Finally, a politician has had the courage to stand up to the Obama administration. The Indiana teachers actually have an advocate for the rule of law. Maybe some will claim that my banking background is a bias on this subject, but candidly, I am absolutely confident that I would be a rabid advocate for this issue, no matter what jobs I have had.
I am happy to see that there is going to be at least once challenge to the Obama abrogation of the rule of law. Our society is based on a belief that liberty is at the core of our society value system. Property rights were at the heart of our founding father's view of liberty. The actions by Obama's "thugs" to steal the value of the assets of the secured creditors, is a violation of a core principle for the government and the society.
I believe that we must not let this unlawful taking prevail. The socialist agenda of this administration is clear, and pervasive. It is clear that the Republicans cannot effectively accuse the Democrats of being "socialists." That said, the reality is that they are acting like they are, and, even if they individually are not, the agenda of the Obama administration is clearly and "unambiguously" the agenda of a radical.
I wrote several Blog Posts ago, that Saul Alinsky's, Rule for Radicals, is the text book for Barack Obama's agenda. I believe that each and every reader of this Blog should read that book. It defines what Barack Obama has done, and what he is doing. He is using the system, to destroy the system. And that is what is happening. Our way of life is being threatened by an administration that is out to change, not what we do, but what we are and what we believe in. That is not Change we can believe in; it is change we must resist. We are a country that is the most successful political and economic system in the world. The current administration is tearing down the core values, principles and actions that have made us great; all in the guise of reform.
After Gitmo
The spectacle of a current President dueling with a former Vice President is really quite amusing, but it really is instructive as well. President Obama claims to be taking the high moral and ethical ground by saying that "torture" ( specifically water boarding) is against the values of the US. His claim to that high ground is contrasted by him to the Bush administration which deployed "enhanced interrogation techniques" to break down three really bad guys.
The fact is, President Obama has a similar "values challenge" which he as yet to address, simply stating it was a difficult issue. He knows that there are some truly dangerous prisoners at Gitmo who can not be tried and convicted, and yet he knows that there is also no other country (one that can be counted on to keep them incarcerated ) willing to take them. Hence, what do we do with them? This is the problem the Bush administration struggled with, and resolved by saying that we can not release them, and we can not try them in the US, so we must just hold them. Ultimately, Obama will be forced to either stay with that strategy, or release them. If he takes the later course; in my view that is a moral failure and a refusal to honor the values of our country and to exercise his duties as President to "protect and defend."
This is a dilemma, and by definition, there is no answer that satisfies competing goals. Obama may be heading towards a decision, but if that decision is to release these people, who are committed to do harm to the US; he will fail in his duty to keep Americans safe. the Bush administration made the decision to not allow that to happen, and used Gitmo (not on homeland soil) as a place to execute the least "bad" option.
Ironically, one could paint a horrific scenario that if Obama fails to keep these prisoners in custody, the perverse result could be that no soldier on the battlefield will ever want to take a "bad guy enemy" prisoner. That would be a terrible result of Obama's desire to articulate a "preserve the values" argument.