Was President Obama really passionate about releasing the reports on CIA’s torture program?

On Tuesday, the Senate Intelligence committee released over 500 pages of documentations supporting the CIA interrogating techniques that were enacted to torture terrorist, in an effort to prevent another 9/11. Former President George W. Bush presided over the detention of suspected terrorist, he was unaware of the torture technique till 2006. On the other hand, the CIA claimed the torture techniques have help thwart terrorist plots on America’s interest. However, in 2009 following President Obama inauguration, he banned the torture techniques that the CIA use in interrogating terrorist at Gitmo. The reports that surface on Tuesday after an extensive inquiry by the Senate Intelligence committee found that the CIA abused their authority by torturing the inmate detained in prison on terrorism charges. Also, the inquiry found that, the information provided by these inmates were far from credible. The Senate intelligence committee concluded that the torture technique were useless has they did not hinder or stop a terrorist attack on the United States(Even though we haven’t had a major attack on American soil since 9/11).And, often, the information provided by terrorist were not credible enough to track other terrorists who might be planning an attack on the U.S. and it’s interest.Presdient Obama refused to take side on whether the torture technique used by the CIA was effective, or whether the CIA misled the American people about the effectiveness of this program. Mr. Obama should address the effectiveness of the torture program, has that might help his legacy.

Refusing to address the effectiveness of the torture technique used by the CIA to interrogate terrorist might affect President Obama’s legacy. The Job of the President of the United States is to address the American people on the effectiveness of the executive branch and provide information on the day-to-day events unfolding in its foreign policy. By not taking a side on whether the torture technique was effective or not, it shows the President might somewhat support the torture technique, but bowed to pressure from his democratic base to release the reports on CIA’s torture program. Also by not taking sides, it shows the president may have not been passionate about releasing these reports. Unless President Obama take’s a side on whether or not the torture was effective, people like me, would continue to see the release of the reports has a political stunt following democrat loss in Congress during the mid-term elections.

Article:-http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/11/us/politics/obama-effectiveness-cia-torture.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Money can not solve Ferguson’s race problem.

What happened in Ferguson,Missouri is the testament of race relations in the United States.A White police officer shot and killed a black unarmed teenager in a confrontation.Most blacks are saying,the police officer had acted out of aggression and was racist.On the other hand,some White believe the unarmed teenager was a thug that deserved to be killed.Regardless of which side you on,when someone lost their life in a confrontation like this,regardless of their race we should all have sympathy that a life was lost.However,the lose of a life does not justify the looting and vandalism that we have seen in Ferguson in recent weeks.The looting and rioting does not help the case of the victim,it only strengthen’s the opposition into thinking blacks are plainly violent creatures.With that said,I do not think President Obama approach to seek congressional approval for 226 million dollar to fund Ferguson will help change race relation in Ferguson.Although, money may help provide the physical needs of the police department to better address this kinds of issues,but it will fall-short of addressing Ferguson’s race problem.

President Obama asked congress to approve 226 million dollars in spending to help stop what happened rebuild Ferguson.By providing better training  to police officer,including provision of body-cameras and necessary adjustment needed to better  police officer relation with the black community in Ferguson.Although this sounds like a brilliant idea,but study of shown that such funding does not help tackle the cause of police brutality towards African Americans.The issues needs to be discuss at large with the  American people,it is time to start having those uncomfortable conversations about race in the U.S.I believe by doing this,we will be encouraging a more robotic race relation as oppose to just throwing money at the issue whenever another black person gets killed by a cop.

Article:-http://news.yahoo.com/obama-requests-263-million-federal-response-ferguson-mo-181653591.html

Obama’s immigration law will help the U.S.

President Obama’s executive order will allow 5 million illegal immigrant living in the United States to obtain a temporary working permit.The law is suppose to allow illegals to come out of hiding and identify with the public,by paying taxes and contribute to the economy.To many,this is a win-win situation for the United States,because the immigrant can bring growth to the U.S.On the other hand,conservative are saying this illegal immigrants bring diseases and crimes into the  States.There hasnt been enough evidence to suggest that most crimes in the U.S counties are committed by illegals.But illegal immigrants contribute fairly to crime rate in the U.S.Mr.Obama’s executive order to allow 5 million of the illegal immigrant get temporary working permit would allow most of them to look for work,go to school and sometimes open their own busines

Also,the low-skilled job in the United States are geting filled by immigrants.In some cases illegal immigrant work jobs like janitorial,gardner etc.These are jobs that some Americans will otherwise work for twice as much than what an immigrant will demand.If  immigrants are allow to have  work permit,they will be able to seek for a better paying job,by getting and education.Thus,this will grow the middle-class and keep the U.S economy growing.

Article:-http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/11/26/obama-to-illegal-immigration-hecklers-i-just-took-action-to-change-the-law-n1923946

The new found relationship between the White House and insurance companies is bad for the Affordable Care Act.

