As US energy output surges, Republicans lead effort to lift decades-old oil export ban

Congressional Republicans are leading a bipartisan effort to lift a decades-old ban on oil exports, arguing the recent surge in domestic-energy production and other factors have pushed the embargo past its prime.
To be sure, the United States has recently emerged as the world’s largest energy producer -- largely the result of the relatively new method of extracting natural gas and hard-to-get oil known as “fracking.”
Supporters of the plan, including many in the oil and gas industry, essentially argue that lifting the ban would help the U.S. economy. They say it is now slowing future energy production and exploration and that U.S. companies could profit from getting an abundance of domestic energy products on world markets.
“I’m optimistic about our efforts,” North Dakota GOP Rep. Kevin Cramer told FoxNews.com on Wednesday. “We have bipartisan support and a broad understanding of the issue among members.”
Cramer largely attributes the support from rank-and-file members and top GOP leadership alike to three separate bills circulating in three different House committees -- Agriculture, Foreign Affairs and Energy and Commerce.
He touts the legislation as a potential boon for the U.S. economy. And he prefers a measured approach to passage, amid urgent calls to immediately repeal the ban in the wake of the Iran nuclear pact, fearing that strategy will become a political football like the Keystone XL Pipeline, not the “jobs creator” he wants it to be.
Cramer and other supporters also argue that lifting the ban would result in cheaper electricity, which would spark growth in U.S. manufacturing and other sectors of the economy, beyond the oil and gas industry.
In addition, they argue, the so-called “light sweet” or “sweet” oil derived from fracking and the companion horizontal-drilling process cannot be readily processed by U.S. refineries but is exceptionally valuable overseas.
“It’s a premium product,” said Cramer, who is co-sponsoring bills by Texas Republican Reps. Joe Barton and Mike McCaul that combined have at least 10 Democratic co-sponsors.
However, calls to lift the ban, the result of the 1970’s energy crisis, have also brought out critics. And they have resulted in conflicting reports about the potential impact of adding billions of barrels of U.S. crude oil to world markets -- from oil prices plummeting around the globe to gas prices increasing at pumps across the county.
“Pro-ban supports would like to make it cut and dry, but it’s a very complicated issue,” Jay Hauck, executive director of the CRUDE coalition, said Friday. “It’s an onion, and you have to peel away the layers.”
The group, whose full name is Consumers and Refiners United for Domestic Energy, represents U.S. energy companies and advocates for keeping crude in the country.
Hauck argues the U.S. is indeed now the world’s biggest energy producer but has yet to achieve total energy independence, which means exporting would result in billions of barrels more annually from foreign countries, posing a greater national security risk.
One of the biggest critics of lifting the ban is Navy Cmdr. Kirk Lippold, who was in charge of the USS Cole in 2000 when terrorists attached and detonated a bomb on the destroyer at a Yemen port, killing 17 American sailors.
Lippold testified at a recent House hearing on the issue that the biggest benefactor of U.S. exports would be rival China.
In the Senate, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican and chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, is helping lead efforts to lift the ban.
She was among those sending early-warning signals about the Iran nuclear deal allowing the oil rich country to put 1 million barrels daily on the world market.
“We are letting Iran export its oil to markets that we prevent our own companies from accessing,” Murkowski said in late June. “Any deal that lifts sanctions on Iranian oil will disadvantage American companies unless we lift the antiquated ban on our own oil exports."
And Murkowski’s committee held a hearing June 9 on a bill that she and Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota Democrat, have co-sponsored on lifting the ban.
However, a top Senate staff told FoxNews.com after the Iran deal was struck Tuesday that Murkowski has no intentions of holding up a major foreign policy vote or international trade legislation over lifting the ban, likely references to the Trans-Pacific Partnership pact being debated in Congress and the upcoming votes on the Iran nuclear deal.
(The staffer made the comments after a House effort to insert ban-lifting language into the trade pact went nowhere.)
Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said this spring that he doesn’t think “an overly compelling argument has been made” to lift the ban while the U.S. continues to import 7 million barrels of crude oil daily.
However, the issue is being handled by the Commerce Department, not the Energy Department. And Moniz made clear he was not making a statement “in support of or against the idea of exports.”
Both agencies decline Friday to comment.
Hauck said the companies that his group represents are not "absolutely, under-no-circumstances opposed" to lifting the ban and would consider such a change when the U.S. becomes free from foreign oil dependency.
Cramer says the House bills, including the third from Texas GOP Rep. Mike Conaway, could be combined or become an amendment to a large bill.
And he sees possibility in the fact that the White House has never threatened to veto such legislation.
“I’m the optimist,” he said.

