People-powered, AI-Generated
Season 4, Episode 14
In our 14th episode for Season 4 we deep dive into the disrespect of veterans by those who never served in the Trump administration including Trump himself who dodged the draft 5 times while others could not due to a lack of privilege and wealth and Laura Loomer, an unelected and unappointed advisor who is wholly uneducated and on a retribution tour due to her loss in Congress and how Veterans need to stand up for themselves, each other, and democracy and recognize this administration does not want your America, they want Their America and you are just a serf in their Kingdom being built by Trump and autocrats. It is time for Veterans to fight back against autocrats an oligarchs who continue to erode democratic norms while putting in place bulwarks to prevent future democratic efforts and freedoms.
To read the article discussed in this episode:
https://guywolf070425.substack.com/p/when-patriots-are-attacked-by-a-non?r=5d8qd2
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:22):
The. Two shifts she took the project
called the Retribution, the seatat the table.
So she could've did. She can't pass the gate then
storm it. If she's not inside, she'll
torch it. No chain of command, just a
(00:47):
blacklist built with the shakinghand.
She don't need to cause her to click.
Just like and you're on a black list.
She's a cock in the purge, Trumpat the mic.
She's a knife in the search target, but she clipped it.
(01:21):
Can't pass the gate, then storm it.
If she's not inside, she'll punch it.
Blow me, Luma. But down in the room.
Yeah. Now she's fainting with hunts on
a Twitter room. No badge, no chain of command.
Just the blacklist filled with the shaking hand.
(01:41):
Career that paternal. So she flipped it.
You'll paint a target, but she clipped it.
(02:44):
No seat at the table, so she flipped it.
Can't fire the truth. Can't kill.
The mission tried to purge the facts, but we gripped it.
We did. Then be on with Coalition,
Lonely Loomis. Your Fury's a mirror.
The power built on spice that's thinner and thinner.
(03:12):
So what does it really, truly mean to honor someone who's
served the nation? You know, to uphold patriotism?
We often think, well, celebrating heroes, especially
leaders, that's something everyone agrees on, right?
A kind of bedrock of national unity.
But what happens when that basichonor gets challenged or or even
undermined sometimes by people who haven't served themselves?
(03:33):
It creates this real tension, a kind of dissonance that can feel
deeply unsettling for a lot of folks.
Yeah, indeed. And it's really important to see
these. These aren't just isolated
things, you know, random comments when moments like this
happen, they often act like, well, like cracks appearing,
they show up. Deeper problems, systemic issues
where the values we say we hold,well, they clash pretty hard
with what we actually see happening.
(03:55):
And that makes us look beyond just the immediate noise, the
controversy, and think about thewider impact, the ripple
effects, you know? That exact clash stated values
versus observed reality. That's precisely the tension
we're diving into today. Our mission here is to really
unpack a specific article. It's titled When patriots are
attacked by a non veteran. How Donald J Trump's draft
(04:16):
dodging legacy and Laura Loomer's assault on heroes
reveal a crisis in veterans honor hers.
And in this source, it doesn't just report these events like,
oh, that's unfortunate. No, it frames them as really
critical insights. It says they expose, And this is
a quote deeper flaws in veteran support and federal stability.
So it promises a look at multiple facets, not just what
individuals did, but the systemic fallout.
(04:38):
And ultimately, what does honor even mean in public life?
How do we define it? How do we uphold it?
And we should probably say rightup front, as the source itself
points out quite thoughtfully, it says feeling upset or
confused is completely normal. It's painful when leaders don't
honor the values they claim to support.
So our job here is to be impartial guides through the
information in this article. We're not here to endorse or,
(05:00):
you know, oppose any specific political views it presents.
We're just trying to distill theideas, the details, as the
source conveys them. Our goal is to help you, the
listener, get a full picture of this text so you can form your
own informed thoughts. OK, let's start by really
getting into the main incident here, the one that anchors this
whole discussion. The article opens with something
that, honestly, even just reading it feels pretty
(05:22):
unsettling. It paints this picture of a
decorated soldier, someone wounded, serving the country,
being attacked, but not on a battlefield.
No, by a political activist right here.
This is the starting point, yet Laura Loomer publicly
criticizing retired Army CaptainFlorent Groberg.
And the source really paints a picture of Captain Grover.
He embodies a lot Medal of Honorrecipient, which we'll get into.
(05:42):
This is America's highest award for bravery.
He's also an immigrant, and he identifies as a Democrat.
The article suggests these different parts of his identity
are key to understanding the attack.
Yeah, the source is crystal clear that her comments hurt
deeply. It really stresses this wasn't
just some casual insult. The pain the article suggests
was really amplified by the context.
(06:03):
It wasn't just attacking a hero,it was attacking a highly
decorated immigrant hero who happens to be a Democrat, and
the person doing the attacking anon veteran activist known for
strongly backing a major political figure, Someone whose
own history with military service specifically avoiding
has been widely discussed. The source uses strong words
here, calling the feeling this incident creates confusing and
(06:25):
unfair. It hints at this deep sense of
betrayal right, Like violating some unwritten rule that we
honor military sacrifice regardless of politics.
It speaks to that feeling of disorientation when the lines of
respect get so blurry. And the specifics of what Loomer
actually challenged? According to the article,
they're pretty stark. She didn't just vaguely
disagree, the source says explicitly she questioned why
(06:47):
Captain Gronberg, an immigrant and a Democrat, got the Medal of
Honor, and she directly implied it should have gone to her
words. AUS born Republican.
I mean, that's incredibly direct.
It's almost audacious, really. And like the source says, it's
deeply politicizing an honor that should be way above all
that partisan stuff. It sort of sets a dangerous
precedent, doesn't it, Suggesting national words should
(07:08):
be filtered through politics. Exactly, and this is where the
source really starts connecting loomers specific words to a much
bigger and frankly more worryingfriend and society.
The article argues her comments are for a clear attempt to
politicize what needs to be a totally apolitical honor.
The Medal of Honor, The source just hammers his home, is meant
to recognize incredible bravery,sacrifice, period, full stop.
(07:31):
The recipients background, wherethey were born, who they vote
for, none of that is or should ever be part of the criteria.
By dragging these divisive things into a discussion about
military valor, the source argues, Loomer directly attacks
the very meaning of the award. It chips away at the public's
understanding of what the medal represents.
It risks turning the sacred recognition of curse into some
kind of political football, and that diminishes the honor not
(07:53):
just for Captain Groberg, but really for every single
recipient, past, present and future.
OK, so we have this very direct,public, highly politicized
attack on a middle of honor recipient.
But the article doesn't just leave it there, right?
