KKK And New Black Panther Party Clash In South Carolina

Angry clashes have erupted between members of the Ku Klux Klan and the New Black Panther Party as both groups rally at the South Carolina statehouse.

Confederate flags were stolen and ripped up to cheers and applause from the New Black Panther demonstrators - while KKK members stood on the steps of the capitol performing Nazi salutes.

The white supremacists came out in force on Saturday afternoon to condemn the governor's decision to remove the Confederate Flag due to its associations with racial hatred.

Countering their demonstration, around 400 people with links to the New Black Panther Party marched in the name of racial equality - calling on politicians to do more than simply bring down a flag.

Although leaders insisted they would steer clear of one another, disputes were soon breaking out between off-shoots.

Via: Daily Mail

Continue Reading....

6.6 Million People Just Learned the Hard Way How Much It Costs to Be Uninsured Under Obamacare

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known also as Obamacare, was signed into law by President Obama in March 2010, but it didn't go into effect until Jan. 1, 2014. Despite the more than three years for insurers, states, the federal government, physicians, and consumers to prepare for the coming overhaul of our healthcare system, there were still plenty of hiccups (and challenges) when the calendar changed over.

Pretty much from the get-go of the first enrollment period there were technical issues with the online marketplace servers and software that prevented consumers from completing the enrollment process. But even bigger challenges would be fought at the legal level with the constitutionality of the individual mandate penalties coming into question in 2012, and more recently the challenge to the federal government's ability to divvy out subsidies to enrollees on behalf of 34 states. The defense proved victorious in both challenges, which made it to the Supreme Court.

America dislikes the individual mandate penalty

Yet in spite of Congress' ability to levy penalties against consumers, the individual mandate remains one of the most touchy and least-liked components of the healthcare reform law.

The individual mandate is the actionable component of Obamacare that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or face a penalty. The penalty in 2014, the first year Obamacare was fully in effect, was the greater of $95 or 1% of your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI). This year the penalty for not having insurance, which is officially known as the Individual Shared Responsibility Payment (ISRP), jumps to the greater of $325 or 2% of your MAGI. In 2016, another sizable spike to the greater of $695 or 2.5% of your MAGI. In 2017 and beyond the penalties rise on par with the level of inflation.

Why is there even an individual mandate penalty in the first place, you wonder? When Obamacare became the law of the land, one of the stipulations was that insurers could no longer pick and choose who they wanted to become members. In other words, people with preexisting conditions couldn't be turned away. This meant that through the process of adverse selection some sick and elderly consumers who are costly to insurers would be quick to enroll, while healthier young adults, which are needed to help offset the high costs of the elderly and terminally ill, would possibly shun being forced to buy insurance. The individual mandate penalty was put into place in order to encourage younger adults to enroll, otherwise they'd have to pay a penalty come tax time.

Millions of consumers just learned this the hard way

Just how many people were required to pay the penalty in 2014? According to a report released by National Taxpayer Advocate via the IRS, some 6.6 million people owed an ISRP due to not having health insurance. What may have come as a big surprise to many of those who owed was the fact that the penalty was the greater of $95 or 1% of their MAGI, not the lesser. Thus, the average penalty paid by these 6.6 million people was double the lower-bound figure, $190, since their MAGI often came into play when calculating their penalties.

Source: Pictures of Money via Flickr

In addition to the 6.6 million who owed an ISRP, an estimated 300,000 people paid the ISRP unnecessarily. Some $35 million was collected, or about $110 per person, despite these 300,000 individuals qualifying for a low-income exemption. The oddest part of this whole situation is the IRS may not be able to simply give these 300,000 people back their money because it would require an amended tax return, which would probably cost more than $110 if these individuals sought the help of a tax professional. The IRS is undecided on whether to refund these 300,000 people without the need for an amended return, but if it doesn't the $35 million in overpayments may wind up being a "gift" to the Treasury.

National Taxpayer Advocate also noted that some 10.7 million people filed Form 8965, the Health Coverage Exemptions form that allowed them to use one of roughly one-dozen exemptions, such as low income or economic hardships, to get out of having to pay the individual mandate penalty.

It's worth keeping in mind that these figures could change as they were preliminary through the end of April.

Why the individual mandate may not be working as intended

The short story here is that some 6.6 million consumers got a rude awakening of just how much it costs to be uninsured under Obamacare. But the grim reality, in my eyes at least, is that the individual mandate penalty may not wind up working as it was originally intended.

