CBS News poll: Majority of Americans and Democrats approve of Trump impeachment inquiry

Link

On September 23, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi announced a formal
impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. This was in response to a previously secret
whistleblower complaint regarding Trump’s call to the President of Ukraine, in which there were
strong concerns about him breaking the law. Trump allegedly wanted information on the personal
activities of Hunter Biden and his father Joe Biden, who is a frontrunner in the 2020 presidential
election, in order to sabotage them.

This article explores the public’s opinion on Trump’s actions and whether they were appropriate,
improper, or grounds for prosecution. In a poll from CBS, more than half of Americans, with a
majority of them being Democrats, support Congress' decision to begin the impeachment process.
In contrast, just over a quarter of Americans, and most Republicans, believe that his actions were
proper.

Trump has been the source of multiple investigations, including his alleged collusion with Russia
to rig the 2016 election. This echoes the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, in which President
Nixon was being investigated for his involvement in the burglary of the Democratic National
Committee and accused of trying to influence the election in his favor.

This impeachment inquiry into the president represents a larger issue in America: the partisan
divide. Although I am not sure what the future holds for this investigation, I do know that it will
have an impact on the upcoming 2020 election and how people view the President and his
administration.

Questions:

1. Since a majority of Democrats seem to believe the Trump should be impeached, while a majority of Republicans don’t, could this inquiry worsen the partisan war between them? 
2. What do you think this inquiry means for Trump and candidates in the 2020 election? 
3. Should Trump be impeached or removed from office for his actions?

Angry Greta Thunberg tells global leaders she 'will never forgive' them for failing on climate change

Link to Article

     Greta Thunberg is a 16 year old, Swedish, climate change activist whose arguments have recently grown in popularity and significance. She claims that for the past thirty years, scientific studies have proven just how impacted the planet is by global warming and climate change, yet experts and government officials have essentially done nothing to respond to the issue or improve the situation. 
     She gave a speech a the UN Climate Action Summit, which was difficult to get her to in the first place, as she refused to take an airplane; claiming that there are high levels of emissions. However once at the summit, she mentioned, "You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty world and yet, I am one of the lucky ones... people are suffering, people are dying." 
     Her actions to make her voice heard started out as weekly sit-ins outside of the Swedish Parliament building, and have now grown into school walkouts and protests in various countries and cities.

Discussion Questions:
1) Do you agree with Thunbergs arguments and strong opinions on climate change?
2) What steps should be taken to improve the current situation in regards to climate change?

School Collapses in Kenya, Killing at Least 7 Students

link to article

    On Monday of this week, a school bulding in Kenya had reportedly collapsed in the town of Nairobi at 7:30 am, killing 7 students and injuring dozens. The structure had originally been constructed with one level, however the school later settled on an addition of another level without planning permission. A total of 64 students were being medically treated in Kenyatta National Hospital and were have claimed to have "various soft tissue injuries."

    As of now, the cause behind the collapse has not yet been discovered, yet locals have raised assumptions regarding the structure of the building itself. George Magoha, education minister, points blame at the school for not taking adequate measures to have the second floor approved as remodeling of the building would have followed if an inspection had been carried out. 

    The remainder of the buildings in the school will be subject to inspection before any of the 800 students return to ensure safety. Deputy President of Kenya, William Ruto, addressed the issue by sending out agencies to inspect the multiple buildings and regarded the importance of a safe learning environment for children. However, this is not the first time a building has collapsed in Kenya as in recent years, many structures have fallen. In fact, in 2017, governor of Nairobi, Evans Kidero stated that at least 30,00-40,000 buildings in the town were built without approval and were at risk of collapsing. I am not entirely surprised that such schools would not want to have an inspection carried out due to fear of spending larger amounts of money on repairs and an overall prolonged process. Nevertheless, the school's duty to administer the safety of children greatly outweighs the cost. 

Questions:

1) Is the Deputy President, William Ruto, addressing the situation with enough rigor? 

