Archive for the ‘Military’ Category

Christian Rout in the Culture War

Thursday, December 23rd, 2010

Christian Rout in the Culture War

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

By Patrick J. Buchanan

A Democratic Congress, discharged by the voters on Nov. 2, has as one of its last official acts, imposed its San Francisco values on the armed forces of the United States.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is to be repealed. Open homosexuals are to be welcomed with open arms in all branches of the armed services.

Let us hope this works out better for the Marine Corps than it did for the Catholic Church.

Remarkable. The least respected of American institutions, Congress, with an approval rating of 13 percent, is imposing its cultural and moral values on the most respected of American institutions, the U.S. military.

Why are we undertaking this social experiment with the finest military on earth? Does justice demand it? Was there a national clamor for it? No. It is being imposed from above by people, few of whom have ever served or seen combat, but all of whom are aware of the power of the homosexual rights lobby. This is a political payoff, at the expense of our military, to a militant minority inside the Democratic Party that is demanding this as the price of that special interest’s financial and political support.

Among the soldiers most opposed to bringing open homosexuals into the ranks are combat veterans, who warn that this will create grave problems of unit cohesion and morale.

One Marine commandant after another asked Congress to consider the issue from a single standpoint: Will the admission of gay men into barracks at Pendleton and Parris Island enhance the fighting effectiveness of the Corps? Common sense suggests that the opposite is the almost certain result.

Can anyone believe that mixing small-town and rural 18-, 19- and 20-year-old Christian kids, aspiring Marines, in with men sexually attracted to them is not going to cause hellish problems?

The Marines have been sacrificed by the Democratic Party and Barack Obama to the homosexual lobby, with the collusion of no fewer than eight Republican senators.

This is a victory in the culture war for the new morality of the social revolution of the 1960s and a defeat for traditional Judeo-Christian values. For only in secularist ideology is it an article of faith that all sexual relations are morally equal and that to declare homosexual acts immoral is bigotry.

But while this new morality may be orthodoxy among our elites in the academy, media, culture and the arts, Middle America has never signed on and still regards homosexuality as an aberrant lifestyle, both socially and spiritually ruinous.

To these folks, homosexuality is associated with a high incidence of disease, HIV/AIDS, early death, cultural decadence and civilizational decline. And no sensitivity training at Camp Lejeune is going to change that.

Behind these traditionalist beliefs lie the primary sources of moral authority for traditionalist America: the Old and New Testaments, Christian doctrine, natural law. Thomas Jefferson believed homosexuality should be treated with the same severity as rape.

And 31 consecutive defeats for same-sex marriage in state referenda testifies that Middle America sees the new morality as the artificial invention of pseudo-intellectuals to put a high gloss on a low lifestyle.

Not until recent decades have many in America or the West argued that homosexuality is natural and normal. As late as 1973, the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

Today, anyone who agrees with that original APA assessment is himself or herself said to be afflicted with a mental disorder: homophobia.

The world has turned upside down. What was criminal vice in the 1950s — homosexuality and abortion — is not only constitutionally protected, but a mark of social progress.

Yet, just as busing for racial balance led to violence, white flight and the ruin of urban schools, this social experiment is not going to be without consequences. And it is the military that will endure those consequences.

Yet, again, if we believe our armed forces to be the best in the world, why are we doing this, against the advice of countless senior officers and NCOs? What is the motivation other than the payoff of a campaign debt?

What happens now to Evangelical Christian and conservative Catholic chaplains who preach that homosexuality is a sinful and shameful practice? Will they be severed from the service as homophobes?

That cannot be far behind when the Family Research Council, a respected organization of religious and social conservatives that has fought the homosexual agenda from same-sex marriage to gay adoptions, has now been declared by the Southern Poverty Law Center to be a “hate group.”

The advance of what was once a radical agenda has accelerated.

