Another US citizen detained in North Korea

North Korea has detained another U.S. Citizen again. This time the citizen was detained on suspicion of hostile acts against the regime. Kim Hak-song was described as "a man who was doing business in relation to the operation  of Pyoongyang University of Science and Technology" by the regime. The state-run Korean News Agency said that the American was detained Saturday, but didn't release any more information on this alleged crime. There are 3 others detained in North Korea right now. Otto Warmbier, a University of Virginia student, was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in 2016 for removing a political sign. Kim Sang Duk, also known as Tony Kim, a university professor, was detained in Pyongyang in 2017 and accused of attempting to overthrow the government. Kim Dong Chul, the president of a company involved in international trade and hotel services, was arrested in 2015 and is serving 10 years on espionage charges. The relevant authority is currently conducting a detailed investigation into his crime. It seems to me as if North Korea is prejudice against 
U.S. Citizens. This reminds me of a discussion we were having in class about foreign affairs and its effects. The question that was proposed was "What would happen if you commit a crime in a nonnative country and how does that effect the relationship between the two countries?" I personally think that this situation will cause some major conflict between North Korea and the U.S. especially when we have 45 as president. Who do you think? Is this an detrimental situation for the U.S.? Can this stir up enough conflict to possibly start a war? How can the U.S. Dissolve this situation?





http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/07/asia/north-korea-american-detained/index.html

Hawaii asks for broader appeals court review on Trump travel ban

      Without a doubt, Trump's recent travel ban has brought forth several controversies and has caused distress among several people within and outside the country. In the article, it talks about hawaiii wanting to have "broader appeal courts to review Trump's travel ban. As we've already learned, on of the most important powers of the judicial branch is judicial review. This is when the Supreme Court reviews legislative acts to see if it violates the constitution or not. It is also one of the ways that The Supreme Court can check the presidents action. In the article, it says that Trump's revised travel plan will be reviewed by a random panel of judges. Also, instead of a normal panel of three judges, they wanted to have an "en Banc" Court where there are eleven judges instead. However, according to the article, this will make it easier for republican appointees to be placed and Trump would be approved without any opposition. As we learned in class, in order for a case to reach The Supreme Court, the Party must appeal the federal courts decision for a writ of certiorari. Similar to the state of Hawaii, I feel that it is necessary to have this reviewed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court consists of a panel of judges that are republican, democratic, conservative, and liberal. It would be much fairer to have this case decided by them. Also the final decision of the court would be used to handle situations like this in the future. Whether or not the courts show judicial restraint or activism is up to them. However, if would be a safer process to go through them instead of regular federal courts. If things go as planned, the case will reach the Supreme Court, and hopefully they will I'll rule it as unconstitutional. What do you guys think? Do you think that the case will even reach the supreme courts level?  I also was thinking about how the newly appointed judge would have major influence on the final opinion. Do you feel that Justice Neil M. Gorsuch would make a major difference in the final opinion because Trump appointed him?









ARTICLE LINK

BOOOOOM - Group D

This article talks about the bombing of Afghan on Thursday. It was interesting because it spoke about how the strike was aimed to hit mountains and destroy caves that were being used for improving intensive explosive devices. With this airstrike came a death of nearly 70 militants. Was it worth it? One really interesting part of the article that I felt needed to be related back to class is wether or not Trump ordered this strike. In the article, it was stated that Trump is yet to say if he had part in ordering this strike. In class, we spoke about how a president isn't allowed to declare war without Congress. ( I am aware this isn't a war ) But isn't he still entitled to speak/give insight on the incident?   If he did order the strike, with reason, do you believe that his silence is leading to tension? It was odd to me how relations with Afghan have been calm and we haven't heard anything lately. Then this happens. DO you believe there was a better way to go about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/world/asia/mother-of-all-bombs-afghanistan-us-moab.html?.rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fworld&action=click&contentCollection=world&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

The Future Of The U.S

         While i was searching the web for articles there is 4 that stood out to me and i had to write about them. It all started with the bombing in Syria which made a lot of noise throughout the internet it was something that the U.s  had no business interfering with. Especially with the way that they did it, more than a dozen bombs killing mothers, fathers and children they are no better than Isis. In result to these bombings many of the super powers may believe that they are being threaten. This is where my second article comes into play. Korea is started to test their bombs again even though they have been told that they cannot because global threats. They have increased their testing in the past few days. This is obviously a result to Trumps attack on Syria.One last piece of information is that the US Navy aircraft has reverse its course and has started heading back to KoreanAll of these military advances seem to be a threat to the "peace" we have in the world. If Trump feels that the attack was justified i believe he should step up and say it because this silence is creating a environment of distress throughout the United States. My question to you, the reader, is do you feel that trumps attack was the start of this and if it continues can it escalate to something worse




http://video.foxnews.com/v/5390738127001/?#sp=show-clipsArticle 1 Article 2 Article 3   Article 4

Terror attack in Egypt is America safe from ISIS?

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/israel/2017/april/palm-sunday-bombings-rock-two-egyptian-churchesThis article is about a recent bombing On Sunday morning at St. Mary's Church in Tanta, Egypt, to celebrate Palm Sunday, one of the holiest days of the year for Christians. During the  service, a terrorist bomb ripped through the church, killing at least 27 and wounding more than 70. in jut a  few hours later, a car blew up outside St. Mark's Cathedral in Alexandria killing at least 16 and wounding 41. Both of these attacks were claimed to be from the terrorist group no other than ISIS. its truly unfortunate that these people had to die in such a cruel way the main question is what will our president do in this day and age to prevent an attack like this happening in the U.S.    That doesn't mean to cut off entry into the U.S by putting on a Muslim ban because this act can be seen as unconstitutional and as a violation to the first amendment. i feel like their should be other ways to crack down on terrorist organizations like ISIS without violating other peoples rights and abusing presidential powers. What  do you so pose will happen with this ISIS group and our President? What actions do you think he could make to ensure a saver space for us to live in with out fear of a terror attack happening in the U.S?

