Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
MUST READ..It’s Time To Face The Truth That Republicans Are Traitors
By: Rmuse
Monday, February, 9th, 2015, 8:17 pm
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/09/its-time-face-truth-republicans-traitors.html
According to the dictionary definition, a traitor is one who betrays a person, a principle, or especially their country. It is of no consequence why someone, or a group, chooses to work in opposition to their nation, or fellow citizens’ well-being, because if their intent and result of their actions is to deliberately damage or cause harm to their country or fellow citizens, they are by definition traitors. It is likely that throughout America’s short history, except for the traitorous Confederacy, no group of individuals has exhibited the characteristic betrayal of a traitor more than conservatives in general, and Republicans in particular. What makes their actions all the more despicable is that their traitorous actions are founded on racial animus for one man; and allegiance to foreigners and one tiny segment of the population.
These Republicans’ malicious, calculated, and concerted acts of betrayal of their country and its people started the evening of Barack Obama’s first inauguration and, despite his overwhelming re-election victory in 2012, they have persisted unabated and in fact continue to grow. Of course the latest blatant example of betrayal is Speaker of the House John Boehner violating a 216 year-old federal law by “joining with the leader of a foreign nation against his own president.” That was the assessment in a scathing article published in the conservative magazine Forbes that rightly asserted that Boehner “seeking to damage any American President by helping a foreign leader can never be considered something that is best for the nation.” That comment, in a nutshell, elucidates exactly why Republicans are traitors to America; they have no regard whatsoever for “what is best for the nation” or its people. Coupled with their blatant disregard for the Constitution they swore to uphold, their opposition to what is best for the nation has become the defining characteristic of the 21st Century conservative movement and it is why they are traitors.
The Republican drive to subvert this nation and its people’s well-being began when they met and secretly plotted to undermine economic recovery after they just spent 8 long years creating the Great Recession for the benefit of the rich; including starting two wars of religious aggression. At no time in history has a group of political leaders purposely conspired to destroy the nation’s economic well-being as Republicans did on Inauguration night in January 2009. They ramped up their war on the economy in 2011 when they nearly destroyed the full faith and credit of the United States that the Constitution states “shall not be questioned,” much less deliberately decimated. The constitutional betrayal garnered America’s first credit downgrade in history and a ploy they came precariously close to repeating in 2013 when they shut down the government by betraying their Constitutional mandate to legislate for the “people’s general welfare;” all over their opposition to Americans having access to affordable healthcare. It was a betrayal of their fellow citizens, and their oath to uphold the Constitution that tasks them to pass legislation, not shut down the government or threaten a credit default. Over the past six years, Republicans have shown that their allegiance to the Constitution is as non-existent as their allegiance to this country or their fellow citizens.
Republicans have compiled a despicable record of betraying Americans by conspiring and plotting to rob them of their wealth and transferring it, by way of tax cuts, to multi-national corporations with American-sounding names; all while assisting them to avoid taxes by protecting their ill-gotten gains in foreign banks. In fact, the Republican drive to enrich another foreign entity, TransCanada, at the expense of America’s environment, the people’s health, and economy is, as Forbes noted, “something that can never be considered in the best interest for the nation;” as if any American traitor ever considered what was in the best interest of the nation. Republicans also betrayed the Constitution by conspiring with foreigners (Canadians) to undermine the Executive Branch and upset the balance of power to benefit a foreign corporation, other foreign nations’ energy needs, and two un-American John Birch devotees.
Maybe more than anything, Republicans have betrayed America by attempting to destroy the principles in the Constitution they apparently despise as much as the nation and its people. There is no greater example than a massive concerted effort to obstruct and eliminate Americans’ right to vote in states Republicans control with valuable assistance from the conservative Supreme Court; a conservative cabal that has as little regard for, or allegiance to, the Constitution or America as Republicans in Congress and the states. In fact, in what is a telling commentary about Republican’s betrayal of the Constitution, a little over a week ago two Democrats in Congress felt the pressing need to propose a Constitutional amendment to “recognize voting as a fundamental American right.” Americans already “had” constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental voting rights, including two long-established amendments extending the right to vote to women and people of color and not just white Christian males. But those Constitutional rights are vanishing due to Republican traitors to the Constitution and America’s representative democracy.
