A preliminary count of votes for Egyptians living abroad has put Islamist candidate Abdul-Moneim Aboul-Fotouh in the lead, followed by left-leaning Hamdeen Sabahi . The online statement by the State Information Service (SIS) on Saturday added that the figures “confirmed a sharp competition” for third between Amr Moussa and Mohamed Mursi.

The note did not elaborate on the precise breakdown of votes, or how many had been counted so far. A total of 587,000 Egyptians abroad registered to participate, according to the Supreme Presidential Elections Commission (SPEC). The figure represents just 1.13 percent of citizens eligible to take part, but nonetheless gives valuable clues about the current strength of the 13 candidates running for the top job. Almost 45 percent of Egyptian voters overseas reside in Saudi Arabia, and some 119,000 in Kuwait.

Numbers have gradually been trickling in from individual consulates and embassies around the world. In a press conference on Saturday, Egypt’s ambassador to Kuwait said that Mursi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood’s political wing, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), had garnered the most votes in what appeared to be a closely-fought race. Out of a total of 55,288, Mursi secured 17,139 votes. Aboul-Fotouh came in second with 14,109, followed by Sabahi.

CONTINUED at CNBC.

An Exclusive interview, Alex Jones speaks with Sen. Rand Paul on NDAA, TSA undercover on Houston busses, Obama’s overall neglect of the Constitution, his possible impeachment and much more. This is a must see video.

Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood has warned the government it will not support an IMF loan unless the terms are changed or it moves aside and allows a new administration to oversee how the funds are spent, its candidate for president said on Sunday.

The government has been negotiating a $3.2 billion loan with theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF) to help it avert a balance of payments crisis caused by the political and economic turmoil of the last year, and an IMF technical team is now in Cairo.

The IMF has said that before it agrees to a loan, the government must first sell the plan to the country’s political groupings, especially the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party, which won nearly half the seats in the new parliament.

“We told them (the government), you have two choices. Either postpone this issue of borrowing and come up with any other way of dealing with it without our approval, or speed up the formation of a government,” Khairat al-Shater said in an interview.

He said he realised the country’s finances were precarious and a severe crunch could come by early to mid-May as the end of the fiscal year approached, but that this was the government’s problem to resolve. Egypt’s fiscal year runs to June 30.

“It is not logical that I approve a loan that the transitional government would take for two or three months, then demand that I, as a permanent government, repay,” he told Reuters.

CONTINUEd at Yahoo News.

A Grad rocket has landed in the southern Israeli city of Eilat, but has caused no damage or injuries, Israeli security officials said.

District police chief Ron Gertner told Israeli radio the rocket had been fired from Egypt’s Sinai peninsula.

He said it struck a construction site close to a residential area shortly after midnight (21:00 GMT).

The blast took place as thousands congregated in the resort town for the Jewish holiday of Passover.

Rocket attacks from Egyptian soil are uncommon. Attacks on Eilat and the nearby Jordanian town of Aqaba in 2010 killed one person and injured another four.

Sinai unrest.

Eilat Mayor Meir Yitzhak-Halevy told the Jerusalem Post that the city would function as normal despite the attack.

A wave of unrest has hit the restive Sinai peninsula recently.

Israel says militants have become active in the region since former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in February 2011.

In August 2011, an armed group crossed the border into Israel from the Sinai peninsula and killed eight Israelis.

Israel blamed Palestinian militants but five Egyptian policemen were killed as Israeli forces pursued the gunmen, sparking a diplomatic row between the two countries.

Source: BBC News.

Egyptian military judges dropped convictions against Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate Khairat el-Shater, clearing the nominee of the nation’s dominant political party to run in the election, the group’s lawyer said.

“We have taken administrative, legal and judicial measures before the military judiciary and based on this, all convictions have been dropped,” Abdel Monem Abdel Maqsoud said in a phone interview in Cairo yesterday. “All legal obstacles have been removed, and el-Shater now has the right to fully exercise all his political rights,” he said.

