The Land Of The Free: An American Political Roleplay (IC)

[Dentali]

Nathaniel Richardson
Hillsborough County, New Hampshire
February 10th, 2019



The day after Politics & Eggs Richardson stayed in New Hampshire to campaign. With the assistance of those he had met in the fundraising and the Politics & Eggs event, as well as his professional campaign apparatus in the state he struck out doing retail in Hillsborough County.

He had always been a fan of retail politics, prioritizing engaging people to create loyal followers rather than inch deep support which often came naturally with his more moderate stances. He was reminded of a quote from one of his favorite books

”It is no good sending messages. Your Grace will need to go to them yourself. Eat their bread and salt, drink their ale, listen to their pipers, praise the beauty of their daughters and the courage of their sons, and you’ll have your swords.”
A Dance with Dragons

Richardson stood on the back of a flatbed truck with a bullhorn silhouetted in the early morning night, surrounded by volunteers and their respective vehicles. He pumped them up, pushing his “Forward” slogan as well as “Results and Resolve”, something they had all heard before but they needed now. Today was the launch of New Hampshire outreach and they were instructed to prioritize 1 on 1 interactions over spreading the message over a wide number of people, quality over quantity.

Hillsborough was a natural start, one of the most Republican regions in the state but a crucial swing county in the general.

His retail consisted of 2 hours knocking on doors, going business to business, shaking hands and meeting people, and then spending an hour at a house party hosted by a supporter where he would help the host cook a meal for the guests that would filter through the home. He would serve the meal, have pleasant conversation and answer questions for anyone that asked them.

The first site was Nashua, where he visited the Nashua Technology Park speaking to workers about the importance of the growing tech industry in the state in the country, he then went to the Pheasant Lane Mall which had the added benefit of messaging to the many Massachusetts residents that visited the mall to enjoy its lack of sales taxes. He drew small but noticeable crowds everywhere he went and his volunteers blanketed the mall and local businesses with campaign materials. Finally he went to suburban Nashua for the houseparty to make brunch for supporters and curious voters.

He repeated this in Weare, first going to the Ponemah Bog Wildlife Sanctuary spending an hour speaking to the people there about the importance of environmentalism and how Richardson wanted to return the party to the days of Roosevelt and strong environmental policy. It was also a great opportunity for pictures which were also posted to the Sanctuary’s social media. Arriving in Weare proper he attended a church service with the residents of the town, taking time afterward to engage them in conversation and ask them about their town. He also invited all at the church to the open house his supporter was holding afterward.

Finally Richardson arrived in Manchester. This time he started with the open house instead of ending with one. He cooked and ate with dozens of people at the house party hosted by his supporter, once again doing 1 on 1 conversations and engagement. After an hour and change Richardson left and arrived at a townhall where he gave a brief version of his stump speech before fielding questions, once again using his method of random selection rather than running to the mic. He fielded public questions for an hour before going in among the crowd to take pictures and engage personally.

[Sanabel]

Oval Office, White House

“You make a good point Greg. But I do not want war. I beat Crooked Clifford because I did not want war- I just don’t want it. If we get attacked that is a different story. Let’s talk about this later, I have work to do. Write up the bill. You will get a nod in my state of the union address. You are a good guy, Greg, not like Crooked Clifford. You are a good guy.”

He showed the other man to the door.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Washington, DC
Rayburn House Office Building - Office of Rep. Emily S. Davenport (D|CA-34)

---

Upon her return to Washington from her town-hall in Pennsylvania, Emily had gotten to work on formulating her team of potential advisors and future campaign staff members. Almost immediately after the announcement via Twitter, Emily had sent out invitations to many former [Not-Sanders] 2016 campaign members, requesting if they would like to be a part of advising Emily while she tested the waters of running for President in 2020. After doing so, word would expectantly naturally leak out to the media that Davenport is likely targeting a staff that consists of former [Not-Sanders] campaign staff members. The move was strategically thought out, knowing that several other candidates were desperately seeking to suck up whatever oxygen they can muster from the media before the first batch of polling would be released, and Davenport's top priority was to search for a "niche" she can sneak her way into...

[Azekopolaltion]

---

Tim Westra 2020
Decorah, Iowa
February 9th, 2019

---

“Hello my brothers and sisters! I'm deeply thankful that Luther College has so graciously agreed to hosting us today. I'm so happy to be back here in Iowa.”

“For as long as America can remember, this great state has fed the nation. Hardworking people, industrious Americans, have worked to fuel our country with their agricultural produce. But our nation's economic system is not working for rural America. It's not working for farmers, it's not working for communities, it's not working for our planet. It is working for big agribusiness corporations like DowDupont and Monsanto. Honest folks from Iowa are being exploited by these corporations for the sole purpose of extracting profit from the Heartland.”

"Family farmers are being killed by the big corporations, the revenue of local farms is dropping. Farming is becoming more expensive – and Iowan rural workers are taking on more debt to cover the costs. Then, there's overproduction that makes the goods cheap and allows the big companies to rip you off."

"Our homegrown farm economy is dying. The system is rigged."

“The current president is bribing farmers with excessive subsidies to try and trick Iowans into thinking that somehow, his failed trade strategy is working. But you guys aren't stupid. You know what's up. Wolf is lying to you, he's causing your losses and giving you some temporary cash to keep your mind off of it. All while his big agribusiness lobbyists run off with the cash.”

“The president needs to have a better way. I will be a president that pushes for a farm economy that actually works in the longterm for you guys. And we can do this by building a new supply management model.”

“I would push to have the government guarantee farmers a price to match cost of production. How? Instead of endless subsidies that only cushion your costs temporarily, I'd develop a loan system for production costs. If the farmer can't repay this loan, the government would buy their products at the cost of production. If the private market offers a better price, the farmer would repay the loan. This creates a truly competitive market.”

“What happens when the government receives agricultural produce? We'd be able to provide better prices by holding the produce in reserve, essentially managing the supply and driving up prices for farmers. When the price exceeds a point, we can sell the produce, stabilizing prices once more. Rather than constantly subsidizing farmers, this guarantees them a competitive fair price.”

"In this way, we can sometimes pursue option like the Chinese tariffs without harming farmers. We wouldn't be giving useless subsidies, but rather we'd be revitalizing the farming economy."

"Here in Iowa, farmers are already embracing climate-positive agricultural techniques. And as President, I'll reward you for it. In order to get closer to decarbonization and a healthier environment for our kids, I will create a $10 billion fund to pay farmers for sustainable environmental practices. This makes sustainable farming an economically viable option for farmers, and will reward many of you who are already doing this."

"There is dignity in all work, especially in the work of our farmers who feed America. It's time we value our Iowan rural communities with the respect and the fair system they actually deserve, rather than take them for granted to peddle the interests of big agribusiness."

