North Korea ‘will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen’ if more threats emerge

President Trump has responded to reports of North Korea’s nuclear threats, saying the regime “will be met with fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which the world has never seen before.”

Speaking from New Jersey on Tuesday, Trump also said North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “has been very threatening beyond a normal state,” adding that the regime “best not make anymore threats to the United States.”

The president’s comments come after a report was published by The Washington Post claiming North Korea has produced a compact nuclear warhead that can be placed inside one of its advanced missiles – which are already believed to be capable of reaching half of the United States.

The jarring assessment was prepared in July by the Defense Intelligence Agency, according to the Post. The Post was read parts of the DIA analysis and the document was verified by other U.S. officials, the newspaper reported.

“The [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles,” an excerpt of the DIA analysis states.

Further, it is now believed that dictator Kim Jong Un may control up to 60 nuclear weapons.

The DIA report echoed some of the evaluations made in a lengthy Japanese defense white paper also revealed on Tuesday.

“It is conceivable that North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has already considerably advanced and it is possible that North Korea has already achieved the miniaturization of nuclear weapons into warheads and has acquired nuclear warheads,” Japan’s defense ministry said in the 500-page report.

The miniaturization of a nuclear warhead was one of three things U.S. officials said the regime needed to do in regards to their long-range missile tests.

Officials said North Korea also needed to be able to hit a target and demonstrate the ability to “re-enter” the earth’s atmosphere.

The regime has conducted 12 tests so far this year. One of the ICBM tests conducted in late July, in which a missile traveled 2,300 miles into space and 45 minutes into the air, was the longest and farthest ballistic missile test in the history of North Korea, officials told Fox News at the time.

“North Korea CAN miniaturize nuclear weapons for use on ballistic missiles,” leading North Korea expert Mark Fitzpatrick told Fox News. “North Korea has been working on miniaturizing a war head for 30 years now.” Fitzpatrick continued, saying that the regime is “very technically competent. It is natural that they should achieve this.”

Regarding the Post’s claim that the regime has up to 60 nuclear weapons, Fitzpatrick thinks that number is high and believes the number is closer to the 20-30 that others have estimated.

Reactions to the news highlighted the stunning advancements depicted in the reports. Some of those who’ve tangled with North Korea in the past advocated throwing diplomacy to the wayside.

“We’ve been playing the diplomatic game for a long time with #NorthKorea and it’s only given them time to advance their weapons program,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tweeted.

Harry Kazianis, a columnist for the Asia Times and a senior editor at the National Interest, told Fox News’ “Happening Now” on Tuesday that North Korea was a “full-fledged” nuclear power.

But the U.S. on Saturday achieved what appeared to be a remarkable diplomatic victory, securing the unanimous approval of tough new sanctions — including votes from Russia and China.

Fox News’ Greg Palkot contributed to this report.

Love him or hate him, job creation is happening under President Trump – 1.29 million jobs have been created since he took office in January – helped with the addition of 209K positions in July, plus June data was revised higher by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the unemployment rate dropped to 4.3%.

Trump is just getting started…. so he said in a tweet Friday following the July jobs data.

Indeed, coincidently on Friday, Toyota (TM) and Mazda announced a plan to invest $1.6 billion in a U.S. factory, in a state yet to be named. This is expected to create 4,000 jobs. Last month, Apple (AAPL) supplier Foxconn agreed to open a factory in Wisconsin, which is expected to generate 3,000 jobs and the company indicated that number could grow.

Still, some remain skeptical of the President. Newsweek’s new cover labeled him ‘Lazy Boy’. FOX Business anchor Neil Cavuto took issue with the cover, calling it “unfair to the President of the United States” while also acknowledging that POTUS is far from perfect. He also defended the way job creation and economic progress should be covered regardless of politics. “Was that all the President? No but it happened under the President and similar good things happened under Barack Obama, all the media would naturally credit Barack Obama, it flips the other way too if it doesn’t go your way,” he points out.