It immediately zooms out, draws a really direct and critical
line to another major figure. The source explicitly links
Loomer's actions to the legacy of former President Donald
(08:15):
Trump, and it definitely doesn'tshy away from looking closely at
his military service record. What exactly does the article
highlight there that connection?Well, the article gives a pretty
detailed rundown of Donald Trump's military service
history, specifically focusing on how he avoided the draft
during the Vietnam War. It notes he got 5 deferments in
total. That's quite a few, and the
source breaks them down. Four were standard college
(08:38):
deferments. Lots of students got those back
then to finish their education. But the fifth one, that's the
one that got a lot of public attention, scrutiny, was a
medical deferment. It was for bone spurs in his
heels. Now, what the source then points
out as being really contradictory, and this has been
a point of, you know, debate andconfusion for years, is that
even with this deferment for a condition that supposedly made
(08:58):
him unfit for service, Trump wasapparently still active on his
college track team. This inconsistency, the source
suggests, is a really crucial part of his public image when it
comes to the military. Right.
That definitely seems to raise some basic questions about that
particular medical deferment, doesn't it?
And the source, it goes beyond just stating these facts.
It argues that this background, which it calls his draft dodging
(09:21):
legacy, it isn't just history. It argues this legacy actually
ripples into how we treat veterans today.
UN quote. One of the really interesting
ideas the source puts forward isthis whole concept of legacy
kind of asks us to think about how a leader's pass actions even
from decades ago can still subtly Shae things.
Now you know current perceptions, how institutions
behave, especially towards the military.
(09:42):
How does the article flesh out that idea?
Legacy impacting the present. Yeah, this is where the source
gets quite insightful about whatLegacy actually means.
It's not just about one person'spast choices viewed in a vacuum.
Instead, it looks at how those choices, particularly from
someone with huge public influence, help build a larger
story or set a kind of precedent.
And that precedent can actively shape attitudes and actions
(10:04):
across society. The article carefully builds its
case when a leader who quote never served and dodged the
draft seems to have the backing of an activist.
An activist who then openly disrespects Medal of Honor
recipient. The source suggests this isn't
just a passing controversy. It creates a specific kind of
societal consequence, almost like a permissive atmosphere.
This atmosphere, the article argues, can subtly but really
(10:27):
powerfully normalize disrespect towards service members or maybe
specific kinds of veterans. It can make it seem like maybe
that disrespect is OK, maybe even encouraged by people at the
top. And this dynamic, according to
the source, just chips away at the basic respect we ideally
want for everyone who puts on the uniform.
It forces us to think about the value we actually place on
service and the a bigger societal picture when national
(10:50):
leaders haven't really experienced that service
themselves. It's about maybe an erosion of a
kind of cultural reverence that should ideally be constant and
universal. So the argument is these past
choices aren't just footnotes inhistory books.
They actively shape the climate today, especially in how we
honor those who served. Which brings us really
powerfully to the core of what'sat stake here, the Medal of
(11:10):
Honor itself. The article absolutely stresses
this isn't just some random political award or fancy
ceremony. It is, without question,
America's highest military awardfor bravery.
What else did the source say defines this?
Award. The source leaves zero room for
doubt about how significant the Medal of Honor is.
It emphasizes quote most recipients earn it or die
(11:32):
earning it, because it often honors acts of incredible
courage and dangerous combat. That statement directly and
pretty forcefully pushes back against the political claims
made by Loomer. The Medal of Honor, as the
article meticulously explains, is fundamentally apolitical.
It's based purely on evidence. Its criteria are all about
verifiable actions on the battlefield, acts of bravery
(11:54):
that go way above and beyond theCall of Duty.
It's not about someone's politics, where they were born,
or any other personal characteristic.
The source is really clear. Suggesting otherwise is to
completely misunderstand or maybe even deliberately twist
the whole point of this incredibly sacred award.
OK, given its huge status and deep meaning, the process for
actually awarding the Medal of Honor must be incredibly solid.
(12:16):
The source details this very methodical multi step process.
It sells. It's designed specifically to
ensure total objectivity and integrity.
Can you walk us through those steps, the rigor involved?
Absolutely. The article lays out a really
clear multi stage path. It's designed to weed out any
subjectivity and make sure only the most extraordinary acts get
recognized. It starts with the nomination.
(12:38):
Usually that comes from the soldiers direct chain of
command, the people who were right there who saw the heroism
up close. Very, very rarely, a member of
Congress might initiate one, buteven then it still has to go
through the military channels. And this isn't just a
suggestion. The ACT itself has to be
rigorously documented. We're talking about a mountain
of factual, verifiable proof. Things like detailed eyewitness
(12:59):
statements from multiple people,full battle reports, precise
timelines, maps showing the situation, and any other
verified details that back up the heroic action.
The basic idea here is the awardhas to be rooted in concrete,
undeniable evidence, not just stories or hearsay or definitely
not political leanings. So just getting nominated
requires an immense amount of proof, like ironclad evidence.
(13:22):
Sounds like a really high bar right from the start.
Exactly. And once all that documentation
is gathered and checked at the unit level, it starts this long
journey through multiple levels of review.
This evaluation is incredibly thorough, designed for maximum
scrutiny. It goes up through different
layers of military command and civilian oversight.
Starts with Army boards, then upto the Secretary of the Army,
(13:44):
then the Secretary of Defense, and finally for the ultimate
green light all the way to the President.
This layered review make sure the decision is vetted by
military and civilian leaders atevery single step.
It guarantees the ACT truly meets the incredibly high
standard for the Medal of Honor and that the evidence is rock
solid. The source also mentions there
(14:04):
are strict time limits. These are built in to make sure
events are still fresh in witnesses, minds and evidence
can be gathered properly. By law, nominations usually have
to be in within three years of the heroic act in the medal
itself awarded within five yearsunless Congress specifically
passes a waiver, which is rare. Usually only for really
extraordinary cases where delaysare unavoidable.
Wow, that really paints a picture of a system deliberately
(14:28):
built to be as objective and thorough as possible,
specifically to shield it from any hint of political influence.
It's about recognizing pure courage.
It absolutely is, and what's really insightful is how the
source points out that who handsover the medal is often just a
matter of timing, not politics. This directly counters Loomer's
implication that the president'sparty somehow dictates who gets
(14:49):
the medal. The reality, because of this
long multi year process is that the president who's in office
when the final approval comes through might be different from
the one who was president when the heroism happened, or even
when the nomination started. The source explicitly says
Lumora's attack ignores this andshows a tragic lack of respect
for both heroism and the process.
It shows a fundamental misunderstanding, or maybe a
(15:11):
willful disregard of how meticulous and fact based the
award is. The article also drives home the
extreme nature of the acts recognized by highlighting how
often the awards are posthumous,meaning the recipient died
performing the act. This just underscores that these
aren't politically motivated prizes.
