Over the past few days , the Environmental Protection Agency has been slapped with new media guidelines , expected to be hit with $ 800 million in budget cuts , and will have its current data on the agency ’ s website subject to political review . President Trump is reining in the agency , which was accused of overreach during the Obama presidency , specifically with its regulations on carbon emissions , power plants , and coal . The EPA is undergoing a facelift and some are not happy about it . ProPublica reported that EPA employees are coming into work in tears :\nSo far , Trump ’ s remodeling efforts have been both dramatic ( nominating Oklahoma attorney general and fossil-fuel ally Scott Pruitt to head the agency ) and quietly tactical ( freezing all EPA contracts and grants ) . [ … ] At EPA headquarters , the mood remains dark . A longtime career communications employee said in a phone interview Tuesday that more than a few friends were “ coming to work in tears ” each morning as they grappled with balancing the practical need to keep their jobs with their concerns for the issues they work on . To be sure , the EPA is an agency where information has been tightly controlled for many years , including under the Obama administration , which was harshly criticized by the Society of Environmental Journalists in 2013 for having “ taken secrecy to a new level. ” The EPA ’ s sheer size , with 10 regions and more than 14,000 employees , guarantees some level of confusion , as well . From headquarters through the regional offices , employees said they still hadn ’ t confirmed if a freeze on work under hundreds of existing contracts , described in a headquarters memo acquired on Monday by ProPublica , applied to vital actions like responding to spills .\nSo , while the details of the order regarding contracts are being clarified , let ’ s not forget that Middle America has been crying for the past eight years , as Obama ’ s war on coal has led to coal miners being laid off , which led to the destruction of local economies . So , spare me the sob stories from government bureaucrats .


House Republicans approved deep spending cuts for the Environmental Protection Agency along with provisions to block the agency ’ s upcoming rule-making on Wednesday .\nThe House Interior and Environment appropriations bill would cut EPA funding by 9 percent next year and block several new rules the agency aims to put out this summer , including rule-making on water oversight and greenhouse gas emissions at power plants , The Hill epa-funding ” target= ” _blank ” > reported Wednesday .\nThe $ 20.2 billion funding bill for the Interior Department , EPA and other agencies will move to the full House Appropriations Committee for consideration .\nOverall , the bill cuts spending by $ 246 million from current levels and $ 3 billion below President Obama ’ s request .\nFunding for the EPA has decreased by 20 percent since Republicans took control of the House in 2011 .\nDemocrats on the House Appropriations subcommittee said they wouldn ’ t support the bill ’ s harsh cuts to the EPA .\n“ We are going backwards and the consequences will be felt in communities all across the country , ” Rep. Betty McCollum , a Minnesota Democrat and the ranking member of the subcommittee , said at a Wednesday hearing , The Hill reported .\nBut Republicans on the committee argue that the agency ’ s rule-makings have gone to far and the cuts are needed to rein in an out-of-control environmental agenda .\n“ There is a great deal of concern over the number of regulatory actions being pursued by the EPA in the absence of legislation and without clear congressional action , ” said subcommittee chairman Rep. Ken Calvert , California Republican , The Hill reported .\nThe bill will now go to the full House Appropriations Committee for approval .\nCommittee chairman Rep. Hal Rogers , Kentucky Republican , whose state would be hurt by the EPA ’ s coal regulations , said that “ Congress must exercise its prerogative to prevent this kind of bureaucratic overreach , ” The Hill reported .


Some suggest that Congress “ remove Trump from office , so that he can not abuse incumbency to subvert the electoral process , but let the American people make the judgment on whether or not he gets a second term… Removing Trump from office for the remainder of his term would disable him from abusing presidential power again and protect the integrity of the electoral process from inappropriate interference . At the same time , letting him run for a second term would permit the American electorate to decide whether Trump , despite his attempt to subvert the system , should have another chance… Decoupling removal from disqualification lowers the stakes and changes the constitutional calculus . As long as Trump can run again , Republicans can not hide behind a claim that they are [ the ] ones protecting voter choice by opposing impeachment. ” Edward B. Foley , Politico\n“ The long-run structure of the American welfare state , which is heavily focused on providing health care and retirement security to the elderly , requires a growing population and economy . Immigrants contribute to both goals … Going forward , demographers forecast that immigration — both the people it provides directly and the children that immigrants bear and raise — is the only reason America ’ s working-age population isn ’ t declining . This is doubly true when you consider that immigrants ’ work in the household and child care sectors likely serves to increase native-born Americans ’ childbearing as well… That hundreds of millions of people around the world would like to move to our shores — and that America has a long tradition of assimilating foreigners and a political mythos and civil culture that is conducive to doing so — is an enormous source of national strength . It ’ s time we started to see it that way. ” Matthew Yglesias , Vox\n“ By signaling that the huddled masses are no longer welcome while others in the administration ( particularly Jared Kushner ) continue to advocate for the types of visas favored in Silicon Valley , Team Trump spins this as advocating not for ‘ zero immigration , ’ but for the ‘ right kind of immigration ’ … [ But ] ‘ the president has made it more difficult—and expensive—to hire high-skilled tech workers from other countries . The administration has throttled a program that encouraged entrepreneurs to come to the U.S. It ’ s also ending work permits for spouses of H-1B holders , who are often highly skilled professionals themselves. ’ As a result of the administration ’ s efforts , there was a 10 percent decline in H-1Bs issued last year… It isn ’ t just about dissuading the tired and poor from coming , it ’ s about telling everyone to stay away . ” Alex Shephard , New Republic\n“ [ The rule ] won ’ t attract greater numbers of better-heeled , success-bound applicants . But it will radically slash the total number of immigrants gaining legal admission . And it will deprive the U.S. economy of badly needed workers of the sort who have a long track record of upward mobility… The fact remains that less-well-heeled immigrants fill jobs for which there are insufficient native-born applicants ; they perform well in those jobs and move up the income bracket . The administration ’ s new rules , while complex — they exempt pregnant women , asylum seekers , refugees , military service personnel and others — would drastically expand the pool of those who could be denied legal permanent residency based on poor predictors of future success. ” Editorial Board , Washington Post\n“ The Labor Department reports that seven million jobs are going unfilled even as the economy is slowing… Foreign-born workers include surgeons , computer engineers and financiers , and also those working in restaurant kitchens and driving cabs , doing the less desirable jobs at the lowest wages . But they contribute to the growth of the nation , and if some of them need help at some point with housing or food stamps , it ’ s a bargain in the long term . The economic return makes immigration a great investment for the nation . Which is why Mr. Trump ’ s public charge rule is bad for all Americans , not just those who strive to become one. ” Bill Saporito , New York Times\n“ Aside from the strong moral arguments against letting poor people go hungry and sick , no rational government would want immigrant communities to , for example , forgo vaccinating their children in order to avoid a punitive reaction from immigration authorities ; that has all the makings of a public health catastrophe . No rational government of a country with millions of immigrants would want millions of immigrant children to show up at school hungry each morning because their parents are afraid to apply for food stamps . No rational government would want hundreds of thousands of immigrant families to risk homelessness because of a temporary dip in their financial situation . Simply out of self-interest , a country such as the United States can not afford to drive millions of legal immigrants entirely outside the social safety net. ” Sasha Abramsky , The Nation\n“ Never mind that immigrants are , for one thing , less likely to rely on welfare benefits than native-born Americans… consider for a moment how many Americans -- our parents , grandparents , or great-grandparents -- would n't be here today if regulations that used the straitened circumstances of new immigrants to measure their future earning potential had been in place. ” Jill Filipovic , CNN\n“ The first comprehensive immigration law at the federal level was the 1882 Immigration Act , which , among other things , excluded anyone who was ‘ unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge. ’ That principle — the ‘ public-charge doctrine , ’ as it ’ s called — has been included in all subsequent immigration legislation , including the 1996 immigration and welfare-reform laws…\n“ The Clinton administration issued guidance that barred consideration of anything other than cash benefits for purposes of determining self-sufficiency . In other words , an immigrant using food stamps , Medicaid , free school lunch , and public housing — but not cash benefits such as TANF or SSI — was to be considered self-supporting… Immigrants shouldn ’ t just use welfare less than the native-born — ideally , they shouldn ’ t use it at all . ”\n“ This approach is rooted in the common sense notion that immigrants should support themselves , not burden taxpayers . If they can ’ t support themselves , they should leave… However , the rule isn ’ t draconian . It applies to ‘ an alien who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period. ’ Receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months . Thus , immigrants in dire straits can seek assistance of the types addressed in the new rule . Their status will be in jeopardy only if they remain on it for a year or more , total , during a three-year period . And even if they do , they won ’ t automatically be denied green cards . Other factors will be considered in assessing the likelihood that an immigrant who has used welfare extensively will be granted status . ”\nSome , however , argue “ there ’ s little evidence that immigrants are free-riding , and the DHS rule cedes too much discretion to bureaucrats over immigration decisions… most immigrants don ’ t qualify for most public benefits until they have lived in the country for at least five years . Thus DHS is directing immigration officers in the 837-page rule to project the likelihood that immigrants might someday become a ‘ public charge ’ based on arbitrary levels of income , employment , education and English proficiency…\n“ While supposedly trying to flesh out a vague statute , DHS is essentially rewriting immigration law on its own . And wouldn ’ t you know , the rule bears a striking resemblance to the ‘ merit-based ’ system that restrictionists in the White House have proposed but can ’ t get Congress to pass . If this sounds like Barack Obama ’ s legislate-by-rule strategy on climate change , that ’ s because it is . ”\n“ Congress passed a law decades ago establishing that potential immigrants likely to become a ‘ public charge ’ should not be permitted to enter the country . That makes some sense : A new resident should be able to add to , not detract from , the existing community ’ s economic resources . The problem is that Congress did not do its job and clearly establish when an aspiring immigrant meets or fails that test…\n“ The rule announced on Monday is 837 pages long . It needed to address all the thorny issues Congress avoided and makes a roomful of contentious value judgments along the way… This is a problem inherent in what conservative lawyers call ‘ the administrative state. ’ Congress passes laws that amount to mere statements of intent , avoiding the difficult choices that invite scrutiny and make enemies . It passes the buck to executive agencies , which then must make the value judgments and trade-offs via processes largely behind closed doors… Judicial oversight is no substitute for congressional abdication . Judges are not equipped to make the moral or technical judgments such laws in all but name require . ”\n“ This isn ’ t about race… the story of immigration to the United States has always been about people of every race , color and creed who come here to work and take advantage of American freedoms and opportunity — not a desire to take advantage of the welfare state… Even if you don ’ t share administration hard-liners ’ desire to cut back legal immigration , emphasizing merit is a common-sense concern that is supported by most Americans . Our culture is rooted in self-sufficiency and individual initiative . Our immigration system should reflect our national creed . ”\n“ If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired on Saturday—shutting down about 6 percent of world oil production—imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war would do to the world economy . In recent decades , the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military equipment . Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors ? … the nation does not want another war . How we avoid it , however , is becoming difficult to see . John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing , but his soul is marching on . ”\nOthers note , “ I ’ d hate to be a Democratic member of Congress trying to convince Joe Sixpack that this is a whole new ballgame . The transcript shows Trump being Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky trying to ingratiate himself with the big dog by , for instance , mentioning that he stays at Trump hotels . Trump ’ s conversation is typically scattershot , wandering all over the field , leaving a reasonable listener puzzled about what the takeaways are supposed to be…  “ I think Joe Sixpack ’ s response is going to be a hearty shrug . After all that has emerged about Trump so far , his approval rating is closely tracking Obama ’ s approval at the same point in his presidency . To get Mr. Sixpack ’ s attention you are going to have to do better than this . ”


