Washington, D.C. - November 23, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), made the following statement after President Trump declared North Korea a state sponsor of terrorism:
“By imposing the most substantial sanctions against the North Korean regime to date, the President has shown that his actions towards the regime speak far louder than the threats of Kim Jong Un—the United States is committed to stopping North Korea’s aggressive actions against America and our allies.
“I’ve been clear—North Korea is currently the most imminent threat facing the United States. The past eight years of ‘strategic patience’ have done nothing but enable a rogue regime to advance their nuclear and ballistic missile programs. As the President considers all economic, diplomatic and military options against North Korea, I will continue to fight for increased missile defense to protect American families and our allies around the world.”
Inhofe worked to include several provisions to support missile defense to the FY18 NDAA, which is currently awaiting the president’s signature. Some of the provisions include increasing funding to modernize the U.S. ground-based missile defense system and the procurement of 24 additional Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems.
See more headlines at The Ponder News Web Site
The Unpopular Truth
Thursday, November 23, 2017
Immigrant Legal Resource Center says Deporting Haitians is Heartless
Washington, D.C. - November 23, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The Trump Administration announced it is terminating Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haiti. Beneficiaries will be out of status and subject to deportation effective July 22, 2019. There are currently 50,000 Haitians with TPS living and working in the US who will be affected by this decision.
Said Amanda Baran, Policy Consultant at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and co-author of ILRC’s report “Economic Contributions by Salvadoran, Honduran and Haitian TPS Holders”:
“Ripping 50,000 Haitians from communities across the United States and sending them back to a country that still hasn’t recovered from the dire conditions that qualified it for TPS in the first place is another heartless decision made by the Trump Administration. A mere six months ago, then-DHS Secretary John Kelly decided to extend TPS for Haiti, noting the extensive damage Hurricane Matthew left in its wake and, since then, the island was hit by two more hurricanes--Irma and Maria--further damaging Haiti’s infrastructure and displacing thousands.
“This decision is yet another example of the Trump Administration politicizing a humanitarian program in an effort to appease its anti-immigrant base and breaking our country’s long-standing commitment to people who have built lives, grown families, and lived in the U.S. for years. This Administration has no plan in place for the children who are U.S. citizens but may now lose their parents and caregivers to deportation. Deporting mothers and fathers back to a country with bleak living conditions that cannot support their return is stunningly cruel.
“We call on Congress to step in immediately and find a legislative solution for all TPS holders. Haitian TPS holders are an important part of our communities, our economy, and our society. There is bipartisan support for a humane solution for Haitians with TPS, that would extend them a path to citizenship.”
Deporting current Haitian TPS holders will cost our nation more than $468 million; lead to a GDP reduction of $2 billion over a decade; and incur $428 million in lost Social Security and Medicare contributions over a decade, according to findings from ILRC’s report “Economic Contributions by Salvadoran, Honduran and Haitian TPS Holders” released earlier this year. The ILRC report “Relief Not Raids: Temporary Protected Status for El Salvador, Guatemala & Honduras” outlines the legal and factual grounds for designating these Central American countries for TPS and the impact it would have on these communities.
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) is a national nonprofit that works with immigrants, community organizations, legal professionals, and policy makers to build a democratic society that values diversity and the rights of all people. Through community education programs, legal training & technical assistance, and policy development & advocacy, the ILRC’s mission is to protect and defend the fundamental rights of immigrant families and communities.
Said Amanda Baran, Policy Consultant at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and co-author of ILRC’s report “Economic Contributions by Salvadoran, Honduran and Haitian TPS Holders”:
“Ripping 50,000 Haitians from communities across the United States and sending them back to a country that still hasn’t recovered from the dire conditions that qualified it for TPS in the first place is another heartless decision made by the Trump Administration. A mere six months ago, then-DHS Secretary John Kelly decided to extend TPS for Haiti, noting the extensive damage Hurricane Matthew left in its wake and, since then, the island was hit by two more hurricanes--Irma and Maria--further damaging Haiti’s infrastructure and displacing thousands.
“This decision is yet another example of the Trump Administration politicizing a humanitarian program in an effort to appease its anti-immigrant base and breaking our country’s long-standing commitment to people who have built lives, grown families, and lived in the U.S. for years. This Administration has no plan in place for the children who are U.S. citizens but may now lose their parents and caregivers to deportation. Deporting mothers and fathers back to a country with bleak living conditions that cannot support their return is stunningly cruel.
