Movie Theatre Massacre: Gun Control Conflict

As I am sure many of you have heard, James Holmes, a 24-year old medical school drop-out, has been accused of opening fire at a midnight showing of the new Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado.  The shooting killed 12 people and left dozens more injured.

After the shooting in Colorado, many federal lawmakers have expressed their desire to tighten gun control laws in the United States.

Photo: Source

Here, I will present a couple of arguments of both sides -- For and Against -- stricter gun control laws.

Support FOR Stricter Gun Control Laws:

1. President Obama said yesterday (Wednesday) evening, during a speech to the National Urban League that he believes in the Second Amendment right to bear arms; however, he does not think that AK-47s belong in the streets of our cities. 

2. Colorado shooting suspect, James Holmes, allegedly used a shotgun & a semi-automatic rifle during the shooting, and the police found a handgun found in his car, along with 6,000 rounds of ammo.  These are all shown as being purchased legally.

Main Argument For: The movie theatre massacre in Colorado is a clear signal that stricter gun control laws would prevent another massacre such as this one from taking place.

Photo: Source

Opposition AGAINST Stricter Gun Control Laws:

1. Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, stated during a press conference to NBC that there is no need for more gun control laws -- More laws will not prevent people from performing actions that are against the law.

 2. The Second Amendment clearly states individual right to bear arms, not only military personnel.  It is an essential part of being an American citizen in order to protect our homes and our families.

Main Argument Against: More gun control laws will not prevent bad people from doing bad things (i.e. Criminals are still going to break the law, no matter what the law is).  Allowing Americans to exercise their Second Amendment right will provide safety for all Americans attempting to protect their homes and their families.

Photo: Source

As you can tell, the conflict here comes between public safety & personal protection.

President Obama has dealt with the gun control issue lightly during his Presidency term, and has recently been vocal about tightening gun control laws, post-Colorado shooting.  However, it is unclear whether or not he will personally push legislation concerning tighter gun control laws -- especially with the upcoming election.

Source

New Immigration Policy: Violating the Constitution?

The White House is a mere few weeks away from facing a lawsuit, brought to them by Iowa Republican Congressman, Steve King, regarding the Obama Administration's immigration policy.

The lawsuit is in response to the new immigration policy, an Executive Order, which was announced by President Obama in June.

If you are not aware of Obama's new immigration policy, here is the gist of it:

1. Young, undocumented immigrants who came to America before they turned 16 (and are under the age of 30, now) would stop getting deported. 

2. They would also get work permits issued to them that would be good for two years. 

3. The work permits issued are renewable, and here is no limit as to how many times they can renew them. 

4. This is an estimated total of up to 800,000 illegal & undocumented immigrants that would benefit from this law.

As expected, there have been a lot of questions about this law concerning immigration issues, including:

When will there be limits made for young illegal immigrants?  How will this law will prevent even more immigrants from entering our country and taking American jobs?

However, the immigration issues are a completely different category than what King is attempting to sue the Obama Administration for.  King argues that his lawsuit is that it is not an immigration issue (or a political issue, for that matter), but a constitutional issue.

Congress has voted down the DREAM act for the past consecutive two years, which may be sufficient proof that the President is going against the will of Congress by announcing this Executive Order.

King said in a statement that if the president is allowed to "pick and choose" the laws that he wants to enforce, there is essentially no checks and balances system being adhered to -- checks and balances is part of what helps keep democracy in the system.

If it can be shown that an act of Congress is being nullified by the President, then he has the right to sue, and has a strong and legitimate case.

Another one of King's reasons for bringing up this lawsuit as a constitutional issue is:

By allowing the President completely bypass the will of Congress has the ability to set a very dangerous precedent for future regulations.

For example, what if one day, the President one day decides that the IRS should not enforce a certain tax because there are already a massive amount of tax frauds out there, and gives them amnesty, or a "free pass"? 

My guess is that a lot of people would have a serious problem with that.

Within the coming weeks, we will see if the lawsuit that Congressman King is threatening against the White House will actually be pursued.