Family of Chattanooga gunman says their son suffered from depression

The family of the man who authorities say killed four Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga said
in a statement that their son suffered from depression and was not the same person they knew.

"There are no words to describe our shock, horror, and grief," said the statement, provided Saturday to the Associated Press by a lawyer representing the family of Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez. "The person who committed this horrible crime was not the son we knew and loved. For many years, our son suffered from depression. It grieves us beyond belief to know that his pain found its expression in this heinous act of violence."
"We understand there are many legitimate questions that need to be answered," the statement said. "Having said this, now is the time to reflect on the victims and their families, and we feel it would be inappropriate to say anything more other than that we are truly sorry for their loss."
The family also said they are cooperating with the investigation.
Some Muslims now fear the Chattanooga community’s perception of them had changed after the shooting rampage Thursday.
Mohsin Ali, a member of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga, said he hopes the local community doesn’t dissolve into turmoil the others have in the region over building mosques and other matters. Peaceful coexistence has largely prevailed in the city that has pride itself on strong ties between people of different faiths.
"We, our kids, feel 100 percent American and Chattanoogan," said the Pakistani-born Ali, who is a child psychiatrist. "Now they are wondering if that is how people still look at them."
Serving a warrant on the Abdulazeez home Thursday, agents led two women wearing Islamic head coverings away in handcuffs. However, FBI agent Jason Pack said Saturday that no arrests have been made in the case.
Authorities are looking into the shooting as a terrorism investigation and whether Abdulazeez was inspired or directed by a terrorist organization. They still don’t know what motivated the shooting.
The president of the Islamic Society of Greater Chattanooga said Abdulazeez's father told him he felt blindsided and did not see any recent changes in his son.
"He told me that he had never seen it coming, and did not see any signs from his son that he would be that way and do something like that," Bassam Issa said.
Ali said immigrants owe a debt of gratitude to America and the armed forces to protect it, because they often know firsthand what it means to live in countries without personal freedoms or the rule of law. Near the end of Friday night’s service, at Ali’s urging, dozens of Muslims received a standing ovation as they stood in support of their city and in allegiance to their nation.
It was a remarkable show of togetherness in a region where relations have sometimes been tense since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Still, the events of the last few days have left some on edge, particularly the young. The end of Ramadan is usually a time for celebration, but events at the Islamic Center were canceled after the shootings. A sign on the door Friday encouraged visitors to go to the memorial service instead.
Khadija Aslam, 15, didn't wear her head covering in the car while riding to prayer services after the shootings for fear of attracting attention, and 15-year-old Zoha Ahmad said her family is worried about the possibility of vandalism at their home.
"A lot of people know we live there and that we're Muslims," she said.
Ali said he plans to offer group counseling for concerned members of the Islamic community at his home, and that might help ease concerns. But, he isn't sure.
"We'll see," said Ali.

