Conservative Movement Releases Open Letter to the News Media: Beware of the Southern Poverty Law Center

Source: Family Research Council

==Support The Ponder News==
==Help Support The Ponder==
The Ponder appreciates our readers! We have a special offer for you:

====
Washington, D.C. - September 7, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Family Research Council (FRC) today joined a coalition of 47 conservative leaders and organizations in releasing an open letter to news organizations, calling on the media to stop using data from the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).

The SPLC has recklessly labeled dozens of mainstream conservative organizations as "hate groups." SPLC's labeling of FRC as a "hate group" was connected in federal court to an act of domestic terrorism committed five years ago at FRC's Washington headquarters by Floyd Corkins. Corkins confessed to the FBI that he used SPLC's "hate map" to choose FRC as a target for violence. More recently, James Hodgkinson, the attempted political assassin of House Majority Whip, Rep. Steve Scalise and many other Republican members of the U.S. House and Senate, was discovered to have "liked" the SPLC on Facebook.

The letter reads in part:

"We are writing to you as individuals or as representatives of organizations who are deeply troubled by several recent examples of the media's use of data from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). The SPLC is a discredited, left-wing, political activist organization that seeks to silence its political opponents with a 'hate group' label of its own invention and application that is not only false and defamatory, but that also endangers the lives of those targeted with it.

"The fifth anniversary has just passed of the terrorist event for which the SPLC's hate map and website were used to target its victims for political assassination. The following facts were established in the record of a federal court case. On August 15, 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins II entered the Family Research Council offices in Washington, D.C. and shot and badly wounded its building manager, Leo Johnson, who stopped his intended killing spree. According to his own statements to the FBI, Corkins intended to kill everyone in the building, and then go on to terrorize additional organizations.

"We believe the media outlets that have cited the SPLC in recent days have not intended to target mainstream political groups for violent attack, but by recklessly linking the Charlottesville melee to the mainstream groups named on the SPLC website -- those that advocate in the courts, the halls of Congress, and the press for the protection of conventional, Judeo-Christian values -- we are left to wonder if another Floyd Lee Corkins will soon be incited to violence by this incendiary information.

"That day, Corkins carried both the means to carry out this act of terrorism and a list of additional targets. The U.S. Attorney stated in federal court that Corkins targeted FRC and the additional targets by using the SPLC website's 'Hate Map.' On February 6, 2013, Corkins pleaded guilty to three felonies, and became the first person convicted of violating the District of Columbia's Anti-Terrorism Act of 2002.

"To associate public interest law firms and think tanks with neo-Nazis and the KKK is unconscionable, and it represents the height of irresponsible journalism to do so. All reputable news organizations should immediately stop using the SPLC descriptions of in individuals and organizations based on the SPLC's obvious political prejudices."

To read the full letter, click here

Trump Must Nix HHS Mandate

Source: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights

==Help Support The Ponder==
The Ponder appreciates our readers! We have a special offer for you:

====
New York, NY - September 7, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Catholic League president Bill Donohue is calling upon President Trump to repeal the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate:

The Catholic Benefits Association (CBA), which provides health coverage to many Catholic entities, is asking President Trump to repeal and replace the HHS mandate that was sponsored by President Obama. We second that call: Trump's Justice Department continues to inexplicably honor an appeal to the Tenth Circuit that seeks to undo the CBA's injunctive relief from the HHS mandate.

"No government action in American history has ever resulted in more lawsuits by religious organizations," says the CBA. Moreover, the reasons brokered are wholly indefensible.

The HHS mandate fundamentally guts the right of Catholic non-profits to provide healthcare that is consistent with Catholic teachings. Worse, it grants the government the right to decide whether a Catholic institution is sufficiently Catholic, thus obliterating church and state lines.

Make no mistake about it, granting the right of the federal government to decide whether a Catholic association is truly Catholic is a pernicious power grab, one that flies in the face of the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty. This is clearly the most draconian element of the HHS mandate.

What makes this all the more disturbing is the ruling by the Trump administration's HHS declaring the ObamaCare HHS mandate illegal. Why, then, the foot dragging on the part of the Justice Department?

