Trump administration memo calls for ending Michelle Obama's girls education program

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

"If you don't like it, well, uh um uh uh um, go win some elections"
-Saint Barack Obama

I'm guessing you're unable to actually address the topic and are reduced to repeating the same pathetic memes?

What is there to address? Elections have consequences. If you don't like it, well, get out there and win some elections.
I mean, your welcome to participate, but it's gonna be from the back of the bus.

Yet...the back of the bus held the front seat elites' feet to the fire on the budget.

What budget? Democrats do not know the meaning of the word!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Better to fund bombs then education.

Funny how Obama could fund education overseas but not help education here....very interesting!

Funny. If it were true.

7 Education Initiatives Led by Michelle Obama - The Edvocate

Could have spent those MILLIONS spent overseas here....they didn't.

The money the US spends on foreign aid is actually very small - something like 1/10 of a percent of the overall budget.

Foreign aid is one of the best investments of tax payer.

Try that again, this time in English please.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If they could, RWNJs would stop the education of US girls. Why? Because it's Michelle Obama. If this was Melania teaching Porn For Fun And Profit, the RWNJs would be lining up to applaud it.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The money the US spends on foreign aid is actually very small - something like 1/10 of a percent of the overall budget.

I got a question for you 2 whiny leftists----->do either of you actually pay taxes to the federal government? Don't lie; and if you say you do, we won't believe it anyway!

You people are PATHETIC, you really are. Any lefty cause whatever it is, needs funding. And any time a Republican goes to defund something, it is racist, sexist, etc.

Why don't you two stellar examples of toilet paper, tell the rest of us where to cut the budget. Go ahead, and it can't be defense because that is the one thing the government is supposed to do. I know, how about FARM SUBSIDIES! OK, tell your Democrats to demand it. Go ahead! You lead!

I know, how about we lower S.S.! Again, Democrats lead, show us your gonads! Show us you are NOT afraid! When we say.......lets stop ILLEGAL immigration to cut down on our outlays, you scream!

So go ahead, tell us what to cut. We already want to get rid of Obysmalcare. Got anything else you want to add to it?

^
|
|
Pathetic red state welfare queen.


You want to cut spending? How about STARTING with not ADDING to it with a stupid wall. How about comprehensive immigration reform?

1. The wall STOPS the 99 BILLION we spend every year on illegals the wall is a one time HUGE price then a little upkeep.
2.You morons should try a new word because EVERYONE knows "comprehensive immigration reform" is nothing more than MORE amnesty. Try again.

You're incapable of thinking outside the box beyond the wall. It's hugely costly (est 25 billion dollars) Mexico isn't paying for it - WE are. It has big affects on trade in the communities it cuts through and the property it divides, affects natural animal migrations There is no good reason for it - according to the Pew Research Center, the overall flow illegal immigration between US and Mexico is at its smallest since the 1990s and the number of apprehensions at the border is at its lowest since 1973. We've invested in high tech and more border control agents and that's a heck of a lot better than wall.

Which supports my theory that after congress refuses to fund this white elephant, Trump will announce that his policies have stopped illegal immigration, millions of illegal immigrants are headed south and there is now no need for a wall.

Which proves that a strong enough deterrent works, and a wall is a deterrent.

 

[flacaltenn]

What the hell is so horrible about this program? I get that the school lunch one had it's share of controversy but this?

Apparently the optics look really bad so....WH denies it's ending Michelle Obama's 'Let Girls Learn' program

A source told a reporter from the Washington Examiner that the memo was sent due to “internal confusion.”​

uh oh

backtrack time

No -- not backtrack time. It's CNN dumpster diving into "internal memos" that are taken out of context. It's what CNN does lately. But the "retraction" won't get hours of air time.

I doubt any priorities on Peace Corps programs have changed or the funding for them.

 

[Flopper]

If they could, RWNJs would stop the education of US girls. Why? Because it's Michelle Obama. If this was Melania teaching Porn For Fun And Profit, the RWNJs would be lining up to applaud it.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

The money the US spends on foreign aid is actually very small - something like 1/10 of a percent of the overall budget.

