# data[].attributes.headline
Trophy Hunting and import of elephants into the United States

# data[].attributes.subject
Trophy Hunting and import of elephants into the United States

# data[].attributes.body
In this article they discuss the tragedy of killing elephants and importing the trophy's into the United states.  While this practice has been banned here here quite some time it is considered normal in other countries.  According to Hume's Law it is not logical to to base our ideas about how we ought to act from a factual account of how we actually do behave.  If it's considered normal in other areas why do we condemn the behavior of hunting elephants?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Two days after suddenly halting his own administration's decision to begin allowing hunters to import elephants killed in two African countries, President Donald Trump called such trophy hunting a "horror show" and said he's unlikely to change his mind and allow such imports.

"Big-game trophy decision will be announced next week but will be very hard pressed to change my mind that this horror show in any way helps conservation of Elephants or any other animal," he posted to Twitter Sunday evening.

Big-game trophy decision will be announced next week but will be very hard pressed to change my mind that this horror show in any way helps conservation of Elephants or any other animal.
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 19, 2017

In the face of widespread public backlash, Tump announced late Friday that he has suspended - at least for now - his administration's decision to reverse an Obama-era ban on the importation of elephant trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia.

"Put big game trophy decision on hold until such time as I review all conservation facts," he posted to Twitter. He adding that the issue has been "under study for years" but that he would provide an update after additional review.

Put big game trophy decision on hold until such time as I review all conservation facts. Under study for years. Will update soon with Secretary Zinke. Thank you!
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 18, 2017

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said in a statement on Twitter that he and Trump " believe that conservation & healthy herds are critical."

As HuffPost reported Wednesday, the administration optedto lift the 2014 ban after determining that sport hunting of elephants in those African countries would "enhance the survival of the species in the wild," a spokesperson for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said. It also recently rolled back protections for African lions, releasing new guidelines that allow big game hunters to bring back to the U.S. animal trophies from hunts in parts of Africa.

The decision regarding elephants was made public not by the federal agency but via a celebratory news release early Tuesday from Safari Club International, a trophy hunting advocacy group that, along with the National Rifle Association, sued to block the 2014 ban. Greg Sheehan, principal deputy director of the FWS, broke the news to the hunting organization during the African Wildlife Consultative Forum in Tanzania, an agency spokesperson told HuffPost. The forum, which ended Friday, was hosted by the Safari Club International Foundation and the United Republic of Tanzania.

The Safari Club's political action committees donated a collective $24,500 to Trump's presidential campaign and Zinke's 2014 and 2016 congressional campaigns, according to Federal Election Commission data. Zinke is a former Montana congressman and Navy SEAL.

💰 @SafariClubIntl-the hunting group that in 2014 sued to block Obama-era ban on importing 🐘🏆 and this week announced/cheered Trump admin's reversal (now on hold)-donated big to both @realDonaldTrump & @RyanZinke. Totals from Safari PACs:
To Trump: $11,000
To Zinke: $13,500 pic.twitter.com/loLw9w52NE
- Chris D'Angelo (@c_m_dangelo) November 18, 2017

Conservation groups celebrated Trump's sudden change in course Friday, which was believed to be a response to public pressure.

"It's great that public outrage has forced Trump to reconsider this despicable decision, but it takes more than a tweet to stop trophy hunters from slaughtering elephants and lions," Tanya Sanerib, senior attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "We need immediate federal action to reverse these policies and protect these amazing animals."

In a post to Twitter, Wayne Pacelle, the CEO of The Humane Society of the United States, said he was "grateful" that Trump would reconsider. "This is the kind of trade we don't need."

Grateful to @POTUS @RealDonaldTrump for reassessing elephant and lion trophy hunting imports. This is the kind of trade we don't need.
- Wayne Pacelle (@waynepacelle) November 18, 2017

The elephant trophy decision drew national headlines and a fierce response from celebrities and others across social media. Talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres launched a campaign called #BeKindToElephants. By lifting the ban, she said, Trump was "encouraging Americans to kill elephants."

