Source: The National Association for Gun Rights
Washington, D.C. - October 10, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The National Association for Gun Rights is urging members of Congress to withhold their signatures from an anti-gun letter that is currently being circulated by Congressman Adam Kinzinger and Senator Dean Heller -- in concert with the NRA -- that calls for banning “bump stocks.”
The proposal outlined in the letter will not prevent future crimes or mass shootings, and will only lead to more federal destruction of constitutional rights.
If a gimmicky rifle stock can be banned, what’s next? Federal regulations on magazines, scopes, or bi-pods? A new round of restrictions on other features, like Senator Feinstein’s 1994 gun ban? A full resurrection of her so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban?
Make no mistake -- this is a red-herring, playing right into the hands of those who seek an open door to more federal regulations on firearms and accessories.
Despite the NRA’s endorsement of this ban, members of Congress are urged not to add fuel to this fire. The National Association for Gun Rights and its 4.5 million members and supporters will be carefully tracking and grading all support for the anti-gun Kinzinger letter, and all measures reflecting it in Congress.
The Unpopular Truth
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Unanimous Mississippi Supreme Court Decides Columbus Mayor And Council Violated Open Meetings Act
Source: Mississippi Center for Public Policy
Washington, D.C. - October 10, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the Mayor and City Council of Columbus violated the Open Meetings Act when they previously met in prearranged, non-quorum size gatherings to discuss public business, intending to circumvent the Act. This is the first time the Supreme Court has ever addressed the issue of whether meetings of public officials in less than quorum numbers violate the Open Meetings Act. The Mississippi Justice Institute represented The Commercial Dispatch in the appeal.
“This is a huge win for the citizens of Mississippi and for open and accountable government,” said Mike Hurst, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute. “People are tired of backroom deals and secret agreements by government officials that affect their lives. The Supreme Court’s opinion puts public officials and bureaucrats on notice – you cannot circumvent the law and do the people’s business behind closed doors anymore. Today’s decision is a monumental victory for transparency in government.”
In 2014, the Columbus mayor scheduled multiple meetings with council members to discuss policy issues and determine matters involving economic development projects and renovation of city property. The meetings were not announced or open to the public. At the time, the mayor excluded a Commercial Dispatch reporter from some of these meetings. In December 2014, the Mississippi Ethics Commission held that the mayor and council violated the Open Meetings Act. The mayor and city council appealed the decision to the Lowndes County Chancery Court, which upheld the Ethics Commission’s decision. The mayor and city council then appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
The original complaint against the Mayor and City Council was filed by Nathan Gregory, who at the time was a reporter for The Commercial Dispatch, a Columbus newspaper. The Commercial Dispatch eventually replaced Gregory as a party in the case. The Mississippi Justice Institute represented The Commercial Dispatch in the appeal.
The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled, “The four pairs of subquorum gatherings, along with the fact that they were prearranged, nonsocial, and on the topic of public business, illustrated the City’s intent to circumvent or avoid the requirements of the Act. The philosophy and spirit of the Act prohibit the City from intending and attempting to circumvent or avoid the requirements of the Act. Additionally, the plain language of Section 25-41-1 requires the subject gatherings to be open to the public. Thus, the City’s failure to hold open gatherings violated the Act.”
[The Ruling]
In concluding, the Supreme Court noted that, “Prearranged, nonsocial gatherings on public business that are held in subquorum groups with the intent to circumvent the Act are required to be open to the public under Section 25-41-1 of the Open Meetings Act. Thus, the trial court correctly found that the City violated the Open Meetings Act.”
Peter Imes, General Manager of The Commercial Dispatch said, “The public should have access to its government’s decision-making process, and this ruling upholds that idea. It’s a win for open government.”
Hurst concluded, “Whether raising taxes, spending taxpayer money or issuing regulations that affect people’s lives and property, people want to know what their government is doing. This decision clearly tells government officials to follow the law and do public business in the open.”
The Mississippi Justice Institute is also representing a local Meridian man against the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors who have committed the same violations of the Open Meetings Act as found illegal in the present case by the Supreme Court. See http://www.msjustice.org/case/lauderdale-open-meetings-act/
The Mississippi Justice Institute was assisted in this appeal by Clay B. Baldwin, Esq. of the Baldwin Law Firm PLLC in Madison, Miss.
