With the Blood of Patriots...

Today, my friend and author of The Progressive Cop posted an article that makes my heart weep. In this post he details the sad chain of humiliating events experienced by a local veteran in the VA hospital in Northwest Arkansas. The post also discusses the apathetic response from Representative Steve Womack when the veteran attempted to reach out for help.

I'm trying really hard to keep my anger in check, here. I am trying desperately to think of any reason why this incident would go on ignored, unreported, and unassisted by a man elected to serve the people of his district! Here's a quote right from his page:

"I’m elated by the fact that my sub-committees assignments will allow me to better serve the people of the Third District."

Really, Mr. Womack? You had a veteran reach out to you for help, trying to show you how he was treated in a hospital that should have been dedicated to helping. You proudly proclaim that your assignments will allow you to better serve the people in your district, but instead, when asked to serve, you blow the guy off! What does that say about you? What does that say about us? You obviously don't listen to your constituents. I sent you a heartfelt letter (because you were unavailable when I called), and the response I got was a slap in the face. When I asked you to look out for the women of America, you turned it around, saying that it was an attack on religious freedoms.

Here's the brutal, bloody truth: Representative Steve Womack has proudly proclaimed that he supports Representative Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" Budget. Don't believe me? He said so! (He said it here, too)

Here is what happens if that budget passes the Senate:

• $4.2 Billion cut from the proposed Veteran's Affairs Department projected budget needs for the next fiscal year
• 2.2 million Afghanistan and Iraqi vets are going to start coming home, and they're going to need services provided by the VA.
• With this, the VA will need even more staff and facilities than before.
• The approximately 107,000 veterans of all wars who are now homeless? Expect that number to climb.

So there you go, Mr. Womack. I hope you're still proud. Not only did you entirely blow off a veteran who came to you for assistance, but you're also throwing mud in the face of every veteran in America. When you brag that you're "serious about America's future," I hope the thousands of veterans who are left standing empty-handed when the dust settles haunt your dreams.

These are the men and women who have sacrificed time, family, and careers to serve our military. They have watched friends and loved ones die. They have children back home they have never seen, and those children have parents they will never meet. Their blood is flowing in the streets, overwhelming the hospitals and the clinics, and it is on your hands. Mr. Womack, you are killing our veterans, and I am ashamed to call you my representative.

Like what you read? Check out Innocence Jaded's Blog!

US Navy Veteran Suffers Humiliation At VA Hospital: His Representative, Congressman Steve Womack Shows Little Concern

            Surely everyone has heard one horror story or another about the services rendered inside of Veterans Administration Hospitals.  Anyone remembering the scenes from Oliver Stone's movie Born on the Fourth of July where Tom Cruise’s character, Ron Kovic, lays unattended for hours screaming for help can sympathize with the gentleman I’m about to introduce you to.

            Meet Lynn Carter, a US Navy veteran from Fort Smith, Arkansas who has served his nation honorably.  He is one of many examples of veterans across this nation who has earned and deserves our utmost respect. It is, after all, the service of Lynn and veterans like him that ensures the freedom and prosperity that America has enjoyed throughout our nation’s history.  Yet respect has eluded Mr. Carter and his wife Kathleen for nearly a year now.

            In June of 2011 Lynn was visiting a VA eye clinic in Fayetteville, Arkansas when he began to suffer from an intense headache and his blood pressure went sky high.  Having suffered a stroke in May of 2011, the eye doctor at the VA clinic suggested Lynn go immediately to the VA Hospital Emergency Room, also in Fayetteville.

            After Lynn arrived at the emergency room, VA medical staff conducted an MRI of his brain and had to send the results to a doctor in Alabama.  Apparently there was not enough staff on hand in Fayetteville to evaluate the results.  As it turns out, Lynn had suffered another stroke while at the eye clinic.  This is only where his horror story of begins.

            For nearly five hours Lynn laid waiting on a gurney in the hallway of the VA Hospital.  He was accompanied by his wife and numerous other veterans who had suffered various illnesses and injuries warranting an emergency room visit.  For five hours Lynn laid there waiting for word on his MRI, blood thinning medication such as he received from his hometown hospital after his previous stroke, or for someone to simply ask if he was doing alright.  Lynn describes the scene as a “humiliating disgrace” where veterans were parked “on gurneys in hallways and anywhere else they could stick them.”  According to Lynn the VA staff conceded simply “that they were short staffed and did not have the personnel to take care of everyone in a timely manner.”    

