Warning

http://www.vva. org/veteran/ 0807/letters. html

PARASITE WARNING
I am writing to inform all Vietnam veterans about a potential health risk that they may have been exposed to while serving in Vietnam: the little-known danger from parasites.

My husband, who was otherwise healthy, passed away on January 20, 2006, from cholangiocarcinoma, cancer of the bile duct of the liver. It is very rare in the United States, but very prevalent in Vietnam and surrounding countries. There are two known causes of this type of cancer: from contracting hepatitis C and from ingesting a parasite from the water supply in Vietnam. My husband did not have hepatitis C; therefore, it was determined that his cancer derived from a parasite. I have received official notification from the VA that his death was service related, which is not something the VA determines without an overwhelming amount of evidence.

This cancer does not manifest itself until later in life, when you are between 60 and 70 years old. Once the symptoms occur, which usually include jaundice, it is very difficult to treat or beat. My husband was 58 years old when he passed away. If he had been informed that there was a possibility that he could have ingested a parasite while serving in Vietnam, he would have taken precautions to have his bile ducts examined, possibly extending his life. The parasite is long gone, but it left behind damaged cells, which developed into cancerous tumors in the bile ducts.

If you spent time in Southeast Asia and are having gastrointestinal issues for no apparent reason, please have your physician check for damage within the bile ducts. It may save your life.

Mrs. Edward S. (Pete) Harrison
Horseheads, New York

********** MORE INFO ON Cholangiocarcinoma at

http://www.emedicin e.com/med/ topic343. htm Partial Reprint below

The high prevalence of cholangiocarcinoma among people of Asian decent is attributable to endemic chronic parasitic infestation.

History: Symptoms may include jaundice, clay-colored stools, bilirubinuria (dark urine), pruritus, weight loss, and abdominal pain.

Causes: The etiology of most bile duct cancers remains undetermined. Currently, gallstones are not believed to increase the risk of CCC. Chronic viral hepatitis and cirrhosis also do not appear to be risk factors.

Infections
In Southeast Asia, chronic infections with liver flukes, Clonorchis sinensis, and Opisthorchis viverrini have been causally related to CCC.
Other parasites, including Ascaris lumbricoides, have been implicated in the pathogenesis.

Inflammatory bowel disease

A strong relationship exists between CCC and PSC. CCC generally develops in patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis and PSC.

The lifetime risk of developing this cancer in the setting of PSC is 10-20%. At increased risk are patients with ulcerative colitis without symptomatic PSC and a small subset of patients with Crohn disease.

Chemical exposures

Certain chemical exposures have been implicated in the development of bile duct cancers, primarily among workers in the aircraft, rubber, and wood finishing industries.

CCC occasionally has developed years after administration of the radiopaque medium thorium dioxide (ie, thorotrast).

Congenital diseases of the biliary tree, including choledochal cysts and Caroli disease, have been associated with CCC.

Other conditions rarely associated with CCC include bile duct adenomas, biliary papillomatosis, and alpha1-antitrypsin deficiency.

Col. Dan

Slap In The Face

Slap In The Face
The Article below speaks to an issue that I have been speaking out about for quite sometime, that is, the VA not wanting veterans and active duty personnel to learn about their rights to compensation under the laws governing the VA Administration. This article speaks to the Army's part in this, what I call a conspiracy, between the VA and our military forces, but there is more to this story that what is spoken about here. The VA does not want older veterans, such as Vietnam Veterans, schooling the younger Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans on the how to's of filing claims for VA benefits, which they have earned via their service. Veterans of all wars and all branches must unite to put a stop to such practices (conspiracies)!
Rocky

Army Blocks Disability Paperwork Aid at Fort Drum

by Ari Shapiro


Morning Edition · Army officials in upstate New York instructed representatives from the Department of Veterans Affairs not to help disabled soldiers at Fort Drum Army base with their military disability paperwork last year. That paperwork can be crucial because it helps determine whether soldiers will get annual disability payments and health care after they're discharged.

Now soldiers at Fort Drum say they feel betrayed by the institutions that are supposed to support them. The soldiers want to know why the Army would want to stop them from getting help with their disability paperwork and why the VA— whose mission is to help veterans — would agree to the Army's request.

'A Worn Pair of Boots'

One disabled soldier, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he fears retaliation from the military, says it feels like a slap in the face.

"To be tossed aside like a worn-out pair of boots is pretty disheartening," the soldier says. "I always believed the Army would take care of me if I did the best I could, and I've done that."

At a restaurant near Fort Drum, the soldier described his first briefing with the VA office on base. According to the soldier, the VA official told a classroom full of injured troops, "We cannot help you review the narrative summaries of your medical problems." The official said the VA used to help soldiers with the paperwork, but Army officials saw soldiers from Fort Drum getting higher disability ratings with the VA's help than soldiers from other bases. The Army told the VA to stop helping Fort Drum soldiers describe their army injuries, and the VA did as it was told.

It's unclear why the Army wanted to stop the soldiers from getting help with the disability paperwork. Cynthia Vaughan, spokeswoman for the Army surgeon general, says the VA was not doing anything wrong by helping soldiers at Fort Drum.

"There is no Army policy on outside help in reviewing and/or assisting soldiers in rewriting their narratives during the 10-day period which they have to review them," Vaughan says.

She says the officers who asked the VA to stop helping Fort Drum's soldiers were part of what the Army calls a "Tiger Team"— an ad-hoc group assigned to investigate, in this case, medical disability benefits.

According to Army spokesman George Wright, the Tiger Team thought the VA should not be helping soldiers with their medical documents. The Army delivered that message to VA officials in Buffalo, N.Y., who went along with the request, even though the VA's assistance complied with Army policy.

The Army declined to provide any information about the Tiger Team members' identities or their motivations in asking the VA to stop reviewing the soldiers' paperwork. However, private attorney Mara Hurwitt points out that the Army has a financial incentive to keep soldiers' disability ratings low.

"The more soldiers you have who get disability retirements, the more retirement pay is coming out of your budget," Hurwitt says.

Qualified to Help?

Another question is why the VA would go along with the Army's request.

Tom Pamperin, deputy director of the VA's compensation and pension service, believes VA officers are not qualified to help with soldiers' disability paperwork.

"We do not train our employees in the intricacies of the Defense Department's disability evaluation system, so we would feel that it would be inappropriate for our employees to apply VA standards to a Defense Department process," Pamperin says.

But Hurwitt argues the VA is more equipped than anyone to help soldiers with their paperwork.

"VA counselors understand the disabilities, what the different kinds of conditions are, how they should be properly described in the paperwork," Hurwitt says.

She points out that VA officials have to look at a soldier's medical history anyway to counsel him or her on VA benefits, which are separate from Army benefits.

"Really what it comes down to is you're just helping the soldier get what he's entitled to under law," Hurwitt says.

System 'Unfair'

This is just the latest in a string of controversies about disability payments for injured veterans.

Former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, who co-chaired President Bush's recent commission on veterans' care, says stories like this one show how the whole disability rating system is broken and needs to change.

The system is "fundamentally unfair," according to Shalala, "and that's the point about the need for reform in the system. It has to be reformed for everyone."
-------------------------

posted by Larry Scott
Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org

Suicide by Tolerance

Abraham Lincoln once wrote that if America were to ever fall, it would not be due to an enemy attacking us from without, but an enemy attacking us from within. Given his perspective of a nation torn asunder by the Civil War, his words are worth noting.

