FDA Regulations Could Wipe Out 99 Percent Of E-Cigarette Industry

The e-cigarette industry could be all but wiped out thanks to regulations coming down the pipeline from the Food and Drug Administration.

Most damaging of all, e-cigarette makers will have to retroactively submit marketing applications for all their products, with the costs running into the millions.

Manufacturers of e-cigarettes could also be banned from advertising the reduced risk from substituting smoking for vaping unless they can convince the FDA otherwise.

In 2009, e-cigarettes came under the purview of the FDA and may face many of the restrictions placed on the tobacco industry, such as issuing health warnings and stopping sales to minors.

The e-cig industry is still relatively young, with the first e-cigarette invented in China in 2007. Despite there being close to 20 million Americans regularly using e-cigarettes, the FDA’s regulations could bankrupt the vast majority of producers.

Speaking to The Hill, Jan Verleur, co-founder and CEO of VMR Products, said as much as 99 percent of the industry could be wiped out. “This makes it so any product released after the grandfather date would require premarket approval,” said Verleur.

He added that ”the process could cost us half a million to million dollars,” per individual product. With more than 500 e-cigarette products, VMR Products would have to pay five times the company’s revenue.

His comments echo those of the president of the American Vaping Association Greg Conley who told the L.A. Times Monday that 99 percent of the small businesses in the industry could close their doors.

There is as of yet no fixed date for when the rules come into force. The FDA has said it will give companies two years to submit their applications and they will be able to sell the products under review during that time.

Follow Guy on Twitter

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Unreal: Gun Used in Terror Attack on Mohammed Cartoon Contest Sold Through Operation Fast and Furious

On May 4, 2015 Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson drove from Phoenix to Garland, Texas to carry out a terror attack against conservatives hosting a Mohammed cartoon contest. When they arrived on scene, they were immediately shot and killed by police after opening fire outside the building.

It turns out Soofi purchased his gun under the Holder Justice Department's Operation Fast and Furious back in 2010. As a reminder, Operation Fast and Furious was a program that ran from 2009-2010 in which federal agents purposely allowed the sale of thousands of weapons, including handguns, AK-47s and .50-caliber rifles, to known drug cartels. Agents deliberately allowed weapons to be trafficked and lost in Mexico. Now, Barack Obama's bloodiest scandal has hit home once again. Richard Serrano at the LA Times has the incredible details:

Five years before he was shot to death in the failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, Nadir Soofi walked into a suburban Phoenix gun shop to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.

At the time, Lone Wolf Trading Co. was known among gun smugglers for selling illegal firearms. And with Soofi's history of misdemeanor drug and assault charges, there was a chance his purchase might raise red flags in the federal screening process.

Inside the store, he fudged some facts on the form required of would-be gun buyers. What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.

Soofi's attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

In other words, ATF and the FBI pushed through a shady gun sale that ultimately was used in a terror attack against Americans on U.S. soil.

Not surprisingly the FBI has been stonewalling information about Soofi's firearm and the guns used during the Garland attack for months. They did the same when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by Mexican drug bandits in Arizona on December 15, 2010. The guns used in his murder were also sold as part of Operation Fast and Furious. More from Serrano:

A day after the attack, the Department of Justice sent an "urgent firearms disposition request" to Lone Wolf, seeking more information about Soofi and the pistol he bought in 2010, according to a June 1 letter from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, to U.S. Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch.

Though the request did not specify whether the gun was used in the Garland attack, Justice Department officials said the information was needed "to assist in a criminal investigation," according to Johnson's letter, also reviewed by The Times.

The FBI so far has refused to release any details, including serial numbers, about the weapons used in Garland by Soofi and Simpson. Senate investigators are now pressing law enforcement agencies for answers, raising the chilling possibility that a gun sold during the botched Fast and Furious operation ended up being used in a terrorist attack against Americans.

Keep in mind not a single person involved in Operation Fast and Furious has been fired. In fact, many Department of Justice officials and ATF supervisors have been promoted. ATF agents who exposed the scandal, however, have faced extreme retaliation in addition to career and personal sabotage. 