The Mississippi Justice Institute is the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. It represents Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened by government actions. Mississippi Justice Institute is supported by voluntary, tax-deductible contributions. It receives no funds from government agencies for its operations.
Washington, D.C. - October 10, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the Mayor and City Council of Columbus violated the Open Meetings Act when they previously met in prearranged, non-quorum size gatherings to discuss public business, intending to circumvent the Act. This is the first time the Supreme Court has ever addressed the issue of whether meetings of public officials in less than quorum numbers violate the Open Meetings Act. The Mississippi Justice Institute represented The Commercial Dispatch in the appeal.
“This is a huge win for the citizens of Mississippi and for open and accountable government,” said Mike Hurst, Director of the Mississippi Justice Institute. “People are tired of backroom deals and secret agreements by government officials that affect their lives. The Supreme Court’s opinion puts public officials and bureaucrats on notice – you cannot circumvent the law and do the people’s business behind closed doors anymore. Today’s decision is a monumental victory for transparency in government.”
In 2014, the Columbus mayor scheduled multiple meetings with council members to discuss policy issues and determine matters involving economic development projects and renovation of city property. The meetings were not announced or open to the public. At the time, the mayor excluded a Commercial Dispatch reporter from some of these meetings. In December 2014, the Mississippi Ethics Commission held that the mayor and council violated the Open Meetings Act. The mayor and city council appealed the decision to the Lowndes County Chancery Court, which upheld the Ethics Commission’s decision. The mayor and city council then appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.
The original complaint against the Mayor and City Council was filed by Nathan Gregory, who at the time was a reporter for The Commercial Dispatch, a Columbus newspaper. The Commercial Dispatch eventually replaced Gregory as a party in the case. The Mississippi Justice Institute represented The Commercial Dispatch in the appeal.
The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled, “The four pairs of subquorum gatherings, along with the fact that they were prearranged, nonsocial, and on the topic of public business, illustrated the City’s intent to circumvent or avoid the requirements of the Act. The philosophy and spirit of the Act prohibit the City from intending and attempting to circumvent or avoid the requirements of the Act. Additionally, the plain language of Section 25-41-1 requires the subject gatherings to be open to the public. Thus, the City’s failure to hold open gatherings violated the Act.”
[The Ruling]
In concluding, the Supreme Court noted that, “Prearranged, nonsocial gatherings on public business that are held in subquorum groups with the intent to circumvent the Act are required to be open to the public under Section 25-41-1 of the Open Meetings Act. Thus, the trial court correctly found that the City violated the Open Meetings Act.”
Peter Imes, General Manager of The Commercial Dispatch said, “The public should have access to its government’s decision-making process, and this ruling upholds that idea. It’s a win for open government.”
Hurst concluded, “Whether raising taxes, spending taxpayer money or issuing regulations that affect people’s lives and property, people want to know what their government is doing. This decision clearly tells government officials to follow the law and do public business in the open.”
The Mississippi Justice Institute is also representing a local Meridian man against the Lauderdale County Board of Supervisors who have committed the same violations of the Open Meetings Act as found illegal in the present case by the Supreme Court. See http://www.msjustice.org/case/lauderdale-open-meetings-act/
The Mississippi Justice Institute was assisted in this appeal by Clay B. Baldwin, Esq. of the Baldwin Law Firm PLLC in Madison, Miss.
The Mississippi Justice Institute is the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. It represents Mississippians whose state or federal Constitutional rights have been threatened by government actions. Mississippi Justice Institute is supported by voluntary, tax-deductible contributions. It receives no funds from government agencies for its operations.
Cancelled HHS Rule Receives Praise
Below are statements from several organizations concerning the repealed HHS mandate by President Trump:
March for Life and Alliance Defending Freedom:
The following quotes may be attributed respectively to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Gregory S. Baylor and March for Life President Jeanne Mancini regarding a new rule that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued Friday that expands protections in the Obama-era abortion-pill mandate for organizations with pro-life religious or moral convictions. That mandate had forced many employers, regardless of those beliefs, to provide abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception under threat of heavy penalties by the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies if the mandate’s requirements weren’t met:
“The beliefs that inspire Christian colleges and universities and the Little Sisters of the Poor to serve their communities should be protected,” said Baylor. “During his campaign, President Trump promised that protecting religious liberty would be a top priority and people of faith would not be bullied on his watch. We are pleased that this rule is a major step forward in keeping that promise and restoring back to people of faith their constitutionally protected freedom. We are also pleased the rule protects the conscience convictions of organizations like March for Life, an organization that bases its pro-life beliefs on science and philosophy, and hosts the largest pro-life gathering in the world every year in Washington, D.C.
