NFIB Files Amicus Brief in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, Urging Supreme Court to Protect Small Businesses’ Ability to Resolve Title VII Discrimination Claims Outside of Court

by: National Federation of Independent Business

Fort Bend, TX - March 4, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- NFIB filed an amicus brief in the case of Fort Bend County, Texas, v. Davis today, arguing that the United States Supreme Court should preserve the right of employers and employees to work through discrimination claims first outside of costly litigation.

“Small business owners work hard to ensure that they are compliant with employment laws,” said Karen Harned, Executive Director of the NFIB Small Business Legal Center. “Because of their good faith efforts, businesses would much prefer to resolve problems without costly court battles. Moreover, Congress also expressed preference for reconciliation of Title VII discrimination claims through the administrative process. Allowing employees to go directly to court would undermine the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s mandate to resolve these costly claims quickly and outside of the court system.”

Fort Bend County, Texas, v. Davis concerns whether an employee’s failure to exhaust Title VII administrative remedies by first raising a discrimination claim with the EEOC is a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing a lawsuit in a federal court. In our brief, NFIB argues that, “One of the bedrock policies underlying Title VII is that the favored means of resolving employment discrimination issues is not through litigation, but through voluntary compliance and cooperation.”

The NFIB Small Business Legal Center protects the rights of small business owners in the nation’s courts. NFIB is currently active in more than 40 cases in federal and state courts across the country and in the U.S. Supreme Court.

MHA Statement on House Resolution 1112

by: Mental Health America

Washington, D.C. - March 4, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- “Mental Health America is deeply disappointed that in HR 1112, language is included that perpetuates historic, unfair and unfounded assumptions and prejudices about people experiencing or living with a mental health condition. It is built upon the widely held, but erroneous, belief that equates mental illness with violence.

“Studies confirm that less than 4% of violent crime, of any type, is committed by persons with a diagnosed mental illness. The greatest indicator of violence is past violence, not a mental illness diagnosis. Millions of people have mental illnesses and never have a violent thought or idea. In fact, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely be victims of violence.

“This is why what may be a well-intentioned move away from the antiquated term “mental defective,” to “adjudicated with mental illness, severe developmental disability, or severe emotional instability” stills fall far short, and remains blatantly discriminatory in its substance and implications.

“Experiencing an episode that affects one’s mental health, living with a mental illness, experiencing emotional disturbance, or having developmental disability is not something to which a person is or should be adjudicated by the judicial system, nor should it or does it automatically imply dangerousness.

“MHA is working closely with its allies to see that legislative language regarding prohibitions or restrictions regarding firearms reflects the fact that there are times when a person may be and should be deemed to be ineligible to purchase or possess a firearm due to their mental status, it is not solely because they experience or have experienced a mental condition.”

LIUNA signs letter supporting permanent protections for recipients of TPS and DACA

LIUNA signs letter supporting permanent protections for recipients of TPS and DACA
by: LIUNA
March 4, 2019
Read the letters to Congress signed by LIUNA and 30+ unions asking them to provide permanent protections for TPS and DACA holders.

Read more...

House Judiciary Committee Unveils Investigation into Threats Against the Rule of Law

House Judiciary Committee Unveils Investigation into Threats Against the Rule of Law
by: Judiciary Committee
March 4, 2019
Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) unveiled an investigation by the House Judiciary Committee into the alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration. As a first step, the Committee has served document requests to 81 agencies, entities, and individuals believed to have information relevant to the investigation.

Read more...

House Chairmen Request Documents and Interviews on President Trump’s Communications with Putin

This again? Seriously?

by: House Committee on Intelligence

Washington, D.C. - March 4, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- Today, the Chairmen of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs Committee and House Committee on Oversight and Reform wrote to Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Michael Pompeo to request documents from and interviews with personnel of the White House, Executive Office of the President, and Department of State related to communications between President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation.

Their requests follow up on a February 21, 2019 letter to the White House in which the Chairmen requested answers to five questions relating to the records maintained surrounding President Trump’s communications with Vladimir Putin. The White House failed to provide a response by the due date.

In today’s letters, the Chairmen announced that they are examining a number of issues surrounding these communications, including the substance of any communications during in-person encounters and phone calls, the existence and contents of any documents related to the communications, what the effects of the communications have been on the nation’s foreign policy, whether the President or anyone acting on his behalf have sought to conceal those communications, and whether the President or anyone acting on his behalf have failed to create records or mishandled those records in violation of federal law.

