SHEIKHA LATIFA AL MAKTOUM OF DUBAI: IS SHE DEAD OR ALIVE? (HUMAN RIGHTS OF WOMEN)

PRINCESS SHEIKHA LATIFA AL MAKTOUM OF DUBAI:

IS LATIFA DEAD OR HAS SHE BEEN IMPRISONED AGAIN?

DID INDIA HELP TO SEAL LATIFA'S FATE?

PLEASE PRAY FOR LATIFA.

DUBAI IS A BEAUTIFUL PLACE TO VISIT BUT WHAT ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS?

HOW MUCH FREEDOM ARE UAE WOMEN IN 21st CENTURY ALLOWED?


Post Sources: BBC News, Forbes, Independent.co.uk, NDTV, Youtube


*******Dubai princess: UN asked to intervene over ruler's daughter 'detained against her will' after failed escape from UAE


Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammad al-Maktoum tried to flee in February 2018.

The lawyers representing an Emirati princess believed to be detained in the UAE have asked the UN to urgently intervene to help secure her release.

Sheikha Latifa bint Mohammad al-Maktoum – the daughter of Dubai ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum – tried to escape the UAE in February before the boat she was on was allegedly intercepted off the coast of India and she was forcibly returned home.

“The whereabouts of Sheikha Latifa is currently unknown. However, given the circumstances and reports in the media, it is believed that she is in the custody of the UAE authorities, detained against her will,” Toby Cadman, of law firm Guernica 37 International Justice Chambers, told The Independent.

As such, he added: “She is subject to ‘enforced or involuntary disappearance’ – and further, if it is confirmed that she is in the custody of the UAE authorities, she is being ‘arbitrarily detained’.”

Tiina Jauhiainen, a Finnish friend of Ms Maktoum’s, told Human Rights Watch she was also involved in the escape attempt, and that the two of them left the UAE in late February, boarding a boat belonging to French-American dual citizen, Herve Jaubert.

Guernica 37 is also representing Mr Jaubert and Ms Jauhiainen.

On 4 March the boat was intercepted by armed men, said Ms Jauhiainen, off the coast of India and they were forcibly returned to the UAE.

Upon Ms Maktoum’s disappearance, a video was released in which she said: “I’m making this video because it could be the last video I make.”

Guernica 37 has now lodged an appeal with the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

“We alleged that both [the UAE and India] are responsible for the enforced disappearance of Sheikha Latifa,” said Toby Cadman.

The UN working groups now have to decide whether to pass on the communication to those two countries, Mr Cadman said.

“Once communicated to the concerned states they will be invited to respond as a matter of urgency. They can refuse or decline to respond or they can respond to the substance of the allegations.

“We would encourage both states to respond and to clearly set out where she is being detained, why, and to release her forthwith. We will then urge the UN to take greater action in securing her immediate release.”

An Indian English-language newspaper reported that the Indian Coast Guard intercepted the boat, at the behest of Emirati authorities – something denied by both India and the UAE.

A source close to the Dubai government said in April that the princess was “brought back” to the Gulf country.

But while Ms Jauhiainen was later released, after being forced to sign a confession in Arabic, Ms Maktoum has not been let go, according to the source.

“UAE authorities should immediately reveal the whereabouts of Sheikha Latifa, confirm her status, and allow her contact with the outside world,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Human Rights Watch’s Middle East director.

“If she is detained she needs to be given the rights all detainees should have, including being taken before an independent judge.”

Radha Stirling, the founder of Detained in Dubai, an international authority on UEA law, told The Independent that she last spoke to Ms Maktoum as the yacht was allegedly being raided off the coast of India, and she has not been heard from since.

“All their communications were then severed, and we believe there was electronic warfare aircraft” above the boat, blocking contact with the outside world.

And while Ms Jauhiainen and the crew members were held in the UAE for three weeks, and threatened not to speak out about the case, they are now doing so as they believe it is the only way to help Ms Maktoum be freed.

“At first they were very nervous, of course,” said Ms Stirling. “But they thought it was the only way for Latifa to have a chance at freedom.”

Ms Maktoum had previously tried to escape in 2002, she said in the video released in March, but UAE authorities stopped her at the border, returned her to Dubai and held her in a detention facility, where she was tortured, for three years.

At this weekend’s Kentucky Derby, friends in the US skydiving community flew a banner saying: “DUBAI, WHERE IS PRINCESS LATIFA?”

Ms Stirling is quietly optimistic the renewed focus on her case will mean she might soon be released.

“We are hopeful. It becomes very difficult for them when you have the UN involved and Human Rights Watch, and the whole world talking about it – it looks extremely bad for them to keep her locked up.

“She has faced torture and abuse and detention, and forced medication for years. An assurance from the government of the UAE isn’t enough – people aren’t going to stop campaigning for her absolute freedom.”

The Emirati authorities have not responded to a request for comment.

"Outsourcing Pioneer!" Mitt Romney Invested Heavily In Companies That Outsourced American Manufacturing Jobs!

That's Right! Mitt Romney was responsible for the Outsourcing American Jobs trend by large Corporations.





Romney’s Bain Capital invested in companies that moved jobs overseas

Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

While economists debate whether the massive outsourcing of American jobs over the last generation was inevitable, Romney in recent months has lamented the toll it’s taken on the U.S. economy. He has repeatedly pledged he would protect American employment by getting tough on China.

“They’ve been able to put American businesses out of business and kill American jobs,” he told workers at a Toledo fence factory in February. “If I’m president of the United States, that’s going to end.”

Speaking at a metalworking factory in Cincinnati last week, Romney cited his experience as a businessman, saying he knows what it would take to bring employers back to the United States. “For me it’s all about good jobs for the American people and a bright and prosperous future,” he said.

For years, Romney’s political opponents have tried to tie him to the practice of outsourcing American jobs. These political attacks have often focused on Bain’s involvement in specific business deals that resulted in job losses.

