Trump's Twitter is Bad for America

            Everyday the 45^th president of the United States takes to his twitter account to express his opinions on U.S. domestic and foreign politics. This isn’t a problem.  The 1^st amendment to the constitution guarantees free speech for everyone and this is a right enjoyed by every American citizen. But his position as head of the country coupled with his seeming total lack of censorship can and will continue to cause problems for the whole of America. On the 12^th of January Trump was quoted to have supposedly referred to certain countries in a meeting about the Differed Action Childhood Arrivals program or (DACA) as “shithole countries.”  The average American has become so desensitized to these kinds of statements that this in and of itself doesn’t even seem like that big of a deal anymore. Of course, by 6:28am Trump took to twitter to refute this quote. Other tweets of Trump’s include things like “little rocket man,” “crooked Hillary,” or even suggestions that Kim Jong-un is “short and fat.” To protect the safety of American citizens domestic and abroad, Trumps twitter needs to have restrictions in place to limit the kinds of unsavory tweets that foreign diplomats and even citizens abroad can see.

            Tweets attacking members of U.S. politics only hurts the country. Even before Trump was elected president he was constantly bashing either Hillary Clinton or Obama. This started years back when there were unsubstantiated rumors going around that Obama’s birth certificate was a fake. These kinds of tweets only create more of a divide between the two major parties in our government which in turn expands party polarization and contributes to extremism. If our parties keep growing further and further apart because of polarization, then eventually we will see political members with dangerously far leaning opinions emerge. The farther our republicans and democrats move apart, the more difficult it will become to perform what I think every member of congress and the public would like more of, and that’s the creation of bipartisan bills. Hatred and bigotry only spread because of the president attacking other members of congress and the democratic party which are the opposite of the core values of America. In schools we are taught to be tolerant of others and respect their views and opinions. Trumps tweets send the opposite message and enforce the idea that it’s okay to publicly disrespect those with views opposing your own. These tweets also make our country look bad nationwide. Since WWII the United States has been the worlds super power in both our economy and military strength. Tweets from the President of our country that attack our own members of congress just create an immature image of America in the minds of foreign governments and even their citizens. Nation-wide opinions of America and our government have dropped drastically since Trump took office. This holds true for domestic opinions as well. To see this, you only have to look as far as the Trumps approval ratings.

            Being the world’s superpower gives the United States tremendous responsibility in foreign affairs. Since our country has been in some form of military action since WWII it is crucial to not make any unnecessary mistakes concerning foreign relations with other leaders. Trump’s tweets that attack other countries in the middle east, North Korea, China, and even Russia create an unsafe environment for the citizens of not only our country, but our allies across the globe. South Korea is in a particularly precarious situation with North Korea and Kim Jong-un. Trump antagonizing and tweeting about his nuclear missile button only increases the dangers that the South Korean government faces. Whether or not Trump intentionally created dialogue between the two countries through his harsh rhetoric on twitter doesn’t matter. If it was his intention to do so then it’s still an incredibly dangerous strategy.

            By arguing that Trump should be restricted on the content of his twitter I don’t mean to suggest that the 1^st amendment is wrong or shouldn’t apply to him or that our country show bow to others when facing conflict. I completely support the idea that America can’t appear weak in front of foreign governments. I think that the “fire and fury” tweet was great. It established that our country wouldn’t hesitate to act if North Korea decides to escalate things and was a demonstration to our strength. That being said, I do believe that there should be some restrictions implemented on what Trump can tweet about and maybe even the frequency. The office of president is the most important position in our country and probably even the world. Tweets that give away information to other countries like when he tweeted about the location of some of our air craft carriers put the safety of our people in jeopardy. Many of the daily operations of our government are classified for a reason. Since Trump is so keen on using twitter on a daily basis to express his thoughts, he should learn when to use discretion before something bad happens. If he can’t learn to do this then the other branches of our government should use their constitutional powers to show him how. 

