Friday, May 31, 2013

WAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE FREAKING IRS WANTS TO ADMINISTER OBAMCARE BUT THEIR UNION WANTS OUT OF IT. NO FREAKING WAY...
HOW DO YA LIKE THIS BULLSHIT....
THE FREAKING IRS UNION THAT WANTS YOU TO BE SCRUTINIZED, BULLIED AND OBEY THE OBAMACARE LAW.... WANTS OUT OF THE INSURANCE EXCHANGES FOR THEMSELVES... WTF ??? WHAT THE HELL ... AND HELL NO ASSHOLES...
HOW DO YA LIKE THIS BULLSHIT....
THE FREAKING IRS UNION THAT WANTS YOU TO BE SCRUTINIZED, BULLIED AND OBEY THE OBAMACARE LAW.... WANTS OUT OF THE INSURANCE EXCHANGES FOR THEMSELVES...  WTF ??? WHAT THE HELL ... AND HELL NO ASSHOLES...

The National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU, which represents the IRS employees who harassed and delayed tea party and conservative groups, has come out against the proposal to put federal workers into exchange-based health insurance. 

Fancy that: the people in charge of deciding whether you go into an exchange, and who decided it doesn't matter whether your state doesn't want one, don't want to be in one themselves.

As Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator points out (hat tip, American Thinker),

    With the IRS assuming serious police powers of Obamacare, in effect the members of one left-wing labor union will have access to the private health care records of every single American.

While it's fine to investigate whether President Obama and higher ups at Treasury knew about or even ordered the IRS to harass conservatives and slow-walk their applications, Congress should investigate whether the NTEU members colluded.  

NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley has visited the White House at least 10 times, visiting with the President and First Lady at least once. 

Find more information on the NTEU in a thorough report at Redstate.com.

The union has a handy way for its members to contact their representives in Congress to lobby against the legislation.How you can help

Now, I'm not suggesting that you fill out this form and say you support moving public employees to the exchanges, because that would expose you to IRS audits, harassment, intimidation, threats, and abuse. That's just how our government rolls these days.

But if you should happen to do that, keep in mind that they have no way of knowing whether your email address is legitimate, and this is not a government form. It's just their union thing. Again, I'm not suggesting you take any particular action, nor certainly that you give false information to fill a public sector union email database.

Unions influencing legislators to protect union benefits is just one more reason why public sector unions should not be allowed to exist.

HERE IS THEIR FORM...  YOU CAN SEE IT YOUR SELF ON THIS LINK:

http://capwiz.com/nteu/issues/alert/?alertid=62634726&type=CO
HOW DO YA LIKE THIS BULLSHIT....
THE FREAKING IRS UNION THAT WANTS YOU TO BE SCRUTINIZED, BULLIED AND OBEY THE OBAMACARE LAW.... WANTS OUT OF THE INSURANCE EXCHANGES FOR THEMSELVES... WTF ??? WHAT THE HELL ... AND HELL NO ASSHOLES...

The National Treasury Employees Union, NTEU, which represents the IRS employees who harassed and delayed tea party and conservative groups, has come out against the proposal to put federal workers into exchange-based health insurance.

Fancy that: the people in charge of deciding whether you go into an exchange, and who decided it doesn't matter whether your state doesn't want one, don't want to be in one themselves.

As Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator points out (hat tip, American Thinker),

With the IRS assuming serious police powers of Obamacare, in effect the members of one left-wing labor union will have access to the private health care records of every single American.

While it's fine to investigate whether President Obama and higher ups at Treasury knew about or even ordered the IRS to harass conservatives and slow-walk their applications, Congress should investigate whether the NTEU members colluded.

NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley has visited the White House at least 10 times, visiting with the President and First Lady at least once.

Find more information on the NTEU in a thorough report at Redstate.com.

The union has a handy way for its members to contact their representives in Congress to lobby against the legislation.How you can help

Now, I'm not suggesting that you fill out this form and say you support moving public employees to the exchanges, because that would expose you to IRS audits, harassment, intimidation, threats, and abuse. That's just how our government rolls these days.

But if you should happen to do that, keep in mind that they have no way of knowing whether your email address is legitimate, and this is not a government form. It's just their union thing. Again, I'm not suggesting you take any particular action, nor certainly that you give false information to fill a public sector union email database.

Unions influencing legislators to protect union benefits is just one more reason why public sector unions should not be allowed to exist.

