Lesson in Irony

This was sent to me and now I’m passing it on as lesson in irony.

The Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, admitted that it is proud to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps to 46 million citizens. This is the most that has ever been distributed in their history.

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us "Please Do Not Feed the Animals." Their stated reason for the policy is because the animals will grow dependent on handouts and will not learn to take care of themselves.

This ends today's lesson.

Obama Curtails Drilling in Oil-Rich Alaskan Reserve

Unbelievable!!!! As you’ll read in this report, gas was $1.48 per gallon the day Obama took office and that’s the truth. It had gone up prior to that day to a high of $4.12 per gallon and the Democrats and the liberal media demonized Bush over it. What did Bush do? On July 14, 2008 he announced that he was going to lift a drilling ban placed by his father back in 1990 and low and behold, gas prices fall nearly $2.50 in a matter of five months! Of course, environmentalists are to blame. These are the same people who said the Alaskan Pipe Line would create great harm to the environment. Yeah… Right… Life is not only surviving around the pipe line, but is thriving at a greater rate than it would have had the pipe line not been there. Seems the heated pipe is good for the environment as it keeps plant life from dying in the winter allowing herbivores to feed off it.

But anyway… On to the story.

The Obama administration, citing environmental concerns, has banned drilling on half of the vast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in a move decried even by Alaska’s congressional delegation.

“The price of gasoline, which was $1.84 a gallon the day President Obama took office, has more than doubled since, willfully aided and abetted by an administration that claims we can't drill our way to energy independence as we ignore vast reserves of North American energy that dwarf OPEC's and we sit on 100 years' supply of petroleum,” Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) stated in an editorial.

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA), not to be confused with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to the east, is a 23.5-million-acre, Indiana-sized tract on Alaska’s North Slope. It was established by President Harding in 1923 to ensure oil supplies for the U.S. Navy.

The desolate NPRA has been described as the largest tract of undisturbed public land in the United States and includes a point 120 miles from the nearest village or usable road.

In 1976, the reserve was transferred to the Interior Department and Congress designated it as a strategic oil and natural gas stockpile to meet the “energy needs of the nation.”

But in August, Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that new drilling would be allowed on half of the reserve while the other half will be off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Environmentalists had lobbied to protect the habitat of caribou, eider ducks and other Arctic species.

“The move drew praise from environmentalists but sharp criticism from oil and gas proponents who said it would restrict the industry’s ability to tap the nation’s hydrocarbon resources,” the Washington Post reported.

The off-limits portions of the reserve are “the most productive areas” of a tract that IBD says contains 2.7 billion barrels of oil and 114 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

Alaska’s congressional delegation — Sens. Mark Begich (a Democrat) and Lisa Murkowski, and Rep. Don Young — call the administration’s action “the largest wholesale land withdrawal and blocking of access to an energy resource by the federal government in decades.”

They also said the move “will significantly limit options for a pipeline” through the reserve to transport oil and gas.

Erik Milito, the American Petroleum Institute’s group director of upstream and industry operations, said the plan “continues to leave domestic energy resources, jobs and government revenue off the table.”

IBD concludes: “The move is typical Obama sleight of hand: Take credit for increased oil production on public lands that you had nothing to do with, lock up resources on federal lands with the exception of places the oil companies find unprofitable or unpromising, then blame them, not your administration, for driving up prices.”

Benghazi

After hearing all sorts of stuff in regards to the 9/11 attack in Benghazi, there are a few things that really get me.

If Chris Stevens was asking for extra security because he thought there was a credible threat to him and his staff at the embassy, why were his requests ignored?

You would think that if anyone would know the political situation of an area outside of our boarders, it would be the person actually living in the area! It’s partly the job of the ambassador to know the political atmosphere of the area he/she lives in.

During the attack, why were several requests for support denied?

CIA operatives in the area (the CIA annex) reported the attack upon hearing weapons fire. They contacted their chain of command and were told twice to stand down. After ignoring the order and rescuing as many as they could to annex, they also came under attack. They requested military support, which was also denied. Military support that could have been given had the request not been denied.

Now I’m hearing that there are reports that there were drones in the area. That means that SOMEONE knew exactly what was going on as it was happening. SOMEONE could see the small arms fire directed at the consulate. SOMEONE had to make the decision to take NO action in defense/support of the consulate.

I’ve also heard reports that Obama knew what was going on and that it might have been him that told the CIA to tell their operatives in Benghazi to stand down or at least gave the order not to send the military in for support.

And then there’s Hillary Clinton who took one for the team…. Why?

When she said that “the buck would stop here” (meaning with her as President) during her bid for the Presidency, she should have held the same standard for Obama. While I will say that she shouldn’t just throw him under the bus, she should have let him roast. If I were her, I would have stepped down from the position as Head of State stating that I could not work under conditions where pleads for help from one of our embassies/consulates went basically ignored both prior to and during the attack.

And then there’s Obama’s response to all of this…

He didn’t call it a terrorist attack, but wait… He did! Check the transcripts! *Quiet! He doesn’t want us to know the truth about what he actually said at first!*

He kept blaming that YouTube video on the attack. Oh wait… What??? Are you saying that Obama KNEW that this was a planned terrorist action??? Really??? There were emails to the White House AND the State Department informing them that a Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had claimed they were responsible for the planned terrorist attack for the anniversary of 9/11???? Interesting…

Now please correct me if I’m wrong, but…

Had Bush or even McCain been President during all of this, the Democrats and the liberal media would have been calling for imitate impeachment of either man. Furthermore, I also believe both groups would be expecting either man to spend time in “Club Fed” over the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the 3 others. Rather, they sit and try to defend Obama as best they can as they “search for the truth.” Yeah… Right… Like I’m supposed to believe that’s actually happening.