I got a question for you 2 whiny leftists----->do either of you actually pay taxes to the federal government? Don't lie; and if you say you do, we won't believe it anyway!

You people are PATHETIC, you really are. Any lefty cause whatever it is, needs funding. And any time a Republican goes to defund something, it is racist, sexist, etc.

Why don't you two stellar examples of toilet paper, tell the rest of us where to cut the budget. Go ahead, and it can't be defense because that is the one thing the government is supposed to do. I know, how about FARM SUBSIDIES! OK, tell your Democrats to demand it. Go ahead! You lead!

I know, how about we lower S.S.! Again, Democrats lead, show us your gonads! Show us you are NOT afraid! When we say.......lets stop ILLEGAL immigration to cut down on our outlays, you scream!

So go ahead, tell us what to cut. We already want to get rid of Obysmalcare. Got anything else you want to add to it?

^
|
|
Pathetic red state welfare queen.


You want to cut spending? How about STARTING with not ADDING to it with a stupid wall. How about comprehensive immigration reform?

1. The wall STOPS the 99 BILLION we spend every year on illegals the wall is a one time HUGE price then a little upkeep.
2.You morons should try a new word because EVERYONE knows "comprehensive immigration reform" is nothing more than MORE amnesty. Try again.

You don't think people can climb a wall?

It's a moronic idea that amounts to a spectacular land grab, ignores the region's geography, "would cut the entire state of Texas off from the Rio Grande River and essentially cede access to the river and its reservoirs, and all of the land from the river to the wall, to Mexico", it would have a negative impact on the border economies, shopping, routine travel etc.....but hey...it feeeeeels good....it makes you feeeeeeeel safe from those hordes of dirty people who refuse to speak English right?

Sure they can but a LARGE wall is a lot hard to get over than a few tiny strands of barbed wire. Enforcing our laws is already having a HUGE affect and a wall will do so even more. Imagine trying to drag bundles of drugs over a wall!? HA! You leftist anti Americans NEED and WANT illegals for a voting bloc we all know WHY you want them here. You are also anti white and LOVE the decline of White America and the browning of America. Leftists deserve to be locked in prisons AWAY from the policy making of America.

A "Wall" was just campaign rhetoric. Before congress said no to the Wall money the DHS proposal was for an 18 foot corrugated iron fence (the wall) combined with other fencing which would end up being about 800 miles long, not 2000 miles. It would be supplement with existing barriers both natural and man made. The cost estimate was 22 billion, almost twice the Trump estimate of 12 billion, and 50% higher than the House estimate. However, some estimates ran as high as 40 billion, which may be a real wall covering a much longer distance.

In a DHS draft report dated April 25, the wall which began as a 2000 mile barrier running the length of the border, appears now to be a 14 mile and 34 mile corrugate iron fence near San Diego and in the Rio Grande Valley.

 

[Flopper]

I got a question for you 2 whiny leftists----->do either of you actually pay taxes to the federal government? Don't lie; and if you say you do, we won't believe it anyway!

You people are PATHETIC, you really are. Any lefty cause whatever it is, needs funding. And any time a Republican goes to defund something, it is racist, sexist, etc.

Why don't you two stellar examples of toilet paper, tell the rest of us where to cut the budget. Go ahead, and it can't be defense because that is the one thing the government is supposed to do. I know, how about FARM SUBSIDIES! OK, tell your Democrats to demand it. Go ahead! You lead!

I know, how about we lower S.S.! Again, Democrats lead, show us your gonads! Show us you are NOT afraid! When we say.......lets stop ILLEGAL immigration to cut down on our outlays, you scream!

So go ahead, tell us what to cut. We already want to get rid of Obysmalcare. Got anything else you want to add to it?

^
|
|
Pathetic red state welfare queen.


You want to cut spending? How about STARTING with not ADDING to it with a stupid wall. How about comprehensive immigration reform?

1. The wall STOPS the 99 BILLION we spend every year on illegals the wall is a one time HUGE price then a little upkeep.
2.You morons should try a new word because EVERYONE knows "comprehensive immigration reform" is nothing more than MORE amnesty. Try again.