HERE IS THEIR FORM... YOU CAN SEE IT YOUR SELF ON THIS LINK:

http://capwiz.com/nteu/issues/alert/?alertid=62634726&type=CO
Like · · · 9 minutes ago ·

President Obama: Troops 'fighting on my behalf'

President Obama: Troops 'fighting on my behalf'

Arrogance:  Barack Obama says troops are fighting "on my behalf." Members of the United States military may be surprised to learn that they now serve on President Obama's behalf, instead of protecting the Constitution.
On Wednesday, Obama reverted to his 1996 position supporting gay marriage, but said something that caught the ear of many conservatives.
"[W]hen I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama said.
"Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who’d have made it?" Elliot Abrams asked at the Weekly Standard.
Ben Shapiro weighed in on the statement at frontpagemag.com:
The members of the US military fight on behalf of all Americans, not Obama personally. Now, it’s possible that President Obama meant just that – he was expressing individual gratitude for a collective benefit we all receive from the military.
"Or," he wrote, "it’s possible that Obama thinks that the troops are out there carrying out his work."
Shapiro reminded readers that in 2009, Obama said the troops made a “pretty good photo-op” during a visit to South Korea.
"Obama seems to see the troops as his personal plaything," Shapiro added, recalling a statement last week where the President appeared to suggest he would transform the country on their behalf.
He went on to say that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines "are a prop for Obama."
"They are fighting on behalf of the United States of America of which Obama is, like all his predecessors have been and all his successors will be, temporarily president and commander-in-chief," Michael Barone wrote at the Washington Examiner, adding that Obama could have said they were fighting "at my command," which would have been true.
"But that would conflict with his campaign message that he ends wars rather than wages them," Barone added.
Obama also seems to not understand that U.S. military personnel do not swear allegiance to one man, but rather promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution "from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
If the United States were a monarchy, as Barone wrote, or a dictatorship, then the President could say they are fighting on his behalf.
"But we're not a monarchy and he's not royal," Barone added. Nor is the United States a dictatorship.
"FDR, for all his ego, would never have said that soldiers in World War II were fighting on his behalf. Neither would Truman, Ike, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or even Carter and Clinton (although Clinton might have thought it)," wrote Newsbusters' Tom Blumer, who added that he doesn't "expect to see a lot of TV air time devoted to this telling, egotistical slip."
"Others have noted that in his spike-the-ball statements on the dispatch of Osama bin Laden, Obama has used first person pronouns in a way that presidents like George W. Bush, Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt were careful to avoid," Barone wrote.
"With Obama, it’s always all about him," he added.

President Obama: Troops 'fighting on my behalf'

Members of the United States military may be surprised to learn that they now serve on President Obama's behalf, instead of protecting the Constitution.
On Wednesday, Obama reverted to his 1996 position supporting gay marriage, but said something that caught the ear of many conservatives.
"[W]hen I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Obama said.
"Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who’d have made it?" Elliot Abrams asked at the Weekly Standard.
Ben Shapiro weighed in on the statement at frontpagemag.com:
The members of the US military fight on behalf of all Americans, not Obama personally. Now, it’s possible that President Obama meant just that – he was expressing individual gratitude for a collective benefit we all receive from the military.
"Or," he wrote, "it’s possible that Obama thinks that the troops are out there carrying out his work."
Shapiro reminded readers that in 2009, Obama said the troops made a “pretty good photo-op” during a visit to South Korea.
"Obama seems to see the troops as his personal plaything," Shapiro added, recalling a statement last week where the President appeared to suggest he would transform the country on their behalf.
He went on to say that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines "are a prop for Obama."
"They are fighting on behalf of the United States of America of which Obama is, like all his predecessors have been and all his successors will be, temporarily president and commander-in-chief," Michael Barone wrote at the Washington Examiner, adding that Obama could have said they were fighting "at my command," which would have been true.
"But that would conflict with his campaign message that he ends wars rather than wages them," Barone added.
Obama also seems to not understand that U.S. military personnel do not swear allegiance to one man, but rather promise to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution "from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
If the United States were a monarchy, as Barone wrote, or a dictatorship, then the President could say they are fighting on his behalf.
"But we're not a monarchy and he's not royal," Barone added. Nor is the United States a dictatorship.
"FDR, for all his ego, would never have said that soldiers in World War II were fighting on his behalf. Neither would Truman, Ike, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or even Carter and Clinton (although Clinton might have thought it)," wrote Newsbusters' Tom Blumer, who added that he doesn't "expect to see a lot of TV air time devoted to this telling, egotistical slip."
"Others have noted that in his spike-the-ball statements on the dispatch of Osama bin Laden, Obama has used first person pronouns in a way that presidents like George W. Bush, Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt were careful to avoid," Barone wrote.
"With Obama, it’s always all about him," he added.

Updates: Boots On Ground; Sheriff Joe's Obama ID Fraud Presentation From CSPOA In Missouri

- arrival at airport in Missouri -
Boots On Ground: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Obama 
ID Fraud Coverage From CSPOA In Missouri

Our reporter arrived at the airport and is headed to the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association Convention (CSPOA) being held in St. Charles, Missouri. He is now headed to the CSPOA Convention location to set up for Sheriff Arpaio's scheduled Obama ID fraud presentation which begins at 4:10 PM Missouri time. Once the presentation is complete he will provide an update and get back to work.

If things roll smooth our reporter will try to provide updates during the actual presentation. He will be recording two camera angles and he is all by himself. So bear with us. We don't have the resources the big dogs have. It is a two man show working from two different states.

UPDATE 1: The Oath Keepers just dropped off our reporter at the convention location. Pics and more coming soon...

UPDATE 2: Video recorders ready to roll...
UPDATE 3: Sheriff Arpaio's lead Obama ID Fraud investigator Mike Zullo...


