BOR: - National

Sen. Cruz: Bought and Paid For By the NRA

JordanKrueger — Fri, 17 May 2013 17:29:13 GMT

I was outraged when a few dozen members of the Senate managed to block an up-or-down vote on expanded background checks for gun buyers.

But then my friends at Mayors Against Illegal Guns exposed the donation records of the gun lobby to some of those senators, and it was easy to see what compelled these members of Congress to vote against the vast majority of their constituents: money.

That's why they created this powerful receipt to show how Senator Ted Cruz is bought and paid for by the NRA.

Click here to send a free fax to Sen. Cruz with this receipt from the gun lobby for his vote blocking expanded background checks for gun buyers.

The strengthened background check bill could have saved countless lives. And over 90% of Americans, and 74% of NRA members, supported expanding background checks in this way.1

But because the NRA opposed the plan, these bought and paid for senators helped block an up-or-down vote.2

The 45 members of the Senate who voted against the vast majority of Americans on background checks have accepted over $8 million — just in contributions and independent expenditures — from the NRA and other lobbying groups that act as a front for gun manufacturers.

Putting the NRA's agenda above the will and needs of their constituents is wrong. They need to hear that from constituents like you.

Click the link below to send a free fax of Senator Cruz's gun money receipt straight to his office:
http://act.credoaction.com/letter/gun_vote_receipt_Cruz/

Thank you for taking action against the NRA's corruption.

Jordan Krueger, Campaign Manager
CREDO Mobile from Working Assets

Sources:
1. "New poll of NRA members by Frank Luntz shows strong support for common-sense gun laws." Mayors Against Illegal Guns, July 24, 2012.
2. "On the Amendment (Manchin Amdt. No. 715 )." United States Senate, April 17, 2013.

Fact Checked! Ted Cruz's Twisted Economic History

Nick Hudson — Sat, 23 Mar 2013 19:10:00 GMT

While Senator Ted Cruz's keynote address to CPAC last week may have caught the excited attention of red-state nutter-butters, those of us who graduated from the sixth grade noticed that Wackobird needs a history lesson.

Brooks Jackson of FactCheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, did a good job tracking and correcting what he refers to as, "Ted Cruz's twisted vision of economic history," where, "Ronald Reagan cured double-digit unemployment by cutting spending and reducing the federal debt, and Jimmy Carter was guilty of 'out-of-control regulation.'"

Brooks' post is worth reading in its entirety. Here's a snippet, with the rest below the fold:

In Sen. Ted Cruz's twisted vision of economic history, Ronald Reagan cured double-digit unemployment by cutting spending and reducing the federal debt, and Jimmy Carter was guilty of "out-of-control regulation."

In the real world:
Total federal spending soared during Reagan’s deficit-plagued first term, and the national debt nearly doubled. His budget director later resigned and wrote a book criticizing Reagan’s failure to cut spending.
And Carter signed landmark bills freeing airline, railroad and trucking rates from federal regulation, easing regulation of natural gas prices and eliminating federal regulation of interest rates paid by banks to small savers.
These are only a few of the disconnects between economic reality and Cruz’s oversimplified, often inaccurate attempt to paint President Obama’s record as the “exact opposite” of Reagan’s.

The freshman Texas Republican said during his March 16 keynote address at the Conservative Political Action Conference (starting about 22 minutes and 20 seconds into the recording):

Cruz: [Obama is] one of only two presidents, post-World War II, to face double-digit unemployment. And for the last four years economic growth under President Barack Obama has averaged 0.8 percent, less than 1 percent. There is only one other period post-1950 where we have had four years of less than 1 percent economic growth. That’s from 1979 to 1983. Coming out of Jimmy Carter following the same policies of out of control spending, out of control debt, out of control taxes, out of control regulation. That’s the only other period. President Reagan came in facing that stagnation and he implemented policies the exact opposite of Barack Obama’s.