You're incapable of thinking outside the box beyond the wall. It's hugely costly (est 25 billion dollars) Mexico isn't paying for it - WE are. It has big affects on trade in the communities it cuts through and the property it divides, affects natural animal migrations There is no good reason for it - according to the Pew Research Center, the overall flow illegal immigration between US and Mexico is at its smallest since the 1990s and the number of apprehensions at the border is at its lowest since 1973. We've invested in high tech and more border control agents and that's a heck of a lot better than wall.

Which supports my theory that after congress refuses to fund this white elephant, Trump will announce that his policies have stopped illegal immigration, millions of illegal immigrants are headed south and there is now no need for a wall.

Which proves that a strong enough deterrent works, and a wall is a deterrent.

Yes, that could be true. The latest March 2017 figures for arrests for illegal crossing was 12,500. the lowest figure in over 20 years. And with additional money congress is giving him to expand boarder security, that number will fall even further. So does this justify Trump's border wall. DHS estimates only half of the illegal immigrants crossing the boarder are apprehended. The cost of the wall according to DHS in Feb would be 21.5 billion and that was not a 2000 mile wall. Other estimates run as high as 40 million. So doing a little math using the above figures, 12,500 illegal aliens are still coming across our southern border un-apprehended each month or 150,000 a year, 1.5 million over ten years. That would mean the cost of stopping those illegal immigrants spread over 10 years would cost $14,300 to $26,700 each and that does not account for maintenance of wall or additional boarder security guards. This calculation also assumes this wall is 100% effective and perpetrators would not enter through boarder crossing, or by air, or by water.

However, even if the wall would stop everyone who tries to cross, the undocumented immigrant population would still be growing because half the illegal immigrants enter the country legally.

Trumps success at reducing the number of crossings of the southern boarder makes the wall even more ridiculous.

 

[oreo]

It clear now--this country elected a Russian Taliwacker member.

BTW--It was Hillary Clinton who worked with Bush 1 to get aids under control in Africa and they were very successful. Education for girls in undeveloped countries makes for a more peaceful world.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

^
|
|
Pathetic red state welfare queen.


You want to cut spending? How about STARTING with not ADDING to it with a stupid wall. How about comprehensive immigration reform?

1. The wall STOPS the 99 BILLION we spend every year on illegals the wall is a one time HUGE price then a little upkeep.
2.You morons should try a new word because EVERYONE knows "comprehensive immigration reform" is nothing more than MORE amnesty. Try again.

You're incapable of thinking outside the box beyond the wall. It's hugely costly (est 25 billion dollars) Mexico isn't paying for it - WE are. It has big affects on trade in the communities it cuts through and the property it divides, affects natural animal migrations There is no good reason for it - according to the Pew Research Center, the overall flow illegal immigration between US and Mexico is at its smallest since the 1990s and the number of apprehensions at the border is at its lowest since 1973. We've invested in high tech and more border control agents and that's a heck of a lot better than wall.

Which supports my theory that after congress refuses to fund this white elephant, Trump will announce that his policies have stopped illegal immigration, millions of illegal immigrants are headed south and there is now no need for a wall.

Which proves that a strong enough deterrent works, and a wall is a deterrent.

Yes, that could be true. The latest March 2017 figures for arrests for illegal crossing was 12,500. the lowest figure in over 20 years. And with additional money congress is giving him to expand boarder security, that number will fall even further. So does this justify Trump's border wall. DHS estimates only half of the illegal immigrants crossing the boarder are apprehended. The cost of the wall according to DHS in Feb would be 21.5 billion and that was not a 2000 mile wall. Other estimates run as high as 40 million. So doing a little math using the above figures, 12,500 illegal aliens are still coming across our southern border un-apprehended each month or 150,000 a year, 1.5 million over ten years. That would mean the cost of stopping those illegal immigrants spread over 10 years would cost $14,300 to $26,700 each and that does not account for maintenance of wall or additional boarder security guards. This calculation also assumes this wall is 100% effective and perpetrators would not enter through boarder crossing, or by air, or by water.

However, even if the wall would stop everyone who tries to cross, the undocumented immigrant population would still be growing because half the illegal immigrants enter the country legally.

