REP. ADRIANO ESPAILLAT AND 180 DEMOCRATS UNVEIL THE RAISE THE WAGE ACT OF 2019

Washington, D.C. - January 23, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Adriano Espaillat (NY-13) joined 180 Democrats in unveiling the Raise the Wage Act of 2019. The bill would gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 by 2024, index future minimum wage increases to median wage growth, and ensure all workers are paid at least the full federal minimum wage by phasing out the subminimum wages for tipped workers, youth workers, and workers with disabilities.

“American workers are overdue for a raise,” said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (NY-13). “Gradually raising the minimum wage to $15 by 2024 nationwide will be good for workers, good for businesses, and good for the economy. I am proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues to support this proposal that would put money in the pockets of 40 million hardworking Americans and support local economies and the economic growth of our nation.”

Currently, there is no place in America where a full-time worker can make the $7.25 federal minimum wage and afford the basic essentials. The federal minimum wage has not been raised in nearly a decade. This year, the minimum wage in New York City increased to $15 for businesses with more than 10 employees.

According to a 2016 Gallup poll, 58% of Americans support increasing the minimum wage to $15.

The Raise the Wage Act would gradually raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 over the next six years to lift millions of workers out of poverty, stimulate local economies, and restore the value of minimum wage; index future increases in the federal minimum wage to median wage growth to ensure the value of minimum wage does not once again erode over time; and, guarantee tipped workers are paid at least the full federal minimum wage by repealing the subminimum wage for tipped workers, which will ensure consistent, livable pay.

Additionally, the bill would guarantee teen workers are paid at least the full federal minimum wage by repealing the rarely used subminimum wage for youth workers; and, end subminimum wage certificates for individuals with disabilities to provide opportunities for individuals with disabilities to be competitively employed, taxpaying citizens and participate more fully in their communities.

BECOME A CO-SIGNER OF THE “RAISE THE WAGE ACT OF 2019.”

To read the bill text of the Raise the Wage Act, click here.

To read the section-by-section of the Raise the Wage Act, click here.

To read a fact sheet on Raise the Wage Act, click here.

ENGEL AND & MCCAUL APPLAUD HOUSE PASSAGE OF SYRIA SANCTIONS BILL

Washington, D.C. - January 23, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- Representative Eliot L. Engel, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Rep. Michael McCaul, the Committee’s Ranking Member welcomed unanimous passage in the House of Representatives of legislation to impose new sanctions on Syria’s Assad regime and its supporters and encourage negotiations to end the nearly eight-year old crisis. The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act is named for the former Syrian military photographer known as “Caesar” who documented Assad’s horrific brutality.

“The world has failed the Syrian people. Nothing can undo the horrors they have had to endure for nearly eight years. Nothing can bring back those who have been lost. But the world owes it to the living and the dead to try to bring this crisis to an end. And the role America must play is to push for a political solution that allows the Syrian people to choose their own future. That’s what American leadership looks like. That’s what sets us apart from other great powers on the world stage. We simply cannot look the other way and allow Assad, Russia, and Iran to steamroll over Syria,” said Chairman Engel on the House floor. “My bill would give the Administration greater leverage to raise the cost for Assad and crack down on his lifelines.”

Ranking Member McCaul said, “For seven years, the brutal Assad regime has carried out a merciless campaign of violence and murder with impunity. In order to secure lasting peace in the region, we need a strategy that moves beyond Assad’s debilitating stronghold to encourage negotiations and pursue a political solution to end this conflict. This legislation provides the Administration much-needed leverage to impose sanctions against Assad and his backers, punish war criminals, and cut off funding that fuels the regime’s war tactics. We must act immediately to hold Assad and his supporters accountable to deter this perpetual cycle of brutality against the innocent people of Syria. I look forward getting this vital legislation over to the White House.”

The Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act of 2019 is named in honor of the former Syrian military photographer “Caesar” who risked his life to show members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Assad’s torture of Syrian civilians. This bill would impose new sanctions on human rights abuses, encourage negotiations, and authorize the State Department to support entities that are collecting and preserving the chain of evidence for eventual prosecution of those committing war crimes or crimes against humanity in Syria. This legislation also leaves flexibility for the Administration so that sanctions can be waived on a case-by-case basis to keep negotiations moving along.