They are solemn acknowledgments of the ultimate sacrifice acts
for people knowingly risked everything, often giving their
(15:33):
lives for others or for the mission.
And the source really grounds this whole argument with a very
powerful quote from a veteran SFC Robert L He's retired and a
Medal of Honor recipient himself, he says.
When I received my medal, I never thought about who was
president or their political views.
All I cared about was that my actions and the sacrifices of my
brothers were recognized. That process is sacred.
(15:56):
That quote coming from someone who actually lived it, it speaks
volumes, doesn't it? It really, really does.
What hits so hard in SFC Robert L's words is just the pure
intention, the humility. His view powerfully reinforces
this whole idea that the Medal of Honor is above fleeting
political fights and party preferences.
For the people who actually earned this incredible honor,
the meaning is deeply personal. It's all about recognizing their
(16:19):
selfless actions and the sacrifices made alongside their
comrades in the absolute worst circumstances.
It's about a sacred bond betweenservice members, proof of
incredible bravery. It's not a tool for political
games or some kind of ideological test.
This raw insight from an actual recipient is probably the
strongest possible rebuttal to any attempt to politicize the
process. It serves as a stark reminder
(16:41):
the medals purpose is to honor unbelievable courage and
sacrifice true heroism, not to be a stage for political
alignment or division. It brings a whole discussion
back down to the soldiers reality, which is miles away
from partisan bickering. OK, so we've really unpacked
this specific incident with Captain Groberg, the historical
and political context the sourcedraws with Trump's legacy and
(17:02):
this apolitical, super rigorous process for awarding the Medal
of Honor. But the source doesn't stop
there. It then broadens the view to
talk about what it calls ripple effects, specifically looking at
instability in veteran care. This is where the direct human
impact on veterans lives really snaps into sharp focus, doesn't
it? Yeah, this is where the source
connects the sort of abstract idea of honor to very real
(17:25):
systemic problems. It highlights a critical crisis
happening within the Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA
system. The alarming trend is that that
the VA is losing doctors due to instability and disrespect.
Now, this isn't just some minor bureaucratic headache, the
article argues. It has direct, severe,
potentially even life threatening consequences for the
quality and consistency of care veterans get.
(17:47):
Doctors, nurses, therapists, vital medical professionals are
choosing to leave the VA. Why?
According to the article, it's because the system feels
unstable, staff don't feel supported, and there's this
pervasive sense of disrespect coming from different places.
This exodus directly weakens theVA's ability to do its job.
And if we follow the source's argument, it suggests that when
you see these public attacks on veteran honor, plus maybe a
(18:09):
perceived lack of respect from leadership, it directly
contributes to a destabilized veteran healthcare system.
It's not just coincidence. Then.
It's like a chain reaction. Disrespect breeds instability,
and that instability creates a crisis in veteran care.
How does the article flesh out that connection between honor
and the VA system's health? The source really carefully
(18:29):
builds this connection, showing how the very idea of veteran
honor and public respect if it gets damaged can show up in
tangible, harmful ways inside the institutions meant to
support them. The article makes us think about
the specific, often very seriousneeds of VA serves.
It points to conditions like PTSD, post traumatic stress
disorder, chronic pain from combat wounds, debilitating
(18:52):
depression. These are issues that demand
consistent, high quality, often long term care from dedicated,
skilled professionals. So if you have staffing
instability, if experienced doctors and specialists are
walking away, that directly hitsthe quality and continuity of
care for these really complex conditions.
It means longer waits for appointments.
(19:12):
It means less consistent treatment from staff.
We're constantly changing. It weakens the ability to build
that crucial trust between patient and provider, which is
so vital for managing these challenges.
Ultimately, it leads to worse health outcomes, more suffering
for veterans who've already beenthrough so much.
The So what here is huge. The stability of the VA isn't
just some administrative detail.It's a fundamental promise our
country makes to those who served.
(19:34):
If we break that promise, it erodes trust, it can lead to
tragic human costs, and honestly, it makes future
generations less likely to consider serving.
The source is basically saying acrisis in veteran honor
inevitably leads to a crisis in veteran care, with really
damaging consequences for the whole nation.
Social Contract. That's a powerful and pretty
sobering link, showing how abstract things like honor have
(19:56):
very real human consequences. But the article doesn't just
diagnose the problems, it then pivots to offering solutions and
calls to action. Which is always great to see in
the deep dive. It introduces these as proven,
thoughtful steps we can take to tackle this multi layered
crisis. So let's unpack these practical,
forward-looking ideas. Right.
This is the shift from identifying the problem to
(20:17):
suggesting real, actionable waysforward.
The first solution it proposes is setting up community VA
watchdog programs. The basic idea is to create
active partnerships, get local veterans and community
professionals working together with the VA centers.
The goal is twofold. First, ensure more transparency
and how things are run. Move away from decisions made
behind closed doors. And 2nd, crucially, rebuild
(20:40):
trust between the VA system and the veterans it's supposed to
serve. These programs would function
like local grass roots oversightbodies, ensuring accountability
and opening up communication lines, creating a feedback loop
to catch and fix problems faster.
That makes a lot of sense. It empowers local communities,
gives them a real stake in improving the system instead of
just feeling like they're on thereceiving end of its problems.
(21:03):
What's the next step the source suggests for supporting veterans
well-being? Next up, the source highlights
the huge value of mental health peer support programs.
This focuses on using the uniqueshared experiences that veterans
have. It pushes for veterans helping
other veterans using proven methods like cognitive
behavioral techniques. Just for context, cognitive
behavioral techniques or CBT arethese practical goal focused
(21:27):
methods. They give people tools to spot
and change negative thinking patterns, build healthier ways
to cope, and manage stress and trauma better.
The focus here is on direct, empathetic support from people
who truly get the experience of military service and its
aftermath. The goal is to reduce stress and
build hope, to create this vitalinformal support network that
works alongside and sometimes even before traditional therapy
(21:50):
makes support more accessible, more relatable.
So harnessing that really powerful bond and shared
understanding among veterans themselves to build a strong
peer LED support system, that sounds like a really human and
effective approach. But beyond supporting the
veterans we have now, what aboutbringing in the new talent
needed to actually staff these vital facilities?
(22:12):
That leads right into the third solution, stories that inspire
evidence based recruitment. The source suggests being
proactive about rebuilding the VA's workforce.
How? By sharing real stories of
service and meaning. This isn't just generic
recruitment ads. It's about finding and sharing
powerful stories that show the positive impact and deep
personal satisfaction doctors and caregivers mind working with
(22:34):
veterans. The aim is to encourage medical
professionals, both those just starting out and those with
experience, to either come back to the VA or start serving
there. It's about reminding them of the
noble purpose of the work, the unique chance to make a real
difference, rekindling that sense of mission and
professional pride that can attract and keep top talent.
