bid his Turkish guest good night, the streets were calm and quiet.
At 9:40 p.m., an armed assault on the compound began, well planned and executed by men not only armed with mortars but capable of firing them to lethal purpose — a rare combination among the excitable mobs of the Middle East. There was no demonstration against an Islamophobic movie that just got a little out of hand. Indeed, there was no movie protest at all. Instead, a U.S. consulate was destroyed and four of its personnel were murdered in one of the most sophisticated military attacks ever launched at a diplomatic facility. — Who’s ‘Politicizing’ Benghazi? – Mark Steyn – National Review Online
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Life Begins Where It Always Has Begun. At the Beginning
The life of a human being begins at conception,when the union of gametes brings into being a new organism –the embryo–
that is both functionally and genetically complete and distinct. The embryo is a living member of the species Homo sapiens–a human being in the earliest stage of his or her natural development. The life of a human being begins at conception, when the union of gametes brings into being a new organism–the embryo–that is both functionally and genetically complete and distinct. The embryo is a living member of the species Homo sapiens–a human being in the earliest stage of his or her natural development. For confirmation of these biological facts, the place to look is not the Bible or the Catechism, but rather any modern work of human embryology or developmental biology. — Robert P. George @ Well Said | John C. Wright’s Journal
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Atlas Exclusive: Robert Spencer: New York Review of Books calls for criminalizing of criticism of Islam
A piece published last week in the New York Review of Books and written by the formerly respectable Islamic scholar Malise Ruthven is so full of errors, false claims, and inaccuracies that it is surprising that the New York Review of Books published it at all. On the other hand, as the mainstream media increasingly abandons all pretense of objective reporting and becomes ever more a propaganda arm for the Left and Islamic supremacists, it isn’t all that surprising after all.
In it Ruthven expatiates at length about what he thinks is “hate speech” directed at Muslims. Invoking Salman Rushdie’s criticism of the crude video of Muhammad that was recently blamed for riots and murders all over the Islamic world, Ruthven says: “On the motives behind the film Rushdie is surely right: researchers have revealed close connections between Nakoula, a militant Coptic separatist, and out-and-out Islamophobes such as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. (Indeed, even as people in the Middle East were rioting against the film in late September, Geller was sponsoring a controversial anti-Muslim advertising campaign in the New York subway, raising questions about hate speech in the United States.)”
This is actually false in every respect. Pamela Geller and I have no connections whatsoever, close or otherwise, to Nakoula, who may not be a “militant Coptic separatist” or a Copt at all. Geller’s advertising was not “anti-Muslim,” but against jihad attacks against innocent civilians. Ruthven’s use of the manipulative and inaccurate media slogans “anti-Muslim” and “Islamophobe” is unworthy of him as a scholar, as is his willing propagation of the spurious concept of “Islamophobia,” which Islamic supremacist groups use nowadays to intimidate people into thinking that there is something wrong and “racist” about resisting jihad.
After that, Ruthven’s piece gets really risible. “Matthew Feldman, a political scientist,” Ruthven notes, “has used the term “Christianism” to describe ultra-right-wing anti-Muslim polemicists such as Geller and the Quran-burning pastor Terry Jones, who also supported the film, in order to highlight their similarities to their Islamist enemies. Both rely on religious feelings to mobilize much larger groups because of the esteem for their respective religions in the broader cultures in which they reside.”
This is even more of a howler than Ruthven’s claim that we were behind the Muhammad movie: Pamela Geller, who is deeply proud of her Jewish identity, is now a “Christianist” who is relying on “religious feelings” to “mobilize larger groups”? It is astonishing that Ruthven would have the audacity to write about people that he clearly knows nothing about. In reality, the American Freedom Defense Initiative that Pamela Geller and I head up is not a religious organization, but is dedicated to defending the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. Clearly these are “ultra-right-wing anti-Muslim” goals!
