Mueller Report by Daniel W.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/andy-puzder-how-muellers-report-cleared-trump-and-exposed-the-deep-state

Ever since Trump was elected president in 2016, the words collusion, conspiracy, and witch hunt have been thrown around various media outlets. This topic, the long-awaited Mueller report, has finally been finished.  After more than two years of constant media coverage from democrat leaning networks such as CNN and MSNBC, Attorney General William Barr’s summary revealed that neither Donald Trump or his campaign team conspired or colluded with Russians. This is a huge win for the country, but some news anchors don’t appear to be too happy with the findings. The most likely reason for this is because the news tremendously hurts the networks’ credibilities and could crash ratings. After all, news companies mainly focus on how to make money and give what the people want, which is news with very large circumstances. Consequently, many of the anchors and their guests claimed that Donald Trump and his team made deals with the Russians, and Buzzfeed went as far as publishing an article claiming that President Trump was a Russian spy as if it was a fact. These examples of literal fake news have severely damaged the president’s public image, so Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani asked CNN host Chris Cuomo to apologize for lying and overreacting to the supposedly partisan investigation. However, Cuomo stood his ground and said “Not a chance… because you’re not fair.” This issue is important to the nation because it is a turning point in the Trump presidency in terms of public perception of him. This situation could lead to future legislation concerning fake news or future presidential investigations.

Do you believe this was a partisan investigation even though Mueller revealed there was no collusion? Do you believe anyone in the media should apologize to viewers or the president for their lies? Do you believe the media truly believed Trump was guilty, or just wanted to cause a stir and damage his reputation? Will this begin a process of presidents being investigated

Arkansas House of Representatives Passes Bill 1626 by Liberty C.

On March 19, 2019, the Arkansas House of Representatives passed bill 1626. This bill was introduced by Rep. Joe cloud and will allow The Bible to be taught as a course in public schools. This class will be taught in a “non devotional manner,” and will only be offered if 15 or more students request it. Another condition of this bill is that the class will be "nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible and its influence on literature, art, music, culture, and politics." This should take away the threat of controversy.

Bill 1626 passed with a 64-7 vote. Yet, Rep. Jana Della Rosa did speak against the bill. She said, “I don't think 15 kids ought to be able to demand anything of a school board." A supporter of the bill, Rep. David Meeks, said that this bill should “remove schools' fears of liability” because it is requested by the students. Some may also see this as an Establishment and violation of the Establishment Clause. This could add to the growing controversy in our state and country. However, there is a condition of the class regulations in the bill to guard against this.

Where you shocked by how easy it was to pass the bill?
Do you think the Arkansas Senate will be as easy or will it cause more of a struggle?
Does this bill go against the Establishment Clause?

Would you be willing to ask for this class, or do you agree with Rep. Jana Della Rosa?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/higher-education/arkansas-house-oks-bill-requiring-schools-offer-bible-course/2019/03/20/386e629e-4b04-11e9-8cfc-2c5d0999c21e_story.html?utm_term=.bc054514e251

Israeli Gains Golan Heights by Ethan D.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-signs-proclamation-recognizing-israeli-sovereignty-over-golan-heights

On Monday, President Trump officially recognized Israeli sovereignty over the occupied and contested Golan Heights region. Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was standing alongside President Trump as he signed this proclamation. The Golan Heights region is a large plateau that runs along the border between Israel and Syria approximating 400 square miles. This area has been a very controversial spot starting with Israel gaining control in the Six-Day War in 1967, and ever since it has been a highly controversial area. After Syria attempted to retake this area in 1973, an agreement for a disengagement plan took place. This plan created a 44 mile demilitarised zone patrolled by a United Nations observer force, and it has been there ever since.

In the past, the U.S. had stayed impartial on the topic of this region. However, this latest unpreceded event has strengthened the relations between U.S. and Israeli even further. Just before signing this proclamation, Trump said, “This was a long time in the making and it should have taken place many years ago.” After serious recent threats made by Iranian forces in Syria, Netanyahu told President Trump, “Your proclamation comes at a time when Golan is more important than ever for our security.”


Do you think that this proclamation was a good idea or will it lead to more problems?

Is this a proper way to strengthen relations with Israel or should different steps be taken?

Pentagon Approves $1 Billion for Border Wall by Gavin S.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/shanahan-approves-1-billion-in-pentagon-funds-for-trump-s-wall

On Monday, Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan gave approval for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to use up to $1 billion in military funds in order to construct a wall along the U.S.- Mexican border. In a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Shanahan stated that the funds would be used to construct 57 miles of border fencing, build and improve roads along the border fence, and install lighting within certain sectors of the border. This recent advancement comes 40 days after President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border in order to allocate funds to build a border wall. 

