Make sure to tell the American public that the money that’s supposed to be used for Military Retainer Fees is not being used for that and that there are ex spouses who aren’t citizens taking money from Veterans and “stimulating foreign economies with it”. While we sit here in the states with growing class of “the working poor”.

Be sure to ask who is governing these “for life” payments to ex spouses how many of them are dead in other countries but the American money just keeps coming supporting other family members while are Veterans are here making up 33% of our homeless population.

This is more than a disgrace it’s a down right outrage!

And most of us thought all our wars were elsewhere and our biggest ones are right here in our own backyard!

This is just one of hundreds of thousands of stories about the injustices of USFSPA.

Do you know that while I was serving I would watch Men in Uniform deploy and wives waving goodbye with their boyfriends no more than a few hundred feet away. As soon as the Husband was out of sight the wives would take up with the men.

This fairytale existence of the oh so virtuous Military wife and the oh so philandering playboy husband is a stereotype that is hurting our men and women in uniform. No one has to give up anything for life with any other type of divorces including other Federal Employees, but our Military Men and Women are being asked to give up their meager retirements for LIFE to someone who can remarry and now the Military Man is supporting another family and while he falls apart from years of overstress on his body some other man and maybe his children can enjoy the fruits of the Military Man and Womans labor for the rest of their lives. If Congress is that ashamed of how many veterans we have living on the street today then why did they legislate USFSPA and help put more Men and Women there?

Our Retirement pay is not a pension it’s a retainer fee that says we can be called back to action. Well how many Men and Women will want to serve when Congress has legislated the breaking of that contract. The ex spouse doesn’t get called up the Military Member does.

These grown men and women who marry Military Members do so of their own free will and even if they initiate the divorce they are still entitled to benefits even if the Military Member has not even retired! Even if they leave to cohabit and remarry the non military member gets half. Even if they commit felonies they get half.

But if the Military Member commits a felony they lose all of their retirement. There are men and women out there collecting more than 100% of Military Retirements combined from Multiple Marriages and the Military members themselves aren’t even entitled to half. Some of the ex spouses aren’t even American Citizens.

So be sure to tell the taxpayers where there monies are being sent. The monies that our government is supposed to be using for Military retainers and now without sufficient retained fighters our national security is that much more at risk. And America going as broke all the while congress has legislated the looting of our Men and Women in Uniform. And still today they do not brief the new recruits of this horrible injustice. They promote marriages that would not normally take place in a civilian setting by offering better living quarters and more stuff.

Congress created this mess and they should have to clean it up. Help our Men and Women in Uniform today. They are the ones on the front lines not their spouses. Military divorces are far exceeding civilian divorces.

This isn’t fair nor is it legal. Congress has broken their treaty!

State can’t deny kids Medicaid services, judge says.
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2008/06/16/medicaid_children_lawsuit.html
=
“The decision last week by U.S. District Judge Thomas W. Thrash pertains to the case of a 13-year-old developmentally disabled girl, Anna C. Moore of Danielsville in north Georgia. Her doctor prescribed 94 hours of private duty nursing care a week for her, but the state Department of Community Health approved only 84 hours.
=
The Atlanta federal judge found the state does not have the discretion to deny funding for services prescribed by a treating physician. “The decision affirms that treating physicians, and not the state, should make those decisions,” said the girl’s attorney, Joshua Norris of the nonprofit Georgia Advocacy Office.”
=
VETERANS LAW JOURNAL
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:se1h9j9w5GMJ:www.cavcbar.net/Fall_2004.pdf+the+statutes+in+broadly+precluding+judicial+review+of+the+contents&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us
=
A Quarterly Publication of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Bar Association
=
“Thus, the Federal Circuit found that “[t]he statutory scheme … consistently excludes from judicial review all content of the ratings schedule as well as the Secretary’s actions in adopting or revising that content.” Looking at the legislative history, the Federal Circuit pointed out that “[t]he language in the legislative history is not limited to the percentages of the disability ratings, as appellants argue, but matches the statutes in broadly precluding judicial review of the contents of the disability rating schedule in toto.”
=
What needs to be done? As explained above briefly, you know your fellow veterans’ are taking a beating from judges in state divorce court. Seizing veterans’ VA disability compensation. Being awarded as alimony. These judges, although recognizing federal law, somehow justify their interpretation of 38 USC 5301 and 10 USC 1408, and the Supremacy Clause as not being perhaps strong enough. Now comes, 38 USC 1155, “Authority for schedule for rating disabilities”, this is possibly just what the disabled veteran needs to overcome the state court’s opposition and uncertainty, with a law that leaves no room for ambiguity in it’s meaning.
=
I don’t believe 1155 argument has ever been tried, or introduced in court. Now is the time to test this. Once introduced, the court will have to deal and rule on this. If there are any upcoming veterans’ court divorce proceedings, or even possibly pending cases, the introduction of 1155 could possibly be the one thing that will remove, hopefully forever, another burden from our disabled veterans, at an unfortunate time in their lives. I hope you found this advice worthwhile. Please post this notice on your bulletin board, email, or newsletter, there may be a veteran that can benefit from this advice Thank you.
=