Ultimately, after a great deal of long-winded chatter that doesn’t get much of anywhere, Ruthven calls for the criminalization of criticism of Islam as “hate speech”: “These contrasting responses suggest the possibility of a two-pronged approach to the free speech issues raised by images of the Prophet. ‘Insulting’ the Prophet with the intent of stirring up hatred might be categorized as a form of ‘hate speech’ comparable to anti-Semitism, racism, flag desecration, or Holocaust denial, which are forbidden by law in many countries (though not the US, where a proposed amendment protecting the US flag failed to pass by a single Senate vote in 2006), because the sacred image of the Prophet has become a fundamental part of how Muslim communities have come to define themselves. While in practice it may be difficult to draw the line between ‘insult’ and ‘criticism,’ if there is a distinction it must lie in intention.”
Who will judge intentions, once Ruthven’s authoritarian law is passed? What will Malise Ruthven do if someone in power decides that something he has written about Islam was actually intended to “insult” Muslims, rather than to provide reasonable “criticism”? And why is the New York Review of Books publishing this invitation to the suicide of the free press?
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Did Muhammad Exist?.
From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
Political correctness has been used for decades now to silence the Right. The Left does not believe in freedom, unless it is closely regulated by the State. Donald Douglas has a link to a piece on the possible death of freedom of speech
From Jonathan Turley, at the Washington Post, “Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech” (viaInstapundit):
Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.
In the face of the violence that frequently results from anti-religious expression, some world leaders seem to be losing their patience with free speech. After a video called “Innocence of Muslims” appeared on YouTube and sparked violent protests in several Muslim nations last month, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”
It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, “Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.”
A willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government. In February, for instance, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin heard a case in which a Muslim man was charged with attacking an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as a “zombie Muhammed.” Martin castigated not the defendant but the victim, Ernie Perce, lecturing him that “our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures — which is what you did.”
Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values.
This was evident in recent days when courts in Washington and New York ruled that transit authorities could not prevent or delay the posting of a controversial ad that says: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”
When U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer said the government could not bar the ad simply because it could upset some Metro riders, the ruling prompted calls for new limits on such speech. And in New York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority responded by unanimously passing a new regulation banning any message that it considers likely to “incite” others or cause some “other immediate breach of the peace.”
The Left, and Islamists, in fact all dictatorial mindsets seek to control freedom, starting with freedom of expression. They will use intimidation, threats, and yes, they will cloak their desire to subjugate in nice words like sensitivity, inclusion, or tolerance, but their end goal is control. Those of us who love, and practice freedom of speech have the ultimate stake in never allowing our freedom to be curtailed.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Biden’s performance here in Danville, Kentucky was both comical and self-defeating. Just as Al Gore sighed and rolled his eyes in 2000, so Biden smirked and guffawed.
His brief was to show the aggression that Obama so obviously lacked when the President went up against Mitt Romney last week. But as the dust settles today many will be left feeling that he went too far, tried too hard.
Many women and swing voters will have hated his condescending, swaggering display.
It was not due only to his strikingly boorish histrionics that Biden decisively lost the debate, despite it being moderated without impartiality by Obama’s personal friend Martha Raddatz, whose wedding Obama attended. He lied repeatedly and easily demonstrably.
Biden blamed the intelligence community for the debacle that led to and followed the killing of ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans in last month’s terror attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. …
When asked by Raddatz why the White House had blamed the death of Stevens on protests about a movie, he responded: ‘Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community.’
There is ample evidence that this was not the case.
The same arrogance that inspired Biden to behave like an utter jackass led him to believe he could get away with shouting assertions that obviously are not true. Hopefully the intelligence community will not take this lie lying down.
Even more startling was Biden’s insistence: ‘Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again.’
That is directly contradicted by testimony from two State Department officials this week. Eric Nordstrom, expressed frustration at how his appeals for more resources were rebuffed.
Biden’s strategy was to sneer, yell lies, and count on the media to back him up with spin. Whether it succeeds depends on how much character we have left.
On tips from Byron, J, and Shawn R. Graphic compliments of Metryq.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Posted on | October 14, 2012
The Benghazi blame game has been going on for more than a month since the Sept. 11 attack in Libya that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Last week there were signals that Team Obama was trying to make Hillary Clinton’s State Department the scapegoat, but anybody who knows the Clintons could have predicted she wasn’t going to take the fall. Today, Hillary struck back:
A confusing array of contradictions concerning the murders of four Americans, one of which was a U.S. ambassador, was made worse by Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks during the debate with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan Thursday evening.