A list detailing the myriad ways Republicans betray the Constitution is extensive beginning with supporting religious fanatics successful efforts to control women, to supporting treasonous armed anti-government militias confronting and threatening federal agents, to giving corporations supremacy over citizens, to legislating discriminatory policies denying other Americans’ their constitutionally-guaranteed equal rights. Two years ago, and many time since, Republicans called for armed rebellion against the United States government if Americans re-elected Barack Obama as their President; something that anyone would regard as traitorous including calling for for a second revolution, threatening “Second Amendment remedies” against the government, and all manner of Republican-led state legislation ininuating armed threats against federal officials enforcing federal laws.
Their traitorous acts to destroy the economy and conspire with foreigners to undermine the Separation of Powers and office of the President are also betrayals of the Constitution they swore to uphold. The Republicans’ six year crusade to destroy the nation’s economy is not only traitorous; it is unprecedented in American history and still ongoing. One wonders, really, if there is anything about America, its Constitution, or its people Republicans will not betray to advance the interests of the rich, foreign nations, and foreign corporations.
The Constitution is very concise and clear as to the job Republicans in Congress are expected to perform and it is primarily “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” It is not to betray America by working with foreign leaders to undermine the Executive branch, not to assist foreign nations and corporations in their pursuit of profit, and not to dismantle the Constitution for theocrats and corporations. Republicans are turncoats with no interest whatsoever in what is “best for the nation” or its people. They have done nothing whatsoever over the past six years that was not an act of treachery against the American people, the Constitution, or the nation they show nothing but contempt for and it is because the people elected an African American man as their President and in doing so exposed Republicans as traitors and enemies of state.
Anyone with TDAmeritrade and scottrade here? It seems my TDA news streaming has stopped. I checked my subscriptions at TDA and everything is active. But I no longer getting anything from TDA. And it happened since I cleared all the news bulbs a week ago (I was running 3.9.8 then). Since then I found out there was a patch to 3.9.8a that I installed and I also found a yahoo news zip that added Yahoo news which is currently the only way for me to get news. Even the Google news does not work.
Also the scottrade news account/login keeps coming up with the wrong password. But the password is correct. And it only does it when I try to enable scottrade NEWS. It does not do it for backfill or stock data. Same password.
MUST READ..We keep hearing the same talking point from the Republicans responsible for the government shutdown:President Obama won’t compromise.
Liberals wanted single-payer Medicare-for-all, but the president settled on a Republican plan instead, a plan Republicans supported until Obama got on board with it. Republicans didn’t like the public option, so he compromised by removing it. He compromised on abortion coverage. He compromised with the “Cornhusker Kickback” (which was later removed by the Senate). He compromised on Medicare drug price negotiation, and drug reimportation.
He compromised by delaying the employer mandate. He compromised on the CLASS Act, and the 1099 requirements.
Democrats asked Republicans 19 times, starting in April, for a conference to negotiate on the budget, and were told ‘no’ 19 times.
For the budget, President Obama wanted one funding level, and the Republicans wanted a much lower level, so the president agreed to the Republican level. Not some middle-ground between the two proposals – he accepted their number. After getting literally everything they wanted, Republicans said ‘no’ to the deal anyway, deciding they wanted more.
They demanded defunding of Obamacare, or they’ll blow up the country. Then they said, okay, instead of defunding it completely, just gut part of it – they call that a ‘compromise’ because they would only get some, not all, of what they want in exchange for not destroying the country.
Obama says no, you don’t get to demand something in return for not destroying the country. “Not destroying the country” should be sort of a baseline expectation, when you’re in Congress.
And that, folks, is what Republicans call ‘refusing to compromise’.
MUST READ..A moment of real clarity in the fiscal debate
Posted by Greg Sargent on March 17, 2013 at 6:27 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/03/17/a-moment-of-real-clarity-in-the-fiscal-debate/
As you regulars know, I’ve been hoping and hoping that reporters will press top Republicans on a simple question: Is there any ratio of entitlement cuts of your choosing to new revenues you’d accept? Three to one? Four to one? Five to one?
Well, John Boehner was asked something very close to that question on ABC News today:
MARTHA RADDATZ: Well, let me ask you this simple MARTHA RADDATZ: Is there any ratio of entitlement cuts to new revenues that you would –
SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: The president got his –
MARTHA RADDATZ: — say that the is three to one, four to one –
SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: — tax hikes. The president –
MARTHA RADDATZ: — nothing?
SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: — got his tax hikes on January the 1st.
MARTHA RADDATZ: So, the answer to –
SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: He–
MARTHA RADDATZ: — that is no?
SPEAKER JOHN BOEHNER: — he ran his election on taxing the wealthy. He got his tax hikes. But he won’t talk about the spending problem and that’s the problem here in Washington.