In 2004, John Kerry may have lost Ohio and the presidency because same-sex marriage was on the ballot in almost a dozen states, bringing out committed social conservatives to the polls. Six years later, the gay rights agenda is imposed by Congress and Obama on the 82nd and 101st.

Let the reader decide if the direction America is headed in is toward those “sunny uplands,” or straight downhill.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Military, religion | No Comments »

Ft. Hood Tragedy – Call it what it is

Monday, November 16th, 2009

The following is a statement released by Retired Lt. Col. Allen West:

Allen West

This past Thursday 13 American Soldiers were killed and another 30 wounded at a horrific mass shooting at US Army installation, Ft Hood Texas. As I watched in horror and then anger I recalled my two years of final service in the Army as a Battalion Commander at Ft Hood, 2002-2004. 

My wife and two daughters were stunned at the incident having lived on the post in family housing.

A military installation, whether it is Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, or Coast Guard, is supposed to be a safe sanctuary for our Warriors and their families. It is intended to provide a home whereby our “Band of Brothers and Sisters” can find solace and bond beyond just the foxhole but as family units. 

A military installation is supposed to be a place where our Warriors train for war, to serve and protect our Nation. 

On Thursday, 5 November 2009 Ft Hood became a part of the battlefield in the war against Islamic totalitarianism and state sponsored terrorism. 

There may be those who feel threatened by my words and would even recommend they not be uttered. To those individuals I say step aside because now is not the time for cowardice. Our Country has become so paralyzed by political correctness that we have allowed a vile and determined enemy to breach what should be the safest place in America, an Army post. 

We have become so politically correct that our media is more concerned about the stress of the shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. The misplaced benevolence intending to portray him as a victim is despicable. The fact that there are some who have now created an entire new classification called; “pre-virtual vicarious Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)” is unconscionable. 

This is not a “man caused disaster”. It is what it is, an Islamic jihadist attack. 

We have seen this before in 2003 when a SGT Hasan of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) threw hand grenades and opened fire into his Commanding Officer’s tent in Kuwait. We have seen the foiled attempt of Albanian Muslims who sought to attack Ft Dix, NJ. Recently we saw a young convert to Islam named Carlos Bledsoe travel to Yemen, receive terrorist training, and return to gun down two US Soldiers at a Little Rock, Arkansas Army recruiting station. We thwarted another Islamic terrorist plot in North Carolina which had US Marine Corps Base, Quantico as a target. 

What have we done with all these prevalent trends? Nothing. 

What we see are recalcitrant leaders who are refusing to confront the issue, Islamic terrorist infiltration into America, and possibly further into our Armed Services. Instead we have a multiculturalism and diversity syndrome on steroids. 

Major Hasan should have never been transferred to Ft Hood, matter of fact he should have been Chaptered from the Army. His previous statements, poor evaluation reports, and the fact that the FBI had him under investigation for jihadist website posting should have been proof positive. 

However, what we have is a typical liberal approach to find a victim, not the 13 and 30 Soldiers and Civilian, but rather the poor shooter. A shooter who we are told was a great American, who loved the Army and serving his Nation and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) stating that his actions had nothing to do with religious belief. 

We know that Major Hasan deliberately planned this episode; he did give away his possessions. He stood atop a table in the confined space of the Soldier Readiness Center shouting “Allahu Akhbar”, same chant as the 9-11 terrorists and those we fight against overseas in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operation. 

No one in leadership seems willing to sound the alarm for the American people; they are therefore complicit in any future attacks. Our Congress should suspend the insidious action to vote on a preposterous and unconstitutional healthcare bill and resolve the issue of “protecting the American people”. 

The recent incidents in Dearborn Michigan, Boston Massachusetts, Dallas Texas, and Chicago Illinois should bear witness to the fact that we have an Islamic terrorism issue in America. And don’t have CAIR call me and try to issue a vanilla press statement; they are an illegitimate terrorist associated organization which should be disbanded. 

