George Washington Plaque To Be Removed From His Old Church Pew

A small plaque with George Washington's name etched in it is being removed from a church pew in Arlington, Virginia, because some people “felt unsafe” when they saw the name and refused to return to the church.

A second plaque bearing the name of Robert E. Lee was also removed. Both men used to attend the church on a regular basis and the plaques were historical.

Fearing for one's safety because you see the name of a long dead President or a long dead military leader is an issue that I may discuss on another day. My point today is about the removal of the plaques.

George Washington wasn't a perfect man. He owned slaves, which was a despicable practice. That said - it was the custom at that time in history, 200 plus years ago. To hold to the standard of today's society the actions and customs of people from 200 years ago is completely unfair.

Some Native Americans were violent and attacked other tribes for land, horses, etc. Some captured and held captive both white and Native Americans. Those captives were no different than slaves unless they eventually decided to assimilate into the tribe that held them. I have yet to see anyone scream for any Native American statue or monument to be removed. And as a whole they were treated far worse by the new settlers than were the black people here.

According to the Census Bureau, black/African-American people make up about 12.2% of the U.S. population and Hispanics make up 12.3%. Native Americans, who used to own this land, make up only 2% of the population. That's because so many were killed off and others placed on reservations. Native Americans suffered far more than black Americans as a people.

I question the mental stability of people who feel fear from seeing names of dead people who had absolutely nothing to do with their lives today. Do they feel unsafe seeing the name Adolf Hitler, who killed up to 6 million people? Do they feel unsafe when they hear the name Osama Bin Laden, who killed 3,000 Americans? Of course not. That's because the outrage at seeing the names (and statues) isn't so much about personal pain but about attempting to erase America's past.

And it's dangerous.

I Hope You Dance....

I had a surprising emotional memory yesterday evening that caught me off guard. Arden and I had been watching a movie and when it was over the first song for the closing credits was “I Hope You Dance.”

My eyes instantly filled with tears and I was overcome with grief. The song, written by Mark Sanders and Tia Sillers and recorded originally by Lee Ann Womack, had always made me think of my son and very well stated many of the wishes I had for his life.

I began wondering why it stirred such a reaction in me after all these years so I looked it up online. Lee Ann Womak recorded it in 1999 with the band “Sons Of The Desert.” It was released the following year on her album “I Hope You Dance” and quickly became a huge hit. In 2001 it won six awards including Best Country Song and Song of the Year.

As I said – the song always made me think of my son and his future. He died in February of 2002. That song had been a big part of my life in the months just before he died. I think that's why it hit me so hard - because it was so close to the time we lost him.

I let the tears flow for a few minutes while I explained my bizarre behavior to my wife. I showed her the lyrics to the song and she instantly understood.

I hope you never lose your sense of wonder
You get your fill to eat but always keep that hunger
May you never take one single breath for granted
God forbid love ever leave you empty handed
I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean
Whenever one door closes I hope one more opens
Promise me that you'll give faith a fighting chance
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance

I hope you dance
I hope you dance

I hope you never fear those mountains in the distance
Never settle for the path of least resistance
Livin' might mean takin' chances, but they're worth takin'
Lovin' might be a mistake, but it's worth makin'
Don't let some Hellbent heart leave you bitter
When you come close to sellin' out, reconsider
Give the heavens above more than just a passing glance
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance

I hope you dance (Time is a wheel in constant motion always rolling us along)
I hope you dance
I hope you dance (Tell me who wants to look back on their years and wonder)
I hope you dance (Where those years have gone?)

I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean
Whenever one door closes I hope one more opens
Promise me that you'll give faith a fighting chance
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance

Dance

I hope you dance
I hope you dance (Time is a wheel in constant motion always rolling us along)
I hope you dance (Tell me who wants to look back on their years and wonder?)


It's so strange how music - a particular song - can invoke such powerful reactions from people, particularly 15 years later. A big thank you to Mark Sanders and Tia Sillers for writing such a powerful song and to Lee Ann Womack for her beautiful rendition of it. It made me cry but it made me smile at the same time.

I miss you, Christopher. And I love you as much today as I ever did.

By the way - for those of you reading this...  tell your kids you love them every chance you get. You never know when you may not have that chance again....

New California Laws Are Not Only Stupid But Dangerous

In recent weeks California has passed several laws that are dangerous to its citizens.