“We call on Congress to step in immediately and find a legislative solution for all TPS holders. Haitian TPS holders are an important part of our communities, our economy, and our society. There is bipartisan support for a humane solution for Haitians with TPS, that would extend them a path to citizenship.”
Deporting current Haitian TPS holders will cost our nation more than $468 million; lead to a GDP reduction of $2 billion over a decade; and incur $428 million in lost Social Security and Medicare contributions over a decade, according to findings from ILRC’s report “Economic Contributions by Salvadoran, Honduran and Haitian TPS Holders” released earlier this year. The ILRC report “Relief Not Raids: Temporary Protected Status for El Salvador, Guatemala & Honduras” outlines the legal and factual grounds for designating these Central American countries for TPS and the impact it would have on these communities.
The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC) is a national nonprofit that works with immigrants, community organizations, legal professionals, and policy makers to build a democratic society that values diversity and the rights of all people. Through community education programs, legal training & technical assistance, and policy development & advocacy, the ILRC’s mission is to protect and defend the fundamental rights of immigrant families and communities.
Court Order on Presidential Proclamation on Visas November 13, 2017
Washington, D.C. - November 23, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- On November 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted, in part, the government’s motion for an emergency stay of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii’s October 17, preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction prohibited the U.S. government from enforcing or implementing Sections 2(a), (b), (c), (e), (g), and (h) of Presidential Proclamation 9645, “Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or other Public-Safety Threats.” Under the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, the earlier preliminary injunction is stayed, except as to “foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” In light of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, visa applicants who are nationals of Chad, Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen and do not have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States are now subject to the applicable visa restrictions under the Presidential Proclamation. Consequently, any applicants who lack such a claim, if found otherwise eligible for a visa, will be denied under the Proclamation, unless they are exempt or qualify for a waiver under the Proclamation. The court orders did not affect Sections (d) and (f) of the Proclamation, so nationals from North Korea and Venezuela remain subject to the restrictions and limitations listed in the Presidential Proclamation, which went into effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, October 18, 2017, with respect to nationals of those countries.
Additional Background: The President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645 on September 24, 2017. Per Section 2 of Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States), a global review was conducted to determine what additional information is needed from each foreign country to assess whether foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States pose a security or safety threat. As part of that review, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) developed a comprehensive set of criteria to evaluate the information-sharing practices, policies, and capabilities of foreign governments on a worldwide basis. At the end of that review, which included a 50-day period of engagement with foreign governments aimed at improving their information sharing practices, there were seven countries whose information sharing practices were determined to be “inadequate” and for which the President deemed it necessary to impose certain restrictions on the entry of nonimmigrants and immigrants who are nationals of these countries. The President also deemed it necessary to impose restrictions on one country due to the "special concerns" it presented. These restrictions are considered important to addressing the threat these existing information-sharing deficiencies, among other things, present to the security and welfare of the United States and pressuring host governments to remedy these deficiencies.
Nationals of the eight countries are subject to various travel restrictions contained in the Proclamation, as outlined in the following table, subject to exceptions and waivers set forth in the Proclamation. In addition, under applicable court orders, applicants from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with either a person or an entity in the United States are exempt from the restrictions in the Proclamation. Consequently, if the requirements for a particular visa classification include that the applicant have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, then applicants qualifying for visas of those classifications are exempt from the Proclamation, based on the court orders.
See more headlines at The Ponder News Web Site
Additional Background: The President issued Presidential Proclamation 9645 on September 24, 2017. Per Section 2 of Executive Order 13780 of March 6, 2017 (Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States), a global review was conducted to determine what additional information is needed from each foreign country to assess whether foreign nationals who seek to enter the United States pose a security or safety threat. As part of that review, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) developed a comprehensive set of criteria to evaluate the information-sharing practices, policies, and capabilities of foreign governments on a worldwide basis. At the end of that review, which included a 50-day period of engagement with foreign governments aimed at improving their information sharing practices, there were seven countries whose information sharing practices were determined to be “inadequate” and for which the President deemed it necessary to impose certain restrictions on the entry of nonimmigrants and immigrants who are nationals of these countries. The President also deemed it necessary to impose restrictions on one country due to the "special concerns" it presented. These restrictions are considered important to addressing the threat these existing information-sharing deficiencies, among other things, present to the security and welfare of the United States and pressuring host governments to remedy these deficiencies.