However, on Tuesday the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Service Committee denied the Pentagon’s plan to allocate $1 billion to build the border wall. The committee denied the action due to concerns about using defense budget in order to fund the wall. During the hearing, lawmakers acknowledged that the decision to move funds could negatively affect the Pentagon’s ability to reprogram funds in the future. Committee chairman Adam Smith stated that the plans to shift military funds to build a wall without Congressional consultation could result in lawmakers entirely removing the Pentagon’s ability to reprogram funds in the future.


Do you think that defense budget should be utilized to fund the wall? Does the Pentagon have the power to allocate funds to such a project? What kind of issues could arise if the Pentagon continually attempts to fund projects without approval from Congress?

Should The Supreme Court Overturn New York Times v. Sullivan? by Madison S.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/politics/clarence-thomas-libel-first-amendment-new-york-times-sullivan-bill-cosby/index.html

There is many allegations against political figures in the United States. Most of them have not been proven. A libel law would hold the alligator responsible if those claims were made to harm the reputation or career of the alleged. Justice Clarence Thomas calls for New York Times v. Sullivan to be overturned. 

New York Times v. Sullivan was a landmark case. New York Times published an article about the Montgomery, Alabama commissioner. L.B. Sullivan said the article would damage his reputation, and it took his first amendment away. .It decided that the press had the right to report on any political figure they deem important. 

If New York Times v. Sullivan is overturned then the one who is accused of doing something and it can not be proven wrong and the alligator was just accusing the person to ruin their reputation then the alleged can sue. Justice Thomas said, ¨New York Times and the Court's decisions extending it were policy-driven decisions masquerading as constitutional law,.¨ This meaning that the court in 1964 was disguising a policy- decision as a constitutional law.


Should The Supreme Court Overturn New York Times v. Sullivan? Does Justice Thomas have a valid point why it should be overturned? If someone is falsely accused, should the accuser be prosecuted?

The Border Isn’t The Actual National Emergency by Marissa J.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/11/opinions/national-emergency-is-economic-inequality-and-greed-love/index.html

Trump’s ¨crisis¨ at the border is not an actual emergency and CNN describes it as ¨ Donald Trump´s manufactured crisis.¨ This is exactly correct. In the U.S., income inequality and economic greed are our real problems so we have no need to manufacture any more. President Trump is planning to ask for $8.6 billion as well as a 5% cut across federal agencies, besides defense, in the 2020 fiscal budget. Millions of americans rely on government assistance to help meet their needs. Ivanka and Eric Trump decided to talk about how people should earn what they have, something that they have almost never had to do. Ivanka reportedly said that, ¨ I don’t think most americans, in their heart, want to be given something…. I think this idea of a guaranteed minimum is not something people want...¨ Trump’s other child, Eric Trump, said that, ¨The notion that people should be given things and not have to work hard for them is almost an anti-American message.¨ These comments make a bad outlook on social programs. People rely on programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and SNAP to help eliminate some of their insecurities. The government shut down already left many federal workers without pay and in line for food pantries which just goes to show that many americans are only one paycheck away from poverty. Trump is trying to cut many of these programs. Democrats are responding with lots of proposals. Many of the proposals will help more americans be successful.

Should we really be spending more on a fake crisis than the real ones??
Will the Democrats proposals help the less privileged??
Is it appropriate for Trump’s children to be talking about ¨working for what we have¨??

Possible Budget Cuts to Medicaid by Graysen G.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/politics/medicaid-cuts-congress.html

In Trump's recent budget proposal for the upcoming year he plans to cut spending to Medicaid by a tremendous amount. This budget entails replacing the current open-ended federal funding to the program with a pre-determined sum of money for each state in the form of a block grant. This would cap payments and lower-income households would be unable to stay caught up with the rising health care costs. Democrats were especially enraged by this decision. This is because during Trump's candidacy he said he would not cut Medicare, but this new budget does just that. It is suspected that the cuts would reduce the overall growth of the program by $1.4 trillion in the coming decade and cut more than $800 million for older Americans in the next 10 years. 

If this budget were to pass, the 7 million low-income citizens (or ⅕ of all Americans) that depend on Medicaid would be in incredible danger of losing the only healthcare can afford. Since work requirements on able-bodied adults who were enrolled in Medicaid were enforced in the state of Arkansas, over 18,000 Arkansans have lost their Medicaid coverage. This leaves the most vulnerable people of our country, like the seniors, children, and the disabled, at a major risk of injury. An example of a major cut to the medicaid branch is the N.I.H, or the National Cancer Institution, which would be cut from $897 billion to $5.2 billion, or by 14.6%. 