Trumps success at reducing the number of crossings of the southern boarder makes the wall even more ridiculous.

It's not just people he's concerned about. We have drugs galore coming into this country. In our county (Cuyahoga) we are experiencing record overdoses and overdose deaths in spite of new medications (Narcan) to save these people. It's a very serious problem and from what I read, our county is a reflection of what's happening around the entire country. In fact I just got off the phone with a friend of mine. Her son was saved by Narcan a few weeks ago.

When these people commit serious crimes, we taxpayers have to pay for their incarceration. Even if we spent 35 billion on a wall, that's half the money that's being sent back to Mexico every year:

Mexicans In The U.S. Are Sending Home More Money Than Ever

We don't have to build it all at once either. If we put up 10 miles of wall, that's 10 miles of area our enforcement doesn't have to worry about so they can concentrate on open areas. As those open areas shrink, our border personnel become more effective.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, it's true over half of illegal drugs brought into the US come across the US southern boarder. However, most of those drugs come in through boarder crossings, not individuals backpacking across the desert or the Rio Grande. This is true because individuals carry a relatively small amounts of drugs, usually less than 10 kilos. By comparison motor vehicles bring shipments of hundreds kilos. The percent of drugs being brought over land has been falling over the last 10 years in favor sea routes. If we totally sealed off the southern border, drug traffickers would just shift over to sea routes. It would be more expense but is safer and more reliable.

Even if we stopped all drugs being carried across the southern boarder, the US drug problem would be just as great. Drugs would still be coming in at a southern boarder crossing, the northern boarder, sea routes, air, manufacturers in the US, and of course prescription drugs.

Half of the illegal immigrants apprehended crossing the southern boarder enter via about 150 mile strip of the Rio Grande Valley. If we just completed the fencing and added intrusion alarms, we could eliminate most of the crossings. The boarder is well paroled now.

1. The wall STOPS the 99 BILLION we spend every year on illegals the wall is a one time HUGE price then a little upkeep.
2.You morons should try a new word because EVERYONE knows "comprehensive immigration reform" is nothing more than MORE amnesty. Try again.

You're incapable of thinking outside the box beyond the wall. It's hugely costly (est 25 billion dollars) Mexico isn't paying for it - WE are. It has big affects on trade in the communities it cuts through and the property it divides, affects natural animal migrations There is no good reason for it - according to the Pew Research Center, the overall flow illegal immigration between US and Mexico is at its smallest since the 1990s and the number of apprehensions at the border is at its lowest since 1973. We've invested in high tech and more border control agents and that's a heck of a lot better than wall.

Which supports my theory that after congress refuses to fund this white elephant, Trump will announce that his policies have stopped illegal immigration, millions of illegal immigrants are headed south and there is now no need for a wall.

Which proves that a strong enough deterrent works, and a wall is a deterrent.

Yes, that could be true. The latest March 2017 figures for arrests for illegal crossing was 12,500. the lowest figure in over 20 years. And with additional money congress is giving him to expand boarder security, that number will fall even further. So does this justify Trump's border wall. DHS estimates only half of the illegal immigrants crossing the boarder are apprehended. The cost of the wall according to DHS in Feb would be 21.5 billion and that was not a 2000 mile wall. Other estimates run as high as 40 million. So doing a little math using the above figures, 12,500 illegal aliens are still coming across our southern border un-apprehended each month or 150,000 a year, 1.5 million over ten years. That would mean the cost of stopping those illegal immigrants spread over 10 years would cost $14,300 to $26,700 each and that does not account for maintenance of wall or additional boarder security guards. This calculation also assumes this wall is 100% effective and perpetrators would not enter through boarder crossing, or by air, or by water.

However, even if the wall would stop everyone who tries to cross, the undocumented immigrant population would still be growing because half the illegal immigrants enter the country legally.

Trumps success at reducing the number of crossings of the southern boarder makes the wall even more ridiculous.