Even before President Trump officially took office in January he began strong arming American CEOs, some of whom, reversed plans to move jobs overseas.

In November of last year, Carrier, a unit of United Technologies (UTX) agreed to keep 1,100 jobs in Indianapolis. While the company said in a July statement Opens a New Window. that it remains committed to these jobs, a realignment of manufacturing operations will impact “600 Indianapolis jobs over the next several months” as previously announced.

Then came Ford (F), which scrapped plans to move production of the Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico, prompting the President to give a shout out tweet to scion Bill Ford.

The President is also attempting to revive the beleaguered coal industry with the opening of the Acosta Coal Mine in Pennsylvania, the first in many years. Corsa CEO George Dethlefsen told FOX it will create 70 jobs.

Five of the six months since taking office, the economy has generated north of 200K jobs, the level economists like to see for a growing economy. These numbers have the White House in a celebratory mood.

Not everything is as rosy as the White House would like. While jobs are growing the U.S. economy is still struggling to see sustained GDP growth above 3%, but there are signs of a rebound. An advance estimate for 2Q came in at 2.6% last month, stronger than the 1Q’s 1.2% showing.

And then there’s the question of stalled policies such as healthcare, which some say spells doom and gloom for tax reform, a cornerstone of the Trump administration’s pro-business push.

Still, despite those concerns investors like what they see so far. U.S. stocks continue to notch fresh records with the Dow Jones Industrial Average scoring a new milestone this week – 22K. Roughly $4 trillion in market value has been added to the stock market under President Trump with the S&P 500 averaging a 10.5% return for 2017 giving 401(K)s, pension funds and investment accounts a solid boost.

Suzanne O’Halloran is Managing Editor of FOXBusiness.com and a graduate of Boston College. Follow her on @suzohalloran  Opens a New Window. .

Top health insurance companies in numerous states are looking to hike premiums by double-digits – some by roughly 30 percent or more – for ObamaCare plans in 2018, according to newly released figures that could light a fire under stalled efforts on Capitol Hill to fix the program.

“A lot of us have lost focus on the fact that the system we have doesn’t work,” White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday, referring to the proposed premium hikes.

The Wall Street Journal reported that major insurers in Idaho, West Virginia, South Carolina, Iowa and Wyoming are pitching premium hikes averaging 30 percent or higher.

Other states also could see double-digit hikes, including New Mexico, Tennessee and Texas – while elsewhere, insurers are eyeing smaller increases.

The requests are preliminary and could change before insurers strike 2018 agreements with federal officials in the fall.

But they underscore concerns about Affordable Care Act plans becoming increasingly unaffordable, as Republicans struggle to come up with an ObamaCare replacement bill that can pass Congress.

Their latest legislation – the so-called “skinny repeal” – failed by a single vote in the Senate last week, leaving lawmakers split over whether to “move on” and tackle issues like tax reform or regroup and try again. President Trump is urging Republicans not to give up, and even some Democrats have started to float ideas for shoring up the law, without scrapping it.

“I do think it’s important that they continue to work on health care,” Mulvaney said. “ObamaCare’s still broken. It was just as broken today as it was last week; in fact, more so.”

However, while the premium hikes could energize GOP efforts to upend the Affordable Care Act, they also could fuel Democrats’ criticism over how Republicans are handling to repeal/replace debate.

The Journal reported that insurers are concerned about Trump’s threat to halt payments to the industry that in turn help bring down costs, as well as whether Republicans will continue to enforce the individual mandate to buy insurance.

According to the Journal, one insurer in Montana linked the bulk of its proposed 23 percent increase to those two concerns.

FoxNews.com

Republicans call for second special counsel to probe Clinton, Lynch and more

Nearly two-dozen Republicans are calling on the Trump Justice Department to appoint a second special counsel to investigate the raft of 2016 campaign controversies involving Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration, warning these questions cannot “be allowed to die on the vine” amid the Russia probe firestorm.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and GOP committee colleagues made the request in a letter Thursday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

“The American public has a right to know the facts – all of them – surrounding the election and its aftermath,” they wrote. “We urge you to appoint a second special counsel to ensure these troubling, unanswered questions are not relegated to the dustbin of history.”

