I saw that too lol..... Auto correct can be a bitch!

All members of the military, past and present, have taken an oath to protect and defend the constitution.

The primary function of the constitution is to limit the power of government. This is accomplished by placing limits on the authority of the offices of government so when someone assumes that office, his powers are already limited by the powers of that office.

Therefore, any power not articulated in the constitution as being a power given to a particular office then does not exist for that office.

This is also why the Constitution gives us the actual oath of office that every elected representative must take prior to assuming office. Our founding fathers did not want this oath of office to be easily changed for political reasons, so they locked the oath of office into the text of the constitution itself. Therefore, if the oath of office was ever to be changed, that change could only be accomplished by the formal process of a constitutional amendment.

Finally, this is also why taking that oath of office is a Constitutionally mandated step that must be met as a condition of assuming office. If you do not take the oath, you cannot assume office.

So why is this oath so important and why was it so strongly protected?

This oath makes those elected to represent the people swear on their honor to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath is not referring to enemies of state such as a foreign power, but rather an enemy of the Constitution such as an elected official giving himself powers that are not granted to his office by the Constitution.

When an elected official assumes power that is not granted by the Constitution, then he is committing a very serious and illegal act. First, he violates his own oath of office to follow the constitution which limited his power in the first place. Second, he also violates the constitution by assuming powers not granted by the Constitution.

In short, this office holder then becomes an enemy of the Constitution when he takes to his office
powers not granted to his office by the constitution. When that occurs, by thoughtful design of the founding fathers, it is then incumbent upon all members of Congress and everyone else that has taken an oath to protect the Constitution to rise to the occasion, give honor to their oath and protect the Constitution and return the rule of law to the republic. That is what protecting the constitution is all about. It means to protect the rule of law from the rule of men.

The founding fathers made this very clear when they made protecting the Constitution the only task for
which a member of congress ever takes an oath to do. Everything else then is secondary to protecting the constitution.

Therefore, when a member of Congress fails to live up to that oath of office, then that member of congress
has by design of the founding fathers violated his own oath of office, and therefore has also violated the Constitution itself, because the constitution is the source of the oath of office that is being violated by failing to protect the constitution from its enemies.

This was and is the genius of the founding fathers as they tried as best they could to protect our freedoms.

We therefore should not take lightly the extremely poor performance of the currently sitting members of
congress as to protecting our constitution. It all comes down to a lack of honor among those sent to
Washington to hold office. For without honor, their oath of office is meaningless.

It appears Thomas Jefferson was very cognizant of this weakness when he so clearly stated: “The tree of
liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

There are very clear choices as to how the constitution is to be protected. Congress can give honor to their oath of office and set aside their petty party issues and protect the Constitution, or Congress can fail in what is their singular primary mission which is also the only task members of congress take an oath and swear on their honor they will do.

When members of congress violate this solemn pledge, then others must step forward and protect the
constitution. One way or another, the rule of law has to be restored. The Republic, above all else, must survive, even if as Jefferson stated, survival means the spilling of blood of patriots and tyrants. If that ever happens, it will be the fault of congress not honoring its oath of office and congress failing to protect the constitution.

So how the Constitution is ultimately protected is always up to the sitting members of Congress. They and they alone have the power to remove other members of congress from office for violating the constitution. Congress also has the power to remove a sitting president from office with the power to impeach a sitting
president. This too is by design of the founding fathers of our Republic.

No one can be allowed to be above the law.

Our founding fathers meant for the Constitution to be followed for all times. They are the ones that founded club USA and we are simply current members of that club subject to the rules they setup
until such time as we need to change the rules following the process our founding fathers gave us to do so. All else is not based in law.

President Lincoln stated our chances of keeping our republic very clearly when he stated the following:

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

So then why?

Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security, recently ordered its agents to break
the law by ordering ICE to no longer deport people here illegally as is currently required under Constitutionally enacted law. Exactly where in the Constitution does the Head of Homeland Security derive the Constitutional Authority to order agents to break the law?

Would someone in the press please ask Ms. Napolitano this question. And while you are at it, please ask the president why he is not required by his oath of office to make her stop this illegal activity or resign. And be sure to ask any member of congress how this is allowed to happen and why they have not put a stop to it. It is simply a lack of honor and nothing else.

Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House and president Obama offered representatives of the state of Louisiana a lower tax rate than that to be paid by other states to garner support for the Affordable
Health Care Act. In doing this, that president and Speaker of the House and others violated the Constitution that clearly states all states shall be taxed equally. Article 1 sec 8 …all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;…

By violating the Constitution, these individuals also violated their oath of office to follow the Constitution. Even though the Bill later written did not carry the language used by the president and the speaker, this does not take away the crime of trying to use their positions of power to get others to violate the Constitution.

Hank Paulsen as Secretary of the Treasury, recommended language in the TARP legislation that stated in his version of the bill ““Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

Hank Paulsen was acting outside the law and trying to get others to do likewise. Article III-Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution

Harry Reid has blocked the Senate from producing a budget resolution for the last three years. He does this in spite of the law. Harry Reid has no Constitutional authority to violate the Constitution by violating the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 which requires the House and Senate to adopt a budget resolution each year.

President Obama had an American citizen killed without due process of law as required by the 4^th,
5^th, and 14^th amendments to the constitution. There is simply no language in the constitution that gives the president the power to deprive a citizen of his life without due process, and since the entire purpose of the constitution was and still is to limit the power of the federal government, it would be a real stretch for the president or one of his supporters to make the claim that his authority to do something like this comes from some other source other than the constitution.

So why does the press not ask the president where his authority came from to order a citizen killed
without due process?

Why have we also not heard the press ask the president why he violated Article II – Section 3 … he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.

He has violated this by allowing Senator Reid to be above the law, and allowing Ms. Napolitano and many
others to be above the law. Neither Nixon nor Clinton was allowed to be above the law. Nixon was impeached for trying to hide a burglary. Clinton was impeached for perjury and as a result, lost his license to practice law. Neither was allowed to be above the law. So why is Obama different?

Consider:

Arrticle II – Section 1 referring to the President of the United States

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Obviously, stepping outside the bounds of the constitution to give himself powers not granted by the constitution is a violation of his oath of office to follow the constitution. The same is true when he allows members of his administration or other members of his party to ignore the constitution. this is also a violation of his oath of office.

Consider: Article 3 - Section. 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or
in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.. No Person shall be convicted of Treason
unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Testimony surely requires the involvement of the judicial process, not two unnamed CIA agents telling the
president to put a citizen on a kill list, which is what was done. And Congress and only Congress has the power to decide the punishment when and if treason is proven. Therefore, the president does not have the authority to convict nor kill a citizen based on treason, and if the charge was not treason, then why were citizens killed? And upon what constitutional authority?

Consider: Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to
be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The office of the president simply does not have the constitutional power to set aside the 5^th Amendment.

Note: Nixon was impeached for covering up a burglary that killed no one. President Clinton was impeached for perjury that killed no one.

President Obama and Leon Panetta, by taking the law into their own hands and by assuming powers not granted to their respective offices, have committed an illegal act that intentionally deprived a citizen of his life. Don't take my word for this. Read the constitution yourself. It says nothing about being able to kill a
citizen without due process even if the citizen is engaged in bad behavior. There is simply no exceptions
to the Bill of Rights and to the due process under the 5^th and 14^th amendments, and if you are talking about treason, then the constitution reserves for congress and only for congress the power to decide the punishment. All of this was set aside by a president that acted outside the powers granted his office by the constitution.

Bottom line is simply this. President Obama committed an impeachable offense and should be impeached. That is, if you and I are still living in a Republic comprised of men of honor.

What about George W Bush? They had no respect for the Constitution. Let's not blame one for the faults of all.

I am a disabled veteran and a former CIA officer. Your right wing diatribe is nothing but drivel. What about President George W. Bush who started a war on imminent threat of non existent WMDs? What about the GOP Congress who voted down a bill introducing tax credits for small businesses to hire veterans? I served honorably and if you or any of your ilk believe the POTUS has committed an impeachable offense, charge him or go away.

Glen .. Too bad your reasoning is faulty in many circumstances. You don't even have the BASICS down.

Let's just take one little item ...

Note: Nixon was impeached for covering up a burglary that killed no one.

No, Nixon was NEVER impeached. Only TWO presidents were ever impeached ... he wasn't one of them. (The fact that he WOULD have been is irrelevant to my point, I know that, so don't bother going there.)

announced last Friday; Military hospitals are banned from having any religious items, even patients are forbidden to have a bible, Priests giving last rights are not allowed to bring in any religious items; Muslim will be allowed to keep a prayer rug; I thought at first this was a joke, check it out, it is true.

Hitobito,

I never new that quoting the constitution had become right wing.

You say you served honorably. In the CIA no less. First of all, thank you for your service. So we are both still bound by our oath as officers in the military of the CIA to defend the constitution, and we will be bound by that oath until we die. Right? You know it and I know it.

Saxon
If you 'checked it out' then post your proof. Otherwise, you're just spouting.

Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRwhK5VKNqE

It is the process that protects us. It was the process that was violated. I don't care that much about the individuals in question as they allegedly did some really bad things, but the rule of law should not be sacrificed to punish them, because if it can be violagted, then we are all less safe. It is all about the constitution and whether or not we as a nation will put our trust into the rule of law, and protect the rule of law, or do we trust in the rule of men instead? This is a very basic and very serious question.

dsb, just go on line and type it in, it will give the DOD directive, however, i just learned, the outcry was so great, they have suspended the directive, (for now).

"...which service members past and present can judge the two candidates and ultimately cast their votes. " Check your eyesight. You miss read it.