nice day

In mail received 1/15/2008, I received back my original letter and my check with no explanation what-so-ever. Nada! It is apparent by this response, he is not interested in problems his veteran constituents have. He handles only the easy stuff. Where he goes to Congress and asks for money, not on behalf of veterans’, but on behalf of his image. How can anybody turn down money to be appropriated for veterans’ issues, at a time like this? The easy stuff!

As suggested, as for “quid pro quo”, A Senator who solicits for a campaign contribution, as it may suggest to some , but it is not a promise of “quid pro quo”. And as well, just as one who responds with a $25 contribution to his solicitation for a campaign contribution, by including a request for help, on a very complicated veterans’ issue, cannot be considered as such. This is something that happens in campaign contributions handed out in the thousands of dollars? Look in today’s daily newspaper!

On this issue alone, veterans’ have been trying to do something for many, many years. Writing everybody and anybody. As for lawyers, and those we send to Congress, as veterans’ have found out all they want is your money. You name the lawyer, Congress person, or agency, they had been emailed, and written to, and nothing, absolutely nothing gets done. As a constituent this was a veterans’ only avenue left.

For a $25 contribution, what can veterans’ do for the Senator? Nothing, except go fight their battles. A Senator who solicits for a campaign contribution, it may suggest to some , but it is not a promise of “quid pro quo”. And as well, just as one who responds with a $25 contribution to his solicitation by including a request for help, on a very complicated veterans’ issue, cannot be considered as such.

I am extremely disappointed by his snub of veterans, and saddened by his unresponsiveness to serious veterans issues. You would think he, or his office, would have replied to me with something. Anything! Because we veterans’ have all heard it before. Perhaps my letter was asking for too much? His request was for a simple campaign donation, just send the money, with no strings attached. If the interest was there, perhaps, the better way to have handled this was to accept my letter, return my check?

Just wait until all our men and women return from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Walter Reed. You have not seen anything yet. This is just an example of the caring, and limitations of these elected representatives.

The original letter follows.

United States Senator Dick Durbin 12/27/07
230 S. Dearborn St. Suite 3892
Chicago, Illinois 60604

Dear Senator Durbin;

Because you have shown your interest and concern in support of disabled veterans, supporting our troops, those returning from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Walter Reed, and those from past wars, what follows should be of interest to you, and as well to our returning veterans. Because many will experience what I am about to tell you, will most likely happen to them. Because of this, disabled veterans’ once again need your help. Please allow me a few minutes of your time, about a very important subject.

You will notice, from Illinois law that follows, police disability pension benefits are protected from attachment. As it should be. However, this contrasts greatly with what’s happening to our,… your Illinois disabled veterans. I’ll give you an example.

