Sunday, September 8, 2013

Businesses can easily absorb fuel price hike, says Mahathir

The recent hike in fuel prices should only result in a 5% increase in the prices of goods and services, said former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (pic).
"Fuel makes up only a small portion of costs for producers and businesses. Therefore, any fuel price hike can be absorbed by the businesses.
"There is no need for businesses to increase the price of their goods and services. Fuel only makes up 10% of input for products and services," Dr Mahathir said in a blog posting today.
Dr Mahathir was of the opinion it was a percentage which any business could easily absorb without passing the cost to the public.
Although there were certain products and services which used more fuel, Dr Mahathir said in such cases, the increase in the price of goods and services should only be about 5% to 10%.
"Any subsidy rollback should be done gradually, so that the public will be able to slowly adjust. But it's a fact which Malaysians must slowly accept, prices will increase."
He also cautioned the government to be more prudent in the Bantuan Rakyat 1Malaysia (BR1M) payments, as he had noticed some recipients drove new cars and lived in decent homes.
"Malaysia mustn't be like failed socialist regimes who have shown the folly of continuous handouts which creates over-dependence, poor productivity and revenue for the government."
Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Hasan Malek had previously revealed that research showed prices of food should only rise by 0.1%.
The Real Estate and Housing Development Association had also estimated the price of new homes to increase by 10% due to the fuel hike and operations against illegal immigrants.
Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak called on businesses not to increase the prices of goods and services when making the announcement on Monday. - September 6, 2013.

Dubai's DAE ends tie-up talks with BBA Aviation

DUBAI (Reuters) - Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE), owner of U.S.-based engine repair and maintenance business StandardAero, said on Sunday it was no longer in talks with British aircraft services firm BBA Aviation (BBA.L) to merge parts of its business.
The two firms had said in late August that they had started talks to merge some of their assets, after media reports said that BBA was looking at a 2.7 billion pound ($4.2 billion) tie-up with Arizona-based StandardAero.
"Dubai Aerospace Enterprise announced today it is no longer in discussions with BBA Aviation about a potential combination of certain parts of its business," DAE said in an emailed statement.
DAE, which specializes in aircraft maintenance and leasing, gave no further details on why the discussions had ended.
A source with direct knowledge of the matter said there was no formal sale process in place yet for StandardAero.
"BBA had made a preliminary approach and discussions were at an early stage. Obviously the asset is for sale but the price has to be right for both the parties," said the source.
After ordering more than 200 aircraft during an industry boom in 2007, DAE's leasing unit has been forced to cancel orders. In 2011, it canceled outstanding Airbus orders worth $5.8 billion and also canceled orders for 35 Boeing 737s.
The Dubai-government owned firm put StandardAero up for sale in 2010 and retained Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) to advise on the sale, Reuters reported at the time. However, the process moved slowly.
"As of now there are no banks or advisors assisting on a sale for StandardAero. The sale discussions have not reached a material stage with any party for that to happen," the source added.
(Reporting by Praveen Menon and Dinesh Nair; Editing by Mirna Sleiman and William Hardy)