 C Week -Trump administration concedes border wall       won't be from 'sea to shining sea


This article is about President Trump and the wall that he would like to build. After reading this article I learnerd that it will cost billions of dollars to make this "wall" that Trump wants. But the only reason why thi is such a big deal, is because he is stressing the fact that he wants the wall. This "wall" has actually been there for a while. "Both under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the U.S. has built many miles of additional fencing along the border that has significantly reduced crossings." This was stated in the article and many of us didn't know that the "wall" went back to Bush and then came to Obama. The only reason why it wasnt such a big deal was because it wasnt has heavily advertised as Trump is doning it now. Since Bush and Obama, the fencing and the sirvalience that they put up had brought the number of illegal immagrants down by a lot. So there should be no reason why he would want to invest more money into a "wall" that already exist. This will just put us in dept because he expects Mexico to reinburst them back, which will never happen. 



http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kelly-wall-20170405-story.html

Trump’s U.N. ambassador emerges as fierce but unnuanced voice on foreign policy

Nikki Haley a former South Carolina governor that was given the position of UN ambassador is being the prime example of why we need more experienced people in office. She has no experience with foreign policy so basically she's leading the countries foreign affairs just with her own opinion. Also she spoke on the whole Russia situation and said that the United States isn't interested in lifting any sanctions off of Russia. I find this really strange because 45 has continued in many ways defending the Russians time after time. This shows how chaotic  things are in his administration because the people around him are having a whole different view on the alliances he choose with certain countries. In the article she says this “Everyone at the United Nations is scared to talk to me” about the new U.S. administration’s strong objection to that measure, she told AIPAC. “I want them to know that, look, that happened, but it will never happen again,” she said. “We’re not gong to put up with it.”In this quote you can tell that she is out spoken. Should we make more qualifications for these big positions ? Should we try and train these people who aren't qualified? 




https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-un-ambassador-emerges-as-fierce-but-unnuanced-voice-on-foreign-policy/2017/04/01/0867d926-1637-11e7-833c-503e1f6394c9_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_haley-910pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.e40026e02fd7

Mexico Ready to Play the Corn Card in Trade Talks

In this article it speaks on the still high tensions between Mexico and the United States due to Trumps presidency. During and before Trumps presidency he made many remarks about cutting off ties with Mexico for he believes that they are one of the major sources of Americas problems. In the article it details how Mexico is trying to, in a way, "flex" on America by threatening to turn to places such a Brazil for business. It begins by talking about how Mexico is one of America's major export facets for things like corn. Specifically it states "From the hundreds of millions of tortillas consumed every year to the countless tons of corn-enriched feed that fattens livestock and poultry, corn is perhaps Mexico's most important agricultural commodity, one at the center of its life and culture.Now corn has taken on a new role — as a powerful lever for Mexican officials in the run-up to talks over nafta, the North American Free Trade Agreement ... Much of the corn that Mexico consumes comes from the United States, making it America’s top agricultural export to its southern neighbor." According to this, cutting off ties with Mexico would only hurt Americas economy, for America is not the only place that Mexico can do business with and get the corn that they need(as discussed in the article). The article then goes on to talk about america and mexico are extremely codependent of each other as a lot of money goes into their dealing. In the article it states "American corn shipments to Mexico totaled nearly $2.6 billion last year and are part of an elaborate agricultural trade relationship between the two nations that has helped to interlace their economies. But though the corn business is a tiny fraction of the overall $525 billion in annual trade between the two countries, it has gained outsize importance and become something of a symbol for the nations’ economic codependence." The article also goes on to give alternative arguments. Some people such as Vázquez Salido suggest that this could be good for the countries, mainly mexico, as it will make them a much more independent country. What do you guys think? Do you feel as though this could be a positive thing, as it could end up creating more jobs in Mexico(for internal production of certain crops) or that it will only serve as a detriment? Do you feel like this is the first of many instances in which Donald's mouth could possibly negatively impact the whole country's economy or that this will be a one time thing?  


Link - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/02/world/americas/mexico-corn-nafta-trade.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

A NEW JUDGE HAS ARRIVED?!

This week I wanted to highlight one of the units we talked about this past month which was the justices and the open positon in the supreme court. The current supreme court nominee Neil Gorsuch is scheduled to have a hearing within the next week or such. One of the major criticisms so far that Gorsuch faces is that he is a Trump nominee, which so far has not produce the best candidates for their respective positions. Gorsuch is nominated to take the seat  of the recently deceased supreme court judge Antonin Scalia , with whom he shares an "originalist" philosophy in terms of a constitutional interpretation and making decisions on new amendments. With three liberals four conservatives and a swing judge, Gorsuch taking Scalia's position should not tip the power balance either way. Even with all the pros and cons the Democrats are positive that the republicans can not get the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster even in a republican dominated senate. This is the same thing we have been seeing so far this year of republican nominees being voted against by the democratic party. The situation with the open seat on the supreme court has been long standing since president Obama's term when the seat originally opened. The republicans stood against the democratic nominee and now the democrats are doing the same but will their ever be a decision made? Do you believe that the democrats are justified in withholding the supreme court seat or are they being immature and trying to get back at the republicans. Do you believe that Gorsuch is a good replacement or should there be new perspective brought to the court even if he shares the same ideals as Scalia?https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/home-stretch-for-trumps-supreme-court-nominee-could-forever-alter-the-senate/2017/04/02/2d1fdfb8-17a2-11e7-bcc2-7d1a0973e7b2_story.html?utm_term=.6253cb73f8ef 

Pence vows Trump will continue ObamaCare fight, calls out Democrats and Republicans

Vice President Pence delivered a pep-talk on Saturday to Americans after fellow Republicans’ failed effort to get rid of Obama Care but he admitted that members are still planing to replace the bill, but vowing that President Trump will “keep fighting.”Pence spoke in the aftermath of House Speaker Paul Ryan on Friday cancelling the final vote for the Obama Care replacement bill, upon concluding he didn’t have enough votes despite the chamber’s GOP majority.Republicans Ryan and Trump after announcing the cancellation, sounded as if efforts to fulfill campaign promises to repeal and replace Obamacare were essentially finished. Ryan publicly said Americans don't have to worry that we will be living with Obama Care for the “foreseeable future,” also  Trump did and on and  told The New York Times, “It’s enough already.”However, Trump and Pence on Saturday seemed to come back fighting.Trump tweeted “Obama Care will explode, and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE,” Trump also tweeted. “Do not worry! I choose this story because it reminded me of the peoples pie game, in the game Obamacare would be seen as something that everyone one will be happy about but also cost the government a lot of money and you would be torn between the too. Now back to the point , why is it that we cant certainty from our president on repealing obamacare and if they do replace it how and when? Do you think they will actually replace it? Could their replacement be even better or worse than Obama care?http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/25/pence-vows-trump-will-continue-obamacare-fight-calls-out-democrats-and-republicans.html

U.S. Kills Architect of One of Pakistan’s Worst Terror Attacks

A pakistani militant who planned a devastating truck bomb attack on a hotel in Islamabad in 2008, which left dozens of people dead including two members of the American military, was killed recently. The militant, Qari Yasin, was killed by an american drone strike in Afghanistan on March 19th. In September 2008 the Marriott hotel in Islamabad was attacked by terrorist. At the time of the attack the prime minister was hosting a dinner for the governments leaders at his house a few hundred yards away from the place of the attack. More than 50 people were killed and more than 260 people were to the 1,300 pounds of explosives carried on the truck. The explosion was so massive it created a crater that was 25 feet deep and 60 feet wide. Qari Yasin was also involved in a 2009 attack on a bus transporting the sari Lanka cricket team . Gunmen used rifles, grenades, and rockets to assault the bus and as a result. Some government officials like Defense Secretary Jim Mattis believes that the deaths of Yasin will send a message to terrorist who target innocent people that they will not escape justice. This article reminds me of the dilution we had in class about the consequences of the U.S. getting involved in world issues and when it is beneficial or not. I personally like the fact that the American is trying to be the W.P.D. (World's Police Department) but I don't thinkle they should always get involved in every issue, especially when terrorist are involved. When Obama made the decision to go after Osama Bin Laden there was an increase of terrorist attacks in the U.S. This drone strick can have the same effect, especially when innocent Pakistanis were kiled in the process. What do you think? How would the Pakistanis react to the attack? Could there have been a better way to handle this situation or should the U.S. have stayed out of this one?


