CIA Torture

Salt Prison

First of all I want to say that I believe in torture to an extent. I think that torture is needed to obtain information that is important to know. But there is a point when it is taken too far. This “torture dungeon” call “Salt Prison” in Afghanistan was taken too far. These prisoners were treated so poorly. Some were hung from the ceiling for 22 hours a day. There are also reports that some of the prisoners were beaten until death. One in particular was dragged around the building. When he died they found him with a shirt on but no pants with cuts and bruises all over his body. It was stated that he apparently dies from hypothermia. That is too extreme.

Doctors

Okay as much as I think that torture us needed to a certain extent, spending 80 million dollars to develop methods of torture is a little extreme. I mean it is a lot of money but I guess if you look at it from a different view they were trying to come up with new ways to torture without completely harming the person they were torturing. But even with all this the government spent 80 million dollars on this when they really didn’t even invent anything new.’

My Source  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/09/cia-torture-countries_n_6297832.html

This article is all about the support that the CIA’s torture program received from other countries. It says in the article that over a quarter of the world’s countries helped support the CIA with their torture methods. I find this very surprising! You would think that other countries would not want support this. The CIA however will not release the names of the countries that supported the program. I believe this is because a lot of the countries that people think wouldn’t do something like that are the countries that are actually doing it.

Extra Credit Blog 2

Many people know about the recent outbreak of the Ebola virus. It seems like every day we hear about another victim somewhere in the world that has been infected with this deadly disease.  It is sad that all these people die and have to suffer but that is the thing about nature, it does not always treat us humans well.

Ebola got its name from the Ebola River in Zaire (West Africa) in 1976 when the first strain (Ebola-Sudan) and first outbreak of this disease broke out in Sudan and Zaire. This first out break only infected 284 people but had a deadly mortality rate of 53%. The second strain of the Ebola virus (EBOZ) broke out just a few months later. EBOZ infected just 318 people throughout West Africa but unfortunately killing 88% of the people that were infected giving this strain of the virus the highest mortality rate of any of the Ebola virus strains. The third strain of the Ebola virus (EBOR) was first discovered in 1989 in Reston, Virginia when infected monkeys were imported from Mindanao, Philippines. Thankfully, only a few people were infected by this strain and all survived. The last strain of this virus (EBO-CI) was discovered in Cote d’Ivoire in 1994 when a female ethnologist was performing a necropsy on a dead chimpanzee from the Tai Forest and accidentally infected herself.

The current outbreak of the Ebola Virus is the largest in history infecting many countries throughout West Africa. As of October 25, these cases were said to be contained within each country. But how much of what the government tells us is true? I don’t know if anyone has heard about any of the conspiracy theories about the recent Ebola outbreak but to me I wouldn’t doubt if they are true.

The first conspiracy theory is that the strain of Ebola that has caused this current outbreak is genetically modified. I don’t know if you know about the Georgia Guide stones or not but what they are said to be is the rules for a new world order that is said to take place sometime it the recent future. Anyway, the first thing written on these stones is “maintain the world population under 500 million people.” Sounds scary right? Yeah it does considering that in order for this to happen over 6.5 billion people would have to be killed. Well Bill Gates and George Soros are two extreme globalists that both believe in these Georgia Guide stones. This means that both want the world population under 500 million people. The ironic thing is, is that both own patents on the Ebola virus. This means that they own the Ebola Virus, it is theirs.  Many of you may think I’m crazy but these men and many other people like them have made comments supporting this theory.

“First, we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent, but there we see an increase of about 1.3.” Bill Gates TED Talk

“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it….”“Our program in El Salvador didn’t work. The infrastructure was not there to support it. There were just too goddamned many people…. To really reduce population, quickly, you have to pull all the males into the fighting and you have to kill significant numbers of fertile age females….” “The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa, or through disease like the Black Death….” Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs

“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” Ted Turner, in an interview with Audubon magazine

Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World.” Henry Kissinger

These comments only confirm the conspiracy of the world population under 500 million and not necessarily the Ebola conspiracy but I believe they go together. I believe that these extremists are using Ebola as their tool to eliminate many people. The reason I believe this is this. Look in the past break outs of Ebola. They were small breakouts only infecting 200-400 people each time but they disappeared relatively fast and did not spread around the world. This current outbreak has spread all over the world and has infected a total 10,141 people killing 4922 which is mortality rate of nearly 49%.