On Tuesday , Maine Gov . Paul LePage ( R ) released data on purchases made with state welfare benefits that he claimed exposed abuse , but they only add up to less than a percent of all benefit transactions .\nThe data show that there were more than 3,000 transactions at bars , sports bars , and strip clubs made with EBT ( electronic benefit transfer ) cards loaded with TANF ( Temporary Assistance for Needy Families , or welfare ) and food stamp benefits between January 1 , 2011 and November 15 , 2013 . The state doesn ’ t track what was actually purchased , and some transactions can be withdrawals from ATMs at those locations . Given that there are about 50,000 of these transactions every month , or nearly 1.8 million in that time frame , as the state ’ s Department of Health and Human Services ( DHHS ) spokesman told the Bangor Daily News , they only make up “ about two-tenths of 1 percent of total purchases and ATM withdrawals , ” the paper calculates .\nLePage still expressed outrage at this tiny fraction of purchases . “ This information is eye-opening and indicates a larger problem than initially thought , ” he wrote when the data was released . “ These benefits are supposed to help families , children and our most vulnerable Mainers . Instead , we have discovered welfare benefits are paying for alcohol , cigarettes and other things that hardworking taxpayers should not be footing the bill for. ” When the Bangor Daily News asked his spokeswoman about the small number of transactions , she responded , “ Any amount of abuse in the system that takes away from the truly needy needs to be dealt with , ” adding , “ We ’ re not uncovering anything new . There are always going to be bad actors out there . We ’ re simply saying , ‘ We ’ ve got an eye on you . ’ ”\nHis spokeswoman also said that he will sponsor a bill to address issues with welfare benefits during this year ’ s session , including the fact that the state doesn ’ t track what recipients buy .\nIf LePage is seeking to paint welfare recipients as wasteful spenders who blow their money on alcohol and cigarettes , the data are not on his side . Nationally , those who receive public benefits such as welfare cash assistance , food stamps , housing assistance , Medicaid , and others spend a bigger portion of their budgets on basics like food , housing , and transportation than those who aren ’ t enrolled in these programs . They also spend less on eating out and entertainment . Overall , families who rely on government programs spend less than half of what families who don ’ t rely on them spend .\nLePage has made other controversial statements and decisions when it comes to the poor or less fortunate residents of his state . He claimed that 47 percent of Mainers don ’ t work , despite the fact that 65 percent are working or actively seeking a job while the remaining percentage is mostly made up of retirees , the disabled , students , and homemakers . He exhorted all able-bodied residents to “ get off the couch and get yourself a job ” in 2012 despite high unemployment rates and few job openings . After he pushed for a five-year cap on welfare benefits , more than 1,500 families with an estimated 2,700 children lost the assistance . Even his plan to simply relocate the state ’ s DHHS office was controversial , as he wants to move it from downtown Portland to a location in South Portland that is difficult to reach and could restrict the poor ’ s access to social services .


The federal government is about to put $ 100 million behind a simple idea : doubling the value of SNAP benefits — what used to be called food stamps — when people use them to buy local fruits and vegetables .\nThis idea did not start on Capitol Hill . It began as a local innovation at a few farmers ' markets . But it proved remarkably popular and spread across the country .\n`` It 's so simple , but it has such profound effects both for SNAP recipients and for local farmers , '' says Mike Appell , a vegetable farmer who sells his produce at a market in Tulsa , Okla .\nThe idea first surfaced in 2005 among workers at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene . They were starting a campaign to get people to eat more fresh produce .\n`` I think we were trying to confront the idea that healthy foods , [ like ] fresh fruits and vegetables , are not affordable , '' says Candace Young , who was director of the department 's nutrition programming at the time . ( Young now works for The Food Trust in Philadelphia . )\nYoung recalls that one of their workers pointed out that some SNAP recipients live near farmers markets `` and we thought , how about we incentivize them to use their SNAP benefits at these farmers markets ? ''\nThe city made a few thousand dollars available for the program . So at a few markets in the South Bronx and Harlem , when someone spent $ 10 of SNAP benefits , he then received an additional $ 4 in the form of coupons called HealthBucks , which could be used to buy more local produce .\nThis desire to make farmers markets more food-stamp friendly seems to have been floating in the air at that time . A farmers market in Lynn , Mass. , used a $ 500 donation to do something similar the very next year .\nThen , in 2007 , the idea mutated into a form that really caught on .\nIt happened with the birth of the Crossroads Farmers Market , on the boundary that divides the towns of Langley Park and Takoma Park , Md . The area , just outside Washington , D.C. , is home to many immigrants .\n`` A lot of Latinos come to this market , '' says Michelle Dudley , the market manager . `` I would say that 70 percent of our customers are Spanish-speaking , but we also see people from the Caribbean . Folks from West Africa . ''\nBack in 2007 , a man named John Hyde organized the Crossroads market with this immigrant community in mind `` and then realized — these people did not have a lot of money , '' says Gus Schumacher , Hyde 's friend and collaborator at the time . ( Hyde ca n't tell the story himself , unfortunately . He died in 2009 . )\nSchumacher says he and Hyde got to talking about this money problem and had a brainstorm : If they could raise some money , they could use it to double the value of food stamps , as well as vouchers from the WIC ( Women , Infants , and Children ) program and food benefits for seniors .\nSchumacher , a former top official at the U.S. Department of Agriculture , used his connections to raise the money . `` I asked the National Watermelon Association if they would provide a small stipend , and they were very generous . They provided $ 5,000 , '' he says .\nThey set up a system that has remained almost unchanged ever since . On a recent visit , I see SNAP recipients lining up to speak with a market volunteer named Rosie Sanchez . They tell her how much money they want to spend from their SNAP benefits . Sanchez swipes their SNAP card and gives them wooden tokens that they can spend at the market . But she actually gives them tokens worth twice the amount that she took from their SNAP benefits ; up to $ 15 more .\nSanchez is a SNAP recipient herself . This program `` is very important , '' she says . `` You know why ? Because I get up to $ 15 for free . So I have $ 30 every week . With my $ 30 , I 'm able to buy fresh , local — it 's not expensive . It 's the best ! ''\nGus Schumacher loved it , too . The same year this market started , he co-founded , together with chef Michel Nischan , an organization called Wholesome Wave , which has brought this idea of doubling SNAP benefits to farmers markets from Connecticut to California .\nPrivate foundations were happy to contribute , because they realized that their dollars could do several things at once : ease poverty , promote better health and boost the local farm economy .\nIn Michigan , food activist Oran Hesterman set up the Fair Food Network , which called this idea Double Up Food Bucks and got it working in more than 100 places across the state .\n`` We wanted to take it from the seed of an idea to a demonstration that this is something that you could do at scale , '' Hesterman says .\nHesterman was thinking big . He wanted to sell this idea to the government .\nHe invited one of Michigan 's senators — Democrat Debbie Stabenow — to see Double Up Food Bucks for herself . And last year , Stabenow , who is chairwoman of the Senate 's Agriculture Committee , proposed including it in the so-called farm bill .\nOn the other side of Capitol Hill , the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee , Republican Frank Lucas , from Oklahoma , was hearing about this idea , too .\nFarmer Appell had brought Double Up Food Bucks to the Cherry Street Farmers Market in Tulsa and talked about it to a member of Lucas ' staff .\n`` It did n't seem like it required much of a sell , '' Appell recalls . `` They seemed to be on board with it . '' If the program was supporting farmers , the congressman wanted to support it .\nEarlier this year , the farm bill passed , and it included $ 100 million , over the next five years , to boost SNAP dollars when they 're spent on fresh fruits and vegetables . Those taxpayer dollars have to be matched by private funding , so the program could add up to $ 200 million in total .\nThat 's a huge increase . According to some estimates , it may be 10 times what these programs spend right now .\nAs a result , small programs like the Cherry Street Farmers Market and the Crossroads market are now applying for funding to expand . And Michigan 's Fair Food Network , one of the biggest programs , is even moving beyond farmers markets . It 's now working with supermarket chains to see whether SNAP recipients shopping there can double their dollars for fresh produce every day and all year round .