(40 ILCS 5/Art. 3 heading)
ARTICLE 3. POLICE PENSION FUND – MUNICIPALITIES
500,000 and UNDER
“(40 ILCS 5/3-144.1) (from Ch. 108 1/2, par. 3-144.1)
Sec. 3-144.1. All pensions, refunds or disability pension benefits granted under this Article, and every portion thereof, shall be exempt from attachment or garnishment process and shall not be seized, taken, subjected to, detained or levied upon by virtue of any judgment, or any process or proceedings whatsoever issued out of or by any court for the payment and satisfaction in whole or in part of any debt, damage, claim, demand or judgment against a pensioner, refund applicant or other beneficiary hereunder. (Source: P.A. 84-546.)”

Re: State of Illinois, Iroquois County, Bette Ehlers v Ronald Ehlers, Case No. 97 D 73 Oct 13, 2000, Order: “A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $400 per month commencing forthwith and terminating when Defendant has satisfied the following obligations under the orders of this court:
1. The obligation to make sixty (60) monthly payments of 50% of Defendant’s veteran’s disability check in lieu of maintenance to Plaintiff as set forth in.. the Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.”

What this is saying to all Illinois veterans’ especially to Vietnam veteran, former Watseka resident, Ronald Ehler, and for their honorable service, Illinois does not think a benefit exemption to veterans‘ as provided to police officers is warranted. Colorado courts, for example, have recognized the issue veterans face, by providing that, “The Colorado Court of Appeals …took this view in In re Marriage of Peterson , 870 P.2d 630 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994), holding that a disabled police officer’s disability pension payments were not marital property.. To the extent that the husband’s disability payments compensated for lost future earnings, they were analogous to Social Security, Veterans Administration, and workers’ compensation benefits, which are not treated as marital property..”

Contrast that Ehler v. Ehler ruling with the Appellate Court of Illinois ruling re: Wojcik v. Wojcik case No. 03-D-2709. Justice Hutchinson delivered the opinion of the court. “…we agree with the parties that the supremacy clause of the federal constitution precludes Illinois trial courts from dividing present or anticipated VA disability benefits as a marital asset or using those benefits as a basis for an offsetting award of the marital property…clearly did not characterize Paul’s present and anticipated VA disability benefits as martial property and did not award Karen a disproportionate share of martial estate as an offset.

Confused? From these two Illinois cases, you now have see the problem. But this is only one part. To further highlight court inconsistencies rendered on disabled veterans’, allow me to illustrate another case, that of Fisher v. Fisher. After this court exempts VA disability as alimony, the court goes after this veteran’s Social Security disability compensation as alimony. Unlike United States Supreme Court, Tennessee Appeal re: Rose v. Rose, this case does not involve child support.

In Re: Fisher v Fisher, the courts, ‘ORDER DETERMINING THAT FEDERAL LAW DOES NOT PRECLUDE AN AWARD OF ALIMONY AGAINST THE HUSBAND AND SETTING CONTINUED TRIAL’, address’ the subject citing the rational used in Rose v. Rose, “On this basis, the Supreme Court held that 38 USC section 3101(a) did not preclude state enforcement proceedings for non-payment of child support…. To be clear, the court is not treating the Husband’s disability benefits as divisible property, Rather, the court finds that it is consistent with federal and state law to consider the Husband’s disability income…Therefore, the Husband’s disability income may be considered in determining whether alimony should be awarded to the Wife.”

Florida State law Definitions. “(7) ‘Income’ means any form of payment to an individual, regardless of source,….United States Department of Veterans Affairs disability benefits and unemployment compensation…..are excluded from this definition of income except for purposes of establishing an amount of support. ”

“..Except for purposes of establishing an amount of support. ” Meaning, income may be considered, thus a basis for establishing support and the ability to pay. Fisher v. Fisher the judge citing, “… Allen is on point and binding precedent on this court…Therefore, the Husband’s disability income may be considered in determining whether alimony should be awarded to the Wife.” Allen v Allen 650 So, 2d 1019(Fla.2d DCA)

In the ‘Memorandum of Law’, the Wife’s reliance on forum shopping, argues for the taking of Social Security disability, citing Bahr v. Bahr, Kansas. the court’s reference explains the meaning of the word ‘consider’ “…held it could consider VA disability….acknowledging federal law does not bar from considering….the trial court merely considered having disability benefits in determining…Kansas law grants district courts to consider all property…district court does not abuse it’s discretion in considering Social Security benefits…..even though the benefits were the exclusive property of one spouse due to a federal anti-assignment statute…there appears to be no rational reason that the district court cannot consider the petitioner’s receipt of veteran’s benefits in calculating the need for support to be taken from the veteran’s other property…..”

