Conservative Marching Orders

With the catastrophic, demonically inspired ObamaCare verdict in the Supreme Court, we now see very clearly what we as patriotic conservatives must do.  There can be NO goal more important than replacing every Democrat and RINO in the upcoming election.  If they are not voting our way, they must go!


For way too long we conservatives have tried to get along with these unpatriotic scum sucking Democrats and RINOs and all we get it a knife in the back.  You cannot work with people who do not have the best interests in the country in mind. So let the media call us radicals. A couple hundred years ago, like 1776,  the British called the Founders the same name!  Make our day, call us radicals.


Ideas that we need to put on our list (in no order of importance--they all are:
    1. Repeal ObamaCare
    2. Balance the Budget
    3. Secure the Borders
    4. Repeal Dream Act
    5. Expel illegal immigrants
    6. Audit the Fed
    7. Investigate the Bank Bailouts and Indict Congressmen/women, Bankers, and other miscreants who benefited from the bailouts before, during and after the implosion. 
    8. Pass legislation prohibiting public funds to bail out any company--private or public. If they fail, allow normal bankruptcy procedures to occur.
   9. Pass Federal Term limits
   10. Revive Glass-Stegal legislation.


These are our listed goals, what are yours?


We want your input. You can email us at tom.conservativemusings1@gmail.com or comment on this blog.  We will make sure your ideas are forwarded to the New Congress that will be seated in January along with President Romney.


It is up to you. Are you up to the task?


Conservative Tom

Rush Agrees With Conservative Tom

The following is a piece of today's Rush Limbaugh show.  We really like the argument that in today's United States, we either purchase what the government demands or we will tax you.  That hits the nail on the head.


The United States of two weeks ago is no longer. The Supreme Court has said that immigrants can flood our country without any legal repercussions and that you must buy whatever the government wants you to purchase.


This is not the country that our fathers, we and our children have laid down their lives in her service!  It is a sad day and an even sadder week.


Conservative Tom

Rush Limbaugh Completely Melted Down Over The Obamacare Decision

Brett LoGiurato | Jun. 28, 2012, 2:38 PM | 7,353 | 76

• inShare6
• Email
• More
• A A A

Rush Limbaugh, as you might imagine, was not pleased at the Supreme Court's decision that upheld the Affordable Care Act on Thursday. 

He railed against the Supreme Court on his radio show Thursday, blasting John Roberts and saying that America had "been betrayed and deceived by the Supreme Court. He said it was the "largest tax increase in the history of the world."

"What has been upheld here is fraud, and the Internal Revenue Service has just become Barack Obama's domestic army," Limbaugh said. "That is what we face now. We were deceived. Obamacare was a lie. It was a stealth tax on all Americans, and nobody knew it until today. Not officially. Obama told George Stephanopoulos it wasn't a tax. And Stephanopoulos was trouble-making for trying to suggest otherwise."

He summed it all up with a shot at the Supreme Court's week overall, in which the court upheld Obamacare and overturned three key provisions in Arizona's immigration law. 

"Between the Arizona and Obamacare decisions, America is a very different concept than it was just a week ago," Limbaugh said. "In the United States of America, you either purchase what central authorities tell you to purchase or they will punish you with taxes. In America, states are not allowed to fully protect their citizens from the slow-motion invasion across their borders."

Listen below: 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-limbaugh-obamacare-supreme-court-decision-2012-6#ixzz1z7jLicdW

Roberts - A Traitor To The American Public

When the history of this day is written, the cowardice of Chief Justice Roberts will be shown to be as traitorous as Benedict Arnold. He will be shown to be one of the worst Justices that the Court has ever had.  How does a "steady conservative" turn the  law on its head and vote for the most liberal legislation since Social Security?


As we counted heads on the court, Justice Kennedy was always thought to be the swing vote that would make the law either live or die. Not many, we dare say none, would have predicted that Roberts would vote for the law and unleash the many terrible results which result from its imposition.


