By John DeMayo
The Obama Administration controlled Department of Veteran Affairs has just told disabled veterans to “Embrace the Suck. “ This slang phrase, often used in times of desperation, is recognized by all US military personnel as meaning, “Face it soldier. I have been there. This ain’t easy. Now let’s deal with it.”
In contempt of a 2013 Circuit Court order (in Harris v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs et al Eric Shinseki), the Obama Veterans Administration recently filed a potentially illegal VA policy guideline change with the federal registry. If approved, the VA will begin stripping veteran’s legal rights, increase veterans disability claims denials and make it more difficult for veterans to challenge unfair VA disability ratings determinations.
In Harris v. Shinseki, a Circuit Court ruled the VA must follow established Veterans Administration policy and cannot unfairly deny or terminated a veteran’s right to due process in disability claims adjudication or appeal by claiming a veteran did not fill out the proper claims form.
Hidden, yet recently discovered in the federal registry is a new Department of Veterans Affairs policy directive dated October 31, 2013 (38 CFR Parts 3, 19 and 20 Standards Claims and Appeals Forms). Although the policies stated objective claims “to improve the quality and timeliness of processing of veteran’s claims“, nothing could be further from the truth.
The Obama Administration—finally fed up with being blamed for its failure to reduce record veteran disability claims backlogs and obscene rates of veteran homelessness and suicides—is arrogantly pursuing the violation of a 2013 court order protecting veterans and once again violating rights to due process.
The VA directive above will cause needless delays in existing disability claims processing, open the door for low balling of disability ratings, increase the volume of denied claims and see many veterans reluctant to endure the stress of a VA claim process abandon their claim altogether.
This new Veterans Administration policy will require all new VA disability claims to be filed on a newly designed form or filed electronically. To the average American, this seems to make sense, but to our disabled veterans—many who do not have access to computers and the internet, and some, without an address—this will mean further complications and delays in applying for and receiving the benefits, they deserve.
Moreover, this new VA policy change will effectively eliminate established grounds for disability claims appeal by eliminating “requests for reconsideration” which includes Congressional inquiries. This would all but purge any Congressional power to challenge an incorrect VA disability determination on behalf of a veteran constituent. Often times this is the court of last resort for veterans denied VA benefits.
Once again, another Obama cabinet appointee, Eric Shinseki, Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, has ordered an extraordinary cabinet level policy change (a potentially illegal policy change) that undermines existing Circuit Court precedent. All to cover the Obama Administrations careless incompetence and loyalties to the American Federation of Government Employees, the union representing inept Veterans Administration staff. All in the dead of night, while Congress is on its current break.
This is how the White House plans to sweep the VA deficiencies and our veterans under the rug.
Where is the Justice Department? Where is Attorney General Eric Holder? If a private insurer had changed their process for claims filing midstream in order to avoid paying out, delaying or discouraging valid claims submissions the federal government would have them in front of a Grand Jury in a heartbeat.
In the dead of night, while Congress was on break, our transparent Obama Administration slid a new VA directive into the federal registry effectively stripping existing veteran’s rights without so much as a hearing. All too artificially reduce the number of outstanding or backlogged veteran’s disability claims under current Congressional scrutiny. This is how the Obama administration cooks their books.
This is how government treats those who provide for their freedom.
By John DeMayo
A valuable debate is waging in America, and here at Freedom Outpost. Should America follow the path of the Convention of States or that of Nullification? The United States Constitution and the American system of governance are at stake. I do not have an axe to grind with my fellow writers who may disagree with my positions. I respect their right to their learned opinions. Yet I dissent and I will not to be brief.
I am a Conservative and a strong supporter of the US Constitution. For 100 years, our government (both parties) has trampled uncaringly over this honored document. It has left American citizens of all ideologies worried and the beast comprised of 320 million is now restless. This is a good thing. Moreover, so is healthy and honest debate.
