Mel Watt, a former Democratic congressman from Charlotte who now heads a federal housing agency, is under investigation for harassment of a female employee.
Politico first reported the allegations Friday, citing documents and partial transcripts of conversations between Watt and the employee, which the story did not name. The story describes three 2016 incidents of Watt making sexual advances on the woman.
A statement from Watt through the Federal Housing Finance Agency to McClatchy confirmed an ongoing investigation, as did an attorney for the woman.
“The selective leaks related to this matter are obviously intended to embarrass or to lead to an unfounded or political conclusion.
However, I am confident that the investigation currently in progress will confirm that I have not done anything contrary to law. I will have no further comment while the investigation is in progress,” said Watt, who is the agency’s director.
The investigation began a month or two ago, said Diane Seltzer Torre, an attorney for the woman who alleges the harassment.
Torre said the investigation is being conducted by an official with the U.S. Postal Service. It is typical for an outside agency to investigate claims such as these.
My client did not submit information to the media. She is not looking for attention and doesn’t want to talk to the media,” Torre said.
Torre declined to identify her client nor would she discuss her client’s employment status with the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
She said she is not aware of any other complaints against Watt.
Watt, 72, represented Charlotte in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1993 to 2014, when he was tapped by President Barack Obama to head the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
The agency oversees Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHLBanks, which provide nearly $6 trillion for mortgage markets and financial institutions, according to FHFA.
The Federal Housing Finance Agency was created after the housing crash in 2008 and it serves as the conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Watt was confirmed by the Senate 57-41 months after he was nominated. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina was one of two Republicans to back Watt’s nomination.
Watt’s five-year term is set to expire in January. Watt is still on the job, a spokeswoman for the agency said.
Watt, an attorney, is married and has two grown children and three grandchildren, according to his FHFA bio.
A Mecklenburg County native, Watt graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill before earning a law degree at Yale. He served one term in the North Carolina state senate.
While in the U.S. House in 2011, Watt tried to slash funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics by 40 percent, a move that was soundly defeated.
Watt and seven colleagues were investigated and cleared by the office for fundraising that took place before a key House vote.
In 2008, Watt had voted to create the Office of Congressional Ethics.
“I wouldn’t call it a ‘personal vendetta,’” Watt told McClatchy at the time. “But I also wouldn’t deny that my experiences had something to do with my view of this agency.”
FTC & DEPT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS CRACKS DOWN ON FAKE VETERAN CHARITIES:
FAKE VETERAN ORGANIZATIONS RECEIVE MILLIONS ANNUALLY FROM THE VA BUT DON’T HELP VETS.
FAKE VETERAN ORGANIZATIONS ARE GRANTED NON-PROFIT IRS STATUS BUT DON’T HELP VETS.
IT’S TIME FOR CONGRESS TO ORDER ANNUAL AUDITS OF ALL AGENCIES & CHARITIES CLAIMING TO HELP VETS.
Post Sources: Military Times, Forbes, USA Today, Non-Profit Quarterly, WTVA, Youtube
******Here’s how state and federal authorities are targeting sham veteran charities
Federal and state authorities have put sham veteran charities on notice.
“I’m here to warn scam artists: Watch out. We’re investigating complaints. We will track you down, and in partnerships with our [state] attorneys general, we will shut you down,” said John Wobensmith, Maryland Secretary of State, during a news conference announcing the initiative that included other states’ attorneys general, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance..
The FTC ― with law enforcement officials and charity regulators in 70 offices from every state, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam and Puerto Rico ― announced “Operation Donate with Honor,” which includes the crackdown on sham charities, as well as an education campaign for potential donors. Officials announced more than 100 actions across the country.
FTC Chairman Joe Simons announced action against a charity, Help the Vets, Inc., which was run by Neil G. “Paul” Paulson, Sr., who is reportedly an Army veteran, according to his Guidestar charity profile, and according to an Internet Archive of Help The Vets’ website. His military service couldn’t be immediately confirmed. The Guidestar profile says the charity is closed.
Paulson and Help the Vets Inc. will be banned from soliciting charitable contributions under settlements with the FTC and the states of Florida, California, Maryland, Minnesota, Ohio and Oregon, for allegedly falsely promising donors their contributions would help wounded and disabled veterans. Officials alleged that Help the Vets collected more than $20 million from 2014 through 2017, and that 95 percent of those donations went to fundraising, administrative expenses and Paulson’s salary and benefits ... not to veterans.
Attorneys for Paulson and for Help the Vets Inc. declined to comment, they said, “because there is a lawsuit pending.”
Paulson also reportedly operated charities under the names of American Disabled Veterans Foundation, Veterans Fighting Breast Cancer, Vets Fighting Breast Cancer, Military Families of America and Veterans Emergency Blood Bank.
The FTC has also charged another charity operator, Travis Deloy Peterson, with using fake veterans charities and making millions of illegal robocalls to solicit donations of cars, boats and other property, claiming that the donations would go to veterans charities and that they were tax deductible. Instead, officials allege, he sold the items for his own benefit.
A federal court in Utah has issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Peterson from making unlawful robocalls or engaging in misrepresentations about charitable donations, as the FTC moves ahead with its enforcement action. Peterson is accused of violating the FTC Act and the FTC’s telemarketing sales rule.
Attempts to reach Peterson were unsuccessful.
According to the FTC complaint, Peterson allegedly used the charity names Veterans of America, Vehicles for Veterans, Saving Our Soldiers, Donate your Car, Donate That Car, Act of Valor, and Medal of Honor.
The state enforcement actions involved charities seeking donations online, and by telemarketing, direct mail, door-to-door contacts, and at retail stores, falsely promising to help homeless and disabled veterans, to provide veterans with employment counseling, and to send care packages to service members.
“It’s the sad truth there are individuals and organizations that seek to take advantage of the genuine altruism of potential donors, and seek fraudulently to raise money on the backs of veterans to benefit themselves,” said Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen.