There may be a glimmer of hope for the Millennial Generation–my generation– when it comes to attitudes about government and the welfare state . In 2008 , young Americans got drunk on Barack Obama . I mean , insanely drunk over Mr. Hope and Change , who bamboozled them not once , but twice . So , it should come as no surprise that after Obamacare ’ s disastrous rollout and the president ’ s ineffectiveness as a leader that a majority of young Americans would support recalling him from office .\nOuch ! But , so what if they agree to this ? They 're still hopelessly liberal on everything , right ? Emily Ekins at Reason says not so much , especially once millennials become employed and , you know , start making money :\nMillennials also become more fiscally conservative as they age , make more money , and learn they will become responsible for paying for things . In fact majorities begin to oppose income redistribution and increased spending on financial assistance to the poor , and support for government guarantees drops once millennials start making between $ 40K-60K a year . Moreover , as they roll off their parents ' health insurance policies and begin paying for their own , they no longer are willing to pay more for insurance even `` if it helped provide health insurance coverage for the uninsured , '' flipping from 57 percent in support to 59 percent opposed .\nWhen it comes to Social Security , 71 percent of millennials support creating private accounts :\nSimilarly , Pew found 67 percent of all Americans also favor allowing younger workers invest in private accounts . However , if allowing younger workers to opt out of Social Security meant reduced benefits to seniors , only 38 percent of all Americans would favor while 55 would oppose , according to Reason-Rupe . Millennials ’ willingness to cut entitlements simply doesn ’ t comport with strong economic liberalism .\nAs for health care , 54 percent of millennials believe that government should ensure access , but Ekins noted “ GenX was also more supportive when they were in their 20s and have since changed . ”\nYou can read the rest of Reason ’ s report on millennials here .\nAlthough , while millennials might go the way of the generations before them , they ’ re largely “ unclaimed. ” While Republicans ’ espousing of social conservatism might turn them off , the GOP ’ s advocacy for free markets and economic independence might be a magnet . Yet , they ’ re unsure if such a system is the best for social mobility , according to the report . That ’ s an area conservatives can surely win , but only if we make the argument . Demography isn ’ t destiny–and it seems the notion of young Americans being lost to liberalism is a bit premature .\nAfter all , the majority of 18-year-olds voted for Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election .\nI double-checked this and found a Washington Post article from March 10 that touched upon this , saying Democrats have a young people problem as well :\nAmong self-reported voters who were 18 years old in 2012 , Mitt Romney , not Obama , won the majority : 57 percent . Romney also won 59 percent among 19-year-olds , and 54 percent among 20-year-olds . These youngest voters of 2012 had entered the electorate in 2010-2012 , when Obama ’ s popularity was much lower than the high point of his inauguration .\nIn other words , they saw the Obama agenda in action .\nRepublicans have an inroad ; let 's see if they take advantage of it .


UPDATE : United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli outlined the details of the new rule from the White House briefing room Monday morning , citing his own immigrant family from Italy .\nThe new rule does not affect asylum seekers , refugees , pregnant women , mortgage loans or students loans . Food stamps , cash assistance and other welfare will count as a negative on applications to become legal permanent residents . Likelihood of welfare use , current use or past use will only serve as one negative factor as applications are considered . A totality of other factors , like age and employment , will also be considered before a green card is issued .\nThe rule will go into affect on October 15 , 2019 and applications for green cards will not consider the new requirements while evaluating eligibility until that date . Applications submitted before October 15 will not be subject to the additional scrutiny .\n`` This is an implementation of a law passed by Congress in 1996 ... on a bipartisan basis , '' Cuccinelli said . `` Our rule generally prevents aliens who are likely to become a public charge from coming to the United States or remaining here and getting a green card . ''\n`` Through the public charge rule , President Trump 's administration is re-enforcing the ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility ensuring immigrants are able to support themselves and become successful here in America , '' he continued .\nUnited States Citizenship and Immigration Services Acting Director Ken Cuccinelli will announce from the White House Monday morning new enforcement measures that will make it more difficult for immigrants to obtain green cards if they are likely to sign up for welfare benefits .\n`` Public charge has been a part of our immigration law since the 1880s . Self-sufficiency has been a core tenet of the American dream . Self-reliance , industriousness , and perseverance laid the foundation of our nation and have defined generations of hardworking immigrants seeking opportunity in the United States ever since , '' a USCIS official released Monday morning . `` President Trump is fulfilling his promise to the American people to fix our immigration system and is defining this important law that will protect American taxpayers and prevent abuse of government benefits . ''\nCuccinelli will argue the Trump administration is simply enforcing long standing and existing laws .\n`` Generations of Americans and hardworking legal immigrants have worked hard to meet their needs – they didn ’ t rely on the government , '' a background document says . `` For more than a century , our process of admissibility into the country has emphasized the need for self-sufficiency . ''\nThe move is being made to cut down on fraud , abuse and to protect resources provided by the American taxpayer .\nDHS is revising its interpretation of “ public charge ” to incorporate consideration of such benefits , and to better ensure that aliens subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground are self-sufficient , i.e. , do not depend on public resources to meet their needs , butrather rely on their own capabilities , as well as the resources of family members , sponsors , and private organizations.10This rule redefines the term “ public charge ” to mean an alien who receives one or more designated public benefits for more than 12 months in the aggregate within any 36-month period ( such that , for instance , receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months ) . This rule defines theterm “ public benefit ” toinclude cash benefits for income maintenance , SNAP , most forms of Medicaid , Section 8 Housing Assistance under the Housing Choice Voucher ( HCV ) Program , Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance , and certain other forms of subsidized housing . DHS has tailored the rule to limit its effects in certain ways , such as for active duty military members and their families , and children in certain contexts .\nCheck back for more information after Cuccinelli 's press conference , which will take place at 10 am ET .


USDA rule would cut food stamp benefits for 3.1 million About 3.1 million people would lose food stamp benefits under the Trump administration 's proposal to tighten automatic eligibility requirements for the food stamp program .\nAbout 3.1 million people would lose food stamp benefits under the Trump administration 's proposal to tighten automatic eligibility requirements for the food stamp program .\nThe Agriculture Department said Tuesday that the rule would close `` a loophole '' that enables people receiving only minimal benefits from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to be eligible automatically for food stamps without undergoing further checks on their income or assets .\n`` For too long , this loophole has been used to effectively bypass important eligibility guidelines . Too often , states have misused this flexibility without restraint , '' Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in a statement .\nThe proposed rule is the latest in the Trump administration 's efforts to cut back on the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program or SNAP , the official name of the food stamp program . It also has proposed to tighten work requirements for those who receive federal food assistance .\nUSDA estimates that 1.7 million households — 3.1 million people — `` will not otherwise meet SNAP 's income and asset eligibility prerequisites under the proposed rule . '' That would result in a net savings of about $ 9.4 billion over five years .\nAn unpublished version of the proposed rule acknowledges the impact , saying it `` may also negatively impact food security and reduce the savings rates among those individuals who do not meet the income and resource eligibility requirements for SNAP or the substantial and ongoing requirements for expanded categorical eligibility . ''\nHouse Speaker Nancy Pelsoi said it was `` the administration 's latest act of staggering callousness '' while Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said he would `` fight to make sure these cuts never become a reality . ''\nSen. Debbie Stabenow , D-Mich. , said the administration was trying anew to circumvent Congress and that the effect would be to `` take food away from families , prevent children from getting school meals , and make it harder for states to administer food assistance . ''\nCongress has rejected previous , similar attempts to change the expanded automatic eligibility provisions , most recently during the farm bill debate in 2018 .\nRobert Greenstein , president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , said the proposal could discourage working families with incomes close to the maximum for SNAP participation from seeking more work out of fear that the added wages could make them ineligible for the program .\n`` The proposed rule would weaken SNAP 's role in supporting work while making it harder for families that struggle to get by on low wages to meet their basic needs , '' he said .\nAbout 36 million people participated in SNAP in April 2019 , down from more than 38 million a year earlier .\nUnder current law , states may automatically make people eligible for food stamps , if they meet income and other requirements for TANF . USDA says 43 states have expanded that to include households that it says `` barely participate '' in TANF . The provision is called `` expanded categorical eligibility . ''\nUSDA said the policy has resulted in people receiving food stamps who do n't need it and would n't qualify under regular program rules .\nEllen Vollinger , legal director of the Food Research & Action Center , said the proposal was troubling and that the government should `` put attention on how to help more people , not undercut supports for them and make their struggle against hunger even harder . ''\nShe said the department did n't seem to address a resulting loss of school meals , which she said the Congressional Budget Office included in its analyses of previous , similar proposals . `` It 's another hit on hunger , '' she said .\nUnder the proposal , to qualify for automatic eligibility , people would have to get at least $ 50 a month in benefits from TANF for a minimum of six months .\nPerdue said the change is necessary for `` preventing abuse of a critical safety net system so those who need food assistance the most are the only ones who receive it . ''\nThe rule , expected to be published in the Federal Register on Wednesday , is open for public comment for 60 days .