The Convention of States (COS) is a movement (granted by Article 5 of the US Constitution) designed to restore government adherence to limited and enumerated powers of the US Constitution. The movement and its leaders, patriotic American men and women, now endure disparaging allegations designed to weaken public support for their proposals to amend the US Constitution.
Opponents of the COS call the movement a scam designed to “re-write the Constitution” and instead demand strict adherence and enforcement of the US Constitution. However, I wonder what version of the Constitution they wish to have enforced?
Opponents of a COS would have Americans blindly swallow the myth that the US Constitution is a perfect document created by divinely influenced men (not women) that has never seen modification or revision. This is a fallacious contention. From its litigious birth, the US Constitution experienced numerous modifications and AMENDMENTS designed to augment vagaries and weaknesses in our laws.
The 18th century process of creating and ratifying—our founder’s first version of the US Constitution—took years of hard fought debates. From September 1787 through January of 1791—during the Constitution’s ratification process—anti-federalist opponents refused to support ratification of the original US Constitution as they believed the original document to be weak on states rights and personal freedoms.
Added to assuage anti-federalist’s concerns and garner support for ratification, the Bill of Rights (the first TEN AMENDMENTS to the Constitution) was adopted in December of 1791. These TEN AMENDMENTS guaranteed limited federal government power, protected citizens personal freedoms and strengthened states sovereignty and rights to self-determination.
A recent article at Freedom Outpost implied George Mason—recognized along with James Madison as a “Father of our Bill of Rights” for his co-authoring of these TEN AMENDMENTS—lacks credibility as a founder. Somehow, opponents are now striving to discredit Mason—by citing his refusal to sign the Constitution—as cause to reject Mason.
Absent from these contentions is Mason’s reason for refusing to add his name to the Constitution. Mason’s refusal, in part, stemmed from his belief our original document did not go far enough to protect the supremacy of individual and states rights. Remember only ten of Mason and Madison’s twelve proposed AMENDMENTS were adopted as our beloved Bill of Rights.
Do opponents of a modern day Convention of States believe we should discard these TEN AMENDMENTS because they were not part of our founders original Constitution? Alternatively, are they suggesting we cherry pick amendments they find unappealing (eleven through twenty-seven) using “nullification“. Perhaps opponents of a Convention of States would care to define with specificity the version of the US Constitution deserving of their respectful enforcement.
Moral corruptions connection to tyranny cannot be denied. Human moral corruption has existed prior to our founding. The acceptance of slave ownership and trade, a moral compromise made at Americas 18th century Constitutional Convention would take a 19th century constitutional AMENDMENT to begin to heal slaveries moral inequity once accepted as law.
The 19th AMENDMENT to the US Constitution, a 20th century departure from respect for the original version of our founders constitution, gave women the right to vote and cured another moral inequity or tyrannical practice supported by many of our founders.
Opponents of a COS take the leadership of this movement to task by alleging a hidden agenda to “re-write” the Constitution. As a supporter of the COS movement and an activist for the cause, I feel an obligation to make the record clear.
The COS has “PROPOSED” (or suggested) amendments to be considered at a constitutional convention and the COS movement and its membership has not been chosen to any potential delegation that may take place. The movement is simply offering a template to America. For any one to imply that Michael Farris or his staff will determine the content of proposed amendments is ludicrous.
Like our original Constitution and the TWENTY SEVEN AMENDMENTS our government adopted to date, these proposals will be vetted, modified and supplemented. Their value and legitimacy will have to clear the hurdle of a two thirds state delegation approval vote before even being considered for ratification which then requires three fourths of state delegations to vote to ratify their adoption into the US Constitution. Article 5 of the US Constitution established this process.
No one American has the power to control a Convention of States. It is by the will of the people, through their chosen delegations, that these amendments are offered for consideration. Individual state processes for delegation selection may differ, but the fact remains, one man or women will never be granted power in a Convention of States to define those amendments. That power rests with delegations chosen by citizens or their elected state legislatures, not by me, Michael Farris, Mark Levin or Jeremy Sillers. If pursued, this process will take years.