That said, officials noted that the vast majority of charitable organizations do good and important work. The “Operation Donate with Honor:” campaign is providing resources to help donors find those charities that legitimately meet the needs the donor wants to help address.
As part of their education campaign, officials are urging potential donors to be aware that just because a charity’s name includes words such as “veteran” or “military,” it doesn’t mean the organization is legitimate. At www.ftc.gov/Charity, officials have provided materials on donating to charities that help veterans, those that help service members and their families, and donating through an online giving portal.
This isn’t the first time the FTC has addressed the problem.
In 2009, the FTC and officials in 49 states launched “Operation False Charity,” a crackdown on allegedly fraudulent telemarketers who claimed to help police, firefighters and veterans.
THEY SERVED & SACRIFICED HONORABLY, SO WHY MUST THEY NOW BEG TO RECEIVE HELP?
WHY ARE SO MANY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AGENCIES & CHURCHES CLAIMING TO HELP VETS, ALLOWED BY CONGRESS TO DO VERY LITTLE FOR VETS TO MAINTAIN THEIR NON-PROFIT STATUS?
WHY DOESN’T CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO ANNUALLY AUDIT ALL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS & AGENCIES WHICH CLAIM TO HELP HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING DENIED VA LOANS BY FANNIE MAE AND MORTGAGE SERVICE COMPANIES?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING FORCED INTO FORECLOSURE BY LENDERS?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS HOMELESS OR AT-RISK OF BEING HOMELESS?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS HUNGRY OR BEING DENIED FOOD STAMPS?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING BURDENED WITH STUDENT LOAN DEBT WITH NO RELIEF?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS BEING DENIED SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE BLOCKING THEM FROM CREATING JOBS?
WHY ARE SO MANY HONORABLE U.S. MILITARY VETS IN SOUTHERN STATES BEING PAID VERY LOW WAGES?
WHY???
Post Sources: CNN, FTC, Huffington Post, AP, Military Family Support Foundation, Youtube
******** Veterans Charity Fraud: Despite Widespread Outrage, Groups Continue To Abuse Public Trust
For hundreds of thousands of veterans returning home from the battlefronts in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it home alive is just the first challenge.
An estimated 25 percent of returning U.S. service members will experience combat-related problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic brain injury (TBI), depression or anxiety disorders. More veterans are committing suicide than are dying in combat overseas — 1,000 former soldiers receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs attempt suicide every month. About 50,000 veterans are experiencing chronic homelessness, according to nonprofit housing group HELP USA.
And the unemployment rate for 18 to 24-year-old veterans is 21 percent, much higher than the 16.6 percent rate for non-veterans of the same age.
Though the VA has come a long way from the 1970s, when many Vietnam veterans failed to reintegrate into society and became homeless and addicted to drugs, the department still has problems. The VA bureaucracy is notoriously difficult to navigate, and veterans are left to figure out on their own what benefits they are eligible for. As a result, many fall through the cracks — more than 720,000 veterans do not take advantage of VA benefits for which they are eligible.
To fill in the gap, veterans charities are a crucial resource — providing financial assistance and job training, funding medical research and rehabilitative services, and helping veterans obtain government benefits. Every year, Americans give millions of dollars to such groups, expecting that the money will assist those who’ve served their country.
But as a group, veterans charities are prone to abuse, profiteering and outright fraud, say philanthropy watchdogs.
Almost half of the 39 veterans charities rated by the American Institute of Philanthropy in its April/May 2011 report received F grades, largely because they devoted only a small ratio of their expenses to charitable programs, in part due to excessive fundraising expenses. Some of these groups defend their spending by arguing that reliance on such ratios is misleading, claiming that new nonprofits may have to spend over 50 percent of their revenue on outreach, education and fundraising for a while. But charities that spend up to 90 percent of their donations on overhead have been widely condemned and were the subject of congressional hearings in 2007.
Despite bipartisan outrage at such practices, there was no real follow-up, either through enforcement efforts or new rules and regulations. And several of the charities publicly shamed at those hearings continue to receive poor grades. In the last few years, there have been several prominent cases of nonprofit groups that preyed on the public’s patriotism and generosity, promising assistance to veterans while lining their own pockets. They range from an impostor — currently one of the most-sought fugitives in the country — who claimed he was a Navy commander and ripped off at least $2 million, to a classic fraudster, who set up a table for non-existent veterans groups in front of the local post office and raked in money for years.
CRUCIAL LIFELINE TO THOUSANDS OF VETERANS
Their misdeeds cast a pall over the sector, making the public skeptical of veterans charities and threatening future donations to those groups that deserve praise.
“Veterans charities are extraordinarily important,” Oregon Attorney General John Kroger tells The Huffington Post. “There is a lot the VA doesn’t do, and charities help fill that gap. And the majority of them do an excellent job, but if you’re looking to line your own pocket, it’s an easy way to raise money. If you’re looking for a feel-good cause that can raise money on the phone, there is very little that has as much appeal as veterans’ issues.”
Darnell Epps, a 52-year-old veteran living in Virginia Beach, was homeless for years until he discovered Vetshouse, the only nonprofit in Virginia to help homeless veterans. Through the group, he was given a car to help him start his cleaning business and provided with transitional housing and food.
“If it wasn’t for them, I would probably still be out on the street,” he says. “They gave me my life back. The VA can’t do it all and these charities are key; they’ve helped many of us vets.”
Ed Edmundson credits veterans charities with easing the burden of his son, Eric, who incurred shrapnel wounds and a brain injury in a roadside bomb explosion in Iraq. The North Carolina native says he sold his business and cashed in his savings and retirement to pay for the cost of moving in with Eric and his family to provide round-the-clock care. Some of the family’s expenses, including the cost of flying Eric’s wife and daughter from Alaska to Walter Reed Medical Center, were covered by various charities, such as the Wounded Warrior Project and the Semper Fi Fund.
“Non-profit organizations became an answer to our prayers,” says Edmundson.
The Wounded Warrior Project and several other prominent veterans charities such as Fisher House Foundation, the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society and the National Military Family Association, have been praised for assisting thousands of veterans.
