Heroism, According to Bill McClellan

St. Louis columnist Bill McClellan has been a hot topic this week - mostly because he suggested that in order to save money we (and by "we" he means the government) should stop footing the bill for military honors at the funerals of all veterans. Why? Because "they aren't ALL heroes." Of course, he did concede that those who were killed in action were heroic enough to still receive such honors... Big of him, don't you think?

I was annoyed by the article to begin with. But then today I heard him do a live radio interview with Dana Loesch during which he clarified his position. He mentioned that he himself was drafted into the Marine Corps during Vietnam. He explained that after he came home, he went to college on the GI Bill. He said that he "didn't need military funeral honors" because he doesn't consider himself a hero.

So riddle me this, Bill: what benefits each individual soldier deserves should be dependent on a) your definition of the term "hero" and b) your assessment of which benefits are important?

Let's take a simple example: my father. He accepted a direct commission into the Army Reserve in 1999. He served for eight years, including one 9 month tour in Afghanistan. His camp faced a few minor rocket attacks, but nothing of consequence. He would be the first to tell you that he is no hero. For him, serving in the military was something he had always wanted to do. His oldest brother was a veteran of the Delaware National Guard. His nephew was a Marine. His other brother had served in Vietnam. And his father, who passed away four years before Dad got his commission, had served in Belgium in 1944-45. Military service in his family goes much farther back than that - there are at least two distant relatives that we know of who served in the Union Army during the Civil War.

By Mr. McClellan's standards, my dad should have had access to the GI Bill (an "important" military benefit) but not full military honors at his funeral. But here's the problem: my dad had a Masters Degree before he took his commission at age 45. Education was not something he needed. But a military funeral? He may not want one, I haven't asked him. But if he does, perhaps to him it would be more about connecting with his family history.

The point is this: Mr. McClellan is a veteran, and I respect him for that. But his assessment here is both wrong and reprehensible. Patriotism and heroics are not measured by the lives given in service to the country, but by lives offered freely. Perhaps the draft ruined that perspective for him, and if that's the case he has no business outlining what is "deserved" by those who volunteered.

A hero is one who writes that check, filling in the amount "up to and including my life." For that heroism to be rewarded, it should not also be required that the government cash it first.

More Sequester Pain to Compound Suffering of Soldiers, Veterans

On Wednesday, Dr. Jonathan Woodson addressed the House Armed Services Committee. Woodson is the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs.

He begged Congress to do something to avert the sequester cuts, saying, “We understand that the Department of Defense must do its part in regards to budget concerns, but we have a responsibility to do this smartly and judiciously. The path forward with sequestration is neither.”

What Woodson fails to grasp is that the sequester is no longerCongress’s fault. First, the House has posed several solutions to the sequester – all of which have been quashed by Harry Reid before they ever reach the Senate floor and are under threat of veto by President Obama should Reid dare to defy the Great and Powerful.

Congress also has the power to allow cabinet members to rearrange funding, pull it from one program and give it to another. In fact, Congress has been pretty much begging cabinet members to present them with just such a solution for the past several weeks if not longer. But Presidential memos warning cabinet members not to make cuts that would ease the pain of sequester for even one person have thus far been keeping the cowards-that-be in check.

So what does that all mean? It means that military healthcare facilities will face sequester cuts. Most facilities have around 40% civilian staff, most of whom are affected by 20% pay cuts and mandatory furloughs. Many facilities are older and most have equipment that is nearing the need for replacement, but because of funding cuts they will be told simply to “make do.”

Veterans benefits (to include healthcare) are exempt from sequester cuts, but not from sequester impact. If the hospitals they attend are facing reductions in staff and are unable to upgrade or even maintain necessary equipment, how can they expect to receive the same standard of care?

Add in the little tidbit that isn’t being publicized: while healthcare for veterans is technically exempt from sequester cuts, healthcare for active duty soldiers and their families is not. Which means that active duty soldiers being treated, some for injuries sustained in combat, will see a reduction in the quality of their service, could see a reduction in the services provided, and may be forced to take on some of the cost for their own treatment. They will see the same effects as veterans – hospitals with reduced staff and obsolete equipment – along with a bonus: since the veterans are “exempt” from sequester cuts, in order to maintain their standard of care they will be pushed to the front of the line. Active Duty soldiers and their families will be shuffled to the rear to wait for the leftovers.

Let me be clear: at this point, President Obama owns this sequester. He bought it and paid for it on credit, and now that the bill is coming due he’s stomping his feet and demanding that it be paid by the very people who have already sacrificed their time, their families, and in some cases their lives for him.

Sequester to Ensure Truth of Sec Kerry's "Troops are Dumb" Comment

I joined the Army back in 1999 for several reasons. At 19, even after three semesters of college, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do. Staying in school at that point would have been a waste of my time and a waste of my parents' money. So when the recruiter talked to me about job training, adventure, and benefits (that included education) it sounded too good to be true. And to soldiers who are currently serving, it apparently is too good to be true.