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/qari-yasin-killed-2008-islamabad-hotel-bombing.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Funding

This article grabbed my eye because it relates to the chapter we just came off in class. The article talks about the possible budget cuts that are to come this year for New York. One interesting statement made in the article was from Mayor Bill de Blasio. He said " We also are not going to say to folks in Washington, go ahead and cut us because we have so much money to put in-we don’t." This was similar to our presentations when Ms. Harris said never ask for less money. One big issue I see with the budget being cut is the fact that it isn't a specific section receiving a cut. With us receiving 10% of the budget, roughly 8.8 billion, we have found a way to disrupt the funds to see " success " from all programs. But what happens when our overall budget gets cut? Does that mean programs get cut? And if so, Which programs are set to go first?  According to this article, Housing's budget cuts don't come from Trump himself. But instead come from the new formula implemented by the folks in charge of Housing and Urban Development. Everyone's main concern is how the formula is to affect big cities, but other states such as Los Angeles has gone unharmed by these new implementations. One question that immediately came to mind was : Do you believe Ben Carson and his team over at H.U.D. should continue to make cuts? If the cuts continue, where is the remaining money going? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/nyregion/new-york-city-to-get-less-federal-aid-for-housing.html

The Tiny Trump Budget Cut That Could Blind America to the Next Zika (D Group)

       It is no secret that Donald Trump and the Republican party have devised their plan to get rid of Obamacare. However, they have yet to come up with a plan to replace and supplement the thing that so many Americans rely on to live their everyday lives. Not only that, they have also failed to realize the drastic effects that removing Obamacare will have on the American people. The article discusses the major cuts that Donald Trump plans to make to several health and science related government agencies. The main argument in this article is that because of the severe budget cuts. We will not be able to be fully operational in those departments, and most importantly, combat infectious diseases if they were to begin spreading. It would take longer to figure out how to stop it from spreading and cure the diseases due to these budget cuts. This is similar to some of the activities and lessons we talked about just last week. The government creates these agencies to regulate and enforce what is necessary for our well-being. Cutting funding would harm everyone. Even when we played "The People's Pie"(government budget game we played in class), we were given very tough choices to make. However, we knew not to cut important things like healthcare or social security from our federal budget.I do not think that the president or the cabinet members related to this issue are doing a good job. The cabinet should be doing its job by "advising" Trump to make good decisions. This was a horrible decision. It baffles me that Trump would mercilessly cut funding to one of the most important sections of our government. At this point, I do not know what it will take to finally impeach this man. He is crippling our country. How do you feel about Trump's decision to cut funding from sciences and health? Do you think it could have any positive effects? Which departments do you feel need their funding cut?




Article Link

Tweert that ( c group )

 http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-smack-tweet-20170312-story.html

"Poor Donald. He has now blustered his way into a job where his every comment is analyzed and picked apart as if the wrong phrase might start a war or set off an economic panic. What is he supposed to do, change his ways at age 70 just because he is president of the United States?"


The answer that the article gave was yes. I am not saying that he is not allowed to use it, I am just saying that he is on it all the time. he is either tweeting or finding out ways to shut people out. What ever he states in a tweet gets put into a presidential records act. The down fall of this act is that if he was to delete a tweet, that means that it would be deleted from his records. Trump is always trying to belittle somebody more than do his job. This has to do with APGOPO because everything that he says can be used against him in this act. He should be more focused on "making America great again" than tweeting. In another tweet he talked about how Obama wire tapped Trump tower and the FBI had to rush quick to defend Obama, stating that Trump called on an investigation for himself. This guy is just a big fraud and we really cant trust him. He basically tweeted his way into this election and into winning.

Plans ? Presidential Cabinet doing their jobs

In this article it talks  about 45's actions on ISIS, Before being elected he said that he will do so many things but have no plan, So Once president, he signed an executive order giving his generals 30 days to produce a plan to defeat the terrorist group, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis gave him options on Feb. 27.It appears that new Defense Secretary James Mattis is preparing to start as early as Friday, when Trump is scheduled to visit the Pentagon, According to the NY Times. There is no evidence on what was the plan but before this new plan came to the table their were already thousands of soliders in training to go to Iraq which is why we question what they are trying to do because they invest to much in the army. Obama had a plan in motion when he left office and its being enacted  as you read. 

I personally feel that they shouldn't be sending so much forces and assisting with attacks or provoke anyone or show the U.S's Military Power i believe that we should simply cut the Militaries budget because we have no need for more weapons or soldiers we are not in a war nor should we try. Instead of the army why dont we focus on Education ? or The health of the environment ? We continue to let the problems here fly over our heads. We Must fix the pollution that is occurring more and more from big business and everyday citizens.  Our Education is disgusting we are not even Top 10 in the world but we insist on making more weapons and starting Chaos, My question is simple the cabinet is suppose to be experts in their fields and are suppose to know what they are doing so why dont they see that we have no need for soldiers at this moment ?





Helpful information :
Some options that could be quickly forwarded: two ideas that former President Barack Obama’s administration developed but never approved, according to CNN.

They include arming Kurdish fighters for the battle to retake Raqqa, the ISIS capital in Syria. Obama didn’t like that idea due to concerns it would alienate Turkey, where the United States needs airbase access.

Another option: sending more U.S. troops into Syria for combat against ISIS fighters. Under Obama, American service members are technically in an adviser role in Iraq and Syria.


CNN LINK : http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/20/politics/mattis-defense-department-transition/index.html

















Link

Should Ben Carson Be head of house and urban development ??

