Friday, August 3, 2012

'Real' Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless - US Business News

 

Astonishing this is creeping into the mainstream media.  It's been known for quite a while but fastidiously ignored despite its importance.

--S.

'Real' Unemployment Rate Shows Far More Jobless

While the national unemployment rate paints a grim picture, a look at individual states and their so-called real jobless rates becomes even more troubling.

The government's most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time.

For that count, the government releases a separate number called the "U-6," which provides a more complete tally of how many people really are out of work.

The numbers in some cases are startling.

Consider: Nevada's U-6 rate is 22.1 percent, up from just 7.6 percent in 2007. Economically troubled California has a 20.3 percent real rate, while Rhode Island is at 18.3 percent, more than double its 8.3 percent rate in 2007.

Those numbers compare especially unfavorably to the national rate, high in itself at 14.9 percent though off its record peak of 17.2 percent in October 2009.

Only three states — Nebraska (9.1 percent), South Dakota (8.6 percent) and North Dakota (6.1 percent) — have U-6 rates under 10 percent, according to research from RBC Capital Markets.

Election battleground states paint a picture not much more flattering. Florida's U-6 number is an ugly 17 percent, though Pennsylvania and Ohio are both around 14 percent, below the national U-6 average.

The numbers come as the government prepares to release its latest reading, the July nonfarm payrolls number, on Friday. Economists expect the report show about 100,000 jobs created for the month and the traditional "U-3" rate to hold steady at 8.2 percent.

"The lack of improvement in state U-6 rates continues to be troubling," Chris Mauro, head of US Municipals Strategy at RBC, said in a research note. "While down from recent peaks, state U-6 levels remain dramatically higher than they were in 2007 and 2008."

Mauro used the numbers to demonstrate that investing in municipal bonds remains a challenge because high real unemployment rates will be a drain on local finances.

"We remain concerned about the corrosive influence that these stubbornly high U-6 rates may have on both consumer sentiment and state and local tax revenues," he said. "At current levels, these U-6 rates will continue to be a drag on credit quality."

Thursday, August 2, 2012

WHERE IS HUMA ABEDIN'S SECURITY CLEARANCE FORM?

WHERE IS HUMA ABEDIN'S SECURITY CLEARANCE FORM?

By Cliff Kincaid
August 1, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

The head of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress (CAP) is defending controversial State Department official Huma Abedin, a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who is suspected of playing a role in Obama Administration “engagement” with the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood.

Neera Tanden, president and CEO of CAP and Counselor for CAP’s Action Fund, has sent out an email defending Abedin and asking that Rep. Michele Bachmann be thrown off the House Intelligence Committee for asking questions about the vetting process that Abedin was supposed to go through.

“Michele Bachmann has gone from outrageous to dangerous,” Tanden said in her email to CAP supporters.

Tanden is a former Obama Administration official whose previous claim to fame was working for the Obama White House to pass Obamacare. Her work at CAP apparently includes supporting the Obama Administration’s policy to “engage” with the Muslim Brotherhood. It is believed Abedin is right in the middle of that, by virtue of her position as State Department deputy chief of staff.

CAP is the organization that hired Van Jones before he took his job as White House “Green Jobs Czar” and then re-hired him after his communist background came to light and he lost his job in the administration.

Tanden said in her email to CAP supporters that the problem was not Abedin’s access to classified information but Bachmann’s. She urged House Speaker John Boehner to remove Bachmann from the Intelligence Committee. “Rep. Bachmann’s antics have proven that she can’t be trusted to act in our best interests,” said Tanden.

Boehner, as well as Senator John McCain, had criticized Bachmann for merely asking questions about Abedin’s fitness for her position. But they didn’t indicate familiarity with or knowledge of Abedin’s security clearance form, known as Standard Form 86, or the “Questionnaire for National Security Positions.”

Despite the claims of “witch hunt” and “McCarthyism” that are echoed in the liberal media, especially by Anderson Cooper of CNN, Bachmann and other members of Congress simply want to know whether Abedin’s Muslim Brotherhood connections were disclosed and/or examined when she gained access to national security information.

Their letter to the Inspector General of the State Department points out that Abedin “has three family members—her late father, her mother and her brother—connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and/or organizations,” and that “Her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy-making.”

The matter can be resolved, if the media are truly interested in getting to the bottom of the controversy, by demanding access to Abedin’s Standard Form 86, which she was supposed to fill out before getting her State Department job. House Speaker Boehner could also demand a copy.

