The world's youngest billionaire is Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, but who else is young and flush with cash? Bankrate took a look at published reports and compiled the top nine, other than "Zuck," who are younger than 35 and at billionaire status.
While some inherited their fortunes, most continue to work hard for their money in various fields.
1) Mark Zuckerberg (Male) $17+ Billion (28 Years Old)
2) Sergey Brin & Larry Page (Male) $18.7 Billion Each (38 & 39 Years Old)
3) Fahd Hariri (Male) $1.3 Billion (31 Years Old)
4) Ayman Hariri (Male) $1.3 Billion (34 Years Old)
5) Albert Von Thurn Und Taxis $1.5 Billion (29 Years Old)
6) Robert Pera (Male) $1.5 Billion (34 Years Old)
7) Eduardo Saverin (Male) $2 Billion (30 Years Old)
8) Sean Parker (Male) $2+ Billion (32 Years Old)
9) Dustin Moskovitz (Male) $3.5 Billion (28 Years Old)
10) Scott Duncan (Male) $4 Billion (29 Years Old)
11) Yang Huiyan (Female) $4.7 Billion (30 Years Old)
12) Yoshikazu Tanaka (Male) $2.2 Billion (34 Years Old)
Each year, up to 2.8 million youth experience homelessness—a group roughly equivalent to 1% of the U.S. population. The causes of homelessness are numerous and range from being orphaned, fleeing chronic abuse or simply escaping economic problems. Some youth are called “throw-aways” because their parents and guardians force them out of the home because of sexual orientation or beliefs.
Taz Tagore and Adam Bucko founded the Reciprocity Foundation to enable homeless and high-risk youth and young adults to permanently exit the social services system and start meaningful, sustainable careers in the Creativity Economy (e.g. fashion, design, marketing, PR). The Reciprocity Foundation aims to build a national network of programs to enable homeless youth to enroll in college, secure hands-on work experiences and build a professional network in their field of interest. Currently, their work is focused on the thousands of homeless youth in New York City; in the future, the Reciprocity Foundation plans to expand into cities such Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and Austin.
President Obama ran on the promise of hope in 2008, and after spending an hour with the nation's chief executive Thursday afternoon (October 14) at the BET studios in the nation's capital, a group of college students said they were feeling that positive vibe again.
"When I woke up this morning ... I couldn't sleep actually last night. I woke up five times," said Alexandra Lyn Von Paris, 20, a Finance Information Systems major at the University of Maryland, College Park, who said she got some serious jitters before asking the president about an issue close to her heart: the problem of cyberbullying.
"He seemed like he answered it to the best of his ability," she said of Obama's pledge to do more to make sure digital harassment does not take place on campuses. "I really appreciated that he said that that's one of his really big issues for this upcoming election and his legislation. ... It's really good to speak to young people, because we have separate issues. ... Whatever is passed through legislation or whatever Obama says, we're feeling that. It's good that he's speaking to us too, because we have power to change the vote in the election."
One of the audience members who pulled no punches in her question was Richmond, Virginia's Bridget Todd, 25, a graduate student at the University of Maryland who also teaches English at Howard University. She asked the president about his "alleged commitment" to end the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
I kind of wish he would have been a bit more specific," said Todd, who comes from a Southern military family and has a number of friends who are gay in the military. "He mentioned that he really wanted to end 'don't ask, don't tell,' which is good, but he didn't address why he was being so slow about it." Todd wondered why Obama had not made an executive order to end the policy, which bars gay and lesbian military members from serving openly in the armed forces.
Like the other students MTV News talked to right after the one-hour live interactive forum, Von Paris said the atmosphere in the studio was electric, with the widely diverse group of 230 attendees swapping stories, sharing their political thoughts and personal feelings about the direction the country is headed in. "Everyone has a smile on their face and everyone is going to come out of this bragging about it to their friends and remember this for the rest of their lives," she said.
Todd said she not only heard a wide variety of voices and opinions while waiting for the president to enter the room, but she thought the forum, which touched on issues ranging from the lack of bipartisanship in Congress to immigration and racism, really proved something about her peers. "People think that young people are apathetic," she said. "Clearly that's not true, because here we all are talking about our issues and why they're important."
She also noted that the questions were not softballs, but sometimes pointed and blunt, including one about race relations from 27-year-old Kishor Nagula, who is a graduate student at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
"I thought the forum was spectacular," he said. "It's not every day that a group of 230 students get a chance to hear the president speak so candidly as well as have the opportunity to get to ask the questions that we feel are so pressing to our current state of the country."