North Korea and South Korea peace talks - By Kevin Conne

North Korea has reached out to South Korea and opened the door to talks between the two about the Winter Olympics in South Korea. However, as a result of these talks the nations agreed to having further diplomatic talks to hopefully resolve some of the tension between them.   Pyongyang’s chief negotiator Ri Son Gwon said that North Korea would be open to talks with South Korea about reducing the escalating tensions. He made it very clear that North Korea does not have the same feelings towards South Korea as they do towards the United States. In other words, according to North Korea's chief negotiator, North Korea does not consider South Korea to be an enemy of North Korea but rather to be their “brethren”.  He goes on to explain that the enemy of North Korea is the United States and not South Korea. I think this is a huge distinction that North Korea just made and it opens the door for further diplomacy in my opinion.

Between North and South Korea however, the United States needs to stay as uninvolved in this diplomacy as possible. I believe that any meddling by the United States in the negotiations between these two countries could be tragic. No one wants a second Korean conflict, especially when it could so easily turn nuclear.  Everyone was always hoping that North Korea would come to the table for diplomatic resolution and it may start with the Olympics.  It could open the door to real substantial talks between the two countries that may be able to peacefully end the conflict.  I maybe a little overly optimistic, however North Korea’s acceptance and declaration that they do not have hostile intentions towards their South Korean neighbors could prove crucial for the ability of South Korea in the peace negotiations moving forward. I believe that if this diplomatic option is going to work, it needs to be South Korea's “show”. If North Korea starts to suspect that the United States, who they list as their number one enemy, is who they are really negotiating with, I believe the talks could turn toxic and fall apart immediately. These need to be South Korea’s talks. Talks between two nations who were split apart by war, and were once one nation who shared a common people, as well as in many situations, a common history.  Both countries have so much to gain if there can be a peaceful resolution to this conflict, but it must be left up to North and South Korea since the appearance of United States involvement would be seen by the North as not only an invasion by a globalist power, but also one of their main enemy.

United States has come out and said that they would participate in both bilateral talks with North Korea and South Korea, as well as sit down directly with North Korea. I think this is an interesting strategy that could go one of two ways. I think it could severely hurt the South Korean negotiations with North Korea that are already going on and have yielded some results. Yet, if the North Korean regime knew that they were dealing with the United States as well in these peace talks, once the US enters the negotiation there is a much higher likelihood of the sanctions being lifted.  South Korea does not possess the power on its own to lift the sanctions, and in my opinion the ultimate goal for North Korea would be the lifting of the sanctions.  I understand that these talks were originally started over having North Korea attend the Olympics, which in simplest terms I believe, is a great thing.  However, one major concern I have is that it provides a high degree of legitimacy for the regime.  Another twist in this rather bizarre story is that the Trump administration the same day as the peace talks were going on at the DMZ, came out saying that they would pursue a strategy of a bloody nose strike if North Korea took any more threatening actions towards the United States or its allies. This is not only a very broad and rather unclear statement in my opinion, but also extremely poorly timed. Even if the news article explaining this bloody nose idea is completely untrue and turns out to be nothing more than "fake news", it's severely damages and could ultimately cripple and / or end negotiations.

Immigration from a Rural American

Political polarization in America has become an increasingly important and relevant issue in recent years, with a noticeable jump during and after the 2016 election. Many issues divide major political parties, but none as fiery as immigration. Along with nearly any political standpoint, moderation on this issue has become a distant and even fond memory. But the truth is, moderation is not appealing. It is not headline news. “Reasonable Politician Represents Mixed Ideals,” just does not grab attention like “Build the Wall,” does. While extremist views are “sexy” in the media, they leave many middle-of-the-roaders lost in terms of their political affiliation. Do they conform to the new brand of their party? Do they switch parties? Or do they lose interest in government and politics all together?