Justice Roberts' ObamaCare ruling could be boon for congressional Republicans

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts 

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts infuriated conservatives when he wrote the recent opinion to uphold ObamaCare.
But secretly, many Republicans in Congress are thanking Roberts from saving conservatives from themselves. And if they aren’t sending him balloons and flowers now, they may do so by the end of the year.
The King v. Burwell health care case centered on a four-word phrase: “established by the state.”
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) granted states the opportunity to set up local exchanges to process health care plans. But residents of states that didn’t establish exchanges could receive subsidies to use the federal system instead.
Thus, there was no exchange “established by the state” in those venues. So the question the high court examined was whether it was fair for residents of non-exchange states to score tax credits when the rest of the population was ineligible.
In its decision, the Supreme Court held that Congress “meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.”
But what would have happened had the high court ruled it was unconstitutional to award people subsidies from non-exchange states?
“Chaos,” muttered one senior congressional Republican aide. “Any solution to the problem is going to have the right howling.”
Why? Because a vote to fix the problem would constitute a vote tacitly endorsing ObamaCare.
The Republican Party has engineered close to 60 congressional votes to repeal the law. Nobody knows the precise number because everyone has actually lost count.
Republicans in both bodies of Congress expressed optimism at constructing a health care fix that would pass. But they knew this could absolutely ignite the embers of the conservative base if they did anything short of scrapping the entire law.
Republicans feared a decision finding the credits unconstitutional would kick 7 million people off the subsidies and strip them of health coverage.
The GOP worried that the public might then turn on Republicans for stoking an effort that cost those people coverage -- even if some are skeptical about the law.
GOP sources said they feared President Obama would have trotted across the country with a simple, one-page fix to the law to include those people. But there was consternation as to whether the Republican-led Congress could approve a “patch” piece of legislation, even though GOP leaders promised to advance a plan.
“We want to give people a bridge from ObamaCare,” House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan said during an appearance on Fox News Channel before the decision.
But Ryan was circumspect when pressed on the same program about the minutiae of a GOP plan.
“We want to see what the (court’s) ruling is specifically so we can customize our response to the actual ruling,” he said. “That plan will involve making sure people have assistance as we transition to give people freedom from ObamaCare.”
Prior to the high court decision, Ryan spoke privately with members about giving block grant money to states to give them the ability to set up their own system to protect Americans for two years until a possible Republican Congress and Republican president could set up an ACA alternative. Most Republicans liked what they heard.
Ryan summoned Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell (the “Burwell” in King v. Burwell) before the Ways and Means Committee in mid-June. The Wisconsin Republican blasted Burwell after the session.
“They (members of the administration) still refuse to entertain the notion that their health care law may be struck down by the Supreme Court. And they refuse to acknowledge they are even thinking about a backup plan. And that's unfortunate,” Ryan said.
A reporter followed up, asking Ryan about crafting his substitute.
“We are putting the final touches on it. Dotting the I's. Crossing the T's,” he replied.
Ryan may not have been willing to cough up the GOP legislative construct to the press corps then. But at the hearing, he insisted that Burwell publicly reveal what the administration would do if the court struck down the subsidies.
“Is the president going to be willing and flexible to work with Congress to fix this mess and negotiate with Congress?” Ryan asked Burwell.
“To solve that problem, the critical decisions are going to sit with the Congress,” Burwell told the chairman.
Ryan later predicted that if the Supreme Court tossed the subsidies, Obama could “put concrete around his ankles and say, ‘It's my law or nothing.’ ”
Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, also tried to pry loose some answers from Burwell.
“Will the president sign legislation other than merely extending the subsidies to federal exchanges?” he queried.
“I think it's very hard for me to answer a question about hypothetical legislation,” responded Burwell.
Michigan Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, upbraided Ryan for “never coming up with a single, comprehensive alternative after all of these years.”
He also decried Republicans as “armchair critics” of the ACA.
Many Republicans privately acknowledge that the Supreme Court ruling helped them sidestep an immense fight over health care -- the trickiest parts including the navigation of fissures inside their own party.
But the fight isn’t over.
There’s an important congressional vocabulary term everyone will start to hear a lot about over the next few weeks. It’s called reconciliation -- a very special type of reconciliation, something known on Capitol Hill as “budget reconciliation.”
The congressional budget process is an exclusive bit of parliamentary infrastructure, separate from most other legislation.
Housed inside the annual budget machinery is “reconciliation.”
Reconciliation can be used to sync up spending, revenue and adjust the debt ceiling. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution dictates that bills with revenue implications must start in the House. So the reconciliation vehicle originates in the lower chamber. But the real impact of reconciliation lies in the Senate.
The Senate’s fundamental glory is an unlimited amendment process and unlimited debate. That’s what gives rise to filibuster. But the budget process limits debate, curbs most amendments and requires but a simple majority to adopt legislative items. Thus, there is no way to filibuster something tucked into a budget reconciliation package.
Republicans now hold 54 seats in the Senate. Under conventional rules, Democrats could filibuster health care legislation. Vanquishing a filibuster would require a coalition of 60 Republicans and Democrats. Republicans know this. But since Obama signed the ACA into law in 2010, Republicans never controlled the Senate until this year.
Republicans would struggle to even put a health care bill on the floor right now. Sixty votes are necessary to hurdle the first filibuster blocking the measure from coming to the floor. Another round of 60 is required to shut off all debate and finish a bill. But that’s not the case with reconciliation.
There’s a lot of chatter now of putting a repeal of the ACA in a reconciliation measure later this year on the floors of the House and then the Senate. And Democrats can’t do anything about it.
Moving a health care bill through the House is simpler than in the Senate. But reconciliation grants the Senate the possibility to approve a repeal bill. That’s happened in the House umpteen times since 2011. But never in the Senate.
Undoubtedly, Obama would veto such a bill. But that’s what Republicans want. A dare. They want to deposit a full repeal bill on the president’s desk and dare him to veto it. And if he doesn’t, what have Republicans accomplished?
A lot.
To wit:
Congressional Republicans will have bypassed a catastrophic meltdown in the nation’s health care system because of the Supreme Court ruling in King v. Burwell. Mayhem may have descended on the Capitol had the High Court ruled that the subsidies were unconstitutional.
Republicans will have forced the president to veto a repeal of ObamaCare. But since they know they don’t have the votes to override the veto (a two-thirds vote in both bodies of Congress), Republicans haven’t necessarily had to produce an alternative health care bill. Such legislation remains a unicorn. And even if it does exist, this is a fractious issue in the Republican Party.
Republicans will have made Democrats from swing districts and states who face challenging re-elections to either vote to override the veto or side with the president.
Message masters at the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee will be more than happy to record those roll call tallies. The NRCC and NRSC will then integrate those votes into campaign ads against those lawmakers next year.
In short, some Republicans may seethe publicly at Chief Justice John Roberts now. But they could be sending him balloons and flowers later.
And here’s the Supreme Court address if they need it: 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543.