Glenn, there is nothing wrong with quoting the Constitution. It is misinterpreting the Constitution that makes your diatribe right-wing.

Saxon, I couldn't find proof of that anywhere.

Now that that is cleared up --

My NJ Congressman, Rush Holt, would score a 5 out of 5 on the Veterans' checklist. For years he has been promoting jobs, education and health services for veterans. He has been able to help many NJ veterans. If we get a Democratic Congress, I believe many more vetrerans across America will receive the assistance they so deserve.

(Just as Republicans are 'pro-life' before birth but seem to give those children little or no thought after they are born -- slashing education and health care among other things -- they are 'gung- ho' pro-military and all 'hero, hero' about returning veterans, but they seem not to care much about afterward -- about providing veterans with education, job assistance and health services. I can't imagine why any veteran would support them.)

Beth 440386

What we are trying to do is explain how the Constitution works. If you don't LIKE the Constitution ... there are lots of other countries!

Give it up Saxon, it was a badly worded memorandum and NEVER a "DOD Directive". The intent was to try and keep people from proselytizing to wounded soldiers who were NOT interested. The memorandum was rewritten.

Here's the real story ...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/walterreed.asp

Nice try though.

What we are trying to do is explain how the Constitution works. If you don't LIKE the Constitution ... there are lots of other countries!

Tsk, tsk Glen ... can't refute my FACTS thus you must go off on a tangent?

Where did I say I didn't like the Constitution? Please, show me. I only said YOU had difficulties with your reasoning and couldn't get your facts straight ... and proved it. Is that where you have an issue with me? I proved you WRONG and you can't handle that?

If you are trying to "explain how the Constitution works" then the first step is having your facts straight. Such obvious errors simply negates any chance you have of being taken seriously.

I don't find fault with the Constitution, just your "explanation".

Beth-440386

I am not off on a tangent. These are your own words from one of your own posts from 7/8/2010.

I have followed your posts and read them with interest as you have been (in the past) one of the most accurate and knowledgeable on this vine. However, Beth, these are your own words from 7/8/2010 #1.14. "What we are trying to do is explain how the Constitution works. If you don't LIKE the Constitution ... there are lots of other countries!"

As to not being able to refute your facts, I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes I made a mistake above in stating Nixon was impeached. That was incorrect. He left office to avoid being impeached. But to use that to discredit everything else is a bit of a stretch.

Please point out specific difficulties with the reasoning as you have several times declared.

As to being wrong, I can handle it. Can you?

Glenn-974637 - posting a long diatribe doesn't make it truthful and you're clearly isn't factual or truthful. Our President has not commited any impeachable offense. Get real for a minute. The Republicans have been doing EVERYTHING they could to make sure he doesn't get a 2nd term. If he had done something to be impeached for they would be all over it.

Your long diatribe is just that and nothing more.

Obama/Biden 2012

dsb

HERE YOU GO:

NO BIBLES IN HOSPITALS FOR OUR WOUNDED SOLDIERS!

Who in America, or their right mind, would vote for Obama after they read this?

Obama must really want to be a one term president! The soldiers who wake up inWalter Reed Medical Center are in Maryland, not communist China. But,under the Navy's new rules, they may not know the difference!

After months of peeling away the military's core values, Obama's army is on the move. And this time, it has a high-value target: the Holy Bible.

In a memo obtained by FRC, Navy officials have announced that "no religious items (including Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit." The new orders are buried in a four-page document about patient care, which an Army officer forwarded to us in disbelief!

Effective immediately, families, friends, and even priests and pastors will have to check their beliefs at the door to visit one of the largest military hospitals in the United States Last night, after we circulated the memo to leaders on the Hill, an outraged Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) took to the House floor and blasted the policy!

"Mr. Speaker, these military men and women who are recovering at Walter Reed and Bethesda have given their all for America! They've defended and taken an oath to the Constitution, and here they are. The people who come to visit them can't bring a religious artifact? They can't bring a Bible? ... A priest can't walk in with the Eucharist and offer communion to a patient who might be on their deathbed because it's prohibited in this memo from the Department of the Navy?"

This is Obama's military, where homosexuality is celebrated and Christianity is censored; where witches are financed and crosses are scorned; where bestiality is embraced and Bibles are banned; where same-sex "weddings" are encouraged but international charity is not! After three years of ideological warfare, the Obama administration's intent is clear: to disarm the military of its biggest weapon�..FAITH!

Regardless of Obama's agenda, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that empowers the government to stop family members from giving Holy Bibles or crosses to their loved ones! And from a PR standpoint, I'm not sure the best way to boost approval ratings is by denying comfort to wounded warriors! Unfortunately for our troops, who have endured so much turmoil under the Obama administration, this is another blow!

Hopefully, with the help of Congressman King and others, it's only a temporary one.

Even liberal Snopes says it�s true: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/walterreed.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/walterreed.asp">http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/walterreed.asp

Mr. President: Why must Americans die for a country that puts the welfare of illegal aliens from a country that produces the most illegal drugs ahead of loyal Americans and their families who have committed no crimes?

Glenn..you are a loser and a stalker...going back to 2010 to see what Beth said...WTF did you see what she ate that day as well???

The one thing you've missed in your posts in the article is what we as veterans want to see covered during the debate...the 5 points...have you even ever served???

Air Force Veteran

Obama 2012

However, Beth, these are your own words from 7/8/2010 #1.14. "What we are trying to do is explain how the Constitution works. If you don't LIKE the Constitution ... there are lots of other countries!"

They are? Really. Because my history doesn't show me making ANY comments on 7-8-2010. But wow, I guess I should be flattered if you're reading over two years of my comments ... well maybe, since *I* couldn't find the comment.

Menoseeno, if Americans were not buying those illegal drugs, there would be no market for them, and hence no problem.

If you go on to say that the loyal Americans and their families who have committed no crimes are by and large different from the Americans who buy illegal drugs, then you must also be able to understand that the people from that country who sell those illegal drugs are by and large different from the people who come from that country to make a living and raise their families.

Just as you can't lump all Americans together, you can't lump all people from any other country together, either!

Glen

You made some very clear points. It will get trashed by the libs on here just like they trash the Constitution. They have no honor so they do not understand it.

Good luck trying to give them the facts.

Semper Fi

Steelermama, What I, AS A VETERAN and commissioned officer, want to see covered in the debates, or in the questions from the press, or elsewhere in the campaign, before the election, is will either candidate give assurances that they will follow the constitution in good times and bad.

Everyone wants to shout me down and ridicule, but I have not heard any specifics (generalities yes, specifics no) as to where I am wrong. I believe in the rule of law. I believe that the rule of law is the best way to be secure in our lives. I fear rule of anything but the rule of law.

I am tired of presidents and members of congress swearing to follow the constitution and then not doing so, and worse still, watching congress fail time after time to protect the constitution when it is being threatened. I only wish more people felt the same way.

Here Beth,

Maybe this will help. You were responding to palerider. Palerider was upset basically because the federal government was ignoring the constitution and its responsibility to protect the borders.

palerider-1673419

So what these people are saying Arizona is
you do not get to defend yourselves from ILLEGAL ALIENS you just have to sit
there and allow them to overrun your State because the Feds are not going to do
a thing to save you.

#1.10 - Thu Jul 8, 2010 7:33 PM EDT

Here is where you responded Beth. First, you quoted palerider's remarks. Then you replied.

Beth-440386

"So what these people are saying Arizona is
you do not get to defend yourselves from ILLEGAL ALIENS you just have to sit
there and allow them to overrun your State because the Feds are not going to do
a thing to save you."

What we are trying to do is explain how the Constitution works. If you don't LIKE the Constitution ... there are lots of other countries!

#1.14 - Thu Jul 8, 2010 7:57 PM

This is also why the Constitution gives us the actual oath of office that every elected representative must take prior to assuming office.

Actually, Glenn it does not. The only ACTUAL oath is for the president. It is in A 2, S 1, C 8 ...

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

As for the other offices, the Constitution does NOT give an "actual oath" of office. If you look at A 6, Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths ... it simply states ...

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The first Congress then made a simple oath from that ...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States."

The current oath was enacted in 1884.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Little things ... little things.

I actually tend to agree with you about Paulson. But, and the key word is but, that was RECOMMENDED language. I couldn't find (granted I didn't look too hard) to see if that was in the FINAL.

As to Obama and his "killing of an American citizen". Give us the " facts" please. Then we must make a determination. I don't YET if you are right, or wrong. But if we are, as has been stressed by both sides of the aisle, at a state of war, then your interpretation could be faulty. But again, facts of the case please then a determination.

OK Glenn, you prowled through two years (plus) of my comments and found something even I couldn't find ... so I guess I'm sort of flattered ... or creeped out, I can't quite decide.

But so what? What does it have to do with this discussion? Why on earth would you bring up a quote from over 2 years ago that has no bearing on my "catch" of your error?

As a constitutional independent and a sworn veteran I LOVED your long post Glenn, right up to and including the Lincoln quote. Then you start calling out only current members of the government as violators.

While in many respects there might be limited truth there, I think it is disingenuous to quote the non partisan US Constitution and then add your own right wing bias. Especially after others call it that and you respond: 'What?' 'You don't like the constitution?' (paraphrase).

I was a fan of yours right up until then. Still might be if you repent!

Pursuant to the original post #1 concerning poor editing, when will these so-called writers (and editors) learn that whether a or an is used depends on the beginning sound of the next word used. In this case, "an overdue shout out" would have been the correct way to phrase it. So I'm anal! Shoot me!

