The House passes budget blueprint and they are taking steps to a tax overhaul

Link to article 1 

    Link to article 2 

Link to article 3 

On Thursday the House had passed a tax overhaul with a vote 219 to 206.The blueprint for a tax budget plan will overhaul the tax code which hasn't been done since Reagan was president(New York Times). As of right now the President and the Republican in Congress need to discuss the contents of the new reform.

This tax overhaul would allow for the approval of a tax bill with only 51 votes instead of the 60 votes that would usually be needed in the Senate. According to the Chicago Tribune this bill includes a 5 trillion dollar in spending cut, and a promise to cut Medicaid by about 1 trillion dollars over ten years. The Republican party is saying that this reform will increase economic growth by about 3 percent and will add new tax revenues. 

As of right now there are huge debates between Democrats and Republicans. Bernie has been quoted saying "In order to pay for these huge tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, this Republican budget makes savage cuts to the life and death programs that mean so much to ordinary Americans". Democrats argue that in order to fund for the tax cuts for the wealthy, the new tax reform will cut funding for programs such as Medicare. Republicans such as Diane Black is hugely supportive of this new tax reforming saying "through reconciliation, our budget specifically paves the way for pro-growth tax reform that will reduce taxes for middle-class Americans and free up American businesses to grow and hire,". Many Republicans consider these tax cuts as necessary because the national debt continues to grow and without cuts in spending it would be hard to cut the deficit. What are your thoughts?

New Session of Sessions v. Dimaya

People wait in front of the Supreme Court for the Sessions v. Dimaya case.

Links to articles:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-supreme-court-deport-burglars-20170117-story.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/2/supreme-court-begins-new-session-with-james-garcia/
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-scotus-immigrants-20171005-story.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lynch-v-dimaya/
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/15-1498

Earlier this year, native Filipino James Garcia Dimaya was caught for two different accounts of burglary, and his actions had potential to have him deported. By law, non citizens charged with “aggravated felonies” are subject to deportation, and Dimaya, a permanent resident, was subject to this law. While unclear, “aggravated felonies” was expanded to incorporate any “crimes of violence,” and it was uncertain whether the home burglaries could potentially result in any physical violence.

Splits in lower courts prompted this issue to move to higher courts, and in January, this case was taken to the Supreme Court, but due to the presence of only eight justices, the case was deadlocked. With the addition of Justice Gorsuch, however, the Supreme Court decided to reopen the Sessions v. Dimaya case this Monday. With a new Justice on the panel and a rehearing, the court seeks to solidify a decision and set precedent for future immigration and deportation cases.

I feel that Dimaya, a native of the country and a permanent resident, should be treated more like a citizen and the potential for deportation should be lessened. Immigrants should receive fair treatment from the law and the vagueness of the law should not leave one subject to any punishment they don’t deserve. Furthermore, while his burglaries are actions that require punishment, the potential physical threat is low, and should therefore not be treated as an “aggravated felony.”

What do you think about this? Should Dimaya be subject to deportation or not? Why?

Experts are turning to an app to help predict suicide in teens.

Link to Article

Prediction of teen suicide is a complicated task. According to the Washington Post, suicides in teens or teen girls in particular have been on the rise. As technology advances our devices could be more effective at predicting suicide than physicians.

The Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center is now testing a new app which is supposed to recognize whether someone is going to commit suicide. Chris Danforth of University of Vermont says that having a physical check upon you for 30 minutes a few times a year is less effective than a device which is constantly apart of our lives. The app uses algorithms and using the algorithm it can measure how likely someone going to take their life. This new app is called Spreading Activation Mobile or SAM for short. As of right now this app is claimed to be able to predict suicide within a week with about 90% accuracy.

This technology will certainly be useful to those who are facing issues with suicide, however, I question its application.  This app is more useful for those who want to help suicidal teens then to the teens themselves, therefore, the best application would be the one that tests all depressed teens not just teens seeking help(probably a violation of privacy). I am not so sure how they are going to make the most of this app but it is one that could potentially save lives. What are your thoughts?