For starters, the IRS is pretty much powerless when it comes to collecting on ISRPs. When an individual doesn't report income on their taxes, the IRS has an entire arsenal of fines and legal tactics it can use to coerce someone to correct the problem. When an individual doesn't pay their ISRP, all the IRS can do is ask nicely to please do so.

Source: Flickr user Reynermedia

You see, the IRS can't garnish wages or seize property to collect on an ISRP, and it isn't likely that the IRS is going to file individual lawsuits against nonpayers and go to court for what amounts to an average of $190 per person. The IRS's only real "weapon" here is that it can withhold the ISRP from a consumer's refund.

In 2014, 91.8 million people received a refund from the IRS out of 126.1 million individual tax returns -- that's nearly three out of four people. Those are pretty good odds for the IRS to collect on ISRPs. But it's also noteworthy that there were three million fewer refunds processed for the most recent tax year despite 500,000 more total returns from the prior year. If there is no refund, there is no way for the IRS to collect the ISRP if a taxpayer doesn't voluntarily pay it. It makes you wonder if we're seeing this shift down in refunds as a result of the individual mandate penalty.

But the bigger issue as I see it is that the cost of paying the penalty, while perhaps a bit higher than some had expected in tax year 2014, is still well below the cost of purchasing health insurance for a full year. In 2015, the average silver plan price across the country was $307. In other words, health insurance for the most commonly chosen tiered plan in the country runs around $3,700 per year without any subsidies. In contrast, the average individual mandate penalty in 2014 was $190. It's a night and day difference.

Source: Flickr user Eric Snopel

Yes, there's the advantage of possibly being able to write off some of your health-premium costs on your taxes by purchasing health insurance, as well as the peace of mind of knowing you're covered in case something happens where you need to seek medical care. But on a comparative basis it's just easier for millions to bite the bullet and take the penalty in order to save thousands of dollars per year. Even in 2016 when the ISRP moves to the greater of $695 or 2.5% of your MAGI, the average payment will still likely be less than half the average cost of a silver plan around the county over the course of a year.

This raises a big question

The big question mark is what this might do to the insurance companies offering Obamacare plans. The individual mandate penalties were expected to begin shuffling the holdouts (which are primarily healthy individuals) toward enrollment by 2015 and 2016, thus helping to offset the higher costs associated with sicker enrollees in the 2013-2014 enrollment period. But with the IRS's hands tied and consumers coming to the realization that the penalties are a drop in the bucket relative to actually purchasing a health plan, I have to wonder if insurers are going to see the margin boost Wall Street has been projecting.

On the flipside, investors should keep in mind that Obamacare enrollment still represents just a small low-to-mid single-digit percentage of the pie for most insurance companies. Employee-sponsored enrollment, Medicaid, and Medicare Advantage plans can often make up a much larger percentage of insurers' total revenue. Thus, even if Obamacare struggles to court younger, healthier adults via the individual mandate penalties, insurers will probably be just fine from the perspective of profitability.

This $19 trillion industry could destroy the Internet

One bleeding-edge technology is about to put the World Wide Web to bed. And if you act quickly, you could be among the savvy investors who enjoy the profits from this stunning change. Experts are calling it the single largest business opportunity in the history of capitalism... The Economist is calling it "transformative"... But you'll probably just call it "how I made my millions." Don't be too late to the party -- click here for one stock to own when the Web goes dark.

Via: The Motley Fool

Continue Reading...

AWESOME VIDEO SHOWS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN ARMED ROBBER SHOVES ASIDE A GUY WHO HAPPENS TO BE A FORMER MARINE!

An idiot thug tried to rob a gas station early one morning and pushed aside a man who was in his way. Unfortunately for his dumb ass, the guy turned out to be a firefighter and a former marine. It did not go well for the robber.

Watch below:

Via: The Right Scoop

Continue Reading....

SPINNING OUT OF CONTROL

What was worse: the treaty or the press conference?

It is a safe prediction that for years to come the debate over the Obama Iran deal will rage, with one question looming largest; namely, which was worse… the treaty or the press conference?

Actually, it was not a conference but what is known in Washington-speak as a “press availability.” This refers not to the press being available but to the President making himself available to the press and all its relentless scrutiny. For once Obama came through, making himself thoroughly available; all his specious sophistry, all his testy narcissism, all his Freudian solipsism, was on display. To coin a phrase, he had all his centrifuges spinning. And, as Jackie Mason would add, I say this with the highest respect.