Nagula said he asked about the apparent breakdown in race relations following the euphoria and hope he felt after Obama's inauguration because he's felt recent incidents — such as the furor over the Park51 Islamic Center near Ground Zero in New York — have betrayed a hardening of racial lines in a seemingly more divided country.
"I feel like it's been a bit of a step back from a lot of the idealism that President Obama had spoken so candidly about," he said. One of the things Nagula, a Virginia-born son of parents from India, said was so inspiring to him was the sheer diversity of voices and faces in the audience.
"It feels like kind of a Benetton ad in here," he said. "All race, creed [and] gender were all represented here, which I think is part of the spirit of Obama and what he represents. This forum is a big manifestation of what his presidency is all about."
The President goes through the benefits in health insurance reform that are already kicking in for young adults, retirees, and families, and says more benefits are coming down the pike.
Whither the youth vote? A year after backing Barack Obama by an overwhelming 2-to-1 ratio, young adults are quickly cooling toward Democrats amid dissatisfaction over the lack of change in Washington and an escalating war in Afghanistan.
A study by the Pew Research Center, being released Wednesday, highlights the eroding support from 18-to-29 year olds whose strong turnout in November 2008 was touted by some demographers as the start of a new Democratic movement.
The findings are significant because they offer further proof that the diverse coalition of voters Obama cobbled together in 2008 – including high numbers of first-timers, minorities and youths – are not Democratic Party voters who can necessarily be counted on.
While young adults remain decidedly more liberal, the survey found the Democratic advantage among 18-to-29 year olds has substantially narrowed – from a record 62 percent identifying as Democrat vs. 30 percent for the GOP in 2008, down to 54 percent vs. 40 percent last December. It was the largest percentage point jump in those who identified or leaned Republican among all the voting age groups.
Young adults' voting enthusiasm also crumbled.
During the presidential election, turnout among 18-to-29 year olds was the highest in years, making up roughly 20 percent of the voters in many states including Virginia and New Jersey, due in part to high participation from young blacks and Hispanics.
That percentage, however, dropped by half for the gubernatorial races in those states last November where Republicans celebrated wins as black groups pushed Obama to do more to soften the economic blow from mortgage foreclosures and Latinos saw little progress on immigration reform. Young adults were also the least likely of any age group to identify themselves as regular voters.
"This is a generation of young adults who made a big splash politically in 2008," said Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and co-author of the report. "But a year and a half later, they show signs of disillusionment with the president – and, perhaps, with politics itself."
Democrats saw evidence of this last November, when Republicans toppled Democrats from power in governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia. Young, minority and new voters who Obama pulled into the fold in 2008 didn't turn out at the same levels for the two Democratic candidates. The same thing happened in the Massachusetts Senate race last month.
The lesson: Neither party has a hold on 18-to-29 year olds. They tend to vote far less than other age groups, yet they have proven to be a powerful constituency if they are persuaded to vote. And that means the race is on by both Republicans and Democrats to make inroads into the next generation of voters.
Analysts say the findings reflect the fast pace at which young voters live their lives, and both parties should take note of their fickleness.
"If you don't respond to their needs, hopes or dreams quickly, they're gone," said Matthew Dowd, an independent political analyst who was a strategist in former President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign. "They'll leave the playing field or switch their allegiance."
"They haven't become Republicans and they aren't solid Democrats. They're just looking for leaders who are where they are and will deliver," Dowd said. "Both parties have to be cognizant of the volatility of that group."
According to the Pew survey, large numbers of young adults said they personally liked the president but were dissatisfied with his rate of progress in changing Washington, such as improving the economy and fixing health care. Just 46 percent of 18-to-29 year olds said they believed Obama had changed Washington, compared to 48 percent who said he had not. Only baby boomers were more cynical, with 52 percent saying Obama had not changed the way things work in Washington.
The young adults also were the only age group in which more disapproved than approved of Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan. Only 34 percent supported his decision in December to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to the region, while 50 percent disapproved.
Still, when asked why Obama hadn't done more to bring change, young adults were somewhat forgiving, with about 56 percent blaming the president's opponents and special interests; only 30 percent said Obama was the one at fault for not trying hard enough.
The findings are part of Pew's broad portrait of the so-called millennial generation, the children of baby boomers who came of age in the new millennium. Demographers believe this generation can reshape U.S. culture and politics because of their demographic size and political outlook.