            Had someone bothered to ask Lynn how he was doing during that five hour wait he would have surely told them that he had urinated on himself or that he recognized the symptoms of stroke which he had suffered only a month prior.  They would have heard from Lynn’s own mouth that he would like to have dry sheets and clothes to wear while he laid waiting on news and/or medication to help ease his suffering.  None of that happened however.  Instead Lynn’s wife Kathleen eventually demanded that he be released so that she could take Lynn back to Fort Smith to receive the help from their local hospital that he was being denied at the VA.  The VA claims Lynn was discharged from the VA Hospital against the medical advice of the doctors working that day, after the Carters demanded to go to their hometown Hospital.

            After all of this the Carters did not know who to turn to. They knew they had been done wrong but didn’t know how to remedy the problem so they began to write to various members of congress for assistance and specifically their own US Representative, Steve Womack.  After all isn’t the job of our representatives in Washington DC to “represent” our interests as it pertains to US Government?

Recently I posted on www.theprogressivecop.com a page long response from Representative Womack in response to The Progressive Cop contributing writer Innocence Jaded’s request that Womack denounce Rush Limbaugh over the Sandra Fluke comments.  In sharp contrast to that response about an issue that effects Womack’s constituents indirectly at best, the Carters received a simple six line response in which Womack politely tells them he can’t do anything for them.

After receiving no help from Congressman Womack, Lynn began trying to call the offices of both Representative Womack and Senator Mark Pryor but was unable to speak with either of them. He eventually wrote a very blunt letter to both of them asking why they refused to answer his phone calls.  Lynn had some very simple requests, among them was to know why his complaint was not further investigated. 

Lynn goes on in his fiery letter to the Congressmen, to say that his grandson could have gotten better results.  Reflecting on the letter to Congressman Womack seeking condemnation of Rush Limbaugh and the prompt and lengthy response we received compared to the response given Lynn’s complaint, I would agree that Mr. Carter’s grandson could have gotten better results from Mr. Womack. 

What the Carters want is not monetary compensation but a simple apology and some assurance that efforts will be made to ensure that other veterans won’t be treated the same way in the future.  Taking into consideration that Congressman Womack recently voted for the Ryan Budget proposed by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, it does not appear that fixing the problems over at the Veterans Administration is too high on Womack’s list of things to do.  After all, Ryan’s budget proposal fails to mention the word “veteran” even once while somehow cutting an estimated $11 billion in funding for veterans.  This means that if Congressmen Ryan and Womack have their way, there will be even less staff on hand to assist veterans like Lynn if there even remains a VA Hospital within a day’s drive of Lynn’s house.

 

Currently the United States accounts for what is estimated to be between 42 to 46% of global military spending.  That is six to seven times higher than the next biggest spender China.  Together with our NATO Allies we account for roughly three quarters of global military spending.  Given that fact, it is hard to argue that the West could be seriously threatened by anyone of terrestrial origin.

At a time when both parties acknowledge our national budget is in peril and it is universally recognized that the balance of revenues and spending are out of whack, doesn’t it make sense to cut some of that military spending rather than cutting promises made to those who have risked everything for our freedom?  Congressmen such as Ryan and Womack are simply too concerned with keeping the tax rates of the richest one percent and the bottom lines of defense contractors and oil companies healthy at the expense of hardworking Americans and veterans like Lynn Carter.  It is high time we let Congressmen like Ryan and Womack know they represent us, the people, and not the almighty dollar.

A Tale Of Two Hoods

I love this art by Michael D’Antuono but I share it with some reluctance.  I am reluctant for a few reasons.  Among those reasons is that Trayvon Martin, whom this is referring to, was not shot by a cop but by an overzealous wanna-be cop. 

Second, I don’t want to suggest that cops are racist.  I am a white cop who is clearly not racist so I represent the fact that not all cops or even all white cops are racist.  That said there are racist cops out there and I have met more than a few of them.  The stereotype of racist cops is like so many stereotypes, based in some truth.  Stereotypes are nonetheless simply stereotypes and only the truly ignorant would apply them broadly over the entire group.    

