A man carries a coffin on which is written "IMF politics" next to an EU flag on which is written "20 million unemployed"

Eurozone unemployment hits 10-year high

BRUSSELS (AFP) — The unemployment rate in the 16 euro countries climbed to a 10-year high of 9.5 percent in May as companies cut jobs to survive Europe’s worst post-war recession, according to EU data on Thursday.

Some 273,000 jobs were lost across the eurozone in May as the unemployment rate rose to the highest point since May 1999, the European Union’s Eurostat data agency estimated…

Although activity in the recession-hit European economy is beginning to pick up, many companies are still shedding workers to adjust to slack demand for their goods and services in Europe and abroad.

The May eurozone unemployment rate was up from 9.3 percent in April and 7.4 percent in May 2008.

Meanwhile, in the 27-nation EU the unemployment rate rose in May to 8.9 percent, hitting the highest level since June 2005 as 385,000 jobs were lost…

A major headache for European politicians for decades, unemployment had been steadily falling ahead of the current downturn, reaching a record low of 7.2 percent in March 2008.

However, with the rapid deterioration in the economy, the unemployment rate has steadily climbed higher since then.

Isn’t it wonderful? We are just like Europe.

The Democrats must be so pleased.

Still, when was the last time that unemployment in the United States matched that of Europe?

(Click to enlarge.)

Probably not in our lifetimes.

By the way, the above chart is from this article by the New York Times:

U.S. Jobless Rate Likely to Pass Europe’s

By FLOYD NORRIS
Published: May 22, 2009

FOR many years, unemployment in the United States was lower than in Western Europe, a fact often cited by people who argued that the flexibility inherent in the American system — it is easier to both hire and fire workers than in many European countries — produced more jobs.

That is no longer the case. Unemployment in the United States has risen to European averages, and seems likely to pass them when international data for April is calculated.

“The current economic crisis,” wrote John Schmitt, Hye Jin Rho and Shawn Fremstad of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a research organization in Washington, “has turned the case for the U.S. model almost entirely on its head.” …

The Times only brought this up to show how wrong it is to think the US business model is better than socialist Europe’s.

Talk about turning things on their heads.

(Click to enlarge.)

467K jobs cut in June; jobless rate at 9.5 percent

By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON – Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June, driving the unemployment rate up to a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, suggesting that the economy’s road to recovery will be bumpy.

The Labor Department report, released Thursday, showed that even as the recession flashes signs of easing, companies likely will want to keep a lid on costs and be wary of hiring until they feel certain the economy is on solid ground.

June’s payroll reductions were deeper than the 363,000 that economists expected.

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn’t as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent. Still, many economists predict the jobless rate will hit 10 percent this year, and keep rising into next year, before falling back.

All told, 14.7 million people were unemployed in June.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.5 percent in June, the highest on records dating to 1994.

"We were on the road of things getting less bad in the jobs market, and that has been temporarily waylaid," said economist Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics. "But this doesn’t change my view that the recession will end later this year. We’re probably two months away."

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 6.5 million jobs…

Even with higher pace of job cuts in June, the report indicates that the worst of the layoffs have passed. The deepest job cuts of the recession came in January, when 741,000 jobs vanished, the most in any month since 1949.

And there was some other encouraging job news Thursday.

In a separate report, the department said the number of newly laid-off workers filing applications for unemployment benefits fell last week to 614,000, in line with economists’ predictions. The number of people continuing to draw benefits unexpectedly dropped to 6.7 million…

(Click to enlarge.)

It really is laughable, the knots that our watchdog media tie themselves into – trying to spin bad economic news:

Employers cut a larger-than-expected 467,000 jobs in June…

However, the rise in the unemployment rate from 9.4 percent in May wasn’t as sharp as the expected 9.6 percent.

Which is it, AP?

Of course these economic experts are always surprised when the economy doesn’t react the way that the AP and the rest of the media want it to react.

(Which, under Bush, meant that the economy would go down. And under Obama, it would go up.)