Via: TownHall

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Obama admin looks to ban some Social Security recipients from owning guns

The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.

If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”

The latest move is part of the efforts by President Obama to strengthen gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.

Critics are blasting the plan, saying that expanding the list of people who cannot own guns based on financial competence is wrongheaded.

The ban, they argue, would keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people, but would also include people who simply have a bad memory or have a hard time balancing a checkbook.

The background check for gun ownership started in 1993 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was partially paralyzed after being shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

Gun stores are required to run the names of potential buyers through a computerized system before every sale.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

OBAMA’S SECRETIVE GUN BAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFICIARIES

In a the latest backdoor gun control effort put forward by the White House, President Obama is pushing to ban gun possession for Social Security beneficiaries who are incapable of handling their own finances.

The specific details of the ban are unknown, as it is being put together “outside of public view.” But the LA Times reports that a ban on gun possession due to inability to handle finances would be sweeping; that it would cover those who are unable to manage their own affairs for a multitude of reasons–from “subnormal intelligence or mental illness” to “incompetency,” an unspecified “condition,” or “disease.”

The Times notes that the finances of roughly “4.2 million” Social Security beneficiaries are handled by someone else.

Yale Psychologist Dr. Marc Rosen has seen this same tact used on US veterans and warns that those applying it to guns under the presumption that needing help with financial management equates to violent tendencies are simply mistaken. Rosen said, “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe. They are very different determinations.”

The Times provides an example of 30-year-old US Marine Steve Overman. He requires help with his finances because of “weakened..memory and cognitive ability” resulting from a roadside bomb in Iraq. The “VA eventually deemed him 100% disabled and after reviewing his case in 2012 declared him incompetent, making his wife his fiduciary.”

Because of this, he had to get his guns out of his house–taking them a relative’s home–in order to avoid losing them. This same scenario could play out again–millions of times–if the Social Security Administration uses the “mental defective” categorization that the VA uses.

Under this one category alone, approximately “2.7 million” Social Security beneficiaries could lose gun rights.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

California's Generosity To Illegals Is Crippling The State

California is once again leading the way in financial irresponsibility by subsidizing health care for illegal alien children, further burdening the state’s taxpayers.

The LA Times reports that the subsidized healthcare is a part of a $115.4 billion budget and would be available to 170,000 children at the age of 18 or younger. The cost is expected to be $132 million when fully implemented. The program will begin in May.

The Los Angeles Daily News features proponents of subsidized healthcare to illegal children saying that the state can afford to help low-income illegal children because California has billions of dollars in surplus.

Even if this were true, why does the burden have to be on us taxpayers? They are the ones who came here illegally. Yes, the children are here through no fault of their own but the sad reality is that children are often victims of bad circumstance through no fault of their own. For instance, if their parents are arrested for tax embezzlement, that’s not the children’s fault but we don’t reward the unlawful behavior of tax embezzlement as a result.

But the dirty little secret is that California is not as financially sound as the left would have you believe. In fact, the financial system is in dire straits, and a sizable portion is due to illegal immigration.

First, a little background: California would not be in this position if not for rogue, judicial activist judges. The people of California voted for Proposition 187 in 1994 by a vote of 59% to 41%, which prohibited illegal aliens from access to welfare programs, including public education and health care. This was back when Californians had common sense.

So naturally, as the left is wont to do when voter initiatives and legislation don’t go their way, they sued, hoping that a handful of judges in black robes would overrule the will of the people. And that’s what happened.

Via: Townhall

Continue Reading....

Obama Administration Just Got Caught in a Massive Lie ...

WVOC.com: The LA Times has been as friendly as possible to the Obama administration, but they can't ignore this. Today they broke the story that another massive lie around Obamacare has been told to the Congress and the American people. As you know "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan" was ranked as the biggest lie of the year by the Washington Post.  Well here comes an early contender for this year's award.

The Republicans have been accusing the Obama administration of building into Obamacare an insurance plan for the insurance companies. A bailout if the insurance companies lost money under Obamacare. Their claim was that in the law was something called the temporary risk corridor program. Under that Republicans said the administration had allowed themselves a way to take tax dollars and bailout an insurance company that lost money. But the administration and the Democrats have denied that. Apparently the administration and the Democrats had been telling the truth...and didn't like it.