The Brotherhood said March 31 that el-Shater was its candidate for the presidential election that begins May 23 and May 24, making him one of the favorites to win and potentially increasing tensions between the once-banned group and the generals who currently rule the nation. He received 58 out of 110 votes at a meeting of the Brotherhood’s consultative council, according to Arab satellite network Al-Jazeera. The narrow majority suggested rifts within the organization.

Abdel Maqsoud said the necessary legal steps were taken “over the last days.” El-Shater, 62, will submit his candidacy application this week, Abdel Maqsoud said. “The Brotherhood wouldn’t have named him if there were still obstacles.”

El-Shater spent years in and out of the jails of former PresidentHosni Mubarak. In the most recent conviction, he was sentenced in 2008 by a military court to seven years in prison amid a crackdown on the Brotherhood by the then government. He was released in March 2011, less than a month after Mubarak’s ouster.

CONTINUED at Bloomberg.

Thousands of critics of capitalism meeting in Brazil called Sunday for a worldwide protest in June to press for concrete steps to tackle the global economic crisis.

The World Social Forum wrapped up a five-day meeting in this southern Brazilian city, urging citizens to “take to the streets on June 5″ for the global action, which would be in support of social and environmental justice.

The forum also announced a “peoples’ summit” of social movements to be held in parallel with the high-level UN conference on sustainable development scheduled next June 20-22 in Rio.

The Rio+20 summit, the fourth major gathering on sustainable development since 1972, will press world leaders to commit themselves to creating a social and “green economy,” with priority being given to eradicating hunger.

But World Social Forum participants, including representatives of the Arab Spring, Spain’s “Indignant” movement, Occupy Wall Street, and students from Chile, sharply criticized the concept of “a green economy” that would allow multinational corporations to reap the profit.

“The political and economic elites are the one percent who control the world and we are the one percent seeking to change it. Where are the (other) 98 percent?” said Chico Whitaker, one of the Forum’s founders.

“There are many who are happy because each time they get more consumer goods, but many are concerned and unsatisfied. The challenge for us is to speak with them.”

“If we do not raise the issue of inequality, we won’t solve the problems,” said Venezuelan sociologist Edgardo Lander.

“If the system is not capable of redistributing and deal with inequality, we have to do it ourselves,” agreed Sam Halvorsen, of the Occupy London movement.

The Forum is an alliance of social movements opposed to the World Economic Forum, the annual gathering of the world’s economic and political elites held at the same time in the Swiss resort of Davos.

Addressing the gathering Thursday, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff appealed for “a development model that articulates growth and job creation, battles poverty and decreases inequalities,” and advocates for the “sustainable use and preservation of natural resources.”

Candido Grzywoski, one of the founders and a coordinator of the Forum, said the urgency of the global economic crisis and the popular indignation around the world “gave us more unity in diversity.”

The Forum, which drew around 40,000 participants this year, has its roots in 1999 street protests in the US city of Seattle during a World Trade Organization meeting but it settled in Porto Alegre as its regular venue 12 years ago when it drew 20,000 activists from around the world.

Next year, it will be held in Cairo.

Source: Breitbart.

Officials at Cairo’s international airport confiscated 420 pounds of frozen cow brains Friday from three Sudanese travelers who planned to sell them to Egyptian restaurants, authorities said.

An airport official said it was the fourth time this week that customs officers there had foiled an attempt to smuggle cow brains into the country, reflecting the growth of a moneymaking scheme made possible by some realities of international supply and demand: Cow brains are cheap in Sudan, and Egyptians like to eat them.

A pound of raw cow brains bought in Sudan for less than a dollar can be resold in Egypt for six times as much, airport officials said. That means Friday’s haul could have earned the men more than $1,500.

Restaurants specializing in liver and brains are popular in Egypt. Both items are deep fried and often eaten in pita bread with spicy red sauce.

Airport officials discovered the brains Friday while inspecting large freezer boxes brought in by three travelers on a flight from Sudan’s capital, Khartoum. After inspecting the boxes, the officials confiscated the brains since they couldn’t ensure they had been preserved in a sanitary manner.

The brains would be burned, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity under airport rules.

Source: MSNBC.

There’ll be no NATO humanitarian intervention here.

