The American Legion Strongly Opposed to Obama's plan to Charge veterans for treatment

[Smurf-Herder]

Now I know Obama's a crazy asshole.

The American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.


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


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


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


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


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


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


SOURCE The American Legion

[Smurf-Herder]

* bump *

Nobody cares about how the Commander in Chief treats Veterans?

You guys were all in an uproar about it when Bush was President.

[Smurf-Herder]

Veterans groups irate at Obama's private insurance proposal

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Veterans groups are angry after President Obama told them Monday that he is still considering a proposal to have treatment for service-connected injuries charged to veterans' private insurance plans.

Leaders of the country's most prominent veterans groups met Monday at the White House with Obama, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Steven Kosiak, the director in charge of defense spending for the Office of Management and Budget.

Some of the veterans groups were caught off guard when the president said the administration is still thinking about the idea as a way of generating $540 million for the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2010. The groups and some members of Congress have been very vocal in opposing the idea.

The message, according to some of the people in the room, was that if the groups do not like this idea, they need to come back with another way of saving or raising revenue for the VA.

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540 million in revenue," Cmdr. David Rehbein of the American Legion said in a written statement.

But the chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs vowed Tuesday that the plan would never gain the panel's approval.

"VA's sacred duty is to care for veterans injured in honorable service to our nation, and the department should not turn to wounded warriors' private insurance to pay for combat injures," said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii. "Under my chairmanship, the Veterans' Affairs Committee will not advance any such legislation."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said no decision has been made.

"The president and the [veterans service organizations] had a good conversation, and veterans can be assured that the president understands any concerns that they would have," Gibbs said. "The budget the president has proposed represents an historic increase in discretionary spending to take care of our wounded warriors: those that have been sent off to war, have protected our freedom and have come back wounded."

He added, "this president takes very seriously the needs of our wounded warriors that have given so much to protect our freedom on the battlefields throughout the world."

Obama did most of the talking for the administration in the session with veterans representatives, participants said. Shinseki did not speak much in the meeting, which was described as "professional" by David Gorman, executive director of Disabled American Veterans.

The president was sympathetic to the needs of veterans, Gorman said, but insisted that the insurance companies are getting away with not paying for anything.

"The vets are paying premiums to insurance companies, and that is a free ride that needs to stop," Gorman said in describing the president's message to the group.

The groups oppose the idea because they believe that the government has a moral obligation to pay for service-connected injuries for the men and women who risked their lives serving the country.

"This flies in the face of the VA's covenant to cover all service-related health-care expenses," said Jay Agg, a spokesman for AMVETS.

The groups also say that the cost of treating service-connected injuries could lead to veterans quickly maxing out their benefits in third-party insurance, risking coverage for not just them but their families, who are also covered under the plans. In addition, they foresee premiums rising to cover the cost of treating the service-connected injuries.

"We are going to go back in and fight this thing tooth and nail," Gorman said.

He said the president complained that instead of commending the significant budget increase for the VA -- an 11 percent increase in 2010 and $25 billion over five years -- the groups are complaining about this proposal. But Gorman said that the issue of third-party billing is fundamental to the VA and that it is a "distraction" from discussing the budget increases.

Another group, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said that although it is encouraged by the increase in money for veterans' health care, the billing proposal is not acceptable.

"Veterans of all generations agree that this proposal is bad for the country and bad for veterans. If the president and the OMB want to cut costs, they can start at AIG, not the VA," said Paul Rieckhoff, the group's executive director, in a written statement.

The opposition is not a surprise to the White House. The groups had sent a letter opposing the idea when it was just a rumor. Last week, Congress weighed in when members of both the House and Senate Veterans Affairs committees told Shinseki at separate meetings that they objected to the plan.

Shinseki was told by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington, that it would be "dead on arrival." Rep. Mike Michaud, D- Maine, said that if it were presented, he would oppose the entire budget.

It is unconscionable, and it is an insult to our veterans who have been hurt overseas," Michaud said. "It is just unbelievable that anyone would ever think of doing that in this budget."

At the time, Shinseki would say only that the idea was under consideration but no decision had been made.

The groups have another meeting with the White House on Thursday to suggest other options. Both AMVETS and Disabled American Veterans believe that the VA could raise more revenue by being more aggressive about pursuing billings for non-service-connected treatments. Increasing third-party billing for non-service related injuries by 10 percent, suggested Agg, would free up more money to help service-related injuries.

Another idea that will be presented would be to bill Medicare.

"This, we believe, would more easily meet the president's financial goal," said Rehbein, of the American Legion.

Gorman said his group is willing to concede some money in the VA budget to avoid the insurance proposal.

"If it comes down to this issue, which is fundamental to the VA and what it should do, we are willing to give up a couple billion to salvage this issue," Gorman said.

A VA spokesman deferred all questions to the White House. White House officials were not immediately available for comment.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/17/obama.veterans/

[Smurf-Herder]

Daily bump ....... until somebody cares.

[UABblazer]

Well right now it is still in consideration, I don't see it becoming a reality.

[Smurf-Herder]

Well right now it is still in consideration, I don't see it becoming a reality.

He considered it worthy enough to get the veterans turning against him.

[UABblazer]

He considered it worthy enough to get the veterans turning against him.
which hopefully be enough to get him to think twice

[Smurf-Herder]

which hopefully be enough to get him to think twice

Just heard it on TV behind me - he's given up the idea, from the negative reaction.

Go Veterans! :thumbsup:

... my kid is one :D

[foxbaron]

The mere fact that this dumb ass and his cronies even let something like this pass through their brains let alone seriously considered it, is reason enough to impeach, recall, or get rid of them all.

