by Shonda Ponder
Of all things for the Democrats to worry about, now they're worried that Trump is going to pardon himself or his family members for something. I don't think President Trump has done anything wrong to pardon himself for, but I guess they think he might. In a press release from Karen Bass (D-CA, 37th), the Democrats have decided to create a resolution that will prevent this from happening.
“Due to the current President’s proven willingness to slander the truth and exploit legal ambiguity for personal gain, we must explicitly forbid the possibility of a pardon for himself or his family,” Rep. Bass said. “Throughout this presidency, I’ve heard from thousands of constituents concerned about pardon power. The recent pardon of Joe Arpaio only amplified those concerns. Millions of Americans face the consequences of their own unlawful actions, and they repay their debt to society. If any president of any party or their family commits federal crimes, benign or extreme, they too must suffer the consequences of their actions. I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to uphold our civic duty to protect our justice system.”
I think the Democrats need to stop focusing on how much they hate Trump, and start worrying about how they are going to get re-elected. The future doesn't look too bright for them these days, unless they know a bunch of dead Democrats.
The Unpopular Truth
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Sunday, September 17, 2017
My view on DACA -- by Shonda Ponder
by Shonda Ponder
According to Wikipedia,
On June 15, 2012, President Barack Hussein Obama announced his decision to sign an Executive Order that allowed these children of illegal immigrants to escape deportation and obtain work permits for a period of two years, which could be renewed if they behaved. Limitations were applied to the bill. Those who enrolled
had to be younger than 31 on June 15, 2012
must have come to the U.S. when they were younger than 16
and must have lived in the U.S. since at least 2007.
All of this was because Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act.
As a staunch conservative, it is my observation that Executive Orders, which is an executive power given to the President, have been used in the past to address a present and very great need at the time. When the executive order is no longer needed or is seen as doing more harm than good, the next President has the power to rescind it at will through his own executive power.
Obama's executive order met with criticism from those who were oppressed by illegal immigrants were taking up needed space in the job market, getting public assistance, and not paying taxes. In the year 2012 alone, over 400,000 illegal immigrants were deported.
This was in the year 2012 ALONE. Let that sink in.
This is only a portion of the over 11 million illegal immigrants that are still here.
According to statistics, there are only around 800,000 DREAMERS affected by DACA. These are children who were brought here by illegal immigrants who grew up in an environment they learned well to assimilate in because that is all they know. These children were brought up as Americans. Sending them back to a country that their parents were fleeing from, that they know nothing about, is seen as cruel by those who are for DACA. However, those against DACA argue that their short-sighted parents are to blame for the demise of their own children by their determination to illegally enter and live in and take advantage of what the United States has to offer at the cost of the legal citizens who live here. By any definition, all that amounts to theft of services.
Obama gave Congress a mandate to pass immigration reform. Congress failed. If our own representatives in Congress cannot work together to enact much needed reform, then the President has the power to act, whether we like it or not. Congress then has the power to override any veto or action by two-thirds of Congress in favor of the override.
If Congress doesn't like the fact that President Donald Trump has rescinded DACA, then, why have they not voted to override him rather than screaming in the Fake News Media's TV cameras?
Donald Trump has said the same thing Barack Obama said, Congress needs to pass an immigration bill. After rescinding DACA, Trump gave the Democrats six months to come up with something workable before DACA is enacted. He said, “Chuck and Nancy would like to see something happen, and so do I, and I said if we can get something to happen, we’re gonna sign it, and we’re gonna make a lot of happy people."
I personally would support DACA on any bill passed by Congress that also includes getting rid of the illegal aliens who are not DACA children -- this includes their parents. Their parents knew what they were doing. These children are of age now to make a decision whether or not to stay or go. If they choose to return to their home country with their parents, then so be it. Our sympathy for them ends there. If they choose to stay, they must also choose not to hate us for enforcing the law that is enacted for all of our long-term benefit, including theirs; and, they must take immediate action to become LEGAL citizens within the proper time allowed, and through the proper channels.
If the Democrats keep screaming about how evil President Trump is, they are never going to pass such a law, and the DREAMERS then have no one to blame for their demise than the Democrats themselves. It's time to quit talking an start acting, Democrats. DACA needs you.
According to Wikipedia,
The DREAM Act bill, which would have provided a pathway to permanent residency for unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States upon meeting certain qualifications, was considered by Congress in 2007. It failed to overcome a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate. It was considered again in 2011. The bill passed the House, but did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.In 2013, legislation that would have comprehensively reformed the immigration system, including allowing Dreamers permission to stay in the country, work and attend school, passed the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House. The New York Times credits the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act bill as the driver behind Obama's decision to sign DACA.
