President Bush ordered the declassification of a fraction of a report by the U.S. Intelligence Agency on the global threat against terror.  He wanted to release this document to the public so voters would not be confused about terrorism before the November elections.  These three declassified pages for this voluminous report tells Americans nothing that they should not already know.  The invasion of Iraq was a cataclysmic disaster.  The current situation will get worse if American forces leave.  Neither the report nor the President provides any suggestions about how to avoid that inevitable disaster.

So basically what it all comes down to is Bush was hiding a document from the American public that spelled out nothing new for us.  Maybe if the rest of the document would become available to the public, we would know exactly why it is infarct classified.  Could he possibly think that we really have no idea what is going on with the war in Iraq that it is crucial to hide the truth from us?  Certainly this cannot be.  You can ask anyone off the street how the war is going, and they can give you a pretty accurate answer.

I think that the way we are handling the war in Iraq is completely absurd.  I do not blame President Bush for this directly, because this mainly falls on the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield's shoulders.  He is the one responsible for the way this is being handled, and personally I do not approve of the job he is doing.  I think with a better Secretary of Defense, we could move closer to ending this conflict in Iraq.

A bill to laying out rules on how to interrogate terror suspects is likely to pass both houses of Congress soon, but little can be said about an eavesdropping bill.  Lawmakers in the House and the Senate say it is not likely that bills covering the NSA's eavesdropping program could pass both houses buy the end of the session this weekend.

I have not had a chance to read just what the bill would suggest we do with the interrogation process so I will not able to comment on that.  What I can say about this is that I am glad both houses can finally agree on this matter so we can finally began interrogating these suspects once more.  Interrogating these suspects is crucial to our national security.  We just have to be sure that we do this in compliance with the Geneva Convention.

As for the eavesdropping bill.  The House and Senate are both at ends with this.  The House bill, sponsored by Heather Wilson (R-New Mex.) seeks to "modernize" wiretapping law but would also give the president broader authority to conduct surveillance without court orders as long as he reported to Congress after doing so.  The bill has many differences from a Senate plan that would submit the entire wiretapping program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to rule on its constitutionality.

Regardless of what bill is passes, they both must still comply with the U.S. constitution and not go against the Supreme Court.  I do not have a problem with wiretaps.  They too are necessary to ensure our national safety.  What I do have a problem with is when they are not conducted by the laws set forth to do so.

The federal government relaxed its rules for liquids and gels carried aboard airplanes.  The new rules went into effect yesterday as passangers are now allowed to carry liquids in three-ounze containers as long as they fit comfortably in a single quart sized, zip-lock bag.

This must be quite a releif to travelers.  I'm sure many are happy of this new rule which will not only allow the lines to move quicker, but also allowing them to not have to stock up on toiletries after they depart from the plane.

This new rule came into effect after many studies were done.  The studies consisted of seeing just how much liquid explosives could be used to actually take down an aircraft or render it unflyable.  This new rule was the result of their test saying that a quart sized plastic bag with liquids would not be enough to take damage the aircraft enough to take it out the air.

I really cannot express to you just how much I am fed up with this administration, and the way they are handling the Iraq war.  First of all, it is not really a war.  We have not formally declared war against Iraq in any way.  Secondly, the way they are handling this whole ordeal is completely ridiculous and is solely for political gain.

I used to remember the times when the U.S. would go to war, and we would actually get something accomplished and be considered the clearcut winners.  Where did we go wrong?  Oh wait, I know the answer to that.  We elected George W. Bush to be our commander-in-chief and he appointed Donald Rumsfield to be the Secretary of Defense.  We once used to fight wars by hitting them with all we had.  Sort of like a shock-and-aww sort of tactic.  By the time they knew what exactly it was that attacked them, it was too we late.  The war would be over, they would be annihilated, and we the U.S. would be the victor.  You may never see this happen in Iraq under our current "leadership".

