Economy lost more than 200,000 small businesses in recession, Census shows Published July 26, 2012 FoxNews.com

More than 200,000 small businesses vanished between early 2008 and 2010 -- a period covering the Great Recession and its immediate aftermath -- taking with them in excess of 3 million jobs, according to Census figures which illustrate the depth of the country's economic hole.
Data is only available until 2010, but the U.S. Census Bureau stats reveal a startling slide for America's businesses. While the country boasted 5.14 million firms with up to 99 employees as of March 2008, that number dropped to 4.92 million by March 2010 - representing a loss of roughly 223,800 businesses and 3.1 million workers.
The Obama administration notes that the trend has since reversed, and that the country has seen 28 consecutive months of private-sector job growth.
But a recent slowdown in private-sector hiring has raised questions about the direction and strength of that recovery. And amid an escalating campaign trail battle about President Obama's recent remarks on businesses, a new poll shows American business owners are harboring serious doubts.
The Gallup poll released Thursday showed business owners are among those with the most negative views of the Obama administration. The national poll showed just 35 percent of them approve of Obama's job performance, while 59 percent disapprove. Among all workers, participants in the survey were split 47-47 percent.
A definitive figure on how many small businesses closed during the recession is hard to come by. While the recession technically started in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, the Census figures only count the number of businesses starting in March of each year. If one looks at the stretch between March 2007 and March 2010, the loss of businesses with 99 workers or fewer is even more pronounced -- with a loss of 273,316 firms. The definition of a "small business" is also flexible, but FoxNews.com looked at those with fewer than 100 workers.
The Obama administration frequently says that despite modest growth since 2010, the economy still has a long way to go to recover from the pain of the recession.
Republicans, though, have hammered the administration for policies they claim have hurt, or will hurt, America's businesses including environmental regulation and the health care overhaul.
The president's recent "you didn't build that" remark has also stoked accusations that Obama is giving too much credit to government and relying too much on government to revive the economy.
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help," Obama said earlier this month. "There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
The president claims his remarks have been taken out of context and that he was just referring to the fact that businesses didn't build roads and bridges.
Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told Fox News that Obama has a record of fighting for small businesses, and he was only talking about the importance of working together.
"The proof is really in the pudding here. What has he done? What does his record say about how much he cares about making sure small businesses and entrepreneurs ...  are getting  the help that they need?"
But for days, Romney and other Republicans have hammered the president and claimed he was talking about the businesses themselves.
The Romney campaign released two new web videos Thursday focusing on the remarks. In one, a Nevada business owner challenges Obama over the comments. The other includes several business owners sharing their stories about businesses they started.
"I think the reason that the Obama campaign is responding ... is because they believe that he screwed up and really told the truth about what he truly believes," Romney senior adviser Kevin Madden told Fox News.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/economy-lost-more-than-200000-small-businesses-in-recession-census-shows/?test=latestnews#ixzz21lGojoAc

