A Dogs Nose Doesn't Trump A Warrant

Finally some common sense at the Supreme Court! Even though the dog was right, you still need a warrant before breaking down the door or gathering evidence at the door!

It was a close decision which means that it probably will be overturned soon meaning as soon as a new Justice is appointed!  It is notable that the so called liberal justices voted to limit the rights of the citizen while the conservatives protected the rights of the average Joe.  Does that mean liberals do not think that we should have any rights?  Probably so.

If true, this is very scary due to the fact that the votes seem to come down 5-4 most of the time, except when Roberts bolts to the other side (we believe under pressure from the White House.)  How can any Jurist not want to protect our rights?

It is due to the liberal's belief that government never does anything wrong and is always right. It can manage our lives better than any of us can. When Mayor Bloomberg (who hates fat people and guns) limits the amount of pop that you can buy, he is telling you that you cannot control yourself so he must.

When the gun grabbers try to get rid of  our guns, they say that an inanimate object is immoral and should be confiscated due to its misuse by some. They know better. Instead of attacking the problem, they look at the symptoms. Instead of looking for ways to determine who might misuse the weapon, they want to impose their will on those of us who use them safely.

Suppose they decided that cars were unsafe. They pollute the air, annually create millions of pounds of waste and  KILL 40,000 people per year. Would we have the same outcry as we do when a few thousand victims are killed by insane idiots?  Doubtful because most of us know that a car is safe when operated in a safe manner, which is no different from a gun.

The Supreme Court will turn most of common sense on its head when they get a new Justice. Obama's choice will not be an "originalist" but rather a person who believes the document is flexible and that not only should we use precedent from this country but from the world. When that day comes, the US Constitution will no longer be what the Founders intended.  We fear that time is near.

Conservative Tom




SCOTUS rules Cops Can’t Just Show Up With A Dog And No Warrant

March 27, 2013 by Ben Bullard 

A majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court this week frustrated the State of Florida (as well as the Federal government and 26 other States) by ruling that police who bring a sniff dog onto a homeowner’s property and turn up evidence related to the dog’s signaling are conducting a “search” as defined by the 4^th Amendment.

That means cops can’t suspect you of growing marijuana in a house, turn up casually at your front door with a dog — you know, just to ask a few questions — and thereafter develop probable cause to search the house, as the dog sniffs around at the front door and begins indicating there’s something illegal inside.

That’s exactly what happened to one homeowner in the Miami area in 2006, when police acting on an unverified tip visited the home of Joelis Jardines, with Drug Enforcement Administration agents waiting in the wings. They didn’t have a warrant, and the tip alone wasn’t sufficient probable cause to obtain a search warrant. The cops let the dog sniff at the front door. The dog signaled that narcotics were somewhere nearby. And the cops then applied for and received a search warrant.

The police had initiated no contact with Jardines during this episode. That contact came only when they returned to the house with the search warrant, found the marijuana being grown inside and arrested Jardines.

The Florida Supreme Court had already sided with Jardines after he appealed a lower court’s ruling that dog searches aren’t covered under the 4^th Amendment. Realizing the broad implications the decision could have to limit search powers, the State then appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And lost.

It’s worth culling the high points from Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion:

Since the officers’ investigation took place in a constitutionally protected area, we turn to the question of whether it was accomplished through an unlicensed physical intrusion…

…As it is undisputed that the detectives had all four of their feet firmly planted on the constitutionally protected extension of Jardines’ home, the only question is whether he had given his leave (even implicitly) for them to do so. He had not.

…We have accordingly recognized that “the knocker on the front door is treated as an invitation or license to attempt an entry, justifying ingress to the home by solicitors, hawkers and peddlers of all kinds.” This implicit license typically permits the visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.

Complying with the terms of that traditional invitation does not require fine-grained legal knowledge; it is generally managed without incident by the Nation’s Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters. Thus, a police officer not armed with a warrant may approach a home and knock, precisely because that is “no more than any private citizen might do.”

But introducing a trained police dog to explore the area around the home in hopes of discovering incriminating evidence is something else. There is no customary invitation to do that. An invitation to engage in canine forensic investigation assuredly does not inhere in the very act of hanging a knocker. To find a visitor knocking on the door is routine (even if sometimes unwelcome); to spot that same visitor exploring the front path with a metal detector, or marching his bloodhound into the garden before saying hello and asking permission, would inspire most of us to — well, call the police.