‘I don’t think that the crimes of the prior administration, of Hillary Clinton, the collusion with James Comey and Loretta Lynch should be forgotten just because Hillary Clinton lost the election’

– Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to ‘Fox & Friends’

The lawmakers want an entirely separate special counsel probe from the one Robert Mueller is leading into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible coordination with Trump associates. The crux of their argument is that numerous unanswered questions remain from the 2016 campaign cycle that have been pushed aside amid the intense Russia focus.

They delivered an extensive, 14-point request for what a second special counsel should cover, including:

• Allegations that former Attorney General Loretta Lynch instructed then-FBI Director James Comey to downplay the nature of the Clinton email probe
• The FBI and DOJ’s decisions in the course of the email probe, including controversial immunity deals with Clinton aide Cheryl Mills and others
• The State Department’s involvement in deciding which Clinton emails to make public
• Disclosures in WikiLeaks-released emails regarding the Clinton Foundation and, according to the letter, “its potentially unlawful international dealings”
• Connections between Clinton officials and “foreign entities” including Russia and Ukraine
• Revelations in hacked Democratic National Committee emails about “inappropriate” coordination between the DNC and Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders’ Democratic primary campaign
• The “unmasking” of Americans in intelligence documents and potentially related leaks of classified information
• Comey’s admitted leak of details of his conversations with President Trump
• The FBI’s “reliance” on controversial firm Fusion GPS, which was involved in the questionable anti-Trump “dossier”

“Our call for a special counsel is not made lightly,” the lawmakers wrote. “We have no interest in engendering more bad feelings and less confidence in the process or governmental institutions by the American people. Rather, our call is made on their behalf. It is meant to determine whether the criminal prosecution of any individual is warranted based on the solemn obligation to follow the facts wherever they lead and applying the law to those facts.”

The push comes as Sessions comes under tremendous pressure from Trump to revisit 2016 controversies concerning Clinton and Democratic officials. The president has publicly pilloried the attorney general over his decision in March to recuse himself from the Russia probe, which led to the appointment of Mueller whom Trump has also criticized.

Sessions told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson that the criticism has been “kind of hurtful” but defended his recusal and insisted he would stay on the job as long as the president allows.

Democrats have blasted the periodic GOP efforts to bring back these 2016 controversies, and maintain that Russia’s interference in the campaign is a more pressing matter. Following Trump’s criticism last week of both Sessions and Mueller, top House Intelligence Committee Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, of California, defended the importance of the current special counsel investigation.

“There is no doubt that Mueller has the authority to investigate anything that arises from his investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia, including financial links, and this is spelled out in the order from the Deputy Attorney General and the law that governs the powers of the Special Counsel,” he said in a statement, while also urging Trump to “rule out categorically” the prospect of using pardons to undermine that probe.

But aside from Republican frustration over the evolving and intensifying Russia probe, recent developments have fueled their interest in revisiting 2016’s other controversies. Comey’s Capitol Hill testimony in June included a startling allegation that Lynch told him to refer to the Clinton email investigation as a “matter,” which Comey said made him “queasy.”

The Fusion GPS firm also came under renewed criticism this week when a Senate hearing witness alleged the same firm was connected to Russia-backed efforts to fight U.S. sanctions on the country.

House Judiciary Republicans voted earlier this week to call an investigation into Comey’s handling of the Clinton email probe.

One of those lawmakers, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., told “Fox & Friends” on Friday that there seems to be a “double standard in justice.”

“I don’t think that the crimes of the prior administration, of Hillary Clinton, the collusion with James Comey and Loretta Lynch should be forgotten just because Hillary Clinton lost the election,” he said.

By Judson Berger 

Why are Democratic Party Donors being picked to investigate the GOP Administration?