But a Washington Post examination of securities filings shows the extent of Bain’s investment in firms that specialized in helping other companies move or expand operations overseas. While Bain was not the largest player in the outsourcing field, the private equity firm was involved early on, at a time when the departure of jobs from the United States was beginning to accelerate and new companies were emerging as handmaidens to this outflow of employment.

Bain played several roles in helping these outsourcing companies, such as investing venture capital so they could grow and providing management and strategic business advice as they navigated this rapidly developing field.

Over the past two decades, American companies have dramatically expanded their overseas operations and supply networks, especially in Asia, while shrinking their workforces at home. McKinsey Global Institute estimated in 2006 that $18.4 billion in global information technology work and $11.4 billion in business-process services have been moved abroad.

While the export of jobs has been disruptive for many workers and communities in the United States, outsourcing has been a powerful economic force. It has often helped lower the prices that American consumers pay for products and created a global supply chain that has made U.S. companies more nimble and profitable.

Romney campaign officials repeatedly declined requests to comment on Bain’s record of investing in outsourcing firms during the Romney era. Campaign officials have said it is unfair to criticize Romney for investments made by Bain after he left the firm but did not address those made on his watch.

In response to detailed questions about outsourcing investments, Bain spokesman Alex Stanton said, “Bain Capital’s business model has always been to build great companies and improve their operations.

We have helped the 350 companies in which we have invested, which include over 100 start-up businesses, produce $80 billion of revenue growth in the United States while growing their revenues well over twice as fast as both the S&P and the U.S. economy over the last 28 years.”

Until Romney left Bain Capital in 1999, he ran it with a proprietor’s zeal and attention to detail, earning a reputation for smart, hands-on management.

Bain’s foray into outsourcing began in 1993 when the private equity firm took a stake in Corporate Software Inc., or CSI, after helping to finance a $93 million buyout of the firm. CSI, which catered to technology companies like Microsoft, provided a range of services including outsourcing of customer support. Initially, CSI employed U.S. workers to provide these services but by the mid-1990s was setting up call centers outside the country.

Two years after Bain invested in the firm, CSI merged with another enterprise to form a new company called Stream International Inc. Stream immediately became active in the growing field of overseas calls centers. Bain was initially a minority shareholder in Stream and was active in running the company, providing “general executive and management services,” according to SEC filings.

By 1997, Stream was running three tech-support call centers in Europe and was part of a call center joint venture in Japan, an SEC filing shows. “The Company believes that the trend toward outsourcing technical support occurring in the U.S. is also occurring in international markets,” the SEC filing said.

Stream continued to expand its overseas call centers. And Bain’s role also grew with time. It ultimately became the majority shareholder in Stream in 1999 several months after Romney left Bain to run the Salt Lake City Olympics.

Bain sold its stake in Stream in 2001, after the company further expanded its call center operations across Europe and Asia.

The corporate merger that created Stream also gave birth to another, related business known as Modus Media Inc., which specialized in helping companies outsource their manufacturing. Modus Media was a subsidiary of Stream that became an independent company in early 1998. Bain was the largest shareholder, SEC filings show.

Modus Media grew rapidly. In December 1997, it announced it had contracted with Microsoft to produce software and training products at a center in Australia. Modus Media said it was already serving Microsoft from Asian locations in Singapore, South Korea, Japan and Taiwan and in Europe and the United States.

Two years later, Modus Media told the SEC it was performing outsource packaging and hardware assembly for IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Computer Corp. The filing disclosed that Modus had operations on four continents, including Asian facilities in Singapore, Taiwan, China and South Korea, and European facilities in Ireland and France, and a center in Australia.

“Technology companies, in particular, have increasingly sought to outsource the business processes involved in their supply chains,” the filing said. “. . . We offer a range of services that provide our clients with a one-stop shop for their outsource requirements.”

According to a news release issued by Modus Media in 1997, its expansion of outsourcing services took place in close consultation with Bain. Terry Leahy, Modus’s chairman and chief executive, was quoted in the release as saying he would be “working closely with Bain on strategic expansion.” At the time, three Bain directors sat on the corporate board of Modus.

The global expansion that began while Romney was at Bain continued after he left. In 2000, the firm announced it was opening a new facility in Guadalajara, Mexico, and expanding in China, Malaysia, Taiwan and South Korea.

In addition to taking an interest in companies that specialized in outsourcing services, Bain also invested in firms that moved or expanded their own operations outside of the United States.

One of those was a California bicycle manufacturer called GT Bicycle Inc. that Bain bought in 1993. The growing company relied on Asian labor, according to SEC filings. Two years later, with the company continuing to expand, Bain helped take it public. In 1998, when Bain owned 22 percent of GT’s stock and had three members on the board, the bicycle maker was sold to Schwinn, which had also moved much of its manufacturing offshore as part of a wider trend in the bicycle industry of turning to Chinese labor.

Another Bain investment was electronics manufacturer SMTC Corp. In June 1998, during Romney’s last year at Bain, his private equity firm acquired a Colorado manufacturer that specialized in the assembly of printed circuit boards. That was one of several preliminary steps in 1998 that would culminate in a corporate merger a year later, five months after Romney left Bain. In July 1999, the Colorado firm acquired SMTC Corp., SEC filings show. Bain became the largest shareholder of SMTC and held three seats on its corporate board. Within a year of Bain taking over, SMTC told the SEC it was expanding production in Ireland and Mexico.

In its prospectus that year, SMTC explained that it was in a strong position to meet the swelling demand from other manufacturers for overseas production of circuit boards. The company said that communications and networking companies “are dramatically increasing the amount of manufacturing they are outsourcing and we believe our technological capabilities and global manufacturing platform are well suited to capitalize on this opportunity.”

Just as Romney was ending his tenure at Bain, it reached the culmination of negotiations with Hyundai Electronics Industry of South Korea for the $550 million purchase of its U.S. subsidiary, Chippac, which manufactured, tested and packaged computer chips in Asia.