Islamic terrorism is, of course, a serious, global threat that we must – repeat, must – defeat. But there is another threat to our safety, security and liberty that we must also defeat – the threat of Cultural Jihad and how it is aided by the forces of “political correctness.”

Those of you who follow this issue closely know this is not new information. You know Cultural Jihad in Great Britain and France – aided by political correctness – is well advanced. You know it is on the march in Canada, to which the writer below refers, and it has taken root in America.

So it bears repeating, over and over, that we must be vigilant against the threat that lies within – a threat the writer below refers to as “Suicide by tolerance.” We must be vigilant to stand up and proudly defend the core values that produced the greatness of Western Civilization. For as another great American, Thomas Jefferson, wrote: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suicide by tolerance
National Post
Lorne Gunter
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=9bc47f81-355d-4802-b2dd-d6b1d7a809c2&k=30870

Walt Kelly, the cartoonist and satirist once had his famous character Pogo say, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

In the clash between the West and Islam, that is increasingly true. We are our own worst enemy.

Those of us who care about the survival of Western civilization occasionally rage about the way Muslim organizations feign outrage in the media at the tiniest slight. We grind out teeth when those organizations file human rights complaints against the writings of the likes of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. We warn against our governments permitting the implementation of shariah law and against the insidious teachings of radical imams at mosques and Islamic community centres on our own continent.

But really, could radical Islamists take over unless our elites let them?

True, the Alberta human rights complaint against Levant was brought by something called the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC), and the one against Steyn was initiated by the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC), both of which make it look as if Muslims are behind these attacks on our free speech.

Yet would either grievance have gone anywhere in the absence of government-sponsored, tax-supported agencies that encourage vocal advocacy groups to lodge formal complaints against their foes, and then pay their way?

Imagine the fleeting lives of such complaints in the absence of laws -- passed by liberal Western politicians, not professional Muslim cause-pleaders --granting them legitimacy?

The Syed Soharwardys (ISCC head) and Mohammad Elmasrys (CIC boss) of the world might rail on to a sympathetic reporter or two about the indignations the Levants and Steyns are causing their religion, but without the backing of modern Western governments and the politically correct functionaries who pull their levers, open their money spigots and crack their whips, such complainants would be trees falling in the forest with no one there to hear. For most readers, listeners and viewers the response would be turn the page, switch the station, flip the channel.

It wasn't the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIRCAN) that sent chief CIBC economist Jeff Rubin for Muslim sensitivity training three years ago after a bank financial report offended the particularly pugnacious, litigious Muslim organization. It was Rubin's fearful, PC bosses at CIBC.

Yes, CAIR-CAN, the CIC and the ISCC delight in taking full advantage of the official avenues open to them to criticize and intimidate their foes, but they didn't create those avenues and there is little they could do if our governments and politically correct corporations decided to close them tomorrow.

The best example of what I mean surfaced this week from the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency ( BECTA).

Shoo Fly publishers of Newcastle has produced a very innovative, interactive software version of the Three Little Pigs -- a 3D book designed to encourage young children to develop critical thinking abilities. It has won several awards, but was not approved by BECTA because "the use of pigs raises cultural issues." In particular, the company was told, "Judges would not recommend this product to the Muslim community," out of concern the pig images would be upsetting.

British papers were instantly filled with headlines such as "PC gone mad! Muslims devour Little Red Riding Hood."

But, of course, Muslims had done no such thing. Indeed, the Muslim Council of Britain told the Daily Telegraph, "We are not offended by that at all," and called on British schools to welcome the books.

I am not saying radical Muslims pose no threat to our way of life. Of course if fundamentalist Muslims had their way we would all become converts, or at the very least servile dhimmi living at the whim of a worldwide caliphate. Muslims who protested in the Western world two winters ago against the Danish cartoons of Muhammad were not driven by our own PC elites to take to the streets carrying signs with slogans such as "Death to those who dishonour the Prophet."

Still, their fundamentalist vision would go nowhere legally, culturally or politically without our governments, politicians, bureaucrats and experts bending over backwards to appear sensitive and reasonable.

Call it suicide by tolerance. The Western world with its institutions of democracy and the rule of law, with its advances in science and medicine, its progress in individual liberty, its historic devotion to reason and its developments in culture and the arts will disappear because its own elites could not be proud enough of its achievements to defend it from within.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org

NY Times - Trail of Death Articles

TODAY and for the past two Sundays, The Times has devoted front-page play and pages of inside space to a continuing investigative series called “War Torn,” about veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan who have killed or been charged with killings after returning home.

It is an important and tragic subject to which an investigative team has devoted more than eight months of reporting, including research into local news reports and court records, and extensive interviews with some of the veterans, their families, victims’ families and law enforcement officials often sympathetic toward both the victims and their killers.

But The Times made some missteps at the beginning of the series, and critics have pounced, accusing it of demonizing veterans and exaggerating the problem even as some mental health professionals have thanked the newspaper.

The first part, which dominated the top of Page One on Jan. 13, featured a photo montage of 24 young men, some in military uniform, some in prison garb. The article began with the story of Matthew Sepi, a 20-year-old plagued by nightmares from Iraq, who went looking for beer to help him sleep and wound up killing a gang member and wounding another with an AK-47 in a dangerous neighborhood.

“Town by town across the country, headlines have been telling similar stories,” the article said. “Taken together they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.”

The article said the newspaper had found 121 such cases, many of which appeared to involve “combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems.”

The Times was pointing out terrible examples of something the military itself acknowledges: large numbers of veterans are returning from Afghanistan and Iraq with psychological problems. And, as the initial article said, a Pentagon task force found last year that the military mental health system was poorly prepared to deal with this wave of distress.

The Times was immediately accused — in The New York Post and the conservative blogosphere, and by hundreds of messages to the public editor — of portraying all veterans as unstable killers. It did not.

But, the first article used colorfully inflated language — “trail of death” — for a trend it could not reliably quantify, despite an attempt at statistical analysis using squishy numbers. The article did not make clear what its focus was. Was it about killer vets, or about human tragedies involving a system that sometimes fails to spot and treat troubled souls returning from combat?

Finally, while many of the 121 cases found by The Times appeared clearly linked to wartime stresses, others seemed questionable. One involved a Navy Seabee accused of arranging her ex-husband’s murder during a bitter child custody battle, and another involved a soldier who was acquitted of reckless homicide in a car crash after a jury concluded that his blood alcohol level was below the legal limit and that many other accidents had happened on the same stretch of road.

Some readers wanted to know how the rate of homicides by veterans compared with the civilian rate. Several bloggers did back-of-the-envelope calculations and said the homicide rate for returning veterans was lower than the rate for the general population. So, what’s the problem, they wondered. I asked Martin T. Wells, a professor of statistical sciences at Cornell University, to take a stab at a comparative calculation. The homicide rate for returning combat veterans could be better or worse than the civilian rate, he determined, depending entirely on how many of the 1.6 million military personnel who have been deployed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars actually saw combat, a number the Pentagon does not have.

The journalists most responsible for the series — reporters Lizette Alvarez and Deborah Sontag and their editor, Matthew Purdy — argued against trying to make a comparison to civilian homicide rates. The military does not accept people with mental problems or records of serious crimes — the likeliest killers in the civilian population — so its rate is likely to be lower and the comparison irrelevant.