I am not going to defend Mr. Farris, Sillers or Levin. Their words and writing belong to them as mine belong to me alone. However, I would like to remind Americans; at one time Mark Levin opposed a Convention of States. His book “The Liberty Amendments” offers his well thought out conversion. He can defend himself. Likewise, Michael Farris, a constitutional lawyer, founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association and Patrick Henry College, is not a quacking ideologue. He too can defend his words and actions without my help.
The article mentioned above rightly takes Americans to task for ignoring their responsibilities to elect honorable leadership and for failing to learn and understand our founding principles and laws. I agree. I would also like to add to that sentiment by reminding Americans of their historically deficient voter participation. Cumulative statistics prove that less than 70% of Americans vote in national elections and less then 40% participate in local contests. We the people have confirmed our apathetic tendencies and our federal government is feeding insatiably off them.
Opponents of a Convention of States suggest state governments are responsible for federal intrusion by accepting unconstitutional laws (which demand nullification) in exchange for federal subsidies to the states, therefore surrendering sovereignty. In part, I agree. However, given abysmal citizen engagement of their state governments on these types of issues, I am inclined to plant that failure squarely at the feet of Americans. Government works for us and we have done a lousy job of reminding them of that fact by sitting out the process for selfish reasons.
The author of the Freedom Outpost article I mentioned (whose writing I do respect) is an attorney. Her article left me with the veiled suggestion that consideration of constructional changes to the US Constitution should be left to those formally educated in law. I adamantly disagree.
The beauty of our Constitution’s imperfect convergence was not created by scholarly lawyers alone. It involved statesmen of varied backgrounds, ideologies, religions and education levels. Given the dismal record litigators own in America, I think Americans would emphatically support a little less lawyer-ing.
I would also suggest writers seeking to question the intentions of their worthy adversaries to do so out in the open. Personally, I question the credibility of critics who choose convenient anonymity. If you believe what you say, present your case for character assassination in person. It would be viewed as honorable.
In closing, I will not debate the founder’s intents. Anyone who has read the Declaration of Independence and ample correspondence and speeches given during the creation and ratification of our original constitution, understands original intent. It is clear that the federal government was restricted to limited powers with the balance residing with the states and their citizens. If I am not mistaken that includes supporters of a Convention of States, not just anonymous advocates supporting the supremacy of nullification.
The “Convention of States” is not a subversive movement seeking to hijack the US Constitution. It is a gathering of Patriots recruiting and organizing our citizenry in support of taking back our Constitution and Federal government, through an Article 5 convention, by will of the people and publicly approved amendments. To suggest that amending the US Constitution is irresponsible flies in the face of not only our Republics history, but also our founder’s actions. I find that a little, as they say, silly.
By John DeMayo
Hundreds of thousands of backlogged cases, and 22 veteran suicides per day in America, yet only a handful of Congress are engaging in efforts to support a pilot program designed by US Combat Veterans to improve performance and reduce costs at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
You would think all of our elected representatives in Washington would share genuine concern for our disabled combat veterans. After all, they owe their safety and national security to those who fight our wars. However, not all of our Congress gives legitimacy to veteran’s claims of poor performance at the VA. Some of our federal legislature, too busy adding to our national debt and pursuing endless inconclusive oversight investigations, think the VA is working just fine.
A few weeks ago, these retired non-coms traveled from Florida to Washington to meet with an assembly of federal legislators to present their case to save taxpayers money by streamlining the failing VA claims processing and disability ratings system.
Senator Ted Cruz (R.) TX and Senator Marco Rubio (R.) Fl, committed to this meeting. Congressman Daryl Issa (R.) CA, Kathy Castor (D.) Fl, Tammy Duckworth (D.) IL, Ron Desantis (R.) FL, and Gus Bilirakis (R.) FL also pledged to attend.
Not many would keep their commitment, instead they sent assistants, aids and interns to fulfill their promise to the Veteran Warriors and America‘s struggling community of disabled veterans. Many of these substitutes (representing absentee legislators) had limited exposure to Veterans Administration problems and issues. Moreover, some, to be kind, were clueless.