And lastly, the article brings up something pretty fundamental
(22:56):
to how any large organization works well, especially one as
critical as the VA long term stability.
Exactly. The final solution suggested is
putting in place policies for local workforce stability.
This focuses on making structural changes to keep VA
staff steady and protected from sudden changes.
Acti. The logic is pretty clear.
(23:17):
A stable, consistent workforce directly leads to much better
quality of care. This is especially vital for
those critical conditions we talked about, PTSD, chronic
pain, depression, which often need long term relationships and
continuity for effective treatment.
When staff feel secure in their jobs, not constantly worried
about budget cuts or policy flipflops or political interference,
(23:38):
they can provide more consistent, more effective care.
They can build deeper trust withpatients, and it reduces
burnout. All these solutions, the source
argues, are linked. They create this positive cycle
that helps rebuild the overall honor and service ethic in
veteran care, making sure the promise we make to those who
serve is actually kept. So those are the bigger picture,
thoughtful solutions from the source.
(23:59):
But the article also shifts to avery direct, immediate call to
action, something concrete. You, our listener, can actually
do it, says e-mail or call your representatives.
Tell them to support stable and respectful staffing at the VA
fund veteran peer programs and honor Medal of Honor recipients
without politics. That's remarkably
(24:19):
straightforward and pretty powerful, isn't?
It Yeah. What's really compelling there
is the emphasis that small stepscan bring real change.
It reinforces that basic idea ofcivic engagement, that even
something seemingly small, like a phone call or an e-mail to
your elected official, can actually contribute to major
policy changes and a much neededshift in culture.
It's about using your individualvoice to join a collective call
(24:41):
for action on issues that directly affect our veterans and
the core values we say we stand for as a society.
It highlights the maybe often underestimated power of lots of
individuals acting together to influence national priorities
and demand accountability. And beyond contacting reps, the
source offers something you can do today, even more immediate,
more local, allowing for direct engagement.
(25:02):
It suggests choose one local veteran focused group like DAV,
Disabled American Veterans, TeamRubicon known for disaster
response using veteran skills, or a local VA peer program and
share their mission online or offer your support.
This is about getting involved right there on the ground in
your own community. Right.
(25:23):
This specific call to action really highlights that
supporting veterans isn't just atop down thing.
While those big federal changes are crucial, direct community
involvement has an immediate, tangible effect.
By choosing to share a group's mission online, maybe on social
media, or by offering direct support, volunteering time,
maybe donating if you can, you're actively helping veterans
right where you live. It's about strengthening those
(25:44):
local networks, the support systems that are often the 1st
place veterans turn to. It empowers everyone to be part
of the solution directly. And to kind of wrap all these
insights and actions up, the article gives us a really
concise, shareable message, something easy to digest and
spread, especially online. It says true patriotism honors
heroism, not politics. Let's lift our veterans, not
tear them down. Hashtag honor and service.
(26:07):
Hashtag values over voices. That specific message is really
important because it offers a clear, short, powerful counter
story to the politicization of veteran honor that the article
spent so much time analyzing. In today's public square, where
conversations can get so dividedand heated, this message tries
to bring people together around shared basic values, Respect,
(26:27):
service, sacrifice. It's about actively trying to
shape the public conversation ina constructive, unifying way,
shifting the focus away from partisan fighting and back to
the core principles that should unite us in honoring those who
sacrificed for the country's security and freedom.
It's really a call for a more empathetic, principled and
unifying way of thinking about patriotism, one that puts the
(26:48):
well-being in honor of our service members first.
So what's the ultimate take awayhere?
The moral of the story if we bring it all back to Captain
Groberg, back to the deeper points of sources making, the
article closes with this really potent, reflective thought.
Think of Captain Groberg's service not to a party, but to
America. True democracy rests not on one
person, but on shared responsibility and mutual
(27:10):
respect. Yeah, what really resonates
there is how it connects all those to the bigger picture of
societal health, the very foundations of how a democracy
works. The source argues that democracy
depends on shared values, not division.
And the provocative thought thisleaves us with as listeners is
really to think about how can weactively nurture and strengthen
that shared responsibility, thatmutual respect, especially in a
(27:32):
world that feels increasingly divided, particularly when it
comes to honoring those who serve.
It's not just about, you know, not attacking heroes.
It's about actively building andmaintaining a society where
their sacrifices are truly valued by everyone, where the
institutions meant to support them are strong and stable, and
where our public conversations reflect those basic shared.
(27:53):
It strongly suggests that the health and integrity of our
democracy are deeply reflected in how we treat our veterans.
And that's a question that really invites all of us to
think about our own part in upholding these really vital
principles. This deep dive into when
patriots are attacked by a non veteran has well, we hope it's
given you a lot to Taiwan, not just about specific events, but
(28:15):
about the wider implications forour society and how we
collectively support our veterans.
We really do encourage you to talk about these insights with
others, maybe in person in your communities or you know, online
and thoughtful ways. As the source itself points out,
educating ourselves and having open, informed discussions is a
really key part of being part ofthe future.
You want to see being well informed and actively engaged
(28:36):
using reliable information. That's always the essential
first step, isn't? It absolutely.
And remember, actions, whether they seem big or small, are
incredibly important in backing up the values we've talked about
today. The core message coming out of
this powerful article really is about the urgent need to rebuild
honor and service in veteran care to foster an environment
(28:56):
where sacrifice is respected by everyone and never ever used for
political gain. Every deliberate step you take,
whether it's just understanding the facts better, speaking out
when you see disrespect, or offering direct local help to a
veteran group contributes significantly to that vital
goal. Absolutely right.
We genuinely hope this deep dog has been useful and insightful
for you. If it has, please do consider
(29:19):
showing your support. You can like, share and
subscribe to our deep dives. Your support really helps us
reach more people and continue exploring these important issues
that matter so much. She ran for the house but the
(29:41):
people said no twice a night, twice the trade by the dollar
box blow band on the net. Bring the fringe in the press
for projection to sharpen the edge.
But yes no Lord agree no field command just a keyboard board
with the ventures plan. I wasn't invited to power of
truth so now I'm towards the temple.
Burn the booth he stole in your tweets calling your lights.
Take it for size of you ain't not your right.
You took it oath to the Constitution.
She took the project called the Retribution.
(30:02):
If she's not inside, she'll torch it.
No, no chain of command, just a blacklist built with a shaking
hand. Target, but she clips it.
(30:49):
Can't pass the gate. Then storm it.
If he's not side, she'll touch it.
Blow me, Loomis. But down in the room.
Yeah, now she's painted with hunts on a sweater broom.