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 6.5 million jobs.

Once again, the AP repeats the preposterous lie that the US has been in a recession since December 2007, which is one year longer than the actual truth:

This is done to try to put more of the blame on the previous administration.

Even though a glance at the charts from the US Bureau Of Labor Statistics will correct any misapprehension about exactly who is losing jobs here.

Note too, that these labor statistic charts are not something that we would ever see from our watchdog media. Even though they are free and available to the media.

Why is that?

Our watchdog media changed the long-standing definition of ‘recession’ so as to claim that we were in a recession a year before we actually were.

And now they are doing their level best to pretend that we are no longer in a recession, even though it is getting worse.

Even with higher pace of job cuts in June, the report indicates that the worst of the layoffs have passed…

And there was some other encouraging job news Thursday…

The number of people continuing to draw benefits unexpectedly dropped to 6.7 million…

The AP never stop serving their DNC masters.

From the Politico:

Washington Post sells access, $25,000+

By: Mike Allen
July 2, 2009

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, non-confrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."

With the newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said this morning that he was "appalled" by the plan and said the newsroom will not participate.

"It suggests that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase," Brauchli told The Post’s media reporter, Howard Kurtz. The proposal "promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post."

Earlier this morning, Brauchili said in a staffwide e-mail that the newsroom would not participate in the first of the planned events — a dinner scheduled July 21 at the home of Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Katharine Weymouth. Brauchli,was named on the flier as one of the "Hosts and Discussion Leaders."

The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.

And it’s a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.

"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."

Kris Coratti, communications director of Washington Post Media, a division of The Washington Post Company, said: "The flier circulated this morning came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company’s vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers.

"As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this. We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business, and that The Post should be leading these conversations in Washington, big or small, while maintaining journalistic integrity. The newsroom will participate where appropriate."

In his e-mail to the newsroom, labeled "Newsroom Independence," Brauchli wrote: "Colleagues, A flyer was distributed this week offering an ‘underwriting opportunity’ for a dinner on health-care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate. The language in the flyer and the description of the event preclude our participation.

"We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable. There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values."

The flier says: “Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders … Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post … An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. … A Washington Post Salon … July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m. …

"Washington Post Salons are extensions of The Washington Post brand of journalistic inquiry into the issues, a unique opportunity for stakeholders to hear and be heard," the flier says. "At the core is a critical topic of our day. Dinner and a volley of ideas unfold in an evening of intelligent, news-driven and off-the-record conversation. … By bringing together those powerful few in business and policy-making who are forwarding, legislating and reporting on the issues, Washington Post Salons give life to the debate. Be at this nexus of business and policy with your underwriting of Washington Post Salons."

The first "Salon" is titled "Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate."

This is the most blatant proof yet of the axis of corruption between the government, special interests, and the mainstream media that exists in Washington.

The real divide of American politics is not Democrats versus Republicans, or liberals versus conservatives – but the entrenched political class versus the American people.

(Thanks to Pat for the heads up.)

  Update!

An update from the red-faced Washington Post:

Post Publisher Cancels Plans for Off-the-Record ‘Salons’

By Howard Kurtz
Thursday, July 2, 2009

Washington Post Publisher Katharine Weymouth today canceled plans for a series of policy dinners at her home after learning that marketing fliers offered lobbyists access to Obama administration officials, members of Congress and Post journalists in exchange for payments as high as $250,000.

"Absolutely, I’m disappointed," Weymouth, the chief executive of Washington Post Media, said in an interview. "This should never have happened. The fliers got out and weren’t vetted. They didn’t represent at all what we were attempting to do. We’re not going to do any dinners that would impugn the integrity of the newsroom."

Moments earlier, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said in a separate interview that he was "appalled" by the plan, and he insisted before the cancellation that the newsroom would not participate.