2) Should certain laws or requirements be enforced more strictly in order to prevent such incidents? If so, what requirements should be implemented?

3) Should the United States offer aid to Kenya if such development of proper structures is a monetary issue?

School Officer Suspended After Arresting A 6yr Old

Link to Article

    Last week, Orlando police officer Dennis Turner arrested a 6 year old student due to her misbehavior observed at school.  It had been stated that the 6 year old girl Kaia Rolle had kicked a staff member during a temper tantrum, which then led to Turner using zip ties to restrain her. Kaia's grandmother went on to explain that Kaia's actions were "normal" due to her sleep apnea which prevented her from getting a substantial amount of sleep that prior night. This past Monday, he had been fired after an internal investigation that had been made following his suspension. Authorities have claimed that Turner had not gained the approval by a supervisor before making the arrest of a minor under the age of 12, further violating the department's policies.
   The arrest of Kaia Turner has recommenced the examining of policing in schools, especially causing the belief that policing schools have become unfairly targeted at students of color of those with disabilities to resurface. It has been proven that schools with resource officers -- such as Dennis Turner -- have had more arrests for "troubling" behavior rather than assault charges. It is clear that racial discrimination has been an ongoing issue throughout history, and still remains as a prominent problem that we face as a society today. Personally, I was surprised when first hearing about this, but I think that these situations should be brought to attention seeing as the underlying causes are issues that have been around for so long. 

Questions:

1. Do you believe that Dennis Turner's actions taken upon Kaia were justified? Why or why not?

2. How can schools develop better ways to handle situations such as these in the future? Or how can schools improve their methods of handling these kind of scenarios?

3. Would you classify Dennis Turner's actions as "police brutality" or was he simply doing his job of ensuring safety for all students as a resource officer? 

Why The US And Iran Are Fighting Over This Tiny Waterway

link to original article

The Strait of Hormuz, which borders Iran, is a crucial waterway because much of the world's oil supply passes through the narrow waterway. Recently, there have been a growing number of instances of the Iranian military seizing oil tankers that pass through the waterway. As a result, oil prices have increased worldwide since it is a globally traded commodity and tension between the US and Iran has greatly increased.

The origins of this issue come from what is known as the "Tanker War," which began during the Iraq-Iran War. Iraq, which is backed by the US, attempted to cut off Iran's main export, oil, by bombing their outgoing shipments of oil. In response, Iran attacked oil shipments to Iraq by utilizing the Strait of Hormuz. This resulted in direct US intervention and since then, relations between the US and Iran have only intensified. Do you think this is another example of the US attempting to exert their influence in the Middle East or do you think this is for the greater good? 

Facebook to Create its Own 'Supreme Court'

link

In the past year or so, Facebook has been under constant fire for its privacy and content moderation issues. To reassure the public and fix these problems, Facebook has created plans for an “Oversight Board” that consists of “40 members with three-year terms drawn from a diverse array of backgrounds.” Panels of five members will deliberate issues regarding content moderation. The board, which is set to be put into effect in early 2020, would act as a “Supreme Court” and make decisions even Zuckerberg couldn’t overturn unless “implementing the finding would break the law.”

I think this is very interesting because I haven’t seen a private company try to create anything like this before. Do you think this will fix or improve security and content moderation issues? How will this “Oversight Board” interact with the national government or national policies? Do laws and policies on technology need to be improved? If the government doesn’t take action in this area, will that power fall to Facebook’s “Supreme Court?" How much authority will they actually have? Will trying to be stricter on what people can and cannot post clash with concepts in the Constitution like free speech? How do you think this conflict will play out?

