>>“it’s obvious you have no intention of honoring or defending those who actually earned them from those that would undermine the value of the awards”
>
>The highest compliment to a soldier is to defend the Constitution for which he fought.
As a former enlisted I can say that it is indeed the highest complement; much like it is/was discouraging to come back from Iraq just in time to see the 2008 elections (and ACORN) and how... passive/undemanding-of-justice the citizenry seemed to be about it.
That reminds me of this doc I wrote back then:
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATyjMtQJe7iWZHY2OTh0bV8yNWM3YjM1Y2M5&hl=en
And as a former officer, I agree. Having said that, our founders were very, very clear that a republic in general, and our Constitution in specific would only work for a moral, virtuous and honorable people. When you look at how the left has strove to deconstruct our history and heroes, and the role models they have worked to lionize, it becomes clear (to me anyways) that they want nothing more than to see that very same Constitution destroyed, and will do so by employing the simple marxist strategy of detaching us from our history and our heroes. While idiculing or disparaging the military only furthers this goal, I don't think any of us would argue against an author, moviemaker, etc. having the right to do so.
Having said that, counterfeit heroes do just as much to devalue the honor and sanctity of genuine service as counterfeit currency devalues legitimate money...it may not be expressed in quantifiable terms, but it undermines the national character and the value of individual service just the same. In a sense it victimizes every American because it lessens the value of gratitude the nation has awarded individual service members by flooding the population with "award winners."