Tim then continued with his stump speech for the rest of the rally, covering healthcare, a middle class tax cut, and his many other proposals to empower working America. He was focused on winning Nevada and New Hampshire, but a strong finish in rural Iowa would only supplement his strategy for electability.

[Greater Arab State]

The White House

House Minority Leader Volker had arranged to meet the President beforehand, in keeping with precedent. However the recent events in foreign policy caused Volker to broaden the scope of the meeting. Arriving at the White House, Volker had a feeling of inferiority as he entered the building, wherein he had yet to make some form of impact in such a building as it. In some way, the House Minority Leader felt a touch of pride, seeing his 2012 campaign, however small as contributing to the election of Wolf in 2016, and the subsequent actions by the administration.

Volker put all that aside though, realising he had business to attend to and waited to enter the Oval Office.

[Agarntrop]

Room 260, Russell Senate Office Building
2 Constitution Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002, USA
February 10th, 2019

Anderson had acheived the expected support from Senator Slater. However, he now, if he was to hope to toughen up support for the bill, have to contact other Senate Republicans, most notably Senate Majority Leader, Robert L. Warrick Jr. He agreed with his legislative director, Laura McFlynn, that his co-sponsorship would be a major step. He decided to send an email to all Senate Republicans, including Warrick, in order to secure the bill's chances.

FROM: Senator B. Anderson
TO: All other Senate Republicans

Hello Colleague,
Currently under federal law, it is completely and frighteningly possible for a callous murderer to refuse their victim's family a right to a proper funeral by refusing to disclose the location of their victim's remains and still recieve credit towards their sentence if they behave in prison. They traumatise their victims, make a mockery of their human right to lay to rest their dead in a proper and dignified fashion, and they will not receive any enhanced sentencing or restriction of leniency whatsoever. We must stop this. And we shall. I am planning to bring the Recovery of Remains Act 2019, or RR Act for short, to Congress in order to halt this frightening state of affairs. I have attached a copy of this bill to this email and I hope you can support it and possibly even co-sponsor it.

Yours Truly,
Senator Barry Anderson

Recovery of Remains Act
RR Act
Sponsor: Senator Barry Anderson
Co-sponsor(s): Senator Richard Slater, You?

Overview: A BILL TO establish a presumption against eligibility for credit in cases where a person, convicted of unlawfully killing another person, has not provided relevant knowledge in their possession for the purposes of facilitating the location and recovery of the remains of the victim; to create a separate offence of withholding such information; to make provision about the available sentences for such an offence; and for connected purposes.

Section 1 - Restriction on granting credit where offender refuses to disclose the location of victim’s remains
A person found guilty by a court of the crime of murder under Title 18, §1111 of the U.S. Code who has relevant knowledge in their possession for the purposes of facilitating the location and recovery of the remains of the victim cannot be eligible for credit under Title 18, § 3624(b)(1) of the U.S. Code for as long as the person refuses to disclose the location of murder victim’s remains.

Section 2 - Offense of refusal to disclose the location of the remains of a murder victim

1. Whoever, within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, -
   (a) is found guilty by a court of the crime of murder under Title 18, §1111 of the U.S. Code, and
   (b) has relevant knowledge in their possession for the purposes of facilitating the location and recovery of the remains of the victim, but
   (c) refuses to disclose the location of the victim's remains
   is guilty of an offense.
2. A person guilty of an offense under subsection (1) shall be punished by a term of imprisonment not less than 10 years and not more than 30 years, and shall also be fined under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

Section 3 - Declaration
The provisions of this Act shall be imposed notwithstanding the provisions of any other law in force in the United States prior to the passing of this Act.

Section 4 - Short Title
This Act may be cited as the Recovery of Remains Act 2019.

This bill is then honorably presented to the United States Senate for consideration in order to provide no leniency for murderers who do not reveal the location of their victim's remains to improve the United States Law and is backed by Senator Barry Anderson on [date not chosen yet].

Do Not Remove: 1337

[Dentali]

MSNBC INTERVIEW




[box]Linda Macarro: Good Evening, thank you all for joining us tonight. Longtime Progressive stalwarts Senators Levi Murphy and Timothy Westra have officially launched their campaigns, Senator Benjamin Little, Former Congresswoman Sally Fields and Secretary Helen Kerrigan Whitaker de Sanchez have all launched exploratory committees. As of yet no Governors have announced for the Democratic primary but someone widely speculated to be mulling a run is Governor Anne Caldwell of Washington who joins us right now. Governor thank you for speaking with us today.

Anne Caldwell: Thank you for having me on, Linda.

Macarro: So now that the 2020 race has officially started have you given any more thought to running?

Caldwell: Well, yes I have. Me and my staff have set up an exploratory committee a few weeks ago. We have laid the groundwork for a formal campaign and will be hosting a rally in my hometown on 6th of February.

Macarro: Congratulations… So why are you running? What is the message you want to bring to Americans?

Caldwell: Well, as a proud daughter of a war veteran I have a strong sense of duty. I started my career in the United States Congress fighting for veterans' rights, a fight inspired by my father's health issues which were a result of injuries he sustained during his war service in the Second World War, but quickly I discovered that the problems my father, my family faced were not foreign to other families, other people - veterans or not. Before being elected Governor I served the State of Washington and the United States as a whole as Congresswoman for 24 years. During that time I believe I established a progressive track record fighting for universal healthcare, consumer rights and pursuing a more peaceful foreign policy. When I ran for Governor I stood up for the rights of the LGBT community not because it was politically convinient, but because it was the right thing to do. During my congressional days I fought for gay, lesbian and transgender servicemen and women, because I understood and still understand that they aren't any worse than their non-LGBT counterparts and that the sacrifices they make aren't anyhow smaller or less important. Not everyone can say the same. Because not everyone had the courage to do what's right. What we need in our country is bravery, honesty and transparency. Right now we have a President with a Party who turned his fellow countrymen and women against one another, a government that does not listen to the people who are it's bedrock, leaders that use lies and deception to get what they want. We need bold progressive leaders who will fight back against the bigotry espoused by the current administration, leaders willing to take up the fight for social and economic justice, leaders willing to fight for average, everyday Americans and not special interest donors. I believe I'm one of those leaders.

Macarro: So where do you think the country should be going? You're an unabashed Progressive, where do you stand on Medicare for All?

Caldwell: "I am a supporter of Medicare for All. I find it unacceptable that over fourty thousand Americans die every year due to lack of access to medical care, that hundreds of thousands of families go bankrupt every year because of medical issues and bills. A universal healthcare system is fundamental to fixing our country. We are the only country in the industralised world not to guarantee healthcare to it's citizens and I believe that needs to change. We need to establish a system that properly deals with a wide range of issues. I believe it should include mental and reproductive health as well."