The blog-o-sphere is boiling at the cruel beating of a female protester by Egyptian military police, who continued battling protesters in Tahrir Square on Sunday. The clashes, into their third day now, have left 10 people dead and hundreds injured. The video uploaded on YouTube Sunday reveals the extreme cruelty of the country’s law enforcers during the crackdown. The army soldiers in full riot gear have been savagely beating a seemingly unconscious female protester with big sticks, kicking her and stomping on her chest. Security forces lashed out ruthlessly on armless civilians and burned down tents that had been put up by activists outside the parliament building to camp in protest against the military rule. The internet community therefore questions the methods of the military regime who took over power after the ousting of the ex-President Hosni Mubarak in February.

*Written by Rob Rimes.

I actually really dig these Lincoln-Douglas style debates. Granted, I bitched about the last one while writing about it but that was because I wasn’t all that interested in watching a Cain-Gingrich dick sucking contest. Apart from that, I like the format. However, I would really like to see one with Ron Paul in it but I guess that’s wishful thinking. Either way, it is refreshing to see Jon Huntsman get so much time devoted to him, as he goes head-to-head with Newt Gingrich here.

The debate starts with some dude talking for five minutes, which I just skip through because I have to watch it on a delayed stream, due to my work schedule. A few minutes later, Newt and Huntsman sit down and both give nice introductions. Newt gives props to Huntsman and his wife for being gracious hosts. Newt also applauds Huntsman’s passion for trying to maintain America’s image throughout the world. Huntsman says that it’s an honor to be debating Newt and that he loved having Newt and his wife at his place in Beijing when he was the ambassador to China. He then says that we need to fix our core, promote our values as well as liberty and free markets. Huntsman calls for a foreign policy that puts economics first. He also says that we need to realistically engage terror the right way. Lastly, he adds that he wants the world to know what it is like to be a friend and ally to the United States.

The first subject of the night is our relationship with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Huntsman points out that we have been in the Afghan war for over ten years already. He says that too many military families have already given the ultimate sacrifice. Huntsman calls for us to bring our troops home. He says we need to stop focusing on this idea of nation building in Afghanistan and we need to really focus on terror. Huntsman reminds us that we knocked the Taliban out of power and have been able to establish free elections. He mentions that we have uprooted Al-Qaeda and taken care of business by killing Osama bin Laden. In essence, it is mission accomplished. He says that we don’t need 100,ooo troops on the ground, we just need a serious counter-terror effort and to work on our intelligence gathering in the area. He also wants stronger special forces to deal with a threat if it arises. He calls for better training of the Afghan soldiers, so that they can defend themselves from further tyranny. Huntsman explains that Afghanistan is a tribal country and goes on to describe what that means by using the words of Hamid Karzai, who told Huntsman that it is a very difficult country to be the leader of, as he can’t even return to his own region due to the lack of respect his tribe has for him due to their differences that grew over time.

On Pakistan, Huntsman runs through our history in dealing with them and how it was China that initially got us in there to be allies with them. He also talks about how we set up shop in Pakistan to help Afghanistan deal with the Soviet invasion back in the 80′s. He says that the Ministry of Defense and the Islamist groups have now made dealing with Pakistan somewhat difficult. He says that it is one of the youngest countries in Asia, as far as the average age of its citizens, but that there is a growing anti-American mentality that is spreading. Huntsman wants us to just recognize it for what it is, which is a transactional relationship and country where we have real interests, mainly because it is a nuclear country. He says that we need to work on them to get them to help us in our counter-terrorism efforts. Huntsman believes that foreign aid should be based off of how our relationship goes in the future.

Newt Gingrich starts by telling us that you can now have a 5-star hotel in a third world country that is only a block away from a slum that is made up of people who came out of the jungle. He paints a picture about the different worlds, as the person in the hotel is used to living a very Western life with proper sanitation and things taken care of, where the guy a block over lives in filth. He says that this is what Karzai was talking about in Afghanistan, that those living in filth, even in close proximity to immense wealth, just can’t relate to that sort of life.