"It suggests that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase," Brauchli said. The proposal "promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post." …

"We do not offer access to the newsroom for money," Brauchli said. "We just are not in that business." He told the staff in an e-mail that the newsroom would have no part of this plan, writing: "Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable." …

Two Post executives familiar with the planning, who declined to be identified discussing internal planning, said the fliers appear to be the product of overzealous marketing executives. The fliers were overseen by Charles Pelton, a Post executive hired this year as a conference organizer. He was not immediately available for comment.

White House communications director Anita Dunn said today that The Post Co. had approached officials at the Health and Human Services Department to participate in a Weymouth dinner later this month. But, she said, "no senior Obama administration officials had accepted any invitation for the ’salon.’"

Weymouth knew of the plans to host small dinners at her home and to charge lobbying and trade organizations for participation. But, one of the executives said, she believed that there would be multiple sponsors, to minimize any appearance of charging for access, and that the newsroom would be in charge of the scope and content of any dinners in which Post reporters and editors participated.

Brauchli said he had been involved in discussions, stretching back to last year, about newsroom participation in conferences of the sort commonly staged by major news organizations.

But he said he made clear to the company’s marketing officials that Post journalists would participate only if they could substantially control the nature of any such conference. Brauchli said he was blindsided by the wording of these fliers and that they are an embarrassment to the newspaper.

"We expressed our concerns and are disappointed by this outcome," he said of the previous meetings with Post executives. "I would ascribe it to a lack of effective communication internally." Brauchli told the staff in his memo that the newsroom would participate in conferences or forums only "in ways that are consistent with our values."

The aggressively worded pitch gives the impression that The Post is selling access to special interests, not just to administration officials and lawmakers — which raises a separate set of questions about cozy relationships — but to the people who produce the newspaper. The Post often raises questions about whether corporations, unions and trade associations receive access or favors in return for campaign contributions to political candidates…

This is some rapid-fire damage control.

But the bell cannot be un-rung.

We now know how the Washington Post sees their role.

The aggressively worded pitch gives the impression that The Post is selling access to special interests, not just to administration officials and lawmakers…

You see, it was just a false ‘impression.’

By the way, Ms. Waymouth is the granddaughter and namesake of long-time Washington Post chairwoman and publisher Katharine Graham.

From a loose-lipped CNN:

Taliban capture U.S. soldier

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) — A U.S. soldier has been captured by militants in Afghanistan, the U.S. military and the Taliban said Thursday.

The unidentified soldier has been missing since Tuesday. U.S. forces are exhausting all resources to find the soldier, the military said.

"We are not providing any further details at this time, in order to protect the welfare of the soldier," a military statement said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility for the abduction. The U.S. soldier was kidnapped along with three Afghan soldiers, Taliban commander Mulvi Sangeen said.

The U.S. soldier visited a military post in the Yousaf Khel district and got drunk, Sangeen said. He was ambushed while returning to his car and was taken to a safe place, Sangeen said.

CNN could not independently verify Sangeen’s claims.

A source with the U.S. military denied the claim that the soldier was drunk.

"The Taliban are known for lying and what they are claiming are not true," the source said.

The soldier’s family has been informed, the military said.

Our watchdog media suppressed the story of the New York Times reporter’s kidnapping by the Taliban.

(Click to enlarge.)

But when it is a US soldier, not only does our watchdog media decide not to suppress this news, but they claim he was caught because he was drunk.

What media bias?

  Update!

And now we have this from the Associated Press, via the shameless hypocrites at the aforementioned New York Times:

U.S. Soldier Captured in Afghanistan

July 2, 2009

KABUL (AP) — An American soldier, who disappeared after walking off his base in eastern Afghanistan with three Afghan counterparts, is believed captured, officials said Thursday.

Spokeswoman Capt. Elizabeth Mathias said the soldier disappeared Tuesday.

”We understand him to be have been captured by militant forces. We have all available resources out there looking for him and hopefully providing for his safe return,” Mathias said.

Mathias did not provide details on the soldier, the location where he was captured or the circumstances…

”We are not providing further details to protect the soldier’s well-being,” she said…

The soldier was noticed missing during a routine check of the unit on Tuesday and was first listed as ”duty status whereabouts unknown,” a U.S. defense official said on condition of anonymity.