Obama’s Lawyer Admits Birth Certificate is a Forgery

 Act Now!
Okay now this is staring to get weird,  Taking an audacious and shocking angle against the constitutional eligibility mandate,Obama’s lawyer, Alexandra Hill, admitted that the image of Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery and made the absurd claim that, therefore, it cannot be used as evidence to confirm his lack of natural born citizenship status. Therefore, she argued, it is “irrelevant to his placement on the ballot”……… Seriously?
Hill went on to contort reasoning by implying that Obama needs only invoke his political popularity, not legal qualifications, in order to be a candidate.
At the hearing, attorney for the plaintiffs, Mario Apuzzo, correctly argued that Obama, under the Constitution, has to be a “natural born Citizen” and that he has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is indeed a “natural born Citizen.” He argued that Obama has shown no authenticate evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State demonstrating who he is and that he was born in the United States. Apuzzo also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
As Obama’s legal argument becomes more contorted, he is being forced to avoid an ever shrinking legal space, and an increasing weight, of his failure to meet constitutional eligibility requirements.
Hill, of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi Attorneys in Newark, made a desperate motion to dismiss the ballot objection arguing that Obama’s lack of natural-born citizenship status was not relevant to being placed on the New Jersey presidential ballot because no law exists in New Jersey which says that a candidate’s appearance on the ballot must be supported by evidence of natural born citizenship status. Only the U.S. constitution restricts eligibility to hold the office of president to natural born citizens.
Judge Masin denied the motion to dismiss and the case proceeded to trial.
“Sadly, regardless of her moral deficiency, Hill is legally justified,” says TDP Editor, Penbrook Johannson, “Obama’s eligibility is a separate matter than the charges of forgery and fraud. Of course, we have evidence that he is not eligible. But, evidence of forgery by as yet unidentified counterfeiters working on behalf of Obama is not what legally excludes Obama from appearing on a ballot, by itself, until some authority is willing to consider this as evidence of forgery on its merit as an indication of actual ineligibility in a court of legal authority. Until some court of competent jurisdiction is willing to hear evidence of forgery and fraud, you can’t legally punish a political candidate for that crime which has not been proven that they committed. However, since Obama is not eligible because of a lack of authenticated evidence to the contrary, he could be held off the ballot for that reason.”
According to Johannson, there is an overwhelming level of moral certainty that Obama is a usurper, but until a court with jurisdiction considers this case, Obama’s status as a legitimate president is in limbo.
“He does not exist as a president except in the imagination of those who blindly support him. Whereas he is politically desired by a transient consensus, his legality is unresolved until a responsible court makes a determination. This is the essence of our crisis. Our nation exists in a state of non-authorized identity. Obama is just some guy calling himself a president and living in the White House without the confirmative authority to do so.”
Obama’s document forgery and fraudulent presidency have now forced him to flee to a “strange twilight zone” between political popularity and legal legitimacy where poorly counterfeited records are apparently allowed to be published by Obama using government media resources for political purposes, yet those same records are held by the courts as irrelevant for determining Obama’s legal eligibility status because they are, according to judges, “so poorly forged” they are obviously meant to be satirical and not to be taken seriously as evidence.
Shockingly, parting from widespread public ignorance, Hill actually acknowledged two of the three necessary components of determining natural born citizenship as being place of birth and citizenship status of both parents. However, she argued that, “No law in New Jersey obligated him (Obama) to produce any such evidence in order to get on the primary ballot.”
The third component of natural born eligibility is maintenance of natural born citizenship status from birth to election without interruption, involuntarily or voluntarily, due to expatriation, extradition, renouncement or foreign adoption.
“Obama is mocking our constitution,” says Johannson, “His position is that he never claimed the image was an indication of his natural born status, just that it was information about his birth. Whether it is forged or authentic is irrelevant to Obama because plausible deniability affords him the security in knowing that no legal authority is willing to hang him with it.”
Of course, Johannson adds that it makes Obama look like a willing accomplice and a liar, but, he says, “…show me a politician who cares about being seen as a liar by the public. If people who support him want to vote for a person like that, it reveals more about the reprobate character of Obama supporters than competency of any legal determination about his lack of constitutional eligibility. Degenerates will vote for a degenerate while patriots will exhaust all civil means to remove him…until those civil means are exhausted. Then things get ugly for government.”
“However, Hill is also essentially admitting that Obama is not a legitimate president and that Obama believes that his illegitimacy does not matter to his legal ability to hold the office. Obama holds to a political tenet, not a legal one with respect to his views on his eligibility. That’s what corrupt, criminal politicians do. When the law convicts them, they run to public favorability for shelter with the hope that their supporters will apply pressure to disregard law in their case.”
Obama is now arguing that because he is politically popular, as he points to as being indicated by his so-called ‘election’, despite accusations of eligibility fraud and election fraud, the constitutional eligibility mandate is not relevant, in his view. Until a courageous authority is willing to disagree and hold Obama to an equally weighted legal standard, civil remedies for the Obama problem are limited.
Johannson adds that Obama is making the same argument on behalf of Obamacare.
“If he had the gall to actually tell the Supreme Court that they have no authority to determine the unconstitutionality of his illegitimate policies, what makes anyone think he believes they have the authority to disqualify him due to his lack of constitutional eligibility? Obama believes he holds preeminent power over all branches of government because of his delusions of political grandeur.”
He correctly points to a lifetime pattern of behavior and testimony by Obama which indicates a complete lack of regard for the U.S. Constitution when it restricts Obama’s political agenda and lust for power.
“This is a guy who illegally defaced public property when he scribed his aspirations to be ‘king’ in a concrete sidewalk at the age of ten, for God’s sake. Now, his ‘majesty’ wants to put his illegal ‘graffiti’ into American law books. However, his problem is that he has to face the fact that he is an abject failure in his capacity to meet any standard required by the 250-year-old U.S. Constitution, in everything he tries to do. The Constitution owns him and he can’t stand it. He hates it. Therefore, instead of admitting his lack of constitutionality, he simply breaks the rules and proceeds to illegally scribe his fake authority on everything until someone is willing to physically stop him. Obama is not just an illegitimate politician, he is a rogue outlaw without regard for the divine providence of American law.”
Apuzzo submitted that New Jersey law requires Obama to show evidence that he is qualified for the office he wishes to occupy and that includes showing that he is a “natural born Citizen,” which includes presenting evidence of who he is, where he was born, and that he was born to two U.S. citizen parents. Apuzzo added that the Secretary of State has a constitutional obligation not to place any ineligible candidates on the election ballot.

http://conservativepapers.com/news/2012/04/15/obamas-lawyer-admits-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/#.UA_zsJFSGIA

Kind of Timely. Atlas Shrugged. Fiction Meets Reality.