Bahr goes on to cite Clausen v. Clausen (Alaska). “In arriving at an equitable distribution of marital assets, courts should only consider a party’s military disability benefits as they affect the financial circumstances of both parties. Disability benefits should not, either in form or substance, be treated as marital property subject to division upon the dissolution of marriage.” 831 P.2d at 1264. ”

Definition of “consider”; to think, ponder, heed, regard. Consider, does not mean, to take! But take they did! In Fisher, Judge Steinbeck did not just “consider” Social Security, she liked the idea of “considering” Social Security so much, she seized Joseph Fisher’s Social Security disability benefits. Exactly, what happened in the United States Supreme Court! Rose v. Rose, “Therefore, the Husband’s disability income may be considered ….”

“Consider” as used by the court, as “Consideration”: This word is one of the lawyer’s basic TERMS OF ART, but even lawyers misconceive the word: “One must be careful not to think of consideration as if it was synonymous with ‘recompense‘; rather the word [at common law] connoted some sound reason for the conveyance,…” A.W. B. Simpson. A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. Second Edition. Bryan A. Garner Oxford University Press.

The court, frustrated, being unable to award Veterans’ Administration disability as alimony, the seizure of Joseph Fisher’s Social Security disability compensation was accomplished through the court’s reliance, order, and application of Title 10 USC 1408, Computation of Retired Pay. “Payment of retired or retainer pay in compliance with court orders. …. (B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the total amount of the disposable retired pay of a member payable…under all court orders pursuant to this section and all legal processes pursuant to section 459 of the Social Security Act (42 USC 659)….”

The court’s reliance on Rose v. Rose, “…discussed at length..” , and 10 USC 1408; 42 USC 659, ….the Fisher court order stipulates, “Does not preclude an award of alimony against the spouse receiving disability pay and, once awarded, does not relieve the paying spouse from applying such alimony obligations….”

The Fisher court ruling erroneously, ties in 1408 Computation of Retired pay, having absolutely nothing to do with Social Security disability. Thus, the court’s ‘may be considered’ , (lawyers’ basic terms of art) attachment to a veterans’ Social Security disability. Title 42 USC 659 is purely, an administrative law. “Consent by the United States to Income Withholding, Garnishment, and Similar Proceedings for Enforcement of Child Support and Alimony Obligations….shall be subject….to withholding in accordance with State law…and regulations of the Secretary under such subsections, and to any other legal process brought, by the State agency administering…”

As explained in Title 5 Sec. 581.102, and as well, the first step is to determine the legal authority and validity of the action. “Burden is placed on the plaintiff to show why the attachment [of Social Security disability] justified.” The State law “…recoverable as such pursuant to a decree, order, or judgment issued in accordance with applicable State law by a court of competent jurisdiction.”

Florida State law provides; Title VI CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
76.08 Procurement of attachment; generally.–Upon motion by plaintiff, a writ of attachment may issue when the grounds relied on for the issuance of the writ clearly appear from specific facts shown by a verified complaint or a separate affidavit of the plaintiff, ….” The burden,…. the specific facts for securing attachment, according to Court documents as being, Title 10 USC 1408 Computation of Retired Pay and it’s reference to administrative law 42 USC 659, and reliance on Allen v. Allen, the rational used in Rose v Rose, as basis for seizing Joseph Fisher’s Social Security disability compensation.

Exemption is explained further in “TITLE 42–THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE CHAPTER 7–SOCIAL SECURITY SUBCHAPTER II–FEDERAL OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS, AND DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS
Sec. 407. Assignment of benefits (a) In general The right of any person to any future payment under this subchapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law. ”

The time line of events, as it relates to, “Any other factor necessary to do equity and justice between the parties.” After Vietnam veteran Joseph Fisher spent 3 years in military hospitals, exactly where, in this time line does it suggest ex-spouse is entitled to this veteran’s Social Security disability compensation?
1968-1971 Joseph Fisher’s U.S. Army service and hospitalization.
Sept. 1972, marries (ex-spouse).
Feb. 2004 filed for divorce.
Compensation; VA disability compensation. Rated at 100%. Having been injured in Vietnam, the loss of one leg, with other permanent injuries. Social Security disability compensation.

