Whats going on with Guantanamo Bay ?

Even as allegations of Koran abuse at the U.S.'s naval base in Cuba were still making headlines, the Pentagon was bracing for a new storm as reporters last week sorted through several thousand pages of transcripts from tribunals in which detainees challenged their designation as enemy combatants. To make sense of the latest Gitmo controversies, here is a look at Guantanamo during the war on terrorism. Since the first 20 prisoners were taken there from Afghanistan in January 2002, the U.S. has used its naval base in Cuba as its main holding area for suspected members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban.The U.S. considers none of the detainees prisoners of war, which means they do not enjoy rights under the Geneva Convention, which protects pows from indefinite imprisonment and aggressive interrogation. Because Guantanamo is on foreign soil—leased from Cuba since 1903—the U.S. has argued that the detainees are beyond the reach of U.S. law. Last June, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners have the right to challenge their captivity in federal court.Over the past three years, 234 detainees have been permitted to leave Gitmo, but 67 were released on the condition that they be held by their home governments, including Pakistan, Britain, Morocco and Saudi Arabia. At least 12 of those set free are believed to have resumed terrorist activities, according to the Defense Department.

Obama & auto Companies

President Obama shakes hands with General Motors President Fritz Henderson in the Rose Garden on May 19. Based on the latest bankruptcy and bailout plans, the government will hold 72.5% of GM.

Based on the latest bankruptcy and bailout plans, the government will hold 72.5% of General Motors Corp., 8% of Chrysler Corp. and 35% or more of GMAC Financial Services, the car loan business. Ideas for what to do with those shares are colored by politics and investment philosophies, and they're sure to be debated. Some economists and financiers believe Obama should dump the stock almost immediately, to whatever buyer the government can find. Others say the administration should find a partner, maybe a savvy investor such as Warren Buffett or an justice firm such as Oaktree Capital to operate the businesses for a generous share of any profits on the condition that the government gets its money first. And some believe President Obama should just stick the shares deep into a desk drawer and let the next president worry about an exit strategy. GM and Chrysler will either fail again or become corporate home runs. Only time will tell. The government has sunk so much money into the companies that a few billion dollars more will make little difference, especially compared with the potential for GM and Chrysler to become corporate contributors to the U.S. economy once they've been "freed" from what Mitchell (an economist) considers the inefficient stain of federal ownership. It is believed that it is a Catch-22 and its not good to sell stock at a loss, but there is no way for the stock to go up as long as the government is involved. They need to get these companies back into the private sector, otherwise these companies will be perennial bleeding sores for the U.S. taxpayers.

Obama & Credit

President Barack Obama will step up his push for credit-card legislation with a town-hall meeting in New Mexico. With the Senate slated to vote on its credit-card legislation this week, Mr. Obama is seizing on Americans' complaints about interest-rate increases, penalties and fees for their cards. President Obama said "You shouldn't have to fear that any new credit card is going to come with strings attached, nor should you need a magnifying glass and a reference book to read a credit-card application,". I see that the president has alot of new plans with the credit cards and is concerned with the public opinions. It looks like he is going to change those terrible fees that credit card charge and lower interest rates. One problem is that the credit card companies arent willing to give in. Credit-card companies are lobbying against further changes, saying regulations approved by the Federal Reserve in December will transform industry practices. Industry officials say a quicker implementation or different rules could force lenders to cut off some consumers entirely when they need credit the most.Regulators have since taken steps to address the issue. The Fed regulations, scheduled to take effect in July 2010, would ban retroactive interest-rate increases for existing balances, force clearer disclosures and require advance notice for changes to card terms. The House recently passed legislation that, among other things, would codify those changes into law. The Senate is expected to begin debate as early as Monday afternoon on legislation that could impose even-stricter restrictions on credit-card companies .

Obama's Healthcare Reform

President Obama has set healthcare reform as his highest domestic legislative priority and has begun an intense push to get a bill through Congress by the end of summer. Obama spoke at a town hall-style meeting in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Thursday, where he defended his call for a government-sponsored health plan to compete with private insurers. Private insurers have opposed a government-run program out of fear they’d be unable to compete with its cheaper costs. Obama did not, however, address his progressive critics who advocate the creation of a single-payer system that would eliminate for-profit insurance companies entirely. But Obama’s plan to create a “public option” to compete with private coverage is opposed by Republican lawmakers, private insurers and, most recently, the American Medical Association. The American Medical Association came out and said that they didn’t think that government had a role in assuring healthcare for all Americans. Really what that was all about was they were afraid of interference with the practice of medicine,blican lawmakers, private insurers and, most recently, the American Medical Association.

How are the republicans attacking obama?