In one contentious exchange, Major Garrett of CBS wondered how the President was “content” to leave American hostages trapped in Iran, basting in Hell while he basked in Heaven. Obama contended he was not the least bit content; why, he had even met with some of the families of the hostages!

This sort of non sequitur is terribly revealing. How could we suspect him of not caring when he even made time in his busy schedule to meet with relatives? Surely such intensive efforts will be attended with success, much as the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls saved the two hundred girls kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria? What’s that you say… they were never saved… don’t be ridiculous… we never read about them in the media anymore… they must have been saved!

A man who invests so much into the effort to free our hostages from Iran is just the sort of man we should trust to protect Israel from the threat of nuclear annihilation! Why won’t that right-wing kook Netanyahu quit all his fussing?

There were other juicy tidbits throughout the event. One in particular summed up for me the combination of poor traits that make up the portrait of our young President. Amid the press of the corps, one spunky voice emerged (I paraphrase): “Mr. President, does it disturb you that Prime Minister Assad of Syria and President Rouhani of Iran are making public statements to the effect this deal is a big victory for Iran?”

Obama replied: “It does not concern me that they are spinning the deal in their favor. That is what politicians do!” And he punched the “do” with some real fervor.

At least two very distorted beliefs are revealed in this exchange. The first is a crimp in the true part of the answer; the second stands separately as the false part of the answer. Sure, the answer is partially true. He is right not to be concerned about their spinning because they are liars and tyrants who would tell you they won even if everyone knew they lost, like the guy with blood on his hands and his DNA under the victim’s fingernails who says the jury should acquit because there is “no evidence.” But the way to make that point is by saying: “That is what liars do. That is what tyrants do.” They lie because they are liars, not because they are in a career that makes allowances for wishful interpretation.

So even when his point is valid, his presentation opens a dreary window into his world.

But the false part of his statement is doubly shocking, offensive, misleading, misguiding, corrupting. He tells us that a sitting President or Prime Minister may legitimately regard his role as being “a politician,” thus availing him of the leeway afforded to candidates for office. He may present his actions in matters of life and death to the public in the best possible light. That is what politicians do…

No way! Absolutely cringe-inducingly false!

A candidate is a politician. Once elected he is a governor. A politician may spin things, not to falsify but to magnify, to sell what he believes, to promote a sense of hope and optimism, to set an ideal to which he can aspire. This is a dispensation that must be managed discerningly, but at least it can be defended.

But to spin while in office?! Unconscionable. In office you are a governor, a leader, a representative of the people and every word out of your mouth must be the absolute truth or the closest you can approach it in good faith. The people, the ones who believed your hype, who bought your hope, have placed absolute faith in your judgment, your temperament, your character, your integrity. There is no room at all for manipulating the perceptions of events to create an illusion of success when it is not paralleled by reality.

Mister President, if you think lying to the people while in office is what “politicians do,” pardon us for not trusting you with our lives in negotiating arrangements with rabid haters out to kill us and destroy our way of life.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading.....

Obama's Definition of 'Justice' Describes His Liberal Agenda

President Barack Obama speaks at the NAACP's 106th national convention at the Philadelphia Convention Center, on Tuesday, July 14, 2015, in Philadelphia. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)(

CNSNews.com) - "Justice is not only the absence of oppression, it is the presence of opportunity," President Obama told an NAACP gathering in Philadelphia on Tuesday.

In a speech focusing on crime and punishment, the president spent a few paragraphs defining justice as the embodiment of his liberal agenda:

"What the marchers on Washington knew, what the marchers in Selma knew, what folks like Julian Bond knew, what the marchers in this room still know, is that justice is not only the absence of oppression, it is the presence of opportunity. Justice is giving every child a shot at a great education no matter what zip code they're born into. Justice is giving everyone willing to work hard the chance at a good job with good wages, no matter what their name is, what their skin color is, where they live.

"Fifty years after the Voting Rights Act, justice is protecting that right for every American. Justice is living up to the common creed that says, I am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper. Justice is making sure every young person knows they are special and they are important and that their lives matter -- not because they heard it in a hashtag, but because of the love they feel every single day -- not just love from their parents, not just love from their neighborhood, but love from police, love from politicians. Love from somebody who lives on the other side of the country, but says, that young person is still important to me. That's what justice is.