Well said.

Two disappointments, though, about Tuesday’s decision:

• It was close. The majority decision came after a 5-4 vote.
• Tuesday’s victory for 4^th-Amendment freedom stands in contrast to a misstep the court made in January, when it held that police dogs’ training and certification is itself sufficient grounds for courts to admit evidence based on the accuracy of their signaling. That decision came in spite of evidence that “real-world data demonstrate that even trained or certified dogs have a high rate of false alerts” and can take their signaling cues from handlers or from other stimuli in their environments.

Movin The Chairs On The USS America

The Republican Shell Game On Obamacare

March 29, 2013 by Chip Wood 

PHOTOS.COM

Give us a break! That’s what Congress finally did on Saturday, when after a marathon session in the Senate, Congressmen all agreed to head out of town for their two-week spring break. So we’re safe from their meddlesome efforts until April 8.

But what a show they put on before they left. After arguing most of the night, the Senate finally managed to pass its first budget in four years at 4:56 in the morning. The final vote was 50-49, with every Republican opposing it. They were joined by four Democrats: Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Begich of Alaska and Max Baucus of Montana. Not so coincidentally, all four are up for re-election next year.

I’ll have more to say about the battle of the budgets in a moment. But first I need to comment on two recent Senate votes on Obamacare and the incredible hypocrisy they demonstrated. First, Congressional Republicans declared their unwavering opposition to the badly misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Then they voted to fund it for the rest of the year.

What the heck’s going on here?

Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), two tough young conservatives who defeated more establishment-type Republicans to win election, lived up to their campaign promises to try to end Obamacare. They forced a vote in the Senate on an amendment to defund the program. As expected, the measure lost on a straight party-line vote, with 55 Democrats voting against it and all 45 Republicans in the Senate voting in favor.

On March 20, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made a wonderful speech on the floor of the Senate:

In my view, Obamacare is a colossal mistake for our country. There’s just no way to fix it. It needs to be pulled out by its roots and we need to start over.

This bill needs to be repealed and replaced — not with another unreadable law or another 20,000 pages of regulations – but with common-sense reforms that actually lower health care costs.

And anyone who thinks we’ve given up that fight is dead wrong.

On March 15, McConnell gave a speech denouncing Obamacare at the Conservative Political Action Conference. He stood next to a stack of papers that were taller than he was, which he said were the 20,000 pages of new regulations that have been issued so far to implement this healthcare monstrosity. Some 828 pages of new regulations were issued in just one day, he said; and he warned that there are many more to come.

On March 11, in remarks on the Senate floor, McConnell said:

This law is a disaster waiting to happen.

Imagine the burden we’re placing on the single mom who wants to open her own store. Or the young entrepreneur who wants to sell some new idea. Or the business owners we all know from back home — the folks who employ so many of our constituents.

Instead of encouraging them to create jobs and grow the economy, we’re hitting them with a brick of regulations.

That all sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? But McConnell and 19 other Republican Senators voted to fund Obamacare for the rest fiscal 2013.

What you’ve got here is a perfect example of how many Republicans can vote for “business as usual” in Washington, while at the same time making sure they can posture as staunch conservatives for the folks back home.

Here are the 20 Republican Senators who voted in favor of the Cruz amendment, knowing it would fail, but then voted in favor of a measure to make sure the healthcare monstrosity gets all of the taxpayer funds it needs to continue operations for the rest of this fiscal year:

Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, John Barrasso of Wyoming, Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boozman of Arkansas, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Dan Coats of Indiana, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Bob Corker of Tennessee, John Cornyn of Texas, Orrin Hatch of Utah, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Mike Johanns of Nevada, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Richard Shelby of Alabama, John Thune of South Dakota and Roger Wicker of Mississippi.

By the way, you may be wondering why the vote to fund Obamacare was included in an omnibus piece of legislation called a “continuing resolution.” The reason is that our august leaders know that they can get a lot more votes for their massive spending programs if they lump enough things together in one humongous package. So rather than individual votes on various parts of the Federal budget, we get one all-inclusive continuing resolution.

It’s so much safer that way. Witness what just happened with efforts to defund Obamacare.

In the predawn hours of March 23, the Democratic majority in the Senate also did something that it has vigorously avoided for the past four years: It passed a budget.