Kathleen Parker writes in the Washington Post on May 22 "Speaking in the Rose Garden, Obama said: “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”" (The article is http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-put-john-roberts-on-trial/2012/05/22/gIQAijq8iU_story.html)


Obama's real point was that the Supreme Court should never overturn any law passed by Congress!  So Mr. President, if that is the correct analysis, Congress should be able to overturn the entire Constitution, if it so desired. That does not make any sense to us, however, if you believe you are the final arbiter of how a government should run, that is what you would say. On the contrary, we would bet that if Congress  passed something he did not like (ala Arizona's immigration law,) he would be first in line condemning it and demanding that the Supreme Court do something about it.  


By the way Obama is wrong on the vote. The law was not passed by a strong majority it was 219 voting yea and 212  saying no in the House and only 60 Democrats in the Senate.  NO Republican voted for it. Additionally, the giveaways ("Cornhusker Kickback") to Senator Bill Nelson from Nebraska and the lying to conservative Democrats (Stupack of Michigan) on abortion funding were examples of the underhanded way the legislation was passed.


We know that Obama is out of touch with average Americans who have consistently expressed the opinion that they do not want ObamaCare. Over 60% have said that the legislation is bad even though they liked some of the lesser parts like the children being able to stay on their parents plans to 26, children under 19 not having pre-existing limitations and the elimination of the cap on the amount of insurance.  However, what happened to Roberts?


John McDonough writes the following Robert's quote in his blog blog "Health Stew" today: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/health_stew/2012/06/chief_justice_john_roberts_sav.html 

 "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions." 


In other words, any "challenged provision" can only be wrong only if Congress does not to have the authority to pass it.   So, Congress can tax, right? Therefore it is only a small jump to other atrocities. Can Congress tax  you if you did not eat the right food and were heavier than government tables say you should be? Or that you choose to drive a pickup truck rather than an electric?  (It doesn't matter that you are a plumber and need the vehicle to do your work.) Or that your family of three lives in a 2400 square foot house which  exceeds the government mandated occupant load? Or that you took three vacations last year which exceeded the government allowed number of days you should have been working?  


Or, Or, Or--it makes no difference if Congress mandates something and you do not meet the requirements, you are taxed.  Sounds like freedom to me! Wrong!



There has been a steady drum beat by the Democrats to telegraph the message to Roberts that he should not overturn the law as it is Congressional prerogative to pass laws they feel are necessary to run the US. Senator Lehey said so a couple days ago.  Did he cave to the pressure or are there other reasons.


We believe that Roberts caved potentially from the pressure, possibily that he wanted the law's validity to be determined by the elections in November and least likely, from Chicago gangland tactics. Or maybe it is a combination of all  three.


The pressure and fallout from an unconstitutional report would have been tremendous from the left and the Administration. Did Roberts think that it would be bad for the Court, so he found another answer, if so the answer is wrong. Robert Reich wrote today that if the law was not overturned the Court would be viewed as partisan. Here is a link to  his article http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2012/0628/The-Supreme-Court-will-uphold-Obamacare.-Here-s-why.  This article is an example of the venom which would have been expressed against the court.


If he thought that by allowing the elections in November to determine the future of the legislation, he is saying that the Supreme Court should not arbitrate legislation and that should be left up to a plebiscite.  He is therefore abandoning the right of the court to determine the Unconstitutionality of any Congress passed legislation.  This is not a good idea as a rule by the masses is the rule of the mob. If the mob says its good, it is. 


Should you like conspiracies, the gangland option will be your cup of tea.  Combine a "steady conservative" Justice, unpopular legislation, a very liberal President and Chicago tactics, you come up with a stew that would make any fiction writer dream of twists and turns. Could the muckrakers found something dirty on Roberts and made him their stooge? 


Regardless of the reason, Roberts has not distinguished himself as the type of man we thought he was. To say the least, we are disappointed.  We had expected much more of him.


There is a silver lining to this very dark cloud.  Conservatives and like minded independents have the opportunity to elect Republicans who can vote to overturn this law in January. We believe it will galvanize our forces and will not energize the opposition.  


Go out and work your street. Get the word out that the only way to avoid the catastrophe of ObamaCare, is to have those who voted for it in the first place, to be retired.  The country is counting on you!