From the book Atlas Shrugged. It’s required reading in my house.

“He didn’t invent iron ore and blast furnaces, did he?”
“Who?”
“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.”
She said, puzzled, “But the iron ore and all those other things were there all the time. Why didn’t anybody else make that Metal, but Mr. Rearden did?”

Page One, Chapter Nine.

 by Jeff Carter

Angela Davis Has Lost Her Mind Over Obama Tue, 03/27/2012 - 22:32 — Glen Ford

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

Black Freedom Movement era icon Angela Davis tells people that Barack Obama “identifies with the Black radical tradition” – “as if everything he has written, said and done in national politics has not been a repudiation of the Black radical tradition.” In doing so, Prof. Davis “is repudiating herself, her history, her comrades – all in a foolish attempt to artificially graft a totally unworthy Barack Obama onto a place he not only does not belong, but most profoundly does not want to be.”

Angela Davis Lost Her Mind Over Obama

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

“Angela Davis says that Barack Obama is a man who identifies with the Black radical tradition.”

The “delusional effect” that swept Black America with the advent of the First Black President has warped and weakened the mental powers of some of our most revered icons – and it has been painful to behold. Earlier this month, Angela Davis diminished herself as a scholar and thinker in a gush of nonsense about the corporate executive in the White House. The occasion was a conference on Empowering Women of Color, in Berkeley, California. Davis shared the stage with Grace Lee Boggs, the 96-year-old activist from Detroit. The subject was social transformation, but Davis suddenly launched into how wonderful it felt to see people “dancing in the streets” when Barack Obama was elected. She called that campaign a “victory, not of an individual, but of…people who refused to believe that it was impossible to elect a person, a Black person, who identified with the Black radical tradition.”

There was a hush in the room, as if in mourning of the death of brain cells. Angela Davis was saying that Barack Obama is a man who identifies with the Black radical tradition. She said it casually, as if Black radicalism and Obama were not antithetical terms; as if everything he has written, said and done in national politics has not been a repudiation of the Black radical tradition; as if his rejection of his former minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was not a thorough disavowal of the Black radical tradition. In his famous 2008 campaign speech in Philadelphia, Obama blamed such radicals for compounding the nation’s problems. He viewed people like Rev. Wright as having been mentally scarred by battles of long ago, who were unable to see the inherent goodness of America, as he did. This is the man who said he agreed with President Ronald Reagan, that the Sixties were characterized by “excesses.” Can anyone doubt that Obama considers the historical Angela Davis, herself, to be a part of the political “excesses” of the Sixties and early Seventies that he so deplores?

“This is the man who said he agreed with President Ronald Reagan, that the Sixties were characterized by “excesses.”

And that is the saddest part of the story. Angela Davis, who retired as a professor of the history of human consciousness, in 2008, seems not to be conscious of the fact that she is repudiating herself, her history, her comrades – all in a foolish attempt to artificially graft a totally unworthy Barack Obama onto the Black radical tradition – a place he not only does not belong, but most profoundly does not want to be. This is the guy who declared, at his first national broadcast opportunity, that “there is no Black America…only the United States of America.”

How, then, did Angela Davis connect Barack Obama to the Black radical tradition? She didn't, because even an icon cannot do the impossible. Instead, Davis quickly told the crowd, in Berkeley, that “we need to figure out how to prevent somebody like Mitt Romney from getting elected.” But the vast majority of Black people are going to wind up voting for Obama, anyway, because he's not white and Republican. There is no need to pollute the proud tradition of Black radicalism by dipping the corporate warmonger, Obama, into the historical mix. In doing so, Professor Davis has soiled herself, and done a terrible injustice to Black history and tradition. And, the biggest shame of all is, she has diminished herself and insulted our people for the sake of a president who doesn't give a damn for their history or their future. For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

REVEALED: Corzine’s MF Global Was Client of Eric Holder’s Law Firm

Those wondering why the Department of Justice has refused to go after Jon Corzine for the vaporization of $1.6 billion in MF Global client funds need look no further than the documents uncovered by the Government Accountability Institute that reveal that the now-defunct MF Global was a client of Attorney General Eric Holder and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer’s former law firm, Covington & Burling.

There’s more.

Records also reveal that MF Global’s trustee for the Chapter 11 bankruptcy retained as its general bankruptcy counsel Morrison & Foerester--the very law firm from which Associate Attorney General Tony West came to DOJ.

And more.

As Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer explains in the Washington Times Thursday, the trustee overseeing MF Global’s bankruptcy is former FBI Director Louis Freeh. At Holder’s Senate confirmation hearing Freeh served as a character witness for Holder and revealed that Holder had previously worked for Freeh. “As general counsel,” Freeh said, “I could have engaged any lawyer in America to represent our bank. I chose Eric.”

