Beware the Innovative Assessment Kool-Aid

Leave it to pols to take the best authentic assessments and tie them to their quest for control of teachers.

Bianca Tanis

disruption_you-keep-using-that-word_inpost_credit-livememe

By law, teacher evaluations in New York State are required to include student growth scores based on the results of NYS ELA and math tests in grades 3-8. The current NYSUT leadership has failed to lobby for changes to this law and after an outpouring of criticism,  NYSUT Vice President Andy Pallotta recently stated in an email blast that NYSUT “will fight to have APPR thrown on the ash-heap of history.” The current NYSUT leaders running for re-election (including Pallotta) also claim that their “…goal is to permanently decouple all testing from teacher evaluation ratings.

We must be clear in our advocacy – New York State law must be amended to completely decouple the mandatory use any student performance measures from teacher evaluations and from any and all uses that result in punishing schools or school districts. New York State law currently requires that teacher evaluations include the use…

View original post 1,032 more words

What Reformers Don’t Understand: “The Process of Little Things”

Thanks Diane

Diane Ravitch's blog

Reformers have grand ideas for shaking up the system. Blowing it up. Changing everything. Blowing up teacher education. Imposing national standards overnight. Turning schools into teacher-proof institutions. Teaching children the habits of highly effective scholars (age 7).

But, writes David Greene and Bernie Heller, teachers understand that real change is not in the Big Things. Real change happens because of “the process of little things.”


The reform of education is focused on the big changes as opposed to understanding that change is a step by step process. The educrats are playing for the big moment, yet they fil to understand that they can’t pull big moments out of thin air, consequently, their “big moments” exist in vacuums, totally disconnected and disembodied from reality.

From teaching students to be better writers, better students and better thinkers, to mentoring teachers to be better at teaching, to helping players to become better hitters…

View original post 690 more words

The Elephant In The Room: The Process of Little Things

 

IMG_0268

-Another Keller/Greene thing.

Education, like life, is not about the macro or the big things. Like life, it is all about “the little things strung together.” It’s a lot like the quote that asserts, “There are no extraordinary people, there are only ordinary people in extraordinary situations.”

 

The reform of education is focused on the big changes as opposed to understanding that change is a step by step process. The educrats are playing for the big moment, yet they fil to understand that they can’t pull big moments out of thin air, consequently, their “big moments” exist in vacuums, totally disconnected and disembodied from reality.

 

From teaching students to be better writers, better students and better thinkers, to mentoring teachers to be better at teaching, to helping players to become better hitters or shooters, it was and is always about starting at step one and moving forward, step by step.

 

The reformers and the experts want to be able to say they did big things, that they changed everything, the only problem is, you can’t start out “big” – you have to start with the little things, and string them all together.

 

Are there poor teachers? Of course there are. There were bad teachers when I went to school, there were bad teachers when you went to school. If I were to ask you how many good or great teachers you had all the way through your college career, how many would you be able to list? I’d guess three or four- if you were lucky. Despite that fact, you are still successful today, you still survived. Good and great teachers don’t grow on trees and they are not “developed” or created in special teaching programs or institutes.

 

Good or great teachers grow and develop through experience and experience takes time and patience. Step by step. Slowly, based on little things strung together. When you marry that time and patience to extraordinary passion, you have a good or great teacher. Perhaps that is why there are so very few of them.

 

Parents cannot stand by idly and do nothing. They must challenge the system to work, for as Frederick Douglass wrote, “Power concedes nothing without demand. It never has, it never will.” They must ask themselves why they would gladly let someone with almost nothing to lose make decisions that will affect the lives of their children, and which, if those decisions are wrong, will cost their children everything. They must not allow people to “experiment” with their children’s lives

 

No parents demanded to know where this “plan” had been successfully used before or asked if the people supporting it had used it in their educational experiences. No parent said,” Yes, the graduation rate is low. Can you tell us why?” They are not looking toward the next BIG thing, they are looking for the little steps that help their children succeed.

 

Not only must they hold the government and others accountable, they must also hold their children accountable. They must demand the very best of their children. As parents are their children’s first teachers and role models, they must model the behaviors and the characteristics they want to see in their children. They cannot wait for others or trust that others will do what they are responsible to do. That is the first little step.

 

Plainly speaking, no law, no reconfiguration of classrooms or schools, no amount of refurbishing, no revision of testing philosophies or teaching requirements, no creation of new titles or positions and no number of “new and exciting” programs such as “Ramp Up” or the presence of new, all- of -a -sudden educational gurus, will effect ANY change, until and unless parents and their children are “called into the tent” to take on their roles and responsibilities. Period.

 

Perhaps you can help me. I’m a bit bewildered, flummoxed, perplexed about the panacea-like powers the common core solution is purported to possess. While I agree that we can and must do better, that we must improve our schools, I also understand there is NO one-size-fits-all solution, and that any solution must be in fact filled with little things and will therefoire will take time to become effective. My bewilderment and perplexity revolves around the idea that simply creating, instituting and executing common core standards will turn everything around.

 

Too many educators over the past century have seen any number of “solutions” and “answers”. Most of them disappeared into thin air. In fact, I daresay that one of the people who currently advocate the “need” for common core standards, (people who have become famous, successful, and wealthy, people who attended public schools, as well as many of those reading this essay right now, would be hard pressed to cite or identify one local, state or national standard enacted or enforced throughout their school careers.

 

What common core standards were in effect when the United States was on top of the world educationally, or when we came form behind to take the lead in the space race? What common core standards are currently being enforced and enacted in the countries that are beating us now like Finland? If the common core is the answer to our present educational malaise, how was it possible that there was ever any educational success before they came into existence? We learned without SmartBoards, laptops,, computers, scientific calculators, specialized programs and specialized methods like Danielson.

 

  • Common core standards cannot be the only solution to this problem
  • Instead of trying to “re-find” what BIG ideas make education work, let’s look at all the little things that made it successful before and use that.

When people talk about how everything is so different in the 21st century, as if nothing we did before now has any relevance or value, it makes me ask myself if they are listening to themselves when they talk. First of all, whatever exists in the 21st century is the progeny, the sum total of the knowledge that preceded the 21st century. Centuries are not stand-alone- islands-in-time, rather they are linear, connected one to the other.

 

The most important question to ask in order to find a solution to any problem is the question, “Why?” Once you know the why of a thing, you can understand it, you get it. YOU know the little things that matter. Many teachers know this, yet arent listend to. Why aren’t they being asked to facilitate more workshops and professional development sessions? Why aren’t they being asked to run schools or superintendencies, serve as assistant principals and principals, or mentor new teachers?

 

Such “hands on” been there done that experience would yield a far better result than some BIG “maybe-they’ll work-maybe they- won’t –standards based on ideas/theories that will likely be obsolete and outdated within the next year or two.

 

Making education work is NOT as hard and as complicated as it is being made out to be. Education used to be about asking students to reach a little further than they would be comfortable reaching for on their own. It used to be about making sure that when a student received a passing grade, it was clear that grade honestly represented a percentage that symbolized that he/she had completed in that class as opposed to that grade representing a percentage identifying a teacher as competent or incompetent- it still is. It used to be about how graduation symbolized the preparation to move forward as opposed to an empty symbol that “proves” the reform being enacted is valid and viable.

 

The truth is that long before common core learning ever occurred, there was learning and that learning produced the computer, iTunes, iPhones, innumerable apps, Kindle, space travel, HIV medicines, etc., etc. The truth is we must look to what has always worked- not just for a year or two, or until it could make some corporation or hedge fund a profit- but what has been true about education since Socrates and Aristotle- that education must be respected, and not simply treated as some political exclamation point inserted into some campaign speech, that everyone must see and recognize its value.

 

We must return to the idea that learning is extremely dependent on the desire or curiosity of the learner to want to go further, to want to know more, to challenge him/herself. We need to stop “looking for the next magic bullet” or the “next big thing”.

 

I suppose the reformers mean well, (but like they say, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”). The fact of the matter is that just because they mean well doesn’t mean what they are doing is right, just as simply because people disagree with what the reformers are doing doesn’t make those who disagree the anti-education or anti-student devil.

 

As former public school students and an educators with close to four decades of experience, we know the value of education. We know schools matter in students’ lives. We know education is the great equalizer, and we know PUBLIC schools work. They are not perfect- they never were. Nothing is. We also know that many public schools work quite well, and that those labeled as dysfunctional or failing can again. The people criticizing and castigating them must put in the same amount of energy and effort and enthusiasm in looking at all thelittel steps necedssary in fixing them as they spend trying to shut them down.

 

Stop looking at the next big thing and look at the elephant in the room: The process of little things.

The circus is dead. Long live the circus.

imagesA public space is an arena. Sometimes they are quiet, sometimes not. That town hall meetings erupted as they have is surely a sign of the times and a reaction to #45.

Many cool, calm, and collected men and women have lost that cool and calm for good reason.

We also all know that Tea Partiers earlier, and #45sters 2016 bad behaviors have not only created recent precedent, but pushed the bar lower for public discourse.

I was at a meeting Friday night that, in part, prepared for a local Town Hall meeting to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons. I know those people were there to behave reasonably.

Perhaps we all need to carefully watch Spike Lee’s 30 year old classic film,DO THE RIGHT THING to better understand the choices people have to fight injustices. I used that film in classes for years to create such a discussion among high school seniors. These quotes rolled down the screen as the movie ended. Was Malcolm or Martin right?

“Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.”
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I think there are plenty of good people in America, but there are also plenty of bad people in America and the bad ones are the ones who seem to have all the power and be in these positions to block things that you and I need. Because this is the situation, you and I have to preserve the right to do what is necessary to bring an end to that situation, and it doesn’t mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don’t even call it violence when it’s self-defense, I call it intelligence.”
-Malcolm X

 

It seems that history tells us that the successful fights for justice involve two arms, one provocative, and one reasonable. Look at our civil Rights and Vietnam War efforts as well as the ANC’s fight vs Apartheid in South Africa as proof.
Finally, no fight against injustice can take place without a provocative, investigative, and reasonable press. The Fourth Estate must do its part….

I can’t agree more

…with  Nicholas Kristof and Nelson Mandela.

“A good head and a good heart are always a formidable combination.”