Call me crazy, I don’t care I believe in this. There is a lot of evil in the world today and I think this is just one way that it working and affecting every one’s lives. You can believe what you want, I’m not going to hate on your opinion just as long as you don’t hate on mine.

Websites

http://beforeitsnews.com/agenda-21/2014/09/read-it-will-be-removed-proof-bill-gates-is-linked-to-ebola-as-it-hits-dallas-texas-global-depopulation-now-in-the-thrust-as-funerals-homes-and-hospitals-prepare-for-the-masses-life-altering-vide-1020.html

http://www.rense.com/general16/georgiaguidestones.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/index.html

https://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/history.html

 

Extra Credit Blog 1

There is nothing like those bright lights cutting through the darkness on a calm Friday night. These lights seen for miles around, and everyone knowing what they mean. Football or some form of football has been around for centuries and over the years have evolved into three different sports that are played around the world today. These sports known as Soccer, Rugby and American football, and all have their history.

Football originated from an ancient Greek game called harpaston.  The rules of this early game were really simple. Points were scored when a player would cross the goal line by kicking the ball, running the ball across the goal line, or throwing the ball across the line to another player. The defending team’s goal was to stop them in any way possible.  There was no designated field length, no side line boundaries, no specified number of players per team, just a lack of rules.  The modern version of this game originated in England in the 12^th century. The game became very popular at them time. So popular in fact that the kings at that time (Henry II and Henry IV) banned the game because they believed that it was taking interest away from the more traditional games of the time.

Football began to change and evolve into what it is today when rules were added and made the game into more of a game. The rules were added when it was picked up by seven major schools in England in the early 1800’s. Six of these seven schools took the game and it evolved into what is known today as soccer. The other school, Rugby School was playing a very different version of the game. This version of the game, running the ball was more common. This version of football also included 18ft goal posts with a horizontal bar 10ft off the ground. The purpose of this “goal post” is to make scoring easier and a goal could be scored from a distance. A player would either place kick or drop kick the ball and if the ball passed through the two vertical bars and over the horizontal bar it would be counted as a goal. This version also added the off-sides rules, the touchdown rule and the two point or one point conversion. This version of football became so popular through the 1860’s that many other schools and universities began to adopt this version of the game. It began so popular in fact the this version got the name of the school that had originally played it, Rugby.

Football (Rugby) came to America in the late 1860’s. The official birth day of many football historians is November 6, 1869 when the first official game played on American soil between Rutgers and Princeton Universities. When football first came to America it was played similar to the rugby version but over time rules were added to make the game more exciting and to ensure safety for the players. The game at the time was so brutal that many colleges began to ban the game. In 1905, President Theodor Roosevelt got together three colleges (Harvard, Princeton, and Yale) to help save the sport. At the meeting there three schools set up a reform. At a second meeting nearly 60 schools appointed a seven member Rules Committee and set up what later became known as the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA.) This committee legalized the forward pass which led to the new design of the ball (the modern design that is used today) and a more open style of play on the field. The committee also made the game much safer by adding rules that made all the brutality that once injured many and killed 18 people illegal.

Football has a very large history compared to many other sports but I think that that is what makes the sport so interesting. It has changed and evolved over the years creating three different sports all together. It has changed the lives of many people around the world. That is why I believe that football is the best sport not just because of the modern American football because it has three forms that are completely different offering people a very different atmosphere with each sport.

Websites Used- http://www.hornetfootball.org/documents/football-history.htm

 

28th Amendment

I believe that a 28^th amendment should be added to the constitution.  I think that this amendment should deal with the issue of taxes and pay cuts of certain jobs in the United States. What I mean by this is I think that when the government decides for pay cuts they always pick on our soldiers or the older people in the country. I don’t think that this is right.

The men and women that are serving our country overseas fighting wars that most of the time have nothing to do with our country deserve to be paid it. They risk their life day after day to ensure that we keep our freedom. They shouldn’t have to give up part of their paycheck every time the government needs to save a little money.