As the kids would say, big whoop. The Democrats’ plan calls for almost $1 trillion in new revenue over the next 10 years. But thanks to 62 percent more spending over the decade, even if they get all that new revenue, the budget still won’t balance.

The Republicans, meanwhile, didn’t do much better. The Paul Ryan budget, which the House passed and the Senate rejected, also called for more spending, just not quite as much. The Republican budget would have increased Federal spending by 40 percent over the next 10 years. But thanks to increased revenue from our slowly growing economy, the budget was supposed to have balanced by year 10.

Mind you, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are actually calling for a reduction in government spending. The best we can hope for, they say, is a slight reduction in the proposed growth of government.

Until we more people in the U.S. Senate who will stick to their campaign promises on everyvote and who don’t engage in the sort of shell game we just saw with funding for Obamacare, I’m afraid they are probably correct.

Of the 21 Senate seats currently held by Democrats that will be contested next year, Republicans have to win only six of them in addition to retaining the seats they hold in order to regain control of the Senate.

But it sure wouldn’t hurt if, at the same time, some of the soft-as-marshmallows Republicans in the list above could also be replaced by some people with a little more backbone.

Until next time, keep some powder dry.

Gas Prices Going Up--Thanks EPA

Now that the economy has fully recovered from the 2008 

crash, that we have no unemployment problem and

 our budget is balanced, it is time to clean up

 the environment. (Yea sure. Please don't choke

 on your drink!) So says the Environmental Protection

 Agency. They have announced that they are 

mandating a new formulation of gasoline that 

will only add 9 cents to each gallon. Now 

everyone can pay the same high gas prices

 as California already is.  Such malarky!

The EPA is another branch of government which
 is out of control and needs to be reined in. 
When they can arbitrarily make regulations which
 impose more costs on already hard pressed 
Americans, this makes absolutely no sense.  The irony
 is that these regulations were delayed by 15 months 
to avoid any "political" repercussions
Yea, they wanted Obama re-elected 
so they put off these election killers until he
 was back in office.

Just as the economy seems to be showing some 
growth, this measure will undoubtedly have a 
negative effect. If the average car is driven 
12000 miles per year, that would be 1000 miles 
per month. Also assuming that the average car 
gets 25 miles per gallon that would equate to
 $3.60 per month or $43.20 per year.  Not a 
real budget breaker, but enough to hurt most working people.

Will it throw the entire country into a depression, 
of course not. However, the camel did not collapse 
until that one small twig was added to his load.  Where 
is the breaking point.  We are not sure but do believe 
it is not far off.

We do not need anymore taxes. This additional cost i
s a tax. We have to purchase fuel and therefore have
 no choice. Enough is enough. Stop all the taxes.

Conservative Tom

New EPA Rules to Add ‘9 Cents a Gallon’ to Gas

Friday, 29 Mar 2013 10:59 AM

By David Yonkman, Newsmax Washington Correspondent

Share:

More . . .

A    A   |

   Email Us   |

   Print   |

   Forward Article

• 0
  inShare

New regulations to be announced by the Environmental Protection Agency Friday are set to push the already-high price of gas up by a further 9 cents a gallon, petroleum industry experts are warning.

“There is a tsunami of federal regulations coming out of the EPA that could put upward pressure on gasoline prices. EPA’s proposed fuel regulations are the latest example,” Bob Greco, director of the American Petroleum Institute Downstream Group, told Newsmax.

Editor's Note: 5 Signs Stock Market Will Collapse in 2013

The regulations, aimed at reducing the amount of sulfur emissions, will add as much as 9 cents, according to industry experts, although the administration insisted the cost at the pump would be lower.

The Washington Post quoted a senior administration official saying the new standards would cost less than a penny a gallon and have the same environmental impact as taking 33 million cars off the road.

Congressional Republicans lashed out at the new regulations.

“The Obama administration cannot be more out of touch,” GOP Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, chairman of a House Energy subcommittee, told Newsmax. “With hard-pressed families already struggling to afford each fill-up, Congress needs to take a hard look at any new EPA regulation that may raise the price at the pump.

“This is just another example of an overzealous EPA,” Whitfield said.

The EPA says the rules are needed because high sulfur content reduces the effectiveness of catalytic converters, causing more emissions to be released into the air.

The EPA rule will force 49 states to follow regulations already in place in California that set stricter standards on gasoline’s sulfur content. Currently, states can have 30 parts of sulfur per million, but the new rules will lower it further to 10 parts.