It's not just people he's concerned about. We have drugs galore coming into this country. In our county (Cuyahoga) we are experiencing record overdoses and overdose deaths in spite of new medications (Narcan) to save these people. It's a very serious problem and from what I read, our county is a reflection of what's happening around the entire country. In fact I just got off the phone with a friend of mine. Her son was saved by Narcan a few weeks ago.

When these people commit serious crimes, we taxpayers have to pay for their incarceration. Even if we spent 35 billion on a wall, that's half the money that's being sent back to Mexico every year:

Mexicans In The U.S. Are Sending Home More Money Than Ever

We don't have to build it all at once either. If we put up 10 miles of wall, that's 10 miles of area our enforcement doesn't have to worry about so they can concentrate on open areas. As those open areas shrink, our border personnel become more effective.

Yes, it's true over half of illegal drugs brought into the US come across the US southern boarder. However, most of those drugs come in through boarder crossings, not individuals backpacking or in pickup trucks coming across the desert or the Rio Grande. This is true because individuals carry a relatively small amounts of drugs, usually less than 10 kilos. Also cartels prefer small numbers of larger vehicles vs many individuals. By comparison motor vehicles bring shipments of hundreds kilos. The percent of drugs being brought over land has been falling over the last 10 years in favor sea routes. If we totally sealed off the southern border, drug traffickers would just shift over to sea routes. It would be more expense but is safer and more reliable.

Even if we stopped all drugs being carried across the southern boarder, the US drug problem would be just as great. Drugs would still be coming in at a southern boarder crossing, the northern boarder, sea routes, air, manufacturers in the US, and of course prescription drugs.

Half of the illegal immigrants apprehended crossing the southern border enter via a 150 mile strip of the Rio Grande Valley. If we just completed the fencing and added intrusion alarms, we could eliminate most of the crossings. The boarder is well paroled now.

 

[Pogo]

1. The wall STOPS the 99 BILLION we spend every year on illegals the wall is a one time HUGE price then a little upkeep.
2.You morons should try a new word because EVERYONE knows "comprehensive immigration reform" is nothing more than MORE amnesty. Try again.

You're incapable of thinking outside the box beyond the wall. It's hugely costly (est 25 billion dollars) Mexico isn't paying for it - WE are. It has big affects on trade in the communities it cuts through and the property it divides, affects natural animal migrations There is no good reason for it - according to the Pew Research Center, the overall flow illegal immigration between US and Mexico is at its smallest since the 1990s and the number of apprehensions at the border is at its lowest since 1973. We've invested in high tech and more border control agents and that's a heck of a lot better than wall.

Which supports my theory that after congress refuses to fund this white elephant, Trump will announce that his policies have stopped illegal immigration, millions of illegal immigrants are headed south and there is now no need for a wall.

Which proves that a strong enough deterrent works, and a wall is a deterrent.

Yes, that could be true. The latest March 2017 figures for arrests for illegal crossing was 12,500. the lowest figure in over 20 years. And with additional money congress is giving him to expand boarder security, that number will fall even further. So does this justify Trump's border wall. DHS estimates only half of the illegal immigrants crossing the boarder are apprehended. The cost of the wall according to DHS in Feb would be 21.5 billion and that was not a 2000 mile wall. Other estimates run as high as 40 million. So doing a little math using the above figures, 12,500 illegal aliens are still coming across our southern border un-apprehended each month or 150,000 a year, 1.5 million over ten years. That would mean the cost of stopping those illegal immigrants spread over 10 years would cost $14,300 to $26,700 each and that does not account for maintenance of wall or additional boarder security guards. This calculation also assumes this wall is 100% effective and perpetrators would not enter through boarder crossing, or by air, or by water.

However, even if the wall would stop everyone who tries to cross, the undocumented immigrant population would still be growing because half the illegal immigrants enter the country legally.

Trumps success at reducing the number of crossings of the southern boarder makes the wall even more ridiculous.

It's not just people he's concerned about. We have drugs galore coming into this country. In our county (Cuyahoga) we are experiencing record overdoses and overdose deaths in spite of new medications (Narcan) to save these people. It's a very serious problem and from what I read, our county is a reflection of what's happening around the entire country. In fact I just got off the phone with a friend of mine. Her son was saved by Narcan a few weeks ago.

