In April 2009, the Obama Administration announced its plan to lift financial restrictions on stem cell researched. Not all restrictions will be lifted, but they will alleviate some implemented during the Bush era.

The lifted restrictions would allow surplus embryos from fertility clinics to be used for research.

As reported in The New York Times article “Some Restrictions Lifted on Stem Cell Research,” health institutes financed 260 research projects, at a total cost of $88 million, that involved stem cell lines approved by President Bush.

By lifting the restrictions, the number of research projects will be drastically increased, making headway in the cure for various diseases.

In April 2009, the Obama administration announced its plans to advance its efforts in immigration reform. The reform will focus on getting undocumented immigrant workers essential American legalization.

Pro-immigration supporters are pleased with the announcement, however it’s important to note that the reform is not a promise to push a bill, but rather to get the ball rolling on immigration debate in Congress.

Illegal workers suffer a slew of uncertainty in working conditions, as pay is less than average and have little to no ability to report abuses in the workplace.

Though reforming immigrant workers’ policy on legalization is a step in the right direction for legal reasons, many opposed to immigration argue these illegal immigrants cut-into much-needed jobs in the American workplace. 

According to The New York Times article “With Pledges to Troops and Iraqis, Obama Details Pullout,” the majority of the 142,000 troops currently in Iraq will be withdrawn by the summer of next year. A total of 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain to train and advise Iraqi security forces. 

Though many in DC and the entire nation are pleased with the plan to bring troops home from an expensive, and unsuccessful, war,  the plan is not without its critics. Nancy Pelosi, House speaker, argues leaving up to 50,000 troops until the end of 2011 to train Iraqi forces is too large of a figure. 

Still, the plan marks the beginning of the end of an unnecessary war, and for that, there is much justification to be pleased with the withdrawal plan.

Though many celebrated the Vermont legislation, strong opposition still weighs heavily in many states. Take, for instance, The National Organization for Marriage, a big-time supporter of fighting same sex marriage in California. The organization has launched a $1.5 million ad campaign to slow, or halt, gay marriage legislation in other states.

The theme of the ads fight the argument of gay marriage supporters of, “It doesn’t affect your life, so why do you care?” The organization argues gay marriage directly conflicts with religious beliefs, therefore directly imposing on many people’s lives – gay or not. 

Meanwhile, UCLA reported gay marriage could actually benefit the economy, as reported by The Huffington Post. The study estimated same-sex couples would add $684 million to California’s wedding industry, and 2,200 jobs would be created from the spike in weddings. 

Whether or not gay marriage is enacted in more states, one fact remains clear: the debate will always continue to rage on. Whether its religion, legal, or economic reasons, every argument has an equally grounded counter-argument.

During George W’s reign, much controversy was brought to the process of waterboarding, or inflicting the sensation of drowning to obtain information from captives.

The issue became a hot-topic after 9/11, when the CIA called members or suspects of Al Qaeda into question. Waterboarding was a reported interrogation technique used by the CIA, even though the US Constitution explicitly forbids “cruel and unusual punishment.” Though Bush signed an executive order in 2007 banning all forms of torture when interrogating alleged terrorists, waterboarding was not specifically addressed in the ban. Waterboarding’s tactics are somewhat ambiguous in nature in regards to whether or not they constitute as torture, making it difficult to define or ban as torture.

Many supporters of waterboarding use the deaths associated with 9/11 as justification for the use of this torture technique on al Qaeda suspects. They associate the thousands of deaths for reason to revert to this rather barbaric process of obtaining answers from suspected terrorists.

This is a flawed argument in defense of waterboarding, as one simply cannot compare the victims’ deaths of the attack as a viable rationale to use a tactic that is unconstitutional.

Yes, the victim of waterboarding may very well have been a conspirator of the attack and, in “eye-for-an-eye” theory, may wholly deserve the pain inflicted in order for the US government to get answers. 

However, the US Constitution lays the groundwork for US law, and without its guidance and interpretation, many judicial processes would fall by the wayside. Whether or not the alleged al Qaeda member was “deserving” of waterboarding, breaking the Constitutional ban of “cruel and unusual punishment” would be far more disastrous in the realm of US judicial protocol than not delivering harsh treatment of terrorists.

During President Obama’s candidacy and election, Obama and Abraham Lincoln have been compared many times.

Other than the top hat and a lanky frame, many Americans don’t know much about Lincoln, the 16^th president of the US. Perhaps one of the most intriguing facts about Lincoln, and his presidential likeness to Obama, is the fact that he was the first Republican president.

Funny that Obama is compared, and draws inspiration from, one of the founding members of the Republican Party. Playing a key-role in forming the new Republican Party, Lincoln’s views on slavery were more moderate than his contenders in the 1860 election.