Saturday, May 31, 2014

obama funds terrorism

Security Assistance:

State and DOD Need to Assess How the Foreign Military Financing Program for Egypt Achieves U.S. Foreign Policy and Security Goals

GAO-06-437: Published: Apr 11, 2006. Publicly Released: May 12, 2006.

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Joseph A. Christoff
(202) 512-8979
contact@gao.gov

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov
Since 1979, Egypt has received about $60 billion in military and economic assistance with about $34 billion in the form of foreign military financing (FMF) grants that enable Egypt to purchase U.S.-manufactured military goods and services. In this report, GAO (1) describes the types and amounts of FMF assistance provided to Egypt; (2) assesses the financing arrangements used to provide FMF assistance to Egypt; and (3) evaluates how the U.S. assesses the program's contribution to U.S. foreign policy and security goals.
Egypt is currently among the largest recipients of U.S. foreign assistance, along with Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Egypt has received about $1.3 billion annually in U.S. foreign military financing (FMF) assistance and has purchased a variety of U.S.-manufactured military goods and services such as Apache helicopters, F-16 aircraft, and M1A1 tanks, as well as the training and maintenance to support these systems. The United States has provided Egypt with FMF assistance through a statutory cash flow financing arrangement that permits flexibility in how Egypt acquires defense goods and services from the United States. In the past, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) accumulated large undisbursed balances in this program. Because the flexibilities of cash flow financing permit Egypt to pay for its purchases over time, Egypt currently has agreements for U.S. defense articles and services worth over $2 billion--some of which are not due for full payment until 2011. The Departments of State (State) and Defense (DOD) have not conducted an assessment to identify the risks and impacts of a potential shift in FMF funding. Officials and many experts assert that the FMF program to Egypt supports U.S. foreign policy and security goals; however, State and DOD do not assess how the program specifically contributes to these goals. U.S. and Egyptian officials cited examples of Egypt's support for U.S. interests, such as maintaining Egyptian-Israeli peace and providing access to the Suez Canal and Egyptian airspace. DOD has not determined how it will measure progress in achieving key goals such as interoperability and modernizing Egypt's military. For example, the U.S. Central Command, the responsible military authority, defines modernization as the ratio of U.S.-to-Soviet equipment in Egypt's inventory and does not include other potentially relevant factors, such as readiness or military capabilities. Achieving interoperability in Egypt is complicated by the lack of a common definition of interoperability and limitations on some types of sensitive equipment transfers. Given the longevity and magnitude of FMF assistance to Egypt, evaluating the degree to which the program meets its goals would be important information for congressional oversight, particularly as Congress assesses the balance between economic and military assistance to Egypt as well as the impact on U.S. foreign policy interests.

Status Legend:

More Info
  • Review Pending
  • Open
  • Closed - implemented
  • Closed - not implemented

Recommendations for Executive Action

Recommendation: Given the longevity of the FMF program, its relatively high appropriation levels, the strategic importance of Egypt in the Middle East, and congressional interest in assessing the balance between economic and military assistance provided to Egypt, the Secretaries of State and Defense should conduct periodic program-level evaluations of the FMF program to Egypt. The United States should define specific objectives for the goals, and identify appropriate indicators that would demonstrate progress toward achieving those objectives. Specifically, the agencies should define the current and desired levels of modernization and interoperability the United States would like to achieve. This should include establishing benchmarks and targets for these and other goals.
Agency Affected: Department of State
Status: Closed - Implemented
Comments: According to a State official, State set up the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance (F) in 2006. Since then, the agency has implemented a process to 1) establish goals and objectives for all foreign assistance and 2) evaluate progress toward those goals. State undertakes these initiatives through operational plans and performance plans. GAO review of the 2008 Performance Plan, 2009 Operational Plan, 2009 Performance Plan, and 2010 Operational Plan indicates that State has developed some measurable "indicators", goals for those indicators for the next two years, and performance on the indicators for the current year.
Recommendation: Given the longevity of the FMF program, its relatively high appropriation levels, the strategic importance of Egypt in the Middle East, and congressional interest in assessing the balance between economic and military assistance provided to Egypt, the Secretaries of State and Defense should conduct an assessment of the impact of potential shifts in future appropriations on the Egypt FMF program. This would include identifying risks, planning a course of action for mitigating those risks, and developing mechanisms to anticipate, identify, and react to change.
Agency Affected: Department of State
Status: Closed - Not Implemented
Comments: In response to our draft, State did not indicate whether it concurred with this recommendation. State is not aware of any plans to request lower funding levels in the future and, therefore, appears to consider it unnecessary to assess the impact of potential shifts in future appropriation on the Egypt FMF program.
Recommendation: Given the longevity of the FMF program, its relatively high appropriation levels, the strategic importance of Egypt in the Middle East, and congressional interest in assessing the balance between economic and military assistance provided to Egypt, the Secretaries of State and Defense should conduct an assessment of the impact of potential shifts in future appropriations on the Egypt FMF program. This would include identifying risks, planning a course of action for mitigating those risks, and developing mechanisms to anticipate, identify, and react to change.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: Closed - Not Implemented
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendations but stated that GAO should direct them primarily to the Secretary of State. Furthermore, DOD has noted that decreases in future appropriations for the Egyptian FMF program could significantly affect the US ability to further national security interests, and, therefore, DoD consistently advocates full appropriation of the $1.3B annual FMF request for Egypt.
Recommendation: Given the longevity of the FMF program, its relatively high appropriation levels, the strategic importance of Egypt in the Middle East, and congressional interest in assessing the balance between economic and military assistance provided to Egypt, the Secretaries of State and Defense should conduct periodic program-level evaluations of the FMF program to Egypt. The United States should define specific objectives for the goals, and identify appropriate indicators that would demonstrate progress toward achieving those objectives. Specifically, the agencies should define the current and desired levels of modernization and interoperability the United States would like to achieve. This should include establishing benchmarks and targets for these and other goals.
Agency Affected: Department of Defense
Status: Closed - Implemented
Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendations but stated that GAO should direct them primarily to the Secretary of State. The agency planned to assist and work with the Department of State in implementing this recommendation. In February 2007, DOD noted that State had developed the Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System and is collecting performance and budget data from Embassy operational plans. The plans noted in the Department of State's agency action above were generated using this (FACTS) system. USCENTCOM has developed a spreadsheet showing how U.S. and Egyptian strategies and objectives are met through Egyptian FMF-funded programs, including monitoring of programs that further goals for both interoperability and modernization.