Here is the kicker though folks.  I'll let you in on a little secret that this administration and the Republican party doesn't want anyone to know.  They really don't want this war to be over.  The reason for this is fairly simple.  If the war is over, they have no other issue they can use to campaign with and gain votes.  Lets be honest here.  If it wasn't for the war in Iraq, President Bush would have lost his 2004 election to John Kerry.  I know many people who voted for Bush solely on the fact that they "wanted him to finish what he had started".  Boy were we mistaken.  This is exactly what they wanted us to believe.  They wanted us to think that they can and would finish this "war" so we would re-elect them.  They played us.  They played all of us, and until we decide to open our eyes to this form of politics, we will continue to be played over and over again.  Lets not be stupid here American, lets vote into office the people who want this to finally come to an end so we can focus on what really needs to be done to this country.

The New York Times wrote a column yesterday giving a list of all the things Congress has not accomplished this session.  An immigration plan tops the list followed by port security and the list continues.  There is a number of issues that Congress had no time to debate and formulate a bill, because they are blinded by what this administration is doing in Iraq.  If they wouldn't have to debate issues like how are we going to fund this war, or do we support our troops, or when is a good time to pull out, then Congress could actually get things done to better this country, our country.  We are the ones that are really suffering from the war in Iraq.

Saudi Arabia said it had no evidence that Osama bin Laden had died, shedding further doubt on a secret document leaked in France that said Saudi secret services believed he had died last month.  Time magazine separately posted an article on its Web site citing an unidentified Saudi source, who claimed bin Laden was stricken with a water-borne disease and may already be dead.  French President Jacques Chirac told reporters bin Laden's death "has not been confirmed in any way whatsoever and so I have no comment to make" and that he was surprised a confidential note had been published.

I had a feeling that this was just a rumor.  I think more needs to be done to capture Osama bin Laden.  This administration must have forgotten who exactly is responsible for the 9/11 attacks on our country.  I don't understand why they are so hell bent on liberating Iraq and not trying to get the guy responsible for the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil.  It is like this administration doesn't even care if bin Laden is running around free.

In a recent interview with former President Bill Clinton, he said it best when he said that at least he was trying to catch bin Laden.  This is however more than this administration can say about their efforts.  Bin Laden is a dangerous man that needs to be put to justice for what he did to our country, and I absolutely hate the way the Bush administration is handling it.  It surprises me that after 5 years now that the most notorious terrorist of our time can still be wondering around at his leasure alluring U.S. searches.

In my opinion, this needs to be enphasized a little bit more.  This is a real disgrace to our country that we cannot capture the person responsible for our nations September 11th attacks.  To me, the President's sole mission would want to be to capture this man and bring him to justice.  For some reason, this isn't the case ,and he is more worried about what is going on in Iraq than what really needs to be done with our nation.

Senate Republicans formally put aside a broad immigration overhaul sought by President Bush and decided to press ahead with narrower bills to build a 700 mile fence on the Mexico/United States border.  Senator Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said the fence proposal, which the House has passed, was the best alternative if lawmakers wanted to salvage some immigration changes before the Nov. 7 elections.  The fence represents one element of the broad bipartisan measure that the Senate approved in May after President Bush had delivered an address calling for sweeping changes in immigration law. 

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said he was worried that Congress might approve the fence but not provide the money to build it.  The Senate had previously added $1.8 billion to a Pentagon spending measure for the fence. 

The fence measure, which may not come to vote in the Senate until next week, is drawing scrutiny from some border-state Republicans who worry that it would impose too many requirements on local governments involving locating the fence.

Personally I am all for this fence.  Skeptics will argue that this is just a waste of taxpayer dollars, because the fences will ultimately be breached and not serve their full purpose.  I would have to disagree with that totally.  Something must be done to secure our borders from illegals entering this country.  A fence would be a great start to securing our borders.

The way it is looking, it won't be long before Congress agrees on the construction of this wall.  Really the only thing in question is how much land do they want to be occupied by this fence.  The House wants one amount and the Senate wants a different.  No doubt that before the session comes to a close, they will both agree and the fence will be constructed.