ABUSING THE TRUST OF DONORS: ‘THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM’
Attorney General Kroger says the issue is close to his heart since he himself is a veteran of the Marine Corps. But when his office recently surveyed the rising number of charities in Oregon and which ones spend the most on overhead as opposed to charity, “a number of veterans groups came up extraordinarily high on the list. One was outright fraud — a guy setting up a table at a shopping mall — and another problem was people who were raising money and not being honest about where the money was going. This is a huge problem.”
Since taking office in 2009, Kroger has been particularly aggressive in taking legal action against veterans charities that abuse the trust of donors. Among his cases is a lawsuit against Veterans of Oregon, charging that the charity claimed that donations were helping homeless and hospitalized veterans when in fact it was largely used to award medals to veterans. In addition, the group failed to disclose to donors that its fundraising partner kept 80 percent of the money it raised. The head of the charity, William “John” Neuman, is fighting the case, adamantly denying to the Chronicle of Philanthropy that he misled donors.
Kroger also sued the Oregon War Veterans Association and Military Family Support Foundation, claiming that founder Greg Warnock kept most of the money he raised and used donations to make contributions to powerful politicians in the state. The group has called the suit “baseless” and called for an investigation of Kroger.
After initially declining to comment, Warnock wrote HuffPost a lengthy statement. Among his claims, he states that “Kroger’s claims are purely political in nature and do not warrant the kind of destructive abuse we are enduring from him, especially considering all of the amazing accomplishments we have made on behalf of veterans in Oregon and beyond.” Warnock vehemently denies that he kept most of the money his group raised and claims that Kroger neglected to interview the group’s board members, donors or recipients. Warnock also says the campaign contributions were permitted political activity.
The attorney general says he can’t comment due to the pending litigation but emphasizes, “When you’re going after people and trying to hold them accountable, lots of them fire back.”
Such schemes that exploit patriotic sentiment for the plight of veterans have been around for many decades. In 1926, the New York Evening Post exposed a plot hatched in the wake of the armistice that ended World War One by the “battalions of bunk” to raise several million dollars “purporting to aid former soldiers but actually hiding the proceeds away in secret bank accounts.” Part of the scheme involved several cleaning women who borrowed neighbors’ children, dressed them in rags and pleaded for money from passersby. And in 1958, five Chicagoans were dragged before the House veterans affairs committee to defend themselves against charges that they bilked Disabled American Veterans of $2 million — three of them were later charged with mail fraud and conspiracy. That same year, Rep. Olin Teague “found so much abuse in fund raising [sic] for veterans” that he urged the House Government Operations Committee to open a wide-ranging probe into the entire field of tax-exempt charitable fundraising, reported the Gadsden Times.
“The most popular causes — veterans, firefighters, police — tend to be the least efficient because they attract money-hungry types,” says Daniel Borochoff, the president of the American Institute of Philanthropy. “There is very little oversight so it keeps happening again and again.” He notes that most enforcement happens on the state level, which often just prompts fraudulent groups to cross state lines “and come out under a different name.”
BIPARTISAN OUTRAGE AT ‘INTOLERABLE FRAUD’
The prevalence of fraud and misrepresentation in the sector has prompted Congressional scrutiny and bipartisan outrage but very few repercussions. In 2004, the Senate Finance Committee called for a panel to examine nonprofit governance, transparency and ethical standards. Though it concluded that government oversight and regulation was necessary to deter abuse, misrepresentation and fraud, it also maintained that charities are granted wide latitude in their activities due to First Amendment protections and did not recommend any new legislation.
In December 2007 and January 2008, the House Oversight Committee held hearings to spotlight abuses in the system, highlighting several egregious examples. Then-chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) noted that the American Institute of Philanthropy had given failing grades to 70 percent of the veterans charities it examined for several reasons: managing their resources poorly, paying high overhead costs and direct mail campaigns and excessive salaries. Citing the example of the American Veterans Relief Foundation, which raised $3.6 million and spent only $21,000 on veterans’ grants and assistance, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) thundered:
They fall into the category of what I would call “profiteering,” profiteering by those who use the name of a soldier or a cause in order to justify fundraising that ultimately leads to profit for individuals who may or may not be veterans, may or may not have any need, may simply be good at fundraising.
That particular charity is now defunct, but two other prominent charities whose leaders were subpoenaed to appear before the committee still operate and continue their questionable practices.
One of the hearing’s most dramatic confrontations was with Roger Chapin, a self-described “nonprofit entrepreneur” and former
real-estate developer who has launched more than 20 charities. One of those charities, Help Hospitalized Veterans, has been praised for distributing millions of therapeutic arts and crafts gifts to patients at VA medical centers, state nursing homes and military hospitals. The group, which also provides a variety of services to homebound veterans and cash support to many VA special events, has been praised by presidents and Congressional leaders since its founding in 1971.
But a Forbes magazine articles questioned whether Chapin and his wife were using their charities to fund their high salaries and illegitimate expenses such as vehicles, real estate investments and a $17,000 annual country club membership. In addition, the magazine reported that out of every dollar donated to HHV, only 9 cents went to the kits, 5 cents went to administrative expenses and for counselors visiting hospitals and 47 cents went to direct-mail expenses.
One of the charities’ critics was Edmundson, who said he didn’t feel it was “appropriate” to give a small percentage of donations to charity. He added, “I am concerned, the negative effect that the few self-serving non-profits will have on the ability of the legitimate non-profits to obtain funding from the general public. It would be an unfortunate turn of events if the service they provide is not available. As I have shared, the service they provide is immediate and personalized to the needs of the soldiers and their families.”
Chapin didn’t win any friends by reportedly going into hiding after refusing to comply with a subpoena to appear before the committee. When he did finally appear a month later, he explained that fundraising for many charities across the country depends on direct-mail expenses and that it was unfair to pick on his charity. Chapin claimed that HHV was awarded two stars by Charity Navigator, a leading watchdog group. Coming to his defense was Richard Viguerie, prominent conservative fundraiser, who lashed out at the committee, claiming that Waxman’s agenda was “unconstitutional” and “mean” and stating that advertising mail can be valuable just by generating sympathy for returning veterans.
