Civil Court: cases about contracts, damage to property, divorce, etc.

Criminal Court: murder, robbery, assault, etc.

But, that is not the whole of the American court system.

There is a third type of court with which most Americans never have contact, Military Court.

Also a Court of Impeachment.

American justice should give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et. al. a fair trail, but not in a criminal court. He is not an accused criminal; he is a solider who attacked the United States. As such, the proper place for him to meet justice is in a Military Court.

Although commonly referred to as the Nuremberg Trials, they were actually a series of Military Tribunals. We did not seek to bring the Nazis to the United States and try them in Criminal Court.

According to Fox News: “White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation…’The president has said repeatedly, and he said in his speech to Congress, that he doesn't believe that this bill should change the status quo as it relates to the issue of abortion,’ Axelrod said.”

But it is okay to change the status quo regarding everything else about healthcare?

Except in defense of a life, no one should be allowed to take a life. Healthcare should not include allowing anyone to electively take a life through abortion.

“Numerous GOP officials have told POLITICO they worry that the party has been hijacked by a noisy and powerful minority...”

Wanting limited government interference in people’s lives; wanting government to live within its means as the people must; wanting personal responsibility and consequences for personal actions; wanting people and corporations to pay for their bad investments; wanting a safe home and country – these are majority views.

Yes, there are issues about which Americans disagree, but the vast majority of Americans agree on the above.

If you want to call that a conservative view than “GOP officials” and the media do not understand that conservatives are not a minority.

According to the AP:

Iranian negotiators on Wednesday expressed support for a deal that — if accepted by their leaders — would delay Tehran's ability to make nuclear weapons by sending most of its existing enriched uranium to Russia for processing, diplomats said…[The agreement] would commit Iran to turn over more than 2,600 pounds (1,200 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium. That would significantly ease fears about Iran's nuclear program, since 2,205 pounds (1,000 kilograms) is the commonly accepted amount of low-enriched uranium needed to produce weapons-grade uranium.

But, as always, the gods live in the details.

First, no one really knows how much low-enriched uranium Iran has stockpiled. So, it could turn over the 2,600 pounds and still have enough low-enriched uranium to produce the amount of weapons-grade uranium needed for a bomb.

Second, even if they have not stockpiled more, the best estimates are that it will take Iran about a year to replace 2,600 pounds (1,200 kilograms) of low-enriched uranium.

So, the best case scenario is “we” bought some time. The worst case is we lulled everyone to sleep while Iran gets nuclear weapons.

Now don’t get me wrong, my mother gets Social Security, so I have heard first hand that there will be no cost of living increase for the first time in decades.

Supposedly to make up for that, President Obama wants to give $250 to 50 million people. That is $12.5 billion.

$12.5 billion may be chump change in Washington, especially the way Mr. Obama and the Congress have been borrowing money lately. But, in case no one in DC noticed, America’s credit cards are overdrawn – we don’t have any money.

All of which makes me think:

Where is the money these seniors will be getting going to come from? Their children and grandchildren. But, not just their personal children and grandchildren, because some of them won’t be able to pay it. So, it will come from other members of those generations.

So how about this for a suggestion: Let the children or grandchildren give their parents or grandparents $250 or how ever much they want. Many are probably doing it already. That would be the personally responsible thing to do. But, liberals like the President, are not at all interested in personal responsibility; their motto is no one is responsible so let the government do it.

More cynically, it just seems like old style Chicago politics – buying votes. Seniors are concerned about Mr. Obama’s healthcare program cutting into their benefits. A simple solution, try to buy them off with $250.

There was a time when liberals were to be admired, they stood for and fought for the rights of all. While the liberal label hangs on, contemporary liberals have become intolerant of anyone who dares disagree with their accepted truths.

Take, for example, Garrison Keillor, that great liberal story teller (Chicago Tribune, 30 Sept. 09):

“The so-called cultural wars over abortion and prayer in the schools and pornography and gays did nothing about anything, except elect dullards to office…”

“And now here comes the U.S. Supreme Court, about to rule in the case of a little plywood cross erected, as it turns out, on federal land in the Mojave Desert as a memorial to the war dead -- could there be anything less pressing right now? But we shall have great legal minds wrangling over something that doesn't make a dime's worth of difference to anybody whomsoever.”

“…one starts to wonder if the country wouldn't be better off without them and if Republicans should be cut out of the health-care system entirely and simply provided with aspirin and hand sanitizer. Thirty-two percent of the population identifies with the GOP, and if we cut off health care to them, we could probably pay off the deficit in short order.”

So, let’s see, among his the liberal positions are:

Taking an innocent life is not worthy of discussion and the 50% of Americans who think so are just wasting time.

Freedom of religion (the second amendment to the Constitution) is not an issue important enough for the Supreme Court.

Those who disagree with the various proposed “overhauls” of the health care system should be made second class citizens. There’s that pesky 14th amendment to the Constitution again).

Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called sons of God. Opposing war is not unpatriotic. Opposing war because you believe any taking of a human life is wrong is one of the highest callings for a human being. Opposing war because you believe that a particular war is wrong is the guaranteed right of every American. Opposing a war because you do not like the president is both hypocritical and unpatriotic.

So far in September 2009, 38 American troops have been killed in Afghanistan. For all of 2009, the number is 220 -- more than any other single year and more than died in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 combined.