In wake of Las Vegas shootings, no plans to bring gun silencer bill to House floor, Ryan says

article link




As of Tuesday, the House of Representatives will postpone their vote on a bill increasing the ease of buying silencers in wake of the tragedy in Las Vegas. Currently, buying a silencer requires extensive background checks and a specialized permit. This new law would reduce this to the federal background required for the purchase of handguns. While the voting on this bill has been postponed, congressional republicans have shown no inclination that they will not vote in favor of this bill.

Many Democrats are coming out fervently against this bill, obviously citing the gun massacre in Las Vegas as further evidence of a need for tighter gun restrictions, not looser ones. Republicans remain staunch in their sentiment that guns are not the cause and remain integral to the freedom and safety of America.

I personally feel that we cannot address the gun violence in our nation without some semblance of gun control. I am willing to concede that other factors such as mental health are involved in these acts of violence, but I still feel the ease of purchasing and obtaining guns remains the largest obstacle in solving this problem, and that making it easier to buy silencers is going in the wrong direction.

What do you think? Should this law increasing the ease of purchasing silencers be passed? Does America need tighter gun laws, or is that the wrong method of solving this problem? Why?

Supreme Court eyes Partisan Gerrymandering

Caption: Justice Anthony Kennedy is seen as a potential swing vote in this issue

Starting this Tuesday, the Supreme Court was presented with and is debating Partisan Gerrymandering. More specifically, the Court is debating on whether or not to invalidate a redistricting plan passed by Wisconsin's state legislature. For those who do not know, Gerrymandering is the diving of voting districts in an ultimately unrepresentative, biased way. There have been many accusations of Republican gerrymandering from the Democrats, and many think it necessary the Supreme Court get involved to prevent this blatant inequality. In Wisconsin specifically, there have been cases in which republicans won 48% of the popular vote but 60% of the districts/seats.

As of now, conservative judges have a majority in the Supreme Court, and Gorsuch, a conservative appointed by Trump had the sentiment that redistricting is an issue for the states, and that the federal government would be overreaching its authority in an attempt to regulate it, saying "Where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines?" However, Conservative Justice Kennedy is seen as a potential swing vote due to his statement after a ruling which the court did not strike down a congressional redistricting, in which he noted the court would still be able to help reduce gerrymandering in egregious cases. I think that this issue is topical in that it surrounds the right to vote and how that right can be deceptively taken away or reduced, in spite of the protections such as Voting Rights Act and the 24th amendment.

What do you think? Is gerrymandering an issue threatening our democracy, a hyperbolic leftist complaint, or somewhere in between? How do you think the Court will vote? How should it vote?

Article

Link

With the Supreme Court at Full Strength, It Is Going to Be a Momentous Term

Link to Article 1
Link to Article 2
Link to Article 3

On Monday, the Supreme Court's new term has started and since this is Justice Gorsuch's first full term there is going some very significant cases that the Supreme Court has to decide on. They will be deciding on issues such as the travel ban, political gerrymandering and the one involving the Baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.

Last year the Supreme Court was cautious on taking important cases prior to the nomination of Gorsuch. The National Review had said the "prospect of 4-4 splits [prevented] decision in the most difficult and contentious cases". In this new term the court is going to take some cases that they were careful on taking the last term.  I am not too familiar with Gorsuch but from what I've heard, he is a conservative voter which is a big deal since now decisions are less likely to be splits. However, based on what I have read from ABC news I can assume that Gorsuch is actually against Judicial activism. He strongly supports the limiting of judicial role which advocated for what the law demands. What are your thoughts?

Should Schools Kick Students Off Sports Teams for Protesting the National Anthem?

Link to article 

On Friday Cedric Ingram-Lewis and Larry McCullough had decided to protes against the National Anthem.During the National Anthem at one of their games, Cedric had raised a fist in the air, while Larry had got down to a knee. According to the coach, Ronnie Mitchem, the students had known that if they had protested the National Anthem that they would receive the punishment of getting kicked off the team. As a matter of fact the Coach had let his players before hand know that if they will protest, they will receive that punishment.

Although the coach supports the right to protest he had found that the actions of the teens were disrespectful to those who had served in military service, however , these teens were following in the footsteps of Colin Kaepernick. And the intent of Kaepernick was to protest racism and police brutality. What are your thoughts?Do you think these kids deserved being kicked off the team? 