On June 15, 2012, President Barack Hussein Obama announced his decision to sign an Executive Order that allowed these children of illegal immigrants to escape deportation and obtain work permits for a period of two years, which could be renewed if they behaved. Limitations were applied to the bill. Those who enrolled
All of this was because Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act.
As a staunch conservative, it is my observation that Executive Orders, which is an executive power given to the President, have been used in the past to address a present and very great need at the time. When the executive order is no longer needed or is seen as doing more harm than good, the next President has the power to rescind it at will through his own executive power.
Obama's executive order met with criticism from those who were oppressed by illegal immigrants were taking up needed space in the job market, getting public assistance, and not paying taxes. In the year 2012 alone, over 400,000 illegal immigrants were deported.
This was in the year 2012 ALONE. Let that sink in.
This is only a portion of the over 11 million illegal immigrants that are still here.
According to statistics, there are only around 800,000 DREAMERS affected by DACA. These are children who were brought here by illegal immigrants who grew up in an environment they learned well to assimilate in because that is all they know. These children were brought up as Americans. Sending them back to a country that their parents were fleeing from, that they know nothing about, is seen as cruel by those who are for DACA. However, those against DACA argue that their short-sighted parents are to blame for the demise of their own children by their determination to illegally enter and live in and take advantage of what the United States has to offer at the cost of the legal citizens who live here. By any definition, all that amounts to theft of services.
Obama gave Congress a mandate to pass immigration reform. Congress failed. If our own representatives in Congress cannot work together to enact much needed reform, then the President has the power to act, whether we like it or not. Congress then has the power to override any veto or action by two-thirds of Congress in favor of the override.
If Congress doesn't like the fact that President Donald Trump has rescinded DACA, then, why have they not voted to override him rather than screaming in the Fake News Media's TV cameras?
Donald Trump has said the same thing Barack Obama said, Congress needs to pass an immigration bill. After rescinding DACA, Trump gave the Democrats six months to come up with something workable before DACA is enacted. He said, “Chuck and Nancy would like to see something happen, and so do I, and I said if we can get something to happen, we’re gonna sign it, and we’re gonna make a lot of happy people."
I personally would support DACA on any bill passed by Congress that also includes getting rid of the illegal aliens who are not DACA children -- this includes their parents. Their parents knew what they were doing. These children are of age now to make a decision whether or not to stay or go. If they choose to return to their home country with their parents, then so be it. Our sympathy for them ends there. If they choose to stay, they must also choose not to hate us for enforcing the law that is enacted for all of our long-term benefit, including theirs; and, they must take immediate action to become LEGAL citizens within the proper time allowed, and through the proper channels.
If the Democrats keep screaming about how evil President Trump is, they are never going to pass such a law, and the DREAMERS then have no one to blame for their demise than the Democrats themselves. It's time to quit talking an start acting, Democrats. DACA needs you.
Friday, September 15, 2017
Pondering: Price Gouging,Terrorism, Nursing Home, Single Payer Health Care, Equifax, DACA, Retirement, Transportation, Education, Human Trafficking, Automatic Knives, Health Insurance
As the nation contends with the aftermaths of Harvey and Irma and prepares for Hurricane Jose, there have been multiple reports of airlines drastically increasing prices. Some consumers noted price increases from $547 to over $3200. Other travelers posted on social media fares of $1,738 for flights between Miami and Indianapolis and a $2,370 flight between Miami and Los Angeles. Airlines have contended that they did not change their pricing structure and that price changes are dictated by computer algorithms on the companies’ booking websites.
The Define It To Fight would withhold ten percent of United States funding to the United Nations (U.N.) until the intergovernmental organization adopts a definition for "international terrorism." Instead, those funds would be directed to the U.S. Treasury for the purpose of reducing the national debt – which now stands at more than $20 trillion.
The U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 on September 28, 2001, which created the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) to become the lead U.N. agent in the war on terror. Since then, the CTC has failed to name a single terrorist, terrorist organization or state-sponsor of terrorism. The three U.S.-identified state sponsors of terror – Iran, Syria and Sudan – have submitted reports to the CTC about their compliance with Resolution 1373. In the absence of any U.N. definition of terrorism, all three states have readily proclaimed that they are engaged in a vigorous campaign to combat terrorism despite clear and irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
The United States is the largest contributor to the U.N., providing about $3.3 billion a year to finance U.N. activities and financing 22 percent of their budget.
Their reasoning is that ‘rothification,’ would take away the freedom Americans currently have to choose the retirement savings plan that works best for them. Instead, it would force everyone into a Roth account. Unlike 401ks, IRAs or other retirement savings plans many Americans currently use, Roth savings are taxed up front, reducing workers’ take home pay and making it more expensive for Americans to save for retirement.
