For Vets and Active Duty is a post from: Veteran Expositions

The Pledge of Alligance by Red Skelton is a post from: Veteran Expositions

How is YOUR Republican Party Representative representing the will of the people? The following LONG list shows the percentage of times the Representative voted WITH YOU AND FOR YOU. How is yours doing? Remember this list come November, 2010!

100.00% Aderholt, Robert B.
100.00% Akin, W. Todd
100.00% Alexander, Rodney
100.00% Austria, Steve
100.00% Bachmann, Michele
100.00% Bachus, Spencer
100.00% Barrett, J. Gresham
100.00% Bartlett, Roscoe G.
100.00% Barton, Joe
100.00% Biggert, Judy
100.00% Bilbray, Brian P.
100.00% Bilirakis, Gus M.
100.00% Bishop, Rob
100.00% Blackburn, Marsha
100.00% Blunt, Roy
100.00% Boehner, John A.
100.00% Bonner, Jo
100.00% Bono Mack, Mary
100.00% Boozman, John
100.00% Boustany, Charles W. Jr.
100.00% Brady, Kevin
100.00% Broun, Paul C.
100.00% Brown, Henry E. Jr.
100.00% Brown-Waite, Ginny
100.00% Buchanan, Vern
100.00% Burgess, Michael C.
100.00% Burton, Dan
100.00% Buyer, Steve
100.00% Calvert, Ken
100.00% Camp, Dave
100.00% Campbell, John
100.00% Cantor, Eric
100.00% Cao, Anh Joseph
100.00% Capito, Shelley Moore
100.00% Carter, John R.
100.00% Cassidy, Bill
100.00% Castle, Michael N.
100.00% Chaffetz, Jason
100.00% Coble, Howard
100.00% Coffman, Mike
100.00% Cole, Tom
100.00% Conaway, K. Michael
100.00% Crenshaw, Ander
100.00% Culberson, John Abney
100.00% Davis, Geoff
100.00% Dent, Charles W.
100.00% Diaz-Balart, Lincoln
100.00% Diaz-Balart, Mario
100.00% Dreier, David
100.00% Djou, Charles
100.00% Duncan, John J. Jr.
100.00% Ehlers, Vernon J.
100.00% Emerson, Jo Ann
100.00% Fallin, Mary
100.00% Flake, Jeff
100.00% Fleming, John
100.00% Forbes, J. Randy
100.00% Fortenberry, Jeff
100.00% Foxx, Virginia
100.00% Franks, Trent
100.00% Frelinghuysen, Rodney P.
100.00% Gallegly, Elton
100.00% Garrett, Scott
100.00% Gerlach, Jim
100.00% Gingrey, Phil
100.00% Gohmert, Louie
100.00% Goodlatte, Bob
100.00% Granger, Kay
100.00% Graves, Sam
100.00% Graves, Tom
100.00% Griffith, Parker
100.00% Guthrie, Brett
100.00% Hall, Ralph M.
100.00% Harper, Gregg
100.00% Hastings, Doc
100.00% Heller, Dean
100.00% Hensarling, Jeb
100.00% Herger, Wally
100.00% Hoekstra, Peter
100.00% Hunter, Duncan
100.00% Inglis, Bob
100.00% Issa, Darrell E.
100.00% Jenkins, Lynn
