Generation Opportunity, one of America’s largest organizations connecting with young adults through a strategy of social media outreach coupled with on-the-ground grassroots organizing, is today releasing the non-seasonally adjusted (NSA) 18-29 unemployment rate data for May:
· The youth unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds specifically (NSA) for May 2012 is 12.1 percent.
· The declining labor participation rate has created an additional 1.7 million young adults that are not counted as “unemployed” by BLS because they are not in the labor force, meaning that those young people have given up looking for work due to the lack of jobs.
· If the labor force participation rate were factored into the overall 18-29 youth unemployment calculation, the actual 18-29-unemployment rate would rise to 16.9 percent (NSA).
Generation Opportunity President Paul T. Conway, former Chief of Staff of the United States Department of Labor, where the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is housed, and the former Chief of Staff of the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) responds to the May 2012 jobs numbers:
“The young adult unemployment rate, now at 12.1 percent for those 18-29 years old, represents yet another chapter in the indefensible saga of how a great generation is being denied economic opportunity, jobs, critical skills, and the ability to pursue their dreams.”
“As summer begins, the ranks of all those frustrated by the lack of opportunities are joined by recent high school and college graduates. Their enthusiasm to join the work force has been slammed by the same harsh economic status quo their brothers and sisters have been experiencing for the past few years – one marked by record high unemployment, a patchwork of part-time jobs, or jobs outside their chosen profession.
“Through no fault of their own, an increasing number of young Americans have begun to lose hope and have dropped out of the workforce entirely, disillusioned by the lack of jobs and dismayed at a White House that attacks America’s job creators and employers, while simultaneously putting Americans and their futures into deeper debt.”
“Today, we are calling on young Americans across the nation – all those who are unemployed, those who are working multiple part-time jobs, and those concerned about friends and family members who are themselves in this situation – to call the White House in the coming days and tell President Obama the time is now for real change. America can do better.”
Generation Opportunity is encouraging its Facebook fans, as well as its thousands of grassroots supporters across the nation, to call the White House at (202) 456-1414 and demand that the policies of the last three and a half years, which have stifled job creation, be reversed in favor of policies that free up Americans to create jobs, to hire, and to restore the American tradition of access to opportunity for all. To see our Facebook call to action, go to:
Of course, we know Obama doesn’t really care if these illegals actually find work. It’s for votes, not work.
Attribution: New York Post
from: The Blaze
If NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s dream to limit the size of sodas and other sweetened drinks has made people in New York angry, how will citizens of one Massachusetts city react if their elected official block all of these drinks, large and small in the city’s restaurants? The City of Cambridge, Massachusetts (the home of Harvard & MIT) has proposed such a thing.
Tuesday, the Mayor’s office sent a policy order stating:
“That the City Manager be and hereby is requested to refer the matter of a ban on soda and sugar-sweetened beverages in restaurants to the Cambridge Public Health Department for a recommendation.”
Apparently the Mayor believes that the citizens of Cambridge, Massachusetts are incapable of limiting their intake of soft drinks or “sugar-sweetened” beverages. Therefore, the only way to stop what he sees as an “increased risk of obesity and diabetes” is to ban (what they believe to be) the culprits.
Here is the official proposal, as seen on the Cambridge home page:
A Chinese farmer caused chaos on the roads when he ducked out to feed his flock of 5,000.
Hong brought streets in the eastern city of Taizhou to a standstill when, accompanied by a colleague, he took his animals to a pond.
Armed with nothing but a cane, he guided his feathered friends three-quarters of a mile as part of an annual tradition in Zhejiang province.
And he claims that not one of the ducks was lost in transition during the tricky duck migration maneuver.
Taizhou lies 190 miles south of Shanghai and has a population of almost 6million people.
Attribution: Daily Mail
Republican Surrenderists for Obamacare
During the summer of 2009, conservative activists turned up the heat on Democratic politicians to protest the innovation-destroying, liberty-usurping Obamacare mandate. In the summer of 2012, it’s squishy Republican politicians who deserve the grassroots flames.
In case you hadn’t heard, even if the Supreme Court overturns the progressives’ federal health care juggernaut, prominent GOP leaders vow to preserve its most “popular” provisions. These big-government Republicans show appalling indifference to the dire market disruptions and culture of dependency that Obamacare schemes have wrought.