Roth plans are also more expensive for employers to offer and would make it harder for small businesses to provide retirement plans for their employees.
Further, the Senators also pointed out that rothification is fiscally irresponsible and would add to the federal deficit.
Enacted in 1958, the Federal Switchblade Act (FSA) leverages the federal government’s power over interstate commerce to prohibit the purchase, sale and trade of automatic knives between any of the 50 states or U.S. territories. Current federal law prohibits the interstate sale and importation of switchblades, curtailing states’ rights to legislate the legality of certain tools within their borders.
This legislation would repeal certain provisions of the FSA and allow domestic manufacturers to ship and sell their products to buyers in other states, as well as permit the importation certain knife parts. Moreover, the bill would not replace or alter any existing state laws regarding switchblades and other automatic knives. Buck Knives, Inc., a knife manufacturer based in Post Falls, Idaho, supports the legislation.
Currently legal in 27 states, automatic knives are defined based on their opening mechanism and are used primarily by professional trades and outdoor recreationalists
Thursday, September 14, 2017
House Adopts Tonko Amendment to Upgrade Mental Health Crisis Response Systems
Source: House Representative Paul D. Tonko (D-NY, 20th)
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously to adopt an amendment by New York Congressman Paul D. Tonko that would allocate $12.5 million to states to establish real-time bed registries to assist individuals experiencing a psychiatric or substance abuse crisis.
Rep. Paul Tonko: “When a person is going through a mental health or substance use crisis, getting immediate and effective treatment can be a matter of life and death. Today, many states today lack a reliable system for keeping track of which treatment facilities have space available, meaning vulnerable patients are left waiting while overburdened healthcare workers call each area hospital, one by one, in the hope that they can find an appropriate placement. Even at its best, this is an inefficient and time-consuming process. At its worst, the results are tragic. By streamlining the process of finding the appropriate treatment placement for patients in crisis, this program promises to save lives, increase system efficiency, and provide a higher standard of care for those who urgently need it.”
The Strengthening Community Crisis Response Systems grant program was authored by Rep. Tonko and included as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, which was signed into law by former President Obama.
Bed registries supported by this legislation would collect and provide real-time Internet-based information regarding available beds, the type of patient that may be admitted, the level of security provided, and any other information that may be necessary to allow for the proper identification of appropriate facilities for treatment of individuals in psychiatric or substance abuse crisis.
These systems include psychiatric hospitals, crisis stabilization centers, first responders, emergency health care providers, primary care providers, law enforcement, court systems, health care payers, social service providers, behavioral health providers, and residential community resources.
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The U.S. House of Representatives voted unanimously to adopt an amendment by New York Congressman Paul D. Tonko that would allocate $12.5 million to states to establish real-time bed registries to assist individuals experiencing a psychiatric or substance abuse crisis.
Rep. Paul Tonko: “When a person is going through a mental health or substance use crisis, getting immediate and effective treatment can be a matter of life and death. Today, many states today lack a reliable system for keeping track of which treatment facilities have space available, meaning vulnerable patients are left waiting while overburdened healthcare workers call each area hospital, one by one, in the hope that they can find an appropriate placement. Even at its best, this is an inefficient and time-consuming process. At its worst, the results are tragic. By streamlining the process of finding the appropriate treatment placement for patients in crisis, this program promises to save lives, increase system efficiency, and provide a higher standard of care for those who urgently need it.”
The Strengthening Community Crisis Response Systems grant program was authored by Rep. Tonko and included as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, which was signed into law by former President Obama.
Bed registries supported by this legislation would collect and provide real-time Internet-based information regarding available beds, the type of patient that may be admitted, the level of security provided, and any other information that may be necessary to allow for the proper identification of appropriate facilities for treatment of individuals in psychiatric or substance abuse crisis.
These systems include psychiatric hospitals, crisis stabilization centers, first responders, emergency health care providers, primary care providers, law enforcement, court systems, health care payers, social service providers, behavioral health providers, and residential community resources.
Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act Passes House, Opposed by Congress Member
Source: House Representative Dina Titus (D-NV, 1st)
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Dina Titus of Nevada’s First Congressional District released the following statement after the U.S. House passed H.R. 3697, the so-called “Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act.”
The legislation creates new grounds for removal of “gang members,” but the bill’s poorly-written and broad language captures many individuals who have no involvement in any gang activity: members of the religious community, humanitarian workers, and green-card holders, among others. The bill strips away due process rights by allowing law enforcement to take action based on the mere belief of an association with criminal activity. There have been no hearings, no mark-ups, and no opportunities to offer amendments.