Veterans residing in the State of Illinois might want to take note, Congressman, Tammy Duckworth (D) and Ms Stephanie Ueng (Duckworth’s designated Rep. for this scheduled meeting) did not bother to show up, cancel or call to acknowledge the Veteran Warriors presence. Given Rep. Duckworth’s service in Iraq and the lose of both her legs to combat injury while serving as a Black Hawk helicopter pilot, I would want to know why Rep. Duckworth ducked the meeting and is withholding her support for VA overhaul.
After the November 2013 meeting, Lauren Price YN1, Veteran Warriors Public Affairs Representative confirmed the following members of Congress publicly committed to supporting the Veteran Warriors proposal for VA overhaul after a small-scale test of its implementation proves successful. Sen. Ted Cruz (R.) TX, Sen. Marco Rubio (R.) Fl, Rep. Tim Bishop (D.) NY, Rep. Kathy Castor (D.) Fl, Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R.) Fl, Ron DeSanti
Somehow true leaders always rises to they occasion.
Genuine concern for poorly publicized VA problems (exposed during meetings with the Veteran Warriors) prompted engaged representatives (listed above) to support a federally funded pilot program to test the Veteran Warriors proposal for long overdue VA overhaul.
November’s meeting also prompted an invitation for Veteran Warriors to testify at a December 4,2013 House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing to address VA deficiencies, backlog issues and complex disability claims. A link to the Video of the hearing is here.http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AffairsDis
After the completion of these hearings, Lauren Price YN1, confirmed through Erin Snow, Legislative Assistant to Congressmen Beto O’Rourke (D.) Texas, has also pledged support to the future implementation of a successful Veteran Warrior VA pilot program.
Time will tell if more of our elected representatives will take notice and climb on board.
Given there are an estimated 22 million veterans all over America, I am disappointed more of Washington’s flag waving, platitude spewing elite are not falling all over themselves to support the first serious, non-government solution to decades of VA incompetence. Perhaps Congressional devotion to Washington’s American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) union might explain current overhaul trepidations.
I would hope Americans concerned about our veterans would take the time to contact their representatives in Washington and insist they attend any future hearings on VA overhaul attended by the Veteran Warriors. They all fought for us. We should all work toward fulfilling the promises we made to them.
On a personal note, I would like to thank Jim Price, Laurens husband for the stealth and undying loyalty he has shown to this noble cause. For those who do not know the Price’s, Jim is Lauren’s husband. He is also a disabled veteran and a member of the Veteran Warrior team. For those that take the time to watch the CSPAN video of last week’s testimony, Jim is the guy always at his wife’s side. Thanks for tolerating me, Jim.
By John DeMayo
Americans supporting an Article 5 convention or Convention of States seem to be taking blows from both the left and the right these days. Some well-known and respected Constitutionalists who prefer to remain anonymous, and some who do not, have blasted this movement as stupid, dangerous and short-sighted. I would respectfully disagree.
For those unfamiliar with the Article 5 convention or Convention of States, you will find a brief summary supporting its use and all proposed amendments here. http://convention.movements.us/
First, I do not write anonymously and that is my ugly mug on my writer’s bio. I am not hiding behind a nom de plume; my real name is John DeMayo. This will not be a heady article. I wrote this for everyone. It is not a response designed to impress intellectuals. I write this in simple terms to encourage Americans to consider supporting this worthy effort.
I like Mark Levin. I enjoy his show, impolite retorts and insight, but Mr. Levin is not the mad genius behind an Article 5 Convention of States. Our founders gave us this gift. A gift designed for the times we are living in today.
Rhetorically speaking, if our founders–who agreed on little and negotiated everything–thought the concept of a Convention of States dangerous or irresponsible, why did they include it in the US Constitution? As a matter of historical fact, it was included in the Constitution at the insistence of George Mason to deal with Congressional refusal to initiate legal amendment processes.