The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act would require the President to impose new sanctions on anyone who

Does business with or provides financing to the Government of Syria, including Syrian intelligence and security services, or the Central Bank of Syria;

Provides aircraft or spare parts for aircraft to Syria’s airlines (including financing);

Is involved with construction and engineering projects controlled by the Syrian government; or

Supports Syria’s energy industry.

The bill includes provisions to ensure that non-governmental organizations providing assistance to Syria are not inadvertently caught by sanctions, except in the case of a designated terrorist.

Under the bill, the President could waive sanctions on a case-by-case basis. Also, sanctions could be suspended if the parties are engaged in meaningful negotiations and the violence against civilians has ceased. Suspension would be renewable if the suspension is critical to the continuation of negotiations and attacks against civilians have not resumed.

Diaz-Balart: Democratic Leadership Rejects Another Bipartisan Solution to End Shutdown

Washington, D.C. - January 23, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25) issued the following statement after he testified before the House Rules Committee on his amendment that includes $5.7 billion in border security, the most recent version of the DREAM bill presented by House Democrats, a permanent solution for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries with status nearing expiration, and $12.7 billion in supplemental disaster relief.

“At the Rules Committee this evening, I presented a commonsense solution to end this government shutdown. The amendment I proposed includes funding for border security, provides permanent relief for DREAMers and TPS recipients, and delivers critical dollars to communities impacted by natural disasters. This shutdown is unnecessary and is hurting the thousands of federal employees furloughed and the countless American families who depend on federal programs. I am exceedingly disappointed Democratic leadership has yet again rejected an amendment which would garner bipartisan support and will not have the opportunity to be debated on the House floor. My amendment not only gets us closer to reopening our government, but also protects our national security, addresses vulnerable immigrant communities who seek legal status, and helps those who are rebuilding after Hurricane Michael. Once again, I urge Democratic leadership to consider a real solution to ending the shutdown, whether it be one of my proposals or that of another Member of Congress, that will have a fair chance at Senate consideration and becoming law.”

Earlier this month, Diaz-Balart presented four similar amendments that addressed DREAMers, TPS, and border security and would have opened the government. Democratic leadership also rejected those amendments.

BREAKING: Federal Lawsuit Filed Challenging Trump Bump-Stock Ban; Injunction Sought

Washington, D.C. - January 22, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- On Friday, attorneys for an owner of a “bump-stock” device and three constitutional rights advocacy organizations filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump Administration’s new confiscatory ban on firearm parts, additionally challenging Matthew Whitaker’s legal authority to serve as Acting Attorney General and issue rules without being nominated to the role and confirmed by the Senate or by operation of law. A copy of the court filings can be viewed at www.bumpstockcase.com.

The plaintiffs also filed a motion seeking a temporary injunction to prevent the Trump Administration from implementing and enforcing the new regulation. The lawsuit, captioned as Guedes, et al. v. BATFE, et al., is backed by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF), and Madison Society Foundation (MSF), also institutional plaintiffs in the case.

“Bump-stocks” were legal under federal law and prior determinations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives until the agency issued a new final rulemaking today. Under the new rule, owners of the devices have just 90 days to surrender or destroy their property, after which they could face federal ‘machinegun’ charges that carry up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines for each violation.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. Prince and Kraut previously filed a nearly 1,000-page formal opposition to the proposed regulation, which included a video exhibit showing the actual operation of a “bump-stock” device on an AR-15 type firearm. That opposition and its 35 exhibits can be viewed at www.bit.ly/fpc-bumpstock-reg-opposition.

“The ATF has misled the public about bump-stock devices,” Prince said. “Worse, they are actively attempting to make felons out of people who relied on their legal opinions to lawfully acquire and possess devices the government unilaterally, unconstitutionally, and improperly decided to reclassify as ‘machineguns’. We are optimistic that the court will act swiftly to protect the rights and property of Americans who own these devices, and once the matter has been fully briefed and considered by the court, that the regulation will be struck down permanently.”