In fact, it’s interesting: 79 to 83, economic growth was 0.8 percent. Today, it’s 0.8 percent for the exact same period because Obama didn’t learn the lesson from Reagan that if you want to turn the economy around you cut taxes, you reduce spending, you reduce the debt, and you don’t send regulators like locusts to destroy small businesses and jobs.

It’s true that the unemployment rate peaked higher and dropped faster during Reagan’s first term than it did during Obama’s. Under Reagan, it hit a high of 10.8 percent and had come down to 7.3 percent by the time he started his second term. Under Obama, the rate hit 10 percent and only drifted down to 7.9 percent as of his second inauguration.

It’s also true that economic growth was better during Reagan’s first term than it has been under Obama. In the last year of Reagan’s first term (calendar year 1984) the nation’s gross domestic product (adjusted for inflation) was 13 percent higher than it was four years earlier. In 2012, GDP was only 3 percent above where it had been the year before Obama first took office.

But Cruz is simply wrong to claim that the “lesson from Reagan” was that “you reduce spending, you reduce the debt” to turn the economy around. Reagan increased both. Historical budget figures from the Congressional Budget Office show that clearly.

Federal outlays (total spending) rose by 40 percent under Reagan’s first four budgets (fiscal year 1985 vs. Carter’s last budget for fiscal 1981). That was two-and-a-half times faster than the rate of inflation, which rose 16 percent during the same period, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
And far from cutting debt, Reagan borrowed more heavily than previous presidents. In Reagan’s first term, debt owed to the public increased by nearly 91 percent by the end of fiscal year 1985, compared with what it had been at the end of Carter’s fiscal 1981.

Furthermore, as mentioned, Cruz errs badly when he attempts to blame Carter for “out-of-control regulation.” As mentioned, Carter signed numerous deregulation measures. One free-market-oriented commentator chose the occasion of Reagan’s 100th birthday to praise Carter, not Reagan, as “deregulation’s hero.” Thomas A. Firey, senior fellow as the Maryland Public Policy Institute, wrote: “It was the peanut farmer from Georgia who pushed the United States toward a market economy, not the one-time actor from California.”

On spending, ironically, Obama’s record has indeed been the “exact opposite” of Reagan’s in one little-noticed respect. Under Obama, federal spending is actually falling, something that never happened under Reagan. Total federal outlays went down 1.7 percent last fiscal year. And in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, the CBO projects a scant rise of 0.4 percent — much less than the projected rate of inflation (see Summary Table 2).

To be sure, despite the recent decline in spending, Obama’s deficits are large compared with Reagan’s, in relation to the size of the economy. Reagan’s biggest deficit was 6 percent of GDP. All of Obama’s have been larger than that, and the smallest was 7 percent in fiscal 2012. The CBO projects a deficit of 5.3 percent of GDP for the current fiscal year, but that would still be higher than in all but one of Reagan’s fiscal years.

(One reason for the larger deficits: Reagan — for all his tax-cutting — still enjoyed larger revenues than Obama, relative to the size of the economy. Under Reagan, revenues were 18.4 percent of GDP during his final fiscal year. Obama inherited revenues of only 15.1 percent in fiscal year 2009. They hit 15.8 percent last fiscal year. After his “fiscal cliff” tax deal, raising rates on upper-income households, the CBO projects they will rise to 16.9 percent in the current fiscal year — still lower than in any of Reagan’s eight years.)

Meanwhile, the total debt owed to the public continues to pile up, causing alarm. Measured as a percentage of GDP, it hit 72.5 percent in the last fiscal year and the CBO projects it will rise to over 76 percent this year. During Reagan’s time, it never exceeded 41 percent (in fiscal 1988). So it’s no wonder that leading economists are urging all sides to do more to cut the deficit through “a combination of spending reductions and tax and entitlement reforms.”

If Cruz and his fans want to argue that the current budget mess is entirely Obama’s fault, they are entitled to that opinion. But claiming that Reagan cut spending and debt or that Carter was an “out-of-control” regulator is simply the exact opposite of historical fact.