UPDATE 4: Mike Zullo now at the podium speaking...

UPDATE 5: Here is the audio archive of the Obama SSN presentation - CLICK HERE.

UPDATE 6: Here is the audio archive from Mike Zullo's interview with Carl Gallups - CLICK HERE.

---------------------------------------------

Also, Carl Gallups will have some coverage on his radio show Freedom Fridays starting at 5 PM ET. If you miss the live broadcast Birther Report will provide an archived version shortly after the live broadcast.

OBAMA SSN FRAUD PRESENTATION LIVE STREAM:


RELATED: Breaking: Birther Report Providing Coverage From Sheriff Arpaio Obama ID Fraud Presentation - DETAILS HERE.

RELATED: Team Arpaio: Full Obama Social Security Number Fraud Presentation Live Friday; Here - DETAILS HERE.

RELATED: Latest: Sheriff Joe Obama ID Fraud Investigation Update; Presidential Document Fraud - DETAILS HERE.

RELATED: U.S. Rep. To Witness Sheriff Joe Obama Identity Fraud Presentation At Sheriffs Conference - DETAILS HERE.

RELATED: Sheriff Joe's Lead Obama Identity Fraud Investigator Headed To Sheriff Mack's Conference - DETAILS HERE.

FLASH: Private Investigators Respond To Snopes Article On Obama's CT Social Security Number - DETAILS HERE.






((( This High Definition video was produced in 720P HD – Select the HD quality setting for optimal viewing experience )))

2006: Obama In Kenya: I Am So Proud To Come Back Home - VIDEO HERE. 

2007: Michelle Obama Declares Obama Is Kenyan And America Is Mean - VIDEO HERE. 

2008: Michelle Obama Declares Barack Obama's Home Country Is Kenya - VIDEO HERE. 

FLASHBACK: Obama Is The Original Birther! Obama In 1991 Stated In His Own Bio He Was Born In Kenya. DETAILS HERE. 




WATCH SHERIFF OBAMA INVESTIGATION PRESS CONFERENCE HERE: CLICK HERE.

-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

  • Colleges
  • Online Schools
  • Working at home
  • Social security disability
  • Avatars
  • The

REPORT: FBI hunting for 'sleeper cell' of at least 12 behind Boston bombing...

The FBI was last night hunting a 12-strong terrorist “sleeper cell” linked to the Boston marathon bomb brothers.
Police believe Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were specially trained to carry out the devastating attack.
More than 1,000 FBI operatives were last night working to track down the cell and arrested a man and two women 60 miles from Boston in the hours before Dzhokhar’s dramatic capture after a bloody shootout on Friday.
A source close to the investigation said: “We have no doubt the brothers were not acting alone. The devices used to detonate the two bombs were highly sophisticated and not the kind of thing people learn from Google.
“They were too advanced. Someone gave the brothers the skills and it is now our job to find out just who they were. Agents think the sleeper cell has up to a dozen members and has been waiting several years for their day to come.”
A specialist team of CIA and FBI interrogators was yesterday flown to a Boston hospital to grill wounded Dzhokhar, 19, about the secret group. The University of Massachusetts student was caught on Friday after hiding out in a boat parked in a garden in locked down Watertown the day after a gun battle with police left his 26-year-old brother and a rookie cop dead.
Dzhokhar is said to have run his brother over as he escaped in a stolen car while Tamerlan lay handcuffed on the ground. They were carrying six bombs with them at the time, three of which ­exploded, as well as a handgun and rifle. The devices were thought to be pipe bombs.
Last night Dzhokhar – badly wounded but alive – lay handcuffed to his hospital bed under armed guard. The other three arrested in the port of New Bedford are also believed to be of college age. Read more via The Daily Mirror...

DANGEROUSLY INCOMPETENT: White House forced to admit that Obama made no calls night of Benghazi attack...

President Obama didn’t make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.
“During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama’s defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.
Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.
The White House has said Mr. Obama was kept up to date on the attack by his staff, though after being alerted to the attack in a pre-scheduled afternoon meeting he never spoke again with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin E. Dempsey or then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Mr. Panetta told Congress last week that he knew immediately the attacks were a terrorist assault, though the White House downplayed that notion in the first five days after the attack.
Republican senators said they will still push for more information on who changed the talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who went on the Sunday talk shows after the attacks and blamed protests against an anti-Islam video.
Mr. Graham said he will block the president’s nominee to head the CIA until he hears more details about what Mr. Obama was doing. Continue reading via The Washington Times...