-Nelson Mandela

Whatever we think about @realDonaldTrump and what is passing for governing in DC now, we must be strategic in our responses. As Nelson Mandela conquered Apartheid by talking to his enemies as humans, so must we treat followers of @45 as human, or we will never convince them of what needs to be done in 2018 and 2020. Trump knows that by fanning our anger he will gain more support by those who still hate liberalism, even more moderate Republicans.

That is part of HIS strategy.

This must be part of ours. Mandela exhibited six capabilities that are especially important for visionary leaders (or anyone for that matter) facing deep uncertainty and turmoil. They are the ability to (1) anticipate, (2) challenge, (3) interpret, (4) decide, (5) align and (6) learn. (Paul J. H. Schoemaker)

We don’t need to anticipate much as we already know the stance Trumpsters take. They tend to dig in their heels. We have to challenge them intellectually, not emotionally. We have to interpret what they say detached from our own emotional reactions. We need to try to get them to align more with our points which we know are true and supported by evidence from multiple sources. And finally, we must learn more about who they are and WHY they are Trumpsters. It is the WHY that will lead us to the how.

“As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding,” And here our dependence on other minds reinforces the problem. If your position on, say, the Affordable Care Act is baseless and I rely on it, then my opinion is also baseless. When I talk to Tom and he decides he agrees with me, his opinion is also baseless, but now that the three of us concur we feel that much more smug about our views. If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration.

-from the “Sad” New Yorker Magazine

 

Let’s talk:
2/19/17

You can’t build
a country by subtraction 
and division-
(tried that and how did
that work out?)

You can’t make a country
one nation
indivisible
when you keep talkin’
about “ them”
and keep pushing folks
out of the tent
and taking the squares
out of America’s quilt.

You can’t unite a country
Just talkin’ to the people
you like.

– B. Keller

 

ALERT! GOP Congress Launches First Effort to Undermine Public SCHOOLS!

The attacks get worse with each succeeding administration.

Diane Ravitch's blog

Republicans in The House of Representatives have proposed legislation that would require states to adopt vouchers or lose their federal funding. This is an outrage! This is step one of the Trump-DeVos agenda to force vouchers and charters on states that do not want them. This is a blatant misuse of federal power to coerce states to go along with religious zealots like DeVos.

The legislation, HR 610, has been filed. Let your Representative in Congress know that you oppose this egregious federal overreach. Support The Network for Public Education as we rally supporters of public schools to repel this obnoxious legislation.

The language of the legislation and the steps you can take to oppose it are included here.

If you do not want your tax dollars to fund evangelical religious schools, madrassas, or yeshivas, get active.

If you believe in public schools with certified teachers who teach modern science…

View original post 30 more words

An Objective Reaction Please?

I would do this with a High School Government class.  Read this transcript objectively. Imagine you didn’t know which president was elected and whose words these are. Not Trump, Clinton, Cruz, nor Sanders…

Then please ask yourself, do you or don’t you want this person in the White House.

Then take the time to Explain your answer in something longer than a tweet or a couple of sentences. Actually site the document.

I really hope to get answers from all sides.

TRUMP: Thank you very much.

I just wanted to begin by mentioning that the nominee for secretary of the Department of Labor will be Mr. Alex Acosta. He has a law degree from Harvard Law School, was a great student; former clerk for Justice Samuel Alito. And he has had a tremendous career. He’s a member and has been a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and has been through Senate confirmation three times, confirmed; did very, very well.

And so Alex, I’ve wished him the best. We just spoke. And he’s going to be — I think he’ll be a tremendous secretary of labor.

And also as you probably heard just a little while ago, Mick Mulvaney, former congressman, has just been approved weeks late, I have to say that, weeks, weeks late, Office of Management and Budget. And he will be I think a fantastic addition.

Paul Singer just left. As you know, Paul was very much involved with the anti-Trump or as they say, “never Trump.” And Paul just left and he’s given us his total support. And it’s all about unification. We’re unifying the party and hopefully we’re going to be able to unify the country. It’s very important to me. I’ve been talking about that for a long time. It’s very, very important to me.

So I want to thank Paul Singer for being here and for coming up to the office. He was a very strong opponent, and now he’s a very strong ally. And I appreciate that.

I think I’ll say a few words, and then we’ll take some questions. And I had this time. We’ve been negotiating a lot of different transactions to save money on contracts that were terrible, including airplane contracts that were out of control and late and terrible; just absolutely catastrophic in terms of what was happening. And we’ve done some really good work. We’re very proud of that.

And then right after that, you prepare yourselves, we’ll do some questions, unless you have enough questions. That’s always a possibility.

I’m here today to update the American people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my inauguration. We have made incredible progress. I don’t think there’s ever been a president elected who in this short period of time has done what we’ve done.

A new Rasmussen poll, in fact — because the people get it — much of the media doesn’t get it. They actually get it, but they don’t write it. Let’s put it that way. But a new Rasmussen poll just came out just a very short while ago, and it has our approval rating at 55 percent and going up. The stock market has hit record numbers, as you know. And there has been a tremendous surge of optimism in the business world, which is — to me means something much different than it used to. It used to mean, “Oh, that’s good.” Now it means, “That’s good for jobs.” Very different.

Plants and factories are already starting to move back into the United States, and big league — Ford, General Motors, so many of them. I’m making this presentation directly to the American people, with the media present, which is an honor to have you. This morning, because many of our nation’s reporters and folks will not tell you the truth, and will not treat the wonderful people of our country with the respect that they deserve. And I hope going forward we can be a little bit — a little bit different, and maybe get along a little bit better, if that’s possible. Maybe it’s not, and that’s OK, too.

TRUMP: Unfortunately, much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles in particular, speaks not for the people, but for the special interests and for those profiting off a very, very obviously broken system. The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people. Tremendous disservice. We have to talk to find out what’s going on, because the press honestly is out of control. The level of dishonesty is out of control.

I ran for president to present the citizens of our country. I am here to change the broken system so it serves their families and their communities well. I am talking — and really talking on this very entrenched power structure, and what we’re doing is we’re talking about the power structure; we’re talking about its entrenchment. As a result, the media is going through what they have to go through too often times distort – not all the time – and some of the media is fantastic, I have to say – they’re honest and fantastic.

But much of it is not a – the distortion — and we’ll talk about it, you’ll be able to ask me questions about it. But we’re not going to let it happen, because I’m here again, to take my message straight to the people. As you know, our administration inherited many problems across government and across the economy. To be honest, I inherited a mess. It’s a mess. At home and abroad, a mess. Jobs are pouring out of the country; you see what’s going on with all of the companies leaving our country, going to Mexico and other places, low pay, low wages, mass instability overseas, no matter where you look. The middle east is a disaster. North Korea – we’ll take care of it folks; we’re going to take care of it all. I just want to let you know, I inherited a mess.

Beginning on day one, our administration went to work to tackle these challenges. On foreign affairs, we’ve already begun enormously productive talks with many foreign leaders, much of it you’ve covered, to move forward towards stability, security and peace in the most troubled regions of the world, which there are many. We have had great conversations with the United Kingdom, and meetings. Israel, Mexico, Japan, China and Canada, really, really productive conversations. I would say far more productive than you would understand.

We’ve even developed a new council with Canada to promote women’s business leaders and entrepreneurs. It’s very important to me, very important to my daughter Ivanka. I have directed our defense community headed by our great general, now Secretary Mattis. He’s over there now working very hard to submit a plan for the defeat of ISIS, a group that celebrates the murder and torture of innocent people in large sections of the world. It used to be a small group, now it’s in large sections of the world.

They’ve spread like cancer. ISIS has spread like cancer – another mess I inherited. And we have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran, whose totally taken advantage of our previous administration, and they’re the world’s top sponsor of terrorism, and we’re not going to stop until that problem is properly solved. And it’s not properly solved now, it’s one of the worst agreements I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody. I’ve ordered plan to begin building for the massive rebuilding of the United States military. Had great support from the Senate, I’ve had great from Congress, generally.

We’ve pursued this rebuilding in the hopes that we will never have to use this military, and I will tell you that is my – I would be so happy if we never had to use it. But our country will never have had a military like the military we’re about to build and rebuild. We have the greatest people on earth in our military, but they don’t have the right equipment and their equipment is old. I used it; I talked about it at every stop. Depleted, it’s depleted – it won’t be depleted for long. And I think one of the reason I’m standing here instead of other people is that frankly, I talked about we have to have a strong military.

We have to have a strong law enforcement also. So we do not go abroad in the search of war, we really are searching for peace, but its peace through strength. At home, we have begun the monumental task of returning the government back to the people on a scale not seen in many, many years. In each of these actions, I’m keeping my promises to the American people. These are campaign promises. Some people are so surprised that we’re having strong borders.

Well, that’s what I’ve been talking about for a year and a half, strong borders. They’re so surprised, oh, he having strong borders, well that’s what I’ve been talking about to the press and to everybody else. One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected. They lied to the American people in order to get elected. Some of the things I’m doing probably aren’t popular but they’re necessary for security and for other reasons.

And then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests which is more important to many politicians. I’m here following through on what I pledged to do. That’s all I’m doing. I put it out before the American people, got 306 electoral college votes. I wasn’t supposed to get 222. They said there’s no way to get 222, 230’s impossible.

270 which you need, that was laughable. We got 306 because people came out and voted like they’ve never seen before so that’s the way it goes. I guess it was the biggest electoral college win since Ronald Reagan. In other words, the media’s trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made and they’re not happy about it for whatever reason.

And – but a lot of people are happy about it. In fact, I’ll be in Melbourne, Florida five o’clock on Saturday and I heard – just heard that the crowds are massive that want to be there. I turn on the T.V., open the newspapers and I see stories of chaos. Chaos. Yet it is the exact opposite. This administration is running like a fine- tuned machine, despite the fact that I can’t get my cabinet approved.

And they’re outstanding people like Senator Dan Coats who’s there, one of the most respected men of the Senate. He can’t get approved. How do you not approve him? He’s been a colleague – highly respected. Brilliant guy, great guy, everybody knows it. We’re waiting for approval. So we have a wonderful group of people that’s working very hard, that’s being very much misrepresented about and we can’t let that happen.

So, if the Democrats who have – all you have to do is look at where they are right now. The only thing they can do is delay because they screwed things up royally, believe me. Let me list to you some of the things that we’ve done in just a short period of time. I just got here. And I got here with no cabinet. Again, each of these actions is a promise I made to the American people.

