Gulf1 - C - Pappas

Keeping the Faith With Those Who Serve

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired
 
“Change” has begun to come to fruition in ways that may not have been anticipated by the majority of voters, in particular military voters.  It is remarkable that Military Health Care issues are included in the Administration’s Budget submission not so covertly disguised as up to a $2000.00 per annum “fair share” tax on military members.  TriCare for Life was enacted to fulfill the Government’s long standing promise of no out of pocket health care costs to career length military retirees. $2000.00 per year is roughly the amount it costs for a civilian health care plan for a single person. Military retirees should keep in mind that in the background is “Obamacare,” the government’s unilaterally partisan enacted mandatory universal health care law.

By way of background, included are two sections of the Obama Administration’s current budget titled: “CUTTING WASTE, REDUCING THE DEFICIT, AND ASKING ALL TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE” found on page 23 of the Administration’s Budget submission. The paragraph titled, “Implement the New Defense Strategy” on pages 25 states:

“ … the President directed the Pentagon to undertake a comprehensive strategic review to ensure our defense budget is driven by a clear strategy….
 
“The key elements of the strategy are:
• Strengthening our presence in the Asia Pacific with a continued vigilance in the Middle East.
• Investing in our critical partnerships and alliances, including NATO, …
• Having ended our military commitment in Iraq and commenced a drawdown in Afghanistan,
and as we look to future threats,…we will field smaller forces while focusing on modernization to address emerging threats.
• Continuing to get rid of outdated Cold War era systems so that we can invest in …the ability to operate in environments where adversaries try to deny us access.
• Keeping faith with those who serve by prioritizing efforts that focus on wounded warriors, mental health, and the well-being of military families.” (emphasis mine)
 
With that as background, one should take consider how the Administration proposes to implement its strategy specifically focused the last element of the strategy shown above i.e. “Keeping faith with those who serve by prioritizing efforts that focus on wounded warriors, mental health, and the well-being of military families.” From pages 29-30 of the Budget titled: 
 
“Better Align Federal Worker and Military Retirement Programs.
… The Administration is proposing a set of reforms to align these retirement programs better with the private sector, while still preserving the Federal Government’s ability to recruit and retain the personnel that the American people need…. The reductions sought in these retirement reforms are evenly split between civilian and military retirement programs. (emphasis mine)

For military retirement reforms, the Administration proposes to:
• Increase TRICARE Prime Enrollment Fees, Initiate Standard/Extra Annual Enrollment Fees, and Adjust Deductible and Catastrophic Caps. DOD has implemented a variety of efficiencies within its medical program and continues to seek cost savings, but with increases in users, increased utilization, and expansion of benefits, defense health costs keep growing. In 2012, DOD implemented minor TRICARE Prime fee increases for new retiree enrollees. In 2013, DOD will phase in additional fee increases based on annual retirement pay and initiate Standard and Extra enrollment fees.  (emphasis mine) Deductibles will be slightly increased and the current catastrophic cap adjusted. The Administration’s proposal is estimated to save $12.1 billion in discretionary funds over 10 years.

• Initiate Annual Fees for TRICARE-For-Life Enrollment (TFL).
Upon turning 65, military retirees and their families transition to Medicare coverage, with TFL becoming second payer. In the private sector, this type of “Medigap” policy would likely require premiums, deductibles, and co-pays. In 2009 the average annual premium for a Medigap policy was $2,100. By contrast, there are no premiums under the TFL programs. The Administration is proposing to introduce modest annual fees for the TFL program, based on retirement pay. (emphasis mine) This proposal is estimated to save approximately $5.9 billion in mandatory funds and $5.0 billion in discretionary funds over 10 years.

• Make Targeted Increases to TRICARE Pharmacy Benefit Copayments.
Copayments for military members have lagged behind other Federal and private plans’ copayments for prescription drugs. In an effort to slow the growth in DOD’s health care costs, the President’s 2012 Budget included minor pharmacy co-pay adjustments—which were supported by Congress. The new proposal would encourage the use of less expensive mail order and military treatment facility pharmacies. This option would have no impact on active duty members, but would affect active duty families and all military retirees regardless of the age of the beneficiary. (emphasis mine) The Administration’s proposal is estimated to save $10.6 billion in mandatory funds and $17.4 billion in discretionary funds over 10years.

• Establish a Military Retirement Modernization Commission.
To recommend improvements to the military retirement system, the Administration is proposing to establish a Military Retirement Modernization Commission...”
 