A disturbed man with an AR-15-style rifle walked through a popular historic site in 1996 , shooting up the cafe and gift shop . He left 35 people dead and 19 seriously injured .\nThe country ’ s conservative leader pushed through immediate , sweeping changes to gun laws . Chief among them was a ban and mandatory buyback of more than 600,000 semiautomatic rifles and other long guns , which were then melted down . In all , one researcher estimates , the government ultimately destroyed about a million weapons – roughly one-third of its total gun stock .\nThat was in Australia , a country that has not had another large-casualty mass shooting since . Officials repeatedly ask : why can ’ t America do the same ?\n“ We know that other countries , in response to one mass shooting , have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings . Friends of ours , allies of ours – Great Britain , Australia , ” Barack Obama said last year after a mass shooting at a college in Oregon .\n“ Certainly the Australia example is worth looking at , ” Hillary Clinton said that same month .\nIn an attack on America ’ s political inaction last week , comedian Samantha Bee asked why one city after another had to have its “ turn ” witnessing a mass shooting . In Australia , she said : “ Parliament passed strict gun laws and they haven ’ t had a mass shooting since then . ”\nOne reason America can ’ t emulate Australia is purely political : American gun rights advocates say this kind of confiscation would prompt “ a civil war ” .\n“ It ’ s confiscation of private property and the threat of jail , and that ’ s not the American way , ” said Philip Alpers , a gun violence researcher at the University of Sydney .\nBut there are other reasons that Australia is not a good model for how the US can address gun violence . As part of a Guardian examination of what it might take to break the cycle of the American gun control debate , we looked first at how parents of children killed at Sandy Hook elementary school are trying to move the conversation forward – in part , by fighting for laws that would not have saved their children . Today , we ’ re looking more deeply at the reality behind America ’ s gun casualty numbers – and why allowing mass shootings to define the debate may get in the way of saving lives .\nCan the US break its cycle of gun control failure ? Read more\nAmerica ’ s gun problem is dramatically larger in scale than Australia ’ s was\nIn the US , more than 10,000 Americans will likely be killed in gun murders this year . Another 20,000 will likely be lost to gun suicide . The total number of gun deaths and violent injuries will be close to 100,000 .\nEven before the “ big melt ” , as one Australian gun researcher put it , Australia ’ s per capita rate of gun homicide was much lower than America ’ s . Handguns were already strictly regulated .\nIn 1995 , before it implemented sweeping gun buybacks , Australia saw 67 gun murders , fewer than last year ’ s total murders in Oklahoma City . After Australia ’ s buyback of nearly a million guns , at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars , the nation ’ s gun murders dropped by nearly half , from 67 to about 30 gun murders per year . Researchers are still debating how much of that drop was attributable to the new gun control policies , since gun murders were already trending down .\nThe US also has a dramatically larger number of guns . For the US to collect and destroy the same proportion of firearms that Australia did it would require a buyback of 90m firearms , according to a leading Australian researcher , at a cost that might be in the billions if the US paid fair market value for the weapons .\nThe US doesn ’ t just have a mass shooting problem – it has an enormous , multifaceted gun violence problem\nMass shootings are a growing and alarming phenomenon in the US . By a purely numerical count , the United States has seen more than 1,000 mass shootings in 1,260 days . By a stricter definition , the number is smaller but still sobering : 19 public mass shootings since the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre in December 2012 .\nBut by any definition , they make up only a tiny percentage of the overall toll of gun deaths .\nThe US could end all mass shootings today and its rates of gun violence would still be many times higher than other rich countries .\nMuch of America ’ s day-to-day gun violence is concentrated in America ’ s poorest , most racially segregated neighborhoods – places with high rates of unemployment , struggling school systems , and high levels of mistrust between police officers and community members .\nAfrican Americans , who represent 13 % of the total population , make up more than half of overall gun murder victims . Roughly 15 of the 30 Americans murdered with guns each day are black men .\nGun violence in America , as criminologist Frank Zimring put it , is another regressive tax on the poor . Some black neighborhoods have experienced so much violence that their residents report symptoms of post-traumatic stress at rates comparable to veterans of war .\nBecause everyday gun violence is concentrated in racially segregated neighborhoods , it ’ s easy for millions of Americans to think they won ’ t be affected .\n“ As soon as it ’ s anybody ’ s kindergartener that can be at risk , we ’ re a hell of a lot more terrified , because there is no social class or geographic address that makes one exempt , ” Zimring said .\nAmerica ’ s gun control debate continues to revolve around the exact circumstances of the shooting that is currently on the news . Is a new gun law worth it , or not ? That depends on whether it might have prevented this particular shooting . While this is an understandable , human response , it is a terrible way to go about saving lives .\nThe shock and horror that follows mass shootings has led to an obsessive focus on the dangers of military-style rifles – even though rifles of any kind were used in less than 3 % of gun murders in 2014 , according to FBI data .\nA tunnel focus on mass shootings has also fueled the public perception that mental illness is driving gun violence . But experts caution that even miraculously curing all schizophrenia , bipolar disorder , and major depression in American might only lead to a 4 % reduction in overall violence .\nA debate conducted in the aftermath of mass shootings has also prompted a huge public investment in guarding and fortifying public schools against shootings , even though the typical school can expect to see a student homicide only once every 6,000 years , according to safety expert Dewey Cornell .\nSince the 1999 school shooting at Columbine high school in Colorado , the justice department has invested nearly $ 1bn to help put police officers in schools , though Cornell notes there is still little evidence that school security measures reduce crime .\nThe political focus on mass shootings sometimes even undermines policies that are aimed at addressing the big picture of violence . Opponents of universal background checks have sought to undermine Democrats ’ push for the reform by pointing out that mass shooters ’ murder weapons are often purchased legally . But that ’ s not the point . Expanding background checks on private sales of guns is a strategy designed to help crack down on the illicit market in guns used in everyday gun violence .\nA gun debate driven by focus on the most high-profile killings also plays into the hand of the National Rifle Association , whose leaders argued this weekend that tough gun control laws in Europe did not prevent the terrorists in Paris from getting guns .\nThat may be true . But the United States ’ overall gun homicide rate is roughly 16 times higher than in France , according to statistics from the FBI and Gunpolicy.org .\nTo save the greatest number of lives , it ’ s the everyday violence – not just the mass shootings – that we need to prevent .


Today , conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh was interviewed by Fox News ' Chris Wallace regarding the horrific massacre that occurred last week at the hands of gunman Nikolas Cruz . That shooting which occurred at a High School in Parkland , FL left 17 dead and many more injured . In the wake of the tragedy , thousands have called for more gun control and and mental health measures to prevent the next shooting . But , Limbaugh argued that none of the proposed ideas will actually stop the next shooting and America must protect its students by arming our teachers in preparation for the next tragedy .\n`` What I found very interesting about the students , and they ’ re very articulate and you have to feel for them . It ’ s wrecked their lives , they are a combination of scared and angry . But , Chris , I have to ask if anybody is really serious about solving this ? , '' Limbaugh told the host of Fox News Sunday .\n`` Cause of none of this , and by the way I couldn ’ t care less about the angle of this , because none of this , is going to solve it . Prayers and condolences don ’ t solve it . And marches don ’ t solve it , '' he claimed .\nThen , Limbaugh warned the audience of the very real threat the next mass shooter is out there amongst t the public , gun in hand , saying , `` Chris , the next shooter is out there . The next shooter probably has the gun that he is going to use . The next shooter is known by many people in his community who are concerned that this guy may do what everybody is afraid he is going to do . Now how is anything that we are talking about going to stop that ? ''\n`` We have got to realize this is what our country has become.We can wish that it weren ’ t it this way and we can wish that Congress can legislate it away , but they ca n't . It 's not the fault of the NRA , it ’ s not the fault of the NRA . It 's the fault of the people doing this , our inability of dealing with that , and stopping them . We have armed security at virtually every public entity except schools . For some reason the are a gun free zone and everybody who wants to shoot up a school knows they are going to be armed , '' he added .\nThe ultimate solution , he says , is arming teachers to protect students in schools . “ The solution is we need concealed carry in these schools . If we are really serious about protecting the kids , we need a mechanism to be defensive when this kind of thing — if we ’ re not going to take action , we better have mechanisms in these schools to stop it when it breaks out . ”\nLimbaugh also blamed the media for politicizing these events rather than working to find actual solutions .


