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.

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.

Mr. Money

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.

Analysis of the Problem

Here is an excerpt from a recent paper I did on establishing a movement to fight poverty. This is the fact portion of the paper, and I find the research within extremely sobering. It’s… Terrifying that this is how we treat our people. These are the sobering, straight numbers.

Analysis of the Problem

            In 2010, the official poverty rate was 15.1 percent, which is up from 14.3 percent in 2009. Since 2007, the poverty rate has increased by 2.6 percentage points, and it has increased every year for the last three years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). The 2010 poverty rate translates to about 46.2 million people, up from 43.6 million people in 2009. The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest poverty rate in the United States since 1993, but the amount of people in poverty is the highest reported amount in fifty-two years since measurements were first taken in 1959 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). According to a report by the U.S. Census Bureau (2011), 16.4 million children lived below poverty levels in 2010, and 6.3 million of those children were under the age of six. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, 2011), about 14.5 percent of all households in the United States experienced food security during 2010. This means that at least once during the year the family reported three or more instances where they “were, at times, uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food for all household members because they had insufficient money and other resources for food” (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011).

The number of people without health insurance in 2010 was 16.3 percent, or 49.9 million people. 9.8 percent of all children in the United States (7.3 million) were without health insurance. However, children in poverty were much more likely to not be insured. 15.4 percent of children in poverty were not insured. The uninsured rate was also higher among people with lower incomes. 26.9 percent of people making less than $25,000 had no health insurance, whereas only 8.0 percent of individuals making more than $75,000 had no health insurance. Of those uninsured, 14 percent, or 14.7 million, worked full time, year round during 2010. The uninsured rate for non-workers was 28.5 percent.

Public perception of poverty has become a heated issue lately, especially involving the conservative right-wing Republican party. This party’s perception can be aligned with the Republican Presidential candidate front runner Mitt Romney’s comments regarding those in poverty. Romney stated “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it” (Wolf, 2012). It should be noted that Romney’s net worth lies between roughly $150 and $200 million (Riley, 2012). Another point to consider is his mention of the “safety net” for the poor. While there are indeed programs in place to assist the poor, as stated earlier, Census figures show that there are still millions of households that cannot afford proper health care, and the most recent report from the USDA reveals millions of households in America that cannot attain food security throughout the year. Every single candidate still running for the Republican nomination for President has stated multiple times that they will repeal an incoming measure that allows equal access to health insurance for every American (BBC News, 2011).

Responses to my Letter.

So, I posted a letter to my congressmen several weeks ago, urging them to speak out against Rush Limbaugh’s comments regarding Sandra Fluke. I have now heard back from both of them. Here are their replies. Enjoy!

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

So, basically, my letter was completely disregarded. Really, Mr. Womack? That’s how you respond? Instead of taking anything I talk about, you decided to shift the focus away from discrimination of women, and try to frame it in such a way that it seems like I’m the bad guy, and that I’m trying to fight discrimination of religion? Really? I think your problem is not discrimination of religion, but the fact that people are starting to fight all the privileges your religion has enjoyed recently. Maybe we’re tired of Christianity getting a free pass every time, while bemoaning that they are being discriminated against.

Here is my reply from my Senator:

Thank you for contacting me to protest discrimination against women. I appreciate hearing from you.

Ensuring the equal treatment and safety of women, both in the United States and abroad, is an important debate in Congress. As a husband and a father of a young daughter, I take these issues very seriously and will happily work with my colleagues to enact legislation to advance the safety of women. Please know that I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers legislation relevant to this topic.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  I value your input.  Please do not hesitate to contact me or my office regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Mark Pryor
United States Senate

Holy crap. This guy actually listened and responded in kind! Maybe there is hope after all. While he didn’t go into detail, he at least listened. If he’s willing to listen, he’s willing to receive feedback, and I can stand behind that more than I can stand behind Mr. Womack’s jumbled reply.

Letter to Congress: Do the Right Thing

I have composed a letter that I will send to each of my representatives in Congress regarding Rush Limbaugh’s comments about Sandra Fluke and her testimony to Congress. I urge you to either write your own, or feel free to copy this and send it to your own representative. To contact your representative in the House, click HERE. To contact your Senator, click HERE. Ask them to denounce Limbaugh and his hate-filled comments regarding a woman who stood up for her beliefs.