The Trump administration does not have to wait for a repeal of ObamaCare to do what is morally and constitutionally right—it can repeal the HHS mandate at any time.

We all understand the frustration that accompanies the slow rate of presidential appointees, but this issue does not turn on new personnel: Attorney General Jeff Sessions can withdraw the Tenth Circuit appeal without delay.

One way or the other, Catholics need to know whether the president is going to fulfill his pledge to protect the religious liberty of the Little Sisters of the Poor, as well as all the other Catholic groups that are party to these lawsuits.

House “Bipartisan” Robot Car Bill Threatens Highway Safety, Consumer Watchdog Warns

Source: Consumer Watchdog

Santa Monica, CA - September 7, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- A bill covering autonomous vehicles that the House of Representatives rushed to pass today threatens highway safety and leaves a regulatory void rather than enacting necessary protections, Consumer Watchdog warned today.

The bill, passed on a voice vote, under rules to expedite consideration, was being touted in some quarters as an example of new-found Congressional bipartisanship.

“Bipartisanship is worthless when it produces a dangerous bill,” said John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project Director.

The autonomous vehicle bill, called the SELF-DRIVE Act, would leave a wild west without adequate safety protections for consumers, Consumer Watchdog said. The bill pre-empts any state safety standards, but there are none at the national level.

“Pre-empting the states’ ability to fill the void left by federal inaction leaves us at the mercy of manufacturers as they use our public highways as their private laboratories however they wish with no safety protections at all,” said Simpson.

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration needs do its job and Congress should give the agency the money to do it,” said Simpson. “The sad reality is that President Trump hasn’t even bothered to nominate a NHTSA administrator.”

The Department of Transportation has completely ignored a committee, the Advisory Committee on Automation in Transportation (ACAT) created by the Obama Administration to offer advice on autonomous vehicle policy. It has not met since Trump took office.

Self-driving car developers claim to worry about a so-called state-by-state patchwork of conflicting safety regulations, that they claim would hamper innovation.

“That’s nonsense. If NHTSA enacted Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards covering autonomous vehicles they would automatically preempt state safety regulations,” said Simpson. “The House action was show-boating that actually puts Consumers at risk.”

Consumer Watchdog’s has released an in-depth study, “Self-Driving Vehicles: The Threat to Consumers.”

Click here to read the report.

==Help Support The Ponder==
The Ponder appreciates our readers! We have a special offer for you:

====

CONGRESS SHOULD MOVE ON BILL TO MODERNIZE VA

Source: Concerned Veterans for America

==Help Support The Ponder==
The Ponder appreciates our readers! We have a special offer for you:

====Washington, D.C. - September 7, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Recently, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) introduced the VA Information Technology Restructuring Act, or H.R. 3640, as a measure to modernize the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The bill is identical to a Senate measure introduced by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) earlier this year, which Concerned Veterans for America (CVA) supported immediately.

The bill will create a Chief Information Officer (CIO) position within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to help streamline the upgrading, acquisition, and operation of IT systems in the department.

CVA Texas Field Director Ben Rangel issued the following statement:

“The VA’s outdated IT system is one of the many barriers to veterans accessing timely care and benefits. Rep. Ratcliffe’s new bill would enable the VA to make well-informed decisions to upgrade, modernize, and consolidate its IT department. We applaud the efforts of Sen. Cruz and Rep. Ratcliffe to make the VHA more effective, and we proudly support the VA Information Technology Restructuring Act. With strong momentum in the House and Senate, there is no reason for Congress to delay taking up this important measure to improve the care our veterans receive.”

Response to Washington Post Account of CEI's Victory on Paris Climate Decision

Source: Competitive Enterprise Institute

==Help Support The Ponder==
The Ponder appreciates our readers! We have a special offer for you:

====
Washington, D.C. - September 7, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Competitive Enterprise Institute President Kent Lassman released the following statement in response to Robert O’Harrow’s article in The Washington Post about CEI’s Myron Ebell, the Cooler Heads Coalition, and their work relevant to President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement. The article also challenges the role and independence of think tanks in public policy debates.

