Three separate protests against elements of Egypt’s draft constitution will be held on Tuesday to coincide with an expected court ruling on the status of the Constituent Assembly.
A protest against the draft constitution’s Article 36, which focuses on women’s issues, will take place at the Shura Council (where the Constituent Assembly meets) at 6pm. Critics of the article say it could open the door to lowering the marriage age to below 18, legalising female genital mutilation and using Sharia law (Islamic jurisprudence) to limit the rights of women to education and work, among other restrictions.
Moe Lane points out that the US is planning on giving Egypt $450 million of our tax dollars to a government that is anything but “moderate”. Strange how Obama and Democrats care little for the “lady parts” of women under Islamist regimes, and ignore the growing danger from the Muslim extremists.
The Politico provides a handy dandy reference guide to the first cage match presidential debate between President Mitt Romney and challenger Barack Obama…..what? Romney’s not president right now? Weird. The way the media portrays it, Mitt’s been president. Anyhow, here we go
1. Can Romney win the first half-hour? Like Obama, Romney can seem smug and prickly when challenged. He needs to go in relaxed, without memorizing his briefing book to the point of paralysis. Romney will try to trip up the president, but he needs to be as nimble as possible. Also like Obama, Romney is a good but not expert debater. He can make a mistake in a weak or unpredictable moment. And the fact that he started laying out a few new policy statements 48 hours before the debate suggests he knows tough questions are coming.
Essentially, which Romney shows up? The tough one? The one who bet Rick Perry $10k? The one who complained to the moderators about Perry taking too much time?
2. How hard will Obama attack? The president does not tend to fare as well going negative. But he has to attack.
The article notes that Obama doesn’t like Romney, which highlights that Obama takes politics personally, something we’ve seen over the years. This is something that Romney can exploit in getting Obama off his game. Romney will want to get a few zingers in to get Obama looking petty and angry, and perhaps raising his chin so that he’s looking down his nose into the camera.
3. How do “47 percent†and Libya play?
The latter will be bigger than the former, if Romney can get a chance to discuss what the administration has attempted. Will there even be an opportunity for the latter? You know the moderator will attempt to bring up the former.
4. Is Obama ready for prime time? It seems like a crazy question to ask about a man who has governed the country during one of its most tumultuous recent periods — and a guy who speaks in public nearly as much as he speaks in private. But the truth is Obama is really, really rusty when it comes to debating.
And we’ve seen how well Obama does when he is off teleprompter.
5. Who brings up Bill Clinton?
Bringing up Clinton might not be the best for Obama. While Billy Jeff certainly helped Obama during the Democratic National Convention, in the days afterwards people were able to sit back and say “hey, this Obama guy is nothing like Clinton”.
The bigger question is what happens in debate about the economy. Obama will certainly want to use his standard talking points and then deflect to personal attacks on Mitt and Bain Capital. You can bet that Mitt will have plenty of material about the economic conditions ready to go.
I know many are talking about the bombshell of Obama’s speech in 2007, which I really don’t see as that big of a deal: we knew back then that Obama hadn’t divorced himself from Jeremiah Wright, that he was (and still is) a race hustler, and that he attempts to divide people. I find this a bigger bombshell than a 5 year old video
(Reuters) Within hours of last month’s attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama’s administration received about a dozen intelligence reports suggesting militants connected to al Qaeda were involved, three government sources said.
Despite these reports, in public statements and private meetings, top U.S. officials spent nearly two weeks highlighting intelligence suggesting that the attacks were spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim film, while playing down the involvement of organized militant groups.
It was not until last Friday that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s office issued an unusual public statement, which described how the picture that intelligence agencies presented to U.S. policymakers had “evolved” into an acknowledgement that the attacks were “deliberate and organized” and “carried out by extremists.”
So, within hours the Obama administration had reports that it wasn’t a video, it was a preplanned attack resulting in the death of our ambassador and 3 others. And what did Obama do? He went on a fundraising trip to Vegas. Then some more trips over the days following as his administration pushed the notion that it was all a spontaneous response (with RPGs and heavy weapons) to a stupid video that none had seen.
The stream of intelligence flowing into Washington within hours of the Benghazi attacks contained data from communications intercepts and U.S. informants, which were then fashioned into polished initial assessments for policymakers.
Officials familiar with them said they contained evidence that members of a militant faction, Ansar al-Sharia, as well as al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM, were involved in the assaults.
The officials did not allege the attacks were a reaction to the anti-Muslim film, but they acknowledged it was possible that the attackers sought to use an outbreak of violence in Cairo over the film, which insulted the Prophet Mohammad, as a pretext for attacks.