The LA Times reports that late last week hundreds of pages of new regulations were added to Obamacare. Their reporters went through it and found a few key paragraphs. The change in regulations essentially provides insurers with another backup: If they keep rate increases modest over the next couple of years but lose money, the administration will tap federal funds as needed to cover shortfalls. This could be hundreds of billions of dollars!

This is a classic bait and switch. The middle class will feel like they're getting a break on insurance premiums. As long as they don't look at the governments check book, they'll believe the Affordable Health Care Law is working. It only unravels if they realize they are paying double for their insurance, because the increase is being charged to their account in the form of more debt.

The Republicans are expected to go nuts over this, and the Democrats will point at the scene they are making and say 'look how fanatical those people are'. I would warn Republicans against making a big deal out of this.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Media to Obama: Where’s the openness you promised?

About 40 different news groups have joined forces to demand the White House answer this one question: Where’s all the open government that President Obama promised?

In a letter sent last week, followed by a meeting among White House officials and members of the press, the media groups complained about restrictions that have been placed on photographers whose primary job descriptions are to take pictures of the president, the Los Angeles Times reported. Only thing is: The White House won’t grant them access, preferring instead to send out photos that have been snapped by their own, in-house photographer.

The practice is tantamount to propaganda, the news organizations complained.

Or, in the words of their letter: The restrictions on accessing the president create “a troubling precedent with a direct and adverse impact on the public’s ability to independently monitor and see what its government is doing.”

Among those complaining are the White House Correspondents Association and the Tribune Company, the L.A. Times reported.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said in an email, reported by the L.A. Times, that the administration was “working to address some of the concerns raised by photographers covering the White House. We certainly do not believe that official photos released by the White House are a substitute for the work of independent journalists.”

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

CALIFORNIA'S 'NOVEMBER SURGE' NOT ENOUGH TO OVERCOME THE OCTOBER PURGE

Health care wonks are crowing about a "November surge" in enrollment. Will the November surge will be able to make up for the October purge, i.e. the millions who were dropped from existing plans because of Obamacare's new minimum standards for coverage? In California, there is reason to think it may not.

In a piece posted at Wonkblog Friday, author Sarah Kliff introduced the term  "November surge" into the discussion of enrollment figures. According to Kliff, the uptick in enrollment, especially in California, is reason for optimism:

Some state-based marketplaces had a pretty smooth launch, and are seeing the pace of enrollment speed up daily. California has lead [led] the bunch; the state's enrollments have grown steadily in November and now account for nearly a full third of all health law sign-ups. The state has had its strongest two weeks of enrollment this month.

The enrollment surge in California, and the idea that it was part of a broader pattern, was first reported by LA Times health writer Noam Levey a week ago. Levey's piece was widely quoted, including by Sarah Kliff, but his claims did not stand up to much scrutiny. For instance, Levey claimed that Kentucky was "outpacing" its enrollment estimates. A spokesperson for the state says no such estimates exist.

Both Levey and Kliff fail to ask the most important question. How soon will current enrollment trends balance out the number of people who have been dropped from their insurance as a result of Obamacare grandfathering regulations? In other words, can a November surge make up for the October purge?

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Obamacare: Unfair to the young middle class, punished enough already

The Obama administration came out with a report Monday arguing that 1 million single adults between the ages of 18 and 35 will be eligible for an Obamacare insurance plan costing less than $50 a month.

That’s news to me.

I’m a healthy 34-year-old with a taxable income hovering right around the Obamacare subsidy level who, for the last several years, has purchased a relatively inexpensive catastrophic health insurance plan from Blue Shield. I get to see the doctor four times a year for a $30 co-pay, and I won’t have to spend the rest of my life working off the debt if I get hit by a bus.

Last month, however, I received a letter from my insurance company informing me that my plan was “no longer available” due to “new requirements for health coverage under the Affordable Care Act.” I am being funneled into the closest equivalent plan under the new California health exchange, and my monthly premium is going to rise by nearly 43% to $214 a month.  