Did she disclose her family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as to Saudi Arabia, where she once lived and was raised?

“It is required that job candidates complete the questionnaire and other required forms thoroughly, honestly, and with candor,” the State Department says.

For its part, the White House says it is committed to transparency and open government. Releasing Abedin’s form is a test case and a way to start resolving the controversy.

The questionnaire for national security positions is a 127-page document which asks for such information as relatives and associates, foreign activities, foreign countries visited, the use of illegal drugs, and involvement in groups dedicated to terrorism or the overthrow of the U.S. government.

The State Department says, “Eligibility for access to classified information, commonly known as a security clearance, is granted only to those for whom an appropriate personnel security background investigation has been completed. It must be determined that the individual’s personal and professional history indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and a willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information.”

It is not surprising that CAP would spring to the defense of Abedin. Matt Duss, a policy analyst at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, wrote an article, “Talking to the Muslim Brotherhood (finally),” in which he defended the administration “reaching out to parties and Islamic movements” but at the same time raised concern about “the group’s most prominent affiliated cleric, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, [who] regularly issues the grossest anti-American and anti-Semitic slanders on his Al- Jazeera show.”

AIM has called on Rep. Peter King, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, to investigate Al-Jazeera, on the grounds that it functions as a mouthpiece for terrorist groups. He has not undertaken such an investigation.

CAP, however, works openly with Al-Jazeera. When CAP released a report that purported to examine a conservative network of people and groups described as “Fear Inc.” and said to be guilty of “Islamophobia” toward Muslims, one of the authors, Wajahat Ali, went on Al-Jazeera to promote the claims.

Wajahat Ali and Matt Duss collaborated on another article that attempted to explain why Sharia, or Islamic religious law, “is not the threat conservatives claim it is.” The authors expressed particular concern that the Center for Security Policy had authored a major report advocating that supporters of Islamic law be barred from holding positions of trust in federal, state, or local governments or the armed forces of the United States.

Last August, CAP sponsored an event designed to counteract the movement to prohibit the adoption of Sharia in the U.S. The group also opposed Rep. Peter King’s hearings on how Muslims in the U.S. are being radicalized to carry out terrorism.

Conservative writer Daniel Greenfield says, “A more accurate name for CAP would be the Center for Islamist Progress.”


Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues. One of Cliff's books, "Global Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World" is still awailable.

Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.

Web Site: www.AIM.org

.

Image002

__,_._,___

Hints of a Possible Russia-U.S. Truce

 

 

Image001

Hints of a Possible Russia-U.S. Truce

August 2, 2012 | 0558 GMT

Russia has made some unusual moves over the past several days. As we have noted previously, Moscow has been shifting its position on Syria. The steady decline of Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime has left Moscow with little choice but to distance itself from the al Assads and look for ways to make itself relevant in the political transition. One way Russia has been doing this -- via its intelligence networks in Syria and relationships with the regime -- is by reassuring the West and Israel that Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal is secure. Russia hopes that its links to the regime, even without the al Assads in the picture, will allow Moscow to retain a foothold in the Levant.

On Wednesday, the chief of Russia's Federal Anti-Monopoly Service, Igor Artemyev, told reporters in Moscow that Russia is taking legal action to block Iranian-controlled companies from acquiring the Astrakhan port on the Caspian Sea. Artemyev described Iranian-Russian relations as "difficult" and said that Iran's attempts to gain a stake in the port were allowing the Islamic republic to violate U.N. sanctions. In the name of upholding the sanctions, Artemyev said that Russia would annul the Iranian-Russian business deal on the port. This was a jarring statement considering Russia is one of the biggest facilitators of Iran's sanctions-busting activities.

This is not what Iran wants to hear right now. Tehran is suffering a significant setback in Syria (and by extension Lebanon), and is increasingly concerned about its position in Iraq. Meanwhile, a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf is making it a lot more difficult for Iran to risk aggressive moves in the Strait of Hormuz. The more vulnerable Iran feels, the more it will look for backing from a foreign sponsor such as Russia. This may explain why Iran on Wednesday said it was dropping a $4 billion lawsuit against Russian state-run arms corporation Rosoboronexport in exchange for the delivery of S-300 air defense systems.

Russia is usually happy to play this role for Iran. It is in Russia's strategic interest to see the United States bogged down in the Middle East so that Moscow can act in the former Soviet periphery without interference from the global superpower. Over the past decade, Russia has used Syria and Iran to generate storms in the region to keep Washington preoccupied. With Syria in flux and Iran on the defensive, Russia can still use Iran to meddle with U.S. efforts. But right now, Russia's focus is elsewhere.