Florida State statutes
“61.075 Equitable distribution of martial assets and liabilities.
(5) As used in this section.

(b) “nonmartial assets and liabilities” include:

(1). Assets acquired and liabilities incurred by either party prior to the marriage, and assets acquired and liabilities incurred in exchange for such assets and liabilities;

(3) All income derived from nonmartial assets during marriage unless the income was treated, used, or relied upon by the parties as a martial asset, ..”

In compliance to exemption of Social security disability……..
OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 99-1422 ___ S.W.3d ___
Supreme Court of Arkansas. Opinion delivered May 18, 2000

“8. Family law — SSI not subject to state court jurisdiction –child-support payments cannot be based upon income from federal SSI disability benefits. — Although SSI comes within the definition of income for child-support purposes as found in Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order Number 10, it is not subject to state court jurisdiction; Congress has madeno sovereign-immunity exception for nonremunerative federal benefits such as SSI; hence, those benefits remain free from execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process; Arkansas courts cannot order child-support payments based upon income from federal SSI disability benefits; reversed and remanded. [cme] ”

To Joseph Fisher, the court added insult to injury, as well to all disabled veterans’, in ruling, “Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, 5.3 “The Husband receives all of his medical treatment, prescription drugs and medical supplies free of charge.” How dare the court! Throwing this in the face of all disabled veterans’ to justify the seizing of Social Security disability compensation. Is this what it is all about, veterans’ free medical care? Apparently so!

Senator Durbin, I believe the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Rose v Rose, and what you have read thus far, and what follows summarizes, exemplifies exactly what is wrong. This is brought out while researching the word “consider” used frequently by the courts as it relates to what is to be considered a veterans alimony obligations. The search led me to Tennessee’s Dee Gallaher v. Elam child support ruling. Which involved Dr. Elam’s 4 children, 3 previous while married. The key to understanding the interpretation of Tennessee Supreme Court Opinion, is in the first line of the guidelines, (2) “…determining the amount..”

Tennessee Supreme Court Opinions (2003) Dee Gallaher v. Curtis Elam – E2000-02719-SC-R11-CV. Knox County – In this appeal, the appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Tennessee Department of Human Services Child Support Guidelines (”the Guidelines”). The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s determination that chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines violates the equal protection provisions of the federal and state constitutions. We granted permission to appeal. After careful consideration, we conclude that: (1) chapter 1240-2-4-.03(4) of the Guidelines, which prohibits consideration of non-court-ordered child support in calculating child support, and chapter 1240-2-4-.03(2) of the Guidelines, which requires consideration only of the obligor’s income in calculating child support, do not violate the equal protection and due process provisions of either the United States or Tennessee Constitutions; and (2) the promulgation of the Guidelines does not constitute an impermissible delegation of rulemaking authority by the General Assembly to the Department of Human Services. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

RULES OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION CHAPTER 1240-2-4
CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES
CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES CHAPTER 1240-2-4
(Rule 1240-2-4-.03, continued)
June, 2006 (Revised) 9
(2) The Income Shares model for determining the amount of child support is predicated on the concept that the child should receive support at the same level that the child would receive if the parents were living together. While expenditures of two-household divorced, separated, or single parent families are different from intact family households, it is very important that the children of this State, to the extent possible, not be forced to live in poverty because of family disruption, and that they be afforded the same opportunities available to children in intact families consisting of parents with similar
financial means to those of their own parents.

(4) The Income Shares model, which is used by over thirty (30) other states, is generally based on economic studies of child-rearing costs, including those of David Betson, Erwin Rothbarth, and Ernst Engel, and studies conducted by the United States Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics involving expenditures for the care of children.

