How the Music Modernization Act will affect the music industry by Liberty C.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/24/politics/music-modernization-act-congress-orrin-hatch/index.html

 

On January 24, 2018 the Music Modernization Act was introduced into the Senate. This act will change the way that songwriters are paid. This includes royalties, copyrights, and different licences for digital music providers. In a statement made last week by Orrin Hatch, a co-sponsor of the bill, he called the bill a “historic reform for our badly outdated music laws.” 

This is act will allow songwriters to get the royalties they are owed for songs played on the internet. To do this, a separate organization will be formed to make payments easier. This will be headed up by publishers and songwriters. The Music Modernization Act will also let digital providers get blanket licenses which will cut down on copyright infringement lawsuits. This will also let writers receive royalties from songs written before 1972.

Last week, the House of Representatives unanimously approved of the Senate's bill. Before this bill was passed, the Senate renamed it to the Orrin G. Hatch Music Modernization Act in honor of the bill’s sponsor. While no vote has been scheduled as of Sunday, Hatch believes that the Senate will approve of the house bill this week. Lawmakers hope for President Trump to sign the bill into law by mid-October.

Do you believe this bill will help or harm the music industry? Why would some people argue against this bill? 

For more information about this bill, go to:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2334/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22music+modernization+act%22%5D%7D

Kids in Prison by Graysen G.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/22/opinion/sunday/immigration-children-detention.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FUnited%20States%20Politics%20and%20Government&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics

When most children turn eighteen years old they are looking forward to graduating high school, or going to college. However, children growing up in detention centers have come from all over the globe to find themselves a better life, and America is only giving them more struggles. Wilmer Ramirez was a seventeen year old from Guatemala waiting for his “special immigrant juvenile status,” which is something that would make him eligible for permanent residency. Ramirez also had a family that would sponsor him, which means they would submit themselves for approval and take him in after he was approved. At twelve in the morning on his eighteenth birthday, he was taken by officials from the Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement and taken to a nearby jail just for being an immigrant. 

Some immigration advocates are proposing these children are passed onto their sponsor families and given an ankle bracelet to secure their location. However, many also say that is unlawful behavior because these children have done nothing wrong. They are ripped from the life they have created or are in the process of building. With the days it takes to process these children increasing by the day, it is horrible to imagine what the future of immigration looks like for our country, especially for kids.

Do you think it is ethical behavior to take these children to jail? Should immigration laws change to accommodate for these immigrant children? How will immigration affect America in the future?

Troops in South Korea by Madison S.

The United States and North Korea have had very different opinions about many things throughout the year. This past summer President Trump met with the leader of North Korea. The summit seemed to be a successful one. There was a lot of decision and we seemed to be making some progress

During the Korean war, the United States sent troops into South Korea. They were put there to aid South Korea in the fight against communism. North Korea says they have a democracy like the United States, but in reality it's the complete opposite. After the war, the United States left some troops in South Korea to be on the battle lines if needed.

On Tuesday, United States General, Roberts Abrams took command of troops in South Korea. Back in June, President Trump suspended major military exercises in South Korea U.S. general Robert Abrams believes there will be a “degradation of readiness” between United States forces and and South Korean forces. He thinks that the United States needs to keep troops in South Korea in case of an attack.

Do you think North Korea and the United States have become closer in views and actions? Should we stop military exercises in South Korea? Is President Trump feeling too “safe” about North Korea?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/09/25/us-stoppage-us-korea-exercises-cause-readiness-loss.html

The Opioid Crisis by Gunner F.

Currently, one of the biggest issues in our country is the opioid crisis. The CDC approximated that every day, around 115 Americans die from opioid overdoses. In 2016 alone, 42,000 people died of overdoses as a result of  opioids. These numbers continue to grow daily as this crisis spreads about the nation. Not only do these overdoses impact the users, but they also impact their families.

In early September, the Senate passed a piece of legislation regarding this issue. In a vote of 99-1, the Senate agreed to a package of bills that helps to fight the opioid issue. This piece of legislation will help to stop illegal drugs from crossing our borders, and it will put mandates on federal agencies.. Such a package of bills will cost the government eight billion dollars.