How the hell do you, as Commander-in-Chief, in good concience, send someone in harms way and then tell them to go find their own health insurance to treat themselves after they get their ass blown up following this dickhead's orders.

What insurance company is going to accept them with pre-exiting injuries. Especially things like brain injuries, missing limps, extensive burns and all the other serious injuries one experiences in combat.

How the hell do you get anyone in the future to go into harms way when they know up front, they, not their government, are responsible for putting themselves back together again when it is all over. Thanks for your service, sorry about your missing limbs, but fuck you anyway for being stupid enough to answer your country's call to duty.

Who are these assholes that come up with this shit? Oh yeah, those that have never served nor suffered injuries on our behalf.

This is absolutely the most insulting thing I have ever heard. WE owe our veterans everything and that includes the best medical care in the world. Anything less is unacceptable and anyone proposing this shit is unacceptable to me as a human being, a citizen, and a representative of WE THE PEOPLE.

Any asshole in Congress that goes along with this should have their balls cut off, prior to our throwing them out in the street on their ass.

[UABblazer]

The mere fact that this dumb ass and his cronies even let something like this pass through their brains let alone seriously considered it, is reason enough to impeach, recall, or get rid of them all.

How the hell do you, as Commander-in-Chief, in good concience, send someone in harms way and then tell them to go find their own health insurance to treat themselves after they get their ass blown up following this dickhead's orders.


How the hell do you, as Commander-in-Chief, in good conscience, send someone in harms way to a conflict 100% unfounded, illegal, and pointless?

[foxbaron]

How the hell do you, as Commander-in-Chief, in good conscience, send someone in harms way to a conflict 100% unfounded, illegal, and pointless?


You couldn't possibly be talking about the Iraq war where we determined Saddam was indeed a threat, the Congress agreed and authorized the action and the point was to topple his regime and free millions of people fro oppression. That war?

[Binky]

How the hell do you, as Commander-in-Chief, in good conscience, send someone in harms way to a conflict 100% unfounded, illegal, and pointless?



Since the commander in chief is listening to his advisors, for the most part, he is doing whatever they tell him would be the best thing to do. Keep in mind that he alongwith all others, each have an agenda of their own they want to push along.


You are assuming a commander in chief has a conscience.

[Smurf-Herder]

Since the commander in chief is listening to his advisors, for the most part, he is doing whatever they tell him would be the best thing to do. Keep in mind that he alongwith all others, each have an agenda of their own they want to push along.


You are assuming a commander in chief has a conscience.

On that note, the US Commanders in Iraq jointly advised Obama they felt the most logical pullout period from Iraq for the best security conditions should be 24 months. But he decided on 19.

[UABblazer]

You couldn't possibly be talking about the Iraq war where we determined Saddam was indeed a threat, the Congress agreed and authorized the action and the point was to topple his regime and free millions of people fro oppression. That war?


Oh really? PLEASE inform me on how he was a threat. This will be good.

[GetAClue]

Oh really? PLEASE inform me on how he was a threat. This will be good.

Well some of your heros on the left thought he was enough of a threat to vote for the resolution authorizing the war. Then long after the fact and when the war got bogged down and the MSM began hammering Bush about it, they claimed that they were duped by who they refered to as the dumbest president in our history. How dumb must they be?

[SeniorChief]

Oh really? PLEASE inform me on how he was a threat. This will be good.

Allow me -

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[GetAClue]

Back to the subject of the thread, I just find it amusing that the same guy that wants to Nationalize Health care also considered privatizing the health care of the ONLY ones that this country SHOULD be taking care of.

Is this guy really this dumb? Or is it just those that voted for him?

[Smurf-Herder]

Back to the subject of the thread, I just find it amusing that the same guy that wants to Nationalize Health care also considered privatizing the health care of the ONLY ones that this country SHOULD be taking care of.

Is this guy really this dumb? Or is it just those that voted for him?

He pretends to be dumb. I mean, the guy said during the campaign he had 300 advisors. And they all can't be that dumb.

The plan is to take down the US from the inside. Then rebuild it into a subdued offering for the NWO. A land rich in natural resources and obedient workers, feeding the larger empire.

[UABblazer]

Allow me -

"

Ok.. and it has been proven that Saddam was NOT a threat, which was my original point.

[bairdi]

....bump....

[MintJulep]

bump.......

[foxbaron]

Ok.. and it has been proven that Saddam was NOT a threat, which was my original point.

The original point of this thread was about Obama screwing the troops we send out to fight on our behalf. The fact that you are too damn stupid to understand why and how Saddam was a threat is your problem.

Ther mere fact fact that Obama and the minions in his administration would even come up with a plan lke this shows their disdain for our military. Chances are that the assholes that thought this one up, the President included, have never served one day in the military, probably don't know anyone who has and most likely never had a family member in service or ever in harms way.

This idea is a complete abdication of his responsilbility as a Commander-in-Chief and is sufficient cause to call for his impeachment. You cannot lead those you are not willing to take care of when they are injured following your orders.

It shows a lack of morals and integrity on Obama's part and a complete disregard for the security of this nation.

There is a thing called Honor within the ranks of our military personnel. Honor, the bedrock of their service. Honor, the reason we leave no one behind on the battlefield. Honor, the glue that holds it all together. Honor, the thing that keeps our troops going against all odds. Honor, that committment to each other, their God and our Country. Honor, the pride they have in themselves and the pride we have in them for serving us, we the people.

Honor, a term that is unknown and undefined in the Obama administration.

ANyone in this administration who was involved in and or didn't object to this idiot ass idea should have their citizenship revoked.

[StevenC]

bumping.....