LGBTQ Candidates Find Success in Midterm Election

Jared Polis

In the recent midterm elections, Colorado elected US Representative Jared Polis as the nation's first openly gay governor. Polis will succeed Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper. Oregon Democratic Governor Kate Brown, who identifies as bisexual, is already the first openly LGBTQ person to be elected governor. Former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey came out as gay before he stepped down from office in the early 2000s.

Polis was one of several LGBT candidates who ran for governor this cycle, along with Brown in Oregon, Vermont Democrat Christine Hallquist and Texas Democrat Lupe Valdez. Voters across the country sent a record number of LGBT candidates to Congress. This comes 40 years after the assassination of the first openly gay elected official in California, Harvey Milk.
Milk was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. In 1978, under his urging, the city council passed a gay rights ordinance that protected gay people from being fired from their jobs.

On Nov. 27, 1978, Supervisor Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Dan White, a former police officer and former city supervisor who had clashed with Milk over LGBTQ issues. After shooting the mayor, White entered Milk's office and shot him five times at his desk.
Many thought the murder meant the end of the gay rights movement. That night there was a candle-lit march from the Castro District up Market Street.

Question:
What does electing more LGBTQ politicians into offices say about voters?

Sources:
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/27/670657965/40-years-after-the-assassination-of-harvey-milk-lgbt-candidates-find-success
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/06/politics/jared-polis-colorado-gay-governor/index.html

Trump upset over Chief Justice Roberts’ defense of “Obama judges”

Chief Justice John Roberts

On November 21st, Chief Justice Roberts criticized Trump for describing a judge who was against Trump’s asylum policy as an “Obama judge”. Jon S. Tiger, a judge of the United States District Court in San Francisco, opposed Trump’s policy, which seeks to get rid of the protections provided to immigrants who enter the country illegally, regardless of whether or not they are seeking asylum, saying that Trump could not “rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden”.

Trump was upset and annoyed about this, calling Tiger an "Obama judge". Chief Justice Roberts' defended Tiger, saying that Tiger was just doing his job, and that there are no "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges" in the court system, only an "extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them." Trump was quick to respond using his customary means of communication, Twitter, saying that there were in fact "Obama judges," and that they had different views than that of the people keeping the country safe. Trump also expressed his displeasure with the 9th Circuit, complaining that 79% of his decisions have been overturned in the 9th Circuit.

In my opinion this whole thing just goes to show how divided this country really is, on one side you have Republicans who want to completely get rid of any immigration if the people immigrating aren't white, and on the other side you have the Democrats who are for immigration of all races and ethnicity. The justice system at this point is so divided and partisan that a decision made in one state for a crime can be an entirely different decision in another state for the same crime, its disgusting.

Questions:
Does Trump have the jurisdiction to enforce his policy, or does he have to get Congress's approval first?


Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/judge-denies-trump-asylum-policy.html

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/21/670079601/chief-justice-roberts-issues-rare-rebuke-to-trump

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!

Paul Manafort's mugshot.

Paul Manafort is an American lobbyist, political consultant, lawyer and now a convicted felon.  He joined Donal Trumps 2016 presidential campaign as a campaign chairman between June and August 2016.

On September 14th 2018 he admitted to years of financial crimes related to his secret lobbying work for a pro-russian political party and politician in Ukraine.  He plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States and conspiring to obstruct justice.  He faces 10 years in prison (excluding an additional sentence related to tax and bank fraud) and was ordered to forfeit around $15 million he hid from the IRS.

After signing a plea deal, prosecutors with FBI special counsel Robert S. Mueller III claims Manafort breached this agreement by lying repeatedly during investigations into Russian interference int he 2016 presidential campaign.  Although Manafort denies lying, this may seriously effect his sentencing.

I think that all of this is very suspicious.  Its shocking that these investigations haven't uncovered enough dirt on Trump to also make him accountable.  I think that Paul Manafort may be protecting others involved in the Russian interference during the 2016 presidential election.  This reflects how corrupt our government is and how much stuff is going on that we don't know about.

Donald Trump (left) and Paul Manafort (right).

Questions:
Do you think Manafort lied to the FBI?  If so, how do you think this will effect his sentencing?
How do you feel about the fact Manafort was accused of lying after pleading guilty?  Do you think he still has a reason to hide information from the FBI?


Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/politics/paul-manafort-court-filing-russia-investigation/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/mueller-says-manafort-lied-after-pleading-guilty-should-be-sentenced-immediately/2018/11/26/61c76d5a-f18d-11e8-aeea-b85fd44449f5_story.html?utm_term=.1aec4060d8f1

Russia-Ukraine Tensions Rise as US Ambassador Calls for UN Emergency Meeting

On Sunday, Russian warships seized three Ukrainian naval vessels in a narrow waterway that provides access from the Black Sea to the Sea of Azov, ramping up the tensions between the two countries. 

According to Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) Border Service, the three Ukrainian warships had illegally entered Russia's territorial waters and were performing dangerous maneuvers. Russian state news agency TASS reported the three Ukrainian vessels, two gunboats and a tug, were detained by Russian forces and that "weapons were used to force them to stop." Six Ukrainian servicemen have been wounded according to the Ukrainian Navy. 

The incident occurred at the Sea of Azov, which was declared as shared Russia-Ukrainian water in a 2003 treaty.

The altercation, which detained 24 Ukrainian sailors, has resulted in Western powers calling for Russia to free the capture ships. Since then, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has called an emergency meeting with top security officials in the capital city of Kiev and the Ukrainian Parliament is due to vote on declaring martial law. 

Russia has requested an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, which US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley has been called for 11:00 New York time on Monday. 

The stand-off follows years of bitter Ukraine-Russia tensions and US failure to acknowledge Russian conflicts. This past July, President Donald Trump refused to denounce Russian President Vladimir Putin over election meddling in the 2016 Presidential Election, blaming both countries for the strained relationship. US officials have called out President Trump's inability to criticize Russia, following allegations of treasonous collusion. Trump has not commented on the recent issue so far. 

Amidst the rising tensions, how do you believe America should respond? 

In your opinion, is Russia or Ukraine justified in their actions? 

What should be accomplished at the UN Security Council Meeting?

Sources:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/418168-haley-un-security-council-to-hold-emergency-meeting-on-ukraine-russia

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/25/nikki-haley-un-security-council-meet-russia-ukrain/

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/russia-ukraine-unemergency/2018/11/25/id/891912/

https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/1066847973437521925?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46340283

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46338671

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAJX1oZco2Y

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to take up military transgender ban

On November 23, the Trump administration filed petitions to the Supreme Court asking to bypass federal appeals courts to consider President Trump’s policy restricting most transgender people from serving in the military. Trump said he was “doing the military a great favor” by “coming out and just saying it.”

The policy was released in March by Defense Secretary James Mattis that banned individuals who suffer gender dystopia from serving with limited exceptions. Individuals without the condition can serve, but requiring them to serve in their birth sex.

Between 4,000 and 10,000 US active-duty and reserve service members are transgender. Trump believed transgender military service would cause tremendous cost and disruption and said that he “had consulted” with his generals and military experts. However, Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, released a memo effectively stopping the military from making any changes until a new policy was adopted, and Mattis backed the move.

District courts across the country have blocked the policy from going into effect. Taking the issue to the Supreme Court could put the question of whether to bar transgender troops before high court. 

What do you think of the policy? Do you agree with it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-immediately-take-up-transgender-military-ban/2018/11/23/6cf11b32-ef39-11e8-8679-934a2b33be52_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c1bcf4df32f5

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/politics/military-transgender-ban-supreme-court/index.html

Police officers kill wrong individual during a mall shooting in Alabama

On Thursday night November 22nd, police officers responded to a reported shooting at a mall near Birmingham, Alabama. Police officers fired upon and killed 21 year old Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr., who was armed at the time. Officers thought he had been the shooter who injured 2 people, however later realized that although they believed he was involved in the altercation, he was not the individual who opened fire. The actual gunman has not been caught by authorities.




Emantic Fitzgerald Bradford Jr., who was mistakenly killed by authorities.



Demonstrators gathered outside the mall on Saturday to protest the all too familiar circumstances of the shooting: a young African American man killed by police officers under a questionable premise. They criticized the police as being racist and called for the arrest of the officer who shot Bradford. The name of the officer in question has not been released by the police department.

This incident demonstrates two important issues American society faces today. In 2018, there have been more than 300 mass shooting incidents and the issue of police shootings continues to be prevalent. In this incident were police justified to make a hasty decision in shooting an armed individual to try and prevent more casualties, or was this driven by racial bias? Should police officers not have access to lethal firearms? If police are limited in their ability to fatally shoot people, will that cause mass shootings to become even more deadly because authorities will be limited in their response? What steps need to be taken to reduce gun violence as a whole?