President Donald Trump recently called the illegal importation of drugs  "almost a form of warfare." In October of last year, the White House declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency. It has reached just about all parts of the country. Now almost a year later, our lawmakers are taking action.

I believe that the government should do more to combat such an issue. There should be more restrictions placed on prescriptions for opioids. What steps should lawmakers take? Should it be up to the state government to fix these issues or the federal government? Are we doing enough as a nation to fight this crisis?

Http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/17/senate-approves-bipartisan-opioid-legislation-cracking-down-on-shipments-trump-called-almost-form-warfare.html

Warren Proposes Bill For Lifetime Ban On Lobbyist Congress Members by Dougie D.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/warren-proposes-lifetime-ban-on-members-of-congress-becoming-lobbyists-2018-08-21 

Senator Elizabeth Warren advocates a lifetime ban on lobbying by former members of Congress, Presidents, and agency heads and banning foreign lobbying and lobbyists donations to candidates and members of congress.

Warren stated “The trial of Donald Trump’s campaign manager has exposed how foreign governments hide their efforts to influence the american government through lobbying. We should ban Americans from getting paid to lobby for foreign governments- period. If foreign governments want to express their views, they can use their diplomats.”

Warren’s bill seeks to eliminate both the appearance and the potential for financial conflicts of interest by banning members of Congress, cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and other senior government officials from owning and trading individual stock, including requiring the Supreme court follow the ethics rule applicable to all other federal judges.

What do you think? Do you agree with Warren’s bill?

Supreme Court Chaos by Madison S.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-hearing-grassley/index.html

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

Within the last week, President Trump's supreme court pick, Brett Kavanaugh, has been under fire. Mr. Kavanaugh was alleged of sexual assault. He of course denies all alleged actions.

Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of sexaul assualt when she was 15 and he was 17. Kavanaugh would be President Trump's second pick for the Supreme Court. If Kavanaugh is picked to be on the supreme, it would be a ¨major win¨ for President Trump. Kavanaugh would be replacing Supreme court justice, Anthony Kennedy. Justice Kennedy held many key votes in many decisions. It would would make the courts swing more conservative than liberal. At the moment there are four conservative justices and four liberal justices. With Kavanaugh being conservative, it will swing the vote more conservative. 

For the Kavanaugh to become a supreme court justice, he has to go through a process. The president must nominate someone, then the nomination goes to the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary committee is made up of 21 people, eleven republicans and ten democrats. Within the Judiciary committee has a three-step process. After the the nomination passes the Judiciary Committee, it goes to the Senate. Three-fourths of the senate have to approve of the nonmantion.  

How do you think this will change the votes within Congress on the Supreme Court decisions? Why do you think Mrs. Ford is just now coming out with these allegations. 

Brett Kavanaugh Accused of Sexual Assault and How It Can Affect Our Country by Liberty C.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/16/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-speaks-out-washington-post/1328625002/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/17/politics/debra-katz-christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh/index.html

The Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexually assaulting Christine Ford when they were in high school in the early 1980’s. In a confidential letter to California Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, Ford details what happened that night saying, “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.” Ford had never told anyone of this attack prior to 2012 when she and her husband were in couple’s therapy. Her husband, Russell Ford, later told The Post that his wife recounted the attack and was concerned that Kavanaugh could become a Supreme Court nominee. Ford also took a polygraph test that concluded her accusations to be true. When these allegations first surfaced, Ford was unwilling to testify in public. Now she has agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

So what does this mean for Kavanaugh and his Supreme Court acceptance? These allegations will have a major impact not only on Kavanaugh but the entire United States. Since this is such an important matter, Senator Feinstein referred the matter to the FBI after receiving the letter from Ford. This has been “added to Kavanaugh’s background investigation but the FBI is not pursuing a criminal investigation.” Debra Katz, Ford’s attorney, has said that no one has reached out to request Ford’s testimony while the Senate reviews Kavanaugh nomination. However, this will also affect the United States. If Kavanaugh is not added to the Supreme Court, the country will still be in search of a replacement. If a candidate is not selected before President Trump’s term is over, the Democratic Party may have a chance to offer up a nomination. This situation could majorly affect laws and policies in our country, such as Gun Control, since the parties have varying views.