The Obama Administration Forces Oklahoma To Overturn Anti-Sharia Bill, And To Pay $303,333 To Muslims

The Obama Administration Forces Oklahoma To Overturn Anti-Sharia Bill, And To Pay $303,333 To Muslims

shariah-law-picture
By Theodore Shoebat
The US government has forced the state of Oklahoma to overturn its anti-Sharia bill, after a Muslim man named Muneer Awad sued the state for supposed violations against “freedom of religion.”
CAIR also played a role in subverting the bill. Adam Soltani of CAIR said:
Sharia is the moral code of conduct for Muslims, and that includes certain aspects of laws, like marital laws, divorce, inheritance, wills…it encompasses part of that, but it’s also the moral code of conduct
The state of Oklahoma must now pay $303,333 to Awad for legal fees, costs and nontaxable expenses. The money is going into the hands of Muslims because the lawsuit was done by CAIR, a Muslim jihadist organization of Islamic lawyers. Awad himself is a lawyer and the executive director for CAIR. The state of Oklahoma is paying money right into the pockets of Muslims. The Muslim heretic Awad boasted the victory:
This was just politicians optimistically looking for an issue… Look what happened. Not only did the state question get struck down, but they’ll have to pay attorney fees and interest over three years.
Rep. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond, said that paying the fine “is an obligation of the state…I think that’s a disagreement with us and the courts… We passed that as a Legislature. We lost the lawsuit.
According to Jordan Sekulow, the bill never infringed on the Islamic religion, but was placed to prevent international codes of law from entering the government:
At its core, the amendment has nothing to do with infringing on a Muslim’s right to practice Islam or religious freedom generally. This amendment is about “judicial authority,” and is not a “demonization” of Islam.
70% of Oklahomans wanted the anti-Sharia bill, and trusted that the state would maintain it, but this decision shows that the government cannot be trusted, and that only a revolutionary measure though the populace, and not the total reliance on the state, will actually end the Muslim takeover the country.
This Islamic victory only shows one thing: American society is enabling the Muslims to advance their agenda. Unlimited freedom of religion will only lead to limits on Christianity. As I have written in my article, Religious Liberty Leads To Tyranny:
All of civilization, came as a result of religious intolerance
http://shoebat.com/2014/05/23/us-government-forces-oklahoma-overturn-anti-sharia-bill-pay-303333-muslims/

FILED PART ONE AGAIINST TWITTER RACIST

You have completed PART ONE of the EEOC Assessment System. Based on the answers you provided, it seems that your situation may be covered by the laws that EEOC enforces. PART TWO is an Intake Questionnaire that asks more specific questions about you and your employment situation. If you want to continue the process, please print the questionnaire and fill it out.