Beth,

First, google 1:12-cv-01192-RMC for the facts as they are known at present. I
am sure there will be other facts and discussions presented at trial, assuming the government
doesn't just pay monetary damages to make the trial go away (you think?). Anyway, Google Case
1:12-cv-01192-RMC

Next, I didn’t prowl into your past. I simply clicked on your name and read some of your comments. Some were very interesting as i have previously stated. As to what that particular comment had to do with the discussion, I was interested in why you were so aggressive towards yet another person when he questioned the federal government's actions and the terse reply you gave for doing so. You see, to me, it is important for all of us to be able to engage in thoughtful discussion to sort out our differences. Otherwise, some wildly narcisstic power hungry fool will divide us and have us fighting ourselves while our republic is destroyed.

What I am tired of is the tendency of far too many to simply say I disagree with you so you shut up, (First Amendment thing you know) or If you don't like it, get out of the country (which basically was your stance). So yes, i found your remarks, even though 2 years old, to be relevant. If you disagree, that is fine. You have a right to disagree, and I would be the last one to say to you, you disagree with me so get out of the country.

I would be the guy protecting your right to say what you want, even if I disagree with you, because that right is more important than what any of us will say in this or any other blog.

Note to Veterans: While Mitt Romney was hitting the beaches in France you where getting shot up in Vietnam. Mitt Romney also lobbied for the Draft while he sought a deferment for himself. Does he care about veterans? If this isn't enough for you then how about George W. Bush....Never forget.

Biker4life

I repent. I agree I did not post as many things about one party as I did about the other, but it was because I don't give a hoot about political parties. So I didn't see the need to keep score as to complaints about one vs the other. I don't do that.

Voting for a politiccal party is just lazy voting. Voting is too serious to be done without knowing what you are voting for. I could discuss constitutional behavior that was just plain stupid like the republicans deregulating the financial industry and allowing credit default swaps to be sold with nothing to back them up. That cost us about 12 trillion dollars. But that was constitutional even though very stupid, that is unless one could prove that campaign contributions were paid in exchange for members votes to deregulate. Now that would be a different story. It has long been my contention that PAC's were created just for such a purpose to allow votes to be purchased yet the crime of bribery not technically committed because the funds went to a PAC and not to a congressman. We should get rid of PAC's.

As a veteran, I don't need those 5 points to vote for a candidate, I have 1 point -

When it comes to backstabbing sons of bitches, the republicans are the best.

Lie and start a war, put our sons and daughters in harms way, then when they come home, kick them to the curb.

Anyone who is a veteran and votes for these backstabbing sons of bitches should visit their pschyatrist.

@Shirley I agree 100% Semper Fi!!

Impressive good sir. It did not occur to me that you weren't trying to turn the constitution on it's ear to suit your point- this is newsvine after all. Thank you.

I agree wholeheartedly regarding the party nonsense (I've ID'd myself as an indy- I hope you are not pandering...)

Issues oriented politics is the only way. If you aren't engaged or smart enough or care enough then don't vote at all. And then let your apathy carry right into how you live your life and don't complain one peep about the situation you've allowed to exist by not voting.

Democracy (or what we refer to as that) is hard and it takes work. Never forget it.

My, my Shirley, you have a perfect right to get angry and hate the GOP, but you might want ot get your facts straight. Before Bush, Clinton expressed a concerned belief in the existence of MWDs in Iraq. The actual war was started not only by Bush, but also by the congressional majority, comprised of BOTH parties, who gave him permission to do so. And, I'm a 22 year veteran, and no one from either party has kicked me to the curb. Matter of fact, I'm quite appreciative of the excellent veterans benefits I enjoy.....guess I'll be voting for those backstabbing sobs again.

All I need to know about the GOP and veterans I saw in 2003. Cheney had a hospital closure plan and the GOP-led Congress was trying to cut VA funding while boosting other agency spending. The timing made it clear what they thought of any veterans that returned from Iraq or Afghanistan with disabilities...

Biker4Life,

I assure you sir I am not pandering to you nor to anyone else. I strongly desire that the voters awake from their respective comma of ignorance and delusion and vote out all incumbents as soon as they come up for re-election. Why? Because they have all proved themselves to put party and personal interests ahead of protecting the constitution and therefore the republic itself. To me, they are unfit for service. So fire them already.

And I really am not so much asking that Obama be impeached because that would put too great a strain on an already ill nation. However, since it appears that a word for word reading of the constitution would suggest that impeachment is in order, I would expect him to at least make some statement and get with the program and stop this sort of crap. Then he should tell Senator Reid to produce a budget resolution as required by law, and he should tell Janet that selective enforcement of the law is itself unconstitutional. If she does not like the law, then appeal to the supreme court or ask congress to make changes to the law. Janet Napolitano has done neither. She has instead put forth the so far unchallenged claim that her prosecutorial discretion allows her to set criteria as she sees fit for who should and should not be prosecuted regardless of standing constitutionally created law that states otherwise. Is this really how we want to run our republic? There is no basis in the constitution for this. None. So I look to the head law enforcement officer (the president) to put a stop to it. He took an oath to do so. So do it.

Yep, Americans all right. You can tell by the angling to be counted as a "special interest group."

Here you go "veterans" you're special. There, do you feel better?

You're special whiners is what you are, fishing for disability and a free ride right all with all the other "special interest groups."

Bet you all got participation trophies when you were kids. Anyone else long for the "greatest generation" who did their job, came home, and shut up?

OMG! Glenn and Beth, GET A ROOM! But let me add this side note, Glenn, I agree with most of everything you have wrote so far. Lets just hope this country gets back on track.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!

One question I would like to ask all vets as they stand ready to vote: ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE FOR A YELLOW, DRAFT DODGING, COWARD?

Vote your conscience, I am, and I can look at myself when I shave knowing I stood beside some REAL men and willard wasn't one of them. All that comes out of his mouth is what comes out of a bulls rectum.

And he wants to be CINC. Oh, and incidently , I was not a commisioned officer, but I guess that shows.

So how many times has Romney mention the veterans, not once at the RNC, he didn't feel the need to. Do really want someone in office who doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut, or someone like Obama, who thinks through and discusses the situation, get the facts as best he can before making a statement. Ok I can just hear you on the right, Libya, their was no way anyone, not even Romney could of predicted what was about to happen, instead he shoots his mouth off about nothing he knows a damn thing about.

Clear choice in my opinion, elect Obama and he will end the war and bring our troops home, or elect Romney who will either start another war(world war III or nuclear) because he always puts his foot in his mouth first.

Oh and one more thing, no President will get anything done as long as we have the party of NO in office, so do really want to see another 2yrs of that crap. As far as I am concerned the President did as much as he could with a Congress have, so think about that too!

Glenn-974637

What a bunch of lob-sided crap! Constitution this, Constitution that. All this crap about the Constitution just to blame Obama and the democrats. What about the Oath your republican buddies took to Grover Nordquist? Isn't that treason? What about George Jr. fabricating fictitious evidence in order to convince this country that Iraq had weapons of mass-destruction, so that we would go to war and depose Sadam? What about statement form the leading republican in the Senate that his number one priority is to make Obama a one term president--isn't that treason? What about Tea Party nut jobs refusing to compromise on anything, when the Constitution is the result of compromise? Isn't that treason?

You spent quite a bit of time and gibberish in trying to justify your warped sense of indignation. If you're going to spit out crap, then spit it out all around, not just where it suits your sick mentality.

Try again.

Obama 2012 / Romeny 1040

Obama received a huge endorsement from Iran's Ahmadinejad while he was in the United States for the United Nations. That should scare all AMERICANS! When you have a crazy man like Ahmadinejad who states he does not want to make certain comments because that could affect the American election, that is HUGE! Do we really want a president that Ahmadinejad hopes wins the election. Obviously Ahmadinejad knows that Iran gets stronger if Obama is a president and Iran gets weaker if Romney is president. Easy choice to vote for Romney over a current president that is backed by a tyrant.

Unlike many of the loud mouths on this blog and many other I have read, I served in the United States Air Force for 31 years. During that time, I served under seven presidents, democrats and republicans. Through all of that time, it was the democratic presidents that looked out for the troops. Republican presidents, except for Ronald Regan, kept trying to lower cost of living raises for the military. If not for congress intervening every time, the troops would get next to nothing in pay raises. The republican presidents were all about increase in the defense budget for weapons systems that the military did not want nor needed. They insured that their wealthy defense industry CEOs received lucrative government contracts. But, when it came to the troops, screw them!!

George Bush Jr. (and his sidekick Chaney) could care less about the troops, otherwise he would have insured that they went to the desert with the appropriate equipment, and in appropriate numbers. When it came time to appropriate funding for veteran’s programs, Bush came out against them. It was the democratic congress that pushed the funding through.

Now we have the republicans in congress voting down funding that would have been used to treat returning veterans for many of the mental issues that drive them to commit suicide. This while voting to continue their salaries in the case of a financial meltdown. These republicans are selfish pigs that need to be sent home.

You people that adore republicans, thinking that they stand for the military in this country, need to look very close at what exactly they stand for -- big ticket weapon systems, no benefits for the GIs. Just look at what they're doing to current veteran's benefits. Romney and Ryan want the so called 47% to get jobs. Part of that 47% are disabled veterans that draw disability and who cannot work. But do republicans care? Heck NO! To Romney/Ryan, they're leeches of society who cannot take responsibility for their lives. Republicans caring about the troops – YEAH RIGHT! Hey, Romney! Have any zingers on this one?.........

Tonight should tell a story. Open your eyes and put your partisan asses behind you. The issues that the Veterans in this articles want debated have already been answered in the VFW magazine by each candidate, now let's see who flounders around and changes their story.

confused, tought talk from someone whose AFSC was 3M0X1.