Macarro: What do you say to those concerned about the price tag? How would you pay for it?

Caldwell: "Look, every country in the industrialized world has done it. They didn't go bankrupt, they didn't collapse. People in those countries pay less for healthcare per capita than we do, they have lower prescription prices - they simply enjoy better healthcare. Switching to Medicare for All would save us around 600 Billion dollars a year in administrative and prescription costs. Establishing a more progressive income and estate tax, small premiums on employers and employees, taxing offshore held profits are just a couple of ways a single-payer system could work. My campaign is dedicated to making sure that a transition to a single-payer system will not be a burden on the working people of this country. We will be researching the issue further and will present a plan during the campaign.

Macarro: Lets talk about the economy a bit, what do you say to those who don’t like Wolf’s rhetoric but believe he has been good for their 401k? What measures would you take to ensure strong economic growth?

Caldwell: I don’t think I will make many enemies among the working class when I say that I’m not really enthusiastic about the President’s economic agenda. His tax cuts have largely benefited the wealthiest in our country and his trade war with China cost our farmers billions of dollars. His taxation policies have greatly increased the deficit while increasing wealth and income inequality. Unlike the President, I understand that we need to invest in ordinary people. If we want to ensure strong and, more importantly, lasting economic growth we need to pursue policies that directly aid lower and middle class Americans. As President I would pursue a policy of reducing economic inequality be it through healthcare reform, higher education reform or raising the minimum wage. If we want to boost the economy, if we want to see an increase in productivity we need to aid working people. We need to make sure that people are able to get the medical care they need when they need it, without having to risk their jobs, because of unfair labor practices and laws that allow employers to fire their injured or sick employees. We should also guarantee paid maternal leave. These are just a couple of small steps we can take to ensure a better, stronger and more just economy. These policies will take time to take effect, of course, but they will improve the overall quality of life for all Americans.

Macarro: You mentioned trade a few times there directly or indirectly, do you support the TPP? And what principles would you abide by negotiating trade agreements in the future?

Caldwell: When it comes to trade agreements such as TPP we must make sure that they benefit the working people of our country and not corporate interests. I am opposed to TPP, because it allows a greater degree of outsourcing, even greater than that previously present. I want to make sure that our trade agreements do not cost Americans jobs. I also want to make sure that our business partners employ fair working practices, that we are not supporting what is basically slave labor. As President I would abide by the principles of fair trade. Our trade partners would have to ensure, as previously mentioned, fair working conditions for their workers in addition to fair environmental standards. When it comes to our domestic agenda, I would like to employ a policy of transparency. Our trade deals cannot be written behind closed doors by corporate lobbyists. I would create an advisory committee representing rural and consumer interest, to make sure those voices are heard and able to shape our trade policies in the future.

Macarro: Would unions have a seat at the table?

Caldwell: They would be included in the process, yes.

Macarro: Speaking global challenges, climate change is frequently cited by voters as a major concern. You make big progress on the issue as Governor… as President, how would you tackle the issue of climate change? Both on the foreign and domestic front?

Caldwell: As President I would have a greater amount of resources at my disposal. On the foreign front I would make my beliefs clear. I recognize climate change as the greatest threat to humanity in its history, I believe we should have kept the Paris Climate Accord and am committed to signing it as President. As a nation we need to make our commitment to solving this crisis clear, through the enactment of the Green New Deal. As I said previously, we would take environmental policies into account when negotiating trade deals which would hopefully push other nations in the right direction.

Macarro: On the Paris Climate Accord… The US withdrew from the accord but the UN Secretary General said the US is still on track to meet its target goals, meanwhile China signed the Accord, hasn’t withdrawn but is nowhere near to hitting those targets with Greenpeace indicating the 2018 carbon emissions from China were set to grow at the fastest rate in 6 years. So why is being part of the Accord so important?

Caldwell: If the US is on track to meet its goals signing the Accord will not hurt us, but will send a clear message to other countries, especially our allies, that they should work on meeting the target goals as well.

Macarro: How could we get India and China to curb their emissions? We can’t really curb global emissions if they dont get with the program.

Caldwell: One of the ways we can get them to limit their emissions is by making them unprofitable economically, or at least very inconvenient politically. On the latter, the environment was never a major issue in global politics, let’s be honest. By making it one, relating it to our trade relations, we can put pressure on them. On the former, by investing in green energy, here domestically, we can make it more available and cheaper. If we show other countries that green energy is cheap and profitable we might be able to get them to turn away from fossil fuels. This can also be applied to other forms of pollution.

Macarro: Is nuclear energy part of that?

Caldwell: If we are to be realistic about energy transformation we have to acknowledge the potential of nuclear energy. I believe that in 2019 the technology available makes it safe and worth our time.

Macarro: Let me ask you about immigration. Beyond condemnation of Wolf’s actions on the border, where do you stand on reforming our immigration system?

Caldwell: Unlike the President I understand that immigrants build, not destroy, our country. When it comes to the legal status of those already present in our country I believe we should give them asylum and pardon them for crossing the border illegally. This is not to say that anyone who committed an actual crime will be free from prosecution, of course, but separating families and putting children in cages is inhumane and must stop. Every person residing in the United States, who did not commit a crime, who paid taxes, who has spent a fairly long time in our country without any major incidents should be eligible for citizenship. We should build a system that actively shows the immigrant community it can be trusted. As part of that effort we should also investigate and establish proper oversight of ICE and other agencies that have committed human rights abuses.

Macarro: you said “this is not to say anyone who committed an actual crime will be free from prosecution”. Isn’t crossing the border illegally, living in the United States Illegally and working without documentation all crimes? At least under current laws?

Caldwell: Living in the United States without documentation is not a crime, it's a civil violation. When it comes to crossing the border or working - that does not make you a criminal and should not be treated as a crime. Most times when we're talking about people who cross the border illegally we're talking about people who have to flee their home countries due to wars, unrest, poverty and high crime rates, often caused by agressive US foreign policy. They have no other options aside from entering our country illegally. And let's remember that the majority of people who are "undocumented" did come here legally. Most of the so-called "removable aliens" are people who overstayed their visas. That is not a crime, at least according to laws currently in place.

Macarro: You mentioned US foreign policy, who do you see as our biggest geopolitical opponent and what steps should we take to deal with them?

Caldwell: I see two big geopolitical opponents as of now - Russia and China. Russian interference in the 2016 election had disastrous results and we need to make sure that they are punished for what they’ve done. Sanctions on Russia should not be off the table. We should also support Ukraine in their efforts to stabilize their eastern regions, currently under Russian influence. When it comes to China, we need to use the Magnitsky Act to punish those responsible for the Uighur detention camps. We cannot allow people responsible for ethnic cleansing make profits in America.