Making up nearly one-fourth of U.S. voters, 18-to-29 year olds are less religious, more racially diverse and liberal on social issues such as gay rights. They are steeped in digital technology and social media, and are strong believers in the view that the government should do more to solve problems.
For example:
_Nearly two-thirds admit to texting while driving, and more than 8 in 10 sleep with their cell phones by their bed.
_Nearly 4 in 10 have at least one tattoo; about half of those people have two to five tattoos. Roughly 1 in 4 have a body piercing in a place other than an earlobe – six times the share of older adults.
_About 37 percent of young adults are unemployed or out of the workforce, the highest share among this age group in more than three decades. A record share – 39.6 percent – was enrolled in college, and one in 8 millennials ages 22 and older say they had "boomeranged" back into their parents' home because of the recession.
The Pew Survey is based on interviews with 2,020 adults by cell phone or landline from Jan. 14 to 27. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for all respondents, higher for subgroups.
Would-be "American Idol" contestant turned Internet sensation "General" Larry Platt performed his hit song "Pants on the Ground" on "The View" Monday morning.
"Wow, that was so amazing," said co-host Sherri Shepard, as Platt, a 63-year-old civil rights activist from Atlanta, warbled the tune made famous when he sampled a bit of it for "Idol" judges, including the sharp-tongued cynic Simon Cowell, while auditioning for the show.
"Pants on the ground, pants on the ground, lookin' like a fool with your pants on the ground," Platt crooned.
When he finished the number, the "General" busted out some signature dynamic dance moves, including splits, push-ups and sit-ups for the cheering audience at the ABC chatfest.
In the house was Platt's nephew. He expressed pride for his uncle and said he was an inspiration.
Asked by Shepard about the song's inspiration, Platt explained that he "was walking one day, and [saw] a guy with a baby bottle in his mouth, and he had his pants on the ground. And that's what gave me the inspiration."
"You know, I have a horrible feeling that song could be a hit," Cowell said about the song when he heard it on "Idol."
He was right.
Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brett Favre has become a "Pants" follower. "The View" showed a clip of Favre and his teammates chanting "Pants on the Ground" after beating the Dallas Cowboys into the ground with a 34 to 3 victory on Sunday.
Meanwhile, Usatoday.com reports that Marshall Manning, another would-be "Idol" who didn't make the cut, has done a silky rap-happy riff on "Pants on the Ground." It's called "Pants Up."
The health-care reform bill coming out of the Senate presents a real dilemma for spectators: How do you applaud while holding your nose?
There is so much that is wrong with it -- and the way it was made -- and, at the same time, so much that is right that you just have to shake your head in despair and in wonder.
As one who covered the Clintons' struggle 15 years ago to pass health-care reform and who wrote an overly long book about their failure to even bring it to a vote in a Democratic Congress, I am in awe at the prospect of such a bill making it all the way to the White House.
When implemented years from now, it promises to make as many as 30 million men and women who now live with the fear of illness or hospitalization leading straight to financial ruin eligible for the same care as their more fortunate, insured neighbors.
Six decades after FDR's death, one of his Four Freedoms will, at long last, be guaranteed to almost all Americans. And the shame of this affluent society tolerating the denial of health care to its citizens will be largely lifted.
But Lord, what a load of embarrassment accompanies this sense of satisfaction! What should have been a moment of proud accomplishment for the Senate, right up there with the passage of Social Security and the first civil rights bills, was instead a travesty of low-grade political theater -- angry rhetoric and backroom deals.
There's blame enough to go around. Start with the 40 Republicans, not one of whom was willing to break out of the mold of negative conformity and offer a sustained working partnership in serious legislative effort.
But even those Republicans who were initially inclined to do that -- and there were at least a handful of them -- were turned away by the White House and the Senate Democratic leaders, who never lifted their sights much beyond the Democratic ranks.
Forced to bargain for every vote among the 60 in his caucus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did what he usually does: He reduced the negotiations to his own level of transactional morality. Incapable of summoning his colleagues to statesmanship, he made the deals look as crass and parochial as many of them were -- encasing a historic achievement in a wrapping of payoff and patronage.
The taint has rubbed off on the bill.
This week's Quinnipiac University poll found a majority of Americans disapproving of the legislation by 53 to 36 percent and an overwhelming number -- 73 to 18 percent -- saying they do not believe it will, as promised, reduce future budget deficits.
It now becomes President Obama's responsibility to strengthen the bill's cost-saving features and present them in a better way. Two of them are vulnerable to attack when the bill goes back to conference with the House in January.