I have never before, in my 62 years of life, heard such "drizzle", as i have here!

#1 glynn, read what you so eloquently wrote concerning All enemies, BOTH foreign and domestic! And, "vioglated"; hum, haven't heard that one before! I guess i am just a dumb, liberal, veteran, who fought for idiots like you, so you could have your right to drone on, and on, and so forth!

To rukidding, i would say the same to you; Semper Fi; i don't think you know the meaning!

To spider; who's di-- did you suck, that you are so happy with your benefits? Do you realize, just how many veterans today, that are living with no assistance; you should thank GOD that you haven't been "pushed aside", and ignored! You r a joke!

MR; you r the lowest of low that i have seen on here; "fishing for disability? Fishing with one arm, one leg, or neither of either? Thank GOD that you have what you do!

Finally, "pity the fool"! You are the biggest; but you don't deserve pity!

Go ahead, elect your "warmongering" Romney; he is the anti-thesis of "American"!

Get over yourselves and act as GOD Loving people should! Leave the rest, homosexuality, abortion, etc. between GOD and the person!

GOD, none of us are; so be the best that you can be and leave everyone else to be whomever GOD created them to be; stop the f'ing wars and hate!

No matter what party or person you want as POTUS, Veterans are the ones who stood up for our country. Now we need a/the POTUS to stand and defend our Veterans. We are in a sad state right now and the current president, has more important things to worry about then Men and Women who put their lives on the line when their country needed them. None of us know what Romney will do, only what he says...

I took the same oath to defend the Constitution and would die right this minute for my country. The leader's are a different matter, they are all about themselves and what we want to hear. Talk is cheap and our candidates and leader's need to focus on the United States of America, so that we will have a country to leave our children...

There are three things I will die for right now, God, Family and Country! In any order...

Vietnam Veteran

What I am tired of is the tendency of far too many to simply say I disagree with you so you shut up, (First Amendment thing you know) or If you don't like it, get out of the country (which basically was your stance). So yes, i found your remarks, even though 2 years old, to be relevant. If you disagree, that is fine. You have a right to disagree, and I would be the last one to say to you, you disagree with me so get out of the country.

Yes ... I said if a person disagrees with the CONSTITUTION, a person can leave. I said that in another conversation. In another context. Over two years ago. I did NOT say that to you, in this context, as a response to your post.

All I did was point out an obvious error that called into question other reasoning.

Looks like Obama was the flounder. Couldn't even get close to the same story. Guess that is what happens when you can't remember which it was.

Doubtless his debate prep has included various ways of mentioning vets, to make up for being snubbed in his speech. Fully expecting to hear him say something about vets regardless of whether or not a direct question is asked about them.

That's fine...and to be expected. So long as he doesn't come out with that "I longed in many ways to be in Vietnam to represent our country..." crap. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/47731140#47731140

I will tell you exactly what he will say. He will whine about the unemployment rate for vets and say that if we give tax breaks to the wealthy and deregulate Wall Street it will trickle down and help vets.

J...it was also quite clear with his remark about the 47%.

Look, it is simple, if you have ever served in a combat zone you understand this "military brotherhood" thing. If not you see the military as "I thank you for your service". Well Rommey's diatribe just glows with that thank you for your service thing and his dislike for anything military. That doesn't spell well for vets. The Pres has been strong on a lot of decisions that might risk the guys lives. But he hasn't put them there on any whim. I really have a hard time with the GOP's willingness to jump start more wars and throw our 18 year olds in harms way on a whim. That by itself should give parents pause. Bring back the draft and it might change our willingness to start more wars because the right might actually see their kids pulled into those wars.

I don't think either of the major presidential candidates "gives a crap" about people in the military. We're still in Afghanistan soaking up the defense contractors with money, aren't we? What's our end goal there?

All Obama or Romney care about is what the corporations backing them care about.

800 billion for the war in Iraq. Not paid for. Republicans said "yes"

1 billion to help them get jobs when they return. Paid for. Republicans said "NO"

What else do they need to know?

Again take a look at the number of Veterans Job Bills that are already inacted under Public Law. As for the war - it has been funded. The cost of the CONOPs is a supplemental. I suggest you start looking at the actual appropriations language and quit using MSNBC's lame reporting as a justification.

and this how in touch Obama is with our Military ...wow... how embarrassing and at the Democratic Party's Convention, seriously...

The Democratic Party’s national convention in Charlotte, N.C., may have doubled down on insulting the U.S. military community.

The Democratic National Committee has already apologized for using a photo of four Soviet-era Russian warships in a giant stage backdrop intended to illustrate the party’s support for military personnel and veterans.

That huge image, visible in the Time Warner Cable Arena during speeches by Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and retired Admiral John B. Nathman, also depicted a synchronized formation of jet aircraft that convention-goers assumed were American fighter planes.

But the F-5 fighter planes in the photo are part of the air force of Turkey, a nation whose government is now jailing journalists and establishing Islam as a state religion.

Brad Woodhouse, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, did not respond when the The Daily Caller asked why the convention planners displayed Turkish-flown aircraft alongside Russian warships while seeking support from the American military community.

With that said, thank you Servicemen/women and Veterans for standing between us and evil... and sometimes paying the ultimate sacrifice

rhonda-1503187

and this how in touch Obama is with our Military ...wow... how embarrassing and at the Democratic Party's Convention, seriously...

Let's see. GW Bush falsified intelligence and invaded a sovereign nation because he wanted to be a wartime president...cost: over 4,000 dead American Service Members...now THAT's support!

Why do I bring up GW Bush you might ask? Because Willard Romney has hired GW's neo-conservative advisers on foreign policy. So...if you liked GW Bush, you'll love Romney.

President Obama has done more for veterans than any other living President. The GOP on the other hand just recently vetoed a bill to help increase veteran's benefits and provide a specific job training plan for them. Clearly the Republican party has no use for veterans.

Obama/Biden 2012

Obama has done nothing for no one except pay off his donors with Stimulus money.

Get a clue lefties.

Gee, how selective is the Liberal memory.

Remembeer Viet Nam? Yes, Ike sent volunteers to train the South. Johnson sent several 100k poor whites and minorities to fight with no clear goal.

Bubba Clinton ordered bombing and invasion of more countries than any president since Truman, all without a formal decaration of war.

How forgetful are the Libs that the Democrats in the White House and Congress both believed Iraq had WMDs, prior to W's election. Even Saddam said during his trial that he had to maintain the illusion of their existance to keep Iran at bey. We'll overlook that he invaded 2 neighbors and used poison gas upon his own people.

Do I need to bring up that the Gore campaign wanted to disallow Florida military absentee ballots in 2000 because they were expected to be mostly for Republicans?

Hypocisy, your name is Democrat!

Seeking Sanity: Really, like the DNC's back drop of RUSSIAN warships they tried to pawn off as American. Nice support the Russian Navy not our own. You do realize those honorable people in our military FIGHT for the constitution and most of the one's I know vote republican and they tell me their brethren vote republican.

osiris-667199

Gee, how selective is the Liberal memory.

Remembeer Viet Nam? Yes, Ike sent volunteers to train the South. Johnson sent several 100k poor whites and minorities to fight with no clear goal.

Oh...Ike sent a couple of guys that raised their had to volunteer...give me a freaking break. Once deployed Ike maintained about 1000 advisers in-country. And yes, the troop levels were increased dramatically under Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon.

Bubba Clinton ordered bombing and invasion of more countries than any president since Truman, all without a formal decaration of war.

Really? Which countries did Clinton "invade"? By the way, how many American Service Members died during Clinton's "invasions"? Your comment regarding a declaration of war is completely disingenuous. No president since FDR has perused a declaration of war, Democrats and Republicans.

How forgetful are the Libs that the Democrats in the White House and Congress both believed Iraq had WMDs, prior to W's election.

Show me the evidence that Democrats believed Saddam still possessed a WMD threat to this country prior to W's election. Using the term "the" Democrats you imply that the majority of Democrats wanted to go to war which is incorrect. The majority voted against the war.

Even Saddam said during his trial that he had to maintain the illusion of their existance to keep Iran at bey. We'll overlook that he invaded 2 neighbors and used poison gas upon his own people.

Read the Downing Street Memo... oh, and how about that "yellow-cake uranium? You remember, the reason a CIA Operative was outed by the Bush Administration.

Do I need to bring up that the Gore campaign wanted to disallow Florida military absentee ballots in 2000 because they were expected to be mostly for Republicans?

Hypocisy, your name is Democrat!

Show me the documentation. As to Hypocrisy ...what was that the Republicans were just found doing in Florida concerning elections? ...oh yes, election fraud. I guess you guys are a little concerned that your stacked Supreme Court might not do another unconstitutional intervention and give you the election this time. Or maybe the crooked voting machines in Iowa might not tip the scales for you?

Its pretty damn easy to pick out the opinions of vets from the political shills and its easy to separate the Es from the Os. So to the shills and trolls " You're just wasting time and oxygen, get lost, most everybody has made up their mind.

Laura there are currently 6 Job Bills for Veterans already on the books and funded. The last passed was the Post 9/11 Jobs Bill which allows all Veterans who have served since 9/11 and are honorably discharged a tuition reimbursement to include text books and a monthly stipend. This is a typical throw something out at the last minute and hope it sticks. The bill was unfunded and would have again required us to go and get funds from China.

So how do you explain that tonight?

can't explain anything to a liberal. They are determined to twist, undermine, and distort the truth and hide O's many failures. Mostly to keep the freebies coming at the expense of the taxpayer. In case the liberals forget -- the government does NOT have any money, they are spending (like crazy) hard working TAXPAYERS money to pander and fund whatever pet project to get elected by the uninformed and easily influenced person. Get skin in the game and come back and rant and rave.

