tv Justice With Judge Jeanine FOX News October 27, 2013 1:00am-2:01am PDT
hello and welcome to justice. i'm judge jeanine pirro. thanks for being with us. on tonight's snow, the disastrous obama care rollout. i'll talk to a congressman about what he plans to ask kathleen sebelius this week. and a murder indictment deep six by the d.a. the charge was never filed in the jonbenet ramsey case. corruption? a cover-up? and the mother of a bullied florida girl who committed suicide answers allegations made against her by of all people the sheriff. but first, to my open.
they are so thoughtful, understanding, considerate, and generous. the obama administration gives us six more weeks to sign up for health care before the penalty kicks in and they sick the i.r.s. after us. not because they couldn't get the website off the ground, not because they have no idea what they're doing as they burn through almost a billion taxpayer dollars, and not because two foreign companies had defaulted on their contracts. they are doing it because we are confused. they are doing it to clear up the timing confusion about the law. >> i appreciate the question because i know there was confusion last night. the individual mandate timeline has not changed. >> by the way, what made you think we were confused? did you take a poll? if so, you should have added a
throw-away question like, do we even want this law which no one can read, has read or even wants to read? now, i don't know about you, but i was real clear on the dates. there was october 1, december 15, january 1, what date was i con fused about? and you say we didn't get it? of course, we're just plain stupid. and how did you come up with six more weeks? did you pull the number out of a hat? or did you consult this guy? >> once a year in the eyes of the nation turn to this tiny town in western pennsylvania to watch a master at work, the master? punxsutawney phil. the world's most famous weatherman, the groundhog. >> i definitely see a shadow. sorry, folks! six more weeks of winter.
>> mr. president, with all due respect, six more weeks? now, i don't want you to treat me any better than anyone else. do what you do for yourself, federal employees, congress and your union friends. don't give me six more weeks. give me a damn waiver! and to top it off, your take no responsibility in administration says the delay is unrelated to the website problem. of course it is, so then why isn't the website working? why can't people sign up? now setting up a website isn't exactly rocket science. even my mom could buy a web address for $10 and have it up and running in an hour. no disrespect, mom. but mr. president, if you can get our phone records, listen to our conversations, get our passwords, read our e-mail, see
our pictures, track our social media and do the same to friendly world leaders who you're managing to infuriate all over the world and turn into enemies, why can't you get a website to work for your signature legislation? and with all due respect, mr. president, it's time to man up. roll up your sleeves, take responsibility and fix it! we're tired of the blame game! in fact, i'm surprised someone hasn't blamed george bush for this! it's everybody's fault but yours. admit it. your administration lied saying the website was ready to go live, but that's nothing new. in over his head how older lied to congress. susan rice lied about benghazi in that video. and clueless clapper lied when he said the nsa doesn't spy on
us. and those i.r.s.bozos lied about targeting your political enemies. and simple sebelius lied when she said, shutdown or no shutdown, we are ready to go. are they liars or just incompetent? and either way, why didn't you do anything? what's that? you didn't know? mr. president, you're a leader. when your stamp lies to congress or the american people, you need to step in and make it right. but what's that? you'll still hold everyone accountable? but when it comes to accountability, you talk a big game. >> there may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made. if that's the case, then we'll find out and we'll hold somebody accountable. when it comes to this issue, when i say that we're going to
find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable. with respect to the i.r.s., i spoke to this yesterday, my main concern is fixing a problem. >> and what's that? you're now bringing in the best? >> we've had some of the best i.t. talent in the entire country join the team and we're well into a tech search to fix the problem. and we are confident that we will get all the problems fixed. >> why the heck didn't you start with the best in the first place? why give foreign companies our contracts? might i have been right last saturday night? you know what i think the heart of all this is? it's all about money. and now, mr. president, we learn that the first lady's college classmate is senior vice
president at cgi, that canadian company with the french name that i can't pronounce that got the no bid contract to build the obama care website. now isn't that special? i'll tell you what would be special, if the american people could get the health care that you promised and keep our doctors and keep our health plans. you told us that would happen. >> first of all, if you've got health insurance policy, you like your doctor, you like your plan, you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. nobody is talking about taking that away from you. >> but millions of americans are losing their health plans because of obama care. and nobody is talking about taking that away from you? really? you're the one taking that away from us! with me now, media temple president and website expert, russell reader who joins us from