We have Saudi Arabia funding close to 80% of the mosques in the United States, one right here in South Florida, Pompano Beach. Are we building churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia? Are “Kaffirs” and “Infidels” allowed travel to Mecca? 

So much for peaceful coexistence. 

Saudi Arabia is sponsoring radical Imams who enter into our prisons and convert young men into a virulent Wahabbist ideology….one resulting in four individuals wanting to destroy synagogues in New York with plastic explosives. Thank God the explosives were dummy. They are sponsoring textbooks which present Islamic centric revisionist history in our schools. 

We must recognize that there is an urgent need to separate the theo-political radical Islamic ideology out of our American society. We must begin to demand surveillance of suspected Imams and mosques that are spreading hate and preaching the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic……that speech is not protected under First Amendment, it is sedition and if done by an American treason. 

There should not be some 30 Islamic terrorist training camps in America that has nothing to do with First Amendment, Freedom of Religion. The Saudis are not our friends and any American political figure who believes such is delusional. 

When tolerance becomes a one way street it certainly leads to cultural suicide. We are on that street. Liberals cannot be trusted to defend our Republic, because their sympathies obviously lie with their perceived victim, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. 

I make no apologies for these words, and anyone angered by them, please, go to Ft Hood and look into the eyes of the real victims. The tragedy at Ft Hood Texas did not have to happen. Consider now the feelings of those there and on every military installation in the world. Consider the feelings of the Warriors deployed into combat zones who now are concerned that their loved ones at home are in a combat zone. 

Ft Hood suffered an Islamic jihadist attack, stop the denial, and realize a simple point. 

The reality of your enemy must become your own. 

Steadfast and Loyal,

Lieutenant Colonel Allen B West (US Army, Ret) 

For more information on the attack go here.

For more information on the Jihad Connection go here.

More on the overlooked red flags.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Military, Terrorists | No Comments »

We have how many Vietnam vets?

Sunday, October 11th, 2009

From a Medal of Honor friend.  He’s involved in exposing phonies and wanna-was types. 
Interesting stats in view of the fact that recently it was reported that some 14 million people claim status of Vietnam vets, which exceeds the total of US military people who served everywhere on the planet in that period.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In case you haven’t been paying attention these past few decades after you returned from Vietnam, the clock has been ticking.  The following are some statistics that are at once depressing yet in a larger sense should give you a huge sense of pride.“Of the 2,709,918 Americans who served in Vietnam, Less than 850,000 are estimated to be alive today, with the youngest American Vietnam veteran’s age approximated to be 54 years old.”  How does it feel to be among the last third of all the Vietnam Veterans who served in Vietnam to be alive?  I don’t know about you guys, but it kind of gives me the chills.

Considering the kind of information available about the death rate of WWII and Korean War Veterans, publicized information indicates that in the last 14 years Vietnam veterans are dying at the rate of 390 deaths each day. At this rate there will be only a few of us alive in 2015.

These statistics were taken from a variety of sources to include: The VFW Magazine, the Public Information Office, and the HQ CP Forward Observer – 1st Recon April 12, 1997.STATISTICS FOR INDIVIDUALS IN UNIFORM AND IN COUNTRY

VIETNAM VETERANS
1.  9,087,000 military personnel served on active duty during the Vietnam Era (Aug  5, 1964 – May 7, 1975).

2   8,744,000 GIs were on active duty during the war (Aug  5, 1964 – March 28, 1973).

3.  2,709,918 Americans served in Vietnam, this number represents 9.7% of their generation.

4.  3,403,100 (Including 514,300 offshore) personnel served in the broader Southeast Asia Theater (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, flight crews based in Thailand and sailors in adjacent South China Sea waters).

5.  2,594,000 personnel served within the borders of South Vietnam (Jan. 1, 1965 – March 28, 1973). Another 50,000 men served in Vietnam between 1960 and 1964.

6. Of the 2.6 million, between 1-1.6 million (40-60%) either fought in combat, provided close support or were at least fairly regularly exposed to enemy attack.