Until now, the conventional wisdom for why Holder wouldn’t throw the book at Corzine was that Corzine is an Obama campaign bundler. Indeed, as Breitbart News reported, four of the top officials at the Department of Justice--Eric Holder, Thomas Perrelli, Karol Mason, and Tony West--were also big money bundlers for Obama.

But the newly understood crony connections reveal conflicts of interest that extend well beyond mere political support for a common candidate--they go to a tangle of prior business dealings that further underscore the need for a special prosecutor in the Corzine case.

At least 65 members of Congress have already signed a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder requesting that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate MF Global’s collapse and the loss of $1.6 billion in customer money. What’s more, even progressives have begun to wonder whether Holder’s Covington & Burling connection explains why the Department of Justice has not charged, prosecuted, or jailed a single Wall Street executive after the biggest financial collapse in American history.

As Richard Eskow of the Huffington Post recently wrote:

More and more Washington insiders are asking a question that was considered off-limits in the nation's capital just a few months ago: Who, exactly, is Attorney General Eric Holder representing? As scandal after scandal erupts on Wall Street, involving everything from global lending manipulation to cocaine and prostitution, more and more people are worrying about Holder's seeming inaction -- or worse -- in the face of mounting evidence.

This isn’t going away. 

Both the left and the right are onto Holder’s Wall Street head fake. With the revelation of the new crony connections, the time for Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor in the Corzine/MF Global case is now.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/26/REVEALED-Corzine-s-MF-Global-Was-a-Client-of-Eric%20Holder-s-Law-Firm

US Economy Going from Bad to Worse: Roubini Published: Monday, 23 Jul 2012 | 4:00 AM ET By: Patrick Allen CNBC EMEA Head of News

A robust and self-sustaining U.S. recovery is not on the cards, and we should now expect below trend growth for many years to come, according to Nouriel Roubini, the economist famed for his bearish views.

Getty Images

Roubini, best-known for calling the 2008 economic crisis, outlined five reasons the bulls have been wrong and argued that an American economic cold will lead the rest of the world to catch pneumonia in a post on the Project Syndicate website.

“Even this year, the consensus got it wrong, expecting a recovery to annual GDP growth of better than 3 percent,” the founder of Roubini Global Economics wrote.

“And now, after getting the first half of 2012 wrong, many are repeating the fairy tale that a combination of lower oil prices, rising auto sales, recovering house prices, and a resurgence of U.S. manufacturing will boost growth in the second half of the year and fuel above-potential growth by 2013.”

Roubini believes the U.S. economy will slow further this year and next as expectations of the “fiscal cliff” keep spending and growth lower — and uncertainty about the outcome of the presidential election dogs markets.

The fiscal cliff could knock 4.5 percent off 2013 growth if all tax cuts and transfer payments were allowed to expire and spending cuts where triggered, according to Roubini.

“Of course, the drag will be much smaller, as tax increases and spending cuts will be much milder. But, even if the fiscal cliff turns out to be a mild growth bump — a mere 0.5 percent of GDP — and annual growth at the end of the year is just 1.5 percent, as seems likely, the fiscal drag will suffice to slow the economy to stall speed: a growth rate of barely 1 percent,” he wrote.

The U.S. consumer, which drives plenty of the global economy as well as the U.S., will not be able to keep spending when $1.4 billion worth of tax cuts and extended transfer payments come to an end according to Roubini.

“In 2013, as transfer payments are phased out, however gradually, and as some tax cuts are allowed to expire, disposable income growth and consumption growth will slow. The U.S. will then face not only the direct effects of a fiscal drag, but also its indirect effect on private spending,” he wrote.

The problems in the euro zone, a slowdown in China and emerging markets, added to the chance that oil prices could be driven higher by tensions over Iran’s nuclear program, will also add to America’s economic woes, Roubini argued.

He warned the Fed will not be able to ride to the rescue this time.

“The U.S. Federal Reserve will carry out more quantitative easing this year, but it will be ineffective: long-term interest rates are already very low, and lowering them further would not boost spending,” he wrote.

“Indeed, the credit channel is frozen and velocity has collapsed, with banks hoarding increases in base money in the form of excess reserves. Moreover, the dollar is unlikely to weaken as other countries also carry out quantitative easing.”

Roubini also argued that earnings growth is now beginning to run out of steam, after buoying markets earlier in the economic cycle. The second-quarter earnings season has so far presented a mixed picture.

“A significant equity-price correction could, in fact, be the force that in 2013 tips the US economy into outright contraction. And if the U.S. starts to sneeze again, the rest of the world — its immunity already weakened by Europe’s malaise and emerging countries’ slowdown — will catch pneumonia,” he warned.

Enjoy!

Rep. Duncan Hunter (Associated Press) Military has to fight to buy lauded IED buster.