100.00% Johnson, Sam
100.00% Johnson, Timothy V.
100.00% Jones, Walter B.
100.00% Jordan, Jim
100.00% King, Peter T.
100.00% King, Steve
100.00% Kingston, Jack
100.00% Kirk, Mark Steven
100.00% Kline, John
100.00% Lamborn, Doug
100.00% Lance, Leonard
100.00% Latham, Tom
100.00% LaTourette, Steven C.
100.00% Latta, Robert E.
100.00% Lee, Christopher John
100.00% Lewis, Jerry
100.00% Linder, John
100.00% LoBiondo, Frank A.
100.00% Lucas, Frank D.
100.00% Luetkemeyer, Blaine
100.00% Lummis, Cynthia M.
100.00% Lungren, Daniel E.
100.00% McCarthy, Kevin
100.00% McCaul, Michael T.
100.00% McClintock, Tom
100.00% McCotter, Thaddeus G.
100.00% McHenry, Patrick T.
100.00% McKeon, Howard P.
100.00% McMorris Rodgers, Cathy
100.00% Mack, Connie
100.00% Manzullo, Donald A.
100.00% Marchant, Kenny
100.00% Mica, John L.
88.89% Miller, Candice S.
100.00% Miller, Gary G.
100.00% Miller, Jeff
100.00% Moran, Jerry
100.00% Murphy, Tim
100.00% Myrick, Sue Wilkins
100.00% Neugebauer, Randy
100.00% Nunes, Devin
100.00% Olson, Pete
100.00% Paul, Ron
100.00% Paulsen, Erik
100.00% Pence, Mike
100.00% Petri, Thomas E.
100.00% Pitts, Joseph R.
100.00% Platts, Todd Russell
100.00% Poe, Ted
100.00% Posey, Bill
100.00% Price, Tom
100.00% Putnam, Adam H.
100.00% Radanovich, George
100.00% Rehberg, Denny
100.00% Reichert, David G.
100.00% Roe, David P.
100.00% Rogers, Harold
100.00% Rogers, Mike (AL)
100.00% Rogers, Mike (MI)
100.00% Rohrabacher, Dana
100.00% Rooney, Thomas J.
100.00% Roskam, Peter J.
100.00% Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana
100.00% Royce, Edward R.
100.00% Ryan, Paul
100.00% Scalise, Steve
100.00% Schmidt, Jean
100.00% Schock, Aaron
100.00% Sensenbrenner, F. James Jr.
100.00% Sessions, Pete
87.50% Shadegg, John B.
100.00% Shimkus, John
100.00% Shuster, Bill
100.00% Simpson, Michael K.
100.00% Smith, Adrian
100.00% Smith, Christopher H.
100.00% Smith, Lamar
100.00% Souder, Mark E.
100.00% Stearns, Cliff
100.00% Sullivan, John
100.00% Terry, Lee
100.00% Thompson, Glenn
100.00% Thornberry, Mac
100.00% Tiahrt, Todd
100.00% Tiberi, Patrick J.
100.00% Turner, Michael R.
100.00% Upton, Fred
100.00% Walden, Greg
100.00% Wamp, Zach
100.00% Westmoreland, Lynn A.
100.00% Whitfield, Ed
100.00% Wilson, Joe
100.00% Wittman, Robert J.
88.89% Wolf, Frank R.
100.00% Young, C. W. Bill
85.71% Young, Don