I’ll go over just some of them and we have a lot happening next week and in the weeks – in the weeks coming. We’ve withdrawn from the job-killing disaster known as Trans Pacific Partnership. We’re going to make trade deals but we’re going to have one on one deals, bilateral. We’re going to have one on one deals.

We’ve directed the elimination of regulations that undermine manufacturing and call for expedited approval of the permits needed for America and American infrastructure and that means plant, equipment, roads, bridges, factories. People take 10, 15, 20 years to get disapproved for a factory. They go in for a permit, it’s many, many years. And then at the end of the process — they spend 10s of millions of dollars on nonsense and at the end of the process, they get rejected.

Now, they may be rejected with me but it’s going to be a quick rejection. Not going to take years. But mostly it’s going to be an acceptance. We want plants built and we want factories built and we want the jobs. We don’t want the jobs going to other countries. We’ve imposed a hiring freeze on non-essential federal workers. We’ve imposed a temporary moratorium on new federal regulations.

We’ve issued a game-changing new rule that says for each one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated. Makes sense. Nobody’s ever seen regulations like we have. You go to other countries and you look at indexes (ph) they have and you say “let me see your regulations” and they’re fraction, just a tiny fraction of what we have. And I want regulations because I want safety, I want environmental – all environmental situations to be taken properly care of. It’s very important to me. But you don’t need four or five or six regulations to take care of the same thing.

We’ve stood up for the men and women of law enforcement, directing federal agencies to ensure they are protected from crimes of violence. We’ve directed the creation of a task force for reducing violent crime in America, including the horrendous situation — take a look at Chicago and others, taking place right now in our inner cities. Horrible.

We’ve ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice to coordinate on a plan to destroy criminal cartels coming into the United States with drugs. We’re becoming a drug infested nation. Drugs are becoming cheaper than candy bars. We are not going to let it happen any longer.

We’ve undertaken the most substantial border security measures in a generation to keep our nation and our tax dollars safe. And are now in the process of beginning to build a promised wall on the southern border, met with general — now Secretary Kelly yesterday and we’re starting that process. And the wall is going to be a great wall and it’s going to be a wall negotiated by me. The price is going to come down just like it has on everything else I’ve negotiated for the government. And we are going to have a wall that works, not gonna have a wall like they have now which is either non-existent or a joke.

We’ve ordered a crackdown on sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal law and that harbor criminal aliens, and we have ordered an end to the policy of catch and release on the border. No more release. No matter who you are, release. We have begun a nationwide effort to remove criminal aliens, gang members, drug dealers and others who pose a threat to public safety. We are saving American lives every single day.

The court system has not made it easy for us. And are even creating a new office in Homeland Security dedicated to the forgotten American victims of illegal immigrant violence, which there are many. We have taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of our country. No parts are necessary and constitutional actions were blocked by judges, in my opinion, incorrect, and unsafe ruling. Our administration is working night and day to keep you safe, including reporters safe. And is vigorously defending this lawful order.

I will not back down from defending our country. I got elected on defense of our country. I keep my campaign promises, and our citizens will be very happy when they see the result. They already are, I can tell you that. Extreme vetting will be put in place and it already is in place in many places.

In fact, we had to go quicker than we thought because of the bad decision we received from a circuit that has been overturned at a record number. I have heard 80 percent, I find that hard to believe, that is just a number I heard, that they are overturned 80 percent of the time. I think that circuit is — that circuit is in chaos and that circuit is frankly in turmoil. But we are appealing that, and we are going further.

We’re issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country. So we’ll be going along the one path and hopefully winning that, at the same time we will be issuing a new and very comprehensive order to protect our people. That will be done sometime next week, toward the beginning or middle at the latest part. We have also taken steps to begin construction of the Keystone Pipeline and Dakota Access Pipelines. Thousands and thousands of jobs, and put new buy American measures in place to require American steel for American pipelines. In other words, they build a pipeline in this country, and we use the powers of government to make that pipeline happen, we want them to use American steel. And they are willing to do that, but nobody ever asked before I came along. Even this order was drawn and they didn’t say that.

TRUMP: And I’m reading the order, I’m saying, why aren’t we using American steel? And they said, that’s a good idea, we put it in. To drain the swamp of corruption in Washington, D.C., I’ve started by imposing a five-year lobbying ban on White House officials and a lifetime ban on lobbying for a foreign government.

We’ve begun preparing to repeal and replace Obamacare. Obamacare is a disaster, folks. It is’s disaster. I know you can say, oh, Obamacare. I mean, they fill up our alleys with people that you wonder how they get there, but they are not the Republican people our that representatives are representing.

So we’ve begun preparing to repeal and replace Obamacare, and are deep in the midst of negotiations on a very historic tax reform to bring our jobs back, to bring our jobs back to this country. Big league. It’s already happening. But big league.

I’ve also worked to install a cabinet over the delays and obstruction of Senate Democrats. You’ve seen what they’ve done over the last long number of years. That will be one of the great cabinets ever assembled in American history.

You look at Rex Tillerson. He’s out there negotiating right now. General Mattis I mentioned before, General Kelly. We have great, great people. Mick is with us now. We have great people.

Among their responsibilities will be ending the bleeding of jobs from our country and negotiating fair trade deals for our citizens.

Now look, fair trade. Not free, fair. If a country is taking advantage of us, not going to let that happen anymore. Every country takes advantage of us almost. I may be able to find a couple that don’t. But for the most part, that would be a very tough job for me to do.

Jobs have already started to surge. Since my election, Ford announced it will abandon its plans to build a new factory in Mexico, and will instead invest $700 million in Michigan, creating many, many jobs.

Fiat Chrysler announced it will invest $1 billion in Ohio and Michigan, creating 2,000 new American jobs. They were with me a week ago. You know you were here.

General Motors likewise committed to invest billions of dollars in its American manufacturing operation, keeping many jobs here that were going to leave. And if I didn’t get elected, believe me, they would have left. And these jobs and these things that I’m announcing would never have come here.

Intel just announced that it will move ahead with a new plant in Arizona that probably was never going to move ahead with. And that will result in at least 10,000 American jobs.

Walmart announced it will create 10,000 jobs in the United States just this year because of our various plans and initiatives. There will be many, many more, many more, these are a few that we’re naming.

Other countries have been taking advantage of us for decades — decades, and decades, and decades, folks. And we’re not going to let that happen anymore. Not going to let it happen.

And one more thing, I have kept my promise to the American people by nominating a justice of the United States Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who is from my list of 20, and who will be a true defender of our laws and our Constitution, highly respected, should get the votes from the Democrats. You may not see that. But he’ll get there one way or the other. But he should get there the old-fashioned way, and he should get those votes.

This last month has represented an unprecedented degree of action on behalf of the great citizens of our country. Again, I say it. There has never been a presidency that’s done so much in such a short period of time. And we have not even started the big work yet. That starts early next week.

Some very big things are going to be announced next week. So we are just getting started. We will be giving a speech, as I said, in Melbourne, Florida, at 5:00 p.m. I hope to see you there.

And with that, I just say, God bless America, and let’s take some questions.

Mara (ph), Mara (ph), go ahead. You were cut off pretty violently at our last news conference.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

TRUMP: Mike Flynn is a fine person, and I asked for his resignation. He respectfully gave it. He is a man who there was a certain amount of information given to Vice President Pence, who is with us today. And I was not happy with the way that information was given.

He didn’t have to do that, because what he did wasn’t wrong — what he did in terms of the information he saw. What was wrong was the way that other people, including yourselves in this room, were given that information, because that was classified information that was given illegally. That’s the real problem.

And, you know, you can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a, you know, fake news, fabricated deal, to try and make up for the loss of the Democrats and the press plays right into it. In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with all of this — that they know nothing about it; they weren’t in Russia; they never made a phone call to Russia; they never received a phone call.

It’s all fake news. It’s all fake news. The nice thing is, I see it starting to turn, where people are now looking at the illegal — I think it’s very important — the illegal, giving out classified information. It was — and let me just tell you, it was given out like so much.

I’ll give you an example. I called, as you know, Mexico. It was a very, very confidential, classified call. But I called Mexico. And in calling Mexico, I figured, oh, well that’s — I spoke to the president of Mexico; I had a good call. All of a sudden, it’s out there for the world to see. It’s supposed to be secret. It’s supposed to be either confidential or classified, in that case.

Same thing with Australia. All of a sudden, people are finding out exactly what took place. The same thing happened with respect to General Flynn. Everybody saw this. And I’m saying — the first thing I thought of when I heard about it is: How does the press get this information that’s classified? How do they do it?

You know why? Because it’s an illegal process and the press should be ashamed of themselves. But more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves, really ashamed.

Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

TRUMP: Because when I looked at the information, I said, “I don’t think he did anything wrong; if anything, he did something right.” He was coming into office. He looked at the information. He said, “Huh, that’s fine.” That’s what they’re supposed to do. They’re supposed to — he didn’t just call Russia. He called and spoke to both ways, I think there were 30-some-odd countries. He’s doing the job.

You know, he was doing his job. The thing is, he didn’t tell our vice president properly, and then he said he didn’t remember. So either way, it wasn’t very satisfactory to me. And I have somebody that I think will be outstanding for the position. And that also helps, I think, in the making of my decision.

But he didn’t tell the vice president of the United States the facts. And then he didn’t remember. And that just wasn’t acceptable to me.

Yes?

QUESTION: (inaudible) clarification here. During your campaign, did anyone from your team (inaudible) Russian government or Russian intelligence? And if so, what was the nature of those conversations (inaudible)? TRUMP: The failing New York Times wrote a big, long front-page story yesterday. And it was very much discredited, as you know. It was — it’s a joke. And the people mentioned in the story, I notice they were on television today saying they never even spoke to Russia. They weren’t even a part, really — I mean, they were such a minor part. They — I hadn’t spoken to them.

I think the one person — I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to him. I don’t think I’ve ever met him. And he actually said he was a very low-level member of I think a committee for a short period of time. I don’t think I ever met him. Now, it’s possible that I walked into a room and he was sitting there, but I don’t think I ever met him. I didn’t talk to him ever. And he thought it was a joke.

The other person said he never spoke to Russia; never received a call. Look at his phone records, et cetera, et cetera. And the other person, people knew that he represented various countries, but I don’t think he represented Russia, but knew that he represented various countries. That’s what he does. I mean, people know that.