The idea that gun-control advocates do n't want to confiscate your weapons is , of course , laughable . They ca n't confiscate your weapons , so they support whatever feasible incremental steps inch further toward that goal . Some folks are more considerate and get right to the point .\n`` I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment , '' writes The New York Times ' new-ish conservative columnist Bret Stephens . Referring as a fetish to an inalienable right that has a longer and deeper history among English-speaking people than the right to free speech or the right to freedom of religion is an excellent indicator that someone probably has n't given the issue serious thought .\nI mean , Stephens is n't contending Americans should n't own five AR-15s . He 's arguing that the state should be able to come to your house and take away your revolver or your shotgun or even your matchlock musket .\n`` From a law-and-order standpoint , more guns means more murder , '' writes Stephens , before pulling a narrowly catered statistic that ignores the vast evidence that the number of guns does not correlate with the murder or the crime rates . What studies often do is conflate gun homicides and suicides . If Stephens wants to argue that confiscation would lead to fewer suicides , he 's free to do so . But he 's also going to have to explain why countries with the highest suicide rates often have the strictest gun control laws . The fact is that despite a recent uptick in crime , since 1990 , the murder rate has precipitously dropped—including in most big urban centers—while there was a big spike in gun ownership .\nThen Stephens compares justifiable gun homicides—shooting a felon while protecting one 's home , etc.—with unintentional homicides with a gun . After some back-of-the-napkin calculation , Stephens concludes that guns are useless as a means of personal protection . Anyone who 's spent 10 minutes thinking about gun control understands there is no way to quantify how many criminals are deterred by the presence of guns , or how many , for that matter , are turned away in the midst of crime . Has anyone calculated how many non-gun-owning families are safer because their neighbors own firearms ?\nWithout getting into the practicality of confiscating more than 300 million guns , it seems odd that someone would let murderers and madmen decide what inalienable rights we should embrace . It is almost humorous to hear someone advising you not to worry about domestic tyranny as he explains why the state should eradicate a constitutional right and confiscate your means of self-defense . But Stephens comes to the likely true conclusion that you ca n't stop random men from killing .\nTo his credit , Stephens refrains from comparing random madmen with those who kill in the name of a worldwide ideological movement that relies on terrorism as a political weapon . Though we can often do something to detect the latter , the FBI would not have stopped `` Mohammad Paddock , '' in the same way they did n't stop Syed Rizwan Farook or Tashfeen Malik or Nidal Hasan or Omar Mateen .\nBut my favorite part of Stephens ' column is when he asks : `` I wonder what Madison would have to say about that today , when more than twice as many Americans perished last year at the hands of their fellows as died in battle during the entire Revolutionary War . ''\nSetting aside the population scale , Stephens might not know that one of the reasons the Federalists , including Madison , opposed the Second Amendment was that they believed concerns over protections from the federal government were overblown because there were so many guns in private hands that it was unimaginable any tyrannical army could ever be more powerful than the general public . Others , like Noah Webster , reasoned , `` The supreme power in America can not enforce unjust laws by the sword ; because the whole body of the people are armed , and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be , on any pretense , raised in the United States . ''\n`` Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today , '' writes Stephens , `` but in the era of same-sex marriage it 's worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones . ''\nTo troglodytes like myself , the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was perhaps the greatest cause of the nation . Moreover , same-sex marriage was instituted by the courts . Repealing the Second Amendment is going to take a lot more heavy lifting . There are probably too many fetishists around to make it happen .\nI 'm one , too . As an American and a Jew descended from people who came here escaping both Nazism and communism , I 'm OK with fetishizing the Second Amendment . As a person who can read history and contrast the 19th- and 20th-century history of America and Europe—and about anywhere else—I `` get '' the fetish . And when I read columns like the one Stephens wrote , I definitely get it .


Story highlights President Obama says gun law foes `` willfully lied ''\nMajor components of Obama 's gun proposals fail to win Senate approval\nSupporters of new gun laws blame the defeats on NRA influence in Congress\nIn a major defeat for supporters of tougher gun laws , the U.S. Senate on Wednesday defeated a compromise plan to expand background checks on firearms sales as well as a proposal to ban some semi-automatic weapons modeled after military assault weapons .\nThe votes were on a series of amendments to a broad package of gun laws pushed by President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders in the aftermath of the Newtown school massacre in December .\nHowever , fierce opposition by the powerful National Rifle Association led a backlash by conservative Republicans and a few Democrats from pro-gun states that doomed key proposals in the gun package , even after they had been watered down to try to satisfy opponents .\nAfter the votes , Obama angrily criticized the NRA and senators who voted against the expanded background checks for rejecting a compromise he said was supported by a strong majority of Americans .\n`` Instead of supporting this compromise , the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill , '' Obama told White House reporters .\nJUST WATCHED Obama angry about gun bill failure Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Obama angry about gun bill failure 01:43\nJUST WATCHED The risky politics of gun control Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH The risky politics of gun control 01:24\nJUST WATCHED Soto : Disappointed in our Senate Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Soto : Disappointed in our Senate 02:22\nNoting polls that showed 90 % support for such a measure , Obama called it a `` pretty shameful day for Washington '' and wondered of Congress : `` Who are we here to represent ? ''\nHe was flanked by relatives of gun violence victims as well as former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , a gun owner who was disabled in a shooting attack and supported Obama 's proposals .\nA statement by Giffords and her husband , former astronaut Mark Kelly , said the Senate had `` ignored the will of the American people , '' adding that those senators who voted against the expanded background checks chose to `` obey the leaders of the powerful corporate gun lobby , instead of their constituents . ''\nTo Erica Lafferty , the daughter of the principal of the Newtown , Connecticut , school who was killed along with 20 first-graders and five other educators in the December attack , the vote amounted to inaction in the face of a national tragedy .\n`` The next time there 's a mass shooting and they 're asked what they did to prevent it , they 're going to have to say nothing , '' she said .\nOn the other side , the NRA 's Chris Cox called the expanded background check proposal `` misguided , '' saying it would not reduce violent crime `` or keep our kids safe in their schools . ''\nThe broader gun package still under consideration by the Senate includes tougher laws on gun trafficking and straw purchases , and steps to devise ways to improve safety in schools .\nAs originally proposed , with a provision to expand background checks , it would have been the most significant gun legislation before Congress in almost two decades .\nDue to early opposition to the background check provision , Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania worked out a compromise that was less comprehensive than what Obama wanted but still gained the president 's support .\nThe Manchin-Toomey plan would have expanded background checks to include private sales at gun shows and all Internet sales , while continuing to exempt most sales between family members and friends .\nDue to procedural steps agreed to by both sides , all the amendments considered Wednesday required 60 votes to pass in the 100-member chamber , meaning Democrats and their independent allies who hold 55 seats needed support from some GOP senators to push through the Manchin-Toomey proposal .\nThe final vote was 54 in favor to 46 opposed with four Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting the compromise . With the outcome obvious , Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nevada , cast a `` no '' vote to secure the ability to bring the measure up again .\nMeanwhile , four Democrats from pro-gun states voted with most Republicans in opposition .\nWhen the result was announced by Vice President Joe Biden , who presided over the chamber for the vote , two women in the gallery of spectators shouted `` shame on you '' at the senators .\n`` They are an embarrassment to this country that they do n't have any compassion or care for people who have been taken brutally from their families , '' said one of them , Patricia Maisch , who grabbed the gun magazine from the attacker who shot Giffords and several other people in Tucson in January 2011 .\nOn the proposal by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California to update a 1994 ban on semi-automatic weapons that expired in 2004 , the vote was 40-60 , showing opposition by several Democrats as well as the chamber 's Republican minority .\nObama had pushed for Congress to include both the expanded background checks provision and the weapons ban in any gun package . In recent weeks , he and the White House focused their efforts on winning support for the Manchin-Toomey compromise .\nHowever , the NRA promised political retribution against supporters of tougher gun laws , and it called the expanded background checks a first step toward a national gun registry and government confiscation of firearms .\nObama called that claim misinformation , noting the Manchin-Toomey proposal prohibited such a registry . He said the tactics of the NRA galvanized a vocal minority of gun owners against the legislation , which caused some senators to flinch .\n`` They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment , '' Obama said . `` And obviously a lot of Republicans had that fear , but Democrats had that fear , too . And so they caved to the pressure . And they started looking for an excuse , any excuse to vote 'no . ' ''\nReid earlier warned Republicans that the strong majority of Americans who support expanded background checks wo n't forget votes against the Manchin-Toomey compromise .\n`` The American people ... have a long , long memory , '' he said .\nMeanwhile , an alternative package of gun proposal that reflected the NRA position also was defeated .\nOfferd by conservative Republicans , the alternative plan introduced Wednesday after weeks of hearings and debate on Democratic proposals lacked any expansion of background checks but called for more funding to better enforce the existing system .\nA sponsor of the Republican alternative , Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas , said it would target the gun violence problem in a way that the Democratic proposal before the Senate would not .\nIn response , Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Pat Leahy , D-Vermont , called the GOP 's last-minute proposal a `` weak and counterproductive alternative . ''\nOther proposed amendments defeated Wednesday included a plan by Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas to make state concealed weapons permits acceptable throughout the country. , as well as a proposal by Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey to limit the number of rounds in ammunition magazines .\nAny legislation passed by the Senate would then go to the Republican-led House . So far , House Speaker John Boehner has stopped short of promising a vote on whatever the Senate sends over .


As the post-Sandy Hook gun-control debate continues , states such as Georgia , South Dakota , Colorado , and New York have emerged as bellwethers on how the nation is beginning to stand up to gun violence .\nA day after the Georgia legislature ended bans on guns in bars , churches , and college classrooms , South Dakota passed the first law in the United States aimed expressly at allowing school districts to arm teachers .\nGuns are not outlawed in schools in 18 states and some school districts do have some armed teachers , but the vast majority of districts have not supported teacher-carry to this point .\nThe extent to which South Dakota teachers take advantage of what will become a tough new licensing program is unclear . And the issue is electrified by politics , as over a thousand gun laws , divided between expansion and contraction of gun laws , have emerged in state houses across the country since the massacre of 20 children and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown , Conn. , on Dec. 14 .\nIndeed , as a federal gun-control package has been whittled down in the Senate , the real impact of Newtown is likely to be felt state to state , especially given some of the sweeping reforms that have already passed . The big question is what these legislative moves suggest about public support for more antiviolence gun controls , which have in the past spiked and then petered out after past mass shootings .\n`` We know that attention to these issues moves on relatively quickly , '' says Brendan Nyhan , a political scientist at Dartmouth College in Hanover , N.H .\nRecognizing that need for urgency , New York Gov . Andrew Cuomo signed a tough new gun-control law into effect in New York . Colorado legislators are set to vote Monday on arguably the most meaningful bellwether gun-control package , one that would crimp the ability of Coloradoans to own certain types of ammunition magazines and institute universal background checks , closing the so-called gun show loophole .\nColorado 's stature as a traditional pioneer state with a progressive bent has made the outcome of that legislation especially interesting to national observers , as it may augur how similar proposals fare in other western states . Colorado has also been uniquely affected by gun violence at Columbine High School in 1999 and last year 's massacre in an Aurora movie theater .\nBut so far , many local governments have taken the opposite lesson from the Sandy Hook massacre . Instead of limiting the right to own weapons , their thinking goes , it 's instead a call to arms .\nTo many Americans , `` gun rights has become a civil rights movement , so it 's not just purely strategic politics , '' says Jennifer Carlson , a gun culture expert at the University of Toronto .\nCommunities in Idaho , Maine , and Georgia are all pondering whether to make gun ownership mandatory for residents , primarily to make up for emergency call time delays from distant police or sheriff departments .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nSouth Dakota 's armed teacher law is directly tied to what happened at Sandy Hook , as well as concerns about shootings in distant , rural communities . According to the law , school boards are under no obligation to adopt the training regimen , but have to address the issue if 5 percent of registered voters sign a petition urging them to take up the topic .\nLawmakers in Georgia , meanwhile , had been working since before Sandy Hook to end gun-carry bans in bars , churches , and college campuses . The measure passed the House and is expected to prevail in the Senate as well . It 's not clear whether Gov . Nathan Deal would sign the law or let it become law without his signature .


