They must be rolling over in their graves!

Thousands of fallen heroes have paid the ultimate price for our freedom fighting the wars on terrorism. Join us in making this memorial a reality today. These men and women have fallen in the line of duty - for you and for me. This memorial is not about political rights or wrongs. It is about honoring our sons and daughters who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our values, traditions, and our heritage.

Please visit the Freedom Memorials website and learn more about our mission. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

The very first album (remember vinyl records?) I bought was "Why Is There Air?" by Bill Cosby back around 1967 or 1968. I mention that just to say that I have known him for a long, long time and have always respected and admired his outlook on people, places, things, and life in general. Until yesterday, when he joined Jimmy Carter in agreement that "an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man...". I find fault with that statement and must take exception. Of all the images of protesters, sound bytes from townhalls, interviews with dissenting parties, online emails, blogs, columns, etc., I have seen extremely little if any supporting evidence. And, in some cases what I have seen has been "created" like the "armed racist" who wore an assault rifle to a townhall meeting where President Obama was nearby. Only Fox News showed the same armed racist from a different camera angle and guess what? He was a black man! Yet MSNBC clearly manipulated the video footage to hide that fact and then wrote a fiery commentary to go with it - denouncing the armed and dangerous extreme racists obviously hinting at assassinating the President Of The United States! And Maureen Dowd, re-interpreting Joe Wilson's outbreak during the President's Address to Congress- "You Lie!". Clearly, she surmised, he was actually saying "You Lie, Boy!" although nothing he said before, during, after, in person, in writing, on his website, anywhere, implies her version. Well, except the fact that he's from South Carolina and has voted to retain the Confederate Flag on the State Capitol. Would that stand up in court as evidence?

It's easy to level a charge of "Racist" against someone and evidently, doesn't even require any proof. Certainly no one wants to be labeled a racist and will often say nothing at all rather than risk an accusation of racism. In fact, I believe that's the main goal behind the growing number of accusations; to chill the speech of the opposition. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Nothing in this definition equates a difference of opinion, ideology, values, morals, religion, or sociology to racial superiority, i.e. racism.

I did not vote for Barack Obama. My first choice was not even in the race. And, I only voted for John McCain as a vote against Barack Obama. But not because he is a black man! When he was elected I actually felt a swelling pride in my country and even let an emotional tear or two trickle down my face. It gave me a great, warm, fuzzy feeling to know that America had progressed so far in less than 60 years that a black man could be elected President Of The United States. Sixty years ago we were mired in segregation, the Klan, lynchings, and the ugly leftovers from the days of slavery. Then Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and so many others in the Civil Rights Movement started to make huge differences in American society. We had come so far and I was excited and proud and hopeful that we had elected a black man to lead our nation. I only had a problem with the particular black man we had elected. Because of his Socialist, Marxist ideology. Because of his association with radicals and terrorists like Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and others who I've read about and since forgotten. Because of his racial views which he clearly outlined in his books. In other words, I opposed the man because of what he believes, not because of the color of his skin. I would hold the same opposition to David Duke were he running for public office. I am against President Obama's vision of Big Government, union favoritism, socialized medicine, socialized banking, socialized auto industry, and wealth redistribution. I abhor his agenda of ignoring our Constitution and re-making America as he sees it. And, no doubt there are those who will say I am a racist because I oppose the beliefs of a black man. That's okay - I know I am NOT and I'm not going to let them "chill" my speech. As Thomas Jefferson said: "Question with boldness! Hold to the truth! Speak without fear!".
The way I see it, Maureen Dowd, David Axelrod, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Patrick Leahy, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, and countless others are the real racists taking part in the issues today. They "see" "racist" "terrorists" everywhere they look just because someone is white (or black) and they happen to disagree with the left-wing Liberal agenda.
Let me refer you to The Merriam-Webster dictionary: Racism =....

Every time I ask myself how low can the ACLU sink something new comes along to show me. The recent news about The John Adams Project absolutely disgusts me. In case you are unaware, the Project is a joint effort by the ACLU and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers to locate, stalk, and photograph covert CIA agents. Their purpose, they say, is to identify agents responsible for "torturing" detainees at Guantanamo. So they are showing the photographs to the detainees. This can't have any real outcome except to put the lives of these agents in danger. One of these activist lawyers, Nina Ginsberg, was recently tracked down by The O'Reilly Factor producer Dan Bank - watch the video - who attempted to interview her. I wonder what she would do and say if she or her loved ones were attacked in the future by terrorists? Would she be the one demanding to know why the CIA didn't know about a threat, why they hadn't done more to find out? It may be profiling but I'm going to guess, judging by her last name, she might be pretty high on a Muslim Terrorist's "not our friends" list.