Moscow has recently had to deal with an unsteady domestic political scene. While the Kremlin must contend with its usual share of internal battles, Russia has also seen the steady rise of opposition groups that no longer see Putin's authority as a saving grace for the country. These groups were highly active in the mass protests that followed parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential elections in March. Putin and his ruling elite still have plenty of ways to contain these opposition groups, but the groups are becoming more organized. Come October, the opposition will have the opportunity to challenge the Kremlin in regional and municipal elections. This will mark the first time since 2003 that governors will come to power via direct election. Moscow has traditionally relied on regional leaders across Russia's vast landscape to consolidate the Kremlin's control over the country. Should opposition leaders rise to these positions, they could diminish Putin's authority. Support for the Kremlin weakened in spring municipal elections, underlining the importance of regional elections and the Kremlin's need for a strong showing in October.  

If the Kremlin is to manage this domestic situation, Moscow needs to prevent the United States from providing meaningful support to Russian opposition movements. Washington hasn't been shy about showing the outcome it desires for these elections, with both Ambassador Michael McFaul and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking time to meet with opposition leaders. Meanwhile, Russia continues to accuse the United States of funding opposition groups through non-governmental organizations. In July, the Russian government passed several stringent NGO and Internet laws to try to curb foreign support in the country. Russia needs to keep U.S. influence out of this election -- whether that influence takes the form of political backing, financial support, or simply guidance to opposition groups on how to organize their campaigns.

At the same time, the United States needs Russia not to interfere in the Middle East. Washington's strategy to roll back Iranian influence by cracking Syria, ratcheting up sanctions and building up its military presence in the Persian Gulf is going according to plan; Iran feels the pressure and is struggling to respond. The last thing the United States needs is for Russia to boost Tehran's confidence by delivering something like an S-300 air defense system.

Given the strange movements we've seen out of Russia recently, we believe a truce could be in the making between Washington and Moscow. This would after all not be the first such truce. In 2010, then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev struck a deal with the United States to help Russia with its massive privatization and modernization programs in exchange for Russia's approval of U.N. sanctions against Iran. Medvedev visited the United States to strike the economic deals and met with U.S. President Barack Obama just days before Russia flipped its position on Iran sanctions (while leaving plenty of room to continue covertly aiding Iran in its sanctions-busting activities).

As the 2010 episode demonstrated, such truces don't tend to endure. Fundamental issues between the United States and Russia remain unresolved, and both will keep their options open. Over the next three months, however, we could see Russia and the United States setting aside these disagreements in order to take care of their own business without worrying about interference from each other. For Tehran, this is very worrying news indeed.

Image002

__._,_.___

Stadium's Upgraded Retractable Roof

Charlotte NC is remodeling their stadium, installing a retractable roof,
just in time for the Democratic National Convention and Obama’s acceptance speech.

Image002

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

An American Muslim President or A Muslim Dictator President?

An American Muslim President or A Muslim Dictator President?

This Muslim Dictator if re-elected will bring in his red coats to implement his power over the greatest country in the world. Who'd a thunk it!!! But we sat idly by and let this happen but are we going to do something about it. HELL YES!! NOBAMA IN NOVEMBER

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

Blowing the whistle on the federal Leviathan

Blowing the whistle on the federal Leviathan

By George F. Will, Published: July 27

SAN FRANCISCO

The huge humpback whale whose friendliness precipitated a surreal seven-year — so far — federal hunt for criminality surely did not feel put upon. Nevertheless, our unhinged government, with an obsession like that of Melville’s Ahab, has crippled Nancy Black’s scientific career, cost her more than $100,000 in legal fees — so far — and might sentence her to 20 years in prison. This Kafkaesque burlesque of law enforcement began when someone whistled.

Black, 50, a marine biologist who also captains a whale-watching ship, was with some watchers in Monterey Bay in 2005 when a member of her crew whistled at the humpback that had approached her boat, hoping to entice the whale to linger. Back on land, another of her employees called the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to ask if the whistling constituted “harassment” of a marine mammal, which is an “environmental crime.” NOAA requested a video of the episode, which Black sent after editing it slightly to highlight the whistling. NOAA found no harassment — but got her indicted for editing the tape, calling this a “material false statement” to federal investigators, which is a felony under the 1863 False Claims Act, intended to punish suppliers defrauding the government during the Civil War.