Obama’s Real Reason He Wants Your Guns

Obama's Real Reason He Wants Your Guns
Christopher Greene examines the “real reason” President Obama wants your guns and while doing that he explicitly claims the following:
In many ways America seems to be making the same mistakes as Germany did prior to the outbreak of World War II. Since taking office in 2008, on the promise of hope and change, president Barak Obama has launched an aggressive assault on America’s liberty.
He has armed America’s enemies, violating his oath of office, by sending money and weapons of war to insurgents in Syria led by Al-Qaeda terrorists.
He has violated federal law by overseeing a cover-up surrounding attorney general Eric Holder’s operation “Fast and Furious”, in the running of guns to Mexican drug cartels.
He has lied to the American people by overseeing a cover-up of the September 11 Benghazi terror attack in Libya which led directly to the deaths of four American citizens.
He has bypassed Congress using executive order prior to the attack on Libya, insisting that congressional approval was not necessary.
He has signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act which includes provisions to permit the abduction and military detention without trial of all US citizens, violating “Habeas corpus” – the right to a fair trial.
And on January 16th 2013, surrounded by children, he has signed twenty three different executive orders for broader gun control in the United States.
Watch the full documentary now - 68 min

OBAMA IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD GREW A BRAIN CELL


Obama Prepares Huge Bailout for Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt

Written by 

The Obama administration is close to finalizing a massive $1-billion bailout for the increasingly totalitarian Muslim Brotherhood regime ruling over Egypt, according to U.S. government officials cited in news reports. The move is already drawing fierce criticism from opponents arguing that bailing out the new Islamist ruler, who is already working to bolster Egyptian ties with the communist Chinese dictatorship while becoming increasingly despotic at home, would be a mistake on multiple levels.
In addition to forgiving the $1 billion in Egyptian government debt, almost a third of its total burden, the administration is also working with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) — largely funded by American taxpayers — to secure a $5-billion loan for the regime. On top of that, U.S. officials are in the process of creating multiple funds and programs worth almost $500 million to help politically connected U.S. and Egyptian businesses.

All of that taxpayer money — presumably to be printed by the Federal Reserve or borrowed from the communist Chinese dictatorship — would be in addition to the regular “security” and “foreign aid” packages. The long-standing U.S. government assistance to Egypt’s rulers, set to continue indefinitely, has amounted to around $1.5 billion annually for the past several decades under the deposed dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak.

The plan to bail out the new Egyptian regime was originally announced over a year ago. However, opposition on Capitol Hill and the prosecution of U.S. government-funded “democracy activists” operating in Egypt had temporarily soured relations between the two governments. It seems the scheme is now back on track.

According to U.S. officials, the massive unconstitutional flows of taxpayer money are meant to encourage the new regime to act how the U.S. federal government wants it to. "Progress will only be possible if the talents of all citizens are drawn upon and all have a voice — men and women, all religious groups, and all parts of the country," U.S. Undersecretary of State Robert Hormats was quoted as saying without specifically noting the worsening plight of Coptic Christians under the new regime.

The security of Israel is also said to be a factor, with supporters of the bailout claiming it will help keep the new Islamist government in check and prevent a potential violation of the Camp David accords. Critics of the move, meanwhile, say it could put the Jewish state in greater danger as the Egyptian government becomes more hostile to its neighbor in line with popular Islamic sentiment within the nation. The Israeli government has reportedly expressed its support for continued U.S. government aid to the Islamist regime.

Proponents of the latest bailout within the administration also claim that the packages are aimed at bolstering Egypt’s fragile economy. Since the Western-backed “revolution” that toppled the former U.S.-backed tyrant, the economic situation has continued to deteriorate, with massive unemployment, surging inflation, and more trouble almost certainly imminent.

Tourists and foreign investors have largely stayed away from Egypt since the unrest began, too. But now, the State Department is preparing to lead a delegation of dozens of politically connected U.S. companies — Boeing, General Electric, Google, Citigroup, and more — to encourage investment in Egypt.

“The United States is working to help relieve Egypt of part of its immediate fiscal and balance-of-payments pressure in support of the Egyptian government’s own, home-grown reform plan,” said Hormats after meeting with Egyptian officials last week. He also noted that the Obama administration was offering almost $500 million in loans and guarantees to Egyptian businesses.

Other bailout supporters believe it could help keep the new Islamist regime within the U.S. government’s sphere of foreign policy-influence. However, newly elected Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi — a radical Islamist from the socialist-oriented Muslim Brotherhood who is under fire for cracking down on the press and his opponents, seizing vast powers for himself, and purging Muslim Brotherhood critics from power — has already shown signs of gravitating away from the West.

Mursi’s first official foreign visit outside of the Middle East, for example, was to Beijing, seeking and obtaining broad support for his government from the brutal communist dictatorship ruling over mainland China. His controversial and increasingly tyrannical administration is also reportedly warming up to the Iranian regime despite the growing hostilities between the U.S. government and Tehran. An assortment of wealthy Islamic dictatorships is also backing Egypt’s new ruler. 

Advocates of the bailout scheme, however, said they expected Mursi and his new government to behave more responsibly going forward — at least if the regime manages to stay on the Obama administration’s payroll. But critics say that is a naïve notion that is bound to result in more problems or potentially even a disaster.

“This view could hardly be more misguided,” observed retired D.C. attorney Paul Mirengoff in an analysis for Power Line. “Arab extremists don’t ‘grow in office’ by becoming more solicitous of the peoples’ welfare. They grow in office by crushing those who oppose them. This reality binds together Arab leaders as otherwise diverse as Saddam Hussein, the Iranian [Persian] mullahs, and the Assads.”