Chapin retired from Help Hospitalized Veterans in 2009 with a $2.2 million payment package. He still serves as the president of another of his charities, the Salute to America’s Heroes Foundation. Both charities were given zero stars in Charity Navigator’s most recent evaluation, though they have increased the percentage of funds they spent on charitable programs.
Reached at home, Chapin said both charities had not made any changes in response to the criticism of their fundraising expenses, defiantly stating, “Hell, we just keep doing what we’ve been doing.” He called the hearing a “charade” and a “witch hunt,” explaining that SAHF has helped almost 20,000 veterans. He continued to defend the heavy reliance and spending on direct mail practitioners, even in the age of Facebook and Twitter and online charitable tools. “It’s an expensive way to raise money but we’re all challenged and it’s tough as hell to get donations. But something is a hell of a lot better than nothing.”
The other target in the sights of lawmakers at the 2007 hearing was Pamela Seman, the executive director of the Disabled Veterans Association, a charity which kept only $500,000 out of $4.5 million in donations raised — about 10 percent — through a professional fundraising group.
“It makes all of us angry that the veterans, people who have served our country are used to raise money to give [to] some professional organization in the business,” said Waxman. “It’s absolutely inexcusable.”
Seman, who still leads the organization, did not return calls for comment. DVA received zero stars in its latest evaluation from Charity Navigator and an F rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy. Its fundraising ratio has grown even higher, with only 5 percent going to charitable programs.
WASHINGTON DITHERS WHILE FRAUD CONTINUES
In Washington, there has not been much action. On the first day of the 2007 hearings, former Rep. Sarbanes, the author of the post-Enron accounting rules that bear his name, stated that there may be a need for stricter regulation of charities, emphasizing that “charities that serve our veterans have an extra obligation because there is a deeper trust placed in them, a broader trust than with respect to just about any other charitable endeavor.”
Though there was some discussion of legislative remedies in the wake of the hearings, especially in regard to requiring more disclosure of charity spending in direct mail pitches, nothing happened. Though some watchdog groups have pressed for more hearings to re-examine the issue, none are planned. A spokesman for Rep. Issa, who now chairs the Oversight Committee, did not return emails requesting comment.
“It got a lot of press attention during the hearings but after that died down, there wasn’t any significant demand for more disclosure or information,” says Bennett Weiner, the COO of the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance and an advocate of voluntary standards rather than government regulation. He says that veterans charities have slightly improved their performance, noting that the number which failed to meet one or more of their standards dropped from 62 to 54 percent. But he notes: “No question about it, veterans and police and firefighter groups have been well-known to be subject to questionable practices by those who got involved in the field and realize that there is public sympathy and the chance to raise money.”
Meanwhile, the alleged scams continue. Last month, prosecutors in Ohio pursued Vietnam veteran Michael Muhammad, claiming that he raised money for himself through his charities, Help Homeless Veterans and Veterans Hope Community House. They also claim that he was charging veterans to stay at a shelter that offered horrible living conditions. His lawyer denies the charges, saying that the money raised went to aid veterans.
And last week, an associate of one of the most brazen fundraising fraudsters in recent history pled guilty to corruption, theft and money laundering at a county court in Ohio. Bianca Contreras was the treasurer of the U.S. Navy Veterans Association, a group founded by a man known as Bobby Thompson, who is accused of using a false identity to raise millions of dollars.
Though the money was ostensibly intended for Navy veterans and Thompson attracted praise from Congressional leaders for his purported efforts, the money went into his own pocket, say attorneys general in several states. Thompson is currently a fugitive, and officials remain tight-lipped about any progress in finding him. But Contreras is expected to cooperate with prosecutors, which may reveal some clues to his identity. The 39-year-old Tampa woman faces up to 25 years in prison when she comes up for sentencing in August.
Donors who’ve been misled can be hard to identify, since most are not aware that they’ve been ripped off, says Weiner. “The number one recommendation for people wanting to contribute to a good cause is to check out the charity — the vast majority of people don’t do that. Get a financial report from the group’s website, verify that they are properly registered in your state, check with a third-party group that checks these groups out.”
This story has been updated to include comment from Greg Warnock, founder of Military Family Support Foundation.
For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT) Wednesday, March 22, 2017
~ EMPLOYMENT SITUATION OF VETERANS -- 2016
The unemployment rate for veterans who served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces at any time since September 2001--a group referred to as Gulf War-era II veterans--
edged down to 5.1 percent in 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.
The jobless rate for all veterans also edged down over the year to 4.3 percent.
About 36 percent of Gulf War-era II veterans had a service-connected disability in August 2016, compared with 22 percent of all veterans.
This information was obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households that provides data on employment and
unemployment in the United States.
Data about veterans are collected monthly in the CPS; these monthly data are the source of the 2016 annual averages presented in this
news release.
In August 2016, a supplement to the CPS collected additional information about veterans on topics such as service-connected disability and veterans' current or past Reserve or National Guard membership. Information from the supplement is also presented in this release.
The supplement was co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs and by the U.S. Department of Labor's Veterans' Employment and Training Service.
For more information, see the Technical Note, which provides definitions of terms used in this release.
Highlights from the 2016 data:
--The unemployment rate for male veterans overall was not statistically different from the rate for female veterans in 2016.
The unemployment rate for male veterans (4.2 percent) edged down over the year, and the rate for female veterans (5.0 percent) changed little.
--Among the 453,000 unemployed veterans in 2016, 60 percent were age 45 and over,
36 percent were age 25 to 44, and 4 percent were age 18 to 24.
--Veterans with a service-connected disability had an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent in August 2016, about the same as veterans with no disability (4.7 percent).
--Nearly 1 in 3 employed veterans with a service-connected disability worked in the public sector in August 2016, compared with about 1 in 5 veterans with no
disability.