Let's talk about this torture controversy. As I understand everything, the Bush administration, the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, lawyers, and probably many others discussed "extreme interrogation" methods in detail and eventually concluded some methods would be legal and therefore approved for use. Waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other techniques were used on several occasions after all other reasonable interrogation methods had been tried, and failed. The information obtained allegedly prevented further planned attacks against America and saved hundreds if not thousands of lives. Years later, the Obama administration comes to power and the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, decides that, no, the techniques used to interrogate some detainees were not legal after all. And the push is on to prosecute anyone involved with the cases in 2002, 2003, or whenever they happened. Is this just more of the Left's incessant hatred of Bush/Cheney and the need to somehow some day see them in prison? How can anyone be tried for a crime that didn't occur? No crime occurred because no laws were broken since the Justice Department concluded the methods were legal. Harsh, maybe; extreme, probably; but still legal within the terms of the Geneva Convention. In the meantime the war(s) and the terrorism and the violence has continued. Bomber sorties over Iraq and Afghanistan killing insurgents and sometimes civilians, suicide bombers around the world shattering innocent bodies, EID roadside bombs blowing US troops to pieces, snipers picking off an unsuspecting combatant, grenades, small arms fire, kidnappings, torture, beheadings, the civilian police forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan murdered, and the body count keeps adding up. And all of this is acceptable because it meets Geneva Convention rules of war or it's being done by the enemy and that's just the way they fight. And yet, splashing water in someone's face in order to prevent the bloodshed I just described is considered a heinous crime for which our country's leaders and intelligence officers need to be tried, convicted, and imprisoned? I swear to God Almighty, for the life of me I cannot understand the logic and reasoning behind that. To my knowledge, the United States in the only major country to not practice torture. Torture has always been illegal and dealt with accordingly. I know in every war there have been isolated cases of torture - rogue officers or frustrated soldiers who go too far. War is hell and sometimes s*** just happens! But here's the main difference - in America it has never been national or military policy to employ torture to get information and/or to punish enemy soldiers. The atrocities committed upon our soldiers by our enemies have been hideous yet we do not retaliate as a matter of policy. Go back far enough in history and even our allies, England and France used torture regularly as did most every country in the world.

I want the ACLU, the NACDL, the Liberal Left, the Progressives, Hollywood Elite, the Enlightened academia, and all the other activists trying to disarm the US from within to remember this: When we are attacked again (and we will be) do not dare, not one of you, to speak out demanding to know why the CIA, FBI, the military, or the government didn't know what was coming or do anything to stop an attack! Instead, just look at each other and ask "God, what have we done?"

(quote from President Obama's Health Care Address to Congress 09-09-09)

...this doesn't make any sense, no matter how I punch the calculator keys:

"Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years .... And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term."

The inverse of this implies that the growth of health care adds $4,000 trillion over the long term, correct? (1% = 1/100, so 1/10th of 1% = 1/1000th therefore the inverse is 1000 x 4t = 4000t). Would someone explain to me how just the projected growth of health care is greater than the total cost of his plan, by a factor of thousands? Oh, wait.. I see.. he was speaking Liberalese, not English.. never mind.

And, in case you're wondering, this is not the only issue I have with last night's speech. There will be more.

Okay, so Van Jones submitted his resignation over the weekend. Thanks largely to Glenn Beck and his show the past 2 weeks. He's gone a long way in exposing the questionable pasts of several of Obama's Czars. Asking "reasonable questions for unreasonable times" and urging Americans to do the same. And We The People responded! Van Jones needs to be just the beginning. We need to put all of these czars under a microscope. Even Congress is getting in on the action now, asking how these radicals, leftists, Marxists, Communists, etc. managed to get past the vetting process. Some say maybe it's time to put a hold on hiring any more czars until the current lineup can be scrutinized a bit more closely. Well, why doesn't someone just come out and say it? Why is everyone afraid to call it as they see it? We're thinking it - just say it!