The industry has already cut sulfur content by 90 percent in recent years, from 300 parts per million to 30 parts, at a cost of $10 billion, Charles Drevna, president of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, told The New York Times.

The new rules would cost another $10 billion, Drevna claimed.

The Petroleum Institute’s Greco told Newsmax, “Our government should not be adding unnecessary regulations that raise manufacturing costs, especially when there are no proven environmental benefits.

“We should not pile on new regulations when existing regulations are working,” he added.

Greco said the new rules would increase greenhouse gas emissions because of the “energy-intensive equipment required to comply.”

Republican House Energy Committee Chairman Fred Upton of Michigan said the move was another example of the Obama administration’s misguided energy policy.

“Instead of raising gas prices, the Obama administration should focus on bringing stability and greater supplies to our energy markets by green-lighting projects like the Keystone XL pipeline, which will bring approximately 1 million barrels per day of oil from a close ally to the United States,” Upton told Newsmax.

Editor's Note: 5 Signs Stock Market Will Collapse in 2013

The EPA’s proposal has been ready for 15 months but was delayed until after the election to avoid making rising gas prices a major campaign issue, The New York Times reported.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gasoline-nine-cents-sulfur/2013/03/29/id/496938?s=al&promo_code=12FA4-1#ixzz2OxqIMvRz
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Where Are The Anti-Slavery Protests?

Why are there no reports of protests and walks against slavery in the US and other "enlightened" countries? Why is this subject of Arab slavery never seen on the evening news or in the New York Times?  Must be that it is not PC! 

Arabs have had slaves for years but no one seems to care. The life of a slave is much worse than 90% of all other people in the world, why no concern?

Our only conclusion is that the terror experienced by the slave is so bad that it would seem unreal if published and would be not fit for television. So it goes unreported. A sin of omission. If we don't know it, it does not exist seems to be the news rationale.

In the following posting and the link below, you can read more about this horrific practice. Are these the people you want running the world? We sure don't. 

Tell your news paper and your radio and television stations that you want to know more about Arab Slavery.

Conservative Tom

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/stephenbrown/the-dark-world-of-the-arab-child-slave-trade/  

Op-Ed: Arabs Have Black Slaves – Today

Israel National News - Dr. Charles Jacobs,  March 29th, 2013

There is no Arab Apartheid Week on American campuses, but there should be. Slavery, in its most barbaric form, still exists in the Arab world and there is no Exodus in sight either. A shocking article for Passover.

Israel Apartheid Week has come and gone this year on many American campuses. It was, of course, a hoax: However much one says that Arabs in Israel suffer, and whoever is to blame for that alleged suffering, there is no apartheid in Israel.

Meanwhile, however, in Sudan and Mauritania, racist Arab societies enslave blacks. Today. Most of the slaves are African Muslims. Yet there is no Arab Apartheid Week on American campuses. Why not?

One might think American student activists would be upset about Mauritania, the West African country with the largest population of black slaves in the world – estimates range from 100,000 to more than a half-million. In Mauritania, slaves are used for labor, sex and breeding. The wholly owned property of their masters, they are passed down through generations, given as wedding gifts or exchanged for camels, trucks, guns or money.

Surely, life is not so good in a Palestinian Arab refugee camp– no matter who is to blame, but it’s undeniably a whole lot worse for Mauritanian slaves. According to a Human Rights Watch/Africa report, routine punishments for slaves in Mauritania – for the slightest fault – include beatings, denial of food and prolonged exposure to the sun, with hands and feet tied together. More serious infringement of the master’s rule (in American slave-owning parlance, “getting uppity”) can lead to prolonged tortures known as “the camel treatment,” in which the slave’s body is slowly torn apart; the“insect treatment,” in which tiny desert insects are inserted and sealed into the ear canal until the slave is driven mad; and“burning coals,” a torture not fit to describe in a family newspaper.

The cases that the rights groups focus upon are not determined by the nature, extent or degree of suffering by the victims, but rather by the identity of those thought to be the oppressors.
Perhaps the reason for silence on campuses about these things is that the story of black slaves and their Arab masters remains unknown there. It would, of course, be a sensitive topic: slavery has existed in Mauritania since the 12th century, when Arab tribes from the Arabian Peninsula invaded and conquered North Africa. Raiders then stormed African villages to the south, pillaging, enslaving and converting the indigenous peoples to Islam.