It wasn’t until Thursday that officials said publicly that he was missing and described him as ”believed captured.” Details of such incidents are routinely held very tightly by the military as it works to retrieve a missing or captured soldier without giving away any information to captors.

Initial reports indicated that the soldier was off duty at the time he went missing, having just completed a shift, the official said on condition of anonymity because details are still sketchy…

You see, the Associated Press got an anonymous official to leak them the details off the record.

Hypocrisy – from the AP and the New York Times?

The hell you say.

(Thanks to Howard Roark for the heads up.)

From those allies of terrorists everywhere, Amnesty International:

[Amnesty International photo and caption:] A woman and a child made homeless after the destruction of their home, Gaza, January 2009.

Impunity for war crimes in Gaza and southern Israel a recipe for further civilian suffering

2 July 2009

Israeli forces killed hundreds of unarmed Palestinian civilians and destroyed thousands of homes in Gaza in attacks which breached the laws of war, Amnesty International concluded in a new report published on Thursday. Operation ‘Cast Lead’: 22 days of death and destruction, is the first comprehensive report to be published on the conflict, which took place earlier this year.

"Israel’s failure to properly investigate its forces’ conduct in Gaza, including war crimes, and its continuing refusal to cooperate with the UN international independent fact-finding mission headed by Richard Goldstone, is evidence of its intention to avoid public scrutiny and accountability," said Donatella Rovera, who headed a field research mission to Gaza and southern Israel during and after the conflict.

"The international community, led by the UN Security Council, must use all its leverage to ensure that Israel cooperates fully with the Goldstone inquiry, which now offers the best means to establish the truth."

The Amnesty International report documents Israel’s use of battlefield weapons against a civilian population trapped in Gaza, with no means of escape and is based on evidence gathered by Amnesty International delegates, including a military expert, during field research in January and February.

The report shows that Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups fired hundreds of rockets into southern Israel, killing three Israeli civilians, injuring scores and driving thousands from their homes. "Such unlawful attacks constitute war crimes and are unacceptable," added Donatella Rovera.

The scale and intensity of the attacks on Gaza were unprecedented. Some 300 children and hundreds of other unarmed civilians who took no part in the conflict were among the 1,400 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces.

Most were killed with high-precision weapons, relying on surveillance drones which have exceptionally good optics, allowing those observing to see their targets in detail. Others were killed with imprecise weapons, including artillery shells carrying white phosphorus – not previously used in Gaza – which should never be used in densely populated areas.

Amnesty International found that the victims of the attacks it investigated were not caught in the crossfire during battles between Palestinian militants and Israeli forces, nor were they shielding militants or other military objects. Many were killed when their homes were bombed while they slept. Others were sitting in their yard or hanging the laundry on the roof. Children were struck while playing in their bedrooms or on the roof, or near their homes. Paramedics and ambulances were repeatedly attacked while attempting to rescue the wounded or recover the dead.

"The deaths of so many children and other civilians cannot be dismissed simply as ‘collateral damage’, as argued by Israel," said Donatella Rovera. "Many questions remain to be answered about these attacks and about the fact that the strikes continued unabated despite the rising civilian death toll."

More than 3,000 homes were destroyed and some 20,000 damaged in Israeli attacks which reduced entire neighbourhoods of Gaza to rubble and left an already dire economic situation in ruins. Much of the destruction was wanton and could not be justified on grounds of "military necessity".

The Israeli army has not responded to Amnesty International’s repeated requests over the past five months for information on specific cases detailed in the report and for meetings to discuss the organization’s findings.

"For its part, Hamas has continued to justify the rocket attacks launched daily by its fighters and by other Palestinian armed groups into towns and villages in southern Israel during the 22-day conflict. Though less lethal, these attacks, using unguided rockets which cannot be directed at specific targets, violated  international humanitarian law and cannot be justified under any circumstance," said Donatella Rovera.