United States Supreme Court. Appeal from Tennessee re:
ROSE v. ROSE ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
No. 85-1206.
Argued March 4, 1987
Decided May 18, 1987
“Appellant, a totally disabled veteran whose main source of income is federal veterans’ benefits, was held in contempt by the state trial court for failure to pay child support, the amount of which had been fixed by the court after considering appellant’s benefits to be income under a Tennessee statute. The State Court of Appeals affirmed,…”

And as all have learned, Charlie Wayne Rose, in his alimony/child support case, lost his fight against awarding both VA and Social Security disability. However, in Tennessee Supreme Court Opinions re: Gallaher v Elam, and it’s reference to Tennessee law stated, “…chapter 1240-2-4-.03(2) of the Guidelines, which requires consideration only of the obligor’s income in calculating child support,..”

Charlie Wayne Rose had no other income available other than portions of VA disability and Social Security awarded as child support and alimony. Follow me on this reasoning. When the support guidelines in Gallaher v. Elam as referenced by the Tennessee Supreme Court opinion, “requires consideration only of the obligor’s income in calculating child support,..”, does this mean they will take these income benefits? If that was what they wanted to do? If that is the case, why was not the opinion interpreted to read, “requires consideration only of the obligor’s income in child support.”? Leaving out the word “calculating”. Why calculate something your going to take? The referenced opinion was worded so, in the event there was other sources of income available. Then they would have to follow the support guideline where it “requires consideration only of the obligor’s income in calculating child support,..” Therefore, the support guideline statute reads and means what it says. The question now is, if they were to consider other income would they take it all or only ‘consider’ income in calculating child support? And this is how Charlie Wayne Rose had his Tennessee, and Constitutional rights violated. Joseph Fisher’s rights as well.

Veterans’, Illinois veterans’ many whether married, or planning marriage, who are, for their sacrifice, will return disabled. Enduring stress, disabilities, interruption in work, and within family life. As you can understand, this has come at a cost. One where America’s disabled veterans’ have suffered enough already, they will continue for years to suffer through state court divorce proceedings taking away a portion of disability compensation benefits. Enduring a never ending battle, an unresponsive Congress, fighting state courts, unjust laws, the ex-spouse, insults, and these activist judges, whose interpretation manipulation, and application of the law, a “lawyers basic terms of art”, as I have illustrated. Courts’ will continue to penalize disabled veterans’ by awarding unfairly disability compensation as alimony. Acknowledging the problem, judges have stated, this is something that is left up to Congress. You, Senator Durbin are a part of Congress. Veterans’, Illinois veterans’ will look to you to propose uniform changes in the law necessary to make all veterans’ feel they are welcomed home.

The above case, Fisher v. Fisher; referred to and involved one of our nations veterans in the State Florida. Divorce Case No. 04-DR-792, Lee County, Judge Margaret O. Steinbeck. A good example of how returning Illinois disabled veterans’ have and will be treated.

Of immediate concern to you Senator Durbin, is making sure, unlike Florida, when it comes to divorce, that Illinois disabled veterans, your constituents, are treated fairly, according to law. And seeing that all America’s disabled veterans’ are afforded the same considerations to disability exemptions as Illinois State police, as well as the police of other states seem to have. I realize there are “states rights”, but this is where Congress must step in. To fix these problems, as I have illustrated, that are as varied, as you can imagine, from state to state.

When it comes to our disabled veterans’, isn’t it time to make our “state right”? This is about Illinois, not just about Florida, Colorado, Tennessee, but Illinois. Can Illinois disabled veterans’ be assured this issue will be pursued with the same passion, and commitment that you have shown in pursuing other veterans’ disability issues? Veterans’ have tried to make change happen, but the way veterans are accepted, and treated in state courts, it’s just not happening. All that veterans’ want is to be treated fairly according to the law. Courts respecting 38 USC 5301, Non-assignability and exempt status of benefits; 10 USC 1408 Computation of retired pay (USFSPA); 42 USC 407 Assignment of benefits, Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the Constitution of the United States.