"And in the American tradition and in the immigrant tradition of remaking ourselves, in the Christian tradition that says none of us is without sin and all of us need redemption, justice and redemption go hand in hand."

Taking his points one by one, Obama advocates universal preschool for every 3- and 4-year old in America, and he repeated that in his speech on Tuesday.

As for goods jobs with good wages," the president is leading the push for a higher minimum wage; and he said on Tuesday that "continuing...subtle, bigotry" may explain why the unemployment rate for blacks is much higher than that for whites.

Fifty years after passage of the Voting Rights Act, Obama and other Democrats insist that requiring people to show identification at polling places violates their "voting rights."

To help more young people feel the love, Obama in 2014 launched an initiative called "My Brother's Keeper," aimed at "helping more of our young people stay on track."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/27/remarks-president-my-brothers-keeper-initiative

And in the wake of the race riots in Ferguson, President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing recommended changes in the way police interact with the communities they patrol. Obama has endorsed the recommendation that police officers work with children, taking time to read to them in schools, for example.

In his speech on Tuesday, President Obama said the nation's criminal justice system "isn't as smart as it should be. It's not keeping us as safe as it should be. It is not as fair as it should be. Mass incarceration makes our country worse off, and we need to do something about it."

He wants to end mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, putting more of them back in the community: "We should pass a sentencing reform bill through Congress this year," he said.)

He wants to improve prison conditions for inmates, ending overcrowding, gang activity, rape, and the "overuse" of solitary confinement. He also wants to boost job-training programs for inmates: "Let's reward prisoners with reduced sentences if they complete programs that make them less likely to commit a repeat offense," Obama said.

He also wants voting rights restored to felons who have served their sentences, and he said employers should "ban the box" asking job candidates about their past convictions.

Obama will highlight his prison-reform agenda when he becomes the first sitting president to visit a federal prison on Thursday.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading....

Media Members Want To Make it Clear They Don’t Know Chattanooga Killer’s Motive

It’s still up in the air to members of the media what compelled 24-year-old Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, a Muslim, to murder four Marines in Chattanooga, Tennessee on Thursday before being killed in a firefight with police.

As one CNN reporter put it, “he was a nice kid from a nice family, and he was as American as anybody else.”

Chris Cuomo said, “we may never know the exact motive” of Abdulazeez. That sentiment has been repeated across the dial, with pundits and correspondents falling all over themselves to remind viewers we just don’t know the motive.

It has been established he did not hunt, however. Abdulazeez did blog about Islam on July 13, where, according to The Daily Beast, he “uses the hypothetical example of a prisoner who is told he would be given a test that would either take him out of his earthly prison.”

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

CITIZEN ARMED WITH AR-15 STANDS GUARD OUTSIDE VIRGINIA RECRUITING OFFICES

On July 17, a citizen armed with an AR-15 stood guard outside various military recruitment offices in Virginia.

The man said “fundamental Muslim extremism” is at war with us, but out leaders seem unable–or unwilling–“to put it in perspective and [realize] that the war is here.”

According to Fox 5, the man wishes to remain anonymous, but did shake hands with those who came by to thank him for standing guard.

He said those inside the recruitment offices were glad to see him too:

I went into each office, the ones that were open, and I was received with handshakes and thank yous. They constantly came by, and not only them, but their wives came by in tears thanking me for just being out here. They baked cookies for me and brought lunch by.

The unidentified man said the police stopped and “checked [him] out.” He said they were just “doing their duty” and “It was all good.”

He urged Americans to contact their Representatives and Senators and get the laws changed so Marines, soldiers, and other military personnel can defend themselves.

He said: “People need to call their [Representatives], they need to call their Senators and they need to change these laws that are on the books so these guys can protect themselves so a regular old citizen doesn’t have to go out and do it,” he told us.”

Breitbart News previously reported that Representative Scott DesJarlais (R-TN-4th) will introducing legislation to abolish military gun-free zones on July 20.

DesJarlais’ bill is titled the “Enhancing Safety At Military Installations Act.”

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

[OPINION] Lawmakers did too little for higher education

Many of our current Oregon legislators went to college at a time when our public universities were very affordable and students could cover their costs with summer jobs and part-time work during the school year. As we all are painfully aware, that is no longer the case. Tuition at Oregon's public universities and community colleges keeps heading up and up while our state contribution has fallen so precipitously that we are 47th out of the 50 states in the level of public support for higher education. We leave it to the students to figure out how to pay the difference, and much of that ends up being unsustainable debt, averaging $27,000 for the current graduating class.  