Conservative Tom

Insanity Runs Rampant in Washington

Do you want to go out to eat and have a horse standing next to you? Or is it safe for someone in a wheelchair to ride a roller coaster? How exciting will your next 18 holes of mini golf be if it must meet Americans with Disability Act guidelines? These are all new requirements that a number of recreational activity providers must meet under the new rules.  Make any sense to you, it sure does not to us. 

What are your comments?

Conservative Tom

New Disability Regs Limit Slope of Mini Golf Holes, Require Businesses to Admit Mini Horses as Guide Animals

By Elizabeth Harrington

June 26, 2012

Subscribe to Elizabeth Harrington's posts

    

Mona Ramouni, who is blind, rides a bus to work with her guide horse in Lincoln Park, Mich. Growing up in Detroit, Ramouni could never get a dog because her devout Muslim family considered dogs unclean. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio/File)

(CNSNews.com) – Although the Justice Department has extended the deadline for America’s hotels to comply with regulations regarding handicap access to swimming pools, new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines are already being applied at miniature golf courses, driving ranges, amusement parks, shooting ranges and saunas.

Among the provisions in the "Revised ADA Standards for Accessible Design," which went into effect on March 15, is one requiring businesses to allow miniature horses on their premises as guide animals for the disabled. Another limits the height of slopes on miniature golf holes.

“The new standards, for the first time, include requirements for judicial facilities, detention and correctional facilities, and recreational facilities,” Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez said during a conference in Baltimore on June 7.

“We expect the implementation of these accessibility standards to open up doors for full participation in both the responsibilities, such as jury duty, and the benefits, such as playing at city parks, of civic life for people with disabilities,” he said.

The 2010 ADA standards for Accessible Design require that at least 50 percent of golf holes on miniature golf courses be “accessible” – with a ground space that is “48 inches minimum by 60 inches minimum with slopes not steeper than 1:48 at the start of play.”

Click to enlarge

Other regulations include:

Saunas – provision of accessible turning space and an accessible bench.

Shooting facilities – provision of accessible turning space “for each different type of firing position.”

Golf courses – “an accessible route to connect all accessible elements within the boundary.” An accessible route must also “connect golf car rental areas, bag drop areas, teeing grounds, putting greens, and weather shelters.”

Gyms – at least one of each type of exercise machine must be positioned for use by a person in a wheelchair.

Amusement parks – any new or altered ride must provide at least one seat for a person in a wheelchair.

A section of the guidelines regulating commercial facilities states that, “a public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.”

A public accommodation is defined as “a private entity that owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.”

“Miniature horses were suggested by some commenters as viable alternatives to dogs for individuals with allergies, or for those whose religious beliefs preclude the use of dogs,” the rules state.  Also mentioned as a reason to include the animals is the longer life span of miniature horses – providing approximately 25 years of service as opposed to seven years for dogs.

“Some individuals with disabilities have traveled by train and have flown commercially with their miniature horses,” the Justice Department notes.

“Similar to dogs, miniature horses can be trained through behavioral reinforcement to be ‘housebroken,’” it adds.

However, “Ponies and full-size horses are not covered.”

A business owner can deny admission to a miniature horse that is not housebroken, whose handler does not have sufficient control of the animal, or if the horse’s presence compromises “legitimate safety requirements.”

The miniature horse addition has come under the scrutiny of at least one member of Congress, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who offered an amendment that passed the House, banning funding to implement the provision. Chaffetz penned an editorial last month in opposition to the rule entitled, “Horses in the Dining Room?”

Last month the Justice Department extended the deadline for the rule requiring permanent wheelchair access to recreational pools. Citing “significant concerns and misunderstandings among a substantial number of pool owners and operators,” the department issued a notice in the Federal Register extending compliance from March 15 to May 21 this year. The date has now been pushed back further, to January 31, 2013.

The regulation requires large pools – those with over 300 linear feet of pool wall – to have two accessible means of entry, and smaller pools to have one.

For existing pools, owners making structural alterations are obliged to remove architectural barriers “to the extent such compliance is readily achievable.”

“As I consider the department’s accomplishments to date, and our plans for the future, I continue to take my inspiration from people with disabilities and their families,” Perez said in Baltimore.

“These individuals express the harm of segregation and the value of integration more eloquently than any lawyer’s brief ever could.  They are the heroes of this civil rights movement.”