While the Koran forbids the enslavement of fellow Muslims, just as in the West, in North Africa racism trumped religious doctrine. The descendants of those Arab invaders are today’s slave owners. The descendants of those captured as slaves in jihad raids are in human bondage today. These are, then, black Muslim slaves – who, for racist reasons, aren’t allowed to touch the Koran with their black hands, who can’t marry without their owners’ permission, and whose children belong to the master.

Not all blacks in Mauritania are slaves. But all are oppressed by Arab colonialism. Arab Berbers (or “White Africans”) constitute less than a third of Mauritania’s population of 3.5 million people, but they control the government and military, as well as the education and the court systems.

I interviewed Saidou Wane, a Mauritanian immigrant who lives in Cincinnati and speaks regularly on behalf of the Movement for Justice and Equality in Mauritania (MJEM). Saidou reports that the Mauritanian regime is constantly working to cleanse the country of any non-Arab influence. The state recognizes only Arabic as an official language, refuses to acknowledge the local African languages (Wolof, Fulani, Soninke), and allows only French and Arabic in school curricula. In other cases, this would easily be termed “cultural cleansing.”

Indeed, it might be even worse than apartheid: The government has expropriated land owned by black Africans through expulsion and dispossession. An ethnic cleansing campaign that began in 1989 led to the expulsion of an estimated 100,000 blacks from Mauritania. The government and army were purged of black officers. Amnesty International reported that thousands of blacks were killed, and many tortured, while hundreds of African villages in the south were demolished.

Mauritania holds the distinction of being the last nation on earth to legally abolish slavery, which it did, with no mechanisms of enforcement, in 1981. Slavery was not criminalized until 2007, but to date there has been only one single conviction.

Why hasn’t any of this been addressed by Western governments? For one, the Mauritanian regime, once a supporter of Saddam Hussein, has ingratiated itself with the United States and Europe through promises to help fight al-Qaeda. And then in December 2012, in a move that defined it as the morally bankrupt institution it is, the United Nations (U.N.) Human Rights Council elected Mauritania as its vice president and rapporteur.

What about the silence of Western progressives? I call it the “human-rights complex:” The cases that the rights groups focus upon are not determined by the nature, extent or degree of suffering by the victims, but rather by the identity of those thought to be the oppressors. Think about it: Most human-rights advocates in the West are decent, middle-class whites who are defensive about past Western sins – slavery, colonialism, racism. Their activism is a matter of personal identity. They act to be exonerated, to be seen as innocents, guiltless, not like the “bad white” exploiters. They march under the banner of “Not in My Name.”

Anti-Israel propagandists have inverted reality in the minds of many of these people: Jews have been transformed from last century’s stateless, Asiatic, non-Europeans, to whites with power who behave badly toward innocent, impoverished, indigenous, darker-skinned people. This is precisely the taint that many “rights activists” wish to avoid:“people who look like us, behaving badly.”

Israel Apartheid Week – and the absence of Arab Apartheid Week – have nothing to do with external realities, or actual suffering but are the psychodramatic results of miseducated, manipulated, guilt-ridden, American middle-class youth. The biggest victims here, of course, are those oppressed by non-Westerners (women, gays, Christians, blacks, and other minorities in the Muslim realm) who cannot break through the fog of political correctness to reach the good but blinded souls of American students on campus.

In 2012, CNN reporters interviewed Moulkheir Yarba, who escaped her master after he raped her, fathered her child and then left the baby to die in the Sahara Desert – to teach her to “work faster.”

If Moulkheir could understand how America, a nation of abolitionists, has so enchained itself with political correctness, and become so blinded to her plight, she would weep. As should we.

Dr. Charles Jacobs is president of Americans for Peace and Tolerance

Republican Gun Grabbing

Not only do gun owners need to fight the leftists and the Democrats but they also are now facing the mealy mouthed Republicans. Why in heck are they coming up with a gun control bill?  Those of us who know that guns do not kill people, know that any bill is only the first step toward gun confiscation.

WE, the right thinking people of the US, must stop this. NO new  law should be passed unless it strengthens gun rights. Enforce the current laws and leave us alone!

Conservative Tom

There Is A GOP-Sponsored Gun-Control Bill In The Works

March 29, 2013 by Sam Rolley 

UPI FILE

Senator Chuck Grassley is putting together a gun control bill.