Young survivors of Wednesday 's school shooting in Florida have announced a national march on Washington to demand political action on gun control .\nStudent organisers told US media that they were determined to make Wednesday 's shooting a turning point in the national gun debate .\nThe attack , which left 17 students and staff members dead , was the deadliest US school shooting since 2012 .\nYesterday protestors chanted `` shame on you '' to US lawmakers and the president .\nMr Trump said last year he would `` never '' infringe on the right to keep arms - a long-running and contested debate within the US .\nIn his first public comments on the gun control issue since the attack , Mr Trump blamed the Democrats for not passing legislation when they controlled Congress during the early years of Barack Obama 's administration .\nHe also rebuked the FBI for missing signals before Wednesday 's school shooting , after the organisation admitted it had failed to act on a tip-off about the suspected shooter Nikolas Cruz .\nSpeaking on US television networks on Sunday morning , student survivors from Marjory Stoneman Douglas announced their March for Our Lives campaign .\nThey are planning to march on Washington on 24 March to demand that children and their families `` become a priority '' to US lawmakers . They want other protests to happen simultaneously in other cities on the same day .\n`` We are losing our lives while the adults are playing around , '' Cameron Kasky , a survivor from the school said .\nIt is one of many student-led protests amassing support on social media in the wake of Wednesday 's attack .\nOn Saturday students and their parents - as well as politicians - took part in an emotionally-charged rally in Fort Lauderdale , close to Parkland .\nArguably the most memorable moment came when high school student Emma Gonzalez took to the podium and attacked the US president and other politicians for accepting political donations from the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) , a powerful gun rights lobby group .\n`` If the president wants to come up to me and tell me to my face that it was a terrible tragedy and ... how nothing is going to be done about it , I 'm going to happily ask him how much money he received from the National Rifle Association , '' said Ms Gonzalez .\n`` It does n't matter because I already know . Thirty million dollars , '' the 18-year-old said , referring to donations during Mr Trump 's presidential campaign .\n`` To every politician who is taking donations from the NRA - shame on you ! '' said Ms Gonzalez , who took cover on the floor of her secondary school 's auditorium during the attack .\nAccording to the Center for Responsive Politics , the NRA spent $ 11.4m ( £8.1m ) supporting Mr Trump in the 2016 campaign , and $ 19.7m opposing Hillary Clinton .\nThe president 's views on gun control have shifted over time . In recent years , he has pledged to fiercely defend the Second Amendment to the US Constitution , which protects people 's right to keep and bear arms .\nLast year , he told an NRA convention he would `` never , ever infringe '' on that right .\nIn a tweet late on Saturday , the Republican president accused the Democrats of not acting on gun legislation `` when they had both the House & Senate during the Obama Administration .\n`` Because they did n't want to , and now they just talk ! '' he wrote , referring to criticism from Democrats following Wednesday 's shooting .\nMr Trump - who on Friday met survivors of the attack - has also blamed the shooter 's mental health and the FBI 's failings .\nThe US news network CNN has invited Florida lawmakers and the president to attend a town hall event with survivors of the attack on Wednesday .\nSaturday 's rally coincided with a gun show in Florida . Hundreds of people attended the event at the Dade County fairgrounds , despite calls to cancel it .\nMr Cruz , 19 , is a former student at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School .\nHe was reportedly investigated by local police and the Department of Children and Family Services in 2016 after posting evidence of self-harm on the Snapchat app , according to the latest US media reports .\nChild services said he had planned to buy a gun , but authorities determined he was already receiving adequate support , the reports say .\nThe reports come after the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) admitted it did not properly follow up on a tip-off about Mr Cruz last month .\nThe 5 January tip was not the only information the FBI received . In September , a Mississippi man reported to the law enforcement agency a disturbing comment left on a YouTube video under Mr Cruz 's name .\nFlorida Governor Rick Scott called for FBI director Christopher Wray to resign over the failures to act .\nIn a late tweet on Saturday , the President rebuked the organisation for their handling of tip-offs .\n`` Very sad that the FBI missed all of the many signals sent out by the Florida school shooter . This is not acceptable . They are spending too much time trying to prove Russian collusion with the Trump campaign . ''


( CNN ) – New Jersey Gov . Chris Christie painted a bleak picture of America 's standing in the world on Sunday , blaming the Obama administration for making the country appear weak by not defending the nation 's values in other parts of the globe .\n`` No one understands any longer who America stands with or against , '' he argued . `` No one really understands exactly what we 'll stand for - and what we are willing to sacrifice to stand up for it . ''\nChristie said it 's time for the country 's leaders to `` stop singing a happy tune '' about the country 's condition . `` It is time for us to tell the truth about that condition and then to begin taking the hard and firm actions that are necessary to fix it , '' he continued .\nThe Republican governor made his remarks at a gala hosted by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach 's `` This World : Values Network '' in New York . Major Jewish figures , including Israel 's ambassador to the United States , as well as mega GOP donor Sheldon Adelson , attended the dinner .\nIf there was any doubt that Christie did n't line up with the more hawkish wing of the Republican Party , he firmly quashed those doubts Sunday night . Christie , who 's seriously considering a run for president , argued U.S. leaders needs to re-establish America 's reputation as a strong enforcer of freedom and promoter of prosperity , even if that requires `` sacrifice . ''\n`` We need to stand once again loudly for these values , and sometimes that is going to mean standing in some very messy , difficult places and standing strong and hard for those things that we believe in , '' he said . `` And it will mean sacrifice from the people of our country . ''\nChristie cited both domestic and foreign policy concerns as reasons for what he described as the country 's deteriorating status . At home , he blasted Washington for partisan gridlock on fiscal issues .\n`` We are and have become a dysfunctional government that even our own people snicker , laugh at , ignore and are disgusted by , '' he said , adding there was a time when developing democracies wanted to emulate America 's government , but that is no longer the case .\nOn international affairs , the governor referenced issues in Syria , Russia and Iran as three foreign policy areas in which the Obama administration has failed to show strength and credibility .\nHe said America `` is no longer sending clear signals to the world - consistent signals . ''\n`` Signals like the ones Ronald Reagan sent when he was president as to who our friends are and that we will stand with them without doubt , and to who our enemies are , who we will oppose regardless of the cost , '' he continued .\nChristie 's remarks solidify his stance on national security issues as the Republican Party is knee-deep in an ideological fight over foreign policy . That debate has perhaps played out most visibly between Christie and another potential 2016 contender , Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky , who 's trying to woo the broader Republican base with his libertarian-leaning , non-interventionist views .\nChristie 's speech was widely anticipated in the Jewish community because the last time Christie appeared before a Jewish audience , he made a major blunder by referring to the `` occupied territories , '' a term Israel and its allies do n't use .\nMany Israelis do n't consider the territories to be occupied , but rather say Israel has a legitimate claim to the land . Palestinians , along with the United Nations , consider the West Bank to be Palestinian but under military occupation by Israel .\nIn a private meeting later with Adelson , the GOP donor , Christie said he `` misspoke '' and that he did n't believe the West Bank is `` occupied '' by Israel . While Christie did n't mention Israel in his speech Sunday , he made it clear that the United States should more overtly align with its allies , and he singled out Iran as a `` terrorist state '' with nuclear capability .