In addition to locally made Qassam rockets, Palestinian militants often fired longer-range Grad-type rockets smuggled into Gaza via the tunnels on the Egyptian border, which reached deeper into Israel and placed many more Israeli civilians at risk.

"Five months on, neither side has shown any inclination to change its practices and abide by international humanitarian law, raising the prospect that civilians will again bear the brunt if fighting resumes," said Donatella Rovera.

Under international law, states have a responsibility to exercise universal jurisdiction and start criminal investigations in national courts, wherever there is sufficient evidence of war crimes or other crimes under international law, to arrest and bring to justice alleged perpetrators.

"Those responsible for war crimes and other serious violations must not be allowed to escape accountability and justice," said Donatella Rovera.

Among other recommendations, the report calls on states to suspend all transfers of military equipment, assistance and munitions to Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups until there is no longer a substantial risk that such equipment will be used to commit serious violations of international law.

It calls on Israel to commit not to carry out direct, indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks on civilians; or use artillery, mortars and white phosphorus weapons in densely populated areas; and to end its blockade on the Gaza Strip, which is collectively punishing the entire population.

The report urges Hamas to renounce its policy of unlawful rocket attacks against civilian population centres in Israel and to prevent other armed groups from carrying out such attacks.

[Amnesty International photo and caption:] Paramedics with destroyed medical equipment and fragments of US-made missiles which killed three colleagues in Gaza City.

It is telling to note that this ‘report’ is accompanied by a gallery of 15 photographs. But not one of the photos shows any of the damage in Israel from the Hamas rockets.

Also note that Amnesty International is in effect demanding War Crimes trials for Israel – to be conducted by the United Nations.

Under international law, states have a responsibility to exercise universal jurisdiction and start criminal investigations in national courts, wherever there is sufficient evidence of war crimes or other crimes under international law, to arrest and bring to justice alleged perpetrators.

"Those responsible for war crimes and other serious violations must not be allowed to escape accountability and justice," said Donatella Rovera.

And yet Amnesty does not try to pretend to any objectivity by calling for a similar investigation of Hamas or the Palestinians.

Again the question arises, why does Amnesty International have any credibility whatsoever?

In this photo taken Sunday, June 14, 2009 Former Guantanamo detainees Khelil Mamut, right, and Salahidin Abdulahat, take a swim on the shore of Bermuda.

ACLU Says Government Used False Confessions

By Del Quentin Wilber
Thursday, July 2, 2009

The American Civil Liberties Union yesterday accused the Obama administration of using statements elicited through torture to justify the confinement of a detainee it represents at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ACLU is asking a federal judge to throw out those statements and others made by Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan who may have been as young as 12 when he was captured. His attorney argued that Jawad was abused in U.S. custody, threatened and subjected to intense sleep deprivation.

"The government’s continued reliance on evidence gained by torture and other abuse violates centuries of U.S. law and suggests the current administration is not really serious about breaking with the past," said ACLU lawyer Jonathan Hafetz, who is representing Jawad in a lawsuit challenging his detention…

In court papers, the Justice Department alleges that Jawad threw a grenade into a vehicle containing two U.S. Special Forces soldiers and their Afghan interpreter on Dec. 17, 2002. Jawad was also associated with a group tied to Osama bin Laden, the government alleges.

After the grenade attack, Jawad was picked up by Afghan police, according to military and federal court records.

During U.S. military commission hearings on his case, a judge found that Afghan interrogators threatened to kill Jawad and his family if he did not confess to playing a role in the attack. Jawad then admitted to participating in the attack, wrote the judge, Army Col. Stephen R. Henley.

Later the same night, he was questioned by U.S. Special Forces and confessed again, Henley wrote.

In November, Henley found that the first set of statements were elicited through "physical intimidation and threats of death" and that Jawad’s fears "had not dissipated by the second confession." He ruled that prosecutors could not use either of the confessions during military commission proceedings.

Despite Henley’s ruling, Hafetz said the Justice Department wants to use those very confessions to justify Jawad’s detention in the detainee’s lawsuit before U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.