No bad, no chain of command, just the blacklist filled with
the shaking hand. Career that paternal.
(31:10):
So she flipped it. She clipped it.
(32:11):
No seat at the table, so she flipped it.
Can't fire the truth, can't killthe mission.
Try to purge the facts. But we gripped it.
We did that beyond with Coalition.
Lonely Luma. Your Fury's a mirror power built
on spicejets thinner and thinner.
The. Two shifts she took the project
called the Retribution, the seatat the table.
So she could've did. She can't pass the gate then
storm it. If she's not inside, she'll
torch it. No chain of command, just a
(00:47):
blacklist built with the shakinghand.
She don't need to cause her to click.
Just like and you're on a black list.
She's a cock in the purge, Trumpat the mic.
She's a knife in the search target, but she clipped it.
(01:21):
Can't pass the gate, then storm it.
If she's not inside, she'll punch it.
Blow me, Luma. But down in the room.
Yeah. Now she's fainting with hunts on
a Twitter room. No badge, no chain of command.
Just the blacklist filled with the shaking hand.
(01:41):
Career that paternal. So she flipped it.
You'll paint a target, but she clipped it.
(02:44):
No seat at the table, so she flipped it.
Can't fire the truth. Can't kill.
The mission tried to purge the facts, but we gripped it.
We did. Then be on with Coalition,
Lonely Loomis. Your Fury's a mirror.
The power built on spice that's thinner and thinner.
(03:12):
So what does it really, truly mean to honor someone who's
served the nation? You know, to uphold patriotism?
We often think, well, celebrating heroes, especially
leaders, that's something everyone agrees on, right?
A kind of bedrock of national unity.
But what happens when that basichonor gets challenged or or even
undermined sometimes by people who haven't served themselves?
(03:33):
It creates this real tension, a kind of dissonance that can feel
deeply unsettling for a lot of folks.
Yeah, indeed. And it's really important to see
these. These aren't just isolated
things, you know, random comments when moments like this
happen, they often act like, well, like cracks appearing,
they show up. Deeper problems, systemic issues
where the values we say we hold,well, they clash pretty hard
with what we actually see happening.
(03:55):
And that makes us look beyond just the immediate noise, the
controversy, and think about thewider impact, the ripple
effects, you know? That exact clash stated values
versus observed reality. That's precisely the tension
we're diving into today. Our mission here is to really
unpack a specific article. It's titled When patriots are
attacked by a non veteran. How Donald J Trump's draft
(04:16):
dodging legacy and Laura Loomer's assault on heroes
reveal a crisis in veterans honor hers.
And in this source, it doesn't just report these events like,
oh, that's unfortunate. No, it frames them as really
critical insights. It says they expose, And this is
a quote deeper flaws in veteran support and federal stability.
So it promises a look at multiple facets, not just what
individuals did, but the systemic fallout.
(04:38):
And ultimately, what does honor even mean in public life?
How do we define it? How do we uphold it?
And we should probably say rightup front, as the source itself
points out quite thoughtfully, it says feeling upset or
confused is completely normal. It's painful when leaders don't
honor the values they claim to support.
So our job here is to be impartial guides through the
information in this article. We're not here to endorse or,
(05:00):
you know, oppose any specific political views it presents.
We're just trying to distill theideas, the details, as the
source conveys them. Our goal is to help you, the
listener, get a full picture of this text so you can form your
own informed thoughts. OK, let's start by really
getting into the main incident here, the one that anchors this
whole discussion. The article opens with something
that, honestly, even just reading it feels pretty
(05:22):
unsettling. It paints this picture of a
decorated soldier, someone wounded, serving the country,
being attacked, but not on a battlefield.
No, by a political activist right here.
This is the starting point, yet Laura Loomer publicly
criticizing retired Army CaptainFlorent Groberg.
And the source really paints a picture of Captain Grover.
He embodies a lot Medal of Honorrecipient, which we'll get into.
(05:42):
This is America's highest award for bravery.
He's also an immigrant, and he identifies as a Democrat.
The article suggests these different parts of his identity
are key to understanding the attack.
Yeah, the source is crystal clear that her comments hurt
deeply. It really stresses this wasn't
just some casual insult. The pain the article suggests
was really amplified by the context.
(06:03):
It wasn't just attacking a hero,it was attacking a highly
decorated immigrant hero who happens to be a Democrat, and
the person doing the attacking anon veteran activist known for
strongly backing a major political figure, Someone whose
own history with military service specifically avoiding
has been widely discussed. The source uses strong words
here, calling the feeling this incident creates confusing and
(06:25):
unfair. It hints at this deep sense of
betrayal right, Like violating some unwritten rule that we
honor military sacrifice regardless of politics.
It speaks to that feeling of disorientation when the lines of
respect get so blurry. And the specifics of what Loomer
actually challenged? According to the article,
they're pretty stark. She didn't just vaguely
disagree, the source says explicitly she questioned why
(06:47):
Captain Gronberg, an immigrant and a Democrat, got the Medal of
Honor, and she directly implied it should have gone to her
words. AUS born Republican.
I mean, that's incredibly direct.
It's almost audacious, really. And like the source says, it's
deeply politicizing an honor that should be way above all
that partisan stuff. It sort of sets a dangerous
precedent, doesn't it, Suggesting national words should
(07:08):
be filtered through politics. Exactly, and this is where the
source really starts connecting loomers specific words to a much
bigger and frankly more worryingfriend and society.
The article argues her comments are for a clear attempt to
politicize what needs to be a totally apolitical honor.
The Medal of Honor, The source just hammers his home, is meant
to recognize incredible bravery,sacrifice, period, full stop.
(07:31):
The recipients background, wherethey were born, who they vote
for, none of that is or should ever be part of the criteria.
By dragging these divisive things into a discussion about
military valor, the source argues, Loomer directly attacks
the very meaning of the award. It chips away at the public's
understanding of what the medal represents.
It risks turning the sacred recognition of curse into some
kind of political football, and that diminishes the honor not
(07:53):
just for Captain Groberg, but really for every single
recipient, past, present and future.
OK, so we have this very direct,public, highly politicized
attack on a middle of honor recipient.
But the article doesn't just leave it there, right?
It immediately zooms out, draws a really direct and critical
line to another major figure. The source explicitly links
Loomer's actions to the legacy of former President Donald
(08:15):
Trump, and it definitely doesn'tshy away from looking closely at
his military service record. What exactly does the article
highlight there that connection?Well, the article gives a pretty
detailed rundown of Donald Trump's military service
history, specifically focusing on how he avoided the draft
during the Vietnam War. It notes he got 5 deferments in
total. That's quite a few, and the
source breaks them down. Four were standard college
(08:38):
deferments. Lots of students got those back
then to finish their education. But the fifth one, that's the
one that got a lot of public attention, scrutiny, was a
medical deferment. It was for bone spurs in his
heels. Now, what the source then points
out as being really contradictory, and this has been
a point of, you know, debate andconfusion for years, is that
even with this deferment for a condition that supposedly made
(08:58):
him unfit for service, Trump wasapparently still active on his
college track team. This inconsistency, the source
suggests, is a really crucial part of his public image when it
comes to the military. Right.