58 Killed in Las Vegas Shooting

Article Link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/us/las-vegas-shooting.html



Stephen Paddock pictured above


Stephen Paddock, 64, was identified as the shooter in the Las Vegas Hotel. This is considered as one of the deadliest mass shootings in the history of America, leaving at least 58 dead, and injuring more than 100 others.

Jason Aldean was performing a 3 day concert in Las Vegas, where the sound of hundreds of bullets scared the crowed.

Police found Paddock dead in his hotel room. On Monday, officers will start looking more into his background and searching his home. The authorities found two rifles near the window of his hotel room. So far the FBI has not found any evidence leading him to any terrorist group.

The evidence the FBI has found hasn't linked Paddock to any criminal history. Benjamin Paddock, Stephens father, actually had a criminal history. Benjamin Paddock had been a bank robber, and had escaped from prison, landing him on the FBI's top 10 wanted list.

Eric Paddock, Stephens brother, was completely shocked to hear the news about his brother. He said he would have never guessed his brother to even own guns.

Thoughts?

At Least 50 Dead in Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Image URL: https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2017_40/2175121/171002-las-vegas-shooting-run-njs-1127a_f22aa7992c16a109d758bb28b392566f.nbcnews-fp-480-320.jpg


On Sunday night, a heavily-armed gunman opened fire on an outdoor country music festival from a hotel room in Las Vegas, Nevada. At least 58 people were killed, and over 500 were injured in the attack. The gunman was using an automatic weapon and spraying the crowd with bullets from above. Two policemen were killed and the gunman was found dead in his hotel room. He has been identified as 64-year-old, Stephen Paddock, but his motives are unknown so far. Paddock's brother, Eric, was interviewed shortly after the event and told officials that his brother had no history with guns at all, but he was a gambler. 

Even though I believe that there can be no plausible explanations or reasoning for why someone would commit such a heinous act, the fact that he has no history with guns and he's a gambler makes me think that he might've been very depressed and may have had a few rough nights at the poker table which spurred his decision.

This is an example of an inevitable loophole in gun rights. Paddock had only one traffic violation in his criminal record, and he had no violent history, so he was able to purchase automatic weapons legally. Even if he didn't purchase them from a certified gun-selling business, this shows how the background safety checks for gun-owners are inherently flawed because they don't account for a person's psychological state.

What can be done to fix this loophole in gun laws?
How do you think the Nevada government, as well as the federal government will respond to this attack? What should they do to prevent incidents like this from happening in the future?

Article Links:
Link
Link
Link

Possible Terrorism In Canada As Officer Stabbed And Pedestrians Struck

Link to article

In Edmonton, Alberta, a 30-year-old Canadian is in custody after a police officer was hit by a car then "viciously stabbed" and hours later four pedestrians were "deliberately struck" by a fleeing U-Haul truck on Saturday night. The police found an ISIS flag on the front seat of the U-Haul truck. Although the police believe that the man committed the crime alone, the police department still put out a statement, urging everyone "to be vigilant and aware of their surroundings."

ISIS is one of the world's most infamous terrorist organization, and they are known to have many supporters outside of their Middle East territory. In 2014, ISIS has gained a territory about the size of Great Britain, with the population of 11 million people. However, as of 2017, ISIS has lost approximately 60% of their land, with their population cut down to 2.5 million. Therefore, in my opinion, if ISIS is struggling in the Middle East, is it unlikely that they will have the resources to initiate an attack in another country. 

What do you guys think? Do you think this might be another terrorist attack from ISIS to gather the world's attention? How should the Canadian government better improve their security system to prevent another attack like this?

Trump Says Tillerson Is 'Wasting His Time' On Talks With North Korea

Link to article

President Trump recently tweeted "I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he is wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man" and "Save your energy Rex, we'll do what has to be done," after Tillerson told reporters that the U.S. has been engaged in diplomatic talks with Pyongyang. From the tweets, it looks like Trump is suggesting that the U.S. is willing to use military force on the North Korean regime.

What do you guys think? If the U.S. initiates the attack on North Korea, what do you think China, the regime's most powerful ally will do about it? If the U.S. does successfully overthrow the North Korean regime, what do you think will happen to the North Korean government and its people?

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?