President Trump’s tough criticism of Special Counsel Robert Mueller signals a renewed effort to challenge his investigators’ credibility over their track record of pro-Democratic political donations and other associations.

There is no shortage of examples to fuel the president’s case.

Of the 15 attorneys currently on staff for Mueller, at least seven have donated to Democratic candidates and campaigns, including Trump’s 2016 rival Hillary Clinton. The rest have not made political donations, according to federal records; and none of the attorneys on Mueller’s roster donated money to Trump.

Then-FBI Director Robert Mueller testifies on Capitol Hill on February 2, 2012.  (AP)

“This is just a witch hunt—it’s all a hoax,” White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway told “Fox & Friends” last week after Trump criticized Mueller in a New York Times interview. “People should know what folks’ past motivations, and their political motivations are—these weren’t minor donations, these were significant donations by members of that team.”

Conway said the donations are “relevant information for people to have.”

Multiple reports in recent days have detailed a special counsel investigation digging deep into Trump associates’ dealings, prompting a range of public responses from the Trump administration. The president went so far over the weekend as to declare he has “complete power to pardon.” But in the near-term, expect to hear more about the political affiliation of Mueller’s attorneys.

“They clearly wanted the other person to win. Now, whether that prejudices them in one way or another remains to be seen, but it is relevant information for people to have,” Conway said.

Here’s a snapshot of some of the attorneys on Mueller’s team and their political contributions:

James Quarles

Quarles is a former partner at WilmerHale and former assistant special prosecutor for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Quarles had made significant donations to Democratic candidates, including former President Barack Obama and Clinton. Most recently, in October 2016, Quarles donated $2,700 to Clinton’s presidential campaign. Quarles also donated over $7,000 to Obama over the last decade. Quarles did, however, donate $2,500 to former Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, in 2015.

Jeannie Rhee

Rhee is a former partner at WilmerHale who also served in the Office of Legal Counsel and as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. At WilmerHale, Rhee focused on representing people in government investigations including white-collar criminal probes and criminal and civil fraud matters. Rhee donated a total of $5,400 to Clinton, combining donations from 2015 and 2016. Rhee also donated a combined $4,800 to Obama in 2008 and 2011. Rhee also has contributed smaller amounts of money to the Democratic National Committee and other Democrats running for Congress.

Andrew Weissmann

Federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann in 2003 at a press conference in Texas about the latest round of indictments stemming from the collapse of Enron.  (Reuters)

Weissmann served as general counsel at the FBI and was an assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Weissmann is a veteran Justice Department prosecutor. He was the deputy, and then leader, of the department’s task force that investigated and prosecuted Enron executives in the energy giant’s collapse. Weissmann donated a combined $2,300 to Obama’s campaign in 2008. In 2006, Weissmann contributed at least $2,000 to the DNC.

Andrew Goldstein

Goldstein is an attorney on detail from the Southern District of New York, where he had worked under U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara—until Bharara was fired along with other U.S. attorneys by Trump.

Goldstein’s old boss has become a prominent Trump critic since his firing and has been particularly outspoken over concerns that Trump may be gearing up to get Mueller fired. In a tweetstorm last week, Bharara openly wondered, “If Mueller is fired, how much obscene & horses-t character assassination will Trump & allies level against this honored military vet?” He added if that happens, “do Trump & allies realize he will forever appear guilty of a crime even if the Special Counsel may not have found one?”

Bharara also praised Goldstein as “Best of best in every way. Fair, tough smart,” after he was brought on by Mueller.

Goldstein contributed a combined $3,300 to Obama’s campaigns in 2008 and 2012.

Elizabeth Prelogar

Prelogar is an appellate attorney on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General. Prelogar donated $250 to Clinton in 2016 and $250 to Obama in 2012.

Brandon Van Grack

Van Grack is an attorney on detail from the National Security Division of the DOJ. Van Grack donated $286 to Obama in 2008.