We’ll take that as a No. House GOP majority whip Kevin McCarthy was also asked that question on NBC today:
DAVID GREGORY: Is there any ratio that you could accept?
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY: There are no new tax increases because you don’t need it. If you look at this report –
DAVID GREGORY: But you’re never going to get entitlement reform –
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY: You’re going to get nothing.
DAVID GREGORY: — without tax increases. Is that political reality?
Again, until we hear otherwise, we’ll take that as a No.
And so it’s now sinking in that: 1) Republicans are not getting the entitlement cuts they want without agreeing to new revenues; and 2) Republicans are explicitly confirming that there is no compromise that is acceptable to them to get the cuts they themselves say they want. The GOP position, with no exaggeration, is that the only way Republican leaders will ever agree to paying down the deficit they say is a threat to American civilization is 100 percent their way; they are not willing to concede anything at all to reach any deal involving new revenues to reduce the deficit, or to get the entitlement reform they want, or to avert sequestration they themselves said will gut the military and tank the economy.
But … but … but … Obama needs to lead and prove he’s Serious by offering still more entitlement cuts than he already has!
Come on. Is the situation clear enough now?
Native American Man Tells Anti-Illegal Immigration Protesters Who 'The Real Illegal Immigrants Are' (VIDEO)
The Huffington Post | Posted: 02/06/2013 2:28 pm EST | Updated: 02/07/2013 5:24 am EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/native-american-man-immigration-protesters_n_2630577.html
(CAUTION: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS OBSCENE LANGUAGE)
Native American Man Tells Anti-Illegal Immigration Protesters Who 'The Real Illegal Immigrants Are' (VIDEO)
The Huffington Post | Posted: 02/06/2013 2:28 pm EST | Updated: 02/07/2013 5:24 am EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/native-american-man-immigration-protesters_n_2630577.html
(CAUTION: THIS VIDEO CONTAINS OBSCENE LANGUAGE)
Prosecutor in Aaron Swartz 'hacking' case comes under fire
Carmen Ortiz was being talked about last month as the next Massachusetts governor. Now she's being investigated for threatening the late Aaron Swartz with decades in prison.
by Declan McCullagh
January 15, 2013 11:58 PM PST
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57564212-38/prosecutor-in-aaron-swartz-hacking-case-comes-under-fire/
A politically ambitious Justice Department official who oversaw the criminal case against Aaron Swartz has come under fire for alleged prosecutorial abuses that led the 26-year-old online activist to take his own life.
Carmen Ortiz, 57, the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts who was selected by President Obama, compared the online activist -- accused of downloading a large number of academic papers -- to a common criminal in a 2011 press release. "Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar," Ortiz said at the time. Last fall, her office slapped Swartz with 10 additional charges that carried a maximum penalty of 50 years in prison.
"He was killed by the government," Swartz's father, Robert, said at his son's funeral in Highland Park, Ill., today, according to a report in the Chicago Sun Times.
Last Wednesday, less than three months before the criminal trial was set to begin, Ortiz's office formally rejected a deal that would have kept Swartz out of prison. Two days later, Swartz killed himself.
"He was being made into a highly visible lesson," says Harvey Silverglate, a Cambridge, Mass., attorney who first met Swartz in 2001 and spoke with him after his arrest. "He was enhancing the careers of a group of career prosecutors and a very ambitious -- politically-ambitious -- U.S. attorney who loves to have her name in lights."
Ortiz' spokeswoman did not respond to questions from CNET today. The spokeswoman, Christina Sterling, had said earlier this week: "We want to respect the privacy of the family and do not feel it is appropriate to comment on the case at this time."
Replies Silverglate, the defense attorney and author of the book "Three Felonies a Day:" "It nearly made me puke. Out of deference to the family they weren't going to respond to the charges? It wasn't 'out of deference to the family.' It was out of deference to their careers."
Swartz was accused of 13 felony counts relating to connecting a computer to MIT's network without authorization and retrieving over four million academic journal articles from the JSTOR database (he was allowed to access JSTOR, but not to perform a bulk download). The advocacy group Demand Progress, which Swartz had helped to create and which helped to defeat the Stop Online Piracy Act a year ago, likened it to "trying to put someone in jail for allegedly checking too many books out of the library." (Swartz also sold a company he founded called Infogami to Reddit and was one of the co-creators of the RSS standard for syndicating content.)