The Affordable care act signed by President Barrack Obama has created division between the American People. With some people supporting the law since it bans insurers from rejecting an individual because of pre-existing medical conditions. Critics think the law over-stretch it constitutionality, by requiring most Americans to have health insurance or face penalty. Since the enactment of Obamacare, another name for the Affordable Care Act, several low-income individuals and families have been able to get health insurance through Medicaid; something that wasn’t the case prior to the Affordable care act becoming law. When the affordable care act became law, the government made sure to demonize private insurance company, in an effort to alter insurance profit scheme from those they insure. However, in 2014, “when the healthcare website went through major malfunction, a major insurance company came to the White-House aid to offer help in fixing the embattled website” (New York Times).Thus, the relationship between insurance company and the White house has grown  . If the main purpose of the Affordable Care Act was to make sure insurance company don’t make excessive profit at the expense of those they insure, the new found relationship between the federal government on the insurance companies will defeat that purpose.

While profit is one of the reason many go into business, the significance of the Affordable Act was to make the insurance market less competitive for those wanting to get insured. The new found relationship between the White House and insurance companies all comes down to profit. Insurance company are finally seeing a surge in profit because of the Affordable Act AKA Obamacare. While this is not a problem as of today, this will create an issue in the future; when insurance company begin to regulate prices,and going past the cap profit margin dictated by the federal government.

In the long-term, the Affordable care act will become another tool of capitalism. The only good thing that will remain about Obamacare, will be that individuals may not be discriminate against, because of pre-existing medical condition. The primary goal of providing affordable health care plans for citizens, and making sure insurance company are not making ridiculous profit will eventually be defeated. For this reason, the Affordable Care Act will become a profit grabber for insurance company, this will affect millions of Americans that can’t afford to pay their premium if prices keep changing.

Article:-http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/us/politics/health-law-turns-obama-and-insurers-into-allies.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

The Chinese should provide a blue-print:on how they plan on reducing carbon-dioxide.

Climate change has been one the most critical issue on the fore-front of the U.S. foreign policy. Climate change advocates have called for broader policy to be enacted by the U.S. government to help stop global warming. And,the United States president Barack Obama has shown leadership in tackling climate change. Although, a broader coalition from both democrats and republicans is needed in congress, if the president his determined to make-do on his promise to reduce U.S. greenhouse emission. Also, other nations that are part of the problem of climate change have a role in eliminating global warming. The United States and China have reached a landmark agreement to help make significant changes to help fight climate change. Since the U.S. and China are the two most powerful economic super-powers, both countries contribute significantly to global warming. Unlike the U.S., China has failed to enact laws to  reduce their greenhouse emission. For this reason, the joint agreement reached between President Obama and President Xi Jinping on how they plan on reducing their country’s greenhouse emission before 2020, marks a significant turn-around in the fight against global warming. However, the plan does not go far enough in helping combat climate change. And the Chinese have failed to state how they plan on meeting their target before 2025.

The United States agreed to emit less carbon dioxide than it did in 2005.According to New York Times, Mr. Obama pledge that the United States would emit 26 percent less carbon dioxide in 2025 than it did in 2005” (New York Times, 2014).Although, a formal agreement remain to be signed, but this does signifies a robust cooperation between the U.S and China both of which are the world’s top emitters of greenhouse gases. Although the United States is taken a tougher stand in curbing global warming due to climate change, China could have shown more leadership by setting a sooner eradication date rather than later. “Beijing should try to reach the emissions peak sooner and announce more hard numbers — such as a coal consumption peak by 2020 — in order to guarantee a road map for reaching the emissions peak, several said”(New York Time,2014). Thus, if China were to try to reach a sooner timeline as oppose to later, and put-out significant numbers that will show that China is serious about fighting climate change, the road map to success will remain unrealistic.

Also, China was not pretty firm on ways it plan to emit it greenhouse gas. The lack of road map from the Chinese will lead to the  stagnation of the pledge taken by the Chinese president. In order for the Chinese to be taken serious, there has to be a set-plan on how they plan on reducing carbon –dioxide by 2025.Since, there is no analysis provided by the Chinese on how the greenhouse gas is going to be emitted, some believe President Xi’s pledge was just for the press. Also, recent analysis have suggests that the Chinese are hesitant in reducing greenhouse gas. They are the number one polluter, follow by the United States. If China does not provide a road map on how they plan on achieving their emission, the pledge taken by president Obama and president Xi will go unfruitful.

Article:- http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/13/world/asia/climate-change-china-xi-jinping-obama-apec.html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton and the democratic party could still retain the White-House beyond 2016.