Other critics slammed the notion that the aid was somehow intended to promote “democracy” after the landslide victory for Islamists. “Talk of ‘bolstering the transition to democracy’ are weasel words, because what is really meant here is helping the Brotherhood, the beneficiaries of democracy, stay in power,” noted analyst Daniel Greenfield in FrontPage magazine, blasting the administration’s efforts to prod big American businesses into deals with Egypt as well.

Comparing the latest bailout to U.S. government aid that helped keep the mass-murdering Soviet regime in power, Greenfield also suggested that the Obama administration was hoping to perpetuate the radical Muslim Brotherhood’s domination in Egypt. The Islamist group, of course, is also known for its socialist roots despite its Muslim character.

“Just like the USSR, the Brotherhood expects the West to bail out its regime and stabilize it, while promising stability and a friendly environment,” Greenfield added, pointing out that the looming economic crisis might bring down the Egyptian regime without continued U.S. government assistance. “And then the hammer comes down. History is repeating itself once again.” 

It was not immediately clear where in the Constitution the administration believed it found the authority to bail out foreign governments, or which federal statute purported to authorize the massive wealth transfers. U.S. officials said at least some of the money would be coming from unused funds previously allocated as “foreign aid” to assorted Middle Eastern regimes. 

Of course, as with the vast majority of federal activities today, showering American taxpayer dollars on foreign governments and businesses is not authorized anywhere in the Constitution — in other words, the Obama administration does not have any legitimate power to hand out the people’s money. There are also pragmatic issues cited by opponents of the scheme.

The U.S government, for instance, is borrowing over $1 trillion per year, hardly placing it in a position to continue squandering money propping up and taking down various regimes around the world. Meanwhile, countless studies show foreign aid hurts the people in receiving countries while benefiting only the ruling elite. And numerous factions within Egypt are opposed to continued U.S. government aid as well as the “strings” that come attached to it.

Then there is blowback. It appears that once again, American taxpayers will be financing tyranny in the Middle East. And, as always, there will be consequences. Christians in particular are already facing grave threats in Egypt. If history is any guide, the U.S. government will be creating even more problems by unconstitutionally meddling in the affairs of foreign nations against the advice of the Founding Fathers – not just for Egyptians, but also for the American people and perhaps the world.

 

 

 

 

Obama-backed Egypt Forging “One Nation” With Sudan Terror Regime

Written by 
    During an official visit to the Sudanese capital of Khartoum last week, the Obama-backed Muslim Brotherhood regime of Mohammed Morsi (shown on left) in Egypt announced that it was pursuing so-called “integration” with the mass-murdering dictatorship ruling over Sudan. The authoritarian-minded rulers even claimed to be “one nation.” The surprise announcement came after the Libyan regime — installed by Western forces and foreign-funded Islamist fighters amid a brutal United Nations-approved warunveiled similar “integration” plans with the infamous Sudanese tyrant in late 2011.

    Genocidal Sudanese “President” Omar Bashir (shown on right), a military dictator whose autocracy has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. government for two decades, celebrated the increasingly friendly relationship between his regime and others in the region. Media outlets in Sudan reported that the war criminal ruling the nation announced that he was working with the Egyptian regime in “removing all the obstacles and clearing the borders to ease the movements of the citizens and commodities.”

    Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, meanwhile, said that Egypt and Sudan “are one nation, share one Nile River, one sense of purpose, and one leadership with the same goals,” reported the U.S. government-funded Voice of America. Morsi also said his Islamist regime wants the “Nile Axis of world development,” which apparently includes Arabs, Islam, and Africa, to be a “source of rebirth.” However, he also claimed that the new alliance was not aimed against anyone. 

    "We in Egypt and Sudan are integrated, and you will find enemies for this integration," Morsi told thousands of people during a joint summit with Bashir at the Al-Nour mosque in Khartoum, though he did not specify who or what “enemies” he had in mind. "This cooperation is not against anyone," the relatively new Egyptian ruler added, saying the two regimes "don't seek a war or aggression" against others.

    The latest news about Morsi’s dealings with his genocidal counterpart in Sudan follows a recent outcry in the United States about the Obama administration’s decision to send billions in aid, as well as advanced military weaponry such as tanks and fighter jets, to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood regime. U.S. lawmakers and critics around the world expressed alarm that American taxpayers would be financing a radical Islamist-socialist regime notorious for human rights abuses and open hostility toward the West, Israel, individual liberty, the Coptic Christian minority, and more.

    "I am concerned that these weapons, some of the most sophisticated weapons in the world, someday may be used against Israel," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on the Senate floor earlier this year as he sought to stop Obama from sending fighter jets and tanks to the Egyptian regime, which has endured a series of increasingly fierce popular protests in recent weeks. "I'm concerned that these weapons threaten Israel's security and that [the United States is] sending weapons to a country with a president who recently was seen to be chanting 'amen' to a cleric that was saying 'death to Israel and death to those who support Israel.'"