Over There Cartoon

Most new California licenses go to drivers in country illegally

More than half of all new California driver’s licenses this year have gone to people who are in the country illegally, the state said Friday
The California Department of Motor Vehicles reported it has issued roughly 397,000 licenses to people who live in the country illegally. A total of 759,000 licenses have been issued in the first six months of the year. The DMV only issued 435,000 licenses in the first six months of 2014.
The new law initially generated huge interest causing long lines at motor vehicle offices in January and February. The DMV expects to see about one million more applicants over the next three years who are covered under new law.
"We hope that all of those people will be able to pass the testing and have the necessary documents to obtain" a license, said DMV spokeswoman Jessica Gonzalez.
Supporters of the law say giving licenses to people regardless of their immigration status makes the road safer for everyone. New drivers say having a license means they can travel more freely for work or pleasure.
"It's great that people are taking advantage of this new law," said Jackelin Aguilar, community organizer for Placer People of Faith Together, an Auburn, California-based group that supports the new licenses.
"It's definitely a step forward for the families, and having identification is huge," Aguilar said.
Opponents say people who get into the country illegally shouldn’t be rewarded.
Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, which advocates for legal and limited immigration, criticized California for making life easier for people in the country illegally, at the expense of citizens and legal residents.
"There are now 400,000 more signals to people all over the world that working illegally in California is encouraged by the government itself," he said.
About 687,000 people have applied for the licenses issued to illegal immigrants. Applicants must pass driving tests and show proof of residency and identity.
The new license is marked differently than those issued to other drivers in the state and is not considered a valid form of federal identification, for example, to board an airplane.
More than 1.1 million people who qualify for the new licenses took the written driver's test between Jan. 2 and June 30, and 436,000 have also taken a behind-the-wheel driving test.