After hearing about a great black man who preformed such a serious brain surgery on new born twins with out leaving them with brain damage it was just breath taken. to know that when black men go to school they can become some so much with a skill they are gifted with. Ben Carson the man known for recently doing the impossible when it comes to Neurosurgery dividing Siamese twins with out leaving them with brain damage. After hearing about that i felt so devastated to hear what he said in front of the housing and urban development  secretary. Ben Carson decided to compare slaves to immigrants in coming to a new land of dreams and opportunities. it hurts to hear a educated black man say  “That's what America is about. A land of dreams and opportunity. There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less,” said Carson, speaking extemporaneously as he paced the room with a microphone. “But they, too, had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land.” after hearing about this and seeing it i felt so heart broken. how do you feel about Ben Carson's speech? i also feel as if he probably felt pressured to say what he said to get where he is. this Neurologist is now head of Housing and urban Development working behind our new President. Maybe this speech was written for him and he doesn't believe it? Should he have spoken from his own thoughts and Should be be working in the department his is now head of does he fit the qualifications? I personally believe that Ben Carson should not be apart of this department. it would make more sense to be working with Tom Price in the Health and Human services department to be working with medicine in a more scientific field.    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/06/carson-compares-slaves-to-immigrants-coming-to-a-land-of-dreams-and-opportunity/?utm_term=.b0ebcd74de21   

Democrats Bet G.O.P. Will Regret Opposing Scrutiny of Trump

In this article(linked below), it mainly talks about the tactics that the Democratic party is using in response to Trumps presidency. It talks about how since they are the minority they have extremly limited options when it comes to going against him or even just getting things that they want to advocate for done. This is shown when in the beginning it states "President Trump gives Democrats in Congress an ideal adversary, one who can set off impassioned protests and ignite their supporters with a single Twitter post. But with the Democrats’ power severely limited by their minority status, they cannot conduct congressional investigations. The chances their bills will even get a vote are slim." The article goes on to talk about how they have implemented the use of, in a sense, low-blow tactics to try try and sway the decisions of the electorate in future elections. Specifically it says "What they do possess, they hope, is the power to shame. So they have been offering up bills that stand virtually no chance of passing, like ones forcing Mr. Trump to release his tax returns, with the clear intent of putting Republicans on the record now in hopes that voters will punish them later." It's true that elections are in a way competitions and should be dealt with in that sense, but dont you think that trying to sabotage the future of a party could just be wasting time? I personally feel as though the democrats should instead be devoting their time and energy towards trying to negotiate with the republican party. My question for you readers is do you feel as though this is just and that it should be expected in elections? Is it even possible to put an end to underhanded strategies like these that will only continue to play into party polarization?
 Link - 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/05/us/politics/democrats-bet-gop-will-come-to-regret-opposing-scrutiny-of-trump.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=sectionfront

Facing big political hurdles, House Republicans ready an ambitious legislative push to repeal Obamacare

Before 45 has taken the position as the President of the United States Of America he has talked about repealing Obamacare. The thing that I realized is he talks this big talk about taking it out of place but has no plan. The repeal is suppose to potentially expand health care too 20 million people in America . The bigger picture is that this new plan is going to hurt Americans pockets. The poor family's who can't afford the best healthcare in the world is going to have too pay more than they can afford now.I feel that the republicans are trying to throw a crappy proposal together to take out Obama's legacy and what his whole presidency has built. This makes me wonder about politics and do these politicians actually have the countries best interest at heart because they are willing to hurt millions of Americans to help turnish someone's legacy and stop lower income people from having affordable care.Another conclusion I had came too is that the republicans and president don't actually have any solid proposal that can actually put in place currently. I say this because the proposal draft wasn't showed to the public and was only viewed by the joint committee.So do you think the president and his party actually have a proposal? What should the people do about the president trying to add his new appeal? How can we come together threw peaceful protest?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-obamacare-house-strategy-20170306-story.html

Separating the man from the president/vice president

This past week the Vice president elect Mike found himself in the midst of media drama. Recently an article was published by the Associated Press contained sensitive information that Pence did not want to be leaked to the general public. What sensitive information did the press leak that has Mike infuriated?  They shared vice president elect mike's private email that he uses for more personal matters. Along with this were 29 private emails sent during his time as governor and to add salt to the wound his wife's personal email was also published in the article. In usual Trump administration response Mike decided to respond in outrage through a tweet. He voiced his frustration stating that this was not only a violation of his privacy but mostly his wife whom has no involvement in his public work and a violation of her security. Now it is a generally known that a large amount citizens do not favor Pence as a possible leader of the free world or even as the vice president. It is quite clear that with the information revealing his private account there is sure to be a backlash from leaking his email address. We all have our opinion on the policies being enforced by the Trump administration but where do we draw the line of hating the policy and hating the one enforcing it. There is a saying that goes " Don't mix your professional life with your personal life" but dose that also apply to the to those who work in public service. In your opinion is this an invasion of Mike's privacy and this is only a ploy to harass the Trump administration. Is it suspicious that Pence does not want his private email shared and should we be able to email our public officials? What would you do and or use Pence's email to do? 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/mike-pence-emails-wife-associated-press-2356

What is going to replace Obamacare

We all know Obamacare is under attack under the Trump regime.  One of the most  talked about issues that conservatives try to attack is Obamacare.  This healthcare reform has been essential to many Americans who can't afford health insurance or even qualify for insurance due to health issues.  Millions and Millions of people rely on this policy so that they can live their lives on a daily. However, many Americans are being deprived of that safety net and that security that Obamacare has to offer because of this "new proposal" of healthcare reform. How are people going to feel safe if there is no plan out there that will take care and encompass the amount of people Obamacare has.  This is very scary for people in the working class to have a brand new ideal that puts their lives at risk.   Donald Trump said:
     "So we’re doing the health care — again, moving along very well — sometime during the month of March, maybe mid- to early March, we’ll be submitting something that I think people will be very impressed by,”
    What is the plan Donald?  There are millions of people who are relying on you to support their lively hood, but you continue to stall and procrastinate until March.  This also is an effect of party polarization because parties don't want to help out the people, they just want to get credit for party ideals so they can stay incumbents.  It's extremely shameful the people's lives are hanging in the balance because they don't want to give Democrats credit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-divided-white-house-still-offers-little-guidance-on-replacing-obamacare/2017/02/26/3981bb8c-fb8c-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_2_na&utm_term=.265cac4665d5

Budget Cuts

                 45th has made the move to increase government spending on the Defense Department but keep his promise on not touching large programs like Medicare and Social Security and their budget. In turn the money that goes toward this new budget for defense must come out of the budget of smaller programs like the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. 45th wants to show he is a man of action so his first step in this process to prove himself is to put more money towards our military. A question I have for you though is why must money be taken out of protecting the environment to put towards "protecting" us? Throughout the article they talk about how this plan came to be and what it means. Basically it is to show the people of this country that he was about his word when he said what his plans were for the country during his campaign. It is meant to bring those who didn't vote and those who voted against him on his side. What I don't get though is how would putting more money into defense that we wouldn't necessarily need bring people onto his side. With him being able to put out orders to do this and with the department he chose this should unsettle us as the people in this country. Why must we spend MORE on war and "defense". Who is attacking us that we need to increase the budget on fighting but decrease the budget on keeping our environment protected. You would think with all the affects our way of life has on the earth we would strive to keep it stable and healthy more than we do now. Yet 45th is going to decrease the resources this program has for something we won't necessarily need. If he can decrease the budget on a program that is needed so much like the Environmental Protection Agency imagine the other programs that must give up money to support this newfound budget for the Defense Department. Now we have to watch his next move because I doubt increasing spending on defense would be for nothing. There could be a bigger step after this since this was to show he was about his word just like his Immigration Ban was. Doing this to show his followers that he is about action but whose to say it is the right action? If you want to read more on this article click here and comment your thoughts:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/us/politics/trump-budget.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Trump's sharp increases in military spending