Will the FBI open up a criminal investigation against Brett Kavanaugh? How will this affect his nomination into the Supreme Court? How will this affect America in the long run if he is or isn’t accepted?

Freedom of Speech in College by Bethany F.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/17/us/politics/justice-department-campus-free-speech.html

In the past year, renowned colleges such as the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Michigan have found themselves involved in freedom of speech related lawsuits. Republican students have made claims that their ideologies have been suppressed on campus and their first amendment rights have been infringed upon. The University of Michigan imposed an anti-bullying and harassment campaign which sparked controversy. The determined definition of ‘bullying’ had to be changed after conservatives argued that this could potentially stifle opposing or controversial points of view. Berkeley also received backlash after they cancelled on Republican speakers due to protests and violence from liberals. 

Siding with the plaintiffs, the Department of Justice has made it clear that they will not tolerate any breach of freedom of speech. Attorney General Jeff Sessions also spoke out on Monday stating that he agreed and encouraged this decision. He denounced “bullies on campus” and called this a “pivotal moment in history”. Others have argued that the campus policies are there for a reason. They are said to be there to protect students from hostile or threatening environments and be inclusive to all who attend. 

Limiting free speech in any environment poses a real threat to the foundations our country is built upon. Our bill of rights grants citizens privileges that must be upheld; however, colleges do also have a responsibility to limit bullying on campus by implementing whatever policies necessary. Schools have long since had zero tolerance anti-bullying policies which by these standards could also have been said to prohibit free speech. 

Where is the line drawn between allowing hate speech and allowing freedom of speech? Do you find these incidents to be violations of the 1st amendment? Should federal departments have jurisdiction over colleges and universities?

Trump to Declassify Documents in the Russia Investigation by Peyton O.

https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/09/18/us/politics/ap-us-trump-russia-probe-congress-the-latest.html

New information regarding the Russia investigation is due to be released pending the U.S. Justice Department. The Russia investigation has been ongoing since the 2016 election. The FBI has been investigating as to whether or not Russia swayed the 2016 presidential election in Donald Trump’s favor. Soon after the election, the Clinton campaign accused President Trump of using a foreign power to defeat his political opponent. Trump denied Russia’s help, saying that he was only good friends with Vladimir Putin. The investigation has since continued but has been rather quiet up until this week. Most of the documents involving the investigation have not been available to the general public. However, earlier today President Trump used his executive power to make a bold move. He demanded that the documents involving the Russia investigation be declassified. The U.S. Dept. Of Justice complied with his request, but stated that they were unsure when the documents would be released. Experts believe that Trump’s decision may come with some consequences. They say that sensitive sources and methods of acquiring information would be released and break privacy regulations. Experts also say that Trump is a conflict of interest due to the fact that he is directly involved in the investigation.

What statement is President Trump trying to make with his decision? What information do you think the documents will contain? What do you think will be the outcome of the Russia investigation?

Refugee Admission Cut to 30,000 by Gavin S.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/18/trump-administration-cuts-refugee-admissions-to-30000.html

On Monday the Trump administration announced that it will cut the maximum number of refugees allowed into the country next year to 30,000. The cause of this cut was cited as national security concerns and restoration to the immigration system. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the administration will be lowering the refugee cap from 45,000 in 2018 to just 30,000 in 2019. Former President Barack Obama raised the refugee cap to 110,000 in 2017 and the U.S. allowed nearly 85,000 refugees into the country in 2016. So far the Trump administration has taken a much firmer stance on the issue of refugee entry and immigration, focusing mainly on the need to fully vet refugees before allowing them into the country. 

Some have criticized the administration for the cut, but Pompeo stated that even with the cut the United States continues to be the most generous nation in the world when it comes to immigration. Though it may seem like 30,000 is a very small cap, this year alone the United States has only admitted 20,918 refugees. Pompeo also cited that the lowered cap reflects the large backlog of immigration cases, which currently consists of over 800,000 pending cases. Previous immigration vetting systems have been proven defective, with at least one confirmed ISIS member gaining access to the United States. This new immigration reform hopes to deduce the possibility of other radical Islamist from gaining access to the U.S.