Rep. Gallego: Single Biggest Threat to Border Security Is Sequestration

Joe Deshotel — Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:18:51 GMT

For weeks Congressional Republicans, including Texas' own Senator John Cornyn criticized the President's comprehensive immigration reform proposal because they thought border security should be the top priority. On Tuesday Rep. Pete Gallego who represents the longest stretch of Texas-Mexico in Congress made it clear that the single biggest threat to border security is actually sequestration. In his first floor speech he admonished Congress for its finger pointing on the issue and challenged members to work together to solve the nation's problems.

"In small town West Texas when there's a fire everyone works together to put the fire out and no one focuses on how the fire started or who started the fire until after the fire is out. Here and now in Washington many folks are more focused on who is to blame for the sequester than trying to do something about it." - Rep. Gallego

The Congressman characterized the across the board cuts as having both economic and national security implications, saying, "Not having a vote this week is a decision by some in Congress for decreased border security, job loss and furloughs, and it devastates local communities and the state of Texas." His district contains a number of strategic military bases including Ft. Bliss in El Paso and Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio that could face furloughs in the tens of thousands.

His office also released this handy infographic of the impact of sequestration on the US-Mexico border. You can follow him on twitter at @RepPeteGallego and see his house floor speech below the jump.

Texas Border Already Blue: Immigration Reform Gives Democrats National Platform

Joe Deshotel — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:41:43 GMT

Texas may not yet be blue but our border certainly is. In the state House, Texas Democrats represent the entirety of the Texas-Mexico border, while freshman Congressman Pete Gallego's 23rd district represents 800 of the 1,954 total miles along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Congressman appeared on MSNBC's Jansing & Co. to talk about the fate of Comprehensive Immigration Reform in this session of Congress.

I think immigration reform gets done this session of Congress. From the perspective of both parties it is time...I think the Republicans saw with what happened with the latino electorate last and time and in places like Texas thats a really significant thing. -Congressman Gallego

Obama won the 2012 election with over 70% of the Hispanic vote, and announcing Comprehensive Immigration Reform as a top 2nd term priority during the State of the Union has left Republicans both nationally and in Texas struggling to find a viable position on the issue.

Most people don't really care where the idea comes from, I think they want action, they want something to happen, they're tired of the prolonged conversations. -Congresman Gallego

Thats true even in Texas, according to a poll...
According to a poll released by the Texas Tribune in 2012 the top two issues for Texans were "Immigration" and "Border Security", yet top state Republicans have shied away from addressing them so far this session. Maybe for now congressional Republicans should follow their lead because according the poll Texans understand the difference between the two. Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson told the Texas Tribune that Republicans' problem was that they have, "reduce[d] the entire issue to bumper sticker phrases such as 'No Amnesty' or 'Build a Fence'." If he is onto something he may want to Cc his Congressional party mates who continue to attack the President for focusing his immigration policy on a path to citizenship instead of shutting down the border. Congressman Gallego referred to El Paso as being one of the safest cities in America and said though some positive local economic activity comes to border towns when we increase our presence there, many residents were "a little tired of tying immigration to border security".

Just last week State Representatives Rafael Anchia and Ana Hernandez Luna filed a House Concurrent Resolution urging Congress to immediately pass comprehensive immigration reform. They cited a new poll that shows strong bipartisan support, at 71%, for immigration reform that included a path to citizenship. "I applaud the President's leadership on this issue and agree that it is time for Congress to pass major immigration legislation," said Rep. Anchia. The resolution incorporates statements from some traditionally conservative sources; Texas Federation of Republican Women, as well as findings by the Texas Comptroller and the Libertarian Cato Institute.