“A vote for this bill is a vote to attack, profile and deport immigrants. I stand with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to say that this legislation’s dangerous and sweeping provisions ignore due process rights and change the definition of ‘criminal gang’ to target nuns, ministers, rabbis, humanitarian workers, and others who harbor immigrants who are often fleeing danger. Instead of infringing on constitutional rights and ramming through bills without normal order, Republicans should work with Democrats to debate and pass comprehensive reform bills to fix our nation’s broken immigration system and fight crime.”
Denies Admission to Individuals on the Mere Belief of Wrongdoing.
The bill denies the admission of many categories of immigrants—including persons sponsored for family- and employment-based green cards, as well as certain lawful permanent residents returning from abroad—based on nothing more than an immigration officer having a “reason to believe” of an affiliation to gang or certain other criminal activity.
Under this bill, many immigrants could be denied admission or even deported with little due process based on no real evidence of a gang affiliation. The “reason to believe” standard is a low burden of proof similar to probable cause, and it does not require a conviction or even an arrest. The government need only have grounds to “believe” an affiliation to certain wrongdoing.
Classifies Religious Workers and Humanitarian Aid Workers as Gang Members.
The bill refers to a broad range of criminal activity, including the “harboring” of immigrants under INA § 274. This “harboring” provision is not restricted to those in the business of smuggling immigrants, but includes anyone who provides shelter, transportation, or support to undocumented immigrants. The federal courts have found that “harboring” includes offering a known undocumented individual a place to stay. This statute has been used against religious workers, as well as persons who live with undocumented family members.
As noted above, the bill would not even require a criminal conviction (or even an arrest) in order to support a finding of harboring for purposes of this provision. Instead, the mere belief of involvement in harboring could be used to classify individuals as criminal gang members.
This provision could thus be used against religious or humanitarian workers who provide aid to undocumented immigrants. The bill thus would turn nuns who assist undocumented immigrants into gang members overnight. And it is retroactive, so any non-citizen religious or humanitarian aid worker who has harbored an undocumented immigrant in the past could be detained and deported.
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Dina Titus of Nevada’s First Congressional District released the following statement after the U.S. House passed H.R. 3697, the so-called “Criminal Alien Gang Member Removal Act.”
The legislation creates new grounds for removal of “gang members,” but the bill’s poorly-written and broad language captures many individuals who have no involvement in any gang activity: members of the religious community, humanitarian workers, and green-card holders, among others. The bill strips away due process rights by allowing law enforcement to take action based on the mere belief of an association with criminal activity. There have been no hearings, no mark-ups, and no opportunities to offer amendments.
“A vote for this bill is a vote to attack, profile and deport immigrants. I stand with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to say that this legislation’s dangerous and sweeping provisions ignore due process rights and change the definition of ‘criminal gang’ to target nuns, ministers, rabbis, humanitarian workers, and others who harbor immigrants who are often fleeing danger. Instead of infringing on constitutional rights and ramming through bills without normal order, Republicans should work with Democrats to debate and pass comprehensive reform bills to fix our nation’s broken immigration system and fight crime.”
Denies Admission to Individuals on the Mere Belief of Wrongdoing.
The bill denies the admission of many categories of immigrants—including persons sponsored for family- and employment-based green cards, as well as certain lawful permanent residents returning from abroad—based on nothing more than an immigration officer having a “reason to believe” of an affiliation to gang or certain other criminal activity.
Under this bill, many immigrants could be denied admission or even deported with little due process based on no real evidence of a gang affiliation. The “reason to believe” standard is a low burden of proof similar to probable cause, and it does not require a conviction or even an arrest. The government need only have grounds to “believe” an affiliation to certain wrongdoing.
Classifies Religious Workers and Humanitarian Aid Workers as Gang Members.
Bill Introduced to Repeal Obamacare’s Individual Mandate
Source: House Representative Pat Tiberi (R-OH, 12th)
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Pat Tiberi (R-OH), chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee and Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-TX), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, introduced legislation that would repeal Obamacare’s individual health insurance mandate.
“We need to put patients and families, not the federal government, in charge of their own health care,” said Tiberi. “However, the individual mandate is forcing Americans to purchase plans they don’t want, don’t need, and can’t afford to use. This legislation would provide relief to Americans who are trapped in overpriced and unreliable Obamacare plans and eliminate the threat of an unfair fine from the IRS.”
“Obamacare’s individual mandate fundamentally alters the relationship between the government and the governed, severely limiting individual freedom,” said Burgess. “Since its conception, the individual mandate has been a direct attack on our personal liberty. This bill will provide the American people immediate relief from this overstep.”
Click Here to read H.R. 3725.
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Pat Tiberi (R-OH), chairman of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee and Congressman Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (R-TX), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, introduced legislation that would repeal Obamacare’s individual health insurance mandate.
