With String of Tweets, Trump Blames Puerto Rican Mayor of 'Poor Leadership' During Storm Reponse

Image URL

Hurricane Maria left Puerto Rico in tatters, without electricity, or food. San Juan, Puerto Rico's capital, was severely affected by the hurricane's devastation. The San Juan mayor, Carmen Yulín Cruz, recently spoke to media about the US response to the natural disaster affecting the island, which is an American territory. She said that the response was delayed and the responders lacked sufficient and proper equipment to deal with the aftermath of the storm. Trump then responded in a string of tweets, blaming the mayor of "poor leadership" of her city, as well as saying that the Puerto Ricans were relying too heavily on the federal government to deal with the situation, saying it "should be a community effort." 

Personally, I think the Trump Administration handled Hurricane Irma and Harvey quite well, making sure that people were evacuated and away from danger as well as getting first responders into the affected areas quickly rescuing trapped people. However, it seems like the Administration didn't put too much thought into Hurricane Maria because they knew it wouldn't hit the mainland, even though Puerto Rico is an American territory, and they are US citizens. I believe that Trump's response to this call for help by Puerto Rico was a very bad mistake, especially since he tweeted it from the safety of a golf course. It seems like he doesn't really care about it that much, and that is the wrong way to treat fellow Americans in dire need.

Thoughts?

Article Link 1

Article Link 2

Is Satanism a Real Religion?

Photo shown on Fox News Channel

Photo from Thumbnail on Youtube

Tucker Carlson, the host of Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News, calls out the founder of the Satanic Temple, Lucien Greaves, by saying that he's "a troll" for his belief in Satanism. Carlson then accuses Greaves that he has his Satanic beliefs because of his "unhappy childhood". The Satanic Temple wants Christian bakers to make "cakes for Satan". Carlson claims that the Satanic Temple is forcing the bakers to make their cakes and violating the bakers' beliefs. Lucien replies that religion is a protected class, and sexual orientation isn't one. Greaves uses the example that a gay hairdresser shouldn't have to do a evangelical theocrat's hair that refused to serve him a cake. Greaves claims it's the same scenario as the christian baker refusing to make their cake. 

*Click the link to watch the 4 minute video of their conversation*

Questions:

1. Do you think it is okay for Carlson to bash on someone's religion on TV?

2. Is it a violation of one's rights to refuse services because of their beliefs/religion? (the Christian bakers refusing to make the cakes for the Satanic Temple)

3. If you had to make a cake that supports something that you didn't believe in, would you still make it? Why or why not?

Fox News Video/Article

Tom Price resigns after plane scandal

Friday morning US health secretary, Tom Price, resigned. He was previously involved in a plane scandal in which he took advantage of the private jets that were for business and political trips. Price may have cost taxpayers around $400,000. Price faced major scrutiny for this scandal and President Trump let it be known that this sort of behavior was not acceptable and was outraged. Price has made several public apologies but has still received hate and backlash for his actions. All the intense heat Price has felt seemed to have gotten to him because now we see him resigning due to the scandal.

When president Trump first took office he vowed to keep a clean cabinet with little drama. That seems like the opposite with a scandal about the Trump Administration in the news every week.

bbc post
cnn post

US considers lifting protection for grizzly bears

Link: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/montana/articles/2017-09-29/us-considers-ending-protections-for-northwest-montana-bears

Aug 3, 2014 file photo of a grizzly in Montana's Glacier National Park

The U.S. government is considering lifting protections for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area, as well for as bruins in the Northwestern area of Montana- home to the largest group of grizzly bears in the country. 

The grizzly bears were granted threatened species protection in 1975 due to the hunters and trappers who were exterminating them. In the recent years, under this protection, the grizzly bears have thrived and made a dramatic comeback in areas such as Yellowstone and Glacier National Park. The population of grizzly bears has more than doubled since 1993. 

Lifting federal protection of these animals would legalize hunting and many worry that the bears' recovery will take a nosedive without the federal protection like it had in the 1900s. 

This case reminds me of the video clip that we watched in our Federalism Unit called the "Wolves at the door," in which the federal government passed the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and placed gray wolves in the state of Idaho. However, Idaho rejected the wolves and argued that this was a federal abuse of power since they believed the people should be able to decide which animals are allowed in their state. The federal government wouldn't budge as long as the wolves were endangered. 

I believe likewise, this decision to either lift the protection or not, is entirely up to the federal government and since these grizzly bears are no longer considered an endangered species in these areas, it is looking like protections will be lifted sooner than later. 

What do you guys think? Should the government lift the protection on grizzly bears and allow for the hunting of these animals again? 

And do you think that this decision should be solely made by the federal government or by the state of Montana as well? 

Mother Goes to Germany While Leaving Kids Behind

Article Link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/09/29/a-mother-went-on-an-11-day-european-vacation-and-left-her-young-children-alone-at-home/?utm_term=.2e31292667f6

Erin Macke pictured above

Erin Lee Macke, an Iowa resident, decided to leave to Europe on September 20th, and return October 1st. Authorities requested Macke to come back much sooner than the 11 days she had originally planned.

Police were shocked to hear that a mother left the country for vacation, and willing fully left her four children behind without any type of guardian to watch her children. Police hear about parents leaving down, or going out for the night, but never leaving the country. Police went to conduct a Welfare check from Macke's home in Iowa when they found her four children home alone. Her children told authorities their mother had gone to vacation, leading authorities to contact child protective services.

Police arrested Macke Sept 28th for child endangerment. Macke's children range from the age 6-12.  Macke's has been found guilty of four counts of child endangerment. Make has also been charged with allowing a minor to posses a firearm.

Macke has been left with a $9,000 dollar bond. 