The big question is why did the Obama admin. decide to go with the “it was a film” talking point instead of terrorism? Essentially a cover up. There are many theories, but the only one that truly makes sense is that by labeling the attack as a growing out of the protest allowed Obama to continue campaigning at will since September 11 and then hoping that enough of the real information would stay off the media radar till the elections. Obama even blamed the attack on the Mohammed video during his United Nations speech, before blowing off world leaders to go on The View.
In other words, the Administration purely lied to the American public.
And they have no intention of being honest with the American Public. The FBI still hasn’t accessed the scene of the attack. The Washington Post has. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is stating that they’ll have a report on this attack….(via Allahpundit)
Clinton asked Issa to withhold any final conclusions about the Benghazi attack until the review board finishes its work and reports to Congress, which could come as early as November or as late as early next year. She pledged to work with Issa’s committee and asked him to submit any requests for information or witnesses at hearings to the State Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs.
So, after the election. Foot dragging, stonewalling, and coverup.
Allah also posts this video about the sorry state of the security at the Behngazi site
The big question is will the media do their job and investigate? It used to be that the media were sharks, and something like this would be a pool of blood in the water.
Sheriff Barney Fife Joe Biden went gaffetastic once again here in North Carolina this afternoon
(CNN) During a campaign event in Charlotte, North Carolina, the vice president reiterated recent attacks against his Republican opponents: claiming that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan’s economic plans would raise taxes on middle class families.
“This is deadly earnest,” Biden said. “How they can justify, how they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that has been buried the last four years? How in the Lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes? We’ve seen this movie before.”
Except, Romney/Ryan aren’t looking to actually raise taxes on the middle class, the same middle class that has been buried by Democrat/Obama policies.
(WRAL) “We need to stop digging by electing Mitt Romney the next president of the United States. Of course the middle class has been buried,” Ryan said in Burlington, Iowa. “They’re being buried by regulations; they’re being buried by taxes; they’re being buried by borrowing. They’re being buried by the Obama administration’s economic failures.”
Obviously, Democrats aren’t happy with Republicans highlighting Biden’s words
Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for Obama’s campaign, said the Republican response to Biden’s remarks was “another desperate and out-of-context attack.”
The only thing Democrats hate worse than people using their own words back against them is……well, nothing.
Agree with @joebiden, the middle class has been buried the last 4 years, which is why we need a change in November #CantAfford4More
My day job is to translate the science of climate change into the everyday language we use to understand our lives. To chaperon policy-makers in the transition towards a low-carbon UK, and to help companies and civil society understand the mitigation challenge we all face. But this is not just a job – I’m as much a part of the problem as the solution. Many of my colleagues disagree with me on this – but as I work in the area I cannot excuse my profligate emissions through lack of knowledge.
Hmm, you fellow Warmists disagree that they have to walk the talk? Shocking!
So what will I do differently? I haven’t flown for almost eight years – and that will have to continue. I have halved the distance I drive each year and have significantly changed how I drive. I’ve done without a fridge for 12 years, but recently relented and joined the very small proportion of the world’s population that has a fridge – this I may have to reverse! I’ve cut back on washing and showering – but only to levels that were the norm just a few years back.
Actually, despite my constantly telling Warmists to live the life they say everyone should be forced to, please, Warmists, shower properly.
All this is a start but it is not enough. Certainly, if those of us working on climate change are a bellwether of society’s response, the future looks bleak. Nevertheless until those intimately engaged in climate change, including the scientists, journalists, NGOs and ministers, put their own houses in order, I think it unlikely others will take our analysis seriously. As we pass the bus stop to jump in a taxi from the airport to another air-conditioned hotel room in Bali, Cancun or Rio – what message are we disseminating?
I have to say, he has a good point. Why should anyone buy what Warmists are selling when they refuse to modify their own lives?
Oh, and as for all the “tipping points”, Climate Depot has a good list of many that have been thrown out.
Why? Because MSNBC host Melisssa Harry Perry is attempting to protect Elizabeth “Fauxahontas” Warren
(The Blaze) MSNBC host Melissa Harris Perry jumped to defend Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s claims that she is part Cherokee Indian Saturday on her weekend show. Perry delivered a mini-diatribe on the relativity of race, with the conclusion that all one must do is “think†they are a certain ethnicity for it to be true.