Gingrich talks about how if you asked him a year ago where Osama bin Laden was, he would’ve never guessed that he was living in a large compound out in the open in a major Pakistani military city. Newt feels that that would only have been possible if Pakistani intelligence was protecting him. He then points out that when we killed him, the Pakistani government was happy about it, in fact they were mad at the people within their own country that helped the United States take him out. Newt asks what the lesson of this is. He says that it tells him that we have a much deeper problem across the region than we think we do. Apparently Newt hasn’t been listening to those of us who have said for years that hanging around in these countries will build anti-American sentiment and eventually breed more terror. How would we feel if the Chinese constantly drove their tanks up our streets?

On Iraq, Newt says that since we eliminated Saddam Hussein the numbers of Christians in that country has gone from 1.2 million all the way down to 500,000. He says that that is not a success story. He cites all the x-factors of Libya, Syria, Egypt and Tunisia and says that we never know how these things will pan out. Newt says that we just randomly use our forces and drones but that we don’t have any clear cut understanding of what we are doing and what our objectives are. He calls for us to go back to the drawing board as we aren’t any safer than we were ten years ago and our economic situation is much worse now. Gingrich goes on to warn us that a movement that is willing to train their children to be suicide bombers in an effort to blow themselves up, just to kill a few of us, would stop at nothing if they were able to acquire a nuclear missile. The two then exchange a few extra points but really just revisit what has already been said before moving on to the next question.

The second topic is the issue of Iran. Gingrich starts by asking if we are willing to accept them having nuclear weapons or not. He says that everything else is secondary to the issue of them having WMDs. He then says that we need to work on forcing regime change, which never works if he would pay attention to all the other times we’ve done this throughout history. He says that the Iranians have huge underground facilities that are protected and that we can’t just wipe out their nuclear strongholds without harming tons of a civilians in the process. So he feels that we need to start forcing them to change through economic bullying. He goes on saying that they produce lots of oil but import a large portion of their gasoline because they only have one refinery. By stopping the importation of gasoline we would stifle them. He says that we cannot tolerate them having a nuclear weapon. Yep, so as long as we have all the bombs, we can dictate the rules.

Huntsman says that he agrees with a lot of what Gingrich has said. He says that Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer our problems and that we need to focus on how we are going to meet the challenges of the 21st century. He adds that these challenges are economic and educational and that they will play out over the Pacific Ocean. He says that the biggest threat and challenge is Iran. He talks about how our relationship started and how it evolved over the years. He points out that we missed a huge opportunity with the Persian Spring in 2009. Huntsman believes that Obama dropped that ball and if we had done something earlier we could’ve built up good relations with those in Iran opposing the current regime. He asks the same question Newt did, when he wants to know if we are okay with Iran having a nuke. He says that China seems to be fine with it and Russia isn’t really concerned. He adds though, that if Iran gets one, the Saudis will and then the Egyptians and then everyone else in the region. Huntsman says that ALL options need to be on the table in regards to stopping a Iran from becoming a nuclear threat.

Newt adds that all it would take is two or three nukes to create another Holocaust and thus, it would kill Judaism on the planet. M’kay, has he ever been to New York or Hollywood? This is what gets me, where Newt can often time make good points, he ruins it by going over the top with this fear-mongering bullshit. He says that he doesn’t want to be the one guy that would stand to the side and allow Israel to be susceptible to a future holocaust.

Huntsman says that there will be talks of sanctions against Iran but says that it won’t work. He points out that China and Russia won’t work with us and that Iran will still build a nuke anyway. He says that the United States needs to do it their way and that the U.S. works best when it is left to its own devices.

The third topic up for discussion is the Arab Spring. Huntsman goes first by saying that we are in a period of great uncertainty in the Middle East. He said that we make a mistake whenever we try to get involved and pick a winner. He talks about how when he was the ambassador to China, they were on high alert over Middle East issues because depending upon what happened with all the dictators and regime changes, it affected their bottom line. Huntsman says that we need to look for and support groups that share American values but we need to make sure we don’t back those whose viewpoints are inconsistent. So what he is hinting at is that we need to not help a rebellion made up of Al-Qaeda and Taliban soldiers that used to kill American soldiers: Libya is where that happened. Huntsman goes on to say that he couldn’t see a national security issue that could justify us going into Libya. He says that Syria is different however as it is an ally of Iran and it is used as a pipeline by Iran to help keep the region destabilized. He feels that this makes Syria a national security issue, unlike Libya. In my opinion, Libya probably will be a huge threat down the road considering who we propped up there. Egypt also fits this mold now, even though we weren’t involved.

