Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele's Senate campaign acknowledged that the was the anonymous candidate quoted as saying that being a Republican was like wearing a "scarlet letter" and that he did not want President Bush to campaign for his this fall. Steele acknowledged his strategy when asked whether he could run as a proud Republican. He responded: "That's going to be tough. It's going to be tough to do. If this race is about Republicans and Democrats, I lose."

This is a real disgrace to the Republican party, and it really puts a smile on my face. Finally, someone in the President's own party finally is seeing him for who he actually is. I never thought I would see the day when a Republican would go against the President. I wonder if this means that other Republicans are going to call Steele a traitor to this country just like they do when a Democrat goes against the President. I have a feeling they won't though.

I mean really, is this how you want the Republican party ran? Is this how any party should be ran? People who are up for election have to distance themselves from the top ranking Republican in the country just to receive votes. Something is seriously wrong with this picture. Either this really speaks bad for the President or the Republican party as a whole, and let me tell you something. I'm looking at it as both. This not only disgraces the entire Republican party but also the President as a leader. This really shows the separation that exist within the Republican party. Members will never admit it. They will swear up and down that they are completely united when actually none of them are on the same page. Very few Republicans today are actually true conservatives. Conservatism is supposed to be basic fundamental idea for the Republican party. This is not the case at all. Most Republicans are moderates, taking bits and pieces from conservatives and liberal to formulate their views.

If anything, the Democratic party is the most united and genuine. Very few Democrats are moderates where a large majority of them are in fact liberals. This is the structure of the Democratic party, and we are proud of it and united as one behind it. It's a real shame Republicans cannot say this about themselves. It makes me really happy that the American public is beginning to see this great divide and take action for what is right.

Legislation drafted by the Bush administration setting out new rules on bringing terror detainees to trial would allow hearsay evidence to be introduced unless it was deemed “unreliable” and would permit defendants to be excluded from their own trials if necessary to protect national security, according to a copy of the proposal. The bill is not yet final, but it indicates the direction of the administration’s approach for dealing with a Supreme Court decision that struck down the tribunals established to try terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The draft bill proposes that rather than a required speedy trial for enemy combatants, they may be tried and punished at any time without limitations. Defendants could be held until hostilities are completed. The bill also specifies that no matter how evidence is gathered, it shall be admissible if the military judge determines it has probative value. Hearsay statements would be allowed at the discretion of the judge unless the circumstances render it unreliable. The bill would also bar statements obtained by the use of torture from being introduced as evidence, but evidence obtained during interrogations where coerceion was used would be admissible unless a judge found it unreliable.

The provision allowing defendants to be excluded from a trial to prevent them from hearing classified evidence against them is likely to be among the more controversial aspects of the administration’s plan. Another difficult issue the administration faces is whether a provision of the Geneva Conventions, known as Common Article Three, applies to detainees; the Supreme Court ruled that it did.

From what I have read, the New York Times has a copy of the bill but I yet to see the transcript. Based on what I presented above, I agree with some of clauses and disagree on others. First off, I disagree with with the part about the prisoners not allowed in the court room during their trial. I feel that if you are on trial, you need to be present for it. Any criminal must be present during their own trail for the defence. I don't see a difference in this at all. I sort of have a problem with the hearsay clause. The bad thing about hearsay is it can easily be turned around and misunderstood. It is going to be very hard for a judge to decide if what someone else says that you said is acutally real. I think something needs to be done with that. The issue about the speedy trail is fine. Lets try to get as much evidence on these terrorist as we can to make sure that they can never get out and harm another American or anyone else again.

I'm not saying that these prisoners are innocent. This is a common misconception most conservatives have on this issue about liberals. We do not think these people are innocent, and we do not feel that they should be let out on the streets. All we are saying is lets do the humane thing and give these human being a fair trial. Everyone knows they are guilty of something. Lets just put them in front of a judge and get it over with. Put them in jail where they belong and stop treating them like animals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) introduced legislation on Wednesday to challenge President Bush's insistence that he can bypass sections of bills that he signs into law.  The American Bar Association claims President Bush has violated the Constitutional oath by issuing hundreds of "signing statements" to disregard selected provisions of the laws that Congress passed and he signed.  Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter's bill would empower Congress to bring federal court lawsuits to test the constitutionality of Bush's signing statements.  The ABA asserts that signing statements cannot be a substitute for a presidential veto and that such an assertion of presidential power amounts to a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court already has ruled unconstitutional.

