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!

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

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.

Read More...

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.

Read about it...

Customs and Border Protection agent dies after being injured in west Texas

Source: Los Angeles Times

One U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent was killed and another seriously injured Sunday while responding to suspicious activity in the west Texas Big Bend area, officials said.

Agent Rogelio Martinez, 36, and his partner, whose name was not released, were injured and taken to a hospital, officials said. Martinez died and his partner was in serious condition.

Read more

99 Representatives Urge Army Not to Award Bergdahl Back Pay

Washington, D.C. - November 16, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Representative Rick Crawford (R-AR, 1st), along with 99 fellow Representatives, wrote a letter to Ryan D. McCarthy, the Acting Secretary of the United States Army, urging the United States Army not to award Private Bowe Bergdahl any back pay prior to or subsequent to separation from the United States Army. A copy of that letter may be found here.

“As an Army veteran myself, I’m very concerned that Private Bergdahl may receive more money in back pay than the families of the fallen soldiers who lost their lives searching for him,” Crawford said. “That sends the wrong message to our servicemen and women, and I don’t believe the pay is deserved. While we should always do everything in our power to bring home prisoners of war, given the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture and his admission of desertion, I don’t think it is appropriate to award that pay.”

According to Army Times: “Bergdahl was captured after walking off base on June 30, 2009, while deployed to Paktika province with 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division. He pleaded guilty in October to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. On Nov. 3, a military judge ruled Bergdahl would not serve any jail time but be dishonorably discharged from the Army and reduced in rank to private.”

Despite his dishonorable discharge and demotion, Bergdahl remains eligible for significant back pay. Captive soldiers normally receive special compensation worth around $150,000 in addition to hostile-fire pay and their basic pay they accumulated during the captivity.

According to Army Times: “’Based upon the results of trial, the Army is reviewing Sgt. Bergdahl’s pay and allowances,’ Lt. Col. Randy Taylor told Army Times. ‘His final pay and allowances will be determined in accordance with DoD policy and Army regulation.’”

Read more news about Bowe Bergdahl on the Bowe Bergdahl page at The Ponder News by clicking HERE

Members Introduce Articles of Impeachment

Washington, D.C. - November 16, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, and colleagues, has introduced five Articles of Impeachment against President Donald J. Trump. See the articles here and a summary here.

Congressman Cohen made the following statement:

“The time has come to make clear to the American people and to this President that his train of injuries to our Constitution must be brought to an end through impeachment. I believe there is evidence that he attempted to obstruct an investigation into Russia’s interference with the U.S. presidential election and links between between Russia and the Trump campaign, most notably the firing of FBI Director James Comey. The president’s blatant refusal to separate himself from his businesses has led to clear instances of conflict of interest that appear to violate both the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses. And his attacks on ‘so-called’ judges and ‘fake news’ have undermined public confidence in the judiciary and the press. It’s time for Congress to take action to stop this reckless and harmful behavior by removing Mr. Trump from office and to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States.”

Congressman Luis Gutierrez (IL-04) made the following statement:

“Congress has the power of impeachment when behavior by the President puts the nation and our laws at risk and I think we are at that point, despite the ongoing, important investigations. Congress needs to step in when there is evidence that the President is interfering with the judicial branch, obstructing or disrupting investigations, or if the President is profiting improperly from his office. This is the start of a long process and it needs to get started now because as a Member of Congress and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, it is my job.”

Congressman Al Green (TX-09) made the following statement:

“This brings us another step closer to impeachment.”

Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (OH-11) made the following statement:

“In the nearly 300 days since he was sworn in, it has become evident that President Trump is a clear and present danger to our democracy. It is high time that Congress take a serious look at the President’s actions,” said Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, (OH-11). “If those actions are found to be in violation of the Constitution, then the Congress of the United States needs to do the job the American people elected us to do.”

Congressman Adriano Espaillat (NY13) made the following statement:

“Donald Trump is a threat to our national security and to our justice, and once and for all, we are taking a stand to formally call for his impeachment in the name of our constituents, in support of our Constitution, and for the protection of our Democracy,” said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (NY-13). “Trump is dangerous and nearly every month that he has served in office, Americans have witnessed some violation of our values, civil liberties, and access to opportunities that represent who we are at home and to our allies around the world. Mr. Trump is failing and has turned back the clock on the more than 50 years of progress our country has made in civil rights and equality. He has obstructed justice, violated the Constitution, and undermined the independence of our judicial system and the freedom of the press. The evidence is there, and the course of action is clear. It’s time to impeach Trump now.”

Visit The Ponder News Web Site for more news!

Should Washington, D.C. be Made a State?

https://www.thepondernews.com/should-dc-be-made-a-state

In a recent press release honoring D.C. Veterans, House Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) introduced a resolution honoring D.C. Veterans for their honorable sacrifices, even though they don't have voting rights, because D.C. isn't a state. She then called for a vote to change that.

The question, then, is should D.C. be made a state?

I think it is necessary to ask the question, why isn't D.C. a state already? The answer lies in the founding of D.C. itself, which resulted from an agreement by the North and the South due to the nature of politics in that day. According to a Time article, "the founders worried that if the capital were to be a state, the members of the government would be unduly beholden to it. Madison envisioned that voting members of a D.C. state would be able to ‘insult’ or ‘interrupt’ the proceedings of government to get their way, simply by virtue of physical proximity to the halls of power."