If Swartz had stolen a $100 hard drive with the JSTOR articles, it would have been a misdemeanor offense that would have yielded probation or community service. But the sweeping nature of federal computer crime laws allowed Ortiz and Assistant U.S. AttorneyStephen Heymann, who wanted a high-profile computer crime conviction, to pursue felony charges. Heymann threatened the diminutive free culture activist with over 30 years in prison as recently as last week.
The Boston U.S. Attorney's office was looking for "some juicy looking computer crime cases and Aaron's case, sadly for Aaron, fit the bill," Elliot Peters, Swartz's attorney at the Keker & Van Nest law firm, told the Huffington Post. Heymann, Peters says, thought the Swartz case "was going to receive press and he was going to be a tough guy and read his name in the newspaper."
Heymann was also the Boston office's point person in a second investigation that spurred another young hacker to kill himself. In 2008, 24-year-old Jonathan James committed suicideafter being named a suspect in a federal cybercrime investigation. His suicide note said: "I have no faith in the 'justice' system. Perhaps my actions today, and this letter, will send a stronger message to the public."
"The charges were ridiculous and trumped-up"
Aaron Swartz, who committed suicide two days after federal prosecutors rejected his attorney's proposal for no prison time.
(Credit: Fred Benson/ Creative Commons: Flickr)
Ortiz has now found herself in an unusual -- and uncomfortable -- position: as the target of an investigation instead of the initiator of one.
An online petition asking President Obama to remove her from office has garnered 35,000 signatures. The threshold at the time for triggering an official White House response, which has not yet happened, was 25,000. (A separate petitionasking for the removal of prosecutor Stephen Heymann has attracted only 4,000 signatures so far.)
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, a California Republican, said he haslaunched an investigation into Ortiz's prosecution of Swartz. It's a bipartisan sentiment: Rep. Jared Polis, a Colorado Democrat and former Internet entrepreneur, told the Hill that: "The charges were ridiculous and trumped-up. It's absurd that he was made a scapegoat."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat whose district includes the heart of Silicon Valley, published draft legislation today (PDF) called "Aaron's Law" that would no longer make it a crime to violate terms of service agreements.
Ortiz had been a rising star in the Democratic Party: a law-and-order Hispanic prosecutor who had won high-profile convictions including Salvatore DiMasi, the former Massachusetts House speaker. The Boston Globe named her "Bostonian of the Year" in 2011 and reported last month that Ortiz was a potential gubernatorial candidate.
Swartz's friends and family have, in the days since his death, argued that Ortiz, Heymann, and assistant U.S. attorney Scott Garland employed tactics should have been reserved for serious criminals, not an activist who merely downloaded more articles than JSTOR would have preferred. A Swartz family statement posted at RememberAaronSW.com says: "The U.S. attorney's office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims."
Larry Lessig, the Harvard law professor who spoke at Swartz's funeral today along with Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, said in a blog post that even though Swartz had no intention of profiting from any downloaded journal articles, "our government continued to push as if it had caught the 9/11 terrorists red-handed."
Alex Stamos, who the defense had planned to call as an expert witness on computer intrusion,said: "I know a criminal hack when I see it, and Aaron's downloading of journal articles from an unlocked closet is not an offense worth 35 years in jail." Law professor Tim Wu added that Ortiz's "legal authority to take down Swartz was shaky" after a federal appeals court ruling last year.
It's true that Swartz would not have faced 50 years in prison; that was, after all, the maximum sentence for his supposed felonies, not the minimum one. But Ortiz and her staff were intent on requiring that he plead guilty to multiple felonies and serve significant time behind bars.
Jennifer Granick, director of civil liberties at Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society and former criminal defense attorney, elaborated on why Swartz was so reluctant to plead guilty:
There was great practical risk to Aaron from pleading to any felony. Felons have trouble getting jobs, aren't allowed to vote (though that right may be restored) and cannot own firearms (though Aaron wasn't the type for that, anyway). More particularly, the court is not constrained to sentence as the government suggests. Rather, the probation department drafts an advisory sentencing report recommending a sentence based on the guidelines. The judge tends to rely heavily on that "neutral" report in sentencing... If he plead guilty to a felony, he could have been sentenced to as many as 5 years, despite the government's agreement not to argue for more. Each additional conviction would increase the cap by 5 years, though the guidelines calculation would remain the same. No wonder he didn't want to plead to 13 felonies. Also, Aaron would have had to swear under oath that he committed a crime, something he did not actually believe.