The United States is again facing ratification of the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty. As in 1982, there is sizable support for the treaty — from U.S. business groups, our military and diplomatic corps, former secretaries of State, some 160 nations, the Obama administration and U.S. senators of both parties.
But mere strength in numbers wasn’t enough to persuade President Ronald Reagan of the treaty’s merits 30 years ago. And it shouldn’t be enough to persuade members of the U.S. Senate today.
President Reagan was convinced that the Law of the Sea Treaty’s sweeping power grab would erode American sovereignty by ceding our constitutional right to self governance to an unelected and unaccountable international body. This is why he asked me to serve as a special envoy and meet with key world leaders to seek their support in opposing the treaty.
Reagan understood well that underlying the Law of the Sea Treaty was a new concept of enormous consequence — that the riches of the oceans beyond national boundaries are the “common heritage of mankind” and thus are owned in common by all people. This novel idea of “ownership” requires anyone who finds a way to make use of such riches to pay royalties of unknown amounts – potentially tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars — for redistribution to less-developed nations.
The treaty establishes a strange way of looking at industry, investment, talent, risk and good fortune that is, in my view, fundamentally incompatible with the basic tenets of capitalism and free markets.
Redistributing a significant portion of the value of the minerals in the deep seabed to nations and organizations that will have absolutely nothing to do with their extraction is a novel and dangerous principal that has no clear limits. Imagine if fishermen who exerted themselves to catch fish on the high seas were required by a U.N. treaty to pay a share of their take to countries that had nothing to do with the fishermen’s costly and dangerous efforts. The treaty supporters making the argument for world “ownership” of the deep seabed could make similar arguments for outer space in the future.
There are practical and moral arguments in favor of developed countries providing financial and other forms of aid to poor countries. But the decision to provide such aid has always been and should remain a sovereign choice for each nation. In the case of the United States, it is a choice for American citizens and their elected representatives. I am convinced that the United States should not endorse a treaty that makes such a massive redistribution of wealth a legal obligation.
What makes such a transfer of wealth even more objectionable is its poor design. The mechanism outlined in the treaty is the newly created International Seabed Authority, which is effectively a U.N. agency that would be empowered to regulate all mining and oil and gas activity on the high seas. Those who like the expansion of federal regulation into more and more aspects of private business will like the new international regulations under the treaty even more.
Even more troubling is what might happen to the billions of dollars that will be funneled through “the Authority.” Global-governance advocates have long desired a reliable and independent revenue stream, separate from donations by member states. This is the genesis, I suspect, of the recent U.N. proposal for a worldwide “billionaires’ tax” – an annual 1 percent tax levied on the wealth of billionaires. The U.N. has an indisputably poor record in administering its programs and managing money. For example, the U.N. Oil for Food Program was a multi-billion dollar scandal.
If the United States decides it is in its interests to “share the wealth,” it should be distributed by our elected representatives in the U.S. Congress through our foreign aid programs or even by the World Bank which has a track record — not by international fiat through “the Authority.”
One argument for the Law of the Sea Treaty is the U.S. Navy’s interest in “locking in” some navigation rights. It is correct that the treaty might provide some benefit in codifying existing rules of the road, but it would not solve many existing maritime disputes, such as in the South China Sea, where the Philippines and Vietnam are contesting China’s territorial claims. All of those nations are already signatories to the Law of the Sea Treaty and yet there has been no resolution of their differing views.
Law of the Sea Treaty proponents cite the 1994 renegotiation and amendments as definitive proof that President Reagan’s concerns, most notably about the deep seabed mining provisions, were resolved. However, many nations that are currently signatories have not agreed to the 1994 so-called “fixes,” so their status is debatable. I do not presume to know what our 40th president would think of the treaty today, but a 1982 diary entry of his offers a clue: “Decided in [National Security Council] meeting ― will not sign ‘Law of the Sea’ treaty even without seabed mining provisions.”
The Law of the Sea Treaty’s 208 pages are riddled with ambiguous and problematic language that give sweeping new powers and potentially many billions of dollars to an untested international organization. By selectively reading the treaty, the U.S. military and American business groups, for example, can find sections to favor. The push for this agreement will not go away, but the U.S. senators who will be asked to consider the treaty will always need to view it in its entirety and in light of its long-term effects on American sovereignty. If they do so, I believe they will come to same conclusion I have: The Law of the Sea Treaty’s costs far outweigh any modest benefits.
Donald H. Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush and President Gerald Ford.

 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/16/americas-lost-sovereignty/

France's proposed tax hikes spark 'exodus' of wealthy Looming tax hikes by France's new socialist government have triggered an exodus of the Gallic super-rich to 'wealth-friendly' nations like Britain and Switzerland.

The latest estate agency figures have shown large numbers of France's most well-heeled families selling up and moving to neighbouring countries.

Many are fleeing a proposed new higher tax rate of 75 per cent on all earnings over one million euros. (£780,000)

The previous top tax bracket of 41 per cent on earnings over 72,000 euros is also set to increase to 45 per cent.

