Bonamici: ICE Still Silent on Washington County Courthouse Incident

Hillsboro, OR - October 13, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) followed up on her calls for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to fully investigate the actions of ICE officers toward a U.S. citizen outside of the Washington County, Oregon Courthouse.

On September 18, 2017, plainclothes ICE officers confronted Mr. Isidro Andrade-Tafolla, a long-time employee of Washington County and a U.S. citizen, and demanded that he show his identification. When they apparently that he was not the person they were looking for, the agents then left without identifying themselves or providing any explanation or apology. Within days, Congresswoman Bonamici asked ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan and ICE Regional Supervisor Elizabeth Godfrey to investigate the incident and provide answers about ICE agency policies for interrogation and apprehension. At the time of this press release, Congresswoman Bonamici has yet to receive any response to her inquiries.

“What happened to Isidro and his wife was inexcusable and ICE failing to answer our questions about the incident is unacceptable. The public deserves to know if these agents followed ICE procedure when stopping and questioning Isidro. On that day, Isidro had no idea who the people confronting them were, or what rights they had to demand personal information. It’s deeply troubling that I have received no indication that ICE officials, either locally here in Oregon or at the leadership level in Washington, are investigating the incident near the Washington County Courthouse. Without clear answers, there is a risk that this will continue to happen. Federal agents should, at the very least, properly identify themselves when interacting with members of the public. Failure to do so is a serious public safety issue.”

More House Statements on Clean Power Act

Continued from this page (click HERE)

Washington, D.C. - October 13, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt and the Trump Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing the repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The Clean Power Plan was an Obama Administration policy which sought to reduce the United States’ contributions to climate change. It was proposed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in June of 2014, and finalized in August of 2015.

The Clean Power Plan is the first and only federal limit on carbon pollution from existing power plants. Supporters of the plan claim that by cutting carbon pollution, it is one of the best available tools to combat climate change and to take steps towards reducing air pollution that harms the public’s health.

Below are statements by House Representatives concern in the recension of the clean power act rules by the EPA:

Don Beyer (D-VA, 8th)

“Climate change is one of the gravest threats facing the human race in the 21st century. Scientists have carefully and accurately described the causes of climate change, predicted its consequences, and offered solutions. The Clean Power Plan represents a big step in the direction of confronting the dangers of climate change, and it has the added benefit of driving the creation of our clean energy sector, with hundreds of thousands of jobs and a big boost for local economies across the country.

“Turning our back on this progress by ending the Clean Power Plan is dangerous, it will hurt our economy, and it will further damage our reputation around the world. American leadership is urgently needed now, and we cannot ignore or pretend our way out of this crisis. We must stand up, we must fight for future generations, and we must act on climate.”

Diane Black (R-TN, 6th)

"Administrator Pruitt's decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan is a victory for communities across the country, and for our own power plants here in Tennessee. The Obama administration's continual executive overreach at the state level is finally being corrected by an Administration committed to giving our local industries the support they need to thrive. By working alongside stakeholders, the Trump administration is putting jobs and those affected by these regulations first rather than a bureaucrat's idealized political agenda.”

Steve Cohen (D-TN, 9th)

“The Trump Administration’s move to repeal the Clean Power Plan is another representation of a backslide on U.S. and global climate goals. Despite all of its shortcomings, the Trump Administration ought to have little difficulty in grasping the severe economic repercussions of repealing a strategy meant to lessen the wide-ranging damage caused by unchecked carbon emissions and climate change. Instead, EPA Administrator Pruitt and President Trump have decided to burden taxpayers with the costs of climate change, increasingly frequent and severe instances of extreme weather, and air pollution.

“I support the Clean Power Plan and the Paris Climate Agreement. The Trump administration’s retreat from both plans of action will put America on a path toward more instances of extreme and destructive weather, toward more asthma attacks, more missed days of work and school, and more premature deaths caused by carbon pollution.”

Joe Courtney (D-CT, 2nd)

“The decision by Mr. Pruitt is not a pro-growth, pro-economic decision. It is simply responding, unfortunately, to political forces that drove this administration to power from the fossil fuel industry. The only saving grace of Mr. Pruitt's order is that he allows a large and long public comment period for the people of this country -- who do care about clean air and who do care about our environment -- to weigh in on this reckless decision that turns the clock back for public health and safety, and for our economy.”

Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota)

President Trump and his Administration have come through for North Dakota, and frankly for energy consumers throughout our country. It has always been clear to North Dakotans that the EPA has overreached its legal authority by going outside the fence line of individual power plants and North Dakota is a good example of arbitrary and capricious emissions standards.

