Happy Thanksgiving to everyone who takes the time to read these thoughts of mine. Anyone who cares enough about the way you think and express yourself to actually use some of their valuable time to bother reading is certainly worth thanking.

There are many others in my life for whom I am thankful that they are a part. There are many things, situations, events, objects, opportunities for which I am particularly thankful this year. But there is one above all others to whom I am grateful for providing the blessings of all those others in my life.

Thank you, God.

Thank you for the wife whom you directed into my life more than 17 years ago. Thank you for providing to her the gifts that have enabled her to grow with me, forgive me, love me. Thank you particularly for the gift of the time we've spent together all these years. Most particularly, for bringing us together in an understanding and acceptance of faith in your son, Jesus Christ.

Thank you for my daughters and my grandchildren. They have provided incredible love, color, and depth to the experiences of my lifetime. Thank you for all they have taught me and brought me, more than they probably know or could understand. Thank you for the gift of continuing to enjoy them as they all grow and mature, and I will continue to offer special prayers for their increased spiritual growth.

Thank you for this home that you have provided for my wife and I, and for the opportunities that we have had over the years to improve and secure it for ourselves. Thank you for the enjoyment of our family and friends here, some as their home, some as regular visitors, some as infrequent guests. All as welcome today as they have ever been at any time previously.

Thank you for my education, particularly this year with the achievement of a life long goal to graduate from college. Thank you for the opportunities provided to me by the Philadelphia Police Department, the Community College of Philadelphia, and Saint Joseph's University and all of the good people who manage those programs. And going back even further, to the people at Our Lady of Mount Carmel and Saint John Neumann for providing the educational and spiritual foundation that inspired those later goals.

Thank you for the gift of health, and for a reasonable amount of financial security and prosperity in times that have been difficult for many others. Well aware of the difficult times that I have experienced in the past, both physically and materially, I will never take these particular blessings for granted, knowing full well that challenges may lie ahead in the coming years.

Thank you for continuing to inspire Americans within this great nation that was founded with and grew under your direct blessings. Thank you for the men and women who still remember your primary role in that founding, in our past, in our present, and in our future. Thank you for all of those who refuse to surrender to the efforts to turn our nation away from your path. Thank you for not turning away from America when so many Americans have turned away from you.

Thank you for another incredible season of sporting enjoyment from the Philadelphia Phillies, as well as for the gift of the game and for inspiring my own passion for it's enjoyment over the years as both a spectator and a participant. Thank you for getting to experience the thrill of the Phillies winning two World Series titles in my lifetime, and watching them compete in three others. Bless their organization with continued success, and we fans with continued opportunities to enjoy their play.

Thank you for the gifts that you have given me to express myself, both verbally and in writing. These gifts have allowed me opportunities that would not have come along otherwise. Opportunities to serve my community as a police officer, and to serve police officers and others as a teacher. The opportunity to express my feelings on issues of importance here at my website. And now the opportunity to express your Word as a lector for my parish.

Thank you for the meal that I am going to enjoy with some of my family members this particular Thanksgiving Day. For the turkey and stuffing and vegetables and trimmings. For the warm, happy home in which we will enjoy that feast. For the people with whom we will share that meal. And thank you for all of the meals that I am privileged to share throughout the year with all of my loved ones at every opportunity.

Thank you, God. Thank you for my life and for the people in that life. For all of the family members, friends, co-workers, acquaintances, priests, teachers, service providers. My one prayer this Thanksgiving Day is that every one of them, particularly those who intentionally turn away from you, or who do not fully understand or accept the sacrifice of Christ, that their hearts and minds and souls may be opened to the full measure of your love, forgiveness, and grace.

The man shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he pulled out the FN Herstal tactical pistol which he had purchased back in the summer from a gun store in Texas. He then proceeded to methodically assassinate 13 Americans and injure dozens more in what has been described as everything from a 'crazed attack' to a 'shooting rampage'.

In fact, last week's attacks at the Fort Hood Army base have been called everything but what they were: a terrorist attack by a radical Islamist, the first on U.S. soil since 9/11/2001.

39-year old Nidal Malik Hasan is a psychiatrist by trade, a trade which he learned as an enlisted man in the United States Army. How could an American soldier shoot fellow soldiers and others? Was he simply mad? The obvious answer to anyone looking with clear vision is that Hasan was not mad, at least not clinically insane. What Hasan was and continues to be is an Islamist terrorist.

While performing his residency requirements at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Hasan made a presentation to colleagues on the proper role of Muslims in the American military. In this presentation, Hasan stated that "fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam."He further advocated the military releasing Muslims from their obligations to decrease "adverse events" and increase morale.

According to a cousin, Hasan was a practicing Muslim who became more devout following the death of his parents separately in 1998 and 2001. His family also said that he turned against the wars after hearing stories from troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2001, Hasan attended the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. The religious leader or 'imam' of the mosque at that time was Anwar al-Awlaki, and Hasan had deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings. This is notable because also attending the same mosque at the same time were both Hani Hanjour and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was convicted for his role in an assassination plot against President Bush.

In the aftermath of the Fort Hood terror attack, al-Awlaki, who had conveniently fled to Yemen following the 9/11 attacks, praised Hasan for his actions in murdering the soldiers and for the overall shooting event. He also called on other Muslims to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal" if they were serving in the American military.

Hasan was said by fellow soldiers to have been constantly proselytizing about his faith with fellow doctors, patients, and soldiers. In the months prior to his attack, Hasan had come under investigation by federal authorities for internet postings that said suicide bombers were sacrificing their lives for a noble cause, among other messages.

Hasan was known to have made attempts at contacting al Qaeda directly, and had continued to exchange emails with al-Awlaki, especially seeking guidance as it became clear that Hasan was going to be deployed to the Middle East where he might have to directly fight against Muslims. On the day of the attack, Hasan handed out copies of the Quran, Islam's holy book, and was said to be in a peaceful state, often the description when a suicide bomber has resigned themselves to their fate.

Now comes word today that the Obama administration is going to take Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the acknowledged mastermind of those 9/11 terrorist attacks, to trial for those attacks in a civilian court. Not handle him as a war criminal, but in the same manner as a common criminal would be handled. This is the pre-9/11 mentality, handle terrorism against the United States as a law enforcement matter rather than as a matter of national security.

Terrorism analyst Neil Livingstone has made an incredibly chilling and proper analogy. Trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Islamist terrorists is akin to going back to World War II times and taking the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor to civilian courts rather than handling them as war criminals. Livingstone is, of course, exactly right.

This is just another in a long series of missteps by the Obama administration since taking office earlier in the year. The administration seems to be all about political correctness. The President has shown from the beginning, particularly in his hasty order to close the terrorist detention center at Guantanamo Bay, that he refuses to take responsibility for keeping America safe.

How many more Hasan's are 'sleeper' terrorists serving in the American military, or working in American businesses, or studying in American schools just waiting for either the orders, or the encouragement, or the inspiration, or the resources, or just for simply their own 'right moment' to pull the plug on their 'legitimate' American cover and take their own action in furtherance of the jihad to bring about Islamic rule under Sharia law here and elsewhere around the world?