In America, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land meaning that nothing can be higher than the document of law written by our founding fathers.  It looks to me like President Bush is trying to undermind our constitution.  No person in America is above the law, not even the President.  If proven without a reason of doudt that he performed these line item vetos or signing statements, he needs to be treated like any other person who broke the law in America.  These legislations need to be reformulated so they can be resigned or vetoed to go back to the senate for a 2/3rds vote.  I'm not trying to bash the President here but he of all people should know the laws he must abide by.  This isn't even a democrat versuses republican issue.  This is an issue of legality only.  It simply is unconstitutional for a president to do this kind of thing.  Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that the president cannot pick and chose what parts of a bill he likes and veto the rest.  He needs to face some sort of penality for his actions if proven guilty.

President George W. Bush and Iraq's prime minister said on Tuesday more U.S. and Iraqi troops will go to Baghdad to try to slow violence in talks that exposed gaps between them on the Middle East.  It was unclear how the new plan would affect Pentagon hopes of reducing the U.S. troop deployment in Iraq by year's end, a move with an important political consideration given Republican efforts to maintain control of the U.S. Congress in November elections and the unpopularity of the war among many Americans.  Currently there are 127,000 American troops in Iraq.  Bush and Pentagon officials gave no indication how many U.S. troops might be involved in the Baghdad reinforcement.

It's a good thing this was supposed to be a quick war.  I cannot believe that we are going to deploy more troops to Iraq based on the way the war is going.  I don't understand the reason for this increase in troop count.  I cannot wait for this administration to be out of office so maybe there will be a change to this whole meaningless war.

What I don't understand is that the vast majority of American's are getting fed up with the war in Iraq, but yet President Bush is still sending in more troops to fight.  I personally am sick and tired of hearing about this whole mess.  The rate this is going, we are never going to get out of Iraq.  This administration has become so engulfed with the war in Iraq that they are totally blind to how the majority nation feels about the situation.  Maybe I'm the only one that feels this way.  Who knows?  All I do know is that no American can say that they want more troops to lose their lives.  All that is going to come from this troop increase is more loss of our soldier's lives.  I wish Bush and this horrible excuse for an administration could just for once take off their blindfolds and see this war for what it really is and listen to the people that elected them into office.

Community Associations Institute (CAI) applauded the enactment of legislation that gives residents in community associations the right to fly the American flag.  First introduced in January 2005, the Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005 (H.R. 42) was signed by President Bush and is effective immediately.

I do not belong to a homeowners association (nor do I want to) so I guess I don't know exactly what they can or cannot do.  What I do understand is that for some reason, they can tell you whether or not you can fly the American flag at your home or not atleast until now.  This is the part that I find disturbing.

My views of the American flag are quite simple.  I see the American flag as a symbol for freedom and patriotism.  The flag itself is only made of cloth, but it is what lies inside that flag is where the true meaning resides.  I feel that everyone should display the American flag to show their patriotism, but it should not be a law that you must display it.  I also feel that if you want to display the flag, under no condition should you be told not to.  A person should be allowed to do whatever they want to do with the American flag as well.

Every American feels some sort of patriotism.  No one can argue with that.  Some people are more patriotic than others, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Where the problem lies is where a group of people are telling you the homeowner that you are not allowed to fly the American flag on your own property.  Last I checked you are entitled to your freedom of speech.  Flying this flag is the greatest speech never told.  You can not hear it, but it certainly makes a statement to all.

The first half of the year was the warmest on record for the United States.  The government reported Friday that the average temperature for the 48 continental United States from January through June was 51.8 degrees Fahrenheit, or 3.4 degrees above average for the 20th century.  That made it the warmest such period since recordkeeping began in the National Climatic Data Center reported. As of June, 45 percent of the continental U.S. was in moderate to extreme drought, an increase of 6 percent from May.  Dry conditions spawned more than 50,000 wildfires, burning more than 3 million acres in the continental U.S., according to the National Interagency Fire Center.  Worldwide, it was the sixth warmest year-to-date since record keeping began in 1880.