Hafetz said he is also asking Huvelle to suppress other statements Jawad made to interrogators at the U.S. military prisons at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay. Those statements were tainted, Hafetz said, because Jawad was beaten, forced into painful "stress positions," and chained to a wall and deprived of sleep in Bagram. At Guantanamo, Jawad was interrogated more than 50 times and subjected to sleep deprivation, Hafetz said.

Jawad’s situation received attention last year when a military prosecutor abruptly quit his post, saying that the case was riddled with problems and that the prisoner had suffered physical and psychological mistreatment while in custody.

That former prosecutor, Darrel Vandeveld, later filed a declaration supporting Jawad’s challenge to his confinement in a federal lawsuit.

"It is my opinion, based on my extensive knowledge of the case, that there is no credible evidence or legal basis to justify Mr. Jawad’s detention," Vandeveld wrote.

This is just the next step in the artufly constructed pas de deux between the ACLU and their handmaidens in the Obama Justice Department.

As we noted a couple of days ago, the Obama’s handpicked lawyers at the DOJ are already arguing that all of the testimony from the terrorists held in Guantanamo was only gained through coercion.

And, consequently, practically all of it should be thrown out.

Which mean that the remaining Guantanamo prisoners should be released as free men – and probably eventually paid damages.

The American Civil Liberties Union yesterday accused the Obama administration of using statements elicited through torture to justify the confinement of a detainee it represents at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ACLU is asking a federal judge to throw out those statements and others made by Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan…

Does it ever occur to anyone to ask what the ACLU is doing defending an Afghan citizen against the people of the United States?

Lest we forget, the ACLU is a taxpayer supported 501c3 ‘charity.’

By law they are supposed to be prevented from doing anything that would encourage people to break the laws of the United States.

501c3s are not even supposed to have dealing with anyone who would even encourage lawbreaking in the US.

At the very least cannot it not be admitted that the terrorists currently detainee in Guantanamo were encouraging people to break the laws of the US?

Why does the ACLU still enjoy its tax exempt status?

In a more just world, they would have found themselves behind bars long ago.

Of course we have no respect whatsoever for either of the so-called journalists, Chip Reid or Ms. Thomas.

But at least it is mildly entertaining to see the White House called on their phony events, for once.

(Thanks to Melly for the heads up.)

Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya laughs during his news conference at the end of the special general assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington July 1, 2009.

OAS gives 3-day deadline to Honduran coup leaders

By Barry Schweid, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON – Honduran coup leaders have three days to restore deposed President Manuel Zelaya to power, the Organization of American States said Wednesday, before Honduras risks being suspended from the group…

OAS Secretary-General Jose Miguel Insulza delivered what he called "an ultimatum" as OAS talks regarding the crisis dragged into the early morning hours. The talks began Tuesday afternoon.

In a sharply worded resolution, the OAS said it vehemently condemned the coup and "the arbitrary detention and expulsion" of Zelaya.

Also Wednesday, a Pentagon spokesman said joint U.S.-Honduran military operations are on hold.

"We’ve postponed any activities in Honduras right now as we assess that situation," spokesman Bryan Whitman said.

Whitman would not be specific, but the suspension could be far-reaching, since the United States runs a large Central American security and counternarcotics operation from a jointly run air base in Honduras…

The coup, the OAS resolution said, has produced an "unconstitutional alteration of the democratic order." The envoys demanded Zelaya’s immediate and safe return to power…

Zelaya has said he intends to return home accompanied by Insulza, the presidents of Argentina and Ecuador and the head of the U.N. General Assembly to seek restoration of his authority.

Roberto Micheletti, named by Honduras’ Congress as the new president, said Tuesday that Zelaya could be met with an arrest warrant if he returned…

The U.N. adopted a resolution calling on all 192 U.N. member states not to recognize any government in Honduras other than Zelaya’s…

The United States said it saw no acceptable solution to Zelaya’s ouster other than returning him to power. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters that the U.S. was still reviewing whether to cut off aid to the Central American nation.