Today the confusion only worsened yet again when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that her agency was not the source of misinformation concerning the attacks, charging instead that the White House was the source of the false mantra that the murders were spurred by an anti-Muslim film made in the United States.
Clinton told reporters that when Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her rounds on every Sunday morning news show to claim the film motivated the attacks, the information had been fed to her by the White House and not the intelligence community in the State Department or the CIA.
Not only does Clinton’s statement contradict early White House accounts but directly contradicts statements made by Vice President Biden during the debate.
If Obama thinks he’s gonna throw Hillary Clinton under his bus, he’s going to find out the hard way his bus ain’t big enough. He’s not looking too good in the polls lately — even PPP has him trailing Romney in Florida now – and rather than playing the Good Soldier in his doomed re-election campaign, why shouldn’t Hillary kick off her 2016 campaign by helping expose Obama’s bungling? And here’s a good laugh for you:
Oh, sure, like David Axelrod never exploited an issue . . .
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Found at Blazing Cat Fur
Islam’s Insanities: All Just a ‘Hoax’?
by Raymond Ibrahim
October 11, 2012
The much welcomed word “Hoax!” appears, reconfirming your worldview. All is well again.
But is it? Are such accounts mere hoaxes? Or is this just another strategy by those who apologize for Islam’s insanities—a strategy that relies exclusively on the fact that the Western mindset cannot fathom such news, anyway, and thus is all too willing to accept the hoax charge without a second thought?
Recall the news that Salafi parliamentarians in Egypt were pushing for a law legalizing necrophilia. This information first appeared in Egypt’s most circulated newspaper, Al Ahram, followed by Al Arabiya. The news went viral, prompting Western dismay. But then a cutesy Christian Science Monitor article titled “Egypt ‘necrophilia law’? Hooey, utter hooey” tried to return us to the status quo. Its author, one Dan Murphy, admonished the many websites that disseminated the necrophilia story: “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet, kids. At least until there’s like, you know, some proof.”
And his “proof” that it was a hoax? Nothing. He even confirmed that “there was a Moroccan cleric a few years back who apparently did issue a religious ruling saying that husbands remained married to their wives in the first six hours after death and, so, well, you know [i.e., he permitted necrophilia]. But that guy is far, far out on the nutty fringe.”
Aside from Murphy’s immature tone—”so, well, you know” what?—one fails to see how characterizing a cleric as a “nut” means that his religious ruling is a “hoax”—that it never existed? Likewise, when it comes to fatwas, it matters not which nation they hail from, so that Egyptians can easily uphold the fatwa of a Moroccan, or vice-versa, because in Islam there is no “national” distinction, only the umma.
And yet, no matter how shallow or lacking in evidence, these hoax charges resonate well, simply because the mainstream Western mentality instinctively rejects, in this case, the idea of codifying necrophilia.
Much of this is exacerbated by the fact that most Westerners, including reporters, cannot independently verify such stories, as they usually originate in Middle Eastern languages. Which leads to my familiarity with this matter: I get most of my news directly from the Arabic media—knowing that it is better to get my information directly “from the horse’s mouth” than to get it from the limited and filtered Western media.
Accordingly, I am often first to expose stories that go unreported in the West—for instance, the fact that the U.S. embassy in Cairo was being threatened days before the Muhammad movie became a convenient excuse to riot and destroy (the original reason was to coerce the U.S. to free the Blind Sheikh and others).
However, those who prefer to keep such stories suppressed have learned to cry “hoax”—taking advantage of the fact that most Americans cannot read Arabic or verify these accounts for themselves.
Thus, when I documented the indisputable fact that several Islamists were calling for the destruction of Egypt’s Pyramids, the New York Times and Huffington Post cried “hoax”; when I shed light on an obscure “sodomy fatwa” which helped explain the role of intention in Islam (or niyya), Muslims and others cried hoax, including by lying and distorting; and when I reported on how Muslim Brotherhood supporters crucified their opponents, the National Post and others cried hoax.