Are your representatives working for you? is a post from: Veteran Expositions

How is YOUR Democrat Party Representative representing the will of the people? The following LONG list shows the percentage of times the Representative voted WITH YOU AND FOR YOU. How is yours doing? Remember this list come November, 2010!

0.00% Ackerman, Gary L.
11.11% Adler, John H.
0.00% Altmire, Jason
0.00% Andrews, Robert E.
0.00% Arcuri, Michael A.
0.00% Baca, Joe
0.00% Baird, Brian
0.00% Baldwin, Tammy
0.00% Barrow, John
0.00% Bean, Melissa L.
0.00% Becerra, Xavier
0.00% Berkley, Shelley
0.00% Berman, Howard L.
0.00% Berry, Marion
0.00% Bishop, Sanford D. Jr.
0.00% Bishop, Timothy H.
0.00% Blumenauer, Earl
11.11% Boccieri, John A.
12.50% Boren, Dan
0.00% Boswell, Leonard L.
0.00% Boucher, Rick
0.00% Boyd, Allen
0.00% Brady, Robert A.
0.00% Braley, Bruce L.
77.78% Bright, Bobby
0.00% Brown, Corrine
0.00% Butterfield, G. K.
0.00% Capps, Lois
0.00% Capuano, Michael E.
0.00% Cardoza, Dennis A.
0.00% Carnahan, Russ
0.00% Carney, Christopher P.
0.00% Carson, André
0.00% Castor, Kathy
0.00% Chandler, Ben
62.50% Childers, Travis W.
0.00% Chu, Judy
0.00% Clarke, Yvette D.
0.00% Clay, Wm. Lacy
0.00% Cleaver, Emanuel
0.00% Clyburn, James E.
0.00% Cohen, Steve
0.00% Connolly, Gerald E.
0.00% Conyers, John Jr.
0.00% Cooper, Jim
0.00% Costa, Jim
0.00% Costello, Jerry F.
0.00% Courtney, Joe
0.00% Crowley, Joseph
11.11% Cuellar, Henry
0.00% Cummings, Elijah E.
22.22% Dahlkemper, Kathleen A.
0.00% Davis, Artur
0.00% Davis, Danny K.
0.00% Davis, Lincoln
0.00% Davis, Susan A.
0.00% DeFazio, Peter A.
0.00% DeGette, Diana
0.00% Delahunt, Bill
0.00% DeLauro, Rosa L.
0.00% Deutch, Theodore E.
0.00% Dicks, Norman D.
0.00% Dingell, John D.
0.00% Doggett, Lloyd
11.11% Donnelly, Joe
0.00% Doyle, Michael F.
0.00% Driehaus, Steve
0.00% Edwards, Chet
0.00% Edwards, Donna F.
0.00% Ellison, Keith
25.00% Ellsworth, Brad
0.00% Engel, Eliot L.
0.00% Eshoo, Anna G.
0.00% Etheridge, Bob
0.00% Farr, Sam
0.00% Fattah, Chaka
0.00% Filner, Bob
11.11% Foster, Bill
0.00% Frank, Barney
0.00% Fudge, Marcia L.
0.00% Garamendi, John
0.00% Gonzalez, Charles A.
0.00% Gordon, Bart
0.00% Grayson, Alan
0.00% Green, Al
0.00% Green, Gene
0.00% Grijalva, Raúl M.
0.00% Gutierrez, Luis V.
100.00% Giffords, Gabby
0.00% Hall, John J.
11.11% Halvorson, Deborah L.
0.00% Hare, Phil
0.00% Harman, Jane
0.00% Hastings, Alcee L.
0.00% Heinrich, Martin
0.00% Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie
0.00% Higgins, Brian
55.56% Hill, Baron P.
0.00% Himes, James A.
0.00% Hinchey, Maurice D.
0.00% Hinojosa, Rubén
0.00% Hirono, Mazie K.
12.50% Hodes, Paul W.
11.11% Holden, Tim
0.00% Holt, Rush D.
0.00% Honda, Michael M.
0.00% Hoyer, Steny H.
0.00% Inslee, Jay
0.00% Israel, Steve
0.00% Jackson, Jesse L. Jr.
0.00% Jackson Lee, Sheila
0.00% Johnson, Eddie Bernice
0.00% Johnson, Henry C.
0.00% Kagen, Steve
0.00% Kanjorski, Paul E.
11.11% Kaptur, Marcy
0.00% Kennedy, Patrick J.
0.00% Kildee, Dale E.
0.00% Kilpatrick, Carolyn C.
0.00% Kilroy, Mary Jo
0.00% Kind, Ron
71.43% Kirkpatrick, Ann