All this information can be viewed at the National Climatic Data Center website.  It really doesn't matter though.  Republicans still will not take this problem seriously.  No matter how much information is out there about global warming, conservatives will still brush it off as a myth.  No matter how much evidence highly regarded scientist publish and confirm, they will still deny the problem's existance.  Denial will not make the problem go away.  I don't know what they plan to do about it but by the way it looks, absolutely nothing.  All I have to say is if you want to keep getting baked alive and paying high prices on your electric bill, just vote Republican.

Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November. With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.  Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates, and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic.

Well well well what can I say? I guess I under-estimated the American public. Americans are finally realizing that there is a problem with Senate and the House and are actually willing to do something about it.

I know this is only a poll but I do think it will hold true at midterm elections. I do think that the Democrats will take over the majority of one or more assemblies. In order to seize control of Congress, the Democrats must replace 15 Republicans from House seats and only 6 Republicans from the Senate. Change needs to happen folks, and I sure hope it starts with the Senate then up to the House. I would love to see it go all the way to the presidency in 2008. I guess only time will tell.

The House on Tuesday rejected a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, ending for another year a congressional debate that supporters of the ban hope will still reverberate in this fall's election.  The 236-187 vote for the proposal to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman was 47 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment. It followed six weeks after the Senate also decisively defeated the amendment.

I can't say this is a win for the Democrats, because the Republicans keep doing this for a political edge.  Even though it got voted down in both houses of Congress, it still doesn't mean it will stop being an issue.  Republicans use this as a ploy to get conservative voters to the polls.  They really don't care about the definition of marriage, they only care if more conservatives get elected.

I personally am not against a gay marriage ban.  I feel that gays should have the right to marry because homosexuality is not a choice, it is just the way you are.  Allowing them to marry harms me in no physical way what so ever.  It does not violate a "traditional" marriage because of the fact that ones marriage is unique to that couple only.  Besides, what gives me the right to tell two people who loves one another completely that they do not have the right to unite as one.  In the church's eye, it is morally wrong but that should be between them and God, not our government.  For a Republican party whose principles are not to meddle in people's personal lives, sure are doing an awful lot to get involed where they have no business being.

Democrats pulled an Internet ad that showed flag-draped coffins after Republicans and at least two Democrats demanded it be taken down on grounds the image was insensitive and not fit for a political commercial.  The ad can still be seen on my blog under the post of "DCCC Video That All Republicans Are Griping Over".  The ad displays an array of images, including war scenes, pollution and breached levees as well as a photograph of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay in a police mug shot.  The campaign committee replaced the ad with a radio commercial that targets Rep. John Hostetler, R-Ind., for opposing an increase in the minimum wage.  Democrats had featured the video ad for nearly two weeks on the DCCC Web site where it had gone largely unnoticed until Republicans began objecting to it this week.

I still say the ad should have not been taken off the website.  As I said before, the reason the Republicans are taking offense to it is because it portrays the Republican party for what they actually are.  Now with Newt Gengrich (R-Ga.) wanting to enter "WWIII", unfortunately there will be more of those sad flag-draped images to see.

If you are not familiar with what is going on in the middle-east right now, then you must be locked in a cave.  War and violence are springing out all over the place and for once it seems, the U.S. isn't in the midst of the worst of it or are we?  If we would listen to Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), we would be doing a lot more than just watching the violence unfold on TV.

Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) wants to convene Congress to a special section to decide if this middle-east conflict should be considered World War III.  Not only does Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) want to declare this to be WWIII but also enter the U.S. in the conflict.  This is the part I don't understand.

As it is, the U.S. is already involved in one war that we have no business fighting, why do we need to get ourselves in yet another.  Is there not enough of our brave men and women dying in Iraq without having to get ourselves into a larger scuffle.  I just don't understand the reasoning Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) is using here.  Since the begining of time Israel has been involved in some sort of war.  Why is it that Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) wants the U.S. to stick our noses where it doesn't belong in another part of the world?  We do not have an army to go around the world and fight wars for other people.  I thought the reason a country has an army is to defend its borders when they are threatened.  I guess this is another reason why I'm not a republican.