“We need to put patients and families, not the federal government, in charge of their own health care,” said Tiberi. “However, the individual mandate is forcing Americans to purchase plans they don’t want, don’t need, and can’t afford to use. This legislation would provide relief to Americans who are trapped in overpriced and unreliable Obamacare plans and eliminate the threat of an unfair fine from the IRS.”
“Obamacare’s individual mandate fundamentally alters the relationship between the government and the governed, severely limiting individual freedom,” said Burgess. “Since its conception, the individual mandate has been a direct attack on our personal liberty. This bill will provide the American people immediate relief from this overstep.”
Click Here to read H.R. 3725.
Rep. Thompson Announces Opposition to So-Called “Sportsmen’s Package”
Source: House Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA, 5th)
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Representative Mike Thompson (CA-05), Chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and two-time co-chair of the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus, issued the following statement on the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act, following a markup on the legislation:
“The SHARE Act is being billed as a ‘sportsmen’s package’, but the drawbacks for outdoor recreationists in this bill outweigh the benefits,” said Chairman Thompson. “The bill includes a number of anti-conservation provisions, jeopardizes lives by weakening gun regulations, and opens up law enforcement officers personally to frivolous litigation.
“The bill would give States the ability to override federal fishing rules in federally-managed waters. This could be devastating not only to species, but also to the long-term viability of fishing industries and the countless jobs they sustain. Overriding the science that drives fishing in federal waters is short-sighted and counter to our economic interests. California’s National Marine Sanctuaries alone generate more than $140 million a year in economic impact from commercial fishing.
“The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) is a long-standing program that has been extremely effective in leveraging non-federal funds to protect, restore, and manage wetland habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. However, this bill would prohibit NAWCA from using funds for land acquisition, one of the core purposes of NAWCA: to protect and conserve wetlands for public benefit. Conservation projects like the California Delta and the Suisun Wetlands have been greatly enhanced because of NAWCA land acquisition. The beauty and diversity of wetlands like these belongs to all of us and must be protected. Wetlands across our country also support a $2.4 billion recreation industry fueled by hunters, birdwatchers, boaters, photographers, and many more.
“This bill would also deregulate the sale of firearm silencers. Advocates of this provision claim it serves to protect gun-owners’ hearing, a laughable assertion if the consequences weren’t so serious. Silencers do not actually silence gunfire, despite what we’ve seen in movies, they simply disperse the sound. We’ve all become too familiar with mass shootings in this country, and the deregulation of silencers could take future active shooter situations from bad to worse, preventing law enforcement from pinpointing active shooters.
“Further, the SHARE Act would open up our law enforcement officers to personal legal liability for doing their jobs when they inquiry about interstate firearm transportation during routine stops. This is absolutely ridiculous—we need to be making law enforcement’s job easier, not opening up individual officers to lawsuits.
“I deeply regret that my colleagues in the majority party have failed to take into account the priorities of hunters, anglers, and other outdoor recreationists while crafting this ‘sportsmen’s package.’ I hope they will listen to the folks they are trying to help and make significant changes to the bill. Until then, I will continue to strongly oppose the legislation."
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Representative Mike Thompson (CA-05), Chair of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and two-time co-chair of the Congressional Sportsman's Caucus, issued the following statement on the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act, following a markup on the legislation:
“The SHARE Act is being billed as a ‘sportsmen’s package’, but the drawbacks for outdoor recreationists in this bill outweigh the benefits,” said Chairman Thompson. “The bill includes a number of anti-conservation provisions, jeopardizes lives by weakening gun regulations, and opens up law enforcement officers personally to frivolous litigation.
“The bill would give States the ability to override federal fishing rules in federally-managed waters. This could be devastating not only to species, but also to the long-term viability of fishing industries and the countless jobs they sustain. Overriding the science that drives fishing in federal waters is short-sighted and counter to our economic interests. California’s National Marine Sanctuaries alone generate more than $140 million a year in economic impact from commercial fishing.
“The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) is a long-standing program that has been extremely effective in leveraging non-federal funds to protect, restore, and manage wetland habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife. However, this bill would prohibit NAWCA from using funds for land acquisition, one of the core purposes of NAWCA: to protect and conserve wetlands for public benefit. Conservation projects like the California Delta and the Suisun Wetlands have been greatly enhanced because of NAWCA land acquisition. The beauty and diversity of wetlands like these belongs to all of us and must be protected. Wetlands across our country also support a $2.4 billion recreation industry fueled by hunters, birdwatchers, boaters, photographers, and many more.