When these people commit serious crimes, we taxpayers have to pay for their incarceration. Even if we spent 35 billion on a wall, that's half the money that's being sent back to Mexico every year:

Mexicans In The U.S. Are Sending Home More Money Than Ever

We don't have to build it all at once either. If we put up 10 miles of wall, that's 10 miles of area our enforcement doesn't have to worry about so they can concentrate on open areas. As those open areas shrink, our border personnel become more effective.

Whoa, hold up.

You have drugs coming into Cleveland Ohio ---------- and you want to blame Mexico?

Kind of a trek, doncha think?

 

[keepitreal]

The only reason I can think of for this is: vindictiveness and pettiness. It wasn't controversial, it had considerable private financial support. It targeted serious issues for girls in developing countries such as girls being forced into child marriages and having to leave school. Good grief. Is the Trump Ego so fragile it can't let a good program continue as "Let Girls Learn"?

Trump memo outlines end to Michelle Obama's girls education program - CNNPolitics.com

The Trump administration is discontinuing a signature girls education initiative championed by former first lady Michelle Obama, according to officials.

The "Let Girls Learn" program, which she and President Barack Obama started in 2015 to facilitate educational opportunities for adolescent girls in developing countries, will cease operation immediately, according to an internal document obtained by CNN.

While aspects of the initiative's programming will continue, employees have been told to stop using the "Let Girls Learn" name and were told that, as a program unto itself, "Let Girls Learn" was ending.
"Moving forward, we will not continue to use the 'Let Girls Learn' brand or maintain a stand-alone program," read an email sent to Peace Corps employees this week by the agency's acting director Sheila Crowley.

" 'Let Girls Learn' provided a platform to showcase Peace Corps' strength in community development, shining a bright light on the work of our Volunteers all over the world," Crowley wrote. "We are so proud of what 'Let Girls Learn' accomplished and we have all of you to thank for this success."​

but...then...

Hours after CNN reported on an internal document advising administration employees that the education initiative would not be maintained, the White House said the program had not changed.
"There have been no changes to the program," said Kelly Love, a White House spokeswoman, referring to the "Let Girls Learn" initiative, which Obama launched in 2015.​

so what is going on?

Tina Tchen, who served as Obama's chief of staff during her time in the White House, said the end of "Let Girls Learn" was a disappointment given a global recognition that educating young women could help improve conditions across developing nations.

"We felt it was important to have a branded campaign that drew attention to those issues, and we found that when we did it, we had extraordinary support," Tchen said. "I think it's unfortunate to not continue with the branded campaign. We think that this is an issue that has bipartisan support, it's really not a Republican or Democratic issue."

Tchen said the benefits of the program, which drew upon private sector support as well as government dollars, outweighed the costs. She noted that a development program launched by President George W. Bush to combat global HIV/AIDS, PEPFAR, had been maintained and expanded by the Obama administration.

...In October of last year, the Obama administration attempted to reinforce "Let Girls Learn" ahead of a new administration. The White House announced $5 million in private sector commitments toward the programs administered under the "Let Girls Learn" banner, bringing the total financial pledges to more than $1 billion for programs in 50 countries.​

Wtf..GOOD!

They cut educational funding and programs designed to
keep kids off the streets, gang banging, selling drugs
and fund programs for other kids in other countries

There are serious problems with kids right here!
We can't fix or improve shit here...unfuckingbelievable!

 

[skews13]

The only reason I can think of for this is: vindictiveness and pettiness. It wasn't controversial, it had considerable private financial support. It targeted serious issues for girls in developing countries such as girls being forced into child marriages and having to leave school. Good grief. Is the Trump Ego so fragile it can't let a good program continue as "Let Girls Learn"?

Trump memo outlines end to Michelle Obama's girls education program - CNNPolitics.com

The Trump administration is discontinuing a signature girls education initiative championed by former first lady Michelle Obama, according to officials.

The "Let Girls Learn" program, which she and President Barack Obama started in 2015 to facilitate educational opportunities for adolescent girls in developing countries, will cease operation immediately, according to an internal document obtained by CNN.