Rep. Hernandez Luna struck an inclusive tone, but Republicans have yet to embrace the invitation. "I am proud to offer this resolution with Rep. Anchia in support of practical, realistic and bi-partisan immigration reform. I look forward to garnering widespread support from our colleagues in the Texas House so that we may send a clear message to Washington on this issue. "

Its clear at some individual levels Democrats have begun to create a narrative on an issue where they have both the public's support and a weak opposition. With a little good fortune the increased profile of Democrats can emigrate to other issues like education, healthcare and energy policy.

You can see Congressman Gallego on MSNBC here

Texas Democrats Have Chance At National Spotlight WIth Immigration Reform

Joe Deshotel — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:11:30 GMT

Immigration reform presents Texas Democrats with a rare but golden opportunity to create a narrative. From Governor Perry's State Of The State to the bills filed so far this session, Texas Republicans have been interestingly mum on the issue of immigration compared to recent sessions. They have either had a change of heart on issues like "Voter ID", and "Sanctuary Cities" (which Perry classified as "emergency legislation" in 2011, but it did not reach his desk) or demographic realities have forced a different strategy. I assume the latter, but if not talking about immigration is the new strategy, that should be low hanging fruit for Democrats at the state and federal level.

The costs of our antiquated system gives Texas Democrats the ability to approach reform from an economic perspective. Not only has the State Comptroller's report indicated that undocumented workers were an actual net value to taxpayers, but the federal expenditures for immigration enforcement were significantly more than that of all other federal law enforcement agencies combined.

President Obama has already stated that Immigration Reform will be a top priority of his 2nd term agenda. It's also clear by their courting of Texans behind the scenes and at the national convention that Texas is part of that equation. Look for a strong statement on Immigration in the State of the Union tomorrow. With headlines like "On immigration, Texas surprisingly quiet" in Politico and "A Texas-sized silence as immigration talks ramp up" in the Dallas Morning News, it sure seems like a great time to say something.

President Obama's plan for gun violence prevention

John Woods — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:42:22 GMT

Almost six years ago, I lost my girlfriend, Maxine Turner, in the worst school shooting in American history. Yesterday, she would have turned twenty-eight. Some have said she was "in the wrong place at the wrong time." But she wasn't. She was in a classroom -- the right place.

Maxine's killer, Seung-Hui Cho, was the one in the wrong place at the wrong time. And over the last several years I watched as, time after time, his rights were given more weight than those of anyone else -- more than Max's right to a safe classroom, more than your right to walk down the street without feeling the need to carry a firearm, more even than the American people's right to keep guns out of the hands of known criminals and terrorists.

This morning, President Obama presented his plan for reducing gun violence in America. It respects and supports the Second Amendment (as do I, a concealed carry licensee), ensuring that upstanding, law-abiding citizens continue to have access to firearms, while also keeping weapons designed for hunting people out of the hands of known criminals.

Read more below the jump.
The President made universal background checks his top priority, something I wholeheartedly support -- along with 85% of the American public. Currently, around forty percent of gun sales in the U.S. happen without any background check at all (so-called "private sales," which are totally legal in Texas and most other states). Such unlicensed or private sales occur at gun shows held in the Travis County Expo Center and even on City of Austin property. Others occur over the Internet.

A key component of universal background checks is complete background checks. Maxine would still be alive today had NRA leadership not opposed including mental health adjudications in the background check system, NICS (National Instant Criminal Check System). The gun lobby swiftly about-faced after the Virginia Tech shooting, but around half of states still don't include such information. And severe mental health adjudication records are only one example.

Included in "universal background checks" are suspects on the terror watch-list and no-fly list. NRA leadership says the lists are flawed, but refuses to help fix them; yet, confusingly, supports a national registry of the mentally ill (the overwhelming majority of which are not at all dangerous and have committed no crimes).

President Obama also proposed a new and improved ban on assault weapons, as well as high-capacity magazines. No one knows precisely what will be in the assault weapons ban bill, but I believe strongly that the two key issues are (1) how much damage a weapon can do and (2) how quickly the damage can be done. Newtown's police chief articulated it differently, saying that the shooter had more firepower than his own officers.