0.00% Kissell, Larry
0.00% Klein, Ron
11.11% Kosmas, Suzanne M.
44.44% Kratovil, Frank Jr.
0.00% Kucinich, Dennis J.
0.00% Langevin, James R.
0.00% Larsen, Rick
0.00% Larson, John B.
0.00% Lee, Barbara
0.00% Levin, Sander M.
0.00% Lewis, John
0.00% Lipinski, Daniel
0.00% Loebsack, David
0.00% Lofgren, Zoe
0.00% Lowey, Nita M.
0.00% Luján, Ben Ray
0.00% Lynch, Stephen F.
0.00% McCarthy, Carolyn
0.00% McCollum, Betty
0.00% McDermott, Jim
0.00% McGovern, James P.
66.67% McIntyre, Mike
0.00% McMahon, Michael E.
0.00% McNerney, Jerry
0.00% Maffei, Daniel B.
0.00% Maloney, Carolyn B.
11.11% Markey, Betsy
0.00% Markey, Edward J.
12.50% Marshall, Jim
0.00% Matheson, Jim
0.00% Matsui, Doris O.
0.00% Meek, Kendrick B.
0.00% Meeks, Gregory W.
12.50% Melancon, Charlie
0.00% Michaud, Michael H.
0.00% Miller, Brad
0.00% Miller, George
88.89% Minnick, Walt
100.00% Mitchell, Harry E.
0.00% Mollohan, Alan B.
0.00% Moore, Dennis
0.00% Moore, Gwen
0.00% Moran, James P.
0.00% Murphy, Christopher S.
0.00% Murphy, Patrick J.
0.00% Murphy, Scott
0.00% Nadler, Jerrold
0.00% Napolitano, Grace F.
0.00% Neal, Richard E.
88.89% Nye, Glenn C.
0.00% Oberstar, James L.
0.00% Obey, David R.
0.00% Olver, John W.
0.00% Ortiz, Solomon P.
0.00% Owens, William L.
0.00% Pallone, Frank Jr.
0.00% Pascrell, Bill Jr.
0.00% Pastor, Ed
0.00% Payne, Donald M.
0.00% Pelosi, Nancy
0.00% Perlmutter, Ed
0.00% Perriello, Thomas S. P.
0.00% Peters, Gary C.
0.00% Peterson, Collin C.
0.00% Pingree, Chellie
0.00% Polis, Jared
0.00% Pomeroy, Earl
0.00% Price, David E.
0.00% Quigley, Mike
0.00% Rahall, Nick J. II
0.00% Rangel, Charles B.
0.00% Reyes, Silvestre
0.00% Richardson, Laura
0.00% Rodriguez, Ciro D.
0.00% Ross, Mike
0.00% Rothman, Steven R.
0.00% Roybal-Allard, Lucille
0.00% Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch
0.00% Rush, Bobby L.
0.00% Ryan, Tim
0.00% Salazar, John T.
0.00% Sánchez, Linda T.
0.00% Sanchez, Loretta
0.00% Sarbanes, John P.
0.00% Schakowsky, Janice D.
0.00% Schauer, Mark H.
0.00% Schiff, Adam B.
0.00% Schrader, Kurt
0.00% Schwartz, Allyson Y.
0.00% Scott, David
0.00% Scott, Robert C.
0.00% Serrano, José E.
0.00% Sestak, Joe
0.00% Shea-Porter, Carol
0.00% Sherman, Brad
0.00% Shuler, Heath
0.00% Sires, Albio
0.00% Skelton, Ike
0.00% Slaughter, Louise McIntosh
0.00% Smith, Adam
0.00% Snyder, Vic
11.11% Space, Zachary T.
0.00% Speier, Jackie
0.00% Spratt, John M. Jr.
0.00% Stark, Fortney Pete
0.00% Stupak, Bart
0.00% Sutton, Betty
0.00% Tanner, John S.
85.71% Taylor, Gene
11.11% Teague, Harry
0.00% Thompson, Bennie G.
0.00% Thompson, Mike
0.00% Tierney, John F.
11.11% Titus, Dina
0.00% Tonko, Paul
0.00% Towns, Edolphus
0.00% Tsongas, Niki
0.00% Van Hollen, Chris
0.00% Velázquez, Nydia M.
0.00% Visclosky, Peter J.
0.00% Walz, Timothy J.
0.00% Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
0.00% Waters, Maxine
0.00% Watson, Diane E.
0.00% Watt, Melvin L.
0.00% Waxman, Henry A.
0.00% Weiner, Anthony D.
0.00% Welch, Peter
0.00% Wilson, Charles A.
0.00% Woolsey, Lynn C.
0.00% Wu, David
0.00% Yarmuth, John A.