--In 2016, the unemployment rate of veterans varied across the country, ranging from 1.8 percent in Indiana to 7.6 percent in the District of Columbia.
The Veteran Population:
In 2016, 20.9 million men and women were veterans, accounting for about 9 percent of the civilian noninstitutional population age 18 and over.
About 10 percent of all veterans were women. In the survey, veterans are defined as men and women who have previously
served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and who were civilians at the time these data were collected.
Veterans are more likely to be men than nonveterans and also tend to be older.
In part, this reflects the characteristics of veterans who served during World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam era, all of whom are now over 55 years old.
Veterans who served during these wartime periods accounted for 41 percent (8.5 million) of the total veteran population in 2016. Just over one-third of veterans (7.3 million) served during Gulf War era I (August 1990 to August 2001) or Gulf War
era II (September 2001 forward). Another quarter (5.2 million) served outside the designated wartime periods.
Gulf War-era II Veterans:
In 2016, there were 3.9 million veterans who had served during Gulf War era II (September 2001 forward).
Eighteen percent of these veterans were women, compared
with about 4 percent of veterans from World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam era.
Seventy-one percent of all Gulf War-era II veterans were between the ages of 25
and 44.
Among Gulf War-era II veterans, the unemployment rate for men was not statistically different from the rate for women in 2016.
The unemployment rates for both men (5.0
percent) and women (5.6 percent) were little changed from the prior year.
The unemployment rate for male Gulf War-era II veterans (5.0 percent) was little different than the rate for male nonveterans (4.8 percent) in 2016.
Among men age 25 to 34, Gulf War-era II veterans had a higher unemployment rate (6.6 percent) than did nonveterans (4.9 percent).
For the other age groups, unemployment rates of male Gulf
War-era II veterans and nonveterans were not statistically different.
Among women, the unemployment rate for Gulf War-era II veterans (5.6 percent) was not statistically different from the rate for nonveterans (4.6 percent) in 2016.
By age, unemployment rates for female Gulf War-era II veterans and nonveterans were not statistically different.
Employed Gulf War-era II veterans were about twice as likely to work in the public sector in 2016 as employed nonveterans--28 percent and 13 percent, respectively.
Among the employed, 16 percent of Gulf War-era II veterans worked for the federal government, compared with 2 percent of nonveterans.
In August 2016, 48 percent of Gulf War-era II veterans reported serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both locations.
These veterans had an unemployment rate of 4.8
percent, not statistically different from Gulf War-era II veterans who served elsewhere (6.0 percent).
Gulf War-era I Veterans:
Of the 3.4 million veterans who served during Gulf War era I (August 1990 to August 2001), 15 percent were women. Nearly all (98 percent) Gulf War-era I veterans were
age 35 and over in 2016, compared with half of Gulf War-era II veterans.
In 2016, the unemployment rate for male Gulf War-era I veterans was 3.5 percent, lower
than the rate for their Gulf War-era II veteran counterparts (5.0 percent).
The difference in the unemployment rates reflects, at least in part, the older age profile
of veterans who served during Gulf War era I. Younger people--whether veterans or nonveterans--tend to have higher unemployment rates.
Among women, the rates for Gulf
War-era I veterans (4.2 percent) and Gulf War-era II veterans (5.6 percent) were not statistically different.
Veterans of Other Service Periods:
In 2016, 5.2 million veterans had served on active duty during "other service periods," mainly between the Korean War and the Vietnam era and between the Vietnam era and Gulf
War era I.
All veterans from this period of service were 40 years or older at the time of the survey.
Twenty-six percent of these veterans were age 45 to 54 in 2016, another 34 percent were age 55 to 64, and another 39 percent were age 65 and over.
In 2016, 1 in 10 veterans of other service periods were women. Among veterans of other service periods, the unemployment rate for men was 4.1 percent, little different than
the rate for women (4.9 percent).
Veterans with a Service-connected Disability:
In August 2016, about 4.6 million veterans, or 22 percent of the total, had a service- connected disability.
Veterans with a service-connected disability are assigned a
disability rating by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the U.S. Department of Defense.
Ratings range from 0 to 100 percent, in increments of 10 percentage points, depending on the severity of the condition.
The unemployment rate for veterans with a service-connected disability was 4.8 percent in August 2016, about the same as veterans with no disability (4.7 percent).
The labor force participation rate for veterans with a service-connected disability (46.4 percent)
was lower than the rate for veterans with no disability (50.7 percent).
Among veterans with a service-connected disability, 30 percent had a disability rating of less than 30 percent, while another 37 percent had a rating of 60 percent or higher.
In August 2016, veterans with a service-connected disability rating of less than 30 percent were much more likely to be in the labor force than those with a rating of 60
percent or higher (54.7 percent and 29.9 percent, respectively).
The unemployment rate For veterans with a disability rating of less than 30 percent was 4.4 percent, not
statistically different than for those with a disability rating of 60 percent or higher (3.8 percent).
Among veterans who served during Gulf War era II, 36 percent (1.4 million) had a service-connected disability.
Of these, 76.0 percent were in the labor force in August 2016, lower than the 86.6 percent for veterans from this period with no service- connected disability.
Among Gulf War-era II veterans, the unemployment rate for those with a service-connected disability was 5.4 percent, little different from those with no disability (5.7 percent).
In August 2016, about a quarter (901,000) of veterans who served during Gulf War era I had a service-connected disability. Their labor force participation rate (64.0 percent)
was lower than the rate for veterans from the era who did not have a disability (86.7
percent).
The unemployment rate for Gulf War-era I veterans with a service-connected disability (5.3 percent) was not statistically different than that for Gulf War-era I
veterans without a service-connected disability (4.2 percent).
Among the 1.6 million veterans with a service-connected disability from World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam era, 14.1 percent were in the labor force in August
2016 , lower than the 25.3 percent of veterans from these periods who did not have a
service-connected disability.
The unemployment rate of veterans with a disability from these wartime periods was 3.7 percent, about the same as their counterparts with no disability (3.8 percent).