“This bill would also deregulate the sale of firearm silencers. Advocates of this provision claim it serves to protect gun-owners’ hearing, a laughable assertion if the consequences weren’t so serious. Silencers do not actually silence gunfire, despite what we’ve seen in movies, they simply disperse the sound. We’ve all become too familiar with mass shootings in this country, and the deregulation of silencers could take future active shooter situations from bad to worse, preventing law enforcement from pinpointing active shooters.
“Further, the SHARE Act would open up our law enforcement officers to personal legal liability for doing their jobs when they inquiry about interstate firearm transportation during routine stops. This is absolutely ridiculous—we need to be making law enforcement’s job easier, not opening up individual officers to lawsuits.
“I deeply regret that my colleagues in the majority party have failed to take into account the priorities of hunters, anglers, and other outdoor recreationists while crafting this ‘sportsmen’s package.’ I hope they will listen to the folks they are trying to help and make significant changes to the bill. Until then, I will continue to strongly oppose the legislation."
Off-Leash Walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area Passes House
Source: House Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA, 14th)
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) released the following statement today after her amendment to prevent the National Park Service from restricting off-leash dog walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) near San Francisco passed the House of Representatives.
“I’m pleased that my amendment to stop the National Park Service (NPS) from restricting off-leash dog walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area has passed the House. This is a 40-year tradition in the Bay Area, and the NPS’ attempts to ban it have been fraught with corruption and opaque decision making. I particularly thank my colleague and fellow dog lover, Congressman Jeff Denham, for co-sponsoring this amendment. We need to start from scratch in order to have a Dog Management Plan that respects the needs of all GGNRA users, even the furry four-legged ones.”
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) released the following statement today after her amendment to prevent the National Park Service from restricting off-leash dog walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) near San Francisco passed the House of Representatives.
“I’m pleased that my amendment to stop the National Park Service (NPS) from restricting off-leash dog walking in Golden Gate National Recreation Area has passed the House. This is a 40-year tradition in the Bay Area, and the NPS’ attempts to ban it have been fraught with corruption and opaque decision making. I particularly thank my colleague and fellow dog lover, Congressman Jeff Denham, for co-sponsoring this amendment. We need to start from scratch in order to have a Dog Management Plan that respects the needs of all GGNRA users, even the furry four-legged ones.”
Immigration in the National Interest Act Introduced
Source: House Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX, 21st)
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced the Immigration in the National Interest Act (H.R. 3775), which creates a points-based merit immigration system that gives priority to immigrants who have the skills and abilities needed to contribute to our U.S. economy.
The legislation is the House companion to Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue’s (R-GA) introduction of the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act.
Rep. Smith: “Our immigration system is the most generous in the world. The United States admits one million legal immigrants every year. However, less than one in six green card holders are admitted based on education and skills.
“The Immigration in the National Interest Act ensures that our legal immigration system prioritizes those with the highest skills and education necessary to boost economic growth, spur innovation, and create jobs in our country. It will also reduce the number of low-skilled and under-educated immigrants. Studies have shown these individuals typically depress wages or take jobs from Americans, and receive four times as much more in government assistance than they pay in taxes.
“Additionally, this bill will end the policy of automatically admitting extended relatives of legally admitted immigrants, often referred to as chain migration. Those relatives outside the nuclear family must use other methods to immigrate legally to our country.
“Thank you to Senators Cotton and Perdue for their partnership on this important issue. And I appreciate President Trump’s support of this legislation and his help in fulfilling the pledge we made to make our immigration laws better serve America.”
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced the Immigration in the National Interest Act (H.R. 3775), which creates a points-based merit immigration system that gives priority to immigrants who have the skills and abilities needed to contribute to our U.S. economy.
The legislation is the House companion to Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue’s (R-GA) introduction of the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act.
Rep. Smith: “Our immigration system is the most generous in the world. The United States admits one million legal immigrants every year. However, less than one in six green card holders are admitted based on education and skills.
“The Immigration in the National Interest Act ensures that our legal immigration system prioritizes those with the highest skills and education necessary to boost economic growth, spur innovation, and create jobs in our country. It will also reduce the number of low-skilled and under-educated immigrants. Studies have shown these individuals typically depress wages or take jobs from Americans, and receive four times as much more in government assistance than they pay in taxes.
“Additionally, this bill will end the policy of automatically admitting extended relatives of legally admitted immigrants, often referred to as chain migration. Those relatives outside the nuclear family must use other methods to immigrate legally to our country.
“Thank you to Senators Cotton and Perdue for their partnership on this important issue. And I appreciate President Trump’s support of this legislation and his help in fulfilling the pledge we made to make our immigration laws better serve America.”