As sad and pitiful as it is, just let the middle-east fight its own battles.  Be greatful that we are not being forced into fighting a war on another front.  For once, sit back and allow your troops to live and not be so spread out over the globe.  If the U.S. enters this conflict the result will definately be a world war.  I don't understand why Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) wants a WWIII.  From my standpoint two is enough.  We don't need a third especially when we can prevent it from happening.  All of these brave men and women from any country does not need to die.  There is absolutely no reason to drag countries into a war that in no way has anything to do with them.

Be greatful we are not involved in this conflict.  Hundreds of thousands of more Americans do not need to lose their lives for another unjust cause.  I honestly do not know how President Bush, Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and all other pro-war activist can sleep at night knowing that more troops are dying than truly necessary.

An al-Qauda group posted a Web video showing the mutilated bodies of two U.S. soldiers, claiming they killed them in revenge for the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman by American troops from the same unit.  The video shows two bloodied bodies in torn military uniforms lying near a curb on a bridge over a canal.  One of them, partially naked, had been decapitated and his chest cut open.  The other's face is bruised, his jaw broken, and his leg gashed open.

Thanks to these five U.S. soldiers rape and murder in Iraq, we U.S. citizens are now at greater risk of being attacked than before.  This just motivates al-Quada so much more to do harm to the U.S.  The door has just been swung open wider.  As it is the U.S. is being watched extremely close by the rest of the world.  They are just waiting for us to make some sort of mistake to have a reason to dislike us even more.  Like I've said before, we are perceived as the bad guys not the Iraqis.  These actions are a complete disgrace to the U.S. military, and the U.S. as a whole.  These soldiers are under a lot of pressure and stress, but this is still no excuse for this type of act.  I hate to say it but maybe by al-Quada brutally killing these two soldiers, it will open up the military's eyes and put an end to the abuse and foul play in Iraq.

I would just like to give praise to someone who probably doesn't get the praise they deserve.  I am talking about one of my former professors at Louisiana State University.  This summer term I took a Mass Communications class just for a humanities elective that I needed.  Lucky for me I got more than I bargained for.

This professor's name is Denny Hooten.  He is very knowledgeable man in the area that he teaches.  I wish I could have had the opportunity to take this class during a regular full semester with him.  It wasn't that I learned a lot is what made the class and the professor so great.  It was how he handled the class lectures is what did it.  He required class participation and this is what made it so fun. His political views were the opposite of mine but that also made it fun.  He was easy to debate, and he encouraged it.  He welcomed the opinion of the other side, something the right doesn't do much in this country now a days.

All I have to say is, Denny Hooten, keep up the great work.  You have no idea the effects you have on your students, and I must say it is good effects.  You strengthened my political views and encouraged me to research more of the facts to support my beliefs.  Thank you for a great semester.  In my book, you will go down as the best professor I have ever had.  Again, thank you for a great semester.

Republicans are griping over this new Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) ad that displays flag-draped coffins and a police mug shot of former House Majority Leader Tom Delay, arguing that this ad politicizes war casualties and is an insult to the families of the troops killed in Iraq.

I just don't see what the big deal is.  Oh wait yes I do, it exposes the GOP for what it actually is.  Oh ok I get it now ok.  No, but seriousally I really don't see what all the big fuss is about.  So what if it shows flag-draped coffins.  When I see this image, I get the feeling of patriotism and a devout love for my country even in times of war.  I  definately don't see this as an insult in any way.  When I see the image of Tom Delay, I see the face of a supporter to an administration full of lies and deceit.  I would imagine this is really what the Republican party really is angry about not the flag-draped coffins.  When the mid-term elections roll around in November, all I ask is to remember the things that this administration got us into and decide if you really want someone in office that supports them and would do the exact same thing.

Click if you can't view

Internet gambling is addictive, dangerous and should be outlawed, lawmakers argued Tuesday as the House took up a bill (H.R. 4411) to prevent people from using credit cards or other payment forms to settle online wagers.  The legislation would clarify existing law by declaring Internet gambling illegal.  It would cut off payments to betting Web sites and would allow authorities to work with Internet providers to block access to gambling Web sites. Representative Tom Osborne, R-Neb., and other bill supporters contend that it's too easy for online betters to lose money and to become addicted.  Opposers of the bill say policing the Internet is impossible and that it would be better to regulate the industry and collect taxes on it.