A day after Trump's suspension, the Safari Club sent out a " call to arms," encouraging hunters to contact Trump and Zinke and "tell them how much you appreciate the efforts of the Fish & Wildlife Service to remove barriers to sustainable use conservation for African wildlife." And they blasted "hysterical anti-hunters and news media outlets."

"The news from Africa could not have been better for hunters or for anyone who loves or defends hunting culture," the group wrote.

The Safari Club responded to yesterday's news that Trump has halted - at least for now - @USFWS's decision to reverse the import ban by sending out a "call to arms" and attacking "hysterical anti-hunters and news media outlets" https://t.co/yBLGXyDQ7C pic.twitter.com/n0vXbpYRIR
- Chris D'Angelo (@c_m_dangelo) November 18, 2017

African elephants have been listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act since 1978. A provision of the law, however, allows for sport-hunted trophies to be imported if the government determines that hunting will help safeguard the population.

The FWS concluded that Zimbabwe has made strides to improve elephant management and anti-poaching efforts, according to a notice published Friday in the Federal Register.

Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was among the many people who called on Trump to abandon his trophy hunting decision. In a Friday statement, Royce pointed to the unrest in Zimbabwe - where a military coup is thought to be unfolding - and said he has no confidence that the regime is properly managing conservation programs.

"Elephants and other big game in Africa are blood currency for terrorist organizations, and they are being killed at an alarming rate," Royce said. "Stopping poaching isn't just about saving the world's most majestic animals for the future ― it's about our national security."

Hours before Trump's review announcement, the FWS defended its decision as " part of a robust United States conservation strategy that seeks to eliminate poaching and associated wildlife trafficking."
This post has been updated with the Safari Club's response and with Trump's tweet that calls trophy hunting a "horror show."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Calls Elephant Trophy Hunting A 'Horror Show,' Says He's Unlikely To Allows Imports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Two days after suddenly halting his own administration's decision to begin allowing hunters to import elephants killed in two African countries, President Donald Trump called such trophy hunting a "horror show" and said he's unlikely to change his mind and allow such imports.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is Metro waging war on Christmas? Archdiocese sues to post biblical-themed bus ads.

# data[].attributes.subject
Is Metro waging war on Christmas? Archdiocese sues to post biblical-themed bus ads.

# data[].attributes.body
Here we have an ad company for the metro that has rejected an ad from a catholic organization that promotes findtheperfectgift.org or #perfectgift The organization is suing the metro for discrimination based on religious reasons. The church argues that the metro haphazardly approves other organizations ads but is hampering their first amendment rights. Certainly this is not the first time that a company has refused to do business with someone they disagree with. My view is that it's their company to do with as they please but should they be censoring speech of others?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Archdiocese of Washington is suing Metro after the transit agency rejected an ad for the organization's annual "Find the Perfect Gift" charitable campaign, which features a scene of the Nativity.

In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court on Tuesday, attorneys for the archdiocese argue that Metro's ban on subway and bus ads that "promote . . . any religion, religious practice or belief" has infringed on the organization's First Amendment rights.

"The rejected ad conveys a simple message of hope and an invitation to participate in the Christmas season," archdiocese spokesman Ed McFadden said.

The banner ads, designed to be placed on Metrobus exteriors, are relatively minimalist in their design. The display highlights the phrases "Find the Perfect Gift" and "#PerfectGift," and includes a link to the campaign's website, which encourages people to attend Mass or donate to a Catholic charitable groups. The words of the ad are overlaid on a tableau of a starry sky; in the corner are three figures bearing shepherd's rods, along with two sheep.

In the lawsuit, the archdiocese argues that the ad posters "contain no explicit references to religion, religious practice, or belief." McFadden noted that Metro's policies allow much more latitude for Christmas-themed ads that are commissioned by commercial entities seeking to get people to buy their products.