 

Dear Representative,

The last few weeks have been rife with controversy regarding women’s rights concerning certain health care benefits. After women were denied their voice in the primary assembly, Democratic Representatives held a special assembly to discuss this issue. During this hearing, a Georgetown Law student named Sandra Fluke testified in favor of allowing health care coverage of contraceptives, regardless of the moral or religious stance of the institution providing the care.

Ms. Fluke’s testimony has received criticism from popular radio voice Rush Limbaugh. These comment by Mr. Limbaugh are slanderous and misogynistic at best. While I am certain you have heard of the ongoing controversy, I would like to share his exact words with you, and then make a request.

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I’ll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

Oh! Does she have more boyfriends? They’re lined up around the block.

Despite numerous corporations pulling support from Mr. Limbaugh after his inflamatory statements, many lawmakers have remained silent on this issue. I am asking you, as a Congressman and public figure, to publicly denounce Mr. Limbaugh for his hateful declarations regarding Ms. Fluke. Whether you agree with him on the issue or not, behavior such as his displayed on a national scale should never go without censure.

Imagine if this was your child, your mother, or your sister. Imagine if this was your wife or your best friend. Would you stand idly by as someone declared to a national audience that her belief “makes her a slut?” Would you stand for someone to demand that she and her friends post videos of them having sex online, so he could watch? Wouldn’t you defend her if someone speculated that she had boyfriends “lined up around the block?”

Whether you agree with Ms. Fluke on this issue or not is not the issue. The issue is that a public radio host, one that carries some sway in the political arena, has crossed the line. The issue is that this is unexcusable. Nobody deserves to be treated such. Nobody deserves to be drug through the public eye, portrayed as a “slut” or a “prostitute” or a “whore.” I’m asking you to take the moral high road, to take a stand and tell Mr. Limbaugh that you will not abide by his baseless accusations against Ms. Fluke, or women in general. I’m asking you to condemn him for his hate-laced statements. I’m asking you to do the right thing.

Mr. Limbaugh’s comments were far above what any human being deserves. In this day and age, where we work side by side with our wives, mothers, and daughters, it should go without saying that we respect them as women. Mr. Limbaugh obviously does not share this sentiment. In fact, he has done nothing but attack Ms. Fluke’s dignity.

Please do the right thing, and tell Mr. Limbaugh publicly that Congress will not stand for his comments, and that regardless of their positions on the contraception issue, that they stand for women’s dignity and against misogyny and hatred. It’s not about where you stand on the issue, it’s about a woman being shamed publicly for what she believes is right, and regardless of her stance or your beliefs should this be tolerated. Please do the right thing.

Ron Paul Won’t Help

Before I say this, let me quick say that I don’t put a lot of stock in Ron Paul. He’s practically irrelevant in the GOP nomination race, and every time he decides to open his mouth, the crazier he sounds.

Utility workers try to restore electricity to a tornado-damaged section of town on March 2, 2012 in Harrisburg, Illinois. The Mar. 2 storm killed at least six people in Harrisburg.

Mr. Paul, the Texan libertarian said on CNN’s State of the Union last night that victims of the recent outbreak of tornadoes in the Midwest and the South should not receive federal assistance in repairing their lives. Mr. Paul stated:

“There is no such thing as federal money… Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me… The people who live in tornado alley, just as I live in hurricane alley, they should have insurance.”

“To say that any accident that happens in the country, send in FEMA, send in the money, the government has all this money—it is totally out of control and it’s not efficient.”

Can you believe this!? How does this man still have a following? How arrogant is Mr. Paul in thinking that not only do most of these people not have insurance, but that using a governmental agency that specializes in aiding victims of natural disasters is inefficient? If you read between the lines, he’s practically berating the victims for being in the way of the tornadoes! It’s like telling a woman she deserved to be raped because her shirt was too low-cut.

These tornadoes have ripped through the United States, dealing billions of dollars in damage, and (so far) claiming over two dozen lives. The arrogance of Ron Paul in telling these people that it’s too inefficient to assist them in their greatest need is nearly unspeakable. These victims have experience one of the most frightening events they could imagine: the wrath of nature, and Ron Paul is telling them to suck it up and get on with their lives.

Mr. Paul, tell the families mourning the loss of loved ones that you won’t help. Tell the children who no longer have a roof over their heads that helping them is “not efficient.” Tell the communities that have lost everything that their government doesn’t care enough to help them.