Where is the outrage from all those who so vocally opposed “President Bush’s war”?

Where are the photos of the flag-draped caskets of those killed in battle?

Where are the protests at the burials of those who gave the last full measure of their honor?

Where is the media coverage?

You can be a hero fighting in a war; you can be a hero opposing war. 

Being in opposition to war when American military are in harm’s way because you don't like the president is not only unpatriotic, but shows a person’s true despicable character.

I miss the George Bush presidency. Now, don’t jump down my throat, there was a great deal about President Bush’s rhetoric, policy and actions that I felt was just plain wrong. What is miss is, at least until near the end of his presidency, you knew where everyone stood. The liberals and Democrats hated anything related to Bush; the right and Republicans loved (almost) everything.

So now we have a (very) liberal Democratic president and everything is up in the air. Just a few recent examples:

 “A narrow counterterrorism mission sounds like a win-win. One problem: It won’t work.” on Afghanistan, from USA Today (usually part of the OMN – Obama Media Network)

“Lots of People Love Obama, But Does Anyone in the World Really Fear Him?” from The Australian, a country not generally inclined to be pro-Bush.

“President is beginning to look out of his depth.” from London’s conservative but usually pro-American The Daily Telegraph.

“There was, however, one large gap. Mr. Obama said almost nothing about Afghanistan, which just a month ago he called a ‘war of necessity,’ fundamental to American security and to the broader fight against terrorism.” from the flagship of the OMN, The New York Times.

“The Obama Administration plans to give $400,000 in funding to a Libyan charity run by the Gadhafi family…” from CBS, another OMN affiliate.

What will become of America if the liberal media ever so slightly does not tow the complete liberal line?

“Speak softly and carry a big stick” -- Theodore Roosevelt

This seems to sum up President Obama’s foreign policy. Apparently, he believes/hopes that by speaking softly he will bring more nations together to oppose those who threaten the world. So far we have repeatedly heard him speaking softly (Cairo comes to mind), but we have yet to see any evidence that he is carrying that big stick. 

Of course, all US presidents have a “big stick” at their disposal, the US military. But, having a big stick in the closet is different than carrying it. When you take it out of the closet and walk with it on your shoulder, there is at a minimum the implication that you are prepared to use the stick.

Foreign policy, like almost everything else, really comes down to personal relationships -- how the leader of one nation perceives the leader of another. Neville Chamberlain was seen as weak – Hitler attacked. Nikita Khrushchev thought JFK was young, inexperienced and weak – the Cuban missile crisis. Saddam Hussein thought George Bush was bluffing – the Iraq War.

History is littered with corpses of people who paid the price for the perception that their leader was unwilling to use the big stick. We can only pray that speaking softly will carry the day.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

From time-to-time it is a good idea to skip all the pontification by various groups and actually go back and read the Constitution of the United States of America.

Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…

In a demorcratic replublic the most important form of speech is speech for or against those who do or may represent the people. As has been argued by many for years, no matter how well intended, McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional since it restricts political speech, albeit by corporations not individuals. The Constitution does not qualify who gets freedom of speech: Congress shall make no law…

But what happens if we allow corporations to spend millions endorsing or opposing a particular candidate or plan, some corporation will support, some oppose and some not spend the money. If we allow Acme Corporation to spend a zillion dollars praising someone or something, how is it different from all the other organizations that spend money now?

As the Surpreme Court reconsiders the issue, at the end of the day I would rather trust in the people not to be convinced by political advertising, rather than infringe in any way on freedom of speech.

With the healthcare debate it might be important to note a few key words from the Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America, otherwise known as the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

First: “endowed by their Creator” -- American values spring forth not from Congress, the President, the Courts, or even the people; the rights of Americans come from God.

Second: “among these” -- This is not a complete list of those rights.

By any unbiased understanding of the God as perceived by a vast majority of Americans, there is a moral obligation to, as the U.S. Constitution puts it: “promote the general Welfare”. Everyone who is in America has a God-given right to healthcare. The level of such care should be debated, but not the concept that all should have the care.

Having pushed through an unread “stimulus” bill, increased the debit and deficit, burdened future generations of Americans with the bill, and having tried but failed to force health care reform down American’s throats, President Obama is now planning to address a joint session of Congress on the matter.

I realize Democrats do not answer questions from people who disagree, but I would like to see him start by answering one simple question: “What problem/problems are you trying to solve?”

According to the President, there are 46 million uninsured people in this country. According to one estimate, 9.7 million are not U.S. citizens and 14 million already qualify for Medicaid or other programs. That leaves some 23 million people truly uncovered out of a population of 307 million.

Now, obviously, those people need health care/insurance, but what would it take to do that?

There are also other problems to solve.

Most health insurance is tied to your job, lose your job and you lose your health insurance. Mr. Obama, provide a suggested solution to that problem, perhaps health unemployment insurance.

Then there are all those “unnecessary” tests. I would guess some of the tests are done to make money. Many more are probably done by doctors who are concerned that if they do not do every possible test, and something goes wrong, the doctor will be sued. The first group of test is fraud and there are already laws on the books for that – just enforce them. As for the second, tort reform – perhaps an independent arbitration board.

There are other issues – but until Mr. Obama lists the problems he wants to solve, Americans should not support any so-call solutions, no matter how well packaged.