GOP Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, told a St. Louis radio station two weeks ago that he supports keeping at least three Obamacare regulatory pillars: federally imposed coverage of “children” up to age 26 on their parents’ health insurance policies (the infamous, unfunded “slacker mandate”), federally mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue,” which leads to an adverse-selection death spiral) and closure of the coverage gap in the massive Bush-backed Medicare drug entitlement (the “donut hole fix” that will obliterate the program’s cost-controls).
Some Republicans are even trying to out-Obama Obamacare. GOP Rep. Steve Stivers of Ohio is pushing a proposal to increase the mandatory coverage age for dependents to age 31. And once a fire-breathing dragon for repeal, GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee hem-hawed when asked by the liberal Talking Points Memo website whether Republicans would be introducing specific bills to preserve the guaranteed issue and slacker mandate provisions.
How about getting informed? As I reported while the Obamacare backroom wheeling-dealing was going on, some 20 states already had passed legislation requiring insurers to cover adult children before the federal rule was imposed, and nearly 20 others were already on the expensive path toward doing so. In New Jersey, Wisconsin and elsewhere, these top-down benefits mandates were among key factors driving up the cost of insurance and limiting access instead of expanding it.
Fortunately for fiscal conservatives, GOP Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina still has his head screwed on straight. Last week, he blasted GOP enablers of the welfare state. He notes that “multiple studies have suggested that every 1 percent increase in premiums increases the number of uninsured by approximately 200,000 to 300,000 individuals nationwide.” The slacker mandate has raised premiums by at least 1 percent since it was enacted, DeMint adds, meaning “that hundreds of thousands of individuals have lost coverage — because they were priced out of the individual market, or because their employers decided to stop offering coverage — as a result of the new requirements.”
This is no textbook hypothetical. No less than the Service Employees International Union Local 1199 — one of Obamacare’s biggest cheerleaders — dropped health care coverage for children in late 2010 because of costly mandates, including, you guessed it, the slacker mandate. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible,” the SEIU 1199 benefits managers wrote in a letter to more than 30,000 families, “and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”
Chris Jacobs, senior analyst for the Senate Joint Economic Committee, points to a new study by the left-leaning Commonwealth Fund that reveals that the benefits of the slacker provision have “disproportionately accrued to affluent and wealthy families.” Moreover, this unfunded mandate is fostering greater dependency — and providing employment disincentives — by encouraging high numbers of young adults to reject other forms of insurance in order to take advantage of “free” parental coverage.
Where does presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney stand? Despite repeated assurances that he will abandon Obamacare in its entirety, Romney is surrounded by GOP socialized medicine helpmates. In January, Romney adviser Norm Coleman said, “(We’re) not going to repeal the act in its entirety … you can’t whole cloth throw it out.”
Earlier this month, Romney named former Utah GOP Gov. Mike Leavitt his transition leader. Leavitt supports and has profited handsomely from Obamacare’s health care exchange mandate. Then there’s the Romneycare mandate in Massachusetts, conceived by Obamacare architect and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, which includes the very same slacker mandate provision enshrined in the Democrats’ law.
Who needs enemies when you’ve got Republican Surrenderists for Obamacare waiting in the wings?
Executive Privilege and how the House should move forward legally
by: Mark Levin
As the Supreme Court recognized in US v. Nixon, the Executive Branch has a legitimate interest in confidentiality of communications among high officials so that the President can have the benefit of candid advice. However, as President Washington himself recognized, that privilege does not protect the President or his underlings from embarrassment or public exposure for questionable actions.
As the Supreme Court has also recognized repeatedly, the Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has the essential power to investigate the actions of the Executive Branch.
In this case, the exercise of Executive Privilege seems, in its timing and over-inclusiveness, to be nothing less than a political delaying tactic to prevent exposure of wrongdoing and incompetence that resulted in the murder of a American law enforcement agent and injury and death of many others. Further, a wholesale claim of privilege is facially improper: the President should be held to the standard that anyone claiming privilege is held to: identify each document in a log so that privilege can be disputed. (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974)
Because among the categories of documents sought are all those relating to the recantation by Holder of testimony before Congress, the demand goes to the core of the Congressional power under Article I. In this respect, this is not a general or oversight inquiry but a determination of why the Attorney General of the United States testified falsely before Congress about his own knowledge of a federal program. Presumptively, none of this category of documents is protected by Executive Privilege for wrongdoing per se is not protected by the privilege.