    The popular senator from Kentucky, who has quickly become a hero to millions of Americans concerned about lawless federal policies, said it would be “a blunder of the first proportion” for Obama to send sophisticated weapons to a government “that allowed a mob to attack our embassy and to burn our flag.” Paul also said he found it “objectionable” to send F-16 fighter jets and tanks to a regime “that allowed a mob chanting 'death to America' to threaten our American diplomats.

    Unsurprisingly, Sen. Paul’s amendment to stop Obama from arming the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated government in Egypt was ultimately defeated on a 79-19 vote, with the establishment wing of both parties voting to block the effort. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) spoke out forcefully against the effort to stop the transfer of weapons, citing bizarre arguments about jobs. With the recently announced open cooperation between the Egyptian regime and Sudan’s Bashir, however, fears over arming the Muslim Brotherhood now appear more prescient than ever.

    The Communist Chinese-backed Bashir dictatorship in Sudan, which seized power in a 1989 coup, has developed a reputation as one of the most oppressive autocracies on the planet. It is one of four regimes still on the U.S. list of terror sponsors, with analysts describing it as a bizarre hybrid of brutal socialism and hardcore sharia law. The Bashir regime even sheltered Osama bin Laden, the formerly U.S. government-funded Islamist who eventually became the world’s most notorious terrorist leader.

    The Sudanese autocrat, of course, is also wanted by the self-styled “International Criminal Court” (ICC) for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in the Darfur region and in South Sudan, which finally became an independent nation in 2011 following decades of abuse by the oppressive regime in Khartoum. More recently, the mass murderer has taken to slaughtering civilians in the Nuba mountains region of Sudan, according to human rights groups. Christians have suffered extreme persecution as well. 

    Despite decades of relative isolation after the “collapse” of the Soviet Union, the genocidal dictator appears to have found a new coalition of allies in the region — the very same governments that Obama and other Western powers lawlessly helped put into power in Egypt and Libya. “Another important outcome of the visit was that both presidents talked about an axis between Egypt, Sudan and Libya,” Egyptian Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Ashraf al-Araby was quoted as saying in a press statement after the official visit last week.

    The “integration” effort between Egypt and Sudan is proceeding on multiple fronts, ranging from trade and investment to agriculture and communications, officials said. Among the first steps in the process: opening a road between the two nations that has been shut down for over a decade while rebuilding and repairing a railroad network linking them together. A significant delegation of businessmen accompanied Morsi on the trip, which was also aimed at boosting economic “integration” between the two nations.   

    The cooperation between Bashir and the Islamist Libyan regime installed by Obama and NATO powers following a brutal UN-backed war appears to go even further. As The New American reported in November of 2011, Libya’s new rulers, who were supposed to be U.S. government allies, vowed to pursue "high-level security cooperation" with the Sudanese regime, too.

    "It has been agreed on the establishment of a real integration between Sudan and Libya to begin with linking the two countries with paved roads and communications," Bashir said in announcing the new alliance with Libyan authorities, who are struggling to hold onto power amid lawlessness chaos. "There will also be integration in the economic field to utilize the two countries' capabilities for the interests of the two sisterly peoples."

    Speaking during the official visit by Egyptian authorities, the Sudanese dictator made similar remarks. "Our relations with Egypt have passed sinking and rising stages in terms of the official relations, but the relations between the two peoples have not been affected," Bashir said. "The aim of the two governments is to remove the obstacles in front of the citizens in both countries to allow full freedoms of movement of persons and goods."

    Until formal independence in 1956, Sudan was jointly ruled by Egypt and the British government. Whether Egypt and Sudan will truly become “one nation” with “one leadership” remains to be seen. However, if a true, full-fledged alliance between the dictatorial regimes ruling over Libya, Sudan, and Egypt does eventually emerge, one thing is certain: Thanks to Obama, it will be a well-armed power. The potential for deadly blowback, of course, remains a very real threat.  

    Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.