“Although organizations that filed civil rights lawsuits will still need final relief from the courts, it is encouraging to see the Trump Administration affirm the principle that all Americans should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith and conscience without threat of government punishment. Access to contraception and other drugs and devices will continue to be as widely and readily available as it always has been for those who want these items. We commend the president for his commitment to freedom and restoring the choice of religious and pro-life employers and their female employees to work at organizations consistent with their convictions. We expect that the Department of Justice will work with us to quickly resolve these cases in a manner that fully and permanently protects the freedom of conscience of our clients.
“The March For Life Education and Defense Fund exists to protect and defend life from conception. When we were forced by the Obama administration to carry drugs and devices that destroy life in its early stages we were appalled and ultimately needed to seek legal protection. It is un-American to force non profit organizations to defy their very reason for being on something as important as life. We are grateful to the Trump Administration for this rule which will allow pro-life organizations to freely operate according to their beliefs on something as important as the protection of life and look forward to final resolution of our case in court that is consistent with this rule,” said Mancini, a litigant against the mandate. “Our nation has a rich history of protecting conscientious objectors and pro-life organizations must be free to operate according to their beliefs.”
Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.
National Religious Broadcasting
Dr. Jerry A. Johnson, President & CEO of National Religious Broadcasters, issued the following statement today in response to new religious liberty protections issued by the Trump administration:
"This a major victory for every American to exercise their freedom to believe, and to live, their faith. I look forward to looking at the details, but we are very thankful that the President and his team are moving in the right direction on religious liberty.
The National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) is a nonpartisan, international association of Christian communicators whose member organizations represent millions of listeners, viewers, and readers. Our mission is to advance biblical truth, promote media excellence, and defend free speech. In addition to promoting standards of excellence, integrity, and accountability, NRB provides networking, educational, ministry, and fellowship opportunities for its members.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) today released a bulletin through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) reiterating that qualified health plan issuers must segregate collected premiums to pay for abortion coverage; that enrollees be informed if abortions are covered by a qualified health plan; and that HHS intends to fully enforce these requirements as a step toward ensuring that federal tax dollars are not used to subsidize coverage for elective abortion.
A 2014 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) provided dismaying confirmation of earlier predictions by National Right to Life that federally subsidized abortion coverage would become a widespread feature of Obamacare. The report found that more than one thousand federally subsidized exchange plans covered elective abortion. The GAO findings validated previous charges by National Right to Life that the federal taxpayer is subsidizing the purchase of abortion-covering plans on a massive scale.
“While only comprehensive legislative reform can cure the multiple abortion-expanding components of Obamacare, today’s guidance from the Trump Administration takes a good first step to keep the federal government out of the business of paying for abortion until Obamacare can be replaced,” said Jennifer Popik, J.D., National Right to Life legislative director.
National Right to Life President Carol Tobias added, “We applaud President Trump and his administration for enforcing the law and seeking to uphold the principles of the Hyde Amendment to prevent the use of tax dollars to pay for abortion coverage.”
Additionally, HHS announced interim final rule changes to the Affordable Care Act and HHS coverage mandate that would protect moral and religious rights of conscience.
“Rights of conscience are extremely important to the right-to-life movement to protect medical professionals, religious institutions and employers from being forced to participate in abortion,” said Tobias. “We commend President Trump for keeping his campaign promises by supporting these rights of conscience. These rule changes will help promote a policy that protects pro-life rights of conscience with regard to abortion.”
Under President Obama’s administration, pro-abortion forces not only put increasing pressure on health care providers to violate their moral convictions with regard to abortion, but also backed efforts to force employers, including religious institutions and organizations that object to abortion, to cover abortion in their insurance plans.
“No one should be forced to participate in abortion against their religious or moral convictions,” Tobias said.
Founded in 1968, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates and more than 3,000 local chapters, is the nation’s oldest and largest grassroots pro-life organization. Recognized as the flagship of the pro-life movement, NRLC works through legislation and education to protect innocent human life from abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Today, the Trump Administration announced new rules that will provide new conscience protections for Americans.
As a result of the rules, those who have moral or religious objections to contraceptive and abortifacient services will now be exempt from paying for them in Obamacare insurance policies. The exemptions will apply to individuals as well as organizations and small businesses.
