Stealing Valor

“Is it less dishonest to do what is wrong because it is not expressly prohibited by written law? Let us hope our moral principles are not yet in that stage of degeneracy.” – Thomas Jefferson

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a bill that was proposed to amend Title 18 U.S.C. § 704, was signed into law on December 20, 2006.  The amendment extended the reach of the existing federal law, strengthened the penalties that were already in place, and included a number of specific new provisions.


Prior to the enactment of The Stolen Valor Act of 2005, the code listed a number of specific and prohibited actions and the maximum punishments associated with them.  Except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law, it is illegal to intentionally wear, manufacture, or sell:

Any decoration or medal that as been authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces and could result in a fine, a maximum of six months of incarceration, or both.

Any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, or the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration or medal and could result in a fine, a maximum of six months of incarceration, or both.

Any counterfeit imitation, except when authorized under regulations made pursuant to law and could result in a fine, a maximum of six months of incarceration, or both.

The Congressional Medal of Honor and could result in a fine, a maximum of twelve months of incarceration, or both.  The act of trading, bartering, or exchanging the Congressional Medal of Honor for something of value is considered to be interchangeable with the act of selling the Congressional Medal of Honor.

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 expanded the code to consider the trading, bartering, or exchanging of any decorations, medals, service medals, or badges for something of value to be illegal actions.  It also added two more specific acts to the list of offenses:

The act of mailing or shipping medals.

The act of falsely claiming to have been awarded military awards and using these false claims for personal gain.

Falsely claiming to have earned military awards does not always lead to tangible injuries, which what led the Supreme Court to overturn the law.  The First Amendment protects misleading statements that do not cause real harm or injury.

Jessica Levinson, an Associate Clinical Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, wrote an entry for The Huffington Post on the overturning of The Stolen Valor Act of 2005.  Levinson’s intention is to not only inform the public about the Act itself, but also explain why the Supreme Court deemed the Act unconstitutional.

After ruling on the trial, both Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagen indicated that Congress could introduce a new proposal that would focus on specific injuries caused by those that steal valor.  The entry was later updated to include information on the revised bill that was introduced by Congressman Joe Heck shortly after the overturning of the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.

H.R. 1775: Stolen Valor Act of 2012, a revised version of the amendment, was voted on under a procedure called “suspension of the rules,” which is usually reserved for uncontroversial bills, and subsequently voted to approve the bill. It was passed with a unanimous vote and will need to be voted on by the Senate before it can be signed into law.

Source: govtrack.us

The legality of claiming the aforementioned accolades for personal or professional gains should also be addressed.  By limiting the scope to monetary gains, the Act would allow those that presently claim to have earned these accolades to further their political careers, promote businesses, or in order to gain employment are completely within their rights.

While I do take issue with the limited reach of the proposed amendment, I do support its enactment and hope that the law it alters will be further elaborated on to include gains that may not hold direct monetary value.  The amendment, much like its overturned predecessor, will increase the public’s awareness of this growing epidemic.

I would also like to note that, despite what many seem to believe, it is illegal to wear any uniforms authorized by Congress for use by the Armed Forces when the intention is to impersonate an active duty or former service member.  Currently, a person appearing in uniform can only be prosecuted if there is visual evidence of the crime.

This amendment is not meant to target those with the audacity deceive others by wearing a military uniform or displaying awards on their body.  It is instead intended to prevent impersonators to make false claims for financial gain even if they do not actually posses those accolades.
In the future I hope that those that steal valor for advancement, whether tangible or not, are held accountable for their actions.  The following individuals represent the various imposters that technically operate within the law:

Bob King, the author of the fictional non-fiction book Spooky 8: The Final Mission, claims that he had reached the rank of Master Sergeant before being recruited into super-sleuth team of trained killers.  I have not read his book, so I do not know whether or not he claims to have been awarded any honors during his imaginary military career.  

However, I suspect that anyone capable of rising to the rank of Master Sergeant in three years would have earned at least one accolade. He has gained more than monetary gains from his false claims and I have no intention of adding to these gains by purchasing the book to find out. I also have no intention of purchasing Individual Response to an Active Shooter, an 18-page handbook to surviving in an emergency.  Like his previous book, he tries to pass his imaginary military career off as true in order to gain credibility.

Sean Beery, the former director and owner of the Volusia County Gun & Hunt Club, falsely claimed to have earned a Combat Jump Star and a Ranger Tab.  The claim appeared on his biography on the gun club’s website and was used to gain the trust of those he worked with as well as potential students.  He also intentionally made false claims in regard to his experience and service in the military, most likely in an attempt to further legitimize himself to those around him.