Nationals of the eight countries are subject to various travel restrictions contained in the Proclamation, as outlined in the following table, subject to exceptions and waivers set forth in the Proclamation. In addition, under applicable court orders, applicants from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with either a person or an entity in the United States are exempt from the restrictions in the Proclamation. Consequently, if the requirements for a particular visa classification include that the applicant have a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, then applicants qualifying for visas of those classifications are exempt from the Proclamation, based on the court orders.
See more headlines at The Ponder News Web Site
Sessions Orders Review of Background Check System
Washington, D.C. - November 23, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo to the FBI and ATF directing them to look at several issues as it relates to reporting information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The memo directs the FBI and ATF to take the following steps:
1. Work with the Department of Defense to identify and resolve any issues with the military’s reporting of convictions and other information relevant to determining prohibited person status under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
2. Conduct a review to identify other federal government entities that are not fully and accurately reporting information to NICS. If any such entities are identified, a plan should be developed to ensure full and accurate reporting to NICS going forward to the extent required under current law.
3. Conduct a review of the format, structure, and wording of ATF Form 4473 and recommend changes as necessary.
4. Prepare a report that addresses: (a) the number of current open investigations for making a false statement on ATF Form 4473; (b) the number of investigations for making a false statement on ATF Form 4473 for the past five years; (c) the prosecution referral and declination numbers for the current year, as well as the past five years for making a false statement on ATF Form 4473; and (d) the priority level assigned to investigations for making a false statement on ATF Form 4473.
5. Identify any additional measures that should be taken to prevent firearms from being obtained by prohibited persons, including identifying obstacles to state, local, and tribal entities sharing information with NICS.
“The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is critical for us to be able to keep guns out of the hands of those that are prohibited from owning them,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “The recent shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas revealed that relevant information may not be getting reported to the NICS – this is alarming and it is unacceptable. Therefore, I am directing the FBI and ATF to do a comprehensive review of the NICS and report back to me the steps we can take to ensure that those who are prohibited from purchasing firearms are prevented from doing so.”
See more headlines at The Ponder News Web Site
1. Work with the Department of Defense to identify and resolve any issues with the military’s reporting of convictions and other information relevant to determining prohibited person status under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
2. Conduct a review to identify other federal government entities that are not fully and accurately reporting information to NICS. If any such entities are identified, a plan should be developed to ensure full and accurate reporting to NICS going forward to the extent required under current law.
3. Conduct a review of the format, structure, and wording of ATF Form 4473 and recommend changes as necessary.
4. Prepare a report that addresses: (a) the number of current open investigations for making a false statement on ATF Form 4473; (b) the number of investigations for making a false statement on ATF Form 4473 for the past five years; (c) the prosecution referral and declination numbers for the current year, as well as the past five years for making a false statement on ATF Form 4473; and (d) the priority level assigned to investigations for making a false statement on ATF Form 4473.
5. Identify any additional measures that should be taken to prevent firearms from being obtained by prohibited persons, including identifying obstacles to state, local, and tribal entities sharing information with NICS.
“The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is critical for us to be able to keep guns out of the hands of those that are prohibited from owning them,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “The recent shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas revealed that relevant information may not be getting reported to the NICS – this is alarming and it is unacceptable. Therefore, I am directing the FBI and ATF to do a comprehensive review of the NICS and report back to me the steps we can take to ensure that those who are prohibited from purchasing firearms are prevented from doing so.”
See more headlines at The Ponder News Web Site
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Seriously? What did they expect...
Ruben Gallego is whining about how Trump's evil wall is going to spread hate through the use of eminent domain to build the Border wall.
I don't feel sorry for those who's property it is going to affect, since it was hate that purchased that property to begin with.
BREAKING: Liberal Group Buys Land Along Mexican Border in Effort to Block Trump Wall
Rep. Gallego Reacts to Release of Documents Detailing Plans for Trump’s Border Wall
Net Neutrality to be Ended
Washington, D.C. - November 22, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- On Tuesday, Chairman Ajit Pai put forth a proposal for the FCC to scrap the Net Neutrality rules. This has caused much commentary and speculation from those who are for net neutrality.
Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) released a statement following the Federal Communications Commission Chairman’s proposal to scrap net neutrality:
“Today, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai confirmed his long-term goal to unravel net neutrality protections, demonstrating that he is on the wrong side of history, startups, consumers and the public interest. As millions of Americans voice their support for a free and open internet, Chairman Pai’s proposal hands the internet over to the largest Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who can throttle, assess a toll or block content.
“The net neutrality protections have advanced competition and innovation, created more startups and entrepreneurs, and have been judicially approved. Repealing these protections is an assault on what has made the internet what it is… an open and dynamic platform. This is not the end of a battle but the beginning of a new one that I will engage in to protect the open internet for my constituents and all Americans.”
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel released the following statement on Tuesday:
“Today the FCC circulated its sweeping roll back of our net neutrality rules. Following actions earlier this year to erase consumer privacy protections, the Commission now wants to wipe out court-tested rules and a decade’s work in order to favor cable and
telephone companies. This is ridiculous and offensive to the millions of Americans who use the Internet every day.
Our Internet economy is the envy of the world because it is open to all. This proposal tears at the foundation of that openness. It hands broadband providers the power to decide what voices to amplify, which sites we can visit, what connections we can make, and
what communities we create. It throttles access, stalls opportunity, and censors content. It would be a big blunder for a slim majority of the FCC to approve these rules and saddle every Internet user with the cruel consequences.
I’ve called for public hearings before any change is made to these rules, just as Republican and Democratic Commissions have done in the past. We should go directly to the American public to find out what they think about this proposal before any vote is taken to harm net neutrality.”
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr released the following statement regarding the circulation of a draft order in the Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding.
“Today, the Chairman circulated a draft order that would restore Internet freedom by reversing the Obama-era FCC’s regulatory overreach. Prior to the FCC’s 2015 decision, consumers and innovators alike benefited from a free and open Internet because the FCC abided by a 20-year, bipartisan consensus that the government should not control or heavily regulate Internet access. The Internet flourished under this framework. So I fully support returning to this approach, which will promote innovation and investment for the benefit of all Americans. I look forward to casting my vote in support of Internet freedom.”
Save The Internet is trying to get support for keeping net neutrality rules in place.
U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA, 14th) released the following statement in response to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s announcement that the Commission would vote to begin the process of removing Title II status for internet service at its December 14 meeting.
“Today Chairman Pai began his final assault on the Open Internet Order and Net Neutrality. His announcement today of plans to repeal Title 2 is another nail in the coffin of the FCC rules that protect consumers, competition, and innovation. Chairman Pai’s agenda has been an unending stream of giveaways to major corporations and Trump allies. Consumers, small businesses, and the most vulnerable amongst us have consistently gotten shafted by this Chairman and the Trump Administration.
“I am disappointed and angry that, despite the evidence, despite court decisions, despite widespread bipartisan public support for a free and open Internet, and despite 22 MILLION comments overwhelmingly in support of Net Neutrality, Chairman Pai today has announced his intentions to repeal the Open Internet Order.”
As FCC Chairman Pai announced his plan to dismantle the net neutrality regulations, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman of New York has released an open letter regarding the massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities. That scheme is under investigation by the Attorney General’s office; however, to date, the FCC has refused to provide the office with information that is critical to the investigation.
In May 2017, researchers and reporters discovered that the FCC’s public comment process was being corrupted by the submission of enormous numbers of fake comments concerning the possible repeal of net neutrality rules. The Attorney General’s office analyzed the fake comments and found that tens of thousands of New Yorkers – and hundreds of thousands of Americans – may have had their identities misused. While some of these fake comments used made up names and addresses, many misused the real names and addresses of actual people as part of the effort to undermine the integrity of the comment process.
The Attorney General's office reached out for assistance to multiple top FCC officials, including Chairman Pai, three successive acting FCC General Counsels, and the FCC's Inspector General, but has received no substantive response to its investigative requests.
“Hundreds of thousands of Americans likely were victimized during the FCC's public comment process on net neutrality. That’s akin to identity theft, and it happened on a massive scale.” wrote Attorney General Schneiderman in his open letter. “I encourage the FCC to reconsider its refusal to assist in my office’s law enforcement investigation to identify and hold accountable those who illegally misused so many New Yorkers’ identities to corrupt the public comment process."