There has been much hullabaloo over Senate Democrats’ gun control proposal, expected to be brought to the floor of the legislative body next month by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), but less is known about a separate gun proposal that could come from a group of GOP lawmakers led by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Based on Grassley’s past positions on gun control, the Republican measure could include provisions that crack down on straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms, legislation meant to increase safety in schools and measures keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill.

“Senator Grassley, along with other concerned members, is putting together an alternative bill that addresses gun violence in a manner that doesn’t violate the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens in contrast to what appears to be in the bill proposed by the Majority Leader,” Grassley spokeswoman Beth Levine told The Hill.

The GOP effort is expected to roll back gun legislation approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier in the year by picking the proposals apart to remove any provisions or language the conservative Senators believe to be unConstitutional.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) cagily hinted that he may be able to support the Grassley effort if it does not impose any new overbearing gun restrictions.

“Chuck Grassley is putting together an alternative we’re taking a look at,” McConnell said. “From his description of what he’s trying to put together … it might be something I can support. But I can’t go beyond that. I’m not likely to support what Harry is bringing up, but there may be an alternative I can and it probably be something that Grassley produces. That’s as far as I can go right now.”

Conservative critics of the forthcoming GOP gun bill have said that any effort by Republicans to address any aspect of gun control is going too far. And it is yet to be seen whether Senators like Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who have vowed to filibuster any new gun legislation, will embrace the GOP version of gun control.

Israel Facing War on Two Fronts

If one wanted to create a disaster in which Israel would be forced to fight a two fronted war, it is looking more and more like that is the situation they will face. Syria is looking like (and Obama is encouraging it) the Muslim Brotherhood will soon gain control of the country.  With Egypt on the south controlled by the "brothers" and now Syria on the northeast moving in the same direction, one can only see a war approaching as soon as control is wrested from Assad. This is not pretty.

Of course, our remarkably inept  (or masterfully deceitful) President is cheering the Brotherhood to victory. Our State Department is no different.  Can America survive when it orchestrates putting Israel into a box? We do not think so. There will be a price to pay and the US will be paying big time. Remember, those who bless Israel are blessed and those who curse Israel are cursed.

Conservative Tom

Jordan's King Warns Obama; America Backs Muslim Brotherhood Agent as Syria's Next Ruler

Barry Rubin - Rubin Reports,  March 28th, 2013

”Don’t scare anyone. But once you gain ground then move ahead. You must utilize as many people as possible who may be of use to us.”
       –Joseph Stalin to future Communist dictator of Hungary Mattyas Rakosi, December 5, 1944.

It really isn't too hard to understand what is happening in the Middle East if you watch the facts.

1. Jordan's King Abdallah, who President Barack Obama just visited, is clearly telling us what's going wrong: that the Muslim Brotherhood is dangerous and so why is the United States supporting it? Presumably, this is what Abdallah told Obama.

2. U.S. policy is now escalating support for a Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria and the Syrian rebels increasingly have open Brotherhood leadership.

3. Repression is gradually escalating in Egypt with arrests of moderates, Islamists being sent to the military academy, and many more measures.

Regarding Jordan, Jeffrey Goldberg's has done an extremely valuable profile of Abdullah. The Jordanian monarch is telling Western visitors that their countries are making a big mistake by supporting the Islamists. He complains that the U.S. State Department is ignoring his complaints and that U.S. officials are telling him, “The only way you can have democracy is through the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He responds that the Brotherhood wants to impose anti-American reactionary governments and that his “major fight” is to stop them. No margin may be left for relative moderate and pro-American states between a Sunni Islamist alliance led by Egypt and including Turkey versus a Shia Islamist alliance led by Iran says Abdallah and he's right. The only difference, Abdallah explains, between the Turkish and Egyptian regimes are their timetables for installing dictatorships. Egypt's new president, says the king, is obsessed with a hostile view of Israel.

Here's the delicious irony! Last August the Jordanian Prime Minister Fayez Tarawneh  launched a ferocious personal attack on me. Why? Because I said that the Sunni-Shia battle was going to replace the Arab-Israeli conflict. Well, that's what his king just said! LOL.