NYC Comptroller's race: borough boss vs. Wall St. sheriff

By Edward Krudy
NEW YORK (Reuters) - In most election years, the campaign for New York City's top financial job is a sideshow affair compared with the larger battle for the mayor's office.
When a former governor who resigned in disgrace due to a prostitution scandal tosses his hat into the ring, the race for New York City comptroller can take center stage.
That is the story line in this year's unexpectedly heated Democratic primary for comptroller, a job that carries responsibility for overseeing New York City's $140 billion public pension fund, reviewing the city's $70 billion annual budget and auditing city agencies.
Tuesday's contest is seen as a tossup between disgraced former governor Eliot Spitzer and Scott Stringer, the Manhattan Borough president who appeared to have the nomination all sewn up before Spitzer burst back onto the political scene in July.
The winner of the comptroller race is seen as a likely shoo-in for the job given a Republican has not won the post in over six decades.
The Democratic establishment and the city's big-hitting newspapers have backed Stringer. That has allowed Spitzer, nicknamed "Sheriff of Wall Street" for his crackdown on financial crime as state attorney general, to cast himself as an anti-establishment outsider ready to shake up a broken system.
Stringer has hit back by focusing on trust. He has attacked Spitzer for the prostitution scandal that led to his demise as governor in 2008 and painted him as a loose cannon.
"We need a steward not a sheriff, he lost the honor of that badge a long time ago," Stringer told Reuters in a recent interview. "This is about managing the finances of the city, about being a strong auditor and investigator."
Spitzer declined to be interviewed for this article.
The challenges are formidable. The new comptroller will inherit a city projecting a budget gap of $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2015 with fixed public sector benefit costs growing nearly 8 percent a year. Public sector workers are also demanding retroactive pay increases that the city says could cost nearly $8 billion, or more than 10 percent of the size of the fiscal year 2014 operating budget.
The race remains highly fluid. A Quinnipiac poll published on September 4 shows Spitzer trailing Stringer by 2 percentage points, a margin too thin to be decisive. That is a big change from an August 14 poll that showed Spitzer ahead by a 19 point margin.
In a joint New York Times and Siena College poll published on August 30 Spitzer was still leading Stringer by 15 points and indicated Stringer was struggling with name recognition outside his home borough. That compares to Spitzer's near celebrity status.
NAME RECOGNITION
Harrison Goldin, city comptroller for 16 years before an unsuccessful bid for mayor, said the sharp reversal in at least one of the polls was encouraging for Stringer and showed Democratic voters becoming more familiar with him.
"Spitzer's early and dramatic lead was a factor of name recognition," said Harrison Goldin. "Stinger is pulling even and in my mind is highly likely now to win."
Goldin, who called the contest "the most dramatic race for Comptroller in memory", has endorsed Stringer for the nomination.
Stringer has picked up endorsements from the New York Times, and the city's tabloid papers the New York Daily News and the New York Post. Spitzer, by comparison, has been endorsed by the Queens Chronicle.
Spitzer inherited his family's real estate wealth and self-funded his campaign to the tune of $3.7 million, records from the New York Campaign Finance Board show.
Spitzer's late candidacy meant the Stringer campaign had to hire extra hands and ramp up its fund raising to stay competitive, according to a person close to the campaign. Records show Stringer raised $3.2 million from 5,600 donations.
Doug Muzzio, an expert in New York politics at Baruch College, believes Stringer may have the edge in getting the party faithful out to vote on election day, a factor he believes will be decisive.
"With Stringer's organizational muscle, with all the unions, all the political establishment in his corner one would expect they would have a substantial get out the vote operation," he said.
The winner in the September 10 primary vote will face John Burnett, the unopposed Republican candidate, on November 5. A Republican has not held the post since Joseph McGoldrick, who served from 1938 to 1945.
(Reporting by Edward Krudy: Editing by Tiziana Barghini and Andrew Hay)