Personally I believe Macke should lose custody of her children for leaving her children under 13 without any type of child care service as well as giving them possession of a weapon. I don't think parents should be this careless with their children.

Possible discussion questions:

Should Macke's bond be higher?

Should Macke lose custody of her children?

Should there be higher charges for parents who aren't taking care of their kids?

Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner registered to vote as a woman

Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41423077

Photograph by Reuters

It is claimed that Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior advisor, has been registered to vote as a woman for 8 years now. Kushner's gender has been listed as "female" in the records held by the New York State Board of Elections. 

Although Kushner says that his team had sent in the form with the mistake on it, it is still unclear how this mistake was made, but most believe that the mistake is unlikely to be a case of voter fraud due to his political involvement.

The latest news surrounding Jared and his wife Ivanka is their use of a private email server to carry out any official White House Business. This has been a topic of controversy because during the 2016 elections, Hillary Clinton was under fire for using a private email server and now Democrats are calling them out as hypocrites. 

I honestly don't think that Jared Kushner purposely registered to vote as a woman, although it is confusing since he states he has a "team" to help work on his forms, so this should've technically decreased the chance of a mistake like this happening, but I can't think of anything that Kushner would have to gain by purposely making this mistake. 

What do you guys think? Is this simply a mistake made on Kushner's side? Additionally, what are your thoughts on Trump's administration using a private email server? Should this be allowed? 

University of California Sues Trump Administration

Article Link:
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/bay_area/university-of-california-files-suit-over-trump-immigrant-decision/article_c3b1969e-9509-11e7-b9f7-df9b9db488b2.html

UCLA students standing up for undocumented citizens.














On Sept 8, 2017 the University of California system sued the Trump administration over decision to end DACA. University President, Janet Napolitano, is a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed against Donald Trump filed in the federal court of San Francisco. Napolitano was a secretary for the homeland security in the Obama administration, as well as helped implement DACA.

Napolitano believes it's important for the University of California system to stand up for their undocumented students and staff members. To her, the Dreamers "represent the best of who we are - hardworking, resilient, and motivated achievers." She believes the dreamers not only benefit the UC schools, but the country as a whole. She also is a strong believer that the removal of DACA is unlawful, and goes against national values.

The lawsuit states that due to the removal of DACA, the university system will lose lots of students and employees. The UC system has about 4,000 DACA students, as well as teachers, health care providers, and researchers. Over fifteen states have sued over Trumps decision.

Napolitano said the lawsuit could pursue the damages for interference with student-teacher relations, as well as interference with investment for students to attend the school.

Thoughts over the University of California suing Trumps decision?

NYC School Stabbing

Photo taken by Thomas E. Gaston from NY Post

Photo taken by Thomas E. Gaston from NY Post

On September 27, 2018, a classmate, Abel Cedeno (18), stabbed two other students. Matthew McCree (15), and Ariane LaBoy (16). A witness states that Cedeno was hit by a pencil which was thrown by McCree. The witness stated that McCree claimed that it was an accident. Cedeno then pulled out his switchblade and stabbed McCree. After Cedeno stabbed McCree, LaBoy stepped up, and Cedeno stabbed him too. 

Questions:

1. If Cedeno claims his "right to bear arms" and his right to protection, do you think his punishment would be less harsh?

2. Do you think the school needs to have stricter safety precautions to prevent another incident like this? If so, provide examples. Would the precautions violate their right to privacy?

NY Post Article

Trump claims that he may sign executive order on health care next week

Article Link: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/27/news/economy/trump-executive-order-health-care/index.html

Donald Trump in the Oval Office (Image via Wikimedia Commons)

A day after Congress's failure in their "last-ditch" attempt to repeal Obamacare, Trump has announced that he could soon sign an executive order on health care. Specifically, he said that "[he'll] probably be signing a very major executive order where people can go out, cross state lines, do lots of things and buy their own health care, and that will be probably signed next week." 

This statement comes in the midsts of Trump's frustration with the failure of the Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill, which is now causing the president to support new insurance reforms being proposed by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. When commenting on Trump's desire to use executive action to pass these reforms, Senator Paul stated that he believes that "President Trump can legalize on his own the ability of individuals to join a group or health association across state lines to buy insurance."

These new policies would include letting insurers sell their policies across state lines, which in concept is supported by many Republicans but opposed by many insurers, state regulators, and consumer advocates. Essentially, this idea would allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states while only having to meet regulations in their home state; with this, an insurer from a "lightly-regulated" state with policies that offer less benefits and lower premiums could sell their policies in a "highly-regulated" state with higher premiums, resulting in greater profit. Supporters of this policy argue that this would promote competition amongst insurers, but opposers of this idea point out that it would cause the market to split between those who would be forced to remain on more restrictive, comprehensive insurance policies and those who could afford to "skinnier" plans. 

Either way, there is no certainty that Trump would be able to change these insurance policies through executive action, as according to federal law, health insurance is regulated on a state level. This being said, I believe that the piece of news covered in this article is closely related to multiple facets of federalism, which is a topic that we have spent a lot of time on in class. The fact that states have the power to regulate these insurance rules is a product of federalism, as although the national government has the power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, they clearly share some of this power with the states, or just delegate this specific power as a reserved power for the states. It will be interesting to see how this situation unfolds, because since the power to regulate these proposed insurance policies is a state power, there is constitutionally not much of anything that Trump can do. 

Any thoughts?

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg rejects Trump bias claims

Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41423082

Getty Images: Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

 "Trump says Facebook is against him. Liberals say we helped Trump"  -Mark Zuckerberg

Recently, President Trump has made claims on Twitter that Facebook, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post are "Anti-Trump."