That’s Mr. Manafort, who’s — by the way, who’s by the way a respected man. He’s a respected man. But I think he represented the Ukraine or Ukraine government or somebody, but everybody — people knew that. Everybody knew that.

So, these people — and he said that he has absolutely nothing to do and never has with Russia. And he said that very forcefully. I saw his statement. He said it very forcefully. Most of the papers don’t print it because that’s not good for their stories.

TRUMP: So the three people that they talked about all totally deny it. And I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia. I have no loans in Russia. I don’t have any deals in Russia. President Putin called me up very nicely to congratulate me on the win of the election.

He then, called me up extremely nicely to congratulate me on the inauguration, which was terrific. But so did many other leaders, almost all other leaders from almost all of the country. So that’s the extent.

Russia is fake news. Russia — this is fake news put out by the media. The real news is the fact that people, probably from the Obama administration because they’re there, because we have our new people going in place, right now.

As you know, Mike Pompeo has — has now taken control of the CIA, James Comey at FBI, Dan Coats is waiting to be approved, I mean he is a senator and a highly respected one and he’s still waiting to be approved. But our new people are going in.

And just while you’re at it, because you mentioned this, Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New York Time’s story, yesterday. And it talked about — these are (ph) front page.

So director of national intelligence just put out, acting a statement, any suggestion that the United States intelligence community, this was just given to us, is withholding information and not providing the best possible intelligence to the president and his national security team is not true.

So they took this front page story out of The Wall Street Journal top and they just wrote the story that its not true. And I’ll tell you something, I’ll be honest, because I sort of enjoy this back and forth that I guess I have all my life but I’ve never seen more dishonest media than frankly, the political media. I thought the financial media was much better, much more honest.

But I will say that, I never get phone calls from the media. How did they write a story like that in The Wall Street Journal without asking me or how did they write a story in The New York Times, put it on front page?

That was like the story they wrote about the women and me, front page, big massive story. And it was nasty and then they called, they said we never said that, we like Mr. Trump. They called up my office, we like Mr. Trump, we never said that.

And it was totally — they totally misrepresented those very wonderful women, I have to tell you, totally misrepresented. I said give us the retraction. They never gave us a retraction and frankly, I then went on to other things.

OK, go ahead.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) said today that you have big intellectual margins (inaudible) 300 or more (ph), or 350 (ph) electoral (ph) votes. President Obama about 365 (OFF-MIKE).

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Yeah.

QUESTION: Obama (OFF-MIKE) 426 on (OFF-MIKE). So why should Americans…

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: …I’m skipping that information, I don’t know, I was just given (ph) we had a very, very big margin.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) why should Americans trust you (OFF-MIKE) the information (OFF-MIKE)?

TRUMP: Well, I don’t know, I was given that information. I was given — I actually, I’ve seen that information around. But it was a very substantial victory, do you agree with that? OK thank you, that’s…

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Go ahead Sir, yes?

QUESTION: Can you tell us in determining that Lieutenant General Flynn did — whether there was no wrongdoing in your mind, what evidence was weighed? Did you ask for transcripts of these telephone intercepts with Russian officials, particularly the Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, who he was communicating with?

What– what evidence did you weigh to determine that there was no wrongdoing? Further to that, Sir, you said on a couple of locations this morning, you are going to aggressively pursue the source of these leaks.

TRUMP: We are.

QUESTION: Can we ask what you’re going to do and also, we’ve heard about a — a review of the intelligence community headed up by Steven Feinberg, what can you tell us about that?

TRUMP: Well, first of all about that, we now have Dan Coats, hopefully soon, Mike Pompeo and James Comey and they’re in position so I hope that we’ll be able to straighten that out without using anybody else.

The gentleman you mentioned is a very talented man, very successful man and he’s offered his services and you know, it’s something we may take advantage of. But I don’t think we’re need that at all because of the fact that you know, I think that we are gonna be able to straighten it out very easily on its own.

As far as the general’s concerned, when I first heard about it, I said huh, that doesn’t sound wrong. My counsel came, Don McGahn, White House Counsel, and he told me and I asked him, he can speak very well for himself. He said he doesn’t think anything is wrong, you know, really didn’t think.

It was really, what happened after that but he didn’t think anything was done wrong. I didn’t either because I waited a period of time and I started to think about it, I said “well I don’t see” — to me, he was doing the job.

The information was provided by — who I don’t know, Sally Yates. And I was a little surprised because I said “doesn’t sound like he did anything wrong there.” But he did something wrong with respect to the vice president and I thought that was not acceptable. As far as — as far as the actual making the call, fact I’ve watched various programs and I’ve read various articles where he was just doing his job.

That was very normal. You know, first everybody got excited because they thought he did something wrong. After they thought about it, it turned out he was just doing his job. So — and I do. And by the way, with all of that being said, I do think he’s a fine man.

QUESTION: Sir, if I could, on the leaks — on the leaks, sir…

TRUMP: …Go ahead. Finish off then I’ll get you.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. What will you do on the leaks? You’ve said twice today…

TRUMP: …Yes, we’re looking at them very — very, very serious. I’ve gone to all of the folks in charge of the various agencies and we’re — I’ve actually called the Justice Department to look into the leaks. Those are criminal leaks. They’re put out by people either in agencies — I think you’ll see it stopping because now we have our people in. You know, again, we don’t have our people in because we can’t get them approved by the Senate.

We just had Jeff Sessions approved. Injustice, as an example (ph). So, we are looking into that very seriously. It’s a criminal act. You know what I say, when I — when I was called out on Mexico, I was shocked because all this equipment, all this incredible phone equipment — when I was called out on Mexico, I was — honestly, I was really, really surprised.

But I said “you know, it doesn’t make sense. That won’t happen” but that wasn’t that important a call, it was fine, I could show it to the world and he could show it to the world, the president who’s a very fine man, by the way. Same thing with Australia. I said “that’s terrible that it was leaked” but it wasn’t that important. But then I said to myself “what happens when I’m dealing with the problem of North Korea?”

What happens when I’m dealing with the problems in the Middle East? Are you folks going to be reporting all of that very, very confidential information, very important, very — you know, I mean at the highest level? Are you going to be reporting about that too? So, I don’t want classified information getting out to the public and in a way that was almost a test.

So I’m dealing with Mexico, I’m dealing with Argentina, we were dealing on this case with Mike Flynn. All this information gets put into the “Washington Post” and gets put into the “New York Times” and I’m saying “what’s going to happen when I’m dealing on the Middle East? What’s going to happen when I’m dealing with really, really important subjects like North Korea?

We got to stop it. That’s why it’s a criminal penalty.

QUESTION: I just want to get you to clarify this very important point. Can you say definitively that nobody on your campaign had any contacts with the Russians during the campaign? And on the leaks, is it fake news or are these real leaks?

TRUMP: Well the leaks are real. You’re the one that wrote about them and reported them, I mean the leaks are real. You know what they said, you saw it and the leaks are absolutely real. The news is fake because so much of the news is fake. So one thing that I felt it was very important to do — and I hope we can correct it. Because there’s nobody I have more respect for — well, maybe a little bit but the reporters, good reporters.

It’s very important to me and especially in this position. It’s very important. I don’t mind bad stories. I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it’s true and, you know, over a course of time, I’ll make mistakes and you’ll write badly and I’m OK with that. But I’m not OK when it is fake. I mean, I watch CNN, it’s so much anger and hatred and just the hatred.

I don’t watch it any more because it’s very good — he’s saying no. It’s OK, Jim (ph). It’s OK, Jim (ph), you’ll have your chance. But I watch others too. You’re not the only one so don’t feel badly. But I think it should be straight. I think it should be — I think it would be frankly more interesting. I know how good everybody’s ratings are right now but I think that actually — I think that’d actually be better.

People — I mean, you have a lower approval rate than Congress. I think that’s right. I don’t know, Peter (ph), is that one right? Because you know I think they have lower — I heard lower than Congress. But honestly, the public would appreciate it, I’d appreciate it — again, I don’t mind bad stories when it’s true but we have an administration where the Democrats are making it very difficult.

TRUMP: I think we’re setting a record or close to a record in the time of approval of a cabinet. I mean, the numbers are crazy. When I’m looking, some of them had them approved immediately.

I’m going forever and I still have a lot of people that we’re waiting for. And that’s all they’re doing, is delaying. And you look at Schumer and the mess that he’s got over there and they have nothing going. The only thing they can do is delay. And, you know, I think that they’d be better served by, you know, approving and making sure that they’re happy and everybody’s good.

And sometimes — I mean, I know President Obama lost three or four, and you lose them on the way, and that’s OK. That’s fine. But I think it would — I think they would be much better served, John, if they just went through the process quickly. This is pure delay tactics.

And they say it, and everybody understands it. Yeah, go ahead, Jimmy.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

TRUMP: Well, I had nothing to do with it. I have nothing to do with Russia. I told you, I have no deals there, I have no anything. Now, when WikiLeaks, which I had nothing to do with, comes out and happens to give, they’re not giving classified information. They’re giving stuff — what was said at an office about Hillary cheating on the debates.

Which, by the way, nobody mentions. Nobody mentions that Hillary received the questions to the debates. Can you imagine — seriously — can you imagine if I received the questions? It would be the electric chair. OK, he should be put in the electric — you would even call for the reinstitution of the death penalty, OK. Maybe not you John. Yes? We’ll do you next Jim, I do you next(ph).

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) clarify —

TRUMP: Yes, yes, sure

QUESTION: Did you direct Mike Flynn to discuss sanctions with the Russian ambassador —

TRUMP: No, I didn’t.

QUESTION: — prior to your — TRUMP: No, I didn’t.

QUESTION: — inauguration.

TRUMP: No, I didn’t.

QUESTION: And then fired him —

TRUMP: Excuse me.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

TRUMP: No, I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence. Very simple. Mike was doing his job. He was calling countries and his counterparts. So, it certainly would have been OK with me if he did it. I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it.

I didn’t direct him, but I would have directed him because that’s his job. And it came out that way — and in all fairness, I watched Dr. Charles Krauthammer the other night say he was doing his job and I agreed with him. And since then, I’ve watched many other people say that.

No, I didn’t direct him, but I would have directed him if he didn’t do it. OK? Jim?

QUESTION: Thank you very much, and just for the record, we don’t hate you. I don’t hate you.