I believe these people - Jones, Holdren, Sunstein, Lloyd (not really a a czar, but close enough), and others were vetted by the Obama administration. Maybe not according to rules and regulations but certainly to Obama's desires and standards. When Valerie Jarrett bragged about recruiting Van Jones over to the White House team, they knew exactly what they were getting! Of course they knew all about his past with STORM, the 911Truthers, his arrests, his ties to Communism, his socialist beliefs, and his inflammatory speeches. The White House says they didn't know, or Jones is a changed person now, Jones didn't know what he was signing, blah-blah-blah. Yeah, okay, and I think they're as stupid as they seem to think the American public is. Obama and his team know exactly who they have in these Czar positions because they sought them out specifically. They are one and the same! Barrack Obama has talked and written openly about his association with radicals, communists, socialists, Marxists, Rev Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN. And he is openly and brazenly building his own personal government, circumventing Congress and the Supreme Court, and promoting his socialist agenda. And people have finally started calling him on it. My main question is - what took so long? And now that We The People and Congress are asking questions, what are we going to do about it? We had better do something soon or our liberties, our "Inalienable Rights" will be struck down forever. Mark Lloyd is hot on the job to shut down the conservative voice of America. He has praised Hugo Chavez for shutting down his country's media and making possible a "miraculous revolution". Is it really a stretch to think he has the same vision for America? With President Obama's guidance and blessing? This man, our President truly scares the hell out of me and I hope the majority of Americans get scared too. Soon!
God Bless America

The August recess is over and lawmakers are making their way back to DC and back to work on the cornerstone of Obama's Presidency. Some held townhall meetings and were overwhelmed by the show of opposition to the proposed legislation. Some held "staged" meetings crafted to prove that all Americans really do want a government-controlled healthcare system. And it appears that many simply chose to not meet their constituents at all, preferring no confrontation. At all the townhall meetings, especially those covered on TV or otherwise in the media there were almost certainly "plants" - individuals or groups who were present to disrupt or take control of discussions - on both sides of the fence. But, by and large, most people who turned out were honest, concerned citizens who just wanted to hear and be heard. The Left's attempts to belittle, demean, and discount the Right backfired and only served to bring out more opposition. President Obama's public appearances hurt his agenda terribly. Every time he appeared on TV it seemed he had changed the title, mission, the goals, and the gameplan. Some say it shows his flexibility, others say it proves he will say anything to get what he wants. With several versions in the House and a couple in the Senate, and Obama unable to clearly define what he wants, is it any wonder Americans are wary of anything at this point?

Granted, something needs to be done about our system of health care but let's consider a few things seriously...

First, think of your favorite government program or agency. Any one of them. Social Security, VA, The Postal Service, HUD, Land Management, HEW, Medicare or Medicaid... you get the point. Now, think about how well it operates, how efficient, how accurate and timely, how profitable. How susceptible is it to abuse and fraud? Whenever you have dealt with your particular agency, how was the customer service? How friendly or helpful or knowledgeable was the contact you worked with? Or look at the recent Cash-4-Clunkers program. Designed mainly to help US carmakers in general and GM and Chrysler in particular, many say it was a huge success. Ask the dealers who are still waiting to be reimbursed how well it's worked. It turns out GM and Chrysler both had sales that were down from the month prior to the program. Ford, the one US carmaker who declined bailout money, had soaring sales. And, just recently the government had to hire an additional 1000 employees to handle the claims from dealers - efficient? All of these Federal programs affect a significantly small portion of our population (except possibly SSA) and look at their problems. Every one of them has to consistently raise their budgets, costing more and more taxpayer dollars while delivering less and less. Social Security and Medicare are forecasted to go bankrupt! The Postal Service could well follow them down the drain. Do you really want a national health care program that will affect every single person in this country? What makes you think it would be different from any of the other government programs?

Let's talk about cost-control. In the early 1980's I worked for a data processing center serving multiple hospitals. One night I flipped through a pharmacy price list for one of the client hospitals and was blown away by the fact they were charging $4.50 per aspirin! This was 25 years ago! How much are they charging now for that same little aspirin? I support free enterprise; it's what made America the great world power it has been. And I'm sure the overhead in running a major hospital is tremendous but, come on, $4.50 for an aspirin? I had back surgery in 1991 and needed an MRI. My insurance plan paid 80% of covered charges and I recall from the bills that the MRI alone cost something like $1800! For 20 minutes' worth of a magnet flying around my body? In all of the discussions about healthcare recently I have not heard anyone mention the profit margins of hospitals. Does anyone know how much profit they actually make? And, aren't many hospitals non-profit anyway? Why isn't any cheaper to visit one of them than a for-profit hospital? Because they are required, by regulation, to charge fees based on state and federal codes. So, the excess millions they take in every year goes to bonuses, incentives, research, new equipment (even if it isn't really needed) - anything to get rid of it on the books. Lifting many ICC regulations just might reduce costs when hospitals, clinics, doctors, and specialists have to compete for business.