The problem of racism in policing flourishes when police agencies turn a blind eye to things so subtle as racist jokes being told in a locker room.  Simple things such as this are a window into the soul of both the joke teller and the audience that finds humor in such idiocy.  Police agencies should to take a true “zero tolerance” approach to insensitivity and purge themselves of such employees.

In my profession our reputation precedes us.  Our jobs are made easier or more difficult, safe or unsafe, largely by the impression the citizen has of police prior to our making contact.  It is for this reason, if not out of simple decency and a need to strive for the American principals of liberty and equality under the law, police agencies need to take seriously the bad reputation that my profession has acquired over the years and take steps to mend those fences.

In order to create a positive and productive police encounter, it is paramount that citizens give the individual officer the benefit of doubt as to whether they are biased until that officer proves otherwise.  At the same time citizens should be holding police agencies accountable for each and every instance of abuse until those agencies take seriously and enforce policies that create an environment where bigotry cannot survive.

Understanding Romney: Breaking Down the Social Issues

I think perhaps one of the problems facing Americans as we head into this political season is the barrage of political rhetoric that the American people are subject to. It is my intention with this post to distill some of the positions of the front-runner GOP candidates. Most of the material here can easily be located around the web, or at least from some of the televised debates held during the GOP caucuses. As Mitt Romney appears to be the current favorite, we'll start with him. Depending on the length of this post, this may be broken down into a series. This post, and subsequent posts regarding position, is meant to be an unbiased presentation of facts in an effort to present impartial truth.

Social Issues

Abortion: Romney has been somewhat of a flip-flop regarding abortion issues. In 1994 during a debate Romney stated:

 I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.

Romney supported the implementation of Roe v Wade, and held that support for over a decade. His platform for his gubernatorial in Massachusetts declared:

As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's.

This won Romney the support of the Pro-Choice coalition. However, in 2007, when he decided to put his name in for the Presidency, Romney decided to change his stance.

"Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice, I never called myself that as a label but I was effectively pro-choice and that followed a personal experience in my extended family that led to that conclusion... In a very liberal state has been on the side of favoring life, I am firmly pro-life."

Romney has yet to declare a stance on Personhood Legislation. He is, however, opposed to legislation that criminalizes abortion. It appears that his largest issue with abortion is not the act itself, but that it is decided on the federal level, rather than allowing for state regulation and voter implementation. He wants it to be a state issue, rather than a federal one.

Marriage: Romney sticks with most conservatives on the issue of marriage equality. In 2002 during his gubernatorial campaign, he stated:

"Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union."

He also stated during that campaign, however, support of hate crime legislation that targeted discrimination against homosexuals, and also gave some support to allowing certain domestic partnership rights to gay and lesbian couples. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution allowed for same-sex marriages. In response, Romney supported legislation that amended that Constitution to remove that right.

In 2006, Romney vocally supported the Federal Marriage Amendment, which was an attempt at defining marriage in the US Constitution as a legal union between one man and one woman only. In his 2008 presidential campaign, Romney stated:

[M]y view on marriage has been entirely consistent over my political career. And that is that I oppose same-sex marriage. I also oppose civil unions . . . ever since [same-sex marriage] became a prominent [feature] in my state, with the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court, I have taken every action that I could conceive of within the bounds of the law to defend traditional marriage and to stop same-sex marriage . . . I've been to Washington to testify in favor of traditional marriage. I've written a letter to every U.S. senator on the topic . . . I believe that traditional marriage is right for the nurturing and development of children, but that I do not want to discriminate against gay people in employment or housing or other parts of their life.

In August 2011, Romney signed the 2012 Presidential Pledge sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage, publicly denouncing any support for marriage equality.

Gun Rights: Romney supports gun ownership rights, but also supports legislation that controls the use of assault weapons.

In 2002, Romney stated:

"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."