Newt talks about how we made a mistake not doing anything in regards to Egypt. He says that Honsi Mubarak was our ally for decades and that he did a lot to help the United States in that region. So Newt, is basically ignoring the fact that this propped up “president” who fixed elections for over thirty years, deserved to be protected from his subjects who just wanted fair elections and regime change. Newt is excusing Mubarak’s tyranny because we created and approved the tyranny. This whole stance is crap. I’m not saying that the Muslim Brotherhood is better by any means but who are we to say who Egypt can chose as their leaders? Newt feels that we are allowed to dictate the fate of other countries. Newt just goes on and on about how Obama turned his back on our friend and how he was forced to step down without any dignity. Shit, is it just me or was Mubarak’s entire presidency severely lacking any dignity?

Gingrich then goes on a second rant about how poor our intelligence is. He says that we didn’t know who these people were who wanted to overthrow Gaddafi but we helped them because Gaddafi was an evil dictator (and Mubarak wasn’t?). He talks about how the biggest influx of anti-American fighters joining terror cells came out of Saudi Arabia and Libya. Funny because it was widely reported that the rebels fighting Gaddafi, who we were helping, were made up of several former Al-Qaeda and Taliban soldiers. Well, the mainstream media ignored this but the alternative media was all over it. So Newt is saying that alternative media outlets have better intel than the U.S. government. Newt is a good talker and he wins over a lot of people with this bullshit but being a good talker can’t save you from digging your way out of your own bullshit when actual facts are present. Keep building the fear though buddy.

The next topic is how to bring down the debt without destabilizing America’s place in the world. The multiple problems with this discussion topic should be obvious. First, it implies that American imperialism is okay and is essentially wondering how we can continue to maintain our military’s overreaching power. Keep in mind that we are currently in over 130 countries; there are only 196 in the world, so we are roughly in two-thirds of all the countries. Sorry, but I find that to be insane and incredibly wasteful. The second problem with this question is that it completely ignores the difference between defense spending and military spending. The vast majority of our military actions aren’t done as a means of defense, they just lump them into the categorization of “defense” because they need to sell it and they need to keep us controlled through their manufactured fear. That may sound crazy but Newt’s been manufacturing fear all night: read between the lines.

Gingrich kicks it off by saying that you have to build strategies off of all the things that threaten you in the world. He actually says that this is the “first priority of government”. He says that Obama’s proposal of randomly cutting “defense” by 500 billion is horrible and that cutting the military budget in that way is basically bad policy. He then cites the fact that he established the Military Reform Caucus in 1981 under Reagan and that he helped eliminate waste in the area of defense. He then recycles his point from a few debates ago about how Apple can develop new products so quickly and frequently but the military takes a dozen years or so to develop a single weapon. He says that you can’t balance the budget until you make the military you need and handle the foreign policy issues first. Newt is so far from the Founding Fathers it’s like they are separated by more than two centuries!

Jon Huntsman talks about the Navy service of his two sons and how important the military is to him and his family. He goes on to say that the fact that we are 15 trillion dollars in debt, is crazy and that it is our biggest national security issue. Yeah Newt, take that! You and your phantom menaces! He talks about Japan and Europe and their debt to GDP ratio and how much trouble they are all in. He says that everything needs to be on the table, there are no sacred cows. We don’t have the right to bitch about our entitlements like we live in the lap of luxury anymore: this includes defense. He points out that we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined and that we are spending much more than we did at the height of the Cold War. He goes on to say that terror is a real problem and that it isn’t going away anytime soon. He is for counter-terrorism measures and developing the tools necessary to stop the evil bastards but that we need to really look at where we can cut military spending regardless. Bringing the troops home from all these pointless ongoing wars would be a big start. Huntsman also points out that the cost of making a fighter jet now as compared to before is ridiculous. He says that the huge spike in cost isn’t reflective of parts and labor, instead it is reflective of the high cost of red tape and bureaucratic bullshit. Both candidates conclude this discussion by agreeing that we need to look at wasteful spending like having bases in Germany and other silly places.