"In an era where foreign governments have indisputably tried to use the internet and social media to influence our elections, federal and state governments should be working together to ensure that malevolent actors cannot subvert our administrative agencies’ decision-making processes," wrote Attorney General Schneiderman.
Read the Attorney General's full open letter here
Raymond J. Keating, chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), released the following statement regarding Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai’s "announcement that he has circulated a draft order on Restoring Internet Freedom":
“The FCC’s draft order, under the leadership of Chairman Ajit Pai, will roll back onerous internet regulations and is a major pro-investment, pro-innovation and pro-small business step forward. Regulating dynamic, competitive broadband markets and networks as if they were 1930s-style monopolies makes no sense whatsoever. This regulatory mess created under the previous FCC chairman was completely unnecessary, given that broadband providers possess clear incentives to serve both content providers and content consumers well. It was a drastic regulation imposed on a problem that did not, and does not, exist. Such regulation creates uncertainty that restricts investment and innovation, including by threatening government rate and business model regulation. Small companies have been disproportionately and negatively impacted by the onerous ‘net neutrality’ regulations, which have inflicted more costs upon them and more uncertainty into their path.”
Keating expanded upon how this is a serious issue for small businesses:
“The entrepreneurial sector of our economy obviously has benefitted enormously as consumers or users of new and vastly improved broadband services. In addition, smaller firms overwhelmingly populate the telecommunications sector itself. For example, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, 84.1 percent of employer firms in the telecommunications sector have less than 20 employees. When regulation raises costs, creates uncertainty and diminishes investment, that’s a harmful and disruptive barrier for entrepreneurs and small businesses, which then harms competition and innovation in the telecommunications and technology sectors.
“Chairman Pai and the current FCC deserve credit for choosing to guide regulatory activities based on sound, real-world economics, as opposed to the political fantasies and ‘what if’ scenarios that pushed the intrusive and unnecessary internet regulations forward. Small businesses also thank Chairman Pai for his transparency in allowing the public to view the draft order. His actions stand in stark contrast to the previous FCC chairman who did not allow the public to see the language of the order until well after the FCC’s vote. The current FCC, under Chairman Pai’s leadership, has given small businesses and entrepreneurs a voice, and has listened to their concerns. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order is just the latest example of Chairman Pai’s thoughtful and reality-based approach when it comes to regulatory actions and their impact on the entrepreneurial sector of the U.S. economy.”
The ACLU Statement is as follows:
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai released today a draft order that, if adopted, would remove broadband internet access protections and repeal what is known as net neutrality.
Net neutrality prevents internet service providers from prioritizing data for businesses and other organizations that they favor or that pay more. The rules keep the internet open, free, and unrestricted, preventing ISPs from becoming gatekeepers that can control and manipulate what people access on the internet.
“Internet rights are civil rights,” said Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union senior policy analyst. “Gutting net neutrality will have a devastating effect on free speech online. Without it, gateway corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T will have too much power to mess with the free flow of information.”
Ronald Newman, ACLU director of strategic initiatives, said, “In a world without net neutrality, activists may lose an essential platform to organize and fight for change, and small organizations may never get a fair shot to grow and thrive. Congress must stop Chairman Pai’s plan in its tracks and ensure that net neutrality remains the law of the land.”
The Ponder News would like to hear your opinions on the issue!
Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) released a statement following the Federal Communications Commission Chairman’s proposal to scrap net neutrality:
“Today, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai confirmed his long-term goal to unravel net neutrality protections, demonstrating that he is on the wrong side of history, startups, consumers and the public interest. As millions of Americans voice their support for a free and open internet, Chairman Pai’s proposal hands the internet over to the largest Internet Service Providers (ISPs) who can throttle, assess a toll or block content.
“The net neutrality protections have advanced competition and innovation, created more startups and entrepreneurs, and have been judicially approved. Repealing these protections is an assault on what has made the internet what it is… an open and dynamic platform. This is not the end of a battle but the beginning of a new one that I will engage in to protect the open internet for my constituents and all Americans.”