In response to Trump's statement, Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted that Facebook is working to make a "platform for all ideas." He stated that both sides of the political spectrum were upset with him and his website for allowing content that they disliked and that liberals accused him of allowing fake news to enable Trump's victory. 

Facebook is facing investigation over its influence over the 2016 elections. Just last week, Facebook announced that it will hand over information to Congress about 3,000 advertisements on Facebook that were sold to Russian-linked accounts and contained "problematic advertisements" during and after the 2016 Presidential election.

I honestly do not think that any actions should be held against these "problematic ads." I believe that like we all are guaranteed our rights for freedom of speech, advertisements are just a way to express our views and thus should be protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. I guess this line becomes blurred when dealing with false and deceptive advertisements, however, I believe that since the purpose of ads are to try to persuade you of something, we as consumers and viewers should be able to detect and be dubious of these ads. 

What do you guys think about Trump's accusation and Zuckerberg's response? Do you think that Facebook has favored one side versus the other or are Trump's accusations false? 

Furthermore, what do you think Congress will do with the information about the people who posted these "problematic advertisements" during the election period? What actions do you think Congress should take if any at all? 

The Repeal of Obamacare Has Failed

Article Link:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/obamacare-repeal-failed-some-damage-already-done-n804956

Republicans disagreeing with Trumps attempt to remove Obama care

Obama Care profits have been improving, but many people are avoiding being on it due to the last eight months, there has been several attempts to repeal Obama care by the Trump administration.

The Health Insurance has had to warn customers about their possible price increase, or being unable to offer any type of plan. The insurers are unsure about the future of Obama Care, making providing health care difficult due to all the uncertainty there is now. The Congressional Budget has said that the price of Obama care will increase 15% because of all the confusion this year has brought to the insurance.

Republicans have many options, one is to make a new repeal plan for 2018 into the bill slated tax form, but that might be too difficult for them. An option Senator John McCain is considering is to come to a truce the repeal act, or to make Obama care function in a more effective way. As soon as sen. Lindsey Grahm spoke out about McCain's proposals, she quickly shut the idea down that there was no way they would keep Obama Care and make it more effective.

Questions for discussion:
1) Is Obama care helpful or not?
2) Do you agree repealing Obama care would be the best decision?
3) What should be proposed?

Twitter to Test 280 Character Limit

Link: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-character-limit/twitter-to-test-280-character-tweets-busting-old-limit-idUSKCN1C132A

Twitter is well known for its 140 character limit for writing tweets.  But, Twitter has seen big losses recently; in the second quarter they had a reported loss of $160 million and didn’t seen any growth in users. Twitter’s idea is that by increasing the character limit it will make it easier for people to express their thoughts because some people complain about how hard it is to fit their thoughts in a mere 140 characters, and Twitter’s thought is that if the site is easier to use, then more people will use it. Twitter will assign random users the ability to use 280 characters for an unspecified number of weeks to test the theory.  

UC Berkeley Free Speech Week Overview

Links: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-uc-berkeley-security-20170920-story.html
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Yiannopoulos-visits-Sproul-for-15-minutes-UC-12225043.php http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/23/uc-berkeley-free-speech-week-officially-canceled/

UC Berkeley was supposed to have a “Free Speech Week” organized by a conservative group on campus called “Berkeley Patriot,” and controversial speaker Milo Yiannopoulos, and was supposed to feature Yiannopoulos and other speakers like Steve Bannon. There was a lot of confusion leading up to the event between the student group, the UC Berkeley administration, and Milo Yiannopoulos. The student group didn’t turn in the necessary paperwork to the school administration to allow the event to take place, but Yiannopoulos vowed that he would go through with the event.  Despite it not being an official event, UC Berkeley prepared for the Free Speech Week by spending $800,000 on increasing the security and police on campus, blowing through their annual “demonstration fund” of $250,000, and using $300,000 from the UC system.  Yiannopoulos advertised a list of speakers that would appear, but not all of them confirmed that they would appear, and some said they never had any intention of appearing.  In the end, the event was cancelled, and Yiannopoulos was the only one to show.  He was outside Sproul Hall for 15 minutes and he prayed, took selfies, and signed autographs.

UC Berkeley had to spend a lot of money to protect an unofficial event that was cancelled at the last minute.  This has raised questions like if a small student group should have the power to organize a four day event in the first place, if UC Berkeley should expand their “demonstration fund” budget, what steps should be taken to accommodate speakers, and how reasonable those steps are.

Trump's New Tax Plan

Link to article

Trump announced his new tax plan today in a speech in Indianapolis. The plan would cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%, lower the top individual tax rate from 39.6% to 35%, repeal the estate tax, double the size of standard deductions for married couples and individuals, and expand child tax credits. The standard reduction for individuals would now be $12,000 and $24,000 for married couples. The child tax credit would increase from $1,000 to an unspecified amount, and create a new $500 tax credit for dependents, such as the elderly, who are not children. Trump considers the new tax reform as a "win" for the middle class and a tool to stimulate economic growth, and insisted that his new tax plan would benefit the middle class and not the rich. However, the Trump administration did not give a cost estimate for the new tax plan, and that those who are in favor of the new tax plan claims that the economic growth will compensate for lost revenue.

Trump's new tax reform is somewhat similar to Reagan's tax plan, where they both cut the corporation and rich's taxes and believed that the economic growth will compensate for the lost revenue.

What are your thoughts on Trump's new tax reform? Do you think Trump's new tax plan would produce similar results to Reagan's, or will his plan create positive outcomes? If you could decide on what the new tax plan would be, what changes would you propose?