That definitely seems to raise some basic questions about that
particular medical deferment, doesn't it?
And the source, it goes beyond just stating these facts.
It argues that this background, which it calls his draft dodging
(09:21):
legacy, it isn't just history. It argues this legacy actually
ripples into how we treat veterans today.
UN quote. One of the really interesting
ideas the source puts forward isthis whole concept of legacy
kind of asks us to think about how a leader's pass actions even
from decades ago can still subtly Shae things.
Now you know current perceptions, how institutions
behave, especially towards the military.
(09:42):
How does the article flesh out that idea?
Legacy impacting the present. Yeah, this is where the source
gets quite insightful about whatLegacy actually means.
It's not just about one person'spast choices viewed in a vacuum.
Instead, it looks at how those choices, particularly from
someone with huge public influence, help build a larger
story or set a kind of precedent.
And that precedent can actively shape attitudes and actions
(10:04):
across society. The article carefully builds its
case when a leader who quote never served and dodged the
draft seems to have the backing of an activist.
An activist who then openly disrespects Medal of Honor
recipient. The source suggests this isn't
just a passing controversy. It creates a specific kind of
societal consequence, almost like a permissive atmosphere.
This atmosphere, the article argues, can subtly but really
(10:27):
powerfully normalize disrespect towards service members or maybe
specific kinds of veterans. It can make it seem like maybe
that disrespect is OK, maybe even encouraged by people at the
top. And this dynamic, according to
the source, just chips away at the basic respect we ideally
want for everyone who puts on the uniform.
It forces us to think about the value we actually place on
service and the a bigger societal picture when national
(10:50):
leaders haven't really experienced that service
themselves. It's about maybe an erosion of a
kind of cultural reverence that should ideally be constant and
universal. So the argument is these past
choices aren't just footnotes inhistory books.
They actively shape the climate today, especially in how we
honor those who served. Which brings us really
powerfully to the core of what'sat stake here, the Medal of
(11:10):
Honor itself. The article absolutely stresses
this isn't just some random political award or fancy
ceremony. It is, without question,
America's highest military awardfor bravery.
What else did the source say defines this?
Award. The source leaves zero room for
doubt about how significant the Medal of Honor is.
It emphasizes quote most recipients earn it or die
(11:32):
earning it, because it often honors acts of incredible
courage and dangerous combat. That statement directly and
pretty forcefully pushes back against the political claims
made by Loomer. The Medal of Honor, as the
article meticulously explains, is fundamentally apolitical.
It's based purely on evidence. Its criteria are all about
verifiable actions on the battlefield, acts of bravery
(11:54):
that go way above and beyond theCall of Duty.
It's not about someone's politics, where they were born,
or any other personal characteristic.
The source is really clear. Suggesting otherwise is to
completely misunderstand or maybe even deliberately twist
the whole point of this incredibly sacred award.
OK, given its huge status and deep meaning, the process for
actually awarding the Medal of Honor must be incredibly solid.
(12:16):
The source details this very methodical multi step process.
It sells. It's designed specifically to
ensure total objectivity and integrity.
Can you walk us through those steps, the rigor involved?
Absolutely. The article lays out a really
clear multi stage path. It's designed to weed out any
subjectivity and make sure only the most extraordinary acts get
recognized. It starts with the nomination.
(12:38):
Usually that comes from the soldiers direct chain of
command, the people who were right there who saw the heroism
up close. Very, very rarely, a member of
Congress might initiate one, buteven then it still has to go
through the military channels. And this isn't just a
suggestion. The ACT itself has to be
rigorously documented. We're talking about a mountain
of factual, verifiable proof. Things like detailed eyewitness
(12:59):
statements from multiple people,full battle reports, precise
timelines, maps showing the situation, and any other
verified details that back up the heroic action.
The basic idea here is the awardhas to be rooted in concrete,
undeniable evidence, not just stories or hearsay or definitely
not political leanings. So just getting nominated
requires an immense amount of proof, like ironclad evidence.
(13:22):
Sounds like a really high bar right from the start.
Exactly. And once all that documentation
is gathered and checked at the unit level, it starts this long
journey through multiple levels of review.
This evaluation is incredibly thorough, designed for maximum
scrutiny. It goes up through different
layers of military command and civilian oversight.
Starts with Army boards, then upto the Secretary of the Army,
(13:44):
then the Secretary of Defense, and finally for the ultimate
green light all the way to the President.
This layered review make sure the decision is vetted by
military and civilian leaders atevery single step.
It guarantees the ACT truly meets the incredibly high
standard for the Medal of Honor and that the evidence is rock
solid. The source also mentions there
(14:04):
are strict time limits. These are built in to make sure
events are still fresh in witnesses, minds and evidence
can be gathered properly. By law, nominations usually have
to be in within three years of the heroic act in the medal
itself awarded within five yearsunless Congress specifically
passes a waiver, which is rare. Usually only for really
extraordinary cases where delaysare unavoidable.
Wow, that really paints a picture of a system deliberately
(14:28):
built to be as objective and thorough as possible,
specifically to shield it from any hint of political influence.
It's about recognizing pure courage.
It absolutely is, and what's really insightful is how the
source points out that who handsover the medal is often just a
matter of timing, not politics. This directly counters Loomer's
implication that the president'sparty somehow dictates who gets
(14:49):
the medal. The reality, because of this
long multi year process is that the president who's in office
when the final approval comes through might be different from
the one who was president when the heroism happened, or even
when the nomination started. The source explicitly says
Lumora's attack ignores this andshows a tragic lack of respect
for both heroism and the process.
It shows a fundamental misunderstanding, or maybe a
(15:11):
willful disregard of how meticulous and fact based the
award is. The article also drives home the
extreme nature of the acts recognized by highlighting how
often the awards are posthumous,meaning the recipient died
performing the act. This just underscores that these
aren't politically motivated prizes.
They are solemn acknowledgments of the ultimate sacrifice acts
for people knowingly risked everything, often giving their
(15:33):
lives for others or for the mission.
And the source really grounds this whole argument with a very
powerful quote from a veteran SFC Robert L He's retired and a
Medal of Honor recipient himself, he says.
When I received my medal, I never thought about who was
president or their political views.
All I cared about was that my actions and the sacrifices of my
brothers were recognized. That process is sacred.