Trump wants to assemble a budget for the upcoming fiscal year that includes sharp increases in defense department spending and drastic enough cuts to domestic agencies that he can keep his promise to leave social security and Medicare alone. Trump will demand a budget with tens of billions of dollars in reductions to the environmentalbum protection agency and Senate department. Personally, I don't know how to feel about this plan. I understand that others may think there are issues that are more important than others but, at the same time, you shouldnt just cut funds for an agency to fund another one that isn't underperforming. I would like to know Trump's reasoning behind his decision because I am confused as to why the defense department spending has to increase. This goes back to the executive order where he put a ban on those countries. He thought he was doing America a favor but what he realized is that he actually hurt many people and separated many families. I believe this plan has the potential to do the same damage. What do you think about this plan? Is it worth it or is there a better way?






https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/26/us/politics/trump-budget.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

GOP changes to Obamacare could cost states, reduce coverage, governors are told

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-changes-to-obamacare-could-cost-states-reduce-coverage-governors-told/2017/02/25/074ae840-fbba-11e6-9845-576c69081518_story.html?utm_term=.db5e4c993e70We might be saying good bye to Obama care because Republicans plan on replacing the Affordable Care Act but replacing the Affordable Care Act could significantly reduce the number of America citizens with health insurance and has the potential to cost states billions of dollars over a span of  five years, according to an analysis prepared for the National Governors Association. The 36-page document attempts to evaluate the impact of possible changes included in a Republican leadership plan that outlines the direction Congress could be heading in as it attempts to fulfill President Trump’s promise to repeal and replace Obamacare. Republican governors have held meetings among themselves and with other members of Congress and they're seeking consensus on what they should do moving forward. Trump had a working lunch with governors Saturday. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Rick Scott of Florida to discuss health-care changes and the states’ role. A group of nine states led by Republican governors, including states that did and did not expand Medicaid under the provisions of the ACA, began meeting some time ago. That group has now broadened to 12 states. This relates to AP Gov because its show how a bill becomes a law but it is not in the traditional way. I think 45 didn't pass it to the whole congress is because he wast sure how much his party would agree with it. Maybe this is why he had a meeting with certain senators before all the republics met, he probably put the idea in their head and they would try and convince the other senators. If trump gets his way many Americas will no longer have the support they need, this will result in alot less people getting medical attention and could lead to some deaths. How do you feel about the ACA? should people receive more care?

Truth Behind Sweden

This article speaks on Trump as a president. The article is about Trump's remarks on an imaginary incident. " The Embassy of Sweden in the United States confirmed that it asked for "explanation" following Trump's Saturday speech in Florida." This is seen as an issue world wide for the mere fact that Trump is in charge of U.S. and finds it okay to tell lies whenever he feels suited. As the article states, Sweden asked for a simple explanation, when in other cases, this could drive us to feud with other countries. 
I saw this an issue because of the position Trump is in now. He is still resorting to twitter, telling lies and doesn't seem mindful of what the harm he could do. My question is what could be done by President Trump to adjust to the power he now has? Another question that came to mind was, " Is Trump's celebrity status interfering with his new position?


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sweden-mocks-president-trump-remark-imaginary-incident-article-1.2976611

The cost of silence: Why more CEOs are speaking out in the Trump era (Group D)

       It seems as though no matter where you look, you will always find articles about the drastic affects the election of Donald Trump(AKA "45") has had on the country. And while scrolling through the Business Section on the "Washington Post", I was able to see that no one is left out from the aftermath of this election. The article discusses how big businesses and companies are forced to take political stands, and most importantly, why they would take them and the major effects it will have. As said in the article, we as consumers contribute to these businesses and make them run. In the past, there were very rare occasions where businesses got involved in politics. And when they did, it was behind the scenes and no one knew about it. After all, when in business, getting involved in politics is the last thing you want to do. However, because of this election, many CEOs and big businesses are being forced to take a stand. Many of us will not support any company that do not reflect our views and goes against our morals. Also, the same workers for these companies are signing petitions for their bosses to take stands. In government quite often do we see big businesses and interest groups get involved and influence decisions in government. If more and more get involved in government and stand against trump, it will become more difficult for trump to make ridiculous decisions that affect the majority. I believe that these companies should not hesitate to take a political stand in such an important election. Especially if they do not agree with what is happening. At this point expressing a political viewpoint can either make or break businesses.  What do you think businesses should do in this situation? Should they stay silent and risk it? Should they take a side?






Article Link

(Group D) "Schools of Oppotunity"

    Schools of opportunity started in 2014 and was created to "close opportunity gaps through research proven practices and not standardized testing..." This can mean a lot to different people and it can also mean different things. I personally see this as a way to even the playing field for people who do not score well on tests. When you pass a test in school like a state test that goes a long way in someones schooling like high school. For example in New York it is better to take as many regents as you can so you can receive an advanced regents diploma. But just because you pass the test does not mean everything is smooth sailing after that. It is what you get on that test that determines if everything is smooth from then on out. For example a 65 is passing but a 95 is excelling. Just because someone got a 65 does not mean that are "dumber' than the person with the 95. It just means that the person with the 95 might know more information on that topic or the person with 65 blew it during the test. He or she might have been second guessing themselves because they felt pressure to score greatly. Now because of the low grade on that one test colleges might second guess this persons knowledge of the subject and make them take remedial classes. The college system has every right to do this but when they do that sometimes it just is not fair to the person. In my opinion they should at least ask for an explanation on why they got that grade. Then ask the student if they feel like they can do better with their current knowledge. This all my opinion and I agree with the fact that there should be other ways to assess ones knowledge. This deals with government because the regents is a New York based test that the government approves of and distributes. The regents were first administered in November of 1865, the tests are really old and do not need to be apart of New York anymore. The nation has made many improvements since then and many people believe we no longer need to assess people by test. The following link is help people understand the other ways of assessing ones knowledge.
 https://whatedsaid.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/10-ways-to-assess-learning-without-tests/


"Schools of opportunity must strive to ensure that all students have access to rich, challenging and supported opportunities to learn". Yes I believe that is a great way to create equality in the classroom but some people do not deserve the same treatment and opportunities as others. That is because of the behavior of some students. They maybe very intelligent but their behavior might lead to them getting excluded from things like advanced placed classes. This is a problem for some teachers because they deal with everyday and some do not know how to deal with that. This has nothing to do with government but it is in the article and I thought I should share my opinion on it.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/02/14/more-than-test-scores-schools-of-opportunity-to-recognize-high-schools-that-create-full-learning-experiences-for-every-student/?utm_term=.272b0f4a7a67