White House Fires Homeland Security Dept.’s General Counse

LINK

On Tuesday, John Mitnick, the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, was fired by the White House. Mitnick was actually the fifth general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security. After Mitnick was let go, there were a series of contradictory statements that were separately released from a Trump Administration official and a Department of Homeland Security official. The former claimed that Chad Mizelle, an associate counsel for the President, would replace Mitnick; however, the latter claimed that Joseph B. Maher, the department's principal deputy general, would assume the vacated position. The actual reason for firing Mitnick has not explicitly been stated yet by government officials; however, we can infer that the continual change of leadership in the department is a direct effect of the Trump administration's continual pressure on them to new immigration policies that would make it much more difficult for migrants from Central America to obtain asylum. This is definitely not the first time a high-level official of this department has been fired and then subsequently replaced. Previously, Kirstjen Nielsen, formerly the Homeland Security Secretary and the acting deputy secretary, Claire Grady were removed by the White House as well. Overall, the instability of leadership within the Department of Homeland Security will play a large role in how immigration policies will be enforced in the future.

Questions:

1. What is your opinion of another firing of a high-level official in the Department of Homeland Security?

2. How do you believe this event will affect how the Department of Homeland Security will enforce Trump's new immigration policies?

3. Do you believe that the White House will continue to oust officials in Homeland Security if they do not agree with Trump's new immigration policies?

Trump to Revoke California’s Authority to Set Stricter Auto Emissions Rules

article link

The Trump administration is working to revoke California's authority to set auto emissions rules that are stricter than federal standards, and Andrew Wheeler, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency has said that the administration will move forward with a single national vehicle pollution standard. Currently, about a third of the national auto market must follow tighter emissions rules under standards that are similar to California's, so revoking the California waiver would have a huge effect on the nation. 

Recently the federal government has been working to weaken climate change regulations due to Trump's skepticism about the cause of climate change. His administration has made plans to weaken auto emissions standards nationwide, loosen restrictions on coal-burning power plants and decrease regulations on energy companies emitting greenhouse gases like methane. If the Supreme Court upholds Trump’s decision, it could permanently block states from regulating vehicle greenhouse gas pollution, but if it is not upheld, then states will have the right to make pollution standards stricter than the federal government. The Supreme Court's decision could be the precedent that determines whether the state or national government has the authority to regulate environmental rules. 

Public opinion seems to oppose Trump’s measures to roll back environmental rules, and four automakers have even signed a deal with California to comply with tighter emissions standards if the Trump’s plan goes through. 

Questions: 

1. Do you think that the federal government has the authority to overrule states' environmental rules? 

2. Do you think climate change will play a big role in the 2020 presidential election? 

3. What do you think the government can do to regulate climate change? 

Couples in Virginia will no longer have to disclose race to obtain a marriage license

One of the couples who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit in their engagement photograph.

Link to article

     Last week, three couples filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Virginia for requiring couples applying for marriage licenses to disclose their races. They claim it violates the 1st, 13th, and 14th amendments, and is emblematic of a racist past and not belonging in the present day. Virginia is one of eight states that requires couples to provide their race. In some counties, racial categories included outdated terms such as "octoroon" (being 1/8 black).

     However, the Virginia Attorney General decided this week to not enforce that requirement. This is a victory for the couples, but they are still proceeding with their lawsuit because it is still a law on the books and they want it declared unconstitutional.

     I personally am glad that this is being removed. I do not feel like there is any important enough need to require race to be mentioned for marriage licenses, because it is absolutely not necessary. I was shocked by how outdated some of those racial forms are, and it could appear extremely demeaning to potential applicants.

     This case, if it goes far enough, could set a very interesting precedent on to what extent race can be present in forms and if it can be a determining factor in the acceptance of said forms. This relates back to Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court case that ruled that banning interracial marriage was unconstitutional. It could be a modern-day equivalent.

Questions:
1. Do you believe that any state should require disclosure of race on forms, even if it is not a determining factor in the acceptance of those forms?
2. Is this law constitutional or unconstitutional? Why?