The bill would allow online lotteries and Internet betting on horse racing to flourish while cracking down on other kinds of sports betting, casino games and card games like poker.  Many conservatives back the bill on moral grounds, arguing that Internet betting is harmful to society.

Rep Tom Osborne, R-Neb., says that online gambling makes it too easy to lose money and to become addicted.  I just don't agree with that at all.  It isn't easier to lose money playing poker online that in a casino, it's all the same.  It certainly is not more addicting. The people who gamble on these sites already gamble in actual casinos.  Banning online gambling isn't going to solve anything unless you ban all forms of gambling altogether, and this will never happen.  I just don't see what conservatives are trying to accomplish by passing this bill.  One of the bill's main faults is that it is very hypocritical.  You can bet online for horse racing or lotteries but not poker or sports betting.  This is the defination of hypocrisy. People aren't going to stop playing poker from this so called resolution.  This is only going to increase play in casinos or at bar sponcored tournaments.  If the conservatives are really worried about the morals of Americans, they could be doing a lot more than debating something so rediculous as this bill.

I just watched Al Gore's new documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, and I must say that I am very impressed by it.  His movie is about global warming, and how it will affect the world in years to come if nothing is done to stop it.  Everything Mr. Gore talks about in the movie has scientific data to back it up and despite what you may hear, scientist actually find it absolutely credible.

He first talks about what exactly is global warming then he goes into great deal of the evidence he has to back up the theory.  He shows many graphs but a few really caught my attention.  One in particular was of the relationship of carbon dioxide (CO₂) gas and climate temperature first since the civil war then from about the 1600s.  Once you see the two line graphs the relationship is quite visible.  The overall climate temperature increases as the CO₂ levels increase.  He shows many graphs that is taken by expert scientist in this field and illustrates the data collected.  Some of the data is collected by NASA, but the majority is collected by experts who actually did the experiments and collected the data.

He showed a comparison photos of icecaps from around the globe from years ago to present date.  The pictures speak for themselves.  To say it simple, the icecaps are melting and at an rapid rate.  He isn't saying that the whole world will be underwater in a few years or even centuries.  What he and scientist do conclude is that the sea-levels are on a constant rise.  This is obvious.  When ice-caps melt it produces water in the oceans, and the seas rise.  You do not have to be a scientist to conclude that.

He also showed evidence from plant and animal life.  Polar bears are drowning due to global warming.  Before the 1970s, a time when the CO₂ levels were pretty stable and normal, the glaciers were larger and spaced at a normal distance apart for the polar bears to swim from one to the other.  Today, due to the melting of the glaciers, the polar bears are having to swim a lot farther and some are drowning due to the incredibly large distance they aren't accustomed to swimming.  Other examples include trees dying because of bugs, that would normally be killed by the cold temperatures, living longer and eating more of the vegetation.

Skeptics, aka conservatives, say, "The world is just in a natural warming phase that the climate naturally fluctuates like it is."  This is not true what so ever.  If you take a look at the graph with the CO₂ gases compared to the temperature, the graph tells the entire truth.  Prior to the increasingly high levels of this gas the earth naturally got colder and warmer like it is supposed to do.  Because of this, this is how the ice-ages formed and then the thawing and the reforming of ice-ages and so on.  Since the last ice-age, however, the levels of CO₂ have risen so exponentially that we disrupted the natural cycle of the earth's heating and cooling phases.  Because of the direct link between CO₂ and temperature, the earth will never experience it's natural cooling phase ever again unless something is done to stop the increase of CO₂ emissions.

The evidence is there.  Everything we need to know to decrease global warming is at our disposal.  The question is are we as a society going to step up and do something to prevent an already escalating problem.  None of the evidence is fake.  All of it is absolutely true.  The problem lies with people not accepting the evidence as fact.  A study was conducted, and 0.00% of the scientist that are experts in the field of global conditions said that global warming does not exist.  Let me put that in plain English for you, according to the world's most knowledgeable scientist in the field of global patterns and conditions, global warming is a true phenomenon that most certainly does exist.  Conservatives are publicizing how they are not afraid of a fight and will not turn away from a difficult challenge, well they sure are denying the truth about global warming and are not doing anything to try to solve the problem.