On University Campus Confederate Flags Were Found with Cotton

Photo by Michael T. Barry from USA Today

Summary:

At a school in Washington D.C., a college student, Michael T. Barry, found multiple confederate flags posted on bulletin boards around campus with cotton attached to it. The school claims that the suspect is a white 40-year old man. The same night the posters were discovered, a AU history and international relations professor, Ibra X. Kendi, held a presentation regarding the campus' new antiracism research center. Barry claims that this incident is real proof that racism still exists. 

Questions:

1. If the university presses charges on the suspect, is the suspect able to use his "right to freedom of speech" against the charges? Why?

2. Would the mentioned antiracism research center be able to prevent incidents like this one?

USA Today Article

Trump v. NFL

You might have seen an NFL game or two over the weekend. You may or may not have noticed some of the players kneeling during the national anthem. Players are doing so to combat issues such as racial discrimination and police brutality. While many support this cause, the other side is appalled by the kneeling and believe it's a complete show of disrespect towards the United States and its troops. One of those opposed is president Donald Trump. He took to Twitter to express his opinion, stating that kneeling was "not acceptable". While president Trump has every right to comment and express his opinion its coming at a time where we're on the brink of war and Puerto Rico is in need of serious attention.

I personally believe that Trump should allow NFL players to protest how they want and make actions to help solve the issues being protested, instead of turning the issues on them. He argues that they shouldn't be able to protest at work, but I believe they should use their platform to spread awareness. I also believe he should be focusing  on our issues with North Korea and helping Puerto Rico after the devastating hurricane.

Do you think Trump should be calling out protesting players? Should the players be banned from protesting at work? What should President Trumps main focus be on right now?

White House Wants Stricter Immigration Laws

Article Link:
 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/us/politics/white-house-immigration-rules-draft.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fpolitics&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront

People fighting against the removal of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

The White House is considering hiring thousands of new immigration enforcement agents making many immigrants uneasy especially with the removal of DACA. DACA has left 80,000 dreamers without the opportunity to receive an education and/or a job.

The Trump Administration has been giving new proposals to congress about immigration now that DACA has been removed. Congressional Democratic leaders refused to speak out on Trumps new proposal, as they wish to wait for him to come up with a proposal that protects the status of dreamers, while still helping Trump maintain his goal of cracking down illegal immigration.

A House Democratic leadership aide believed the proposals by Trump Administration has lead them no where, as they have been unnecessary. Some of the proposals have been eliminating the protection of undocumented minors, allowing businesses to prove legal status of anyone, restriction of work to legal immigrants to protect American workers, and many more.

Questions for discussion:

1. What can be some useful proposals?

2. Do you agree with proposals made by Trump Administration?

3. What can be done to protect dreamers?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/09/26/what-happens-now-obamacare-consumers/705229001/

Last Thursday, Republicans’ last-ditch effort to rewrite the Affordable Care Act collapsed. However, most American's health care coverage will not be affected, except the health insurance made by ACA which will be affected. Therefore, this affects people who don't get coverage through an employer or government program (such as Medicare/Medicaid). If an insurer is filed, that will last until 2018. There is only about 1 insurance provider. Prices aren't officially out yet but they are predicted to be 15% higher than this year. Most people are insulated from premium increases because of the premium subsidies available to those earning up to about $48,000. Subsidies will now be made on a month to month basis. Although customers will not be directly affected, insurers do not know how much longer they will be compensated for. The focus of bipartisan efforts has been on funding and flexibility. Democrats like the idea of cost-sharing reduction payments, while Republicans would like to make it easier for states to change insurance regulations and allow people to buy insurance that covers half of the cost if they don't have as much money or if they don't want full insurance. The failure of the GOP repeal bills means the ACA’s funding for states to expand Medicaid eligibility continues. Within a decade, 70% of people made newly eligible by the ACA will live in states that have expanded Medicaid.

I personally believe that it is not the best change that could have been made because people depended on it a lot. Although it's better for only a small portion of the nation to be affected, I still believe the people who depended on it might be in trouble once it's gone. 

Questions:

1. How do you feel about this change? 
• Is it what you expected it to be like? Is it worse/better?

Former U.S. Rep Anthony Weiner is Sentenced to 21 months in Prison For Sexting

Article Link:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/09/25/553455099/anthony-weiner-sentenced-to-21-months-in-prison

Anthony Weiner leaving federal court after his sentencing Monday 9/25/17 (NPR)

Just this Monday, Anthony Weiner, a former U.S. Representative has been sentenced to 21 months in prison for "sexting" with a 15-year old minor. In addition to this jail time, Anthony Weiner has been sentenced to 3 years of supervision following his release. 

This isn't Weiner's first offense either. In June of 2011, while serving in Congress, Weiner accidentally tweeted a picture of his "boxer-clad erection." He initially claimed that it was a hacker who uploaded it but later admitted that he was sending it to a woman who was not his wife. Weiner eventually resigned from Congress due to this scandal and when many other sexually explicit texts with different woman started to emerge. Two years later in 2013 when Weiner ran for the mayor of New York, screenshots of his sexual conversations with women emerged again and an inappropriate image of himself with his son next to him on the bed caused an uproar. 

And it doesn't end there. Weiner's sexting case played yet another significant role in politics: this time in the 2016 election for presidency. Anthony Weiner's wife(recently ex-wife) Abedin Weiner was Hillary Clinton's advisor during her run for presidency. When the FBI were investigating Anthony Weiner's laptop for evidence for his sentencing, they discovered some of his wife's work emails that had to do with Hillary's campaign. Shortly before the 2016 elections, former FBI director James Comey announced that these newly discovered emails needed to be investigated as part of Clinton's investigation for her use of a private email server. And this announcement from Comey of Clinton's investigation has been viewed by many as one of the key reasons Clinton had lost the presidential election. 