Dotties girl

As a veteran and career military Non-commissioned Officer I resent the hell out of your accusation that I am looking for government freebies. Skin in the game...are you sh1tting me? When you've served this country in uniform you might be qualified to address veterans (both conservative and liberal) but until then, you're an amateur talking sh1T. I would also hazard a guess that at 62 years of age (and still working) I have paid more in taxes than you have, so don't tell me what is or is not an acceptable expense to "hard working" tax payers.

You display the same arrogance and sense of privilege Romney expressed in his 47% comment, and it will defeat him at the polls.

I take exception to that opinion. Weapons systems constantly need to be maintained and upgraded. Cutting edge weapons and constant troop training is what makes our armed forces the absolute, without exception, best in the world. This not only assure victory on the battlefield or at sea, but also drastically limits casualties as well. A strong dominate military requires a constant investment. There are veteran services in place, but the problem is the people in charge of administering them! But we can do better for our veterans. Just so you know I'm not the typical MSN reader spouting off on an article in which I know very little or nothing about, I'm a veteran of the armed forces with over twenty years of active service, and another nine years of working with the military as a civilian, and I speak from actual experience.

Ray - I also have over 20 years of experience in the United States Armed Forces (US Coast Guard and US Army). I agree with your comments to some extent, however, we have to look at how our tax dollars are being spent on military procurement. There are several areas of accounting in the military that were designed for efficiency in the 19th century but have no place in a modern military now.

One example is the practice of "use it or lose it" quarterly allocations. This system was designed at a time when government accountants sat in huge rooms and wore forearm protectors to keep the ink off their sleeves. A unit should be able to allocate unspent funds from one quarter to a credit in the next quarter...not lose the money! How much waste does this cause...billions!

Another is contractual cost over-runs. No corporation would sign such a contract with another corporation. If you bid on a contract with the US Government and fail to meet the terms...you should eat the loss...not the American Tax Payer.

No bid contracts. Yes they should exist but only as originally intended. A no bid contract should only be initiated if there are NO other providers of a specific product or service willing to bid.

No political consideration in weapons procurement. When the Pentagon tells Congress "We don't need or want that piece of equipment", Congress should not be able to override for political reasons (Congressman Smith has a plant in his district). Corporate welfare should not be a consideration.

The problem with the VA is not the "current" people in charge; it's the people who were in charge before Sec. Shenseki. We were at war for over 4 years before the VA leadership (at the time) bothered Congress for additional funding. The VA hasn't caught up yet and probably won't for another five years (at current funding). However if the Sequestration kicks in at the first of the year...all bets are off. The VA will take a huge hit.

Some very good points. Definitely needs to be a relook on how the military spends its money, how can it be made more cost effective, and then funnel that money saved back into the soldiers, vets, etc. Always going to be a need to maintain existing systems as well as training for existing military, but for some congressional pet projects they need to go away if they are found to be not needed for the future(I recall there being a plane the military doesn't want or need, but they are being required to continue to fund because its a congressmans pet project)

Ray, have you stopped by any National Guard posts at any city around the country recently? We have more Armor and equipment spread around there than the world has ever seen! Crap, we have a stonger military than the rest of the world combined. We have 11 nuc carriers and the rest of the world combined has 10. When the heck do we have enough while the country hurts? This is still simply about Eisenhower's warning regarding the military industrial complex and we simply don't want to hear it I guess.

Maybe I should have spoken in better detail in regards to my original post. What I'm really attacking is the shear waste in overall government spending, particularly defense spending. I have not been to National Guard installation recently, and I do believe what you say about the armor and other equipment piling up. But what I meant about investment in weapons technology probably needs clarifying. Here goes. Cutting edge weapons need research funding. We need to provide our servicemen and servicewomen the most advanced, and sophisticated weapons systems money can buy. In addition, our troops deserve nothing but "FIRST RATE" care after returning from service. What I'm noticing, in my opinion, is most people are confusing responsible defense spending with overall waste. If we could get a grip on waste, we'd be so much better off. You don't cut needed weapon development because money is waste in other areas. I wholeheartedly agree, "use it or lose it" allocations are irresponsible, and outdated. As in other buearacratic organizations there seems to be a mentality of continuing to do things the "old way." Billions upon billions of taxpayer money is simply lost, because of shear waste, incompetance, and corruption. This HAS to stop, but not at the expense of shortchanging our troops.

Ray -- the original post that you took exception to said "weapons we don't need".

There are many, many examples of funding for weapons and weapons systems that are not needed (and on the flip side, not adequate funding for some things that ARE needed).

Here is just ONE story about politicians pushing for weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/congress-pushes-for-weapons-pentagon-didnt-want/nRC7w/

I agree with the OP, we could use that money to care for our vets.

Beth - it begs the question exactly what weapons systems? Do even know how the acquistion process works? Do you have any idea of the requirements imposed by Congress on every contract? I suspect that none of the people in here have any idea or training on the DoD Acquistion process, much less have actually sat down and did the work.

Gees Swallow - do you even know what an MTOE is? Most of the equipment you are seeing is filling shortages (most of the equipment is considered as RESET) that were created under the CLINTON era when the Reserve Component was equipped only to 65% of its base requirements. No modernization of MTOE lines was done until well into 2005. There are still units equipped with M35/M939 series trucks which are 30-40 years old instead of the "newer" MTV (First unit equipped in 1994). Many of the MTOEs of the 1990's reflected the 1960's Cold War equipping.

Did you bother to ask anyone - suspect not - you just assumed.

Do as I say, not as I do

Most of what you are saying sounds quite knowledgeable, and I'm certain I'd believe it if I hadn't worked in Army Logistics. To begin with the "current" RESET is based on NG equipment expenditures due to non-recoverable NG equipment deployed to OEF/OIF with units. As to 65% MOTE fill during the cold war, that depended on the unit mobilization priority. I have served in both an M+0 unit and an M+60 unit. Trust me when I say an M+0 had a much higher percentage MOTE fill than a lower priority unit.
As to your comment of "no modernization of MTOE lines was done until well into 2005"...what was the fielding of the M1151A1/52A1/65A1 and the M997A? Those were very definitely MTOE Para/Lin modernizations and we got ours in the late 80s as I remember.
However you and Swallow are both right. We are spending more that the next 10 highest spending nations combined. We need to reset but we don't need to expand capability unless we are planning another invasion.

Being a historian, and a old soldier, I have a unique and probably the most correct perspective. There is no peace dividend, what is is, is a peace sacrifice. History proves, we will always be in military actions periodically, and when these actions happen, a poorly trained and equipped fighting force is more costly than maintaining a effective military. Let's go back a short time in history to WWII, having suffered the great depression, our military had been cut to the bone. The best thing the Japanese did for us was to bomb the fleet in Pearl Harbor. Our Navy had become antiquated, under trained, and ineffective. The day that shall live in infamy solidified the resolve of the American people, decommissioned antiquated vessels, and stimulated the building of a modern new Navy, as well as assuring new sailors and Marines would be trained in greater numbers than had previously been seen. D-Day brought about untrained soldiers going ashore still armed in many cases with the Springfield bolt action rifles, Thompson sub machine guns, and M1911 .45 pistols. The rifles were slow, the Tommy guns were close quarters weapons, but the .45 pistols were the best to be had. The main drawback was the soldiers were inexperienced, and there were few mid rank NCO's that could counter the troops being green, they had to learn on the battlefield against battle hardened troops. The reason we won WWII was not better trained, equipped, or experienced forces, but superior logistics, manufacturing capabilities, and a lot of pure luck. At the end of WWII our troops just came home and returned to civilian life for the most part. Then begins the peace sacrifice prior to Korea, the war that hasn't officially ended. Once again our military had been down sized, this was the beginning of the Cold War. If there ever was a hard lesson that we as a nation should have learned from, was the 'Frozen Chosin', poorly equipped, and understaffed, the North Koreans and Chinese had a field day that made Fredricksburg look like childs play. Our troops were ill prepared for the bitter cold, getting killed, captured, and wounded while retreating. Many of the vehicles were abandoned because they hadn't been prepared for the weather.
What we did learn from Korea, is all soldiers need combat training at some basic level. In Korea there are documented accounts of non Combat at Arms soldiers, such as cooks, medics, etc, not even knowing how to load their weapons, if they had weapons at all.

Then Viet Nam, the war where we won every battle and lost the war. Limited resources, and aging equipment limited this to an advisory capacity for the first years, beginning with left over M-1 rifles, developing the M-14 from that platform, eventually going to the 'Mattel Toy' the infamous M-16, which was so unreliable many soldiers discarded them for the enemies weapons or the more reliable M-14 if they could find them. Soon a forward assist was incorporated into this design, which drastically improved the jamming problem. The one weapon platform that was found from interviews of the VC and NVA that struck fear in their heart, soul, and mind, was the B-52's that bombed the Ho Chi Minh trail and the Iron Triangle. They couldn't see them, couldn't hear them, and never knew when they would be the victim of a bombing strike, but when they were, the ground shook for miles. If not for the Cold War, this weapons platform would have not been available, another peace sacrifice.

This brings us to the Clinton Administration, gee the Cold War is over, why do we need a military? Can't that money be used for political purposes? So, the military was downsized, and intelligence was drastically reduced. Times were good! We forgot about the lessons we should have learned from history, we were unprepared. Oliver North warned us, but in our basking of prosperity, we ignored the warnings. 8 good years, happy days are here again, it's never gonna end, but it did!