Macarro: Lets talk China a bit, can you elaborate on how you would take them on? Do you agree with Wolf’s trade war?

Caldwell: I believe I already touched upon this topic earlier. I don't agree with the President and his trade war. It is a massive disaster, especially for our farmers and the agricultural industry.

Macarro: okay well outside of the trade war what measures would you take on China?

Caldwell: We need to make sure that the perpetrators of human rights abuses, ethnic cleansing and other crimes against humanity are held responsible. Whether it comes to their actions towards the Uighur people, their approach to workers’ rights, freedom of speech or executing people for their organs on an industrial scale action needs to be taken. We can do that in numerous ways. We can punish individual perpetrators of said atrocities through the Magnitsky Act as well as set our trade policy in the future as to not benefit human rights abusers at large. We need to establish a comprehensive political strategy to deal with states such as China and support democracy and human rights world-wide, in a healthy and effective way.

Macarro: Thank you for joining us today Governor

Caldwell: Thank you for having me on.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Representative Emily S. Davenport
@EmilyDavenport

---

@MSNBC

[Fronket]

Senator Ben Little
@MarylandSen

---

If MSNBC didn't see my announcement that I'm officially in the primary race, here it is. #Allin42020

[Bruke]

“I found it’s often easier to build yourself up than to tear your opponent down- I like that you recognize that as well.” Karel paused for a moment.

“I like what I’m hearing from you so far, but it’s still very early. I want to see how you make it to the first debate -there’s no doubt in my mind that you’ll make it there, but how you make it is important. You’re selling yourself as the elder statesman, so you’ll have to avoid the fray as much as possible and pray someone else doesn’t drag you down into the mud with them.... If you’ve built yourself up well enough by the first debate, you’ll have my support. But in the meantime....”

He handed Ben a prepared list of names from his Rolodex. “These folks will be happy to open their wallets to you... tell ‘em Karel sent ya.”

"Thank you, Karel. This is helpful. I hope I can earn your support after the first bout of debates. We can take down Wolf together. You're one of the most experience politicians out there, and your wisdom will be greatly appreciated throughout our campaign."

Karel replied gracefully, with a smile that signifies he was “in the know.” “Don’t mention it- the party’s gotta stick together. I’m just doing my part. Is there anything else you’d need, or like to discuss?”

[Gordano and Lysandus]

Benjamin T. Rome Building, Embassy Row, Washington, District of Columbia

It had been more than a while since Carrie had worked for the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, but she always looked back on that time as a researcher fondly. That was the very beginning of her career, and that was 12 good years before she joined the State Department in 1992. Of course, it was the beginning of the end of her marriage, but she never let that get her down necessarily. She was far too driven, far too engaged in her emergent career to let her husband's demands for blissful domesticity get in the way. She was sure their son Damian resented it to an extent - it's what made her so sympathetic to Senator Volek's family situation - but there wasn't so much acrimony between her and her son as Karel had with his daughter.

Arriving around mid-day, after having grabbed a light lunch on the way over from the Capitol, Carrie was here to give a talk at the F.P.I. about the United States' present foreign policy challenges, and she was very happy to oblige. Great titans like Zbigniew Brzezinski and (not-Madeleine Albright) had been given the chance to speak to students, fellows and guests in similar contexts, and whilst she was hardly a guest of similar stature, she appreciated that an organization for which she had previously worked had considered her for this role.

As such, she gave what could invariably be described as a lecture in the first 'half of the event'. The topic? "The Foreign Policy Challenge of the Modern United States." Before she started though, she asked the room to observe a minute's silence for the belated Ambassador Friedman and all the victims of the Jerusalem attack. With that respectfully considered, she moved on to her lecture.

Good evening, everyone! It's a delight to be back here at the School of Advanced International Studies. I, of course, didn't enjoy the luxury many of you have in pursuing the excellent, excellent education they offer here. I think it's fair to say that the S.A.I.S. is the premier foreign policy school in the United States, if not the world. Of course, whilst I never studied here I did, for twelve years, work for the Foreign Policy Institute here to discuss and disseminate the crises of our time, starting in 1980 and moving through to 1992, when I first joined the State Department. Before many of you were born, I was staring at the tail end of the Cold War, the Soviet-Afghan War, the Iran-Iraq War, to name just a few things. It is, perhaps, one of the more baffling things about the trend in international relations that the world is becoming more peaceful. It certainly doesn't feel that way. Alas, we are simply more aware of the ongoing instabilities and conflicts than we were sixty, eighty, one hundred years ago.

But those conflicts are the conflicts of yesteryear. The United States is confronted with new friends, new challenges, and new enemies. We've been consistently re-evaluating our role on the international stage since the end of the last War in Iraq, and sometimes, it feels like no matter what we try to do, the world is simply moving on around us. Past us. It would be easy to fall into the belief that somehow the foreign policy of the United States has become ineffectual, no matter how weak or strong it is, no matter the every shifting balance in the use of soft or hard power. However, I think that one could analyze that issue from a different perspective. I do not believe the foreign policy of the United States is somehow naturally faltering. Rather, I think the problem that has befallen American foreign policy is a consequence of the obvious. The hyperpartisanship of our age, that took root with the attempt to impeach President Clifford, has led to the ever increasing infection of politicization into all organs of government. We've heard the arguments about how this has happened with the Federal Reserve, with President Wolf's persistent railing against that institution. We've seen this discussion occur with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Justice Department, the Defense Department, and so on... But I don't think enough attention has been given - by Congress, by the public, by the press, by the academic community, to how increasingly we have allowed political motive and ideology to overtake the functions of the State Department.

To clarify that, I don't believe this is a problem that has begun with the Wolf Administration. It would be easy to make this a partisan issue. To make this about him. But that would be a reductive viewpoint. It would be limiting. The State Department is not meant to exist to serve the political or ideological direction of any President, Democrat or Republican. The singular, most important drive of that organization should be to serve the international interests of the United States - to help keep the United States safer, to further our international influence, to uphold the international legal order which benefits us and helps us to defend - on a global scale - the founding principles of this Republic: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By allowing our foreign policy to be governed by partisan ideology, we instead try to pursue two agendas at once. Contrary agendas. And in doing so, it undermines the achievement of those international interests. The United States cannot afford a schizophrenic diplomatic approach. I think, perhaps, we have failed to perceive the cost of a weakened United States on the international stage.