Now the question is should D.C. citizens have better access to governmental proceedings, therefore being able to influence government due to the fact that they are so close to the Capital? Is it really a good idea to have D.C. become a state?

 Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution reads,

“The Congress shall have Power To …exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

Re-Authorizing CHIP: CHAMPION Act Passes House

Washington, D.C. - November 7, 2017 (The Ponder News) -- The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Championing Health Kids Act, H.R. 3922 by a vote of 242-174 on November 3, 2017.
It now goes to the Senate.
​
The Championing Healthy Kids Act, H.R. 3922, uses offsets to fund CHIP and programs like community health centers while eliminating $5 billion in scheduled cuts to Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH). The bill includes a two-year extension of funding for Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), which focus on delivering health care to underserved populations through community-based and patient-centered models.

The CHAMPIONING HEALTHY KIDS Act (H.R. 3922) includes:
​

Five year extension of Children’s Health Insurance Program;

Two year extension of Community Health Center funding at $3.6 billion;

Eliminates Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) reductions;

Two year extension of funding for the Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education Program, the Youth Empowerment Program,

Family-to-Family Health Information Centers, Funding for the National Health Service Corps, Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education, and the Personal Responsibility Education Program are included in this bill;

Two year Extension of the Special Diabetes Program for Type 1 Diabetes and the Special Diabetes Program for Indians; and

Over $1 billion for the Medicaid programs in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

The bill includes pay-for provisions such as limiting Medicaid benefits for lottery winners and requiring those making over $500,000 to pay for their Medicare premiums.

Not everyone is happy with the bill. Senator Sherrod Brown (D - OH) maintains of the CHAMPION Act that while similar to the Senate bill, it creates winners and losers by funding CHIP by raising costs for Ohio seniors and cutting critical public health funds. The bill would reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) by cutting funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund. Immediately after the vote, U.S. Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (D-OH, 3rd) issued the following statement:

“Ensuring children can see their doctor should not be a partisan issue. Unfortunately, today’s bill to reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program has fallen prey to partisan politics, and many children and families will suffer as a result. Instead of forcing draconian cuts on community health programs that help at-risk Americans and countless working families in exchange for CHIP funding, Congress needs to focus on providing all Americans access to affordable, high-quality healthcare.”

Congressman Jack Bergman (R-MI, 1st) offered that, "with our national debt over $20 trillion, Congress must also be vigilant about how we prioritize spending on federal programs."

"Using the Prevention and Public Health Fund to pay for CHIP will harm the overall health of our communities. This bill would result in a cut of about $25 million for important Oregon public health initiatives over the next five years. That is unacceptable," said Congresswoman Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR, 1st).

The House Democrats are screaming against the cut in funding for the Prevention and Public Health fund in order to fund CHIP. Congressman Brendan Boyle (D-PA, 13th) voted to reauthorize CHIP for two years in 2015, and signed onto a congressional letter last month urging House leadership to bring a clean reauthorization bill up for a vote as soon as possible. He is not happy with the current Bill.

In 2015 more than 8.4 million children received their insurance through the CHIP program and 24 million patients were served by Federally Qualified Health Centers.

A Bill Against Vehicular Terrorism

By Shonda Ponder, editor
The Ponder News
https://www.thepondernews.com/abillagainstvehicularterrorism

With all the bills in Congress right now against guns arising from the number of mass shootings and murders in the United States, it was only a matter of time before someone decided to try to do something about the number of vehicular assaults.

I wonder how many times someone has used a vehicle to try to hurt someone. I know of several people who have been wounded due to someone else using their vehicle in an assaulting way -- but until now, no one seemed to want to strike out against vehicles as a weapon the way they have guns. After all, people depend on their vehicles in a more intimate way than they depend on their guns. Vehicles are a way of life. Without them, many would not be able to get to work in order to support their families. Guns are only their for a "just in case" scenario, or for hunting sports.

I love the taste of deer sausage; but, you are not going to get me to eat roadkill.

According to a press release from House Representative Robert E. (Bob) Latta (R OH, 5th), he has introduced legislation "to combat vehicular terrorism and direct the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide feedback to Congress on the issue. The Vehicular Terrorism Prevention Act, which follows up on previous efforts by Latta to protect Americans against vehicular terrorism, directs the DHS to report to Congress on their efforts to assess and prevent terrorist acts involving vehicles. Specifically, the report would include the current threat level for vehicular attacks, what the department is currently doing to prevent vehicular terrorism, how the threat can be mitigated, and a clarification on the extent to which DHS is doing outreach to private sector partners. It would also include any recommendations on what Congress can do to aid DHS efforts to prevent vehicular terrorism."

Okay, so what happens when the DHS figures out that more people die from car assaults each day than guns? I'm curious. How many people have had wrecks they were found at fault in, then been charged with manslaughter because their passenger died? What do we do about them?

Sure, we can take their vehicle away. That's not going to stop the problem, because I know a lot of people who have refused to quit driving even though they don't have a license to drive. It hasn't stopped them any more than having a permit or having to get a background check has stopped criminals from somehow accessing guns in order to shoot up a crowd of people, or murder someone.

I'm sure they could find a way to make it harder to own a car, but the economy would suffer.

So, Bob Latta, what is your end game here? Why go through all the trouble? What is it going to accomplish?

I'm perplexed.