Many students are asking themselves whether college is worth the cost and the debt. Student debt impacts our state's economy as well, as young college graduates can't buy a car, much less a house, can't start a business and have to grab the first job that comes along, often one that doesn't require a college degree, just to meet interest payments on their student loans.  

The Legislature set a very ambitious goal of achieving "40-40-20" by the year 2025 (40 percent with a high school diploma; 40 percent with a community college degree; and 20 percent with a university degree or better). To get there, they eliminated the higher ed board, created the Higher Education Coordinating Commission, eliminated the Oregon University System and spun off the universities to governance by independent boards.  

What have those changes done for the cost of college? In the last few months, those independent college boards raised tuition in amounts ranging from 7.6 percent (Oregon State University), 4.2 percent (Portland State University) to 3.8 percent (University of Oregon), well above the annual rate of inflation rate of minus 0.2 percent. At the same time the University of Oregon's board recently offered a salary of $800,000 to their new president. No wonder they need to raise tuition!  

At the very end of the legislative session, the Ways and Means Committee was able to increase funding for higher education by a substantial 22 percent over the last budget. Although still not back to pre-recession levels, this was a major increase of $700 million for the universities and $550 million for community colleges. The problem is, the Legislature did not mandate that this increase in state support result in any commensurate tuition cuts for students. Rather, the PSU president has said the additional funding might help to lower the planned 4.2 percent increase in tuition and fees. But increase it they will!

Meanwhile the Washington state Legislature took a dramatically different approach. They cut tuition for their public colleges and universities by an immediate 5 percent and by an additional 10 percent to 15 percent in 2016. Any increases thereafter will be tied to increases in Washington's median hourly wage. Oregon needs to do the same.  

Oregon needs to start with a student-centered reinvestment budget, as opposed to an institution-focused reinvestment budget. This would include reining in the universities' sky-rocketing non-academic costs, increasing need-based student aid grants, lowering — or at least freezing — tuition levels and helping students meet tuition payments without incurring unsustainable debt.  

The Legislature did budget $10 million for a much scaled down "free community college" bill. This effort, while helpful to some high school graduates, will not provide any assistance to the older worker coming to community college to get advanced training nor to any students at our four-year universities.  

That's where the "pay it forward" program would have come in. "Pay it forward" offered students the opportunity to go to a public university without paying tuition upfront but, rather, making small, income-based payments after completion. Their payments would not go to out-of-state banks — currently some $200 million in student loan payments leaves the state every biennium —  but would stay right here in Oregon in a fund that would help pay for future generations of students, eventually becoming self-sustaining. Yes, the state would have to come up with the initial funding, but this is a shared responsibility model, and the students would pay back into the fund after they completed their education so that future generations of students could have the same educational opportunity.  

We have to revisit the question of student debt in the next legislative session. It is a problem that haunts the future for all of us.  

•

Barbara Dudley is senior policy adviser for the Oregon Working Families Party.

Via: Oregon Live

Continue Reading....

Can This Next Shale Hotspot Live Up To The Hype?

Despite the shale slowdown in the United States and disappointing results across Europe, largely caused by the recent dramatic decline in international oil prices, Argentina’s small but burgeoning shale industry still shows great potential. A unique convergence of geological, political and economic factors has placed the country on the cusp of impressive growth, although certain challenges remain.

Argentina is home to the world’s second largest shale gas and fourth largest shale oil deposits which, according to recent studies, are better or equal in quality to that found in the home of the shale revolution, the United States. Argentina’s world-class source rock is well located, largely situated in sparsely populated areas with good access to water sources necessary for fracking.

In addition, Argentina has a healthy domestic market demand for both oil and gas, as well as impressive export opportunities in the region, with an existing extensive pipeline system for conventional resources. In combination with a stable security environment, generally well-educated workforce and a growing pool of professional engineers, the country is an encouraging prospect.

Related: Shale Industry May Need A Complete Rethink To Survive

Numerous global conglomerates have already commenced operations in Argentina including Chevron, Dow Chemical, Petronas, ExxonMobil, Shell, Total and Wintershall. Meanwhile, other international majors and midsize companies have followed their lead over the past few years, showing an increasing interest in investing in the country. These companies recognize that, despite widespread reports regarding the uncertain and at times unfavorable fiscal and regulatory environment in Argentina, shale is a long-term game; commercially viable oil and gas volumes are only likely to start being produced well after the end of the current government’s term in December 2015.