(15:56):
That quote coming from someone who actually lived it, it speaks
volumes, doesn't it? It really, really does.
What hits so hard in SFC Robert L's words is just the pure
intention, the humility. His view powerfully reinforces
this whole idea that the Medal of Honor is above fleeting
political fights and party preferences.
For the people who actually earned this incredible honor,
the meaning is deeply personal. It's all about recognizing their
(16:19):
selfless actions and the sacrifices made alongside their
comrades in the absolute worst circumstances.
It's about a sacred bond betweenservice members, proof of
incredible bravery. It's not a tool for political
games or some kind of ideological test.
This raw insight from an actual recipient is probably the
strongest possible rebuttal to any attempt to politicize the
process. It serves as a stark reminder
(16:41):
the medals purpose is to honor unbelievable courage and
sacrifice true heroism, not to be a stage for political
alignment or division. It brings a whole discussion
back down to the soldiers reality, which is miles away
from partisan bickering. OK, so we've really unpacked
this specific incident with Captain Groberg, the historical
and political context the sourcedraws with Trump's legacy and
(17:02):
this apolitical, super rigorous process for awarding the Medal
of Honor. But the source doesn't stop
there. It then broadens the view to
talk about what it calls ripple effects, specifically looking at
instability in veteran care. This is where the direct human
impact on veterans lives really snaps into sharp focus, doesn't
it? Yeah, this is where the source
connects the sort of abstract idea of honor to very real
(17:25):
systemic problems. It highlights a critical crisis
happening within the Department of Veterans Affairs, the VA
system. The alarming trend is that that
the VA is losing doctors due to instability and disrespect.
Now, this isn't just some minor bureaucratic headache, the
article argues. It has direct, severe,
potentially even life threatening consequences for the
quality and consistency of care veterans get.
(17:47):
Doctors, nurses, therapists, vital medical professionals are
choosing to leave the VA. Why?
According to the article, it's because the system feels
unstable, staff don't feel supported, and there's this
pervasive sense of disrespect coming from different places.
This exodus directly weakens theVA's ability to do its job.
And if we follow the source's argument, it suggests that when
you see these public attacks on veteran honor, plus maybe a
(18:09):
perceived lack of respect from leadership, it directly
contributes to a destabilized veteran healthcare system.
It's not just coincidence. Then.
It's like a chain reaction. Disrespect breeds instability,
and that instability creates a crisis in veteran care.
How does the article flesh out that connection between honor
and the VA system's health? The source really carefully
(18:29):
builds this connection, showing how the very idea of veteran
honor and public respect if it gets damaged can show up in
tangible, harmful ways inside the institutions meant to
support them. The article makes us think about
the specific, often very seriousneeds of VA serves.
It points to conditions like PTSD, post traumatic stress
disorder, chronic pain from combat wounds, debilitating
(18:52):
depression. These are issues that demand
consistent, high quality, often long term care from dedicated,
skilled professionals. So if you have staffing
instability, if experienced doctors and specialists are
walking away, that directly hitsthe quality and continuity of
care for these really complex conditions.
It means longer waits for appointments.
(19:12):
It means less consistent treatment from staff.
We're constantly changing. It weakens the ability to build
that crucial trust between patient and provider, which is
so vital for managing these challenges.
Ultimately, it leads to worse health outcomes, more suffering
for veterans who've already beenthrough so much.
The So what here is huge. The stability of the VA isn't
just some administrative detail.It's a fundamental promise our
country makes to those who served.
(19:34):
If we break that promise, it erodes trust, it can lead to
tragic human costs, and honestly, it makes future
generations less likely to consider serving.
The source is basically saying acrisis in veteran honor
inevitably leads to a crisis in veteran care, with really
damaging consequences for the whole nation.
Social Contract. That's a powerful and pretty
sobering link, showing how abstract things like honor have
(19:56):
very real human consequences. But the article doesn't just
diagnose the problems, it then pivots to offering solutions and
calls to action. Which is always great to see in
the deep dive. It introduces these as proven,
thoughtful steps we can take to tackle this multi layered
crisis. So let's unpack these practical,
forward-looking ideas. Right.
This is the shift from identifying the problem to
(20:17):
suggesting real, actionable waysforward.
The first solution it proposes is setting up community VA
watchdog programs. The basic idea is to create
active partnerships, get local veterans and community
professionals working together with the VA centers.
The goal is twofold. First, ensure more transparency
and how things are run. Move away from decisions made
behind closed doors. And 2nd, crucially, rebuild
(20:40):
trust between the VA system and the veterans it's supposed to
serve. These programs would function
like local grass roots oversightbodies, ensuring accountability
and opening up communication lines, creating a feedback loop
to catch and fix problems faster.
That makes a lot of sense. It empowers local communities,
gives them a real stake in improving the system instead of
just feeling like they're on thereceiving end of its problems.
(21:03):
What's the next step the source suggests for supporting veterans
well-being? Next up, the source highlights
the huge value of mental health peer support programs.
This focuses on using the uniqueshared experiences that veterans
have. It pushes for veterans helping
other veterans using proven methods like cognitive
behavioral techniques. Just for context, cognitive
behavioral techniques or CBT arethese practical goal focused
(21:27):
methods. They give people tools to spot
and change negative thinking patterns, build healthier ways
to cope, and manage stress and trauma better.
The focus here is on direct, empathetic support from people
who truly get the experience of military service and its
aftermath. The goal is to reduce stress and
build hope, to create this vitalinformal support network that
works alongside and sometimes even before traditional therapy
(21:50):
makes support more accessible, more relatable.
So harnessing that really powerful bond and shared
understanding among veterans themselves to build a strong
peer LED support system, that sounds like a really human and
effective approach. But beyond supporting the
veterans we have now, what aboutbringing in the new talent
needed to actually staff these vital facilities?
(22:12):
That leads right into the third solution, stories that inspire
evidence based recruitment. The source suggests being
proactive about rebuilding the VA's workforce.
How? By sharing real stories of
service and meaning. This isn't just generic
recruitment ads. It's about finding and sharing
powerful stories that show the positive impact and deep
personal satisfaction doctors and caregivers mind working with
(22:34):
veterans. The aim is to encourage medical
professionals, both those just starting out and those with
experience, to either come back to the VA or start serving
there. It's about reminding them of the
noble purpose of the work, the unique chance to make a real
difference, rekindling that sense of mission and
professional pride that can attract and keep top talent.
And lastly, the article brings up something pretty fundamental
(22:56):
to how any large organization works well, especially one as
critical as the VA long term stability.
Exactly. The final solution suggested is
putting in place policies for local workforce stability.
This focuses on making structural changes to keep VA
staff steady and protected from sudden changes.