Chairmen Adam Schiff, Elliot Engel and Elijah Cummings wrote:

According to media reports, President Trump, on multiple occasions, appears to have taken steps to conceal the details of his communications with President Putin from other administration officials, Congress, and the American people. The President reportedly seized notes pertaining to at least one meeting held with President Putin and directed at least one American interpreter not to discuss the substance of communications with President Putin with other federal officials.

On February 21, 2019, we wrote a joint letter to the White House requesting basic information about whether the President in fact destroyed records relating to his conversations with President Putin—in violation of the Presidential Records Act—or if he did not, where those records are currently located. The White House failed to provide any response to our inquiry. As a result, we are now expanding our investigation.

These allegations, if true, raise profound national security, counterintelligence, and foreign policy concerns, especially in light of Russia’s ongoing active measures campaign to improperly influence American elections. In addition, such allegations, if true, undermine the proper functioning of government, most notably the Department’s access to critical information germane to its diplomatic mission and its ability to develop and execute foreign policy that advances our national interests. Finally, these allegations present serious concerns that materials pertaining to specific communications may have been manipulated or withheld from the official record in direct contravention of federal laws, which expressly require that Presidents and other administration officials preserve such materials.

Congress has a constitutional duty to conduct oversight over the Department and the White House to determine, among other things, the impact of those communications on U.S. foreign policy, whether federal officials, including President Trump, have acted in the national interest, and whether the applicable laws, regulations, and agency procedures with respect to diplomatic communications with President Putin and other foreign leaders have been complied with and remain sufficient.

“New overtime salary threshold ignores the economic realities middle-class workers are facing”

by: Mark Takano (D-CA, 41st)

Washington, D.C. - March 4, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA, 41st) released the following statement following reports that the U.S. Department of Labor plans to raise the overtime pay threshold to $35,000 from $24,000 through new rule making

“The Department of Labor’s new overtime salary threshold ignores the economic realities middle-class workers are facing across the country. The $35,000 overtime pay threshold is woefully inadequate compared to the Obama-era regulations that would have increased the threshold to nearly $50,000 a year.

“The fact that there hasn’t been a meaningful update to overtime rules in more than four decades presents the Trump Administration with an opportunity to implement significant reforms to how workers are compensated for overtime hours. Unfortunately, this new proposed threshold falls drastically short of what is needed to bring overtime compensation up to date for our current economy.

“It’s clear that President Trump and his Administration are not doing enough to change the rules that have long been rigged against American workers. Therefore, it is up to Congress to step up and take bold steps on behalf of middle-class families – that includes expanding overtime pay for millions of Americans. In the coming days, I plan on introducing the Restoring Overtime Pay Act to codify into law a meaningful overtime pay threshold that is responsive to the current needs of workers.”

ACTION ALERT: Stop the Democrats' Socialist Green New Deal

by: Freedom Works Foundation

Democrat extremists like Al Gore and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez want to completely ELIMINATE every single coal plant and mining job in the country by imposing their socialist Green New Deal on America.

Their disastrous scheme would devastate our military, eliminate nearly 90% of the U.S. energy sector, and even ban cars!

They don’t care about how horribly this will impact working families. All they care about is advancing their radical socialist agenda.

Help stop the Democrats’ socialist Green New Deal by signing the petition.

Report Warns of ‘Tariff Turmoil’ Absent Sweeping U.S.-China Trade Deal

by: Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce

Arlington, VA - February 25, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- The Trump administration rightly delayed an increase in tariffs from 10 to 25 percent on March 2nd because it would devastate U.S. producers, workers, and consumers, according to a new analysis from Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Prosperity (AFP), entitled “Tariff Turmoil: The Effects of Section 301 Tariff Increases Told Through Businesses & Consumers.” In conjunction with the special report, at the online grassroots portal www.TradeBuildsAmerica.com, a new feature lists sortable, state-by-state warnings about the negative impact of higher tariffs.

Freedom Partners Executive Vice President Nathan Nascimento issued the following statement:

“The Trump administration is right to delay the March 1 deadline and give U.S.-China trade talks more time. As our report illustrates, it is critical for Washington and Beijing to swiftly reach an agreement for both sides to eliminate tariffs and other non-tariff protectionist measures. Hundreds of job creators speak with one voice in our report: this 25 percent tariff endangers American prosperity. From rural farmers and small business manufacturers to national retailers and large corporations, trade builds America. Increasing the tariffs would mean higher costs for consumers, job losses for workers, and catastrophic harm for small businesses.”