In a January statement, Firearms Policy Coalition said that the federal “DOJ and BATFE clearly lack the statutory authority to re-define the targeted devices as ‘machineguns.’” Following that, in February, FPC also commented that as they “opposed the lawless manner in which President Obama often ruled by ‘pen-and-a-phone’ executive fiat,” they objected to and would fight “President Trump’s outrageous lawlessness here.”

“In its rulemaking, the Trump Administration is attempting to abuse the system, ignore the statutes passed by the Congress, and thumb its nose at the Constitution without regard to the liberty and property rights of Americans. That is unacceptable and dangerous,” explained Adam Kraut, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “It is beyond comprehension that the government would seek establish a precedent that it can arbitrarily redefine terms and subject thousands of people to serious criminal liability and the loss of property.”

To support this lawsuit and for more information click HERE

SCOTUS Hits Pause Button on Activist Judges Taking Military Policy Out of the President's Hands

Washington, D.C. - January 22, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will allow the Trump administration’s transgender military policy to go into effect while litigation continues.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, a Marine veteran, released the following statement:

“It’s refreshing to see the U.S. Supreme Court rein in lower court judges who are bent on telling the commander-in-chief how to run the military. Those charged with the difficult and complex work of keeping our nation safe cannot do their job with rogue judges injecting their personal opinions into every social issues case which reaches their courts. With different judges issuing these different opinions all over the country, our nation will quickly become paralyzed. There is a reason the Constitution so clearly explains that the president is the final authority on military policy. The Constitution grants judges no power to divert military resources away from preparing to fight wars and into social engineering.

“There are literally hundreds of conditions or physical limitations disqualifying people from military service. Does that make the military exclusionary? Yes. But the Pentagon isn't in the business of equality. It's in the business of fighting and winning wars. Either the military's priority is protecting America -- or it's helping people on the path to self-actualization. It can't do both.

“The U.S. Supreme Court is right to leave the responsibility for keeping our military strong and country safe where it belongs: with our commander-in-chief,” concluded Perkins.

Smithsonian survey finds 61 percent of U.S. servicemembers oppose opening military to individuals who identify as transgender

The unemployment rate fell in most states in 2018

Washington, D.C. - January 22, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- The State and Regional Employment report for December, released on this morning by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), showed continued job gains in 44 states and the District of Columbia, with six states experiencing job losses. Additionally, in 38 states and the District of Columbia the unemployment rate either declined or held steady.

“In 2018, the unemployment rate fell in 41 states and the District of Columbia, and the economy added 220,000 jobs every month on average,” said Economic Analyst Jessica Schieder. “This is good news, but 2019 could potentially bring tighter Fed policy and slower government spending. With any boost from the tax cuts behind us, these factors could rein in growth even as workers are still continuing to rejoin the labor market.”

From September to December, 48 states and the District of Columbia added jobs, with South Carolina (1.7 percent), Nevada (1.4 percent), South Dakota (1.1 percent), Wyoming (1.0 percent), and Alabama (0.9 percent) having the highest percent change in job growth. Over the last three months, the number of jobs fell in two states, Alaska (-0.3 percent) and Maine (-0.2 percent).

From July to October, unemployment rates fell in 26 states and the District of Columbia. Delaware (-0.3 percentage points), Maryland (-0.3 percentage points), Massachusetts (-0.3 percentage points), and Oklahoma (-0.3 percentage points) saw the largest declines in unemployment rates. The unemployment rate increased in 12 states. The largest increases in unemployment rates occurred in Colorado (0.4 percentage points), Hawaii (0.3 percentage points), and Oregon (0.3 percentage points).

Consumer Action joins coalition pushing back at drug patent abuse

Washington, D.C. - January 22, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- Americans pay up to 65 percent more for drugs than citizens in other Western countries. One of the reasons is "patent abuse" by drug companies aiming to extend their monopolies as patents are due to expire on brand-name, profit-center drugs. In fact, 75 percent of all pharmaceutical patents between 2005 and 2015 were issued on old, previously patented medicines, not new drugs.

Consumer Action has joined the Coalition Against Patent Abuse (CAPA), a new effort by healthcare providers, consumer groups, patient advocacy organizations, free market advocates, employers and others to fight abuses of the patent system that can extend government-granted monopolies that illegitimately keep drug prices high for years, or even decades.