Veterans need your help. Can I be assured you will address these many issues?
Sincerely;

William H. Heino Sr.

cc: L. Tammy Duckworth

Obama should get no excuses for a paltry and contradictory record.

He appears more like a show biz orator rainmaker, and oh! is this the wrong time for that.

But stirring uo the Hillary hate will sink the party. If you think some of us Dems are onto him, can you imagine what the GOP will do if he’s nominated?

He does NOT have a clean record and will be vulnerable in ways we can’t imagine.

I say Bravo to anyone willing to take the time as bloggers have proved over and over that they can challenge the MSM. The internet reportage has just begun to resonate, and we can see more and more what a lousy, lazy, biased bunch of hacks the so called “Press” has become.

Here’s to brave blog journalism in all of it’s uniqueness and importance. Remember when they told us all bloggers sat in pajamas and blogged at 3 to 5 Am? I don’t.

Yes, they said the blogs comments were the worthless ramblings of “untrained?” journalists.

After reading Kristol in this weeks NY Times and his misquote of the wrong author in his debut column, accuracy for “professional” journalism went out the window.

So lets do some more investigative first rate journalism.

Have you seen Obama’s current US Senate record [WashPo politics section[congress] online?

It isn’t good enough.

The Illinois State legislature was Republican run during Obama’s term there. He made many deals with the Republicans FOR the Republicans. He failed miserably to offer a public housing effort, and his voting record which he’s scrubbed was lackluster at best. His weekly card playing buddies wer Republicans and well known lobbyist.

Friend Oprah is [closeted] Republican, and Obama was the guy who played ball and took orders, and made thos “present” votes on dicey right wing Democratic district issues.

He’s getting us ready for a failed Hawkish Secretary Of State….Brezinsky. Now we can expect a “mixed” cabinet of Republicans and he’s getting us ready for what’s to come.
What’s next??

Lets start our engines and Google Obama’s backstory.

Hillary has the top tier advisors but they all need to be heard and vetted, and Obama’s choice of Brezinsky is alarming, and anyone vetting this leftover Hawk from the Carter administration needs to look into his record of total failure.

Obama’s advisors are basically 2nd tier and seem a combo of Brezinsky, – a hawk in sheeps clothing, and some left over Clintonite liberal and moderate Foreign policy wonks.

Hearing from all of them is most important. Their advice will be our future. Learning about their past positions will help us make our decisions.

The apology and cop out I’ve just read about Obama is disheartening. There is no reason than absolute bias to ignore all the red lights we see when we look at Obama’s scrubbed Illinois lackluster performance. Forget the US Senate where nothing happened.

The ignorance surrounding the Republican dominated
Illinois senate and Obama’s tepid votes are more than just alarming. His backyard home property was enlarged to his advantage from a nice price reduction to $165,000 from the $300,00 it was worth. All accomplished with the corrupt Rezko.his pal and neighbor.

Even after Obama knew Fitzgerald [yes,that one] was onto Rezko, Obama continued to close the deal at the same time Rita Rezko closed her real estate deal].

He accomplished little in his senate part time job, and the Pritzker and Crown family that run the Chicago machine are his biggie backers.

In fact, Penny Pritzker is his Fianance Campaign Manager. His donors are heavy corporate, Medical.Healthcare,etc. Some bundled, some not. The NOT part he absolutely refuses to divulge when asked who would be on his list for the 3 coming fundraisers. He will not divulge his donors.

Obama supporters either don’t want their bubble to burst, or hate Hillary with such blindness that they refuse to properly look at their choices.

The latest disturbing news…..Zibegnew as his choice as foreign policy advisor [and if Pres. Sec'y of State]. Is Yesterday’s news. Belonged to Carter and failed seriously in handling hostage
crisis, and a HAWK. Saw him past year on Charlie Rose and he was as arrogant and bellicose as ever. This guy is a burnt out loser and definitely was the Hawk in Carter’s administration.

Of course, no one older than 45 or 50 may ever have heard of him unless they’re political junkies.

Obama has a very disturbing backstory and now has just added the race card to the NC primary and denies the enormous legacy the Clintons created and contributed for racial equality.

The Democrats will go down with this stuff.