In May, President Donald Trump signed the “Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty” in which he advised the Departments of Health and Human Services, Treasury, and Labor, to consider amending rules under the Obama Administration that essentially forced Americans to violate their consciences with mandated payments in their Obamacare health insurance policies for contraceptive and abortifacients that they found morally objectionable. Today’s action is in response to that directive.
“Thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership in protecting the religious liberties we hold dear,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “We are sincerely grateful for this action that will now restore governmental respect for the deeply held beliefs of Americans who oppose abortion, abortifacient drugs, and certain life-destructive contraceptives.”
The unjust “Obamacare Mandate” had suffered repeated losses in the US. Supreme Court, which ruled the government is not allowed to punish organizations or businesses for their beliefs.
Monday, October 9, 2017
VICTORY: Kountze Cheerleaders Win at Texas Appeals Court
Washington, D.C. - October 9, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- In yet another win and precedent for private speech protected by the First Amendment, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Ninth District last week ruled in favor of the Kountze, TX cheerleaders who were banned from including Bible verses on run-through banners at football games. The school district prohibited the banners after receiving a demand letter from the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), and was also supported by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
“This is another great victory for the free speech and religious liberty rights of all Texas students,” Kelly Shackelford, President and CEO of First Liberty Institute, stated in a press release. “Hopefully this ruling will bring clarity and closure to this issue for all Texas students and schools.”
“We are pleased that once again religious liberty is vindicated and that cheerleaders across the state of Texas have the right to have religious messages on banners at high school football games,” stated Hiram Sasser, General Counsel to First Liberty. “No school district should be able to censor, ban, or claim ownership of the private religious speech of its students.”
CHEERLEADERS PAINT VERSES ON BANNERS…AND THE FFRF TAKES NOTICE
The case began back in 2012, when cheerleaders in Kountze, Texas, decided to paint Bible verses on run-through banners for football games. The Wisconsin-based FFRF, however, caught wind of what the cheerleaders were doing and sent a letter to the school district. The Kountze ISD responded by banning the cheerleaders from painting the verses on the banners.
The cheerleaders decided to stand up for their religious freedom rights. First Liberty and volunteer attorney David Starnes filed a lawsuit on their behalf and won at the district court level.
At that point, the school district appealed, with the ACLU filing a brief in support of Kountze ISD. The school district decided to allow the banners, and the court of appeals declared the case moot. However, the school district still claimed the cheerleaders’ banners to be government speech subject to the school’s censorship.
First Liberty, with Starnes and Jim Ho of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, as lead counsel, appealed the mootness ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. First Liberty asked the Texas Supreme Court to review the case and reaffirm the cheerleaders’ rights.
U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn filed an amicus brief in support of the cheerleaders, and so did Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
VICTORY FOR THE CHEERLEADERS
In January 2016, the Texas Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in favor of the cheerleaders and remanded the case back to the Ninth District. Then, on September 28, 2017, the Ninth District ruled completely in favor of the cheerleaders.
In his opinion, Justice Charles Kreger of the Ninth District wrote that “the Cheerleaders’ speech…is best characterized as the pure private speech of the students.”
“All these cheerleaders have ever wanted is the opportunity to cheer on their classmates with a message of their own choosing and their own faith,” David Starnes stated in the press release issued the same day as the ruling. “Today’s decision provides just that opportunity.”
The ruling also demonstrates the power of legal precedent. The opinion cited many precedents, including two First Liberty cases: Morgan v. Swanson (better known as the Plano “Candy Cane Case” ) and the case of Pounds v. Katy ISD.
In the “Candy Cane Case,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the religious freedom rights of elementary students banned by school officials from giving religiously-themed gifts at Christmastime. Justice Kreger included several quotes from Morgan v. Swanson in his analysis of the Kountze case.
STUDENTS HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT SCHOOL
As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas wrote in his famous Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) opinion, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
First Liberty Institute is committed to protecting religious freedom in the sphere of education and has successfully represented clients from elementary school to the university level. For more information about religious liberty in the public schools, download First Liberty’s free Religious Liberty Protection Kit for Students and Teachers.