All I can say is: Thank God that’s not how this country works, and thank God you aren’t in charge.

Fixing the Broken

I’ve already posted a few opinions about the current healthcare debate, and I have already expressed my concerns with the opposition it has seen. In short, I’m for it, regardless of my religious stance. Hilariously, it is widely opposed by the Christian right, and I have also mentioned my frustrations regarding that hypocritical stance.

Today, I write on a much more personal level.

Here are the facts:

This past week, my one-year-old son became ill. He had a fever over 102, and his sinuses were stuffed up. Tuesday night, he was also vomiting. We took him to the doctor Wednesday morning, and he was diagnosed with and ear infection and also a sinus infection. It is believed his vomiting was due to pain and discomfort, combined with the fever. The antibiotics he was prescribed did nothing to alleviate the fever or his illness, and the last two days we have spent holding him for hours on end while he cried. Luckily, he was prescribed a stronger antibiotic, and today appears to be on the mend, fever nearly broken, and we have a happy baby again.

I work as a public servant; a local emergency services job. While my pay is sufficient to support our family, it is meager nonetheless. We cannot afford routine doctor visits, medications, or emergency care for my wife and son. We simply don’t have the money.

While I am provided with health insurance through the local government, my family is not supported. To add them to my plan would cost nearly $500 dollars a month. Perhaps affordable to some, this is not something I can afford to pay. Were I allowed, I would give up my insurance in a heartbeat to cover my wife or son instead. Unfortunately, this is not an option. My wife and child remain uninsured, and I remain terrified that something could happen that we cannot afford.

My wife was let go from her previous job after her employer found out she was pregnant. I know, it sounds illegal, but we live in a “right to work” state. Here, it really doesn’t matter, you can get let go for whatever reason they want. Sound shifty? Sure it is. Regardless, it was a legal termination. After our son was born, we decided it was best if she stayed home to raise him. It was mainly her choice, and I stand by it. We have been criticized at times for this decision. Sure, she could work somewhere to supplement our income, but we so highly value her presence with our son at home that we cannot imagine it any other way. Because she stays at home with him, we can better teach him our values, and we can raise him to be open-minded and free-thinking. Sure, it makes it hard on our budget, but the value of him being at home with his mother in the early years is beyond measure.

My son is on state-funded health care. We simply cannot afford health care or insurance for him. I would love to, but it just isn’t possible. The only way we can make sure he gets the care he needs when he gets sick is to rely upon tax-funded assistance. My taxes pay for it. Your taxes pay for it. We’re lucky to have it.

And here is my soapbox:

Here’s the problem I have with the GOP, the Tea Party, and the Conservative Right in general: they don’t get it. They’ve lost touch with reality. I am lucky enough to have a job. I know how precious that really is. However, even with that job, we can’t afford to make sure our son is taken care of. Was this our plan? Absolutely not. When we planned this child we had two incomes, a balanced budget that took insurance and other necessities into account, and we were comfortable. What else was I supposed to do?

I keep hearing this rhetoric, day after day. Telling the jobless to get a job. Telling the malcontent and the restless to suck it up and work harder. What’s the point? Can somebody tell me? What’s the purpose in all this? Does it make you sleep better at night, knowing that you told off someone less fortunate?

With all the things that we don’t have, we get by. Thanks to tax-payer funded assistance, our son got to see a doctor, and he got the medicine he needed to get better. Thanks to tax-payers, he didn’t cry himself to sleep last night, because he was feeling well enough to sleep fitfully. We don’t have a lot of things, but we do ok. I pains me, however, to know that there are millions out there less fortunate than I.

Nearly 50 million Americans support families on half of what I make a year or less. Or rather, they try to support their families. They have to rely much heavier on assistance than we do.

And how do we treat them? Do we look upon them with pity? Do we empty our pockets, open our doors, and share our plates? No. Instead, all I continue to hear is the rhetoric from the right.
“Get a job, hippy.”
“Take a bath.”
“You’re lazy. Quit asking for handouts.”

You know what pisses me off? This is what’s coming from the mouths of the groups that consider themselves moral. They stand there, preaching about the sins of mankind, rallying their followers to the most moral candidate. Yet, all I hear from this “moral” group is disdain for the poor.

I hear it all the time from the pulpit: “This is a Christian nation. This nation was founded under God, and in God we trust.”

Really?