But they implicitly invited the comparison with a calculation of their own: Based primarily on news reports, their article said the number of homicides involving active-duty military personnel and new veterans was 89 percent higher in the six years since the wars began than in the six years before. And that increase came, the article said, even though “the American homicide rate has been, on average, lower.”

It seems analytically shaky to compare admittedly incomplete news reports from two periods and express the difference as a precise 89 percent — especially, as a Pentagon spokesman said in The Times, given that the news media may not have been as sensitive to the military status of accused killers in the period before the wars.

Purdy urged me not to get lost in the numbers as I looked at the first two articles. I agree with that, but I believe The Times tangled itself in numbers right at the start. Bill Keller, the executive editor, said the newsroom’s computer-assisted reporting unit normally screens articles with statistical analyses. Some of the problems might have been avoided if someone in the unit had read the first article before it was published. But Terry Schwadron, the editor who oversees the unit, which created a database for the 121 cases, said that did not happen. “I read the story in the paper, and I shared some concerns” with Purdy, he said.

Purdy defended the series. “It is an intimate exploration of a devastating cost of the war that merits national attention and focus but has not received it,” he said, because “it is playing out in one community at a time ... with no comprehensive attention from the military.”

Keller agreed. “I believe this series is an important public service that explores in riveting detail the emotional stresses war places on this important community and the problems the military faces in coping with those stresses,” he said.

The individual stories the series has told so far are indeed sad, powerful and important. One hopes they will goad the military to figure out what went wrong and what needs fixing.

But the questionable statistics muddy the message. A handful of killings caused by the stresses of war would be too many and cause for action. Sometimes, trying to turn such stories into data — with implications of statistical proof and that old journalistic convention, the trend — harms rather than helps.

The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.
-------------------------

posted by Larry Scott
Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org

TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS
By Rocky Stone

These words should be familiar to every American but how many give thought to what they really mean? Simply put, the United States of America is a REPUBLIC. We were founded as a Republic and a Republic we remain today, yet, few people give much thought to that these days and I wonder if it is even taught in schools today. From observing what my 12 year old daughter is taught in school, especially in American History and Civics classes, I am appalled at what they are not taught. For example, kids today, at least in the schools that my kids attend, are not taught about the Constitution, the very core of our laws and government, the document on which this nation was founded. In realizing that I began to wonder just how many adult Americans know about our form of government and just how far from it’s original origin we, as a nation, are began to stray?

Today, just about everything on the new is about the upcoming election, about “party politics”, i.e. debates and mud-slinging. We hear little about issues, at least to the point of how we, as a nation, are to solve the problems that threaten our very existence. What is this “party politics” any way?

Founded as a Republic, our nation is suppose to be “of the people, for the people and by the people”, yet, “We, the People”, have very little to say about any thing. Granted, you can say that we have elected representatives who speak for us, but do we? Do they really speak for us or do they speak in terms of the “Party line”? How many representatives do you know that vote as you wish them to vote rather than how their particular Party votes? That, to me, is one of the main if not the number one problems we face in this country, the people have no voice in reality. Our nation was not founded on parties, in fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that speaks of parties.

Our Representatives each must take an oath of office. That oath states that they swear, before God and the people, that they will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. We, the People must not allow our elected Representatives take that oath lightly, however, it appears that we have become so complacent in this regard that that is exactly what we are doing. This oath is a contract, if you will, between our elected Representatives and We, the People. This oath tells us that our Representatives will protect our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. I fear, in fact, I know that they are not nor are the courts, including the Supreme Court.

The recent passage of the gun bill which allows the government to block the sale of gun to veterans with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prime example. This newly passed law, which was not passed by majority vote of the full Congress but only a partial representative body thereof during the Christmas break, allows the government, mainly the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, to label those veterans with PTSD as “mentally defective”. PTSD is not medically considered as a mental disorder, per se, but is rather listed in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual, DSM IV, the manual by doctors to make medical and mental diagnosis, as an anxiety disorder. Anxiety does not make one “mentally defective”. If it did a great number of our law enforcement personnel, judges, politicians, major business executives, actors and people in ordinary jobs would also fall under this category and be banned, by this new law, from buying a gun. This law is, in my opinion, also, unconstitutional.

The courts have yet to ascertain just what is meant by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and whether or not said Amendment extends the rights of individuals to bear arms or just a state organized militias.

Pointing out that interest in the “character of the Second Amendment right has recently burgeoned,” Justice Thomas, concurring in the Court’s invalidation (on other grounds) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, questioned whether the Second Amendment bars federal regulation of gun sales, and suggested that the Court might determine “at some future date . . . whether Justice Story was correct . . . that the right to bear arms ‘has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.’ ”

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937–39 (1997) (quoting 3 Commentaries Sec. 1890, p. 746 (1833)). Justice Scalia, in extra–judicial writing, has sided with the individual rights interpretation of the Amendment. See Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 136–37 n.13 (A. Gutmann, ed., 1997) (responding to Professor Tribe’s critique of “my interpretation of the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual’s right to bear arms for self–defense”).

To me, it is clear that until such time as the Constitution is further amended and said amendment ratified pursuant to Constitutional Law that the Constitution means just what it says and is written in such form as to allow even a individual with limited education to understand its meaning. In that regard here is what the courts say:

The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.

To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. "In expounding the Constitution of the United States," said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, "every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. — Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).

The courts are not without duty to keep our elected Representatives in check when they step on the rights of the states and individuals. It is the duty of the courts to protect the Constitutional rights of every American citizen.

The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty — indeed, are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of thye courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. — Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.

The recent law passed by our Representatives has yet to be challenged in the courts, however, it is my opinion that such a challenge is in order. Our Representatives must be mindful that “We, the People” are not going to continue to sit by and allow them to just walk all over us, at least I hope that is the case. If it is not, if “We, the people continue to be complacent we may soon find that our liberty and freedom that we so cherish is gone.

We give much attention the freedom and the human rights of peoples in foreign lands. We, the government, is ever ready to speak out against any government who dose not grant religious and political freedom to it’s people, yet, if we are paying attention, if we are mindful of what is happening in our own country we see such freedoms slipping away from us almost daily.

The First Amendment of our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting as establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof”, yet we have seen it come to pass where Congress has done just the opposite, and they want to take it even further and take “One nation under God” from the Pledge to our flag and, thus, “to the Republic for which it stands.” Are we going to sit by and allow that to happen? I surely hope not! The Constitution clear states that our Representatives, our government is to remain out of the business of religion.

Wake up America!! Wake up before it is too late and ourselves asking the question, is this a dream, when they take away what freedoms we have left.

Immigration Law of Mexico

Write your Representatives today and tell them you want to adobt the Mexican immigration law and apply it to in the U.S.A.. . . it may just stop our illegal alien problem.

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most
Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven't been sharing that
idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy
immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens
than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the
immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring
American law in line with foreign legal norms, it's noteworthy that nobody
has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and
what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration
problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign
visitors and immigrants are:

* in the country legally;

* have the means to sustain themselves economically;

* not destined to be burdens on society;

* of economic and social benefit to society;

* of good character and have no criminal records; and

* contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country's
internal politics;

* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or
deported;

* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned
or deported;

* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican
constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of
many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the
constitution, the Ley General de Población, or General Law on Population,
spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why
is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own
immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are
the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a crime punishable by more
than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an
illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce
it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution.
[1]
Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

* Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their
possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)

* Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful
elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their
sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)

* Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets
"the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed
detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy."
(Article 37)

* The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission
of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest."
(Article 38)

Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

* Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal
immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of
illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

* A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single
individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

* A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and
immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique
tracking number (Article 91).

Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false
pretenses, may be imprisoned:

* Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned.
(Article 116)

* Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is
false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or
imprisoned as felons:

* Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished.
(Article 117)

* Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years.
(Article 118)

* Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to
up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who
misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working
without a permit -- can also be imprisoned.

Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

* "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)

* Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

* Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)

Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

* A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison.
(Article 127)

* Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of
the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S.
immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their
immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

(Sent to me by a Vietnam Veteran, I pass it on as general information which was his intent. Thanks brother for the info!)

A Political Overlook

In reading the information below please take note that there are 4 people listed here that are candidates for the highest office in our nation, the President of the U.S. and one person is currently the Speaker Of The House, the third highest office in our nation. What does this say about our government?


Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's
'Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians' for 2007
Washington, DC –Judicial Watch, the public
interest group that investigates and prosecutes
government corruption, today released its 2007
list of Washington's 'Ten Most Wanted Corrupt
Politicians.' The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In
addition to her long and sordid ethics record,
Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in
2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release
her official White House records. Many suspect
these records contain a treasure trove of
information related to her role in a number of
serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March
2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint
against Senator Clinton for filing false
financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate
(again). And Hillary's top campaign contributor,
Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive
from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one
count of grand theft for defrauding investors as
part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

2. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): Conyers reportedly
repeatedly violated the law and House ethics
rules, forcing his staff to serve as his personal
servants, babysitters, valets and campaign
workers while on the government payroll. While
the House Ethics Committee investigated these
allegations in 2006, and substantiated a number
of the accusations against Conyers, the committee
blamed the staff and required additional
administrative record-keeping and employee
training. Judicial Watch obtained documentation
in 2007 from a former Conyers staffer that sheds
new light on the activities and conduct on the
part of the Michigan congressman, which appear to
be at a minimum inappropriate and likely
unlawful. Judicial Watch called on the Attorney
General in 2007 to investigate the matter.

3. Senator Larry Craig (R-ID): In one of the
most shocking scandals of 2007, Senator Craig was
caught by police attempting to solicit sex in a
Minneapolis International Airport men's bathroom
during the summer. Senator Craig reportedly
'sent signals' to a police officer in an adjacent
stall that he wanted to engage in sexual
activity. When the police officer showed Craig
his police identification under the bathroom
stall divider and pointed toward the exit, the
senator reportedly exclaimed 'No!'' When asked
to produce identification, Craig presented police
his U.S. Senate business card and said, 'What do
you think of that?' The power play didn't
work. Craig was arrested, charged and entered a
guilty plea. Despite enormous pressure from his
Republican colleagues to resign from the Senate, Craig refused.

4. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA): As a member
of the Senate Appropriations Committee's
subcommittee on military construction, Feinstein
reviewed military construction government
contracts, some of which were ultimately awarded
to URS Corporation and Perini, companies then
owned by Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum. While
the Pentagon ultimately awards military
contracts, there is a reason for the review
process. The Senate's subcommittee on Military
Construction's approval carries weight. Sen.
Feinstein, therefore, likely had influence over
the decision making process. Senator Feinstein
also attempted to undermine ethics reform in
2007, arguing in favor of a perk that allows
members of Congress to book multiple airline
flights and then cancel them without financial
penalty. Judicial Watch's investigation into this matter is ongoing.

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani
(R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007
after it was discovered the former New York
mayor's office 'billed obscure city agencies for
tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses
amassed during the time when he was beginning an
extramarital relationship with future wife Judith
Nathan in the Hamptons…' ABC News also reported
that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police
vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer
expense. All of this news came on the heels of
the federal indictment on corruption charges of
Giuliani's former Police Chief and business
partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006
to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of
renovations to his Bronx apartment from a
construction company attempting to land city contracts.

6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor
Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in
December 2007, which prompted a more thorough
review of his ethics record. According to The
Associated Press: '[Huckabee's] career has also
been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley
of questions about his integrity, ranging from
his management of campaign cash to his use of a
nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to
his destruction of state computer files on his
way out of the governor's office.' And what was
Governor Huckabee's response to these ethics
allegations? Rather than cooperating with
investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics
commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

7. I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby: Libby, former
Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was
sentenced to 30 months in prison and fined
$250,000 for lying and obstructing the Valerie
Plame CIA leak investigation. Libby was found
guilty of four felonies -- two counts of perjury,
one count of making false statements to the FBI
and one count of obstructing justice – all
serious crimes. Unfortunately, Libby was largely
let off the hook. In an appalling lack of
judgment, President Bush issued 'Executive
Clemency' to Libby and commuted the sentence.

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A 'Dishonorable
Mention' last year, Senator Obama moves onto the
'ten most wanted' list in 2007. In 2006, it was
discovered that Obama was involved in a
suspicious real estate deal with an indicted
political fundraiser, Antoin 'Tony' Rezko. In
2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and
suspicious business and political connections It
was reported that just two months after he joined
the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of
stock in speculative companies whose major
investors were his biggest campaign
contributors. One of the companies was a biotech
concern that benefited from legislation Obama
pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased
$5,000 of the company's shares. Obama was also
nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate
office, a violation of federal law.

9. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi, who promised a new era of ethics
enforcement in the House of Representatives,
snuck a $25 million gift to her husband, Paul
Pelosi, in a $15 billion Water Resources
Development Act recently passed by Congress. The
pet project involved renovating ports in Speaker
Pelosi's home base of San Francisco. Pelosi just
happens to own apartment buildings near the areas
targeted for improvement, and will almost
certainly experience a significant boost in
property value as a result of Pelosi's
earmark. Earlier in the year, Pelosi found
herself in hot water for demanding access to a
luxury Air Force jet to ferry the Speaker and her
entourage back and forth from San Francisco
non-stop, in unprecedented request which was
wisely rejected by the Pentagon. And under
Pelosi's leadership, the House ethics process
remains essentially shut down – which protects
members in both parties from accountability.

10. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV): Over the last
few years, Reid has been embroiled in a series of
scandals that cast serious doubt on his
credibility as a self-professed champion of
government ethics, and 2007 was no
different. According to The Los Angeles Times,
over the last four years, Reid has used his
influence in Washington to help a developer,
Havey Whittemore, clear obstacles for a
profitable real estate deal. As the project
advanced, the Times reported, 'Reid received tens
of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions
from Whittemore.' Whittemore also hired one of
Reid's sons (Leif) as his personal lawyer and
then promptly handed the junior Reid the
responsibility of negotiating the real estate
deal with federal officials. Leif Reid even
called his father's office to talk about how to
obtain the proper EPA permits, a clear conflict of interest.

Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
organization. Judicial Watch neither supports
nor opposes candidates for public office. For
more information, visit
www.judicialwatch.org.

Vets Commission Hearing

Go to web site... can click on review various statements, can also listen to it live

http://www.veterans .senate.gov/ public/index. cfm?pageid= 16&release_id=11504&view=all

Hearing: Review of Veterans' Disability Compensation: Report of the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission
January,24,2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:30am- Noon SD-562

Oversight hearing - Review of Veterans' Disability Compensation: Report of the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission.