Trump Instructs DOJ to Protect Religious Freedom
Washington, D.C. - October 9, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- The Trump administration strongly protected the free exercise of religion by reversing Obama-era policies with new legal guidance issued to the Department of Justice (DOJ) by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
The Attorney General issued two memoranda. The first addressed to all administrative agencies and executive departments, identifies 20 key principles of religious liberty. The guidance reminds agencies of their obligations under federal law to protect religious liberty, and summarizes twenty key principles of religious-liberty protections that agencies can use in that effort. It explains that agencies should use these principles to protect religious liberty in all aspects of their work, including as employers, rule-makers, adjudicators, contract- and grant-makers and program administrators.
On specific policies, the guidance states that government may not exclude religious organizations from secular aid programs and the IRS may not enforce the Johnson Amendment which restricts tax-exempt organizations, including churches and religious organizations, from endorsing or opposing candidates for elected office.
Attorney Sessions’ second memorandum, addressed to DOJ components and United States Attorney’s offices, directs the implementation of that guidance within the Department.
The 20 key principles are:
1. The freedom of religion is a fundamental right of paramount importance, expressly protected by federal law.
2. The free exercise of religion includes the right to act or abstain from action in accordance with one's religious beliefs.
3. The freedom of religion extends to persons and organizations.
4. Americans do not give up their freedom of religion by participating in the marketplace, partaking of the public square, or interacting with government.
5. Government may not restrict acts or abstentions because of the beliefs they display.
6. Government may not target religious individuals or entities for special disabilities based on their religion.
7. Government may not target religious individuals or entities through discriminatory enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws.
8. Government may not officially favor or disfavor particular religious groups.
9. Government may not interfere with the autonomy of a religious organization.
10. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening any aspect of religious observance or practice, unless imposition of that burden on a particular religious adherent satisfies strict scrutiny.
11. RFRA's protection extends not just to individuals, but also to organizations, associations, and at least some for-profit corporations.
12. RFRA does not permit the federal government to second-guess the reasonableness of a
religious belief.
13. A governmental action substantially burdens an exercise of religion under RFRA if it bans an aspect of an adherent's religious observance or practice, compels an act inconsistent with that observance or practice, or substantially pressures the adherent to modify such observance or practice.
14. The strict scrutiny standard applicable to RFRA is exceptionally demanding.
15. RFRA applies even where a religious adherent seeks an exemption from a legal obligation requiring the adherent to confer benefits on third parties.
16. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits covered employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their religion.
17. Title VIl's protection extends to discrimination on the basis of religious observance or practice as well as belief, unless the employer cannot reasonably accommodate such observance or practice without undue hardship on the business.
18. The Clinton Guidelines on Religious Exercise and Religious Expression in the Federal Workplace provide useful examples for private employers of reasonable accommodations for religious observance and practice in the workplace.
19. Religious employers are entitled to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the employers' religious precepts.
20. As a general matter, the federal government may not condition receipt of a federal grant or contract on the effective relinquishment of a religious organization’s exemptions or attributes of its religious character.
The DOJ earlier this year demonstrated a shift in policy from the Obama administration as it commented on Zarda v. Altitude Express at the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals, which contends that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans gender discrimination, but does not include sexual orientation or gender identity, in the workplace. The guidance today demonstrates further that the DOJ recognizes that religious liberty principles are in fact stalwart even when challenged by special interest groups.
“We commend President Trump for instructing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to send a strong message to the rest of America that religious freedom must be protected,” said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. “The President has reversed the Obama-era policies and committed to protecting and promoting the religious freedom upon which this nation was founded. The Department of Justice must now vigorously enforce all Americans’ civil right of free exercise of religious liberty. This is an extremely positive step in the right direction,” said Staver.
Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.
Brady Statement on September 2017 Jobs Report
Source: House Ways and Means Committee
Washington, D.C. - October 9, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) released the following statement in response to the Labor Department’s September 2017 jobs report:
“It’s clear from this jobs report that Hurricanes Harvey and Irma not only devastated communities in Texas and Florida, they devastated their local economies as well. Record-high flooding, wind gusts, and power outages kept thousands of Americans from going to work and earning a paycheck – money they desperately need to recover from these disasters,
“As Congress and President Trump continue working to help those hurt by recent hurricanes regain their strength, we’re also taking action on transformational tax reform that will grow our economy and help Americans of all walks of life. By passing a budget that paves the way for tax reform, the House took a major step yesterday toward creating more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks. In the weeks ahead, the Ways and Means Committee will move forward with pro-growth, pro-middle-class tax reform legislation that Congress will ultimately send to the President’s desk this year, for the first time in 31 years.”