Rush Atkinson

Atkinson is an attorney on detail from the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section of the DOJ. Records show that Atkinson donated $200 to Clinton’s campaign in 2016.

Zainab Ahmad

Ahmad is a U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York. She has worked extensively on counterterrorism cases. Records show that Ahmad has not made any political donations.

Michael Dreeben

Michael Dreeben departs the U.S. Department of Justice on April 27, 2016 on his way to argue his one-hundredth case before the U.S. Supreme Court.  (Reuters)

Dreeben is an appellate attorney on detail from the Office of the Solicitor General. Records show he has made no political donations. Dreeben has represented the federal government in a range of cases — including on the police use of GPS tracking to monitor potential suspects, and whether former Republican Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell crossed the line in performing favors for a wealthy supporter who provided gifts to McDonnell and his wife.

Adam Jed

Jed is an appellate attorney on detail from the Civil Division of the DOJ. Records show he has made no political donations.

Jed’s notable casework includes arguing in defense of then-secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius in 2014 in the Supreme Court case of Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius. The case challenged the contraceptive insurance requirement under ObamaCare. Jed also argued, before the Supreme Court, to strike down the definition of marriage between a man and a woman in the Defense of Marriage Act in the United States v. Windsor.

Aaron Zebley

Zebley is a former partner at WilmerHale, who previously served with Mueller at the FBI as chief of staff. Zebley served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. Records show he has made no political donations.

Aaron Zelinsky

Zelinksy is an attorney on detail from the District of Maryland. Records show he has made no political donations.

Brooke Singman is a Reporter for Fox News. Follow her on Twitter at @brookefoxnews.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has resigned over the hiring of a new top communications aide, sources confirmed Friday to Fox News.

The move came as Trump booster and Wall Street financier Anthony Scaramucci was expected to be tapped for White House communications director.

Speculation about Spicer’s status with the White House has run rampant for months, but one source described the appointment of Scaramucci was the deciding factor.

Spicer originally was supposed to lead a newly restructured communications operation. Under that structure, the communications director would report to him — which may have caused a conflict with Scaramucci, who met with Trump on Friday.

Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in recent weeks has taken the lead on many daily press briefings, which are mostly held off camera and no longer televised live.

Spicer’s abrupt exit came on a busy day for changes in Trump’s inner circle.

News broke overnight on the resignation of Mark Corallo, who had been the lead spokesman on behalf of Trump’s long-time personal attorney Marc Kasowitz and the legal team. Corallo, who was previously a spokesman for the Justice Department, reportedly objected to public criticisms of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. His resignation comes days after Trump told The New York Times that he didn’t want Mueller investigating Trump family business ties outside the Russia scope.

Kasowitz, meanwhile, is stepping back to take a lower-profile role.

Fox News’ John Roberts and The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

The more liberal a person, the more he tends to run with the pack. The more conservative, the more individualistic he tends. When it comes to governance, the pack animals stick together better than the mavericks.

Look at the cities in our nation–they are concentrations of democrats. They readily surrender their individual sovereignty to their democratic leaders in exchange for perceived security. It is the people in the less populated suburban and rural regions that vote republican, and they prefer to maintain their personal sovereignty and look upon government with mistrust.

Why is this? There appears to be a dichotomy of personality types, and like animals, they tend toward those who prefer to run with the pack, and those who prefer a more solitary existence. The pack animals, like wolves, hunt together, and glut on the efforts of their entire society, rarely depending on their own personal efforts for every meal. Sound familiar?

Other species, like birds or bears, prefer to live in smaller groups, focused on close family relationships rather than packs. These are the republicans.

The very characteristics that render republicans enviable in their personal lives–independence, sovereignty, self-determination–makes it difficult for them to come together in a unified purpose and pass sweeping legislation, even when they all understand how important the legislation is.

Democrats stick together, and all read off of the same talking points, in unison–like a Chinese acrobatic team. They have very few defectors when they propose a point of legislation. They do not turn on each other, and if one strays from acceptable behavior, they all band together and surround the offender and protect him from his own stupidity.