My old plan was as bare-bones as they came, so I assumed that even though the new plan would cost more, my coverage would improve under Obamacare, at least marginally.

It did not.

Under my old plan, my maximum out-of-pocket expense was $4,900. Under the new plan, I’m on the hook for up to $6,350. Copays for my doctor visits will double. For urgent-care visits, they will quadruple. Though slightly cheaper plans exist if I decide to shop around on the exchange, I will lose my dental coverage should I switch.

Needless to say, I am not pleased.  

Most young, middle-class Americans I know are happy that millions of previously uninsured people will receive free or heavily subsidized insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

We just didn’t realize that, unless we had health insurance at work, we’d be the ones paying for it.

Via: LA Times

Comtinue Reading.....

Nearly 700,000 applications completed at healthcare.gov, officials say

WASHINGTON -- Nearly 700,000 applications for health insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act have been completed, administration officials said Thursday, although they would not release data on how many people successfully enrolled in insurance plans despite problems with the online marketplace.

The updated figure comes as administration officials tried to respond to complaints and finger-pointing from the contractors who built the troubled website,www.healthcare.gov. Testifying before a House committee Thursday, the contractors blamed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which essentially was project manager, for not conducting complete “end-to-end” testing of the site until two weeks before the Oct. 1 launch date.

On a call with reporters, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services officials did not dispute that account.

“Due to a compressed time frame, this system just wasn't tested enough, especially for high volumes,” said spokeswoman Julie Bataille.

PHOTOS: 2013's memorable political moments

Asked why time was short for a system more than three years in the making, Bataille cited the “complexity of the system.”

“Obviously, when you put all of those pieces in place over a period of time, I think it is no surprise to anyone that we are operating under a compressed time frame to get all of that done and in order to do the rigorous testing that was needed,” she said.

Officials also acknowledged they were responsible for the decision some experts have isolated as the pivotal design flaw -- a requirement that visitors to the site create accounts before shopping for insurance plans. Republicans have charged that the administration scrapped a so-called “window shopping” function because officials were worried users would get sticker shock and turn away from Obamacare.

Via: Los Angeles Times

Continue Reading.....

Report: Washington political reporters flak for President Obama at meeting with Leon Panetta

When former Obama administration Defense Secretary Leon Panetta dared to criticize his old boss’ handling of the government shutdown, a group of Washington political reporters were there to leap to President Barack Obama’s defense.

“You have to engage in the process,” Panetta said, criticizing Obama at a Monday breakfast sponsored by The Wall Street Journal, according to an account by liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus. “This is a town where it’s not enough to feel you have the right answers. You’ve got to roll up your sleeves and you’ve got to really engage in the process … that’s what governing is all about.”

This propelled some political reporters in the room to justify Obama’s lack of leadership, reports Marcus.

“To some extent, the reporters in the room seemed more forgiving of the circumstances in which the president finds himself,” she wrote. “Jackie Calmes of The New York Times noted that the Panetta-envisioned budget deal was illusory because Republicans refuse to consider new tax revenue. Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times observed that the White House would argue that its previous efforts at schmoozing and deal-making had fizzled.”

Panetta, who also served as CIA director under Obama, is an expert in budget negotiations from his experience serving as chief of staff and director of the Office of of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton, and as chairman of the House Budget Committee when he served as a Democratic representative in Congress. According to Marcus, he pushed back against the reporters’ justifications for the president’s failure to come to a budget deal with Republicans.

“Just because you’ve engaged in some set of negotiations and they haven’t gone anywhere — for one reason or another there’s been a breakdown — is no reason to walk away from the table,” he reportedly said. “In this town, you’ve got to stay with it. You’ve got to stay at it.”

According to Marucs, Panetta dismissed the idea of creating “some razzle-dazzle supercommittee” to solve the budgetary impasse, arguing that the key players need to be locked in a room until they come to a solution.

“If the president, for whatever reason, feels he can’t do it because the Republicans don’t want to confront him, then he ought to be willing to delegate that responsibility to someone who can do it,” Panetta reportedly concluded.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading.....