While aspects of the initiative's programming will continue, employees have been told to stop using the "Let Girls Learn" name and were told that, as a program unto itself, "Let Girls Learn" was ending.
"Moving forward, we will not continue to use the 'Let Girls Learn' brand or maintain a stand-alone program," read an email sent to Peace Corps employees this week by the agency's acting director Sheila Crowley.

" 'Let Girls Learn' provided a platform to showcase Peace Corps' strength in community development, shining a bright light on the work of our Volunteers all over the world," Crowley wrote. "We are so proud of what 'Let Girls Learn' accomplished and we have all of you to thank for this success."​

but...then...

Hours after CNN reported on an internal document advising administration employees that the education initiative would not be maintained, the White House said the program had not changed.
"There have been no changes to the program," said Kelly Love, a White House spokeswoman, referring to the "Let Girls Learn" initiative, which Obama launched in 2015.​

so what is going on?

Tina Tchen, who served as Obama's chief of staff during her time in the White House, said the end of "Let Girls Learn" was a disappointment given a global recognition that educating young women could help improve conditions across developing nations.

"We felt it was important to have a branded campaign that drew attention to those issues, and we found that when we did it, we had extraordinary support," Tchen said. "I think it's unfortunate to not continue with the branded campaign. We think that this is an issue that has bipartisan support, it's really not a Republican or Democratic issue."

Tchen said the benefits of the program, which drew upon private sector support as well as government dollars, outweighed the costs. She noted that a development program launched by President George W. Bush to combat global HIV/AIDS, PEPFAR, had been maintained and expanded by the Obama administration.

...In October of last year, the Obama administration attempted to reinforce "Let Girls Learn" ahead of a new administration. The White House announced $5 million in private sector commitments toward the programs administered under the "Let Girls Learn" banner, bringing the total financial pledges to more than $1 billion for programs in 50 countries.​

Imagine if you will, the entire Trump agenda being erased on day one of the new Democrat President, that will be replacing him after his one term, or impeachment, whichever comes first.

Now imagine that program, as well as the others that will be effected by the Trump agenda, being returned on steroids.

And finally, imagine the tax hikes on all things Trump, his family, his minions, his lobbyests, and the Congress snails that have been his support, going way up, to a level a majority of Americans fully support.

 

[Coyote]

The only reason I can think of for this is: vindictiveness and pettiness. It wasn't controversial, it had considerable private financial support. It targeted serious issues for girls in developing countries such as girls being forced into child marriages and having to leave school. Good grief. Is the Trump Ego so fragile it can't let a good program continue as "Let Girls Learn"?

Trump memo outlines end to Michelle Obama's girls education program - CNNPolitics.com

The Trump administration is discontinuing a signature girls education initiative championed by former first lady Michelle Obama, according to officials.

The "Let Girls Learn" program, which she and President Barack Obama started in 2015 to facilitate educational opportunities for adolescent girls in developing countries, will cease operation immediately, according to an internal document obtained by CNN.

While aspects of the initiative's programming will continue, employees have been told to stop using the "Let Girls Learn" name and were told that, as a program unto itself, "Let Girls Learn" was ending.
"Moving forward, we will not continue to use the 'Let Girls Learn' brand or maintain a stand-alone program," read an email sent to Peace Corps employees this week by the agency's acting director Sheila Crowley.

" 'Let Girls Learn' provided a platform to showcase Peace Corps' strength in community development, shining a bright light on the work of our Volunteers all over the world," Crowley wrote. "We are so proud of what 'Let Girls Learn' accomplished and we have all of you to thank for this success."​

but...then...

Hours after CNN reported on an internal document advising administration employees that the education initiative would not be maintained, the White House said the program had not changed.
"There have been no changes to the program," said Kelly Love, a White House spokeswoman, referring to the "Let Girls Learn" initiative, which Obama launched in 2015.​

so what is going on?

Tina Tchen, who served as Obama's chief of staff during her time in the White House, said the end of "Let Girls Learn" was a disappointment given a global recognition that educating young women could help improve conditions across developing nations.