TRUMP: OK.

QUESTION: So, pass that along —

TRUMP: Ask — ask Jeff Zucker how he got his job. OK?

QUESTION: If I may follow up on some of the questions that have taken place so far here, sir —

TRUMP: Well, that’s — well, you know, we do have other people. You do have other people and your ratings aren’t as good as some of the other people that are waiting.

QUESTION: It’s pretty good right now, actually.

TRUMP: OK, go ahead, John.

QUESTION: If I may ask, sir, you said earlier that WikiLeaks was revealing information about the Hillary Clinton campaign during the election cycle. You welcomed that. At one time —

TRUMP: I was OK with it.

QUESTION: — you said — you said that you loved WikiLeaks. At another campaign press conference you called on the Russians to find the missing 30,000 e-mails. I’m wondering, sir, if you — TRUMP: Well, she was actually missing 33 and then that got extended with a pile after that.

QUESTION: Then(ph), your(ph) numbers(ph) were off too.

TRUMP: No — no, but I did say 30. But it was actually higher than that.

QUESTION: If — if I may ask you, sir, it — it sounds as though you do not have much credibility here when it comes to leaking if that is something that you encouraged during(ph) the campaign —

TRUMP: OK, fair question. Ready?

QUESTION: Well, if I may ask you that —

TRUMP: No — no, but let me do one at a time.

QUESTION: If I may as a follow up?

TRUMP: Do you mind?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

TRUMP: All right. So, in one case, you’re talking about highly classified information. In the other case, you’re talking about John Podesta saying bad things about the boss. I will say this, if John Podesta said that about me and he was working for me, I would have fired him so fast your head would have spun.

He said terrible things about her. But it wasn’t classified information. But in one case, you’re talking about classified — regardless, if you look at the RNC, we had a very strong — at my suggestion — and I give Reince great credit for this — at my suggestion, because I know something about this world, I said I want a very strong defensive mechanism.

I don’t want to be hacked. And we did that. And you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. The DNC did not do that. And if they did it, they could not have been hacked. But they were hacked and terrible things came in. And, you know, the only thing that I do think is unfair is some of the things were so — they were — when I heard some of those things I picked up the papers the next morning and said, oh, this is going to be front page, it wasn’t even in the papers.

Again, if I had that happen to me, it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or the head of newspapers. I would have been headline in every newspaper. I mean, think of it. They gave her the questions to a debate and she — and she should have reported herself.

Why did Hillary Clinton announce that, “I’m sorry, but I have been given the questions to a debate or a town hall, and I feel that it’s inappropriate, and I want to turn in CNN for not doing a good job.” QUESTION: And if I may follow up on that, just something that Jonathan Karl (ph) was asking you about. You said that the leaks are real, but the news is fake. I guess I don’t understand. It seems that there’s a disconnect there. If the information coming from those leaks is real, then how can the stories be fake?

TRUMP: The reporting is fake. Look, look…

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: You know what it is? Here’s the thing. The public isn’t — you know, they read newspapers, they see television, they watch. They don’t know if it’s true or false because they’re not involved. I’m involved. I’ve been involved with this stuff all my life. But I’m involved. So I know when you’re telling the truth or when you’re not. I just see many, many untruthful things.

And I’ll tell you what else I see. I see tone. You know the word “tone.” The tone is such hatred. I’m really not a bad person, by the way. No, but the tone is such — I do get good ratings, you have to admit that — the tone is such hatred.

I watched this morning a couple of the networks. And I have to say, Fox & Friends in the morning, they’re very honorable people. They’re very — not because they’re good, because they hit me also when I do something wrong. But they have the most honest morning show. That’s all I can say. It’s the most honest.

But the tone, Jim. If you look — the hatred. The, I mean, sometimes — sometimes somebody gets…

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10 o’clock in the evening. You just take a look at that show. That is a constant hit. The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump. The good news is he doesn’t have good ratings. But the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump. And the hatred and venom coming from his mouth; the hatred coming from other people on your network.

Now, I will say this. I watch it. I see it. I’m amazed by it. And I just think you’d be a lot better off, I honestly do. The public gets it, you know. Look, when I go to rallies, they turn around, they start screaming at CNN. They want to throw their placards at CNN. You know.

I — I think you would do much better by being different. But you just take a look. Take a look at some of your shows in the morning and the evening. If a guest comes out and says something positive about me, it’s — it’s brutal.

Now, they’ll take this news conference — I’m actually having a very good time, OK? But they’ll take this news conference — don’t forget, that’s the way I won. Remember, I used to give you a news conference every time I made a speech, which was like every day. OK?

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: No, that’s how I won. I won with news conferences and probably speeches. I certainly didn’t win by people listening to you people. That’s for sure. But I’m having a good time.

Tomorrow, they will say, “Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.” I’m not ranting and raving. I’m just telling you. You know, you’re dishonest people. But — but I’m not ranting and raving. I love this. I’m having a good time doing it.

But tomorrow, the headlines are going to be, “Donald Trump rants and raves.” I’m not ranting and raving.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: If I may, just one more followup…

TRUMP: Should I let him have a little bit more? What do you think, Peter? Peter, should I have — let him have a little bit more?

Sit down. Sit down. We’ll…

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Just because of the attack of fake news and attacking our network, I just want to ask you, sir…

TRUMP: I’m changing it from fake news, though.

QUESTION: Doesn’t that under…

TRUMP: Very fake news.

QUESTION: … I know, but aren’t you…

(LAUGHTER)

TRUMP: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Real news, Mr. President, real news.

TRUMP: And you’re not related to our new…

QUESTION: I am not related, sir. No. I do like the sound of Secretary Acosta, I must say.

TRUMP: I looked — you know, I looked at that name. I said, wait a minute, is there any relation there? Alex Acosta.

QUESTION: I’m sure you checked that out, sir.

TRUMP: OK. Now I checked it — I said — they said, “No, sir.” I said, “Do me a favor, go back and check the family tree.”

QUESTION: But aren’t you — aren’t you concerned, sir, that you are undermining the people’s faith in the First Amendment, freedom of the press, the press in this country, when you call stories you don’t like “fake news”? Why not just say it’s a story I don’t like.

TRUMP: I do that.

QUESTION: When you call it “fake news,” you’re undermining confidence in our news media (inaudible) important.

TRUMP: No, no. I do that. Here’s the thing. OK. I understand what you’re — and you’re right about that, except this. See, I know when I should get good and when I should get bad. And sometimes I’ll say, “Wow, that’s going to be a great story.” And I’ll get killed.

I know what’s good and bad. I’d be a pretty good reporter, not as good as you. But I know what’s good. I know what’s bad. And when they change it and make it really bad, something that should be positive — sometimes something that should be very positive, they’ll make OK. They’ll even make it negative.

So I understand it. So, because I’m there. I know what was said. I know who’s saying it. I’m there. So it’s very important to me.

Look, I want to see an honest press. When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press. The press — the public doesn’t believe you people anymore. Now, maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you. If you were straight and really told it like it is, as Howard Cosell used to say, right?

Of course, he had some questions also. But if you were straight, I would be your biggest booster. I would be your biggest fan in the world, including bad stories about me. But if you go – as an example, you’re CNN, I mean it’s story after story after story is bad. I won. I won. And the other thing, chaos because zero chaos. We are running – this is a fine-tuned machine and Reince happens to be doing a good job but half of his job is putting out lies by the press (ph).

You know, I said to him yesterday this whole Russia scam that you guys are building so that you don’t talk about the real subject which is illegal leaks, but I watched him yesterday working so hard to try and get that story proper. And I’m saying “here’s my chief of staff,” a really good guy, did a phenomenal job at RNC. I mean, he won the election, right?

We won the presidency. We got some senators, we got some – all over the country, you take a look, he’s done a great job. And I said to myself, you know – and I said to somebody that was in the room, I said “you take a look at Reince, he’s working so hard just putting out fires that are fake fires.” I mean, they’re fake. They’re not true. And isn’t that a shame because he’d rather be working on healthcare, he’d rather be working on tax reform, Jim (ph).

I mean that. I would be your biggest fan in the world if you treated me right. I sort of understand there’s a certain bias maybe by Jeff (ph) or somebody, you know – you know, whatever reason. But – and I understand that. But you’ve got to be at least a little bit fair and that’s why the public sees it. They see it. They see it’s not fair. You take a look at some of your shows and you see the bias and the hatred.

And the public is smart, they understand it. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (inaudible) …for those who believe that there is something to it, is there anything that you have learned over the last few weeks that you might be able to reveal that might ease their concerns that this isn’t fake news? And second…

TRUMP: …I think they don’t believe it. I don’t think the public – that’s why the Rasmussen poll just has me through the roof. I don’t think they believe it. Well, I guess one of the reasons I’m here today is to tell you the whole Russian thing, that’s a ruse. That’s a ruse. And by the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia, just so you understand that.

Now tomorrow, you’ll say “Donald Trump wants to get along with Russia, this is terrible.” It’s not terrible. It’s good. We had Hillary Clinton try and do a reset. We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country. You know what uranium is, right? This thing called nuclear weapons like lots of things are done with uranium including some bad things.

Nobody talks about that. I didn’t do anything for Russia. I’ve done nothing for Russia. Hillary Clinton gave them 20 percent of our uranium. Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember? With the stupid plastic button that made us all look like a bunch of jerks. Here, take a look. He looked at her like, what the hell is she doing with that cheap plastic button?

Hillary Clinton – that was the reset, remember it said reset? Now if I do that, oh, I’m a bad guy. If we could get along with Russia, that’s a positive thing. We have a very talented man, Rex Tillerson, who’s going to be meeting with them shortly and I told him. I said “I know politically it’s probably not good for me.” The greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that’s 30 miles off shore right out of the water.

Everyone in this country’s going to say “oh, it’s so great.” That’s not great. That’s not great. I would love to be able to get along with Russia. Now, you’ve had a lot of presidents that haven’t taken that tack. Look where we are now. Look where we are now. So, if I can – now, I love to negotiate things, I do it really well, and all that stuff. But – but it’s possible I won’t be able to get along with Putin.

Maybe it is. But I want to just tell you, the false reporting by the media, by you people, the false, horrible, fake reporting makes it much harder to make a deal with Russia. And probably Putin said “you know.” He’s sitting behind his desk and he’s saying “you know, I see what’s going on in the United States, I follow it closely. It’s going to be impossible for President Trump to ever get along with Russia because of all the pressure he’s got with this fake story.” OK?