Not So Lucky In Kentucky

A health services company that operates 21 nursing homes in Kentucky, Extendicare Health Services, Inc. has recently announced that it will be leaving the state.  Not only this, but it will be leaving the state with more than a few bridges burned along the way.

What could have triggered this announcement?  Since 2009, Extendicare has faced at least 43 civil lawsuits (which are still pending), for negligence on the part of the company.  The lawsuits include both personal injury and wrongful death claims.


The health services company requested immunity on these civil lawsuits, in order to avoid liability to the elderly residents who were injured or killed due to the company's negligence.

Kentucky lawmakers refused to grant Extendicare this "free pass."  And rightfully so.

After the refusal of lawmakers to bailout the company with a bill that would require personal injury and wrongful death lawsuits against nursing homes to be reviewed further by a medical panel, Extendicare decided to leave Kentucky.

According to at least 43 lawsuits, the health and safety of the residents in the nursing homes owned by Extendicare has been compromised because of the negligence of the company.


Apparently, the same health services company pulled this exact same "vanishing act" in Florida in 2001, when the Florida lawmakers did not hand them a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Although Extendicare, like any other corporation, may not have been fully responsible for the injuries and deaths of its residents -- the company must do its best in order to avoid these types of lawsuits.  And being sued by at least 43 families since 2009 does not make a good case for the company was providing the quality care and safety that its residents deserve (and paid for).

The fact that Extendicare is completely up and moving from the state, just because Kentucky lawmakers would not grant them full immunity, is yet another clear indication of liability on the part of the company.

If the company in fact practiced its duty of care and due diligence to all the patients, then it should prove themselves not liable, and move on and continue running the business in the same state.

Holding Accountants Accountable

At any given time that popular musical artist, Rihanna, is in the news for filing lawsuits, it is normally against some sort of abusive ex-boyfriend (i.e. Chris Brown or Drake).  In this case, however, she is suing the people who deal most closely with her finances -- Her accountants.

She has recently filed a lawsuit against her former accountants, Berdon LLP, for millions of dollars, alleging mismanagement of her money.

When she first started out, Rihanna was a 16-year-old from Barbados, who quickly became extremely rich and famous. With all of this wealth, at such a young age, and from a foreign country, she clearly needed help managing her money.  Who better for the job than accountants?

Hiring accountants means that they now have a duty of care to you (and more importantly, your funds).  You trust them to monitor your finances diligently.

In Rihanna's case, her job was to sing and make the money, and their job was to advise her on what to spend her money on, and what not to.

Rihanna may soon be under investigation by the IRS due to the amount of money that she has lost.

Although there are many famous people who quickly lose their wealth due to carelessly spending and overspending, she was under the impression that her finances would be carefully monitored by her accountants.

Part of the reason she hired them was to ensure that she would not be one of the stars that loses millions within only a few years.


The most recent statistics from Entertainment Weekly reveal that Rihanna's accountants' commission was around 23%, while the singer only received about 6% of her total earnings.  Something just doesn't seem right here, given these numbers.

(Sorry about the cheesy graphic... I had to.)

Yes, Rihanna had recently bought a ridiculously expensive home, along with many other nice, overpriced things, by her own choice.

However, her accountants receive commission on each purchase that she makes; it is their job to advise her on whether or not to make these purchases.

Because of their failure to manage her money correctly, it looks as though they may be having to compensate Rihanna for the losses they have caused her.

Suing Siri

It seems that China has recently discovered the power of the court system, especially concerning patent lawsuits, and are taking full advantage of that.  Apple, Inc. is paying the price.

Apple has been hit by three different lawsuits from China, all alleging that Apple infringed on patents from certain technological services originally offered by Chinese companies.

After Apple finally settled with a firm in China for $60 million over the use of the iPad name, which was allegedly Trademarked by Proview, a Chinese company.  Now, Apple faces two additional lawsuits from China:

1.) Siri lawsuit; and
2.) Snow Leopard lawsuit.

One of the lawsuits is over Apple's Siri, which is a robotic voice assistant included in each of Apple's iPhone 4S devices.