About 669,000 or 13 percent of veterans who served during other service periods reported a service-connected disability in August 2016.
The labor force participation rate for these veterans (37.8 percent) was lower than their counterparts without a
service-connected disability (50.3 percent), while the unemployment rate was not statistically different for veterans with a service-connected disability (2.0 percent)
and those with no disability (4.8 percent).
Regardless of period of service, many veterans with a service-connected disability worked in the public sector. In August 2016, 31 percent of employed veterans with a
disability worked in federal, state, or local government, compared with 19 percent of
veterans with no disability and 13 percent of nonveterans. In particular, 20 percent of employed veterans with a disability worked for the federal government, compared
with 7 percent of veterans with no disability and 2 percent of nonveterans.
Reserve and National Guard Membership:
In August 2016, about one-third of Gulf War-era veterans (August 1990 to present) were current or past members of the Reserve or National Guard.
Labor force participation rates were higher for veterans who were current or past members of the Reserve or
National Guard (83.6 percent), compared with veterans who were never members (80.6
percent).
Among Gulf War-era veterans, those who were current or past members of the Reserve or National Guard had an unemployment rate (4.0 percent) that was not
statistically different than those who had never been members (5.6 percent).
~ Besides honesty, loyalty, and responsibility, veterans may bring you a tax cut.
Many employers have come to learn that veterans make excellent employees.
They usually are easily trainable and possess desirable characteristics, such as honesty, loyalty, and responsibility.
If these attributes were not enough to induce employers to hire veterans, the tax law offers even more.
The tax law encourages employers to hire certain targeted groups of workers by offering a tax credit tied to the wages of these new employees, and certain veterans are treated as a targeted group.
Here are the special rules to know when hiring so that you may take credit where credit is due.
Which veterans qualify?
As a small business owner, you qualify for the work opportunity tax credit (WOTC) if you hire a veteran who falls into any of the following categories:
• Having a service-related disability
• Unemployed for a specified period
• Receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits
However, even if a veteran does not fall within any of these categories, he or she may still be a member of another targeted group.
This would still allow you to take a tax credit. For example, a veteran who has been a member of a family that received TANF payments for at least 18 consecutive months is treated as a member of a targeted group for long-term family assistance recipients.
What is the tax credit amount?
The tax credit reduces your tax bill dollar-for-dollar, so each $1 of WOTC saves you $1 in taxes. The credit is based on the amount of wages paid to an eligible veteran in the first year of employment.
The maximum tax credit is based on a set percentage of maximum first-year wages, which is fixed by law, and the number of hours worked. For example, for veterans, the basic percentage of first-year wages is 25 percent for those who worked at least 120 hours but fewer than 400 hours; it is 40 percent for those who worked at least 400 hours.
The maximum credit for a veteran working at least 400 hours is:
• Service-related disability and unemployed at least 6 months in the year ending in the hiring year: $9,600 ($24,000 in wages × 40%).
• Service-related disability and hired within 1 year of discharge or release from active duty: $4,800 ($12,000 in wages × 40%)
• Unemployed at least 6 months: $5,600 ($14,000 in wages × 40%)
• Unemployed at least 4 weeks: $2,400 ($6,000 in wages × 40%)
• Receiving SNAP benefits: $2,400 ($6,000 in wages × 40%)
There is no limit on the number of eligible employees you can hire for the credit.
For example, if you hire 3 veterans with service-related disabilities who are unemployed at least 6 months, your credit is $28,800 ($9,600 × 3).
The WOTC is set to run through 2019, and you can take the credit year after year as you expand the size of your staff. Thus, even if you take a tax credit for hiring a veteran in 2016, you can do so again next year.
Other rules:
Being eligible for the credit isn’t enough to claim it on your return. To take the tax credit, you must submit IRS Form 8850 to your state workforce agency within 28 days of the first day of employment.
Also submit ETA Form 9061, or ETA Form 9062 if the employee has already been conditionally certified as belonging to a targeted group at the same time.
The purpose of these submissions is to confirm that your new employee is indeed a member of a targeted group.
The credit is claimed on IRS Form 5884, which is attached to the employer’s income tax return.
Something to think about:
When hiring, keep the WOTC in the back of your mind.
While it may not be a primary factor in making a hiring decision, it may just be the tipping point in favor of one applicant over another.
VETERAN HOMELESSNESS - SEN RICHARD BURR (NC) WANTS TO END IN AMERICA:
HOMELESS VETS CAN'T EVEN GET HOUSING ON US MILITARY BASES.
MANY HOMELESS VETS ARE FORGOTTEN.
Sources: Senate.gov, PBS, 60 Minutes, YouTube
***** US Senators Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Reduce Veteran Homelessness
In May 2017, Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Jon Tester (D-MT) introduced the Homeless Veterans Prevention Act of 2017.
This legislation would build on existing homeless veterans programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) by investing in established programs that are proven to be effective and removing any residual barriers to housing for veterans.
“Veteran homelessness is a heartbreaking issue,” said Senator Burr. “We are making progress in combating veterans’ homelessness, and over the last 2 years, we have seen the number of homeless veterans decrease to around 40,000, but that is still far too many, and I will continue to address this problem until the number is zero. In particular, many women have been unable to fully participate in existing programs because their children were not allowed to live in the transitional housing. The Homeless Veterans Prevention Act bill addresses this shortcoming and increases the availability of housing for homeless veterans.”
“As we continue to work toward ending veteran homelessness, we can and must do more to ensure veterans have access to the services they have earned with their service to our country,” Senator Mazie K. Hirono said. “By expanding existing VA partnerships that provide Hawaii veterans with legal assistance, housing, and health care, the Homeless Veterans Prevention Act will not only help prevent veterans from becoming homeless, but also assisting them in moving out of homelessness.”
“It’s our responsibility to ensure that veterans facing homelessness have the resources they need to get back on their feet,” said Tester, Ranking Member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. “This bipartisan bill makes sure that these veterans have access to health care, legal services and a safe and warm place to call home.”
