Jim

Sonia Sotomayor, in her confirmation hearings stated that she viewed the second amendment as an absolute right for law abiding citizens to own guns, but when the first Supreme Court case hit the bench it was on upholding 2nd amendment rights in Chicago and she signed with the dissension opinion. Obviously she lied to a congressional committee and that is a crime for which many have been charged.

A few days ago, the media reported nine US casualties in Afghanistan and that military leaders on the ground are asking for more troops; the joint chiefs said that as the surge worked in Iraq and Iraq is now back to the 150,000 troop level that existed before the surge and that we could in the near future reduce levels even further in Iraq freeing up troop rotations for assignment in Afghanistan. Now Senator Obama has made a trip to the area and says we need to increase troops in Afghanistan. Is this Obama's attempt to show America that he would use military action as President or does he just want us to believe that the eminent increase in troops in Afghanistan was his idea?

I just read an article where Obama said that the Republicans are going to try to make people fear him by pointing to such things as "He's young, he's inexperienced, he's got a funny sounding name; and did I mention he's black". The only one I've ever heard say Oh by the way, he's black is Obama. I for one would like to hear him talk about his mother's influence on his life because all we know of her is she is a white atheist from Kansas. Or is Mr. Obama afraid he'll loose votes from the black voters if someone says "Oh, did I mention he's half white"?

Does it bother anyone else that it takes each candidate (and their supporters and party) hundreds of millions of dollars to campaign for a job that pays less than $2 Million for the four year contracted term of employment? How will we ever get special interest groups and political favors owed out of politics?

The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the detainees in Guantanamo Bay have a right to Habias Corpus. Perhaps I missed the point! I thought those people were considered Prisoners Of War and, as in all wars, are detained until the war ends or a cease fire is agreed to at which point each side re-patriates the POWs that they are holding to their country of origin. I fail to see how the right of habias corpus that is guaranteed under the constitution for criminal cases in the United States applies ... perhaps there is a legal expert out there that can explain why US criminal law applies to Prisoners Of War. By the way, the vote was pretty much a party line vote which leads me to believe that the decision has more to do with politics than the Constitution of The United States. Other small point is that the prisoners that the terrorists take don't get a right to habias corpus ... usually just a videotaped decapitation, yet we're the monsters for holding these enemy combatants?

I have been taking oral meds for diabetes for years, but my Doctor has now ordered Insulin (Novilin 30/70), but the Insulin Training class isn't for two months. Are there any rules of thumb for adjusting the Insulin. My Doctor started me at 5 Units once a day but I know that is a small amount to determine the affect of Insulin on my Glucose meter readings. (My AM Glucose reading has dropped 12 pooints)

in 2003, the same time we invaded Iraq? This looks like even more validation for the accomplishments of the war to deter aggressive military activity by middle eastern nations to me!

The states where both their Senators voted for the Proposed Immigration Reform Bill were Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusettes, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin. Of those on the list, I would say California has a major illegal problem along with Arizona. Florida would have a major illegal problem if not for the "Feet Dry" policy with Cuban illegals. The rest of the list, needs more exposure to the problem. I highly encourage any illegal alien not living in one of the above states to move to one. Either you'll be in a less adversarial location where it will be easier to garner support for your cause, or they would become less supportive, now shouldereing the sociological and economic burdens of illegal immigration. Either way, a great political and sociological experiment!

I'm getting tired of hearing Democrats complain about the President's failed plan for immigration reform. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the President get forced to push through Teddy's plan in order to get the funding for our troops in the war zone? Wasn't it the Democrats that were crying for an Amnesty Program and a path to legal status for the 12 million criminals? Maybe I lost the big picture when I went on vacation, but I don't understand how the President can be criticized for the Democratic plan of Ted Kennedy on Immigration reform failing to get enough support.

If anyone knows of resource sites that clearly state the party positions on immigration reform, please enlighten me...I would like to know what the differences are in the two major parties approach to the non-secure border problem and the treatment of the criminals that are here and the treatment of the employers of those criminals and the complete failing of our homeland security to enforce immigration law.

Maybe a casual observation, but I was wondering why the military members that are fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are predominately Republican and the critics and those calling for an immediate and complete withdrawal are primarily Democrat? For the Democratic Politicians, here is a solution, Pull all our troops from around the world and bring them all home. Stop all exports and imports and place our troops at our borders to keep everyone else out. I'm sorry that won't work because in addition to being against our involvement in the middle east they are for immigration amnesty and global free trade to make American products unable to compete in the global economy.

I have just watched a news clip with the head of the Ruetger's basketball team who said they have accepted Mr. Imus' apology, they felt he was remorseful and sincere and that they (The offended people) have never called for his dismissal. The lady stated that this is indicative of a social problem that is not isolated or unique to Mr. Imus and that she hopes that sincere dialogue comes from this to improve the way we act as a society regardless of race. I think the spokeswoman for Ruetgers was very sincere when she said she hates to hear of anyone loosing their job and that she is an advocate for social change in broader terms. With such a classy acceptance of the apology, I feel CBS and MSNBC need to do the classy thing and reinstate Imus (With some guidelines and possibly a period of suspension), looking for others thoughts on this, as well as who Jackson and Sharpton think they are demanding a level of retribution not called for or desired by the Ruetgers team.

The House and Senate have both passed resolutions providing funding for the department of defense, however, they have tied so many other issues into it that it would be hard for anyone to agree with it in it's entirety. Between non related social issues and pork barrel projects that have absolutely nothing to do with the funding of DOD or the action in Iraq and Afghanistan, the parts of HR-1591 that I read made me think that all of our legislators have adult attention deficit disorder. Can we ask our legislators to write bills that deal with one (or at least only related) issue at a time?