Once this fence is constructed, what are we to do about all the illegals that already occupy this country.  Here is my proposal and this comes from a realistic stand point instead of an idealistic one.  I propose that since there is hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants already in this country, we should grant them amnesty and allow them a full path to U.S. citizenship.  Yes I said it, we should grant them amnesty.  Lets give them a set time for them to get the proper paper work from the government and allow them to be U.S. citizens with rights just like us.  Now once this set time limit expires, we must enforce our immigration laws with no exceptions.  If an illegal is found, they need to be deported back to their country of origin since we know that they entered after the fence was setup.

In all honesty here, most of these illegal immigrants are peaceful people just trying to live the American way like all of us.  They want to be allowed to make an honest buck to support their family, and we should not disallow them that right.  Lets give them the opportunity to make honest money for their families and put money into our economy.  Give them the same benefits that any other American citizen has as a taxpayer.  If we grant them citizenship, they will be mandated to work jobs that require them to pay social security, Medicare, and Medicaid and by doing this, this will only strengthen the American economy and put money back to abolish our national debt.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, calling President Bush "the devil."   "The devil came here yesterday.  Yesterday the devil came here.  Right here.  And it smells of sulfur still today" Chavez said, referring to Bush's address Tuesday. "He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world."   He also said the U.N. "doesn't work" in its current system and is "antidemocratic." He called for reform, saying the U.S. government's "immoral veto" had allowed recent Israeli bombings of Lebanon to continue unabated for more than a month.

Hugo Chavez also spoke to the press after his U.N. address.  He announced that he wants to be a part of the "nuclear club".  This is really not what we need.

First lets talk a little bit about Hugo Chavez.  He was born on July 28, 1954.  He graduated from the Venezuelan Academy of Military Science in 1975 as a sub-lieutenant with a degree in Military Arts and Sciences.  He then pursued a graduate studies degree in political science but left the university without a degree.  In 1998, he began to campaign for the presidency of Venezuela.  He took office on February 2, 1999 and has been the President ever since.

The only reason Hugo Chavez was allowed to speak at the United Nations is because Venezuela is a member of the United Nations.  Venezuela has been a member of the United Nations since November 15, 1945.  Venezuela takes its seat under the name "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela."  The Venezuelan Ambassador is Francisco Javier Arias Cardenas and been Ambassador since May 1, 2006.

In all honesty here, Venezuela as a country would be nothing if it wasn't for its rich oil supplies.  Venezuela is one of the five founding members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

If Hugo Chavez wants to join the "nuclear club", we need to be extremely careful into allowing them to get started.  Before they get started, the U.N. needs to invoke sanctions on them to ensure the fact that they cannot produce nuclear weapons with their uranium.  Their supply of uranium needs to be heavily limited and safe-guarded so they will not use this uranium for nuclear weapons.

Iran's nuclear activities are "transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye" of United Nations inspectors, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday.   He reiterated his nation's commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as it faces accusations that it is seeking to develop atomic weapons.   The Iranian leader also had harsh words about U.S. efforts in Iraq, saying "the occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq" and every day hundreds of people get killed "in cold blood."

Many argued that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not have been allowed to speak to the  General Assembly of the United Nations.  Despite this debate, Mr. Ahmadinejad did speak just hours before President Bush spoke to the U.N. General Assembly.  I believe that he should have the right to speak due to the fact that this is the reason the U.N. was setup.  Its purpose is give a voice to any country that is a member of the U.N.

The main question is what are we to do about Iran's nuclear program.  There has been talks about invoking economic sanctions or even pre-emptive strikes against Iran.  Before you draw any conclusion, lets attempt to get the facts straight.  The Iranian nuclear program was originally started in the 1950s with the help of the U.S. in an effort for Iran to develop nuclear technology.  The Iranian government asserts that the program's only goal is to develop the capacity for peaceful nuclear power generation. 

As of present day, there is no evidence to think that Iran is developing their nuclear program for any other purpose than for power generation regardless from what you may have heard from President Bush.  Until we can gather evidence that Iran is developing their nuclear program in order to produce nuclear weapons, we should allow them to make a peaceful energy source for their country. 