3. Will this set a precedent for other states with similar laws to change their laws?

     

Salvadorans, Washington’s Builders, Face Expulsion Under Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/13/business/economy/salvadoran-immigrant-workers.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Salvadoran construction workers are at risk of losing their jobs and being deported because the Trump administration revoked a program that gave them legal immigration status in the United States based on violence and environmental disaster in their native country. Many cities across the national would feel the economic side effects of this decision, but Washington would feel the brunt of it because about a fifth of the construction workers in D.C are in the US because of the program that had been revoked. If steps towards deportation continues, there will be a major labor deficit that will require lengthy and expensive processes to fix. This temporary program did not provide these workers with a pathway to citizenship; however, they never thought they would face deportation because they have been here legally long enough to have made a life for themselves and their families. In my opinion, I believe Trump should have not revoked this program because it not only gave people an opportunity for a better life, but also helped the American economy. Deporting Salvadoran workers will result in a cascade of economic consequences and a work deficit that will be difficult to fill. In addition to labor shortages and rising costs, projects will face long delays. Because immigration is nationally controlled, it will be difficult for states to dispute this new federal policy. State authorities are not required to agree with the federal government, but because of Supremacy, states are not allowed to challenge the national policies. 

Many of the Salvadoran workers contribute positively to society by having a job, owning a home, and paying their taxes; do you believe there is adequate reasoning has to why they should be deported? 

Do you think there is anything the public or states can do to challenge the revocation of the program? 

Do you think the mass deportation of the Salvadoran workforce here in the US on the program that was revoked by Trump will have a large economic impact?

Landmark Changes Brought by California Bill AB 5

Link to article

Workers on strike, protesting against the unfair wages provided to drivers

Recently, the disputed California bill, AB 5, was passed. This bill would cause businesses, such as Uber and Lyft, to no longer be able to hire people as independent contractors (read more about this in the article). This would in turn, force these businesses and gig companies to hire people as employees. While this may seem like a small change, this is actually a big switch. With this reclassification of workers from independent contractors to employees, these companies will need to grant these people basic labor rights, including things like a guaranteed minimum hourly wage, workers’ compensation, the ability to unionize, and much more. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have opposed and will attempt to overturn AB 5, stating that they want to work towards a solution that better benefits “worker flexibility” and “economic security.”

Questions:

1. Do you think that this is a good change or will it inhibit worker flexibility and economic security, as some gig companies have stated?
2. What effect do you foresee that this change will have on companies such as Uber and DoorDash? 
3. Do you believe that this will set a precedent for other states to follow in suit?

Trump's Third National Security Adviser Abruptly Leaves Office

Link to Website - video clip

National security adviser, John Bolton, left office rather abruptly on Tuesday due to his and President Trump's conflicting viewpoints and opinions over international issues. The third national security adviser to go during Trump's presidency, Bolton was stated to be very firm in his militaristic stances and pro-war beliefs. Bolton's bold personality and insistence on his personal beliefs often clashed with Trump's views, causing tension to rise between the two. Furthermore, Bolton openly disagreed with Trump for his friendly approach with the North Korean leader and his sudden dismissal of a military attack on Iran.

Many changes have seemed to occur under the presidency of Donald Trump regarding foreign policy stances, but also government advisories and officials. Bolton's resignation came as a surprise to some as it happened rather quickly and unexpectedly: only a few hours before he was planned to do a news briefing on terrorism. After having two other advisers resign from office under Trump's presidency, it seems as if the continuing change of personnel has led to unstable U.S. relationships with foreign countries who constantly have to deal with new advisers and opinions.

1. What do you think of Bolton's resignation and being the third of Trump's national security advisers to do so?

2. How will this affect the national government in terms of who will serve as the next national security adviser, and whether the resignations will be a recurring action?

3. In regards to Bolton's actual beliefs, do you think his stances on foreign affairs were too radical?

C.I.A. Informant Extracted From Russia Had Sent Secrets to U.S. for Decades

article link


While not always at the forefront of the news, Russia is still a formidable force in the world. The intelligence war between the US and Russia dates back all the way to the days of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. Both sides have attempted to sabotage and infiltrate important government projects, but in general the public was unaware of the background.