Republicans do none of these things. They are the first to turn on one of their own, and the last to adopt the party line.

For these reasons, Democrats are much more able to legislate and govern. Of course, their governance is flawed, and cuts against the principles of our Constitution–a governing document constructed by political conservatives. Republicans are poor at providing governance, because they fail to get together absent a leader who brings them together. Unfortunately, we have not had such a leader since Newt Gingrich penned the GOP’s Contract With America and led the Republican party to victory in the House, and forced Bill Clinton to support several important laws.

Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan are not anything approaching Newt Gingrich.

By James Thompson

James Thompson is a ghostwriter who writes books for many political and business leaders.

Learning is crucial. Education is just the structure. So the question is: what is the best education we can provide for quality learning to take place among future generations?

Parents and teachers complain about students being less motivated because schools either cause too much stress or too much boredom among kids. Despite what some politicians and celebrities seem determined to achieve, a one-size-fits-all education simply won’t work in this country. Americans come from highly diverse backgrounds, ethnicities, incomes and cultures, which means successful education cannot be dictated by standardized government institutions.

Flexibility and autonomy are key ingredients to success.

Thankfully, alternatives do exist for parents to take charge of their children’s education. PragerU recently released a video about how one girl’s life was transformed and how she achieved success all because of school choice.

Here are five alternative options to escape the federal government’s grasp on your children’s education.

1. Online Whether on laptops or smartphones, students are taking advantage of virtual schools popping up all over the internet. And why not? Taking online courses is convenient, cost-effective and practically limitless in terms of available subject matter. Online schools offer varied curriculums and formats that cater to many styles of learning. Today’s technological revolution broadens and enhances this educational alternative continually. Prior to enrollment, be sure to do your research on the programs, instructors and overall quality of the school. Organizations like SR Education Group can help you navigate by providing comprehensive lists of most affordable, most recommended and even top military friendly online schools.

2. Charter Like school districts, charter schools are monitored and accredited under the statewide testing and accountability system due to the strings attached to the federal government. Despite this required state protocol, this type of structure still provides teachers the autonomy to run their classrooms as they see fit. This means curriculums are often founded on solid principles, while teachers have the flexibility to specialize in certain areas and switch things up as needed for the benefit of the students. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, there were more than 6,900 charter schools in the United States, enrolling an estimated 3.1 million students from 2016 to 2017.

3. Private Private schools can be a smart way to get a personalized education of your liking. Finding a private school that supports your religious views or other values in its curriculum is often worth the financial investment when it ensures a healthy learning environment for your child. In a report shared by the Council of American Private Education, 80 percent of parents with enrolled children reported being “very satisfied” with their child’s education as well as the academic standards of the private school. An advantage of a good private school is that smaller class sizes, qualified instructors and curriculums based on your values promote a challenging, but intellectually rewarding experience for your child.

4. Homeschool Homeschooling offers one of the most personalized educational experiences possible. In this setting, you don’t have to rely on a government institution (or any institution, for that matter) to influence your child’s learning. As a parent, you can teach your child the art of learning by absorbing and mastering materials in all of life, not only in academics — something often overlooked and difficult to achieve in regular schools. This option is becoming more and more practical with the development of new curriculums and homeschooling communities. In addition to being the most personal education you can give your child, homeschooling is also much less of a burden on taxpayers. Brian D. Ray, Ph.D. with the National Home Education Research Institute, observed taxpayers fork out an average of $11,732 per public school student (K-12), while homeschooling families pay only an average of $600 per child. If you are a confident parent and ready to go through an education again yourself, homeschooling is an inventive experience where you get to be with your growing child every step of the way.