Nearly One-Sixth of Population On Food Stamps

Food-stamp use grew 2.3% in June from a year earlier, with nearly one-sixth of the U.S. population receiving benefits.
Illinois showed the largest enrollment increase from last year with a 14.7% gain, according to Agriculture Department data released Friday. Wyoming was in second place, with rolls up 11.1% since the same time last year. Utah experienced the largest annual decline in food-stamp use, dropping 11.2%, among a dozen states to post a decrease. (Enrollment also decreased in Arizona, Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Washington.)
One of the largest social safety net programs in the United States, food stamps – formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP – expanded substantially during and after the recession, with enrollment rising about 70% from 2007 to 2011. At the same time, the government also temporarily increased benefits and allowed users in the hardest-hit areas to receive aid for longer-than-usual periods of time. The average monthly benefit was $133 last year.
Critics clamor against what they see as a disturbing rise in government dependency. But new economic research suggests the program’s expansion isn’t alarming and can, in fact, be explained by business cycles.
In a recent paper  published by the National Bureau of Economic Research,Jeffrey B. Liebman and Peter Ganong find that food-stamp enrollment shows a strong and persistent correlation with local unemployment rates. They attribute the increase in food-stamp rolls from 2007 to 2011 primarily to the recession—both higher unemployment and the temporary policy changes made to the program in response to the downturn. The surge in enrollment over the period was mostly due to the “program’s built-in automatic stabilizer features operating as usual in the midst of a very severe recession,” they write.
In another paper released in May, economists Hilary Hoynes and Marianne Bitlerpresent similar findings, arguing that the enrollment patterns during the most recent recession align with previous recessions when controlling for the magnitude of the downturn. “The program is responsive to business cycles to the same degree it has been in other recessions,” says Ms. Hoynes. “This is a large recession—the enrollment levels are in step with the magnitude of the labor shock.”
The recession ended in 2009, and the economy has steadily been adding jobs. If food-stamp rolls can largely be explained by fluctuations in business cycles, then why hasn’t the program been shrinking as the economy started recovering? “It’s a timing issue,” says Ms. Hoynes.
Historical data show that the decline in the unemployment rate after recessions tends to lag behind GDP growth. Similarly, the drop in food-stamp participation lags behind the decrease in unemployment.  “This is consistent with previous recessions,” she says.
The 2009 fiscal stimulus program’s temporary increase in food stamp benefits, which may have also boosted incentives to enroll, is set to expire Nov. 1. Congress is not expected to mitigate the scheduled cuts.
Growth in food-stamp use has leveled off in the last year, increasing at a slower pace than it did from 2007 to 2011. The Congressional Budget Office projects that food-stamp expenditure, measured as a share of gross domestic product, will decrease to its mid-1990s level by 2019, according to analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning think tank.

“National Security” versus “Food Insecurity”: One in Seven Hungry in America as Obama Prepares for Syrian War

The number of starving US citizens during Obama’s terms in office is a whopping one in seven, worse than the global average of one in eight. As he continues to pour several hundred billion dollars into the Middle East war theater that will likely soon include Syria, Congress wants to cut $40 billion in food aid to its constituents.
A recent USDA report reveals that nearly 18 million families, or 49 million people, lacked “food security” which is defined as “consistent, dependable access to enough food for active, healthy living.” Food insecurity is a polite term for starvation.
Since 1995, the percent starving in the US hovered at or below 12%. That changed in 2008 when it jumped to 14.6%, and has stayed above 14% since then. In 2012, the percentage was 14.5%, or one in seven people.
Only 59% of those counted as “food insecure” used any of the three major federal food assistance programs, researchers found. They looked at Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps); Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the National School Lunch Program.
Though food stamps provide an average of $1.33 per meal for its recipients, Republicrats plan to cut $40 billion over ten years from this essential social service, Think Progress reports. People get nasty when hungry; and many sociologists and historians point to widespread hunger as the cause of most, if not all, major revolutions in world history. Even recent ones. The Romans understood this, ergo the saying, panem et circenses (give the masses ‘bread and circuses’ to appease them and thus retain control).
Despite that one out of seven US citizens goes hungry, Obama, like his predecessors, continues to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the war machine. At last count, the US spent $684 billion in 2012, or 39% of the total global defense spending, reports Global Issues.

US military spending is down from 2008, when it spent $711 billion, if sources are accurate.
US Military spending vs world 2008
Even so, notes Jobs Not Wars, “If the U.S. cut its military spending in half, it would still outspend China, Russia and Britain together.”