They government also picks on the older people on social security. These people worked their entire lives supporting our economy and most probably worked harder than anyone to pull us out of the depression we were in back in the late 30’s. They paid a little part of their paycheck into social security time after time to ensure that they would have money to retire. Therefor that money is still theirs they worked for it. The government should not be taking that money to spend on other things it should all go to the people.

The 28^th amendment should state: “The government shall not cut or lower the pay of any United States soldier or any elderly person on social security no matter what the cause.” “They may not heavily tax the citizens of the United States but instead use their six figure salary to make up for the money they need”

 

 

Bowling for Columbine

Gun control is a debate that occurs in many countries around the world, and is one of the biggest issues being dealt with in the United States. My government recently watched a movie called Bowling for Columbine. In this movie, Michael Moore focused on the pros and the cons of living in a pro-gun society and leaves his audience questioning their opinion on gun control issues.

In 2013, there were 14,827 murders in the United this is higher than any other country in the world. But what causes this high number of deaths in the United States? Many would like to blame our loose gun laws. I do not believe that this is the cause, how many criminals that shoot people acquire their guns legally? Many don’t, so how are making stricter gun laws going to stop this? It’s not! Criminals are criminals they break the law if they want a gun they will find a way to get it whether it is against the law or not. So don’t pass gun control laws punishing the people who don’t kill people.

The second amendment was passed in 1791 and states the following: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”( See more on the second amendment at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html#sthash.FjWrxQNq.dpuf) many people see this as everyone has the right to own and bear arms no matter what, but is that how it was meant to be interrupted? I think at the time that the founding fathers meant that everyone has the right to own guns. Why? I think they knew that if the government was not regulated that it could get out of control and try to control everything. They knew that if this were to happen that the people would need guns to overthrow the government just as they did in the revolution against Great Britain. Now back then the guns they had were not very advanced and wouldn’t cause mass destruction like the weapons do today. I think that if the writers of the constitution were to write it today with the great advancement in weapons they would put regulations on weapons. I think that any weapon that the government has access to should be accessed by the public other than the weapons of mass destruction. Why?  Because if the sole purpose of the second amendment was to allow the people to be able to overthrow the government if it gets out of control then we the people need to be able to put up a fight.

People say that we need stricter gun laws because murder rate is higher and higher each year. This is not true. Murder rate has been slowly declining every year since 1993 and continues to decline. The reason that it seems like there are so much more murders is because of the media. The reason that the media focuses so much on the violence is to scare people.  Personally, I think that the government is using the media to scare people into giving up their guns. The reason the government would want that is so the people have no way of protecting themselves if they want to take over.

Personally, I think that gun control is bull crap. People look at guns as if the guns themselves are killing the people when in reality the people are killing the people. The gun is just how they choose to kill the person. If a person truly wanted to kill another person and they didn’t have a gun they would find something else to use. The United States may have the highest murder rate of any other country but not all of the murders in the United States are because of guns. In fact, about 55% of all murders are gun related. If only a little over half of the murders are gun related, then why are the only murders that are reported in the news gun related? What about all the other murders are they less important or is it just another way of making the people afraid of guns?  

I personally do not think that people need to be afraid of guns. If anything they need to be afraid of the person that uses the guns to cause harm to others.  I think they need to look deeper into a situation before jumping to the conclusion that it’s the guns that kill people and that they are dangerous. It’s not the guns it’s the people that are dangerous. The people that use the guns for things like hunting and aren’t causing harm to others shouldn’t be punished because of a few people who do use them wrongly.

Guns have been always been a part of the American culture and are what gave and still gives this country the freedom we have today. Yes, gun can be dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands and unfortunately have been used to claim many innocent lives that didn’t need to be taken. Gun control is necessary to a certain degree. I do not believe in the government taking away out assault rifles or any other type of rifle. The only thing that should be restricted are any type of explosives.

 

Abuse

Many people might have heard about the recent abuse scandals that are occurring in the NFL. Are these so called abuse scandals actually abuse or are these players just disciplining their children like they were when they were young? Even if they are abusing their children are the NFL and the court systems handling these accusations correctly?