       Now that the mid-term election is over, republicans can now cheers to their new majority in congress. Republican are set to take over congress has the majority starting in January. Although, is not clear if republicans will use their new found power to continue their obstructionist tactics against President Obama; one thing is clear, republicans takeover of congress marks an historic gain for the conservative wing of the country in congress since World-war II. According to Newsmax, “republican take-over of the senate will hurt the chances of Hillary Clinton the rumored democratic front-runner for President in 2016” (Newsmax.com).While, we do not have facts suggesting that voters will vote for a republican President in 2016, one thing is clear; voters will not hesitate to vote out any party that they feel is not putting the American people’s interest first. With that said, Hillary Clinton and the democrat may still be able to relate to voters in crucial state with policy such as minimum wage, gay marriage and other issues that most Americans agree on both liberal and conservative.

   The loss of senate by democrat does not signifies the end to democrat’s hope of retaining the White-house in 2016.Over the years, democrat have been successfully paint republicans has a party of no. While this strategy has worked for the democrat which even help with Obama’s re-election in 2012, democrat have failed to appeal to the entire population, especially the southern states that overwhelming vote’s republicans. In other words, for democrats to retain the Whitehouse in 2016, democrat must adhere to conservative wants such as immigration reforms, while still promoting their liberal agendas. But going full throttle on liberal agendas could cost the democrat in 2016.

  Also, the take-over of congress by republicans will give the American people the opportunity to see leadership from either the congressional side of our government or the executive branch. In other words, voters will be able to find out who exactly is obstructing the government. Since the republicans have full control of congress, if the status quo remains the same till 2016, then we can expect a democratic president in the white house past 2016.

    Furthermore, If Hillary Clinton was to run for president in 2016 and may be gets elected, she will be the first female-U.S president. Americans like change; historic and significance change could mean everybody will get out to vote for the first female would-be president. In other words, women, minorities tend to vote for such candidate. So the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman might give her a slight edge among women, student and minorities who tend to vote democratic anyways.

     In conclusion, the article fail to highlight the need for republicans to take leadership of their election wins, in order to convince the American people that the government shutdown, hundreds and something times of trying to re-appeal the affordable care act and Benghazi witch-hunting were not only a reason not to trust the democrat but that they republican were justify in following through on these issues. Failing to do so, will result into voters thinking a republican president could make things worse, and by voting one in the Whitehouse will mean a total disaster for “47 percent of the population” that republicans deem free-loaders. Nothing against the republican party, as I am an independent, but republicans must show us that they can be trusted to compromise and fit their party platform to include all American regardless of their social, economic or physical status. Failure to this, will result in another democrat in the white house beyond 2016.

Article:-http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/GOP-midterms-wave-Hillary/2014/11/05/id/605341/?ns_mail_uid=58967652&ns_mail_job=1593928_11052014&s=al&dkt_nbr=zay4z55t

 

Suspending high-school football games for an entire school year is not the solution to players safety.

As we all know American Football is probably one of the most physical sport in the history of man-kind.The fact that the National football league created several safety measures  to safe-guard players from gruesome head,and bodily injury should speak volume of the level of intensity involve in the sport itself.Several former NFL players have been diagnosed with brain injury after they retire,and they’re constantly finding themselves with different symptoms pointing to a head trauma sustained from playing football on the highest level.This injury occurs mostly when a player is hit in the head by another player,that’s running at a full-speed.Like I said earlier,the NFL does have safety measures in place  such as:Helmet to protect  players from head or brain injury,and bodily gears to protect the chest area,ribs and other sensitive part of the human body.However,these safety measures have done little or less to keep players safe on the field.According to the  New York Times,high-school football players are constantly having concussion which occurs when their is a significant impact to the head,from a tackle during a game.Due to this reasons,some high schools in the country are suspending football games for an entire season.While this might sound like a brilliant idea, in order to lessen the amount of concussions sustained by our modern-day gladiators,in the long run,it will affect the NFL;Since most of the NFL’s scouting start’s at the high-school level.Suspending high-school football games for an entire school year is not the solution to player’s safety.

If  High-school athletes are no longer allowed to play football because of concussions or death of  players,then, how will the  NFL recruit more players to play Football that will keep American entertained for many more years?The answer is we don’t know.Perhaps NFL could start recruiting from other countries,or even pay discontinued the game of football in general.This ideas sound over-reach,after so many years of American Football dominated by mostly African-American,recruiting from the outside will not be an easy transition.Also,discontinuing the game of football,will cause economical problems for those that survive off NFL’s revenue.

The Idea that high-school coaches are suspending football games for an entire season due to concussions or deaths of another player during game is dangerous to the continuity of American Football.Coaches have to do more to strengthen player physically,emotionally, and mentally.Doing this, will reduce but not eliminate in the amount of concussions or deaths that  could occur during a game.Suspending football games for an entire school year will not solve the problem of concussions or death,it will only create problems for the  NFL and the U.S economy has a whole;since revenues generated at the football games go a long way in helping the NFL,the players and the U.S economy.

Article:-http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/sports/football/football-injuries-lead-to-steady-stream-of-high-school-forfeitures.html?_r=0