            Coming from a rural, agriculturally-centered community, many of the roles models in my childhood and early adulthood had conservative viewpoints. Whether they be 1990’s conservative ideals or those hot topics of the modern era, there was an underlying Republican tone to everything we did. We looked out for ourselves and those close to us in our community. We put our heads down and worked and didn’t question why we did things the way we did; we just plain did it. I don’t understand why this seems to have conservative undertones to it, but to me it does. Perhaps this is because to me, Republicans seem to be content with the way government has run, in that the amount of people I know who are demonstrating and protesting on behalf of Republican issues is far less than the amount of people I know who participate on behalf Democratic issues. In addition, those that are affected by immigration issues, who I have worked side-by-side with for many years, seem to take the same approach that everybody else in my community does; put your head down and work. At times it feels as if we, rural America, is too small to make a difference in the way government operates, especially on issues such as immigration. However, the 2016 election proves me wrong. Dead wrong.

            President Trump stands tough on foreign policy issues, such as immigration. “Build the wall,” he says. “Deport the illegals,” he shouts. As a Republican, I cannot say I agree with these bold, insulting statements. So why did any of us vote for him?

            When you come from small-town U.S.A. you feel very distant from the operations of government and your involvement in it. So when a candidate for the most powerful position in the nation, and perhaps the world, reaches out to you and your community, what do you do? Do you abandon your party because the candidate is rash, rude, and offensive? Or do you listen to him because he speaks in terms that are relatable? Do you listen to him because it feels like he is talking to you? When it feels like the rest of the nation has turned their noses up to you because 80% of your community didn’t go to college; you are damn right you listen to the first politician that you can identify with.

            So you could look at this nation as racist or not, or you could take a closer look at the people who are represented, and find out there is much more moderation and understanding between people of competing political views. My point here is, not all of rural America is racist and rude, because we voted for somebody who is. It is so hard to abandon everything we’ve known and stood for (agriculture), especially when the other candidate barely recognizes our demographic. Especially when it feels like Hilary Clinton would give us a $1 if she saw us after work, because she thinks we’re homeless. While it is hard to abandon what we’ve stood for because our representative is unlike us, it is easy to defect from government. It is easy to take disinterest and just put our heads down and work and ignore the rest of the nation. I think the greatest danger in politics lies in the moderation not participating in government because the representatives have become so polarized that it becomes impossible to back them. The nation would be run by radical extremists. It is much easier to not vote because we don’t want to be branded as racists, than vote and deal with the backlash. So take some time, urban America, and let us justify our Republican affiliation before you judge us based on who represents us. 

Trump is Right About Iran

Farris Ahmad

                                                    

                                                  President Trump is Right about Iran


Iran was once revered for their cultural and artistic prowess prior to 1979. Although life under the Shah was far from perfect, Iran resembled a colorful, vibrant kingdom on the brink of change. The Shah embraced western values, promulgating women’s suffrage and ending child marriage. Women were free to drive, ride bikes, and dress as they wished. Powerful religious leaders recognized the Shah’s aspiration towards adopting western values, and viewed these goals as a stark contrast to Islamic values, which systematically oppress women with mandatory veiling and marginalized representation, and multiple examples of inferiority to their male counterparts in traditional texts. Among these religious leaders was the Ayatollah Khomeini, who in 1964 began an anti United States and anti Shah campaign. Khomeini’s message spread like a wildfire, and resonated with the masses. Massive protests and strikes shut down the economy, as over two million Iranians marched in Iran demanding the Shah to step down, and the return of Khomeini from exile. In 1979, the Ayatollah Khomeini took over control, paving the way towards Islamic law, and disengagement from western powers. Although he improved literacy in Iran, Khomeini also imposed censorship and significantly subsided the rights of women. The Revolutionary Guard instilled fear into the people, and ensured political dissent would be met with violence. Since then, Iran has been an oppressive theocracy.