And yet, none of these naysayers offered any meaningful evidence (click above links for my full responses). Instead, they banked on the fact that it is simply too hard to believe these stories in the first place.
So what should the objective Western reader do—who is stuck in the middle, does not read Arabic, and cannot independently verify anything—when confronted with absurd news emanating from the Islamic world?
Along with evaluating the evidence as best they can, I suggest they learn to connect-the-dots. The fact is, there is no end of bizarre anecdotes emanating from the Islamic world. Saudi Arabia’s highest Islamic authority until he died in 1999, Sheikh Bin Baz—hardly someone to be dismissed as being “far, far out on the nutty fringe”—insisted that the earth was flat and that all scientific evidence otherwise is a Western conspiracy.
In 2007, Egypt’s second highest Islamic authority, Sheikh Ali Gomaa—the same “moderate” Grand Mufti who deems all Christians “infidels”—decreed that drinking the urine of Muhammad was a great blessing. Likewise, a few weeks ago in Egypt it was revealed that there is now a clinic “healing” people by giving them camel urine to drink—because Muhammad once advised it.
Then there are the notorious breastfeeding fatwas: Several Islamic clerics—including Dr. Izzat Atiya, of Egypt’s Al Azhar University—advised Muslim female workers to “breastfeed” their male co-workers in order to be in each other’s company (more “moderate” clerics say it is not necessary for the man to drink the milk directly from the teat but may use a cup).
The list goes on and on: Several Muslims, including prominent ones, are calling for the reinstitution of sex-slavery, whereby “infidel” women can be bought and sold in markets. One female Kuwaiti politician even recommends that Russian women seized during the Chechnya jihad be sold as sex-slaves on Muslim markets.
Other prominent clerics insist that Islam allows men to get “married” to baby girls still in the cradle, having sex with them once these children are “capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men.”
How does one explain these absurd and vile teachings—teachings advocated, not from radicals nor clerics “far, far out on the nutty fringe”—but often from its highest authorities? Simple: Islamic jurisprudence, which is responsible for defining what is right and wrong in Islam, is fundamentally based on the words of a 7th century Arab whom Muslims venerate as a prophet. And this man said and did many things that defy modern day sensibilities.
Indeed, he said and did many things that defied the sensibilities of his contemporaries—such as stripping naked and lying with a dead woman to the surprise of her gravediggers (which, incidentally, is cited by the necrophilia fatwas). And it was the prophet who first ordered a woman to “breastfeed” a man in order to be in his company. Though she expressed shock at the very idea, she went through with it anyway.
Here, then, is the rule of thumb: When it comes to determining whether a story from the Muslim world is a hoax or not, first determine whether it is it Islamic or not—whether it has doctrinal or historic support; whether it has some backing in the Quran and/or the hadith.
As it happens, destroying pyramids and pre-Islamic antiquities is very Islamic with a long paper trail; engaging in forbidden acts like sodomy or suicide or lying in order to empower Islam is legitimate according to the Islamic notion of niyya (or intention); crucifying the opponents of Islam is prescribed in the Quran—just as is sex-slavery and pedophilia; drinking urine—whether camels’ or Muhammad’s—is lauded in the hadith.
In short, the true test of whether an Islam-related story is a hoax or not, is not whether it accords with our sensibilities, but whether it accords with Islam’s teachings, many of which are strange if not downright bizarre by Western standards.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
From Middle East Forum: http://www.meforum.org/3357/islam-hoax
Found at Blazing Cat Fur: http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.com/
From the perspective of our rulers, law is defined by multilateral human rights commitments. From the perspective of their rulers, law is defined by the Koran and allegiance to Islamic law. Both consider their approach just and believe that their mission is to extend and universalize their legal codes. The transnationalists believe that they can integrate Muslims within their codes. Muslims believe that they can integrate transnationalists within their system.
Western law’s universalism has a broader and narrower appeal to self-interest than Islamic law. This is the paradox that undermines any attempt to export it to the Muslim world. While universalism with its equality clause appears on the surface to have broader appeal, it actually has far less appeal, because it weakens the position of those in power while holding an appeal only to those who are not in power.