Obama’s Food ‘Security’ Program

Obama’s military spending is ironic given his Global Food Security Initiative announced just months into his presidency, at the April 2009 G20 Summit held in London. As part of a global development strategy, Obama stated his plan to:
“Increase our investments and engagement in development-focused innovation by seeking and scaling up potential game-changing development technologies such as vaccines for neglected diseases, weather-resistant seed varieties, and clean energy technologies.”
The World Food Programme of the United Nations estimates the global hunger rate at one in eight. Under these circumstances, no US president has any business worrying about hunger over there. But that he is, at least superficially.
The food security initiative includes a “Feed the Future” program that established “the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP) – a multilateral trust fund, based at the World Bank and launched by the United States in collaboration with other donors, including private philanthropy — designed to help poor farmers grow, market and earn more.”
In reality, “Feed the Future” is merely a scheme to blanket the planet in genetically modified food and toxic chemicals.
Obama’s concern about homegrown poverty, as we see from bankster bailouts and never-ending war, is nonexistent. He certainly hasn’t bucked long-time federal policy of legalizing slavery under the name minimum wage. No adult can support herself on minimum wage. Hunger is guaranteed under minimum wage.

The War on Farms

Obama’s FDA, run by former Monsanto executives, has a peculiar interest in destroying small farming operations in this nation. Nutritious food, grown organically and raised humanely, has been the target of several federally directed raids, supported by local sheriffs and police. No one has been sickened by food sold by these farms, or in the private buying clubs (like Rawsome Foods) that distribute it. But that’s not the point. Instead, the federal government clearly seeks to eliminate giant agribiz competition.
The current war on small US farmers is detailed in David Gumpert’s two books, The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America’s Emerging Battle Over Food Rights (2009), and Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Food Rights (2013).
We also see the feds’ real motives in the “Food Safety Modernization Act” (formerly S 510), and the bandaid fix known as the Tester Amendment which was adopted to protect small farms from onerous food safety regulations that would put them out of business. Even former supporters now recognize that the FSMA will devastate small farm operations. The Cornucopia Institute now admits:
“Instead, the regulations would ensnare the country’s safest family farmers in burdensome regulations in a misdirected attempt to rein in abuses that are mostly emanating from industrial-scale factory farms and giant agribusiness food processing facilities.” [emphasis in original]
On the state level, we continue to find news items where children’s lemonade and raspberry stands are being shut down, for failure to acquire a permit. At the city level, feeding the homeless, a time-honored act of charity, has been criminalized across the US. Even fundraising bake sales have been criminalized.
Ron Finley, a self-admitted “gangsta gardener” faced a $400 fine for growing free-for-the-taking vegetables on his tree lawn.

The War on Herbs

The federal government, in line with globalists, also seeks complete control over medicinal and nutritional herbs. By and far, the best advocate protecting our right to natural herbs with which humans evolved is the National Health Federation, the only populist representative on the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a forum ostensibly created to facilitate global trade in foods. Unfortunately, we learn from NHF:
“This will be used to exclude high-potency American supplements and move towards harmonization of the more-liberal U.S. food regulatory regime with the harsh European regulatory model that only allows ridiculously low-potency and expensive supplements to be marketed.”
The “more-liberal U.S. food regulatory regime” is being overturned as we speak, with the introduction of several bills to force natural herbs into a testing protocol more strict, and more expensive, than what pharmaceuticals endure.  In opposing hyper-regulation of supplements (as spearheaded by Senator Dick Durbin and others), Dr. Mercola explains:
“Data from the U.S. National Poison Data System’s annual report, which tracked data from 57 U.S. poison centers, showed vitamin and mineral supplements caused zero deaths in 2010, whereas pharmaceuticals caused more than 1,100 of the total 1,366 reported fatalities. FDA-approved drugs cause 80 percent of poison control fatalities each year. Poison control centers report 100,000 calls, 56,000 emergency room visits, 2,600 hospitalizations and nearly 500 deaths each year from acetaminophen (Tylenol) alone.
“Data from the European Union indicate that pharmaceutical drugs are 62,000 times as likely to kill you as dietary supplements. You’re actually more likely to be struck dead by lightning or drown in your bathtub than have a lethal reaction to a dietary supplement. These figures make it quite clear where the danger lies. If Senator Durbin really cared about your health, his efforts would be centered on doing something to make drugs safer, as they obviously pose a FAR greater risk to your health.”
The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), among other laws, already controls supplements. Instead of enabling enhanced nutrition of its citizens, the feds concern themselves with increasing pharmaceutical profits.
The same can be said for other nations. In 2011, legislation introduced in Australia sought to ban thousands of plants, including its national flower, because they contain DMT, a naturally-occurring hallucinogen that even the human brain produces.