The deal was announced a month after Romney left Bain. Reports filed with the SEC in late 1999 showed that Chippac had plants in South Korea and China and was responsible for marketing and supplying the company’s Asian-made computer chips. An overwhelming majority of Chippac’s customers were U.S. firms, including Intel, IBM and Lucent Technologies.

A filing with the SEC revealed the promise that Chippac offered investors. “Historically, semiconductor companies primarily manufactured semiconductors in their own facilities,” the filing said. “Today, most major semiconductor manufacturers use independent packaging and test service providers for at least a portion of their . . . needs. We expect this outsourcing trend to continue.”


Sources: Boston Globe, CBS News, Washington Post, Youtube

Nikki Haley Lied About Race On Voter Registration Form? SC's 1st Non-White Governor! (Tea Party Hypocrisy))

Indian Nikki Haley Says She Is White

For the children of immigrants, the road to acceptance in America can be a bumpy one. There will be pain. There will be embarrassment. There will be relentless, cruel accusations from your brethren that you are assimilating at the expense of your true cultural heritage. And the stories of the children of immigrants who rise to positions of influence and power are especially inspiring given the challenges before them.

Not so inspiring?

Lying about where you're from, like South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC), the American-born child of Indian parents, might have done.

The Associated Press reports that in 2001, Haley listed her race as "white" on her voter registration form.

State Democrats accuse her of being a fake-race opportunist in a state that is, according to the US Census poll, about 66% white (and just a tick over 1% Asian). From the South Carolina Post and Courier:

The state Democratic Party, which first obtained [Haley's voter registraton information], is calling Haley out on the matter and challenging whether her inconsistency on the card might have made her ineligible to voter under the state's new Voter ID law.

Dick Harpootlian, the party chairman, said whether Haley listed her race as white or not doesn’t really matter to him, but the issue is that the governor has shown a pattern of such actions.

"Haley has been appearing on television interviews where she calls herself a minority—when it suits her," Harpootlian said. "When she registers to vote she says she is white. She has developed a pattern of saying whatever is beneficial to her at the moment."

For Haley, voter fraud is a big deal.

She recently signed a new law requiring that voters present photo identification at the polls that, she says, will "improve South Carolina in terms of integrity, accountability and transparency." Voter ID laws, of course, don't actually decrease voter fraud (which is virtually nonexistent). Instead, they mostly keep Democratic voters away from the polls.

Haley hasn't yet responded to the South Carolina Democrats' accusations. But even though she didn't exactly commit voter fraud, her self-race-mis-classification seems to undermine her credibilty as someone who wants to prevent people from lying on their way to the voting booth.




Nikki Haley's Heritage & Background

Nikki Haley, an Indian-American, Sikh-turned-Methodist Republican, was elected governor of South Carolina in 2010.

Ms. Haley is the first woman and racial minority elected governor of South Carolina, one of the nation's most conservative states.

After running a primary campaign so underfinanced that it had to sell yard signs at $5 apiece, Ms. Haley became one of the brightest rising stars in the Republican Party, a Tea Party favorite, a Sarah Palin endorsee and the subject of national attention. During her campaign she held rallies across the state, linking her opponent to President Obama and bringing in big-name supporters like Mitt Romney.

For most of her first six months in office, Ms. Haley managed to keep a congenial, if tense, working relationship with the Legislature. At least, it was much improved from the bitter relationship between lawmakers and her predecessor, Mark Sanford.

In June 2011, Ms. Haley found herself at the center of a legislative standoff after she ordered a rebellious State Senate to get back to work to consider four measures that would restructure parts of the state government, including a new department enabling her to manage day-to-day operations. The Senate leadership responded by successfully asking the State Supreme Court for an injunction. In 3-to-2 vote, the court ruled that the executive order violated the Legislature’s ability to set its own schedule.

Ms. Haley, whose office filed a response to the suit with the support of several Republicans, argued that forcing lawmakers back to finish state business was not unprecedented.

The battle, however, is not over. The governor could still force the Legislature to take up her agenda later, and the entire incident is likely to have a lasting impact on the relationship between the governor and the House and Senate.

Background

In terms of her personal upbringing, Ms. Haley, who was born in 1972, is without precedent for South Carolina. The state has the lowest percentage of women elected to office of any state in America, and Ms. Haley is the only Indian-American elected official.

But ideologically, she is hardly a novelty in South Carolina.

Ms. Haley became part of a small cadre of small-government advocates who are ideologically aligned with Mr. Sanford and at odds with the rest of the state's Republican establishment, whom they accuse of abandoning conservative principles. Like the former governor, she has repeatedly taken her case to the public, sometimes embarrassing legislative leaders and helping her develop a loyal following.

Ms. Haley grew up in Bamberg, S.C., and her parents were the first Indian immigrants the small, working-class town had ever seen. Ms. Haley — born Nimrata Nikki Randhawa and always called Nikki, which means "little one," by her family — said that growing up in Bamberg was at times tough. Her father wears a turban and, though male Sikhs are not supposed to cut their hair, her brothers' was trimmed after teasing at school grew vicious.

Her father, Ajit Randhawa, was a biology professor at Voorhees College in nearby Denmark, S.C.; her mother, Raj, started Exotica International as a gift shop. From early on, Ms. Haley was involved in her family's clothing business, which sells gowns, suits and jewelry — taking over the bookkeeping at age 13.

Before she ran for office, Ms. Haley got an accounting degree at Clemson University, where she met her husband, who works for the Army and also serves as an officer in the South Carolina Army National Guard. She worked for FCR, a waste management and recycling company, and then returned to Exotica as chief financial officer and helped the company grow into a multimillion-dollar business.




NAACP calls out SC's minority governor on flag

The NAACP's top officer called on South Carolina's "first governor of color" to bring down the Confederate flag that flies a stone's throw from Gov. Nikki Haley's Statehouse office.

