Senate Denies Trump, Votes to Withdraw Support for Saudis in War with Yemen

Article Link

Just yesterday, the senate voted to withdraw military support from Saudi Arabia in their war on Yemen. It was strong majority of 63-37, even with a Republican majority senate. 

This comes directly after the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist who was murdered in the Turkish embassy by members of the Saudi government for criticizing the prince, Mohammed bin Salman. After Khashoggi's murder and the subsequent exposure of the culprits, President Trump defended Bin Salman, leaving much of the senate dissatisfied.

Apart from the murder of Khashoggi, Saudi Arabia has also been on thin ice with the Legislative Branch for years for their ruthless actions in their war with Yemen. Republican senators who voted against the withdrawal claimed that Saudi Arabia needs our support so that they will help us contain the "Iranian threat."

The last straw that triggered the vote was when Trump, his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, excluded new CIA Director Gina Haspel from a meeting on Saudi Arabia. Subsequently, frustrated senators Bernie Sanders and Mike Lee drafted a proposal to withdraw support for the Saudis.

Questions: 

1. Is Trump in the right for defending Bin Salman?

2. Is Iran as big of threat as its so often made out to be?

3. Does this prove that non-partisan legislative action is possible in the Trump era?

by Graham King

Tear gas fired at refugees on the U.S./Mexico Border

5,000+ refugees are waiting at the U.S./Mexico border to be granted asylum in the United States. Traveling mostly from Central American countries, these refugees are attempting to escape extreme poverty and violence in their home countries. On Sunday, an incident occurred where a small group of refugees attempted to cross the border into the U.S. and the U.S. military responded by firing tear gas into the crowd and temporarily closing the San Ysidro Port of Entry, which has since reopened. The refugees were protesting the extremely slow process of being granted asylum in the United States, especially because of the large group of asylum-seekers and the state of living they're facing on the Mexico side of the border while they wait. With limited resources for living and shelter, refugees must wait months in line to be heard by the U.S., and then more months or even years before asylum is even granted.

Granting asylum is a right protected by the international community, the U.S. included. In my opinion, it's not fair to make these refugees wait months, or even years, to be granted asylum. At the very least, we should be providing resources for shelter and living to the refugees waiting, because it's clear that there aren't enough resources to provide for them on the other side of the border. I'm strongly against using violence on innocent people who are rightfully partaking in a peaceful protest; but, because a few migrants attempted to cross the border forcefully, I believe the tear gas was viewed as a necessary precaution by the U.S. military and border security. This incident once again brings attention to the issues with immigration into the U.S., seeing as the wait time for the legal process can take many years to finalize.

Questions:
1) How do you believe the border security and U.S. military should've handled the situation? Do you think the use of tear gas was necessary? Why or why not?
2) How is President Trump handling the situation and the issue of immigration overall? What could he do better and how is his stance on immigration and immigrants affecting his decisions?
3) The relationship between President Trump and the Mexican Government is tense and their negotiations/discussions are almost non-existent. Is it important to have a positive relationship with surrounding countries even when there are issues involving both of them? What does the tense relationship between the U.S. and Mexico mean for the future of immigrants?

Sources:
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/27/670807343/fact-check-whats-happening-on-the-u-s-mexico-border
http://time.com/5464560/caravan-mexico-border-iconic-photo/

Are Civics Lessons a Constitutional Right? These Students Are Suing for Them

Article Link

With many Americans uneducated on how the government works, there has been a noticeable amount of schools that are not teaching civic lessons. In the article it discusses how schools are not teaching civic lessons and if it is unconstitutional to not teach them. At Aragon, we are very fortunate to have classes that teach us on this important topic, however there are many schools that are less fortunate and aren't granted this opportunity. An uneducated public is detrimental to our society and agrees with what was discussed in the rulemaking reading. Rulemaking allows the public to protect our health, safety, and general well being of life. If Americans remain uneducated on politics and rulemaking, these ideals of Democracy will be threatened.

Discussion Questions
1.  Do you believe it is unconstitutional to not teach civic lessons?
2. Should an uneducated public have say in rulemaking?
3. Do you feel that the education you receive at Aragon is substantial enough to contribute to Democracy? If not what can we do better?