Smith Bills Take Aim at Two Unjust Policies Uncovered in Superstorm Sandy
Source: House Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ, 4th)
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) is leading the charge, for a second time, to reform two federal disaster relief and recovery programs, one that discriminates against faith-based organizations and another that forces individual victims to take on new debt while boxing them out of possible federal grants. These flaws surfaced during the Superstorm Sandy recovery effort and both fixes are now gaining support as Congress prepares a larger recovery package for victims of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
“Superstorm Sandy taught us tough lessons—in the preparation for a storm and its aftermath, it showed us some significant flaws in our federal assistance programs,” said Smith, whose constituents in coastal areas in Monmouth and Ocean counties were hit hard by the Superstorm Sandy in 2012. “The Equity for Disaster Victims Act of 2017 (H.R. 3674) and the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2017 (H.R. 2405) address injustices in our disaster recovery programs and both bills are desperately needed,” he said.
Smith’s original bill, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013 (H.R. 592), passed the House of Representatives just months after Superstorm Sandy hit New Jersey in a decisive 354-72 vote. Sadly, the Senate failed to act on the legislation.
Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2017
The Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2017 (H.R. 2405) is bipartisan legislation that would put houses of worship on an even playing field with other private non-profit organizations seeking disaster assistance. In the last 8 years, here have been many nonprofit religious organizations, churches, synagogues and other religious centers that were completely shut out of getting federal assistance despite damage they sustained and the essential services they provide in the wake of a disaster.
“Faith-based organizations are hit just as hard as other private non-profits when natural disasters strike,” Smith said. “They don’t need or want special treatment—but to be totally excluded from recovery programs is unjust and unfair. It’s ironic that houses of worship are among the first to open their doors and serve victims of natural disasters—but also the first to be turned away from disaster assistance.
FEMA’s past discriminatory policy of excluding houses of worship from disaster relief is not prescribed by any law. The Obama Administration just refused to help them. It’s discrimination and the policy must change.”
Smith’s new bill, cosponsored by lead Democrat Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY) and a dozen bipartisan Members, stipulates that FEMA provides disaster relief assistance using criteria that are neutral with regard to religion. Any funds granted to houses of worship would be allocated in accordance with FEMA’s standard policies and procedures for other private nonprofit facilities in the wake of a natural disaster.
Last week, lawmakers were encouraged by messaging from President Trump. On September 8th, the President tweeted: “Churches in Texas should be entitled to reimbursement from FEMA Relief Funds for helping victims of Hurricane Harvey (just like others).”
The Equity for Disaster Victims Act of 2017
Smith’s second bill, The Equity for Disaster Victims Act of 2017 (H.R. 3674), would reform the federal government’s disaster relief programs to allow homeowners, small businesses and nonprofits that accepted Small Business Administration (SBA) loans following Sandy to receive federal grants for which they would otherwise be eligible except for the fact that they had accepted a federal loan. Smith’s bill would require that the grant money be used to repay the loan, thereby enabling victims to avoid further debt while allowing them to benefit from the same grants—usually run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development—that others who delayed their application later received.
“Homeowners who were encouraged—and in many cases pressured—to move quickly and apply for loans through the SBA only to learn later that such loans make them ineligible for subsequent grant programs,” Smith explained. “The current misguided rule is designed to eliminate a duplication of benefits, but instead it punishes those who follow federal advice and rewards those who procrastinate. My bill restores fairness to the equation and enables victims to qualify on equal footing for grant programs that are by nature available later in the process.”
In July of 2015, Smith testified before the House Committee on Small Business and urged SBA and HUD to provide an equitable solution. He told the committee of a New Jersey family who applied for and received an SBA home disaster loan after their homes were destroyed by Sandy.
After liquidating their retirement savings and incurring a substantial tax penalty as a result, the family applied for relief through New Jersey’s Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation and Mitigation (RREM) Program. The family was shocked to learn of their ineligibility for a grant award solely due to their acceptance of the SBA loan—a consequence that they were never informed of during the loan process. Others in a similar predicament were also denied grants.
“To qualify for the SBA loans, victims tap other assets, company pension plans, IRAs, college saving accounts—all to take on new debt so they can rebuild,” said Smith. “Allowing them access to grants to help pay back that debt helps them get back on their feet and ensures that they are not penalized for working diligently towards recovery.”
Smith noted that not only is the policy unfair, but it is not clearly explained to people desperate after a disaster. “Homeowners, from the Jersey Shore to the Gulf Coast and everywhere in between, need to know of their potential preclusion from further assistance when considering home disaster loans,” Smith said. “Post-Superstorm Sandy, these loans were the primary option offered to homeowners needing to rebuild. Those who accept home disaster loans should not be precluded from future HUD assistance just because such assistance is not yet available.”