    George Soros Allies With the Muslim Brotherhood

    Written by  Raven Clabough
    New reports indicate that leftist billionaire George Soros is working to forge alliances with the radical Muslim Brotherhood by means of his financial contributions through a number of shadow organizations. Those organizations include the International Crisis Group, the organization behind the Responsibility to Protect doctrine under which the United States entered into Libya.
    The Blaze also indicates that Soros’ connections to the Muslim Brotherhood can also be traced through his relationship to his new spokesman Marwan Muasher, as well as Mohamed ElBaradei, Muslim Brotherhood leader who sits on the board of Soros’ ICG. Muasher oversees research for the Middle East at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, funded by George Soros. The International Crisis Group has a number of questionable board members, notes World Net Daily, include Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to Jimmy Carter, Samuel Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, and retired U.S. ambassador Thomas Pickering, who in 2009 met with Hamas leaders and called for the U.S. to open ties to Hamas. Additionally, Robert Malley serves on ICG’s board. He served on President Obama’s 2008 campaign but was forced to resign after it was revealed that he engaged in communications with Hamas.
     All three men have appeared publicly on a number of occasions to present the Muslim Brotherhood in a more positive light, and even went so far as to encourage the Egyptian government to cooperate with the group. All men are seemingly united under the common agenda to destroy the “Great Satan” (the United States) and “Little Satan” (Israel).
    The Blaze reports:
    Consistently referring to Israel as the “stumbling block” to peace in the Middle East, Soros makes no bones about his hopes for the Brotherhood. He even heartily encouraged giving the Muslim Brotherhood a place at Egypt‘s table when the country’s streets erupted into flames of dissent earlier this year.
    Likewise, FrontPageMag.com makes a number of notable connections:
    The numerous ties of Soros and his Shadow Party cohorts have been documented; they include the master puppeteer’s own Open Society Institute and various anti-Western Islamist groups in the revolutions. It has been confirmed, for instance, that the International Crisis Group (ICG), led in part by Soros, has long petitioned for the Egyptian government to “normalize” ties with the previously banned Brotherhood — for example, in a June 2008 report called “Egypt’s Muslim Brothers: Confrontation or Integration?” And this talking point is echoed by Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Soros-funded Center for American Progress: “Any real democratic opening would lead to greater participation of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in a future Egyptian government.”
    Soros has not been so subtle regarding his sympathies for the Muslim Brotherhood. In February, he prepared an opinionated piece for the Washington Post dismissing American and Israeli fears over the unrest in Egypt, and even asserted that the rebels in Egypt did not seek to advance a theocratic agenda. He then continued his editorial by praising the Muslim Brotherhood for its efforts to topple Mubarak’s regime.
    What’s most ironic is that the Muslim Brotherhood would not support Soros’ vision for a one-world government.
    But The Blaze ponders, “Perhaps he just sees the alliance as an opportunity to side against his enemies the U.S. and Israel.”

    PART 6 WHAT OBAMA TOOK FROM US

    Muslim Beheads Christians In NJ, Mainstream Media Silent

    Yusuf Ibrahim, a Muslim man, targeted and murdered two Coptic Egyptian Christian men who lived and worked in New Jersey. He beheaded them and cut off their hands.
    Muslim Beheads Christians In NJ, Mainstream Media Silent http://www.westernjournalism.com/muslim-beheads-christians-in-nj-mainstream-media-silent/ via @WestJournalism

    Defying Congress, Obama Sends U.S. Taxes to Russian State Arms Firm

    Written by 
    Despite a bipartisan federal law prohibiting financial contracts with the Russian government-owned arms giant Rosoboronexport, the Obama administration announced that it would be purchasing another $680 million worth of military helicopters from the state company for the Afghan regime of Hamid Karzai. The contract comes after the Pentagon already spent $411 million with the supplier since May of 2011, bringing the estimated amount of U.S. taxpayer funds funneled to the state-owned behemoth to about $1 billion in recent years.

    The latest deal, however, drew furious outrage from across the political spectrum. Critics and lawmakers complained that the controversial scheme would boost Russia’s military-industrial complex even as millions of Americans remain out of work. Other opponents highlighted national security concerns. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and human rights groups also expressed opposition to the plan, citing a congressional ban on deals with Rosoboronexport and the fact that the Russian military supplier has been arming rogue regimes around the world. 

    Under an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) signed into law by President Obama, the U.S. government is prohibited from sending funds to or entering into contracts with Rosoboronexport, lawmakers noted. The only exception to that prohibition is if the Secretary of Defense deems it to be in the “interest of national security.” Now, a bipartisan coalition of members of Congress led by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) is demanding that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel explain what possible excuse there could be to purchase more military helicopters from the government-owned Russian arms dealer.

    “Despite this new law, we learned that the Army intends to enter into a new contract with Rosoboronexport in the coming weeks to procure 20 additional helicopters for the Afghan National Security Forces,” the 10 lawmakers said in a strongly worded March 25 letter sent to Hagel urging him to kill the contract. “This plan runs in direct contravention to both the spirit of the FY13 NDAA and the clear legislative intent of Congress — to ban further business dealings with Rosoboronexport. In our view, any attempt by DoD to utilize prior-year funds would constitute a direct subversion of existing law.”

    In the letter, the bipartisan group of U.S. representatives also asked Hagel to prepare a detailed briefing explaining the decision. “What is the national security justification of continuing business with Rosoboronexport?” the lawmakers asked, outraged because the state-owned company has been supplying weapons to the Syrian regime amid a war against Western-backed Islamists. “Relatedly, last year, DoD notified Congress of plans to purchase 33 Mi-17s from Rosoboronexport for the Afghan National Security Forces. What is the national security justification for the additional 20 helicopters this year? ... What steps is DoD taking to ensure that it does not support — financially or otherwise — enablers of mass atrocities?”

    Hagel has received the letter and intends to respond, Pentagon spokesman James Gregory was quoted as saying in an e-mail to Russia’s state-run RIA Novosti news agency. “The Department of Defense (DOD) has notified Congress of its intent to contract with Rosoboronexport for 30 additional Mi-17 rotary-wing aircraft to support the Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) Special Mission Wing,” he said. “Given current timelines, the department has determined that Rosoboronexport is the only viable means of meeting ANSF requirements.”