To call Nidal Malik Hasan an "Army psychiatrist" or a "crazed gunman" is to tell the smallest portion of the truth of what he is in reality. To call Khalid Sheik Mohammed a murder conspirator is to tell the smallest portion of the truth. The truth is that both men are Islamist terrorists, and the time is long since past to both call a spade a spade, and to treat them accordingly.

NOTE: This is a continuation of the 'Islamism Series', an ongoing series relating to the issues of radical Islam in general and its presence here in America in particular. All entries in the series can be read by visiting the www.mattveasey.com website and clicking on to the 'Islamism Series' label below this article

The United States Marine Corps today celebrates the 234th birthday for the American fighting force that has spearheaded victories in battles from Mexico's 'Halls of Montezuma' to Africa's 'shores of Tripoli' and thousands of locales in between.

Whether in the Middle East today, or in the pre-Vietnam War days when my father, Matthew Veasey, served in the Corps, or in the World War II days, when my father-in-law, Robert Marshall, served in the Corps in the Pacific theatre, Americans have served their country in this elite group of warriors and marksmen.

On November 10th, 1775, at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, the 2nd Continental Congress resolved that a military group be formed to be known as the Continental Marines. The group would eventually consist of 131 officers and approximately 2,000 enlisted Marines.

Five days earlier, the Congress had commissioned Samuel Nicholas of Philadelphia as a 'Captain of Marines', the first officer commissioned for the group. He would become accepted in tradition as the first 'Commandant of the Marine Corps', the highest ranking officer.

Tradition also holds that much of the recruitment efforts for the group were held at Philadelphia's Tun Tavern. The tavern was a nearly century old gathering place at Water and Tun Streets, with a restaurant having been added a few decades earlier. The proprietor during the Revolutionary period, Robert Mullen, became the chief Marine recruiter.

The primary service of this Marine force would be to serve as on-board security for naval Captains and their officers. They would also position Marine sharpshooters at the tops of the ships' masts during naval battles with the assignment of taking out the opposition officers and other important ship personnel.

The first group, consisting of 5 companies with 300 Marines, met up with the Navy in the Caribbean in December of 1775, and under Nicholas they joined the Navy operations quickly undertaken in the Bahamas. Eventually, Marines would fight with George Washington's troops at Trenton and would participate in many other Revolutionary War actions.

At the war's conclusion, both the Navy and the Marines were disbanded in June of 1785. It would be 13 years before the now U.S. Congress finally permanently created the United States Marine Corps in 1798 as it prepared the military for a naval war with France. During these early years of re-establishment, the Corps took part in it's famous effort to capture 'the shores of Tripoli' during the First Barbary War against the African Barbary pirates.

During the War of 1812, the Marines were pivotal in what was largely a water-based series of battles with the British empire in the Atlantic Ocean off the American east coast and along the nation's inner rivers and other waterways. Particularly significant were their efforts to slow the British march to the nation's new capitol at Washington, D.C. and in the defense of New Orleans.

The Marines next fought in the Seminole Wars, particularly in the 2nd Seminole War of 1835-1842, when the U.S. was battling Native Americans for control of Florida. It was during their next efforts in the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 that the Corps battled into those storied 'halls of Montezuma' as the United States took control of the territory of Texas.

The Civil War in America from 1861-1865 saw the Marines do little but participate in blockades as many of their ranks split between the two battling sides of the temporarily split nation. In the decade following the Civil War, the Marine Corps emblem and the famous 'hymn' were each developed. Then in 1883 the Corps adopted it's famous motto of Semper Fidelis: Always Faithful, now frequently shortened to the famous cry of "Semper Fi!"

In 1898, the Marines played another significant role in the Spanish-American War, particularly in seizing a military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba which remains American territory to this day. During the early years of the 20th century the Corps saw action as far afield as the Boxer Rebellion in China and the Banana Wars in Haiti and Nicaragua.

It was during World War I that the Marines began to gain their modern reputation. Here the Marine Corps fought bravely at Belleau Wood near Paris, France during the German spring offensive in 1918. It became legend that the Germans so respected the Marines fighting spirit that they took to calling them Teufel Hunden, or Devil Dogs. The nickname stuck and has been a point of pride ever since.

The Marines did not go into hiding between the two massive World Wars, but instead saw the coming 2nd conflict and took numerous measures to study amphibious warfare and prepare for what they believed was a coming war with Japan. When the Japanese attacked at Pearl Harbor and the conflict in the Pacific broke out, the Marines were ready. It was during the WWII battle at Iwo Jima that the iconic image of 'Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima' captured 5 Marines and a Navy man raising the American flag over that hard-fought island.

Through both Korea and Vietnam, the Marines fought valiantly in defense of freedom around the world. As peacekeepers in Beirut, Lebanon during the early years of Islamic fundamentalism rising up, a bomb ripped through their headquarters building, killing 220 Marines and 21 other service members in what was the worst loss of life during formal peacetime in the Corps history.

The Marines have continued to fight on, leading the way in America's military battles against the forces of Middle East despotism and radical Islam from the Gulf War through to the ongoing War on Terror theatres in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

From those "Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli", the Devil Dogs of the United States Marine Corps have fought our country's battles in the air, on land, and sea. They fight for right and freedom, to keep their honor clean, in every clime and place where they could take a gun. Here's to their health and to their Corps. Happy Birthday, Marines!

It was announced today that President Barack Obama of the United States had won the once-prestigious Nobel Peace Prize. Obama was awarded the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

There was no accompanying 'rimshot' sound effect to the announcement. This was not a joke.

Obama was nominated for the prize within a couple of weeks of being sworn in to the office of the Presidency. A couple of weeks during which he earned the nomination by, uh, doing...er, uh. Well, he made a couple speeches, right? Uh, he, er, uh said some pretty good things, I think?

A year ago, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Martii Ahtisaari, the former President of Finland who after leaving that office had established the Crisis Management Initiative in 2000, a non-governmental group that helps mediate and resolve crisis around the world. Ahtisaari had worked for decades in places like Kosova, Iraq, and Indonesia to promote peace.

Barack Obama, in just a couple of weeks in office, made some "extraordinary efforts" that got him the same award. What it took Ahtisaari and all other Nobel laureates a lifetime to achieve, Obama managed through those extraordinary efforts to achieve in mere weeks.

For his part, Obama on one hand seemed to understand that his nomination was out of place saying "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." However, Obama went on to say that he would accept the prize anyway as a "call to action" and "as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations."

Come on, folks, this is an organization that honored Al Gore with a straight face. This was nothing more than a purely political endorsement by a European organization that has found a sympathetic figure it hopes will further bolster the EU's efforts to undermine American strength and drive us closer to a new Socialist world order.