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel released the following statement on Tuesday:
“Today the FCC circulated its sweeping roll back of our net neutrality rules. Following actions earlier this year to erase consumer privacy protections, the Commission now wants to wipe out court-tested rules and a decade’s work in order to favor cable and
telephone companies. This is ridiculous and offensive to the millions of Americans who use the Internet every day.
Our Internet economy is the envy of the world because it is open to all. This proposal tears at the foundation of that openness. It hands broadband providers the power to decide what voices to amplify, which sites we can visit, what connections we can make, and
what communities we create. It throttles access, stalls opportunity, and censors content. It would be a big blunder for a slim majority of the FCC to approve these rules and saddle every Internet user with the cruel consequences.
I’ve called for public hearings before any change is made to these rules, just as Republican and Democratic Commissions have done in the past. We should go directly to the American public to find out what they think about this proposal before any vote is taken to harm net neutrality.”
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr released the following statement regarding the circulation of a draft order in the Commission’s Restoring Internet Freedom proceeding.
“Today, the Chairman circulated a draft order that would restore Internet freedom by reversing the Obama-era FCC’s regulatory overreach. Prior to the FCC’s 2015 decision, consumers and innovators alike benefited from a free and open Internet because the FCC abided by a 20-year, bipartisan consensus that the government should not control or heavily regulate Internet access. The Internet flourished under this framework. So I fully support returning to this approach, which will promote innovation and investment for the benefit of all Americans. I look forward to casting my vote in support of Internet freedom.”
Save The Internet is trying to get support for keeping net neutrality rules in place.
U.S. Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA, 14th) released the following statement in response to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s announcement that the Commission would vote to begin the process of removing Title II status for internet service at its December 14 meeting.
“Today Chairman Pai began his final assault on the Open Internet Order and Net Neutrality. His announcement today of plans to repeal Title 2 is another nail in the coffin of the FCC rules that protect consumers, competition, and innovation. Chairman Pai’s agenda has been an unending stream of giveaways to major corporations and Trump allies. Consumers, small businesses, and the most vulnerable amongst us have consistently gotten shafted by this Chairman and the Trump Administration.
“I am disappointed and angry that, despite the evidence, despite court decisions, despite widespread bipartisan public support for a free and open Internet, and despite 22 MILLION comments overwhelmingly in support of Net Neutrality, Chairman Pai today has announced his intentions to repeal the Open Internet Order.”
As FCC Chairman Pai announced his plan to dismantle the net neutrality regulations, Attorney General Eric Schneiderman of New York has released an open letter regarding the massive scheme to corrupt the FCC’s notice and comment process through the misuse of enormous numbers of real New Yorkers’ and other Americans’ identities. That scheme is under investigation by the Attorney General’s office; however, to date, the FCC has refused to provide the office with information that is critical to the investigation.
In May 2017, researchers and reporters discovered that the FCC’s public comment process was being corrupted by the submission of enormous numbers of fake comments concerning the possible repeal of net neutrality rules. The Attorney General’s office analyzed the fake comments and found that tens of thousands of New Yorkers – and hundreds of thousands of Americans – may have had their identities misused. While some of these fake comments used made up names and addresses, many misused the real names and addresses of actual people as part of the effort to undermine the integrity of the comment process.
The Attorney General's office reached out for assistance to multiple top FCC officials, including Chairman Pai, three successive acting FCC General Counsels, and the FCC's Inspector General, but has received no substantive response to its investigative requests.
“Hundreds of thousands of Americans likely were victimized during the FCC's public comment process on net neutrality. That’s akin to identity theft, and it happened on a massive scale.” wrote Attorney General Schneiderman in his open letter. “I encourage the FCC to reconsider its refusal to assist in my office’s law enforcement investigation to identify and hold accountable those who illegally misused so many New Yorkers’ identities to corrupt the public comment process."
"In an era where foreign governments have indisputably tried to use the internet and social media to influence our elections, federal and state governments should be working together to ensure that malevolent actors cannot subvert our administrative agencies’ decision-making processes," wrote Attorney General Schneiderman.