If later we discover that Ahmadinejad was lying, then lets take the appropriate actions against them.  By appropriate actions I do not mean lets invade Iran and turn this into the new Iraq war.  First we need to have direct talks with Ahmadinejad even thought the President vowed to never speak with him.  If direct talks don't work then economic sanctions brought on by the United Nations should be enforced.  If that doesn't work and we absolutely must go to war with Iran, it needs to be fought 35,000 feet above with precision guided bombing.  Only take out what is necessary and by that I mean the facilities that are producing the nuclear weapons.  There is no need to harm any more innocent people than what is really necessary.  Lets give them forewarning that we are going to attack in order to give the innocent time to get out and still allow us to take out the targets that need to be.

Is it scary that in the future Iran could have the technology to produce nuclear weapons that could possible destroy the U.S.?  You bet it is.  There is no feeling worse than to be scared in your own homeland.  Until we can prove that Iran is producing nuclear weapons, and there are ways, there is no need for anyone to start jumping to conclusion and perform actions that don't need to be taken.  Lets keep this peaceful until the threat really exists.

A Maine couple upset that their 19-year-old daughter was pregnant tied her up, loaded her in their car, and began driving to New York to force her to get an abortion.   The daughter, Katelyn Kampf, escaped Friday at a shopping center and called police, who arrested her parents, Nicholas Kampf, 54, and Lola, 53, of North Yarmouth, Maine.   Investigators said rope, duct tape, scissors and a .22-caliber rifle were found in the Kampfs' Lexus and Nicholas Kampf had a loaded .22- caliber magazine clip in his pants pocket.   The Kampfs were upset that their daughter was pregnant by a man who is now in jail, police said, and before leaving Maine on Friday they had an argument at the parents' home.   Katelyn Kampf escaped from her parents in Salem after persuading them to untie her so she could use a Kmart bathroom. After her father went into the men's room, she used a cell phone to call for help, then ran to a nearby Staples store.

What kind of parents would do this to their own daughter?  This is absolutely crazy.  I am a Liberal but I am also against abortion.  I am glad that this 19 year old girl was planning on taking the responsibly to have this child.  I wish more young women would decide to do this instead of taking the awful alternative.

Back to the story though.  These parents need to be locked up for a while so they can realize what they are exactly doing.  It's one thing for them to not agree with who the father is, but it is another thing for wanting to kill your future grandson or daughter.  I just don't understand how you could force you own daughter to do such a thing.  I hope a trend of this doesn't start occurring when the parents don't agree with their daughters choice for a father.

North Korean reclusive leader Kim Jong Il's health has further deteriorated, and he can no longer walk without difficulty due to worsening diabetes.  Kim Jong IL, 64, has long suffered from diabetes, kidney and liver problems and now has difficulty walking.  Kim Jong Il's first son, Jong Nam, has backing from the Chinese leadership to be North Korea's next leader.  Kim Jong-Nam was arrested on arrival in Japan in 2001 for using a forged Dominican passport.  Jong Nam is also involved in the North's missile sales.

Well hooray to the fact that Kim Jong Il may not able to run North Korea for too much longer, but look at what you got to replace him.  His son isn't exactly the best role model for this dangerous country.  As is it under Kim Jong Il's rule, he is test firing long range missiles that could potentially reach U.S. soil.  If Kim Jong Il isn't able to rule and his son takes over, not telling what this young guy will do.

North Korea is a dangerous threat and needs to be taken very seriously in my opinion.  To my knowledge, North Korea has not test fired any more missiles since a few months ago.  This is no reason to keep them off the radar and just forget about them.  I am not suggesting that we should go to war with North Korea as a pre-emptive strike, but we should have some talks with them to ensure our safety.  Maybe even consider some UN sanctions against North Korea, like we are thinking about doing with Iran, to be sure that they will not develop a nuclear bomb to send our way.  American safety, as always, should be the utmost importance, and no one can disagree with that.

Girls entering the sixth grade in a Michigan public school next year would have to be vaccinated against cervical cancer under legislation backed by a bipartisan group of lawmakers.  The vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in June for use in girls and women and has been hailed as a breakthrough in cancer prevention.  It prevents infections from some strains of the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus (HPV), which can cause cervical cancer and genital warts.  A government advisory panel said that ideally, the vaccine should be given before girls become sexually active preferably before age 15.  The American Cancer Society estimates that cervical cancer will be diagnosed in 9,700 women nationwide, and that 3,700 will die.  Studies show that the vaccine can prevent from two types of HPV that are responsible for about 70 percent of all cervical cancers. 