I strongly believe that you need to discipline your children. If you don’t, how are these children supposed to learn what is right and wrong? I believe that without discipline these children will think that they can do whatever they want to and they can get away with it without being punished. This could cause problems when they grow up and still think they can get away with anything because that is how they were raised. I’m not saying that just because you are disciplined as a child that you are going to grow up and be a better person that someone who wasn’t disciplined, because that is a lie, I know many good people that were not strongly disciplined as a child. 

What draws the line between disciplining a child and abusing a child? First of all, I think that if you are going to discipline a child make sure that they are at an age that when you discipline them they know why and can fully understand the reasoning. Secondly, I think that leaving marks is the line between abuse and discipline. If you are going to spank a child don’t leave marks. By marks I mostly mean anything that is worst that a red mark. A red mark is not a big deal to me because a red mark can be caused by lightly slapping someone’s arm. By marks I mean like bruises. If you are leaving bruises on a child you are being too strict. Bruises unlike red marks take a lot more force than just a slap, you have to put a lot of force into it and are most likely using a fist or the palm of your hand.

Is the NFL handling these situations correctly? I think that the NFL could handle these different. I don’t think that it is right for these players to be suspended before they go to court and are found guilty of child abuse. These players should be allowed to play until found guilty. I also believe that even if these players are found guilty that the NFL has no right to suspend or fire them.  Football isn’t just a game to these guys it is a job. I don’t think it would be right for any other company to fire a person for abusing a child.

Many kids have been disciplined to an extent of which you could call in abuse but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t discipline your children. It means that you need to be reasonable when doing it. I have no problem with people disciplining their children in fact I encourage it. But then again that is my opinion.

Abraham Lincoln is viewed as a great president who got us through the Civil War and abolished slavery, but how do you classify someone as a great president? Is it by their accomplishments while in office? Is it by how they deal with the issues they face or is it how they follow the Constitution as they promised when sworn into office? Many believe that Abraham Lincoln abused his powers during the Civil War while others believe that he did not and did what he had to do to preserve the United States.

Abraham Lincoln was elected the 16^th president of the United States on November 6^th, 1860. He served during one of the most brutal times that America has ever seen. Many see him as a great American leader because of his ability to get us through the Civil War and to keep the United States united. He is also considered great because he abolished slavery by issuing the Emancipation proclamation and leading the charge to pass the 13^th amendment. The argument is that he abused his powers and went against the Constitution when doing so. I believe that this may be true but when doing so was the reason he abused those powers a good enough reason to justify his actions? I believe that everything that Lincoln did he did for what he believed to be the best for the people and the country. He was fighting to keep the nation together because he knew that together as one the north and south had strength.

Lincoln also led the campaign to free the slaves. Many believe that Lincoln freed the slaves just to weaken the south so that he could win the war. Lincoln wanted the slaves to be free because he believed that every man was considered equal. In the movie “Lincoln” there is a scene where he is talking about freeing the slaves. He says that he feels that if he takes the slaves from the south then that can be looked at as if the North was seizing the South’s property. By doing that is he saying that those people are property and not human beings. Because of this I believe many people don’t see how hard it must have been for him to make the decision and ridicule him for abusing powers but I believe that what he used his powers for were for the good.

Many people today believe that our current president Barak Obama also abuses his powers. I personally feel that Obama abuses his powers. The majority of the executive orders that Obama has passed deal with gun control. The thought that more gun control leads to a safer country. I believe that that’s false. It doesn’t matter if guns are outlawed or not criminals will get guns.  

I think the big difference between Lincoln abusing his powers and Obama is right vs wrong. When Lincoln abolished slavery he was following the Constitution to a sense because it says in the constitution that everyone is created equal and deserves the same rights. Obama is trying to pass gun laws that allows the government to regulate our guns when it is clearly stated in the second amendment that it is our right to keep and bear arms. This is why I believe Lincoln’s reasoning  was for the better while Obama’s  is for the worst.

Presidents abusing their powers have been an issue since the beginning of this country but just because they abuse their power doesn’t mean they are a bad president. I believe that it depends on what they are trying to accomplish when doing so.