Sotheby's Realty, the estate agent arm of the British auction house, said its French offices sold more than 100 properties over 1.7 million euros between April and June this year - a marked increase on the same period in 2011.

Alexander Kraft, head of Sotheby's Realty, France, said: "The result of the presidential election has had a real impact on our sales.

"Now a large number of wealthy French families are leaving the country as a direct result of the proposals of the new government.
"These properties are then bought up by foreign investors looking for a stable real estate market like France to invest in.

"It shows the high-end property market is holding up very well, even in these difficult times."
Gilles Martin, a Swiss tax consultant, reported the same trend. "Since the socialists came to power in France, I have been deluged with inquiries from rich French people who would rather pay their tax in Switzerland," he told Switzerland's 20 Minutes newspaper.
A report earlier this year by London estate agents also showed France's richest people were heading to Britain to escape new higher taxes.
Inquiries from wealthy French for London homes worth more than five million pounds soared by 30 per cent in the first three months of this year, UK estate agency statistics showed.
And interest in homes worth between one and five million rose by 11 per cent, it was found.
British estate agent Knight Frank said the tax plans had sent French interest in luxury London homes rocketing.
Liam Bailey, Knight Frank's global head of residential research, said: "It is too early to see the impact of the proposed wealth taxes in France in terms of actual purchases in London.

"But there is strong evidence from our web search statistics.

"This evidence from web search activity backs up a noticeable spike in anecdotal comments from our office network, where French applicants have become much more noticeable in recent months."

Prime minister David Cameron angered the French last month when he said he would "roll out the red carpet" to wealthy French citizens and firms who wanted move out and pay their taxes in Britain.
He told the B20 business summit in Mexico in June: "I think it's wrong to have a completely uncompetitive top rate of tax.

"If the French go ahead with a 75 per cent top rate of tax we will roll out the red carpet and welcome more French businesses to Britain and they can pay tax in Britain and pay for our health service and schools and everything else."

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9404209/Frances-proposed-tax-hikes-spark-exodus-of-wealthy.html

Oh Boy! Kerry as Sec of State?

By JESSICA MEYERS | 6/27/12 12:06 AM EDT

Sen. John Kerry has the perfect audition piece for the secretary of state job he appears to covet — the long-stalled Law of the Sea treaty.
He’s come armed with a throng of industry backers and pleas from the country’s top officials. But a cadre of conservatives remains determined to sink it.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77874.html#ixzz20sjRd5eT

(Also on POLITICO: Law of the Sea treaty sinks in Senate)

The international treaty, which governs use of the world’s oceans and affects everyone from shippers to telecom companies, has withered in the Senate for almost two decades. If Kerry fails to slip it through this session, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman doesn’t just miss out on the lead role. He loses treaty supporter and Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Dick Lugar (R-Ind.), along with other willing moderates.
So he’s positioning the vote for the lame-duck session, when it stands the best chance. And with Congress at an impasse, nothing will look better than a Senate treaty that doesn’t need House support.
“I refuse to politicize this,” Kerry told POLITICO, “so we’re not going to do anything until after the elections.”
The debate comes down to sovereignty and money. Advocates argue the treaty would allow the United States to play a greater role in maritime decisions and enhance both business opportunities and navigational rights. Opponents say it robs America of its authority and redistributes revenue to developing countries.
Kerry said lawmakers need to revisit the treaty because the United States abides by its rules but can’t benefit from them. This matters even more as countries lay claim to the melting Arctic’s routes and resources. The Massachusetts Democrat points to “significant backing” from oil and gas companies, the Navy and the maritime industry.
Kerry’s critics consider the recent push as much about politics as principle. His desire for the Cabinet position is one of Washington’s badly kept secrets.
“He’s very well versed in the issue, and he’s decided that it’s doable, and if he gets it across the finish line, maybe he will get secretary of state,” a senior GOP aide said.
A letter signed so far by 28 senators, including five Foreign Relations Committee members and Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) promises to oppose ratification.
The treaty “reflects political, economic and ideological assumptions which are inconsistent with American values,” the senators wrote.
The European Union and 161 countries have signed the treaty, known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The United States remains the primary industrialized nation not to have done so.
The Foreign Relations Committee will hold its fourth hearing Thursday, this time focusing on the treaty’s effect on business interests.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77874.html#ixzz20sjNrxEh

Somebody actually standing up for what they believe, in America!