Click Here to View Live Hearing

Panel I

Lieutenant General James Terry Scott (Retired), Chairman, Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission

Panel II

Mr. Todd Bowers, Director of Government Affairs, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

Gerald T. Manar, DEPUTY DIRECTOR NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Steve Smithson, DEPUTY DIRECTOR VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION THE AMERICAN LEGION



In our review of those discharged as unfit from 2000 through 2006, only about 1,500 of 83,000
were rated by DoD as 100 percent disabled and only 5,000 were rated as 50 percent or higher.

Partial reprint of statements by Lieutenant General James Terry Scott (Retired), Chairman, Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission

PTSD

We found that there is insufficient monitoring and coordination between VBA and VHA for veterans experiencing PTSD. An October 2007 IOM report on PTSD treatment (not reflected in our report) found that there is not even an agreed-upon definition of recovery and that there is not sufficient evidence of the efficacy of treatment modalities and pharmaceuticals.

Although there has been a lot of discussion about the extent that OEF and OIF service members experience PTSD, we noted that only some 1,400 service members had been found unfit for duty due to PTSD out of some 83,000 over the past seven years. This does not indicate that sufficient attention is being paid to this disorder.
The Commission believes that a holistic approach to PTSD should be established that couples compensation, treatment, and vocational assessment. We also believe that re-evaluation should occur every two to three years to gauge treatment effectiveness and encourage wellness.

Individual Unemployability (IU)

Veterans with service-connected disabilities rated 60 percent or more but less than 100 percent and who are unable to work due to their disabilities can be granted what is known as IU and be paid at the 100 percent rate. The number of such veterans has increased by 90 percent over the past few years causing considerable attention. We found that the increase is largely explained by the aging of the cohort of Vietnam veterans.

As the Rating Schedule is revised, specific focus should be given to the criteria for PTSD and other mental disorders so that IU does not need to be awarded so frequently. Currently, 31 percent of veterans with a primary disability of PTSD are awarded IU. Since incapacity to work is part of the criteria for a rating of 100 percent for PTSD and other mental disorders, it is not clear why many of these veterans are not rated 100 percent instead of IU.

*********
Concurrent Receipt


Regarding concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA disability payments, the Commission found these to be two different programs with entirely different missions. DoD retirement recognizes years of service and VA disability payments compensate for impairment in earnings and should compensate for impact on quality of life.

Over time, Congress should eliminate the ban on concurrent receipt for all military retirees and for all service members who are separated from the military due to service-connected disabilities. Priority should be given to veterans who separate or retire with less than 20 years of service and a service-connected disability rating greater than 50 percent or disability as a result of combat.

Payment offset should also be eliminated for survivors of those who die in service or retirees who die of service-related causes so that the survivors can receive both VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation and DoD Survivors Benefit Plan.
************ *

Our Commission's recommendations are in many ways similar to the intent of the Administration' s proposed legislation but we recommended stronger support for the families of those severely disabled and we would not restrict benefits such as family health care to those with serious injuries experienced in combat or combat-related circumstances. There is currently no commonly accepted or used definition for serious injuries but I feel that the definition proposed in the Administration' s proposal is too stringent. It is not clear to me that all veterans currently rated 100 percent would meet that proposed definition. In our review of those discharged as unfit from 2000 through 2006, only about 1,500 of 83,000 were rated by DoD as 100 percent disabled and only 5,000 were rated as 50 percent or higher.

We believe as a matter of principle that benefits should be based on the severity of disability, not on when or how the disability occurred.

Col Dan

ATTN: Male Veterans

STUDY SHOWS AGENT ORANGE HARMED SEXUAL HEALTH OF MALE VIETNAM VETERANS
-- Higher dioxin exposure is associated with decreased testosterone
levels. -- "It is known that lower Testosterone levels are associated with
decreased sexual function, decreased muscle mass and strength,
infertility, increased fatigue, depression and reduced bone density."
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-15-03.

Agent Orange Harmed Sexual Health of Male Vietnam Vets;
DALLAS, Texas, (ENS) - A toxic chemical contained in the herbicide
Agent Orange affects male reproductive health by limiting the growth of the
prostate gland and lowering testosterone levels, researchers have
found in a study of more than 2,000 Vietnam War Air Force veterans.

Published in the November issue of the journal "Environmental Health
Perspectives," the study indicates that exposure to TCDD, the most toxic
of the dioxin family of chemicals contained in Agent Orange, may
disturb the male endocrine and reproductive systems in several ways.

"Until now, we did not have very good evidence whether or not dioxins
affect the human reproductive system," said Dr. Amit Gupta, a urologist
at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and the study's
lead author.

"Now we know that there is a link between dioxins and the human
prostate leading us to speculate that dioxins might be decreasing the growth
of the prostate in humans like they do in animals," he said.

Agent Orange is an herbicide that was developed for military use in
Vietnam to deny cover and concealment to enemies of the United States and
its allies.

The researchers found that veterans exposed to dioxin had lower
incidence rates of benign prostate hyperplasia, BPH, a disease that is caused
by an enlargement of the prostate.

Patients must strain to pass urine and they urinate frequently. BPH can
lead to complications such as an inability to urinate and urinary
tract infection.

Although the study found fewer incidences of disease, Dr. Gupta
cautioned that the finding should not be interpreted as a positive result.

"It may be construed that a decrease in the risk of BPH is not a
harmful effect, but the larger picture is that dioxins are affecting the
normal growth and development of the reproductive system," he said.

"Several effective treatments are available for BPH," Dr. Gupta said,
"and thus reduction of BPH by a toxic compound is not a desirable
effect."

Dr. Claus Roehrborn, professor and chairman of urology at UT
Southwestern and a study author, said, "We know that dioxin causes many endocrine
disturbances in the human body. The study indirectly proves that BPH
is an endocrine disorder."

The study was based on data from the Air Force Health Study, an
epidemiologic study of more than 2,000 Air Force veterans who were responsible
for spraying herbicides, including Agent Orange, during the Vietnam
War.

This group is called the Ranch Hand group because the spray program was
called Operation Ranch Hand.

A comparison group was made up of veterans who served in Southeast Asia
during the same time period, 1962-1971, but were not involved in the
spraying program and so were exposed to dioxins at levels equivalent to
the general population.

The veterans were interviewed and underwent physical examinations and
lab tests during six examination cycles. The first cycle was conducted
in 1982, so the veterans were followed for more than 20 years.

"We found that the risk of developing BPH decreased with increasing
exposure to dioxins in the comparison group," said Dr. Arnold Schecter,
professor of environmental sciences at the UT School of Public Health
Regional Campus at Dallas and a study author.

"The risk of developing BPH was 24 percent lower in the group with the
highest dioxin levels compared to the group with the lowest levels. In
the Ranch Hand group, the risk of BPH tended to decrease with increased
exposure to dioxins, but at extremely high exposure levels there was a
tendency for the risk to increase."

The study shows that higher dioxin exposure is associated with
decreased testosterone levels, Dr. Gupta said.

"It is known that lower testosterone levels are associated with
decreased sexual function, decreased muscle mass and strength, infertility,
increased fatigue, depression and reduced bone density," Dr. Gupta said.
"However, we could not conclude from this study that dioxin exposure
did lead to any of these adverse affects in the veterans in the study."