On 11 September, 2001, a enemy dedicated to the destruction of the American way of life commandeered 4 passenger aircraft, 2 were flown into the World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York City, causing them to crash to the ground with an enormous loss of life, 1 was flown into the Pentagon, causing enormous loss of life, and the 4th crashed into a Pennsylvania field due to the heroics of the passengers, we do not know what the target was for sure, and will always be speculation, as the aircraft never reached it's target. Now, for the rest of this story!

There were 2 fighter jets dispatched to find this 4th aircraft, and bring it down, no matter what it took. The problem was, we were ill prepared, the fighters were unarmed, they were only prepared for the limited amount of training they were afforded, due to the downsizing of our military after the Cold War. If this had been during the Cold War, they would have remained fully armed, and in plentiful supply. The pilots had located the commandeered aircraft, and had made the decision to use their fighter jets as weapons, one ramming the cockpit, the other the tail of the passenger jet, hopefully being able to eject in time. This is wishful thinking at best, the survival changes of these fighter pilots was somewhere between slim and none, but in the last few seconds the passenger jet crashed.

Now, my question for you is, Would you want to put one of your friends or family members in the position of making the ultimate sacrifice for a small savings in the taxes it takes to provide a strong national defense? If so, would you be so kind to get off the computer, go down to the local recruiting center as many of us have, and sign up for that job. Write that blank check, payable to the people of The United States of America, for the amount of up to and including your life!

I have, and I believe in a strong national defense, because freedom is not free!

While I agree that our active military should be provided with the latest and best military equipment, the filter that should be applied is what the military needs, not what defense contractors want to provide. The military doesn't always want or need what Congress and the defense industry wants to provide.

Andy Blackwood - You say you are a historian and a veteran, and I have no reason to doubt you; but I do have a couple of questions and comments.

1. It appears to me you are saying REFs (Reductions in Force) are some kind of aberration instituted by those naively looking for a mythical "Peace Dividend". To my knowledge, that particular term was first coined at or near the end of Desert Storm, please correct me if that is incorrect. I personally have been through three REFs (in one capacity or the other). George HW Bush and Bill Clinton were the only presidents I remember discussing using the peace dividend for domestic investment (campaign rhetoric on both their parts). The fact is, our military has "drawn down" in size at the end of every major campaign. This country can not afford to be on a wartime footing permanently. To attempt it is to welcome the fate of the former Soviet Union.

2. Your comment regarding the 2 fighter aircraft (unarmed) sent to intercept the remaining hijacked airliner. I had not heard there were only 2 available and I had not heard they were unarmed, nor do I understand the why. On the West Coast we have two fighter-interceptor bases to provide air superiority responses between the Mexican border and Alaska, that's the Portland Air National Guard Base flying F-15s and the Fresno Air National Guard Base. In both cases they have ready crews and respond quite well armed. I don't understand why the security is so lax on the east coast, especially near the Nation's capital.

3. A strong defense does not require we bankrupt the nation. There is not a nation on earth, nor group of nations on earth we cannot obliterate within 20 minutes. Our 18 Ohio class submarines alone are capable of taking out which ever continent you would like and that's only one branch of the triad. How much overkill do we need to be safe?

Andy,

An interesting post.

Another lesson. We were not able to turn the war over to the Vietnamese even though they had a country (not a bunch of tribes), good seaports, we had half a million soldiers on the ground and ten years to do the job. How could we possibly expect to turn the fighting over to the Afghan's where there is no country, therefore no national army, no seaports, no heavy lift capability, and we have far fewer troops on the grund and a very limited and publicly announced time-line? Just how is that to work?

Anyway, I really enjoyed your post. You sound like an old dog like me.

Ol_Doc,

To answer your questions, the term 'peace dividend' is considerable older that you remember. I recall hearing that term used quite often after 1975, when we pulled out of Viet Nam, and used considerably more than that after the fall of the Soviet Union. Both times resulting in a reduction of forces, so, it's not a new term. There is a difference between drawing down, and deactivating Armies, and Divisions, which was what Clinton did. His concept was to replace standing armies with reserve units, and we can see how well that has worked for us. The standing armies are 24/7, by design, in a standing army, the only employment a soldier has, is to be a soldier, they either fight wars, or train to fight wars, that is what a soldiers job is. Whereas, a reservist, or National Guard member, go to drills one weekend a month, and 2 weeks a year to training exercises, this supplements their income from their regular employment. The reserves were never intended to be regular army soldiers, but to supplement the regular army when necessary, then return home. They were never intended to be subject to multiple deployments, as we saw occurring. So, where this program created a enormous savings, it wasn't a suitable replacement for standing armies or divisions/regiments, they just weren't as well trained, and couldn't be with the amount of time allocated, but it sounded good, politically on paper. Where I would agree to some extent to a draw down being a viable alternative, there are 2 things we should never allow to be affected, one is the ability to raise a well trained army in short order. When Armies, and Divisions/Regiments are deactivated we drastically affect our readyness, as we also eliminate the very Officers and NCO's that have the experience to train recruits. And 2, we should never allow our ability in the international intelligence community to be compromised, as we need the eyes and ears to detect any potential threat. Both of these were affected by that defense cut back. In addition, it is more cost effective to maintain a army, than to raise a army, and equip the soldiers with the equipment to maintain state of the art.

As to the fighter aircraft, they had been equipped for training, not a defensive, or offensive mission. They were as I recall either Air Force Reserve, or Air National Guard, and were the first ones to report for duty. During the chaos, and having a lack of intel as well as a lack of communication channels, the option was to get these aircraft in the air ASAP. One pilot was male, the other female, that was what was available at the time. In that situation, not knowing what exactly was happening, your option is to scramble anything you have, as quickly as possible. During the Cold War this wasn't a issue, as there was constant air defense, but downsizing eliminated this. This was 11 years ago, in peacetime, supposedly.

We can obliterate just about any nation we would choose, but not by conventional warfare on 11 September 2001. We could just nuke em til they glow, but we are signed to numerous treaties that won't allow this unless we are defending our self against a nuclear attack. Although, I would advocate a scorched earth policy, as I consider everything a enemy has to be infrastructure to be used against us, and as such is a legitimate target, and I advocate Commanders in the field using any and all weapons at their disposal I don't see that happening. The American people have become apathetic, and lost the taste for totally destroying those who would destroy us. I couldn't disagree more. If a enemy attacks us, they have made their decision, they obviously see a weakness, it is up to us to show them the error of their ways.

i've been to a few va hospitals and i have asked a few of them if they are veterans and they have all answered YES and i never have had any problems but i saw a few vets who are never happy with the service they get,but the world is not perfect.

good point, "empty suit beaurocrats".. well said sir!!,..so,, solution??.. more people like you! inside and even running that beaurocracy,..no??..what does some pencil neck drone know about the realities??.. not much eh?..On the other hand,, guys/gals who have been there, done that and have the t shirts,.. do!! know a few things,...I remember one such drone saying to me,,"oh, we dont hire people like you[??] because you have too much empathy for others",.. that is a direct quote btw,..and shows the ignorant mind set, and "circle the wagons" attitude that is the crux of these problems,..btw, I completly agree,, more need to get up and "shout",,just do it!! and watch what happens,..Nice to see vets getting action going, thats how real solutions happen,,,we wonders?, if you add up all the vets, and all their families,wife kids mom and dad,.. whats the number??.. pretty big isnt it??..influence that? and you will see some action, you bet!!,..

Actually, most VA hospitals are staffed with veterans. They have priority in hiring.

The Vet group says they have been getting the short end of the deal. The candidates have not been recognizing them. So they raise a fuss and if successful, the politicians will stand on stage and so as not to earn further fussing will "recognize" them. Perhaps even appear to honor them. And so what was accomplished ? A recognition was extorted from a politician or two. Big freaking deal ! I think we already know what these two guys think of veterans. You know Prez Obama did not wear a US Flag lapel pin until people fussed. Then he didn't put his hand over his heart at the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, or when the Anthem was played until people fussed. So now he wears the pin, now he puts his hand on his heart and soon he will "recognize" veterans from the podium. And the veterans will have learned what about him ? And Romney wants to "harvest" the wealth from people who have it. IF you don't have it he wants to cut you off because you area member of the " irresponsible 47%". Are these veterans so weak minded as to think that by extorting a "recognition" from the candidates that they are being genuinely recogonized ?

Yeah, that just proves everything, doesn't it? Why don't you try looking at some numbers before you go spouting off with another ignorant tirade? Oh yeah, because then you'd be proven wrong AND ignorant. Here, I'll do it for you. Why don't you check to see who's voted for what or would that keep you from spouting off your lies? Are they intentional or are you really too damn lazy to do your own homework?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/veterans

7.62IQ....really? The last jobs bill proposed by the President had provisions to target returning veterans to get them back into the workforce quicker. Would you like to know how far that bill got? Nowhere...courtesy of your republistooge heroes who are hell-bent on destroying Obama no matter the consequences to the nation.

Do a little homework and check all the facts before you start trying to get everybody else to drink the tea.

DSP - CAPT/USNR

7.62x39mm

You sir, know nothing. Pull your head out of FOX News and look around. President Obama, and his wife, and the Secretary of the VA, and his wife have done more for service members, their families and specifically their children than any administration I have experienced..and that starts with Harry Truman.

You have a computer, try looking up the facts. If you have a problem with the President's religious background...that's your problem. If you want to post some proof that Obama hasn't done anything for veterans...by all means do. I'll be happy to post a couple pages of what he and his administration HAVE done for veterans...starting with required proof of Agent Orange related diseases and proof of PTSD stressors. If you can't document your claim...please STFU!

Wow, 7.62x39mm must be a brain size or something related. Why the hate when you know what you say is not true. That last simple move by the GOP congress just said it all, they don't give a crap about vets. They hypocrisy is rampant: Protect unborns at all costs but once they are 18 throw them under the wagon and hope they don't come back. When do we ever quit this stupid war thing??

Reaper...I am one of those Vets that stepped up when asked...did not make the 20 year mark, but DID get to retire...with Honor. I support you position!! 7.62....sorry bud...on your remarks you are standing naked in the market place. The fact is this...the system is not perfect. and yea there are a few that went off the deep end! If, as you state that Obama considers us combat veterans to be "terrorists"...then maybe YOU should get in the trenches and help those whom need help to heal!! "when you save a life you save a universe" so the saying goes. I was wounded...I am out of the service it was hard to face the fact that I had to leave. But still help when & where I can...SO WHAT DID YOU DO FOR YOUR FELLOW TODAY?!

Really? Rev. Wright? Why don't you bring up the 'secret Muslim' and birther crap while you are at it. Sheesh.

really who was President when the very war you fought in started?? I believe we were ordered into Laos in 1961. Who was the President?? HMMMMM? I am thinking the draft was even happening too.

MIKE Well said...you took the words right out of my mouth...and thank you for serving.Bottom Line,the GOP loves the troops as long as their dying for them,but once you make the transition to civilian life your on your own.Thank goodness we have a president that takes care of you even when others have got no use for you anymore.

you two make me sick. I come from a military family, that have fought in every war in the US with pride. Guess what, they are all conservatives. There is nothing worse than your comments, such a disgrace. You might want to read some History books before you go spouting off. In regards to the above question no one has responded to, also, who sent us into WWI?

oh here is another one, what about the Korean War?? Do I need to go on?

POSPLS Wow, guess you really know your dead presidents....(yawn)....and your land of make-beleive makes me laugh.

plsthink90

really who was President when the very war you fought in started?? I believe we were ordered into Laos in 1961. Who was the President?? HMMMMM? I am thinking the draft was even happening too.

That would be either Dwight D Eisenhower or John F. Kennedy following Truman/Eisenhower's containment policy...why do you ask?

making a point, Republicans are not the only Presidents that have put us to war. I get so sick of the libs being so one-sided. It was JFK.

islandofone--all you libs know how to do is name call. You can yawn all you want, shows your IQ. Least I can look at both sides, something you Obama supporters no nothing about. Keep drinking that kool-aid. In fact ,put your whole head in the damn pitcher.

plsthink ---

Do you know who was president in January, 1955? That's when our first military shipments were sent to Vietnam and we offered to begin training troops.

How about October 1955? That's when the US backed Diem was installed. And again US offers military aid.

May 1957? The president then calls Diem the "miracle man of Asia" and also states ... "The cost of defending freedom, of defending America, must be paid in many forms and in many places...military as well as economic help is currently needed in Vietnam." BTW The "miracle man" was meeting with him in Washington at the time.

July 1959? The first two American soldiers are killed in Vietnam.

Here's a hint ... the president at the time was a REPUBLICAN.

That is correrct, but we did not go to war till 1960's under JFK. Also, what about the other 2 wars mentioned?

all you libs know how to do is name call. Keep drinking that kool-aid.

pot/kettle

World war I -- went to war under DEMOCRATIC president, after U.S. interests attacked.

World war II -- went to war under DEMOCRATIC president, after U.S. soil attacked.

Korea -- went to war under DEMOCRATIC president, no direct attack on US interests/soil.

Vietnam - went to war under REPUBLICAN president, no direct attack on US interests/soil. (Yes, if we sent military, we were at war.)

Persian Gulf I -- went to war under REPUBLICAN president, no direct attack on US interests/soil.

Afghanistan -- went to war under REPUBLICAN president, direct attack on US soil.

Iraq -- went to war under REPUBLICAN president, no direct attack on US interest/soil.

There you go, all our "modern" wars.

very good! So I guess both parties are guilty of war, my point was that!

Justin B---when did I call a lib a name?

pls,Using pejorative language such as"you two make me sick"are pretty strong words considering I was not even replying to you.Yet you do not approve of my before mentioned acronym.If you do not like mud on your face then don't sling it.And re-posting right-wing nut case lunatic rants,word for word,that are barely legible,is proof that even the "challenged" have a voice even if they do not know what they do and only what they hear.Our President supports you even if you do not support him.

what are you talking about. I think I was refering to his comment about Republicans only sending our troops to war. Beth found out that both parties are guilty. You libs have a hard time admitting to the same things that Repubs. have done. So ya, don't act like your party is perfect, is it sick. The POTUS does not support me. I am not in his think tank!

Oh by the way, I use my own words, thank you.

plsthink90

making a point, Republicans are not the only Presidents that have put us to war. I get so sick of the libs being so one-sided. It was JFK.

No, actually it was Eisenhower, but why quibble. Yes Democrats start wars...there, I said it, does that make you feel better? My own personal feeling is that who starts a war is not nearly as important as why was the war started...would you agree?

By the way, the POTUS does support you and your family whether your like it or not. Go ahead and google what this administration has done. Not just the President/White House/First Lady but also the SecVA. You will no doubt get a list much longer than you will see under any other administration. But don't take my word for it...google it.

And the CIC will be continue to be a non-vet, even if Romney wins. But, hey, I bet all those people in France who were converted to Mormonism while the Viet Nam war (which Romney supported) was being waged are much better off for Mitt's presence in their fine country while on his "mission".

bill-765872

Thank you for your service, but your comment is idiotic. Willard Romney was on a "ministerial" deferment to France while I was in Basic Training. He later burned up 4 more college deferments. He even had the gall to protest for the Vietnam war so long as he didn't have to serve. Willard Romney is one of those people when asked "did you serve your country" states something like "I would have but...". Not only would he NOT have been commissioned as an officer...he couldn't have made it through basic...not even officer basic. But I'm sure he could have hired someone to serve for him.

Actually Mitt thought he was 'too important' to serve.

Romney's own words

http://www.project.nsearch.com/profiles/blogs/mitt-romney-i-was-too-important-to-go-to-vietnam

"That's a good question, young man, and I would be happy to answer it. The Vietnam War came at a time in my life when I had other plans. I knew in my heart of hearts that I would one day serve my nation. That I would one day hold an office that would help not only our nation, but also the world. So I did what I could to make sure that I would be around to serve my nation, as well as serving God by teaching very important religious principles to a broader audience overseas. My father did not want me serving, and he convinced me that yes, I was too important to go to Vietnam. I had a greater purpose in life. I wasn't neglecting my nation, but rather preparing myself for a future of service."

I'm a 61 year old woman. I had many friends who were to 'Nam and some didn't come back. Those who did had and some continue to have issues. I know for a fact that they too thought they had a 'greater purpose'.

To be honest I think this statement by Mr. Romney says it all. I too think they should bring back the draft. In fact I happen to like the Israeli model where every 18 year old has to serve. Might do our 'entitlement' generation some good. My son was a Marine under Bush I so I do know something about being a 'military' family. My nephew was in Somalia. I want to thank each and every vet out there for their service. It's hard, on them and on their families and we, as a nation, owe them a great deal more than we have been giving.

I think the questions presented in this article are good ones. And I have no doubt that President Obama has answers. Why? Because he has proposed solutions. It's time for Congress to act.

Romney was pedaling a bike around France trying to convert them to Christianity during Viet Nam. Note, it was Viet Nam not Laos.

I'm sure that you would be the one to take a pay cut and reduced benifits at work if the boss said the company wasn't making enough to pay for his bonus. /bonk

Unless you have served, bled and sacrificed for this county KYFMS.

Ralph...expecting Uncle Sam to take care of returning vets with both psychological and physical injuries suffered in the line of duty is not an unreasonable request.

To Shenandoah's point, unless you have worn the uniform and lived through the scourge of war you have no say as to what a true veteran should act, do, or say.

DSP - CAPT/USNR

Ralph, I am not sure what you are saying but I get the feeling that you like many people who haven't been there don't understand what an 18-20 year old has to deal with the rest of his life when he is forced to either kill or be killed in the line of duty. And 50 years later it is still that same thing. I don't know how you can treat the mental thing but I can tell you how we can get rid of it in the future: Quit these stupid wars in the 21st century that have no bearing on our national security!! They have gone on for over 2000 years and they will be going on for the next as long as religion drives the hate.

Hey Slacker,

Been there, done that, worn the uniform.

So KYFMS!

Ralph
So when did you serve? I mean you think that every serviceman/woman is doing it for the 'good of the country' and that they have no right to services and help when they get out. So they are expected to sacrifice EVERYTHING for you but YOU don't owe them one thing.

Sheesh, talk about 'entitlement'. You don't just demand service, you actually think you have the right to demand their entire life, each and every minute, each and every aspect without one small iota of aid back. What a wonderful citizen you are! (NOT)

ralph5591

A true veteran would only look at what is best for the country, not what is in their own interests.

I'm glad you're having a good day Ralph. No problem getting your counseling sessions with the VA. No 3 month delay though you've expressed suicidal ideation (1 veteran commits suicide every 80 minutes). I'm glad the VA hasn't over medicated you to the point where your wife panics and calls an ambulance because you don't respond. I'm glad the VA pays the bill when the $12,000 bill comes for the emergency room visit from the overdose. I'm glad they did so in a timely manner so your home didn't go into foreclosure. I'm glad you don't have a son who has been deployed eight times, lost his family, can't find a job and is sitting in jail because he self medicates waiting for an appointment with VA Psyc.

I'm glad you live a charmed life...take care and God bless.

Every nation is trying to gain more power and more influence throughout the world. It is human nature to want to get more power and control. Every other country is trying to increase their power and decrease America’s power. You can not blame them for their actions. They are just looking out for their best interests. It should concern everybody when almost every nation on the planet would like for a Democrat to be president and will actively help them to win elections. These other countries know that a Democrat in power means a weaker United States of America and more chance for them to increase their power. Do you really think these other countries that are both friendly and enemies of the United States want a Democrat in power because they think it will make them less powerful?

Obama received a huge endorsement from Iran's Ahmadinejad while he was in the United States for the United Nations. That should scare all AMERICANS! When you have a crazy man like Ahmadinejad who states he does not want to make certain comments because that could affect the American election, that is HUGE! Do we really want a president that Ahmadinejad hopes wins the election. Obviously Ahmadinejad knows that Iran gets stronger if Obama is a president and Iran gets weaker if Romney is president. Easy choice to vote for Romney over a current president that is backed by a tyrant.

Shenandoah
Thank you for your service and your great post!

The 2?

What about the jobs bill Obama asked for? Is that evading the subject?

What about the Republicans that killed the bill ... Is that evading the subject?

"It is ridiculous that the two candidates keep on evading the very important subject of how vets need support after fighting" <---- Is that really true then?

No .. No it's not.

God, give it a rest. Anyone with a brain will do real research and then go vote.

I thought Beth shut you up...go play on the freeway.

I thought that is where you were?? Don't you libs hate facts. Sucks that Dems started wars too. Guess you will have to drop the war, hate speech. Wow, that sucks! You guys are funny.

plsthink90

I thought that is where you were?? Don't you libs hate facts. Sucks that Dems started wars too. Guess you will have to drop the war, hate speech. Wow, that sucks! You guys are funny.

Christ man...give it a rest. Do all of us have to line up and admit that yes...Democrats start wars too? We just usually don't do it for reasons like "If I ever have the chance to invade...to become a war time president I won't squander the political capital".

Ted you are absolutely correct about Tricare, My work is in the defense industry and about 30% of my company (small company) are vets and about half of them are retired. Thankfully for them our company has great benifits and they do not rely on Tricare at this time.

That said, if it hadn't been for the current administrations efforts Tricare costs to vets under the NDAA would have been higher by a rate of 2X or greater, in fact the Tea Party'ers fought to reduce the benifit if not revoke it. Just go back through past issues of "Army" and AUSA news and find out yourself how these "patroits" have treated our Vets.

Ted, I'm also retired military and a TRICARE member. You are correct that there was an "implied" promise to provide us and our families free medical...but it was only implied. This is no different that any other "promise" made to veterans and then abandoned (google: the Bonus Army). If you like it now...wait till the Sequestration hits at the first of the year...you'll love it. We'll be lucky if we have anything remotely like TRICARE Prime.

It makes you wonder about the so-called "Peace Dividend" after the Cold War Ended.

Who were the Recipients of the So-Called "Peace Dividend"? It certianly wasn't Veterans.

Losing the Health Care that was given by our Leaders Word is a Bitter Pill to Swallow after the Best Earning years of your life and Youth are Gone.

We have an All Volunteer Force. They don't get 401ks, Stock Options, Profit Sharing and no other Civilian Perks. Their Youth is gone and so is the Health Care that they were told they were going to get in exchange for their youth and in many cases their life.

Maybe we should go back to a Draft because an All Volunteer Military won't be possible if the Economy ever rebounds.

I NEVER remember them promising me that my family would get free medical for life and why should they...on the other hand, retirees do get free medical...TRICARE Standard. you pay a premium for the extras!!!!

Air Force Veteran

Steelermama

I NEVER remember them promising me that my family would get free medical for life and why should they...on the other hand, retirees do get free medical...TRICARE Standard. you pay a premium for the extras!!!!

Air Force Veteran

Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post. If you've been in long enough you would know there was an "implied" promise of free health care. This I believe was based on the concept of Retirees getting their health care as walk-ins at military medical centers. With BRAC that kind of went down the tubes.

By the way, Retirees DO NOT received free health care:

1. We pay quarterly premiums plus deductibles (with some referrals) and co-pays for services and pharmaceuticals.

2. If we retired before 2005 and are disabled, we also pay our own VA Disability Compensation. It's called Concurrent Receipt and won't end until 2014. That is money deducted from our retirement pay by DFAS and paid to the VA, who in turn passes it on to us.

3. By the way, Retirees don't get TRICARE Standard, we get TRICARE Prime.

http://mrgrg-ms.org/brief00.html

This is a detailed History on the Word that was Given to Military Retired Veterans on No Cost Health Care for Life in exchange for 20 or more years of Honorable Service.

This is a Brief to educate Congress, the Media and the American People.

Remember that Both Parties sent us to War based on the Information provided by the Bush Administration. Both Democrats and Republicans sent us to Iraq and Afghanistan.

99 weeks, I would bet you would be suprised to know that this is not the rfirst time these payments were extended. Ronny boy did the same thing in the 80's, first from 26 weeks to 52 and then to 104 weeks.

You really need to stop watching Rupard Murdock New aka FOX. Did you know that he was pretty much kicked out of Australlia because he tried to buy the government, same in England and now he is trying in the gold ole USA.

As compared to Willard Romney who isn't concerned about 47% of us. I wonder if he'll complete his automobile elevator in his new California mansion when he looses the election?

If you think a company is making too much profit, that just means that another corporation can come in and undercut them to steal their business. Find a way to be more efficient than the current company or provide a better product that helps to improve other peoples lives. Have a positive attitude that you are smart enough and have the skills to start your own company to compete with these evil companies that are making a profit. If you can not do it better than the company that is making a profit, well than that is your fault.

The entire Democrat party spends every day coveting thy neighbors ox. What a bunch of little complainers. Life is not fair!! Work hard an make your own wealth. When I was just getting out of college I was making $30K. Never did I have the mentality that every person that makes more than me should have to give me some of their money. I did not hate the people that made more money than me. I did not demand that we redistribute their wealth to me. That is just not how I was brought up. I was taught at a young age that if you want something you go work hard and get it yourself. You do not steal from others just because they have more than you. You do not ask the government to steal for you. You do not look at people that have more than you and feel that there is no way that they could have possibly gotten to where they are without stealing from others. You gradually work your way up in life by making good decisions. I came from a lower middle class family where my parents combined never made over $40K. The values they taught me will never be forgotten. Work hard, give to the charity's that you believe in, give yourself to the community to help others, treat others as you would like to be treated, take personal responsibility, live below your means, etc.. Sorry, but never did my parents teach me to hate family's that have more money than us and steal from them to get ahead in life.

Taking care of the vets IS what is best for the country.

Shame on you then for not standing up in support of your fellow vets. We are not talking about "their own interests" we are talking about the support they earned fighting for their Country. Do yourself a favor, volinteer at your closest VA hospital and meet some of your fellow vets, see their needs and the shortfalls that the system currently has in supporting them.

That is actually one of the few places you will find vets, remember we are only 1-2% of the total population of the US. I volinteered at Walter Reed and couldnot believe the condition that hospital was in prior to it's closing.

Then I apologize for my previous post. And I proudly thank you for your service. But far too many of our best and brightest have serves and have suffered for their service. And while it's a glowing idea that they did it for their our country and we other citizens it does not mean that we, the citizens, don't owe them something back. Because we most certainly do. And the value of those services we owe them shouldn't be at the whim of any new president.

It's not just vets that should be asking for the services, it's we, the people who should be demanding them and holding Congress to it. We certainly owe that much to those who serve.

ralph5591

A true veteran would only look at what is best for the country, not what is in their own interests.

And for those of you that have something back to say, yes I am a veteran of Vietnam!

Since you decided to repost your message, I'll repost my reply.

I'm glad you're having a good day Ralph. No problem getting your counseling sessions with the VA. No 3 month delay though you've expressed suicidal ideation (1 veteran commits suicide every 80 minutes). I'm glad the VA hasn't over medicated you to the point where your wife panics and calls an ambulance because you don't respond. I'm glad the VA pays the bill when the $12,000 bill comes for the emergency room visit from the overdose. I'm glad they did so in a timely manner so your home didn't go into foreclosure. I'm glad you don't have a son who has been deployed eight times, lost his family, can't find a job and is sitting in jail because he self medicates waiting for an appointment with VA Psyc. And now that he has been incarcerated for more than 30 days, will have to wait to reapply for his benefits when he's released...then get back on the waiting list.

I'm glad you live a charmed life...take care and God bless.

How about we just don't vote for and kick out all the Republicans who voted down thew Vets job bill .. and anyone else that voted NO.

You have to get rid of these Tea Party religious fanatics.

Romney should start out the debate with the following:

Mr. Obama is excellent at debating. To give an analogy he is like an underweight boxer, he punches above his weight.”

Then Romney should look at Obama and throw a fake jab and smirk at Obama. It would be absolutely hilarious !

http://www.youtube.com/v/erYpXzE9Pxs%26

Example of Obama's "trickle up economics": You will never believe this, but last week I was looking for a job and then out of the blue this really extremely poor guy that looked homeless came to me off the streets and offered me a job with benefits! I could hardly believe it! I was so thankful for this poor person to hire me and give me a job! Every time in the past I had been hired by someone who is poorer than me, but I did not think it would happen again! I am so thankful for all the poor people and the jobs they create for those of us that have more money. These poor people and their venture capital wisdom and their business savy is so helpful. I am always hired by these people that have less than me! Man, thank you, thank you, thank you, for your trickle up economics!!