CBS news chief Bob Schieffer, a liberal spokesperson for a liberal news organization, believes this was purely a slap at the Bush administration's aggressive policies in the world, and suggested that the award may have been a prize "for winning the election." The conservative National Review wondered if Obama would next be honored with Major League Baseball's prestigious Cy Young Award as it's top pitcher.

Alfred Nobel himself is probably rolling over in his grave right now. In his will, Nobel stipulated that the prize should be awarded to someone "who shall have done the most or the best work" on behalf of peace. Man, that Obama sure is something, getting all that work done in just a couple of weeks in order to be nominated.

To use boxing terms, if giving Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize for what is at best a controversial and at worst a fraudulent global warming presence was the 'left hook' then giving Barack Obama the award is the 'right cross' and the final blow that knocks the Nobel Prize out of the credibility fight.

Barack Obama noted when he took office that America is "at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred" and yet he has done nothing since taking power to keep America safe from these Islamist terrorists. In fact, his words and actions have undermined that process and made America even more vulnerable today, and set up the processes by which we will become increasingly more vulnerable going forward.

Obama stated in his inaugural that "earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions." What he failed to state was that there are no longer nations with the moral backbone to stand up for their convictions as allies for true freedom, only cowards who surrender to maintain peace, hiding behind the apron strings of socialism as they await the onrush from the forces of Islamism.

The legacy that Barack Obama is forging here at home is certainly not one of peace among Americans. It is one of being a divider, not the uniter that he said he would become. He is a partisan leader of a partisan political party in a partisan environment in which roughly half of the people of his own country do not support him or his policies.

Be it at home in the United States among fellow Americans, or within our own hemisphere in dealing with situations in places like Cuba and Venezuela, Obama has done little or nothing to forge peace. In the Middle East with our friends in Israel, or with or Islamist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama has done little or nothing to forge peace. In relations with major powers such as Russia and China, Obama has done little or nothing to forge peace.

Webster's defines 'noble' as "possessing outstanding qualities" and "possessing, characterized by, or arising from the superiority of mind or character or of ideals or morals." Combined with the Gore award, today's awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama can only leave us with the notion that the award is now purely political, and the Nobel organization has surrendered all nobility.

There are a surprisingly large number of people in America who sincerely believe that they are not getting and so want their 'fair share' which leads to the question: what is your fair share? What is it exactly that you are owed? And who owes it to you?

The first thing that we need to do before we can determine what your particular fair share is would be to define exactly what it is we are talking about. What is it that you are missing out on that others are getting and that you deserve?

Tops on most people's list would be, of course, money. Are you getting your fair share of money? And if you don't think so, then why are you not getting your fair share? Who are you comparing yourself against? What do they do for a living? What do you do? Why do you deserve as much or more?

One area where you hear many folks complain about what others are earning is athletics, or entertainment. Why should a ball player or a singer or an actor make millions while you struggle every day at your difficult job and make five figures?

Well, first of all, how much do you generate in income with your production at your job, and how easy would it be to replace you right now, or in a short time? Could you get up on a movie set and act as well as Denzel Washington or Meryl Streep, get up on a stage and sing as well as Mariah Carey, step up to the plate and hit as well as Derek Jeter?

So the answer is a resounding "no", and you are willing to admit that. But you still sweat and toil, and wonder why they get paid so much more. Well, for one, tens of millions of people all over the country and from around the world are willing to pay their own hard-earned money to watch or listen to these performers. Is anyone willing to pay anything to watch you work?

Because of these individuals God-given abilities they have separated themselves from the rest of us with skills that many of us are willing to enjoy watching them perform. These talents and abilities generate vast sums of income for their studios, teams, and production companies, and a portion of this goes to the performers.

The easy solution would be to not go to any games, buy any music, view any movies, etc. However, the majority of your fellow citizens will not join you in this reclusive lifestyle, and so your protest will effectively be wasted and worthless, except to you, of course.

The exact same income-generation scenario plays out in other forms of salaried positions, from executive boards to law offices to surgery rooms people make money because they have specific talents, or have become educated in and mastered specific skills and professions.

Police officers in the career that I have chosen make more money than clerks in the banking industry that I left behind. The police work outside in all types of weather conditions, have to physically confront dangerous individuals, wear at least one weapon everywhere they go and may need to use it at any time. These and many other skills and job hazards lead to the discrepancy.

In today's America, and for decades now, the old arguments about equal opportunity no longer exist. There will be race-baiters, women's liberation holdovers, and other excuse makers who will try to play on the liberal conscience and make you believe differently, but the fact is that in the vast majority of circumstances in this country, anyone who wants to can succeed.

Recipes for success vary wildly, from taking advantage of some natural talent or ability, to concerted efforts at higher education, to plain-old hard work. If you don't have a natural talent, you can outwork that perceived disadvantage by staying in school and studying, taking low level jobs and working your way up, and so on.

Now some people put roadblocks in front of any success by their own actions involving personal behavior, substance abuse, criminality, and many other activities which cause them to miss opportunities, or have those delayed. This is nothing more or less than their own decision-making process effecting these opportunities.

If you don't want to work hard, or study hard, or conform to regulations, procedures, rules, and norms set up by society or professions, then that is your choice. But then don't blame anyone else for your lack of success either.

Some people complain that they have made all the right choices: never made poor personal choices, stayed in school and studied hard, and went out to work and worked hard, and yet still the big opportunities never came along. To the young who fit into this category all I can say is that competition is rough, and you may need to evaluate specialty education or skills. Keep plugging away, keep looking for opportunities, be willing to stretch yourself, stay on the right path.

To older individuals, you can take the same advice and make it work, but you need to realize that the older you get, there will be some opportunities that begin to close on you. This is a simple fact of life, and if you don't plan on making yourself valuable and diverse while you are young, you may never be able to make that up as you get older. You simply need to try as hard as you can while remaining realistic.

This is not to say that there are no people who need and deserve help. There are some who, because of physical or mental disabilities not of their own making, or because of unusual extraneous circumstances absolutely deserve assistive services in providing at least a certain level of opportunity. This is simple compassion. But no one deserves a check for sitting home and doing nothing when they could be out working and have the opportunity to do so.

This is also not to say that there are not employers who have historically taken advantage of workers by not paying them a 'fair' wage. This happens when business owners in particular fields or businesses 'collude' to construct a salary structure that does not allow for competition. In such cases, limited intervention may be necessary such as salary arbitration, minimum wage laws, etc. But a fine line needs to be walked between protecting salaried workers and profit-seeking businesses so that neither ends up suffering.

The bottom line here is that the only 'fair share' that any of us is entitled to is that which we actually earn by our actions. The person who goes out to work at a low-skill job deserves more salary than the healthy person who sits home on the couch. The person who gets educated and gains experience in a field deserves more than the low-skilled worker. The naturally gifted talent that others are willing to pay see perform deserves more than this educated and experienced person.

You deserve a 'fair share' dictated by your own efforts, your talents, and your ability to generate income for others. There is no legitimate system in the world that works any other way. All systems of Communism and Socialism that attempt to take hard-earned money from true workers and disperse it among everyone eventually have collapsed or deteriorated into systems of pure political patronage.