The judge of this case, Denise Cote, has stated that due to Anthony's political career Weiner's sentence holds more importance, which some believe may have even affected his sentence time in jail. 

What do you guys think? Should Weiner's case be viewed and weighted differently due to his political career? Is it fair that he is held to a different standard due to his occupation and the occupation of his wife? 

Also, what do you guys think of Weiner's sentencing. Does it accurately address the severity of his crime? 

McConnell Says Republicans Are Giving Up on Health Bill

NY Times link

From left: Mitch McConnell, Bill Cassidy, Lindsey Graham and John Barrasso with other 

Republican leaders on Tuesday (NY Times)

It's a wrap on the Graham-Cassidy Bill (for now). Numerous republican senators, namely Senators Susan Collins, John McCain, and Rand Paul, expressed their dissent to the bills for various reasons– effects on health care, disapproval of the partisan process, and objection to the architecture of the bill, respectively. Collins's decision to firmly state her opposition made it clear that this bill would not have enough votes to pass, compelling Republicans to discard their plans to vote on the measure. This acknowledged defeat highlights a substantial failure of Republicans to fulfill Trump's campaign promise of repeal and replace, a concept they'd been pushing for years.

Senator Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham ensure that the fight is not over, but more something to be tackled at a later time. McConnell stated that Republicans will first focus their efforts on a tax code overhaul. Senator Bill Cassidy noted that he was very much disappointed in not having the votes. Senator Lisa Murkowski declared that this bill was ineffective due to the rushed speed, with one hearing and only a few days until voting after receiving the bill. House speaker Paul Ryan also mentioned the house republicans' frustration in the Senate for not acting on such a "seminal promise."
Trump also expressed his disdain, stating that at "some point there will be a repeal and replace...but we are disappointed in certain so-called Republicans."

What effect, if any, do you think this defeat will have on Republican morale and Trump supporters who did not see a fundamental campaign promise fulfilled?
Do you think Republicans might have more success with overhauling the tax code than they did with their health care bills?

What does this entail about the nature of their efforts to repeal and replace–is it inevitably doomed? Are the replace bills just not good enough?
Do you think efforts to repeal and replace should continue? Or is it better to focus our efforts on simply improving the ACA?

Refugee Limit to be at a Historical Low

Image URL: http://img.wennermedia.com/article-leads-horizontal/anti-refugee-movement-protest-taibbi-read-e41a65be-0b79-412d-bc8a-eb5f19db8750.jpg

According to President Trump's administration, he plans on lowering the US refugee intake limit to 45,000, the lowest it has been set at since 1980 when the limit was 67,000. This is less than half of the limit set by the Obama administration last year, and it is also lower than the 75,000 intake limit advised by US resettlement agencies.

I think that, relative to the refugee intake of European countries like Germany and Sweden, the US has been extremely underperforming in the area. We should be helping to take off the burden from other smaller countries in Europe by taking in more refugees ourselves. How can it be that Germany, a country with less than a third of the US population, has taken in more than 10 times the amount of Syrian refugees in the past few years than the US has? To me, this is unacceptable and embarrassing for the US government and us because we have to live in a country that doesn't help others. 

What are your thoughts?

Article Link

Link 2

Link 3

California Boy Killed Trying to Protect Younger Sister from Mother's Abusive Ex-Boyfriend

Link to the article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/boy-8-killed-protecting-sister-mother-ex-boyfriend-article-1.3519710

Dante Daniels, an 8-year-old boy in California, was brutally beaten (and eventually died from his injuries) with a hammer while trying to protect his 7-year-old sister from their mother's 23-year-old ex-boyfriend, Deandre Chaney Jr. A criminal complaint states that Chaney was molesting Dante's younger sister when the little boy stepped in to help. Although Dante's mother, 28-year-old Elizabeth Salone, and her daughter survived, Salone's left eye was damaged during the attack and will probably never recover. Chaney was arraigned on murder, attempted murder, and charged with lewd acts with a child under 14.

This type of situation makes me wonder whether the death penalty would be an appropriate punishment for Chaney. Last year, Chaney had pleaded no contest to a charge of failing to register as a sex offender, and now he killed an 8-year-old boy who was just trying to protect his 7-year-old sister from being molested by a 23-year-old man. The death penalty would be considered as constitutional in this case since Chaney committed a homicidal crime.

What kind of punishment do you think is appropriate for Chaney? Do you think giving Chaney the death penalty would be appropriate in this case? What can we do to prevent these type of crimes from happening?

ABC News: "181 protestors arrested after disrupting Graham-Cassidy bill hearing"

Article Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protesters-wheelchairs-removed-police-disrupting-graham-cassidy-bill/story?id=50081992

"Capitol Police remove a protestor in a wheel chair from a Senate Finance Committee hearing about the Proposed Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill" (Image via ABC News)

Scores of disabled protestors were removed from the Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill hearing on Capitol Hill after shouting "No cuts to Medicaid! Save our liberty!" The session had to be adjourned because of the noise, which angered many of the representatives, including Senate Finainance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, who exclaimed "if you want a hearing -- if you want a hearing, you better shut up."

The majority of these protesters were disabled persons, including blind individuals and individuals in wheelchairs. In a statement after the event, it was reported that "'fifteen demonstrators were arrested and charged with disruption of Congress...143 individuals were arrested after refusing to cease and desist with their unlawful demonstration activities in the hallway. Twenty-three individuals were charged with crowding, obstructing, or incommoding and resisting arrest.'"