A political blockade is colliding with the evidence on climate change

Article Link

On Black Friday, a new study on Climate Change was released by federal scientists. Many might have
missed the release of this blockbuster study, for this was most likely done on purpose by the Trump
administration because the country is busy shopping and spending time with the family instead of paying
attention to politics. This study confirmed that global warming is a real threat to society and it identified
the risks of not taking action to counteract the effects. However, the results of the recent elections may
be detrimental to the efforts of limiting carbon emission. Although Democrats, who are in support of
setting regulations that combat climate change, now have majority in the House, the Republican
Senate majority, which is centered around states that emit the most carbon, have shrugged off the
report signaling that they intend no prospect for action. The current political gridlock is very dangerous
for the health of people, the planet, and the economy. If federal action is continuing to stalemate,
maybe the climate change effects such as wildfires and hurricanes will eliminate the filibuster in the
future, and some serious legislation will be passed to save our planet.

Discussion Questions:

1: Do you think the recent election results will make a significant difference in passing legislation to
combat climate change?

2: Since the report forecasts that the most severe changes could be felt in some of the regions,
particularly the Southeast and upper Midwest and northern Plains, that emit the most carbon per
dollar of economic activity and elect many of the members of Congress most resistant to acting on
climate change, do you think this will pressure these members of Congress to take action against
climate change?

3: This report also predicts a downfall in the economy with the effects of future climate change, with a
predicted drop in GDP by 10% by the end of the century. Because Trump emphasizes economic
prosperity, do you think these facts will pressure him to take action?

4: What are some of your opinions on the released report and what it contains? What do you see in the
future of this country and the world?

President Trump's Tweet On California Wildfires Angers Firefighters

Article Link

Fires have erupted in California and have created over 7,000 fires in the area, s=destroying over one million acres of land. These fires have killed hundreds with many more missing and destroyed thousands and thousands of homes, leaving families with no home, belongings, or shelters. While some of the fires are contained, there are still some very large and destructive fires still roaring in America. President Donald Trump stated in a tweet, "There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!" In other words, President Trump is saying that due to California's poor containment of these fires, he will be cutting tax money to support this cause to prevent and stop fires. Many firefighters have accused Trump of bringing politics into this devastating event and they are disgusted by the way he is confronting this natural disaster. Many say that instead of helping and saving lives, he is tweeting negative remarks and blaming California for these fires. The president of the International Association of Firefighters, Harold Schaitberger, stated, "His comments are reckless and insulting to the firefighters and people being affected." These tweets have affected many people and have insulted those who have been hurt by these fires. 

In my opinion, Trump's comments and tweets on the issue are out of hand and very insulting. He should not be tweeting on the issue and should be trying to help out these people who were affected by the roaring fires. He still has the option to since the fires are still active and many are found without homes, food, or money. These firefighters have ever right to be enraged since they are risking their lives everyday to save these innocent people and stop the fires while the President of the United States is tweeting how poorly these fires have been dealt with. These tweets are insulting and wrong and I expect a nationwide apology.

Discussion Questions :

1.) Do you think Trump's tweets are justified? Why or why not?

2.) Do you agree with these firefighters and their anger towards President Trump?

3.) Should There be tax cuts towards preventing these fires?

4.) Do you think Trump handled the issue of these fires proffesionally? Why or why not?

High school e-cigarette use has jumped nearly 80%. Now, the FDA wants new regulations

Since 2017, vaping has increased 80% among high school students and 50% among middle school students. As a result, FDA has proposed new measures against flavored nicotine products. The proposed bans do not include mint, tobacco, and menthol. This will allow adults to quit smoking cigarettes and attempt to stop the outbreak of children getting addicted. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar says that "Flavors are a major reason they use these products in the first place". 2.1 million high school and middle school students vaped in 2017, and now 3.6 million students vape in 2018, a jump of 1.5 million students in one year. This could be connected to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984 passed by Congress. In order for the federal government to enforce this act, they proposed that states would lose 10% of their federal highway funds if they did not raise their ages for purchase of alcohol.

Discussion Questions:
1. Do you think FDA's proposals will help stop children from using vapes?
2. With the new sales regulations, will students still be able to easily access flavored e-cigarettes?
3. What other regulations do you think could possibly help stop the epidemic of underage e-cigarette users?


Link:  https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/15/health/fda-vaping-ecigarette-regulation/index.html

“FLORIDA RESTORES FELONS' VOTING RIGHTS”

The Economist Article

The Washington Post Article

Many convicted felons who have completed their sentence or parole, with the exception of murder and/ or sex offenders. They have previously received a lifetime voting ban or petition Florida to get their voting rights back at the discretion of a committee, with the exception of murderers and sex offenders, who must still petition to the committee. More than 60% of the Florida population voted to pass Amendment 4 on November 6th to their state constitution that allowed convicted felons out of prison the right to vote. Before this law passed, more than 1.5 million Floridians were denied the right to vote as part of one of only four states (the others being Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia) that denied it. The Amendment reads that the disqualification from voting for persons with felony convictions “shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation.” I believe this is a right decision as these felons have already served their time and paid their dues to the justice system, now it is their time to get their rights back, particularly voting. It shows that there are still forms of disenfranchisement in the US and there is still work to be done in terms of civil rights in our nation and around the world, although parts of Europe and Asia have opened up voting to felons.