SOURCES:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/24/us/alabama-mall-shooting.htm
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/24/us/alabama-mall-hoover-shooting/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46333970
https://www.foxnews.com/us/alabama-mall-shooting-leaves-1-dead-2-wounded
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

Record Number of Women Elected To House of Representatives

This year’s midterm election resulted in many victories for women in the House of Representatives. A record number of 102 women were elected to serve in the House of Representatives--a monumental win as women have never had more than 85 members in the House. Of the 102 elected, 36 are newly elected and 66 are re-elected.

Among the new women elected, nine of them made history: Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaidb for being the first two Muslim American congresswomen, Deb Haaland and Sharice Davids for being the first two Native American congresswomen, Veronica Escobar and Sylvia Garcia for being the first two Hispanic congresswomen from Texas, Ayanna Pressley for being the first congresswoman from Massachusetts, Jahana Hayes for being the first black congresswoman from Connecticut, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for being the youngest woman elected to Congress. 

This more diverse group of women elected for the House of Representatives shows, not complete, but partial representation for women and minorities in America. It also shows that women’s representation in the government is progressing forward and not moving backward.

With much more diversity and representation of women, what do you think will happen in future elections? Do you think we will continue to see more women being elected for roles in government?

http://cawp.rutgers.edu/2018-election-night-tally

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/09/us/women-elected-midterm-elections.html

https://www.apnews.com/c0be062914e048d79f70bcf120e1ccbb

SCOTUS refuses to block youths' climate change lawsuit against the US governement

On November 2, the Supreme Court has denied the Trump administration’s request to dismiss Juliana vs. United States, a lawsuit by children and young adults against the government to combat climate change. This was after several attempts by the Trump administration to dismiss the case which had been filed beginning in 2015 in the District of Oregon. The plaintiff is composed of youth ages 11 to 22 who believe that the government should be making attempts to combat climate change because of our constitutional right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, which is being negatively impacted by climate change. The case is asking for the government to propose a plan to ensure that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will be below 350 parts per million by the year 2100 as well as reduce its fossil fuel extraction and production.
I think the age of the plaintiffs have caused the Trump administration to greatly underestimate the lawsuit and the lack of acknowledgement of climate change is absurd.

How do you feel about the role of youth and young adults in our government? Do you think our voices are underrepresented or unheard?
Do you believe that the government has a responsibility to combat climate change to uphold our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness?

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07214-2

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/climate-change-lawsuit-trump-us-young-people-children-supreme-court-allows-julia-olsen-a8616136.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-refuses-to-block-kids-climate-lawsuit-against-us-government/2018/11/02/34bd7ee6-d7af-11e8-83a2-d1c3da28d6b6_story.html?utm_term=.8b8a8780e78a

Trump Reimposes Iran Sanctions

The Trump administration has announced that the United States will be reimposing economic sanctions on Iran on Nov 5th. One are that these sanction will target are Iran's oil exports by cutting off its ties other countries that are close allies with the United States. Other areas will include vessels and aircrafts. Cabinet officials have stated that there would be exemptions on food medicine and other humanitarian products.

The purpose of imposing these asset freezes and trade embargoes are to change Iran's behavior. By cutting off Iran's oil revenue, Trump hopes to prevent Iran from restarting a program to enrich nuclear fuel and possibly create bombs. His main goal is to force the Iranian government to negotiate a nuclear deal more along his terms. However, Trumps actions may to lead to a recession on Iran's economy which had been expanding economically early in the year. Perhaps the greatest issue Trump faces is that he'll likely be questioned for his choice to reimpose sanction on Iran while claiming North Korea, a country that does posses nuclear arms, to no longer be a nuclear threat.

QUESTION:

Is President Trump's actions justified?

why or why not?

SOURCES:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/us/politics/trump-iran-sanctions.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/politics/pompeo-iran-sanction-exemptions/index.html

Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship?

In an interview with Axios, President Trump revealed that he planned on issuing an executive order to end birthright citizenship which is guaranteed under the 14th amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” In the interview, President Trump also claimed that the United States is only one of the few countries that offers birthright citizenship: “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits,” but about three dozen other countries also offer birthright citizenship, including Canada and Mexico.