There has been a rise in disorders of the male reproductive tract over
the past several decades, including a decrease in sperm production by
almost 50 percent.

Scientists also have found a four-fold increase in testicular cancer,
and increases in the incidence of undescended testes and abnormality of
the urethra.

The reason for this increase is not known, but it is thought that these
disorders might be caused by environmental chemicals that are
estrogenic and have endocrine disrupting effects, Dr. Gupta said.

Dioxins are among the most toxic substances known and are thought to be
partially responsible for this increase in male reproductive tract
disorders. They are formed as byproducts of processes such as
incineration, smelting, paper and pulp manufacturing and pesticide and herbicide
production.

Humans are exposed to these chemicals primarily through consumption of
animal fat and dairy products. Babies are exposed to the highest levels
of dioxins through breast milk.

Dioxins are eliminated extremely slowly from the body and they tend to
stay in the body for up to several decades after exposure.

Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange have suffered serious and
life-threatening conditions. The Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes
prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, multiple myeloma, Type II
diabetes, Hodgkins disease, non-Hodgkins lymphoma and spina bifida as among
the diseases resulting from exposure to the herbicide.

The study points out the necessity to conduct additional environmental
studies of the impact of dioxins and other toxins on the male
reproductive system, the authors say. Previous research was largely based on
animal models.

http://www.vawatchdog.org/nfNOV06/nf111706-3.htm

Who Is Barack Obama?

Who is Barack Obama?

Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice.

If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it.

We checked this out on "snopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

Who is Barack Obama?

Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas.




Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.

When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school."

Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical.

Obam a's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned toKenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.

Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he
DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States.

Agent Orange Used Outside of Vietnam

Listing of areas in which Agent Orange was sprayed by the DOD outside of Vietnam. This may be helpful in filing a VA claim for AO related conditions as proof of AO use if you are not a Vietnam veteran but served in one of this locations.


If can not link, cut and paste into browser:

http://www1.va.gov/agentorange/docs/Report_on_DoD_Herbicides_Outside_of_Vietnam.pdf

American Patriots - A MUST READ!

Patriots, I direct your attention to one of the best articles I have read in many a year, hell, perhaps in my lifetime! This article, entitled "The Constitution of the United States", by Gene Owens, appears in this months Purple Heart Magazine, beginning on page 12. If you do not receive the Purple Heart Magazine ask around and see if you can find one. This is an article you don't want to miss. For those who may not be able to find a copy of the magazine I will be posting excerpts from the article on this site. Just to give an example I note the opening paragraph here:



"The United States shall guarantee every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion. . . . Here the Constitution, itself, defines what form of government it has given us -- a Republic!"
Gene Owens, Purple Heart Magazine,
January/Feburary 2008,
Vol. XLXIII, Number 1

It is obvious to me that the writer of this article is a learned man and one who has studyed the Constitution and Bill of Rights extensively. His article is very profound and, in my opinon, one that should be read by every American. He gives in his writing an education on the Constitution that is very much lacking in our schools today.

What if no one answered the call?

What if no one comes when called?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDITORIAL: NEGLECT OF VETERANS UNCONSCIONABLE --

"If the American government and the American people continue
to break faith with the young men and women who have sworn
to defend them...then we can't be surprised when, if we call
on them to serve in the future, no one responds."




Every so often an editorial on veterans' issue "nails it." This is one of those.
For more editorials about veterans' issues, use the VA Watchdog search engine...click here...

http://www.yourvabenefits.org/sessearch.php?q=editorial&op=and

THE SUN CHRONICLE
EDITORIAL: Neglect of vets unconscionable


"To care for him who shall have borne the battle..."

Those words, from Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address, are quite literally carved into the walls of the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington, D.C.

With that kind of authority for its mission statement, the American people have every reason to expect that the VA and other government agencies would be unswerving in their devotion to the care and well-being of the men and women who have served in the nation's wars, especially those who have been wounded in combat.

But with numbing regularity over the past few years, the public has heard tales that demonstrate that America's veterans are being ill-served by many of those whose task it is to help them.

It was just a year ago that the Washington Post uncovered the shabby conditions and inadequate treatment wounded combat veterans were receiving at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington.

In February 2007, the Post reported on the dilapidated buildings, overworked and overextended staff and inadequate funding that plagued what should have been the crown jewel of the military's medical system.

The Post reported one veteran as saying: "We've done our duty. We fought the war. We came home wounded. Fine. But whoever the people are back here who are supposed to give us the easy transition should be doing it." Marine Sgt. Ryan Groves, 26, an amputee who lived at Walter Reed for 16 months, went on to tell the newspaper, "We don't know what to do. The people who are supposed to know don't have the answers. It's a nonstop process of stalling."

The Post's reporting caused a scandal and prompted congressional hearings and promises of quick action to remedy the situation. But recently reports have surfaced that care, both physical and mental, is still inadequate - not just at Walter Reed, but across the nation.

According to some studies, up to 30 percent of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are believed to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, often requiring some mental health intervention. The suicide rate for Army veterans is above 17 percent per 100,000 people, the highest percentage in 26 years of record keeping.

Just this week, in Attleboro, a homeless Army reservist, who reportedly served tours of duty in Bosia and Iraq, was arrested and jailed without bail on charges he broke into a vacant factory building, where he started a small fire, evidently in an effort to stay warm.

And as America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq enter their seventh years, the number of homeless veterans is growing. There are 336,000 veterans of all wars in the United States who were homeless at some point in 2006, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

How did America come to fall so far short of its promises to those who volunteered to serve in its armed forces?

There are a number of reasons.

One is that no one in the administration that planned our current military involvement expected it to last as long as it has or to produce the number of casualties that it did.

Another is that in an administration that has made tax cuts a mantra, it is easy to squeeze dollars from programs - such as care for wounded veterans - that are out of the public eye.

But the neglect of those who have served their country honorably cannot be excused.

If the American government and the American people continue to break faith with the young men and women who have sworn to defend them - and who rightfully expect that the nation will help them when they return wounded in mind or in body- then we can't be surprised when, if we call on them to serve in the future, no one responds.
-------------------------

posted by Larry Scott
Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org

New York Times Exposed As BS Artist

From: Move America Forward
Subject: New York Times 'Killer Vet' Story Exposed as Erroneous by
Pro-Troop Group
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 08:53:50 -0800

January 14, 2008 - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Mary Pearson: (916) 441-6197 or Email:
mary@MoveAmericaForward.org

EXCLUSIVE:

New York Times 'Killer Vet' Story
Exposed as Erroneous by Pro-Troop Group

SACRAMENTO- Move America Forward (website:
www.MoveAmericaForward.org), the nation's largest grassroots pro-troop organization, today
announced that after vetting the numbers cited by The New York Times in their
Sunday, January 13, 2008 story, "Across America, Deadly Echoes of
Foreign Battles," it became clear that the Times had engaged in demonstrably
erroneous and false reporting.

It took seven New York Times researchers to find 121 cases in which
veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in the United
States, or were charged with one, upon returning home to this country.

The Times made the false conclusion that: "Taken together, they paint
the patchwork of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of
death and heartbreak."

The Times documentation of 121 potential killings out of more than 1.5
million veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq) and Operation
Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), divided by 6 years of conflict results in a
murder rate of just 1.34 incidents per 100,000 veterans per year.