In 2009, the Iranian Presidential Election resulted in the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for the eradication of Israel off the world map. Iranians, highly skeptical of the result, declared the votes fraudulent, initiating a wave of protests. The protesters were met with harsh resistance from the government, who arrested thousands of dissidents, many of whom were opposition leaders, and middle class voters. While reports vary, anywhere between 27 and 150 protesters were killed, including Neda Soltan, a 26 year old protester whose death was broadcast on social media and sent shockwaves throughout the world. President Obama simply called the video “heartbreaking” and once again asserted the United States will not meddle in Iranian affairs, quashing any capacity for a revolution. The protests inevitably faded as the regime used its brute force against the people, and the western world remained quiet. U.N. Secretary General Moon went as far as to write Ahmadinejad a congratulatory letter on his victory, as moral atrocities continued in Iran. Sadly, President Obama did nothing to foster the protests. As the leader of a country which prides itself as the promulgator of freedom and liberty, President Obama’s lack of support for the protesters was discouraging.

Surprisingly, President Trump’s policy on Iran has thus far been rooted in reality. Hopes for a moderate Iranian government is a fantasy. Rouhani’s regime has executed upwards of 2,000 people, according to Politico. Rouhani continues to lead the world in per capita executions, and jails Iranians for converting to Christianity. Women are banned from riding bicycles and wearing revealing clothing. “Moderate” Rouhani has propped up mass murderer Bashar Al-Assad in Syria and has continued to fund proxy wars throughout the Middle East, wreaking havoc in an already unstable region.

Over the last several weeks, the Iranian people have once again displayed their relentless pursuit of moderation, as protests have swept numerous cities throughout Iran. While other protests have been largely fueled by the usual middle class, these protests have been fueled by young conservatives in rural areas which have long supported the Ayatollah and his regime, giving it a unique strength and posing an unprecedented threat to the brutal theocracy.

More than ever, the potential to dismantle this regime has never been greater. Contrary to Obama’s passive language in 2009, Trump has asserted his administration's strong support for the protesters in Iran in a series of Tweets, as well as on the world stage during his speech to the U.N., condemning Iran’s behavior in the Middle East. More than 20 protesters have already died at the hands of the Revolutionary Guard. The government has shut down Twitter, Facebook, and most other social media platforms. While the people have been silenced, President Trump seems to be the only voice speaking on behalf of the Iranians, and for that, he must be applauded. Women are protesting on the streets without hijabs, a form of protest with real risk involved, and these women should be hailed as heroes. The United States can no longer watch silently as moral atrocities continue in Iran. Hopefully, others will follow Trump’s leadership on Iran.

The President of the United States, Presidential?

Taylor Sikora

Op-ed Week 1

The President of the United States, Presidential?

As some Americans may have noticed our current President has not been the most Presidential person running our country that we have seen. From the way he talks to the country in speeches, to lawmakers, and especially to other nations leaders, he illuminates the fact that he has never been involved in politics before his Presidency. Immigration has been a large part of President Trump’s core policies, from his campaign and now as he is in office he is handling the issue of immigration as it comes up.

 On January 11^th President Trump met with lawmakers to discuss an immigration deal. This immigration deal would provide protections for people from Haiti and African countries. When the President heard the entirety of the deal he asked why the United States should allow immigrants into our nation from “sh*thole countries”. He continued to ask why the United States should allow the immigrants from Haiti and African countries rather than allow immigrants from countries such as Norway. Supposedly President Trump’s remarks left the Congress members stunned and confused.

 In this meeting the members of Congress and President Trump were discussing a possible bipartisan deal to provide legal status to immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children. After the deal was brought up supposedly the President asked who would all benefit and when Haitians were mentioned, he asked, “Why do we want people from Haiti here?” These comments are very troubling on a number of levels. For starters, this is the President of the United States saying these things. The United States is known for being the melting pot of the world, bringing many different ethnicities, cultures and backgrounds together in one nation. The United States has been showcased and known for offering protection, opportunities and a peace of mind to those who seek a better life. Our great country has allowed immigrants through our borders for many years, but there is a new administration in town and it is indeed different than anything we have ever seen before.