Do you think that the recent immigration cut is justifiable? How will the cut affect the national security of the United States? Will the cut actually reduce the possibility of radicals from gaining access to the United States?

0.0075% by Grace F.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/17/648986106/u-s-to-limit-the-number-of-refugees-allowed-entry-to-30-000

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-immigration-debate-0

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
0.0075%
That number represents the fraction of would-be immigrants who will actually make it into America in 2019, as the Trump administration rolls out a new plan to limit the number of refugees the United States will grant entry to to 30,000. Now, that is no small number, until you look at the statistics: in late 2017, there were more than four million applicants on the State Department’s waiting list for immigrant visas. Because of war, crime, poverty, and natural disasters, there are currently more than 68 million displaced people around the globe, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency. 68 million. And we are going to allow 30,000. 

This quota fails to follow up with the administration’s promises to help persecuted Christian and religious minorities in dangerous and oppressive countries, and doesn’t reflect the actual capacity or willingness of Americans to receive and resettle refugees. 


But how do Americans feel about all these people wanting to make this country their new home? A 2016 Gallup poll showed that among Republicans, support for a path to citizenship (76 percent) was higher than support for a proposed border wall (62 percent). A 2017 Gallup poll found that 71 percent of Americans considered immigration a “good thing” for the United States.

So, what is your opinion? Is 30,000 enough? Why/why not? 

*Note: please defend your logic with factual evidence regarding history, politics, and policy, not just emotional or un-fact-checked reasoning.*

Hurricane Florence’s Destruction to Our Nation by Elizabeth B.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tropical-depression-florence-path-power-outage-flooding-latest-weather-hurricane-rain-2018-09-16/

Hurricane Florence is hitting all around our nation, and its death toll is growing by the minute.  Rescue crews have already pulled out hundreds of people from their flooding homes.  Now, North Carolina people are bracing themselves for the next stage of this horrific hurricane.  The concern that they are looking at, at this point, is the widespread river flooding.  The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has already said he believes the death toll will rise as the water rises.  With this being said, FEMA is ready to move in at any moment to help with the relief efforts.  They are prepared with food, water, helicopters, and basic needs.

All North Carolina can do at this point is prepare.  The authorities have already issued an immediate evacuation of people living within a mile of the Cape Fear River and the Little River.  According to furniture store owner, John Rose, this is the first time that the state has ever had to do this, but they are ready for what they are about to encounter.  The state has already had 2 feet of rain and are expecting more and more each day until the hurricane hits. 

The nation is being greatly affected by the aftermath of it as well.  Economy is going to lower in this part of the country, and it will cause people to move to other states.  The hurricane is going to stop people from going to the mall or restaurants and it will temporarily shut down manufacturing plants.  Not only this, but the estimated cost of damage to homes is $20 billion dollars.

Where else will this horrific hurricane hit?  Do you believe FEMA will be able to do enough to help the families that may lose everything?  Does our nation need to be looking at the cost of the relief?

The Kavanaugh hearings and What it means for Roe v. Wade by Caroline J.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/trump-and-questions-of-presidential-power-dominate-third-day-of-kavanaugh-hearings/2018/09/06/4947dcfc-b203-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.542cfb069f54

Video: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/the-heated-third-day-of-kavanaughs-confirmation-hearing/2018/09/06/e1ec69f6-b1f8-11e8-8b53-50116768e499_video.html

The third day of the Kavanaugh hearings were just as crazy as the first two. Over the past two days Kavanaugh had spent close to 24 hours answering questions. All the while keeping his cool. Trump and his intentions were almost questioned more than the actual nominee. During the hearing an email was brought to light, from Kavanaugh’s time working in the white house as a lawyer under President Bush, containing a quote from Kavanaugh that hinted toward Roe v. Wade not being “settled law”. This angered the democrats, they believe that this ruling might be overturned if Kavanaugh is confirmed. Many people protesting have been arrested during the hearings because of the Roe v. Wade issues. If confirmed, should he respect the legal precedent show in the ruling of Roe v. Wade, or is it acceptable for the ruling to be turned over?