If you really want to convince me that the GOP is the moral right, if you really want to convince me that you’re a candidate endorsed by God, you have to do better than that. If you really want to tell me that this is a Christian nation, then why are there still poor on the street? If this is “One Nation Under God,” then why are our children going hungry? If it’s really “In God We Trust,” then why aren’t we shelling money out to get these people some health care?

I’m sick of being told I’m wrong. I’m sick of being told there is a better way to do things. I’m sick of being called immoral, or being called out for standing against whatever biblical interpretation on social norms there is this week. I’m sick of it.

If you want to rally around God and country, maybe you should start by making sure not only my son, but the sons and daughters of every damned citizen in this country gets the care they need. If you want to tell me you’re on the right side of things, perhaps it’s time we start showing some of the same compassion that Jesus told us to show.

It’s not fair that I have to worry about whether or not my son gets help. It’s not right that I have to pray every night that my wife doesn’t get sick, because I know we cannot afford to take her to the doctor. I shouldn’t have to live my life like this. Not in a nation that tells me it’s a nation built on faith. I’m tired of living in fear, and you know what? I’m one of the lucky ones!

Can you imagine, living every day not knowing whether or not you’re going to get to eat? Can you imagine going to bed hungry? Sound bad? Now picture millions of children. Little children. Helpless children, experiencing that very thing. Every. Single. Night.

You want to act like a Christian should? Call your senator and tell them to support affordable health care. You want to act like a man or woman of God? Start giving. Give a child hope for tomorrow. Give them a reason to smile.

Maybe it’s time we got off our collective asses and decided that we aren’t going to stand for this anymore. Maybe it’s time we took a stand against poverty. Against hunger. Against sickness. We have the tools to fix this! We can save millions of lives. We can make this good nation great. All you need is a change in perspective. Perhaps a reminder that when we feed, clothe, and shelter the least of us, we make us all better.

“If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.”
― Stephen Colbert

Santorum’s Hypocrisy

Rick Santorum has made some waves in the news lately. Apparently Mr. Santorum had some complaints about President Obama while speaking at a church in Georgia. What I find particularly hilarious are not the complaints in and of themselves, but rather the source of the complaints, and the logic behind them.

Santorum announced that his administration would

“defend the church, defend the family, defend the nonprofit community, defend them from a government that wants to weaken them.”

Now, I find this an interesting statement. Isn’t this man running for the office of President of a country that is founded on freedom? Did Mr. Santorum forget the part of the First Amendment of the Constitution? Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that Amendment clearly state that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Am I missing something here? Certainly, I am not one to withhold Mr. Santorum’s freedom of speech, but it strikes me as horribly hypocritical to run on a platform of “Defense of the Christian Fath” (like it really needs defending) when one of the founding precepts of this country is “we’re not going to tell you what to believe.”

Santorum continued his tirade:

“It is saying government knows better. It is imposing his ideology on a group of people expressing their theology – their moral code – and saying government will force you to do what your faith says is gravely wrong,”

Wait. Wait just a second here…

I have a question for Mr. Santorum. A few, actually.

Mr. Santorum, to quote one of my favorite songs, “how can you say your truth is better than ours?”
Mr. Santorum, what gives you the right to complain about the government imposing ideologies when you are doing the same thing?
Mr. Santorum, doesn’t that mean that you are just forcing others to do what their faith says is gravely wrong?
Mr. Santorum, you say that President Obama’s theology is one that is not found in the Bible, yet he has proposed a health care initiative that allows the poor to seek the care they need. You oppose this measure. Mr. Santorum, doesn’t that mean that your “theology”  is one that is not found in the Bible? Or perhaps my Bible is just missing the part that says “care for the needy.”
Mr. Santorum, you railed against Obama’s new contraceptive policy; one that would require everyone to provide contraceptives to women that wanted it. You said it was a a policy “hostile to faith.” Mr. Santorum, again I ask you, how dare you presume that your faith is superior?
Mr. Santorum, have you thought to ask any women what they think about this?

Mr. Santorum, you have ranted and raved about protecting faith in this country, proposing strong-arm policies that would force the entire nation into following Christian precepts. Perhaps it’s time you go back and looked at that First Amendment again. The part about making no law establishing religion. Maybe you forgot it. I’ll post it agian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Before you try telling the American people to vote for you next time, perhaps you would be wise to remember that we don’t all believe the same things that you do, and that it isn’t your job to tell us that we’re wrong. Nor will it ever be, regardless of the outcome of the pending election. The founders made sure of that. All you do is make a mockery of it.