It is notable that the Administration recommends a minor adjustment to Federal Employee contributions i.e. 1.2% increase over three years that ostensibly equates to, “The reductions sought in these retirement reforms are evenly split (emphasis mine) between civilian and military retirement programs.” It is difficult, if not impossible to validate the even split since no data was offered in support of the claim. However, increases in costs to military members and retirees were offered with specificity and are shown on the following table borrowed from the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) website.

There will no doubt be vigorous debate and lobbying over this “fair share” tax on military members and retirees health care; and the disparity between Federal Civilian and Military Retiree programs. Keep in mind that there is an overarching and I might add overreaching program commonly referred to as “Obamacare” the implications of which have yet to be completely revealed.  “Obamacare” is currently before the Supreme Court for a determination as to Constitutionality…and if upheld as Constitutional will be the subject of ongoing political action depending on how the forthcoming general election turns. Republican Candidates have vowed to overturn the Federal program and seek health care solutions that are not as overreaching or onerous as is the present law. That promise would be entirely dependent on Partisan control of both Houses of Congress the answer to which will also be determined during the forthcoming general election.

It is evident that the Administration strongly courts military members both by rhetoric and minor programs writ large and it is notable that while doing so submits budgetary recommendations that are inimical to the interests of the very ones with whom it boldly announces that it is “Keeping Faith.” Hummm.
 
Semper Fidelis
Bob Pappas
 
Copyright © May 29th, 2012 by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed. It may not be used in any way, in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission. 

1991 Promotional Booklet states: “Obama was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Those of us who have had legitimate concerns about Obama’s eligibility for the office of President now have additional reason to be concerned, see Breitbart.com.  But our attempts to get at the truth have been repeatedly stifled by such notables as Bill O’Reilly of Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor,” complicity on the part of the media in general if not outright malicious denigration of our inquiries.  I am not a “birther,” as an American citizen and having rendered 30 years service in the protection of this great nation, I want the truth; and absent uncontestable and verifiable information, legitimate questions remain unsettled. Upon inquiry, U.S. Representative, Jeff Miller of Florida District #1 made it plain to me that the President had posted his birth certificate, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence that it is fraudulent, and in his less that incisive mind that settled it as far as he was concerned.  No wonder we have problems with Washington. Representatives listen to evident lies then piously intone, “the
President has posted his birth certificate.” 

Mr. Miller, Northwest Florida didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.

I no longer have an interest to serve in the Congress as I did when I ran in the farcical, predetermined Republican primary of 2001 to fill the vacancy created by Joe Scarborough when Joe abandoned the seat he had only recently been re-elected to represent. But as one political ad that is currently circulating in Escambia County, states: “It’s Time.” Well, it’s time for someone with more than political careerism’s prostituting effect, which Mr. Miller has plainly stated that he ascribes to, to replace the ten year incumbent.

At this point one wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Miller has not succumbed to and engaged in substantial self-serving money making schemes visited by the Congress upon itself.  Among others they belly up to the trough with regular annual automatic pay increases or insider financial trading. This while our fighting men and women suffer the deprivations, hardships and dangers of military service and too many of their families “scrounge” for their next meals or must resort to food stamps. 

Miller’s response to my inquiry about the status of Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate reveals a metastasized political malignancy that should be unacceptable to any thinking American, whether it is in Florida’s U.S. District #1 or anywhere else.  This most recent revelation is not only upsetting, it is another outrage. One supposes that their tactic is to keep Americans outraged to the point that we begin to become jaded and allow the obvious to pass. If there is a willing aspirant out there, here’s to challenging Miller and bring a breath of fresh air to Northwest Florida.

An article, titled, “The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'” by Joel B. Pollak, posted 17 May 17, 2012 on Breitbart.com, reveals a copy of a promotional booklet from 1991 in which it states, “Obama was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." If it were not for a number of other sources including:

    •    the Kenyan Ambassador who asserted that Obama was born there,
    •    his Kenyan grandmother asserted that she was present at his birth in Kenya,
    •    a YouTube video in which Obama states that he was born in Kenya,
    •    the absolutely fraudulent birth certificate that Obama posted on the White House website (like he has taken the liberty to edit the biographies of earlier Presidents on the official site),
    •    and, the challenge pending before the Supreme Court in Keyes v. Obama, perhaps this additional piece of information would be just that, something that Obama defending deniers would simply deny and that would be the end of it.
    •    Or, as his Literary agent now claims, it was a simple editing error that there was never any information from Obama that stated he was born in Kenya. There are just a few little, itty, bitty problems with that:
            o    where did they get the information about Kenya,
            o    the agency Dyster & Goderich maintained that information on its website until April 2007, two months before Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency.
            o    And, does thinking human being believe that Obama was unaware of the so called, “mistake” and let just it ride? Get serious.