This decision is causing quite a stir that is being turned into a political issue.  Religiously motivated Conservatives are viewing the mandate of this vaccine as a free pass for all sexually active teenagers to have unprotected sex without the risk of catching HPV and contracting cervical cancer.  Liberals like myself are all for this mandate on the grounds that it will prevent cervical cancer and the virus HPV.

I was listening to this debate on a local AM radio station this morning which sparked me to do a little bit of research so I can accurately write this post.  According to independent studies, 80 percent of all sexually active women will be infected by HPV by age 50.  In my opinion, anything we can do to stop the spread of this very dangerous virus needs to be orchestrated.  What better way to do this than by making it mandatory to enter public school.  I personally don't see where the opposers to this have a valid argument.  The children of these opposers will only thank them in the future for having them receive this potentially life-saving drug.

Air America Radio will announce a major restructuring on Friday, which is expected to include a bankruptcy filing.  Air America could remain on the air under the deal, but significant personnel changes are already in the works. Sources say five Air America employees were laid off yesterday and were told there would be no severance without capital infusion or bankruptcy.  Also, Air America has ended its relationship with host Jerry Springer.  The right wing is sure to seize on Air America’s financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular. In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn’t exist: the progressive talk radio format. That format is now established and strong and will continue with or without Air America. Indeed, many of the country’s most successful and widely-syndicated progressive talk hosts — Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, for instance — aren’t even associated with Air America.  Radio giant Clear Channel is so committed to progressive talk radio that, this week, it will announce a partnership with the Center for American Progress and MSS Inc. to conduct a nationwide search for the next Progressive Talk Radio Star.

Air America Radio will be greatly missed by me.  I am a supporter of Air America and what they stand for.  For many years, the only voice on the radio was that of the right wing.  Air America gave a brilliant alternative to that one sided opinion.  I am sad to hear that radio host Jerry Springer will no longer be affiliated with the program.  He did a great job as a progressive talk host.

I hope this doesn't close the door to other progressive radio personalities to not pursue this movement.  Thanks to programs like Air America, they have finally given a true balance to AM talk radio throughout the country.  If you call yourself a true liberal, please make an effort to support the progressive talk movement in any way you can.  This is the voice that speaks for you and desperately needs to be spread and heard by all.

U.S. filmmaker Oliver Stone, who surprised many with the patriotic flavour of his new film World Trade Center, hinted in Moscow that he is considering a more controversial follow-up investigating the "conspiracy" around 9/11.  Stone accused U.S. President George W. Bush of mishandling the fight against Osama bin Laden's militants and using the crisis to stoke fear and bolster his own power at home in a way that was "right out of George Orwell."

I would like to Oliver Stone pursue a 9/11 conspiracy theory film.  Oliver Stone is famous for making movies to get the public stirred up and this would definitely do the trick.  If you are not familiar with past Oliver Stone movies here are a few: Alexander, They Day Reagan Was Shot, Nixon, The Last Days of Kennedy and King, and Born on the Fourth of July.

I think everyone needs to see the facts about 9/11.  I'm not saying that everything you read on the internet constitutes facts on the issue.  If Oliver Stone takes this seriously like he did in his past documentaries, he will definitely separate the fact from fiction and produce another brilliant, controversial film that would be very educational.

Former Vice President Al Gore said he hasn't ruled out making a second bid for the White House, though he said it was unlikely.  Gore spoke to reporters in Sydney, where he was promoting the local premiere of his documentary on global warming.  Gore, who lost the presidency to President Bush in 2000 in disputed circumstances, said there was no doubt the impact of global warming would be best addressed through the power of the presidency, but making a documentary was second best.  Gore's renewed popularity and movie tours across the United States have spurred speculation of a White House run in 2008. He has previously repeatedly denied such intentions.