    In the Senate, lawmakers are furious as well. Among other concerns expressed by senators was the fact that the Pentagon did not solicit bids from any other company for the helicopters, according to news reports. Speaking to Businessweek, GOP Senator John Cornyn of Texas said that “seems just plain stupid.” Sen. Cornyn is one of 17 senators thus far, including eight Democrats and eight other Republicans, urging the Defense Department to cancel the contract. Experts say there are plenty of helicopter suppliers that could fill the order.

    Critics, however, lambasted the decision from all angles. "Aside from throwing almost $700 million to a company owned by the Russian government at a time when Obama has taken a chainsaw to the United States military, subsidizing the Russian defense industry helps it develop more weapons that will be sold to America’s enemies," noted analyst Daniel Greenfield in a piece for FrontPage magazine. "That money will help fund R&D for the next generation of weapons that an American military dismantled by Obama will be facing on the battlefield."

    In an analysis offered by the Capitalism Institute, an organization dedicated to advancing free markets and limited government, multiple problems with what it called the "corrupt" deal were highlighted. Among the examples cited in the piece about what was wrong with the contract: giving taxpayer money to Russia, sending more military hardware to the Afghan government, using no-bid contracts, and bypassing Congress. 

    "That’s right, this foreign aid is even worse than the aid being given to Egypt, because at least Egypt was buying U.S. hardware," the institute noted, referring to Obama’s controversial decision to send fighter jets and tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood regime. “In the end, like almost all of our foreign policy, this was about power. It’s not about liberty, or security, or the economy. It’s about power brokering. We simply can’t afford this any longer.… People need to know that there’s bipartisan anger over Obama taxing us to give to the Russians."

    The John Birch Society, a conservative organization and an affiliate of this magazine, has been sounding the alarm about the Russian government for decades. It also expressed opposition to the latest scheme — not to mention the fact that foreign aid, including arming foreign governments, is not authorized by the Constitution. In a weekly video address, CEO Art Thompson criticized the deal. "Isn't that nice?" he wondered sarcastically. "I guess they didn't inform the generals at the Pentagon who the enemy is."

    Thompson also highlighted the fact that the Obama administration was sending advanced military weaponry to the Islamist regime now ruling Egypt after the U.S. government-backed “Arab Spring” overthrew the previous government. Adding insult to injury, the new Muslim Brotherhood-dominated Egyptian government recently announced an “integration” deal with the mass-murdering genocidal regime ruling Sudan, which the U.S. State Department has listed as a state sponsor of terrorism for over two decades.

    Other critics of the Rosoboronexport contract pointed to documents released by WikiLeaks suggesting that the Obama campaign had received Russian money. The controversial deal with Russia’s military-industrial complex, however, is not the first time the Pentagon has been embroiled in scandal surrounding its procurement decisions to arm the Afghan regime. The U.S. Air Force, for example, decided to purchase fighter planes from the Brazilian government-controlled company Embraer for the Karzai regime even though the American company Beechcraft said it was willing and able to provide more cost-effective alternatives.

    Russia and Brazil, of course, are both members of the so-called “BRICS” — an alliance of socialist and communist-minded regimes that also includes the Communist Party dictatorship ruling mainland China, the African National Congress (ANC)-South African Communist Party (SACP) regime ruling South Africa, and the socialist-oriented Indian government. The BRICS group recently released its latest manifesto calling for a global currency that would eventually displace the increasingly unstable U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency.

    The Rosoboronexport contract is also not the first time that the Obama administration has been under fire for cooperating with the Russian military. As The New American reported last year, the administration invited airborne terror troops from Russia to train with U.S. forces on American soil for the first time in history, fueling suspicion and outrage among critics.

    “The Russian soldiers are here as invited guests of the U.S. government; this is part of a formal bilateral exchange program between the U.S. and Russia that seeks to develop transparency and promote defense reform,” Cmdr. Wendy L. Snyder, U.S. Defense Press Officer for policy, told The New American in an e-mail. “Aside from typical military training, the exchange will include discussions on the rule of land warfare, developing appropriate rules of engagement, and employing cultural literacy and competency in the tactical environment.”

    Analysts are not hopeful, but whether or not the massive public and congressional outcry will end up killing the potentially unlawful contract with Rosoboronexport remains unclear. As Obama told then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev over an open microphone last year before his reelection, “I'll have more flexibility" after winning another term. It appears to critics as though, unless Congress takes serious action, the increased “flexibility” will mean further problems for the United States — at least for the next four years.

    Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is currently based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

    Related articles:

    Russian Troops Coming to U.S. for Terror Drills, DoD Confirms
    Obama to Medvedev: "After the Election, I'll Have More Flexibility"
    Chuck Hagel a Committed Internationalist
    FBI Busts Russian Espionage Network
    Chuck Hagel: A Brief Look at Obama's Nominee for Secretary of Defense
    Russia's Continued Cold War
    Russia Celebrates Victory Day with Military Parade
    Russian Red Jihad
    Russia Threatens to Kill NATO War in Afghanistan
    Decades of Suicidal Policies Vis-à-vis Russia and China
    BRICS Regimes Forge New World Bank, Call for Global Currency
    Obama-backed Egypt Forging “One Nation” With Sudan Terror Regime