Homophobia in sport: English Rugby Union praised for tackling abuse

English rugby has been praised for crunching down on homophobia in the sport. A British government select committee released a report on Sunday. It investigates the prevalence of homophobia in UK sport and how the ruling bodies were dealing with it. In November 2014, two rugby fans were banned for two years and ordered to pay $1,250 to a charity of gay referee Nigel Owens' choice after the Welshman was verbally abused while officiating an international match between England and Wales at Twickenham. I think it is very important to address homophobia in sports, because a lot of people are condemned just because of their sexuality. The day and age that we are we living in now there are so many new and different things that if you can't be open to them you can't really progress. This is more than just about the issue of homophobia it is also about racism and sexism. In America we should address these issues in sports because it is a bigger platform to get the point across. Millions of people around world watch sports of all kind and that makes it easier for more people to get the message. What do you think about English rugby clamping down on homophobia. Its up to the people learn to become more optimistic about these things and we need political figures that embody that too. We don't need people like Donald Trump who are still continuing with the stoic mentality that blacks and women are inferior. It has been proven that anyone is capable of great things. Once we learn to accept others and look out for each other rather than persecute those who are different we can make this world a better place. How do you think we can make things better not only in sports but in everyday life?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/11/sport/homophobia-rugby-england-nigel-owens/index.html

the intermediate-range ballistic missile launch

Trump goes to North Korea and Launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile this was his first Challenge to international rules since he was sworn in three weeks ago. The launch was unexpected and disrupted what was meant to be an easygoing weekend of high-level male bonding with the more sobering aspects of global diplomacy. This act was highly irresponsible and could come to contribute to his future impeachment if he continues to act this way. with this act of missile launching it could draw unnecessarily and unwanted  attention to trump and the U.S having other countries show off their missiles and retaliate. As seen North Korea while Trump is having dinner Mandamus-level missile flew 310 miles off North Korea's eastern coast before crashing into the Sea of Japan. the young leader Kim Jong-un has spooked the country's neighbors. During his per-election intelligence briefings, Trump requested supplemental information about North Korea from US intelligence officials. National security analysts have identified the nation's nuclear program as one of the imminent threats facing Trump as he begins his tenure in the White House. In his talks with Abe at the White House on Friday, the North Korea threat weighed heavily. Abe said during a concluding news conference that he and Trump had agreed to "strongly demand" the country "abandon (its) nuclear and ballistic missile program." so i guess maybe Trump has seen how dangerous missiles could be and wants to put an end to them before they could hurt our country. Is this something that could benefit the country? will Trump make a move to end nuclear warfare and missiles? http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/12/politics/trump-shinzo-abe-mar-a-lago-north-korea/index.html   

Please leave

 We can agree that President Donald Trump is the biggest a-hole in America thus far. He wrote on twitter that our legal system is broken. That's funny because I'm pretty sure that mostly everyone in America has came her legally. This is suppost to be America, land of the free and home of the brave. What good is that motto if Trump is taking away the freedom from anyone coming to America. He is the biggest racist there is, because he is banning people that come from a Muslim background. Just because that is where they come from, doesn't make them an automatic terrorist. According to the article, it takes nearly 2 years to for them to get all the documents together for that person to became a legal citizen of America. This relates to APGOPO because Trump is making theses new cruel policies and people are protesting against it. It is a good thing that the courts are going against his words to. Trump is the biggest clown ever and I don't even think he knows whats he's doing. He needs to leave already.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/us/politics/refugees-donald-trump-syria.html?ref=politics&_r=0

Trump V. Sen. Elizabeth

President Donald Trump provoked Democrats by letting them know "Pocahontas is currently the substance of your gathering" The sources said the Warren came up with regards to Trump's extemporaneous examination of the condition of the Democratic Party. Trump made his remarks in what seemed, by all accounts, to be a reference to Warren's feedback of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in  his affirmation procedure. Her remarks incited Republicans to conjure an arcane run to cut her off.Trump utilized his deprecatory crusade epithet for Warren  a reference to her cases of having Native American family line  a few circumstances in  the meeting, which one source portrayed as "equivalent amounts of odd and totally cumbersome." At a certain point, Trump said the main reason Warren asserted Native American legacy was "on the grounds that she has high cheekbones," one of the sources said. The White House and Warren's office haven't reacted to a CNN ask for input. The story was initially detailed by Politico. For Trump, it was an unscheduled and spontaneous, come back to a successive crusade riff assaulting Warren, who at the time filled in as a top surrogate to Democratic chosen one Hillary Clinton. In doing as such, he was diving once more into inquiries over Warren's family from her 2012 Senate race, which Warren protected at the time, to some degree, by referring to the high cheekbones of her granddad. "She has less Native American blood in her than I have, OK?" Trump said in a July rally in North Carolina. "Trust me ... She goes, 'Well take a gander at my cheekbones.'" Trump, in a comparable line of assault amid a Washington state rally in May, called Warren "an aggregate fake."

I personally think that Donald trump has strong animosity towards people of diversity as well as people of color. Donald trump should have no interest in warren's background or her high cheekbones. These things are personal, and not only that but he is the president and this position should not be played with like a child and that's how trump is acting. Like a child. It is clear that Donald trump thinks he can discriminate who he want and do what he pleases, but as time goes he will realize that this running America isn't a game and he should pull his pants.

Link

Bag Fee for New York City Is Delayed by State Legislature

This article talks about how the recent proposed city law on plastic bags was postponed. The law basically made it so that people would have to pay five cents extra for each plastic bag they needed when doing things such as grocery shopping. The purpose of this law is cause people to lean more towards bringing their own bags which would in turn cause less plastic bags to be used up. This would in theory create a much healthier and safer environment as a whole. For instance in the article it says "Environmentalists have said the law would reduce waste and cut the amount of bags sent to landfills. They also said many of the bags end up in the ocean where they present a hazard to sea life, or they simply fill city streets and tree branches with unsightly trash." Naturally there are also opponents of this law who say that this will only hurt those who are already struggling in today's society due to financial strain. Specifically it says "But opponents argued that the tax would place an undue economic burden on shoppers, especially the poor. Dog owners also wondered how they would cope without free bags to clean up after Fido during walks." It is because of all this dissension that this law was postponed so close to its launch date. In the article it said that a bill would be passed by the assembly so that the city bag-fee law  would be held off until at least January 2018.  Initially the state senate meant to pass a bill that would terminate the bag fee; the Assembly version that just postponed it was the product of a compromise between the two houses of the Legislature, according to a legislative aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the internal discussions. The purpose of this is mainly so that people can have more time to debate on whether or not this is the right move to take for our environment. Many times in the past the government has, both on local and national scales, taken large measures to both try to help the environment and make more money. Do you feel as though this is really just for the environment or that there are some other underlying motives at play? Also do you feel as though this is something that other local governments in other states should start to consider being it is supposed to be for the benefit of the environment as a whole? 