And that’s a shame because if we could get along with Russia – and by the way, China and Japan and everyone. If we could get along, it would be a positive thing, not a negative thing.

QUESTION: Is tax reform on the line (ph)?

QUESTION: Mr. President? Mr. President? Mr. President, since you…

TRUMP: Tax reform is going to happen fairly quickly. We’re doing Obamacare. We’re in final stages. We should be submitting the initial plan in March, early March, I would say. And we have to, as you know, statutorily and for reasons of budget, we have to go first. It’s not like, frankly, the tax would be easier, in my opinion, but for statutory reasons and for budgetary reasons, we have to submit the healthcare sooner.

So we’ll be submitting healthcare sometime in early March, mid- March. And after that, we’re going to come up, and we’re doing very well on tax reform.

Yes?

QUESTION: Mr. President, you mentioned Russia. Let’s talk about some serious issues that have come up in the last week that you have had to deal with as president of the United States.

TRUMP: OK.

QUESTION: You mentioned the vessel — the spy vessel off the coast of the United States.

TRUMP: Not good.

QUESTION: There was a ballistic missile test that many interpret as a violation of an agreement between the two countries; and a Russian plane buzzed a U.S. destroyer.

TRUMP: Not good.

QUESTION: I listened to you during the campaign …

TRUMP: Excuse me, excuse me. When did it happen? It happened when, if you were Putin right now, you would say, “Hey, we’re back to the old games with the United States; there’s no way Trump can ever do a deal with us.” Because the — you have to understand. If I was just brutal on Russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, “Oh, isn’t that wonderful.” But I know you well enough.

Then you would say, “Oh, he was too tough; he shouldn’t have done that.” Look, all of the…

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: I’m just trying to find out your orientation to those…

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Wait a minute. Wait, wait. Excuse me just one second.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: All of those things that you mentioned are very recent, because probably Putin assumes that he’s not going to be able to make a deal with me because it’s politically not popular for me to make a deal. So Hillary Clinton tries a re-set. It failed. They all tried. But I’m different than those people.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: How are you interpreting those moves? And what do you intend to do about them? Have you given Rex Tillerson any advice or counsel on how to deal?

TRUMP: I have. I have. And I’m so beautifully represented. I’m so honored that the Senate approved him. He’s going to be fantastic.

Yes, I think that I’ve already…

QUESTION: Is Putin testing you, do you believe, sir?

TRUMP: No, I don’t think so. I think Putin probably assumes that he can’t make a deal with me anymore because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to make a deal. I can’t believe I’m saying I’m a politician, but I guess that’s what I am now.

Because, look, it would be much easier for me to be tough on Russia, but then we’re not going to make a deal.

Now, I don’t know that we’re going to make a deal. I don’t know. We might. We might not. But it would be much easier for me to be so tough — the tougher I am on Russia, the better. But you know what? I want to do the right thing for the American people. And to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world.

If Russia and the United States actually got together and got along — and don’t forget, we’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. There’s no up-side. We’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. I have been briefed. And I can tell you one thing about a briefing that we’re allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other.

They’re a very powerful nuclear country and so are we. If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

QUESTION: So when you say they’re not good, do you mean that they are…

TRUMP: Who did I say is not good?

QUESTION: No, I read off the three things that have recently happened. Each one of them you said they’re not good.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: No, it’s not good, but they happened.

QUESTION: But do they damage the relationship? Do they undermine…

TRUMP: They all happened recently.

No…

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: … this country’s ability to work with Russia?

TRUMP: They all happened recently. And I understand what they’re doing because they’re doing the same thing.

Now, again, maybe I’m not going to be able to do a deal with Russia, but at least I will have tried. And if I don’t, does anybody really think that Hillary Clinton would be tougher on Russia than Donald Trump? Does anybody in this room really believe that? OK?

But I tell you one thing, she tried to make a deal. She had the re-set. She gave all that valuable uranium away. She did other things. You know, they say I’m close to Russia. Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States. She’s close to Russia.

QUESTION: Can we…

TRUMP: I gave — you know what I gave to Russia? You know what I gave? Nothing.

QUESTION: Can we conclude there will be no response to these particular provocations?

TRUMP: I’m not going to tell you anything about what response I do. I don’t talk about military response. I don’t say I’m going into Mosul in four months. “We are going to attack Mosul in four months.” Then three months later, “We are going to attack Mosul in one month.” “Next week, we are going to attack Mosul.”

In the meantime, Mosul is very, very difficult. Do you know why? Because I don’t talk about military, and I don’t talk about certain other things, you’re going to be surprised to hear that. And by the way, my whole campaign, I’d say that. So I don’t have to tell you. I don’t want to be one of these guys that say, “Yes, here’s what we’re going to do.” I don’t have to do that. I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Wait a minute. I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea. And I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do with Iran. You know why? Because they shouldn’t know. And eventually, you guys are going to get tired of asking that question.

TRUMP: So when you ask me what am I going to do with a ship, the Russian ship as an example, I’m not going to tell you. But hopefully, I won’t have to do anything, but I’m not going to tell you.

OK.

QUESTION: Could I just ask you — thank you very much, Mr. President. The trouble…

TRUMP: Where are you from?

QUESTION: BBC.

TRUMP: Here’s another beauty.

QUESTION: That’s a good line. Impartial, free and fair.

TRUMP: Yeah. Sure.

QUESTION: Mr. President…

TRUMP: Just like CNN right?

QUESTION: On the travel ban — we could banter back and forth. On the travel ban would you accept that that was a good example of the smooth running of government…

TRUMP: Yeah, I do. I do. Let me tell you about this government…

QUESTION: Were there any mistakes…

TRUMP: Wait. Wait. I know who you are. Just wait.

Let me tell you about the travel ban. We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban. But we had a bad court. Got a bad decision. We had a court that’s been overturned. Again, may be wrong. But I think it’s 80 percent of the time, a lot.

We had a bad decision. We’re going to keep going with that decision. We’re going to put in a new executive order next week some time. But we had a bad decision.

That’s the other thing that was wrong with the travel ban. You had Delta with a massive problem with their computer system at the airports. You had some people that were put out there, brought by very nice busses, and they were put out at various locations.

Despite that the only problem that we had is we had a bad court. We had a court that gave us what I consider to be, with great respect, a very bad decision. Very bad for the safety and security of our country. The rollout was perfect.

Now, what I wanted to do was do the exact same executive order, but said one thing. I said this to my people. Give them a one-month period of time. But Gen. Kelly, now Sec. Kelly, said if you do that, all these people will come in and (inaudible) the bad ones.

You do agree there are bad people out there, right? That not everybody that’s like you. You have some bad people out there.

Kelly said you can’t do that. And he was right. As soon as he said it I said wow, never thought of it. I said how about one week? He said no good. You got to do it immediately because if you do it immediately they don’t have time to come in.

Now nobody ever reports that. But that’s why we did it quickly.

Now, if I would’ve done it a month, everything would’ve been perfect. The problem is we would’ve wasted a lot of time, and maybe a lot of lives because a lot of bad people would’ve come into our country.

Now in the meantime, we’re vetting very, very strongly. Very, very strongly. But we need help. And we need help by getting that executive order passed.

QUESTION: Just a brief follow-up. But if it’s so urgent, why not introduce…

TRUMP: Yes? Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. I was just hoping that we could get a yes or no answer on one of these questions involving Russia. Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election?

TRUMP: Well I told you, Gen. Flynn obviously was dealing. So that’s one person. But he was dealing, as he should have been.

QUESTION: During the election?

TRUMP: No. Nobody that I know of. Nobody…

QUESTION: So you’re not aware of any contact during the course..

TRUMP: Look, look, look…

QUESTION: … of the election?

TRUMP: How many times do I have to answer this question?

QUESTION: Can you just say yes or no? TRUMP: Russia is a ruse.

I know you have to get up and ask a question. It’s so important.

Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn’t. I just have nobody to speak to.

I spoke to Putin twice. He called me on the election. I told you this. And he called me on the inauguration, a few days ago.

We had a very good talk, especially the second one, lasted for a pretty long period of time. I’m sure you probably get it because it was classified. So I’m sure everybody in this room perhaps has it. But we had a very, very good talk.

I have nothing to do with Russia. To the best of my knowledge no person that I deal with does.

Now, Manafort has totally denied it. He denied it. Now people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while, but not for Russia. I think he represented Ukraine or people having to do with Ukraine, or people that — whoever. But people knew that. Everybody knew that.

QUESTION: But in his capacity as your campaign manager, was he in touch with Russian officials during the election?

TRUMP: You know what? He said no. I could only tell you what he — now he was replaced long before the election. You know that, right?

He was replaced long before the election. When all of this stuff started coming out, it came out during the election. But Paul Manafort, who’s a good man also by the way, Paul Manfort was replaced long before the election took place. He was only there for a short period of time.

QUESTION: Mr. President…

TRUMP: How much longer should we stay here, folks?

QUESTION: Mr. President…

TRUMP: Five more minutes. Is that OK? Five?

QUESTION: Mr. President, on national…

TRUMP: Wait. Let’s see. Who’s — I want to find a friendly reporter.

QUESTION: Mr….

TRUMP: Are you a friendly reporter? Watch how friendly he is. Wait. Wait. Watch how friendly he is. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)…

TRUMP: Go ahead.

QUESTION: So first of all, my name is (Inaudible) from (Inaudible) Magazine. I (inaudible). I haven’t seen anybody in my community, including yourself or any of the — anyone on your staff of being (OFF-MIKE).

Because (OFF-MIKE). However, what we’ve already heard about and what we (OFF-MIKE) is (OFF-MIKE) so you’re general forecast (ph) like 48 (OFF-MIKE). There are people who are everything (ph) happens through their packs (ph) is one of the (OFF-MIKE)…

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP:…he said he was gonna ask a very simple, easy question. And it’s not, its not, not — not a simple question, not a fair question. OK sit down, I understand the rest of your question.

So here’s the story, folks. Number one, I am the least anti- Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life. Number two, racism, the least racist person. In fact, we did very well relative to other people running as a Republican — quiet, quiet, quiet.