JSTOR has said since 2011 that it had no interest in pursuing criminal charges, and added last weekend that it "regretted" having been drawn into "this sad event." MIT, which reportedly did encourage Ortiz to pursue the case, is now conducting an internal investigation.
Last Wednesday, two days before Swartz took his life, JSTOR said it was making its archives of more than 1,200 different academic journals free for the public to read.
Please sign the online petition to the White House calling for the removal of Carmen Ortiz, the U.S. Attorney involved in the case, "for overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz."
http://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl
Aaron Swartz Faced A More Severe Prison Term Than Killers, Slave Dealers And Bank Robbers
By Ian Millhiser on Jan 14, 2013 at 9:00 am
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/14/1441211/killers-slavers-and-bank-robbers-all-face-less-severe-prison-terms-than-aaron-swartz-did/
Health Care Spending Growth Is Slow For Third Straight Year: Report [ed: God Bless Obama...]
Posted: 01/07/2013 4:19 pm EST | Updated: 01/07/2013 4:28 pm EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/health-care-spending-growth-report_n_2426407.html
The federal government, state governments, businesses and households combined to spend $2.7 trillion in 2011, an increase of 3.9 percent over 2010. The increase is the same rate at which health care spending grew in 2009 and 2010, according to the report, which was authored by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' nonpartisan Office of the Actuary and published in the journal Health Affairs. Health care spending made up 17.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2011, the same as during 2010. Economic growth and health care spending grew at about the same rate, the report says.
Health care spending in the United States has almost doubled since 2000 and nearly quadrupled since 1990, pinching consumers, employers and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The recent slowdown in spending happened mainly because Americans lost health insurance and incomes during the Great Recession and in the sluggish recovery that followed, the report concludes.
The U.S. added to its health care tab at the lowest rate since government actuaries began producing these analyses 52 years ago, but the trend may be short-lived if the economy continues to improve. Previous economic downturns that forced people to go without needed medical care when times were tough tended to be followed by periods when people got more health care services, according to the report. If that pattern repeats itself, health care spending could accelerate again.
President Barack Obama's 2010 health care reform law has had a "minimal" effect on overall health care spending to date, the report says, because little of it is already in place. Spending on subsidized health coverage for as many as 30 million people won't start until 2014, and key cost-cutting measures for Medicare and other initiatives are still being rolled out. A requirement that young adults have the ability to get coverage from their parents' health plans until they turn 26 had a small effect on spending, the report says.
Over time, Obamacare is projected to have a small effect on total health care spending in the U.S., the actuary's office reported last June. Between 2011 and 2021, health care reform will increase U.S. health spending by $478 billion, which is 0.1 percent more than the nation would have spent if Obama hadn't signed the law, according to the 2012 report. The future trajectory of health care spending could be influenced by the latest round of debate between Obama and congressional Republicans about the federal budget, which could target Medicare and Medicaid.
In the meantime, 2011 offered hints that some of the factors that kept health care spending increases relatively low might be changing, the report suggests. People began to use more health care and to use more "intense" services that tend to be costlier during the year, the report said.
Spending on personal health care goods and services grew 4.1 percent in 2011, which is faster than the 3.7 percent rate recorded the previous year. Spending on physicians and prescription drugs rose more quickly in 2011 than in 2010, and spending on hospital services grew more slowly when compared to 2010.
Source: Health Affairs
Health Care Spending Growth Is Slow For Third Straight Year: Report [ed: God Bless Obama...]
Posted: 01/07/2013 4:19 pm EST | Updated: 01/07/2013 4:28 pm EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/health-care-spending-growth-report_n_2426407.html
The federal government, state governments, businesses and households combined to spend $2.7 trillion in 2011, an increase of 3.9 percent over 2010. The increase is the same rate at which health care spending grew in 2009 and 2010, according to the report, which was authored by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' nonpartisan Office of the Actuary and published in the journal Health Affairs. Health care spending made up 17.9 percent of gross domestic product in 2011, the same as during 2010. Economic growth and health care spending grew at about the same rate, the report says.
Health care spending in the United States has almost doubled since 2000 and nearly quadrupled since 1990, pinching consumers, employers and government programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The recent slowdown in spending happened mainly because Americans lost health insurance and incomes during the Great Recession and in the sluggish recovery that followed, the report concludes.
The U.S. added to its health care tab at the lowest rate since government actuaries began producing these analyses 52 years ago, but the trend may be short-lived if the economy continues to improve. Previous economic downturns that forced people to go without needed medical care when times were tough tended to be followed by periods when people got more health care services, according to the report. If that pattern repeats itself, health care spending could accelerate again.