Meanwhile, while President Barack Obama was love-bombing Israel during his visit, U.S. policy was helping to install a Muslim Brotherhood supporter as the putative next leader of Syria. Obama’s strategy is, with appropriate adjustments to the national scene, the same as his disastrous policy in Egypt.

The new leader of the opposition coalition is Ghassan Hitto, an obscure figure who has been long-resident in the United States. His actual election contained two hints:

–He only received 35 votes from 63 members of the Syrian National Coalition. That show of support matches the number of Muslim Brotherhood’s supporters there.

–Only 48 out of the 63 even cast a ballot at all, showing lack of enthusiasm and possible U.S. pressure on groups to abstain rather than oppose Hitto.

During the Cold War, American policy toward Third World countries frequently looked for a “third way” democratic alternative, leaders who were neither Communists nor right-wing authoritarians. Today, however, the Obama Administration doesn’t do the equivalent at all, despite pretenses to the contrary. Rather it seeks leadership from the most seemingly moderate people who represent Islamist groups. Of course, this moderation is largely deceptive.

That was the pattern in Egypt; now it is the same failed strategy in Syria.  Hitto is a typical example of such a person. He has lived in the United States and went to university there, so presumably knows America and has become more moderate by living there. He is involved in hi-tech enterprises so supposedly he is a modern type of guy. Remember how now-dictator of Syria Bashar al-Assad was lavishly praised because he studied and lived in London and was supposedly interested in Internet?

In addition, nobody has (yet) come up with an outrageous Hitto statement. His ties to the Brotherhood are not so blatant—even though they are obvious—that the Obama Administration and the mass media cannot deny and ignore them.

Yet the connections between Hitto and the Muslim Brotherhood—and those are only the ones documented quickly following his election—are extensive.

–He is founder of the Muslim Legal Fund of America, largely directed by Muslim Brotherhood people..
–He was a secretary-treasurer of the American Middle Eastern League for Palestine (AMELP), which is closely linked to the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), which supports Hamas and terrorism against Israel.

–Hitto was vice president of the CAIR Dallas/Fort Worth chapter and director of the Muslim American Society (MAS) Youth Center of Dallas which was a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

The list goes on and on.

As if to sum up the situation, Hassan Hassan of the United Arab Emirates newspaper The National, wrote an article entitled “How the Muslim Brotherhood Hijacked Syria’s Revolution.”

"Crazy Joe" Biden On Gun Control

If you think that gun control would go away with the failure of legislation in the Senate, you would be wrong!  Obama, his not-so-crazy VP Joe, Mayor Bloomberg and their minions are not going to be satisfied until all the guns in this country are confiscated. 

Call us paranoid and think we are crazy, however, when a Mayor of a major city is willing to spend $10 million of his own billions to push gun control (actually confiscation), there is a problem for the gun owner.  The people who hate guns and believe that this inanimate object causes untold damage, will do anything to make sure that it goes away.

Uncle Joe has it right, "this is just the  beginning."

Conservative Tom

JOE BIDEN ON GUN CONTROL: ‘LET ME SAY THIS AS CLEARLY AS I CAN, THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING’

Mar. 27, 2013 8:30pm Jason Howerton

• 346
• 3.1K
• 5
• 2
• 0

NEW YORK, NY – MARCH 21: U.S. Vice President Joe Biden speaks in favor of gun reform legislation at a press conference on March 21, 2013 in New York City. The Vice President joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and family members of Sandy Hook shooting victims at the city hall event. Credit: Getty Images

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday the expected upcoming Senate votes on gun control are only the beginning of the White House’s fight strengthen gun laws.

During a conference call organized by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Biden assured supporters that the push gun control would not end with the current proposed bill, saying, “Let me say this as clearly as I can: this is just the beginning,” according to the Washington Times.

The fate of gun control legislation is unclear. A vote on a Senate bill, including expanded background checks and harsher penalties for gun trafficking, is expected next month.

The White House also has been pushing for limits on so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines, but those provisions won’t be part of the Senate bill. Instead they are to be offered as amendments, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says they don’t have enough support to pass.

“That doesn’t mean this is the end of the process. This is the beginning of the process,” Biden reiterated during the conference call.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns is the anti-gun group co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Earlier this week, the group rolled out a multi-million dollar anti-gun ad campaign aimed at pressuring lawmakers to support gun control.