In the end, the only 'fair share' that we deserve is in opportunity. If we waste away our time and our opportunities while others are working hard to make their dreams a reality, then those others deserve more than we do. Many Americans have simply become their own worst enemy, and the only path to success for them will never come from some political 'change', but only through personal change.

I've already heard it asked in my office, on the radio, and in a couple of other venues this morning: Where were you when you first heard about the attacks on 9/11? The answers have been numerous, from people sitting in their cars in traffic, to folks working as police officers here in Philly, to folks who had the day off and were watching it all on television.

Being a police officer who has worked the 'Last Out' shift for a few years, meaning that I worked a steady shift of overnight hours from approximately 11pm until 7am, I have often speculated that there must have been at least some officers of the NYPD who worked overnight and had just gotten home and in bed by 8am or so on the morning of September 11th, 2001. I was usually in bed by that time after working that shift myself.

I can imagine such an officer sleeping away their day, perhaps with their cellphone off or on 'silent' and with their home phone ring turned off. Again, this was my habit after working overnight. The last thing that I wanted to have happen was for anyone to wake me up for anything, let alone for some random call from work to reach me. Who could ever imagine receiving the call that those officers may have missed and later found on their answering machines?

Imagine those officers working all night, getting home on a typical Tuesday morning, and then waking up at around 3pm before finally hearing from some source: a phone message, the news on television or radio, some friend or neighbor in person telling them what had happened. Of course your first call is going to be in to your work place, and then begins the likely process of getting ready to head in to work, possibly having to make some special travel arrangements to get there.

All of that is speculative, but it takes no stretch of the imagination to consider that there were probably hundreds of such officers in New York city on that fateful day. Where was I that morning? I would imagine it's pretty typical, and typically uninteresting. I was assigned as a Detective with the Northeast Detective Division of the Philadelphia Police Department at the time, but was on a scheduled day off.

At about 7:15am I had left our home in the Somerton section of Philadelphia to drive our daughter Melissa to school. She had just begun her sophomore year at Archbishop Ryan High School in the Far Northeast section of the city, and it took me about 35 minutes to get her over to the building and out of the car, and drive back to our house.

I had been logged on to my home PC before we left, checking my email while waiting for Melissa to finish getting herself ready, and was listening to Philly's local "smooth jazz" radio station. It was such a beautiful morning when we left, and the mood with the jazz music was so mellow, that I left it playing so that I could return to this same atmosphere.

I got back and things were just as I had hoped. The day was still blossoming in gorgeous style with mellow temperatures and a high, clear blue sky. The jazz music was keeping that atmosphere just as mellow inside my house, and I sat back down to the computer. Many mornings would find me turning on and following Fox News, but this morning the music was so perfect for the day that I just left it play and kept out the news of the world.

At about 9am, my home phone rang, and it was my wife Debbie calling. She had a bit of an excited tone to her voice as she quickly asked "Are you watching TV?" I told her that I wasn't, and she replied "Well turn it on, they just bombed our embassy!" I told her okay, and we quickly hung up the phone. But I didn't turn on the TV right away. She called back a couple minutes later and said "Do you have the TV on?" When I told her that I hadn't turned it on yet, she more insistently told me "Turn it on!"

So I grabbed the remote and clicked on the television, wondering what could be upsetting her so much about one of our embassies being bombed. Not that it wouldn't be a big story, but I just didn't understand why she would be calling from her work about it. As the screen came in to view there on Fox was a picture of the first Twin Tower in the minutes after it had been struck. I told her "That's not an embassy, it's the Twin Towers, and a plane hit it" She just told me to keep it on, that they were talking about a possible terrorist attack, and we again hung up.

As I sat back and watched those early confusing moments, something almost unreal happened on the screen. While they were talking about a plane hitting the tower, and speculating on the nature of that crash, suddenly there was another jet coming in to view in the picture. In the split second that it took for the mind to go from "What the heck is a plane doing flying that low when one already hit the tower" to "Oh my God!" the second plane struck the second Twin Tower.

At that immediate instant it became clear that this was no accident. There was no doubt that this was an attack. Now the question was, what next? I clearly remember stopping right there and saying a prayer.

The rest of my day was filled with following the developments on Fox News and the other news channels. My wife was let out early from her work, and on her way home she picked up our daughter from school. I found that my other two older daughters were safe, and closely followed things to see if Philadelphia would ever become involved or our officers mobilized. Neither ever happened.

That is forever how I will remember that day, that moment. The incredible peace and tranquility of that morning suddenly ended by the phone call, and then that incredible moment on television of the second plane as it hit the World Trade Center. Eight years later it still is as clear a memory as the sky was on that Tuesday morning. I imagine that it will forever remain that crystal clear, and I hope and pray that there is never another day like it, or worse, in our nations future.

"The British are Coming!" "Remember the Alamo!" "A Date Which Will Live in Infamy" "9/11"

All of these phrases are now burned by history into the collective American consciousness, automatically bringing us back to times when our nation was under attack right here on our own soil. However, the first three are actually a bit misleading in that regard. Neither the British attacks in the Revolutionary War, the Mexican attack in Texas, or the Japanese attack in Hawaii happened in an official state of the Union.

In the first, the United States was not a fully formed, world recognized, independent nation, but instead was fighting for some type of independence from the British empire. It shouted a warning among the American colonists that British troops were approaching, and is usually specifically related to the midnight ride of Paul Revere. It also hearkens us back to a time when British 'red coats' were firing on Americans, burning homes and businesses, and marching across the land that we now know as the United States of America.

The battle at the Alamo mission also was not fought on what was then technically United States soil, but was fought between the Republics of Mexico and Texas in the aftermath of the Mexican revolution. It was a decade before Texas would officially become a U.S. state. The Texian forces fighting for their independence from the Mexican government where vastly outnumbered, yet fought off the Mexican troops valiantly before finally being overrun and massacred. The incident rallied Texians to eventual victory, and ultimately to statehood.

Again, the Japanese sneak attack in Hawaii did not technically take place on an official state in the Union. On December 7th, 1941, Hawaii was an annexed American territory and the site of an extremely strategic naval base located at Pearl Harbor. When the Japanese bombs and kamakazi pilots virtually wiped out the American Pacific Naval fleet that morning, it not only sparked our entry into World War II, but also showed the importance of Hawaii to our interests, resulting in full statehood by 1959.

Most people alive today know full well of the events of 9/11 as they relate to more attacks on American soil, attacks this time on an official state (New York) as well as on the seat of our government (Washington, D.C.), along with a thwarted attack that ended in the loss of American lives in Pennsylvania.

Here in Philadelphia and along much of the American east coast, today is a dark, gloomy day on which the rain pours from the skies. I will refrain from talk of it being tears for the lives of the nearly 3,000 victims lost that day. The only reason that I point out the bleak weather conditions today is to relate how stark the contrast it is with that absolutely gorgeous late summer morning, now eight years ago.