5. Trade School When it comes to higher learning, our society tends to assume a four-year degree at a prestigious university or college is the only way to sprout wings and become successful. Trade schools provide an environment where students learn the actual skills they need for real-life work experience, instead of a vague, standardized route that often lacks foundational knowledge for many possible careers. Not only do trade schools provide a head start in the hiring field, they are often much more financially manageable than college. In a recent article, The Simple Dollar highlighted the statistic that trade school students graduate with 70 percent less debt than the average four-year degree student. The departments and work specialization of these schools cover careers in the fields of entertainment, culinary arts, film-making, radio and television broadcasting, business, paralegal studies, graphic design, nursing, radiology technology, computer technology, mechanical engineering, welding, electrical work, carpentry and more. Television host and actor Mike Rowe has been a big proponent of trade schools as a valuable option for secondary education. His mikeroweWORKS Foundation helps high school graduates pay their way through a trade school where they can learn the skills necessary for “jobs that actually exist.” These schools teach habits of hard work and discipline as well as the readiness to be hired into a career that they have been trained for. A four-year college experience certainly offers skills needed for careers in the future, but trade schools can provide an extra head start, getting students into the workforce sooner than many of their peers.

Conclusion

To resist an encroaching federal government that limits choices for our children’s education, Americans must get involved to improve our nation’s education system for future generations to thrive. While considering school choice, it’s important to remember successful education results in the desired outcome of learning for our children. Anything that inhibits or prevents this desired outcome contradicts a healthy education.

By Emi Tuttle

The newest member of the Supreme Court already is making his mark after just three months on the job, effectively restoring a conservative tilt to the bench in decision after decision – amid mounting speculation over whether President Trump could soon have the chance to pick a second justice.

Neil Gorsuch, who joined the court in April, helped the court round out its term with a rapid-fire set of decisions reinstating much of Trump’s travel ban for now, siding with a Missouri church in a dispute over state funding and more.

Having officially settled into the role, Gorsuch and his family are planning to make the permanent move to Washington this summer. He spent the July 4 holiday back home in Colorado — but after riding along the parade route in the back of a 1959 Cadillac with his wife and daughter and posing for photos with neighbors, he and the family are putting their Boulder County home on the market.

With lifetime job security, there’s no going back – to the delight of conservatives who fought for his appointment to the high court, filling the seat held by the late Antonin Scalia.

Take the court’s final week of work in June. In the biggest ruling this term, Gorsuch agreed officials in Missouri were wrong to deny competitive state grants to a Lutheran church, in order to improve its preschool playground.

While the majority limited its holding by not addressing “religious uses of funding,” Gorsuch made clear he would have gone further, writing separately, “The general principles here do not permit discrimination against religious exercise — whether on the playground or anywhere else.”

Gorsuch helped secure other outcomes as well, while at times splitting off from the other justices:

— In the final sweep of decisions, the court allowed Trump’s executive order imposing a temporary travel ban on six mostly Muslim countries to partially go into effect, a compromise that gave both sides a chance to claim victory. But Gorsuch — joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — thought the presidential action should be enforced entirely, with no restrictions.

— Gorsuch and Thomas disagreed with the court’s denial of an appeal over gun rights and a California law restricting the ability of citizens to carry a concealed weapon in public for self-protection.

— Gorsuch dissented in the court’s summary judgment that tossed out an Arkansas law preventing same-sex couples from having both names on a child’s birth certificate. Gorsuch wrote there was “nothing wrong” with a traditional approach of listing just the biological parents on the state form. In doing so, Gorsuch indirectly criticized Justice Anthony Kennedy, based on the landmark 2015 ruling allowing same-sex marriage, which the elder justice authored.

“Nothing in Obergefell  [ruling] spoke — let alone clearly — to the question whether (the Arkansas law), or a state supreme court decision upholding it, must go,” Gorsuch said.

Gorsuch, who turns 50 next month, has wasted little time jumping into the ideological scrum of Supreme Court arguments and deliberations. In his very first oral argument in April, the junior justice’s pointed questions of counsel took about 10 minutes of the one-hour debate.

He was so persistent, at one point he apologized “for taking up so much time” with his questions.