Mike Bost (R-IL, 12th)

“The Obama Administration’s addiction to over-regulation threatened to wipe out hundreds of jobs in Southern Illinois and many thousands nationwide,” said Rep. Bost.  “The impact of such a serious hit to the coal industry led to unpredictable home energy prices for hardworking families already struggling to get ahead. I applaud the administration’s decision to secure the reliability and resiliency of America’s electrical grid.”

U.S. Lifts Sanctions on Sudan

Source: Karen Bass (D-CA, 37th)

Washington, D.C. - October 13, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.) issued the following statement after an announcement by President Trump that he signed an Executive Order to permanently lift sanctions on Sudan. This action builds on President Obama’s Executive Order 13671, which partially lifted executive-branch sanctions on Sudan and established criteria for the complete revocation of sanctions after a review period of six months. In July, President Trump extended the deadline on whether to lift sanctions.

"During the past year, there has been notable progress in areas outlined by the Five Track Engagement Plan (5TEP), including: Opening humanitarian access throughout the country; maintaining a cessation of hostilities in Darfur and the Two Areas (Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile State); ceasing support to South Sudanese rebel movements and cooperating on threats to regional security.  While some are concerned that lifting sanctions on Sudan will cause it to lose interest in continued progress or alternatively, that the U.S. will lose key leverage points, neither is likely. Critical actors, particularly those in Congress, are committed to ensuring that Sudan continues on its path to improving the lives of the Sudanese people.

"Now that we have a final decision, it is vital that our future engagement emphasize human rights and respect for religious freedoms. In addition, we should look toward partnering with Sudan and the international community to create sustainable peace in the country.

"The first US sanctions were imposed on Sudan more than 20 years ago.  Since then, the country has come a long way from state-sponsorship of terrorism and internal conflicts such as atrocities and genocide perpetrated by the government.  Ultimately, the lifting of sanctions is a positive development for the Sudanese people and will enable a constructive dialogue to advance mutual security and economic interests in the region.  Given that 46.5 percent of Sudan’s population lives below the poverty line, with sanctions relief Sudan can better develop its economic engines, including agriculture, which employs 80 percent of the workforce.  Furthermore, the removal of sanctions will also significantly improve the business environment, encourage foreign investment and make conducting business in the country easier."

REP. BARRAGÁN STATEMENT ON ICE THREATS AGAINST CALIFORNIA

Source: Nanette Barragan (D-CA, 44th)

Washington, D.C. - October 13, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-San Pedro) issued the following statement after Immigration and Customs Enforcement threatened to conduct mass arrests in California:

“ICE is overstepping its authority in a clear act of retaliation by an administration intent on deporting as many people as it can.

Today’s announcement is the latest evidence of the nationwide anti-immigrant witch hunt the Trump administration is itching to launch.

It’s exactly why California passed SB54—to reassure innocent people that they can trust the police and don’t have to worry about being deported when they report a crime.

Indiscriminate sweeps would destroy this trust and send people back into the shadows, to be victimized again.

ICE should concentrate on protecting Americans by targeting threats to public safety, and not on terrorizing entire neighborhoods.

As a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, I will demand answers about this shameful attempt to intimidate my state.”

AGUILAR INTRODUCES BILL TO MONITOR PRIVATE JET TRAVEL BY

Source: House Representative Pete Aguilar (D-CA, 31st)

This week, Rep. Pete Aguilar introduced H.R. 3974, the Justifiable and Efficient Transportation Substitutes (JETS) Act.  This bill prohibits most cabinet officials from using taxpayer money for official travel on private planes until a system is developed to provide the necessary oversight and accountability for private air travel. The bill also includes a public disclosure provision, allowing the American public to track exactly how their tax dollars are being spent. The bill was introduced in the wake of revelations that Trump Administration officials have been regularly misusing taxpayer money to charter private flights, including for nonofficial business.

“To think that a cabinet official would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on private jets, and then stick taxpayers with the bill, is appalling,” said Rep. Aguilar. He continued, “This bill is about demanding accountability from this administration. The president’s cabinet has made it clear that they intend to travel around the country by private jet, and we need a system that provides a check on this kind of reckless spending.”

The JETS Act establishes a moratorium on the use of taxpayer funds for private jet travel by cabinet officials until the president issues guidelines for the use of private jets. The bill provides exclusions for national security officials such as the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.