Are they working for you? is a post from: Veteran Expositions

Here are some highlights:

Higher income tax rates

Some of you may believe that only individuals in the top two federal income
tax brackets will face higher rates when the Bush cuts go bye-bye. Not true! Unless Congress takes action and President Obama goes along, rates will automatically go up for everyone who pays taxes — not just “the rich.”

Specifically, the existing 10% bracket will go away, and the lowest “new” bracket will be 15%. The existing 25% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 28% bracket; the existing 28% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 31% bracket; the existing 33% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 36 % bracket; and the existing 35% bracket will be replaced by the “new” 39.6% bracket.

My take: The Administration has pledged to keep the three lowest brackets (the 10%, 15%, and 25% brackets) in place. The 28% bracket would be expanded to accommodate unmarried taxpayers with income (whatever that is determined to mean) below $200,000 and joint filers with income below $250,000. Only taxpayers with income above those levels would be affected by the new 36% and 39.6% rates. However, Congress must make changes, and the president must go along for these things to happen.

Right now, that’s looking more problematic than a few months ago, and it now appears that Congress won’t even bring up the subject until sometime after returning from its summer recess in August. The only thing we know for sure is that tax rates will go up for everyone if Congress sits on its hands.

The marriage penalty will get worse

The Bush tax cuts put a relatively favorable framework for married individuals in place to reduce the so-called marriage penalty, which can cause a married couple to pay more federal income tax than if they were single. Note that the marriage penalty still exists for many married couples, but it’s not as harsh as before the Bush tax cuts. However, unless Congress makes changes and the president goes along, the marriage penalty will automatically get worse when the Bush tax cuts expire.

Currently, the standard deduction for some married couples is as much as 200% of the amount for singles. Starting next year, the new lowest bracket of 15% for married filing joint (MFJ) couples will be only 167% as wide as the 15% bracket for singles and the new standard deduction for married couples in other brackets – as well as those who file taxes separately — isn’t as generous.

My take: Presumably, the Administration’s pledge to keep things the same for lower and middle-income taxpayers includes extending the Bush tax cut elements that reduce the impact of the marriage penalty. However, extending those elements would require Congress to make changes and the president to go along. Will it happen? We don’t know, and neither does anyone else.

Higher capital gains and dividends taxes for all

Right now, the maximum federal rate on garden-variety long-term capital gains and qualified dividends
is 15 percent. Starting next year, the maximum long-term capital gains rate will increase to 20 % (or 18 % on gains from assets held for over five years). Dividends will once again be taxed at ordinary income rates. So, the maximum rate on dividends will balloon to a whopping 39.6 %.

My take: The Administration has repeatedly said the current 0% and 15% rates on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends will be left in place except for married couples with income above $250,000 and unmarried individuals with income above $200,000.

For that to happen, however, Congress must take action and the president must go along. A few months ago that looked likely, but now it looks more problematic. In particular, we think the odds are rising that dividends will once again be taxed at ordinary rates (of up to 39.6 %), starting next year. We hope we are wrong.

In addition to these changes, both the itemized deduction and personal exemption phase-out rules will return with a vengeance. But current versions of the child tax credit, earned income credit, dependent care credit, and adoption credit are also likely to be continued.

Stay tuned for developments, but don’t hold your breath. Our Washington politicians don’t seem to be in a big hurry to resolve the many tax uncertainties that we have summarized here. Even worse, it appears the odds are increasing that we may not see resolution until after the November election. Good grief!
————————————————————————————

Seems to me that at this point I can say “I told you so”!
Although the above are the thought of Mr. Bischoff, I can only say that the current administration was elected under false pretenses and lies. So what else is new?

Thank you Mr. Bischoff!

And that’s my view at www.vetsexpo.org

What to Expect if Bush Tax Cuts Expire is a post from: Veteran Expositions

“It may be a legal industry practice, but learning that a company is earning more interest than what they pay out to surviving families just reeks of corporate greed and irresponsibility.”