NAACP president Benjamin Jealous Monday pointed out a longstanding fight with South Carolina over the Confederate flag on Monday during his keynote speech for the civil rights organization's annual convention in Los Angeles.

"Perhaps one of the most perplexing examples of the contradictions of this moment in history is that Nikki Haley, South Carolina's first governor of color, continues to fly the Confederate Flag in front of her state's capitol," Jealous said. Haley is the first governor in the state born of parents who immigrated from India.

"Given the similarities between our struggles to end slavery and segregation and her ancestors' struggle to end British colonialism and oppression in India, my question to Governor Haley is one that Dr. King often asked himself: 'What would Gandhi do?'"

The NAACP launched an economic boycott of the state in 1999 about the banner that flew atop the Statehouse dome and in the chambers of the House and Senate. A compromise in 2000 moved the flag to a monument outside the Statehouse.

Haley spokesman Rob Godfrey said the issue was long ago resolved by white and black South Carolinians.

"Many people were uncomfortable with that compromise, but it addressed a sensitive subject in a way that South Carolina as a whole could accept," Godfrey said. "We don't expect people from outside of the state to understand that dynamic, but revisiting that issue is not part of the governor's agenda."


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, Mother Jones, NY Times, The State, USA Today, Youtube, Google Maps

No Tax Liability For The Rich! No American Jobs Either!

I Have Just One Question To Ask America's Wealthiest Citizens & The CEOs Of Major U.S. Corporations:

Since You Guys (& Ladies) Are Obviously Receiving The Absolutely BEST Tax Breaks That Anyone Could Ever Desire, Why In The Heck Are You Continuing To Send American Jobs Overseas To Places Like India, Thailand, China, Japan, Indonesia, South America, etc., For Cheap Labor??

Inquiring Minds Demand An Answer!

NOW!!!

Decision 2012!





Super-Rich have seen their Tax Liability tumble


As millions of procrastinators scramble to meet Monday's tax filing deadline, ponder this: The super rich pay a lot less taxes than they did a couple of decades ago, and nearly half of U.S. households pay no income taxes at all.

The Internal Revenue Service tracks the tax returns with the 400 highest adjusted gross incomes each year. The average income on those returns in 2007, the latest year for IRS data, was nearly $345 million. Their average federal income tax rate was 17 percent, down from 26 percent in 1992.

Over the same period, the average federal income tax rate for all taxpayers declined to 9.3 percent from 9.9 percent.

The top income tax rate is 35 percent, so how can people who make so much pay so little in taxes? The nation's tax laws are packed with breaks for people at every income level. There are breaks for having children, paying a mortgage, going to college, and even for paying other taxes. Plus, the top rate on capital gains is 15 percent.

There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

"It's the fact that we are using the tax code both to collect revenue, which is its primary purpose, and to deliver these spending benefits that we run into the situation where so many people are paying no taxes," said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the center, which generated the estimate of people who pay no income taxes.

The sheer volume of credits, deductions and exemptions has both Democrats and Republicans calling for tax laws to be overhauled. House Republicans want to eliminate breaks to pay for lower overall rates, reducing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. Republicans oppose raising taxes, but they argue that a more efficient tax code would increase economic activity, generating additional tax revenue.

President Barack Obama said last week he wants to do away with tax breaks to lower the rates and to reduce government borrowing. Obama's proposal would result in $1 trillion in tax increases over the next 12 years. Neither proposal included many details, putting off hard choices about which tax breaks to eliminate.

In all, the tax code is filled with a total of $1.1 trillion in credits, deductions and exemptions, an average of about $8,000 per taxpayer, according to an analysis by the National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent watchdog within the IRS.

More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent. Still, the wealthy have access to much more lucrative tax breaks than people with lower incomes.

More than half of the nation's tax revenue came from the top 10 percent of earners in 2007. More than 44 percent came from the top 5 percent. Still, the wealthy have access to much more lucrative tax breaks than people with lower incomes.

Obama wants the wealthy to pay so "the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what kind of accountant you can afford."

Eric Schoenberg says to sign him up for paying higher taxes. Schoenberg, who inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from his days as an investment banker, has joined a group of other wealthy Americans called United for a Fair Economy. Their goal: Raise taxes on rich people like themselves.

Shoenberg, who now teaches a business class at Columbia University, said his income is usually "north of half a million a year." But 2009 was a bad year for investments, so his income dropped to a little over $200,000. His federal income tax bill was a little more than $2,000.

"I simply point out to people, 'Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'" Schoenberg said.

Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said he has a solution for rich people who want to pay more in taxes: Write a check to the IRS. There's nothing stopping you.

"There's still time before the filing deadline for them to give Uncle Sam some more money," Hatch said.

Schoenberg said Hatch's suggestion misses the point.

"This voluntary idea clearly represents a mindset that basically pretends there's no such things as collective goods that we produce," Schoenberg said. "Are you going to let people volunteer to build the road system? Are you going to let them volunteer to pay for education?"

The law is packed with tax breaks that help narrow special interests. But many of the biggest tax breaks benefit millions of American families at just about every income level, making them difficult for politicians to touch.

The vast majority of those who escape federal income taxes have low and medium incomes, and most of them pay other taxes, including Social Security and Medicare taxes, property taxes and retail sales taxes.

The share of people paying no federal income tax has dropped slightly the past two years. It was 47 percent for 2009. The main difference for 2010 was the expiration of a tax break that exempted the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxation, Williams said.

In 2009, nearly 35 million taxpayers got a tax break for paying interest on their home mortgages, and nearly 36 million taxpayers took the $1,000-per-child tax credit. About 41 million households reduced their federal income taxes by deducting state and local income and sales taxes from their taxable income.

About 36 million families cut their taxes by nearly $35 billion by deducting charitable donations, and 28 million taxpayers saved a total of $24 billion because their income from Social Security and railroad pensions was untaxed.

"As a matter of policy, there would be a lot of ways to save money and actually make these things work better," said Leonard Burman, a public affairs professor at Syracuse University. "As a matter of politics, it's really, really difficult."