Foreign policy is, fundamentally, governed by the reality you have before you. You can wish, and wish, and wish all you like, but if you don't have fundamentally favorable circumstances to your chosen policy position, then to achieve that ideologically perfect outcome is a far off and fantastical goal. You have to either play within the constraints of the circumstances before you, or you must alter the circumstances. Very seldom do the circumstances change themselves - as they have in Ukraine, for example, where a series of pro-Kremlin plutocrats have been replaced with a fledgling, modern democracy - one that is now under indirect result from the now disadvantaged Putinist state. The general rule is that any and all change is gradual, and that radical change is - alone - typical to fail. Of the countries that have been affected by the Arab Spring, only one has so far comfortably transitioned into a functioning democracy - Tunisia. Libya and Syria are paralyzed by civil war, and similar uprisings in Bahrain were summarily suppressed by Saudi intervention.

Let's examine what is considered the defining European foreign policy shift of our present age - Britain's withdrawal from the European Union. Ideologically opposed to the economic regime of the European Union, President Wolf has been encouraging of the withdrawal. Predisposed towards the advantages that the United States had through Britain's membership of that bloc, President Baharia was warning of it as a step. Do you see the difference in approaches? For President Wolf, it is a matter of ideology. For President Baharia, it was a matter of national interest. The United Kingdom has long been our strongest ally, and their advocacy for the Atlanticist cause is important to ensuring that the European Union not continue to turn increasingly against Washington. In encouraging Brexit, President Wolf is sacrificing the influence the United States has built up within the European Union, and our bilateral relations have been harmed that makes it increasingly likely that continental European states will turn against Atlanticist foreign policy. Only in the fall of last year was Spain considering inviting Russian warships to refuel in their naval base in Ceuta. Our broader foreign policy goals to limit the military reach of the Russian Federation are directly harmed by the loss of influence. Whether or not you like the European Union should be immaterial - what should be considered is how the U.S. can engender the most positive behavior from that body.

That was an example of a Democrat getting it right and a Republican getting it wrong, but this road goes two ways. It was, of course, President Johnson who took us into Vietnam and President Nixon who got us out. Of course, there's something to be said for the power of hindsight - I don't think President Johnson truly encompassed the scale of the conflict he was entering into, and I don't fault his intentions - the domino theory was a compelling discourse on international relations at the time, but if he had applied a more Truman-esque approach to the doctrine of containment, providing financial support to Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Burma, arguably a firewall - at less logistical expense than the conflict - would have been created against that domino theory. India, the prize of south Asia, would have been kept safe from the growth of eastern Communism. It is clear to me from this that the urgency to war, pressed particularly by Secretary McNamara, and the strict adherence of the domino theory allowed an ideological disdain for Communism to override the pragmatic and practical outlook for foreign policy. In not taking the time to consider fully the consequences of an Indochinese jungle war, President Johnson plunged us into a conflict which cost a significant amount of men and resources, harmed our relations with east Asian states, created a narrative of America as the aggressor, and ultimately failed to achieve the strategic benefit it had sought to secure. Authoritarian regimes happen, but it is not within the power or interests of the United States to try to conquer them all - sometimes pressure can be a more effective agent for change than soldiery. Ultimately, it was economic collapse more than anything that felled the Soviet Union. That's something we shouldn't forget - international communism ultimately defeated itself.

So where does that leave us? How do we move forward with a better foreign policy? The answer is to examine it dispassionately, with the same nonpartisan approach as a Justice Department attorney, or a Supreme Court Justice. What are the realistically achievable options? Did the U.S. have the logistical reach and military experience to prepare for and conduct a campaign with the scope of the Vietnam conflict? What are the costs of acting? Did U.S. financing of the Afghan mujahideen ultimately help the cause of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, or were they inevitable? What are the costs of not acting? There is a very justifiable interpretation that President Baharia's non-enforcement of the red line in Syria over chemical weapons demonstrated to Russia our unwillingness to take action over serious transgressions of international law, and gave Putin the boldness to go so far as to attempt to annex large swathes of Ukraine, succeeding in some territories. Only with full and complete and honest briefings can any President make good decisions on foreign policy issues. Briefings unclouded by cynicism or optimism, or by any other strand of applied ideology. Facts-based foreign policy is the strongest. And sadly, it is often the rarest.

Thank you, I'll be happy to take your questions.

There was some polite applause, and then the moderator who would be overseeing the Q&A segment after the lecture would invite members of the audience to ask the Congresswoman questions.

[Dentali]

Nathaniel Richardson
@GovernorRichardson

#SOTU tonight, come join me for the watch party in Wake County, North Carolina! Details on RichardsonForPresident.com

[Dentali]

(Image)

Benjamin T. Rome Building, Embassy Row, Washington, District of Columbia



Thank you, I'll be happy to take your questions.[/i][/box]

There was some polite applause, and then the moderator who would be overseeing the Q&A segment after the lecture would invite members of the audience to ask the Congresswoman questions.

"Hi my name is Jessica" a woman in her late 20s holding a baby stands up "I am a big supporter of Climate Justice and the Green New Deal, but how can we get China and India on board reducing their carbon emissions?"

[Gordano and Lysandus]

"Hi my name is Jessica" a woman in her late 20s holding a baby stands up "I am a big supporter of Climate Justice and the Green New Deal, but how can we get China and India on board reducing their carbon emissions"

"Hi Jessica. Before I answer, I just want to say how encouraging it is for me to see that you're not being placed in a position where you have to choose between your academic-slash-professional life and your life as a mother. Seeing you here with your child is an inspiration, and it wasn't a luxury we had when I was your age."

"On to the meat of the matter, however, to put it bluntly, there is no silver bullet to encouraging Chinese and Indian compliance with climate reform. Rather, it'll be a panoply of shifting factors which we have to be aware of, and not all of them are in the gift of the government. Most notably in that latter category is the degree of conscientious capitalism that younger consumers are engaging in - as industrial markets, China and India have an inherent, selfish stake in cleaning up their industry. Consumers are becoming less and less likely to purchase goods that come with an extreme carbon cost. Furthermore, there is something to be said for the pragmatism of the Chinese system. I do not approve of their authoritarianism and poor record on human rights, but if there is anything we know about China, it is that they will act non-ideologically if it suits their interests. China has already been investing in green technologies and will likely make that transition on the raw basis that it is the inevitable and rational thing to do. That said, you didn't ask me about the likeliness. You asked me about what we can do, and so I'll tell you."

"First of all, we have to lead by example. Sacrificing moral authority on climate issues by withdrawing from the germane international agreements was an error, and the United States should reassert itself as a leader on carbon reform. The fight for moral authority in foreign affairs is a tangible force, and China will not wish to sacrifice that moral authority back to the United States without a fight. Secondly, we can initiate technology sharing and support construction initiatives for green energy in India - this won't only increase the use of renewable energy source in India, but expand our economic influence and soft power in India - a win-win. Thirdly, we can straight up move to choke the coal supply. Whilst China does have vast domestic coal production, they've also involved themselves in significant investments across Europe, Africa and the Americas in the coal industry. By taking action where we can to encourage the exclusion of China from those coal supplies, it'll intensify their need to change to renewables in order to sustain their energy needs."