The chambers of the Senate Finance Committee are now prepared to consider the Graham-Cassidy healthcare bill, which would have drastic impacts on the livelihoods of disabled individuals across the nation. In its current state, the bill would be set to retract the insurance that many individuals have under the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), which helps insure those who cannot afford insurance from privatized companies. This insurance helps to cover the various medical expenses of those with disabilities, and without it, it is difficult to imagine what position individuals with disabilities would be put into.

Solely focusing on the events at the protests, I believe that this piece of news is related to disability rights, which was a topic that was explored in the Civil Liberties/Civil Rights presentations that some of us conducted in class. Specifically, I believe that this event is connected with the 1st and 14th Amendments, which protect freedom of speech and equal protection, respectively. Under the Equal Protection Clause, disabled individuals are allowed the same constitutional rights as otherwise "normal" individuals, and this includes the freedom of speech that is outlined in the 1st Amendment. While it seems for the most part that the disabled protesters there were able to exercise their right to free speech, they were eventually removed and restricted from protesting. Now, I do not know the full extent of what the protestors were doing, and they very likely could have been violating the law, but if they were not, then the police have no right to arrest them for protesting. Furthermore, it seems inhumane for an individual in a wheelchair, such as the one pictured above, to be dragged in their wheelchair by a police officer against their will, especially since they have no little to no means of resistance. Once again, I do not know the complete circumstances of the protests, but it just seems incorrect for someone in that situation to be dragged against their will, without any physical way of putting up against it.

In my opinion, the disabled protesters had a right to be at the event to protest the healthcare bill, regardless of whether or not they abided by the law. I do not know all of the details of the Graham-Cassidy bill, but what I do know is that it would have huge ramifications for disabled individuals if passed. This issue hits home for me, as I have a disabled brother, and I am sure that if he could, he would be protesting this bill because of the impact that it would have on him.

What are your thoughts?

BBC: Angela Merkel wins German election, "vows to win back right wing voters"

Article Link: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41384550

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany (Image via Wikimedia Commons)

Yesterday, it was announced that Angela Merkel and her political party, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), were successful in winning the German election for chancellor. With this victory, Merkel is set to serve her fourth consecutive term as Chancellor of Germany, where there is no limit on amount of terms in office. Despite Merkel's victory, however, the CDU took "heavy losses" in the parliamentary election. Although the CDU was able to win the greatest amount of seats in parliament (246), this amount is significantly less than they possessed during their last term. Additionally, the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a right-wing party in Germany, were able to win parliamentary seats for the first time in history. This serves as a significant setback for the CDU, whose pro-immigration policies are in opposition to the AfD's strict anti-immigration policies. 

This election has various ramifications, both on a domestic and international level for Germany. On a domestic level, the results of this election will impact the formation of a coalition, or alliance, within Parliament, which has been common to occur. In the past, Angela Merkel was able to form an alliance between parties, but this time around it will be increasingly conservative, as both of the right-leaning parties in Germany, the AfD and the SPD, ruled themselves out. This shift will have an impact on the passing of legislation in Germany, especially when it comes to immigration and refugees. Currently, Germany is one of the largest intakes of refugees in Europe, and although this shift in immigration is supported by Merkel, it is heavily opposed by by the AfD, who wish to "fight 'an invasion of foreigners'" into Germany.

On an international level, this election could impact the Brexit, as the Free Democrats Party (FDP), who won a fair amount of seats in the election, openly support Britain and their efforts to leave the European Union. Although the FDP is a part of the conservative group of parties that partner with Merkel and the CDU, this message supporting the Brexit is in conflict with that of Merkel, who is against the movement. Finally, away from Europe, this election could impact Germany's already tense relationship with the United States. In the past, Merkel has been active in denouncing the statements, actions, and decisions of President Donald Trump, who shares some of the same anti-immigration sentiments that Merkel's opponents in Germany possess. With Merkel set to serve her fourth term, it will be interesting to see how the U.S.'s relationship with Germany will progress, and if the emergence of the AfD will have any effect on future cooperation or conflict between the two nations.

Questions:

1. How do you think that this election will impact the United State's relationship with Germany? Will it be beneficial, or detrimental?

2. The AfD's ability to acquire seats in the German parliament is an example of the increasing influence of anti-immigration policies throughout governments across the world. What do you think is causing this trend? Are there any possible consequences of this trend, and if so, what can be done to prevent or combat them? 

3. Merkel is sometimes referred to as the "Europe's Iron Lady" for her consistent electoral victories and her powerful global and domestic presence. Do you think that her fourth consecutive win could have any possible positive impacts on the chances of the election of more female politicians across the world, and specifically in the United States? 

Affordable Care Act Repeal and Replacement Won't Pass

Image URL: https://i.elitestatic.com/content/uploads/2017/05/08113456/Donald-Trump-healthcare-plan-failed.jpg

On Monday, September 25th, GOP senator from Maine, Susan Collins, announced that she would not vote for the repeal and replacement plan of the Affordable Care Act, put in place under the Obama Administration. This came just days after Senator John McCain announced that he would not support the plan either. Both have been huge blows to the seven-year effort by the GOP to end the Affordable Care Act. The reasons for why many prominent Republican leaders oppose the plan vary. Some believe that the bill doesn't change enough of the bill while others believe that the proposed funding is insufficient. It is especially interesting because, due to special budget rules, Republicans are able to pass the bill without any votes from Democrats, but if they lose more than two votes from the 52 republican members in the Senate, then it is game over, and the bill doesn't pass.

This almost certainly failed effort is an example of how divided American politics are. Each state has its own agenda and each senator has their own idea of how to go about completing their agenda for the better of the state and it's people. This inherently leads to difficulty in compromising on the national level, which is what the Constitution intended for. We've learned about how the Constitution intentionally created a system of checks and balances between state and federal power, and this is just another level of the same idea. 

Thoughts?