Sources: MSNBC, Young Turks, Youtube

Grameen Bank Microloans: Job Creator & Pathway Out Of Poverty

Lending Plan Won Prize, But Will It Work Here?


The maroon couch was big enough to take up half the living room, but by the time the 10th woman arrived it could hold no more.

The room temperature was rising from all the body heat. Chairs were brought in from the kitchen. Even the floor was called into service.

“I’d like to start the collection,” Alethia Mendez announced after the last of the 15 women had arrived on a recent Saturday morning.

Therese Prentice counted out crisp bills, divided them, tucked them in envelopes and recorded the amount in a flimsy green book. The next woman repeated the exercise, until all 15 had made their payments for the week.

Then the money was handed to Ms. Mendez, the group’s 24-year-old banker.

“This is the way it was done in Bangladesh, so we do the same thing here,” Ms. Prentice said. “It’s our ritual.”

The women are clients of Grameen Bank, the international organization that pioneered “microloans” to third-world entrepreneurs and that, along with its founder, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.

But the women were not in one of the abjectly poor villages in Bangladesh where Grameen usually does business; they were in a modest two-story brick house in St. Albans, Queens.

Since the beginning of January, 11 Grameen lending groups have sprung up throughout Queens in the bank’s first venture in the United States. They have lent more than $250,000, in amounts ranging from $500 to $3,000, to more than 100 women for income-generating activity like elder care, housecleaning and flower-arranging businesses.

“Of the entire U.S. population, 40 percent is underbanked, and as a result end up using payday lenders, check cashers and other, more expensive services,” said Vidar Jorgensen, president of Grameen America. “We’re here to meet this huge need.”

If the program works well, Grameen intends to expand nationwide. But while it has flourished elsewhere, it is not clear whether Grameen’s model — which relies on peer pressure rather than collateral to make sure women repay their debts — will work here, and whether such small loans can actually help lift its borrowers out of poverty.

“In parts of the United States it may very well work, but I have real doubts about it working in places like New York City,” said David R. Jones, president and chief executive officer of the Community Service Society of New York.

His group gives cash grants averaging $3,000 to city residents in financial distress — for instance, to people who have fallen behind on their rent or who cannot pay their medical bills. But Mr. Jones said that $3,000 is generally not enough to stabilize a New York resident.

Still, Grameen’s experiment here is being closely watched. Elaine L. Edgcomb of the Aspen Institute in Washington, who co-wrote a 2005 study of more than 100 microlending programs in the United States, said that borrowers do “move out of poverty, and the business can be an important contributor to that, but it’s not always the only contributor.”

“For many families, the increase in income is sufficient to take them above the poverty line,” she said.

Grameen’s distinguishing feature is its mandatory weekly meetings at which borrowers learn money management skills from their banker and from one another and must make their payments in front of everyone else in the group. If one person defaults on a loan, Grameen will not call a lawyer or a collection agency or confiscate any assets. Instead, no one in the group will be eligible for a new loan.

“You have 30 eyeballs who are looking at you and making you accountable,” said Myriam Pericles, a 41-year-old first-generation Haitian-American, who will use her $3,000 loan to expand her computer consulting business. She was a little skeptical about the process. “Maybe all this works in Bangladesh, but this is America, where people are different — our value system gets warped, our word is not our bond.”

Nicole Brown, 30, who immigrated from Jamaica as a child, is using her $2,000 loan to start a day care business. “I didn’t have it in my head to start my own business, but if you want to be great in life, you have to have your own stuff,” she said. She added that she was drawn to Grameen through her sister, Wendy Brown, who is using her $3,000 loan to expand her apartment-cleaning business, Meticulous Cleaning Service L.L.C.

As the other group members looked on, Wendy Brown, 36, made her first payment on the $3,000 loan: $60 toward principal, $6 for interest and $2 toward a savings account. If she makes all her payments, she will retire the debt within a year and be eligible for another loan. “It’s very simple, as opposed to getting it through a normal bank and going through the red tape and getting denied,” she said.

Grameen America’s managers, who are based in Jackson Heights, say that all the women in Queens are paying back their loans on time. But adapting its model to the United States has not been easy.

While Grameen officially requires a home visit to verify that borrowers are truly poor — they must fall below the United States Census Bureau’s poverty line, currently defined as $21,027 for a four-person household with two children — some borrowers at the St. Albans meeting still had not received a visit. Grameen organizers said last week that all borrowers would receive home visits in the next few weeks.

Finding potential borrowers has been another challenge.

“Here, the women are not working in the community where they are living,” said Shah Newaz, the general manager of the Jackson Heights office, who has worked with Grameen for 26 years all over the world. It is hard to meet with the women “because they are not in their houses in the daytime, and in the evening they are very tired and preparing meals, taking care of children and getting ready for the next day.”

Grameen aims its loans at women, saying it has found them more responsible than men and more comfortable with the group model. So far, the Queens operation has lent only to women.

But the organization says it will lend to men here, and is aware that it cannot discriminate on the basis of gender. “We want a female candidate, but in the U.S. you can’t say that in advertisements,” Mr. Newaz said. “That is a problem.”

The idea behind Grameen Bank began in Bangladesh in 1976, when Muhammad Yunus, an economics professor, lent a total of $27 to a group of 42 women in Jobra, a southern village. All of the women repaid their loans. Since 1983, when Mr. Yunus formally founded Grameen, it has lent $6.8 billion to 7.4 million Bangladeshis; 97 percent of its borrowers are women.

Mr. Yunus tried to start a microlending program in the United States in 1985, when he was invited to rural southern Arkansas by Bill Clinton, who was then the governor. But the program Mr. Yunus helped start, called the Good Faith Fund, failed. The group lending model never caught on. If given the choice, “any human being on earth would want to borrow as an individual rather than as a group member. It didn’t work very well in this country,” explained Mary Houghton, founder of ShoreBank, who helped advise the Arkansas experiment.