See, he lied about — he was gonna get up and ask a very straight, simple question, so you know, welcome to the world of the media. But let me just tell you something, that I hate the charge, I find it repulsive.

I hate even the question because people that know me and you heard the prime minister, you heard Ben Netanyahu (ph) yesterday, did you hear him, Bibi? He said, I’ve known Donald Trump for a long time and then he said, forget it.

So you should take that instead of having to get up and ask a very insulting question like that.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, I’m Lisa (ph) from the…

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: See, it just shows you about the press, but that’s the way the press is.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. Lisa Dejardown (ph) from the PBS News Hour. On national security and immigration, can you give us more details on the executive order you plan for next week? Even its broad outlines?

TRUMP: Yeah.

QUESTION: Will it be focused on specific…

TRUMP: It’s a very fair question.

QUESTION: …countries? And in addition, on the DACA program for immigration.

TRUMP: Right.

QUESTION: What is your plan, do you plan to continue that program or to end it?

TRUMP: We’re gonna show great heart, DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me, I will tell you. To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects I have because you have these incredible kids.

In many cases, not in all cases. And some of the cases, having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers, too. But you have some absolutely, incredible kids, I would say mostly. They were brought here in such a way — it’s a very — it’s a very, very tough subject.

We’re gonna deal with DACA with heart. I have to deal with a lot of politicians, don’t forget and I have to convince them that what I’m saying is — is right. And I appreciate your understanding on that.

But the DACA situation is a very, very — it’s a very difficult thing for me because you know, I love these kids, I love kids, I have kids and grandkids. And I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do and you know, the law is rough.

I’m not talking about new laws, I’m talking the existing law, is very rough, it’s very, very rough. As far as the new order, the new order is going to be very much tailored to the what I consider to be a very bad decision.

But we can tailor the order to that decision and get just about everything, in some ways, more. But we’re tailoring it now to the decision, we have some of the best lawyers in the country working on it.

And the new executive order, is being tailored to the decision we got down from the court. OK?

QUESTION: Mr. President…

(CROSSTALK) QUESTION: …reopening of the White House Visitors Office?

TRUMP: Yes.

QUESTION: And she does a lot of great work for the country as well (ph). Can you talk a little bit about what’s first for (ph) Melania Trump does for the country and (inaudible) so opening White House Visitors Office, what does that mean…

TRUMP: Now, that’s what I call a nice question. That is very — who are you with?

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

TRUMP: Good, I’m gonna start watching, all right? Thank you very much. Melania’s terrific, she was here last night, we had dinner with Senator Rubio and his wife who is by the way, lovely.

And we had a really good discussion about Cuba because we have very similar views on Cuba. And Cuba was very good to me in the Florida election, as you know the Cuban Americans. And I think that Melania’s gonna be outstanding, that’s right, she just opened up the visitors center, in other words, touring of the White House.

She, like others that she’s working with, feel very, very strongly about women’s issue, women’s difficulties. Very, very strongly, she’s a very, very strong advocate. I think she’s a great representative for this country.

And a funny thing happens, because she gets — she gets so unfairly — Melania, the things they say. I’ve known her for a long time, she was a very successful person, she was a very successful model. She did really well.

She would go home at night and didn’t even want to go out with people. She was a very private person. She was always the highest quality that you’ll ever find. And the things they say — I’ve known her for a long time — the things they say are so unfair. And actually, she’s been apologized to, as you know, by various media because they said things that were lies.

I’ll just tell you this. I think she’s going to be a fantastic first lady. She’s going to be a tremendous representative of women and of the people. And helping her and working her will be Ivanka, who is a fabulous person and a fabulous, fabulous woman. And they’re not doing this for money.

They’re not doing this for pay, they’re doing this because they feel it; both of them. And Melania goes back and forth and after Barron finishes school — because it’s hard to take a child out of school with a few months left — she and Barron will be moving over to the White House. OK, thank you, that’s a very nice question.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Go ahead. QUESTION: Mr. Trump?

TRUMP: Yes, oh, this is going to be a bad question, but that’s OK.

QUESTION: It doesn’t(ph) have(ph) to be a bad question.

TRUMP: Good, because I enjoy watching you on television. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, thank you so much. Mr. President, I need to find out from you, you said something as it relates to inner cities. That was one of your platforms during your campaign. Now you’re —

TRUMP: Fix the inner cities.

QUESTION: — president. Fixing the inner cities.

TRUMP: Yep.

QUESTION: What will be that fix and your urban agenda as well as your HBCU Executive Order that’s coming out this afternoon? See, it wasn’t bad, was it?

TRUMP: That was very professional and very good.

QUESTION: I’m very professional.

TRUMP: We’ll be announcing the order in a little while and I’d rather let the order speak for itself. But it could be something that I think that will be very good for everybody concerned. But we’ll talk to you about that after we do the announcement. As far as the inner cities, as you know, I was very strong on the inner cities during the campaign.

I think it’s probably what got me a much higher percentage of the African American vote than a lot of people thought I was going to get. We did, you know, much higher than people thought I was going to get. And I was honored by that, including the Hispanic vote, which was also much higher.

And by the way, if I might add, including the women’s vote, which was much higher than people thought I was going to get. So, we are going to be working very hard on the inner cities, having to do with education, having to do with crime. We’re going to try and fix as quickly as possible — you know, it takes a long time.

It’s taken more a hundred years and more for some of these places to evolve and they evolved, many of them, very badly. But we’re going to be working very hard on health and healthcare, very, very hard on education, and also we’re going to be working in a stringent way, in a very good way, on crime.

You go to some of these inner city places and it’s so sad when you look at the crime. You have people — and I’ve seen this, and I’ve sort of witnessed it — in fact, in two cases I have actually witnessed it. They lock themselves into apartments, petrified to even leave, in the middle of the day.

They’re living in hell. We can’t let that happen. So, we’re going to be very, very strong. That’s a great question and — and it’s a — it’s a very difficult situation because it’s been many, many years. It’s been festering for many, many years. But we have places in this country that we have to fix.

We have to help African American people that, for the most part, are stuck there. Hispanic American people. We have Hispanic American people that are in the inner cities and their living in hell. I mean, you look at the numbers in Chicago. There are two Chicagos, as you know.

There’s one Chicago that’s incredible, luxurious and all — and safe. There’s another Chicago that’s worse than almost any of the places in the Middle East that we talk, and that you talk about, every night on the newscasts. So, we’re going to do a lot of work on the inner cities.

I have great people lined up to help with the inner cities. OK?

QUESTION: Well, when you say the inner cities, are you going — are you going to include the CBC, Mr. President, in your conversations with your — your urban agenda, your inner city agenda, as well as —

TRUMP: Am I going to include who?

QUESTION: Are you going to include the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional —

TRUMP: Well, I would. I tell you what, do you want to set up the meeting?

QUESTION: — Hispanic Caucus —

TRUMP: Do you want to set up the meeting?

QUESTION: No — no — no. I’m not —

TRUMP: Are they friends of yours?

QUESTION: I’m just a reporter.

TRUMP: Well, then(ph) set up the meeting.

QUESTION: I know some of them, but I’m sure they’re watching right now.

TRUMP: Let’s go set up a meeting. I would love to meet with the Black Caucus. I think it’s great, the Congressional Black Caucus. I think it’s great. I actually thought I had a meeting with Congressman Cummings and he was all excited. And then he said, well, I can’t move, it might be bad for me politically. I can’t have that meeting.

I was all set to have the meeting. You know, we called him and called him. And he was all set. I spoke to him on the phone, very nice guy.

QUESTION: I hear he wanted that meeting with you as well.

TRUMP: He wanted it, but we called, called, called and can’t make a meeting with him. Every day I walk and say I would like to meet with him because I do want to solve the problem. But he probably was told by Schumer or somebody like that, some other lightweight. He was probably told – he was probably told “don’t meet with Trump. It’s bad politics.”

And that’s part of the problem in this country. OK, one more.

QUESTION: (inaudible)

TRUMP: No, no, one question. Two we can’t handle. This room can’t handle two. Go ahead, give me the better of your two.

QUESTION: (inaudible) …not about your personality or your beliefs, talking about (inaudible), some of it by supporters in your name. What do you…

TRUMP: …And some of it – can I be honest with you? And this has to do with racism and horrible things that are put up. Some of it written by our opponents. You do know that. Do you understand that? You don’t think anybody would do a thing like that. Some of the signs you’ll see are not put up by the people that love or like Donald Trump, they’re put up by the other side and you think it’s like playing it straight?

No. But you have some of those signs and some of that anger is caused by the other side. They’ll do signs and they’ll do drawings that are inappropriate. It won’t be my people. It will be the people on the other side to anger people like you. OK.

(CROSSTALK)

TRUMP: Go ahead, go ahead.

QUESTION: You’re the president now. What are you going to do about it?

TRUMP: Who is that? Where is that?

QUESTION: What are you going to do about – what are you going to do about (inaudible).

TRUMP: Oh, I’m working on it. I’m working on it very – no, no, look. Hey, just so you understand, we had a totally divided country for eight years and long before that. In all fairness to President Obama, long before President Obama we have had a very divided – I didn’t come along and divide this country. This country was seriously divided before I got here.

We’re going to work on it very hard. One of the questions I was asked, I thought it was a very good question was about the inner cities. I mean, that’s part of it. But we’re going to work on education, we’re going to work on – you know, we’re going to stop – we’re going to try and stop the crime. We have great law enforcement officials, we’re going to try and stop crime.

We’re not going to try and stop, we’re going to stop crime. But it’s very important to me – but this isn’t Donald Trump that divided a nation. We went eight years with President Obama and we went many years before President Obama. We lived in a divided nation. And I am going to try – I will do everything within my power to fix that. I want to thank everybody very much.

It’s a great honor to be with you. Thank you. Thank you very much, thanks.

The Importance of Real Words -B.Keller

IMG_0268As someone who teaches the importance, values, power and etymology of words, as well as teaching people to think before they speak or write and to analyze the things others say and write, I am having a little difficulty with the recent increase of “engineering “ being done to the language to normalize the use of phrases such as “ reality tv”, “alternate reality”, and most recently, “alternative facts “, just to mention a few.

Language depends on the common denominator of words having the same meaning to everyone engaged in the particular communication process. That means the word black doesn’t mean brown to some of the people engaged in the process and green to the others, that means that black means black.