The suit alleges that the idea for Siri was first patented by an Internet Technology firm in China, Zhi Zhen, except it was called Zaio i Robot.  The Internet Technology firm alleges that they thought of the idea in 2004, and it was approved in 2006.

Apparently the firm attempted to settle with Apple through mediation, out of court, in May; however, after not receiving a response from Apple, the company officially sued Apple yesterday.

The other lawsuit filed in China against Apple, Inc. relates to Apple's Snow Leopard operating system in Mac computers, released in 2009.  Chinese firm, Jiangsu Xuebao, alleges that Apple infringed on its trademark of Snow Leopard; the company claims that they registered their equivalent of Snow Leopard in 2000.

Apple has yet to comment on the lawsuits.

Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Health Care

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld most of the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act, affectionately referred to by many as Obamacare.

The individual mandate, which requires that most Americans buy health insurance, was upheld and ruled constitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States of America

If you do not really understand what this actually means for you, here is a brief rundown of what the Supreme Court decided:

• The Supreme Court Justices ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that all Americans must have health care coverage -- whether public or private -- by 2014, or face a tax penalty.
• By 2016, this tax will be around $695 per person.
• An inevitable tax increase for the middle-class.
• Over 20 million Americans will lose the current health care plan that they currently have and want to keep.
• This puts the government in charge of health insurance.
• Makes it less likely for people to receive high quality health care.
• Healthcare is now officially a tax on the American people.  (Sure, you can decide to opt-out of having health insurance; however, if you do, then you have a serious problem with the IRS.)
• Health insurance companies are now required to approve everyone who approaches them for health care, regardless of their health.
• Ultimately, whether you are a completely healthy person, or someone who has a fatal illness -- everyone will be charged (taxed) the same amount.

The Supreme Court only rules on the constitutionality of things.   They do not rule on whether it is a good idea or a bad idea for our country.

Health care is obviously a great investment for any individual.  And although considered constitutional, here are a few questions to consider:

• Is health care something that the federal government should be responsible for?
• Should this be yet another a tax for the American people to pay?
• Should Congress have the power to force people to buy something they may not necessarily want?
• Does this promote the most notable ideal and foundation of America -- Freedom ?

The Justices cannot tell us what the best way to provide healthcare is -- only the American people will be able to decide that, at the ballot.

All the media outlets will have differing opinions and reports on this issue.  The Republicans vow to repeal any other mandates that they can, and the Democrats vow to protect the rest of the mandates.  Regardless, this is clearly going to be a huge issue this in the upcoming election this November.

FBI Sting Raises Awareness of Online Financial Fraud

In the largest enforcement effort ever against hackers of credit card information online, a highly elaborate, two-year long FBI sting has resulted in the arrests of 24 people, on four continents, in 12 different countries.

Hackers had stolen bank and credit card information, as well as other personal information from secured websites.  This practice is known as "carding."

The sting started in June 2010, when undercover FBI investigators set up their own website where they planned to discover and locate cyber criminals in order to stop their fraudulent activities.

Undercover investigators found that they could easily contact the hackers through online forums, and the hackers would exchange personal, credit card, and bank information that they obtained through the secure websites, and sell them to the undercover FBI agents.

Little did the defendants know that these "cyber criminal forums" were not as exclusive as they thought, and that they could easily be tracked with just their IP addresses.

The complaint filed against the defendants specifically names them, as well as their online names (i.e., one who went be the name of "OxieDox"), and states which information the undercover agents were able to obtain from the hackers.

Thanks to the sting, over 400,000 potential victims were protected.  In addition, about $205 million was prevented from being stolen by the hackers.

Eleven arrests were made in the United States, including New York, Florida, and California.  Thirteen arrests in various other countries, including Italy, United Kingdom, Bosnia, Norway, and others.

This FBI sting is not only an eye-opener for the two dozen online hackers who were caught and are now defendants in the case, but also for those of us who share information online every day.

As if you probably haven't heard it enough, let this FBI enforcement effort be a reminder:  It is extremely important to be cautious of where all of your information, especially personal and financial information, is being shared on the Internet.