l.a., russell, thank you for being with us. a billion dollars and this is what we got. based on what you saw, do you even think they tested it? >> so good evening, thank you for having me. they obviously didn't test until the last few days. this is what we do at media temple. we have hundreds of thousands of customers with millions of websites, but i do want to point out one thing. everyone's saying this is a website issue, you made a great point, even your mother can set up a website. it's not too complex to set up a website. this is not just a website, this is, with all due respect, this is a several hundred million dollar project, whether it should be several hundred millions or tens of millions or a million, that is's for a different conversation that could take us all night, but the problem is that this is a massive project. it integrates the social security system, the i.r.s. system, it integrates to your credit bureaus, it integrates to other health care systems, state systems so this is a massive
system. you could have done it in less time, whether it was one year, two years, three years, they definitely had enough time. i think the major issue is it's not just the code, it's not just the java script or html on the website, the application or the interfaces to integrate to the back ones, it comes more -- it's project management. and a large project -- >> russell, you were asked to review this website yourself. when you first saw it, what did you think? >> so when we looked at it, we were asked to look at the website. we can only see the front end, right? so we can't go to the back end to look. so i had a number of our engineers at media temple roll up our sleeves and look. and what we found, it was -- it was sloppy. because there was test codes still in the website, so normally when you launch a website, you would take out all the test code, so all of those thousands of lines don't have to be delivered to the web browser.
when you deliver a website to a web browser, your machine, your computer, usually it's cache, so it wasn't taking advantage of that. there were programmers names still left in the code. and when we looked up the programmers and went to the web to find the programmers, they were new college graduates, obviously smart electrical engineers, but right out of school? they weren't web developers and hasn't made mistakes. >> well, russell, but when you look at it, do you say to yourself, wait a minute, this is hundreds of millions of dollars to this point? it's not working. you're seeing it sounds like elementary mistakes. do you say to yourself, you know, who is on first in this thing? >> without a doubt, right, judge. the problem is no one raised their hand and said, sorry, my system's working but we can't test it and integrate with your system. therefore, if it won't integrate, it won't work.
>> so then it's really a question of someone not taking charge of the pieces where everybody kind of got a piece of the action, so to speak, but no one had any really skin in this one. >> well, i think they had their own skin, right in you just saw the hearings where everyone raised their hand and said, my system worked, my system worked, my system worked, but they're on one team. that's like the quarterback saying he did his job and the offensive guard doing his job but you still lose the super bowl. >> you lose the super bowl and the coach generally gets fires, right, russell? >> that's right. >> thank you so much for being with us tonight. >> thank you, judge. all right. and coming up, the obama care disaster continues to unfold for americans. you won't believe what one small business own er says. and controversy over removing the phrase "so help me god" from its honoro.
the obama care fallout goes well beyond a failed website. millions of americans are losing their health care. with me, david mcarthur, co-owner of mcarthur's bakery in st. louis. and in studio practicing physician, dr. nina ratcliff. thank you both for being with us. david, i'm going to start with you, you have about 40 employees, and you pay their
health care premiums. what effect will obama care or does obama care have on you and your employees? >> well, the effect it has had already is the premiums skyrocketing in our case. so what we had to do is we could not afford the way the economy has been the last four years to absorb that cost, so you had to pass that cost along to the employee who is the life-blood of a small business. well, they couldn't afford it either, so what you ended up doing was taking at one time a really great policy and now you've knocked it down to where it's really a super high deductible policy with all these broken down deductibles. and it's a great policy if you don't get sick, if you don't have to see the doctor, if you don't have to go to the hospital, but you know, all of us who paid the bills before, god forbid we get sick now because we have to support the rest of the world. >> let me ask you this, how long have you been in business? >> 56 years. >> all right. and it's a small business, 40-some employees, and you kind of are like a family there?