Is it risky? Is there potential for abuse or corruption? Of course, there is potential. Will passing over this provision of our Constitution and moving on to nullification— as Constitution of States opponents suggest–assuage the threat of corrupt political acts? Not as long as human beings are involved in the process.
We live in a time so bereft of hope and honesty that many of my compatriots are preparing to defend themselves against Federal Government aggression. They have all but given up involving themselves in electoral processes. They have made preparations and they are ready for a fight. I cannot disagree with them.
As another option, we have other Americans calling for “nullification,” an idea I applaud, but one which I believe will lead inevitably to armed confrontation with Washington. Do opponents of an Article 5 amendment convention believe for one minute that the Federal government will tolerate state nullification of federal statutes without reprisals?.
In my opinion, a Convention of States provides loyal Americans–not the Washington elite or the entitlement addicted peppered all over our nations urban areas–with an opportunity to draw a legal line in the sand. To rally traditional America around a valuable constitutional process; a process promoting states rights that could prevent the armed internal conflict I see on the horizon.
The opposition to a Convention of States would have Americans believe that the process can not be entrusted to our state legislatures or the US Congress. Opponents claim this act, never used in the history of our Republic, could lead to a runaway convention causing unintended damage to our Constitution. They also claim that the US Congress has the legal authority to reject an amendment convention even if supported by the requisite two-thirds states. I cannot disagree completely. However, all of these political prophecies ignore the consequences of such careless federal decisions.
Under Article 5, the US Congress does possess the legal authority to reject an amendment convention supported by two-thirds of states. Such an act of utter disregard for the voice of the people would guarantee mass state nullification of federal laws–determined to be unlawful by state legislatures–which in turn would eventually lead to armed conflict or insurrection.
If approved, a state Constitution amendment convention by law is limited in its scope. To fear its hijacking for nefarious purposes is a stretch. An Article 5 amendment convention can only propose amendments supported by two-thirds of the states and all amendments require ratification by three-fourths of states before being added to the US Constitution.
Demographics prove rural America supports predominantly strong right of center government policy. Large American cities (depending on their geographic location and history) lean toward liberal and progressive ideologies. There is more red geography in America than blue. Also, there are more right leaning states representatives than left leaning in America.
State legislative representatives live in, raise families, worship and see their constituents everyday. I am sure they wish to continue to enjoy those freedoms without the constant threat of public rejection. I trust my local government–those that I can reach out and touch without having to travel across the country–to respect the will of their states citizens. I have faith that my state representatives–who overwhelmingly support the second amendment–would resist betraying there armed friends and neighbors who voted for them. Think Colorado.
The federal government may oppose a Convention of States. If pursued, that act of tyranny would more than likely set the stage for a complete break with our citizens and Washington is not ready for that volume of bloodshed.
Honest debate is good for America. Our republic was formed through horrendous disagreements and long and hard-fought debates. Even Madison and Jefferson had disagreements. The Convention of States is not a cause de jour, it is a legitimate option for America. I believe it can–with public support–provide hopeless Americans with real and lasting solutions for our American crisis.
Cynicism is rampant in modern American culture and it will be our downfall. Our nation is not divided, we are splintered. We are being ground to dust by a defeatist mentality looking for political perfection. This Republic was not born with out a fight and it will never be perfect.
I would ask those slinging arrows and ranting about enforcing the laws of our neglected Constitution, “How do you propose to undue the damage caused by illegal twentieth century constitutional amendments? Amendments like the 17th that all but guaranteed the erosion of states rights we experience today. Is nullification the solution you propose?
Now that is a plan ripe for corruption. As a matter of fact it’s a similar philosophy to the one propagated by the current guy in charge, and that is something for Americans to fear.
If you wish to join and support the “Convention of States” visit http://mov.us/5lETLWJ
By John DeMayo
The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Eric Shinseki, a Obama appointee, just announced he would no longer require government employed VA claims processors to work more than 40 hours per week. Once again, hundreds of thousands of veterans suffering from debilitating physical and mental injuries will continue to wait, veterans suicides will increase, all because our VA workforce cannot handle an additional 20 hours of paid overtime each month.