Another microfinance organization, Acción USA, which has lent money to more than 20,000 people since 1991, also attempted the group lending model in its early days. “We found that the group methodology did not work well because there was a general lack of trust among potential borrowers and an unwillingness to guarantee another person’s loan,” said Bill Burrus, president and chief executive of Acción USA. The organization has since adopted a more traditional individual lending model in almost all cases, and its default rate has ranged from 4 to 7 percent in recent years. Grameen says its default rate in Bangladesh was less than 1 percent, though higher in times of flooding.

Grameen America is aiming to reach 21,000 borrowers within five years, the number that its organizers say would allow it to break even. To improve its chances of success, it relies upon dense social networks, the kind often found in immigrant communities, to help form its groups of borrowers. The center in St. Albans consists predominantly of Caribbean and African-American women.

Not long ago, they would wait out winter afternoons between cleaning jobs on subway platforms, unable to afford lunch or dinner.

“We’d starve until we got home,” Nicole Brown said. The sisters, who had moved back in with their mother, did not want to ask for more help from her, so they turned to Grameen.

“Last year, I had $3 in my pocket,” Wendy Brown said. “This loan could help be the turning point.”


View Larger Map


Sources: Grameen Bank, NY Times, Youtube, Google Maps

Michelle Obama's Bollywood Dance Moves (Videos) - 2010 Asia Trip

Michelle Obama & Kids Dance To Bollywood Hits

Right after her elegant arrival, Michelle Obama made a quick outfit change into a J.Crew lace tee, a floral skirt and her Erickson Beamon brooch for her trip to the Mumbai University on Saturday. She kicked off her flats and danced and played tambourine with 33 disadvantaged children who participate in a Make a Difference program.

Check out a video of the group dancing together (one of the songs they danced to was the theme song from the Bollywood movie, "Rang de Basanti".


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Huffington Post, Google Maps

"India Is A Job Creator", Obama Ignores Bangalore; 2010 Asia Trip

Obama Calls India A Job-Creator For U.S.

Searching for help half a world away, President Barack Obama on Saturday embraced India as the next jobs-creating giant for hurting Americans, not a cheap-labor rival that outsources opportunity from the United States.

Fresh off a political trouncing at home, Obama was determined to show tangible, economic results on his long Asia trip, and that was apparent from almost the moment he set foot on a steamy afternoon in the world's largest democracy. By the end of the first of his three days in India, he was promoting $10 billion in trade deals — completed in time for his visit — that the White House says will create about 54,000 jobs at home.

That's a modest gain compared with the extent of the enduring jobless crisis in the United States. Economists say it would require on the level of 300,000 new jobs a month to put a real dent in an unemployment rate stuck near 10 percent.

Yet to Obama, the bigger picture was the lucrative potential of an unleashed trading relationship between India and the United States. He seemed comfortable and energized away from Washington, days removed from the GOP's election thumping.

"For America, this is a jobs strategy," Obama said of his emphasis on trade, although it could stand as a motto for his 10-day trip. He is spending Sunday with young people in Mumbai and then heading onto meetings in New Delhi, the capital, before shifting later in the week ahead to Indonesia and economic talks in South Korea and Japan.

In India for the first time, Obama quickly got a sense of riches and poverty, history and tragedy.

His helicopter ride into this bustling financial center took in some of the country's slums. His luxury accommodation for the night, the Taj Mahal hotel, was one of the sites of a terrorist rampage in Mumbai that killed 166 people. Obama and his wife, Michelle, paid quiet tribute to the 31 people slain at the hotel, looking over their names inscribed in a memorial before meeting with victims' families and survivors of the shootings.

"We visit here to send a very clear message that in our determination to give our people a future of security and prosperity, the United States and India stand united," Obama said from an outdoor plaza, the soaring Gateway of India and the Arabian Sea behind him. "We'll never forget."

Indian commentators seized on the president's failure to mention Pakistan, India's neighbor and bitter rival. Pakistan was home to the 10 assailants.



The president also celebrated the life of a personal hero, Mohandas K. Gandhi, a father of Indian independence and model of peaceful activism. The Obamas spent time at the home-turned-museum where Gandhi once lived. They signed personal messages into the guest book and pledged to bring their daughters, Sasha and Malia, back one day.

Obama directly addressed the belief in the U.S. that India is robbing Americans of jobs. He acknowledged that many Americans only know trade and global commerce as the source of a job shipped overseas.

"There still exists a caricature of India as a land of call centers and back offices that cost American jobs. That's a real perception," Obama said. He noted the real concern in India that American corporate giants, if welcomed, would run mom-and-pop stories out of business and upend Indian culture.

Seeking to dismiss all "old stereotypes," Obama said the relationship between the countries is "creating jobs, growth, and higher living standards in both our countries. And that is the truth."



In the fallout of the U.S. elections, in which Democrats lost control of the House and Obama's ability to connect with his country was called into doubt, the president said one lesson learned was the need to set a better tone with business leaders. He was effusive on that front in Mumbai, gathering with top U.S. executives and studying up on their commerce with India.

"Just around this table you're seeing billions of dollars in orders from U.S. companies, tens of thousands of jobs being supported," he said. "We're a potential that has barely been scratched."

The White House arranged for four American chief executives who are in India for the occasion to brief reporters traveling with the president. They played up the importance of India as a trading partner and praised Obama's decision to come to the country to underscore that point in person.

"India represents the 14th-largest trading partner of the United States. Why? With all of the opportunity, it should be so much bigger," said Terry McGraw, chairman and chief executive of the McGraw-Hill Companies.

Obama said, "There is no reason this nation can't be one of our top trading partners."

To that end he said the U.S. would put forward a package of reforms on export controls that resulted from past administrations' concerns about India's nuclear industry. The changes, which have been much sought-after in the business community, include relaxing controls on India's purchase of so-called "dual use" technologies that could be used for civilian or military purposes, and removing a few of the last remaining Indian companies on a so-called "entities list" of groups that face restrictions on doing business in the U.S.