"Ultimately, any dealing with China or India will be laced with other complex issues, and I would be lying to you if I put you under any illusion that it is a matter of simply snapping one's fingers. Any politician who tries to sell foreign policy to you as a simple matter is being utterly duplicitous. We will have to deal with a huge number of other issues with those powers - Uyghur and Hongkonger rights in China, or Muslim-minority right in India, trade, strategic considerations - but you are right in highlighting that the climate emergency is upon us, and we should prioritize climate issues in our foreign policy now if we want to do more than the bare minimum to fight the incredible damage to our ecosystem."

[Dentali]

"Hi my name is Jessica" a woman in her late 20s holding a baby stands up "I am a big supporter of Climate Justice and the Green New Deal, but how can we get China and India on board reducing their carbon emissions"

"Hi Jessica. Before I answer, I just want to say how encouraging it is for me to see that you're not being placed in a position where you have to choose between your academic-slash-professional life and your life as a mother. Seeing you here with your child is an inspiration, and it wasn't a luxury we had when I was your age."

"On to the meat of the matter, however, to put it bluntly, there is no silver bullet to encouraging Chinese and Indian compliance with climate reform. Rather, it'll be a panoply of shifting factors which we have to be aware of, and not all of them are in the gift of the government. Most notably in that latter category is the degree of conscientious capitalism that younger consumers are engaging in - as industrial markets, China and India have an inherent, selfish stake in cleaning up their industry. Consumers are becoming less and less likely to purchase goods that come with an extreme carbon cost. Furthermore, there is something to be said for the pragmatism of the Chinese system. I do not approve of their authoritarianism and poor record on human rights, but if there is anything we know about China, it is that they will act non-ideologically if it suits their interests. China has already been investing in green technologies and will likely make that transition on the raw basis that it is the inevitable and rational thing to do. That said, you didn't ask me about the likeliness. You asked me about what we can do, and so I'll tell you."

"First of all, we have to lead by example. Sacrificing moral authority on climate issues by withdrawing from the germane international agreements was an error, and the United States should reassert itself as a leader on carbon reform. The fight for moral authority in foreign affairs is a tangible force, and China will not wish to sacrifice that moral authority back to the United States without a fight. Secondly, we can initiate technology sharing and support construction initiatives for green energy in India - this won't only increase the use of renewable energy source in India, but expand our economic influence and soft power in India - a win-win. Thirdly, we can straight up move to choke the coal supply. Whilst China does have vast domestic coal production, they've also involved themselves in significant investments across Europe, Africa and the Americas in the coal industry. By taking action where we can to encourage the exclusion of China from those coal supplies, it'll intensify their need to change to renewables in order to sustain their energy needs."

"Ultimately, any dealing with China or India will be laced with other complex issues, and I would be lying to you if I put you under any illusion that it is a matter of simply snapping one's fingers. Any politician who tries to sell foreign policy to you as a simple matter is being utterly duplicitous. We will have to deal with a huge number of other issues with those powers - Uyghur and Hongkonger rights in China, or Muslim-minority right in India, trade, strategic considerations - but you are right in highlighting that the climate emergency is upon us, and we should prioritize climate issues in our foreign policy now if we want to do more than the bare minimum to fight the incredible damage to our ecosystem."

"I'm just babysitting, but thank you" the woman says a bit embarrassed before sitting back down

[Fronket]

Senator Ben Little
@MarylandSen

---

In the past few days, aside from a tweet and a terror threat advisory, all we've seen is a blackout from the White House concerning the attack on our ambassador in Israel's capital. I understand that it is a difficult time for the President, but the American and Israeli public deserve to see leadership from anyone in the Administration and an explanation of the planned course of action in response to this terrorist act.

Senator Ben Little
@MarylandSen

---

I'm proud to stand with our Israeli allies and our very own diplomats in these troubled times. Disappointing that some Senators and speculative candidates can't even do that.

[Agarntrop]

Acting Secretary for Homeland Security Tara Misra
02/08/19
Announcement and Statement surrounding the NTAS Terror Threat Advisory

Misra delivered an announcement detailing the rescinding of the NTAS Terror Threat Advisory and a short statement relating to it.

"Today, the NTAS (National Terrorism Advisory System) alert that I issued on the 5th February has been, after several consultations, rescinded. However, that does not change the fact that a terrorist attack is still likely. This decision has been taken as part of a systematic, comprehensive and rigorous process, based on the very latest intelligence and analysis of internal and external factors which affect the probability of terrorist attacks in the United States. Despite the change in the threat level, terrorism remains one of the most direct and immediate risks to our National Security. Terrorism continues to pose a hazard to the United States; and an attack might well occur without further warning. As ever, the public should remain vigilant and report any concerns they may have to law enforcement.

Government, law enforcement and intelligence agencies will continue to work tirelessly to address the threat posed by terrorism in all its forms. The threat level is kept under constant review."

[Agarntrop]

Tara Misra
@TMisra

---

The #TerrorHazard that I mentioned in my statement this morning has, upon new information, been almost neutralised. The exact details of why cannot be released due to national security reasons. However, what I can announce is that the #WolfPack have succeeded in keeping America safe.

[Dentali]

Senator James Moore
@MichiganMoore

The behavior of the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, the announcement of the threat escalation, its rescinding and then the backtracking of the rescinding. I am formally calling on the Senate Intelligence committee to look into the terrorist threat and its handling by the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.

[Agarntrop]

Senator James Moore
@MichiganMoore

The behavior of the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, the announcement of the threat escalation, its rescinding and then the backtracking of the rescinding. I am formally calling on the Senate Intelligence committee to look into the terrorist threat and its handling by the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.

Tara Misra
@TMisra

---

Believe it or not, it is a quick-moving environment when you are dealing with developments in this kind of situation and things change quickly. @MichiganMoore does perfectly well realise this and it is absolutely abhorrent that he is using this to the Dems' political advantage.

[Gordano and Lysandus]

Rep. Carrie Simone
@SimoneNY12

---

My Senatorial colleague, Senator Moore, is right to highlight the erratic nature of Acting Secretary Misra's statements and counter-statements. Trust in the terror alert system is dependent on its nonpartisan and apolitical application, and to punctuate her latest tweet with an assertion that it is specifically President Wolf and his supporters, not the nonpartisan and apolitical intelligence services and civil servants, that actively counter threats to this country and its people is mendacious. The National Terrorism Advisory System is for the federal government to ensure the safety of U.S. citizens. It is not an instrument of political campaign.