During the Hearings when controversial political issues involving Trump were brought up, Kavanaugh avoided them. He stayed out of the fray of purley issues revolving around political gain, and he focused on the job at hand. The Democrats tore him apart over this. But, is this not what we want in a supreme court justice, someone who stays above the political fray and focuses on the job at hand?

Why was Trump the Focus of these hearings? What is your opinion on the Roe vs. Wade issue? Are Democrats overreacting? Is Trump being given too much Power?

House Republicans Are Pushing for New Tax Cut and Retirement Legislation by Jesse F.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-republicans-unveil-plan-to-make-individuals-tax-cuts-permanent-1536615799

Republicans in the House of Representatives have recently made a new proposal that would make the individual tax cuts enacted in previous legislation permanent as well as changing retirement policy.

The proposal would allow small business employers to band together to offer 401(k) plans in “Multiple Employer Plans” to lower fees for employees.
Additionally, individuals 70½ and older would be permitted “to deposit up to $6,500 a year in either a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA” and use a new type of savings account where money grows tax-free and can be used for non-retirement purposes.

Parents would be allowed to withdraw up to $7,500 from a retirement plan penalty-free within a year of childbirth or adoption. Furthermore, it would permit individuals to use money in a 529 college savings account to fund expenses involved with an apprenticeship program or home schooling. Parents would be allowed “to use up to $10,000 from a 529 account to help a child with his or her student loan payments”.

Mark Iwry, who “oversaw retirement policy in the U.S. Treasury Department during the Clinton and Obama administrations” noted that the retirement legislation proposed is similar to legislation the Obama administration proposed in 2013, which suggests that some of this legislation may see bipartisan support.

While some Republicans like Representative Kevin Brady claim that “this legislation is our commitment to the American worker to ensure our tax code remains the most competitive in the world”, Democrat critics like Representative Richard Neal claim that “Republicans have doubled down on their initial tax scam and are yet again putting the wealthiest, most privileged Americans ahead of average, hardworking families”.


This proposal would significantly affect particular groups of people in the United States and likely set a precedent for tax and retirement policy in the U.S. Would this proposal benefit the common American worker like Rep. Brady suggests, or is it really a scam to put the most privileged Americans at an even larger advantage as Rep. Neal suggests? Is this proposal good for the country and its people overall? Are there significant problems with this proposal? And will this plan pass?

Trump v. Hawaii by Grace F.

https://apnews.com/89e7b52d96f94c27860c0a8f07c87bca

The State of Hawaii charged President Trump with imposing an unconstitutional “Muslim ban” when he issued a travel ban on six Muslim-majority nations, claiming that it was illegal based on federal immigration laws and procedure rules. It could be argued that this all stemmed from the infamous terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 - the beginning of the “War on Terror” and most hideous Islamophobia the United States has ever seen.

In a close ruling of 5-4, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld Trump's order; he said: “The admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”. “Plaintiffs challenge the entry suspension based on their perception of its effectiveness and wisdom, but the Court cannot substitute its own assessment for the Executive’s predictive judgments on such matters.” (So, basically, there’s nothing we can do about it? That doesn’t really sound like justice to me… more like we need more amendments to our system of government… ) In the end, the deciding evidence for President Trump’s innocence was that the Proclamation was legally within the bounds of the President’s power, and satisfied the judges’ rational basis review for a sufficient national security justification.


So, what can you deduce from this? Were President Trump’s actions with the travel ban Islamophobic, xenophobic, or an unfortunate side-effect of keeping our country safe?  How does this reflect on a nation that was forged as a land of immigrants?

https://www.congress.gov/content/conan/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2017-10-15.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf

Cuts to Palestine by Bethany F.

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/645682793/new-cuts-in-medical-aid-to-palestinians-by-trump-administration

The United States has made no effort to hide what side it is on concerning the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Foreign relations with Palestine have been very rocky following Donald Trump’s unveiling of the U.S. Embassy recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. Last month, President Donald Trump rolled out federal funding cuts of $200 million previously being used to aid Palestine with a humanitarian crisis, food subsidies, medical treatments, and youth programs.