According to Bloomberg News, if beneficiaries do not request a lump sum payment or direct the money elsewhere, insurers are holding the funds in corporate accounts that provide ridiculously low interest rates, plus they are giving misleading guarantees about the safety of the funds.

For example, Bloomberg reported that Prudential in 2008 paid survivors 1 percent interest on their accounts, while the company itself earned a 4.8-percent return on the same account. Prudential is the nation’s second-largest life insurer and manages the Servicemember and Veterans Group Life Insurance programs for 6 million military and military retirees. MetLife, the country’s largest life insurer, provides insurance for all nonmilitary federal employees.

Prudential defended their practice by saying its Alliance Account “does not in any way take money from beneficiaries,” and that beneficiaries can withdraw the entire amount, plus interest, at anytime without penalty. Prudential admits the account is not FDIC insured — a fact disclosed in their material — but alluding to State Guaranty Funds protections is misleading. State Guaranty Funds are nongovernment safety nets, similar to insurance to protect the policyholders of insurance companies that might fail. Only a fraction of the State Guaranty Funds provided in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would cover the top SGLI or VGLI amount of $400,000.

“This entire issue is about full disclosure,” said Tradewell, a combat-wounded Vietnam veteran from Sussex, Wis.

“I know that the interest rate my savings account is earning is far less than what my bank earns by virtue of them holding my money. The difference is I know that, the surviving families do not. They think their money is safe and earning a good rate of return, where in fact their money isn’t fully protected and only the insurance company is earning the profit, which just isn’t right.”

In the aftermath of the Bloomberg article, the Department of Veterans Affairs, who oversees the SGLI and VGLI insurance programs, announced last week it would investigate the holding practice. Rep. Deborah Halvorson (D-Ill.), the step-mother of an Army Special Forces soldier who was wounded in Afghanistan, introduced legislation to require companies to tell beneficiaries how their money will be invested, and how much the insurer stands to make from holding the funds. And New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced an investigation of the practice, which Bloomberg reported has allowed more than 100 insurance carriers to retain and earn investment income on $28 billion owed to life insurance beneficiaries around the country. MetLife is based in New York.

From the VFW.org web site.

VFW Wants Full Life Insurance Disclosure is a post from: Veteran Expositions

What is the platform they are running on?

Who is the leader of the party?

Is each state being left to their own to decide what platform they are running on?

In 1858 Abraham Lincoln read a speech that included the following;
“‘A house divided against itself cannot stand.’(Mark 3:25)

Well, Republicans, doesn’t that still make sense today? Perhaps you should get your combined act together and get the party together. I will bet that if you do you will really take over the house and senate and get us back on the right track.

Comments anyone?

Where is the Platform? is a post from: Veteran Expositions

Over the last few weeks I have noticed a pretty large number of political commercials, by the Democrats, that sound an awful lot like their Conservative/Republican/Tea Party opposition. What’s up with that?

The “Dems” that want a comprehensive immigration plan, instead of closing the borders, are SUDDENLY talking about border security. How can we believe them after months, if not years, of saying one thing and NOW saying the exact opposite.

I sure do not and if anyone does, well, I feel sorry for them.

These Dems are the same ones that are killing our economy, killing our system of justice and killing our country. They voted to RAISE your healthcare costs, which if you watch the news, you see happening already. You don’t hear anything about that from them now do you?

I am of the opinion that EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT running in November 2011 should be FIRED and sent home.

Comments anyone?

Have you noticed? is a post from: Veteran Expositions

In Michigan, a Democratic operative appears closely tied to a slate of candidates running under the Tea Party banner.

In Florida, conservative activists are locked in court over the right to use the Tea Party name.

“It’s obvious it’s a Democratic play,” said Jason Gillman, a Tea Party activist from Traverse City, Mich.

Gillman, who also authors the blog “Michigan Taxes Too Much” and is running for county commissioner, caused a stir in Michigan politics in late July after he released documents he obtained from state elections officials about the so-called Michigan Tea Party. The documents, he said, showed that of the 23 candidates under the Tea Party name, at least nine of them had affidavits notarized by a local operative for the Oakland County Democratic Party. He said that was the “smoking gun” to prove Democratic involvement — on top of concerns he and other Tea Partiers had that the candidates on the ticket did not have Tea Party backgrounds.