Freedom is not always taken at the point of a gun, sometimes it is taken at the very idea of the gun or at the economic and political disruption that would be caused by the idea of the gun. These are the effects that ripple through the conceptual spaces, breeding appeasement and surrender, as the system tries to integrate the foreign element, rather than spitting it out.
EGYPT now allows sharia-sanctioned abductions and forced conversions of young Christian girls to Islam
This is the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Islamic government supported by Obama. Notice that Romney advisor, Walid Phares, speaks to the Helsinki commission on this issue, but no one from the Obama Regime is there.
Abductions and forced conversions of young Coptic Christian girls and mothers of small children are on the rise as the Islamists try to ethnically cleanse the country of all its Christians. These women never are allowed to return to their families. A 2009 report about “The Disappearance, Forced Conversions, and Forced Marriages of Coptic Christian Women in Egypt” doesn’t reflect how much worse the problem is now.
Coptic Christians suffer daily persecution in Egypt.
Coptic Christians have lived in Egypt since Christianity began. Once they were the majority population, until Islam set about its crusade to convert all of Northern Africa by the sword. Now they number only 10% of Egypt’s population, because most people have been forcefully converted to Islam, either through terrorism, or by economic means, such as high taxation.
Now that Egypt has a radical Islamic Government, the Copts are suffering unbelievable cruelty – arrested even for praying in their own home. Their daughters are being kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam by torture and rape. Where is the UN? Where is the rest of the Christian World? Why the silence? Egyptian Christians are being cleansed from their native land.
From Bare naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/
Found at American Digest
If people were actuallycomparing the two debaters, Ryan was an attractive, polite, stable, normal, well-informed young man.
Joe was the bloviating, obnoxious drunk at the bar who had grabbed Ryan by his lapel and wouldn’t let go. You could practically see Ryan’s hair melt from the noxious odors wafting out from behind Joe’s peculiarly whitened dentures.– Bookworm Room
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Found at American Digest
Infantile, Unhinged, Buffoonish, Clownish – Just Some of the Adjectives Used By Pundits to Describe Biden During the Debate
October, 11, 2012 — nicedeb
First of all – what did we just witness, tonight? Why was Joe Biden emulating Chris Matthews on crack?
I realize that the rap on Obama’s debate performance was that he wasn’t aggressive enough – so Biden’s handlers probably told him to be assertive (like Romney was!) but Biden overcompensated, interrupting Ryan 82 times. CNN’s Gloria Borger said Biden Came Off As Condescending, Brit Hume called him a ‘Cranky Old Man’…while Greta Van Susteren said he just was very unlikeable.
Romney may have been aggressive, but he was polite, and always a gentleman. He wasn’t overbearing and didn’t come off like an unhinged, condescending crank, like Biden did for this entire debate, laughing, sneering and mugging during all of Ryan’s answers – even on serious issues like Libya, Afghanistan, and Iran. What was that all about? Romney was fighting for equal time in a debate where Obama was allowed four minutes more time. Biden was merely fighting. Chris Wallace said “I’ve Never Seen a Debate Where one Candidate Was So Disrespectful”. He got a minute more time than Ryan who was interrupted at nearly every turn, either by Biden or by the moderator – the two of them seemed at times to be tag teaming him.
In spite of that, Ryan remained calm, winning easily on debate style, and holding his own on debate substance in the face of the blizzard of lies coming from Biden – a problem Sarah Palin also encountered back in 2008..
Dana Perino quipped:
Anyway, from the GOP rapid response team, Joe Biden Cackles During VP Debate:
UPDATE: Via the RNC, an excellent video compilation of Biden’s seriously inappropriate laughter: Laughing at the Issues:
Joe’s bizarre smiling and cackling act got panned by the left and right alike on Twitter:
Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan were the two candidates on stage at Thursday’s vice presidential debate, but a third character emerged: Joe Biden’s laugh, which didn’t escape the notice of tweeting politicos. (And led, of course, to at least three satirical Twitter accounts: Laughing Joe Biden, Biden Smirk, and yet another Laughing Joe Biden.)
Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway: “Joe Biden’s laughing through talking about Iran sanctions?”
TIME’s Michael Scherer: “Not sure debate cameras have been light tested for Biden’s teeth. Best to watch with sunglasses.”
Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein: “Biden’s strategy seems to be to laugh at Ryan constantly. Will it work to infantalize Ryan, or backfire like Gore sighing?”
NBC’s David Gregory: “Biden’s smile is out of control.”
Not a crushing victory, but a victory nonetheless — the sitting VP was bested by the challenger.
So Romney passed the Threshold test — spectacularly — and Ryan passed it as well.
And in both debates, they won.
Alex Castellantos on CNN had a point: The post-debate buzz will be about Biden’s buffoonish mugging.
I hate to say this, but as I said in the liveblog, Biden’s Mission Number One was to reassure and re-energize the base. He did that. He at least stopped some Democrats from defecting to Romney, or deciding not to vote.
And see – this is why some people think Allahpundit and Ace are the same person:
I expected “table-pounding atmospherics” from Biden but I didn’t expect him to act like a total jackhole for fully 90 minutes. Give him credit for knowing his target audience, though: His task tonight was to get the left excited again after Obama fell into a semi-coma in Denver, and evincing utter disdain for Ryan — grimacing, shouting, laughing inappropriately, constantly interrupting, the total jackhole experience — is just what the doctor ordered. He might have irritated independents and undecideds, but probably not so much that it’ll change people’s votes. The Democrats needed someone to go out there and clown for liberals, and if there’s one thing this guy knows, it’s clowning.
Foreign Policy fact checked Biden on a major point: Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security:
Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the administration wasn’t aware of requests for more security in Libya before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi during Thursday night’s debate, contradicting two State Department officials and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya.
“We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there,” Biden said.
In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.
Paul Ryan fact checked Biden’s attempt to throw cold water on the charge that the HHS mandate is an assault on religious liberties:
Biden try to explain away the Obama administration’s pro-abortion assault on Catholics, evangelicals and other religious groups and businesses.
“With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact,” Biden falsely claimed.
“Now, I’ve got to take issue with the Catholic church and religious liberty,” Ryan retorted. “Why would they keep — why would they keep suing you? It’s a distinction without a difference.”
That’s all Ryan was able to get in before he was cut off. Shhhhh!!!!
The mandate compels religious employers to pay for and refer women for abortion-causing drugs, birth control, contraception and sterilizations.
The left has tried to turn the right’s objection to this into the phoney Republican War on Women™.
Like I said, Biden’s smirking and sneering got panned by almost everybody:
John Nolte, Big Journalism: Media Hits Biden: ‘Stop Smirking!’ ‘Weird,’ ‘Jerk’:
We’re about thirty minutes into the debate and already Vide President Joe Biden is receiveing pretty tough reviews for his bizarre smiling and smirking as debate moderator Martha Raddatz talks about issues as serious as Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
These aren’t exactly conservative media types, either.
Another huge lie caught by Washington Free Beacon. I somehow missed this this one (why didn’t Ryan call him out on it?): Biden Claims He Voted Against Afghanistan, Iraq Wars:
“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy.”
“I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”
Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”
This was such an obvious, blatant lie. Ryan’s been in Washington long enough to know the truth. Why did he get Biden get away with it? The day after fact checks are not where the action is. You have to call them out on their lies when you have the chance, or most people will never know the truth.
Michelle Malkin: Vice President Jerk: The return of Smirky Malarkey McSmirk:
Pundits and news anchors are expressing post-debate shock at how smirky, condescending and arrogant Vice President Joe Biden was tonight. They buzzed on Twitter at his “malarkey” rebuke of Paul Ryan’s foreign policy criticism.
But this is all old, tired recycled behavior and rhetoric from the last election cycle. Remember? Go back and read my VP debate thread from 2008. It was titled: Sarah vs. Smirky. Go back to 2008, when Biden derided Sarah Palin for her “malarkey” about Bill Ayers.