Japan said Monday it was considering whether a pre-emptive strike on the North's missile bases would violate its constitution.  Japan was badly rattled by North Korea's missile tests last week.  Today, Japan is considering whether the nation's Constituition would allow pre-emptive attacks on North Korean missile sites as an act of self-defense.  Japanese officials said they will keep pressing for harsh UN sanctions against North Korea, despite the likelihood of a Chinese veto and criticism from South Korea.

Personally, I am against pre-emptive war.  I do not feel that any country should attack another in order to stop a potential war.  Yes, North Korea is test firing missiles but so are many other countries in the world.  You don't see the U.S. bombing every country in the world that has missile capabilities.

It's not the fact that North Korea has missiles that makes us terrified.  Many other countries have missiles and we aren't afraid of them.  What makes us terrified is we don't know what Kim Jon Il can do with those missiles.

Pre-emptive war is just flat out wrong.  Ask yourself this?  Would it be right to put someone in the electric chair for a murder they planned to do but did not actually commit?  Pre-emptive war is the same thing.  No one knows for sure what another country is actually going to do until they do it.  You cannot just bomb another country and take innocent lives just because they are test firing missiles.  They are not actually making acts of war against anyone.  When they do then that's a different story, but until then lets not jump to conclusions here.  We should put our battle ships with anti-missile technology in stratigic locations so if they do fire upon us we can shoot down their missiles and proceed from there.  I don't feel that it is right to cause a war just to stop another from taking place.  The only thing that changes in doing this is the one who struck first.

Four more U.S. soldiers have been charged with rape and murder and a fifth with dereliction of duty in the alleged rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman and the killings of her relatives in Iraq, the military said Sunday.  Ex-soldier Steven D. Green was arrested last week in North Carolina and has pleaded not guilty to one count of rape and four counts of murder.  The U.S. statement said the five soldiers still on active duty will face an Article 32 investigation, similar to a grand jury hearing in civilian law. The Article 32 proceeding will determine whether there is enough evidence to place them on trial.

According to the FBI affidait, Green and at atleast two other soldiers targeted the teenaged girl and her family a week before the attack.  The affidavit claims the soldiers drank alcohol, abandoned their checkpoints, changed clothes, and then proceded with the rape and murder.  Doctors at the Iraqi hospital said the rape victim was about 14 years old.  Green is accused of raping the woman and killing her and her three relatives - one of which a little girl around the age of 5.

This incident and all others like this one is a true disgrace to the U.S. military and the U.S. in general.  This almost makes me ashamed to be an American.  I don't see how a trained soldier by the greatest army in the world could do such a horrific act.  Now this really makes the war in Iraq so much more difficult to win.  As it is we are judged very poorly by all the other countries in the world because of this war.  We are being viewed as the "bad guys" here, not the Iraqi's.  There is no excuse for this sort of action to go on especially in the U.S. military.  We need to send a message to all our armed forces by prosecuting these men to the fullest extent so that this kind of behavior will absolutely not be tolerated.

A Japanese newspaper reported Thursday night that the failed Taepondong-2 ballistic missile fired on Wednesday was actually aimed at Hawaii.  The U.S. neither confirms or denies the story, but the Japanese newspaper says based on the missile's trajectory it was heading for Hawaii.  North Korea may have targeted Hawaii to show the United States that it was capable of landing a missile there, or because it is home to the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific fleet, the paper said.

North Korea angrily mocked international criticism of its multiple missile tests, threatening on Thursday to fire off more rockets. The foreign minister of Pyongyang, the capital city of North Korea, released a statement declaring that it had the right to develop and test its weapons and vowing unspecified retaliation against anyone who tries to stop it.  North Korea set off an international outrage on Wednesday when it tested seven missiles, all of which landed into the Sea of Japan without causing any damage. The blasts apparently included a long-range Taepodong-2 that broke up less than a minute after takeoff and splashed into the sea.

Here's what I don't understand.  President Bush was quick to rush into war with Iraq over a presumed weapons of mass destruction, but here is North Korea actually test firing potentially dangerous weapons, and we are doing very little.  I am definately not saying lets go to war with North Korea because America certainly doesn't need that right now.  To tell you the absolute truth, I am scared to death of those communist pricks.  Thank goodness that the missles they are test firing all were failures.