Link : https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/nyregion/new-york-plastic-bag-fee.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fnyregion&action=click&contentCollection=nyregion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

President tweets attacks on federal judge who put immigration ban on hold

President Donald Trump had attacked a federal judge this weekend on twitter and saying if anything was to happen to Americans it would be his fault for putting a hold on the travel ban. He said that releasing this ban would potentially allow really bad people into America. My thing is why does our president run and puts everything on twitter first.Its the 21century there is so many ways you can communicate with people other than social media. I find it really sad that he has to attack a fellow colleague and try to embarrass him . Do you think that the president of the United States of America should be able too use social media in the way he does ? Should twitter just block the president from posting since the things that he post can be found offensive to many people ? What can the people do to try and advocate for his account being blocked ? I honestly feel that him banning these middle eastern countries he's trying to start a war and burns many bridges and basically destroy everything former president Obama has created.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/05/politics/trump-twitter-attacks-judge/index.html

Trump & Pence v/ The world

Another week into the Trump administration and so far there has been a lot of controversial decisions being made by the current president. To say that his recent reforms has been received with an "unfavorable response" is a bit of an understatement. There has been nonstop protest in major cities across the countries with no end in sight. Untrustworthy and blatant responses from the Trump administration has caused media chaos. All in the past two weeks and among all of this the most problematic reform from the Trump administration has been his travel bans on five middle eastern countries including Yemen and other countries that are " producing terrorist " in Trump's opinion. If we remember the night that Trump ,somehow, was elected as the 45th president of the united states one of the promises that was given to the people was to reunite the citizens after such a polarizing election. Obviously the exact opposite happened , we are more segregated after the election than during it. This past week a judge decided that he did not want to support the outlandish immigration ban placed by the current president. In typical Trump fashion he responded on social media and other outlets attacking him and condemning him for not making the decision Trump wanted. What makes it worse is that trump is being backed by his vice president which is what is expected of any co leader but in this situation it would have been better for Pence to have never got involved or commented on the topic. What this situation does for the American people is create a division, either you're on the Trump side or against him. With all the protesting and tension it would be great if the president could show more unity and comradery. Do you agree with Pence's action and does Trump have the right to callout anyone who does not agree with his decisions.http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/pence-defends-trumps-attack-on-judge/ar-AAmDCp1?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartanntp

MO FARAH COMMENTS ON PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON IMMIGRATION BAN

 President Trump signed an executive order halting the admission  of refugees into the U.S. from syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. The order also established that Christians and refugees from other religions hailing from Muslim nations would be given preference for admittance to the United States over Muslim refugees. Due to the signing of that executive order many athlete spoke out, condemning it. Mo Farah, Great Britain's four-time Olympic gold-medalist distance runner, criticized United States President Donald Trump's controversial immigration ban Sunday. Farah was born in Somalia, one of the contries involved in the ban, but now lives in Oregon. He says that it would be hard face his four kids, after working hard, contributing to society for so long and paying his taxes, and tell them he might not be able to come home because of Trump's policy. I want to believe that Trump has good intentions with this ban, trying to protect the county and all,  but he is going about it the wrong way which has already lead to protest but can lead to much more. I feel like he's only hurting innocent people by tearing apart families instead of keeping us safe. The attackers from the most recent terror attacks and the ones from 9/11  aren't from any of these countries involved in the ban so putting a immigration ban on those countries would make the most sense. How would this ban help protect the U.S. because at this point I don't think Trump is protecting the nation he is creating new enemies. We already have so many unsolved issues with other countries and groups like is Isis and they aren't affected by the executive order. This goes back to the argument about a candidate having experience in a politics before being in any office. I think this would've help Donald make better decisions. What do you think?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2689887-mo-farah-comments-on-president-donald-trumps-executive-order-on-immigration-ban?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

Diplomats and prominent Muslims in Britain have condemned Donald Trump's decision to temporarily ban all refugees and citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States. Trump  signed an executive order that bans citizens from Yemen,Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iraq from entering the US for 90 days and suspending the admission of all refugees for 120 days. On Friday, Trump and the prime minister of Great Britain Theresa May celebrated their countries' "special relationship" as they walked through the White House colonnade outside the Oval Office then less than 24 hours later, May was disagreeing with decisions her new ally has taken in her absence.

While she flew on to meet Turkey's President;Trump was preparing the executive order banning travel from seven Muslim majority nations. Trump Later receive more criticism from other government officials. I first off want to apologize for this article title to be misleading and sorry for using the trump ban when everyone else pretty much used it, but it everywhere on every website. To get back to the point this has to do with US Gov because trump is violating peoples rights to come to america and that makes us look bad as  a whole. By doing this Trump is going to ruin many relations america has international. Do you think that trump is abusing his power? Should the Legislative or Judical branch step in? and what do you you thnik the american people as a whole can do to fix this?http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/29/politics/trump-travel-ban-britain-world-reaction/index.html  

Travel Ban Affects on Green Cards and Dual Citizens

So during this past week Trump has signed and passed many things. The one that has caused much backlash is his Travel ban. He has banned people from entering the United states from 7 countries. These countries include Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen. You would think this only applies to new immigrants but no this ban has an affect on even valid citizens. The article states that not only has he banned entry for 90 days but people with dual citizenship between the US and the banned countries are not allowed to enter the country during this 90 day period. If you have a green card the article states that his ban makes it even harder to enter the states now. While they are allowed to board planes and come to the US they will be put through extra security and a secondary interview. This interview will make sure they are not a "national risk". While reading this article I immediately thought of how literacy test limited black people from voting. I know it is on smaller scale but it is a similar concept. First off these secondary interviews open up a large window for the interviewers to run people away because they may "feel" someone is a risk. This interview is a set up because anyone could just talk to a person from one the the banned countries and deem they are a danger to the country just because of how they look. This may decrease the number of people from over the water that come to the US cause they might be wrongfully titled as dangerous or others might be too discouraged to even come back. Mind you this is to valid green card holders so they legally have been in the US and should be able to come. This relates back to things like literacy test because even though black people could vote just like green card holders can come to the US if they didn't pass that test which we have in the form of an interview now then they would be declined the ability to vote or in this case the ability to come into the country. I think this should open people's eyes to what is going on. Racism has been in the closet for many people but we now have a president that is displaying many times that he is racist. Yet people continue to go along with this as he is basically doing what was done to black people long ago he is just giving it another name. I could be stretching it by comparing it to the literacy test but that's definitely what it seems like if citizens can't even come back to their homes because they came from a certain country or possibly in the future because they are deemed as a risk when they could be ordinary people.In the next 4 years I can see the amount of cases where people are discriminated against by interviewers and because of Trump this has been made legal to discriminate. Hopefully it does not come to that but with the amount of power that is now taken away from dual citizens or green card holders it seems very likely.

Judge halts implementation of Trump's immigration order

This was an article that stuck out to me and grabbed my attention from the title alone. The article talks about Trump's attempt to place a new immigration order. The immigration order is set in place to halt people from other countries to enter America within the next 90 days. Yet the ruling by the judge makes it that those in transit, holding a valid Visa, can legally enter the states. I found this interesting and saw it as a way to connect it to our world issues because the President of the United States is trying to implement something and judges have stepped in and altered his attempted changes. It made me think if all the things Trump said he would do would actually be completed or even allowed. I find this to be the first of many attempts Trump makes on legislations that gets turned back and used against him. 