NEW YORK, NY – MARCH 21: Family members of Sandy Hook shooting victims listen as New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg speaks out for gun reform at a press conference on March 21, 2013 in New York City. Bloomberg was joined by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden at the city hall event. Credit: Getty Images

“The American people are way ahead of their political leaders,” Biden argued. “And we, the president and I and the mayors, intend to stay current with the American people.”

The conference call included thousands of gun control supporters ahead of Thursday’s National Day to Demand Action organized by the mayors group and other gun control proponents. Organizers said more than 140 events were scheduled in 29 states, timed to reach lawmakers while they are in their home districts on spring break.

President Barack Obama was planning an event in the White House East Room with mothers who support gun control, victims of violence and law enforcement officials.

Biden says his office is in touch with congressional offices every day, making the case for the legislation in the wake of the shooting at a Connecticut elementary school in December that killed 20 students and six staff trying to keep the children safe.

“The courage that was demonstrated by those teachers, we don’t expect the same amount of courage from our elected officials,” Biden said. “But Lord’s sake, we do expect them to have the courage to stand up and take responsible action to end this senseless violence.”

Biden was optimistic for the fate of the background check provision.

“I think we’re on the verge of getting a serious thorough universal background check system in place,” Biden said. “And it will, emphasize it will, save lives.”

But the White House seems to be acknowledging the assault weapons ban and limit on magazines are not likely to make it. Biden mentioned it as well in the call, repeating that it’s just the beginning for the issue for the White House. “We believe that weapons of war have no place on our streets,” Biden said.

Obama spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday that after all the president has pushed for an assault weapons ban, having a vote on an amendment represents progress.

“I can’t stand here and guarantee that it’s going to pass, but it is a question that 100 senators are going to ask themselves when they wake up in the morning and look themselves in the mirror about whether or not they are going to – about which side they’re going to be on when it comes to voting on a ban on military-style assault weapons,” Earnest said. “And the president will certainly continue to advocate for senators to support that ban.”

Gotta Gun--No Service Even For Cops

Stupid people get even stupider ideas! Can you imagine being a cop and being refused service because you had a gun in your waist band or in your holster?  Most cops would be incensed. We are not police and we are!

This is all about gun hysteria. Stupid people have the idea that guns automatically fire and not the person has to fire it. It is this an example of the "low information" voter, who made Obama President for a second term.u 

Most normal people would think that having cops in your restaurant would make it safer, not less.  But today there are idiots who take the normal and make it abnormal, make legal things, illegal and what is good, bad.   

Pick any idea and you will see how the world is now upside down and the following story is another example of a country which has lost its way.  It is going to be a long way back, if we can get it back.

Conservative Tom

‘JUST ABSURD’: VA COPS WERE REFUSED RESTAURANT SERVICE BECAUSE OF THEIR GUNS

Mar. 28, 2013 7:31am Billy Hallowell

• 308
• 6.2K
• 26
• 3
• 338

Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Police officers in Manassas, Virginia, captured some media attention over the past few days after reportedly being refused restaurant service — because they were armed. The eight cops were on-duty, but were said to be in plain clothes.

According to media reports, when they were approached by a server at Buffalo Wild Wings who saw their guns on display, the worker purportedly told the officers that the establishment was a gun-free zone.

Despite having their badges out, WWBT-TV reports that the server still would not take their orders.

Daryl LaClair, a local, was so outraged by the incident that the resident wrote a letter to the restaurant chain and started what Patch calls a public awareness campaign. As a result General Manager Scott Lupton apparently wrote back to LaClair, calling the entire situation a “huge misunderstanding.”

“There is no reason why those officers should have been asked to leave … police officers are always welcome in my establishment and even though we do have a no gun policy, as a company that excludes off duty police officer,” a portion of Lupton’s e-mail response read. “As a company we are community oriented. We appreciate everything that police officers do for us.”

The general manager wasn’t there at the time of the incident.

“For this to have happened at all is just absurd,” the resident told Patch in an e-mail last week.

What’s interesting to note is that WWBT claims the officers were on-duty at the time, but Lupton’s e-mail doesn’t say that there’s a provision for on-duty police (only off-duty, as noted in his e-mail). Still, the general manager is looking to apologize and is hoping he can speak directly with the eight officers involved.

This situation mirrors another incident that unfolded earlier this year when officers at a Denny’s Restaurant in Illinois faced similar backlash for bringing guns inside the establishment.

(H/T: WWBT-TV)