China and Russia are actually siding with North Korea probably because of their proximaty with them, and they too are scared of being hit with one of those missiles.  The United Nations needs to really take this seriousally and come up with some sort of resolution quickly before the U.S. and our allies decides to take this matter into our own hands.  I really don't think they realize the seriousness of the potential situation that could be developing here.

In my opinion I think this could possibly lead into a World War III.  Here's how I figure it.  We are not going to go to war with North Korea on our own simply because we are so spread out world wide already in a military sense right now.  We are going to persuade our allies that something needs to be done then we'll go to war with them.  The problem with that is China and Russia will side with North Korea because based on location, they would be prime targets for their missiles.  china's population is right at two billion people, so they would have enough to fight for quite some time.  Russia's population is almost one hundred and fifty million.  This would be a war with many casualties due to the fact that China and Russia both have nuclear capabilties that they wouldn't mind showing off.  There is also no telling what North Korea has at their disposal that they are willing to use.  This war would escalade rapidly out of control and would lead to a WWIII.

Lets just hope the U.S. along with the UN can settle this matter diplomatically so no one has to go to war with this psycho communist leader, Kim Jong Il.

About 150 protesters sat in front of the White House on Monday to savor their last meal before starting a hunger strike that some said will continue until American troops return from Iraq.  The demonstration marking the Independence Day holiday was organized by CodePink, a women's anti-war group that called on volunteers to abstain from eating for 24 hours from midnight on Monday.  Some protesters said their fast would continue beyond the July 4th holiday.  The demonstration aimed at highlighting the costs of the war, in which more than 2,500 U.S. soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have died, said CodePink spokeswoman Meredith Dearborn.

I personally am not for the war in Iraq, but I would not fast to protest the war.  I commend those that are fasting, but I feel they are wasting their time.  My reason is that I don't believe that President Bush cares about how much American soldiers have died overseas over a pointless and meaningless war.  To this date, the war has not been justified because WMD's have still not be found in Iraq which was the reason for our invasion.

I do not support the president's "lie and die" stance on the war simply because of one simple principle.  We will never win the war on terror.  It's like saying we will one day win the war on drugs or the war on crime in America.  Neither of these concepts will ever be achieved.

No true American, Democrat or Republican, honestly wants the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq but based on the way things have been going, I feel we already lost it.  No matter what the turn out in the future will be, in the majority of America's eyes as well as the world's eyes, we lost this war.  They will look back and say that all our brave soldiers died for a meaningless cause.

No one can change the past so there is no use debating if we should or shouldn't have invaded Iraq.  What needs to be debated is what needs to be done about the war today.  I think a good plan would fit somewhere between Bush's "lie and die" plan and Kerry's "cut and run" plan.  Quite frankly, we just need some sort of plan to be formulated.  You don't go into a war and have no sort of plan to when it will be over.  Surely America doesn't want to be fighting in Iraq forever.  Maybe the fasting will actually make a statement to the world and open up the eyes of the politicians, including Bush, to make a valid decision on what America should do.

Up to six pieces of debris that could be foam insulation fell off Discovery's external fuel tank minutes after liftoff Tuesday, July 4^th.  Officials cautioned, however, that it was too soon to know whether the debris struck Discovery and that the pieces came off later than would normally endanger the shuttle.  They do not yet know what size the debris is but NASA officials say that they expected some of the foam to come off the external fuel tank but it is not supposed to be of any size of danger to the shuttle.  Columbia's demise in February 2003 was caused by foam insulation that peeled off seventy seconds after liftoff and struck its heat shield.

I just can't believe that its been three years since the Columbia disaster and about one year since the last launching and the NASA team still cannot get this foam from flying off the external fuel tank.  What are we paying these guys to do?  Do they want another shuttle disaster like the one that happened in 2003 to Columbia.  There should be no excuse for this problem to still be occuring.  To me, it sounds like this foam is doing more harm than good.  They need to try to redesign the making of the foam so it don't crack while just sitting on the launch pad or fly off while in take-off endangering the orbitor in either way.  I forget how much of our national budget goes to NASA but come on, this is the best we can do.  I really hope they understand what would happen if another shuttle would burn up during re-entry.  It would probably mean an ending to the whole space progam as we know it, and many of their jobs would be at stake for sure.  Someone needs to step up and fix this problem before another disaster happends. 