San Francisco deputies’ union takes on sheriff over immigration stance

Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi 

The union for San Francisco sheriff's deputies reportedly is taking on Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi over the release of an illegal immigrant now charged with the murder of a young woman -- filing a complaint that slams a department policy barring communication with federal agents. 
The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the complaint links Kathryn Steinle's murder to a March memo that prohibited deputies from giving information about prisoners to immigration agents. The grievance, according to the newspaper, said the policy "recklessly compromises the safety of sworn personnel, citizens, and those who merely come to visit the San Francisco area."
Steinle's killing, allegedly by illegal immigrant Francisco Sanchez, has prompted a round of finger-pointing in San Francisco, a so-called sanctuary city. Sanchez, who had a lengthy felony record and already had been deported five times, was turned over to San Francisco by the feds in March on an old, outstanding warrant -- but the sheriff's office freed him the next month. Federal immigration officials say they asked to be notified prior to his release, but they were not.
Mirkarimi, in defending the decision, has suggested he was following a 2013 city policy, which only allows certain violent offenders to be held for deportation.
But San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and others have said Mirkarimi's department still could have contacted immigration officials.
"Do we need to educate somebody on how to pick up the phone?" Lee said, according to the Chronicle.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement earlier this month: "We're not asking local law enforcement to do our job ... all we're asking is that they notify us when a serious foreign national criminal offender is being released to the street so we can arrange to take custody."

Iran's supreme leader says nuke deal won't change policy on US

Senators upset UN will act on Iran nuke deal.

Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday that a historic nuclear deal reached with world powers earlier this week won’t have any effect on Iran’s policy toward the U.S.
Khamenei said in a televised speech that U.S. policy in the Middle East runs counter to Tehran’s strategy and that Iran will continue to support its allies in the Middle East including the Lebanese, Hezbollah, Palestinian resistance groups and the Syrian government.
"Our policy towards the arrogant U.S. government won't change at all," he said. He was addressing a large crowd in Tehran, broadcast live on state TV, to mark the end of the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan.
Iran calls its Lebanese ally Hezbollah a "resistance movement" while the U.S. describes it a terrorist group. And Iran continues to call for the destruction of Israel; Khamenei in his Saturday speech described Israel as a "terrorist, baby-killer government."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has strongly opposed the deal, saying it will enable Iran to emerge from crippling economic sanctions while doing nothing to moderate Iran's aggressive behavior around the Middle East.
"U.S. policies in the region are 180 degrees in contrast to Iran's policies," Khamenei said. "Whether this text (nuclear deal) is approved or disapproved, we won't give up supporting our friends in the region. The oppressed Palestinian nation, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, the honest mujahedeen of resistance in Lebanon and Palestine will enjoy our constant support."
Iran’s direct talks with Washington was only limited to the nuclear issue and that there can’t be any dialogue or deal with the U.S. over any other issues, he said. However, Khamenei has said in the past that he door to other issues could open should the U.S. carry out its obligations under the deal in good faith.
Khamenei’s comments are the most detailed since a deal was agreed upon earlier this week. His remarks are widely held because in most of Iran’s matters, he has the final say and could still back outy of the agreement. The deal between Iran and six world powers curbs Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the removal of sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy.
The hard-line stance on future negotiations with the U.S. quenches the idea Iran’s Foreign Minister brought up about cooperation between both parties on fighting the Islamic State.
Javid Zarif said in an Eid message Friday that he hopes the nuclear deal could bring about a better relationship abroad. President Hassan Rouhani has preached a foreign policy of engagement based on mutual respect since his election in 2013, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Even with a deal reached, the U.S. and Iran still have obstacles to clear before anything official comes about.
Iran’s parliament and the Supreme National Security Council must sign off on the deal, while Khamenei still has to agree to the deal.
Congress has 60 days to weigh-in on the deal. President Barack Obama could veto a disapproving resolution should Congress disapprove of it.

Tennessee gunman first radicalized, now idolized by Internet jihadists

It's a sad day when people try to turn mad dogs like this guy into a hero.