Tort Reform. This is arguably the biggest problem with our medical system and no one save a handful of Republicans wants to touch it. Why? Howard Dean came out last week in a commendable moment of honesty and told us exactly why. The trial lawyers wouldn't stand for it and no one wants to fight them. It reaffirmed why I've always said "if it weren't for lawyers, we wouldn't need lawyers". Frankly, tort reform should be the beginning topic of any healthcare system overhaul. Get rid of the frivolous lawsuits and malpractice insurance premiums come down. Then doctors' and hospitals' rates come down. And pharmaceutical companies' prices come down. And so on. Stop the gravy train and the "get rich quick" lawsuits. Certainly there will be cases of malpractice and/or irresponsible to illegal business practices that need to be addressed in a court of law. But, even then the outcomes need to be somewhat equitable. If John Doe has an operation and dies when the anesthesiologist administers too much sedative the doctor should be held liable. Deciding a price for human life would be extremely difficult at best; how can one measure the loss of a family member? However, if John Doe had never entered the hospital and had worked to age 65, and had lived to 85 years old earning a grand total of 1.2 million in his lifetime, should a jury award a settlement of 45 million? Juries tend to look at insurance company coffers as a treasure chest waiting to be pilfered.

Who and what is and isn't covered by a government plan. Will illegals be covered by a national healthcare plan? Will abortions be covered? Will the elderly be declared unworthy by a "death panel"? Will I be able to keep my current insurance plan? How many Americans really are uninsured and uninsurable? Let's start with keeping your current health plan. If you work for a company that pays for your medical insurance and the government either taxes/penalizes the company or makes a cheaper option available guess what that company is going to do. And, with tax dollars to subsidize the cost you can bet the government will always undercut private insurance companies. So, there goes the choice of keeping your private plan. Proponents of a healthcare bill say there is nothing in the current version(s) saying that illegals will be covered. Nothing saying that abortions will be funded. Or that an "end-of-life" counseling team will decide when it's time to let go. Maybe there isn't anything stating such conditions will be covered but - more importantly, there is nothing saying they won't. We've seen over and over that in legalese, if something is not specifically excluded someone can and will twist it into being included.

If this is truly about health care for American citizens, simply set up an agency to handle cases of "uncovered" medical care. When someone visits a doctor, clinic, or hospital and they do not have insurance, the caregiver submits the paperwork to the government agency for payment. Even that would be a huge undertaking filled with rules and conditions but it solves the problem of everyone receiving medical attention when needed. The real issue as I see it is - this is not nearly so much about medical care as it is about power and control over the American citizenry by a socialist government. And ensuring that the Democratic party remains firmly in control of that power.

Those who trade liberty for security,

deserve neither. ~~ Benjamin Franklin.

The recent death, wake, and funeral of Senator Ted Kennedy were undeniably very special moments in our Nation's history. Kennedy and I would have disagreed on most everything political yet I respected him for his unwavering beliefs. He was never wishy-washy and stood up for what he saw as right. And, more than anything else, Kennedy's political life was always about the people, his constituents, never about himself. He did not pad legislation with pork designed to better himself or his friends and family. He just saw things differently than I and that is a matter for another article, perhaps at some other time. This post is not to belittle or denigrate his place in history, time will prove his value to our country.

Ted Kennedy was born, baptized, and raised as a Roman Catholic, just like I was. I went to Catholic grade schools and high school, heck, I'm even half-Irish. Although I am no longer a practicing Catholic, I still consider myself a Christian and proud of it. As I watched the coverage of Kennedy's wake and funeral on TV last week I was struck by something extraordinary. There were prayers, songs, church choirs, readings from Scripture, pastors, 7 priests, crosses, Christian statues and paintings, Catholic churches, and more all over the television! There was also a heavy government involvement - President, Vice-President, Senators, Congressmen and Congresswomen, military Honor Guards, Air-Force flights, Federal buildings, staff, etc.

Where in the hell was the ACLU, the atheists, and other liberal or secular-progressive groups crying foul? Where were the demands for curtains to be draped over religious items? Why did no one scream about their "rights" being violated by this obvious display of Christian favoritism? Could it be that because Senator Kennedy was the original champion of the Liberal movement, well, this time it was okay to overlook such "violations"?

If he had not been such an outspoken Liberal, if he had not been a Kennedy, would there even have been so much fanfare over his death? Forty-seven years of distinguished public service certainly deserves recognition. Senator Strom Thurmond actually served longer in the Senate and I'd bet millions of people have never even heard of him. Once again, I have no desire to take anything away from Ted Kennedy. I merely want to point out the bias by the Liberal Left, the media, and by extension a large portion of our society. Food for thought.