The first made California a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. Even as the trial of the “alleged” murderer of Kate Steinle gets underway (He was deported five times prior to Steinle's murder), illegal aliens now have a legal right to be in California according to their new law. The law is not only in violation of federal law but downright stupid. And the governor still believes his state should continue to receive all federal funding it has been getting even as he tells the federal government he will not abide by federal law.

The second stupid and dangerous law makes it illegal for health care workers who “willfully and repeatedly” decline to use a senior transgender patient's preferred name (or pronoun) faces up to a year in prison.

Is this really a problem? I mean – are there so many health care workers in California abusing patients by refusing to acknowledge their chosen gender that they needed to pass a law against it? And does this law have a clause for people who change their minds and decide they're a different gender a few weeks later or they go from male/female to non-binary and back? Is there going to be a law to protect health care workers from abuse by patients who simply can't decide what gender they want to be from day to day?

The sponsor of the bill, a Democrat, says no one is going to be criminally prosecuted for using the wrong pronoun. Yet the law states if the provisions are violated, the violator could be punished by a fine “not to exceed one thousand dollars” or “by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year,” or both. So why put that language in if it's never going to happen?

And the third brilliant move by Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown is a new law that reduces the penalty for knowingly giving someone the HIV virus from a felony to a misdemeanor. In doing so Brown has basically decriminalized potentially deadly assault on California residents.

Some will argue that HIV is not necessarily fatal anymore due to new medications and treatments. That may be true however, the potential is there since not every patient responds to every treatment the same way. And why shouldn't it be a serious crime to knowingly give someone a lifelong, if not fatal disease?

I lived in California for five years back in the early 80s. I loved the state and still do. It is really beautiful and has so many incredible things to see and do. I visited two years ago and was reminded of all the wondrous things that are there. But I wouldn't move back for any reason.

I can't imagine the citizens of California being happy about these changes. I know some people are getting fed up and leaving the state – not only to get away from the craziness of the government but the high taxes and high cost of living. I don't blame them. California has become a great place to visit.

No - Roger Goodell Did Not Tell The NFL Players To Stand

It's being reported and repeated that Trump has won the battle of NFL players kneeling for the national anthem.

Roger Goodell issued a Memo on Monday addressing the issue and many are saying that he caved to the President and that President Trump won. But is that really true?

The most important sentence in the Memo is as follows: “Like many of our fans, we believe that everyone should stand for the National Anthem.”

He goes on to talk about why unity is important and that he's going to meet with the owners next week and then meet with the players' association (union) after that and they're going to talk about it and try to find a solution. Goodell did not tell the players they must all stand for the anthem. He didn't even come close.

I think Goodell's Memo was issued to make it look like he's doing something when he's really not. At least not yet.

Some players are pushing back. "I don't think guys are gonna like it," said Gerald McCoy of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers when asked about the possible reaction from players. "I think it's gonna be an uproar if that is to happen because you're basically taking away a constitutional right to freedom of speech. If guys wanna have a, I guess you would call it a peaceful protest, I don't think it's right to take that away."

Um... hate to tell you this Gerald but if your team or league tells you you can no longer kneel for the national anthem or there will be consequences you still have freedom of speech. You just have to deal with the consequences if you decide to exercise it and kneel anyway. You have a constitutional right to express yourself. But if your employer tells you not to do it on his time and you do it anyway he has the constitutional right to take action against you.

One thing is certain – it's going to get interesting before it goes away. Goodell let it go on too long and now, regardless of what he does, many fans and most of the protesting players are still going to be angry. 

Best part about it? I don't watch anyway.

49ers Player says VP Pence Is Seeking Publicity

San Francisco 49ers' Eric Reid said yesterday that Vice President Mike Pence's decision to leave the game after players on the 49er's team took a knee during the national anthem was a simple publicity stunt by the Vice President.

Imagine that - a man who takes a knee during the national anthem to gain publicity accusing others of publicity stunts.

“I have the upmost respect for the military, for the anthem, for the flag," Reid said. "So I will say that every time ya’ll interview me. This is about systemic oppression that has been rampant in this country for decades on top of decades. And I will continue to say and encourage people to educate themselves of how we got to where are today, because it didn’t happen overnight. And it’s not going to happen overnight to fix these issues, so we’re going to keep talking about it."