Key Points for the Homeless Veterans Prevention Act of 2017:
Keeps veteran families together by allowing the VA to house the children of homeless veterans in transitional housing programs.
Requires the VA to enter into partnerships with public and private entities to provide legal services for homeless veterans and veterans at risk of becoming homeless.
Provides VA with the authority to provide dental care to homeless veterans.
Extends and increases the amount of money available for supportive services to very low-income veteran families in permanent housing.
Donald Trump on Tuesday went on a sustained frontal assault against the media during a contentious news conference.
The billionaire had called the news conference to announce an accounting of his at least $5.6 million in fundraising for veterans groups, but spent most of the 40 minutes criticizing and insulting reporters -- collectively and at times individually -- as "dishonest," "not good people," sleazy, and among the worst human beings he has ever met.
And he vowed the White House briefing room would be just as combative as the Trump Tower lobby, where the developer addressed reporters Tuesday, should he ascend to the Oval Office.
"Yeah, it is going to be like this," Trump said when asked if this is how he would behave with the press as president. "You think I'm gonna change? I'm not gonna change."
At one point, Trump fumed: "I'm the only one in the world who can raise almost $6 million for the veterans, have uniform applause by the veterans groups, and end up being criticized by press."
"I think the political press is among the most dishonest people that I have ever met, I have to tell you. I see the stories, and I see the way they're couched," he added.
The news conference did not mark a radical departure from Trump's relationship with the press, which has been strained throughout the brash mogul's year-long campaign -- but Tuesday was a surprise escalation, especially at a time when many supporters want him to start acting more presidential.
Over the last year, Trump has repeatedly called out individual reporters on Twitter and in interviews for everything from what he viewed as insufficient crowd camera shots to biased reporting. And attacking the press is a regular part of the presumptive Republican nominee's stump speech, during which he typically rips reporters as "scum," "slime," "dishonest" and "disgusting" — often prompting jeers from the crowd.
The news conference came four months after Trump claimed to have raised $6 million for veterans groups, but then dodged reporters' questions about which groups had received the donations.
Trump kicked off his litany of media attacks Tuesday by accusing reporters of cynically turning what should have been a positive story about his charitable work into a negative one.
Reporters had for months repeatedly asked Trump to provide an accounting of the donations, requests that were frequently rebuffed or side-stepped by Trump and his campaign staff.
Trump said Tuesday he didn't "want the credit" for his fundraising, "but I shouldn't be lambasted."
Hillary Clinton later told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead" that Trump did not deserve any credit for following through on his promise, arguing that he had only done so because of increased scrutiny of the donations from the media.
"Look, I'm glad he finally did it, but I don't know that he should get much credit," she told Tapper. "It took a reporter to shame him into actually making his contribution."
The subject of the news conference quickly turned away from the veterans donations as Trump accused reporters of writing stories they "know" to be false, and of spinning the truth.
He lashed out at individual reporters, calling ABC's Tom Llamas a "sleaze," referring sarcastically to CNN's Jim Acosta's live reports as a "beauty," and refusing at one point to call on CBS's Major Garrett.
Trump repeatedly blasted the media for the way it has covered his fundraising for vets.
"All of the money has been paid out," Trump said. "The press should be ashamed of themselves, and on behalf of the veterans, the press should be ashamed of themselves."
"There are so many people who are so thankful for what we did," Trump said, adding that the final figure could top $6 million once all the donations are in.
Trump listed the vets groups -- there were more than 40 -- that he said had received money and the amounts given to each. He said there were no administrative costs deducted from the donations.
Trump himself gave $1 million last week to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, a charity that helps support the families of fallen Marines and law enforcement officers to which Trump's foundation has previously donated.
Amid reporters' questions over the last few months, Trump and his campaign have repeatedly offered conflicting accounts of how much money was raised. The campaign has insisted it was working on disbursing the funds, but said it was waiting on some donors to make good on their pledges and also needed time to properly vet the charities in the running to receive the funds.
Three veterans groups earlier Tuesday confirmed donations from the Trump Foundation. The Bob Woodruff Foundation and the Boston Wounded Vets Run each got $75,000. The Racing For Heroes Foundation also received what the group's president described as a "large" donation.
Clinton's campaign on Tuesday morning fired off a statement tweaking Trump over his accounting of the donations amid a multi-pronged push to counter Trump's news conference.
And Clinton herself clashed with Trump's description on Tuesday that she had done "nothing" on veterans' behalf, pointing to money she raised for the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund alongside Arizona Sen. John McCain and work done to re-acclimate veterans returning from combat.
She said "of course" she had contributed personally as well. But she didn't provide further details, such as how much she donated and to whom.
IT'S TIME TO CLOSE VA HOSPITALS & PRIVATIZE VET HEALTH CARE.
Helping Women in Abusive Marriages and Relationships become self-sufficient should be a key 2016 platform issue.
Women married to U.S. SOLDIERS and ATHLETES are frequent victims of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
There are thousands of Male U.S. Military Vets living in American society with severe MENTAL HEALTH issues.
Due to Survival skills they learned while on Active Duty, its not uncommon for Military VETS (Men) to appear Sane in public while Abusing their Wives and Children behind closed doors.
VA Hospitals do NOT screen these Military Heroes, instead they just prescribe them PILLS for the purpose of SELF-MEDICATING their Mental Health issues.
Considering the number of mega VA Hospitals Scandals under Pres OBAMA'S administration, I say it is time shut down all VA Hospitals and PRIVATIZE Health Care for Veterans.
It is also time for all VETS to receive MANDATORY Mental Health screening each time they request pills for illness, each time they are DIVORCED and each time an immediate member of their family dies via SUICIDE.
With thousands of troops now preparing to return, a new crisis may open on the domestic front. Military wife Stacy Bannerman on the husbands she’s seen transformed into domestic abusers.
"If you don't hear from me in the next 24 hours, call the police," she whispered, then hung up. My phone read 2:12 am; it was the third call in as many minutes.