"Consumer Action strongly agrees with our colleagues in the new coalition that regulators and Congress must work to efficiently eliminate patents sought by drug companies for protectionsim, not innovation," said Linda Sherry, director of national priorities for the San Francisco-based non-profit consumer education and advocacy organization. "CAPA will work to highlight the issue and put pressure on those with the power to stop the abuses."

Legal shenanigans by brand-name drug companies keep medicine prices high for patients, taxpayers and payers of healthcare. They also stifle innovation and medical advancements. CAPA will focus primarily on untoward efforts to maintain government-granted monopolies through abuses of the patent system by drug manufacturers. These tactics by certain brand-name drug companies prevent patients from affordably accessing the life-saving medicines they need, and drain resources to pay for healthcare.

Center for Immigration Studies Files a Civil RICO Lawsuit Against the President of Southern Poverty Law Center

Washington, D.C. - January 22, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- The Center for Immigration Studies has filed a civil lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against Richard Cohen, President of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) of Montgomery, Ala. The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and seeks damages and an injunction prohibiting Cohen and his colleague, Heidi Beirich, who heads the group's "hate group" project, from repeating the false claim that the Center is a hate group.

Read the Complaint.

Overview of the SPLC's "Hate Groups" List.

View Mark Krikorian's Interview with Tucker Carleson on the SPLC Lawsuit.

The case is brought pursuant to the federal RICO statute because Cohen and Beirich have been carrying out their scheme to destroy CIS through the SPLC "enterprise" for two years and will not stop without judicial intervention. "CIS does not hate immigrants or anyone else" said CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian. "Our purpose is to make the case for a pro-immigrant policy of lower immigration – fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted. SPLC attacks us simply because it disagrees with these policy views. SPLC and its leaders have every right to oppose our work on immigration, but they do not have the right to label us a hate group and suggest we are racists. The Center for Immigration Studies is fighting back against the SPLC smear campaign and its attempt to stifle debate through intimidation and name-calling."

The complaint makes clear that SPLC knows CIS does not meet its own definition of a "hate group," which SPLC describes as an organization whose "official statements or principles... attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics." (Complaint, ¶14, quoting from SPLC’s website) CIS has not attacked or maligned immigrants. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that being an immigrant is not an immutable characteristic because it is the result of a personal choice. (Plyler v. Doe, 487 U.S. 202, 220 (1982).) CIS regularly opposes higher levels of immigration for sound public policy reasons, not because of any animus toward immigrants as human beings. CIS hopes this lawsuit will cause Mr. Cohen and Ms. Beirich to turn their attention to actual cases of racial animus.

VIDEO EXONERATES CATHOLIC STUDENTS

Washington, D.C. - January 22, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the Kentucky Catholic students and what actually happened:

There were three parties to the dustup that occurred on January 18.

Catholic students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky, who had participated in the March for Life, assembled on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial waiting for buses to take them home. In the same vicinity were Native Americans; they had come for the Indigenous Peoples Rally. Black Israelites, who believe that black Americans are God’s chosen people (they claim to be the real descendants of the Hebrews), were also there.

Initial news reports blamed the students. One of the students, Nick Sandmann, was shown smirking at a Native American man, Nathan Phillips—who was standing very close to the student beating a drum—and it quickly became a social media sensation. Much was made of the Donald Trump hat that Sandmann and other students wore, “Make America Great Again.” The students were shown in a short video laughing and chanting. They were accused of mocking the 64-year-old Phillips.

The Diocese of Covington and Covington Catholic High School issued a joint statement apologizing for what happened and pledged to investigate the matter; they said sanctions would be forthcoming, possibly expulsion.

Politicians, pundits, and bloggers went wild. A second video emerged, one that was much longer, and it shows that the black Israelites were the real thugs. Moreover, interviews given by Phillips show him to be a liar.

Here is a selection of news reports on the second video that was published on January 21.

The following was taken from abc.net.au/news.

“The Black Israelites had a spot on the steps where they quoted from the Bible and yelled abuse, some of it racist.

“‘You got all these dirty-ass crackers behind you with a red Make America Great Again hat on,’ one of the Black Israelites said in the video of the event filmed by another of their members.

“Later, the man told another person: ‘I bet you’re a dumb-ass Puerto Rican.’