NEW YORK –  After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.
An 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, "came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts," the organization' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press.
Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion — preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.
As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a recently submitted resolution asking for reconsideration of the membership policy.
The Scouts' chief executive, Bob Mazzuca, contended that most Scout families support the policy, which applies to both leaders and Scouts.
"The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting," Mazzuca said. "We fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society."
The president of the largest U.S. gay-rights group, Chad Griffin of the Human Rights Campaign, depicted the Scouts' decision as "a missed opportunity of colossal proportions."
"With the country moving toward inclusion, the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America have instead sent a message to young people that only some of them are valued," he said. "They've chosen to teach division and intolerance."
The Scouts did not identify the members of the special committee that studied the issue, but said in a statement that they represented "a diversity of perspectives and opinions."
"The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations — both from within Scouting and from outside of the organization," the statement said.
The announcement suggests that hurdles may be high for a couple of members of the national executive board — Ernst & Young CEO James Turley and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson — who have recently indicated they would try to work from within to change the policy. Both of their companies have been commended by gay-rights groups for gay-friendly employment policies.
Stephenson is on track to become president of the Scouts' national board in 2014, and will likely face continued pressure from gay-rights groups to try to end the exclusion policy. Asked for comment on Tuesday about the Scouts' decision to keep the policy, AT&T did not refer to Stephenson's situation specifically.
"We don't agree with every policy of every organization we support, nor would we expect them to agree with us on everything," the company said. "Our belief is that change at any organization must come from within to be successful and sustainable."
A statement from the executive committee of the Scouts' national executive board alluded to the Turley-Stephenson developments.
"Scouting believes that good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together to achieve the life-changing benefits to youth through Scouting," the statement said. "While not all board members may personally agree with this policy, and may choose a different direction for their own organizations, BSA leadership agrees this is the best policy for the organization."
Since 2000, the Boy Scouts have been targeted with numerous protest campaigns and run afoul of some local nondiscrimination laws because of the membership policy.
One ongoing protest campaign involves Jennifer Tyrrell, the Ohio mother of a 7-year-old Cub Scout who was ousted as a Scout den mother because she is lesbian.
Change.org, an online forum supporting activist causes, says more than 300,000 people have signed its petition urging the Scouts to reinstate Tyrrell and abandon the exclusion policy. The petition is to be delivered to the Scouts' national headquarters in Irving, Texas, on Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/17/apnewsbreak-boy-scouts-reaffirm-ban-on-gays/#ixzz20ukRI8A4

By: Jay Kolls Dayton Cabinet Member Accused of Not Being "Truthful" During Congressional Testimony

A major development in the Congressional investigation into Minnesota's 4-billion dollar Medicaid program. The Congressional Committee investigating the the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the four HMOs that run the Medicaid program is taking aim at DHS Commissioner, Lucinda Jesson. Jesson testified, under oath, before that Committee in April. She characterized a 30-million dollar giveback to the State from U-Care, one of the HMOs that administer the Medicaid program, as a "donation."
But, Congressman Darrel Issa, (R) CA,, sent a letter to Jesson questioning her honesty. Issa says he met with U-Care CEO, Nancy Feldman, last month and she told him that she, nor any high-level employee at U-Care ever called the 30-million dollar giveback a "donation." Issa went on to say in the letter to Jesson that he is giving her a chance to "clarify, or change" her testimony. He gave Jesson a July 12th deadline, but has not yet received a response from the Commissioner.
Commissioner Jesson declined our request for an interview but, in a statement, says she stands by the "donation" characterization and she will answer Issa's questions tomorrow. U-Care also declined comment but, said, in part, through a written statement, that the company has always called the giveback a "contribution" and it is up to the State and the Feds to determine, if it is a "donation." That is significant because if it is a donation, half the money should be returned to the taxpayers. Governor Dayton, we were told, was not available for an interview either.

 http://kstp.com/news/stories/S2691860.shtml?cat=1

State worker accused of drivers license, Social Security fraud

MINNEAPOLIS (KMSP) -
One day after the FOX 9 Investigators reported that as many as 24,000 Minnesota drivers licenses may be frauds, a state employee working in Secretary of State Mark Ritchie's department appeared in court to face charges that she fraudulently obtained a drivers license and housing assistance.
A federal indictment was unsealed on Monday, revealing that a 53-year-old Woodbury woman who works as an administrative assistant in the Secretary of State's Office has been accused of using an alternate identity to receive more than $18,000 in low-income housing help from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Oluremi George has been charged with five counts of Social Security fraud, four counts of making false statements, and one count of passport fraud in the indictment, which was filed on July 10. George made her first appearance in federal court on Monday.