Liberal Democrats do not like the Independent Commission in the Senate bill having power to enforce savings in Medicare and the Private Health System. And Labor does not accept the Senate plan to Tax high-end insurance plans.
Obama has not intervened with a heavy hand as the bill has moved through the House and Senate, but now it is time for him to act.
It would help a lot if he reached out personally to those few Republicans who might still want to improve the bill rather than sink it. And it would help even more if he shamed the Democrats into rescinding some of the crasser bargains they made to buy votes along the way.
The country would welcome even a few signs that this legislation has Bi-partisan support.
Then we could applaud its final passage and take our thumbs from our noses.
(Part 1 of Mandatory Sentence a short narrative video dramatizing the seriousness of the new federal mandatory sentencing guidelines. This video is targeted towards urban youth who maybe involved in the criminal justice system. Produced in Boston by The US Probation Department, Boston super group 4Peace, Performers of the peace anthem "Start Peace" and Stop Handgun Violence inc.)
(Part 2 of Mandatory Sentence a short narrative video dramatizing The seriousness of the new Federal mandatory sentencing guidelines for urban youth who maybe involved in the criminal justice system. Produced in by The US Probation Department, Boston super group 4Peace Performers of the peace anthem "Start Peace" and Stop Handgun Violence inc.)
"He is beyond help," Judge Nicholas Geeker said of Joe Harris Sullivan. "I'm going to try to send him away for as long as I can."
And then Geeker sentenced Sullivan to life in prison without the possibility of parole. At the time, Sullivan was 13 years old.
Now, 20 years after that sentencing in a courtroom in Pensacola, Fla., the Supreme Court will consider whether Sullivan's prison term -- and what his supporters say is an only-in-America phenomenon of extreme sentences for juveniles -- violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
The case -- which has drawn widespread notice and briefs from former senator Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and others describing their own youthful crimes -- is likely to be a cardinal criminal justice decision for the court this term.
It is a natural outgrowth of the court's bitterly divided ruling in 2005 that juveniles cannot be executed for murders they commit.
Those challenging sentences of life without parole for teenagers base their optimism on words in Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's majority opinion in that case: "The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. . . . It would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed."
Sullivan is represented by Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative in Alabama, who said his client's sentence is no different from the punishment the court found unconstitutional.
"They are both effectively death sentences," Stevenson said in an interview. "One is death by execution, and the other is death by incarceration, but they are both terminal sentences."
Only two 13-year-olds in the country have been sentenced to life without parole for crimes that were not homicides, Stevenson said, and both of them are held in Florida.
Florida officials would not discuss Sullivan's case before the November arguments, but their brief to the court said states are within their rights to lock up forever those thought to pose a perpetual threat to society.
"There is no consensus against life sentences for juveniles, particularly for heinous crimes such as sexual battery," Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar wrote.
Across the country, 111 people are serving life sentences without parole for crimes they committed as juveniles that did not result in a death, according to one report; 77 of them are locked up in Florida, for crimes including armed robbery and carjacking. The state took a get-tough approach in the 1990s in response to a crime wave that was "compromising the safety of residents, visitors, and international tourists, and threatening the state's bedrock tourism industry," Florida's brief to the court states.
That brief came in the case of Terrance Jamar Graham, a second petition the court accepted. Graham, of Jacksonville, received a life sentence after being part of a group that robbed a barbecue restaurant when he was 16; while on probation a year later, he was part of an armed burglary. Again, a judge doubted Graham's ability to ever change his ways; his accomplices served short sentences.
A range of issues
In accepting both cases and deciding to hear them separately, the court gives itself a wide range of issues to ponder. The justices may rule that such sentences are acceptable for 17-year-olds, for instance, but not 13-year-olds. They could look at the relative seriousness of the crimes, or differentiate the non-homicides in both cases with crimes in which someone is killed.
Sullivan, who his lawyer said had been living on the streets since he was 10, had a troubled history with the law. He had 17 offenses before the crime at issue. In 1989, he and two friends burglarized the home of a 72-year-old woman one day while she was away, then returned later. The woman was raped by one of the juveniles; she never saw his face, identifying him only as a "dark, colored boy." But she remembered that he said something like, "If you can't identify me, I may not have to kill you."
At the one-day trial, Sullivan was made to say the words over and over. The victim listened and said: "It's been six months. It's hard, but it does sound similar."
The other boys singled out Sullivan as committing the rape.
"The conviction itself was very questionable," Stevenson said. "We do think he's innocent."
But that is not at issue in the case before the Supreme Court. Stevenson only seeks to have Sullivan, now 33, resentenced so that at some point he becomes eligible for release.