President Barack Obama's 2010 health care reform law has had a "minimal" effect on overall health care spending to date, the report says, because little of it is already in place. Spending on subsidized health coverage for as many as 30 million people won't start until 2014, and key cost-cutting measures for Medicare and other initiatives are still being rolled out. A requirement that young adults have the ability to get coverage from their parents' health plans until they turn 26 had a small effect on spending, the report says.
Over time, Obamacare is projected to have a small effect on total health care spending in the U.S., the actuary's office reported last June. Between 2011 and 2021, health care reform will increase U.S. health spending by $478 billion, which is 0.1 percent more than the nation would have spent if Obama hadn't signed the law, according to the 2012 report. The future trajectory of health care spending could be influenced by the latest round of debate between Obama and congressional Republicans about the federal budget, which could target Medicare and Medicaid.
In the meantime, 2011 offered hints that some of the factors that kept health care spending increases relatively low might be changing, the report suggests. People began to use more health care and to use more "intense" services that tend to be costlier during the year, the report said.
Spending on personal health care goods and services grew 4.1 percent in 2011, which is faster than the 3.7 percent rate recorded the previous year. Spending on physicians and prescription drugs rose more quickly in 2011 than in 2010, and spending on hospital services grew more slowly when compared to 2010.
Source: Health Affairs
Hey rooster.. how about them presidential elections, eh? BTW, I told you so... LMFAO... too funny...
Prison... prison is the right place for all assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition lovers. It's a mass murder waiting to happen so you might as well lock all of them up the ones that won't give up their assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition once the gun control law passes. Can't wait. I will feel so free safe and alive once they lock them all up...
White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html?hpid=z1
Chip Somodevilla/GETTY IMAGES - Vice President Biden, center, leads the first meeting of the working group on gun violence on Dec. 20. From left, he’s joined by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., National Association of Police Organizations President Thomas Nee, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and other officials.
By [color=rgb(102, 102, 102)][url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/philip-rucker/2011/03/08/ABBZeKP_page.html]Philip Rucker[/url][/color], Published: January 5
The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-asks-cabinet-members-for-proposals-to-curb-gun-violence/2012/12/17/ac4a8dae-4869-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story_1.html]approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence[/url] than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/21/nras-wayne-lapierre-put-armed-police-officers-in-every-school/]the National Rifle Association[/url] that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/16/bloomberg-gun-control-should-be-obamas-number-one-agenda/]outspoken gun-control advocate[/url] who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.
The Biden group, formed last month after the [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/848e68d0-4620-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_topic.html]massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school [/url]that killed 20 children and six adults, plans to submit a package of recommendations to President Obama this month. Once Obama’s proposals are set, he plans to lead a public-relations offensive to generate popular support.
“They are very clearly committed to looking at this issue comprehensively,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who has been involved in the discussions. The proposals under consideration, he added, are “a deeper exploration than just the assault-weapons ban.”
The gun-control push is just one part of an ambitious political agenda that Obama has pledged to pursue after his decisive reelection victory in November, including comprehensive [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/thefold/while-policy-reform-waits-obama-loosens-immigration-rules/2013/01/04/14d40a2e-56b8-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_video.html]immigration reform[/url], climate-change legislation and long-term deficit reduction. Obama also faces a[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/848e68d0-4620-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_topic.html]reshuffling of his Cabinet[/url], and a looming debate over the [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fiscal-cliff/white-house-weighs-new-grand-bargain-on-taxes-spending/2013/01/04/da3db9b8-55f0-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html]nation’s debt ceiling[/url] that will compete for his time and attention in the coming months.
Seeking expansive mandate
In addition to potential legislative proposals, Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive action, according to interest-group leaders who have discussed options with Biden and key Cabinet secretaries. Possibilities include changes to federal mental-health programs and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
“Simply coming up with one or two aspects of it really falls short of the magnitude of the gun issue in the country,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum.
Wexler was among a dozen law enforcement leaders who met with Biden and other administration leaders in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. The Dec. 20 summit, which stretched an hour beyond an allotted one hour, included Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
more....... click link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html?hpid=z1
My chances to die from an assault gun are higher now. So I'm all for assault gun control.
Assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition have no place on the street. Gun control is coming, and it's about time.