Pro-Its-None-of-my-Business

I hate the label “pro-life.”

It doesn’t make sense to me.

Because of the recent uproar involving the Susan G. Komen decision to pull funding from Planned Parenthood, I have seen a lot of banter back and forth between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates on social media networks. Before I get into that, however, let us look real quick at the what happened this week regarding Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood has received a lot of flak, over the past few years especially, because a few of their locations provide support and assistance for women seeking abortion. Let’s make something clear, first: Planned Parenthood is an organization that has done wonders for improving the quality of life for poor Americans. Over five million Americans walk through their doors for treatment every year. Of the five million, 26% (roughly 1.3 million) of those are under the age of 19. Nearly 75% (3.75 million) of those who seek treatment with Planned Parenthood have incomes at or below 150% of the poverty level. To speak more plainly, 75% of of those helped by planned parenthood make at or less than $30,000 a year.

But what about those abortions? Well, turns out Planned Parenthood does a lot more than just abortions. Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopausetreatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and, of course, abortion.

So how many abortions do they actually perform? As demonized as this organization is, you would think it ranks in the millions. Actually, here’s a numbers breakdown from 2009:
4,009,549 contraceptive services (35% of total)
3,955,926 sexually transmitted disease services (35% of total)
1,830,811 cancer related services (16% of total)
1,178,369 pregnancy/prenatal/midlife services (10% of total)
332,278 abortion services (3% of total)
76,977 other services (1% of total)
In all, 11,383,900 services
They also annually conduct 1 million screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams.

The realm of services provided by Planned Parenthood is astounding, and the fact that Susan G. Komen foundation pulled their funding is ridiculous. All it does is hurt those that need the help, and cannot afford it. Regardless of the abortions provided by Planned Parenthood or not, it was a stupid political stunt.

All this talk, and I have yet to really make my point. There is this label that opponents of abortion have attached to themselves, and it is far from accurate. Because here is the thing: look at those who are vocally “Pro-Life.” They are the moral right-wing Conservative, which is laughable. Here is the problem I have with those who wear the label “Pro-Life:”

What about your stance on universal health care?  If you really want to convince me you are Pro-Life, what happens to the millions of Americans without health care? If you value the sanctity of life so highly, how dare you stand against governmental programs that increase the quality of life for millions?

What about the death penalty? You throw a fit about the killing of unborn children, but still push for the execution of others? What gives you the right to pick and choose?

I hear all these arguments, when all it really comes down to is the fact that it isn’t your choice. It isn’t your body. This isn’t your life. Who are you to say that a pregnancy as a product of rape is out of the realm of the victim’s freedom? What about those too poor to bring a child into this world? What then? Once that child is born, that life that you fought so hard for is not subject to poverty and dejection, starvation and neglect. Sure, adoption is at times an option, but in reality, it doesn’t always work that way. Increasing the amount of children waiting to be adopted by others because you take away the right of abortion doesn’t solve any problems either.

Here’s my stance, pure and simple:
I don’t like abortion. I don’t like that we have to resort to it as an option. It pains me to think of it. However, it’s not my business. What these women choose has nothing to do with my morals or my preferences. They have the legal right to make this decision, and I will never question that. I will never treat one who has had one, or is considering one, different than any other person. It’s a hell of a decision. Painful. And I’ll be damned if I ever judge someone because they had to make it. It’s none of my business, and frankly, it’s none of yours. All of this legislation requiring the pregnant woman to see the ultrasound and hear the heart is probably the most hideous thing I have ever seen. It’s torture, and nothing less. How dare we do that to someone?

Someone asked me today: “What if you had been an abortion?” My answer was simple: I wasn’t. I’m not going to play a game of what-if’s with this. I wasn’t, and that’s that. If I had been, I wouldn’t be here, so why does that matter?

Then they asked me: “What about your son? Would you abort him?” My answer? What about him? Why would I do that? I love him dearly. How dare you question mine and my wife’s decisions regarding him? It wasn’t a factor, because he was planned? Could I say I wouldn’t make a similar decision if it was an unplanned pregnancy? Probably not. I’m not in that situation, and again. It’s none of your business. Why are we playing with rhetorical questions when the heart of the matter lies in the fact that it’s nobody’s business but the woman’s.