>> oh, my god, i guess our longest employee there, robert, is my age, he started when he was 13. i'm 52. do the math, that's, what, 41 years? you know, and 20 of our employees are all across the board. ten-year employees are kind of the common. and you know the catch on this? most of them, a majority of our employees are moms. and who does it hurt the most? moms with kids. >> and so now i'm going to dr. ratcliff, what will obama care do to the medical profession in this country? >> doctors are worried sick because they don't know what this means. they are being asked to sign on the dotted line but not knowing what they're signing for. many of the doctors are small business owners and have to keep the lights on and pay their employees and don't know when they'll get reimbursed or if they will. shame on you, fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice. a lot of people don't want to be shamed. >> did you ever think you would be involved in as much paperwork
as it seems to be coming down the pike with this? >> absolutely not. most of my time is spent in paperwork just documenting for medical legal stuff. and then i have to submit insurance claims for it. if i'm not going to get paid on time or not getting paid appropriately, it becomes a nuisance. >> david, to go back to you, how has this affected your relationship with your employees or as a small business owner, you know, maybe wanting to go to the next level in hiring more than 50 employees, the magic number? >> well, we've got 42 that we've actually -- we almost have 100 employees but 42 full-timers on health care we pay. so no matter what, we're not going to open another store. there's no way. that's not going to happen, but you know what's funny, she was talking about the doctors, my lead shop man yesterday came in today and told me he went to see the doctor yesterday. his doctor just converted to the plan, $3,000 a year, he accepted no insurance. so the philosophy or what we were being told is you can keep
your insurance plan and your doctor, well, the insurance plans and the doctors are bailing out at a rate that we can't even judge right now. so who is going to be left to take care of us? >> well, you know what, that's a great question, david. to you, dr. ratcliff, we're bringing in all of these additional people, and there is no effort to increase the number of doctors and, in fact, this could be a disincentive to go to medical school to cover all the additional people. does that mean you spend less time on each patient? >> possibly. they didn't get their ducks lined up. they are selling a product without providing the service. it takes a decade to train doctors, so you can't snap your fingers or rub a magic ball to get more doctors. it takes an act of congress. congress has to vote to increase the training budget for physicians. it's $100,000 per physician, per year. and it takes at least three years to train a physician. >> well, i'll tell you, it sounds like we've got a lot more hurdles to jump. all right, david and dr. nina ratcliff, thank you so much for being with us tonight. >> thank you, appreciate the
opportunity. >> all right. coming up, health care honcho kathleen sebelius under fire for the disastrous obama care rollout. will she be leaving this administration any time soon? and later, you're not going to believe this one, the sheriff in the florida bullying case now is pointing the blame at the victim's mother?
responsibility and blame others. with me, former doctor and present texas congressman michael burgis joining me, we'll hear from sebelius next week. congressman, thank you for being with us. no one accountable, should secretary sebelius resign? >> well, i'll tell you what, i'm going to hold on that for a few days because we do have her coming to our committee, but you do have to ask yourself after that comment that she made at the start of the segment, what is she thinking? who does she think she works for? she works for the american people, and they don't seem very happy with her performance right now. >> you know what, it is not just her performance, it is saying shut down or no shut down, we are ready to rock and roll. and i had that russell reeder on in the beginning of the show, and he says, you know, they still had the sample questions
in there with the names of the people. it sounds like grade school. it sounds like, you know, internet 101. what are you going to ask the secretary next week, though, congressman? >> well, judge, i'll ask the same question that you posed at the top of your show. when you came into this committee before, and you told us time and again that you would be ready on october 1st, were you just simply misleading us on purpose or were you really that astonishingly incompetent? and that's the fundamental question that needs to be answered. the other thing that came up with the hearing with the contractors last week was there was a major change order that went in literally at the 11th hour before this thing was switched on, and it rendered it absolutely unworkable. and what that change-order came to was there was no browsable function left in the website. you couldn't go and see what the cost of the plans were without putting in a lot of personal data. it wasn't supposed to work like that. the contractors had to go in and
make this change, presumably at the request of secretary sebelius, but why did you not want people to see what the actual cost was going to be without the subsidy? i've got to believe that the rate shock was something that they truly feared and that people would not sign up. then you get into the problems of adverse selection. your doctor who you had on is exactly right, january 1st, there's going to be a big problem with paying doctors. if they don't get the website problem fixed at some point or fixed enough at some point that we'll stop talking about it, but the cost a year from now is going to be absolutely stunning. >> and, you know, doctor, you know better than anyone else that privacy, the hipa laws are so important, and as soon as you sign up just to browse, sign on to browse, it says, do you agree to waive your privacy? do you agree that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy? i mean, how can they say that on this website and still say that they're delivering us private
health care? it can't be. >> it's a conflict of terms. you know, at some point, yes, you do have to waive some privacy to submit a medical claim to an insurance company. that does happen, but not just to buy the darn policy. that's what was so astonishing when chairman barton made that line known during the committee hearing. >> all right. and in july, congressman, last question, you said obama care was going to fail. if you knew, why didn't the white house know? >> look, everyone who sat in our committees, i mean, i asked, please answer a yes or no question of mr. cohen in charge of this whole thing, is this thing going to work on october 1st? he wouldn't answer the question on september 19th. they knew it wasn't going to work, for some reason they decided to bluster through, blame bush or republicans, i don't know, but that seems to be the mantra right now. >> congressman, it's like in my courtroom, answer the question, yes or no. maybe you guys need a judge down
there. anyway, congressman burgess, i'm going to be there on wednesday. thanks for joining us tonight. >> great, judge, thank you. coming up, the kennedy cousin convicted of killing his neighbor with a golf club. he's getting another shot at freedom. why? and a grand jury indicts jonbenet's parents, but the district attorney never bothered to file an indictment. was there a cover-up? that's next.hed.