"We felt it was important to have a branded campaign that drew attention to those issues, and we found that when we did it, we had extraordinary support," Tchen said. "I think it's unfortunate to not continue with the branded campaign. We think that this is an issue that has bipartisan support, it's really not a Republican or Democratic issue."

Tchen said the benefits of the program, which drew upon private sector support as well as government dollars, outweighed the costs. She noted that a development program launched by President George W. Bush to combat global HIV/AIDS, PEPFAR, had been maintained and expanded by the Obama administration.

...In October of last year, the Obama administration attempted to reinforce "Let Girls Learn" ahead of a new administration. The White House announced $5 million in private sector commitments toward the programs administered under the "Let Girls Learn" banner, bringing the total financial pledges to more than $1 billion for programs in 50 countries.​

Imagine if you will, the entire Trump agenda being erased on day one of the new Democrat President, that will be replacing him after his one term, or impeachment, whichever comes first.

Now imagine that program, as well as the others that will be effected by the Trump agenda, being returned on steroids.

And finally, imagine the tax hikes on all things Trump, his family, his minions, his lobbyests, and the Congress snails that have been his support, going way up, to a level a majority of Americans fully support.

I don't think agendas should be "erased" - not the way the Trump team is doing. It's thoughtless and petulant, without regard to whether or not it needs to go, stay, etc. If it has Obama's name on it....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You're incapable of thinking outside the box beyond the wall. It's hugely costly (est 25 billion dollars) Mexico isn't paying for it - WE are. It has big affects on trade in the communities it cuts through and the property it divides, affects natural animal migrations There is no good reason for it - according to the Pew Research Center, the overall flow illegal immigration between US and Mexico is at its smallest since the 1990s and the number of apprehensions at the border is at its lowest since 1973. We've invested in high tech and more border control agents and that's a heck of a lot better than wall.

Which supports my theory that after congress refuses to fund this white elephant, Trump will announce that his policies have stopped illegal immigration, millions of illegal immigrants are headed south and there is now no need for a wall.

Which proves that a strong enough deterrent works, and a wall is a deterrent.

Yes, that could be true. The latest March 2017 figures for arrests for illegal crossing was 12,500. the lowest figure in over 20 years. And with additional money congress is giving him to expand boarder security, that number will fall even further. So does this justify Trump's border wall. DHS estimates only half of the illegal immigrants crossing the boarder are apprehended. The cost of the wall according to DHS in Feb would be 21.5 billion and that was not a 2000 mile wall. Other estimates run as high as 40 million. So doing a little math using the above figures, 12,500 illegal aliens are still coming across our southern border un-apprehended each month or 150,000 a year, 1.5 million over ten years. That would mean the cost of stopping those illegal immigrants spread over 10 years would cost $14,300 to $26,700 each and that does not account for maintenance of wall or additional boarder security guards. This calculation also assumes this wall is 100% effective and perpetrators would not enter through boarder crossing, or by air, or by water.

However, even if the wall would stop everyone who tries to cross, the undocumented immigrant population would still be growing because half the illegal immigrants enter the country legally.

Trumps success at reducing the number of crossings of the southern boarder makes the wall even more ridiculous.

It's not just people he's concerned about. We have drugs galore coming into this country. In our county (Cuyahoga) we are experiencing record overdoses and overdose deaths in spite of new medications (Narcan) to save these people. It's a very serious problem and from what I read, our county is a reflection of what's happening around the entire country. In fact I just got off the phone with a friend of mine. Her son was saved by Narcan a few weeks ago.

When these people commit serious crimes, we taxpayers have to pay for their incarceration. Even if we spent 35 billion on a wall, that's half the money that's being sent back to Mexico every year:

Mexicans In The U.S. Are Sending Home More Money Than Ever

We don't have to build it all at once either. If we put up 10 miles of wall, that's 10 miles of area our enforcement doesn't have to worry about so they can concentrate on open areas. As those open areas shrink, our border personnel become more effective.

Whoa, hold up.

You have drugs coming into Cleveland Ohio ---------- and you want to blame Mexico?

Kind of a trek, doncha think?

Not at all, they distribute drugs across the entire country. The big busts that are made here are often from people several states away.