I personally love the space program.  It has provided us with so many advancements and new technologies in the past that would have never been developed otherwise.  From medicines to electronic technologies, the space program provided an advancement in all these areas and all inbetween.  Outer space is our future, our destiny.  We must continue to strive for the beyond.  The only thing standing in our way it seems like is foam insulation.

As the U.S. continues to express concern about the possibility of a North Korean missile test directed toward American territory and the rest of the world holds its breath over a close encounter with an asteroid, several U.S. air bases are on heightened alert, and no one is really saying why.

The Cheyenne Mountain Air Station, which houses NORAD – charged with monitoring the North Korea situation – is now at "Bravo-Plus." There are five levels of alert: normal, Alpha (low), Bravo (medium), Charlie (high) and Delta (critical). "Bravo-Plus" is slightly higher than a medium threat level.  NORAD and the U.S. Northern Command in Colorado would play a big role in both detecting and responding to a missile launch if it ever occurred.  Meanwhile, in a development that may or may not be related to the heightened security alert, an asteroid up to half a mile wide has brushed past the Earth early yesterday.

I'm pretty sure that the asteroid has nothing to do with the hightened alert.  Our top scientists know exactly where this asteroid is located above our atmosphere, and they know it is no danger to Earth.  The reason for this hightened alert, due to the fact that the Cheyenne Mountian Air Station increased it's alert level, obviousally is the North Korean missle scare.  We simply don't want this communist country to fire a potientally nuclear missile at American soil.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, is a joint U.S. and Canadian organization which provides aerospace warning for North America.  NORAD is rumored to have the space-age technology of our secret anti-missile technology known as Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) commonly called "Stars Wars."  If NORAD actually does house this technology then it makes perfect sense for them to increase their alert level.  Hopefully President Bush isn't withholding any information, like he is known to do in the past, that would actually indicate a specific reason for this alert level to be increased.

I am getting really sick and tired of what the right is doing to The New York Times.  First of all The New York Times published an article about a government program that tracked money transfers between the U.S. and overseas countries which was already made public by the President a few years ago.  Secondly it is not The New York Times at fault for this, it is the person who leaked the story.  The New York Times is not the ones who put the country at risk to national security, the one who leaked did.  I'm getting sick and tired of this administration brainwashing the American public to get even with a liberal newpaper and try to gain a political edge.  What you don't know is that The Wall Street Journal also ran this story but you don't hear no one blaming them because they are a conservative newspaper.  I just really cannot see how you people blame a newpaper for doing what their first ammendment right grants them to do.

Some say it is time for the president to do his duty and bring to justice those responsible well he is one of the ones responsible.  Maybe we should prosecute him.  I've heard speeches that the President gave to the American pulbic of him letting the world know about a government program called "Roaving Wire Taps."  Until he broke this news, it was a secret government progam unlike the one The New York Times published.  So if you want to call on the president to bring all the leakers and exploiters to justice then we should start right at the top with the president and work our way right on down the list.

Published reports that the U.S. was monitoring international banking transactions were not news to the terrorists who were its target because the Bush administration had already "talked openly" about the effort, The New York Times' top editor said Sunday. In defending his paper's decision to reveal details of the program, Times executive editor Bill Keller told an interviewer on CBS's "Face the Nation" that such operations are important to an informed public.  Keller went on to say that he is just a little surprised about all the criticism the paper is receiving.  He said he knows its an election year and beating up on The New York Times is red meat for the conservative base.

What all of this boils down to is pure politics.  This is just a way for the right to try to gain some ground for the mid-term elections taking place in November.  They are worried that they will lose control of the House and you know what, I think they need to be worried.  The right isn't upset about what was printed.  They are upset because they are simply embarrassed.  Embarrassed that one of their so called "secrets" go out, and embarrassed because they know there is nothing they can do to stop from losing control of the House.

What they don't know is that all this political propaganda is really hurting the Republican party.  American's don't want censored speech or press, and they definitely don't an administration as secretive as this one.