America awoke and began it's commute to work on that Tuesday morning with little thought of the radical Islamic assault that was fully planned and already operational. Despite repeated threats and actual attacks leading up to that day, most Americans had their heads in the sand regarding men such as Osama bin Laden and groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. We were virtually untouchable and absolutely indestructible as a nation. All that went away in just a couple of hours.

Despite the magnitude and suddeness of those attacks, the loss of all of those lives, the televised attacks on and collapse of the iconic Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, a jet airplane ramming through the core of our national defense at the Pentegon, the grounding of American air traffic for almost a week, and the subsequent wars fought in Iraq and Afghanistan we seem to have learned little.

The radical Islamists who attacked us that morning were not representatives of any particular nation. We were not attacked that morning and at other times by Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Iran, or Libya, or Egypt, or any single Middle Eastern or Arabic nation or group of nations. We were attacked by radical groups operating within those nations who are inspired by the Koran and their faith to conquer the world on behalf of Islam.

In past wars and battles, whether fought to form the United States as with Britain, to expand the United States as with Mexico, or to defend the United States as with Japan the enemy was usually an easy to define nation-state. It had borders, populations, armies, resources, and allies that were usually easily definable. To win, you had to defeat the other guys in head-to-head physical combat. There was a measure of ideology that needed to be defeated as well, but ultimately if you won the physical battles and suppressed the enemy troops and their leaders, you were the clear winner.

I put it to you that it is no different now. We still need to win that physical battle. But as with those past conflicts, this is also a war of ideologies, and we must also win on that front to ever have a long-lasting peace. This war must be fought and won on two fronts, both of which we must be willing to support and sustain if we want to win.

On one hand we must support and sustain the ideological war that is raging within Islam itself. There are moderate forces within that religion, the 2nd largest on the planet with an influence over approximately 1.5 billion people, or almost 1 in every 5 people on the planet. The radical forces calling for that religion to control the world not only religiously, but also sociologically, financially, politically is growing. We must support in every way the forces within Islam that want to maintain it as a part of the whole where the world is concerned, not as a world domination ideology.

On the other hand, we must be willing to back that financial and rhetorical support up with our armed forces. The radical Islamist groups are heavily armed, well equipped, and train regularly. And their numbers and influence are growing, as is their technology. It is just a matter of time before nuclear weapons are in the hands of radical Islamic terrorist regimes. Once that happens, these groups will use these weapons to further their agenda in Israel, Europe, and here in America. Until such elements are effectively wiped out, we are going to have physical battles to fight.

There will be a number of remembrances across the country and around the world today on the 8th anniversary of those radical Islamic attacks on September 11th, 2001. There will be a few television programs this evening that will recall the events of that day. If you have not yet seen them, I can highly recommend four different films that you need to watch.

"9/11" was perhaps the best documentary on the day of the attacks, and is available by clicking on to the title of this article through Amazon. This and "United 93" are probably the two best films ever made to this point. "World Trade Center" is also a well made dramatic depiction of the New York attacks. Finally, the documentary film "Obsession" tells the full story of the radical Islamic problem across the world today.

9/11 was not the beginning of this world-wide ideological struggle, and we will not likely see the end any time soon, if ever. There will be further dates to remember, catch-phrases to live in infamy. Today we should remember those who lost their lives that day, as well as those who fought and continue to fight for victory in the continuing ideological struggle against the forces of radical Islam. Those forces are still out there, still bent on that same world domination, and the United States of America continues to stand as the best defense against their aggression.

Congressman Joe Wilson had enough of the lies, and could no longer contain himself. The Republican from South Carolina had sat patiently in his chair while trying to endure 45 minutes of President Barack Obama droning on about extending his Socialist vision of America into the health care industry.

But then Obama told one lie too many for Wilson during last night's nationally televised attempt at indoctrination and bullying. The President let slip that his proposed government option would not cover illegal aliens. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back for the Congressman.

"You Lie!" shouted Wilson.

If you were watching on television, you heard it plain as day. The uproar in response was immediate and boisterous as various members of Congress either gasped in astonishment, hollered their disapproval, or mildly cheered the outburst. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, seated immediately over Obama's left shoulder, shot an icy stare in Wilson's direction.

Obama was also stunned by the outburst and momentarily glanced away from his teleprompter, causing him to stumble and mumble a weak "That's not true" as a response. Unfortunately for Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats, particularly the ultra-liberals on the far left who are pushing the President further and further towards that Socialist disaster, Joe Wilson was the only one actually speaking truth.

On the issue that caused Wilson's outburst, Obama has repeatedly rebuffed calls for individuals to provide proof of citizenship in order to receive health care under the proposed government option. This will undoubtedly result in illegals receiving such care, and increased numbers of them as Mexicans and others stream across our southern borders to receive better medical care here at no cost.

Well, it's at no cost to the illegal aliens. It will, however, cost every single taxpaying American as money is sucked from our paychecks in order to provide health care for people who are not even citizens of our country.

The funding for this project is another of it's controversial elements, and was addressed last night with another of Obama's lies. He spoke of increasing costs by $900 billion over the next decade, and compared that amount to the same amount to fund the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His point was that it is affordable if we choose to take care of uninsured sick Americans instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthy or going to war.

As usual, Obama was lying. The $900 billion dollars over the next decade figure comes from adding up to 18 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. But that is just the rock bottom basic cost. Everyone involved knows that costs will rise and that the plan would end up costing at least hundreds of billions of more dollars. And then there is the fact that the plan doesn't go away after a decade.

Harsh to say that Obama is lying? Not at all. I am going to give Barack Obama credit where liberals were unwilling to give George W. Bush credit by saying that Obama is smart. Fact is, so was Bush, but you'll never convince most libs of that notion. But they would definitely agree with me that Obama is both intelligent and informed.

To even contemplate that Obama does not know all of the facts involving his health plan would be ludicrous. So when he tells you that it will be affordable, that there will be no increase in the federal deficit, that illegal aliens won't be covered, and that abortions won't be covered he is quite simply not telling the truth as he knows it to be. The word we all use for such a person is 'liar' in other instances, and it applies here as well, whether you like the sound of Obama being called one or not.

As to the controversial abortion topic, for instance, the President claims that the language of his health bill is 'neutral' on the issue. Fair enough, but fact is that most Americans have already spoken their minds that they do not want a publicly funded abortion option as part of any taxpayer funded plan. So Republicans tried to insert amendments that would specifically prohibit the plan from covering abortions. The amendments were voted down by the Democrats. So much for the President' bill being 'neutral' on abortion. What is to keep it from covering the procedure, Mr. President?

Mr. President, it might make Nance Pelosi cringe, your fellow Democrats bellow, and even moderate Republicans feign public indignance, but the facts are the facts and the American public deserves more than you and your administration are giving us on issue after issue. A 'Change' to Socialism was not what they voted for last November. I can't blame Joe Wilson for his outburst because frankly, Mr. President, he simply was telling the frustrating truth when he shouted "You Lie!"