I teach students to use concrete words when the write or speak in order to communicate successfully as opposed to “abstract” words like nice, which can mean different things to different people. In fact, it has been my experience that when people use abstract words or phrases, they are attempting to intentionally obfuscate the point being made, that they have no desire to communicate, that, in fact, they are actually trying to do the exact opposite – to exclude, disenfranchise, to ostracize.

For example, let’s look at the three terms highlighted earlier in this essay: reality tv, alternate reality,  and alternative truth. In the phrase reality tv , the simple fact is that reality tv isn’t real at all. It’s scripted and last time I checked, you can’t script reality- it’s usually not all that good at taking directions. That means the term reality tv is actually an oxymoron – a phrase that contains words that contradict each other.

In the phrase alternate reality, the fact is that the alternate to reality would be not reality. After all, the first four letters of the word reality is real. The only alternative to real is NOT real. There is no “other” real- a thing is either real or it isn’t.

Finally, let’s look at alternative facts. Just so you know, the root “act” means “to do”.  A benefactor is a person who does good, while a malefactor is a person who does evil. A fact is something a person can prove because it has already been done. It can’t be undone or made not a fact. This means it the best case scenario, an alternative fact is something that has not been done (which would make it NOT a fact), in the worst case scenario it’s a lie, pure and simple.

To communicate successfully, you must have a sender, a message and a receiver. If the language the sender is using to formulate the message is nebulous, inexact, amorphous and intentionally obfuscatory, the process of communication is corrupted and cannot do what it is designed to do.

This has been the communicative process since humans first began to talk and the process is the same today, reality tv, alternate reality and alternative facts notwithstanding.
[We do not have an Alternate President. He is our reality. Unfortunately.] D.G.

Be Careful What You Ask For -B.Keller

When I speak with young people who tell me they want to go to college , but they’re not your big on reading and writing essays, I tell them when you say you want to go to college you need to understand you are actually saying, “I want to do a lot of work.”

Analogously, when you want to be the president of the United States, ostensibly the leader of the free world, understand that you are asking to be scrutinized and put under a microscope.

When you repeatedly say you’re the smartest guy in the room and you know more than anybody else, and everyone who came before you was stupid or incompetent, you really can’t ask for “slack” or “a little time to get things up and running”’ you can’t ask people to “give you a chance because you just got started”, or because you don’t have experience in this field.

Growing up, we were told, “Be careful what you ask for, you might get it”, and “Don’t let your eyes be bigger than your stomach.” Both statements admonished us to be careful about what we said and not to put ourselves in situations where we wrote a check with our mouths that our butts couldn’t cash. If I told you I could beat Lebron James or Stephen Curry one on one, but when we played, they were beating me like a drum, I couldn’t say, “Yeah, they are beating me, but they’re great NBA players, they’re pros.” I can’t use that as my excuse or my defense since I was the one who called them out, I was the one who said I was better. I can’t ask people to “Give me a break because I am not a pro”, or “ To cut me a little slack”. I was the person who made the statement, the person who “asked for something and got what I asked for.” I can’t now ask people not to scrutinize the results of my contest, not to criticize me, evaluate me or even disparage me.

I like to tell students if you are man or woman enough to say something, you should be man enough or woman enough to repeat, and you should be man enough or woman enough to accept the challenges and responsibilities your words bring. Period.

For me, a big part of maturity, of being an adult, is not reaching a certain age- hell, there are seventy year olds who behave like spoiled five year olds behave when they don’t get their way. For me, the biggest part of maturity is being able to stand up and say,”Yes, I said that”, and if what you said turns out to be wrong, the ability or capacity to say, “I was wrong.”

When you make statements like, “I am smarter than everyone else” or “ the people who preceded me were stupid or incompetent”, you are putting one hell of a target on your back and you are placing yourself in the spotlight and under the microscope, you are inviting everyone to take his/her shot at you, to question you, to evaluate you, criticize you, disagree with you, prove you wrong, ( or at least try to prove you wrong), arm chair quarterback you, and when you say you want the job of president of the United States, the “leader of the free world,”- and you get the job- you have to know that everything will be ramped up exponentially.

As adults, it is our responsibility to model the behavior we want to see in young people as well as to pass on the wisdom our lives’ experiences have afforded us, and one piece of wisdom we would do well to pass on would be the admonition to ”Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.”

Irrational Fears vs Rational Compassion

unknown

This essay by Jon Meacham struck a chord in me as I have been pondering the history of our on again off again love hate affair with immigrants and immigration.

Let us count the off again – hatred times:

Note that there is only 1 anti-immigration law until 1882.

Between 1882 and 1952 there are 10!

  • Alien and Sedition Act: 1798
  • Rise of the 19th century Know Nothings (American Party): 1848 They sought to permit only native-born Americans ( not Native Americans) to run for office and try to raise the residency requirement to 25 years.
  • Chinese Exclusion Act: 1882
  •  Anarchist Exclusion Act: 1903  denies anarchists, other political extremists, beggars, and epileptics entry into the U.S.
  • The Immigration Act of 1907:  The list of excluded now adds “imbeciles,” “feeble-minded” people, those with physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, tuberculosis victims, children who enter the U.S. without parents, and those who committed crimes of “moral turpitude.”
  • Gentlemen’s Agreement barring Japanese: 1907
  • Immigration Act of 1917 (Asiatic Barred Zone Act): restricted immigration, particularly of people from a large swath of Asia and the Pacific Islands. The act also bars homosexuals, “idiots,” “feeble-minded persons,” “criminals,” “insane persons,” alcoholics, and other categories.
  • The Emergency Quota Law of 1921 limits the number of immigrants entering the U.S. each year to 350,000 and implements a nationality quota. Immigration from any country is capped at 3% of the population of that nationality based on the 1910 census. The law reduces immigration from eastern and southern Europe while favoring immigrants from Northern Europe.
  • The National Origins Act of 1924: reduces the number of immigrants entering the U.S. each year to 165,000 and the nationality quota set forth in the Quota Law of 1921 is cut to 2% of the population of that nationality based on the 1890 census. The quota system did not apply to immigrants from the western hemisphere.
  • The National Origins Act amended 1929: once again reduces the annual cap on the number of immigrants allowed to enter the U.S., this time to 150,000. The 2% quota is linked to 1920 census data, thereby further limiting the number of immigrants from eastern and southern Europe.
  • Internal Security Act 1950:  allows the deportation of any immigrants who were ever members of the Communist Party.
  • Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the McCarran-Walter Act): race continues to be a factor because the quota system remains in place, except for immigrants from the western hemisphere. Immigration from any country is capped at 1/6th of 1% of the population of that nationality based on the 1920 census.

Passions were high, and the president of the United States was eager to act. In 1798, John Adams, amid talk of war with France, signed the Alien and Sedition Acts to, in his view, protect the national interest against internal dissent and outside agitation. Passed by a Federalist-controlled Congress, the laws, among other things, increased the number of years applicants for citizenship had to wait and authorized the President to deport any foreigner he deemed dangerous to the country. “The Alien bill proposed in the Senate is a monster that must forever disgrace its parents,” James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson that same year. Madison was right: in the long run, Adams’ historical legacy has been tarnished by this decidedly unrepublican grab for power. And in the short term, the acts had the unintended consequence of giving new force to Adams’ opposition, led by Jefferson and Madison, who went on to defeat the Federalists in the 1800 election.

Anxiety about refugees and immigrants and the related desire of Presidents to quell that unease are nearly as old as the Republic. Americans have often limited immigration in moments of fear, only to have their fears dissipate amid cooling emotions and a reinvigorated opposition. It happened, as we’ve seen, in 1798. It happened in the mid–19th century, when the Know-Nothings sprang up in reaction to a wave of European immigration in the wake of the revolutions of 1848. It happened with the Chinese Exclusion Act under Chester Arthur, and with anarchists under Teddy Roosevelt, and with punitive immigration quotas after the Bolshevik Revolution on through the 1920s and ’30s (a period of “America first”), and with refugees from the communist bloc in the early 1950s.

One sad thing about President Trump’s attempted immigration ban–to choose an adjective with which the President is comfortable–is that Presidents before him have also used a sledgehammer blow when a pinprick would do. It’s totally reasonable to worry about infiltration, but fighting infiltration is a subtle business. And Trump has been anything but. He has also now put himself on an unhappy historical trajectory to join other Presidents–many of them otherwise good and even great men–who must forever face posterity’s judgment for clenching their fists when they might have opened their arms.

That Trump is not alone in attempting to shut America’s gates to particular groups was largely lost in the backlash against his Executive Order suspending admission of all refugees as well as immigrants and visitors from seven majority-Muslim nations. From John Winthrop to Emma Lazarus to Ronald Reagan, who spoke of welcoming “all the pilgrims from all the lost places” in his farewell address nearly 30 years ago, Americans prefer to think of themselves in a warm and generous light when it comes to the nation’s open door.

The truth is both more complicated and less attractive. George Washington articulated what we like to think of as the American creed, writing in 1783, “The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions.” Yet fears about indiscriminate immigration are coeval with the nation’s founding and the early Republic. In 1802, even the now sainted Alexander Hamilton–himself an immigrant and, in the 21st century, an emblem of American mobility–had reservations: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.” We’ve never been as open as we’d like to think, but at our best we have managed to remain truer to the spirit Washington expressed than to the one Hamilton did.

It’s an American paradox, one that continues unabated. An example from the Cold War–another moment of rising international tensions and domestic fears–is worth commending to Trump’s attention. In 1952, President Harry Truman vetoed a bill–Congress overrode him and passed it anyway–that perpetuated the quota system from the isolationist 1920s. “Today, we are ‘protecting’ ourselves, as we were in 1924, against being flooded by immigrants,” Truman wrote to Congress. “This is fantastic. The countries of Eastern Europe have fallen under the communist yoke–they are silenced, fenced off by barbed wire and minefields–no one passes their borders but at the risk of his life. We do not need to be protected against immigrants from these countries–on the contrary we want to stretch out a helping hand … to succor those who are brave enough to escape from barbarism.” Truman was calling on our better selves. We didn’t listen then, but one of the great things about America is that redemption is always possible. At least thus far.

So what are we to learn from this history of ours? Fear restricts access. Compassion expands it . Which of these American sets of values do we want to exude?

http://time.com/4657643/our-historical-ambivalence-about-immigrants-is-a-great-american-paradox/