A person with a disability is defined by the ADA as, “a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.”

Is History To Repeat Itself In The Middle East?

Did you know that in 1919 Emir Feisal wrote to Chaim Weizmann and welcomed him home as part of the Feisal-Weizmann Agreement?  Most people do not.  Here is a history of the area and a new proposal to make Jordan the home of the Palestinians. Ironically, that was to be the way it was with the Balfour Declaration in 1917.  

The attached posting gives a history from 1917 to the present. It is well worth reading.

Conservative Tom

Palestine, Back to the Future… Again.

Unknown - Unknown,  June 25th, 2012

There was a time when the lands now known as Israel, (including Judea and Samaria and Gaza), and most of Jordan were called “Palestine”.  In fact, theBalfour Declaration of 1917 declared

“His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”.

There followed considerable cooperation between the Jews, represented by Chaim Weizmann and the Arabs living in Mesopotamia, now Iraq, and Jordan, represented by Emir Feisal.  As a result, the Feisal-Weizmann Agreement was signed in January 1919, in which it was agreed that the Jews would get the lands lying west of the Jordan River watershed to the Mediterranean and the Arabs would get the land east of it.

Two months later Faisal wrote to Felix Frankfuter, the then leader of the American Zionists, extending a welcome:

“We Arabs, especially the educated among us look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organisation to Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate proper. We will

do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.”

Unfortunately that initial agreement and embrace were overtaken by events.  The British and the French had other plans.

Finally in 1920, the allied powers, Britain, France, Italy and Japan adopted theSan Remo Resolution in evidence of their agreement

“The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, [Covenant of League of Nations ] the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory, to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 8, 1917, by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,”

This agreement was binding in international law as these powers had the right to dispose of these lands.

What remained was for the League of Nations to draw up the Palestine Mandate. Originally, the boundaries of Palestine included what is now Jordan, but a few months prior to the Palestine Mandate being confirmed by the Council of League of Nations on July 1922, the Jews were told that they must consent to the removal of Transjordan from the Jewish homeland if they wished the Mandate to be passed.  And so they did, under duress. And so was born Article 25 of the Mandate:

“In the territories lying between the Jordan [river] and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application o

f such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions”

Pursuant to this paragraph, Britain severed all lands lying east of the Jordan River from the Palestine Mandate and gave the lands to the Hashemites. It was first renamed Trans-Jordan and then just Jordan,

When the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations in 1945, the Charter of the United Nations described “Mandates” as “Trusteeships” and specifically included in Article 80, the following,

“…nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.”

in order to preserve the rights the Jews had acquired under the League of Nations.

There followed many White Papers, resolutions, wars and peace processes, all designed to erode Jewish rights to the land described in the Palestine Mandate, all to no avail, For all intents and purposes, the peace process is dead and Abu Mazen, otherwise known as Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the PA, has been refusing to negotiate for the last three years.

This futile effort has resulted in a search for alternate solutions. Newt Gingrich went public with his newsworthy statement “”We’ve had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community,”. Gov Romney did him one better and said “It’s the Palestinians who don’t want a two-state solution; they want to eliminate the State of Israel,” Didn’t they know that in our PC world, one is not supposed to declare that the Emperor has no clothes. The fiction underlying the failed peace process is more important than the truth.

Just a couple of weeks ago the Republican National Committee passed aresolution  providing that  “.. peace can be afforded the region only through a united Israel governed under one law for all people.”

The Florida Senate just filed a similar resolution with some important changes. It was preceded by these recitals, inter alia:

“WHEREAS, the legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel was a binding resolution under international law,  which was unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922     and subsequently affirmed by both houses of the United States Congress, and

“WHEREAS, this resolution affirmed the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in the historical region of the Land of Israel, including areas of Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem, “

In it, the Members of the Senate affirmed that they

“support Israel in its legal, historical, moral, and God-given right of self-governance and self-defense upon the entirety of its own lands, recognizing that Israel is neither an attacking force nor an occupier of the lands of others, and that peace can be afforded the region only through a whole and united Israel governed under one law for all people”.