"Although The Washington Post’s story about CEI, Myron Ebell, and the Cooler Heads Coalition correctly identifies the success that CEI and the Cooler Heads organizations have had debunking global warming alarmism and exposing the devastating, regulatory onslaught that comes along with it, the Post fails to show Americans how public policy groups like CEI help cut through the rhetoric and bring people together on the merits of policies rather than short-sighted politics. Thanks to Myron and Cooler Heads, millions of people continue to have access to reliable and affordable energy, a resource that has lifted people out of poverty around the globe.

“The Post spends a lot of space questioning CEI's nonprofit status and activities, while conveniently ignoring groups 10 times our size. These organizations advocate for radical changes in our national energy policies and rely upon the very same IRS provisions. We can, and should, debate what the climate science shows and the policies we should implement as a result. But, what we cannot stand for are ideologues who weaponize data, spread junk science, and stoke fears to force political decisions that will take away Americans’ freedoms, undermine the U.S. Constitution, and jeopardize our national interests.” ​

CAGW’s Deborah Collier Testifies Before Senate Commerce Committee on FCC’s Lifeline Program

Source: Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)

Washington, D.C. - September 7, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Director of Technology and Telecommunications Policy, Deborah Collier, testified this morning before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s hearing on the, “Risk of Waste, Fraud and Abuse in the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline Program.”

The testimony reads, in part:

“Many Americans have heard of the ‘Obamaphones,’ made infamous by the viral 2012 video of a Cleveland woman touting the ‘free’ Lifeline program. However, few Americans realize is that Lifeline is part of the Low-Income support program, which was created in 1985 to provide subsidies for low-income households to obtain a telephone enabling them to communicate in emergencies.

“Over the years, the Lifeline program has evolved from initially providing one landline telephone per household in need, to offering low-income, qualified subscribers a choice between a landline telephone, a wireless phone, or broadband internet service at a reduced cost (with a limit of one per household).”

“GAO also revealed multiple instances of fraud and abuse within the program. For example, some recipients were using Craigslist to advertise the sale of Lifeline-subsidized phones and service. In other instances, Lifeline beneficiaries violated the one phone line restriction of the program by signing up for service from multiple carriers.”

“Continued fraud and abuse within the Lifeline program has continued despite efforts to reform the verification process in 2012 and again in 2015. If Congress intends to continue the Lifeline program and make it sustainable in the future, CAGW strongly recommends that the USAC be required to implement a front end verification process, and the FCC engage in more stringent enforcement actions against companies that actively register ineligible or duplicate recipients into the program, and skirt the verification process.”

Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation's largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

Defeating Terrorists, Not Terrorism

Source: The Bipartisan Policy Center

In the 16 years since the 9/11 attacks, U.S. counterterrorism efforts have succeeded in preventing another mass-casualty attack on U.S. soil. But despite that success at home, the terrorist threat continues to spread. Too often, U.S. counterterrorism efforts have focused on military operations against a specific group, while doing too little to prevent new generations from replenishing their ranks.

Washington, D.C. - September 7, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- A new Bipartisan Policy Center task force led by former Gov. Tom Kean and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who led the 9/11 Commission, is examining why the terrorist threat remains so potent and developing a long-term strategy to defeat jihadist ideology.

The Task Force on Terrorism and Ideology today issued its first paper, Defeating Terrorists, Not Terrorism: Assessing U.S. Counterterrorism Policy from 9/11 to ISIS, which offers an in-depth look at why, despite the many successes of U.S. actions against terrorism, new groups have continued to emerge.

“Even as the military defeat of the Islamic State appears imminent, American policymakers must avoid the temptation of confusing the defeat of one brutal terrorist organization with victory against terrorism,” Hamilton said. “As long as jihadists can replenish their ranks as fast as we can take them off the battlefield, the threat will persist.”

“The generational struggle against Islamist terrorism will come to an end only when the ambitions that motivate groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State no longer inspire new recruits to violence,” Kean said. “We can, and must, do better to defeat terrorists’ ideas.”

The task force of top national security, diplomatic, and intelligence experts will release recommendations in the future.

BPC is holding an event on Sept. 8 to discuss these issues. Speakers include key congressional and executive branch officials and notable experts.