Does the U.S. Constitution protect your right to say anything you want, whenever you want, anywhere you want? Some people think that it indeed does, or that if it doesn't allow that, it should. But most understand that while we are free to speak our minds most times, there are limits. You can't just yell "fire" in a crowded movie house, to use an old example.

There is actually no universally accepted definition of 'Freedom of Speech' that is applied within the United States of America. The idea is not clearly defined even within the Constitution itself. Issues relating to free speech have been debated and the courts have ruled on these issues almost since the Bill of Rights was added.

That 'Bill of Rights', for those who may require a brief civics lesson, are the first ten 'amendments' to the originally approved U.S. Constitution. The very first amendment reads: "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."

As explained in "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution": "The Founding generation undoubtedly believed deeply in the freedom of speech and of the press, but then, as now, these general terms were understood quite differently by different people. Many people did not think about their precise meanings until a concrete controversy arose, and when a controversy did arise, the analysis was often influenced by people's political interests as much as by their honest constitutional understanding."

Heritage also goes on to explain fully that there are certain established 'rules' and 'exceptions' where free speech is concerned which have developed largely over the past century.

Free speech guarantees restrict only government actions against such, not those of private employers, churches, universities, private home or property holders, and others. You can't put a sign up in your office cafeteria calling the boss an idiot, get fired over it, and claim some alleged free speech protection of your job.

In placing restrictions on government actions limiting free speech, that protection extends not only against federal government, but also to state and local governments, and all branches of the same. These protections are extended not only to traditional speakers and writers, to formal newspaper columnists for instance, but also to regular individuals as they communicate messages through such mediums as the Internet.

The issue has come to light recently with an incident generally involving members of my own Philadelphia Police Department. A police sergeant created a website on his own time, which he operated on his own time, popularly known as "Domelights" by it's users. The site was set up to provide vital information to officers as well as to allow communication and expression for those officers. To that expressive/communicative end, the site provided message boards covering a variety of topics.

One of the most popular of these message boards was named 'Philly Blue', intended to be populated by police officers commenting on issues involving law enforcement in general and the PPD in particular. I posted on Domelights as a regular for years, though ultimately much less frequently, using 'The Big Irish' as my screen name identity. Despite this anonymous name, everyone knew who I was. I never hid it, frequently advertised it, and made my identity available on the site's biographical information records for any member to view.

Problems always existed on Domelights due to the anonymous status of the vast majority of posters, many of whom took 'pot shots' at the department in general, it's policies and programs, and at times even at specific individual officers, supervisors, and managers.

The site has currently been shut down, temporarily restricted from accessibility due to a court proceeding. The site and it's owner found itself in court proceedings when a law suit was filed by the Guardian Civic League, an organization representing black police officers, alleging racism and other activities that it deemed libelous and possibly illegal coming from the message board posters.

I personally believe that this charge is frivolous. There were undoubtedly some posters at Domelights who were racists, just as they exist in society. And there was definitely a major flaw in the Domelights system with the anonymous status of the posters encouraging some folks to say anything inflammatory or irresponsible. But again, these are my personal opinions.

The problems at Domelights led to my own decreased visits and participation, but I would vehemently disagree that the site, it's owner, or it's board participants are institutionally racist or encourage illegal actions. It is what it is, a loosly monitored anonymous message board directed towards a specific target audience that make up the vast majority of its viewers and posters. Those suing Domelights simply don't like what is being said there at times. I believe they will ultimately lose the court fight, and we will see the return of the site in it's entirety, or with slight modifications.

Many have a hard time accepting that free speech guarantees extend to conduct that is "conventionally understood as expressive", according to Heritage. This includes things like wearing an armband, carrying a flag, and even burning of a flag extending into expressions of good and evil, with no exceptions even for things like radical Islam, Nazism, or so-called 'hate speech' expression. To quote the Heritage writers, "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea."

There are, however, universally accepted and court decision-backed exceptions to free speech. You may not speak to incitement, meaning your speech cannot be likely to cause people to engage in imminent unlawful conduct. You cannot give a street corner speech rabidly inciting folks to turn over cars, shoot police officers, and burn down buildings.

You cannot make false statements of fact that are 'knowing lies', though some such instances have been protected while some even 'innocent mistakes' have been punished by the courts. You cannot make statements that are reasonably perceived as threats of violence, and you cannot use 'fighting words' addressing individuals in face-to-face situations. "I'm gonna blow your head off" or "I'm gonna kick your a*s" or "Your wife is a dirty ho" are examples that could be punishable by law.

You cannot participate in expression through obscenity or child pornography. The obscenity standard has been particularly strongly debated. Hard-core pornography is indeed punishable under certain guidelines, but those guidelines remain hotly debated and seem to constantly shift in practice. As for child pornography, courts only restrict the actual use of a child, not the presentation of a person as a child. So using a younger looking 18-year old girl in a movie that presents her as a 12-year old, one in which she has sexual relations, does not violate child pornography laws.

There are restrictions relating to the use of owned property, so-called 'intellectual property' laws for things like copyrighted information in music lyrics and formally published books and periodicals. However, these restrictions do not extend generally to things like facts and ideas. No one can legally monopolize an idea as their own.

There are restrictions on 'commercial advertising' which address things such as businesses having to make 'disclaimers' ("this pill may result in seizures and even death in some cases - check with your doctor before using"), but this does not extend to political advertising, meaning basically that politicians can exaggerate or mislead, but business cannot. It is directed towards speech that "proposes a commercial transaction", protecting the consumer. Shame that we don't rate voters as highly as product consumers where advertising protection is concerned.

We need to mind that all free speech protections extend to us as citizens from the government "acting as sovereign" but do not extend necessarily to that same government acting as an employer, educator, property owner, or regulator of the television and radio airwaves. The rules for these types of situations are so numerous that Heritage equates them to trying to understand the tax code.

The bottom line is that when speaking, be it in a public forum or in private conversation; whether on a street corner, a stage, or in an Internet chat room or message board; whether addressing a political or social or personal issue; in any event under any circumstances to any audience, it is always recommended to know your audience and know what you are talking about, and use a measure of common sense, respect, and even discretion in what you communicate.

Our Founding Fathers did indeed incorporate the idea of freedom of speech into the First Amendment of the Constitution, and not just they but all following generations of Americans have understood this idea as a basic right. What has been and likely always will be less 'basic' is the interpretation of restrictions and exceptions to speaking your mind freely.

At some point when I was a young boy, I learned that Bobby Kennedy and I had shared the same birthday. This was in the early 1970's, when I was about 11 or 12 years old. At that point I really had no idea who he was, or that he had an older brother who had been an American President who had also been assassinated.

I actually do have a childhood memory of the 1968 U.S. Presidential election. I have a memory of living on American Street in South Philly, and most of the families that lived around us rooting for the Democratic Party candidate, Hubert H. Humphrey, to win the election against Republican Party candidate Richard M. Nixon.