7.  7,484 women (6,250 or 83.5% were nurses) served in Vietnam.

8. Peak troop strength in Vietnam: 543,482 (April 30, 1968).CASUALTIES


1. The first man to die in Vietnam was James Davis, in 1958. He was with the 509th Radio Research Station. Davis Station in Saigon was named for him.

2. Non-hostile deaths: 10,800
3. Total: 58,202 (Includes men formerly classified as MIA and Mayaguez casualties). Men who have subsequently died of wounds account for the changing total.

4. 8 nurses died — 1 was KIA.                                 
5. 61% of the men killed were 21 or younger.
6. 11,465 of those killed were younger than 20 years old.
7. Of those killed, 17,539 were married.
8. Average age of men killed: 23.1 years
9. Enlisted: 50,274 – 22.37 years

10. Officers: 6,598 – 28.43 years
11. Warrants: 1,276 – 24.73 years
12. E1: 525 – 20.34 years
13. 11B MOS: 18,465 – 22.55 years
14. Five men killed in Vietnam were only 16 years old.
15. The oldest man killed was 62 years old.

16. 2,709,918 Americans served in Vietnam, 58,202 were KIA for a percentage of .0214%.
17. 303,704 were wounded: 303,704. 153,329 were hospitalized.

18. 150,375 were injured requiring no hospital care.
19. 75,000 were severely disabled. 23,214 were 100% disabled. 5,283 lost limbs. 1,081 sustained multiple amputations.
20. Amputation or crippling wounds to the lower extremities were 300% higher than in WWII and 70% higher than Korea.
21. Multiple amputations occurred at the rate of 18.4% compared to 5.7% in WWII.
22. Missing in Action: 2,338
23. POWs: 766 (114 died in captivity)
24. As of January 15, 2004, there are 1,875 Americans still unaccounted for from the Vietnam War.DRAFTEES VS VOLUNTEERS


1. 25% (648,500) of total forces in country were draftees.

2. 66% of U.S. armed forces members were drafted during WWII).
3. Draftees accounted for 30.4% (17,725) of combat deaths in Vietnam.
4. Reservists killed: 5,977
5. National Guard: 6,140 served: 101 died.
6. Total draftees (1965 – 73): 1,728,344.
7. Actually served in Vietnam: 38%
8. Marine Corps Draft: 42,633.
9. Last man drafted: June 30, 1973.

RACE AND ETHNIC BACKGROUND


1. 88.4% of the men who actually served in Vietnam were Caucasian; 10.6% (275,000) were black; 1% belonged to other races.
2. 86.3% of the men who died in Vietnam were Caucasian (includes Hispanics); 12.5% (7,241) were black; 1.2% belonged to other races.
3. 170,000 Hispanics served in Vietnam; 3,070 (5.2% of total) died there.

4. 70% of enlisted men killed were of North-west European descent.
5. 86.8% of the men who were killed as a result of hostile action were Caucasian; 12.1% (5,711) were black; 1.1% belonged to other races.
6. 14.6% (1,530) of non-combat deaths were among blacks.
7. 34% of blacks who enlisted volunteered for the combat arms.
8. Overall, blacks suffered 12.5% of the deaths in Vietnam at a time when the percentage of blacks of military age was 13.5% of the total population.
9. Religion of Dead: Protestant — 64.4%; Catholic — 28.9%; other/none — 6.7%SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS


1. Vietnam veterans have a lower unemployment rate than the same non-vet age groups.
2. Vietnam veterans’ personal income exceeds that of our non-veteran age group by more than 18 percent.
3. 76% of the men sent to Vietnam were from lower middle/working class backgrounds.
4. Three-fourths had family incomes above the poverty level; 50% were from middle income backgrounds.
5. Some 23% of Vietnam vets had fathers with professional, managerial or technical occupations.
6. 79% of the men who served in Vietnam had a high school education or better when they entered the military service.  63% of Korean War vets and only 45% of WWII vets had completed high school upon separation.
7. Deaths by region per 100,000 of population: South — 31%, West –29.9%; Midwest — 28.4%; Northeast — 23.5%.DRUG USAGE & CRIME