George is accused of using the name Victoria Ayoola -- and the Social Security number for that name, which George is accused of fraudulently gathering from the Commissioner of Social Security -- in applications for a Minnesota drivers license and low-income housing tax credits at the Pondview Townhomes between March 2008 and Jan. 14, 2011.
Sources confirmed to FOX 9 News that Gov. Mark Dayton was briefed on this case a few days ago since George has spent seven years working in Minnesota government, though none of her alleged crimes involve her post directly.
Yet, when it comes to driver's licenses -- real or fake -- the Secretary of State Mark Ritchie is already at the center of controversy as an outspoken opponent of the upcoming voter ID referendum on the ballot in November, which would require voters to have a valid state ID.
The irony of the indictment was not lost on Minnesota Majority, the group campaigning for the amendment. Ritchie, however, is out of state and has been unavailable for comment.
FOX 9 News checked to see if Victoria Ayoola had voted in recent elections, and it appears that she did; however, she did not use her legitimate identity to vote. 
The Pondview development uses HUD loans and funds, along with tax credits, to provide housing help -- but a person must make less than the federal annual tax credit income limit to live there. Officials accuse George of intentionally misrepresenting her 2008 income, claiming her income would be $29,263 although she knew it would be about $56,400.
The charging documents say George, a native of Nigeria and naturalized citizen, lied about her income and used the fraudulent Social Security number four times between 2008 and 2011, and she also obtained a drivers license in 2009.
Prosecutors claim George also previously submitted a passport application under the name Ayoola with the fraudulent Social Security number in July of 2007.
If convicted, George faces maximum penalties of 10 years in prison on the passport fraud charge and five years for each of the remaining charges.
Facial recognition software flagged nearly 24,000 licenses that could be fraudulent, but the FOX 9 Investigators found only a few cases have been prosecuted so far.
Although George's case was picked up, the other licenses that have been flagged as potential frauds have not yet been checked against the Human Services roster to check for welfare fraud -- or against the voter rolls; however, they do plan to crosscheck the names beginning in July 2013.
So far, about 10,000 of the licenses have been canceled. Vehicle services is still working on canceling about 13,000 more, and more criminal prosecutions are expected.

Read more: http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/19039429/state-worker-accused-of-drivers-license-social-security-fraud#ixzz20slvTpb5

Romney appears in final stages of running-mate decision

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON | Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:26pm EDT

(Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney appears to be in the final stages of deciding who to pick as his vice presidential running mate, with speculation growing that he has narrowed his choice down to a short-list of three.
Ohio Senator Rob Portman, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal all offer various strengths to Romney should he decide to pick one of them to join his battle to unseat President Barack Obama and his vice president, Joe Biden, in the November 6 election.
Many Republicans believe Romney will break from tradition and announce his choice well before the party's convention in Tampa in late August that will formally nominate Romney as the Republican candidate.
Campaign officials were loathe to discuss the selection process or the short list but made clear that Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, had yet to make up his mind.
"No decision has been made. An announcement could happen any time between now and the convention, but it will only happen after a decision has been made and no decision has been made," said Romney campaign senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom.
Naming his vice presidential running mate in coming days could help Romney remove a withering spotlight instigated by the Obama campaign over his personal financial information and tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital.
The Democrats accuse Romney of leading Bain at a time when it invested in companies that outsourced U.S. jobs overseas. Romney says he was running the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City at the time and had given up all management of the company.
The controversy is proving to be a distraction for the Romney campaign and overshadowing his attempt to make the election campaign about Obama's handling of the U.S. economy amid 8.2 percent unemployment and record budget deficits.
Announcing a vice presidential pick soon could break that cycle of negativity, but it could also prove to be awkward timing as Romney prepares to go on a foreign trip next week to London, Israel and Poland.
FOCUS ON PORTMAN
Many Republicans in Washington believe Romney will ultimately choose Portman, who has foreign-policy experience that Romney lacks based on his service as U.S. trade representative for Republican President George W. Bush and his current tenure on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Romney is to campaign in Portman's home state of Ohio later this week. Portman was scheduled to be in Washington with the Senate in session.
But there is also a strong sense that Pawlenty could emerge as the No. 2. The conservative from Minnesota ran for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination and was the first major contender to give up, after a dismal performance at the Iowa straw poll last August.
In the months since pulling out of the race, Pawlenty has been a strong surrogate for the Romney campaign and is well-liked by the candidate and his staff.
Both Portman and Pawlenty fit what some Republican advisers say is Romney's desire for a safe choice who could take over as president if necessary.
"My gut tells me he'll make a safe choice," said a Romney adviser.
Then there is Jindal, an Indian-American who met with Romney in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on Monday before they appeared jointly at a fundraiser. Aides said the two men did not discuss the vice presidency.
At the event, Jindal assailed Obama as the "most liberal, incompetent president since Jimmy Carter was in the White House" in the 1970s.
"This president cannot run on his record so he has to lie about Governor Romney's record," Jindal said.
Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, said Jindal, as an Indian-American, could help Romney extend his appeal beyond non-Hispanic white Americans and is well-liked among conservatives.
"He has the potential to excite conservatives more I think than any of these other candidates," said Black. "If Romney were to do that, that would be an indication he's going for broke, because a safe choice would be Portman or Pawlenty."
Others who are believed to be under consideration for the No. 2 position include New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, South Dakota Senator John Thune and Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan. (Additional reporting by Sam Youngman in Baton Rouge; Editing by David Brunnstrom)