Statements on Immigration Legislation: Priorities and Principles

Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary Elaine Duke

"When crafting the Administration's immigration principles, the President asked us to focus on measures that will assist the Department of Homeland Security’s law enforcement personnel with what they need to enforce our immigration laws, secure our border, and protect American communities across this country.

"DHS frontline personnel identified many of the principles outlined today, including closing loopholes in our ability to enforce immigration laws and eliminating the magnets for illegal immigration.  I look forward to working with Congress on legislation that will enact many of these common sense and necessary reforms that will inevitably better secure our nation.”

House Representative Nanette Barragan (D-CA, 44th)

“These principles are a slap in the face to Dreamers everywhere who hoped Trump would stop treating them like bargaining chips.

Dreamers need the Dream Act, not another useless round of talk about a border wall, which would be ineffective and wasteful. Time is running out to find a solution for nearly 800,000 young men and women who came here as children. We should be looking for bipartisan areas of agreement. Instead, we got a  cruel wish list of repressive and anti-immigrant measures. 

My colleagues and I will not stop fighting for the Dream Act. Now the real fight begins.”

House Representative Andy Biggs (R-AZ, 5th)

“President Trump released a list of immigration principles that include building a border wall, hiring additional ICE officers, discouraging Sanctuary cities from their unconstitutional practices, and eliminating incentives for illegal immigrants who break the law to come here. I am confident that, if enacted by Congress, these actions would secure our open borders and reduce incentives for illegal immigrants to remain in or enter the United States. We are a nation of laws, and those laws must be enforced to defend our national security and protect the sanctity of our statutes. President Trump committed to enforcing these laws if he were to become President, and he is following through with his words and oath of office.

“For too long, Congress has talked about border security to remain in office, but Members have reneged on their promises once back in Washington, D.C. The American people are tired of these flip flops, and we must give them the results they deserve – before any other reforms are enacted.

“One of the major hindrances to accomplishing these goals is the Senate’s 60-vote rule, which allows a minority of Senators to directly block these vital issues of national security from even coming to the floor. I pray that the Senate does the right thing for the good of the nation and removes the 60-vote rule to allow these policies to receive up-or-down votes.”

Governor Abbott Statement On Texas Tech Shooting

Source: Texas Governor Gregg Abbott

Governor Greg Abbott issued the following statement on the shooting that occurred at Texas Tech University:
 
“First and foremost, our hearts go out to the family of the police officer killed at Texas Tech University. I have spoken to Chancellor Robert Duncan to offer my condolences, and I have mobilized the Texas Department of Public Safety to offer any assistance to the Lubbock Police Department. As the Texas Tech campus deals with this heartbreaking tragedy, Cecilia and I pray for the continued safety of the students and the entire community."

Right-to-Life Groups Across the Country Call for Opposition to Pain-Capable Legislation

Source: Personhood Alliance

Minneapolis, MN - October 12, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- On October 3, 2017, the House passed the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 36) with several serious flaws. Two of these flaws, say multiple right-to-life leaders, are detrimental to the common goal shared among the diverse factions of the pro-life movement--to protect and defend all human life, from conception to natural death.

"As a person concerned with defending human rights," explains Daniel Becker, president of Personhood Alliance, "I want to let my fellow pro-lifers know that it's okay to oppose laws Republicans put forth and national organizations support, when those laws go against our shared goal as a movement. You're NOT 'not pro-life' for speaking up. In fact, by opposing this flawed legislation, you're upholding the values that we all fight for every day."

The first flaw, notes Christopher Kurka, executive director of Alaska Right to Life, is the lack of standard language that prevents activist judges from using the law to create a right to abortion. "A simple clause," says Kurka, "stating that 'no right to abortion shall be established in this law' is completely missing. Combine that with language that specifically carves out exceptions to the 20-week rule and explicitly permits all abortions before 20 weeks, denying those younger babies personhood, and we've just set ourselves up for SCOTUS to keep Roe intact indefinitely."

Molly Smith, president of Cleveland Right to Life and board member of Right to Life Action Coalition of Ohio, agrees: "Whenever you have a piece of legislation that says 'if you do this and this and this, then you can go ahead and abort the child' it must be recognized for what it is—a bill that further enshrines abortion into law."