Rep. Carrie Simone
@SimoneNY12

---

That said, obviously all members of the United States Congress appreciate the need for delicateness in the use of intelligence assets. Considering the national security reasons stated by Acting Secretary Misra and the implication of the use of intelligence operations to neutralize that threat, there is an expectation that the congressional committees are, by law, required to be "kept fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." This is outlined within Title 50 of the U.S. Code.

Rep. Carrie Simone
@SimoneNY12

---

Congressional oversight can and will happen, as is always the case when the Executive Branch uses its more extraordinary powers. The Legislative Branch is here to act as a check and balance, as the Founding Fathers intended. Primarily, however, I am grateful that the danger to the United States is, apparently, being expediently countered. My gratitude first and foremost goes out to all those working in the intelligence services, who put their lives on the line regularly, often without thanks, to fight terror and the other nefarious enemies of the United States.

CAROLINE SIMONE
12^TH DISTRICT, NEW YORK

Dear Speaker Douglas and Senator Windsor,

Title 50 of the United States Code should have included you in briefings, as part of the Gang of Eight, regarding any ongoing intelligence operation taking place to counter the threat that the Administration has, through Acting Secretary Misra, warned that the United States is vulnerable to.

I know it is not my place to ask the content of those briefings, for I am not a member of the Intelligence Committee, but I merely ask for the reassurance that such a statutory briefing has taken place. If it hasn't, I can't help feeling that the red flags highlighted by Senator Moore might seem a little more red.

I'm not sure if there's anything I can do to help in this situation, but as always, I am happy to support the Party and I know that the country needs to be sure that we're not letting Wolf and his cronies play politics with the intelligence services.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Yours sincerely,

Caroline Simone
Representative for the 12^th District of the State of New York
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, Energy and Environment

(( Edited for spelling. ))

[Alozia]

Seattle, Washington
Anne Murphy Caldwell
February 6, 2019

---

"Thank you for joining me today!"

"On this day, exactly one hundred years ago more than sixty-five thousand Seattle union workers began a non-violent general strike to demand higher wages for their hard labor. Just like nowadays their demands were met with conspiracy theories and slander - in 1919, in the days of the Russian Revolution, the opportunities were plentiful. But be it a hundred years ago or today the point the strikers made still stands - Americans deserve better. Better wages, better working and better living conditions.

Have you seen that the last three years? Currently the Republican party in control of the Senate, White House and the Supreme Court refuses to take their duties seriously, neglecting the needs of average, everyday Americans. You ask for a living wage? They reply with red scare rethoric. Affordable housing? Oh, that's Socialism. Universal healthcare? That would be another blow to their special interest donors. Special interests - that's the word. Not the many, but rather the few.

I am a proud daughter of a World War 2 veteran who served our nation in it's hour of trial. He fullfilled his duty well, proud of his service. Ready to give his life to protect democratic values and the lives of others. He fought against a foreign agression, protecting these United States like many before and after him. But, as many other soldiers, he paid a price. Wounded in the line of duty he suffered from poor health for the rest of his life. I know the struggles of war veterans and believe me when I say that our government has the moral obligation to take care of them, a moral obligation it has so far failed to fulfill. We also need to ensure that those in charge of deploying our servicemen and women do so responsibly. There should be no place for war-mongering in our government. There can't be.

But when I think of my father I do not only think of those he fought alongside of, but also of those who he fought to protect. The millions of ordinary Americans from all across the country, no matter their race, ethnicity, religion or any other characteristic that was considered contentious back in his day. Wars come and go, but people remain. As a nation we need to embrace this thinking and end the hegemony of the military-industrial complex. The United States of America needs to be a nation with an army, not the other way around. The Armed Forces cannot be the only way for the poorest in this country to get education or healthcare. We need to re-evaluate the way in which our country, our society functions. It is unacceptable for the richest country in history of human kind not to fulfill basic human needs.

Because when we're talking about human needs, we are often talking about human rights. In 21st century America, the most advanced country in the industralised world, human rights are no longer limited to such freedoms as freedom of speech or worship. 2019 America has not only the capability, but - as a democratic state - the obligation to make sure that it's people, all of it's people, are able to live their lives with dignity. Hard-working people can no longer be exploited by low wages and unpaid overtime. Every American should earn a living wage for every hour they work. A $15 an hour federal minimum wage is long overdue. It's about time we get it done. More so, we need to protect every working American's constitutional right to assembly and association. We must put an end to anti-union laws once and for all.

The government cannot sit idly by as it's people are dying from preventable, curable illnesses or going bankrupt because of medical debt. It is time for a universal healthcare system that ensures that every American can get the help they need without going bankrupt, without having to ration medication, without having to travel long distances to recieve proper treatment. In addition we must adress the mental health crisis. We can no longer rely on exclusively medicating people with mental health problems. America needs therapists available in every part of the country. We need to take action regarding the sky-high prices of medication in this country. The federal government needs to have the ability to negotiate drug prices for the good of every American, especially those far from our northern border.

Children are our future. As a proud mother I know what it means to raise a child. It's not always easy, never simple. After all, you're both people with individual goals, values, ideas of who you are and who you want to be. To those younger than me or with less children than me, or none at all just think of this -every single one of us was a child at one point. We had our own dreams and aspirations. Often times they were not easy to achieve, but I believe our government, the government of, for and by the people should make achieveing our dreams easier. Let's end the student debt crisis and let's put an end to for-profit education. Let's ensure that people all across the country are able to get the best education they can, from the earliest stages of their lives.

Housing cannot be treated as a privillege to be enjoyed by the select few, but must be rather treated as a right for all. Every American deserves a home to call their own. Every American has the right to feel safe, secure in their homes, not having to worry about being thrown out on the streets because of who they are, because of who they love. This is why we need to commit to a bold policy of expanding public housing. Moreover, we need to expand public transportation and fix our crumbling infrastructure. Let's ensure that every person is able to travel, regardless of their wealth, with their lives no longer defined by their ability to buy a car.

America needs to be the land of equality of opportunity. A place where if you work hard you are able to lead a prosperous life. In this case we can look to our allies in Europe. The motto of the European Union is 'In Varietate Concordia', 'United in Diversity'. What country is there that has the bigger potential to live by this rule than the United States of America? But to achieve our full potential we need leaders who will not walk away from a fight for civil and human rights. The United States of America, as a beacon of liberty and democracy, needs to ensure that everyone within it's borders is able to live a life free of discrimination and bigotry. We have a duty to build a government whose underlying principles are not bigotry or xenophobia. We must make sure that the value that guides our government is justice: economic justice, social justice, racial justice and environmental justice.