Of particular interest is the fact that the Florida Senate is affirming that the San Remo Resolution  was a binding resolution, under international law, for the legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel.  This flies in the face of all attempts by the international community to deny Israel those rights by asserting their interpretation of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention as making the settlements, or the “occupation”, illegal.  It does no such thing.  Nor has anything else, since the Mandate in 1922, derogated from such rights. Futhermore, UN Res 181 , which was the basis of the Partition Plan, was a recommendation only. Also SC Res 242 didn’t contradict the original rights of the Jews.

This resolution is expected to pass and also to be incorporated into the Republican Party platform.

If not the two-state solution, then what?
The “Jordan is Palestine” solution has been mooted for decades. It is now gaining traction due in part to the Arab Spring which began a year ago.  Jordan now is feeling the tremors.  The majority of Palestinian leaders in Jordan, favour Jordan becoming a democratic/secular state. They have watched in dismay as similar forces in Egypt were overwhelmed by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists. They are determined not to share their fate. They are lead by Mudar Zahran the author of Jordan’s King and the Muslim Brotherhood: An Unholy Marriage.

Zahran in his ground-breaking article, “Jordan is Palestine” published byMiddle East Forum in December 2011, argues:

“Empowering Palestinian control of Jordan and giving Palestinians all over the world a place they can call home could not only defuse the population and demographic problem for Palestinians in Judea and Samaria but would also solve the much more complicated issue of the “right of return” for Palestinians in other Arab countries. Approximately a million Palestinian refugees and their descendants live in Syria and Lebanon, with another 300,000 in Jordan whom the Hashemite government still refuses to accept as citizens. How much better could their future look if there were a welcoming Palestinian Jordan?

“The Jordanian option seems the best possible and most viable solution to date. Decades of peace talks and billions of dollars invested by the international community have only brought more pain and suffering for both Palestinians and Israelis—alongside prosperity and wealth for the Hashemites and their cronies.”

The rationality and achievability of this solution, needs no elucidation.  It only needs the US to get behind it. While such an initiative by the US would be a departure from the position it has held since the founding of the State of Israel, it would not be a departure from her original position. As noted in the proposed Florida Senate resolution mentioned above, such a position was “affirmed by both houses of the United States Congress,” in 1922. These resolutions unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine – anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea”

And Zahran’s brave stance in which he wants the new Jordan, governed by Palestinians, to embrace Israel in true friendship, is also not new or novel.  It is a return to Emir Feisal’s warm embrace of the Jews in 1919.

Thus we are returning to our future.

- – -

Author, Ted Belman is Chief Editor athttp://www.israpundit.com/

What's To Follow Obama's Bad June?

The following is a posting by Dick Morris regarding the June from Hell that Obama has experienced.  We hope that it only gets worse, however, if that happens, what will he do? Will he allow the elections to go ahead? Will he continue to not enforce the laws with which he does not agree?  Or will he take other actions that we cannot predict?


We are heading into the most dangerous six months the United States has been through since the Civil War.  The pressures on the President to be re-elected are tremendous both personally and professionally. He has never been rejected by anyone, maybe even girlfriends (since none have ever come forward, maybe Michelle is the only person he had a serious relationship, therefore no rejection.)  We are not so sure that he could emotionally handle a defeat.  His entire personality is narcissistic He needs to be loved and he believes that he has a special future. If the voters would reject him, could he handle it? We are not so sure. It would be the ultimate rejection, his life's mission would end without being complete. 


Remember he told us he was going to "change" America. His wife told us that she was "never proud of America until he was nominated."  So, for both of them, making changes to this country is the ultimate goal. Both of them have loved living in the White House, going on outrageous trips, entertaining the world's leaders and losing the admiration of the world, would be hard to handle


So to avoid something that he/they could not handle, Obama will take any action to prevent from being rejected. We expect that he and his people will tell any story about Romney whether true or not; take any action administratively to promote his candidacy;  and take all actions legal or illegal to ensure that he gets re-elected. The last option is the most dangerous to us.  


You may be asking yourself, "what might he do? This is a very tough question since we are dealing with a person who would do anything to maintain his power. Election fraud, election cancellation, voter intimidation, election invalidation all could be possibilities. What do you think?


We are watching the President and we hope that you are also.