>> alfridi risked his life by trying to track down bin laden. now justice. it's been 17 years since jonbenet ramsey was murdered and left in her family's basement. and now for the first time grand jury documents reveal they recommended charges against her parents, including act sisz racy to murder. but they decided not to file the bill. with me is fox news contributor,
dr. michael bob. steve, what could this d.a. have been thinking? now, you worked in my office when i was a d.a., if you went to the grand jury and dot the indictment and nixed it, i would have fired you. >> i'm sure that the d.a. would have made the decision, this was not made by the person who entered in the evidence to the grand jury. so i think you probably would have cleared that first before i made a statement in that regard. however, they presented all the information they had, all the evidence to the grand jury, which they normally don't have to do in these type of cases, normally you put forward just your strongest information, strongest evidence, that's enough to secure an indictment. probably what happened is they got the indictment, but after the prosecutor had the opportunity to see all the evidence, realized, you know what? this is never going to get beyond a reasonable doubt. >> you know why this makes no sense? why do you ask the grand jury to vote on the indictment? and i've got right here a true bill, signature retracted, they
placed her in a situation which posed a threat of injury to her life or health which resulted in her death. there are four counts like that, a true bill signed by the grand jury foreman. you're kidding! >> absolutely. and i think that was absolutely a mistake. however, they're the ones who have to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt. and after the grand jury voted to true bill, if they decide not to go forward with that, they are going to make their best decision, the sooner the better. >> have you ever heard of that being done? >> i have not. >> i have never, and i've been in this business a long time. >> it's highly unusual. >> to me it's more than unusual, there's a lot going on there. dr. bob, you know the jonbenet ramsey case very well. it's been 17 years. is there anything that we can look at now, knowing now that a grand jury looked at the evidence and wanted an indictment, but the d.a. wouldn't go with it. what could give us more information? >> the only thing that could probably give us more information is have a further look at the clothing, exhuming the body would probably not
yield any meaningful evidence at this stage, but the clothing, which should still have been preserved, might be more easily looked at. henry lee had looked at the panties at one time, the forensic scientist, and found the foreign dna but attributed it to people who handled the panties in packaging it or washing it and then folding it. >> but are you saying that technology is advanced so now if we look at her panties we may be able to find something more indicative of who the killer was? and by the way, what's with these d.a.'s, you have alex hunter who won't take it to court. then you've got mary lacey who is dragging in that guy from hong kong or thailand. remember that one? to charge him with the death? >> mary lacey apparently was looking, did not think the parents had anything to do with the death and arrested this guy in thailand and released him, it
was a waste of a lot of taxpayers money, but -- >> you know what's telling to me, doctor, is that the grand jury said that the ramseys did assist someone after the death. >> this reminds my, i had a case once a while ago, a child abuse case, and when the mom and the dad wouldn't, each accuse the other of doing the injuries, here that's not the case, and they indicted both of them and said, one of them did it and one of them is covering it up. otherwise they both go free. >> right, i've had cases like that as well where you've got to get one to implicate the other. anyway, we're going to move on to the kennedy cousin who was in prison for killing his neighbor in 1975. he gets a new trial, a jury convicted him in 2002. he's right there, michael skakely for the murder of martha moxley. they were both 15. the judge says he gets a new trial based on incompetence of
counsel. how rare is that one? >> that's very rare as well. they already tried to appeal this on different grounds, which actually seemed to be, at the time, stronger arguments. one of which was jurisdiction in regards to whether or not he should have been tried as a juvenile because -- >> he was 15 at the time of the crime. >> he was 15 at the time, and really the reason they gave for that was they simply couldn't accommodate him at this older age. meanwhile, what that did is exposed him to an additional approximate 16 years in prison because of the fact the state couldn't properly accommodate him after he was convicted. >> this is rarely used as a basis. >> it is always used as a basis, but never successfully used. >> by the judge, i meant. and the yunlg is saying, you should have blamed your brother. really? there's no burden of proof on the part of the defendant, judge. by the way, you were consulted on this case. >> yes, in 1975, when this occurred, the greenwich police came to my office when i was deputy chief medical examiner in