What Reid simply fails to understand is that his taking a knee during our national anthem is disrespectful to those in the military who died giving him the right to do it. His taking a knee during the national anthem is nothing more than a publicity stunt by a guy who feels "systemic oppression" even though he is a millionaire and has taken full advantage of the opportunities given him by the United States of America.

Reid said people need to educate themselves of "how we got to where we are today, because it didn't happen overnight." Is he talking about how he and his protesting buddies got to where they are today? None of them is hurting too badly.

Mr. Reid - you say you "have the upmost respect for the military, for the anthem, for the flag." As a veteran and an American I can tell you it doesn't show through your actions. Your actions say you're an overpaid crybaby who uses your fame and success to trash the very country that gave you your opportunities. Not very becoming of you. Actions do speak louder than words.

Emotional Demand For More Gun Control After Las Vegas Shooting

And so it begins – the emotional outcry for “MORE GUN CONTROL!”

An obviously disturbed man (anyone who can randomly murder innocent people unknown to them has to be disturbed – including groups like ISIS) armed with multiple weapons fired rapidly into an outdoor concert crowd from the thirty-second floor of the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas, killing more than fifty people and injuring as many as 400 others.

Immediately, before the dead were even counted, people on the left began calling for increased gun control and weapons bans. No details have been made public other than the shooter was white, 64 years old, a resident of Mesquite, Nevada, and had a female, Asian companion who was not, at least according to police, complicit in the shootings. The shooter is dead so the reason(s) for the shooting rampage may never be known.

ISIS has claimed that the shooter was a convert to Islam and he was acting for them. Authorities say at this time there is no evidence to support that claim.

We don't know why this man did what he did. Was he a terrorist? According to authorities – at this point he does not meet the definition and/or requirements to be called a terrorist. Some people are complaining that although he murdered dozens of people, because he's white he won't be labeled a terrorist. Those people are also reacting with their emotions and are perhaps unaware of the definition of terrorism.

The definition of terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Authorities have no idea at this time whether or not the shooter's motives were political or ideological. One report says that his brother claimed he had no real political or religious affiliations. If that is true he does not fit the description or definition of a terrorist.

Let's get back to gun control. AR-15 rifles are outlawed in California yet the San Bernardino shooters managed to illegally get two. Chicago has the most strict gun laws in the country and has the highest rate of gun violence. Washington DC, also with highly stringent gun laws, follows a close second behind Chicago for gun violence. Gun laws do not prevent people from obtaining guns. Gun laws prevent people from obtaining them legally.

Gun laws prevent honest, law-abiding citizens from being able to own firearms to protect themselves, their families and their property. And who is to say that a legal gun owner “doesn't need an AR-15?” Who are they to decide my weapon of choice for home protection?

The weapon used by the Las Vegas shooter, from audio/video recordings of the incident that have been online, indicate the shooter had at least one fully automatic weapon. While automatic weapons are legal in the United States, they're not easily obtained (legally.) One must have a federal background investigation, buy a federal tax stamp and pay a very large sum of money (because of the taxes) for the weapon.

I would venture a guess that the shooter's automatic rifle was either purchased illegally or modified illegally or both. That is speculation only but the cost of legally buying a fully automatic weapon keeps most people out of the market for them.

The Clark County Sheriff said that this type of incident cannot be prevented. I heard a guy on the radio later say that's simply untrue. He said we have the technology, including video cameras in the hotel, that would have shown him making “multiple trips to his room with a large amount of luggage that he would have to have to have so many weapons and large numbers of ammunition in his room.”

The truth is that if he had 10 rifles, as has been stated, and several thousand rounds of ammunition he could have easily concealed them in a duffle bag and a strong suitcase and pushed the luggage cart to his room himself, making only one trip. This guy planned his attack well, for whatever reason.

There are two big questions that need to be answered to get any kind of closure for this incident. 1) Where and how did he get the weapon? And 2) What was his motivation for carrying out the attack?

Unfortunately, with him dead and the family saying they have no idea how it could have happened we may never know the answers. His roommate is being questioned by law enforcement officials. Perhaps she can shed some light on his mental condition.

Ownership of automatic rifles is regulated. Since this is the first incident I know of (in my 60 years of life) in which a fully automatic weapon was used the current controls seem to be working pretty well. It's doubtful that any more regulation will change anything. If the gun was obtained or modified illegally a new law is not going to help. That's just the truth.

The one thing people need to remember is – any gun is only as dangerous as the person holding it.