Article Link 

Reasons Why Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid Decide to Take a Knee

Photo by Marcio Jose Sanchez of the NY Times

Eric Reid, strong safety of the 49ers, decided to join Colin Kaepernick, who initially sat on the bench during the national anthem, to take a knee during the national anthem. Reid and Kaepernick chose to kneel instead of sitting on the bench as a peaceful protest against police brutality and oppression towards colored people. Reid compares their kneeling to "a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy". 

Everyone has the right to protest, and this right is identified as a human right. However, there is a necessity for restrictions if the protest is against a race, religion, etc. In Kaepernick's case, he is not protesting against any specific race or group. He is kneeling because he believes that America oppresses people of color, which he does not support. 

Questions:
1. Is it fair that Kaepernick is unemployed for not standing during the national anthem?
2. Do you think kneeling is comparable to flying the flag halfway to recognize a tragedy?
3. Do you think there was any other choice to protest against police brutality that wouldn't risk Kaepernick's employment?

NY Times Article

Amazon's Second Headquarters, Holy Grail for Developing Cities

Image URL: https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/marketing/prime/pdp/shipping._CB507235775_.jpg

Amazon, a fast-growing online commerce company based in Seattle, is currently looking for a suitable location for their second headquarters. They are planning to invest $5 billion on this project and create over 50,000 jobs. City officials across the US and Canada are all pitching in and trying to woo Amazon to build the headquarters in their city. Who wouldn't? Fifty thousand jobs and five billion dollars is a enormous amount of jobs and money for a city of any size. The city that ends up winning Amazon over will experience a huge economic boost over just a few years, and then continue to grow gradually after, no doubt.

It isn't just Amazon doing this. Apple and Google are expanding their headquarters and offices have been doing the same over the years right next to us in Silicon Valley. I think that technology companies have had great and substantial impacts on the communities around them for the most part. We can see how gentrification in San Francisco has become a huge problem and the cost of living has risen quite a lot over the past few decades. Even though Amazon's expansion will cause similar problems wherever they decide to build, I still think that it is for the better because the economy of the whole area is improving, giving hundreds of thousands of people new and better opportunities.
What are your opinions on this?

Article links:
Link 1
Link 2

North Korea accuses US of declaring war

BBC News link
Washington Post link
CBS News link

Ri Yong Ho statement on US declaring war and right to shooting down bombers (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders declaring that the notion of a declaration of war in Trump's speech is "absurd." (Reuters)

 News of Mr. Ri's recent declaration only augment the every heightened tensions between the United States and North Korea, especially due to the recent "war of words" between each country's respective leader. Mr. Ri, North Korea's foreign minister, stated that the comments made by President Trump at the General Assembly and on twitter are to be interpreted as a declaration of war against North Korea. He states that the world should remember the U.S. as being the instigator of a war as well. He goes further to claim that such a declaration of war allows them the right to shoot down U.S. bombers, even outside of North Korea's airspace.

The State Department rejected such claims. Spokeswoman Katina Adams asserted that the U.S. did not declare war and instead still looks for a "peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula," and that "no nation has the right to fire on other nations' aircraft or ships in international airspace or waters"

Trump has allowed the Treasury Department to impose more sanctions upon North Korea which would help to defund its relentless nuclear mission. Michael Green from the Center for Strategic and International Studies claims that "North Korea is trying to raise the level of crisis and panic to the point where other U.S. allies will pressure the United States to enter negotiations and make concessions on easing sanctions."

I believe that as of now, this so called war of words is fair cause for worriment, but not to the point of military involvement. However, as stated in the BBC article, if North Korea actually decides to turn words into action and shoot down U.S. bombers outside of their airspace, that would be sign of real trouble, and could escalate quickly from mere verbal threats.

What do you make of Ri's claims– are they worrisome or negligible? Do you believe that North Korea will follow through in their threats of taking down U.S. bombers outside of their airspace? What do you think it will take for this war of words to actually start involving military action? Or will it never get to that point?

FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/09/25/fbi-violent-crime-increases-second-straight-year/699161001/

Crimes in America rose up in 2016. FBI reported a growing priority of the Trump administration. Since his inauguration crimes increased. Officials in Boston said that there was a dangerous spike in violence. Overall violent crime was up 4.1% last year, while murder increased by 8.6%, according to new FBI statistics. Chicago accounts for about 20% of the country's murders. We don't know what is causing this increase in crimes. The nation had to send out warnings, that we are vulnerable to violence which had been at an all time higattacked local communities in the 1980s and 90s. Officials described recent spikes in violence as "a frightening trend that threatens to erode so much progress that had made our neighborhoods and communities safer – over 30 years declines in crime are being replaced by increases."

Questions: 

1.  Why do you think violent crimes increased so much? 
2.  What can we do as a nation to try to stop these crimes from increasing so much?

Puerto Rico Is American. We Can't Ignore It Now

Article link


Photo by Erika Rodriguez of the NY Times from Thursday, 9/21

Given all of the devastation from natural disasters over the past month it is important that the U.S. Federal government not overlook Hurricane Maria's damage to Puerto Rico. First Hurricane Harvey drenched Houston, then Hurricane Irma soaked Florida, and most recently Hurricane Maria battered Puerto Rico. While a lot of Federal dollars have already been committed to recovery efforts in Houston and Florida, Puerto Rico is in worse financial condition than Texas or Florida. Also the damage appears to be worse as the entire island took a direct hit and power will be out for months. Given that nearly half of people were already living in poverty in Puerto Rico, the Federal government must prioritize relief and recovery efforts in Puerto Rico, which is a U.S. commonwealth.