In recent news, the East Jerusalem Hospital Network will also be receiving $25 million worth of U.S. funding cuts this week. These hospitals mostly treat Palestinian patients. These cuts have done nothing to improve relations. In further support of Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organization office in Washington now has plans to close under U.S. orders. The president’s intention with these advancements has been to put pressure Palestine to sign a peace deal with Israel. Palestinian leaders have not been swayed.

Outright supporting Israel gives ground to further radicalization of terrorists in the Middle East. Arab nations such as Lebanon and Iran who have opposed and boycotted Israel will see the U.S. as even more of an enemy. Although Trump claims he is pushing for peace, an even greater conflict could result if Palestine continues to resist. This time the conflict would include the U.S. directly.

Should the United States be involved this? Do you think the funding cuts were a good decision? Why do you think Americans tend to side with Israel?

Cardinal Donald Wuerl Plans to Resign by Marissa J.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/11/us/cardinal-wuerl-pope-meeting-to-discuss-resignation/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/30/us/church-abuse-investigation/index.html

Wuerl mentions resigning after having a discussion with the pope where he was asked to consider the best course of action "as we face new revelations of the extent of the horror of the clergy abuse of children and the failures in episcopal oversight." Wuerl has denied knowing of any information about accusations of McCarrick and He has also defended his overall record handling clerical abuse in Pittsburgh, while also acknowledging "errors in judgment." In his letter tuesday, the cardinal said, "At issue is how to begin effectively to bring a new level of healing to survivors who have personally suffered so much and to the faithful entrusted to our care who have also been wounded by the shame of these terrible actions and have questions about their bishop's ability to provide the necessary leadership.”McCarrick was removed from public ministry because of allegation of sexual abuse and sexual misconduct with adults from decades ago¨. McCarrick is one of the highest-ranking American leaders in the Catholic Church to be removed from ministry because of sex abuse charges. Survivors of clergy sex abuse stood in front of the Vatican embassy in Washington on Thursday and urged the Pope and the US Department of Justice to take steps to prevent more abuses and hold abusers accountable. The Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) and Center for Constitutional Rights have also sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein demanding an "investigation and prosecution of high-level officials in the Catholic Church" for sexual crimes and cover-ups. Should he be removed for crimes from decades ago?Should the Department of Justice interfere with the Catholic church? Does the bishop have the ability to provide the necessary leadership?

Palestine Liberation Organization Mission Closing by Gavin S.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/10/trump-administration-closing-plo-mission-in-washington.html

On Monday morning the Trump administration announced that it would be closing the Palestine Liberation Organization’s mission in Washington D.C. The reason for the closure is due to Palestinian leader’s resistance to peace talks and prosecution attempts on Israel of supposed war crimes, brought up by international courts. National Security Advisor John Bolton stated that, “The United States will always stand with our friend and ally, Israel.” He further stated, “The Trump administration will not keep the office open when the Palestinians refuse to take steps to start direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel.”

The PLO was created in 1964 with the purpose of liberating Palestine through armed conflict, with much of it’s violence aimed towards Israeli civilians. The White House has debated the shutting down of the PLO mission in D.C. since November of last year, given that Palestinian leaders have made no effort to enter peace talks. Bolton’s announcement does adhere to U.S. law stating that the PLO mission must close if the Palestinians attempt to get the International Criminal Court to prosecute Israel. Recent worries have grown that the closing of the PLO mission will only stiffen peace negotiations even further and insight violence among the Palestinians. Palestinian authority claims that the U.S. decision was designed “to protect Israeli crimes.”


Do you think the closing of the PLO mission is a strategic move? Should the Trump administration refrain from actions that could potentially insight violence? How will the Palestinians react to this decision?

Kavanaugh, a Hopeless Partisan or Impartial Jurist? By Kalli Bonds

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/us/politics/kavanaugh-confirmation-supreme-court.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

On the opening day of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, he was accused of being a “narrow-minded partisan” by Senate Democrats. Kavanaugh was the Supreme Court pick of President Donald J. Trump. Protestors were dragged out of the hearing room in handcuffs. Democrats, who were angry about the denial of permission to see records of Judge Kavanaugh, started the argument minutes after the hearing began. Hours after being ruthlessly criticized, Judge Kavanaugh had a turn with the microphone to defend himself as an “impartial jurist and affable family man.” Kavanaugh claimed to be a pro-law judge. He is not a pro-defendant or pro-plaintiff judge, nor is he a pro-defense or pro-prosecution judge. Despite Judge Kavanaugh’s effort to pacify the angry Democrats, they continually protested and dominated the hearing. By the end of the day, approximately 70 people had been arrested.