That murder rate is far lower than the murder rate for the general
population, demonstrating that the experiences of military service -
including having served in Iraq and Afghanistan - actually made it less
likely for returning veterans to commit murder once they returned home,
than the general population.

Given a census-estimated population of the United States of 300,000,000
persons in this country as of October 2006, and FBI-compiled
statistics of 17,399 homicide offenders for 2006, the murder rate of the
general population was 5.80 offenders per 100,000 on average - and a rate of
approximately 7.67 per 100,000 for men.

Since all but one of the veterans cited by the Times who committed a
killing in the U.S. was male, the comparable rate is approximately 7.67
incidents of murder per 100,000 people among the general male
population, compared to just 1.34 incidents per 100,000 returning Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans (of both genders).

"It's obvious that the New York Times has an agenda of undermining the
missions of our troops in the War on Terror, so much so that they are
willing to resort to demonstrably false statistics to support their
anti-troop bias," said Melanie Morgan, Chairman of Move America Forward.

"The slander of our troops and veterans by the New York Times is
unfortunately all too familiar. We heard this kind of nonsense about our
returning veterans from Vietnam. It's the same insult, different war.

"Perhaps the shameful staff of The New York Times has run out of
war-time secrets to publish for America's enemies to read, because now
they've resorted to an all-out smear campaign of America's finest men and
women, who have served this country bravely and with distinction," Morgan
said.

In place of hard data to support their premise, The New York Times was
instead forced to devote almost the entire portion of 6,321 word
hit-piece to anecdotes of wrongdoing by individual veterans.

The New York Times even went so far as to trace back the phenomenon of
murderous veterans to Greek mythology to back up their assertions of
their report.

"The real mythology is the reporting by The New York Times," Move
America Forward's Melanie Morgan concluded.

________________________________________________

NOTE TO REPORTERS: Melanie Morgan and a delegation of staffers from
Move America Forward have just returned from a 10-day trip interviewing
U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait.

Mandatory Service Bill 393

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 393

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 10, 2007

Mr. RANGEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the ..Universal National Service Act of 2007'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE

Sec. 101. Definitions.

Sec. 102. National service obligation.

Sec. 103. Induction to perform national service.

Sec. 104. Two-year period of national service.

Sec. 105. Implementation by the President.

Sec. 106. Examination and classification of persons.

Sec. 107. Deferments and postponements.

Sec. 108. Induction exemptions.

Sec. 109. Conscientious objection.

Sec. 110. Discharge following national service.

Sec. 111. Registration of females under the Military Selective Service Act.

Sec. 112. Relation of title to registration and induction authority of Military Selective Service Act.

TITLE II--FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT

Sec. 201. Favorable treatment of combat pay under earned income tax credit made permanent.

TITLE I--NATIONAL SERVICE

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

(1) The term ..contingency operation' has the meaning given that term in section 101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.

(2) The term ..military service' means service performed as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services.

(3) The term ..national service' means military service or service in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(4) The term ..Secretary concerned' means the Secretary of Defense with respect to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to the Coast Guard, the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with respect to the Public Health Service.

(5) The term ..United States', when used in a geographical sense, means the several States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.

(6) The term ..uniformed services' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.

SEC. 102. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION.

(a) Obligation for Service- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this title unless exempted under the provisions of this title.

(b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either--

(1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

(2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(c) Age Limits- A person may be inducted under this title only if the person has attained the age of 18 and has not attained the age of 42.

SEC. 103. INDUCTION TO PERFORM NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Induction Requirements- The President shall provide for the induction of persons described in section 102(a) to perform their national service obligation.

(b) Limitation on Induction for Military Service- Persons described in section 102(a) may be inducted to perform military service only if--

(1) a declaration of war is in effect;

(2) the President declares a national emergency, which the President determines necessitates the induction of persons to perform military service, and immediately informs Congress of the reasons for the declaration and the need to induct persons for military service; or

(3) members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps are engaged in a contingency operation pursuant to a congressional authorization for the use of military force.

(c) Limitation on Number of Persons Inducted for Military Service- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall determine the number of persons described in section 102(a) whose national service obligation is to be satisfied through military service based on--

(1) the authorized end strengths of the uniformed services; and

(2) the feasibility of the uniformed services to recruit sufficient volunteers to achieve such end-strength levels.

(3) provide a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(d) Selection for Induction-

(1) RANDOM SELECTION FOR MILITARY SERVICE- When the induction of persons for military service is authorized by subsection (b), the President shall utilize a mechanism for the random selection of persons to be inducted to perform military service.

(2) CIVILIAN SERVICE- Persons described in section 102(a) who do not volunteer to perform military service or are not inducted for military service shall perform their national service obligation in a civilian capacity pursuant to section 102(b)(2).

(e) Voluntary Service- A person subject to induction under this title may--

(1) volunteer to perform national service in lieu of being inducted; or

(2) request permission to be inducted at a time other than the time at which the person is otherwise called for induction.

SEC. 104. TWO-YEAR PERIOD OF NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.

(b) Grounds for Extension- At the discretion of the President, the period of military service for a member of the uniformed services under this title may be extended--

(1) with the consent of the member, for the purpose of furnishing hospitalization, medical, or surgical care for injury or illness incurred in line of duty; or

(2) for the purpose of requiring the member to compensate for any time lost to training for any cause.

(c) Early Termination- The period of national service for a person under this title shall be terminated before the end of such period under the following circumstances:

(1) The voluntary enlistment and active service of the person in an active or reserve component of the uniformed services for a period of at least two years, in which case the period of basic military training and education actually served by the person shall be counted toward the term of enlistment.

(2) The admission and service of the person as a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, or the United States Merchant Marine Academy.

(3) The enrollment and service of the person in an officer candidate program, if the person has signed an agreement to accept a Reserve commission in the appropriate service with an obligation to serve on active duty if such a commission is offered upon completion of the program.

(4) Such other grounds as the President may establish.

SEC. 105. IMPLEMENTATION BY THE PRESIDENT.

(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.

(b) Matter to Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

(1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under this title.

(2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

(3) The manner in which persons shall be selected for induction under this title, including the manner in which those selected will be notified of such selection.

(4) All other administrative matters in connection with the induction of persons under this title and the registration, examination, and classification of such persons.

(5) A means to determine questions or claims with respect to inclusion for, or exemption or deferment from induction under this title, including questions of conscientious objection.

(6) Standards for compensation and benefits for persons performing their national service obligation under this title through civilian service.

(7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.

(c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

SEC. 106. EXAMINATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF PERSONS.

(a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.

(b) Different Classification Standards- The President may apply different classification standards for fitness for military service and fitness for civilian service.

SEC. 107. DEFERMENTS AND POSTPONEMENTS.

(a) High School Students- A person who is pursuing a standard course of study, on a full-time basis, in a secondary school or similar institution of learning shall be entitled to have induction under this title postponed until the person--

(1) obtains a high school diploma;

(2) ceases to pursue satisfactorily such course of study; or

(3) attains the age of 20.

(b) Hardship and Disability- Deferments from national service under this title may be made for--

(1) extreme hardship; or

(2) physical or mental disability.

(c) Training Capacity- The President may postpone or suspend the induction of persons for military service under this title as necessary to limit the number of persons receiving basic military training and education to the maximum number that can be adequately trained.

(d) Termination- No deferment or postponement of induction under this title shall continue after the cause of such deferment or postponement ceases.