Despite President Trump’s plans on issuing an executive order, it will not have the power to nullify an amendment in the constitution. An amendment in the constitution can only be undone by ⅔ votes in both houses in Congress or through a constitutional convention called for by ⅔ of the state legislatures.

Do you think President Trump’s potential executive order should impact birthright citizenship?

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/us/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/31/politics/birthright-citizenship-world-intl/index.html

Jacob Wohl Found to be Organizer for Smear Plot Against Robert Muller

Last week, a spokesperson for special counsel Robert Muller—who is currently responsible for  leading the investigation for Russian interference in the 2016 election—asked the FBI to investigate claims that women were being offered money to make false accusations about sexual misconduct against Muller.

One person, identifying herself as Parsons, told journalists in an email that she had been offered roughly $20,000 by a man claiming to work for a company named Surefire Intelligence “to make accusations of sexual misconduct and workplace harassment against Robert Mueller.”

It was later confirmed that these attempts at creating false accusations were being circulated by pro-Trump conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl, who not only attempted to fabricate the false information, but also created the website which the requests were distributed from.

Early last Tuesday, Wohl was exited to tease that allegations were coming against Mueller. He claimed: “Several media sources tell me that a scandalous story about Mueller is breaking tomorrow. Should be interesting. Stay tuned!" Not too long after journalists received the email, however, suspicion quickly arose.

As it turns out, the website in charge of paying the women, Surefire Intelligence, was only incorporated in Delaware less than a month ago. Surefire Intelligence described itself as “a private intel agency that designs and executes bespoke solutions for businesses and individuals who face complex business and litigation challenges.” Even more suspiciously, Surefire’s domain records list an email for Jacob Wohl, and the telephone number listed on Surefire’s website referred callers to a number listed in public records as belonging to his mother.

Question: What do you think can be done to combat widespread smear allegations against political individuals while still allowing legitimate ones to be recognized?

Sources:
Washington Post
The Atlantic
NBC News

President Wants to use Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship

On October 30, 2018, Mr. Trump claimed that he wants to issue an executive order that would take away an amendment of the constitution. This order would take away the birthright of citizenship that all people that are born in the U.S have. Trump went on to say, “We’re the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States for 85 years, with all of those benefits”. This seems to be another grasp for attention in the Trump presidency era, and this executive order would most likely fail due to the fact that it would require House, Senate, and State majorities to pass a constitutional amendment.

Even members of his own party , such as Paul Ryan have criticized this move, saying it will never happen, and that the 14th amendment is very secure. What Trump and team will try to do is get the supreme court to change the language of the 14th amendment to prevent birthright citizenship. This idea came after Trump’s administration moved 5,000 troops to the southern border, making it seem like this all part of Trump’s exaggerated claims about anti immigration. This executive order is extremely anti American, and strips away the rights that the constitution laid out for everyone on American soil.

Do you think that the Trump can issue this executive order?

What does this reveal about Trump’s priorities as a president?

Works Cited:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/30/us/politics/trump-birthright-citizenship.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-eyeing-executive-order-to-end-citizenship-for-children-of-noncitizens-born-on-us-soil/2018/10/30/66892050-dc29-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_term=.45d0416a89a5

North Dakota Judge denies emergency injunction from Native Americans to stop the Voter ID Law

On November 2, 2018, Daniel Hovland, a North Dakota District judge denied an emergency injunction from Native Americans to block the implementation of the Voter ID law. This law(previously upheld by the Supreme Court) requires all voters from North Dakota to provide a state or tribe issued ID and a street address in order to vote. Since many Native Americans in North Dakota live on reservations in rural areas, they don’t have house numbers or street names. Those that live there have to use post office box addresses in order to receive their mail. In fact, 35% of the Native American population does not have an acceptable ID or address. This has resulted in limited access towards many Native Americans to become informed voters and gaining outside resources.

Many Native Americans claim that this law is an act of voter suppression but this allegation has been dismissed due to upcoming elections. Since North Dakota has one of the smallest state populations in the U.S., they don’t find it necessary to install a voter registration system for their citizens. Hovland defends the Voter ID law, claiming that this is the only way to ensure who is voting. However, this is also the same judge that said implementing this new Voter ID law would be a burden for Native Americans that are attempting to exercise their right to vote.

Question: Do you think that North Dakota is being fair towards its citizens by implementing a Voter ID law or should they focus on creating a voter registration system?