QUESTIONS:

1. Do you believe convicted felons should have a right to vote?
2. Would more felons voting move Florida (a swing state) into more of a Republican or Democratic State?
3. How would this law affect Florida’s and maybe even America’s future political landscape?

CNN Suing President Trump for Banning News Correspondent Jim Acosta

CNBC Article

CNN Official Complaint

Press Conference Video

Trump's Advertisement on Immigration

CNN correspondent Jim Acosta was barred from attending future White House press conferences after he and President Trump had a heated exchange on Wednesday. Acosta had asked a question about the deployment of US troops sent to stop migrants coming into the southern US border and then followed with another question about how Trump "demonized" immigrants in an advertisement released on October 31st supporting the GOP. Trump avoided both questions and when a White House Intern attempted to take the microphone from Acosta, he resisted. According to a statement released by CNN, the White House rescinded Acosta's press pass due to "retaliation for his challenging questions". Today, CNN and Acosta are suing many White House officials, among them President Trump and Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee, for violating the 1st and 5th Amendments. As stated in a 60 Minutes Interview, Trump restricts liberal news outlets in order to "discredit [them] all and demean [them] all so when [they] write negative stories about [Trump] no one will believe [them]", however, the outcome of this lawsuit will determine if it this restrictive action can continue.

Questions:

1. Were the President's actions unconstitutional?

2. In whose favor will the lawsuit turn out? Why?

3. What can other news outlets do in order to resist the actions of the White House?

Increase the House of Reps from 435 to 593?

Article link

                                               Source: New York Times

The House of Representatives grew consistently from 65 members in 1789 up to 435 in 1911. Now nearly 108 years later we are still stuck at 435 members, which represent an average of 750,000 Americans compared to the 200,000 about a century ago. Increasing the membership of the House of Representatives to 593 would get the U.S. more in line with modern democracies and give our elected officials more manageable sized constituencies. It would cost more in terms of tax dollars, but if money were spent more efficiently the problem could be solved. One potential benefit of this change would be fewer problems with the electoral college producing results different from the popular vote.

Discussion Questions
1. Is it time to increase the size of our House of Representatives?
2. Would this proposed change solve more problems than it creates?
3. What if any impact might this have on polarization?
4. Would Democrats or Republicans be more likely to approve this plan?
5. Do you see this proposal leading to more gerrymandering or a way to resolve past gerrymanders?

China is not buying North Dakota Soy Beans

Summary: Farmers in Cass County, North Dakota have prospered for decades by growing and selling soybeans, most of which are shipped across the Pacific Ocean to consumers in China. However this year, sales have declined by nearly 94% as a result of tariffs from the ongoing trade war between the US and China. Trump claims that these tariffs will help revive the American steel and auto industry, however, it coming at a high cost for other industries such as agriculture which rely heavily on foreign markets. The North Dakota soybean industry was originally created by Chinese demand for the beans and has rapidly continued to grow rapidly for the past few years. Last year, there were 6.4 million acres of soybeans in the state, as compared to the 450,000 acres in the mid 1990s. As the state’s production of soybeans increase, companies have invested millions on machinery and infrastructure. In addition, public health officials in North Dakota are concerned about the impact of falling prices, which has led to a recent rise of suicides, particularly among young farmers with high levels of debt. Currently, the US is losing potential profit margins to other countries that grow their own soybeans, such as Canada, who are shipping their soybeans to China at higher prices and then buying American beans at lower prices to meet domestic demand. Discussion Questions: 1. Is the Trade War ultimately good for the US? 2. Has Trump's tariffs been effective as a "tool" to force changes in America's economic relationship with China? 3. Is it right to promote one industry at the cost of another? 4. How has foreign competition played a role in the decline of the North Dakota soybean industry? Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/business/soybeans-farmers-trade-war.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Sessions Out. Marijuana Stocks Up.