The Commercial deals include the purchase of 33 737s from Boeing by India's SpiceJet Airlines; the Indian military's plans to buy aircraft engines from General Electric; and preliminary agreement between Boeing and the Indian Air Force on the purchase of 10 C17s.

For the most part, the deals were already pending, but the White House contends Obama's visit to India helped finalize them. Officials said the deals would support 53,670 U.S. jobs, but it was not clear how many, if any, new jobs would be created as a result.

Progress will take much more than public understanding. India's infrastructure remains an impediment to progress. And Obama's challenged India on the sore spot of shrinking its own barriers to trade and foreign investment. But his larger message was one of the united values and missions of the two largest democracies in the world.

Making that point, Obama even generated some laughter at his own expense, offering a reminder of the troubles at home.

"Our countries are blessed with the most effective form of government the world has ever known: Democracy," he said. "Even if it can be slow at times. Even if it can be messy. Even if, sometimes, the election doesn't turn out as you'd like."

Onkar Kanwar, chairman of India's largest tire manufacturer, Apollo Tyres, said he appreciated the symbolism of Obama's coming to India during his first term and choosing to visit Mumbai first.

"Ties are getting closer and closer, which needs to be done. ... This demonstrates his commitment to another large democracy where he sees a lot of synergies," Kanwar said. "He's done all right."


View Larger Map


Sources: AP, CNN, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Wall Street Journal, Youtube, Google Maps

Michelle Obama’s Possible 2010 Asia Trip First Lady Attire

What Will Michelle Obama Wear In India?

From India Real Time.

When the U.S. presidential couple arrives in India, most people are likely to be closely watching President Barack Obama, hoping for a taste of his soaring rhetoric. But at least some will be keeping their eyes on first lady Michelle Obama — and her frocks.

In the past few years, Mrs. Obama’s style has attracted a considerable following. So much so that a recent study measured how the first lady’s fashion choices drive clothing sales and even stock prices.

But there is more in Mrs. Obama’s style than her penchant for pretty clothes: the first lady appears to have mastered the aesthetics of wardrobe diplomacy. We spoke to blogger Mary Tomer who’s been keeping a very close tally on what – and who – Michelle Obama has been wearing since she set foot in the White House. Edited excerpts.

WSJ: What will you be looking out for?
Ms. Tomer: I’ll be wondering whether she will be referencing Indian culture — from the gowns straight to the accessories—like she did when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and First Lady Gursharan Kaur visited the U.S. in November 2009.

WSJ: What did she wear in that occasion?
Ms. Tomer: Michelle Obama wore a tangerine brocade dress and coat by an American designer, Isaac Mizrahi, while India’s First Lady wore a green sari. You just couldn’t help wonder whether it was done on purpose to match the colors of the Indian flag.

At the state dinner that followed, Michelle Obama wore a very glamorous gown, heavily embellished with sequin, by Indian-American designer Naeem Khan. The gown was actually constructed in his family workshop in India. The first lady also wore a mile-long stack of bangles.



WSJ: What message will she try to convey in India?
Ms. Tomer: A particular notion of American style and sophistication while honoring the culture and fashion of the country she’s visiting. It’s not just aesthetics — it’s also a sense of diplomacy.
The visit comes at a time of widespread distrust of institutions and economic frustration at home — so she’s generally avoiding anything too opulent. But given the tradition of embellishments in Indian fashion this may be an occasion for her to have her glam moment without seeming insensitive.

WSJ: Whom is she likely to wear?
Ms. Tomer: It’s likely to be a celebration of Indian-American designers.
Naeem Khan said the first lady had several other gowns by him and was excited to see when she was going to wear them. This may be the chance to do it, although it kind of depends on her schedule.

She recently wore a necklace by jewellery designer Ranjana Khan, Naeem’s wife. I wouldn’t be surprised if she wore more of her pieces on this occasion. Michelle Obama is known for her statement necklaces.

She’s also likely to wear Rachel Roy, an Indian-American designer who is a regular in her style repertoire.

WSJ: What about on other trips abroad?
Ms. Tomer: She’s always used her style as a powerful means of communication, especially when she travels overseas.

When Michelle Obama met the Pope in Rome, for instance, she wore head-to-toe Moschino to pay homage to Italy’s rich fashion history. She wore all black and a veil over her head, in sign of respect. It showed that she was willing to change an element of her style for the occasion — it makes you think the sari is in the realm of possibility.



View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's 2010 Asia Trip To Create Jobs In U.S. Or India?

Obama Focuses On Economy, Both At Home And Overseas

President Obama heads to Asia Friday as part of an effort to improve U.S. trade relations, but experts say the president's perceived anti-trade rhetoric has complicated the process of reaching agreements that could benefit the U.S. economy.

Following election losses which signaled the administration should have focused more closely on the economy, the president's nine-day trip features an economy-related event in each of the four countries he's to visit.

In his post election news conference Wednesday, Mr. Obama acknowledged the American public was primarily focused on one issue in the voting booth. "I think that there is no doubt that people's number one concern is the economy," the president said. "And what they were expressing great frustration about is the fact that we haven't made enough progress on the economy."

It's a frustration the president plans to address with his Asian tour.

"The primary purpose is to take a bunch of U.S. companies and open up markets so that we can sell in Asia, in some of the fastest growing markets in the world. And we can create jobs here in the United States of America," President Obama said after meeting with his cabinet Thursday.

"My hope is that we've got some specific announcements that show the connection between what we're doing overseas and what happens here at home when it comes to job growth and economic growth," he added.

One specific achievement the White House hopes to announce: a deal with India, the first stop on the trip, to purchase ten Boeing C-17s. The deal, which would include training and ground equipment, could be worth as much as $5.8 billion dollars and create jobs.