Tonight, just as in 2008, Biden sighed.
But more significantly, Biden bald-facedly lied.
In other words: Biden was…Biden.
Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard:Biden Bombed:
You don’t win a nationally televised debate by being rude and obnoxious. You don’t win by interrupting your opponent time after time after time or by being a blowhard. You don’t win with facial expressions, especially smirks or fake laughs, or by pretending to be utterly exasperated with what your opponent is saying.
That’s why Vice President Joe Biden didn’t win the one and only debate last night with his Republican rival, Mitt Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan.
In fact, though Ryan had several weak moments—one of them was on Syria—the only conceivable takeaway from the veep debate was Biden’s out of control conduct. It will be long remembered—and not favorably.
There’s one person who should be delighted with Biden. That’s Al Gore. He had the honor of having delivered the most over the top and weird performance in a presidential campaign debate when he sighed and frowned and acted frustrated in his first debate with George W. Bush in 2000. Now Biden has taken that crown—or dunce cap—from Gore.
Finally, via Twitchy, the Tweet of the night, as far as I’m concerned:
Governor Mitt Romney objected heatedly to an Obama spokeswoman’s dismissal of criticism of his Administration’s handling of the Libya crisis as a political issue driven by Romney and Paul Ryan. [...]
“No, President Obama, it is an issue because this is the first time in 33 years that a United States Ambassador has been assassinated,” Romney said during a campaign stop in Asheville, North Carolina. “Mr. President, this is an issue because we were attacked successfully by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11. President Obama, this is an issue because Americans wonder why it was that it took so long for you and your Administration to admit this was a terrorist attack.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
And that’s not counting all the laughs, eye-rolling and goofy faces he made.
Vice President Joe Biden interrupted Paul Ryan 82 times in a 90-minute debate with rival Paul Ryan, while CNN reported that women preferred Ryan.
“FACT: Final Count: Biden interrupted 82 times during the entire debate,” the RNC’s Joe Pounder tweeted after the debate. CNN’s Gloria Berger said that she would have liked Biden to show less “condescension” and “eye-rolling.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Via Fox Nation:
Fox News’ Chris Wallace speaking shortly tonight’s VP debate said, “I don’t believe I have ever seen a debate in which one participant was as openly disrespectful of the other as Biden was to Paul Ryan.” Wallace cited Biden’s facial gestures and phrases such as “malarkey” and “stuff.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
From Weasel zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
For anyone confused by the remarkable coincidence of the official unemployment rate finally but mysteriously dropping below 8%, even without a rise in the percentage employed, just as Romney emerged as a serious threat to Hope & Change, Patriot Post makes it simple with this graphic:
Mark Twain credited the great countermoonbat Benjamin Disraeli with an even simpler explanation:
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
At this point, any numbers coming out of the government and the “mainstream” media arm of the Obama Campaign should be taken not with a pinch of salt, but several scoops of it.
On a tip from Bergbikr.
No Wonder the State Department Could Not Afford to Protect The Libyan Consulate – They Were Spending a Fortune Buying the Failed Chevy Volt From “Guvmunt” Motors
Now I get why security was cut rather than increased despite the pleas of Ambassador Chris Stevens in the run-up to his horrific murder by terrorist savages. The State Department spent the money on other priorities:
In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.
The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”
Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.
In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”
In case there are any liberals reading, I will type slowly. Islamic terror is a real threat. “Climate change” is not a real threat.
Meanwhile, in Libya…
Before the terrorist attack that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, there were more than 230 security incidents in Libya between June 2011 and July 2012.
If you voted to put irresponsible moonbats like Obama and Shrillary in charge, their blood is on your hands.
According to Eric Nordstrom, a regional security officer of the U.S. Mission to Libya from September 2011 to July 2012, the State Department not only refused his requests for greater security, but actually reduced the number of Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) agents assigned to foreign service officers based in Libya. Ironically, as the State Department withdrew security resources, it increased hazard pay for its employees based in Libya by 5 percent.
If the media gave Benghazi and its cover-up the weight they deserve, by now the concept of Obama’s reelection would make people burst out laughing.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/