I had earlier accepted that statements of officials of the State of Hawaii that they had personally observed his birth certificate and that he was born there, and have remained silent. But with this latest, one is compelled to wonder. Are we Americans collectively so naïve that this mounting evidence means nothing? Do Americans now choose to ignore the Constitution out of convenience, fear or political correctness…just as Obama does and/or would have them do?  If this had been G.W. Bush would the reaction be the same? Doubtful! No wonder Bush’s popularity continues to grow…and I am not a fawning fan of compassionate conservative (read closet socialist) G.W. who did more to advance that cause than his predecessor…but definitely not his successor who duplicitously advocates “complete change.”

The evidence is mounting, and it is important that this matter be settled. If the Congress in the person of Mr. Miller or any other member or members would grow a set and man-up, there would be a political challenge beyond the extant political campaign…which one suspects would wet its pants along with all the other Republican girly-men rather than fight the issue. Their lame, as some would say weakd__k argument would be that it is a distraction from the central issue of the economy; no…it is not a distraction, it is fundamental to any campaign to remove him. Even “venerated” Tom Brokaw of the so called mainstream media acknowledged in an interview with Charlie Rose after the Obama nomination that “we don’t know anything about Obama.” Actually, there is increasingly abundant information, the question is, when will Americans pay attention to it? How about NOW?!
 
Semper Fidelis


Copyright © May 17, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

“Homosexual Marriage” is an Oxymoron

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Another major facet of the real Obama has come to light, the final turn in his “evolving” view to full support of homosexual “marriage.” As partial justification Obama claims that his children and Republican college students have no problem with homosexual marriage as though, “adults” that they are, their thinking is mature enough to make a judgment for him and the nation to follow. At the same time, state after state renounces homosexual marriage, North Carolina and Colorado being the most recent; and in a number of states some judge, as in California it was a homosexual judge, overturned the will of the people---again. It wasn’t the first time that the people’s will was overturned by a judge and likely will not be the last as long as liberals are empowered to appoint them. (All the more reason to elect Romney, who will undoubtedly appoint more conservative judges than Obama would have.)

Obama made his politically calculated decision because homosexual rights activists and homosexuals who had planned to support his super PAC had put their contributions on ice, a rather powerful tool that “pushed him over the edge.” As his pastor of 20 years America hating, the “Very Reverend” Jeremiah Wright said during the last election cycle, “Barack has to say whatever it takes to get elected.” I know Americans are tolerant, they are magnanimous, but there comes a point where if the nation is to survive the Godless onslaught now including the President, it will have to “grow a set” and draw the line between destructive liberalism and genuinely compassionate (not the G.W. Bush socialist variety) conservatism.

As noted in an earlier essay, we wrote:

“What is behind the push for homosexuals to serve openly in the military?  Their bottom line is complete equality (despite the fact that it is literally unachievable); and that includes among other things, marriage.  So far even Obama, arguably the most liberal President in history resists the notion of marriage for homosexuals although he has it under active consideration, taking the traditional position that “marriage is between one man and one woman;” but on the other hand hypocritically and for political expediency does not enforce the Federal “Defense of Marriage Act.” With the passage of time and the idea of homosexuals serving openly in the military becomes passé, a cry will no doubt arise, “If they can serve and die for our country, they should be allowed to ‘marry.’” 

It didn’t take long for the real Obama to come out when on May 9, 2012 Obama stated, “when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that 'don't ask, don't tell' is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

Repeated here from the same earlier essay:

“If marriage is a contract between two people, “to have and to hold, to love and to cherish, till death do us part,” then there is an element of logic to their demand. But if marriage is a sacred institution (oh, oh, here comes the “G” word) ordained of God, there is zero indication in primary Christian, Jewish, Islamic, or Mormon literature and doctrinal writings that would sanctify the unity of same sex couples.  A survey of the world’s other major religions reveals general proscriptions against homosexual conduct with minor exceptions, which automatically excludes homosexual marriage. Homosexual advocates know all of this and that is the reason they enlist atheists’ help to remove the religious factor, and rogue religious operatives to subvert from within. .” In short homosexual marriage is an oxymoron.  All the while most Americans, out of an abundance of naïve magnanimity accept their arguments, hopefully that will now begin to change.