85 percent of Americans support free speech for all, even the unpopular, 63 percent oppose political violence by Antifa

Source: Americans for Limited Government
Source: Center for Security Policy


Washington, D.C. - September 6, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- A new public opinion survey conducted by McLaughlin and Associates found the vast preponderance of those polled favors the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression—and rejects the notion that some should be denied that right. This finding confirms that of a recent Rasmussen poll. Together, these distinguished pollsters’ data represent a powerful warning for government officials, lawmakers and activists intent on restricting free speech if, in their view or others, it gives “offense.”

Key results of the McLaughlin survey conducted last week included the following:

By a margin of 85 percent to 8 percent, respondents said that, in the aftermath of the riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, last month, “all Americans are entitled to free speech,” not “just some of us.”

84.9 percent of respondents regarded “freedom of speech as a fundamental right.” Only 9.3 percent thought “it should be restricted if it offends some people.”

63 percent opposed the violent leftist group Antifa’s attempts to silence those whose speech it disagrees with, while only 21 percent supported Antifa.

A plurality of 42.8 percent opposed the use by internet companies of a list compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) that accuses “many mainstream conservative groups” of engaging in “hate speech.” Only 31.8 percent supported such use.

Frank J. Gaffney, the president of one of those conservative groups, the Center for Security Policy, responded to the latest poll by observing:

“Americans clearly understand the dangers associated with attempts to censor speech and other forms of expression. Today, it might be someone else who is being silenced. Tomorrow, it may well be you. And, to the extent that organizations funded by the likes of radical leftists like George Soros—including the Southern Poverty Law Center and Antifa—are allowed to act as the arbiters of who is allowed to communicate, about what and how, it’s just a matter of time before many millions of us are gagged.

“The Left and the Islamist allies it enables have clearly crossed a line,” Gaffney continued. “Organizations like the SPLC, the Anti-Defamation League and the Council on American-Islamic Relations are engaged in political warfare pure and simple, aimed at denying their opponents’ free speech rights in academia, in the media, on the internet and in the public square. Politicians—and most especially Republican ones—acquiesce to such anti-constitutional conduct at their own electoral peril.”

Indeed, the wake-up call to public office-holders offered by the McLaughlin and Rasmussen polls on free speech could hardly be more timely. After all, in April 2017—even before the bloodletting in Charlottesville spawned relentless, bipartisan demands for limiting “offensive” expression—the U.S. Senate unanimously approved S.Res. 118, co-sponsored by Sens. Marco Rubio, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris. It was described as “a resolution condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence, or animus targeting a minority in the United States.”

Animus is a sweeping term that can include such highly subjective sentiments as hostility, ill-feeling and strong dislike. The resolution also called for federal investigation of not just hate crimes but “hate incidents” and “hate threats,” both undefined. A counterpart resolution is awaiting action in the House of Representatives, as are actual bills with names like the “NO HATE Act” in both the Senate and the House.

Speaking of Soros and his ilk, the McLaughlin poll also found that by a nearly two-to-one margin, 48.5 to 26.3, respondents agreed that President Donald Trump should not employ “subordinates who can be shown to be colluding with George Soros, Barack Obama or others associated with them to undermine President Trump’s administration.” Among Trump voters, the spread was even wider, 67.6 percent to 18.4 percent.

The Center for Security Policy strongly agrees with the prevailing sentiments documented in the McLaughlin and Associates poll. It calls on every American who loves freedom to exercise their First Amendment rights. That should, among other things, entail insisting that their lawmakers uphold freely sworn oaths to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement in response to a poll by Center for Security Policy/Eagle Forum/McLaughlin & Associates showing overwhelming support for the First Amendment and free speech rights:

“At a time when the First Amendment is under unprecedented assault by the institutional left, the American people have proven once again that they are not willing to trade their essential liberty to avoid being potentially offended, with 85 percent unequivocally supporting free speech rights for everyone, including those they disagree with. Particularly telling is the result that nearly two-thirds of Americans are opposed to the radical Antifa movement, which supports and engages in violence against those they disagree with.

“The fact that the First Amendment maintains broad suppport across America clearly shows that freedom runs through the very DNA of the American people, and those who seek to undermine basic freedoms or provide aid and comfort in that effort, do so at their own political peril.