Magazine size matters, too: the man who shot Congresswoman Giffords was disarmed while changing magazines. A friend from Tucson related to me that witnesses could count the bullets in that shooting. They knew exactly which shot took the life of Gabe Zimmerman. If high-capacity magazines had been banned, Gabe and others would likely still be here.

Among the President's proposals were two other important issues: an end to the gun data ban. The gun lobby has done everything it can to restrict NIH, CDC, and other public research entities from studying gun violence or gun injuries.

Further, the Tiahrt Amendments have done everything possible to restrict crime gun traces -- necessary for research and for law enforcement. During the Fast and Furious debacle, Congress actually had to ask Mexican law enforcement to request the records -- because it was illegal for BATFE to release the records to anyone other than law enforcement organizations (and even that was illegal under the original Tiahrt Amendments).

As another example of the gun data ban, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has been forbidden for some time now to use computers for its crime gun traces, a prohibition which is simultaneously arbitrary, senseless, and deadly.

It needs to be recognized, as President Obama said today, that efforts to stem gun violence cannot focus solely on mass shootings. Around thirty-two people die every day in America from gun homicides alone -- ninety if you include non-homicide deaths -- and only a tiny fraction are mass shootings.

Some have suggested that more guns are the answer -- guns in classrooms, teachers with guns, and so on. They say shooters pick "gun-free zones" because of the lack of guns. They ignore the pervasive gun violence occurring in all of the places where guns are already allowed. And anyway, they have it all backwards.

Shooters pick places where people feel safest -- schools, movie theaters, grocery stores, gymnasiums, temples, churches, universities -- places where guns aren't generally necessary. By bringing guns into these sacred places, we only succeed in further compromising public safety. When we allow killing devices in classrooms, Maxine's killer wins, and the Newtown shooter wins, and the gun manufacturers win -- but the rest of us lose. The President recognized that today.

My own personal story relates to mass shootings, but I work on this issue because no one should have to experience what we experienced in 2007, or what Newtown has experienced in the last thirty-three days. We can respect the right to bear arms while also respecting the right to not bear arms everywhere we go.

How Walmart Stole Christmas from Local Retailers

Joe Deshotel — Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:45:00 GMT

According to the Ohio-based Council of Smaller Enterprises small businesses keep 45 cents of the dollar you spent in the local community compared to only 14 cents by national chains, that's why I was particularly disturbed by Walmart's holiday ad campaign to “match any local competitor's advertised price”. It's particularly egregious that they chose to target local retailers instead of well, say, Target. Walmart has long been blamed for the disappearance of small local businesses as it is it's nearly impossible for them to compete with the leveraging power of a giant corporation. So its no coincidence they do not match “Going out of business or closeout prices”. The multinational company uses its market power to keep prices artificially low enough to snuff out the local competition, but once Walmart is the sole retailer in an area or community there's no longer an incentive to keep prices that low. This seek and destroy policy is bad for the consumer, the community and ultimately their own employees.

“Walmart has taught us that the low price is the correct price and we have lost track of quality in many categories as part of the equation of price.” - Charles Fishman, author of The Wal-Mart Effect

The “Walmart Effect” must be a part of any discussions regarding the Fiscal Cliff. Many people may not realize that Walmart not only competes against local businesses but fights for tax subsidies and is one of the largest contributors to expanding Medicaid roles. In Texas, Walmart has been the beneficiary of over $90 million worth of taxpayer subsidies. Coast to coast Walmart has put taxpayers on the hook so it can maximize profits and avoid paying employees liveable wages. A 2004 study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center found that "reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance." The same study suggested it would cost the average Walmart shopper an additional $12 a year if Walmart didn’t short-change its employees. Across the country, the Tampa Bay Times reported, “Wal-Mart has more workers enrolled in the state Medicaid program than any employer in Florida.”