I would definitely vote for Al Gore and let me tell you why.  I think that he has his head where it needs to be in order to be a great leader and turn our country around.  His documentary on global warming entitled "An Inconvenient Truth" is by far the best documentary I have ever seen and, I highly recommend everyone go see it.  He is so passionate about the issue that you can't help but want to get involved too.  If he would get elected President, I think he would solely lead to an environmental reform that would save our planet.

When I look at Al Gore, I see a man that would portray him to the world as a very strong leader.  I think he would make firm decisions for this country no matter how tough they were and get this nation back to where it was before this awful administration messed it up entirely.  He would single handedly get the image of America back to where we are not hated by the rest of world.  I think this is one of the most important issues that we need to look at as voters.  The United States desperately needs to return its image back to being respected by the rest of the world and not like it is now under this administration.

As you well know, today commemorates the fifth anniversary of 9/11.  Even though its been five years this still hasn't put the conspiracy theorist to rest.  A professor at Brigham Young University is on paid leave for suggesting the government is responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center.  The man on paid leave is Dr. Steven Jones.  He's a physics professor involved in the so-called "9-11 Truth Movement." Jones believes unnamed government agencies orchestrated the fall of the twin towers, and he says there's evidence to back it up.  Two weeks ago he published his theory in a paper called "Why Indeed did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?"  In it, the professor says the towers fell not because of planes hitting them but rather pre-positioned demolition charges.  He cites research conducted at BYU on materials from ground zero, asserting those materials show evidence of thermite, a compound used in military detonations.  He says terrorists could have never set those charges.

Dr. Jones began his career at the university in 1985 and has been known for his cold fusion research. Other professors will teach his classes while he's on paid leave. He will be allowed to conduct research in his field, but the university is reviewing his actions.

This man just like anyone of us is entitled to his own opinions.  Under our Constitution he has that right granted to him by the First Amendment and cannot be taken away from him.  He should not be silenced nor should he be removed from his professorship at the university.  His views on the World Trade Center bombing is a little more radical than mine, but he should not be reprimanded for his personal opinion on the matter.

The 9-11 conspiracy theory has been a rather hot topic among the blogosphere in the past few years.  The word is really starting to get around that perhaps the twin towers didn't fall because of a plane crash.  Many people are theorizing that outside help was used to take these towers down.  If you are interested in learning more about this September 11th conspiracy theory, please visit my blog post entitled "9/11 Conspiracy Video".  On it shows a video proving that the towers were taken down by controlled explosions, and later I give my opinion of the whole conspiracy video.  This is really something to see and should be viewed by everyone.

Military tribunals could resume at Guantanamo Bay as soon as early 2007 if Congress approves new legislation to try the detainees.   The Department of Defense would have three months after the passage of the legislation to come up with new rules for the tribunals, which were struck down by the Supreme Court in June 2006.

To make matters clear, a military tribunal is a kind of military court designed to try members of enemy forces during war time.  The judges in these tribunals are military officers and fulfill the roles of jurors.

As sited on my "Guantanamo Prison Ruled to be Illegal" post on June 30, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped all military tribunals on the basis that they violated the Geneva Convention.  I do not have a problem with overseas prisons or military tribunals as long as they are done within the guidelines stated in the Geneva Convention.  As long as these courts follow the upcoming tribunal rules of action, I will have no problem with this.

This issue is just one issue that the Republican Party is trying to spin on the Democrats.  Republicans are portraying the Democratic party as being "sided with the terrorists" or "weak on terror".  This is not the case at all.  The fact is Democrats are not weak on terror and none of them side with the terrorists.  All the Democratic party is fighting for is for the tribunals to be conducted according to international law (the Geneva Convention) and national law.  All this fuss is just a way for the Republicans to spin an issue to try to gain a political advantage.

President Bush acknowledged for the first time that the CIA runs secret overseas prisons.  Bush said the CIA program "has helped us to take potential mass murderers off the streets before they were able to kill."  Bush has transferred 14 terrorist leaders from secret CIA custody to the U.S. military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be prepared for eventual trials.  The announcement from the President is the first time the administration has acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons.