Perry began her lecture by lamenting “in Massachusetts…you’ll see that the path of progress is sometimes a long and slow one.†She compared the race to a famous scene in the Bruce Willis movie “The Sixth Sense†tritely noting that â€some are saying, I see indigenous people†in reference to Warrens claims. After showing a picture of Warren, Perry asks “Is that what an American Indian is supposed to look like?†She continued, lecturing her audience, “Careful. The right answer is there is no answer.â€
Perry then discussed her race relativism theory: “If candidate Warren grew up thinking she is Native American by heritage, who are we to say she is not? And who are we to define her based on narrow constructs of race.â€
Yeah, OK. So, if someone just thinks they are a minority, without any proof, they can receive all the perks of that belief at the expense of others? These people are nuts, but, being liberals, I digress.
And, really, are attacking Mormons in total (via Gateway Pundit)
(Catholic.org) The head of a pro-life committee at a parish I know just received a call from the Obama campaign. The caller asked for her daughter by name, and when she was not there then asked where she could be contacted. Her mother responded by telling the Obama supporter, “not to waste her time as my daughter is supporting the pro-life candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.â€
When the caller hesitated and acted surprised, the mother, a staunch pro-life Catholic, said:
“My daughter is a practicing Catholic and would never cast a vote for a pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-euthanasia candidate who supported the HHS mandate that will take away religious freedoms from Catholic hospitals, Catholic charities, and Catholic institutions.â€
The Obama supporter then launched into her “canned response†and started reading from her call script: “Well, I am a practicing Catholic, and I strongly support President Obama.†The mother then asked her if she was “familiar with the Pope’s five “non-negotiables.â€â€˜ The Obama supporter had no idea what she was talking about and explained that it was only the Pope’s “opinion†to ban the use of contraception.
The Obama caller then went back to her script, asking these clever questions:
1. How can you support a “Mormon†who does not believe in Jesus Christ?
2. What to you think about the “Nuns on the Bus†who support Obama?
The mother replied, “How can you support a man who supports the killing of innocent pre-born children for all nine months?â€
No one should be surprised at the attacks on Mormonism, Democrats have been doing this ever since it looked like Mitt Romney would come out as the winner of the GOP primaries. Liberals self describe as “tolerant” and “compassionate” and “for everyone”, but, as we all know, anyone and any group is fair game in order to get a Democrat elected.
We also know that Democrats will ditch their supposed faith in a heartbeat in order to prop up their political religion.
No one should be surprised in the least at the activities of the supposed American Civil Liberties Union, they’ve exposed their far left agenda long ago. Sure, every once in a while they’ll actually work to protect the Constitution, but, notice that their name is not based on the Constitution: civil liberties are whatever they say they are, despite claiming that they are there to protect the Constitution. That’s why they so often go missing when the Constitution is on the line, when people’s Rights, as laid out in the Bill of Rights, are under assault. Much like most of the US media, they are no longer showing a bias, but are actual cheerleaders and advocates for the Democrat Party. Witness
On Friday, a district court in Missouri rejected a case brought by a mining company challenging the federal birth control rule that requires employer health plans to cover contraception without a co-pay. The Missouri case is one of 30 pending, and it is the first case to be dismissed on the merits. It’s a tremendous victory for women, particularly those employed by the mining company.
It’s a tremendous loss for Freedom of Religion, yet the ACLU isn’t too concerned about that. They’ve voluntarily abdicated their role as so-called protector of the Constitution in order to push an agenda.
The court decisively rejected the claim that the birth control rule infringes on the mining company owner’s religious beliefs. The court found that the rule does not prevent the company’s owner “from keeping the Sabbath, from providing a religious upbringing for his children, or from participating in a religious ritual such as communion.â€Â Those religious practices are different from contributing to a health plan that an employee might use to obtain contraception. This “indirect financial support†of someone else’s possible behavior is not a burden on the company owner’s religious beliefs.
Importantly, the court also recognized that religious liberty claims cannot be used as a “means to force one’s religious practices upon others.â€Â That is exactly what the company’s owner was trying to do. We are pleased that the court rejected an attempt to use religion to discriminate, and we hope that the courts in the other cases do so as well.
Whew, that’s an incredible way to spin the topic. What of those who want their health insurance to have a $0 copay for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients? Is that not pushing their religious views on others?
And what of the notion that this was a federal government mandate that requires employers to provide insurance with $0 copays for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients? Is that not the federal government forcing their religious views on The People in violation of the 1st Amendment?
Elwood P. Dowd on If All You See…: “As does Russia and Belarus, Devious Don has blocked international election watchers. He also just called Senate candidate Dr Annie…” Oct 7, 14:19
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