In the midst of international strikes by Walmart employees over rolled-back benefits, the company has been linked to a garment factory in Bangladesh that exploded killing 112 workers that was found to be caused by “unpardonable negligence”. The company has also been under investigation by the US Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in Mexico. If Walmart would tolerate such deplorable working conditions outside of the U.S., left to their own devices why should we expect it to be any different here in America? Americans would never allow factories with those conditions to open here, but that hasn’t stopped the company from backsliding towards exploitation of their American workforce as well as taxpayers.

This is why as consumers we need to be more conscious about our spending, not because companies are immoral but because they are amoral. We must also consider the loss to the community when the local sporting good store, gun store, clothing store, shoe store, grocery store, cosmetics store, et al., are replaced by a giant gray box with an equally giant gray parking lot.

I’m reminded of earlier this year when American Express promoted its “Small Business Saturday”. I didn't understand the concept of spending so much time and money promoting local retailers on this one day instead of talking about how important it really is everyday. Though I have to admit I find myself at Walmart a couple times a year looking for whatever thing I need right at that moment in the middle of the night (or when I can’t find it anywhere else). While Walmart really does provide low prices for fixed and low income people, those who can afford it should help re-empower their local economy by shopping small everyday. Henry Ford ensured his employees could afford the products they sold, but in a shrewd twist of corporatism Walmart employees may not be able afford to shop anywhere else.

US Senate Ready to Wipe Out Email Privacy in America

tcrp — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 15:21:58 GMT

By Renato Ramírez
Chairman of the Board and CEO, IBC-Zapata
&
James C. Harrington
Director, Texas Civil Rights Project

The U.S. Senate will soon vote on a law that would gravely undermine Americans' privacy and give expanded, unbridled surveillance over people's e-mails to more than 22 government agencies.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chair of the Judiciary Committee, has capitulated to law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Justice Department, and is sponsoring a bill, authorizing widespread warrantless access to Americans' e-mails, as well as Google Docs files, Twitter direct messages, and so on, without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge.

Leahy's bill would only require the federal agencies to issue a subpoena, not obtain a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause. It also would permit state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.

Even in situations which still would require a search warrant, the proposed law would excuse law enforcement officers from obtaining a warrant (and being challenged later in court) if they claim an "emergency" situation.

Not only that, but a provider would have to notify law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell its customers they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena. The agency then could order the provider to delay notification of customers, whose accounts have been accessed, from three days to "ten business days" or even postpone notification up to 360 days.

Agencies that would receive civil subpoena authority for electronic communications include the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Maritime Commission, the Postal Regulatory Commission, the NLRB, OSHA, SEC, and the Mine Enforcement Safety and Health Review Commission. There is no good legal reason why agencies like these need blanket access to people's personal information with a mere subpoena, rather than a warrant.

One might expect better of Leahy, given his liberal credentials; but he has been quite disappointing. In fact, he had a hand in making the Patriot Act bill less protective of civil liberties. Nor has the Administration been helpful in this regard, quite to the contrary. Expectations of "law and order" types might not be as high in terms of protecting civil liberties, but they should not be as unsatisfactory as they are with proponents of constitutional freedoms.

The revelations about how the FBI perused former CIA director David Petraeus' e-mail without a warrant should alarm us all, who have less power and prestige than he did.

If the Fourth Amendment is to have any meaning, it is that police must obtain a search warrant, backed by probable cause, before reading Americans' e-mails or other communications. If we are to preserve our constitutional protection from warrantless searches, unreviewed by the courts, we need to let our U.S. Senators from Texas hear from us immediately and resoundingly.

We cannot allow the government to undermine our rights, bit by bit, even in the name of national security, which too often is the mantra it so casually uses. As Ben Franklin said, those who give up freedom in the name of security deserve neither.

This abridgement of our fundamental rights affects us all -- conservative, liberals, and libertarians alike. Our allegiance to the Constitution must be non-partisan. Write or call your Senators -- now.