A year after this bizarre charge — that she lied about the interaction with the humpback that produced no charges — more than a dozen federal agents, led by one from NOAA, raided her home. They removed her scientific photos, business files and computers. Call this a fishing expedition.

She has also been charged with the crime of feeding killer whales when she and two aides were in a dinghy observing them feeding on strips of blubber torn from their prey — a gray whale.

To facilitate photographing the killers’ feeding habits, she cut a hole in one of the floating slabs of blubber and, through the hole, attached a rope to stabilize the slab while a camera on a pole recorded the whales’ underwater eating.

So she is charged with “feeding” killer whales that were already feeding on a gray whale they had killed. She could more plausibly be accused of interfering with the feeding.

Never mind. This pursuit of Black seems to have become a matter of institutional momentum, an agent-driven case. Perhaps NOAA, or the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section, has its version of Victor Hugo’s obsessed Inspector Javert.

In any event, some of the federal government’s crime-busters seem to know little about whales — hence the “whistle-as-harassment” nonsense.

Six years ago, NOAA agents, who evidently consider the First Amendment a dispensable nuisance, told Black’s scientific colleagues not to talk to her and to inform them if they were contacted by her or her lawyers. Since then she has not spoken with one of her best friends.

To finance her defense she has cashed out her life’s savings, which otherwise might have purchased a bigger boat. The government probably has spent millions. It delivered an administrative subpoena to her accountant, although no charge against her has anything to do with finances.

In 1980, federal statutes specified 3,000 criminal offenses; by 2007, 4,450. They continue to multiply. Often, as in Black’s case, they are untethered from the common-law tradition of mens rea, which holds that a crime must involve a criminal intent — a guilty mind. Legions of government lawyers inundate targets like Black with discovery demands, producing financial burdens that compel the innocent to surrender in order to survive.

The protracted and pointless tormenting of Black illustrates the thesis of Harvey Silverglate’s invaluable 2009 book, “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent.” Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer in Boston, chillingly demonstrates how the mad proliferation of federal criminal laws — which often are too vague to give fair notice of what behavior is proscribed or prescribed — means that “our normal daily activities expose us to potential prosecution at the whim of a government official.” Such laws, which enable government zealots to accuse almost anyone of committing three felonies in a day, do not just enable government misconduct, they incite prosecutors to intimidate decent people who never had culpable intentions. And to inflict punishments without crimes.

By showing that Kafka was a realist, Black’s misfortune may improve the nation: The more Americans learn about their government’s abuse of criminal law for capricious bullying, the more likely they are to recoil in a libertarian direction and put Leviathan on a short leash.

 

 

__._,_.___

Recent Activity:

Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com


.

Image002

__,_._,___

Voters reject transportation tax

Voters reject transportation tax

By Ariel Hart

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Distrustful of government and riven by differences, metro Atlanta voters on Tuesday rejected a $7.2 billion transportation plan that business leaders have called an essential bulwark against regional decline.

The defeat of the 10-year, 1 percent sales tax leaves the Atlanta region's traffic congestion problem with no visible remedy. It marks failure not only for the tax but for the first attempt ever to unify the 10-county region's disparate voters behind a plan of action.

"Let this send a message," said Debbie Dooley, a tea party leader who early on organized opposition to the T-SPLOST tax measure. "We the people, you have to earn our trust before asking for more money."

Kasim Reed, who fought years for the referendum as a legislator and as Atlanta mayor, rallied supporters gathered at a hotel in downtown Atlanta. "The voters have decided," Reed said. "But tomorrow I'm going to wake up and work just as hard to change their minds."

Gov. Nathan Deal's office told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution he would now take a central role in transportation planning for the state's metro areas, and he would not support a sequel to Tuesday's referendum.

"It's heartbreaking," said Ashley Robbins, president of Citizens for Progressive Transit, one of dozens of organizations that worked for the referendum. She predicted a loss of valuable young workers to the region's economy. "If Atlanta's not the region that we want, the young energetic people that drove these campaigns are going to leave."

Results were still pending Tuesday night in the state's other 11 regions. The Transportation Investment Act of 2010, which set up the referendum, was touted to raise as much as $19 billion if approved district by district.

Leaders with the Metro Atlanta Chamber, which pushed to create the referendum in the Legislature and then poured millions into a campaign to pass the tax, did not immediately return telephone calls.

Voter revolt

The metro Atlanta result was no surprise to independent pollsters who in recent weeks predicted an overwhelming loss, fueled by citizens' distrust of government and the metro area's splintered transportation desires.