That assuredness has come with a clearly defined legal lens —staking out consistent positions in line with conservative Justices Thomas and Alito — and even going beyond.

Although the count covered just 13 cases, Gorsuch voted with Thomas 100 percent of time, and all but once with Alito.

Another vacancy looming?

Kennedy – who incidentally was Gorsuch’s mentor when the Colorado native clerked for him during the 1993 term – is the other justice in the spotlight these days.

Rumors of his imminent retirement came and went as the court embarked on its annual three-month summer recess. Kennedy did not leave, apparently ready to return for his 31st year on the court as its influential “swing” justice. And the justice — who turns 81 this month — is not talking.

But that has not stopped the Washington whispers, since the next Supreme Court vacancy promises to be a political and ideological game-changer.

“Justice Kennedy has been the deciding vote in favor of marriage equality, recently in favor of racial justice, whether it’s through housing or in education through affirmative action programs,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive legal group. “So it would be a strong shift of the court to the right.”

Government sources say the White House is ready for any judicial opening, and will build its strategy on the successful Gorsuch nomination’s template.

“It’s likely that he’s going to step down likely during Trump’s presidency,” said Carrie Severino, chief legal counsel at the conservative Judicial Crisis Network. “I’m glad to hear the administration is ready because they’ve got a great list that they’re working with to have someone who is going to be faithful to the Constitution.”

Kennedy and Gorsuch currently serve as the two bookends preserving the court’s shaky right-leaning majority. The moderate mentor and his conservative protégé are at different points on the ideological spectrum but united in similar personalities: easy-going, courteous, reflective.

And while Gorsuch attracts widespread attention, Kennedy remains the most-powerful member given his ‘swing vote’ status.

That dynamic may not last. And if Kennedy exits, the same groups that backed Gorsuch – like JCN – are prepared to do the same for the next nominee.

The fireworks didn’t end on July 4^th

The new term that begins in October promises more fireworks, regardless of the makeup of the court.

At least three big cases are teed up for argument by year’s end:

— The Trump revised travel ban and the constitutional limits of executive authority over immigration. The White House frames the issue as a temporary move involving national security. A coalition of groups in opposition call the order blatant religious discrimination, since the six countries involved have mostly Muslim populations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

A major sticking point for the justices will be navigating how much discretion the president has over immigration. Courts have historically been deferential in this area, and recent presidents have used it to deny entry to certain refugees and diplomats, including from nations such as Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

— Partisan gerrymandering and just how far a state legislature may go to create an election map favoring one party. Federal courts have struck down Wisconsin’s 2011 voting boundaries, and the justices could finally be ready to decide a workable legal standard for determining when such maps are impermissibly extreme.

— Religious liberty and the case of a Colorado baker who refused to create a custom-made wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The businessman cited his sincerely held Christian beliefs, but lower courts found he violated the state’s “public accommodation” law by discriminating based on sexual orientation.

“This issue has been percolating for a long time,” said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department attorney. “This is the sort of issue that I suspect we’re going to see the court returning to in the years ahead, particularly if they solidify a five-justice conservative majority, more decisions in this First Amendment freedom of religion.”

Other cases that will percolate to the court in coming months cover gun rights, personal privacy in the digital age, state-funded tuition benefits for illegal aliens, and foreign detainees held in Guantanamo.

But now more than ever, the court’s unapologetic “swing vote” will continue flexing his judicial power on a dizzying mix of hot-button cases.

Months of internal turmoil over the Scalia vacancy and Gorsuch’s raucous confirmation left a strategic void that makes Kennedy’s unique jurisprudence that much more coveted among his colleagues. As the court returns to a temporary period of normalcy, he quietly thrives.

Do the math: the four reliable liberals and four reliable conservatives now orbit around Kennedy’s moderate-conservative credentials, knowing he almost inevitably will provide the crucial deciding vote. While the justice mostly holds to the right, he can move comfortably away when he sees fit.

For however long he chooses to stay, it will in many ways remain Kennedy’s court.

The Star-Spangled Banner