I tried calling back—no answer. I went back to sleep, angry at Kristi for calling in the middle of the night and scaring me with a single sentence.
The next morning I fired off an email: "I cannot, for the love of God, imagine what you were thinking when you called last night.
Please tell me." Kristi and I had become battle buddies at home while our husbands were serving in Iraq in 2004-05.
We had cried each time a military family member called with word of a soldier's death or suicide; we grieved at funerals and gravesites, marches and memorials.
We wept with and for each another when she or I learned that our husband had been mobilized for another deployment, and again when they finally came home.
Her husband had served three combat tours since 2002.
The last one was the shortest yet, a mere 10 months, and Kristi wrote in an email that "he actually came back pretty normal this time!" That was nearly four months ago. When my phone rang in the afternoon early last fall, I saw that it was her, and picked up.
"Mark tried to strangle me last night," she blurted out. "I called you from the bathroom. I locked myself in with the pets. I didn't want him to hurt my puppy. I'm sorry I called. I was just so scared, and I didn't have anyone else to call. I couldn't call the cops."
I had gotten other midnight calls from other military wives, cowering in closets and under dining room tables, dialing for a lifeline to someone outside of their domestic war zone.
But this was my friend: strong and smart, she had worked at a women's shelter nearly a decade ago. She knew all the warning signs.
And Kristi's husband adored her.
He had no history of domestic violence, no pattern of abuse. He had made no attempts to isolate her from friends, family, or finances. Mark's most recent post-deployment mental health assessment hadn't indicated any issues.
There hadn't been a single red flag before Mark wrapped his hands around Kristi's throat and squeezed, which is what makes veterans' household violence unique.
Abuse by combat veterans tends to have its own distinctive pattern that is unlike the recurring power-and-control cycle of abuse described in most domestic violence literature.
The journal Disabled American Veterans stated that veteran interpersonal violence often involves "only one or two extremely violent and frightening abusive episodes that quickly precipitate treatment seeking."
"Mark tried to strangle me last night," my friend blurted out.
The majority of studies of treatment-seeking veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or combat-related mental health issues report that at least 50 percent of those veterans commit wife-battering and family violence.
Male veterans with PTSD are two to three times more likely than veterans without PTSD to engage in intimate partner violence, according to the VA, which also found that the majority of veterans with combat stress commit at least one act of spousal abuse in their first year post-deployment.
"How are you now?" I asked Kristi. "Where is he?"
"I'm okay, but my throat hurts a little. He's gone. I made him leave this morning. I told him I didn't want to hear from him until he had talked to a counselor or gotten into some kind of treatment.
I said that I didn't feel safe with him, and I couldn't…I wasn't…" she sobbed, hiccupping out words, "I wasn't sure if I ever would again… Goddamn it. Goddamn this war."
Kristi and I talked a lot over the next days and weeks—mostly she talked, and I listened. She was seeing a civilian counselor, but spent most of her time at home, shell-shocked and alone.
She said her counselor just kept telling her to leave her husband, giving her lectures on the typical cycle of domestic abuse, so she tried to find someone who understood the military and veterans.
She called the military chaplain on post, but he never called back. She called the VA, and asked if they had support programs for wives of combat veterans.
They didn't. She called Military One Source, a free counseling assistance program provided by the Department of Defense.
But the lady there just started to cry, and told her that she got "these calls all the time. I can't help you. Unless you authorize a report, I can't authorize assistance."
Kristi reached out to another military spouse that lived off post and was married to an Iraq war veteran.
She told her what happened, and her friend said that she and her husband had gotten into so many fights, hitting and screaming and throwing things at each other, that she ended up going to the domestic violence shelter.
Staff at the shelter told her that they didn't have programs for wives of veterans, and that her husband made too much money for her to stay there, anyway.
Meanwhile, Mark was staying with friends, or sleeping in his office.
After several days of silence, they began talking, but she hasn't seen him since that night, and at times, she's wondered if she even wants to. "I miss him, I do," she said. "We've already been apart way too much, but I am so angry, and hurt."
Today, Kristi says that Mark's trying to get help, but it's not easy.
He called a domestic violence hotline, and the person he talked to discouraged him from going to the men's group because he doesn't fit the abuser profile. "It's not like he can make a lot of calls about this when he works for 10 hours every day,"
Kristi says. "His insurance won't pay for him go to a private therapist at night. They said he can only see someone at the base medical center, and he's not doing that. He can't really sneak off for three hours in the middle of the day and drive down to the VA, either."
Most family victims of veteran violence don't file reports with the police or their husband's command.
The military is stepping up domestic violence programs and education at military instillations, but the pressure on spouses within the active duty and retired military culture and much of the civilian population to remain silent is especially intense during a time a war.
Speaking out about veteran violence at home seems to be perceived as more of a betrayal than the violence itself.
Even so, since 2003, there has been a 75 percent increase in reports of domestic violence in and around Ft. Hood, where the number of soldiers diagnosed with PTSD rose from 310 in 2004 to 2,445 in 2009.
Equally telling is the 2010 Military Family Lifestyle Survey, the second annual poll conducted by Blue Star Families (BSF) of military families with a loved one currently in the service.
This year's survey included a ream of questions about returning-veteran violence. I don't think there was a single question on that topic last year.
When I last spoke to Kristi, she said that she had quit praying that she and Mark "would get their old lives back. That's gone." Now, she just prays that the last deployment was, in fact, the last, and that someday, the war will end for them, too.
About 63,000 soldiers will return from combat tours between July and December.
According to military statistics, nearly half of active-duty National Guard members, 38 percent of Army soldiers, and 31 percent of Marines report mental health problems upon return from Middle East deployments.
If just 20 percent of them have post-combat stress, then it can reasonably be projected that roughly half of those veterans will commit at least one act of severe domestic abuse or interpersonal violence in the coming year.
That's approximately 6,300 veterans' wives and kids who are at risk.
President Obama declared that major combat operations in Iraq are over.
They may just be starting for thousands of America's military family members.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
