Accidental outing of CIA official could end a covert career - Victor Ragsdale 4th Period

Accidental outing of CIA official could end a covert career 

      In a report sent out to 6,000 journalists of a list of servicemen stationed in Afghanistan to be briefed by President Obama for a surprise briefing, there was a name of a CIA agent that was not be listed. They are currently investigating how such events could have occurred. 

      I don't understand how this could have happened. An agency that is supposed to be so covert and protected manages to leak the identity of an agent on a current mission. Now he and his family are threatened. This is does not look good as far as attaining future CIA agents. 

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/27/politics/white-house-cia-outing/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 

Victor Ragsdale - 4th Period

Testing The Limits of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - Victor Ragsdale, 4th Period

Rally At The Alamo Will Call On Texans to Raise Their Rifles High 

          Many "armed demonstrators"are planning to rally at the Alamo this Saturday to celebrate to gun culture of the state, as well as push the limits of its right to bear arms. The citizens are asking to be able to carry weapons openly and unconcealed in public. The citizens are also to have loaded weapons at the protest. 

          This is a highly unreasonable task. Why do people think it is acceptable to carry loaded weapons publicly, and unconcealed? Especially at a time when there have more weapons attacks than ever. Our president has had to make more addresses on gun violence than State of The Union speeches (1). THIS IS RIDICULOUS!! It would be completely ignorant of us to expect to be able to have weapons in public for all to see, especially if they are LOADED!! By allowing this to be legal, we are practically escorting terrorists (and others crazy enough to kill people for..."reasons") to make attacks on innocent people. 

           Texan loaded arms in public: smart or STUPID? Tell me what you think...

-- Victor Ragsdale - 4th Period 

Source: Rally at the Alamo... - NYTimes.com 

President Obama Embraces Russian Proposal on Syria's Weapons - Victor Ragsdale (4th Period)

CRISIS IN SYRIA 

President Obama Embraces Russian Proposal on Syria's Weapons 

                 Recently the Syrian government used its chemical weapons to kill hundreds of their citizens, killing many innocent women and children. In response to their usage of chemical weapons, President Obama sought congressional approval of a US military attack in Syria. On Wednesday, September 4, 2013, a divided Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday approved an authorization of force against the Syrian regime. But before the House of Representatives could approve the strike, US Secretary of State John Kerry as well as the Russian government proposed that Syria should have international monitors take control of the Syrian government's chemical weapons.  

             This proposal would be great for an ideal world where countries do what is considered morally acceptable if not morally embraced. If the nation was willing to use chemical weapons on their own people, we must consider the possible consequences of US military action and international intervention in Syria. Ideally the nation would give up their weapons and we would dispose of them properly. The problem is that if the world were really ideal, would we have to take chemical weapons from the country in the first place? And considering how the world isn't ideal, are we prepared for resistance from the Syrian government (which may or may not come in a violent form)? Can we really trust the nation that receives the weapons to dispose of them properly? And if we can't and decide to do it ourselves, how we can we expect other nations to trust us if we couldn't trust them?

                Think about it and tell your stance on the entire subject. What's better, US military strike, Russian proposal, other possible intervention(s), or perhaps no intervention at all... 

Source: Russian Proposal On Syria's Chemical Weapons

Video: Hilary Clinton on Syria's Chemical Weapons Proposal

President Obama Seeks Congressional Approval for Military Attack on Syria - Victor Ragsdale (4th Period)

President Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria 

          It was recently discovered that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons on its civilians killing thousands of innocent people, hundreds of which were young boys and girls. In response to their use of the universally banned chemical weapons, President Obama would like a U.S. military strike on Syria. But, the President has decided to seek Congressional approval for the strike.  

          It is good to know that we have a President who would like to make decision after he can see multiple opinions on the subject. But from reading this article, it was clear that the writers and a few Congressional members were not in support of President Obama's military strike in Syria. For example, throughout the article he is only referenced as President Obama once. This may seem unimportant, but he is the President of the United States, and should on average be referenced as President Obama. It is almost as if the New York Times is still in denial of our President's being elected. With such feelings towards the President, you can see that the article was purposefully written to create a subliminal disapproval of President Obama's strike on Syria. After reading If there are any quotes from people supporting the President's plan, I don't remember them, but I do remember the countless references of those in opposition to the plan. Read the article and tell me what you think; if you were completely neutral to the strike, after reading the article would you be more likely to support or disapprove the strike?

For the complete article, visit: President Obama Seeks Approval by Congress for Strike in Syria 

To hear the President Speak on Syria, watch the video at the top.