The news of the Veterans' clinic expansion spread like wildfire in the Veterans' community. But like reading an insurance contract, what was first viewed as a good deal is now viewed as a sour deal, once the fine details of the agreement are read. So says a gathering of various South Texas Veteran's groups at a press conference held yesterday.
The Monitor has the story about the dissatisfaction expressed by the Veterans.
At this point I would expect the Veterans administration office or one of our senators to provide an explanation to our Veterans why a Veterans' hospital is not an option.
Consider this. On our 250 mile journey from Edinburg to San Antonio I had the pleasure of walking with General Marc Cisneros. The photo below is of the two of us on the march. General Cisneros is noted for capturing Manuel Noriega but in retirement lives in his home in South Texas. I asked him point blank why a Veterans' hospital has not been built in South Texas when a disproportionate number of our soldiers come from the area. His response was interesting.
He said that Veterans hospitals have been built in other areas of the country were fewer Veterans reside in comparison to South Texas and that he could think of no other reason except that it was a political problem. In short he said South Texas does not have the political muscle to demand a hospital.
In observing these proud men and women of South Texas, I can only say that Washington had better take notice, and start explaining because a slumbering giant seems to have awakened. The fiber of these soldiers is strong and their cause just.
This country trained these proud South Texans well and like it or not this objective will be accomplished. One needs to simply look into their eyes to understand this. I dare say this is not the last we hear from these Veterans.
I pray to be right there with them.
2 comments:
Minister of Christ, Gene Chapman
P. O. Box 295545
Lewisville, Texas 75029
December 17, 2005
Congressman Michael Burgess
1660 South Stemmons Freeway
Suite 230
Lewisville, Texas 75067
Dear Congressman Burgess:
Thank you for your letter of December 8, 2005. However, I'm not sure after reading it whether I should refer to you as Congressman or Comrade.
As you know, I am a Christian and a big opponent of "The Communist Manifesto." My reasoning is found beginning for our discussion on page 242: "But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion and all morality . . . ." The primary 'despotic means' by which Communism abolishes all religion, including my Christian religion, is listed in 10 planks on the next page, according to Karl Marx and Mr. Engles, two of world history's most effective Anti-Christian thinkers.
You will notice that the "income tax" is listed as the 2nd Plank of "The Communist Manifesto." In other words, Karl Marx asserted that the income tax provides perhaps as much as 1/10th of a stated open and direct attack on the very existence of the Christian religion.
You are endorsing Marx's direct and open attack on the Christian religion by your support of the so-called, "Freedom Flat Tax Act."
I would also like to remind you that "freedom" or "liberty" is the Greek word, elutheria -- without liability. You are proposing to have people opt into a tax on labor and/ or property (the very definition of slavery back to 1,800 B.C., according to "The Wycliffe Bible Dictionary" -- taxation) that presupposes a "liability." You should honestly name your tax The Slavery Flat Tax Act, for the taxation of labor and/ or property are two primary attributes of slavery, according to my scholars. (I can produce two prominent Greek scholars to support my assertion.)
And the idea that one may not opt out of the Slavery Flat Tax once manipulated to opt into it is just more Socialist Communist coercion, based on my read of history. It's a "good-bad" idea, Orwell would say.
I don't see how your tax system does away with the IRS, the main concern of American Christians, or the Social Security number, which concerns tens of millions of Christians in the way it is now indistinguishable from the 'mark of the beast' in Revelation 13 and 14.
Finally, the purist Christian position is that we should not be taxing at all for Social benevolence. I would remind you of Mr. David Crockett's position, of which I'm sure you are aware.
At any rate, I am officially requesting your help in getting me opted out of use of the Social Security Number in all matters. It is still connected to my job application, my credit card, my cell phone and maybe my land in Texas. Revelation indicates that it is now time for Christians to get away from what is now indistinguishable from the mark of the beast. And I cannot withdraw this position, given my extensive theological studies at Baylor University, Dallas Baptist University, Tabernacle Baptist College over a decade of my youth, along with my conversations with Christian scholars across America. I am aware of Christians "wigging out" and being sent to mental hospitals all over America over the mark of the beast issue these days; I can assure you that most of these people are just living out their world view, a view a Communist would not respect.
In Christ,
Gene Chapman, Minister of Christ
SlaveFreedom.com
CubanFreedom.blogspot.com
I don't see how your tax system does away with the IRS, the main concern of American Christians
And all this time I thought it was Satan.
I am aware of Christians "wigging out" and being sent to mental hospitals all over America
And now, so are we all. Aware, that is. Thank you sharing, Pastor Gene.
Back to the topic of Rep. Pena's post:
This is an obvious failure of leadership on the part of the senior senator from Texas, who sits on the Veteran's Affirs committee.
Somehow I get the feeling that if Kay Bailey Hutchison wanted a VA hospital in the Valley, she would have the ability to get one.
No better reason to replace her as Senator with a woman who cares about vets.
Post a Comment