Sources:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-denies-native-american-motion-block-voter-id/story?id=58923035

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/31/politics/native-american-tribe-suing-north-dakota-voter-id/index.html

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/02/663417341/judge-rules-native-americans-in-north-dakota-must-comply-with-voter-id-law

Pentagon Refuses President Trump's Request for Troops

Following the migrant caravan's trek through Mexico, president Donald Trump and his administration have requested troops to come to the US-Mexico border for "crowd and traffic control". Trump has stated that he aims to have 15,000 troops at the border. However, on October 26, the Pentagon declined the request for troops, stating that the job that the troops have been requested for fell out of the job description for the troops' deployment. The Pentagon stated that the job that the troops were being sent was domestic law enforcement, something US troops cannot do unless it is an emergency or permission from the president. Along with these statements, the Pentagon has also said that if the troops were still wanted along the border for protection, the Defense Department should contact the White House and have them grant special permission for the troops.

The Pentagon has refused Donald Trump and his administration's request for US army troops to come to the US-Mexico border. This is related to American democracy because this event deals with the powers/controls of the White House vs the US Pentagon.

Do you think we should have 15,000 troops at the border? Is there an alternative to this? What should we do with the migrant caravan?

Sources:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/02/politics/white-house-pentagon-troops-border/index.html
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/414651-pentagon-denied-white-house-request-for-troops-to-perform-law-enforcement

Nigerian Army Uses Trump's Words to Justify a Fatal Shooting of Protesters

On November 2, the Nigerian army's official Twitter account posted a video of Trump's speech at White House with the comment: "Please watch and make your deductions." In Trump's speech, he suggested that the military could open fire at any rock-throwing migrant crossing into the US. The Nigerian army used Trump's words to justify the fatal shootings of rock-throwing protesters that happened on Monday, during a march of 1,000 Islamic Shiite activists who blocked traffic on the outskirts of the capital, Abuja.

The army said that the soldiers opened fire in self-defense because the members of the Islamic Movement of Nigeria threw stones at their troops and attacked its convoy carrying ammunition. According to Amnesty International, at least 45 people were killed and 122 people were wounded. Those who were injured was shot in many different areas -- head, neck, back, chest, shoulder, legs, arms -- and some of them had multiple gunshot wounds. This clearly shows that the soldiers were not ordered to restore peace, but to kill the protester. Human rights activists and many Nigerians were outraged by the military's response, which had a similar confrontation in 2015, when soldiers killed nearly 350 protesters from the same group, IMN.

Question

Do you think that it is right for Trump to suggest the military to shoot the migrants?
What is your reaction to actions of the Nigerian Army?

Source:

CNN

The New York Times

Xi-Trump Phone Call "Extremely Positive"?

On November 1st, President Donald Trump said that he spoke to
Chinese President Xi Jinping amid concerns about escalating trade
tensions between the US and China. In a tweet, Trump said he had
a "long and very good conversation" with the Chinese leader,
"with a heavy emphasis on trade." He added that "those discussions
are moving along nicely" ahead of planned face-to-face meetings
at the G-20 summit in Argentina later this month.

On July 6, the U.S. specifically targeted China by imposing 25% tariffs
on $34 billion of imported Chinese goods as part of Trump's tariffs
policy, which then led China to respond with similarly sized tariffs on
U.S. products. A tariff on an additional $16 billion of Chinese imports
was added in mid-August, with China responding proportionately. A
further tariff on $200 billion of Chinese goods went into effect on
September 24, to which China responded with tariffs on $60 billion
of US goods.

The US stock market had dropped after the trade war has been announced.
Technology companies sank again after Bloomberg News reported that
the US is planning new tariffs if the two sides do not make progress in
trade. The S&P 500 index has dropped 9.4% in October and is marked as
the worst monthly loss since February 2009(a period during the 2008
financial crisis).

The November phone call has not marked the end of a trade war yet,
but Trump claimed he and Xi Jinping are working hard to end the war.
Do you think the conversation will mark the end of the war?

Sources:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-signals-progress-on-trade-after-phone-call-with-chinese-president-xi-1541083811

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/01/trump-says-he-and-chinas-xi-exchanged-long-and-very-good-trade-conversation.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-claims-he-chinese-president-xi-jinping-are-working-hard-ncna930116

https://www.scmp.com/news/article/2170768/wall-street-falls-hard-again-roller-coaster-day-after-report-us-planning-new