Read the Attorney General's full open letter here
Raymond J. Keating, chief economist for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council), released the following statement regarding Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai’s "announcement that he has circulated a draft order on Restoring Internet Freedom":
“The FCC’s draft order, under the leadership of Chairman Ajit Pai, will roll back onerous internet regulations and is a major pro-investment, pro-innovation and pro-small business step forward. Regulating dynamic, competitive broadband markets and networks as if they were 1930s-style monopolies makes no sense whatsoever. This regulatory mess created under the previous FCC chairman was completely unnecessary, given that broadband providers possess clear incentives to serve both content providers and content consumers well. It was a drastic regulation imposed on a problem that did not, and does not, exist. Such regulation creates uncertainty that restricts investment and innovation, including by threatening government rate and business model regulation. Small companies have been disproportionately and negatively impacted by the onerous ‘net neutrality’ regulations, which have inflicted more costs upon them and more uncertainty into their path.”
Keating expanded upon how this is a serious issue for small businesses:
“The entrepreneurial sector of our economy obviously has benefitted enormously as consumers or users of new and vastly improved broadband services. In addition, smaller firms overwhelmingly populate the telecommunications sector itself. For example, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, 84.1 percent of employer firms in the telecommunications sector have less than 20 employees. When regulation raises costs, creates uncertainty and diminishes investment, that’s a harmful and disruptive barrier for entrepreneurs and small businesses, which then harms competition and innovation in the telecommunications and technology sectors.
“Chairman Pai and the current FCC deserve credit for choosing to guide regulatory activities based on sound, real-world economics, as opposed to the political fantasies and ‘what if’ scenarios that pushed the intrusive and unnecessary internet regulations forward. Small businesses also thank Chairman Pai for his transparency in allowing the public to view the draft order. His actions stand in stark contrast to the previous FCC chairman who did not allow the public to see the language of the order until well after the FCC’s vote. The current FCC, under Chairman Pai’s leadership, has given small businesses and entrepreneurs a voice, and has listened to their concerns. The Restoring Internet Freedom Order is just the latest example of Chairman Pai’s thoughtful and reality-based approach when it comes to regulatory actions and their impact on the entrepreneurial sector of the U.S. economy.”
The ACLU Statement is as follows:
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai released today a draft order that, if adopted, would remove broadband internet access protections and repeal what is known as net neutrality.
Net neutrality prevents internet service providers from prioritizing data for businesses and other organizations that they favor or that pay more. The rules keep the internet open, free, and unrestricted, preventing ISPs from becoming gatekeepers that can control and manipulate what people access on the internet.
“Internet rights are civil rights,” said Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union senior policy analyst. “Gutting net neutrality will have a devastating effect on free speech online. Without it, gateway corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T will have too much power to mess with the free flow of information.”
Ronald Newman, ACLU director of strategic initiatives, said, “In a world without net neutrality, activists may lose an essential platform to organize and fight for change, and small organizations may never get a fair shot to grow and thrive. Congress must stop Chairman Pai’s plan in its tracks and ensure that net neutrality remains the law of the land.”
The Ponder News would like to hear your opinions on the issue!
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Fighting Hate Crimes
by Shonda Ponder
November 21, 2017
Eliot Engel made a statement on his congressional website about transgender hate crimes on the "Transgender Day of Remembrance" where he cited 25 transgender people who had been killed in hate crimes. The goal of this statement was to bring attention to the Equality Act. He is pleading for this law to be passed.
This all sounds well and good; however, why should one hate crime be treated any differently than any other hate crime? And, how will this law protect anyone from being killed?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This has not stopped hate crimes, and to use the Transgender Day of Remembrance in order to further an agenda of having the Equality Act passed which would add sexual stereotypes to this list of people who are not to be discriminated against seems moot.
For instance, according to a Washington Post report, there were 6,121 hate crimes during the year 2016 -- which is up from 5,850 in 2015. Did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do them any good? Yet, for 25 transgender individuals, we’re supposed to pass the Equality Act. How absurd is this? What is the Equality Act going to do that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't do except make it impossible for people who have religious preferences to act on their conscience.
We shouldn't be focused on using hate crimes as a means to pass legislation that has nothing to do with curbing hate crimes. Those 25 people still would have been killed if there was such a law. Just like outlawing guns will not stop criminals from obtaining them.
Maybe there should be a law that says it's against the law to hate anyone. Oh wait there is such a law: murder is supposed to be against the law. Did it stop anyone from murdering those 25 transgender individuals? Did it stop anyone from murdering those 6,121 people in 2016?