President Trump unveiled his plan for Afghanistan after seven months of deliberation Monday evening , announcing tweaks around the edges of the current strategy instead of a different approach .\nHe announced five “ core pillars ” to the approach : getting rid of any timelines for how long U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan ; using all elements of power , including diplomatic and economic ; getting tougher on Pakistan ; getting India to help more with economic development ; and expanding authorities for U.S. forces to fight terrorists .\nWhat the president did not announce was how many more U.S. troops would head to Afghanistan , which he decided earlier this year to leave up to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to determine .\nHe did , however , say the U.S. would no longer talk about troop levels or drawdown dates , making it unclear whether troop increases would be announced . There are currently about 8,400 U.S. forces in Afghanistan , and the president has reportedly approved of a plan to send about 4,000 more .\n“ We will not announce our plans for further military activities . Conditions on the ground , not arbitrary timetables , will guide our strategy from now on . America ’ s enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out . I will not say when we are going to attack , but attack we will , ” he said .\nHe floated the idea of a “ political settlement that includes elements of the Taliban and Afghanistan , but added , “ nobody knows if or when that will ever happen . ”\nHe said it was up to the people of Afghanistan to “ take ownership of their future ” and to “ achieve an everlasting peace , ” but did not say how that would happen .\n“ We are not nation-building again , we are killing terrorists , ” he asserted .\nTrump did not talk about how much more the new strategy would cost , but said the U.S. would ask its NATO and other allies to do more . The U.S. spends about $ 45 billion per year in Afghanistan . While he did not announce a withdrawal date , he said “ our support is not a blank check … The American people expect to see real reforms , real progress , and real results . Our patience is not unlimited . ”\nThe speech was a disappointment to many who had supported his calls during the campaign to end expensive foreign intervention and nation-building . He acknowledged the frustration that Americans felt after 16 years of war without an end in sight .\n“ The American people are weary of war without victory . Nowhere is this more evident than Afghanistan the longest war in American history , 17 years . I share the American people ’ s frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time , energy , money and most importantly , lives , ” he said .\nHowever , he said despite his “ original instinct ” to pull out , “ decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office , in other words when you are president of the United States . ”\nAfter studying the Afghanistan in “ great detail and from every conceivable angle , ” he said he did not want to repeat the mistake of the previous administration in Iraq and pull out too early , leaving a vacuum for terrorists to fill .\n“ We can not repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq , ” he said . “ We must address reality . ”\nThe president said that today , 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in Afghanistan and Pakistan , and cited last week ’ s terrorist attack in Spain as evidence terrorists must be defeated .\n“ We will defeat them and defeat them handily , ” he said . “ In Afghanistan and Pakistan , America ’ s interests are clear . We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that allow terrorists to threaten America . ”\nTrump announced the new strategy at Army Post Fort Meyer in Arlington , Virginia , surrounded by soldiers , and spoke of the unity among forces trying to achieve one mission and called for the same unity among Americans .\n“ All service members are brothers and sisters , they ’ re all part of the same family . It ’ s called the American family , ” he said . “ Let us find the courage to heal our divisions within . ”


In this photo taken from the Turkish side of the border between Turkey and Syria , in Akcakale , Sanliurfa province , southeastern Turkey , smoke billows from a fire inside Syria during bombardment by Turkish forces Wednesday , Oct. 9 , 2019 . Turkey launched a military operation Wednesday against Kurdish fighters in northeastern Syria after U.S. forces pulled back from the area , with a series of airstrikes hitting a town on Syria 's northern border . ( AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis )\nIn this photo taken from the Turkish side of the border between Turkey and Syria , in Akcakale , Sanliurfa province , southeastern Turkey , smoke billows from a fire inside Syria during bombardment by Turkish forces Wednesday , Oct. 9 , 2019 . Turkey launched a military operation Wednesday against Kurdish fighters in northeastern Syria after U.S. forces pulled back from the area , with a series of airstrikes hitting a town on Syria 's northern border . ( AP Photo/Lefteris Pitarakis )\nAKCAKALE , Turkey ( AP ) — Turkey launched airstrikes , fired artillery and began a ground offensive against Kurdish fighters in northern Syria on Wednesday after U.S. troops pulled back from the area , paving the way for an assault on forces that have long been allied with the United States .\nTurkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced the start of the campaign , which followed the abrupt decision Sunday by U.S. President Donald Trump to essentially abandon the Syrian Kurdish fighters , leaving them vulnerable to a Turkish offensive that was widely condemned around the world .\nThe decision was a major shift in U.S. policy and drew opposition from all sides at home . It also marked a stark change in rhetoric by Trump , who during a press conference in New York last year vowed to stand by the Kurds , who have been America ’ s only allies in Syria fighting the Islamic State group . Trump said at the time that the Kurds “ fought with us ” and “ died with us , ” and insisted that America would never forget .\nAfter Erdogan announced the offensive , Trump called the operation “ a bad idea. ” Later Wednesday , he said he didn ’ t want to be involved in “ endless , senseless wars . ”\nIn northern Syria , residents of the border areas were in a panic and got out on foot , in cars and with rickshaws piled with mattresses and a few belongings . It was a wrenchingly familiar scenario for the many who , only a few years ago , had fled the advances on their towns and villages by the Islamic State group .\nPlumes of smoke could be seen rising near the town of Qamishli and clashes continued late Wednesday amid intense shelling as Turkey struck at least six different border towns along a 290-mile ( 300-kilometer ) stretch . At least seven civilians and three members of the Kurdish-led force known as the Syrian Democratic Forces were killed in the Turkish bombardment , Kurdish activists and a Syria war monitor said .\nTurkey ’ s campaign — in which a NATO member rained down bombs on an area where hundreds of U.S. troops had been stationed — drew immediate criticism and calls for restraint from Europe . In his statement , Trump emphasized that there are no American soldiers in the immediate area under attack .\n“ Our mission is to prevent the creation of a terror corridor across our southern border , and to bring peace to the area , ” Erdogan said in a tweet announcing what he called “ Operation Peace Spring . ”\nHe said that Turkish forces , with Ankara-backed Syrian fighters known as the Syrian National Army , had begun to eradicate what he called “ the threat of terror ” against Turkey .\nMustafa Bali , a spokesman for the U.S.-backed SDF , said Turkish warplanes were targeting “ civilian areas ” in northern Syria and that shells also had fallen near a prison guarded by Kurds and holding some of the most dangerous IS militants . The AP could not verify the report independently .\nIn Washington , officials said two British militants believed to be part of an Islamic State group that beheaded hostages and was known as “ The Beatles ” had been moved out of a detention center in Syria and were in U.S. custody .\nBefore Turkey ’ s attack , Syrian Kurdish forces who control nearly 30 percent of Syria ’ s territory warned of a “ humanitarian catastrophe. ” More than 2 million people live in the area impacted by the attacks , according to aid groups .\nThe Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said those killed in the Turkish bombardments included two Christian Assyrians in Qamishli , a married couple and their child , a man in a village outside the town of Tal Abyad , and a child in a village west of Qamishli .\nThe Turkish operation meant to create a “ safe zone ” carries potential gains and risk for Turkey by getting its forces even more deeply involved in the Syria war . It also ignites new fighting in Syria ’ s 8-year-old war , potentially displacing hundreds of thousands .\nA resident of Tal Abyad said one of the bombs hit an SDF post , and he fled with his wife and mother by car to Raqqa , nearly 100 kilometers ( 60 miles ) to the south , to flee the bombing . The resident , who gave his name as Maher , said the road to Raqqa was packed with vehicles and families , some fleeing on foot “ to get away from the bombing . ”\n“ People fled and left everything behind , ” he said in a text message after he reached safety .\nTurkey has long threatened to attack the Kurdish fighters that Ankara considers terrorists allied with a Kurdish insurgency in Turkey . Expectations of an invasion increased after Trump ’ s announcement Sunday , although he also threatened to “ totally destroy and obliterate ” Turkey ’ s economy if the Turkish push went too far .\nU.S. critics said he was sacrificing an ally , the Syrian Kurdish forces , and undermining Washington ’ s credibility . Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham , a Trump ally , told “ Fox & Friends ” that if Trump “ follows through with this , it would be the biggest mistake of his presidency . ”\nTrump later said the U.S. “ does not endorse this attack and has made it clear to Turkey that this operation is a bad idea . ”\nTrump said he made clear from the start of his political career that “ I did not want to fight these endless , senseless wars — especially those that don ’ t benefit the United States . Turkey has committed to protecting civilians , protecting religious minorities , including Christians , and ensuring no humanitarian crisis takes place — and we will hold them to this commitment . ”\nNATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg , while noting that Turkey “ has legitimate security concerns ” after suffering “ horrendous terrorist attacks ” and hosting thousands of refugees , said the country should not “ further destabilize the region ” with its military action in Syria .\nGerman Foreign Minister Heiko Maas condemned the offensive , saying it will “ further destabilize the region and strengthen IS. ” The operation also was criticized by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker .\nThe EU is paying Turkey 6 billion euros ( $ 6.6 billion ) to help the country cope with almost 4 million Syrian refugees on its territory in exchange for stopping migrants leaving for Europe .\nThe Turkish presidency ’ s communications director urged the international community to rally behind Ankara . In a Washington Post column published Wednesday , Fahrettin Altun said Turkey aimed to “ neutralize ” Syrian Kurdish militants in northeastern Syria and to “ liberate the local population from the yoke of the armed thugs . ”\nErdogan discussed the incursion by phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Erdogan ’ s office said he told Putin the military action “ will contribute to the peace and stability ” and allow for a political process in Syria .\nIn its call for a general mobilization , the local civilian Kurdish authority known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria asked the global community to fulfill its responsibilities and for the U.S.-led coalition to set up a no-fly zone in northeastern Syria to protect the civilian population from Turkish airstrikes .\nThe Syrian Kurdish group urged Moscow to broker talks with the Syrian government in Damascus in light of the Turkish operation . The Syrian Kurdish-led administration said it viewed positively calls from Moscow encouraging the Kurds and the Syrian government to settle their difference through talks .\nSyria ’ s Foreign Ministry condemned Turkey ’ s military strike , calling it a “ blatant violation ” of international law and vowing to repel the incursion .\nRussian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Washington of playing “ very dangerous games ” with the Syrian Kurds , saying the U.S. first propped up the Kurdish “ quasi state ” in Syria and now is withdrawing support .\n“ Such reckless attitude to this highly sensitive subject can set fire to the entire region , and we have to avoid it at any cost , ” he said in Kazakhstan .\nEarlier Wednesday , three IS militants targeted the SDF in Raqqa , once the de facto IS capital at the height of the militants ’ power . An activist collective in Raqqa reported an exchange of fire and an explosion ; the Observatory said two IS fighters engaged in a shootout before blowing themselves up .\nIS claimed responsibility , saying one of its members killed or wounded 13 SDF members .\nThe SDF , which holds thousands of IS fighters in detention facilities in northeastern Syria , has warned that a Turkish incursion might lead to the resurgence of the extremists . The U.S.-allied Kurdish-led force captured the last IS area controlled by the militants in eastern Syria in March .\nEl Deeb reported from Beirut . ███ writers Suzan Fraser in Ankara , Turkey ; Mehmet Guzel in Akcakale , Turkey ; Nasser Karimi in Tehran , Iran ; Nataliya Vasilyeva in Moscow ; and Bassem Mroue in Beirut contributed .