After weeks of concentrating their attacks against President Barack Obama on the economy, Republicans are branching out. They're taking aim at his anti-terrorism policy. The production by the National Republican Congressional Committee is the latest part of a barrage in which former Vice President Dick Cheney, potential 2012 presidential contenders, Republican lawmakers and others seek to raise doubts about Obama's early performance as commander in chief. At times, the criticism is blunt, as when Cheney said Obama's actions "raise the risk" of another terrorist attack like the one on Sept. 11, 2001. At other moments, Republicans choose a less confrontational tone, posing uncomfortable questions, as yet unanswered. The robust new line of attack against the president coincides generally with the increased attention Obama has devoted to foreign policy issues in recent weeks. At the same time, recent internal Republican polling suggests it is an area where Democrats are relatively weak, at least in contrast to domestic matters such as the economy, energy, education and health care. Boehner recently challenged the president in a White House meeting to release memos that are said to evaluate the benefit of waterboarding in obtaining information. The president declined to make a commitment. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and potential 2012 presidential candidate, has been among the most pointed of Obama's critics. These critics are mad at the fact that Obama shook hands wiht Hugo Chavez the president of Venezuela at a international meeting. Gingrich, finds it disstressing that "the administration opposes opening up oil exploration," but yet Obama has "bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia" and now reached out to Chavez. Gingrich said Hugo Cavez has been conducting "a vicious anti-American campaign." Republicans are watching every step obama takes they are there ready to attack whether its on health care,terror policy or the economy.

Gay Marriage

For some years, same-sex marriage (SSM) has been near or at the top of any list of leading religious/secular/political controversies in North America. It is complex, divisive, and not readily agreeable to compromise. After all, U.S. states either allow SSM or ban it. Any change, or threat of change, to the culture is distressing to many people. But a change to the structure of the fundamental building block of society -- the family -- can be chiefly upsetting. Most American adults currently oppose SSM, but the tendency is towards increasing acceptance. If current trends continue, most American adults will be supportive of SSM sometime in the early to middle 2010's. People who argue for SSM say that "The institution of marriage conveys dignity and respect towards a couple that make a lifetime commitment to support each other. Same-sex couples deserve this dignity and respect."They also argue Denying marriage to same-sex couples removes from one group a fundamental, important human right -- the right to marry the person that one loves and to whom one has made a commitment. That is unfair and unjust in a democracy. They believe that they have equal rights as well. Arguments against SSM say that for most Americans, marriage is a religious sacrament or ceremony. If the definition of marriage is changed to allow SSM, religious individuals and groups become at risk of having to violate their beliefs by marrying same-sex couples. Children benefit over regular marriage because many researchers have found that children thrive best when reared in a home with a married mother and father. Boys and girls have needs that are uniquely met by parents of the opposite gender. I am against gay marriage because i am a christian pentecostal. The world is already corrupt if they make gay marriage legal it would make it harder for us Christians to get people to convert. But I'm not only going against it only because i am christian i think that is disgusting and it isn't good morals. I think that we were made to marry the opposite sex. Nothing is going to change my mind this is wrong and everyone who is gay and supports SSM will pay the consequences which is burn in hell because this is a sin. Besides no where in the constitution it says marry the same sex therefore they hav no right to marry the same sex.

Do I Like Mayor Bloomberg? Why Or Why Not ?

I personally think that mayor Bloomberg is a great mayor because he does many things for New York City. There are certain things about Mayor that I dont like. He is socially liberal,supporting abortion rights, gay marriage, gun control, and normalization of the status of illegal immigrants On economics, foreign, and domestic issues, he tends to be conservative. I am totally against marriage and i don't think abortion should be legal. Bloomberg tends to be liberal about his policies towards many social issues. He supports governmental funding for stem cell research, calling the Republican position on the issue "insanity."He also supports same-sex marriage with the rationale that “I think anybody should be allowed to marry anybody". Even though mayor bloomerg has a lot of defects he does have many things to honor. On Domestic issues, Bloomberg is liberal compared to the country as a whole, but moderate leaning towards conservative compared to other large city mayors in the US. On crime, Bloomberg opposes the death penalty, stating, "I'd rather lock somebody up and throw away the key and put them in hard labor, the ultimate penalty that the law will allow, but I'm opposed to the death penalty."As mayor he increased the mandatory minimum sentence for illegal possession of a loaded handgun. In regard to the change, Bloomberg commented, "Illegal guns don't belong on our streets and we're sending that message loud and clear. We're determined to see that gun dealers who break the law are held accountable, and that criminals who carry illegal loaded guns serve serious time behind bars."Bloomberg has also shown involvement in education reform as mayor, replacing the school board set up by the state with direct mayoral control over public education. He raised the salaries of teachers by 15% while the test scores of students in the city and the graduation rate rose as well. Bloomberg is opposed to the promotion of students to the next grade level for strictly social reasons citing that students should only be promoted when they are adequately prepared for the next grade level. He favors after-school programs to help students that are behind. As mayor, Bloomberg strengthened the cell-phone ban in schools. Bloomerg to me is a good mayor he could change a couple things but right now his actions aren't doing any danger to New York which is good. I dont think I can say whether I like him or not he is ok.