new york city to go over the findings, especially as the cause of death caused by injuries from a broken golf club and the time of death. and time of death set at 9:30 to 10:00 at night where other forensic pathologists who also looked at it agreed with that. and the problem is that the bishop was concerned that he had an alibi, this guy, michael had an alibi for that time, which was not checked out. and all that. and at that time, the police, the greenwich police, listed some people they were concerned about and suspicious about. michael skakel wasn't one of these people. he only comes up later when a drug addict implicates him and drug addicts lie. >> all right. doctor baden and steve, thank you so much. and stick around, coming up we'll have the mother of the teen bullied to death in flor a florida, accused. she joins us after the break.
committed suicide last month. or did she? and in a shocking facebook message released yesterday, one of the two florida girls accused of cyber bullying wrote, quote, no one will every r ever know the truth because rebecca, quote, went to hell. could this 12-year-old have been murdered? with me, rebecca's mother, pa trish that norman and her attorney from tampa. thank you so much for being with us. and tricia, our condolences to you on your daughter. >> thank you. >> sheriff jud said that your daughter grew up in a disturbing environment. how did you feel when you heard that, trisha? >> she didn't have a disturbing environment. we were very close. she was happy. the only thing that she was unhappy with as far as her life
was her father was not, he did not play an active role in her life. >> but before this bullying, she didn't have any of the, any of the emotional problems that the school saw and you saw when she was in middle school and these two girls went after her. >> i didn't understand that question. >> in other words, did rebecca have any emotional problems before the actually bullying? by the other two girls? >> no. >> all right. >> no, none at all. >> okay, so why do you think the sheriff would say that about you? >> i don't think he was saying that about me. >> that she had a disturbing home environment? >> it wasn't the home environment living with me, like i said, it was about her biological father not being a part of her life. >> all right. and let me go to your attorney, then, you are now considering filing charges or filing a lawsuit against the two girls
who bullied rebecca, is that correct? >> that is correct, but actually we are looking at more than just the two girls. we have information that there was as many as 15 girls involved in the bullying. so we're looking at a number of people in addition to the two girls who have been arrested. >> and the facebook posts that no one will ever know the truth because she's in hell, what does that tell you? either one of you, mom, what does that tell you? >> i don't know. i'm leaving it up to the detectives to investigate that. >> all right. all right. thank you so much, and we're going to be following this one, tricia and david, thanks for being with us. >> thank you for having us. steve reiser is back with us along with chief hartnett, there
are suggestion that is rebecca was pushed off the tower and may not have committed suicide. what do you do now? >> well n this case, the sheriff's office seems to be adament that these two women are ruled out as suspects, but i hope they look at the larger circle that if there's some question that it is not a suicide, that all the leads are being tracked down. i assume that's being done. >> and the whole idea of the sheriff even discussing the girl's environment after he was so public, this sheriff judd, he was so public about making the bullies accountable and we're going to bring charges against them. and then to comment on her upbringing, is that -- >> it's confusing. the sheriff in this case has a reputation of being somewhat candid with the media. in fact, i find him refreshing away from the norm. he seems to be passional when speaking to the media. i hope in this case his remarks are being taken out of context. i don't understand why he went
into such detail about the living conditions, the sleeping arrangements. >> irrelevant detail to be honest with you, that she didn't have a bed, specifically, she slept on a recliner. steve, what do you think of all this? >> honestly, i believe that the sheriff, while he may be candid, is also seemingly enjoying himself too much in the spotlight. i think he's just simply saying too much. i think at some point he should just back away from this edge let the state attorney handle this case from here. he's made a lot of very inappropriate statements. >> like what? >> well, number one, what we've already discussed, which absolutely is out of left field. number two, when he said he was not going to follow-up on any of these leads that where this girl is now saying on the internet, in this forum, that possibly she may have been involved in a murder instead of a suicide. and he's basically blowing that off and saying, no, no, no, no, we're not going to go down that road. well, you have to go down that road. and you have no reason to say you won't because now you have new information that you must react to. the other thing that he said, which was very inappropriate,