Presumably during the Cold War, the CIA had found a low-level government official who was willing to act as a informant to the US. After several years, the informant was promoted, and gained access to the upper echelons of the Russian government, known as the Kremlin. Recently, the CIA began to worry about the safety of the informant, and persuaded them to leave the country for the US.

With this new development, it might begin to cause worry in both governments about the possibility of there still being spies in either country, as well as bring up previous entanglements. For example, the concern of Russian collusion in the 2016 election. While much of the intelligence war is now played on the Internet, such as hacking, there is probably still plenty of use for personnel located within the inner workings of a government.

Questions
1. Should the US or other countries be spying on others, in order to gain an advantage?
2. How do you think this will affect future policies on security?

Hong Kong Leader Carrie Lam to Withdraw Extradition Bill



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49575381

Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, announced on Wednesday that she will withdraw the highly controversial extradition bill which has triggered months of protests in Hong Kong. Last June, Lam said that she would “indefinitely suspend” the bill, but she stopped short of scrapping it, angering protesters, who wanted full withdrawal as one of their five key demands. In Wednesday’s televised address, Lam also said that she would do community outreach to talk to people to better understand their problems, and initiate a study on the causes of Hong Kong’s social injustices. But even as Lam said she hoped these moves would jump-start a dialogue, she remained critical of the protests, which she said had turned Hong Kong into an “unfamiliar place.”

Pro-democracy advocates have dismissed Lam's compromises as "fake,” suspecting she is simply trying to buy time. They have also pointed out that the two people running the police complaints council that Lam set up were both connected to her election campaign. As for her plans to go to the streets and speak with citizens, many believe it to be nothing more than a publicity stunt.

After months of protests, more than 1000 protesters arrested, many more beaten by thugs, and extensive police brutality, the people of Hong Kong have finally achieved a small victory against the Chinese government. The announcement of this concession does point towards the Chinese government being at least somewhat willing to meet the demands of protesters, which is a good sign for the future of this situation. However, the protesters still have 4 more demands, several of which are far more ambitious than striking down the extradition bill, but given that they have held out this long, its seems like they will not stop until all of their demands are met. While the Chinese government may be willing to forfeit some control over Hong Kong, they will definitely not meet Hong Kong’s demand for free elections. With both sides refusing to back down, there’s no end in sight for this political struggle.

Questions

1. Do you believe that Ms. Lam is sincere in trying to help the cause of the Hong Kong protesters?

2. Given the recent escalation of violence, should this still be treated as a domestic issue or should other countries intervene?

Chinese official states Trump's fentanyl tweets are "not true at all"

Link: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/03/asia/china-us-fentanyl-trump-intl-hnk/index.html

One of Beijing's top drug officials has rejected allegations by US President Donald Trump that China is to blame for the majority of the supply of the lethal drug fentanyl to the United States.  Meanwhile, fentanyl-related deaths in the US have risen further," he said Tuesday. "These two points clearly show that President Trump's tweets about fentanyl in the US mainly coming from China are not true at all." In April, the Chinese government announced it would add the entire class of fentanyl-related substances to their list of controlled drugs from May 1, a win for Trump and his administration. But in August, Trump appeared to lose patience with the speed of the crackdown. "I am ordering all carriers ... to search for and refuse all deliveries of fentanyl from China," the US leader tweeted on August 23. "Fentanyl kills 100,000 Americans a year. President Xi said this would stop -- it didn't!" On August 24, the US Office of National Drug Control Policy tweeted that China "continues to pour poison into our communities." The issue has become part of the ongoing trade war between the two countries, with Trump using Xi's alleged failure to follow through on his promise as one reason to impose further tariffs on China. Drug enforcement chief Liu said that the Trump administration shouldn't bring the fentanyl discussion into trade talks, adding both sides were still cooperating to stop drug smuggling.