Stevenson contends that Florida made no conscious policy decision that 13-year-olds should be eligible for life without parole for a non-homicide. No state that has debated the question has set the age that low. Instead, he said, Sullivan and others were caught up in a legislative reaction to escalating crime.
"What happened is we lowered the minimum age for trying kids as adults and brought them into the adult system, and we expanded the range of very harsh sentences for an adult, and these two things have collided," he said.
Besides the two Floridians serving life sentences for non-homicides committed at 13, seven others have received that sentence for crimes resulting in a death, Stevenson said.
An Index of Mercy
But the state of Florida and its supporters said that is evidence that the sentences are carefully applied to the worst of the worst.
"It is a rare and agonizing decision to sentence a juvenile to life-without-parole," said a brief filed by Louisiana and 18 other states. "But rare does not mean unconstitutional. Rather, rarity is an index of mercy -- of reluctance to take this severe step."
The National District Attorneys Association, supporting Florida, said that while life without parole for juveniles might be unusual, "permanent incarceration for the most violent, hardened juvenile offenders is by no means 'cruel.' "
Sullivan and Graham are supported by a wide-ranging group of organizations: the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and academics and social scientists who argue that juveniles cannot be held responsible for their actions in the same way adults are. For the same reason, they say, younger teenagers are not entrusted with decisions such as voting, marrying or drinking.
A group of educators and social scientists told the court that such research was crucial to the 2005 decision that juveniles should not be subject to the death penalty. "The principal purposes of sentencing -- punishing the culpable and deterring the rational -- are not furthered by denying the possibility of parole to adolescents," the group said.
Graham and Sullivan are also supported in an unusual friend-of-the-court brief by former juvenile offenders such as Simpson, director and actor Charles Dutton, and a poet, a software executive and a former assistant U.S. attorney.
"At some point, you have to look at them again and ask, 'What have you done with your life?' " said Simpson, who said that as a youth he burned down an abandoned federal building, destroyed property and fought with a police officer. "Maybe 90 percent of them you throw back in, but what about the other 10 percent?"
Federal stimulus money could help about 450 Charlotte teenagers get summer jobs – and provide free labor for local companies.
The City of Charlotte, NC has received about $1.5 million to employ disadvantaged young people between the ages of 16 and 24, said Brad Richardson, the city's business retention manager.
The money will help train the temporary young workers and pay their salaries – about $8 an hour. It's a good deal for businesses suffering in the recession, Richardson said.
“Employers can get free workers through the stimulus,” he said.
Leola Smith, director of an academic summer camp off Statesville Avenue, has taken on seven stimulus-funded workers. She says they're workers she couldn't have afforded, and they provide more one-on-one attention for the children at camp. The local Goodwill Industries center, which found her the workers, also does background checks on them and screens them for child-care suitability.
“The youth that we have coming in are doing a wonderful job,” she said.
The stimulus money is also helping teenagers find jobs in a particularly tough job market. As the national unemployment rate hits 9.5 percent – a high not seen in 26 years – young people are being pushed out of the job market. Richardson said some area companies that normally hire teenagers for the summer, such as Carowinds, have seen a lot of adult applicants this year.
“You've got adults out there competing for teenage jobs,” he said.
Victoria Patton, 22, had difficulty finding work because of a shoplifting arrest when she was 16. She had recently left a late-night shift at Wendy's after going through two robberies.
“I was working until 3 o'clock in the morning and it was kind of dangerous,” she said.
Then she found out about the stimulus program and got a position at Smith's camp. She hopes her hard work and the references she gets will boost her job prospects later. She plans to go back to school for early childhood education, she said.
The city is not spending the Federal money directly.
Instead, it is distributing the money through the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Workforce Development Board to four area agencies that have experience training workers and placing them with employers: Goodwill Industries, Urban League Central Carolinas, Arbor Education and Training, and Friendship Community Development Corp.
Those agencies also make sure the young workers fit the stimulus program's qualifications. To participate, the workers must meet federal poverty standards or receive government assistance, and have one of the following barriers to employment: be in or aging out of the foster care system, be homeless or a runaway, be a high school dropout, be an ex-offender, be pregnant or a parent or be deficient in basic math or literacy skills.
Susan Furtney, local director of career development services for Goodwill, said the program essentially gives employers an eight-week “paid interview” with the young people. She said she's confident many employers ultimately will decide to hire them on.
“They'll make a strong connection and want to hire these youth,” she said.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES