Grow local leadership, not the federal bureaucracy
Defend our freedom to choose
against the liberal insurgency in Congress.
We thank all veterans for defending our Constitution.
Please support the independent Iraq and Afghanistan
war reporting by
Michael Yon, such as this moving "No
young soldiers" post from August 10.
Click here to support his work.
Did anybody else notice Frank Capra's 1942 movie, "Prelude
to War", on the Documentary Channel recently? It's an
interesting review of the situation soon after Pearl Harbor, prepared as
the first chapter of the "Why We Fight" series for members of the
military as Americans finally woke up to what had been happening for
more than a decade, and that the spread of tyranny wasn't just somebody
else's problem.
It may be regarded as a biased pro-war propaganda
piece by some people, but it raises many valid points in the context of
contemporary views and limited public knowledge about the origins of the
war and the nature of the threat which so many Americans had refused to
believe. There were, after all, many leaders who were sympathetic to the
agenda of the tyrants, and even regarded them as a model for social
progress here. That made it urgently necessary for Americans to
unite for victory rather than gradually accept tyranny.
December 7, 2009 -
Pearl Harbor attack remembered 68 years later - Comment: Never
forget the price of complacency as tyranny spreads. We are the
enemy of tyrants, even if we choose to ignore them.
Michael Yon -
Market Garden: A Remembrance During Time of War - Oct. 12 blog
from Afghanistan - there are several pages to this report, so look
beyond the first page for the World War II veterans meeting in the
Netherlands to which the title refers.
October 13, 2009 -
Fallen Marine's father wants change in Afghanistan - Comment:
I questioned these new rules of engagement as soon as they were made
public. They are almost as crazy as the NATO catch-and-release
policy for Somali pirates, which keeps setting them free.
Could we perhaps get Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (the
Senators to whom the father had appealed in vain) to agree to go there
and spend a few weeks with the troops on the front lines under these
rules of engagement, with no special protection other than perhaps a
burqa to avoid offending the local Taliban?
U.S. Census Bureau Facts for Features - Veterans Day 2009: Nov. 11 -
The Census Bureau has released various facts which may be helpful as
background for those who support our veterans. The data in their
press release is repeated for reference below.
www.Legacy.com collects recent
newspaper obituaries (and keeps copies available online for a small
fee). There's a special In
Remembrance section for honoring thousands of American service
members. There are also "Moving
Tributes" created and posted on the site by friends and family.
The National
Purple Heart Hall of Honor is another interesting site which
gathers the legacy stories of wounded veterans. It is located
north of West Point in New Windsor, NY (Hudson River valley).
"They
Have Names" - Unlike the raw casualty numbers of interest to the
news media, this interesting site collects individual legacy stories
about fallen troops, particularly from the war in Iraq.
August 23, 2009 -
Specter Calls for Hearings on End-of-Life Care Guide for Veterans -
Comment: Stung by criticism about the risk of "death panels"
and potential rationing of care to the elderly in the health care
legislation, it now turns out that the Obama administration has approved
a "Your
Life, Your Choices" guide to end-of-life choices (living wills)
in the Veterans Administration which Bush had rejected. While a
living will makes sense, having the government encourage veterans to
plan ahead for their death in order to avoid unwanted medical care to
sustain their lives (at high government expense) is a bit outrageous.
Why did the VA invest in producing and distributing this sort of death
guide? It would have been perfectly adequate to just follow
existing practices, in which the government has already imposed (thanks
to Medicare and other regulations) that hospitals must inform patients
about living wills, and help them to prepare such documents. The
point is that bureaucrats, if given responsibility over health care,
will do more such things.
June 1, 2009 -
US military tweets and
subsequent version- Comment: Increased military use of
social networking tools to report directly from Afghanistan about their activities,
and to receive messages of public support, rather than just communicate through formal press channels.
May 30, 2009 - Obama's Gramps: Gazing skyward on D-Day in England -
Comment: Preparing the narrative for the D-Day ceremony with family
stories - but nothing about Obama himself. Where was the diligent
investigative research about his own background and actions prior to the
election?
April 18, 2009 - NATO frees 20 hostages; pirates seize Belgian ship
- Comment: Look beyond the headline at the rest of this
story. They let the three captured pirates go because they said
they had no legal authority to arrest them! This is the European
response to piracy! If you can't arrest the pirates, then why
can't you at least shoot them on the spot rather than catch and release
them? The Dutch literally set them free because they were "not
Dutch" - and thus not within their mandate. So, if NATO forces
confront pirates, all the pirates have to do is give up their weapons to be set free
to do it again.
Meanwhile, Europeans are talking about how to send more
aid to the area so that young people in Somalia won't be tempted to go
into piracy. This is not a joke! They actually believe this
nonsense. What on earth is going to reward them as much as going
into piracy if there are millions in ransoms to be paid by the
shipowners and insurers, and virtually no consequences for these crimes?
This is like expecting Afghans to grow low-value subsistence crops
instead of high-value weeds like opium.
April 14, 2009 - Ending Somali piracy: few options for US forces -
Comment: the usual European liberal hand-wringing about having few
good options other than to just pay off the pirates. This has been
their approach since the days of Thomas Jefferson. While NATO is
following a "catch and release" policy because their orders are just to
interfere with piracy, without any mandate to capture or kill pirates,
there's reason to believe that the Maersk Alabama rescue by SEALs was
not what the White House spin said.
April 9, 2009 - Obama announces new record system for vets -
Comment: Will this plan to integrate the legacy information systems
for in-service and veterans health care records move forward faster than
other projects, like the air traffic control system which has been
talked about for decades? It may get faster attention because it
is clearly intended to be a model for
nationalizing health care.
April 6, 2009 - Big cuts seen for F-22, other big weapons programs -
Comment: Unilateral commitment to long-term military weakness.
Carter and Clinton are probably proud of Obama. This
administration may weaken the US military so much that their legacies
will seem to be less significant. The F-22 program is just one
part of this story. There's far more to it - including the lack of
long-term strategic threat assessments as other countries continue to
invest heavily in their militaries.
Veterans really need to look into this plan, as do other Americans,
and protest to Congress.
March 19, 2009 - Obama has reportedly abandoned
the controversial plan described below after strong criticism, as was
already anticipated in the comments below. The question remains
why the proposal was even considered seriously. Was it just a ruse
all along to sucker veterans into complacency about other initiatives
once the threatened changes to their health benefits were withdrawn?
What's next?
The
gist is that private health insurance would be drawn into the process
for the care of veterans, which presumably would upset many veterans as
a breach of the commitment by this country to their care.
That would create political pressure which might be
used to rationalize the complete nationalization of health care
services, since private health plans are not designed to deal with the
catastrophic and long-term care consequences of war injuries, or the
unpredictable nature of such risks (according to government decisions
about war). This confuses the unique government obligations to
veterans with the questions of private health care services and costs,
and government spending on social programs.
Think about it. Private health plans and private
medical services could not possibly provide coverage for all of the
wounded veterans which is comparable to VA services (despite any VA
problems). If they attempted to do so (because they would be
mandated by government to do so), then that would drive up the cost for
everyone else in those private health insurance plans, including the
costs to business.
That would likely drive some
of those plans out of business, because their risk exposures would be
unpredictable. A major war with many casualties could wipe them
out - so there wouldn't have to even be such a war. As private
businesses, they couldn't afford to take that chance - unless they have
government guarantees behind them to limit their risk exposures, like
"government sponsored entities", which in effect makes all such plans
subject to federal manipulation, much like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in
the housing industry. That worked out well, right? Instead
of states leading the regulatory oversight of private health insurance
programs, the federal government would become more directly involved
because of the pretext of looking after the private health insurance
services to veterans.
In effect, that transfers much of the burden of veterans
health care from the government (VA programs) to individuals and
businesses in order to create an illusory cost savings for the federal
government.
Since such a move would obviously
anger many veterans and businesses (not just private health insurance
providers), and create the risk of much higher health insurance premiums
for all Americans, this would predictably create a strong public
backlash against any such changes. That is already obvious - after
no more than the initial indications recently that such ideas are even
being considered seriously by the new administration. There is
already growing outrage as news of this idea spreads.
The politicians behind this are not stupid.
They are just manipulative as they push their own agenda. They
will even use veterans, and try to pit other groups of Americans against
them.
This will so predictably create a
public backlash that one must assume the backlash is what they really
want. Conspiracy theory? No. Politics as usual.
They are isolating and attacking potential opponents of their policies.
They are distracting many conservative veterans from their real agenda.
When the threat of such adverse changes for veterans is withdrawn, it
will lull them into complacency.
Suppose that
the White House actually wants this idea to fail - and to thus be
perceived as having listened to veterans and done the right thing by
killing a bad idea which was patently absurd from the start. It
has already covered itself by putting some extra money into the budget
for veterans services, thus helping to deflect public attention and
criticism for intended cuts to military spending next year.
After all, this hasn't already been introduced as
legislation, or sneaked into the bills which have been rammed
through Congress recently as a top priority. That maintains
plausible deniability while the idea is floated to stir up the
expected opposition. The idea can be quickly abandoned in the face
of strong criticism. Chances are that it will never even be
proposed as legislation. Which member of Congress would want to
sponsor this?
The point is, what happens after
they kill it? What's their next move, after veterans predictably
stand up for their health care and kill this stupid idea, as expected?
It's too early to reliably predict their next move.
They won't tip their hand at this stage. All of this happens,
however, in the context of the apparent push to nationalize health care for all
Americans.
In that context, maintaining the VA system provides a
political pretext to claim that private health insurance isn't capable
of efficiently meeting the needs of all Americans. It is obviously
incapable of meeting the needs of veterans. That logic can then be
extended to the problems of providing adequate care for others with
long-term disabilities and catastrophic injuries or illnesses.
After all, wouldn't it be fair to ensure that all Americans receive such
care, rather than risk personal bankruptcy by illness?
Note the recurring theme in recent months of highlighting
that people often have their savings wiped out or go bankrupt when they
have serious health problems, whether they are insured or not.
This creates the illusion that our private health care system is failing
to meet the needs of so many Americans. It's the usual tactic of
using such "victims" as an excuse to push their social agenda.
Politically, that reinforces the argument that only
the federal government can take care of such people - as the VA already
does for veterans. Since the veterans programs must continue, why
shouldn't lots of other Americans be provided with similar federal
health insurance protection and services? Shouldn't we be fair to
all Americans? While we're at it, wouldn't it be discriminatory to
deny such care to illegal aliens in this country, too? Don't we
have a moral obligation for our government to care for everyone from
cradle to grave? The point is to "prove" that private health
insurance doesn't meet all our needs. Once again, the "solution"
becomes more and more federal government intervention in health care.
That is the slippery slope we may be on with this
outrageous proposal. It's a ruse. It will never make it into
actual legislation. It will just set the stage for pushing their
health "reform" agenda by pitting the commitment to veterans health care
against that of other Americans, and claiming that it is unfair to not
care for all those other people who aren't veterans but can't afford the
costly health care they need.
The fact that this country owes a special debt to all
veterans through the health care services and other benefits they
receive doesn't seem to even register with this administration. It
is acknowledged by the rhetoric in public speeches, but not reflected in
deeds. Active members of the military and veterans are not really
their priority. They are just another interest group to be
manipulated for political advantage.
This is really outrageous. The administration is
using these veterans politically to push their agenda. It is using
the false threat of limiting their promised health care benefits as a
ruse to push more benefits for others. This is like scaring
seniors into thinking that their own benefits are at risk in order to
justify extending benefits to other groups with their support. It
pits one group of Americans against others as a manipulative political
strategy to impose the liberal social agenda of this Administration.
Don't fall for it! Don't just complain about
this illusory threat to veterans benefits. Fight against the
nationalization of health care. Fight against the politicians who
think they can sucker veterans and other Americans into supporting their
plans by pitting groups of us against each other. Stand united.
As Glenn Beck put it, "we
surround them". This April 15, join the
Tea Party movement, and then make
this Memorial Day and July 4 memorable for such manipulative
politicians. Don't become complacent when they disavow any plans
to change VA benefits. Stand up to them.
The
veterans who have survived their service to this country, as well as
those who are still serving and those who have died during their service
or thereafter, have all given that "last full measure of devotion" to
our country of which Lincoln spoke so eloquently at
Gettysburg.
The
task remains before us, however, to ensure "that
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not
perish from the earth." This is not a Civil War between the
states. It is class warfare to divide and conquer politically.
As in his time, the greatest threat to this country may come from
within, rather than just from other countries. Free people can
choose to surrender their independence to the creeping tyranny of
populist political leaders because they "are
more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." (Declaration
of Independence)
As
George Washington warned in his farewell
address of 1796, we should fear that political parties can lead us
down a divisive road to tyranny despite all of the careful checks and
balances against it.
Note
the difference in the Marine Corps reactions to George W. Bush in a
surprise visit to the troops in Iraq, versus their "tepid" response to
Barack Obama during a formal visit to Camp Lejeune in NC.
As posted on "The
Real Revo" blog, which attracted comments by many veterans and some
abuse by liberals. Respect is earned by commanders through their
deeds and the results, not political rhetoric.
This
Memorial Day, as on July 4, Veterans Day, and on every other day of the
year, we should once again give sincere thanks to all those in our local
communities who have sacrificed so much to defend our unique way of life
as a society which cherishes individual life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.
This is not limited to the
military veterans of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard or
Merchant Marine. There are those who have served this country
through our national intelligence services, the diplomatic and other
parts of the Foreign Service, and in many elected offices, appointed
positions, and Civil Service or other jobs at the federal, state, and
local levels of government.
All of these should share the common commitment to
uphold and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. They have all played an important role in our country.
The military veterans have in some respects risked the most in terms of
potential loss of life or injury, but many in our diplomatic,
intelligence, and other government services have made great sacrifices
too, including some who were killed, worked while they were targets of
our enemies, or endured torture in captivity.
We are all patriotic Americans, even though we may
disagree vehemently on some political issues, including where to draw
the line on the proper role of a limited government in our society.
We also respect those who have chosen to never engage in any public
service or serve their community at all, whether through volunteer work
or charity. In America, they are free to choose how to live their
lives, which includes the freedom to pursue only their own
self-interests within the basic constraints of law.
They
have all defended the unique premise of the United States Constitution,
and the Declaration of Independence which preceded it, as a bold
declaration of our unique vision for a limited government and almost
unlimited American individual dreams, rather than vice versa.
We don't dream of what our government can do for us.
We dream of what we can accomplish for ourselves, our families, and in
cooperation with our friends, colleagues, and others in our communities.
We the people are still in charge - not we the
benevolent rulers with some humility and sense of noblesse oblige
to care for everyone in a fair way, or the arrogance to favor one group
over any other just because we have achieved the political power to do
so. Regardless of good intentions, we trust each other as
individuals far more than we trust any elected officials or government
programs.
We dream of what we can accomplish by ourselves, and
by working with others, in spite of the heavy and necessary burdens of
supporting the basic social infrastructure of a limited government.
We take personal responsibility for our own success in life, and to care
for our family, friends, and neighbors as a personal commitment "with
malice toward none; with charity toward all". We do not
expect our government to "spread the wealth" more fairly according to
current political power and party priorities.
We do
not elect rulers any more than the military gets to choose the
commander-in-chief. We do not owe homage to the incumbent of any
government office. Our allegiance is to our Constitution and our
unique system of government, and through it to respect each other as
free individuals. We defend the fundamental principles on which
our country was founded.
We don't idolize
politicians as good rulers, nor should we demonize the bad ones.
They earn our respect by their deeds and results, or they don't.
Their rhetoric is not what distinguishes them. Our focus is on the
mission of this country as that shining beacon of hope for greater
individual freedom and prosperity. We don't accept excuses for
tyranny through the unchecked power of governments.
We choose our public servants to temporarily represent
our individual interests in keeping America as a whole strong and
prosperous, and we cautiously preserve our power to replace them.
We do not elect Representatives or Senators to "bring home the bacon" to
their own states or districts, as though the federal government were an
endless fountain of wealth from which all could drain as much as
possible.
We elect them to responsibly guide the fundamental and
challenging work of a limited government with limited resources as
efficiently and effectively as possible so that it will not become too
large a burden for us to bear in a competitive world.
We look to our government for the basic "level playing
field" on which all Americans may compete in a free and fair way, rather
than as the dealer in a game of marked cards by which government
influence and political power become the key to prosperity by a favored
group. Government should not be in the game to pick the "winners"
and "losers" through the power to influence or control the outcome.
In this country, we compete for success. We don't expect or trust
any noble rulers to bestow it upon us.
We trust individuals to protect their own
self-interests through thoughtful choices and experience. We may
make mistakes, but we generally learn from them and correct them, rather
than perpetuate them.
In
short, 300 million Americans will make better choices over time than a
handful of politicians, no matter how clever or powerful they may seem
to be at the time. We don't worship our leaders. We examine
their performance, not just their rhetoric. We focus on
accomplishing the mission. The mission before us remains to make
America the envy of the world, as well as the most charitable, by
empowering free individuals to work together and compete to achieve
great accomplishments, rather than by empowering government leaders to
impose their own social ideas on everyone else.
We
honor all those who have contributed so much to the remarkable success
of this country. We are all veterans of the American revolution,
and we all share the individual responsibility to defend it.
Fact Check for veterans
U.S. Census Bureau Facts for
Features - Veterans Day 2009: Nov. 11 - The Census Bureau has
released various facts which may be helpful as background for those who
support our veterans. The data in their press release of October
13, 2009 is repeated for reference below.
Veterans Day originated as "Armistice Day" on Nov. 11, 1919, the first
anniversary of the end of World War I. Congress passed a resolution in
1926 for an annual observance, and Nov. 11 became a national holiday
beginning in 1938. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed legislation in
1954 to change the name to Veterans Day as a way to honor those who
served in all American wars. The day honors living military veterans
with parades and speeches across the nation. A national ceremony takes
place at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery in
Virginia.
23.2 million
The number of military veterans in the United States in 2008.
Source: Table 508, Upcoming Statistical Abstract of the United States:
2010
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
Female Veterans
1.8 million
The number of female veterans in 2008.
Source: Table 508, Upcoming Statistical Abstract of the United States:
2010
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
Race and Hispanic Origin 2.3 million
The number of black veterans in 2008. Additionally, 1.1
million veterans were Hispanic; 276,000 were Asian; 160,000 were
American Indian or Alaska Native; 27,000 were Native Hawaiian or Other
Pacific Islander; and 18.3 million were non-Hispanic white. (The
numbers for blacks, Asians, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Native
Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, and non-Hispanic whites cover
only those reporting a single race.)
Source: 2008 American Community Survey
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=&_lang=en&_ts=
When They Served 9.2 million
The number of veterans 65 and older in 2008. At the other end of
the age spectrum, 1.9 million were younger than 35.
Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, unpublished data
7.8 million
Number of Vietnam-era veterans in 2008. Thirty-three percent of
all living veterans served during this time (1964-1975). In addition,
5.2 million served during the Gulf War (representing service from
Aug. 2, 1990, to present); 2.6 million in World War II (1941-1945);
2.8 million in the Korean War (1950-1953); and 6 million in
peacetime.
Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, unpublished data
50,000 Number of living veterans in 2008 who served during the Vietnam Era
and both Gulf War eras.
Other living veterans in 2008 who served during three wars: -- 92,000
served during World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam Era.
5 = Number of states with 1 million or more veterans in 2008. These
states were California
(2.1 million), Florida (1.7 million), Texas (1.7 million),
New York (1 million) and Pennsylvania (1 million).
Source: Table 508, Upcoming Statistical Abstract of the United States:
2010
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
Voting
15.8 million
Number of veterans who voted in the 2008 presidential election.
Seventy-one percent of veterans cast a ballot, compared with 63 percent
of nonveterans.
Source: Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/voting/013995.html
Business Owners
14.5%
Percentage of owners of firms responding to the 2002 Survey of Business
Owners who were veterans. Veteran business owners comprised an estimated
3 million of the 20.5 million owners represented by survey respondents.
Source: Characteristics of Veteran-Owned Businesses: 2002
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/business_ownership/010337.html
68%
Percentage of veteran owners of respondent firms who were 55 and older.
This compares with 31 percent of all owners of respondent firms.
Similarly, in 2002, 55 percent of veteran-owned respondent firms with
employees reported that their businesses were originally established,
purchased or acquired before 1990, compared with 36 percent of all
employer respondent firms.
Source: Characteristics of Veteran-Owned Businesses: 2002 and
Characteristics of Veteran Business Owners: 2002
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/business_ownership/010337.html
7%
Percentage of veteran business owners of respondent firms who were
disabled as the result of injury incurred or aggravated during active
military service.
2.9 million
Number of veterans who received compensation for service-connected
disabilities as of 2008. Their compensation totaled $36.2 billion.
Source: Tables 511 and 512, Upcoming Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 2010
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
$84.4 billion
Total amount of federal government spending for veterans benefits
programs in fiscal year 2008. Of this total, $40.2 billion went to
compensation and pensions, $37.9 billion for medical programs and the
remainder to other programs, such as vocational rehabilitation and
education.
Source: Table 511, Upcoming Statistical Abstract of the United States:
2010
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau - Editor's note: The preceding data were
collected from a variety of sources and may be subject to sampling
variability and other sources of error. Facts for Features are
customarily released about two months before an observance in order to
accommodate magazine production timelines. Questions or comments should
be directed to the Census Bureau's Public Information Office: telephone:
301-763-3030; fax: 301-763-3762; or e-mail: pio@census.gov.
The
inclusion of any website links on this site does not reflect any endorsement
of their content, or vice versa. This information is just shared
openly for the convenient reference of our visitors.