Link:  http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/2-iraqis-file-lawsuit-after-being-detained-in-ny-due-to-travel-ban/index.html

Gruesome attack broadcast on Facebook Live

    Four people have been accused for kidnapping a 18 year old Caucasian boy and attacking him and saying racial comments to him. These four people cut and him and participated in other attacks to hurt this boy. While these four people did this they used Black Lives Matter and Donald Trump as there reasons for caring Out these acts. The reason why they kidnapped him was because they wanted to make a example because Donald Trump is president and they wanted to hurt this boy because since  he was white they automatically felt that he may of supported Donald Trump and the way he looks at African American people.Do you think Donald Trump should be blamed for this attack ? I feel that he has something to do with this kid being attacked becuase of the way he supported racism in a indirect way in his campaign. What can he do when he is in office to prevent attacks like this from helping again ? When he is in office the only way he would be able to stop things like this from happening he would have to clarify to the rest of the country about racism and how we shouldn't go back into the past

Texas teen tackled by police officer at pool party files federal lawsuit

The family of a Texas teenage girl is suing the city of McKinney, its police department and a former police officer for the fallout after a call about a "disturbance" at a neighborhood pool party in 2015. A video was posted on YouTube where you can see Casebolt (the cop) cursing at several black teenagers, waving his gun before grabbing Becton in June 2015. He repeatedly slammed her face on the ground, forcefully straddled her while thrusting his knees into her back and neck. After the incident Becton wasn't charged, McKinney police said. She was released to her parents. Casebolt was placed on administrative leave after the incident and resigned from his post as a corporal for the police department in McKinney. A grand jury declined to indict Casebolt on any criminal charges. This has to do with government because it shows how our  government has yet to change the justice system. Why is it that when ever a black is done wrong by a law enforcer, that individual is only suspended or fired and is never convicted of any crime. Not only does it further worsens the relationship with blacks and the law, but it makes the police force look bad because the girl was not resisting arrest and she was slammed and brutally handled and that does not leave a good image. What punishment do you think the cop deserve? Should the cop stand trail again?http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/us/texas-mckinney-pool-party-officer-lawsuit/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/us/texas-mckinney-pool-party-officer-lawsuit/index.html

Fort. Lauderdale airport gunman opened fire

I man named Esteban Santiago entered Fort Lauderdale airport Friday , January 6th. As he calmly stood in the baggage claim, behind a man and two boys, he pulled out a gun from his waistband and begins firing. This whole incident was caught on camera. It shows Santiago wearing a blue sweater with black stripes on the shoulders and carry a jacket in his left hand as he draws his weapon with his right hand and appears to fire it three times. He was an army veteran who went to the an Alaska FBI office in November 2016, saying his mind was being controlled by U.S. intelligence. He left a gun in his car before a rambling entrance. After the meeting authorities decided to take his gun away but, gave it back to him a month later and that was the same gun that he used for the shooting in the Fort Lauderdale airport. Is the government to blame for this incident since they knew that his mind wasn't totally right? If so what could they have done to prevent this and incidents like this from happening? If not the government who is to blame?



http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/08/us/fort-lauderdale-airport-shooting-main/index.html

D.C. Homelessness Doubles National Average as Living Costs Soar

In this article it mainly talks about how the rate of homelessness in D.C. is so high that it is nearly double the national average in America. Specifically, in the article it says  "Ms. White, 27, and Ms. Kelly, 25, live in what amounts to a parallel universe in Southeast Washington, as the city and its suburbs accumulate staggering wealth while its poorest residents grow poorer. In December, a devastating survey of 32 big cities prepared by the United States Conference of Mayors showed Washington with the highest rate of homelessness. There are 124 homeless people for every 10,000 residents here, more than twice the national average. Nationally, homelessness has shrunk 12.9 percent over the last seven years." This implies that even though the homeless rates in America as a whole seem to be going down, the rates in D.C. are exponentially going up. The article goes on to talk about and give some reasons as to why the homeless rates are rising so much in one area. Do you think that this issue is prevalent enough to gain some attention on the federal level since the rates are so high or that it should just remain a local issue? 
Link : http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/01/us/washington-dc-homelessness-double-national-average.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus&action=click&contentCollection=us&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

Lookin Towards 2017

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/30/politics/barack-obama-last-minute-final-actions-donald-trump/index.html



With his last term coming to an end, with the end of an era only days away, shouldn't the leader of the free world enjoying and reminiscing about his years in office. Well in his last few days in office Obama is trying to ensure that his legacy is not tarnished by the new incoming president. There are still many unresolved problems left America to handle that Obama could not solve during his terms but we as a nation have made some progress to improving life for all citizens, and it would be a shame to see all of that hard work washed away in a matter of months. One of the major topics of discussion in the article is the cyber " controversy"  over Russian meddling in the election this past November. It would be an understatement to say that the outcome of this past election was polarizing but the protest have been dying die(or at least is not getting as much attention) but if the Russian cyber network had some affect on the outcome it could cause a lot of problems for Trump in the future and how he deals with Russia. A major concern for Americans this since trumps election is his plans for Obamacare. Despite his comments on supporting some parts Obama wants to ensure that his reforms to our health care system, that has helped millions of Americans, is there to help future generations of Americans. In your opinion what do you believe will happen to the reforms Obama has made to our health care system and the social progress with equality and crime. Are there anything you believe that Obama did wrong and Trump can improve on. What do you see happening in the first year in office with President elect Trump.  

Your Move Trump!

           Recently it has been announced that there may have been some Russian interference in our previous election. Apparently the hackers were able to get into the system and aid Trump win the election. It is said that they aligned organizations AGAINST the Democratic party which in turn is direct support for Trump. It has not been made official to the public that this did occur but President Obama has made moves against Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to the article the White House has announced plans to expel 35 Russian diplomats from the US giving them and their families 72 hours to leave the country. They have also closed down Russian compounds in New York and Maryland. This is a big move against Russia which has sparked talk of another Cold War. In response to the White House's move against Russia their President has made an interesting move himself. He has chosen to delay any retaliation against the US and has even been a bit friendly by inviting US citizens, Obama, and Trump to celebrate the holidays with him. In the eyes of some paying attention to this event it seems as though Putin is "backing off". While some say Putin is in fact giving Trump space to make his move. Since this began with Russia presumably aiding Trump this move would make some sense. Putin is giving Trump the floor to show whether or not he is with him or against him. On a previous post we saw how this idea of Trump allying with Russia is not something new. So if he is planning to lay in bed with the president of Russia what will he move be? Will it be soon or will he wait till he is put into power officially where he can make executive decisions? What will Putin's response be? These are all questions needing to be asked by the public to push these political figures to respond. That is not all that should be a concern though. With these sanctions against the Russian diplomats being put in place how come the accusations have not been proven and formally released to the public. The most information we have on it is through leaks which can't always be reliable. We the people are not being provided with all the information and are being sat down only able to watch what comes next. What do you think about the accusations against Russia and what do you think of the White House's move. For more information you can read the article here:  http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/30/politics/russia-us-obama-putin-trump-hacking-sanctions/index.html