Gualberto Garcia Jones, national policy director for Personhood Alliance, explains further. "Forget about how the Supreme Court would analyze this bill, because it will never get past the Senate. Then the pro-life movement will be left with another failed show bill, and a poor one at that. We've already set a dangerously low bar for House GOP members by allowing them to proclaim how pro-life they are, all the while knowing this bill's fate. Now, we do a disservice to our pro-life base by pretending that the Senate, who couldn't even reallocate taxpayer funds away from Planned Parenthood, is going to end abortion after 20 weeks. Instead," says Jones, "We should focus on a real, winning strategy, which is to hold our legislators to a higher standard and replace those that fail to meet it. But sadly, much of the pro-life movement has, once again, lowered its standards in order to have a seat at the table with legislators that are pro-life in name only."

Echoing this sentiment, Dr. Patrick Johnston, president of the Association of Pro-Life Physicians explains the second flaw: Exceptions for children conceived in rape and incest. "To permit the killing of some children is to abandon our moral high ground and God's blessing. Our congressmen and women must protect all those they are duty- and constitutionally-bound to protect." Rebecca Kiessling, president of Save the 1 and conceived in rape herself, adds: "My people group feels the pain of discrimination every time so-called pro-life laws exclude us from protection. What's more, women who experience the horrific violation of rape deserve better than a law that promotes a second act of violence as a solution."

Similarly, permitting abortion for children conceived in incest is particularly harmful, as abortion is often used to hide evidence of the crime and give the perpetrator continued access to the victim. "Several studies have shown that abortion is rarely voluntary for incest victims," says Kiessling. "Like the assault itself, abortion is often forced or coerced, which contributes to the victimization. When abortion providers look the other way, and when we explicitly permit this in our laws, we aid and abet this injustice."

Ricardo Davis, African-American pro-life activist and president of Georgia Right to Life, reflects: "A strength of the early Civil Rights movement was its commitment to apply a biblical view of personhood to the plight of Black citizens dehumanized by slavery and faced with daily threats to their lives. Today, we cannot say that HR36 is 'just' when it dehumanizes the majority of preborn children killed by abortion."

"With Republicans in control of the House, Senate, and Oval Office, pro-lifers need to ask themselves some serious questions right now," says Matt Sande, legislative director at Pro-Life Wisconsin. "Why aren't we using this opportunity to put forth legislation that upholds our shared goal? And why are we allowing this current legislation to give cover to our politicians who continue to receive '100% pro-life' ratings while directly undermining our efforts?"

These are questions that leaders across the country are rising up to ask right now. Pro-lifers are encouraged to join them by calling upon their Republican representatives and national pro-life organizations to work toward ending legalized abortion without compromising the foundational principles on which the pro-life movement stands.

Sign our petition calling for Equal Protection.

AG Reverses Policy on Gender-Identity Rights

Source: Liberty Counsel

Washington, D.C. - October 12, 2017 - (The Ponder News) -- Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a new memorandum stating 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.

Title VII specifically bars employers from discriminating against employees based on sex, race, color, national origin and religion. The Attorney General officially withdrew a 2014 Obama-era policy protecting so-called "transgender" employees from discrimination under Title VII. The Attorney General stated that the Department of Justice will no longer interpret Title VII to mean that the law's protections extend to discrimination based on gender identity. Sessions said the change will apply to "all pending and future matters" relating to "transgender" workers, which means that it could have an immediate impact on open discrimination cases.

Sessions wrote in the memo: "Title VII expressly prohibits discrimination 'because of…sex'…and several other protected traits, but it does not refer to gender identity. "Sex is ordinarily defined to mean biologically male or female. Congress has confirmed this ordinary meaning by expressly prohibiting, in several other statutes, 'gender identity' discrimination, which Congress lists in addition to, rather than within, prohibitions on discrimination based on 'sex' or 'gender.' Accordingly, Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination between men and women but does not encompass discrimination based on gender identity per se, including transgender status. Therefore, as of the date of this memorandum, which hereby withdraws the December 15, 2014, memorandum, the Department of Justice will take that position in all pending and future matters…"

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has never included sexual orientation or gender identity," said Mat Staver (photo), Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. "We commend Attorney General Jeff Sessions for ending the Obama-era policy that purported to allow Title VII to be interpreted to include so-called "transgender" employee rights," 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.

RNC Statement on Pelosi's Shutdown Threat

Washington, D.C. - October 11, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel released the following statement in response to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s threat to shut down the government:

"Pelosi and her Democrat colleagues’ shutdown threats show they care more about appeasing their rabid far-left base than protecting our borders and fighting for American workers," said Chairwoman McDaniel. "The American people overwhelmingly support President Trump’s plan to put American workers first while securing our borders and Democrats should stop obstructing on issues that have broad support from the American people. The president is offering common sense solutions to fix our broken immigration system and it’s time for Democrats to end their blindly-partisan opposition."