Most Americans are not aware of the magnitude of gross negligence that exists at the Veterans Administration. American veterans numbering in the hundreds of thousands, who have given of themselves in service to our country–currently denied treatment–watch as their lives and families are torn apart, all because our wasteful and bloated government will no longer authorize mandatory claims processing personnel overtime.
Last week, the House Subcommittee on Veterans Disability and Military Funerals held hearings to discuss VA claims processing deficiencies, accountability and solutions. One of the sworn witnesses, Mrs. Bettye McNutt, a widow of a Vietnam Veteran testified about her decade’s long struggle to secure a fair hearing on her VA claim.
In 1987, Bettye McNutt’s husband succumbed to a particularly aggressive form of cancer—caused by his exposure to Agent Orange–leaving Mrs. McNutt to raise and provide for the couple’s son alone. In 1990, Mrs. McNutt filed a claim with the Veterans Administration. To date Mrs. McNutt lives without a resolution on twenty-three year old VA claim.
Her testimony was both heart wrenching and exasperating.
Year after year, this military widow and her young son would suffer through countless VA claims processing errors, failed appeals, and bare cupboards and disconnected utility services, only to–once again–be denied because the VA had yet to accept fully the connection between Agent Orange exposure and veteran cancers.
Today, the Veterans Administration is claiming to have made historic headway in reducing claims backlogs, enough headway that Veterans Administration Secretary Shinseki is drawing down his administrative troops. It is all a lie and a ruse.
With hundreds of thousands of veteran’s claims yet to be processed, the VA is claiming recent efforts have reduced the claims backlog (the number of veterans waiting more than 125 days for a claims response) by more than on third. In reality, the VA has only reduced the wait time for veterans seeking a status change to their existing disability claim. Status changes like adding or dropping a spouse or child, not those claims of veterans with complex claims awaiting care.
Complex claims (ex. cases of multiple injuries involving loss of use of hand combined with PTSD or back injury combined with traumatic brain injury) are still the overwhelming majority of outstanding VA claims filling Veterans Administration backlogs. Because of their complexity, these cases are the most difficult and time-consuming to process and rate.
Under new VA procedural guidelines, these claims are also some of the last to be processed. Why? Because the VA does not have enough experienced claims processing personnel and mandatory training regiments are neglected; leaving the bulk of those veterans (and their families) with complex claims relegated to endless waits with uncertain outcomes.
Many more veterans–demoralized by the nightmarish experiences of their fellow warriors–refuse to look toward the VA for the help and benefits they earned and are entitled to receive. These veterans would rather live their lives without VA help than subject themselves to the poor treatment experienced by their fellow soldiers at the hands of an unresponsive VA.
In 2013, the Veterans Administration was granted a budget increase of 8.5 %. The VA was also exempted from sequestration cuts and for 17 days, this past October (during the government shutdown) all furloughed VA employees received full pay for missed time at work. Like all years prior, less than 50% of the VA budget (current year increases included) will go directly to the care of our veterans.
Moreover, Secretary Shinseki is worried about overexerting his staff? He is genuinely concerned about “diminishing returns?” This man should be fired.
Mrs. McNutt’s testimony put it all in perspective for me. I hope her words ring through for all civilian Americans. Mrs. McNutt said it simply, “The VA is just waiting for me to die.”
No jobs, no healthcare, no support, but they have one hell of a crisis prevention 1-800 number.
This is how America treats those who responded to the call to protect us? In addition, we just sit at home and bellyache about Obamacare and minimum wage increases. I would be ashamed to look Mrs. McNutt in the eye. She has been betrayed by her fellow citizens, as are our all veterans.
By John DeMayo
Veteran suicides are growing at a rate that will soon surpass that of civilians. However, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the rate of American heterosexual HIV rate infections has remained stable for years.
Five days ago President Obama vowed to “chart a different future, guided by our love for those we couldn’t save,” and committed $100 million additional American taxpayer dollars to….wait now…. a “world without AIDS that he wants for his daughters.”