If you live within 50 miles of an EEOC office, we recommend that you bring the completed questionnaire with you to that office to discuss your situation. If you mail the completed questionnaire to the EEOC, we will get back to you about your complaint. Alternatively, you may call the EEOC at the number below to discuss your situation. If you find that you are having difficulty completing the questionnaire on your own, you may call the number below for assistance.
COMPLETING PART TWO OF THE EEOC ASSESSMENT SYSTEM IS NOT THE SAME AS FILING A CHARGE
What would you like to do now?
  1. Continue with PART TWO (the Intake Questionnaire).
  2. Contact the nearest EEOC office.
  3. Exit to the main screen.

YOU LET nsa hack my user name because i am a christian white woman

I have a complaint about a:








I believe I was discriminated against because of (check all that apply):




(This only applies to individuals who are 40 years of age or older at the time of the incident.)


(Only applies to incidents after Nov 21, 2009)



How many employees does the organization have? Count all employees at all locations:
More information on how to count the number of employees an organization has.





HERE I GO FILEING LAW SUIT AGAINST TWITTER FOR THEY LET OBAMA HACK MY USER NAME USEING IT ACTING AS IF THEY WWRE ME NOW BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TIO FIX THIS I AM FIKLEING LAW SUIT



EEOC Assessment System

The EEOC Assessment System has two parts. PART ONE asks general questions about your complaint to help you decide if the EEOC is the correct agency to assist you. After answering the questions in PART ONE, you may be asked if you would like to continue with PART TWO. The second part is an Intake Questionnaire with more specific questions about your employment situation.
COMPLETING PART ONE OF THE EEOC ASSESSMENT SYSTEM IS NOT THE SAME AS FILING A CHARGE
You need to file a charge if you want the EEOC to look into your complaint or if you want to sue your employer in court. If you continue to PART TWO, you may print the Intake Questionnaire, complete it, and either bring it or mail it to the EEOC to begin the process of filing a charge. Also, certain deadlines apply. You can get more information about filing a charge on this website or by contacting a local EEOC office.
Press the button below to begin PART ONE.

NOW FILEING LAW SUIT AGAINST TWITTER FOR I AM A CHRISTIAN WHITE WOMAN WHO HATES OBAMA

print   email  Share

Filing a Lawsuit in Federal Court

Generally, the law requires that you first try to settle your discrimination complaint by going through the administrative complaint process before you file a lawsuit. In other words, you generally cannot go directly to court to sue an agency. Rather, you first need to try and resolve your complaint through the administrative complaint process set up by Congress.

Exceptions to Requirements for Filing a Lawsuit

There are two exceptions to this general rule. If your complaint involves age discrimination, you can skip the administrative complaint process altogether and go directly to court (as long as you give EEOC at least 30 days written notice of your intent to go to court). Also, if your claim involves gender-based pay discrimination and you wish to bring an action under the Equal Pay Act, you can skip the administrative complaint process and file a lawsuit anytime within two years of the day the discrimination occurred (three years if the discrimination is willful). Keep in mind, though, Title VII also makes it illegal to discriminate based on sex in the payment of wages and benefits. If you have an Equal Pay Act claim, there may be an advantage to also filing your claim under Title VII. Before you can pursue a Title VII claim in court, though, you must go through the administrative complaint process.

Points in the Administrative Complaint Process for filing a lawsuit

For all other cases, you must go through the administrative complaint process before you can file a lawsuit. There are several different points during the process; however, when you will have the opportunity to quit the process and file a lawsuit in court, including:
  • After 180 days have passed from the day you filed your complaint, if the agency has not issued a decision and no appeal has been filed
  • Within 90 days from the day you receive the agency’s decision on your complaint, so long as no appeal has been filed
  • After the 180 days from the day you filed your appeal if the EEOC has not issued a decision, or
  • Within 90 days from the day you receive the EEOC’s decision on your appeal.
If you file a lawsuit, the agency or EEOC will stop processing your complaint.

Better Business Bureau

BBB Complaint Case# 57290505 (Ref#24-314093-57290505-3-9410)

Inbox
x

Better Business Bureau <oakland.ta@bureaudata.com>

May 27 (4 days ago)


to me
Thank you for contacting your BBB regarding your complaint.

The complaint was received by the BBB on May 26, 2014 and has been assigned case#57290505 in our files.

We regret to inform you that your BBB cannot process your complaint. The case has been reviewed by one of our Dispute Resolution Specialists and was found to be a duplicate to a complaint already processed by BBB. If you have new information to add to a pending complaint, you may use the "more information" section of our online complaint system. If we have additional information for you, it will be printed on the back of this letter.

A summary of this complaint case can be seen by clicking here. You may submit a new complaint, making sure to include the missing information. Please consider using our ONLINE COMPLAINT system found by clicking here.

Sincerely,

Tahira Al-Ghaffaar

Consumer Services Manager
Tel: 510 844-2005
Fax: 510 844-2605
tahira@bbbemail.org