Artic Ready (or not): How Greenpeace and the Yes Men "Shell-shocked" an Oil Giant

Joe Deshotel — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:45:00 GMT

With the help of the infamous Yes Lab the oft-controversial environmental organization Greenpeace and members of the Occupy Wall Street movement have launched a viral negative ad campaign against the Dutch oil giant Shell. The group staged a fake gala at Seattle's Space Needle to "celebrate Shell’s era-defining Arctic drilling". A youtube video entitled "#ShellFAIL: Private Arctic Launch Party Goes Wrong" soon made its way to the top of reddit. They followed up with a fake Shell website articready.com, the twitter handle @ShellisPrepared and memes that mock the company's stance on global warming. As journalists began to question the legitimacy of the video the group stayed one step ahead by releasing a fake press release from Shell threatening to sue over the video.

More below the jump:

The group is concerned about climate change and was forced to become more creative since a recent court order banned any Greenpeace activist near a Shell rig. Greenpeace USA spokesman James Turner told the LA Times,

Certainly this injunction we are faced with demanded some new thinking, and I guess the tactics needed to counter an international oil campaign have to be creative…Social media offers us the opportunity to use humor and inventiveness to reach people in a way that hopefully entertains and engages them, while making a serious point at the same time.

Andy Bichlbaum a representative from Yes Labs said, "We've got to do everything we possibly can to draw attention to this unfolding disaster, and more importantly we've got to stop it." One point that has them particularly concerned is that the rig Kulluk, that's set to sail to Alaska was built by the same company that built "Deepwater Horizon", albeit 17 years earlier. It was marked for retirement before receiving its new assignment in the Arctic. Under "about Shell" the spoof website explains the origin of the ad campaign:

Shell’s Let's Go! Arctic campaign comes after exhaustive market research, in which we found out that people like straight talk about oil, and that what they prize most is honesty and enthusiasm about the challenges in obtaining it, with sensitivity to environmental and cultural ramifications riding a distant second.

You can see the timeline of events on Storify and a behind the scenes video of the campaign. The group of pranksters have come clean but the ads continue to go viral Search on twitter: "#ShellFail" and "ShellisNotPrepared" and below is the YouTube video that started it all. Despite their best efforts Shell is moving forward with its summer drilling plans in the Alaskan Artic.

Friday Equality Roundup

Nick Hudson — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:00:00 GMT

In our ongoing coverage of equality news, here's the latest from Texas and the Nation.

Google announced a worlwide campaign to promote safer working conditions for its LGBT employees called "Legalise Love" last week. Google's campaign kicked off in Singapore, and Google has plans to eventually expand the initiative to every country where it has an office. Google has a new webpage dedicate to the campaign. The Homophobic American Family Association is considering a boycott of Google in response.

The Episcopal Church backed churchwide blessings of Gay Couples at their General Convention on Tuesday. Under the new policy, each Episcopal bishop will decide whether to allow the ceremonies in his or her local diocese.

Noting that the Episcopal Church's approval of marriage equality signifies changing social attitudes about gays in the United States, the Baltimore Sun Newspaper endorsed gay marriage yesterday. From the Maryland paper's editorial:

"...it's important for Maryland to be a welcoming place for families of all kinds. The only reason the state is involved in marriage at all is that strong marriages make strong families, and strong families make strong communities. That's true whether the couples involved are gay or straight."

A new study suggests a strong connection between family rejection and abuse and homelessness for LGBT youth. 68% of LGBT homeless youth surveyed reported having experienced family rejection, and 54% reported having experienced family abuse.

ABC News reports that a New Jersey couple is threatening to sue the antigay group Public Advocate of the United States over its use of the couple's engagement photo (below left) in a homophobic political advertisement (below right). The antigay group stole the couple's engagement photo from a personal blog.

A Phillipene immigrant filed a lawsuit on Thursday challenging the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and seeking the legal right to stay in the United States baed on her same-sex marriage to an American Citizen.

The Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), an organization of black clergy members, protested the NAACP's support of marriage equality at the NAACP's annual convention in Houston.