Washington, D.C. - September 14, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) is leading the charge, for a second time, to reform two federal disaster relief and recovery programs, one that discriminates against faith-based organizations and another that forces individual victims to take on new debt while boxing them out of possible federal grants. These flaws surfaced during the Superstorm Sandy recovery effort and both fixes are now gaining support as Congress prepares a larger recovery package for victims of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.
“Superstorm Sandy taught us tough lessons—in the preparation for a storm and its aftermath, it showed us some significant flaws in our federal assistance programs,” said Smith, whose constituents in coastal areas in Monmouth and Ocean counties were hit hard by the Superstorm Sandy in 2012. “The Equity for Disaster Victims Act of 2017 (H.R. 3674) and the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2017 (H.R. 2405) address injustices in our disaster recovery programs and both bills are desperately needed,” he said.
Smith’s original bill, the Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2013 (H.R. 592), passed the House of Representatives just months after Superstorm Sandy hit New Jersey in a decisive 354-72 vote. Sadly, the Senate failed to act on the legislation.
Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2017
The Federal Disaster Assistance Nonprofit Fairness Act of 2017 (H.R. 2405) is bipartisan legislation that would put houses of worship on an even playing field with other private non-profit organizations seeking disaster assistance. In the last 8 years, here have been many nonprofit religious organizations, churches, synagogues and other religious centers that were completely shut out of getting federal assistance despite damage they sustained and the essential services they provide in the wake of a disaster.
“Faith-based organizations are hit just as hard as other private non-profits when natural disasters strike,” Smith said. “They don’t need or want special treatment—but to be totally excluded from recovery programs is unjust and unfair. It’s ironic that houses of worship are among the first to open their doors and serve victims of natural disasters—but also the first to be turned away from disaster assistance.
FEMA’s past discriminatory policy of excluding houses of worship from disaster relief is not prescribed by any law. The Obama Administration just refused to help them. It’s discrimination and the policy must change.”
Smith’s new bill, cosponsored by lead Democrat Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY) and a dozen bipartisan Members, stipulates that FEMA provides disaster relief assistance using criteria that are neutral with regard to religion. Any funds granted to houses of worship would be allocated in accordance with FEMA’s standard policies and procedures for other private nonprofit facilities in the wake of a natural disaster.
Last week, lawmakers were encouraged by messaging from President Trump. On September 8th, the President tweeted: “Churches in Texas should be entitled to reimbursement from FEMA Relief Funds for helping victims of Hurricane Harvey (just like others).”
The Equity for Disaster Victims Act of 2017
Smith’s second bill, The Equity for Disaster Victims Act of 2017 (H.R. 3674), would reform the federal government’s disaster relief programs to allow homeowners, small businesses and nonprofits that accepted Small Business Administration (SBA) loans following Sandy to receive federal grants for which they would otherwise be eligible except for the fact that they had accepted a federal loan. Smith’s bill would require that the grant money be used to repay the loan, thereby enabling victims to avoid further debt while allowing them to benefit from the same grants—usually run by the Department of Housing and Urban Development—that others who delayed their application later received.
“Homeowners who were encouraged—and in many cases pressured—to move quickly and apply for loans through the SBA only to learn later that such loans make them ineligible for subsequent grant programs,” Smith explained. “The current misguided rule is designed to eliminate a duplication of benefits, but instead it punishes those who follow federal advice and rewards those who procrastinate. My bill restores fairness to the equation and enables victims to qualify on equal footing for grant programs that are by nature available later in the process.”
In July of 2015, Smith testified before the House Committee on Small Business and urged SBA and HUD to provide an equitable solution. He told the committee of a New Jersey family who applied for and received an SBA home disaster loan after their homes were destroyed by Sandy.
After liquidating their retirement savings and incurring a substantial tax penalty as a result, the family applied for relief through New Jersey’s Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, Elevation and Mitigation (RREM) Program. The family was shocked to learn of their ineligibility for a grant award solely due to their acceptance of the SBA loan—a consequence that they were never informed of during the loan process. Others in a similar predicament were also denied grants.
“To qualify for the SBA loans, victims tap other assets, company pension plans, IRAs, college saving accounts—all to take on new debt so they can rebuild,” said Smith. “Allowing them access to grants to help pay back that debt helps them get back on their feet and ensures that they are not penalized for working diligently towards recovery.”
Smith noted that not only is the policy unfair, but it is not clearly explained to people desperate after a disaster. “Homeowners, from the Jersey Shore to the Gulf Coast and everywhere in between, need to know of their potential preclusion from further assistance when considering home disaster loans,” Smith said. “Post-Superstorm Sandy, these loans were the primary option offered to homeowners needing to rebuild. Those who accept home disaster loans should not be precluded from future HUD assistance just because such assistance is not yet available.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)