Latin America’s third-largest economy will go to the polls to elect a new president in October and the next administration is likely to take a new approach in order to attract much-needed foreign investment, including in the country’s promising unconventional resources. All three presidential frontrunners have publicly voiced their support for the shale industry and the need for increased foreign investment, particularly as a way to reduce the country’s crippling energy deficit. As such, in the coming years companies will find it easier to initiate and expand their operations, as well as repatriate profits.

Related: More Job Losses Coming to U.S. Shale

In the meantime, although a number of domestic fiscal and regulatory hurdles remain, the current administration, led by Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, has introduced a few changes to help try to stimulate investment. Late last year, the government passed substantial reforms to the country’s federal Hydrocarbons Law in order to attract foreign investment by standardizing the rules and eliminating certain provincial taxes. While the new law represents a promising first step towards creating a more favorable regulatory environment for shale, it remains to be seen how the next administration will apply its provisions in practice.

However, despite the recent growth in interest from foreign companies, the exploration of shale in this South American nation will face several key challenges. In addition to environmental and social risks, the principal long-term threats to the industry’s successful development are geological and technical.

The Most Compelling Energy Opportunity Of 2015 

George Soros, Morgan Stanley and other top money managers are making big bets on the coming Argentinian shale boom. With similar geology to the US and much larger deposits oil majors and investors are all looking to Argentina.

Click here to find out one of the best ways to play the coming boom

While there have been some encouraging studies to date, companies are still engaged in conducting preliminary investigations of the country’s formations. As such, it remains unclear whether the sizeable deposits in the well-known Vaca Muerta formation in Neuquén Province in Argentina’s west, as well as other formations across the country, will be capable of eventually returning substantial profits. That being said, in a promising development, Argentina recently joined the ranks of a small number of elite of countries (the U.S., Canada and China) that are producing commercial volumes of crude oil from tight formations.

Related: The Emerging Megatrend Coming To Oil & Gas

Argentina will also continue to face considerable technical challenges on the road to creating a profitable industry. Companies will need to import costly machinery – which will be particularly difficult until the end of 2015, given the current import restrictions on essential equipment – and keep up-to-date on ever-changing technologies specific to shale.

Moreover, until the end of the current administration, companies will have to overcome a number of fiscal risks, constraining their activities in the short term. More broadly, the recent fall in the international price of oil has led many to question the viability of shale operations around the world. While in the near term low oil prices will likely affect the local industry’s profitability, the current state of affairs is unlikely to affect shale’s long-term chances for success in Argentina, owing to both the likelihood of an eventual price rebound and broad political support for the industry.

The principal challenges outlined above, although significant, are surmountable. Moreover, regardless of which administration takes the reins at the end of this year, shale will be firmly on the political agenda. The key challenge for the next government will be to ensure that the overall business climate is capable of attracting the level of investment needed to make shale profitable.

With sufficient levels of investment and the right technological capabilities, Argentina’s shale industry could take off within the next decade.

By Louisa Richey for Oilprice.com

Via: Oil Price

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....

DENVER: RTD accused of double standard on ‘issue’ ads

DENVER — The operators of Denver’s bus and rail system are now under fire for “fact-checking” certain free speech and political ads while leaving others alone.

Before Republicans were allowed to run a political message on the side of a Denver bus, the Regional Transportation District in Denver asked for edits, citing its policy on “false, misleading, or deceptive” advertising.

When a pair of animal rights groups wanted to run political messages on the side of Denver buses, RTD again asked for edits, making certain all the facts checked out. One of the recommendations was so drastic, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) walked away without buying the space.

When a pro-Palestinian group wanted to run ads on the side of a Denver bus accusing Israel of war crimes and apartheid, RTD approved the message with no edits – except to change the color of a banner from red to yellow.

A months-long FOX31 Denver Problem Solvers investigation into how RTD makes decisions about issue advertisements uncovered a string of inconsistent decisions seemingly at odds with its written policy.

FOX31 Problem Solvers used Colorado Open Records laws to examine why RTD waived forward a controversial Anti-Israel ad while denying proposed campaigns submitted by Republicans and animal rights groups.

Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne found what appeared to be an uneven playing field.

When it comes to what messages get onto the side of a bus RTD’s written policy is simple.

They won’t accept ads for commercial products that are obscene or that pitch an illegal product and for “issue ads” RTD will not display anything false, misleading, or deceptive.

Late last year, pro-Palestinian groups made a splash around Denver buying bus ads implying Israel is guilty of war crimes and sending visitors to a website about “ethnic cleansing.”

RTD took the money then went on the defensive putting out a press release saying in part “political type-ads” are a “public forum” which there are “very limited controls.”

RTD spokesperson, Scott Reed told Halsne during a recent video interview, “You end up in a situation where you don’t like the ad, you don’t necessarily agree with it, but because of the fact it’s politically protected free speech it must be allowed to run otherwise it will result in a legal challenge.”

However, public records sought and obtained by FOX31 Problem Solvers show while RTD found nothing deceptive about the war crimes ad it had no troubles flagging, denying, and editing some other issue advertisements.

For example, FOX31 Denver uncovered a string of emails, contract changes, and other correspondence between the Colorado Citizens for Canine Welfare, RTD and RTD’s advertising partner, Lamar.

The records showed RTD intervened to “deny,” editorialize, then change the images and words on the canine group’s proposed bus billboard messages.

President of Colorado Citizens for Canine Welfare, Dr. Cheryl Saipe, says the group wanted a special ad placed on the back of twenty buses around Christmas 2013.

The banner originally said, “END PUPPY MILLS – SAY NO TO PET SHOPS AND ONLINE SELLERS – ADOPT!”

Records show RTD said no and stamped that version “denied.”

Halsne: “Did you think that your first submission was false or deceptive?”

Dr. Saipe:   “No.”

Halsne: “But RTD did?”

Dr. Saipe: “Well they didn’t use the word deception. I think they said you can’t prove that every pet shop sells only puppy mill dogs.”

Using its editorial control, RTD changed the ad to say no to puppy mill pet shops and online sellers – believing that was more accurate.

Saipe’s group was happy to add the words, but what was their alternative?

“We wanted an ad to get our message across about ending puppy mills by not buying dogs from pet stores or from the Internet,” said Dr. Saipe. “We’re new to this and I was just glad they would run it at all.”

Dr. Saipe added that RTD, despite the editorializing, treated them fairly, by allowing the ads to stay on some buses for a longer time period than listed on the contract.

Records show RTD also tried to change another animal rights ad. PETA wanted to buy bus backs saying, “Research shows livestock and poultry emissions cause more greenhouse gases than buses, cars and planes combined.”

RTD said no. Reed says the reason was simple: “They claim the study found certain things and that’s not what the study found.”

And, according to records obtained by FOX31 Problem Solvers, RTD thinks Boulder County Republicans got another ad wrong too.

The “BIG GOVERNMENT DEBT IS STEALING HER FUTURE!” message had a picture of a crying baby touting her share of the national debt at $150,000.

RTD did its own research and found that number was the amount owed by all taxpayers—and that babies don’t pay taxes. The debt number was lowered to $55,206 per citizen before being approved.

When FOX31 Denver shared its findings with Scott Levin, regional director of the local Anti-Defamation League, he was surprised. The ADL is a group that battles hateful content and anti-Semitism.

Levin says RTD had been publically defending its approval of the pro-Palestinian ad based on their inability to interfere with politically protected free speech.

Now, after seeing the other cases we’ve found of RTD making changes, he wonders.

Levin says, “There is no credible evidence that Israel has been involved in any ethnic cleansing or war crimes. If RTD is actually willing to evaluate, in these other campaigns, whether or not something is false, misleading or deceptive, it really ought to be doing it in this situation — to not do so is a double standard. Our belief is people are entitled to have bad speech. The way you overcome that is just with a lot more good speech, but if you’re going to establish a policy we want to make sure you apply it and apply it fairly.”

The Israeli War Crimes campaign was paid for by the Friends of Sabeel, Coloradans for Justice in Palestine and the Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign (SeaMAC).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling March 18 of this year that a metro bus service in King County, Washington could “reject the ad” and “thus not violate the First Amendment.”

SeaMAC responded to an inquiry from FOX31 Denver, saying “Yes, the bus ad that ran in Denver is substantially the same as the ad that was first approved and accepted and then revoked in Seattle.”

Via: FOX31 Denver

Continue Reading...