What is your opinion on the budget cuts to Medicaid? Is it cruel to deny American citizens the right to free or affordable health care? Are lower- income states, like Arkansas, more entitled to Medicaid or should everyone have equal opportunity?

Impeachment Isn’t Worth It by Hannah T.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/us/politics/pelosi-trump-impeachment.html?module=inline

For a long time now, many people across the whole country have been trying to get President Trump impeached. A lot of people are in support of him, but a lot of people are against him. However, Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) does not think it is worth it to impeach him.
 
One reason she believes this is because the impeachment would do nothing but divide the country even more than it is divided now. Half of the country would still support President Trump, while the other half of the country would still oppose President Trump.
   
Another reason she believes impeachment is not worth it is because she believes the Democrats running in 2020, which is only next year, have a very strong chance of beating him in the election. Nancy Pelosi does not support impeaching President Trump, but she “does not think he is fit to be president of the United States.”

What are your views on impeachment? Do you agree with Nancy Pelosi’s views on impeachment? Why do so many people want to impeach Trump? Do you believe Trump has a good chance of getting re-elected?

Senate Voting Again to End Aid to Saudi War in Yemen by Kalli B.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/us/politics/senate-yemen-vote-saudi-arabia.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FUnited%20States%20Politics%20and%20Government&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=10&pgtype=collection

Today, the Senate will vote on whether to cut off military assistance to the war in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, once again in an effort to reprimand Trump for his continued defense of the kingdom after the murder of the dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The Senate is doing this in an attempt to defy the President. Their second defiance will come Thursday when have their final chance to pass a resolution to overturn President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to secure funds for his border wall. If the measures passed, it would call for the first vetoes of Mr. Trump’s presidency. Senator of Vermont, Bernie Sanders says, “The resolution we will vote on in the Senate tomorrow to end U.S. support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen is enormously important and historic. This war is both a humanitarian and a strategic disaster, and Congress has the opportunity to end it.” Those who support the Yemen resolution have faced a difficult task in getting the legislation to the President. 

The passage of this legislation could be a turning point. It could greatly affect our country. It is essentially a do-over of previous legislation and may not receive the same amount of support from Republicans as it received before.

Amazons New York Exit by Logan W.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-applauds-amazons-nyc-exit

Amazon is the largest e-commerce marketplace and internet company in the world by revenue. Founded in July 5, 1994 by CEO Jeff Bezos the company has made him the richest man in the world with a whopping $135 billion. This company has thousands of employees and has boosted the United States economy.

Recently Amazon backed out on the idea of having their second headquarters in the area of Queens in New York. This was a blow to the city and state causing New York to lose the chance of over $3 billion in revenue and 25,000 jobs. The reason for the company to move was the lack of positive, collaborative relationships with state and local officials. These officials being strong democrats feared the influence of this large business in the state. Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Mike Gianaris supported and even celebrated when Amazon decided to back out of New York. Republicans and workers on the other hand were outraged because of the loss of money and jobs for the city.

Do you think moving the second headquarters of amazon somewhere else is a good decision for New York?

Will this loss of jobs and money hurt New York severely?

Is the elimination of corporate influence worth the loss of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs?

Funding to Religious Schools by Bethany F.

https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-03-11/devos-feds-can-give-funds-to-religious-education-groups

The Trump administration has put much emphasis on preserving and expanding religious freedoms. Betsy DeVos, the Education Secretary, has made it clear that she plans to loosen the regulations regarding federal funding and grants toward private, religious learning institutions. DeVos vows to no longer uphold the Elementary and Secondary Educations Act provisions which previously prohibited such spending. This declaration comes after the Supreme Court ruling of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v Comer in which the court ruled that denying grants for playground resurfacing to churches/other religious groups is unconstitutional. 

DeVos and her supporters see these provisions as religious discrimination and believe that they are deterring schools from their rights to free exercise of religion guaranteed in the 1st Amendment. Critics say however that these changes would violate the Establishment clause also listed in the 1st Amendment. Democrats and Republicans alike are likely to debate the legality and constitutionality of this act and its new proposed revisions. 

Do you think easing the laws that create distinctions between the church and the state is a good idea? Do you think this is good news for education and educators nationwide or do you think that this crosses a line? With this new rule in place, will the Establishment clause be violated? Without the changes, is the Free Exercise clause being violated?