We’ll see which is more important to the Black and Latino communities, eternal spiritual and moral values, or political expediency in the perverted name of social justice? The Catholic Church went down the expediency road for too many years and finally awakened to the reality that government liberalism takes away freedom, in the Catholic Church’s religious freedom. Yesterday it was, “you will provide contraception;” today it is, “you will perform marriage rites for all couples and animals;” tomorrow it will be, “you will ordain homosexual and women priests.”

Here is a man who requires registration of unborn babies who visit the White House in their mothers’ wombs, but when he was an Illinois Senator voted in favor of killing any baby who survived a botched abortion. This same man that today embraces a form of marital union, “…it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married…" despite its proscription by every major religion in the world, by abrogating his earlier statement, “I'm a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.” For my Hispanic and black friends, is your religious faith genuine or for Sunday entertainment?!  

It is well known that the Obama campaign is actively using diversionary tactics---this as another diversion from his intentions as caught on an open microphone with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, “after the elections I will have more flexibility.” Although in a different setting his comment is every bit applicable to what he intends to do to the United States of America if re-elected.  This is a man who now informs Americans that he had made up his mind to support homosexual marriage even before the Democrat Convention of 2008. What else is he not telling the American people?

Like the left said about his homosexual stance, “it’s time to man up,” but in this case throw out the liberal minority and take the country back for the conservative majority and have wholesome change.

Semper Fidelis


Copyright © May 11, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

U.S. Democrats Must Be Greek

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

Let’s see if I have this straight. Greece is, but for Germany and other EU nations bailing it out, bankrupt. The long and short of how that happened is that Greece having joined the EU adopted a cradle-to-grave economic model much like American Democrats; and embarked on paying its workers dream salaries and retirement benefits, not to mention “universal” health care, all of which are a reflection of the U.S. Democrat Party and agenda.

Costs rapidly expanded given increases both in the number and breadth of government programs. Having found liberal lending at the EU “trough” the cure to its expanding largesse, Greek politicians believed the “borrowing well” was infinitely deep and would be a permanent cure for its spending addiction much like U.S. Democrats and the Obama Administration. In the meantime, Greek government unions, similar to California, Wisconsin and other places kept beating the drum for more. The government responded by borrowing more so those irresponsible politicians could dole it out to buy votes very much like U.S. Democrats historical record.

But, interest on the borrowed money i.e. the Greek national debt, began to mount to the point where money managers at the EU realized that Greece was too far extended to pay the interest on the debt, much less repay it. The scenario is somewhat reminiscent of Zorba, in “Zorba, the Greek.” When responsible people at the EU awakened to the fact that it was impossible for Greece to service its debt, it instructed Greece to find ways to economize. For a short time the Greek Government “cooked the books” but was soon found out and forced to begin to tighten its economic belt. Belt tightening has not been in their vocabulary for decades but what else could they do?

Typical of the left, those Greeks pointed fingers except at themselves and now want to abandon austerity.  Despite the fact that they have no way to pay the money back they want their entitlements. Unions foment riots seen daily on TV in response to legislative grappling with the out-of-control economic situation. Were Greeks so stupid as to believe there would never be a day of reckoning? (Are U.S. Democrats/RINOs any different?) Did they really believe that EU membership would not exact a toll on its sovereignty? (Democrats in general could care less about U.S. Sovereignty.) Did they actually believe that borrowing more than the country could produce would have no consequences? Talk about arrogant!

Across the Atlantic in Washington, D.C. Democrats have the mistaken impression that the county’s wealth is theirs to give or take, and if taxes are not generating enough revenue, “raise taxes on the rich,” except that makes no difference; or borrow more from Communist China with the naïve notion that like Greece, it would have no consequences. In short those Democrats believe that the Federal Government owns the Country.  Why did Democrats unilaterally enact "Obamacare" over the objections of the large majority of U.S. population? Just who is serving whom around here? 

Democrat strategy has always been to overspend believing that the economy would expand, thereby generating tax revenues to cover the costs. Those days are gone! Increasing taxes on “the rich” would not work even if increased to 100% because there is not enough money even at the 100% rate to cover Democrat spending of the past three and one half years.

For decades Democrats have spent so much that as of now future generations of U.S. taxpayers will pay taxes that are so high they will essentially work to support careerist politicians and government programs. Stated another way, everyone will work for the government and the country will have arrived at Democrats’ socialist utopia. This prospect is both the essence and fulfillment of Obama’s and Democrats’ strategy to “spread the wealth around.” Although there is plenty of precedent to show that their model fails 100% of the time, liberals, whether in Greece or the U.S. believe under their leadership it will be different.  Right! And donkey’s fly!

Semper Fidelis

Copyright © May 8th, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.