The other tangible agreement the administration is hoping for: a free trade agreement with Korea. According to a statement released by the White House, Mr. Obama spoke with South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak Tuesday and expressed his hopes in using their upcoming meeting in Seoul to solidify a deal.

"If we can reach a satisfactory agreement on the key issues for American workers, we will have a deal," the statement read.

But experts say that the Asia swing is not just meant to reassure the voting public that Mr. Obama is focused on the economy, the trip is also meant to send a message to worried Asian partners. "The big mess the president has to cope with...is the economic message," says Ernie Bower of the Center for Strategic & International Studies.

While in India, Mr. Obama is scheduled to address the U.S. India Business and Entrepreneurship Summit. He will also meet with a group of U.S. CEO's in India to "discuss the opportunities and challenges of doing business in India." Among the CEOs: David Cote of Honeywell, Jeffrey Immelt of GE, Terry McGraw of the Mcgraw Hill Companies, Jim McNerney of Boeing and Indra Nooyi of Pepsico.

In Indonesia, the president will deliver a "major speech" in which he will stress the Muslim majority country's growing role in the international economy. In Seoul, he will be joining other leaders at the G-20 Summit to discuss international economic issues such as the global financial crisis and currency revaluation. Finally, Mr. Obama will head to Japan for the 18th APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting.

"Every leader is going to grab him by lapels and ask him, ‘How is the U.S. economy and is it recovering, and when are you getting back to a leadership role on trade?'" Bower says.

Experts say the perceived weakness of the U.S. economy and fears of rising U.S. protectionism create major economic uncertainties for Asian economies that are reliant on U.S. consumers to drive exports.

Some argue the president's "misguided rhetoric" on the campaign trail didn't help matters.

"The president would be wise to drop once and for all the divisive line about shipping jobs overseas -- it doesn't do much politically or diplomatically," said Dan Griswold of the CATO Institute in Washington.

"India in some ways is a challenging stop for the president because during the campaign, he made a big fuss of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas," said Griswold.

Just last month, President Obama focused on this topic in his weekly address.

"For years, our tax code has actually given billions of dollars in tax breaks that encourage companies to create jobs and profits in other countries," Mr. Obama said who then turned his criticism to the GOP. "Over the last four years alone, Republicans in the House voted 11 times to continue rewarding corporations that create jobs and profits overseas -- a policy that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year. That doesn't make a lot sense. It doesn't make sense for American workers, American businesses, or America's economy."

Of course, the president did acknowledge in this October 16 address that, "A lot of companies that do business internationally make an important contribution to our economy here at home. That's a good thing." Nonetheless, experts say the president will have to address his own "divisive" rhetoric once in Asia.

"So the president has been on the one hand, in the heat of the campaign, demonizing that economic integration, and on the other hand, he's going to go over there and what's he going to say?" asks Griswold.

"I think what he's going to see on the ground over there will be in direct contradiction to the way he was mis-portraying things on the campaign trail," says Griswold who argues the economic success in Asia, specifically in India, is in part because the country has followed the U.S. model of doing business, and those achievements should be praised.

"Our big ace in the hole with India is the growing commercial relationship and the president should be celebrating it, not demonizing," as he did during the midterm election cycle, Griswold argues.





Fuzzy Math Dogs Obama’s Asia Trip

As if Tuesday’s "Shellacking" wasn’t enough, President Barack Obama is getting pilloried by the right on the cost of his 10-day trip to Asia, with outlandish hyperventilation going directly from suspect Indian media reports to conservative U.S. media outlets and commentators without a pause for fact-checking.

First, the Press Trust of India reported that Mr. Obama’s entourage would be spending $200 million a day for two days in India, a claim that was quickly repeated last night by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.) on CNN. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said, “The numbers reported in this article have no basis in reality,” and are “wildly inflated,” but “due to security concerns,” he would not offer an alternative price tag.

Snopes.com, a website devoted to myth busting, noted that even if the Indian press has correctly reported the size of the president’s entourage – 3,000 – the cost would work out to $66,000 per person per day, “a figure that stretches credulity to the breaking point.” Factcheck.org noted that the entire war in Afghanistan costs $190 million a day.

But the report is demonstrably incorrect. It says the White House had blocked off the entire Taj Mahal Hotel in Mumbai – it hasn’t – and that the press traveling with Mr. Obama will be staying there. We won’t. Besides, the press pays its own way at considerable cost to the media outlets, not the U.S. taxpayer.

Now a new rumor has emerged courtesy of India’s NDTV. Mr. Obama, the outlet says, “will be protected by a fleet of 34 warships, including an aircraft carrier, which will patrol the sea lanes off the Mumbai coast.” The White House called that ridiculous. But on the conservative Drudge Report website, it’s on the home page – in huge type.





U.S. To Spend $200 MN A Day On Obama's Mumbai Visit

The U.S. would be spending a whopping $200 million (Rs. 900 crore approx) per day on President Barack Obama's visit to the city.

"The huge amount of around $200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit," a top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit said.

About 3,000 people including Secret Service agents, US government officials and journalists would accompany the President. Several officials from the White House and US security agencies are already here for the past one week with helicopters, a ship and high-end security instruments.

"Except for personnel providing immediate security to the President, the US officials may not be allowed to carry weapons. The state police is competent to take care of the security measures and they would be piloting the Presidential convoy," the official said on condition of anonymity.

Navy and Air Force has been asked by the state government to intensify patrolling along the Mumbai coastline and its airspace during Obama's stay. The city's airspace will be closed half-an-hour before the President's arrival for all aircraft barring those carrying the US delegation.

The personnel from SRPF, Force One, besides the NSG contingent stationed here would be roped in for the President's security, the official said.

The area from Hotel Taj, where Obama and his wife Michelle would stay, to Shikra helipad in Colaba would be cordoned off completely during the movement of the President.


View Larger Map


Sources: Asia Society, CNN, Drudge Report, Fact Check, Fox News, NDTV, Snopes.com, Wall Street Journal, Yahoo News, Youtube, Google Maps