I believe all kinds of drugs have become such a widespread problem in America. This is  due to the excessive use of whatever drug citizens are abusing. While America and China are trying to find solutions the slow solution making is causing controversy between Trump and China which is only making communications worse. The abuse of drugs has led to the destruction of too many lives including many of our own loved ones. I wish there was an easy solution to solve all these drug enhanced fatalities. The reason it’s so tough to help or have drug users quit is because it is way easier to start, than it is to quit. 

Questions:

1. What is your opinion on the current drug laws and how can we do a better job to remove drugs that are involved in citizens lives? How do we solve this abusive drug enhancive fatality problem besides obviously just try our best to take them away? 
2. How do these fentanyl cases affect Trump’s/ China’s relationship and communications? How do we can we better notify Americans of the dangerous results of drug using from drugs that aren’t prescribed and most likely made in other countries like China?

Shooting Spree Across 15 Miles in West Texas Terrorized Two Towns and Killed 7

Article Link

On September 1, 2019 another mass shooting occurred in Odessa, Texas. In another iteration of mass violence in America, a 36-year-old man attacked two West Texas towns with an assault rifle. In the aftermath, the Odessa Police Department reported 22 injuries, including 7 deaths. Three police officers were involved as well as a 17-month-old toddler. This shooting follows another recent one that happened only a few weeks ago in El Paso, Texas. Officials report that the gunman, who had been fired from his trucking job the morning of the attack, hijacked a United States Postal Van, killing the driver and opening fire as he drove. The brutality eventually stopped in a parking lot where police officers terminated the attacker. According to officials, while the gunman was fired from his job that morning, his motive for the violent action is still unclear. 

This mass shooting has followed several other ones in recent times. It is clear that America is going through a huge epidemic and action needs to be taken immediately. Currently, the political gridlock in Congress has prevented any gun legislation from being passed, and as a result, these mass shootings keep transpiring. Gun violence has become a serious issue in our country; at what point do we say enough is enough and pass the necessary legislation that will prevent these acts of mass violence from occurring again? As the leading nation in the world, we need to set a better example for developing countries, currently we are displaying ourselves as a country of hate rather than one of peace. It is critical that we portray our country as the peaceful and democratic nation it was founded to be. We need to foster a less perilous environment for the generations to come.

Discussion Questions:

1. With such political divide today, how can we work to pass legislation that will prevent more mass shootings like this occurring?
2. What factors do you think, that are prevalent in society today, are driving these attackers to commit acts of mass violence?
3. Do you think an outright ban on private weapons is the best solution to this problem, or do you believe this will be an infringement on citizens’ 2nd amendment right?

The Racial Inequality in Gifted Education

Article Link

Source: Andrew Lichtenstein / Corbis via Getty Images

Recently, a school diversity task group in New York City wrote a report recommending that the public school district eliminate gifted and talented programs, claiming that they contribute to segregation and racial inequality. Following Brown v. Board in 1954, one of the ways white schools pushed back against integration was by creating more advanced classes that catered to white students, but that was 65 years ago. Today, in the New York City public school district, admission into the more selective programs are based off of things like test scores which some claim favor Caucasian and Asian students who generally have greater resources to prepare for admission tests, putting African-American and Hispanic students at an unfair disadvantage, thus leading to increased segregation. However, others believe that having these gifted and talented programs prevent segregation because they encourage Caucasian and wealthy families to put their kids in the public schools rather than putting them in private schools or moving to the suburbs.

As it stands, although I do recognize there is racism baked into these special programs, I think that getting rid of gifted and talented programs that provide a more rigorous academic education to students would be extremely harmful because then those who can’t afford to go to a private school or move to another school district would have little to no options if they want to pursue a more rigorous education. I think a better approach to this situation would be to fix the current system.

Discussion Questions
1. As a student who attends a school that offers several AP classes, do you think these programs should be eliminated?
2. If you were a student in the NYC public school district, would you support or fight the elimination of gifted and talented programs based on the claim that they are racist?
3. Are there any ways the existing system can be fixed so it is more equal?