President Trump and his administration justify his actions and words by saying that he wants to put American’s first and our country first and to make America great again. These remarks have come across to our country as racist, immature and ignorant. We have someone in office who thinks that he knows what the country as a whole needs, he won his election by “relating” to people he realistically did not have much in common with. This one person speaks for us as a whole, he represents the United States, and in my opinion when he is representing the United States to the world, it is not a good thing. It is strikingly apparent that Donald Trump has never been in politics before, and even more so that he does not have a diplomatic bone in his body #ThanksTwitter. President Trump and his twitter account have caused a lot of controversy and has put strains on relations across the world. The President seems to be a big fan of tweeting the leader of North Korea @KimJongUn, or at least about him. I believe that all Americans should be concerned about the excessive use of President Trump’s twitter account. Whether you like him or not, we may find that 280 words can have a large impact on foreign relations.

It is imperative that President Trump’s administration fills him in on what being a President requires. The President can be a dominant world figure without destroying the connections and relationships the previous Presidents of the United States have worked very hard to build and maintain over the years. Putting down other countries that are not as well off as the United States can have a detrimental impact on what people think of the United States. President Trump wants to make America great again, but the United States is called the “Land of Opportunity” for a reason, and not just for current citizens. Depending on what happens over the course of his term as President, the “Land of Opportunity” may assume a new meaning. 

Trump Immigration

Alex Pedersen

Trump Immigration

            Trump has announced that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, will be coming to an end on March 5. This program allows dreamers, or people who crossed the border illegally as children, a chance to stay in the United States without the fear of being deported. President Trump has long been opposed to this Obama-era program. He argues that all people wishing to move to the United States should do so using the proper procedures set up by the United States government. However, ending this program would be absolutely devastating to Dreamers, many of which do not even remember crossing the border or the short amount of time that they lived in their native country. Many Dreamers live lives just like the students here at North Central College. They are looking to take advantage of the life that their parents risked so much to provide. Dreamers are not the type of undocumented immigrants that are bringing crime and drugs into our country. Most of the time, Dreamers and their families flee to our country in an effort to escape the dangerous environment in Mexico that is riddled with drug cartels and crime.

Quite frankly, I believe that Trump’s immigration policy goes against the platforms that our country is built upon; opportunity, equality, and the pursuit of happiness. Our government should be looking for more efficient ways to lead Dreamers to citizenship, rather than completely uprooting them as quickly as possible. Instead of turning the people away who looked to the United States for help in the most vulnerable part of their life, we should applaud their resilience and accept them into our society. Just like many citizens of Europe turned to the “New World” as a place to get a fresh start in the 19^th century, the United States should continue to offer the same opportunity to people from all over the world.

Along with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Trump has ensured the public that his he will uphold his campaign promise of building his “big, beautiful wall” at the United States-Mexico border. The Trump administration has requested $18 billion from congress in order to build the wall, but so far, they have not gone along with this request. Going forward, I believe that plans for a border wall should be completely eliminated. Instead of dumping $18 billion into a wall that is not needed, perhaps the United States should put that money into efforts that would help stabilize the government in Mexico. This way, many people would not have the urge or need to cross into America illegally. With increased aid from the United States, future Dreamers might not be forced to immigrate illegally. They would be able to prosper in their own country and if they still desire to move to America, they will be able to do so legally.

Another potentially devastating blow to immigrants is the Trump administration’s decision regarding more than a quarter of a million immigrants from El Salvador. This particular group of immigrants came to the United States after an earthquake hit their country in 2001. Trump and his supporters have argued that their stay in the U.S. was always considered temporary. Much like the Dreamers, I believe that these people should not be uprooted from the society that they have lived in for almost two decades. Most of them work, pay taxes, and are raising families he in the United States and are in no shape to pick everything up and move back to El Salvador. Again, forcing these people to leave their homes here in the United States is wrong. Legislation that would give them the opportunity to become legal residents of the United States needs to be passed.

In short, this administrations’ immigration policies are absolutely foolish. The Trump administration is talking about building a wall that would waste tax payer money and shows no evidence of helping the problem of illegal immigration. Their intentions of ending DACA and forcing the Salvadorans back to their countries would uproot young, promising lives and families that have been settled in the United States for decades. The solution to America’s illegal immigration issue does not lie within the illegal immigrants themselves. Instead, America needs to look into the reasons why people are leaving their countries in the first place.