Voters interviewed Tuesday — urban transit fans and suburban drivers — confirmed the predictions.

Shirley Tondee, a Brookhaven Republican, thinks the region must do something to solve constant transportation woes. But she voted against the T-SPLOST anyway. "I just don't trust that government is going to take the money and do what they say they're going to do," the retired sales representative said outside her precinct.

Robert Williams, a 59-year old electronic technician and a Decatur Democrat, is skeptical too. But in the end he voted yes.

"It was a struggle," he said. However, "we need to be able to grow. Traffic is one of the things that employers do take into consideration when they're thinking about where to bring jobs."

The metro Atlanta tax would have built a $6.14 billion list of 157 regional projects — relieving congestion at key Interstate highway chokepoints and opening 29 miles of new rail track to passengers, among others — as well as $1 billion worth of smaller local projects. The list was negotiated by 21 mayors and county commissioners from all 10 counties, and it contained about half transit and half roads.

The compromise didn't work.

Re-playing 40 years of Atlanta history, controversy built instantly around the proposed expansion of mass transit. Some loved it, some hated it.

Nevertheless, the campaign had set its sights on winning over conservative voters — at least, more of them than might usually say "yes."

Perhaps as a result, the campaign for the tax seemed at times unwilling to trumpet the transit in the list. Advertisements for the referendum showed many cars but little mass transit, until later on.

But that affected some transit supporters. Some metro Atlantans love transit, and some business interests favoring the tax said its expansion was key to drawing new jobs. But how much those voters understood the transit and other projects in the list was unclear.

DeKalb T-SPLOST opponents hit hard on the fact that south DeKalb did not get a new rail line in the list. The T-SPLOST would, however, give $225 million for commuter buses and stations in South DeKalb and $600 million for upgrades to the current MARTA system.

Gladys Pollard, a Decatur Democrat and attorney, mocked promises of the T-SPLOST. "'We're going to improve roads,'" she said. "What does that mean? It's so vague."

Pollard voted "no" because she believes south DeKalb should have gotten rail.

"They're not proposing anything that will benefit me," Pollard said. "We're not getting anything out of this. People in the north — they're going to benefit big-time."

Soft-pedaling the transit message didn't help the campaign with transit opponents, either, who called the transit a waste of $3 billion in a car-loving region. They came out early and in force, starting with tea party gatherings where the first organized opposition met.

Deeper insecurities were at play as well. A poll conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution last year found that 42 percent of respondents believed new mass transit brings crime.

By election day, the issue was such a hot potato that a number of elected officials who voted for the T-SPLOST law or for the project list had stepped away or turned against it.

The campaign

Those may be challenges beyond any campaign's control.

But for all the money poured into it — more than $8 million for education and advocacy — the campaign had its own problems.

It drew some critics who found it top-down or obtuse, and it hit turbulence almost from its first moments.

Campaign tensions naturally grind as pressure rises. But by election night, transit advocates wouldn't watch election returns with the central campaign, but went to their own location at a Midtown Irish pub.

At the campaign's outset, its biggest hire was Glenn Totten, a Democratic strategist who once helped push the Georgia lottery to victory among referendum voters in this Bible-belt state. But within months, Totten, and then another Democrat, communications director Liz Flowers, left abruptly.

Those Democratic gaps in the Republican-Democrat team were eventually filled.

But when challenges arose within the T-SPLOST's Democratic, transit-fan base of voters, the campaign seemed to be caught flat-footed.

The campaign lost huge potential endorsements at the core of its voter base this spring, when the state organizations for both the Sierra Club and the NAACP came out against the tax, feeling there should be more transit in the list.

In each case, the decisionmaking boards of those groups spent weeks in debate over their positions, but were never contacted by the tax campaign, according to the heads of the groups.

Edward DuBose, president of the Georgia conference of the NAACP, said the NAACP even had a string of conference calls with speakers for and against, to help the group make its decision. They would have been glad to have a campaign representative speak, DuBose said, since the advocates the statewide group heard from didn't have a great deal of knowledge about the tax program. But he had no idea who the campaign manager was.

"I do find it odd" that they were never contacted by the campaign, DuBose said then. "Especially odd given that we are very visible."

Republican campaign supporters didn't run lock-step for it either. Although Gov. Deal helped the campaign, his first full-throated, passionate speech at a press conference urging its passage only came Monday, the day before the vote.

Deal said he had not had the opportunity to speak at large events for the Atlanta tax.

Now, with his predecessor's plan cashiered, the problem of funding a metro Atlanta traffic fix is his.