This was a very chaotic start to the beginning of Judge Kavanaugh’s journey; however, I believe that he composed himself very well and will do this country a lot of good. He seems to be a very honest and stand-up man. Even though many disagree with where he stands on certain matters, I firmly believe that he will do his best to serve justice to the American people.

What is your opinion of President Donald J. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett M. Kavanaugh? Do you think that the Democratic party overreacted during his hearing? How do you think his confirmation will affect our country?

Nike and Colin Kaepernick by Daniel W.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/04/as-nfl-offers-measured-response-to-nike-s-kaepernick-ad-other-reactions-range-from-support-to-outrage.html

This week, for its 30th anniversary of the “Just Do It” slogan, Nike revealed that Colin Kaepernick is the new face of the brand. The new advertisement, which shows a close up of Kaepernick, says “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” This is referring to Kaepernick’s police brutality protests during the National Anthem. President Trump was reported to say, “I think it’s a terrible message, but it is what this country is all about, that you have certain freedoms to do things that other people think you shouldn’t do, but I personally am on a different side of it.” Kaepernick started his protests in 2016 and other players followed his lead. Most NFL players have stopped protesting because the NFL has passed a rule that would fine the players if they don’t stand for the Anthem. Although many Democrats believe this is freedom of expression, Republicans say that the NFL has a right to enforce rules on their employees. When the polarising advertisement was unveiled to the public, many said it was ironic that it said “sacrificing everything” even though Kaepernick is still a multi-millionaire. After the ad was unveiled, Nike stock lost four billion dollars in value. Nike says they expected this, but it will benefit them in the long term.


Are the NFL’s rules fair? Why did Nike choose to make Kaepernick the face of their brand? Why did they keep it a secret until now? Will politicians come together on this issue?

U.S. Tariffs on China by Logan W.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/business/china-tariffs-trump.html

Since the beginning of his presidency Trump has steadily increased the tariffs on all imported products. He has recently increased the tariffs on all products from China exclusively. A few days ago Trump ordered his administration to increase some products to be tariffed from 10% to 25%. Some of theses tariffs are even causing companies to leave the country instead of enter. Many including the Treasury secretary disagree with the increase in tariffs.


The increase in tariffs are planned to be implemented on over $200 billion of Chinese goods like fish, oil, chemicals and other products These tariffs were put in place to change China’s trade practices, and because of the decrease in value of China’s currency. The Chinese say they will not change their practices and that they will retaliate to safeguard their legal rights if further increased. China has also put in its own tariffs against the United States and are causing many farmers and businesses to suffer in the U.S. as well. Tension between the U.S. and China has steadily grown.

1. Do you believe we are too extreme on teriffing China?
2. Why would the U.S want China to change its trade practices?
3. Could these tariffs soon cause conflict between the U.S. and China?

#BoycottNike by Hannah T.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/09/04/people-are-destroying-their-nike-gear-protest-colin-kaepernicks-just-do-it-campaign/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c6a88bbaa8bd

People all around the country have began destroying any Nike products they own, in the most brutal ways possible. Some people, for example, have resorted to cutting the logo from any Nike clothes they own, and others have even went as far as burning their Nike gear. Some people may ask, why are they doing this? On Monday, September 3, 2018, Nike announced that Colin Kaepernick would be a part of their “Just Do It” campaign for the brands 30th anniversary. Colin Kaepernick has a controversial past, and he is not liked by a lot of people. He is a former NFL quarterback who sparked a national debate about kneeling for the American flag, when he took a knee during the national anthem. Many people took his kneeling as a sign of disrespect towards the country. After Nike made their announcement, people went mad.

While lots of people are not happy about Colin Kaepernick being the face of Nike’s campaign, there are people that are in support. Many people have been wearing and purchasing new Nike gear to show their support.