was about jose beyes coming into this case and calling him out to say he shouldn't allow his client to plead not guilty to these charges. that's ridiculous. is he the attorney too? i don't think so. >> chief, all right, deputy chief nypd, a police commissioner yonkers, new york, i mean, when you get this kind of information and you look at the bigger circle, there's no question this girl was bullied. and bullied to the point where she was beat up in school, she slit her own wrists, i mean, they literally terrified this girl. she had no peace. and she was 12 years old. but now for them to be so cold, not just about she's dead, so what? but she went to hell. and the suggestion that it might have been a murder, you don't just look for more people to charge with bullying. >> no. in this case, as the attorney mentioned, it could be a circle of 10, 12, a whole group of 15 mean girls, so to speak, and i
would hope that good detectives would get the young ladies with their parents and following the rules of the constitution and start tracking down where they were when this lady met her death. >> yeah, that was the top of, i believe a tower of a closed cement factory, was it? sad, very sad. you know, i've seen a lot of suicides as a d.a. and a judge, but that's a very unusual way to die for a 12-year-old girl. >> my thoughts exactly. >> climbing all the way up to the top of a closed cement tower, not something ain't right there in river city. steve and edmond, thank you so much for being with us tonight. and coming up, why "so help s oath? is now optional in the the controversial details are next. and it's your last chance to vote in our instapoll. do you think the air force academy should remove "so help me god" from its honor oath? facebook or tweet me @judgejeanine.
female narrator: the mattress price wars are on the mattress price wars are on at sleep train. we challenged the manufacturers to offer even lower prices. now it's posturepedic versus beautyrest with big savings of up to $400 off. serta icomfort and tempur-pedic go head-to-head with three years' interest-free financing. plus, free same-day delivery, set-up, and removal of your old set. when brands compete, you save.
the air force is making god optional. the so-called military religious freedom foundation can remove the phrase, "so help me god" from the oat. they announced their decision friday. the phrase will now be optional. with me, retired air force pilot and american hero, scott o' grady. you are behind enemy lines before being rescued. do you think god should be optional in that oath? >> i don't think we should break from the tradition of 30 years
with the honor code where the air force academy has had the end where the cadets say, "so help me god." it's in line with the oath every service branch makes when they put their hands and swear an oath to defend the united states constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. at the end of the oath, they state, "so help me god." i think it's political correctness that's gone amok. it's fear mongering. the group protesting on the argument of separation of church and state, they are titled the military religious freedom foundation. they are anything but about freedom. >> what are they about? >> they want to take god out of everything. that's an atheist viewpoint. it's a minority viewpoint where
80% of americans believe there's a god. this oath doesn't ask a cadet to swear an oath to a religion,itis asking them to say that they are going to swear an oath of honor and it's not just before the people that they are swearing the oath to. they are going to be held accountable to god. if we look at the establishment of our country, we are a judao-christian country. it's the laws and morality that made this country so great. if you look at every -- >> scott, what you are saying is, the majority of americans and i'm going to announce the instapoll in a second, shouldn't we be able to do what we want? why is there a kowtowering to this organization? >> they are just starting off at
a academy. they are wanting to go after the commissioned officers oath. if you look at the tradition of the presidency of the united states, since the very beginning, george washington swore with his hand on the bible. traditionally every president has. even this current president, in his first inauguration swore with his hand on two bibles. at the end of the oath, he said so help me god. >> scott, thanks so much for being with us. you are a true american hero. thanks and god bless you. >> god bless you. >> we asked should they remove "so help me god." over 12,000 answers. 99% believe they should keep it. >> why? is the air force academy going communist? george sums it up best. absolutely not, nowhere is god