AFP Senior Policy Fellow Alison Acosta Winters issued the following statement:

“The administration is right to delay increasing tariffs to 25 percent as negotiations continue and we continue to urge them to remove this tariff threat hanging over the country. Across thriving communities and bustling industries, trade is part of our economic powerhouse helping drive growth and improve lives. This new report gives a voice to hundreds of U.S. job creators warning of the devastating impact increasing tariffs to 25 percent on a vast array of Chinese imports would have on their businesses. The Trump administration should avoid the damage these tariffs would wreak on Americans by forging an agreement with Beijing that eliminates trade barriers.”

PRO-INFANTICIDE U.S. SENATE DEMOCRATS BLOCK BORN-ALIVE ABORTION SURVIVORS PROTECTION ACT

by: Faith and Freedom Coalition

Washington, D.C. - February 25, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- Today, pro-infanticide Democrats in the United States Senate blocked cloture on S. 311 the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” to ensure legal protections for children who are born alive despite attempted abortion procedures.

Forty-four Democrat Senators, including all six of the Democratic senators currently running for President, Cory Booker (NJ), Sherrod Brown (OH), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Kamala Harris (CA), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Elizabeth Warren (MA), plus Bernie Sanders (VT), voted against the bill. Only three Democrats, Bob Casey Jr. (PA), Joe Manchin (WV), and Doug Jones (Ala.), voted in favor of the legislation.

“Today is a dark day in American history as Senate Democrats, including all those running for President, chose to support the murder of innocent babies alive outside the womb,” said Faith & Freedom Coalition Executive Director Tim Head. “The American people understand that the Supreme Court legalized abortion over 40 years ago; however, infanticide and abortion on demand violates our collective conscience. An overwhelming majority of Americans support common-sense restrictions on abortion, including this legislation to stop the abhorrent practice of denying medical care and taking the life of a child after they have been born.”

The Born Alive Survivors Protection Act would have amended Title 18 of the United States Code to provide legal personhood rights to any “infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.”

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed for cloture to end debate and allow a straight up or down vote on this critical pro-life legislation to extend legal protections to children born alive in health care facilities nationwide, but S. 311 failed to garner the 60 votes necessary to end debate.

“Senators who voted against this bill to provide legal and health protections to children who have survived failed abortions have much soul searching to do,” added Head. “The barbaric practice of leaving young children to die despite their having survived an abortion procedure should not be tolerated in our country. But, unfortunately, purveyors of abortion-on-demand blocked this common-sense restriction on infanticide.”

Faith & Freedom Coalition will score each Senator’s vote against cloture as a vote in favor of abortion-on-demand, and those recorded votes will appear in tens of millions of Congressional Scorecards and voter guides which will be distributed to tens of millions of voters and over 100,000 churches during the 2020 election cycle.

Support of Bladensburg Veterans Memorial

by: Family Research Council

Washington, D.C. - February 26, 2019 - (The Ponder News) -- On Wednesday, February 27, Alexandra McPhee, FRC's Director of Religious Freedom Advocacy, and an author of our amicus brief in the case, will give her reaction to the oral arguments in American Legion v. American Humanist Association. She will be available for comment on the steps of the Supreme Court immediately following the arguments in the case, which concerns the future of a historic cross-shaped veterans memorial in Bladensburg, Maryland.

Alexandra McPhee, FRC's Director of Religious Freedom Advocacy, made the following comments:

“Across the nation, monuments depicting religious imagery are being challenged by groups arguing that having these monuments on public property constitutes government establishment of a religion, even though these monuments are often greatly important to the local community. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have reverberating effects on whether religiously themed monuments may be maintained on government land anywhere.

“To find a display or memorial unconstitutional for its religious inspiration alone shortchanges a community’s history and culture. It also neglects the important role of religion in our public life. The Peace Cross, for instance, serves as a reminder to residents and visitors of the surrounding Bladensburg community that freedom has been bought with the lives of our loved ones. How can it be unconstitutional for the government to preserve that memory when it was the very same government that asked those loved ones to die for their country?” concluded McPhee.

WHO: Alexandra McPhee, Director of Religious Freedom Advocacy, Family Research Council

WHAT: Reactions to the oral arguments in the Bladensburg Cross Case

WHERE: Supreme Court of the United States, 1 First St NE, Washington, DC 20543

WHEN: Wednesday, February 27, 2019, immediately following oral arguments (approximately 11:30 am Eastern)