It’s Not Going To Be Easy

by Colonel Bob Pappas, USMC, Retired

With the suspension of his campaign, Newt Gingrich has acknowledged what many have been working for since its inception, to make Mitt Romney the Republican nominee for the Presidency.  Given the way establishment Republicans managed to overcome conservatism in favor of a moderate it is time for those in and outside the Party to seriously contemplate a new party to replace or gut and rebuild the GOP in the majority image. Once the beacon for hope, for economic growth and the standard bearer for conservative moral values, the GOP has succeeded in selecting another moderate in the face of enormous desire for a conservative.  Is Romney conservative, and by comparison to who? Compared to Dr. Ron Paul he is a flaming liberal; but, compared to Barack Hussein Obama is a staunch conservative.

This essay is not so much about Mitt Romney, although he represents establishment GOP aspirations; it is about the fact that most of the country is conservative, desirous of conservative principles and leadership. Mitt Romney is by all accounts a good man and husband; and although he would not have been my choice he is now. That notwithstanding his experience and qualifications are so superior to Barack Obama, who now warns Americans not to take a chance on Romney (Are you kidding?), that there is no logical, viable alternative unless some sudden turn of events propels someone else to the forefront. At this juncture, that is unlikely.

For the time being conservatives and moderates must concentrate on the eradication of Barack Obama as a political force, never again to have him or his socialist/communist ideologies regain political center stage.  However, once the election is settled conservatives must band together to form a new, formidable and unbeatable political party. Consider the major elements and composition of the Democrat Party: Hispanics, blacks, unions, socialists/communists, feminists, homosexuals, Muslims, and atheists. In each instance there is a solid majority that blindly votes Democrat or supports the Democrat agenda of: homosexual marriage, unrestricted abortions, illegal entrants (immigration), less defense spending, more pervasive social programs, universal government run health care and lax voter laws, to name the salient ones.

During the last general election cycle good people from all walks of life swarmed to vote for Barack Obama because he painted himself as a centrist which most everyone believed was true despite overwhelming evidence that it was not. Voters chose to put on rose colored glasses and  drink of “patriotic fervor” in hopes that at long last racism would be erased, that the racist guilt that hung over the nation for centuries would be assuaged, that Obama would be President of all the people, not just the radical left that underwrote his campaign by dubious means. I confess that initially I had such a hope, but it did not take long to see through the thin veil of centrism to the radical socialist core that Obama embodies. 

If one listens past his high sounding phrases and carefully crafted platitudes they will hear duplicitous rhetoric that is often contradictory within the same sentence. He talks about American values as though the he has a corner on the market of those values. On the one hand he praises Ronald Reagan in an effort to dupe the ignorant or easily swayed; and on the other damns him. It is clear from his writings that he despised President Reagan, condemning him and the Republican Congress as corrupt and sinister.

We are at a crossroad, where two roads diverge and his and Democrats’ socialist experiment of the last three and one half years has proven to be an unmitigated disaster.  Hopefully Republicans and conservatives will have the skill, will and ability to overcome Obama’s personal style because beneath that million dollar smile is a ravening wolf set on destroying the Nation for the purpose of remolding it into a socialist/communist utopia. What he has done while in office, the people with which he has surrounded himself, his obscene spending, his pro-Muslim Brotherhood stance, his anti-business and anti-energy independence regulations, and his enthusiastic endorsement of the Wall Street Occupiers and their byproducts paints a clear picture of Obama and his vision for America.

I have no love lost for Wall Street manipulators, speculators, and hedge funds, none of which advance the economy and all of which damage it. But one should applaud those who make, not take, vast amounts of money, build successful businesses like Microsoft, Apple, Google and others, and I do. Unfortunately too many are possessed of a dark side that shows their hand by obscene bonuses, visibly opulent lifestyles during hard times, and abandoning the nation that brought them wealth rather than stand fast and join the fight for its continued freedom. Now, conservatives must embrace moderates to not only elect Mitt Romney and a conservative VP, but a Conservative majority in the Senate and House to restore American moral and economic vitality, and its historic “exceptionalism.”

Democrats’ notion that taxes are too low is on its face foolhardy. The good old days of deficit spending, then betting that the economy will expand to support the deficit are gone. Obama and Company’s printing vast quantities of paper money to cover expenses is causing inflation manifest in increasing price of food, fuel and hard goods. That must stop immediately upon taking the Oath of Office, and it’s not going to be easy but we’ll see how Romney handles it.

Semper Fidelis


Copyright © May 6th, 2012, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed, except it may not be used in conjunction with any advertisement without the author’s expressed written permission.