The final topic is China and the Pacific Rim. Huntsman, the former ambassador to China starts. He talks about how we have elections in America and how China doesn’t, they just have leadership changes. He says that they are in for some major changes as the leadership will soon shift again. He says that the younger generations are of a different mindset of their predecessors. This is very true considering the growing Jasmine Revolution going on that the Chinese government is trying to stop. Huntsman then asks what our objectives should be. Talking about their future economic woes, he talks about how the numbers of active farmers have gone from 800 million down to 200 million and that there are now 600 million ex-farmers that are creating a major burden on the major cities, as they are looking for work in the manufacturing industry. Unlike Mitt Romney and all the other candidates who are trying their damnedest to make us fear China, Huntsman just hits us with logic, reason and actual knowledge of the situation. Huntsman says that we would be “crazy” to not “recognize the tectonic shifts that are happening in the macroeconomic environment.” He adds that we need to prepare ourselves for these shifts and to be ready to make a serious impact. Huntsman is so positive when it comes to this stuff. He closes this point by saying that this country is on the cusp of a “manufacturing renaissance” if we do this the right way. He goes on to another point where he says that we need to communicate with China better because they are the “greatest long-term strategical thinkers in the world” and we are “the greatest short-term tactical thinkers in the world”. He believes that we need to find a way to make these two cultures mesh and to develop a dialogue that works in a respectful way that shows dedication to each other. Huntsman tells us that from 2014 to 2017 we will have more flexibility to work and develop a better relationship with China, due to their next and younger regime coming in.

Newt re-enters the discussion and immediately admits that Governor Huntsman knows more than he does on the China issue. Newt feels that the most important relationship over the next fifty years is the one that the American people need to have with the Chinese people. He says that we have to understand that even though their totalitarian ways go against our American values, that we need to not forget that we are still better off being on good terms with each other. Newt says that where China is now getting more expensive in manufacturing, America is getting better at modernizing it and eventually that will be a big benefit to us. However, fear-monger Newt takes over and immediately starts talking about how we need better weapons to deal with a potential Chinese military threat. At this point, I think Newt is winning in the polls just because he is scaring the shit out of enough people. Vote for me or get bombed! Bwahahahaha!

The candidates then go on to give their closing statements. In the end, I thought this debate was very good and it really provided the viewer with deep insight into Huntsman’s policy, which is always overshadowed by the moderators of other debates giving too much airtime to Romney, Gingrich and Perry. Unfortunately this wasn’t on TV, except for a tape delay on C-SPAN. Personally, I had to watch it online. I really wish that more people would have had access to this discussion as it provided a lot of new ideas and insight on issues that most of the other candidates either don’t fully understand or just use in an underhanded way to scare votes out of us. Unlike the majority of the choices the GOP is providing right now, Huntsman isn’t your typical narrow-sighted fear-mongering bastard. As far as China and foreign policy go, Jon Huntsman fucking gets it. If Ron Paul wasn’t in the race, Huntsman would be my guy in the GOP. This is also assuming that Gary Johnson is now jumping ship to the Libertarian Party.

Grading Scale:
Grade B+: Jon Huntsman
Grade C-: Newt Gingrich
Grade I: Ron Paul
Grade I: Mitt Romeny
Grade I: Rick Perry
Grade I: Rick Santorum
Grade I: Michele Bachmann
Grade I: Gary Johnson

Judges overseeing the vote count in Egypt’s parliamentary elections say Islamist parties have won a majority of the contested seats in the first round. The judges spoke on condition of anonymity because official results are expected to be released later Thursday.

They say the Muslim Brotherhood could take 45 percent of the seats up for grabs. The liberal Egyptian bloc coalition and the ultra-fundamentalist Nour party are competing for second place.

Together, Islamist parties are expected to control a majority of parliamentary seats by March. This week’s vote was the first of six stages of parliamentary elections that will last until then.

Continued success by Islamists will allow them to give Cairo’s government and constitution a decidedly Islamist character. It could also lead Cairo to shift away from the West towards the Iranian axis.

CONTINUED at Israel National News.