The War on Weed

Though rarely considered in food criminalization discussions, not only does marijuana have medicinal and recreational benefits, but its “seeds contain essential fatty acids and amino acids, which can be baked into foods to boost their nutritional value, in seed oil when sauteing foods, or taken as a supplement,” report Fox, Armentano and Tvert in Marijuana Is Safer So Why Are We Driving People to Drink?
Marijuana Is Safer details numerous medical benefits including anti-carcinogenic properties, preventing epileptic seizures, reducing peripheral neuropathy pain along with other types of pain, and thus reduces opiate dosage needs. It increases craving for food, a boon for those on appetite-suppressing chemotherapy, and it promotes sleepiness.
Not only does marijuana treat the symptoms of disease, Marijuana Is Safer reports, but:
“In some cases, it appears that marijuana can effectively treat disease itself. For instance, marijuana possesses strong antioxidant properties that can protect the brain during trauma and potentially ward off the onset of certain neurological diseases such as Alzheimers.
“In fact, in one of the great political ironies, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services holds a patent – it’s patent no. 6630507 – on the use of cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants. That’s right, the same government that classifies cannabis as a Schedule I illicit drug (which under federal law is defined as possessing ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment’) owns the intellectual property rights to several of the plant’s naturally occurring, therapeutic chemicals.”
That patent was filed back in 1999, deep amid the war on drugs.
Genetically modified marijuana research has been ongoing for over two decades, detailed by numerous freelance researchers. Several insist that a former agent for the Drug Enforcement Agency, Sam Selezny (aka David Watson aka Skunkman) developed his strains of GM weed in Holland with funding from the DEA. His company, Hortapharm, stands to make billions when pot is fully legalized in the States.
Just as natural, unmodified fresh milk is a market threat to drug-laden, industrial milk; natural, privately grown marijuana is a threat to the GM weed market. And so we see legal marijuana suffering under Obama.
Raids on legal cannabis farming and sales has cost nearly $300 million in the past four years, reports Americans for Safe Access:
ASA MM War by Administration
Last month, however, we saw some key changes in federal policy. Attorney General Eric Holder announced a “compassionate release” program to let medical marijuana users out of prison. Next, the Dept. of Justice reversed itself by agreeing to allow banks to work with medical marijuana clinics, and agreed to abide by voter decision in Washington and Colorado which allows for recreational use.
The DoJ’s policy reversals follow a unanimous resolution adopted by US mayors at their annual conference in June, supporting the notion of “states setting their own marijuana policies without federal interference.”