While I didn't understand politics on any level, I sensed a strong 'vibe' from the adults both in my own family and my friends' families that this was a big deal. It was important in some way. It mattered. And since my people were rooting for Humphrey, well then, so was little soon-to-be 7 years old Matt Veasey.

As history tells us, Humphrey lost. I actually remember having the feeling for the first time in my young life of disappointment. I had no clue how all of the people around me could possibly be rooting for someone and expecting them to win, and then having that person lose. It just did not compute in my young mind, and I was disheartened.

Of course, as I said, I was about to turn 7 years old in just a few weeks. Between my birthday coming up, then Christmas, and the early months of 2nd grade at Our Lady of Mount Carmel catholic school with the gorgeous Ms. Sarah Hillock as my teacher, there was plenty to distract me in short order and take my attention away from a silly election.

Despite having that impression of the 1968 election, I have no first-hand memory of the vital national events that had happened earlier that same year with first the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and then of Robert Kennedy. It was only by somehow randomly stumbling upon the fact of our shared birthday a few years later that I began my own infatuation with the Kennedy's that would last for decades.

I began by going to my local library, and taking out and reading a book on RFK's life. I honestly don't recall which book it was, just that the impression left on my pre-teen mind was that it was a substantial book, a 'hardcover', which I had not read many of to that point, with lots of pages and pictures.

That book was also the likely beginning of a love affair that continues to this day, one that I have with non-fiction books, especially histories and biographies. I read and learned about both Bobby and his life and assassination, but also about his brother John, who had actually been President, and John's own assassination

This initial reading of the Kennedy brothers led me to become interested and pursue reading about JFK, Jackie, and 'Camelot', the nickname given to his brief Presidential term. Much of what I read made heroes of the two men, and I took on a popular belief of the times that JFK had been the victim of a conspiracy. No way could a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, have pulled off the murder alone.

All of this pursuit of knowledge about the lives of JFK, RFK and their families and times came over the course of my later grade school years and through my high school years. I had also, of course, learned that they had a younger brother, Edward 'Ted' Kennedy who had followed his brother's paths into politics.

In November of 1979 I turned 18 years old, and so the following spring, in May of 1980, for the first time ever was allowed to vote in a Presidential election. I was a Democratic Party loyalist and socially liberal idealist in those days, and so I was registered with and would be voting in the primary for the Democratic Party candidate.

The leading candidate for the Democratic nomination was the current President of the United States, Jimmy Carter. A peanut farmer and former Governor of Georgia, Carter had a largely disappointing first term, and was being considerably weakened by a foreign affairs crisis in which radical Islamists had taken American citizens hostage in Iran.

Incredibly for me, especially considering my now fully developed admiration of the Kennedys, his leading opponent would be that younger Kennedy brother Ted. Just weeks before the Pennsylvania primary, Kennedy actually came to Philadelphia and made a downtown lunch-hour speech right near my workplace. I was able to slip out of my office at First Pennsylvania Bank and attend the speech in person, standing just feet from the stage.

When the date of April 22nd, 1980 rolled around, I slipped behind the curtain of my local polling booth where I was then living in suburban Prospect Park, PA and pulled the lever for Edward 'Ted' Kennedy. I remember being excited to have the opportunity to vote, but also of being completely satisfied by the experience thanks to the Kennedy factor.

On that day, Kennedy was indeed the winner, easily taking the Pennsylvania primary. He would also count wins in New York and California for his column. Unfortunately, it was Carter who would easily take the Dem Party nomination, eventually defeating Kennedy by a 51-38 margin in the popular vote and easily receiving the Party nomination at the convention.

Carter would go on to be crushed under the weight of a perceived weak response to the Iran-hostage crisis and by an economy crippled by oil shortages and inflation. Ronald Reagan swept into office and began what became known as the 'Reagan Revolution', with Republicans taking charge of Congress for the first time in decades.

As for me, I continued as a card-carrying liberal Democrat throughout the 1980's and into the early 1990's, and even after fully transforming into a conservative Republican while riding the wave of the Newt Gingrich led 'Contract With America', I still held the view that the JFK assassination was likely a conspiracy.

The beginning of the end of my Kennedy fandom had come some years earlier when I first began to learn about and read up on the incident at Chappaquiddick island. On July 18th, 1969 in the so-called 'Summer of Love', Ted Kennedy attended a party held on the small island which was attached to Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts.

The party was a reunion for some female members of his brother Bobby's campaign staff, including Mary Jo Kopechne who was just about a week shy of her 28th birthday. As the married Kennedy went to leave the party at around 11:15pm, he agreed to give Kopechne a ride back to her hotel. An off-duty sheriff saw them over an hour later stopped on a dark road. When he approached to see if they needed help, the car suddenly took off.

A short time later, Kennedy drove the car off a small wooden bridge and into Poucha Pond. He escaped the sinking vehicle and walked back to the party as Kopechne remained trapped inside, clawing at the inside of the roof of the sinking car. He later returned to his hotel room and went to sleep, never reporting the accident. A couple of fishermen discovered the submerged car the following day.

I had never heard of this incident as a child, and never researched it as a young adult. It was only further along in my adult life that I learned of all the details in what amounted to a drunk driving episode in which Kennedy's female passenger, with whom he was likely engaging in some type of extra-marital sexual conduct, had been killed.

His culpability in the incident was largely covered up by his family's wealth and power, though the incident did derail expected 1972 and 1976 runs for the Presidency. It wasn't just Chappaquiddick, but numerous other Teddy drunken transgressions that emerged in my consciousness. During the 1990's I also became aware of numerous chinks in the 'Camelot' armor as well, as sensational stories of John and Bobby involving Marilyn Monroe and others emerged.

When the motion picture 'JFK' was released in 1991, I saw the Kevin Costner vehicle as proving, at least reinforcing, all of my Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories and beliefs. Those would be quickly dispelled as reports came out refuting much of the film's historicity. The final nail in the coffin of those conspiracy theories was my reading of the Gerald Posner book 'Case Closed', which completely dismantled all of those theories and leaves you understanding with no doubt that Oswald did indeed act alone.

The bottom line is that the Kennedy's had evolved, or perhaps devolved, in my consciousness. From childhood and adolescent heroes they had become political icons in the idealism of my young adulthood. Finally, my own political conversion and intellectual development had led me to see them for what they truly were: flawed men.

There is nothing wrong with being a flawed man. Heck, I'm one, and so is any man or woman who is reading this piece. But when Edward 'Ted' Kennedy passed away last week at the age of 77, I felt little remorse for the man for whom I had cast my first-ever Presidential vote. I did not share even a little in the remembrances and platitudes being publicly heaped upon him in the media.

To me, Teddy Kennedy at the time of his death had become a bloated, pompous, lying, cheating, drunken jerk who kept his political power due to his family's fortune and power and by cow-towing to every liberal group that came down the pike. Worse yet, one who had gotten away with drunk driving and negligent homicide. And even worse yet, the vast majority of those feting him knew it and still applauded his life.