U.S. investigators aren't ready to conclude that Thursday’s murder of four Marines was an act of terrorism, but terrorists are.
Dozens of Twitter accounts spewing jihadist bile have placed Mohammad Abdulazeez’s bearded face as their main images, and tweets believed to have been sent out by Islamic State radicals and sympathizers have proclaimed him a martyr. And according to one top federal official, the posthumous praise for the sick slaughter comes over the very forum that may have turned the suburban-bred college graduate into a killer.
“The threat is real, and it comes from the Internet,” said Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas. “This is a new generation of terrorist. This is not Bin Laden in caves with couriers anymore. This is what the new threat of terrorism looks like.”

“The threat is real, and it comes from the Internet.”
- Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas

While the FBI is investigating the Chattanooga shooting as a terrorist act, the agency has not yet declared it one. But McCaul said Abdulazeez appears to have been motivated by ISIS to first open fire at a military recruiting center in a Chattanooga strip mall and then at a nearby military training center, where four Marines were killed.
“My judgment and experience is that this was an ISIS inspired attack. And it has been opened as a terrorism investigation by the FBI, which is a very significant event in this case,” McCaul said.
After the attack, Twitter accounts linked to terrorist groups exploded with praise for Abdulazeez. One twitter user with hashtags ‪#IslamicState and ‪#ChattanoogaShooting pledged “The War Has Just Begun. More to come fellas,” another taunts “We are in your homeland, payback time?” and a third attempts to justify the murders of the Marines by proclaiming they “participated in slaughtering Muslim babies.” Other twitter posts with hashtags “Chattanooga”, “ISIS,” and “Islamic State” vow “O American dogs, you will see wonders. Soon” and another mocks in broken English “Taste the blood of Americans …. Are very good.”

Related Image

Expand / Contract

Terrorists around the world have honored Abdulazeez on their Twitter accounts. (Screengrab)

“The fact they are celebrating is not surprising at all. Whenever something bad happens in America, whether a terrorist attack or even a natural disaster, they see it as Allah punishing America,” said Ryan Mauro, National Security Analyst for the Clarion Project, a nonprofit organization that educates the public about the threat of Islamic extremism.
The bigger concern, Mauro said, is not only that there may be a “copycat” attempt, but also that the successful attack may lead to even more people being radicalized.
“ISIS feels their success is Allah’s endorsement,” Mauro said. “The success of ISIS attracts more people.”
Twitter is just one of several media outlets where terrorists and their sympathizers congregate to share their latest horrific acts and propaganda. But stopping the use of the web to celebrate and inspire terror is a daunting task, experts said.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

This April 2015 booking photo released by the Hamilton County Sheriffs Office shows a man identified as Mohammad Youssduf Adbulazeer after being detained for a driving offense. A U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity identified the gunman in shootings at two Chattanooga military facilities as Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, who shares the same age and address as the man in the photo. (Hamilton County Sheriffs Office via AP) (The Associated Press)

Veryan Khan, editorial director for the Florida-based Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium, said her organization has tracked accounts on FaceBook, MySpace, Instagram, Pinterest, You Tube, Ask.FM, Tumblr, SendVid, Dump.to, Just Paste.it, Nasher.me, Manbar.me WordPress and Scribid. The use of foreign web sites, particularly in Russia, also is on the rise.
Terror groups like Islamic State have become so organized, they have their own media production houses, Khan said. In addition to filming, editing and posting videos of prisoner and traitor executions, they also film outreach and recruitment efforts and speeches by their leaders that glorify their acts.
While spokespeople for U.S. media outlets and others in the UK claim they cannot rid their sites of terrorist related materials in a timely manner because they are so bombarded with content from around the world, the U.S. based software company GIPEC has developed tools its founder said can assist in combating the global threat of on-line terrorism recruitment and the jihadist messaging.
The software, which its developer said also can be used to track piracy, counterfeiting and pornography, said there is no excuse for software companies not to remove terrorist-related content immediately.
“Terrorist organizations are spending time and money and using American social media platforms to recruit and incite sympathizers and ‘lone wolves’ here in the United States and around the world,” said a GIPEC analyst. “The social media companies have a moral responsibility to make their platforms safe from these horrific and directional posts that call for terrorist behavior that we have been witnessing over the past months.”