Food as Trade Commodities

Finally, we cannot discuss starvation without mentioning food commodities. The dissolution of trade barriers and deregulation of the banking sector has led to price manipulation, increasing food insecurity and causing widespread starvation.
F. William Engdahl explains that for over 4,000 years, grains were safely stored for up to seven years to protect against war, drought and famine. That all changed in 1993 with the passage of GATT – the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade – when:
“[T]he European Union finally agreed in 1993 to the GATT Uruguay Round, requiring a major reduction of national agriculture protection. Central to the Uruguay Round deal was agreement on one major change: national grain reserves as a government responsibility were to be ended….
“The elimination of national grain reserves in the USA and EU and other major OECD industrial countries set the stage for the next step in the process—elimination of agricultural commodity derivatives regulation, allowing unbridled unchecked speculative manipulations.
“Under the Clinton Treasury (1999 – 2000) the elimination of grain reserves was formalized by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—the government body charged with supervising derivatives trade in exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade or NYMEX— and in legislation drafted by Tim Geithner and Larry Summers at Treasury. As will be shown below, it was no accident that Wall Street pushed Geithner, former President of the NY Federal Reserve, to become Obama’s Treasury Secretary in 2008, amid the worst financial debacle in history. Something to do with having foxes guard henhouses.”
The Fox scored big in the henhouse:
“When Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State in 1972-1973, acting in league with the Department of Agriculture and major US grain trading companies, he orchestrated an unprecedented 200% jump in the price of grain. The price hike was triggered at that time by the US signing a three-year contract with the Soviet Union that had just gone through a disastrous harvest failure.
“The US-Soviet deal hit amid global drought and severely reduced harvests worldwide, hardly a prudent time to sell the entire US grain cupboard to an ostensible Cold War opponent. The sale took place amid a major world grain harvest shortfall leading to the explosive price rise. Critical voices in US press at the time appropriately dubbed it the Great Grain Robbery. Kissinger had even arranged for much of the cost of shipping US grain to the Soviets to be paid by US taxpayers. Cargill and company laughed all the way to the bank.”
Next, writes Engdahl, came the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000:
“The two key architects of Clinton’s new law were a former Goldman Sachs consultant and Clinton’s Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and his Assistant at Treasury Tim Geithner, friend of Wall Street and today Obama’s Treasury Secretary. Secretary Summers was also a key player in preventing efforts to regulate financial derivatives in commodities and financial products….”
“At the time, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) proposed also to deregulate trading in derivatives between major banks or financial institutions, including derivatives of grain and other agricultural commodities.
“The historic and unprecedented deregulation opened a massive hole in Government supervision of derivatives trading, a gaping hole that ultimately facilitated the derivatives games leading to the 2007 financial collapse. It also formed the deregulation free-for-all that is behind much of the recent explosion in grain prices.”

The Emerging Local Food Movement

There’s still hope.
Despite the FDA’s war on private food and herb sources, private buying clubs and direct farm to consumer sales are spreading as fast as Monsanto-resistant weeds, and are a boon to local farm economies. The following chart shows the growth in direct sales from 1997 thru 2007, segregated by region:
Farm to Fork Sales 1997-2007
Urban agriculture is taking off in blighted areas in Detroit, Los Angeles, and other cities.  Rooftop and bus top gardens represent innovations beyond the ken of Obama and his agribuddies. They profit urbanites by providing local, healthy produce in food deserts, where fresh, nutritious food is lacking. They also provide a food cushion, should disaster strike and the local store’s 3-day food supply runs out.
While peace activists the world over vocally oppose more MidEast wars, agtivists continue to battle the biotech giants whose products are genetically contaminating natural crops and destroying our pollinators and soils with their requisite toxic chemicals. A fortnight of actions for Seed and Food Freedom is planned for Oct. 2-16 around the planet.
As “generals gather in their masses,” we can expect little positive aid from the feds. We can and should get local regulators on our side, so that our kids can have lemonade stands, our churches can have bake sales, and our private buying clubs or food co-ops can provide the food we want, that is much healthier for us, and that works with nature instead of against it.
The real trick to reducing hunger is to decentralize the food system, to grow our own, and to buy local. This is food democracy in action, and we don’t need permission to do it.
It’s coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It’s here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it’s here they got the spiritual thirst.
It’s here the family’s broken
and it’s here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
~ Leonard Cohen