Acti. The logic is pretty clear.
(23:17):
A stable, consistent workforce directly leads to much better
quality of care. This is especially vital for
those critical conditions we talked about, PTSD, chronic
pain, depression, which often need long term relationships and
continuity for effective treatment.
When staff feel secure in their jobs, not constantly worried
about budget cuts or policy flipflops or political interference,
(23:38):
they can provide more consistent, more effective care.
They can build deeper trust withpatients, and it reduces
burnout. All these solutions, the source
argues, are linked. They create this positive cycle
that helps rebuild the overall honor and service ethic in
veteran care, making sure the promise we make to those who
serve is actually kept. So those are the bigger picture,
thoughtful solutions from the source.
(23:59):
But the article also shifts to avery direct, immediate call to
action, something concrete. You, our listener, can actually
do it, says e-mail or call your representatives.
Tell them to support stable and respectful staffing at the VA
fund veteran peer programs and honor Medal of Honor recipients
without politics. That's remarkably
(24:19):
straightforward and pretty powerful, isn't?
It Yeah. What's really compelling there
is the emphasis that small stepscan bring real change.
It reinforces that basic idea ofcivic engagement, that even
something seemingly small, like a phone call or an e-mail to
your elected official, can actually contribute to major
policy changes and a much neededshift in culture.
It's about using your individualvoice to join a collective call
(24:41):
for action on issues that directly affect our veterans and
the core values we say we stand for as a society.
It highlights the maybe often underestimated power of lots of
individuals acting together to influence national priorities
and demand accountability. And beyond contacting reps, the
source offers something you can do today, even more immediate,
more local, allowing for direct engagement.
(25:02):
It suggests choose one local veteran focused group like DAV,
Disabled American Veterans, TeamRubicon known for disaster
response using veteran skills, or a local VA peer program and
share their mission online or offer your support.
This is about getting involved right there on the ground in
your own community. Right.
(25:23):
This specific call to action really highlights that
supporting veterans isn't just atop down thing.
While those big federal changes are crucial, direct community
involvement has an immediate, tangible effect.
By choosing to share a group's mission online, maybe on social
media, or by offering direct support, volunteering time,
maybe donating if you can, you're actively helping veterans
right where you live. It's about strengthening those
(25:44):
local networks, the support systems that are often the 1st
place veterans turn to. It empowers everyone to be part
of the solution directly. And to kind of wrap all these
insights and actions up, the article gives us a really
concise, shareable message, something easy to digest and
spread, especially online. It says true patriotism honors
heroism, not politics. Let's lift our veterans, not
tear them down. Hashtag honor and service.
(26:07):
Hashtag values over voices. That specific message is really
important because it offers a clear, short, powerful counter
story to the politicization of veteran honor that the article
spent so much time analyzing. In today's public square, where
conversations can get so dividedand heated, this message tries
to bring people together around shared basic values, Respect,
(26:27):
service, sacrifice. It's about actively trying to
shape the public conversation ina constructive, unifying way,
shifting the focus away from partisan fighting and back to
the core principles that should unite us in honoring those who
sacrificed for the country's security and freedom.
It's really a call for a more empathetic, principled and
unifying way of thinking about patriotism, one that puts the
(26:48):
well-being in honor of our service members first.
So what's the ultimate take awayhere?
The moral of the story if we bring it all back to Captain
Groberg, back to the deeper points of sources making, the
article closes with this really potent, reflective thought.
Think of Captain Groberg's service not to a party, but to
America. True democracy rests not on one
person, but on shared responsibility and mutual
(27:10):
respect. Yeah, what really resonates
there is how it connects all those to the bigger picture of
societal health, the very foundations of how a democracy
works. The source argues that democracy
depends on shared values, not division.
And the provocative thought thisleaves us with as listeners is
really to think about how can weactively nurture and strengthen
that shared responsibility, thatmutual respect, especially in a
(27:32):
world that feels increasingly divided, particularly when it
comes to honoring those who serve.
It's not just about, you know, not attacking heroes.
It's about actively building andmaintaining a society where
their sacrifices are truly valued by everyone, where the
institutions meant to support them are strong and stable, and
where our public conversations reflect those basic shared.
(27:53):
It strongly suggests that the health and integrity of our
democracy are deeply reflected in how we treat our veterans.
And that's a question that really invites all of us to
think about our own part in upholding these really vital
principles. This deep dive into when
patriots are attacked by a non veteran has well, we hope it's
given you a lot to Taiwan, not just about specific events, but
(28:15):
about the wider implications forour society and how we
collectively support our veterans.
We really do encourage you to talk about these insights with
others, maybe in person in your communities or you know, online
and thoughtful ways. As the source itself points out,
educating ourselves and having open, informed discussions is a
really key part of being part ofthe future.
You want to see being well informed and actively engaged
(28:36):
using reliable information. That's always the essential
first step, isn't? It absolutely.
And remember, actions, whether they seem big or small, are
incredibly important in backing up the values we've talked about
today. The core message coming out of
this powerful article really is about the urgent need to rebuild
honor and service in veteran care to foster an environment
(28:56):
where sacrifice is respected by everyone and never ever used for
political gain. Every deliberate step you take,
whether it's just understanding the facts better, speaking out
when you see disrespect, or offering direct local help to a
veteran group contributes significantly to that vital
goal. Absolutely right.
We genuinely hope this deep dog has been useful and insightful
for you. If it has, please do consider
(29:19):
showing your support. You can like, share and
subscribe to our deep dives. Your support really helps us
reach more people and continue exploring these important issues
that matter so much. She ran for the house but the
(29:41):
people said no twice a night, twice the trade by the dollar
box blow band on the net. Bring the fringe in the press
for projection to sharpen the edge.
But yes no Lord agree no field command just a keyboard board
with the ventures plan. I wasn't invited to power of
truth so now I'm towards the temple.
Burn the booth he stole in your tweets calling your lights.
Take it for size of you ain't not your right.
You took it oath to the Constitution.
She took the project called the Retribution.
(30:02):
If she's not inside, she'll torch it.
No, no chain of command, just a blacklist built with a shaking
hand. Target, but she clips it.
(30:49):
Can't pass the gate. Then storm it.
If he's not side, she'll touch it.
Blow me, Loomis. But down in the room.
Yeah, now she's painted with hunts on a sweater broom.
No bad, no chain of command, just the blacklist filled with
the shaking hand. Career that paternal.
(31:10):
So she flipped it. She clipped it.
(32:11):
No seat at the table, so she flipped it.
Can't fire the truth, can't killthe mission.
Try to purge the facts. But we gripped it.
We did that beyond with Coalition.
Lonely Luma. Your Fury's a mirror power built
on spicejets thinner and thinner.
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!