Conservative Tom

June: Obama's Disastrous Month
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on June 25, 2012

Printer-Friendly Version

If Obama loses by the landslide I have been predicting -- and he will -- his undoing started in June.
 
At the end of 2011, Obama's approval ratings rarely rose above 45% and occasionally dropped as low as 40% in the daily tracking polls of both Gallup (registered voters) and Rasmussen (likely voters).  But, as 2012 dawned, his approval gradually rose to 49-50 percent on the strength of a perception of economic recovery.  Monthly job creation solidly above 200,000 and dropping first time unemployment claims fueled the heady sense that we were emerging from the Great Recession at last.

But, as we noted in Take Back America and Revolt!, debt implosion crises are often characterized by false dawns - periods where the data looks up and people come to believe the recovery is, at last, underway.  But the optimism fades as does the recovery.  The only way out is to cut spending and borrowing so the world's panic at the high levels of global indebtedness can be eased.

By April and May, it became clear that there was no recovery underway as the monthly total of new jobs dipped first below 200,000 a?"nd then below even 100,000.  Unemployment rose to 8.2% and the data from the first quarter indicated a growth rate of only 1.9 percent, well below the 3 percent pace at which the GDP had been growing in the last quarter of 2011.

Voters didn't need the statistics to remind them that the economy was not in recovery.  Foreclosures, layoffs, and long-term unemployment told the story in their own daily lives.

So, in June, Obama's job approval fell back to its 2011 levels of 45 percent or less.  Romney opened up a lead in Gallup's daily tracking of registered voters and his lead among Rasmussen's sample of likely voters grew to 48-43.

Obama's verbal gaffes ("the private sector is doing fine") and his ongoing battles with Congress which have led to the potential of a contempt citation helped spur his drop in the polls.  The Scott Walker victory in Wisconsin gave those who were watching with open minds a foretaste of the dimensions of the coming GOP landslide.

Now, Obama faces a double hit: a possible Congressional contempt citation for his Attorney-General and the looming Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.  And then will come June's likely dismal jobs report which will be released at the end of next week.

More disturbing for Obama is that his June swoon happened despite spending at least $50 million and likely much more on paid advertising during May and June.  He threw his best punch - an attack on Romney's record at Bain Capital - and got nothing for it.

Even conventional observers are now noting the chances for a Republican victory.  We'll see and hear more of that as the summer progresses.

Allahu Akbar Heard In Egypt

Will the cheers from the crowd "Allahu Akbar" be the rallying call for a democratic or Islamic state in Egypt? If you are asking us to predict, you should know that making such prognostications in that part of the world is a fools mission. 

The Egyptians, the Egyptian Military, and the Muslim Brotherhood have an opportunity to show the world that they want to do something never done before, establish a democracy.  They are going to re-write their Constitution and hopefully it will be one that respects and allows free practice by all religions (not just Islam), protects women and gives them the rights that men have, establishes civil law with courts, judges, juries and attorneys, and brings the military under civilian control.  If these things happen, the country can be an example to others countries who experienced  the "Arab Spring."

If not, the country will return to its pattern of either a dictatorship controlled  by the military or by the Muslim Brotherhood and their more radical allies.  We would not like to see this occur.

There is a window where the leaders could make a difference in the average Egyptian's life, will they take the chance?  We hope so.

Conservative Tom

Islamist Mohamed Morsi Wins Egyptian Election: Inside Tahrir Square

by Erin Banco Jun 25, 2012 2:45 PM EDT

What happened to the Arab Spring? With Mohamed Morsi winning the presidential election, some fear Egypt is heading for an Islamic-fascist rule. Erin Banco reports from Tahrir Square. Plus, Tarek Masoud on Mubarak’s brutal legacy.

• Print
• Email
• Comments (10)

CAIRO—Nada Badrawy leaned on a wall covered with graffiti of slogans and scenes from the 2011 revolution as she looked on to the tens of thousands of people in Tahrir Square. They were all waiting for the official announcement of who would become Egypt’s next president—a moment that they never thought possible just 16 months ago. She listened to Farouk Sultan, chairman of the Supreme Constitutional Court, deliver his speech through her red Samsung phone, its antennae stretched all the way out. Sultan's voice cracked through her speaker. "Khalas," she said. Sultan’s speech had dragged on for more than 45 minutes, and the people of Egypt had waited long enough. 