 Following the 2018 midterm election, 33 states have legalized medical marijuana, and 10 have legalized recreational marijuana — including California. According to the Pew Research Center, 62% of Americans support the legalization, which has grown from 30% in 2010. Although the American public seems more supportive of medical and recreational marijuana, the federal government regulates marijuana like other controlled substances under the Controlled Substance Act of 1970. Under this act, possession, cultivation, or distribution is illegal, and there are controversial mandatory minimums. In the Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the court ruled that the federal government has the constitutional authority to prohibit marijuana for all purposes. Attorney General Jeff Sessions was a staunch opponent of marijuana usage and stated, “Good people don’t smoke marijuana.” Session reversed Obama’s policy of shortening prisoning sentences of federal inmates who violated the Controlled Substance Act. Matthew Whitaker, the new attorney general, doesn’t have an anti-marijuana history, unlike his predecessor. Marijuana company stocks like Tilray(up 30%), Aurora Cannabis(up 9%), and Alternate Harvest Marijuana all made gains on the stock market.   

Discussions Questions

1. Should the federal government or state government regulate controlled substances?
2. Are mandatory minimums useful in preventing drug offenses?
3. How should the federal government regulate the booming marijuana market?
4. How tough should the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 be enforced by the federal government?

Sources

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-good-people-dont-smoke-marijuana/?utm_term=.d1d57775aad7

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/8/18075358/jeff-sessions-resgignation-marijuana-legalization-drug-policy-politics-attorney-general

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/

Sessions Forced to Resign Following Midterms

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Jeff Sessions was forced out of his position as Attorney General shortly after the midterm elections. Announced via Twitter, President Trump named former Iowa attorney general Matthew Whitaker, who is infamous for opposing Mueller's Russian investigation, as the acting Attorney General. Session's dismissal marks the culmination of the longstanding tension between Trump and Sessions following the early Trump supporter's recuse from the Russian Investigation despite Session's actions of rolling back numerous Obama-era policies as well as enforcement of Trump's hard stances on immigration and crime/prosecution. Following news of Whitaker's appointment, Democrats have demanded for Mueller's investigation to continue without interference as well as for Whitaker's recuse from the investigation. On the other hand, while Republican leadership has praised Sessions for his work, they have not concerned themselves with the future of Mueller's Russian investigation. 

Sessions' Replacement: Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker

Personally, I believe that Trump's actions are unjustifiable in that he tries to obstruct justice and avoid a fair investigation. While Trump may have wanted to fire Sessions a long time ago, I think he might have held it off to not interfere and prevent Republicans from losing the midterms. However, with the newly Democrat-controlled House, I don't think this Russian investigation would be that easy to end, and even if it ends, the Democrats would continue to push for justice through the form of more investigations.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you think Trump's decision to and reasoning behind firing Sessions is justifiable?
2. Why do you think President Trump decided to fire Sessions right after the midterms rather than before the midterms?
3. How will President Trump's actions change with the Democrats now controlling the House, or would he stay the same? 
4. What actions do you think the new Democrat-controlled House will take against the President and such actions?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/07/politics/sessions-resign/index.html

http://time.com/5448197/jeff-sessions-resigns/

http://time.com/5448238/jeff-sessions-fired-congress-reaction/

Celebrities In Politics

November 6th is an important day for the nation, with many expecting to see a blue wave sweep across Congress. Ever since the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Democrats have been campaigning and rallying for support of Democratic candidates and policies in order for this transition to occur. In recent years, politics has also seeped into political culture, with social media influencers and celebrities voicing their beliefs and support. In a time where these figures have such a strong influence over their fanbase, many believe that they can make a difference in encouraging people to vote, and who to vote for. Many have been following Kanye West’s very public endorsement of Donald Trump, which has resulted in much backlash and rejection from the African American community and many others. In fact, Beyonce, who used to be close friends with Kanye, is said to have severed ties with him over this situation. Today, Beyonce came out in support for Beto O’Rourke, the Texas Democratic Senate candidate, to her 119.9 million instagram followers.  Lebron James also wore a Beto hat in support of the candidate last week, attracting lots of attention. In a situation as close as the Beto/Cruz race, the endorsement of these politicians by influential pop-culture figures may just give one the upper hand, pushing them across the finish line. Not only do these posts support a certain candidate, but they encourage voting in general, promoting our society to be more proactive and increase voter turnout. Even Taylor Swift, who has shied away from talking about politics in the past, released a statement encouraging people to “vote based on who most closely represents your values.” All of this activity has stirred much controversy about how celebrities can use their platforms to affect the outcomes of politics.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/entertainment/beyonce-beto-o-rourke/index.html

http://time.com/5418427/taylor-swift-politics/ 

Discussion Questions:

1. Do media influencers and celebrities have enough power to sway the political climate? If yes, should they have this power?
2. Should pop culture figures voice their political opinions? Or is it better to keep the two separate?
3. How big of an impact do you think social media has had on revolutionizing political campaigns, and how might celebrities take this impact to the next level?
4. To what extent do debacles like Trump and Kanye's friendship detract from the seriousness of politics?