Speaking of which. If we do not take radical action regarding climate change we will have no healthcare to fix, no freedoms to defend. We need to put in motion a radical, drastic plan to overhaul our energy system, to move away from fossil fuels and to reduce our carbon footprint while revolutionizing our jobs market, giving people working with fossil fuels the tools they need to succeed in different walks of life. We need to enact a public works program to improve our infrastracture, to improve our public transport and reduce the usage of cars and airplanes. We need to do this and more, because we did not inherit our planet - we borrowed it from our children, grandchildren and next generations to come.

There is more to adress and I promise you, I will have a lot of opportunities and time to do so, because, right now, I would like to formally announce my candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

We need to bring about the political revolution this country desperately needs. A political movement that doesn't leave anyone behind. A country that works for all of us, not just select few!

Thank you!"

[Sanabel]

State of the Union Address, United States House of Representatives


President Wolf strutted down the aisle of the House, waving to his congressional allies, the cameras, and even the Democratic leadership. For a man with brain cancer and a pre-mature lame duck status, he looked poised and confident, perhaps more-so than at any other point in his controversial presidency.

He was a living martyr. Those who adored him were pouring their adoration more than ever before. Those who hated him were muzzled by the negativity associated with insulting a grieving family. And perhaps most importantly, Wolf had the best chance in his presidency to harness fear, something at which he had become astute after years in outrage media and now in politics.

Wolf shook hands with Vice President Tawney, with members of Congressional leadership, and looked out over the audience with a smug nod. It was probably his last State of the Union Address. For all he knew, the doctors were wrong and it would be his last time addressing the nation generally. With all of that in mind, he had to put on a good show, and he had to etch his name in the history books.

“Before I begin,” Wolf began, reading off of the teleprompter, “Let us bow our heads for a moment of silent prayer for the late Ambassador to Israel and all of those killed or harmed in the heinous attacks on the embassy in Jerusalem.”

Wolf loved that he could make a room of more than a thousand people fall silent, and was giddy behind closed eyes.

After a moment, he continued. “The United States is stronger now than it has been in some time. Many in the world welcome this strength, and the prosperity it brings for all who embrace liberty, fair trade, and the rule of law. But others see the resurgent United States as something to be opposed at all costs. This week, the United States was attacked in a cowardly act of terror. This is not a typical act of terror- no, it was an attack made against American diplomats in an act of war. Why? We finally had the courage to do what was right. We finally recognized the true, legal and historical capital of the State of Israel. After neutralizing what could have been a follow-up attack

Our response will be strong, and it will be defiant

First, I have ordered a carrier group from the Sixth Fleet under the label Task Force 60.6 to be places off of the coast of the Gaza Strip and Israel, in case further military action is needed. We will not hesitate to intervene in the region to ensure the safety of American citizens, the security of American interests, and the protection of American allies. Our navy is stronger now than at any other point so far this century, and its ability to respond swiftly and effectively to threats of all kinds will be put to use should the situation deteriorate.

Second, I have ordered the Departments of State and Defense to bolster the Marine Corps security of Embassies and Consulates in what are deemed to be high terror risk countries. The reinforcements will be made at a country by country basis. At some embassies, security forces will be tripled.

Third, I am hereby placing a Presidential moratorium on all American aid to the Palestinian Authority. This includes all of our support to UNRWA, and all USAID activities in Palestine. Instead, the aid will go to the Kingdom of Jordan and the State of Israel, for the purpose of preventing such attacks from occurring again.

Fourth, I am currently discussing with the Prime Minister of Israel and the King of Jordan the possibility of deploying United States military intelligence officers and civilian investigators to their countries to assist in any way possible with finding the perpetrators. In the coming days, my cabinet and I will continually update the American people on the progress of the investigation.

Fifth, Senator Greg Kost of Florida will be submitting a Congressional resolution on my behalf condemning the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, an anti-Semitic movement that opposes the existence of the State of Israel. It is a movement that runs counter to American interests in the Middle East and undermines our national unity in this time of crisis. This resolution will also bar organizations and individuals that embrace the movement from receiving funds from federal, state, or local governments, or from public-private partnerships. This will ensure that our response is united, clear, and supports both the United States of America and Israel.

Finally, the United States will formally recognize the Golan Heights as sovereign territory of the State of Israel as reaffirmation of its rightful existence, and we will end our support of a two-state solution. The very same cowards who hide behind children and fire rockets at Israeli civilians have now attacked our nation, and our people. They have abandoned any semblance of support for a peaceful two-state resolution, and the United States can no longer serve as a neutral mediator in the peace process.

With this response, American strength will not falter. It will only grow. It will reveal to allies and enemies alike that we do not back down when red lines are crossed. We back our actions with force and keep our promises. Our strength is what ensures that our economy can keep growing here at home. After taking office and making historic cuts to taxes and deregulation, our economy has seen the best growth since the Second World War, record wage growth for working people, employment for women and minorities at levels never seen before.

We have seen illegal border crossings and crime decrease across the board. Construction of the wall on our southern border is underway, and it will be completed in the coming years thanks to the hard work of our military. This is no thanks to the Democrat Party that puts the lives of criminal aliens over the security and prosperity of American citizens. The Democrat Party has proven it is more aligned with sanctuary cities, socialism that is tearing apart our southern neighbors, and values that go against those of our country. Thanks to my administration and our Republican allies, the United States of America is safer, more prosperous, and stronger. The American people are better off, and this time will be remembered as one of the greatest in our shared history.

In the coming year, my administration has even bolder plans for this country. My historic tax cuts will be made permanent. Action overturning Common Core and the unconstitutional Affordable Care Act will be made. Our foreign policy will continue to be strong, and our judicial branch will continue to be brought in a direction in line with the vision of our Founding Fathers. The re-negotiated NAFTA will be codified into law, and steps toward repairing our stressed infrastructure will be taken.

As this week’s events proved, the world needs a beacon of liberty, fair trade, and the rule of law now as much as ever before. As we Make America Great Again, we ensure that it can be that beacon.”

Wolf finished the speech to applause from the audience, and flashed a thumbs up at the cameras. He did not think of anything other than the uptick he would see in his approval.

[Vaquas]

The Associated Press

---

Breaking News

---

---

IN STATE OF THE UNION, PRESIDENT WOLF ABANDONS TWO-STATE SOLUTION, HALTS PALESTINIAN AID, RECOGNIZES GOLAN AS ISRAELI TERRITORY

[Vaquas]

Charlotte Windsor
@DemSenateLeader

---

I wholly and without reservation condemn President Wolf's newfound efforts to undermine decades of peace talks and upend American foreign policy to boost his own ego. The Democrats in the United States Senate will oppose his misguided and alarming bill, which is a blatant attack on the first amendment and exploits the murder of an American ambassador for political gain. I urge my Republican colleagues to take a stand against these reactionary and deeply worrying moves.