"I really hope for Shafiq," Badrawy said. "I really hope." But finally, after an hour of waiting, Sultan announced the news everyone had been waiting for.

Mohamed Morsi would become the next president of Egypt.

Cheers erupted from the crowd as the results were read. Those who were sitting in local cafés watching Sultan’s speech ran to join the celebration. Men and women embraced each other, yelling “Allahu akbar.” Grown men wept, and some, even in the middle of the chaos, kneeled on the ground and prayed.

With that, Badrawy let out an angry sigh, and slammed her phone shut. Morsi won the presidency, but she said if there is one thing that she has learned over the past year and a half, it is that nothing in Egyptian politics is ever certain.

Morsi, who is the first Islamist elected as head of state, won with 13,230,131 votes against Shafiq’s 12,347,380. Polls officially closed the night of June 17 and initial results pointed to Morsi as the clear leader.

The Muslim Brotherhood announced him as the winner with 13.2 million votes and Shafiq with 12.3 million votes. But the Shafiq campaign, though they did not provide any clear evidence at first, also claimed victory, leaving the country at a standstill.

Daniel Berehulak / Getty Images

The country still needs to draft a constitution and elect a new parliament (the previously elected body was dissolved by the military June 14).

Dina Zakaria, a Morsi-campaign media representative and member of the foreign-relations committee, said the campaign asked Shafiq officials to release their documents but never heard back from them.

“They told us, ‘No, your results are wrong,’ and then we inquired about their documents. They hesitated, and then they refused,” she said. Zakaria also said that the Morsi campaign was alerted to the commission’s decision to take more time to review the results last week, but said she did not know of the process used to make the final decision.

“We were watching the television like everyone else,” she said.

The electoral commission had originally planned on releasing the final vote tallies earlier this week, but as each day passed, the announcement was further delayed. Officials from the group said they needed more time to review the reasons behind the discrepancy. Some feared the delay meant that the military was going to announce Shafiq as the winner, even though he had not won a majority of the votes.

Accounts surfaced earlier in the week that deals were being brokered between the Security of Armed Forces (SCAF) and Morsi. But campaign officials said Sunday that that was not true. Saad El-Husseini, a member of the executive bureau of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, said that there were no compromises made between the Muslim Brotherhood and SCAF in regard to parliament.

“We will continue to push,” he said.

The president-elect is just one of few certainties in the country’s political equation. The country still needs to draft a constitution and elect a new parliament (the previously elected body was dissolved by the military June 14). The military junta has said previously that it would hand over power June 30, but that promise seems less and less likely as they regained several powers last week—including the right to arrest civilians. Morsi supporters have vowed to stay in Tahrir Square until he is granted full power. The Egyptian Health Ministry said Monday that one person was killed and 62 people were injured in Sunday’s demonstrations.

But Morsi has already begun to make his mark. According to several sources, he moved into his new office Monday and held his first meetings regarding the formation of his team of advisers.

The White House issued a statement congratulating Morsi on his win, but encouraged the new president to grant Egyptians rights no matter their religious affiliation.

“We believe in the importance of the new Egyptian government upholding universal values, and respecting the rights of all Egyptian citizens—including women and religious minorities such as Coptic Christians,” the statement read. “Millions of Egyptians voted in the election, and President-elect Morsi and the new Egyptian government have both the legitimacy and responsibility of representing a diverse and courageous citizenry.”

Morsi addressed the nation just hours after the official announcement, and affirmed his plan to act as a figurehead for the entire country, not just those loyal to the Muslim Brotherhood.

“I will be a president for all Egyptians: Muslims, Christians, the elderly, children, women, men, farmers, teachers, workers, those who work in the private and public sectors, and the merchants,” Morsi said in his address.

But still, there are many Egyptians like Badrawy, a Muslim, who fear that Egypt will become an Islamic-fascist state with Morsi as president. Others, including many revolutionaries and activists, fear that their efforts did not leave the country with an adequate leader.

“After one month, people will realize that we are not monsters,” Sameh El-Essawy, media coordinator for the Morsi campaign, said. “We are just normal Egyptians.”