“He also abused African Americans nearby.

“As the abuse continued, the school students surrounded the Black Israelites and started to sing songs, dance and cheer each other on, drowning them out.

“At one point in the video one of the black men told the students around him, ‘You got on the back of the court system ‘In God we trust’, on the back of the dollar bill it says ‘In God we trust’, but you give faggots rights.'”

The news story also said “Footage does not show students seeking out Mr. Phillips, or ‘attacking’ him,” thus corroborating the statement by Sandmann that was released to the press. It was Phillips who approached the students.

The following was taken from CNN Wire.

“In the new video, another group taunts the students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky with disparaging and vulgar language. The group of black men, who identify as members of the Hebrew Israelites, also shout racist slurs at participants of the Indigenous Peoples Rally and other passersby.

“The men [black Israelites] repeatedly use the n-word to refer to the black teens in the group, prompting cries from the group. The men ask the students if the water they’re drinking ‘tastes like incest’ and call the students ‘young Klansmen.’

“The teens listen for a few minutes longer, accusing the men of being racist and booing when the main speaker uses the word ‘faggots’ when talking about equal rights.

“Then, the students get a signal from off camera to leave. They cheer and wave, chanting ‘let’s go home’ as they run off.

“The video continues for another 20 minutes as the men turn their focus to a prayer circle that formed while they were talking to the students. The lead speaker shouts denunciations of the Catholic church, calling its members ‘child molesters’ and quotes scripture.”

The following is from the New York Times.

Speaking of the first video, the paper notes that the students were widely criticized. “But on Sunday, Mr. Phillips clarified that it was he who had approached the crowd and that he had intervened because racial tensions—primarily between the white students and the black men—were ‘coming to a boiling point.’

“In his statement, Mr. Sandmann said he did not antagonize or try to block Mr. Phillips. ‘I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gesture or other aggressive moves,’ he said.

“I did smile at one point because I wanted him to know that I was not going to become angry, intimidated or be provoked into a larger confrontation,” he said. ‘I am a faithful Christian and practicing Catholic, and I always try to live up to the ideals my faith teaches me—to remain respectful of others, and to take no action that would lead to conflict or violence.'”

The following is from the Washington Post:

“The Israelites and students exchanged taunts, videos show. The Native Americans and Hebrew Israelites say some students shouted, ‘Build the wall!’ although that chant is not heard on the widely circulated videos, and the Cincinnati Enquirer quoted a student at the center of the confrontation who said he did not hear anyone say it.

“At one point, the Hebrew Israelites began arguing with Native American activists, telling them the word ‘Indian’ means ‘savage,’ according to the video.”

Regarding Phillips, the Native American told the Washington Post that he sought to act as an intermediary between the white students and the black provocateurs. But peacemakers don’t taunt, and that is what he did: he taunted Sandmann by beating his drum in his face. More important, he told the Detroit News that the white boys provoked the black men, which is (a) not true and (b) does not square with what he told the Post.

The critics of the students have a lot of explaining to do. I will address them in a separate statement.

For more information, see also: Outcry after Kentucky students in Maga hats mock Native American veteran

Statement on a Texas Federal Court Decision on the Affordable Care Act

Source: Catholic Health Association

Washington, D.C. - January 22, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- “The Catholic Health Association is very disappointed in the recent Texas federal district court decision on the Affordable Care Act. We profoundly disagree with it from a legal perspective. It is un-American and immoral to be aggressively seeking to take health insurance from the over 20 million people who have finally received coverage through the ACA. This decision would also take away health security provisions from all insured Americans by eliminating protections for pre-existing conditions, the ability for children under 26 to remain on their parents’ policies and co-pays for preventive health care, all of which have made a positive difference in the lives of many Americans. Efforts to undermine or overturn the ACA by elected officials who have a responsibility to act on behalf of their constituents is reckless, irresponsible and poses a major threat to the health of the American people.

CHA joined with several other organizations that represent hospitals and health systems in submitting an Amicus brief to the court in this lawsuit. We will continue to voice our opinion and concerns as the lawsuit is appealed and pledge to work with members of Congress to ensure that the many benefits of the Affordable Care Act remain in place. We all have a responsibility to promote quality health care for all Americans.”