Kerry urges EU to postpone funding ban in Israeli-occupied territories


(Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged the European Union on Saturday to postpone a planned ban on EU financial assistance to Israeli organizations in the occupied Palestinian territories, a U.S. official said.
Kerry made the request at a meeting with EU foreign ministers at which he also called on them to support Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which resumed on July 29 after a nearly three-year hiatus.
The EU imposed restrictions in July, citing its frustration over the continued expansion of Jewish settlements in territory captured by Israeli forces in the 1967 Middle East War.
A senior U.S. State Department official told reporters in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius that Kerry called on the Europeans to consider postponing the implementation of EU guidelines on aid.
"There was strong support for his efforts and an openness to considering his requests," he said.
The guidelines render Israeli entities operating in the occupied territories ineligible for EU grants, prizes or loans, beginning next year.
They angered Israel's rightist government, which accused the Europeans of harming Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts and responded by announcing curbs on EU aid projects for thousands of West Bank Palestinians.
Palestinians praised the guidelines as a concrete step against settlement construction, which they fear will deny them a viable state.
Asked her response to Kerry, EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton told reporters the guidelines were simply "putting down on paper what is currently the EU position".
TALKS
Ashton announced, however, that the EU would send a team, headed by a senior EU diplomat, to Israel on Monday to make sure the implementation of the new guidelines was done sensitively.
"We of course want to continue having a strong relationship with Israel," she said.
The EU team would talk to the Israelis about implementation of the new guidelines but not about renegotiating them, an EU source said.
A senior U.S. State Department official, briefing reporters before the Vilnius talks, said Kerry would give a clear message to EU ministers on the funding issue.
He would tell them that "it's important for those parties who have an interest in a successful outcome (to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations) that they be supportive of this effort and that they find a way to embrace the negotiators and encourage them to move forward, rather than, as it were metaphorically, bang them over the head," the official said.
Jewish settler leaders say the aid they receive from Europe is minimal. But many in Israel worry about possible knock-on effects the EU steps may have on individuals or companies based in Israel that might be involved in business in the settlements, deemed illegal by the international community.
The EU and Israel began talks last month on Horizon 2020, a prestigious 80-billion-euro ($107-billion) European research funding program. The dispute over the guidelines could jeopardize an agreement on Israel's participation in it.
Israeli-Palestinian peace has been Kerry's main foreign policy initiative since becoming secretary of state on February 1.
He is scheduled to brief some Arab League ministers on his peace efforts in Paris on Sunday and then to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas the same day in London.
He is also expected to see Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu soon.
The core issues that need to be settled in the more than six-decade-old Israeli-Palestinian dispute include borders, the fate of Palestinian refugees, the future of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem.
(Additional reporting by Adrian Croft and Justyna Pawlak; Editing by Andrew Roche)

Record 90,473,000 Not in Labor Force…So that would put the unemployment rate at what %? Post’s Say from 35% to 40%!!! WTF?

Excerpt;
(CNSNews.com) – The number of Americans who are 16 years or older and who have decided not to participate in the nation’s labor force has pushed past 90,000,000 for the first time, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The BLS counts a person as participating in the labor force if they are 16 years or older and either have a job or have actively sought a job in the last four weeks. A person is not participating in the labor force if they are 16 or older and have not sought a job in the last four weeks.
In July, according to BLS, 89,957,000 Americans did not participate in the labor force. In August, that climbed to 90,473,000–a one month increase of 516,000.
- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/90473000-record-number-not-labor-force-almost-10m-under-obama#sthash.mSimtwhu.dpuf
Our government tell us the unemployment rate is only at 7.3%, down 0.5% from 7.8%.
If there are 350 million Americans in this country and 90.4 million of them are unemployed, what is the percentage of unemployed in America according to these numbers?
Official Numbers
Civilian nonistitutional population = 245,959,000
Labor force = 155,486,000
Employed = 144,170,000
Unemployed = 11,316,000
Not in labor force = 245,959,000 – 155,486,000 = 90,473,000
Now if add the “not in labor force” to unemployed:
Unemployed = 11,316,000 + 90,473,000 = 101,789,000
Then unemployment rate is:
Unemployment rate = 101,789,000/245,959,000 = 41.13845%
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.a.htm
Jobs Report Confirms QE Isn’t The Only Thing Not Working