Are people overreacting to this campaign? Should Nike replace Colin Kaepernick because people are mad that he’s the face of their campaign? Should Nike be concerned about losing sales over this?

Plans to Take Action on Funding to Arm Teachers by by Daniel E.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2018-09-01/devos-no-plans-to-take-action-on-funding-to-arm-teachers

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has no intention of using federal funds to arm teachers or provide them with specialised firearms training.A commission which will tackle gun control, and will consider age restrictions for gun purchases, was created by President Donald Trump in March after 17 people were killed in the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The shooting at Stoneman Douglas high is what pushed the whole gun control over the edge. But DeVos said that "Congress did not authorize me or the Department of Education to make those decisions about arming teachers or training them on the use of firearms”. If no federal funds can help arm teachers, the Every Student Succeeds Act, is a bipartisan law that provides about $1 billion in annual funding for various school needs, including 20 percent specifically set aside for school safety which could help fund arming teachers. But instead of help fund arming teachers they would instead like to fund equipping schools with magnetometers and other safety tools which could help detect weapons and other harmful items. It would be up to Congress, not the U.S. Department of Education, to decide how to use those funds.


Do you think that the federal government should help fund arming teachers? Do you think it would be better to arm teachers than equipping schools with safety tools? How do you feel that your own high school is armed with weapons?

Puerto Rican Impact by Ethan D.

https://thinkprogress.org/activists-hope-new-puerto-rican-residents-in-florida-could-swing-midterms-2bf2687fb26f/

This past summer brought many detrimental hurricanes to the Eastern and Southern parts of the United States, leaving behind towns of complete rubble and homeless people. One of these storms, Hurricane Maria, hit Puerto Rico, leaving behind nothing but destruction. So, when the inhabitants of this island returned after the storm, they had two decisions, either rebuild or leave. In this case, a majority of the Puerto Ricans packed up and left.

As many of you know, Puerto Rico isn’t a state, but rather a territory of the United States. According to the Puerto Rico Federal Relations Act of 1950, Puerto Ricans are citizens of the United states and may move freely between the island and the mainland. This statement convinced the majority of them to move to the nearest mainland, which is Florida. In addition, since Puerto Ricans are considered citizens, they can immediately vote once they reach the mainland. This doesn’t seem to be important, but in this case the situation is different. Due to the tweets made by Donald Trump, criticizing the efforts of Puerto Ricans in the hurricane cleanup, the majority of these new mainland voters are now voting for Democrats. 


As the senate race in Florida becomes more and more competitive, will the influx of Puerto Rican voters impact the results? Puerto Ricans can’t vote in the presidential election, so is this a good law or should this be changed? Do Puerto Ricans need more restrictions while moving to the mainland?

Gerrymandering in North Caroline by Gabby S.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-north-carolina-districts-court/u-s-court-says-north-carolina-gerrymander-is-illegal-seeks-new-congressional-map-idUSKCN1LD026 

Voting is a critical part of our democracy. Here in America, we have regions in each state called districts, that are specifically created to keep populations in balance when voting. When populations shift or change, these district lines have to be redrawn. This system makes district voting fair and well-represented… or it’s supposed to. The problem with this is that the politicians are the ones drawing the lines. Most times, these politicians are thinking about the success of their party over the morals of “fairness”. Politicians will, therefore, adapt the district lines to fit their political agenda. This is called Gerrymandering. Cracking down on unfair gerrymandering is difficult, because although racial gerrymandering is illegal according to the voting rights act, partisan gerrymandering is not.

Gerrymandering started over two hundred years ago, and it is still affecting our political system today. In North Carolina on Monday, a federal court ruled that Republicans drew congressional district lines illegally to sway votes towards their party. The decision made by this court could have huge effects in the national midterms this coming November. With Democrats needing 23 seats in the House of Representatives to gain control, this could mean a leg up for them if the ruling goes their way.

Should partisan gerrymandering be illegal as well as racial gerrymandering? Who should be in charge of setting district lines? What consequences should be enforced in the meantime for illegal gerrymandering?

Here is a Ted talk discussing gerrymandering and its consequences more in depth:
https://ed.ted.com/lessons/gerrymandering-how-drawing-jagged-lines-can-impact-an-election-christina-greer