It's obvious that love and hate are not something that can be legislated or forced upon people. The only way love and hate is spread is through practice. And, the only way hate can be ever be conquered is by choosing to love. Isn't it ironic that every place that is available for people to learn to love is being torn apart by the government: family, religion, charitable organizations, they are all under attack by all of these new laws and regulations being passed in Congress today because of a few people who hatefully object.
And yet even against these, the Bible still has a lot of wisdom for those who would like to fight hate. Galatians 5:22, 23 has this to say:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
You don't have to be a religious zealot to believe this, or to know that it is true. All you have to do is search the law books and the Constitution in order to try to find in it any law against any of the fruits of the spirits mentioned here. Yet, if everyone practiced these fruits of the spirit there would be no hate crimes. There would be no need for legislation in order to deal with them. Instead, those who choose not to believe what has been written thousands of years before they were born are making it impossible for our progeny to learn how to practice these fruits of the spirit.
My question then remains: how is passing legislation that is designed to prevent people from discriminating going to prevent people from Hating?
Permission is granted to re-use this Op-Ed in its entirety in any media outlet so long as proper credit is given to the author (Shonda Ponder) along with her email address at ponderaa1@gmail.com
November 21, 2017
Eliot Engel made a statement on his congressional website about transgender hate crimes on the "Transgender Day of Remembrance" where he cited 25 transgender people who had been killed in hate crimes. The goal of this statement was to bring attention to the Equality Act. He is pleading for this law to be passed.
This all sounds well and good; however, why should one hate crime be treated any differently than any other hate crime? And, how will this law protect anyone from being killed?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This has not stopped hate crimes, and to use the Transgender Day of Remembrance in order to further an agenda of having the Equality Act passed which would add sexual stereotypes to this list of people who are not to be discriminated against seems moot.
For instance, according to a Washington Post report, there were 6,121 hate crimes during the year 2016 -- which is up from 5,850 in 2015. Did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do them any good? Yet, for 25 transgender individuals, we’re supposed to pass the Equality Act. How absurd is this? What is the Equality Act going to do that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't do except make it impossible for people who have religious preferences to act on their conscience.
We shouldn't be focused on using hate crimes as a means to pass legislation that has nothing to do with curbing hate crimes. Those 25 people still would have been killed if there was such a law. Just like outlawing guns will not stop criminals from obtaining them.
Maybe there should be a law that says it's against the law to hate anyone. Oh wait there is such a law: murder is supposed to be against the law. Did it stop anyone from murdering those 25 transgender individuals? Did it stop anyone from murdering those 6,121 people in 2016?
It's obvious that love and hate are not something that can be legislated or forced upon people. The only way love and hate is spread is through practice. And, the only way hate can be ever be conquered is by choosing to love. Isn't it ironic that every place that is available for people to learn to love is being torn apart by the government: family, religion, charitable organizations, they are all under attack by all of these new laws and regulations being passed in Congress today because of a few people who hatefully object.
And yet even against these, the Bible still has a lot of wisdom for those who would like to fight hate. Galatians 5:22, 23 has this to say:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
You don't have to be a religious zealot to believe this, or to know that it is true. All you have to do is search the law books and the Constitution in order to try to find in it any law against any of the fruits of the spirits mentioned here. Yet, if everyone practiced these fruits of the spirit there would be no hate crimes. There would be no need for legislation in order to deal with them. Instead, those who choose not to believe what has been written thousands of years before they were born are making it impossible for our progeny to learn how to practice these fruits of the spirit.
My question then remains: how is passing legislation that is designed to prevent people from discriminating going to prevent people from Hating?
Permission is granted to re-use this Op-Ed in its entirety in any media outlet so long as proper credit is given to the author (Shonda Ponder) along with her email address at ponderaa1@gmail.com
Monday, November 20, 2017
US troops in Japan banned from drinking after fatal crash
Source: KCTV5
U.S. military personnel in Okinawa have been restricted to base and banned from drinking alcohol after a Marine was arrested over a crash that killed a Japanese man.
Serial killer Charles Manson dies
Source: News Hub
Charles Manson, the cult leader of the Manson family who were responsible for the murder of actress Sharon Tate among others, died on Sunday at a hospital in California. He was 83.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)