White House weighs broad gun-control agenda in wake of Newtown shootings
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html?hpid=z1
Chip Somodevilla/GETTY IMAGES - Vice President Biden, center, leads the first meeting of the working group on gun violence on Dec. 20. From left, he’s joined by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., National Association of Police Organizations President Thomas Nee, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and other officials.
By [color=rgb(102, 102, 102)][url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/philip-rucker/2011/03/08/ABBZeKP_page.html]Philip Rucker[/url][/color], Published: January 5
The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-asks-cabinet-members-for-proposals-to-curb-gun-violence/2012/12/17/ac4a8dae-4869-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story_1.html]approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence[/url] than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/21/nras-wayne-lapierre-put-armed-police-officers-in-every-school/]the National Rifle Association[/url] that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/12/16/bloomberg-gun-control-should-be-obamas-number-one-agenda/]outspoken gun-control advocate[/url] who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.
The Biden group, formed last month after the [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/848e68d0-4620-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_topic.html]massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school [/url]that killed 20 children and six adults, plans to submit a package of recommendations to President Obama this month. Once Obama’s proposals are set, he plans to lead a public-relations offensive to generate popular support.
“They are very clearly committed to looking at this issue comprehensively,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who has been involved in the discussions. The proposals under consideration, he added, are “a deeper exploration than just the assault-weapons ban.”
The gun-control push is just one part of an ambitious political agenda that Obama has pledged to pursue after his decisive reelection victory in November, including comprehensive [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/video/thefold/while-policy-reform-waits-obama-loosens-immigration-rules/2013/01/04/14d40a2e-56b8-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_video.html]immigration reform[/url], climate-change legislation and long-term deficit reduction. Obama also faces a[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/848e68d0-4620-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_topic.html]reshuffling of his Cabinet[/url], and a looming debate over the [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fiscal-cliff/white-house-weighs-new-grand-bargain-on-taxes-spending/2013/01/04/da3db9b8-55f0-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html]nation’s debt ceiling[/url] that will compete for his time and attention in the coming months.
Seeking expansive mandate
In addition to potential legislative proposals, Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive action, according to interest-group leaders who have discussed options with Biden and key Cabinet secretaries. Possibilities include changes to federal mental-health programs and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
“Simply coming up with one or two aspects of it really falls short of the magnitude of the gun issue in the country,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum.
Wexler was among a dozen law enforcement leaders who met with Biden and other administration leaders in the aftermath of the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. The Dec. 20 summit, which stretched an hour beyond an allotted one hour, included Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.
more....... click link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-weighs-broad-gun-control-agenda-in-wake-of-newtown-shootings/2013/01/05/d281efe0-5682-11e2-bf3e-76c0a789346f_story.html?hpid=z1
And so say goodbye to assault weapons....
Mental Health Services Erode As States Slash Budgets
Reuters | Posted: 12/31/2012 6:59 am EST
* State mental health budgets slashed since 2009
* 11 mln mentally ill report 'unmet need' for care
* 'Cycling through the system'
By Sharon Begley
NEW YORK, Dec 29 (Reuters) - Lori, a 39-year-old mother in New Jersey, would like to save for the usual things: college, retirement, vacations. But those goals are far down her wish list. For now, she and her husband are putting aside money for a home alarm system. They're not worried about keeping burglars out. They need to keep their son in.
Mike, 7, began seeing a psychiatrist in 2009, after one pre-school kicked him out for being "difficult" and teachers at the public school he later attended were worried about his obsessive thoughts and extreme anxiety. He was eventually diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
As she keeps trying to get help for him, "I am learning firsthand how broken the system is when dealing with mental illness," said Lori. (Surnames of patients and their families have been withheld to protect their privacy.)
"We fight with doctors, our insurance company, educators, each other; the list goes on and on ... It isn't even a system. It's not like there's a call center to help you figure out what to do and how to get help."
Last week, the National Rifle Association blamed mass shootings such as that at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on the lack of a "national database of the mentally ill," who, it claimed, are especially prone to violence.
Dr. Paul Appelbaum, professor of psychiatry, medicine and law at Columbia University, disagrees, however. "Gun violence is overwhelmingly not about mental illness," he said. "The best estimate is that about 95 percent of gun violence is committed by people who do not have a diagnosis of mental illness."
But experts on mental illness agree with one implication of the NRA's argument: families trying to get help for a loved one with mental illness confront a confusing, dysfunctional system that lacks the capacity to help everyone who needs it - and that shunts many of the mentally ill into the criminal justice system instead of the healthcare system.