1. There is no difference in drug usage between Vietnam Veterans and
non-Vietnam Veterans of the same age group.  (Source: Veterans
Administration Study)
2. Vietnam Veterans are less likely to be in prison – only one-half of one percent of Vietnam Veterans have been jailed for crimes.
3. 85% of Vietnam Veterans made successful transitions to civilian life.WINNING & LOSING


1. 82% of veterans who saw heavy combat strongly believe the war was lost because of lack of political will.
2. Nearly 75% of the public agrees it was a failure of political will, not of arms.HONORABLE SERVICE


1. 97% of Vietnam-era veterans were honorably discharged.
2. 91% of actual Vietnam War veterans and 90% of those who saw heavy combat are proud to have served their country.
3. 74% say they would serve again, even knowing the outcome.
4. 87% of the public now holds Vietnam veterans in high esteem.

INTERESTING CENSUS STATISTICS & THOSE TO CLAIM TO HAVE “BEEN THERE.”


1.  1,713,823 of those who served in Vietnam were still alive as of August, 1995 (census figures).
2.  During that same census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country was: 9,492,958.
3.  As of the current census taken during August, 2000, the surviving U.S. Vietnam Veteran population estimate is: 1,002,511. This is hard to believe, losing nearly 711,000 between ’95 and ’00. That’s 390 per day.
4.  During this census count, the number of Americans falsely claiming to have served in-country is: 13,853,027. By this census, FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE VIETNAM VETS ARE NOT.

5.  The Department of Defense Vietnam War Service Index officially provided by The War Library originally reported with errors that 2,709,918 U.S. military personnel as having served in-country.

6.  Corrections and confirmations to this erred index resulted in the addition of 358 U.S. military personnel confirmed to have served in Vietnam but not originally listed by the Department of Defense. (All names are currently on file and accessible 24/7/365).
7.  Isolated atrocities committed by American Soldiers produced torrents of outrage from anti-war critics and the news media while Communist atrocities were so common that they received hardly any media mention at all.

8.  The United States sought to minimize and prevent attacks on civilians while North Vietnam made attacks on civilians a centerpiece of its strategy.
9.  Americans who deliberately killed civilians received prison sentences while Communists who did so received commendations.
10.  From 1957 to 1973, the National Liberation Front assassinated 36,725 Vietnamese and abducted another 58,499. The death squads focused on leaders at the village level and on anyone who improved the lives of the peasants such as medical personnel, social workers, and school teachers. – Nixon Presidential Papers.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Military, Patriotism | No Comments »

Hostage Rescue at Sea? The REAL Story

Saturday, April 18th, 2009

This comes from a retired colonel that lives in DC … 

Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:1.  BHO (obama) wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL (development group/naval surface warfare center) teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.

2.  Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE (rules of engagement) that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in “imminent” danger

3.  The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction

4.  When the navy RIB (rigid inflatable boat) came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions.  As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

5.  BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams

6.  Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team commander finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage.  4 hours later, 3 dead raggies

7.  BHO immediately claims credit for his “daring and decisive” behaviour.  As usual with him, it’s BS (bull shit).

So per our last email thread, I’m downgrading Obama’s performace to D-.  Only reason it’s not an F is that the hostage survived.

Read the following accurate account.

Philips’ first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn’t worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country’s Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors — and none was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority — the president of the United States, Barack Obama — had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage’s life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates — and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief’s staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, would decide that any outcome other than a “peaceful solution” could possibly be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene-commander decided he’d had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage’s life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer — unnamed in all media reports to date — decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips’ back was a threat to the hostage’s life and ordered the NSWC team to take care of business.

Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in the dramatic rescue of an American hostage.

Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean and declared that the dramatic end to the standoff laid to rest questions of the inexperienced president’s toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin this success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is that nothing could be farther from the truth.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four day standoff between a ragtag handful of primitive malefactors with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Military, Obama | No Comments »

The Barbary Wars redux: Muslim terrorists at sea

Friday, April 17th, 2009

The Barbary Wars redux: Muslim terrorists at sea

13 April 2009: The mainstream media will not tell you that the recent attack against the U.S. merchant ship off the coast of Somalia was an act of Islamic terrorism, but it was, and it’s not new. Quite simply, the majority of Americans have forgotten U.S. history despite the presence of a large monument in front of the U.S. Naval Academy to remind us. That is the Tripoli Monument, the oldest military monument in the U.S., honoring the heroes of the First Barbary War.

Following the Revolutionary War, American commerce ships sailing in the open waters of the Mediterranean were being attacked and destroyed by Muslim pirates, led by the “Dey of Algiers,” the Islamic warlord ruler of Algiers. The Muslim pirates were vicious, taking the mostly Christian crews as hostages. At that time, America had no navy to protect the ships and was virtually powerless to fight against the savage attacks. In 1784, the Continental Congress negotiated with the four Barbary States of North Africa (Morocco, Tripoli, Algiers and Tunis) in an effort to stop the piracy. At first, America paid protection money – $18,000 a year – to allow our ships to proceed unmolested by the pirates of Barbary.

As demonstrated in this case, succumbing to the demands of extortion never works out very well. Those who extort always want more, and payment of protection money is always a sign of weakness.  Like today, the leaders of America in the late 1700’s tried to settle the piracy issue through diplomacy. As such, two American diplomats, Thomas Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and John Adams, the American ambassador to Britain, were dispatched to London in 1786 in an attempt to resolve the piracy issue. They met with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the “Dey of Algiers” ambassador to Britain. It was during that meeting in London when Jefferson asked the Muslim ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation they had virtually no contact with at that time.

The answer is as relevant today as it was in 1786 – perhaps even more so. Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja stated:

“Islam was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Sound familiar? In 1786, diplomacy could not resolve piracy on the high seas due to the religious motivation of the pirates. America paid the leaders of the Muslim pirates millions of dollars as protection money through 1801, until America, with Thomas Jefferson as President said “enough.” Not long after he was elected, he sent a group of American frigates to defeat the pirates. under the motto “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!” Our navy did so, and after winning numerous battles in North Africa through the heroic efforts of our men in uniform, the piracy against our ships stopped.

The tribute to the bravery of the men who fought in the battle of the first Barbary War standing in front of the U.S. Naval Academy should serve as a reminder to all Americans how to deal with Islamic piracy against U.S. ships.  Do our leaders have the same resolve, the same fortitude to deal with this problem as our forefathers did? They certainly showed us how, now all we have to do is follow their lead. The rest can be, as they say, history.

Tags:,
Posted in Military, Terrorists | 1 Comment »

THE AMERICAN LEGION STRONGLY OPPOSED TO PRESIDENT’S PLAN TO CHARGE WOUNDED HEROES FOR TREATMENT

Monday, March 23rd, 2009
THE AMERICAN LEGION STRONGLY OPPOSED TO PRESIDENT’S PLAN TO CHARGE WOUNDED HEROES FOR TREATMENT
 
Washington, D.C. (March 17, 2009) – News Alert from Congressman Jeff MillerPRNewswire-USNewswire/ —

The leader of the nation’s largest veterans organization says he is “deeply disappointed and concerned” after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

“It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan,” said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. “He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it.”

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, “This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ‘ to care for him who shall have borne the battle’ given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America’s veterans!”

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group’s early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, ” There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran’s personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable.”

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm’s way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran’s condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

“I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted,” said Commander Rehbein, “is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President’s financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

“I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining,” concluded the Commander.

SOURCE The American Legion

Tags:,
Posted in Liberal Agenda, Military | No Comments »