In 2004, Romney signed a law banning the use of military-style assault weapons and certain shotguns. This measure took the place of a soon-to-expire federal measure that banned these weapons. When he signed this measure, Romney stated:

"These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

While governor of Massachusetts, Romney has implemented legislature that eases ownership of legal firearms. He extended license expiration, created a grace period for renewal, and signed a law providing free registration renewal. Romney did support the Brady Bill (which imposes a 5-day waiting period on the purchase of certain firearms, and also bans the sale of assault weapons), saying:

"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA. I don't line up with the NRA."

He has since signed up with the NRA, but stands by his earlier statements regarding the use of assault weapons:

"So I'm a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population."

So here we have it. I actually find myself in agreement with his stance on firearms, but I worry that his stance could change. If you notice, it's a fairly common theme with him. There are numerous reasons that I don't care for Romney, but I think my biggest problem with him is that he's out of touch with the common American. You could probably argue that most politicians are, and I may be inclined to agree with you. However, with Romney, he's so obvious and heavy-handed about it. Look at the way he talks, the things he says. He jokes about firing people and shutting down businesses to move them to more lucrative markets. He jokes about people losing jobs and livelihoods, he vows to cut imperative programs such as Planned Parenthood, and unabashedly promises deeps slashes to welfare and medicare, programs that keep our poorest alive.

Mitt Romney has never experienced hunger. He's never experienced discrimination, or fear of abuse or neglect. Instead, he casually dismisses the millions that do every day. He's out of touch with the issues. That's where he stands. Far away.

Like what you read? Check out Innocence Jaded's Blog!

Arkansas' 3rd District Representative, Republican Steve Womack, Responds But Ignores Request Of One Of His Constituents To Denounce Rush Limbaugh.

Several weeks ago our friend and Progressive Cop contributor "Innocence Jaded" wrote an open letter to members of Congress asking them to denounce Rush Limbaugh's attack on the integrity and dignity of Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke. 

            The letter, which specifically addressed denouncing Limbaugh's comments and not the greater debate over women's rights, was met with a series of blow off letters. Foremost among them was a response by Arkansas' 3rd District Representative, Republican Steve Womack. 

           Womack, as is typical of most bought and paid for Republicans, completely skirted the issue and failed to mention the subject of the letter-one Rush Limbaugh a.k.a. "El Rushbo"-even once in the response.

           For your reading pleasure, I am posting Steve "Wal-Mart" Womack's response here for all to read. If anyone finds the words "Rush," "Limbaugh," or "Denounce" let me know, I must have missed them. 

You can read the original letter to various members of Congress at  http://innocencejaded.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/letter-to-congress-do-the-right-thing/ 

Here is Womack's response:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1179, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. It is good to hear from you.

The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act was introduced by Congressman Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01) on March 17, 2011. This legislation amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to permit a health plan to decline coverage of specific items and services, like birth control and abortion, that go against the religious beliefs of the sponsor, issuer, purchaser, or beneficiary without penalty. Additionally, it declares that no provision of PPACA can require a health care provider to provide or participate in a service that is contrary to the provider’s religious beliefs or moral convictions. The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act is currently under consideration by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.

No one, including pharmacists, doctors, and nurses, should be forced to perform a service which presents that person with a moral dilemma. Moreover, I believe that employers, especially those affiliated with a church or religious organization, should not be forced to subsidize – either directly or indirectly – behavior with which they have a moral objection. These decisions should be left up to the leadership or owners of the businesses and organizations.

Unfortunately, we have seen a growing trend of discrimination, especially from our president, against people of faith and moral principle. In addition to PPACA having been scrutinized for this, its goal of increasing the reliance of American citizens on our government through mandatory coverage provisions is reprehensible.

Because I believe – as do an overwhelming majority of my constituents – that life begins at conception, I have cosponsored H.R. 1179. Additionally, I voted in favor of H.R. 2 to repeal PPACA and HCERA and also in favor of H.Res. 9, instructing the Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Judiciary, and Education and Labor Committees to draft legislation to replace the flawed laws. I assure you I will keep your thoughts in mind as the House of Representatives continues its consideration of H.R. 1179.

Thank you again for contacting me regarding the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. Please continue to keep me informed of the issues that are important to you and be sure to visit my website, www.womack.house.gov, for more information and to sign up for my newsletter.

Sincerely,
Congressman Steve Womack
Member of Congress