Skip Moschetti, the CEO of Advanced Tactical Investigations Inc., falsely claimed to be a “highly decorated veteran” that was awarded The Congressional Medal of Honor, The Distinguished Service Cross, three Silver Stars, eight Purple Hearts, and a number of other medals.  He made these claims in order to support his bizarre background story in order to appear credible to potential clients.  He stated that he was a former employee of the CIA that reported directly to the President on a daily basis, that he worked for and consulted the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Secret Service, and the U.S. Department of Justice, and that he was directly responsible for saving President George H. W. Bush’s life in an assassination attempt that took place in Kuwait City.

On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court heard the United States v. Alvarez and found the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 infringed on the right to free speech under the First Amendment.  The ruling implied that the general wording in regard to false claims was too vague and had the possibility of violating the right to free speech.

While I firmly believe that anyone willing to deceive and manipulate those around them, especially by falsely claiming to have served in the Armed Forces, should be held accountable for the results of their actions, I also believe that the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was not specific enough to be considered constitutional.  However, I do not believe that the scope of the Stolen Valor Act of 2012 is wide enough due to the wording that indicates that those that falsely claim to have earned decorations, medals, or badges for monetary gain are committing illegal acts.

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” – Adolf Hitler

Counter-Intuitive

“We are only falsehood, duplicity, contradiction; we both conceal and disguise ourselves from ourselves.” – Blaise Pascal

I recently wrote about what I consider to be the purposeful manipulation of valid information to further one’s political agenda. I waded through dozens of blogs, articles, and videos that focused on statements made earlier this year by Mitt Romney implying that the people that support Barack Obama do so because they are dependent on the government.

While many people have voiced outrage towards Mitt Romney's blatant disregard of almost half of the population, it seems that an even greater number of people have echoed his stance against the use of social programs, maintaining that "producers" should not be required to support "parasites." Personally, I have never quite understood the overwhelming disdain felt towards those that would have the audacity to accept help.

In 2008, a national survey conducted by the Cornell Survey Research Institute found that many of these self-proclaimed producers are, in reality, just as guilty of relying on the social benefit programs they are so adamantly against.


I first came across this survey in an article entitled “We Are the 96 Percent,” an Opinion piece that appeared in The New York Times late last month. The article was written through the joint efforts of Suzanne Mettler, a professor of government at Cornell University, and John Sides, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University.

The authors argue that almost all Americans have made use of at least one of twenty-one specific social programs at some point in their life.  The intention of the article is to eradicate the “us versus them” attitude that so many in this country seem to have.

The questions that followed asked participants to indicate whether or not they had ever used a specific program. The programs listed in the survey were not limited to the more obvious social benefits programs, such as Medicaid and Food Stamps, but included social programs with indirect benefits. The results of the survey revealed that only 5% of participants that had denied ever using government benefits had answered the question accurately.

Source: Reconstituting the Submerged State by Suzanne Mettler

Cognitive dissonance plagues a majority of Americans and has led to many to make counter-intuitive statements because they have convinced themselves that they are not one of “those people” and are completely self-reliant. A majority of the population seems ignorant to their own use of social benefit programs. 
Do not use any of the tax credits or deductions you qualify for.

The article addresses the common misconception that social benefits are limited to programs that provide direct access to food, medical care, and housing to low income earners. Despite the frequency of use by the public and the higher cost to taxpayers, indirect benefit programs are often overlooked because they are hidden in the tax code or provided by private organizations.

The survey cited in the article asked a number of questions regarding government social policies. The initial question asked participants to indicate whether or not they had ever relied on any government social programs.  The responses of 57% of those surveyed indicated that they had never made use of even a single social program.

Many that claim not to rely on government have use of an average of four social programs without acknowledging the government’s role in providing those benefits. This disconnect has led many to support the complete elimination of social programs because only the lazy would take government handouts. The line of thought seems to be that allowing those programs to exist will only encourage more to become parasites dependent on these government benefits.

If you believe that anyone that has depended on government aid is doomed to do so until social programs are eliminated, I encourage you to read this article written by Larkin Warren. The article humanizes the statistics and chronicles one woman’s journey from welfare mother to successful author.

“Judge-and-punish-the-poor is not a demonstration of American values...My parents saved me and then-on the dole, in the classroom or crying deep in the night, in love with a little boy who needed everything I could give him-I learned to save myself. I do not apologize. I was not ashamed then; I am not ashamed now. I was, and will always be, profoundly grateful.” – Larkin Warren

P.S. The boycotting of government handouts will only work if you abstain from every social benefit program. I have put together a brief sample list of actions that will ensure that big government knows how serious you really are.

While tempting, these forms of government assistance serve only one purpose: swindling hard working Americans like you into relying on the government.

Only take out private student loans.

Any existing Federal Stafford loans must be consolidated in order to counteract your former dependency on government.

Refuse to accept any scholarships or grants.

To put it simply, a free education is for Socialists and that's just not American.

Do not enroll in Medicare or Social Security.

Responsible people never retire and refuse handouts from Uncle Sam.

Never use the benefits earned from military service.

Why sully the sacrifices you made by accepting charity?