"If Christmas comes from a store . . . then it seems [the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority] approves," McFadden said. "But if Christmas means a little bit more, WMATA plays Grinch."

The archdiocese is asking a judge to declare that Metro's ban on religious ads infringes on the Catholic organization's freedom of speech and religion, and it wants the court to force Metro to accept the ad within the next week.

[From anti-Reagan art to Milo Yiannopoulos: 35 years of controversial ads on Metro]

Metro does not comment on pending litigation, but spokesman Dan Stessel said the archdiocese is free to submit another advertisement free of religious imagery.

"Metro is not in a position to provide design guidance; however, if another version is submitted, it will be considered," Stessel said.

The dispute is the latest legal fight prompted by the transit agency's aggressive enforcement of stringent guidelines, adopted in 2015, governing what can be advertised on trains, buses and inside stations.

In the past year, Metro has been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union, an abortion provider, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, controversial author Milo Yiannopoulos and an Egyptian human rights advocate - all because their respective ads were rejected under the 2015 policy.

[August 2017: ACLU sues Metro over rejection of controversial ads, citing First Amendment]

The sweeping clampdown on any ads that could be considered politically or socially charged is a significant shift for the transit agency. For years, the agency's policy was relatively lax. Since the 1980s, the transit system's stations, trains and buses have played host to ads that mocked President Ronald Reagan, criticized the Catholic Church, claimed that abortions resulted in breast cancer and promoted the legalization of marijuana.

Then, starting in 2012, Metro did an about-face. Transit agency officials rejected several ads that featured images considered intentionally incendiary and offensive to Muslims. Officials feared that posting the ads would spark violence or terrorism. (That fear wasn't without basis. When the same images were displayed at a 2015 event in Texas, the venue was attacked by two gunmen.)

A legal back-and-forth ensued, and in 2015, the Metro board instituted broad changes to the agency's advertising policy. It banned "issues-oriented" advertising, as well as anything related to religion or politics, as part of an effort to avoid legal wrangling altogether.

[May 2015: Metro says no to issue-oriented ads]

In recent months, Metro officials have defended the stance with a simple argument: They're simply enforcing the policies that were approved by the board two years ago. If people want a different policy, they say, they need to go to the Metro board.

Chairman Jack Evans said Tuesday that the policy serves its purpose of protecting the system while still allowing free speech.

"I don't have any interest in revisiting the policy," he said.

But in the lawsuit, attorneys for the archdiocese argue that Metro enforces the policy haphazardly, allowing, for example, ads by the Salvation Army, a Protestant charitable group. Metro also has recently approved posters that promote yoga and espouse the practice's benefits as a means to "an inner journey of self-discovery" and "acknowledgment of one soul to another," the archdiocese said.

They also note that they successfully advertised with Metro in the past, commissioning posters in the system in spring 2015 - months before the new policy was implemented - that "highlight[ed] the importance of the Sacrament of Reconciliation during the liturgical season of Lent."

The ad submitted to Metro for the most recent campaign was far less explicitly religious than a similar promotional display that will appear on bus shelters around the region that are not owned by Metro. Those ads quote the Gospel of Luke, telling passersby: "Behold, I proclaim to you good news of great joy."

Metro's rejection of the Nativity-themed ad comes as officials are scrutinizing other parts of the agency's advertising policy as part of an effort to raise cash to help fund operations. Board members have offered tepid support for a proposal to sell station naming rights for multimillion-dollar fees, although there has been no official action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Metro waging war on Christmas? Archdiocese sues to post Nativity-themed bus ads.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Archdiocese of Washington is suing Metro after the transit agency rejected an ad for the organization's annual "Find the Perfect Gift" charitable campaign, which features a scene of the Nativity. In the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court on Tuesday, attorneys for the archdiocese argue that Metro's ban on subway and bus ads that "promote . . .