Discussion questions:
1. Should the political status of Puerto Rico compared with Texas and Florida effect how much aid they receive from the Federal Government?
2. How do you believe that the U.S. can best support Puerto Rico in their recovery efforts?
3. Do you think the physical rebuilding process could lead to restructuring and improvement of the Puerto Rican economy or is it more likely put the island into an even deeper economic hole?

One inmate is killed and several injured in prison riot near San Luis Obispo

Wikimedia Commons

At the California Men's Colony prison northwest of San Luis Obispo early Sunday morning, one inmate was killed and others were injured in a violent riot. The riot involved 160 men and police intervened immediately spraying the crowd with pepper spray and shooting the inmates with rubber rounds. Nine of the 160 men were taken to the hospital with stab wounds and one inmate died a couple hours later. Authorities are not positive what started the riot and are looking more into the event in the following days.

After hearing about this outbreak, I think it is important for prisons to have high security so events like this never happen. Although we would have to pay for this, I think in the long run it is better for our safety as well as the safety of the guards who can experience a riot like this at any point but better security would prevent a riot to this extent from breaking out.

Article Link: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prison-riot-20170924-story.html

New York Times: "Kushner Used Personal Email Account for Government Business"

Article Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/us/politics/kushner-personal-email.html
Alternate Article Link (story originally reported by Politico.com): http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/24/jared-kushner-private-email-white-house-243071

Jared Kushner, who is the son-in-law and senior advisor to President Donald Trump (Image via Wikimedia Commons)

On the same day in which President Donald Trump has been criticized for attacking professional athletes and issuing various new travel bans, it has been reported that his son-in-law and senior advisor, Jared Kushner, has used a personal email account "'to conduct official government business.'"  The use of the personal account was described in detail by Mr. Kushner's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, who claimed that it had been used to send "'fewer than a hundred emails" involving Kushner's colleagues in the White House during the first seven months of the current administration's term. Kushner's lawyer also remarked that the emails sent mainly consisted of "'forwarded news articles and political commentary,'" and that these emails were initiated when individuals sent messages to Kushner's personal account rather than his White House account. 

The emergence of this news seems to draw a clear parallel to the events of the past election, during which President Trump aggressively confronted and exploited Hillary Clinton's use of her own private email account during her time as Secretary of State. Ironically, it now seems as if the tables could have turned on President Trump and his staff. This event will only add to the amount of scrutiny that has been received by the current administration during their time in office. Not only is President Donald Trump under investigation by the F.B.I. for possible collusion with Russia, but Kushner himself has been previously criticized for omitting information about his contacts with Russian officials during the election period. With this new information, it is possible that the F.B.I. will be able to make progress in their investigation and expose new information that will put the Trump administration at more risk than they are currently in. 

Personally, I believe that Kushner's actions must be placed in the same conversation as that of Clinton's past actions, as both individuals used private email accounts to conduct government business. Since President Trump believes that Clinton's actions are punishable by prosecution, then Kushner should be eligible to receive that same punishment; that being said, however, I do not expect Trump to push for Kushner's punishment. Kushner is Trump's family and advisor, so Trump is most likely going to ironically and hypocritically excuse his actions. Either way, the F.B.I. needs to investigate Kushner, just as they did with Clinton.

Questions:

1) What do you believe should be the proper course of action, for both the Trump administration and the F.B.I., to take after the emergence of this news? Should Kushner's actions be dismissed as insignificant, or should he too be investigated by the F.B.I? 

2) If you want to take your response to #1 a step further, answer this: Should Kushner even be allowed to keep his position in the White House? Why or why not?

3) It is clear that there have been some issues with personal email accounts throughout the government in the past and present. Is there anything that can be done to prevent or eliminate such issues? What policies, if needed, should be enacted to ensure the security of government information and the transparency of government officials?

Time ticking to a close on Graham-Cassidy bill

The Graham-Cassidy bill attempts to repeal Obamacare // Wikimedia Commons

The Republicans are scrambling to gain majority support in the Senate for the Graham-Cassidy bill, which would repeal and replace Obamacare, reducing health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans each year. In order to gain more Republican support, a revised version of the bill was proposed to Republicans Sunday.

There is a clear sense of urgency within the supporters of the bill, as this is likely their last realistic chance to repeal and replace Obamacare. At the beginning of October, any motion to repeal and replace Obamacare will require 60 votes in the Senate to pass, instead of the normal 51-vote majority. CNN said it would be an "impossibility in the current Senate" to get 60 votes.

GOP Sen. John McCain has been a divisive voices for the Republicans, publicly denouncing the bill. His lack of support will make it extremely difficult for the bill to pass in the Senate, especially considering any bill re.

"I believe we could do better working together, Republicans and Democrats, and have not yet really tried,” McCain said. “Nor could I support it without knowing how much it will cost, how it will affect insurance premiums, and how many people will be helped or hurt by it.”

The bill would cut Obamacare's expansion of coverage to 34 states, per the Washington Post. It would replace this funding with block grants for the individual states, although the grants would only last from 2020 to 2026, when they would expire.

However, one risk of the block grant solution is that states could potentially use the money from the grants for purposes unrelated to healthcare, as states have the discretion to allocate funding from block grants towards causes of their choosing.

Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/24/politics/revised-graham-cassidy-bill/index.html

https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-will-the-graham-cassidy-proposal-affect-the-number-of-people-with-health-insurance-coverage/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/us/politics/mccain-graham-cassidy-health-care.html?mcubz=1

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/graham-cassidy-bill-would-cut-funding-to-34-states-new-report-shows/2017/09/20/48741d92-9d58-11e7-9083-fbfddf6804c2_story.html?utm_term=.f6084c280614

https://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-medicaid-expansion/

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/22/politics/cassidy-graham-charts/index.html