The plot thickened after the Oakland County Democratic Party chairman, Mike McGuinness, told The Detroit News that operative Jason Bauer may have crossed the line by notarizing the affidavits. He was quoted saying the activity was not “sanctioned” by the local party, but “we have to assess internally what we do next.”

In Nevada, a judge in April ruled that Senate candidate Scott Ashjian could run under the Tea Party name despite claims that he was an imposter.

Next door in Pennsylvania, the race to replace Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak — who is running for U.S. Senate — is the site of similar drama. The Philadelphia papers reported last week that third-party candidate Jim Schneller was being called an imposter within days of filing.

According to the Philadelphia Daily News, Schneller’s nominating papers were littered with the names of prominent local Democrats. Republican Pat Meehan’s campaign accused Democratic state Rep. Bryan Lentz’s supporters of setting the whole thing up.

A local Democratic official, though, said the party was not supporting Schneller, according to the paper.
*******************************************

So what can we make of this? Well, personally, it looks like the Democrats running for different positions don’t think they can be elected unless they are “Tea Party” related. Why? Because the Democrats have lost connection with the people they are supposed to represent and they think that hooking the “Tea Party” name to their name they will be elected and THEN they can screw their supporters.

And that’s my view.

Activists Say Tea Party Imposters Infiltrating Elections is a post from: Veteran Expositions

When an overzealous homeowners association ordered retired Army Col. Van Barfoot, a Medal of Honor recipient, to stop displaying a U.S. flag on his property last fall, the public response was deafening. Blog sites, such as The American Legion’s Burn Pit, overflowed with comments from outraged readers. Friends of Barfoot started a Facebook page in support of his right to display the flag; the effort soon had nearly 63,000 fans. Letters to the editor poured in. National media picked up on it. Finally, under nothing more than pressure from the people, the association decided to drop the matter. Disturbing as the incident was, this can happen, and does happen, across the United States.

The whole phenomenon strikes me as ironic. A ban can be imposed against a war hero who wants to fly the flag of our country over his own property, but there can be no such ban on desecrating the sacred symbol of our freedom. “Sorry, Mr. Veteran, you’re not allowed to fly the flag on your private property, but the Constitution says you can urinate on it, spit on it and burn it all you want.”

For the past 21 years, dating back to the Supreme Court’s flawed 5-4 Texas v. Johnson decision, The American Legion has been fighting to end that irony. By a margin of one justice’s vote, flag-protection laws enacted by 48 states and the federal government were invalidated.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist usually voted differently, but they were both right about flag desecration.

“In my considered judgment, sanctioning the public desecration of the flag will tarnish its value, both for those who cherish the ideals for which it waves and for those who desire to don the robes of martyrdom by burning it,” Stevens wrote. “That tarnish is not justified by the trivial burden on free expression occasioned by requiring that an available, alternative mode of expression – including uttering words critical of the flag – be employed.”

Rehnquist: “I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 states, which make criminal the burning of the flag.”

Fortunately, we can do something about this. Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives that would allow for a narrowly drawn constitutional amendment that would return to the people the right to protect Old Glory. It simply says, “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.”

Flag-protection amendments have passed the House six times, only to fall short of the necessary two-thirds super majority required in the Senate by the narrowest of margins. It is true that most Americans – and all 50 state legislatures – agree that our flag is worth protecting. That is why The American Legion continues to fight on Old Glory’s behalf, and always will.

Please join me today in contacting your congressional representatives to seek their support for House Joint Resolution 47 and Senate Joint Resolution 15. The number is toll-free: (877) 762-8762.

Ok, now here is my thought.
Every veteran that reads this should take action. It makes no difference the veteran’s race, religion or political standing. TAKE ACTION!!

And that’s my view at Veteran Expositions

Minority should not rule on flag is a post from: Veteran Expositions