On December 1, 2013, President Obama hosted the annual “World AIDS Day” celebration. The President gave a heart warming speech prioritizing his new Executive Branch goal of curing AIDS, committed 100 million taxpayer dollars to additional AIDS research and presided over the hanging of a big red AIDS ribbon on our White House.
After reviewing the transcript of Obama’s AIDS day speech, I looked up the most recent data on AIDS infections and deaths in America. I also researched data on veteran and active duty military suicides.
The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) claimed 15,529 Americans infected with AIDS died in 2010. However, and again according to the CDC, not all Americans with AIDS died of AIDS related causes.
Many of them died in automobile accidents, homicides, suicides, plane crashes, drowning and from other non-AIDS related medical maladies. Yet they are all counted by the CDC as “American victims of AIDS.” Some experts claim the true number of AIDS deaths in America is actually less than 50% of those reported by the CDC as “AIDS deaths.”
In would appear, AIDS deaths in America–as unemployment rates, economic growth and the costs of Obamacare—are purposely manipulated to sway public opinion.
Prior to 2010, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DOMA) never bothered to keep accurate statistics on active duty and military veteran suicides. Recently the DOD reported 349 active duty military suicides for the year 2012.
A 2013 Department of Veterans Affairs report (using veteran suicide rates from 1999-2010) determined veterans choose suicide once every 65 minutes (22 times per day) in America. However, this report fails to take into account suicides committed by veterans not under VA care or those not in the VA system. VA reports also exclude homeless veterans that die anonymously, those veterans that die in self-inflicted car crashes, by drug overdose and those that do not leave a suicide note. These suicides are rarely reported and are never recorded by the Veterans Administration.
Using government data, veteran suicides have increased 31% since 1999 and show no signs of slowing. Many experts claim that the current under reported veteran suicide rate (over 8000 per year) will steadily climb if the Department of Veterans Affairs does not reduce its case backlog, expedite disability ratings and pursue long overdue overhaul of an inefficient and unresponsive VA.
Clearly, veteran and active duty military suicide is at epidemic levels. The same cannot be said of Americans dying from AIDS.
One would think veteran and active duty suicide rates would foster more than feigned Presidential moral disdain. One could also assume this disgraceful national epidemic is worthy of “government investment” or some well-intentioned Obama constitutional violation, but you would be disappointed.
Therefore, what has Obama done about military suicides and VA care?
In August of 2012, President Obama issued an executive order directing the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (DOVA) to expand mental health and suicide prevention services for our veterans and active duty military.
In keeping with Obama’s respect for constitutional limitations on Presidential power, Obama’s executive order did not authorize one penny of additional funding for these mandated military suicide prevention efforts. That funding would take an additional year, and with the wait, thousands of additional veteran lives and hundreds of troop suicides would accumulate.
President Obama’s 2014 federal budget request included $23.2 billion dollars for federally mandated AIDS domestic care and treatment programs. The Center for Disease control estimates 1.1 million Americans are infected with HIV.
The 2014 Department of Veterans Affairs “Veterans’ Medical Care Budget” request totaled $57.93 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs estimates the current US population of veterans at 22 million. You do the math
The argument can be made that veteran and active duty military deaths far exceed deaths from HIV/AIDS and the numbers do not lie. So why is a top ten cause of American deaths–military deaths–not a priority for the Obama Administration?
Post traumatic stress disorder, lack of timely diagnosis and access to VA care is the number one cause of military suicides in our nation. Military suicides that currently exceed real AIDS deaths in America.
It is not likely the Obama children will ever enter the military, serve in active duty military operations and return home with combat related PTSD. Given their mother and father’s sexual proclivities, and their ethnicity, Sasha and Malia Obama are–more than likely–at an elevated risk of future HIV/AIDS infection.
There father’s selfish concerns are somewhat understandable. However, I ask America if they share President Obama’s passion for preserving irresponsible sexual practices over the lives of those that protect our nation from our enemies.