SEC. 108. INDUCTION EXEMPTIONS.

(a) Qualifications- No person may be inducted for military service under this title unless the person is acceptable to the Secretary concerned for training and meets the same health and physical qualifications applicable under section 505 of title 10, United States Code, to persons seeking original enlistment in a regular component of the Armed Forces.

(b) Other Military Service- No person shall be liable for induction under this title who--

(1) is serving, or has served honorably for at least six months, in any component of the uniformed services on active duty; or

(2) is or becomes a cadet or midshipman at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy, the Coast Guard Academy, the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a midshipman of a Navy accredited State maritime academy, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, or the naval aviation college program, so long as that person satisfactorily continues in and completes at least two years training therein.

SEC. 109. CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION.

(a) Claims as Conscientious Objector- Nothing in this title shall be construed to require a person to be subject to combatant training and service in the uniformed services, if that person, by reason of sincerely held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.

(b) Alternative Noncombatant or Civilian Service- A person who claims exemption from combatant training and service under subsection (a) and whose claim is sustained by the local board shall--

(1) be assigned to noncombatant service (as defined by the President), if the person is inducted into the uniformed services; or

(2) be ordered by the local board, if found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, to perform national civilian service for the period specified in section 104(a) and subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe.

SEC. 110. DISCHARGE FOLLOWING NATIONAL SERVICE.

(a) Discharge- Upon completion or termination of the obligation to perform national service under this title, a person shall be discharged from the uniformed services or from civilian service, as the case may be, and shall not be subject to any further service under this title.

(b) Coordination With Other Authorities- Nothing in this section shall limit or prohibit the call to active service in the uniformed services of any person who is a member of a regular or reserve component of the uniformed services.

SEC. 111. REGISTRATION OF FEMALES UNDER THE MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended--

(1) by striking ..male' both places it appears;

(2) by inserting ..or herself' after ..himself'; and

(3) by striking ..he' and inserting ..the person'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking ..men' and inserting ..persons'.

SEC. 112. RELATION OF TITLE TO REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION AUTHORITY OF MILITARY SELECTIVE SERVICE ACT.

(a) Registration- Section 4 of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 454) is amended by inserting after subsection (g) the following new subsection:

..(h) This section does not apply with respect to the induction of persons into the Armed Forces pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2007.'.

(b) Induction- Section 17(c) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 467(c)) is amended by striking ..now or hereafter' and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting ..inducted pursuant to the Universal National Service Act of 2007.'.

TITLE II--FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT

SEC. 201. FAVORABLE TREATMENT OF COMBAT PAY UNDER EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.

(a) In General- Clause (vi) of section 32(c)(2)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining earned income) is amended to read as follows:

..(vi) a taxpayer may elect for any taxable year to treat amounts excluded from gross income by reason of section 112 as earned income.'.

(b) Effective Date- The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2006.


H.R. 393: Universal National Service Act of 2007

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the favorable treatment afforded combat pay under the earned income tax credit, and for other purposes.
Overview

Summary

Other Info
Introduction

From Congresspedia:
The Universal National Service Act of 2007 (H.R.393) was introduced to the United States House of Representatives on January 10, 2007 by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.). It proposed the requirement that all residents in the United States aged between 18 and 42 carry out national service, and be available for conscription during wartime. It would allow no deferments after age 20. ...
Bill Status
Sponsor:
Rep. Charles Rangel [D-NY]show cosponsors (2)
Cosponsors [as of 2007-12-10]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. James McDermott [D-WA]
Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date. Why?
Bill Text:
Summaries (CRS)
Full Text
Status:
Introduced Jan 10, 2007
Scheduled for Debate -
Voted on in House -
Voted on in Senate -
Signed by President -
This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills go first to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills never make it out of committee. Keep in mind that sometimes the text of one bill is incorporated into another bill, and in those cases the original bill, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned. [Last Updated: Dec 9, 2007]
Last Action:
Feb 26, 2007: House Armed Services: Referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
Show All Related Votes
Other Titles:
-- Draft Reinstatement bill
Committee Assignments

This bill is in the first stage of the legislative process where the bill is considered in committee and may undergo significant changes in markup sessions. The bill has been referred to the following committees:
House Armed Services
House Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel
House Ways and Means

Contact Your Representative Today

Please contact your Senator and congressman, and also Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senators Bob Casey and Arlen Specter
to ask them to sponsor and introduce The Agent Orange Fair Compensation Act, which would:

Sample letter below

Re: Agent Orange Fair Compensation Act,


Dear Senator

Please sponsor and introduce The Agent Orange Fair Compensation Act, which would:



Amend title 38, United States Code, chapter 11, to clarify that an award
of benefits based on a regulatory presumption established pursuant to 38
U.S.C. 1116 after September 30, 2002, can be made effective earlier than
the date the regulatory presumption was established, in effect, to the
date of the first claim; and to clarify that the presumption of herbicide
exposure provided by 38 U.S.C. 1116(f) applies to veterans who served in
Vietnam on land or on Vietnam's inland waterways and to those who served
only in waters offshore or in airspace above. The determining factor will
be receipt of the Vietnam Service Medal, or the Armed Forces Expeditionary
Medal issued for service in the Vietnam War.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES TO TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Agent Orange Fair
Compensation Act'.

(b) References- Wherever in this Act an amendment is expressed in terms of
an amendment to a section or other provision, the reference shall be
considered to be made to a section or other provision of title 38, United
States Code.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH PRESUMPTIONS BASED ON
HERBICIDE EXPOSURE; CONFIRMATION OF RETROACTIVE PAYMENT.

(a) Section 1116 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection: `(g) Presumptions established pursuant to this section shall
be considered to be presumptions established pursuant to the Agent Orange
Act of 1991. Awards based on such presumptions are subject to section 5110
of this title and shall not in any event be made effective earlier than
the effective date of the regulation establishing the presumption, but
must be made back to the date of first claim, whichever is later.

(b) Applicability- The provisions of section 1116(g) as added by this Act
apply to any determination made on or after the date of enactment of this
Act, or prior to it back to the date of first claim except as the
provisions of section 5110 apply, concerning a person's entitlement to
benefits administered by the Secretary.

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF SERVICE IN THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM.

(a) Paragraph (f) of section 1116 is amended by adding to the end of that
paragraph the following: `For the purposes of this presumption, a veteran
will be considered to have served in the Republic of Vietnam if the
veteran was physically present on land in Vietnam, or on its inland
waterways, or if the veteran served only on the waters offshore or in
airspace above, and received either the Vietnam Service Medal or the Armed
Forces Expeditionary Medal for service in Vietnam.'.

(b) Applicability- The provisions of section 1116(f), as amended by this
Act, apply to any claim filed on or after February 6, 1991, that is still
pending on the date of enactment of this Act, including a claim to reopen
or revise a previously denied claim, and to any claim filed on or after
the date of enactment of this Act. A claim is pending if it has not been
the subject of a final VA decision granting or denying benefits, or if
such a decision is currently on appeal before a court. Previously open
claims closed subsequent to 2002 shall be reinstated in full. Benefits
will be paid to the date of first claim in all cases under this authority,
minus any previously paid claims, within the boundaries of section 5110.
In all cases under this authority, failure to file an appeal subsequent to
a denial after 2002 shall not interrupt retroactive benefits.

Sincerely,

Col Dan