As a liberal I am strongly against this type of imprisonment.  I think these CIA run prisons are just like the ones the Supreme Court ruled to be unconstitutional at Guantanamo Bay.  I don't see why these prisoner cannot be held in the U.S. for interrogations where they can be assured there to be no mistreatment to defy international law.

The reason these people are moved to secret prisons is pretty obvious.  They want to be able to torture these people to try to get them to talk at any means possible, and this is not allowed under international law.  There are plenty of ways to get people to cooperate and talk without the need for this type of cruel and unusual punishment.  Treat these people with the respect that any other human being on this planet would normally get even if they are assumed terrorists.

In order to gain a political edge against the Democrats, the Congressional Republican leaders have decided to abandon an overhaul of immigration laws to rather concentrate on national security issues that they believe will play better in their favor this November.  Key lawmakers who set the Congressional agenda say they now believe it would be too politically risky to try to advance an immigration measure.  President Bush had made comprehensive changes in immigration laws a priority in some of his addresses to the nation, but House Republicans have been determined not to move ahead with any legislation.

This is just a prime example with what is wrong with our law-making process in the country.  People in Congress, mainly Republicans this time, would rather ignore a very important issue, the issue of immigration, just so they can gain a political edge against a strong opposition party.

Something must be done to better protect our borders and do something about the illegals in this country.  The main issue I raise from this is if an illegal immigrant from Mexico can get into this country undetected, what is stopping a terrorist or a group of terrorist from doing the same.  We must secure our borders in order to be a safe and secure nation.  No one likes living in fear especially while being in their home country.  This is the reason why immigration shouldn't be pushed aside just to gain ground on the Democratic party.

According to an advanced online version of the scientific journal Nature, a new way of extracting stem cells from an embryo exists without destroying the embryo.  Up until now, embryonic-stem-cell research has been synonymous with embryo destruction.  This new method would seem to remove the principal objection to stem cell research and possibly create a link between the political gap this issue has caused.

I have read the details about how this new process is performed, but I won't bore you with all the details.  In all honesty I do not understand the details enough to tell anyone, so I'll leave it up to you to understand the entire process.

In my opinion, I really hope this bridges the gap that this issue has caused.  Embryonic-stem-cell research has created many advances to medicine and the treatment of some diseases and disorders.  I feel that stem cell research is vital to the help and preservation to human life and must be continued.

The one thing that I don't understand is what exactly is the big deal if the embryos are destroyed while extracting the stem cells.  It is not like when you destroy an embryo you are destroying an actual person.  The embryo is in no way in the developing stages to where life is to be produced.  This is the main difference between liberal and conservative beliefs. 

A stem cell nor an embryo is a human being.  I really don't see what the big fuss is all about.  It's like an egg in my opinion.  Farmers pick the eggs from chickens for us to eat.  If that farmer wouldn't have picked the egg, the egg would potentially hold a baby chick inside of it.  Because the egg did not get a chance to go through that developing stage, no chick was harmed nor killed in the process.  It is the same thing about the embryos in my opinion.  The embryo is like the egg and without it being allowed to develop, it neither forms life nor destroys it.

I am extremely happy about this new process only to hopefully end the debate on this issue.  Stem cell research needs to continue due to all the medical advancement that it produces.  Hopefully this new method will allow for more funding for this well needed research.

An Air Canada Jazz pilot who left the cockpit of his passenger jet to use a back washroom moments before landing found himself locked out upon his return.  The pilot eventually busted into the cockpit and safely landed the Bombardier CRJ-100, but not before alarming some 50 passengers who watched him bang on the door and talk frantically with the cockpit through an onboard telephone for several minutes.  The first officer had remained on the flight deck, but was unable to open the jammed door, forcing the crew to remove it from its hinges with only 30 minutes remaining in the flight from Ottawa to Winnipeg.

I'm really glad the pilot was able to get back into the airplane to land it safely but this opens up the door to some security questions.  If this pilot is able to break into the cockpit, what is stopping terrorist of doing the same and using the plane as a weapon.  I know all the planes have to have a locked cockpit, but what is a locked cockpit if you can easily take it off its hinges?  I really hope that terrorist don't wise up to this and try this method to harm many Americans like they did in the past.