In the time it took to complete Obama’s self-aggrandizing sexually transmitted disease celebration, two US combat veterans–American fathers, mothers, sons and daughters–would hopelessly take their lives. Moreover, everyday that $100 million dollar AIDS ribbon hangs at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, more preventable veteran and active duty military suicides goes unabated.
By John DeMayo
There is no disputing America’s need for regime change in Washington. For over 100 years, two political parties have cast aside the US Constitution and systematically destroyed the hallmark American concept of representative government. For those among us dreaming of military solutions for an out of control despotic Federal government, you are forewarned, it will be bloody and constitutionally cataclysmic.
Freshly impregnated into the minds of frustrated patriots is the notion of military intervention in the affairs of our Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of government. Americans–many whom would never consider raising a pitchfork much less an assault rifle–now look to our military and these keepers of a solemn oath as a means to restoring that which we the people have surrendered to Washington D.C. and corporate benefit long ago.
Swearing an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” should not be interpreted as a life long commitment to saving Americans from their apathy. Our active duty military proudly shoulders the burden of protecting the overthrow of our government. To suggest that this oath demands attack against a corrupt government while the citizenry ignore their obligations to civil disobedience, is cowardly and illegal.
Before Americans insist on a misguided military coup, they might want to study the following:
The US Constitution Article 1, Section 8
The Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 10 U.S.C 331 & 10 U.S.C. 335
The Posse Comitatus Act 18 U.S.C. 1385
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011
U.S. Martial Law
A recent poll by World Net Daily has suggested that 79% percent of Americans polled (of 822) support military intervention to remove President Obama from office.
Born of frustration, military coup to force an un-indicted, un-prosecuted and un-convicted elected federal official may be a newly celebrated idea, but it is clear, it is un-constitutional. To suggest that active duty and retired military bear this sole responsibility suggests American civilian ignorance and selfish interests are a greater plague then many intimate.
The population of the United States is estimated at over 320 million. Some estimates suggest civilian guns in America exist at a ratio of over two per American. The active duty military population (spread all over the globe) is 1.4 million with the reservist and National Guard totaling an additional 700,000.
A land of 320 million citizens and we cannot manage to muster enough civil disobedience to hint at insurrection, yet some are calling for those that swore an oath to risk their freedom, life and liberty to once again protect the Constitution. It is shameless. This nation has ignored its obligations to our military (active duty and retired) for decades, fails to vote in national elections with any consistency, sucks irresponsibly at the government tit for a myriad of self-righteous tax breaks, entitlements and pork barrel spending, now asks to trade one version of tyranny to illegally co-opt another.
What are we thinking?
It is my very real fear that Americans no longer possess the ability to recognize our responsibility for the government we created and the solemn obligation we all have as citizens to protest the pirating of our nation using mass civil disobedience.
We apathetically allowed globalization. We avoided confronting the sinister motives and actions of the global business elites purchasing our elections. We have adopted an unhealthy appetite for cheap goods and services made in other countries. We have surrendered our liberties and freedoms for the twenty-first century American dream. We own every penny of our short-term and long-term liabilities and have become slaves to a glutens’ consumption. We vote for politicians owned by industry, special interests and we worship devotedly their media puppets.
You want war with your government America. You are already at war, America. It has been waging for a century. You were to busy basking in momentary good fortune and dreams of success to smell its odor.
I support patriotic efforts to regain control of our nation. I applaud the honorable suggestions of Retired Army General Paul E. Vallely and Retired Air Force Brig. General Charles Jones, however, active duty US military intervention is illegal and will establish an irreparable precedent in our history and our governance.
Americans must come to terms with their obligation to risk everything to remove global corporate and special interest influence and those who thrive on it from our government. We must refuse to feed at the meager troughs provided by governments promised confiscation schemes. We must protect our older generations duped by Washington’s promises who fear rightly the new progressive American morality. Moreover, we must protect the lives and freedoms of those too young to contemplate the consequences of our cowardly inaction.
Retaking our government is the people’s responsibility, not the governments. America is one generation away from enslavement. Who will protect us then?