One time I was walking my puppy (profile pic) who was then around 5 months, with my mum and grandma. By the time we were about to reach our house, we spot two dogs, a German Shepherd and a Husky, both male, on the other side of the street sniffing around with no owner in sight. I was ready to hightail out of there with my dog, but I knew if I ran they would chase, so we formed a wall in front of her to hide her. Of course she decides to stick out her head and start barking. Those two dogs whipped their heads so fast and came running towards us to see her. Since she is a puppy she has zero impulse control and starts throwing herself at them, at their backs, face, plus the fact that she doesn't like being sniffed at her rear (which they are trying very hard to get to). Here I am nervously sweet talking to them, my voice trembling saying good boys. My grandma is her despair grabs the GS's neck, and his hair bristled and growled for a second before turning back to our pup. At this point my baby girl is sitting down with her tail tucked close, ears flattened, and head down. I thought "Dear Lord someone's losing a limb today." When suddenly this car comes pulling up and this man comes out with a leash, the owner. He practically had to wrestle the GS into the car. A woman in a pickup truck comes next trying to get the husky but he ran away again, but my mom didn't care, she scooped up our pup and ran, the leash trailing behind her, and even my grandma who has troubles in her knees speed walked. My mom would later laugh at me because I became so pale and because I tried to baby talk a dog to leave us alone. What was the woman trying to get the husky driving? A. A Sedan B. not enough information C. A small SUV D. A pickup truck
D

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis promised Thursday the Pentagon will "notify" Congress before any possible military action in Syria, where the U.S. is considering responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack. "There will be notification to leadership, of course, prior to the attack," Mattis said in his testimony at the House Armed Services Committee. "We will report to Congress. We will keep open lines of communication." But notably, Mattis did not indicate the Trump administration would seek congressional approval before the strike, which presumably would target the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Trump says the U.S. will soon launch "nice and new and smart" missiles in response to last week's suspected poison gas attack, which left scores dead in a rebel-held area. Trump blames Assad for the attack. A U.S. attack is likely to upset a small but growing number of U.S. lawmakers who demand President Donald Trump first ask Congress to authorize any hostilities, citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal law intended to check the president's ability to wage war. U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have long argued they have legal authority to order airstrikes and other short-term military campaigns if those engagements fall short of the "hostilities" mentioned in the War Powers Resolution. Additionally, U.S. presidents have cited a pair of authorizations by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks as justification for the near-constant U.S. strikes on Islamic militants around the world. The Trump administration has used those authorizations as justification for its current war in Syria. The U.S. has 2,000 troops in Syria, and helps lead an international coalition against Islamic State in Syria and neighboring Iraq. The overwhelming majority of U.S. lawmakers have not publicly objected to the administration's legal rationale for those missions. But as Trump considers expanding the U.S. war to include attacks on Syrian government targets, some in Congress are... When did congress authorize air strikes on islamic militants? A. Before sept 11 2001 B. not enough information C. After sept 11 2001 D. After sept 11 2011
C

WHITE HOUSE/BROWNSVILLE, TEXAS A day after U.S. President Donald Trump reversed a policy of separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said there is a plan to reunite the more than 2,000 children who have been detained apart from their parents. "We have a plan to do that," the secretary told reporters at an event in Washington Thursday morning. Shortly before she spoke, a VOA reporter at an immigration court hearing in Brownsville, Texas, said prosecutors dropped misdemeanor charges against 17 migrants. The migrants, who were separated from their children remain detained, but dropping the charges could be a means to reunite them and allow the families to be detained as units. David Bier, an Immigration Policy Analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, said if government prosecutors are dropping criminal charges in similar cases across the immigration court system, it calls into question the Trump Administration's 'Zero Tolerance' policy towards immigration. It's "an even more clear signal that the whole purpose of bringing these prosecutions is to separate parents from children and not about enforcing the law." he told VOA. The administration's policy requires that anyone who crosses the border illegally face criminal charges. "If it continues to be the case that some of these cases or many of them are dismissed by courts that should be the end of the policy," Bier added. The moves come as the House of Representatives prepares to vote Thursday on a pair of immigration bills that address the separations, as well as other issues that have divided the country's major political parties. Nielsen repeated her calls for lawmakers to act. "I want to be very clear on this. Congress has the authority and responsibility to make the law of the land and to fix the immigration system," the secretary said. "We have done everything we can do in the executive branch." The outcome of the votes is uncertain. One measure is more hard-line, while the other... How does David Bier feel about the separation of immigrant families? A. He does not believe the rumors that this is actually happening B. not enough information C. He is opposed to it D. He is in favor of it
C