I will never dance on another man's grave. But for me, Ted Kennedy is no loss. What I can look back on as a true loss is that vote that I gave him nearly three decades ago. A vote that he got because others led me to believe he was something that he was not, as well as because I was willing to listen to those talking heads and misleading journalists and scribes.

The man who had become known over the years as 'The Lion of the Senate' will roar no more. The 'Lion' sleeps tonight. RIP, Ted Kennedy. RIP also to my own personal political innocence and naivete.

I know things have been getting really bad for the ultra-liberal Obama crowd lately, what with real Americans turning out in force and voicing their opinions loudly denouncing the President's policies at so-called 'town hall' meetings, particularly in regards to health care.

The policies instituted by the far-left, elitist Obama administration over the past six months have been staggeringly irrational and irresponsible, heaping tremendous debt on to the shoulders of our children and grandchildren, many of whom actually went out and voted for Obama with delusions of some non-specific "Hope" for some specious "Change".

Is this what they voted for, really? They actually want to be burdened for the rest of their lives by the tax bills, higher prices, and fewer jobs that are coming from these Obama policies?

Polls are beginning to show the truth. A new poll from Time magazine showed that 62% of Americans believe that health-care reform will raise costs in the long term, 65% believe reforms will make things more complicated for regular folks, and 56% believe it will result in less freedom in choosing doctors or health plans.

At the same time, research by Pollster.com, which compiles the numbers of various high-profile polls to get a more significant number, shows that overall support for President Obama, his "approval rating", is plummeting, down now to 52% from a high of 64% just six months ago. These are significant developments, and the Obama administration and the Democratic Party-controlled congress are feeling the heat.

In almost every mid-term election, the party in power loses seats, and in next year's 2010 congressional elections the Democrats are poised to continue this tradition. If the negativity surrounding the health-care reform issue, and the issues involving bailouts/stimulus plans continues with no significant turnaround in the overall economy, the Dems will pay a heft price in the voting booths next November.

Today on my way to work, I was doing what many Philadelphians do on our driving commutes. I was listening to KYW News Radio 1060am, Philly's only all-news station. One of the stories that came on sometime around 7:20am was regarding an alleged growing "problem" involving militias.

Now don't get me wrong, some militia groups across the country are extremist in nature, that much is for sure. But the tone and tenor of this broadcast piece involved how militia groups are not only growing, and that some may be militant, but the groups are also opposing President Obama's proposals on universal health care and other of his policies.

The piece went on to also state that much of this opposition is taking on a 'racial tone', though they failed to elaborate on what that meant.

This is where things are heading. The Left has a big time loser on it's hand in the health-care reform issue. Obama's effort to send his congressional minions out amongst the people and sell us on it's merits has failed miserably. So now it's come down to the usual tactics of fear and negativity association. Time to break out the bogeyman.

Universal health care is opposed by those crazy, gun-totin', anti-government, conspiratorial militias. They are all against the President because he is black and they are all racist whites. These are the people that are against President Obama and the rest of us forward-thinkers. Are you on our side? On the President's side? On the side of 'progress' over 'failed policies of Bush' and the past?

If your plan is going down in flames, all you need to do is mention 'Bush' or equate it with some other perceived bogeyman such as evil 'militia groups', and you can turn things around?

The liberal Left and their political puppets that make up the vast majority of today's Democratic Party need to wake up and realize that their President has gone too far with his socialist-inspired policies and programs. They need to stop blindly supporting him just because he has a 'D' before his name politically.

There are many good, strong Democratic politicians whose overall policies I may not agree with very often, but who would not be turning America into a shadow of its former greatness. Democrats need to recognize the direction that their "Change" vote is taking the country, and recognize the scare tactics their pols and political supporters in the media are trying to foist on them.

America is very much in danger, but that danger is not from militias, multinational corporations, Republicans, or angry Nazi mobs at town hall meetings. We are in danger of sinking under the weight of the tremendous debt load, individual taxation increases, government controls on private industry, and increased burdens on businesses that the Obama administration has wrought.

Take a good, long, hard look in the mirror, Democrats. The real bogeyman is right there looking back at you, and only you can stop him.

There is a very clear, tested, tried-and-true rule in evaluating how a political figure is viewed by the former mainstream media. The more the candidate embraces their own leftist political agenda, the more they like the candidate and shine a heavenly, positive light upon them. The more traditional the candidate, the more conservative, then the more they are feared and thus the more they are attacked.

There are few political figures that the left has feared more over the past year than Sarah Palin. It is very easy to spot their fear in the viciousness of their attacks on this wholly traditional and exceptional woman. From CBS to NBC, from the Huffington Post to NPR, no Republican politician has been slammed, sliced, diced, and dirtied more than her.

It was at about this time last year that struggling Republican presidential candidate John McCain announced that she would be his running mate as the Vice-Presidential candidate. At the time, few outside of her home state of Alaska, and hard core politicos, knew her. Within days she was a rock star.

The lefties were reeling as the 'hockey mom' from Wasilla took the nation by storm and energized the McCain campaign. The nation saw a regular person, a wife and mother who had taken on the Alaska political establishment and won. Palin rose like a meteor from city council in 1992 to mayor in 1996 to governor in 2006 to the VP nomination two years later.

To that leftist media she seemed to come out of left field, and they were dazed. It didn't take them long to figure out how best to approach this new problem, however. Attack, and attack hard, at any and all perceived or developed flaws in Palin's personal armor, her family, her business dealings. Anything that could even remotely be painted in a bad light would be, and would be with an entirely exaggerated slant.

The election was lost thanks to an excruciatingly lukewarm campaign run by John McCain. Sarah Palin, who so electrified the Republican National Convention in early September with her speech, was largely stifled, buried, and left miscast and misused. But before that happened we got to see that she was a true conservative with traditional American values, and she emerged from the McCain debacle as a serious 2012 contender in her own right.

Today, Sarah Palin begins the next phase of her public life after formally stepping down as the Governor of the State of Alaska. The media has continued to bash her over the head at every turn: alleged ethics charges in Alaska with no substance; a teenage daughter who gets pregnant and jilted; even the sudden resignation just 2 1/2 years into her Gubernatorial term.

What Sarah Palin has been subjected to both personally and politically in the past year would devastate many lesser people. It's no wonder that she would seek to take a break for herself and her family from the spotlight for awhile. But there is no doubt that she will emerge again. A book deal. A television program. And of course, 2011 will roll around and the serious campaigning will begin.

There are probably very few people, perhaps not even Sarah Palin herself, who know exactly what lies next, or what lies ultimately down the road, for the hockey mom from Wasilla. Though the constant political attacks have decimated her overall positive public approval rating, her rating remains higher than Democratic congressional head Nancy Pelosi, and she remains 3rd behind only the high-profile Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in Republican 2012 presidential preference polls.

One thing you can count on is that when this traditional, conservative politician and woman sticks her head out in public again the mainstream news media will be there waiting to bash that pretty head in with their clubs. They will be trying to strike her early and often. That is how much they fear her personality and her politics. And that is why so much of traditional America loves Sarah Palin.