It is not a referendum on the Iraq War, or Gitmo, or even the Bush administration. It is about basic Constitutional law.

According to the Washington Post: “17 Chinese Muslims, all Uighurs, have been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. In October, a federal judge ordered the men released into the United States after the government presented no evidence to justify their detentions.”

“The question here is not whether petitioners should be released, but where,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in an 18-page opinion. “Never in the history of habeas corpus has any court thought it had the power to order an alien held overseas brought into the sovereign territory of a nation and released into the general population.”

What does President Obama do now? He wants to close Gitmo. He is going to have to make a tough decision:

• Say he did not want to release them into the U.S., but the court ruled he had to – Oops, that excuse just went away.
• Release the prisoners from Gitmo into the United States – Certainly, not a popular move with the public.
• Send these prisoners back to China – It is assumed they would be tortured and killed; not a great option for a Democratic liberal President (or any president of the U.S.).
• Get another country to accept them – Probably the best domestic option, but who will take them and risk angering the Chinese who want them in China?

Once again this brings into focus the difference between running for office and being in office. 

According to the AP: “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton pledged a new American openness to ideas from abroad, especially the Muslim world, during a visit Wednesday to Indonesia.”

It will be interesting to see Secretary Clinton as see visits other Muslim countries; do they allow her the freedom of her culture, or will she follow their values and wear a hejab (head covering)?

Either way, it will be highly symbolic: Wearing one will show America’s willingness to submit to Islamic identity and morality, not wearing one would be seen as an affront to Muslims.

If Mrs. Clinton had been elected president, I wonder what she would have done?

Let us take a look at one aspect of the philosophical position of those who support the so-called” “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA).

Underpinning all pro-abortion arguments is that a pregnant woman should be free to choose to have an abortion (or not, one presumes).

But, FOCA would take away the freedom of choice for health care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc.). It would force them to perform abortions, even if they morally opposed to this taking of a life.

What happened to freedom of choice?

Those “pro-choice” folks obviously are not pro-choice for all, just pro-choice for those who they believe will choose as they want.

We provide exemptions for those who do not want to kill as part of the military: A conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles.

Our new CEO wants to rebrand his country so it appeals to a broader audience. Thus, we find the use of the phrase, (slogan if you wish) “war on terror” on the outs; I would like to suggest one more appropriate for a liberal government: Relationship Challenged Organizations, RCOs for short.

As with pornography, we may not be able to define RCOs, but we know them when we see them. Here are a few key indicators:

1. Does the organization seek to kill innocent Americas?
2. Does it seek to wipe America, Israel, or anyone else off the face of the Earth?
3. In the past has the organization attacked or sought to attach the U.S.A.?
4. Does the organization capture and/or execute innocent civilians (of any nationally)?
5. Does the organization use suicide bombers?

No doubt you could add more.

I think we need President Obama to appoint a cabinet-level czar to identify and oversee the RCOs.

According to the Pew Center for Research: “66% of those under age 30 voted for Barack Obama”.

Just a brief word to those 66% - you are going to pay the price.

No matter what the shape of the final “Stimulus” package, GenX, GenY, the Millenniums, their children and grandchildren will pay the price, both financially (inflation to pay down the debit) and in their standard of living.

So 10, 15, 20, 30 years from now, when you are paying the price, do not put all the blame on the acts of the Baby-Boomers in helping to create this mess and voting for the Stimulus – after all, you overwhelming voted for the man who wants this Stimulus.

As stated by USAToday (5 February 2009): “The husband of President Obama's Labor secretary nominee [Rep. Hilda Solis] paid about $6,400 Wednesday to settle tax liens that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years against his business, the Obama administration told USA TODAY this afternoon.”

One assumes with a straight face Obama spokesman (Robert Gibbs) told USAToday: “…he thought Solis' husband, Sam Sayyad, paid the liens back because he owed the taxes, not because of White House pressure…She's not a partner in that business," Gibbs said. "We're not going to penalize her for her husband's business mistakes."

However: “Solis' financial disclosures list Sayyad's business, Sam's Foreign and DomesticAutoCenter [one of the companies against which there were liens], as one of the couple's main assets, worth between $50,000 and $100,000.”

Solis (either with or thank to her husband) now joins the growing list of senior Obama nominations who did not seem to care about paying taxes until offered a top Federal position:

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, nominated to be secretary of Health and Human Services, failed to pay $146,000 in back taxes (he withdrew his name).

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner failed to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes while an employee at the International Monetary Fund.

Nancy Killefer, picked by President Obama to serve as the country’s chief performance officer, failed to pay unemployment taxes on household help (she withdrew her name).

The “Inter-Generational Wealth Transfer Act” aka “the Stimulus bill” needs a complete rethinking. 

The Framers of the Constitution intentionally designed a central government that was slow. They saw a power that could respond quickly as a threat to liberty. 

They were right and wrong. Even under the most dire of circumstances, for example the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the government could not mount a serious response for almost two years.

Because of this and the timing of November’s election, the Federal government has been slow to response to the economic crisis. Now, as they are planning another response, “the Stimulus”, they are already too late.

While much pain is being and will be endured, the crisis has to some extend passed and to another extent evolved. Look at Goldman Sachs already planning on repaying the government, or the drop in home prices which has caused a predictable increase in home sales.

Government deficit spending is not needed; it risks inflation and is just a transfer of wealth from the future (GenX and GenY and their kids) to the present (mostly baby-boomers).

What Congress should pass and the President sign is a bill providing the Federal government with the tools it may need in the future to quickly address an economic crisis. This could include provisions for government spending, but not specific spending now. It should be written so that the President would have certain authorities, subject to an up or down vote by Congress on enacting each as the President requests.