We’re not sure. But this sounds a little like the OAS is meddling in Honduras’ internal affairs.

In fact, it sounds like they are trying to impose their values on the citizens of Honduras.

Surely, Mr. Obama can’t be such a hypocrite.

(Click to enlarge.)

The Long Term Budget Outlook

June 25, 2009

Summary

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path—meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds longterm fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the U.S. population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits and accumulating debt. Keeping deficits and debt from reaching levels that would cause substantial harm to the economy would require increasing revenues significantly as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), decreasing projected spending sharply, or some combination of the two.

For decades, spending on the federal government’s major health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, has been growing faster than the economy (as has health care spending in the private sector). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035 (what this report describes as the intermediate term) and to more than 17 percent by 2080 (what this report considers to be the long term). That projection means that in 2080, without changes in policy, the federal government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.

Under current law, spending on Social Security is also projected to rise over time as a share of GDP, albeit much less dramatically. CBO projects that Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2035 and then roughly stabilize at that level through 2080. Under the assumptions used for CBO’s long-term projections, government spending on activities other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—activities such as national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—is projected to decline or stay roughly stable as a share of GDP in future decades.

Almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt comes from growth in spending on the three largest entitlement programs— Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. By CBO’s estimates, the increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid as a share of GDP will account for 80 percent of spending increases for the three entitlement programs between now and 2035 and 90 percent of spending growth between now and 2080. Thus, reducing overall government spending relative to what would occur under current fiscal policy would require fundamental changes in the trajectory of federal health spending. Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for federal fiscal policy.

Federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will grow relative to the economy both because health care spending per beneficiary is projected to increase and because the population is aging. Spending on Medicare and Medicaid will be driven by both factors, while Social Security spending will rise because of the population’s aging. Between now and 2035, aging is projected to make the larger contribution to the growth of spending for those three programs as a share of GDP. After 2035, continued increases in health care spending per beneficiary are projected to dominate the growth in spending for the three programs.

The current recession has little effect on long-term projections of noninterest spending and revenues. But CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. Higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt (unless the debt is later paid off ). Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.

CBO’s long-term budget projections raise fundamental questions about economic sustainability. If outlays grew as projected and revenues did not rise at a corresponding rate, annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress income growth in the United States. Over time, the accumulation of debt would seriously harm the economy. Alternatively, if spending grew as projected and taxes were raised in tandem, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. High tax rates would slow the growth of the economy, making the spending burden harder to bear. Policymakers could mitigate the economic damage from rapidly rising debt by putting the nation on a sustainable fiscal course, which would require some combination of lower spending and higher revenues than the amounts now projected. Making such changes sooner rather than later would lessen the risks that current fiscal policy poses to the economy.

(Click to enlarge.)

Mind you, this is a report from the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office. And even they say that the government simply cannot sustain its current spending.

Note, too, that the CBO sees the culprits to be Medicare and Medicaid:

By CBO’s estimates, the increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid as a share of GDP will account for 80 percent of spending increases for the three entitlement programs between now and 2035 and 90 percent of spending growth between now and 2080. Thus, reducing overall government spending relative to what would occur under current fiscal policy would require fundamental changes in the trajectory of federal health spending. Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for federal fiscal policy.

And yet what are Mr. Obama and the Democrats seeking to do?

They are seeking to expand Medicare and Medicaid to encompass everyone. For that is the essence of Obama-care.

It is simply madness.

Neda has become the symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran.

Iran police: Neda’s death ‘prearranged scenario’

Wed, 01 Jul 2009

Iran’s Police Chief says the mysterious death of Neda Aqa-Soltan, who became a symbol of post-election street rallies in Iran, was a ‘prearranged scenario’.

Neda, 26, was shot dead on June 20 in an alley away from the scene of clashes between security forces and demonstrators in Tehran.

She immediately became an international icon after graphic videos of her death grabbed the attention of world media outlets.