Education is one of the main reasons young soldiers give for joining the military. An incredible number of soldiers receive degrees from the Associates level up through the graduate level using the highly successful Tuition Assistance program to access thousands of online courses through schools all over the United States. And I think we would all agree that educating our soldiers could prove to be beneficial in regards to national defense.

Enter sequester, stage left. Yeah. From the White House. And if that's not enough, in order to ensure that the evil Republicans (who in this case did nothing more than cave and let the petulant child-in-chief have his way)get what's coming to them, an e-mail from the White House directed at least one department to do whatever was necessary to ensure that the fears "mongered" by the administration concerning sequester cuts were realized by the American people.

It stands to reason that a true leader would look for the spending cuts that would do the least damage to the American people. It stands to reason that a true leader would cut wasteful spending first. Like grant money for shrimp on treadmills, cocaine for monkeys, or - oh, I don't know - excessive golf outings. But not our President. He figures that the best people to absorb the sequester cuts are our soldiers. The guys who put their lives on the line everyday to keep his golf courses safe. The guys who, unless they finish their educations and become officers, will probably spend most of their lives earning a salary that barely qualifies as "above the poverty line." The guys who, whether they like the President or not, would step in front of a bullet for him because they understand the meaning of words like "honor," "duty," and "leadership."

A memo from DoD Comptroller Robert Hale dated March 5, 2013, went out to each service branch, strongly suggesting that all new enrollments to the Tuition Assistance program be placed on hold. The Marine Corps has since announced that they will also be pulling all Tuition Assistance funding for current students at the end of this semester.

You'd think this administration couldn't sink any lower. And you'd be wrong. One possibility for further cuts is TRICARE, the healthcare program for active duty soldiers and their families.

But that's not even the best part! What is the best part, you ask? This President can still be the hero! How is this possible you ask? Well...

If these and other cuts are implemented, as directed, in such a way as to make them as acutely felt as possible, Americans will cry out for relief. The President, with the help of a complicit media, has already been mildly successful in convincing the public that the sequester can be blamed on the Republicans. The minute he signs into law any eventual compromise that brings relief, it will be a fairly simple matter to convince the public that he is the author of their salvation. 

In the real world, when one party intentionally injures another party for the sole purpose of then swooping to the rescue, it's a mental condition (Munchausen by proxy). When the President does it to the entire population of the United States, it's apparently grounds for reelection.

Update: And one more thing that is totally awesome - or as I like to call it, the even better best part - is that the organization Citizens Against Government Waste has already outlined several cuts (yes, even a few within the Department of Defense) that would more than cover the necessary sequester cuts and would only cut programs that are already draining the system for little or no payoff. 
Translation? If we cut the stuff they suggested, there would be far fewer drastic/harmful effects related to the sequester. But then that wouldn't suit the narrative at all, would it?

GOP: You're Doing it Wrong

On Tuesday the New York Times posted a list of prominent Republicans who had signed a legal brief supporting gay marriage.

Just a quick heads up, GOP: you’re doing it wrong. How you personally feel about gay marriage is irrelevant. Whether you whole-heartedly support it, wish to participate in it yourself, or think it could be the downfall of American society is – believe it or not – completely irrelevant.

Why? Because you claim to be conservative. You say you support smaller government. You claim that the inalienable rights enumerated in the Constitution were given by God, not government, and that the Bill of Rights exists pretty much for the sole purpose of keeping the federal government off your lawn.

How exactly does this apply? Simple.

It’s not in the federal government’s job description to define marriage. The minute we allow them to define it, we give them the power to regulate it. And giving them any increase in power or size flies in the face of conservative principles.

But here’s the real controversy:

There is no such thing as gay rights vs. heterosexual rights. In a constitutional republic there are only citizens’ rights. And the reality is that your rights in the United States as they stand today, whether you are gay or straight, are the same.

As a heterosexual woman, I did not have the unfettered right to marry anyone I wanted. I had to find someone who was not a close blood relative, who was over a certain age, who was not married to someone else, and who was male. Yes, just like every lesbian in America, I was barred from marrying another woman. The fact that I did not WANT to marry another woman is completely irrelevant, as it has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on what my rights are.

So here’s your problem in a nutshell, GOP: if some of you push for legislating gay marriage into being, you’ll lose half of your base. If some of you push for legislating gay marriage out of being, you’ll lose half your base. So maybe you should do the conservative thing and push to get legislation out of marriage entirely. It’s the only position actually supported by the Constitution you claim to be representing.  