The administration Kabuki dance we ’ re witnessing featuring U.S. refusal to provide nonlethal support equipment for Ukraine is President Obama displaying the new “ flexibility ” he promised Vladimir Putin he would have after his re-election . In short , it is capitulation .\nThe administration is trying to make the case that by showing restraint , Mr. Obma will encourage Mr. Putin , the Russian president , to be more willing to negotiate . The mind boggles . What ’ s taking place in Ukraine has far-reaching implications for the United States and our allies in both Europe and the Far East .\nThe apparent lack of support from NATO ’ s political leadership to help Ukraine maintain its sovereignty is clearly tied to its dependence on Russia for more than 30 percent of their energy requirements . This compromised position was accepted based on the assumption that European security after the Cold War could be guaranteed ( with reduced defense budgets ) by engaging Russia , not confronting it .\nThis now appears to be a costly error , since it has been known for some time that NATO ’ s engagement policies have not required Russia ’ s reciprocity . However , one positive outcome of the current crisis should be an unmistakable wake-up call for NATO , as its credibility is clearly being challenged .\nThe administration ’ s rationale for not providing nonlethal equipment , such as night-vision devices , body armor , medical kits , uniforms , boots and military socks to the “ victim ” is that it could be perceived by Russia as “ destabilizing ” and as a “ force-multiplier , ” and , therefore , too provocative . This is nonsense . Russia has deployed 40,000 fully equipped , modernized troops backed up by tanks , aircraft and helicopters , plus paid KGB goon squads that are creating havoc in Eastern Ukraine .\nMr. Obama responds by debating whether to provide what amounts to humanitarian aid because he doesn ’ t want to encourage Ukraine ’ s leadership to take more aggressive action to protect its sovereignty . With this type of convoluted thinking , we ’ d better hope that this administration and its national security team never gets us into a war that requires real leadership .\nWhat is behind such thinking ? Is Mr. Obama concerned that Mr. Putin will somehow scuttle his precious P5+1 ( the five permanent members of the United Nations — the U.S. , Russia , China , Great Britain and France — plus Germany ) negotiations with Iran over its nuclear-weapons program ? We can only hope that Mr. Putin would take such an action , as those negotiations are nothing but a sham . According to Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper , Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in about two weeks , once the order is given .\nSymptomatic of the Ukraine crisis , no matter where you look , the United States is seen as being in retreat . The stability that America brought to the global strategic equation is being systematically dismantled by the Obama administration , principally by the unilateral disarmament of our military forces .\nThe Ukraine situation is far from being resolved . China is flexing its military muscle in the Far East . The Middle East remains in chaos . Iran ’ s nuclear-weapons capability is almost a certainty . With the unpredictability of North Korea , why would the Obama administration at this time make the shocking announcement of deep cuts to the U.S. nuclear forces , four years ahead of the 2010 New START treaty schedule ?\nOur most secure deterrent , our strategic ballistic-missile submarines , will be reduced by 28 percent by having the capability of 56 launch strikes disabled . Thirty B-52 strategic bombers will be converted to conventional use , which represents a 38 percent reduction in capability , and 50 missiles will be removed from our underground silos , which is the most vulnerable leg of the triad .\nWith every nuclear power in the world modernizing its strategic forces , particularly Russia and China , plus the known fact that Russia has been cheating on existing treaties , making such a dramatic force-reduction announcement now is more than troubling .\nThe Obama administration is taking the United States down a course that will put us in an absolute nuclear inferiority position with regard to Russia and perhaps China . It is jeopardizing our national security .\nWith the United States ’ strategic policy adrift , Mr. Putin is controlling events in the Ukraine . With basically no opposition , he will certainly seek more opportunities . In the Far East , we can anticipate that China , seeing our basic inability to respond to the Ukraine crisis , will seize the opportunity to absorb some low-hanging fruit in the South China Sea , most likely contested Philippine islands .\nWhat will it take to make Congress exercise its constitutional responsibilities and maintain its legitimacy by acting in the best interest of the United States ? We are being challenged , and we can not afford to continue to embrace a fantasy foreign policy .\nJames A. Lyons , U.S. Navy retired admiral , was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations .


The Obama administration has yet to articulate a clear course of action to dismantle ISIL . Obama 's blurry foreign policy vision\nThe extremist Islamic group that beheaded journalist James Foley has been described as “ wicked ” and an “ imminent threat , ” and President Barack Obama has vowed to be “ relentless ” in pursuing it .\nYet for all the vivid rhetoric in recent days , the Obama administration has yet to articulate a clear course of action to dismantle the radical group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and is struggling to lay out a precise vision to respond to the new threats in chaotic areas of Iraq and Syria where ISIL has thrived in recent months .\nThe lack of clarity in the U.S. approach to the region has underscored claims by critics — including voices generally friendly to the White House — questioning whether Obama ’ s foreign policy message is coherent enough to win support across the globe .\nAnd the disconnect between dramatic condemnations and decisive action against ISIL threatens to leave the president looking ineffective or even impotent , just as his call for Syrian President Bashar Assad to resign remains unheeded three years later .\nAt the daily briefing for reporters Monday , White House press secretary Josh Earnest faced a barrage of questions about whether Obama is prepared to expand the campaign against ISIL and whether Obama ’ s policies on the subject are muddled .\n“ The president has been very clear about what he believes our priorities are in Iraq , why he believes it ’ s important for the United States to pursue a comprehensive approach to countering the threat that ’ s posed by ISIL , not just to Iraq , but also to Americans and American interests , ” Earnest said . “ That strategy includes some of the military strikes that the president has ordered . ”\nProminent foreign policy figures , including Democrats such as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Rep. Jane Harman , as well as a broad range of Republicans , have argued recently that the message the U.S. is projecting abroad is murky .\n“ Great nations need organizing principles , and ‘ Don ’ t do stupid stuff ’ is not an organizing principle , ” Clinton told The Atlantic ’ s Jeffrey Goldberg in an interview earlier this month , adding , “ One issue is that we don ’ t even tell our own story very well these days . ”\nClinton ’ s remarks caused a stir mainly because they were taken as criticism of Obama , but less attention was paid to the substance of her critique , which seemed to track very closely statements made earlier in the summer by Harman , who now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars .\n“ I ’ m not saying it is U.S. foreign policy , but the perception of our foreign policy in much of the Middle East is : ‘ Don ’ t do stupid stuff — plus use drones , ’ ” Harman told an audience at the Aspen Security Forum in July . “ I don ’ t think that ’ s winning any heart or mind or any mind or heart . ”\n“ The perception has to be that we stand for things and not only stand for them , but live those values , ” Harman added . “ We ’ re just not making the sale right now for lots of reasons . … Our narrative needs a lot of work . ”\nWhile Obama did authorize a “ limited ” U.S. military campaign to bomb ISIL positions in Iraq earlier this month , he has yet to expand that military effort to try to eradicate the group there or across the border in Syria . Despite Obama ’ s talk of a “ relentless ” effort against ISIL , the limits he has articulated — such as “ no boots on the ground ” — have been clearer than the indications of how far the U.S. is willing to go to fight the militant group .\nWhile some observers expected Obama might lay out his ISIL policy in greater detail during a speech Tuesday to an American Legion convention in North Carolina , the White House said Monday the address would focus mainly on issues like problems at Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals .\nBut the president will need to move quickly ; the issue is increasingly urgent in Europe , which has had thousands of Muslim citizens join the fighting in Syria — a substantial number of those with ISIL . The strategy debate is likely to be a significant theme in Obama ’ s diplomatic talks over the next month . The president is scheduled to attend a NATO summit in Wales next week and in mid-September is expected to host a United Nations Security Council meeting in New York focused specifically on the dangers posed by foreign fighters in Syria who might return to Europe or the U.S. to carry out terrorist attacks .\nWhen pressed Monday about Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ’ s comments declaring ISIL to be an “ imminent threat ” to American interests worldwide , Earnest straddled , preferring to call the group “ a significant threat ” and hedging about the dangers it poses to Americans outside Iraq and Syria .\n“ This is a complicated situation , but there is no question that there is a significant threat that ’ s posed by ISIL , in part because of their demonstrated military capacity ; in part also because they have demonstrated access to significant financial resources , ” Earnest said .\nEarnest also insisted that when Obama told The New Yorker magazine earlier this year that some radicals were “ JV ” or junior varsity players pretending to be more threatening than they were , he was not referring specifically to ISIL .\n“ The president was not singling out ISIL , Earnest said . “ He was talking about the very different threat that is posed by a range of extremists around the globe . Many of them do not have designs on attacking the West or on attacking the United States , and that is what puts them in stark contrast to the goals and capability of the previously existing Al Qaeda core network that was led by Osama bin Laden . ”\nAnalysts said the White House ’ s tone toward ISIL has changed markedly in recent weeks and that the policy also appears to be shifting .\n“ The rhetoric has changed from the ‘ JV ’ comment , ” the Middle East Institute ’ s Paul Salem said . “ Although some in the intelligence community and government agencies were apparently sounding the alarm , it seems that as it went up in the echelons of government that alarm was not sounded in a major way two months ago to the president . ”