Esmaeil Ahmadi-Moqadam, commander of the Iranian Police, said Wednesday that the unfortunate incident –which has been hyped and dramatized by Western media outlets–, was in fact a ‘premeditated act of murder’.

The Iranian police chief said Arash Hejazi, a doctor who claims he tried to save Neda’s life in her final moments, has fanned the flames of the western media hype.

Ahmadi-Moqadam said the Iranian Intelligence Ministry is making every effort to discover the whereabouts of Hejazi. "He has fled the country and is working against the Iranian government abroad."

Media outlets in the West have blamed Neda’s death on Iranian security forces, but new revelations have found that she was murdered by a small caliber pistol–a weapon that is not used by Iranian security forces.

The man who drove Neda to hospital said in an interview that her death looked ‘highly suspicious’, as there were no security forces or Basij members nearby.

The Iranian government is making every effort to identify the culprit behind Neda’s death with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad demanding a through investigation into the incident.

"Amid vast propaganda by foreign media and many other evidence about the heartfelt event, it seems definite that opponents of the Iranian nation interfere (in Iran’s internal affairs) for their political misuse," said Ahmadinejad in a letter to Iran’s Judiciary chief Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi

Really, more and more it seems that the Iranian rulers think they can say and do whatever they want – no matter how preposterous – and get away with it.

After all, they have the media on their side. So who is going to question them?

Thank goodness that could never happen here.

Maziar Bahari

Detained Newsweek reporter comes clean

Wed, 01 Jul 2009

Newsweek’s Canadian-Iranian journalist Maziar Bahari has admitted to giving “false and biased” reports about the recent post-election events in Iran.

Bahari, who also had connections with the BBC and Britain’s Channel 4 news, was arrested in Tehran during the unrest that followed the announcement of the result of the 10th presidential election.

In a Tuesday press conference that was held while he was still in custody, Bahari explained the nature of some of his activities in Iran over the past years and the role that Western media had played in the events, which unfolded in the country.

“Most of the work I did for BBC and Channel 4 had to do with highlighting problems in various areas… the journalist work I did revolved around daily news and issues such as the parliamentary and presidential elections,” Bahari told reports.

“Western media are an inseparable part of the capitalist machine of Western liberal democracies. A Western journalist who comes to Iran… is mainly concerned with the interests of the West, which are defined in relation to each issue at every period of time,” he said.

The Newsweek reporter said international press set the scenes for velvet revolutions in various countries, adding that the gentle overthrow of a government could not be achieved without their critical role.

Bahari specifically highlighted the role of the BBC, CNN, Euronews, The New York Times and Newsweek.

“On the brink of every velvet revolution Western media try to portray the ruling administration as the traditional, bigoted, inefficient and undemocratic side while introducing the Western-inclined trend as a modern, efficient, democratic, and reformist movement that has support among the people,” he said.

Bahar said that in such cases, several months prior to the vote foreign news outlets begin efforts to persuade the public that the election will be rigged and that a coup is just around the corner.

He added that these media outlets give full coverage to illegal protests with the belief that broadcasting such events will help enlarge their scale.

The announcement of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election sparked opposition rallies in the capital Tehran with defeated candidates Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi demanding the vote to be annulled.

Iran has blamed the ‘biased’ attitude of European countries and their media for fueling the country’s post-election unrest.

Newsweek has issued a statement about Bahari’s arrest and called for his immediate release, saying that the journalist’s “coverage of Iran, for Newsweek and other outlets, has always been fair and nuanced, and has given full weight to all sides of the issues.”

“He has always worked well with different administrations in Tehran, including the current one,” the statement says.

This is a perfect example of how insular the Iranian regime has become.

If they imagine that an employee of Newsweek/Washington Post would have anything but genuine admiration for a dictatorial regime that is rabidly anti-American, they have to be completely out of touch with the outside world.

Of course Mr. Bahan was simply saying what he thought the people in power wanted him to say.

That, after all, is his job. What he has been trained all of his life to do.