The right way to proceed is to hold Holder in contempt by resolution of the House and seek authorization from the House for the Committee, by its Chairman, to proceed by civil action to compel production of the documents. (Holder will not enforce a holding of contempt against himself — and by the way, he should have authorized, say, the assistant attorney general for legal counsel, to handle the contempt matter once the House voted as at that point he is representing his own interests and not those of the nation generally). Chairman Issa should file suit in federal court in DC and seek expedited action. There is no need for Senate action. The use of this procedure has been acknowledged by the Congressional Research Service in a 2007 study. Further, a privilege log should be sought by Issa and ordered produced immediately by the court, in camera inspection done promptly by the judge, and a final order entered compelling production of all documents for which no legitimate reason justifies Executive Privilege.
Yes, some documents may be covered by EP, but the blanket attachment of that label flouts the law and the Constitution, and harms the legitimate assertion of EP by Presidents of either party in the future. The Constitution is far too important to be subject to the caprice of this President and an AG who, on its face, wants to be free from scrutiny about why he testified falsely before a Committee of Congress.
Executive Privilege is a very important implied executive power, used in various forms since the presidency of George Washington. Therefore, it’s misuse and abuse, to cover-up wrongdoing, conceal embarrassing information, or advance a political agenda, diminishes the ability of future presidents to assert it legitimately.
Just another example of even handed, non-biased reporting. MSNBC’s Martin Bashir reports on the Mitt Romney’s, six state bus tour. As you watch, imagine the same report, substituting Obama for Romney. Think you would ever see such a thing? Me either. Way to go MSDNC.
But the Swedish expedition team that took the plunge surfaced with more questions than answers and certainly no solution to its origins.
The divers found that the object, which some have likened to the Millennium Falcon because of its unusual round outline, was raised about 10 to 13ft above the seabed and curved in at the sides, giving it a mushroom shape.
They added that the object has ’rounded sides and rugged edges’
At the center of the object, which has a 60-meter (197 feet) diameter, it has an “egg shaped hole leading into it from the top”.
Surrounding the hole, they found a strange, unexplained rock formation. Adding fuel to the speculative fire, they said that the rocks looked “like small fireplaces” and the “stones were covered in something resembling soot”.
“Since no volcanic activity has ever been reported in the Baltic Sea the find becomes even stranger”, Mr Lindberg continued.
The soot also proved cause for concern for Mr Lindberg’s colleague on the Ocean X explorer team, Stefan Hogeborn.
“During my 20-year diving career, including 6,000 dives, I have never seen anything like this. Normally stones don’t burn”, Mr Hogeborn said in the release.
“I can’t explain what we saw, and I went down there to answer questions, but I came up with even more.”
The object was first found in June last year, but because of a lack of funding and bad timing, they have were not able to pull a team together to see for themselves – just the strange, metallic outline, and a similar disk-shaped object about 650 feet away.
As it was before the recent dive, the story behind the object is anyone’s guess.
“We’ve heard lots of different kinds of explanations, from George Lucas’s spaceship – the Millennium Falcon – to ‘it’s some kind of plug to the inner world,’ like it should be hell down there or something”, Mr Lindberg said.
Speaking to Fox News, he said: “We don’t know whether it is a natural phenomenon, or an object. We saw it on sonar when we were searching for a wreck from World War I. This circular object just turned up on the monitor.”
While the Ocean Explorer team is understandably excited about their potentially earth-shattering find, others are slightly more sceptical and are questioning the accuracy of the sonar technology.
In the past, such technology has confused foreign objects with unusual- but natural- rock formations.
Part of the trouble they face, however, is that they have no way of telling what is inside the supposed cylinder- whether it is filled with gold and riches or simply aged sediment particles.
The Baltic Sea is a treasure trove for shipwreck hunters, as an estimated 100,000 objects are thought to line the cold sea’s floor.
The company have created a submarine that they hope will appeal to tourists and wannabe shipwreck hunters who will pay to take a trip down to the bottom of the Baltic Sea to see for themselves.
Attribution: Mail Online