Like I said earlier: I don’t like abortion, but I’m not going to question a woman’s right to decide that. I’m Pro-Choice, which has the hideous “baby-killer” sentiment attached to it, but that’s not what it means. It means I don’t think I should have a say in what a woman does with her body. It means you should get your nose out of their business. I’m Pro-Choice, but I’m also Pro-Its-None-of-my-Damn-Business.

A Socialist America

Perhaps one of the greatest criticisms of the modern progressive movement, the liberal ideology, and the Democratic Party in general is socialism. Look at the protests, the rants and raves, the bumper-sticker laden cars, and the tea party pickets. They all cry out against a socialist America. It’s become a new dirty word, right alongside liberal, and Americans are falling for the rhetoric.  It’s becoming all too easy to plug these buzzwords against government programs and allow them to become immediately demonized by the American people. Plugging the socialist label to anyone or anything, and you will immediately find an upwelling of opposition against it.

However, I think a majority of Americans have forgotten a few things about socialist programs. This evil thing, socialism, is more than just public health care. So let’s look at some of these “evil” socialist programs. These are programs funded by the government, paid for by your taxes. Are we all clear on that? That seems to be the biggest problem with citizens: they aren’t willing for their taxes to go toward the betterment of others. Let’s take a peek at what their taxes pay for:

Public Schools – Think your education is free? Think again!  The only thing that keeps a vast majority of American children from going without education entirely is a government funded education program. Without it, children would be limited to private school options. If this were the only option, I fear many of our children would remain uneducated, without the opportunity or the resources to improve their future.
College – While we are on it, how about that college degree? Again, a vast majority of campuses in the nation are state-funded institutions. This means that a majority of costs are still offset by government appropriations. And did you take any student loans? Where do you think the money from that came from? It’s another program funded by tax income.
Police, Fire, etc. – What happens when your home is broken into, or you are in a traffic collision? Maybe your home catches fire, or your child’s cat is stuck up in a tree. Who do you call for help? The answer is obvious, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find a law-abiding citizen that would tell you that these agencies are unnecessary.  How do you think these agencies are paid for? Police and fire departments are an absolute drain on a budget. The overhead required to keep an average police or fire department well-trained, properly equipped, insured, and overall effective is absolutely massive. The only way to pay for this is, again, tax dollars.

There are so many others: public libraries, the US Postal Service, etc. I won’t bother naming them all, because I think you get the point. So here’s mine (and here is where I wax philosophical): maybe the problem isn’t that public health care is socialist. Instead, I think it’s just an easy label to place on something that others aren’t willing to subsidize. I think the real problem lies in the apathy of the American people. It’s become so easy to say someone doesn’t deserve something that they don’t readily have. The people complaining about giving Americans easy access to health care? I think it’s a safe bet to say that these people don’t worry about what happens when they get sick and can’t work. I think the opponents to public health care don’t worry, or just don’t care what happens to those who are sick, but just too poor to get the treatment they need.

So here’s my question to them. What if you lose your job? What if the funds you have set away for a rainy day dry up? What happens when you get sick? Where will you turn? Think hospitals can’t turn away someone who doesn’t have insurance? Think again. You may get some form of rudimentary treatment, but without that insurance card (or cold, hard cash), your ass is out that door the second they put a band-aid on you. You don’t get the surgeries, you don’t get the x-rays, the MRI’s, the CAT scans. You get nothing. Heck, some people that have insurance can’t get that stuff. Do you honestly think any hospital is going to lose money treating you? Absolutely not. So what happens then? You’ve lost your job, your savings, and you’re still sick. What happens to your wife? Your kids? Do you honestly think someone will turn to help you?

Look at the way this country treats its poor. Look at the way it treats its children. One in four go hungry every night. We have a chance to fix some of that. We have a chance to give someone the help they desperately need, and your problem is the program is “socialist?” Really?

I’m sick of that argument. I’m sick of people not understanding that we have a chance to make this country another step close to what it should be. We have a chance to give everyone another opportunity for life, for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness, and you want to take that away?

How dare you.

If you have that much of a problem with a socialist America, maybe we should just stop sending the police to help you. Maybe we should just left your home burn to ashes.

But no…

Because I believe in an America that helps the helpless. When your house is burning down, I believe in fighting the fire, and when your walls come crashing down around you, and a hospital is what it takes to fix things, I believe in fixing you.

I believe in an America that picks people up, not one that pushes them back down to die.