SIUE Thwarts Armed Robbers...With Text Warning System

This morning I was awakened by a text message at 2:30am. That isn't necessarily odd, as my husband is a baker and is occasionally (ok, more than occasionally) at work at that hour. But it wasn't my husband. It was the emergency text alert system from my school - Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

SIUE, like much of the state of Illinois, is a gun-free zone. It's not even legal to store a weapon on campus, which essentially means that aside from campus police, no one is armed. Which is awesome, because that means we're all totally safe.

Except the text message I received this morning suggested otherwise in a big way.

A little after 1am today, according to Fox News, two suspects robbed a 20 year old male student in Cougar Village (an SIUE apartment complex) at gunpoint. Only one of the suspects was armed, but surprisingly enough, when none of the victims are armed, one is generally enough to do the trick.

The questions running through my mind were simple enough:

How exactly does an armed robber get into a "gun-free zone"? Doesn't he set off an alarm of some sort? Aren't there automatic sensors for that kind of thing? And if there aren't, how can any politician claim that a "gun-free zone" is anything other than a euphemism for a "conveniently disarmed victim zone"?

Whatever the case, the words "gun free" don't make me feel any safer as I head to class less than 12 hours after receiving that message. A .38 Special tucked discreetly into my bag, however... 

The Demonization of Common Sense, the Criminalization of a Constitutional Right

So Republican Mike Leara had the stones to write a bill that makes it a Class D felony for Missouri State Legislators to propose legislation that outlaws the exercise of a Constitutional right.

So let me get this straight: the Constitution enumerates the natural right for man to defend himself against the ever-expanding oppressive control of government. The Constitution even says, very clearly, that said right “shall not be infringed.”

Now let’s take a look at the dictionary definition of the word “infringe”: to commit a breach or infraction of, to violate, to encroach upon. From the Latin infringere: to break or weaken.

All of that suggests that any alteration to the 2^nd Amendment, any encroachment, any attempt to break or weaken the enumerated right therein, constitutes infringement. Which means that any law written with the express purpose of limiting 2^nd Amendment rights is on its face unconstitutional.

What Missouri Democrats would like you to believe, however, is that their treasonous attempt to undermine your rights as outlined in the 2^nd Amendment is somehow less newsworthy than the efforts of the guy who suggests that it might be criminal for an elected official to pervert and infringe the constitution to further a political narrative.

A quick review:

Republican Mike Leara says it should be a crime for legislators to violate the Constitution.

Missouri Democrats say it should be a crime for citizens to exercise a Constitutional right.

And we're supposed to believe that the Democrats are on the right side of this one?

The GOP That Rove Built

Everyone is talking about Karl Rove today. Which, incidentally, is exactly how Karl Rove likes it. The source of all the current angst is Rove’s new initiative, the Conservative Victory Project. The goal of the project is to weed out candidates from GOP primaries that are seen - by Rove and his group of high stakes donors – as too flawed to be electable in a general election.

It seems like a reasonable goal, right? To help the GOP find candidates who have a hope of winning? The problem is that what Rove advocates flies in the face of Conservative ideals. He’s essentially placing himself and his cohorts in a position to pick winners and losers without the help (or even the input) of the actual voters whose lives will be affected by the outcomes of the elections with which he meddles. But wait, didn’t conservatives HATE it when Obama picked Solyndra and the other green energy companies that went belly up? Didn’t we HATE it when our money was used to bail out GM and others? Why on earth would we allow someone within our own party to engineer elections when we don’t tolerate the engineering of corporate America?

There are those who defend Rove, saying that he is a brilliant analyst. I’m not going to argue with that. They say that over the last decade or so he has built the GOP. I’m not going to argue with that either. He is definitely one of the major architects of the GOP as we know it today. But the GOP that he built is hardly something worth defending. He built the GOP that gave us a Republican congress that outspent prior Democrat congresses. He built the GOP that gave us TARP, No Child Left Behind, and those idiotic light bulbs that we now know might cause cancer if you, you know, turn them on and stuff. He built the GOP that gave us McCain and Romney because they were “electable.” In other words, he built the GOP that laid out the red carpet for the Democrat landslide in 2008. When he was given the chance to make up for it, instead of helping the conservative resurgence in 2010 he fought against it – a move that probably helped Democrats keep the Senate and the White House in 2012.

The reality is that Rove is an elitist. He wants a class of political elites, and he wants desperately to be their puppetmaster. And he has done a very good job of convincing Americans – even some conservatives – that his class of political elites is somehow better than their Democrat alter egos. He has convinced them that the letter “R” next to the name matters more than principles of the candidate and that he is more qualified than any common voter to pass judgment on the electability of any given candidate.

In simpler terms, Rove fancies himself a kingmaker. The problem is that he posits to claim the title of kingmaker in a nation that set itself apart 237 years ago by throwing off the notion of monarchy. That in itself would be bad enough, but when you consider that the only king thus far that has been “made” by a man who claims his goal is to advance conservatism is President Barack Obama, it is clear that we have a problem. And that problem is Karl Rove.