One day I left a saw out in my yard. A kid walking by, took the saw and used it to cut down my neighbor’s tree. I felt really bad that some dumb kid sawed down my neighbor’s nice tree, and even though I had left the saw out, there was nothing I, my neighbor, or even the kid could do to put the tree pieces back to make a living tree.

The economy will get better. It may be painful in the short-term, but much better for all long-term.

The housing bubble was just that and it burst. People were buying houses with money they did not have, knowing (hoping) that they would be able to sell the houses at a profit. Banks and financial institutions went along and leant the people money. When the merry-go-round stopped, everyone was thrown off.

But, DUH, housing prices are dropping and when prices drop, people buy more.

With all the “toxic” assets out there, banks stopped lending money. Short-term government loans/backing was needed to get the economy going again and there are signs it is beginning to stir.

Any part of any stimulus package that does not impact the economy within the next 12 months is not a stimulus - it is just government spending on a grand scale.

Doing nothing may not have been an option, but doing everything is just plan crazy.

Even forgetting about the inflationary impact of huge government borrowing, GenX, GenY and their children and grandchildren will pay the price, both financially and in their standard of living.

The panic of late last summer and early this year should not be allowed to cause the government to totally ruin the economic future of the nation (burn down the forest).

Who says that Democrats are for higher taxes? Obviously, top Democrats were not in favor of paying higher taxes.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, nominated to be secretary of Health and Human Services, failed to pay $146,000 in back taxes. (Update: He has withdrawn his name.)

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner failed to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes while an employee at the International Monetary Fund.

According to the AP (January 29, 2009):

If you're a criminal and you're not entitled to be in the United States, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wants you out of the country. Napolitano wants what she calls "criminal aliens" off American streets. She is looking at existing immigration enforcement programs to see if taxpayers are getting the most bang for their buck.

About 113,000 criminals who were in the U.S. illegally were deported last year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said. The agency estimates there are now as many as 450,000 criminals in federal, state and local detention centers who are in the country illegally.

So a simple question: How willl President Obama and Secretary Napolitano deal with the sanctuary cities that ban employees including police officers from asking people about thie immigration status?

“My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy”, President Obama said in an interview with the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya Network on January 26, 2009.

Did Americans attack the USS Cole? Did they attack Kuwait? Did they attack the Muslim world on 9-11?

It may seem fine to present “a humble and conciliatory face of America to the Islamic world” (Politico), but it is not without risks. A similarly young and inexperienced American president, John F. Kennedy, met with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and held out the humble hand of reconciliation to him.

As recounted in The New York Times (May 22, 2008):

Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.”

Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.”

Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe…“He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

Unfortunately, especially from America, being humble, kind and conciliatory is often seen as being weak.

“Green” is in, not actually acting in an environmentally friendly way, or much less thinking about how your personal choices impact the environment, but rather talking a good “green” game.

One would assume (always a mistake) that among the reasons that people voted for Barack Obama was his stance on the environment.  

Thus, it is interesting to note that when 1,500,000 or more of Mr. Obama’s closest friends gathered in Washington, D.C. for his inauguration, they left behind 100 tons of trash which was collected by City and Federal sanitation workers. I assume trash does not include the waste inside the 7,000 portable toilets used during the inaugural festivities.

One hundred tons seems like a lot, until you think about it: 2,000 pounds to a ton, so that is 200,000 pounds; assuming 1,500,000 people, that is about .13 pounds per person; with 16 ounces per pound, that makes about 2.1 ounces per person.

One hundred tons of trash has some impact on the environment, just imagine everyone throwing away a Butterfingers bar.

All indications are that there will be a long honeymoon between the American people and President Obama. I certainly hope it will be so, since a long honeymoon will mean that the President is serving the vast majority of Americans. Perhaps President Obama coming to office with so little political experience is a blessing, perhaps he will not fall into the partisan politics and rhetoric that is the major sport of Washington, D.C. and the political pundits.

There are times in your life when you know you are experiencing history, for better or worst. For some it is where they were on December 7, 1941, November 22, 1963, July 21, 1969, or September 11, 2001. For others a date may not be attached, just the moment: Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, the Berlin Wall coming down, or watching Nelson Mandela gain his freedom.

This inauguration was such a moment.

So, given this honeymoon, no comments here on the inauguration or President Obama’s speech – just some basking in the moment.  

For most of the mainstream media the honeymoon ended long ago, they are now married to Mr. Obama. It will bear watching to see if/when the Fourth Estate decides the marriage was not all they thought it will be.

For now however, let us “let freedom ring” and allow America once again to show the world that in our nation, despite all our flaws, anything is possible.

Let us all pray that President Obama helps bring peace and justice to all in the United States and around the world.

Amen.

Like most Americans, I hope and pray that the new President and his administration will help create a society of peace and justice.

In a republican democracy there is no greater individual right than the right to vote. In a free and fair election, We the People elected Barack Obama.

While I rejoice in that applied freedom, I am also very much aware that Mr. Obama is pro-abortion and has publicly stated regarding conception: “I think it's very hard to know what that means, when life begins.”  Further, there are indications that he may not allow health-care workers the right to refuse to conduct abortions if they are morally opposed.

Joseph Biden, Jr., while a Catholic and personally opposed to abortion, has taken the politically expedient stance that his personal view should not control his view of public policy.

We should strive to never take a life: not an unborn child’s life, not the life of a convicted murderer. We should strive to protect those who cannot protect themselves. And, we should strive for a society that does not approve killing.

The inauguration of a new president is always a time for hope and this president-elect has loudly sounded the trumpet for hope.  Let us all hope and pray for peace and justice, including a society that does not legally take a life.