“Private companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Paypal need to proceed cautiously as they consider becoming arbiters of appropriate speech on the Internet, because if Americans believe that they have relinquished their neutrality, they will lose their dominance to market alternatives.”

Over Twenty Leading Conservative Organizations Urge Congress to Pass Pro-Growth Tax Reform in Open Letter

Source: American Action Network


Washington, D.C. - September 6, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- As Congress returns from August recess, American Action Network’s Middle-Class Growth Initiative (MCGI) is pleased to lead a coalition of over 20 state and national conservative organizations calling on the U.S. House of Representatives to seize the opportunity to deliver transformative tax reform. In an open letter, the MCGI-led coalition highlighted the failures of America’s tax code and urged every member of the U.S. House to make the tax code simpler, fairer, and with lower rates to help revitalize America’s middle class.

A personalized letter will be hand-delivered to every House member’s office in Washington. The coalition letter marks the first of several open letters released as part of AAN’s ongoing efforts on tax reform.

“Now that Congress is back, it’s time to get to work and deliver transformational tax reform that will cut taxes on the middle class, raise wages, and allow U.S. job creators to compete,” said AAN Executive Director Corry Bliss. “After seeing years of stagnant wages, jobs lost to places like China, and slow economic growth, American families have had enough of our broken tax code. With this letter, we’re showing members of Congress that conservatives are united and will stand with them as they work to pass meaningful reforms that American job creators and middle-class families need.”

The full letter, sent to every member of the House of Representatives, can be read here. List of signatories:

Alabama Policy Institute
American Action Network
Americans for Tax Reform
American Commitment
Americans for Limited Government
Beacon Center of Tennessee
Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions
Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Center for Individual Freedom
Citizens United
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
FreedomWorks Freedom Foundation of Minnesota
Georgia Public Policy Foundation
Hispanic Leadership Fund
Independence Institute
Middle-Class Growth Initiative
National Taxpayers Union
Rio Grande Foundation
R Street Institute
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
60 Plus Association

Colorado designer may appeal ruling that won’t let her challenge law forcing her to promote same-sex weddings

Source: Alliance Defending Freedom



Denver, CO - September 6, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- A Colorado graphic designer who specializes in designing and creating custom websites is likely to appeal a federal judge’s ruling issued Friday. The ruling doesn’t allow her to challenge a law that forces her to use her artistic talents to promote same-sex ceremonies if she creates custom websites and graphics celebrating weddings between one man and one woman. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent Lorie Smith and her studio, 303 Creative.

The judge ruled that Smith and her studio can’t sue to challenge a portion of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act because a request that a couple with the first names “Stewart” and “Mike” sent Smith isn’t sufficient to prove that a same-sex couple has asked her to help them celebrate their wedding. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has construed the law to force artists like Smith to create objectionable art even though Smith happily serves everyone and decides what art to create based on the art’s message—not her client’s personal characteristics.

The law also prohibits artists from expressing any religious views about marriage that could indicate someone is “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable” because of their sexual orientation. The judge is allowing Smith to sue against that portion of the law but is holding the case until the U.S. Supreme Court rules in another ADF case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, involving Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips.

“Artists shouldn’t be threatened with punishment for deciding, as artists always have, which messages they are going to promote or not promote,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. “Because the court’s ruling allows the state to violate the freedom of artists like Lorie to make these kinds of personal decisions, she is considering appeal.”

“Every American, including artists, should be free to peacefully live and work according to their faith without fear of unjust punishment by the government,” added ADF Legal Counsel Kate Anderson. “Just because an artist creates expression that communicates one viewpoint doesn’t mean Colorado can require her to express all viewpoints. Lorie should be allowed to proceed with her legal challenge in full because it’s unlawful to force an artist to create art against her will just because the government disagrees with her beliefs.”

The lawsuit, 303 Creative v. Elenis, which ADF attorneys filed last year in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, explains how the state law runs afoul of various provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Press clauses. Specifically, the suit challenges Colorado Revised Statute § 24-34-601(2)(a). The law is the same one the commission used against Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop.

MRD Law partner Michael L. Francisco, one of nearly 3,200 attorneys allied with ADF, is serving as local counsel in the case for Smith and 303 Creative.