Note: The U.S. Department of Labor reported today that the economy lost 33,000 jobs in September and the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. The jobs report covers the 50 states and District of Columbia, but not Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands.
GOWDY AND CUMMINGS APPLAUD NEW WEBSITE TO IMPROVE PUBLIC’S ACCESS TO INFO ABOUT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Source: House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform
Washington, D.C. - October 9, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings issued the following statement applauding a new website, Oversight.gov, launched yesterday by the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE):
“We welcome the release of Oversight.gov, a new website that allows the public to access thousands of Inspector General reports across the federal government through a central, searchable repository,” said Gowdy and Cummings. “This site will lead to greater accountability for agencies, more savings to taxpayers, and increased transparency into the IGs’ critical work in identifying and exposing waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the federal government. We thank CIGIE and the Offices of Inspectors General for their hard work in developing this website and their ongoing efforts on behalf of the American people.”
Oversight.gov is a central online location where users can access thousands of reports contributed by over sixty Inspectors General across government. By creating a single repository, Oversight.gov enables the public and government officials to more easily access and search IG reports, audits, and recommendations across agencies and programs.
Inspectors General play a critical role in identifying and exposing waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the federal government.
Chairman Diane Black Praises Passage of Budget in the House
Source: House Budget Committee
Washington, D.C. - October 9, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- House Budget Committee Chairman Diane Black issued the following statement after the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.Con.Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 budget resolution—Building a Better America.
“I am proud that the House supported a budget that reflects responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars and reassures the American people that we are committed to effective governing. It is a plan that achieves balance in 10 years, strengthens our military, promotes economic growth and unlocks pro-growth tax reform. While passage of this budget is just one of several steps toward priorities becoming realities, meaningful and lasting reforms cannot be achieved by skipping steps in the process. Today, I am pleased that members of the House continued doing our part by passing a plan for ensuring a bright and better future for generations to come.
Bump Stocks
Washington, D.C. - October 9, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA) Erich Pratt issued the following statement on GOA's position on bump stocks:
"Gun Owners of America opposes a ban on bump stocks. Bump stocks were approved by the ATF during the Obama administration to help gun owners with disabilities fire their weapons. Any type of ban will be ignored by criminals and only serve to disarm honest citizens. Perhaps that’s why 91 percent of police believe a so-called “assault weapons” ban will have no effect or a negative effect on crime. And given that 95 percent of cops think that a ban on large capacity magazines would be ineffective in reducing violent crime, it’s hard to imagine they would regard bump stocks any differently.
It's sad to see some Republicans quickly call for a vote on gun control, while delaying a vote on concealed carry reciprocity, H.R. 38. This is bipartisan legislation which will protect concealed carriers while they travel and which has been cosponsored by 212 law makers. If law makers want a vote on bump stocks, they should vote on reciprocity as well."
Many have called the Illinois State Rifle Association office regarding “bump stocks” and other such devices. These devices were approved by the BATFE under President Obama and Attorney General Holder. It is the Illinois State Rifle Association’s suggestion that the BATFE review their ruling, open up a comment period and re-address their ruling.
In response to the senseless attack in Las Vegas, the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have issued the following statement:
“The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms support a productive dialogue concerning “bump stocks,” National Concealed Carry Reciprocity and the proposed Hearing Protection Act.
“We recognize that banning firearms accessories is not a solution to violent crime.”
Secretary Shulkin’s taxpayer-funded European vacation
Source: American Federation of Government Employees
American Federation of Government Employees National President J. David Cox Sr. released the following statement in response to a Washington Post report regarding Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin’s travel expenses:
“Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin should be ashamed of himself for traveling to Europe with his wife at taxpayers’ expense – especially as the VA grapples with funding shortfalls that undermine veterans’ care.
“Mr. Shulkin needs to explain to veterans who are waiting for doctors’ appointments how attending a Wimbledon tennis match, touring Westminster Abbey, and cruising along the River Thames with his wife helped them get treated faster.
“He also needs to explain to VA employees, many of whom are veterans, why he ordered a crackdown on their travel just two weeks before going on his taxpayer-funded European vacation. With 49,000 staffing vacancies to fill, our nation’s veterans and the Veterans Affairs staff deserve to know how Secretary Shulkin intends on improving services at the VA.
“President Trump came to Washington with a promise to drain the swamp. He needs to start by holding his own Cabinet officials accountable to the public they serve.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)