"Public mental health services have eroded everywhere, and in some places don't exist at all," said Richard Bonnie, professor of law and medicine at the University of Virginia. "Improving access to mental health services would reduce the distress and social costs of serious mental illness, including violent behavior."
Because mental health care is in such short supply, emergency cases receive priority. If a young man has a psychotic break and threatens his mother with a knife, "you can call the police and initiate an emergency evaluation," said Bonnie.
A psychiatrist called to the local emergency room may agree that the man is an imminent threat to himself or others, or cannot provide for his basic needs - the criteria for involuntary commitment in most states. Anything short of that and even someone with a diagnosis of severe mental illness cannot be involuntarily committed.
Critics argue that this emphasis on civil liberties lets dangerous people roam the streets, and cite numerous cases where it has been fatal. In October, for instance, a Tacoma, Washington, man who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was in and out of mental hospitals for years confessed to killing his father with a hatchet.
One lesson of such tragedies, experts say, is that psychiatrists' ability to predict who will be violent "is better than chance, but not much better," said Dr. Marvin Swartz, professor of psychiatry at Duke University.
Another is that the shortage of in-patient treatment has led everyone from judges to mental health professionals to look for any excuse to avoid committing someone involuntarily. There is often no place to put them, and admitting one patient means discharging another who might be equally ill.
"Getting people into hospitals is extremely difficult because of the shortage of beds," said Columbia University's Appelbaum.
The shortage extends to out-patient services, too, largely as a result of continuing budget cuts. Since 2009, states have cut more than $1.6 billion from such spending, found a 2011 report by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a nonprofit education and advocacy group. The result is "significant reductions in both hospital and community services," it said.
Connecticut, where Newtown is, is an exception. Its mental health budget rose from $676 million in 2009 to $715 million in 2012.
'THEY'RE ALL PSYCHOTIC'
More typical are Illinois (a reduction in spending on mental health of $187 million in that period), Ohio (down $26 million) and Massachusetts (down $55.6 million). "There's a waiting list for our program (in Boston) and it's hard to get in," said psychiatrist and NAMI medical director Ken Duckworth, who treats mentally ill patients.
There is room in his program for 60 people. The waiting list has 20, he said, "and they're all psychotic."
It wasn't supposed to be this way. The Community Mental Health Center Act, passed in 1963, called for federal funding of outpatient psychiatric facilities in towns and cities "so people would at least know where to start" when they or a family member needed a mental health evaluation or treatment, said Appelbaum. "It was supposed to be a single point of entry." But only about 650 of the 1,500 centers were built, and federal funding for staffing tailed off after four years when Congress did not appropriate more.
As a result, of the estimated 45.9 million U.S. adults 18 or older who had mental illness in 2010, some 11 million had "an unmet need for mental health care," estimates the Alliance for Health Reform, a nonprofit advocacy group.
One of those 11 million is Joseph. Even though he became violent, tried to jump out of a moving car, hit his wife and threatened to burn down their house, it was not enough to keep him in the psychiatric unit of their local New Jersey hospital.
He "cycled through the system," said his daughter. He went to the local emergency room five times, was arrested four times, went to the psychiatric unit three times, and spent 25 nonconsecutive days in a psychiatric hospital - all in three months in 2010.
Joseph's psychiatrist and family believed he should be in a state mental hospital, but his doctor did not show up to testify at a commitment hearing and the main evidence presented was a threatening letter Joseph had written to his wife. He was not deemed a danger to himself or others, and was released.
He did, however, cycle between jail and the psychiatric ward, making him one of many cases that "wind up in the criminal justice system instead of the healthcare system," said the University of Virginia's Bonnie. "Families watch their loved one unravel and can't get assistance, and then they get ensnared in the criminal justice system and can't get them out."
The difficulty getting outpatient care for the mentally ill is particularly widespread because most psychiatric hospitals were closed during the "de-institutionalization" of the 1960s and 1970s, an effort to provide more humane care than in the sometimes nightmarish wards.
One facility that closed was Fairfield Hills State Hospital, which opened in 1933, housed just over 4,000 mentally ill, long-term patients at its peak in the 1960s, and closed in 1995. It was located in Newtown.
"It's a metaphor for what we've done about mental health treatment in this country," said Duckworth. "A town that had a major treatment facility for 60 years has a mass shooting by someone who was mentally ill. We don't have a coordinated system of screening for, let alone treating, mental illness."
Even a diagnosis of mental illness with a possibility of harming oneself or others is no guarantee of help, even for young people.
"We estimate that fewer than one-quarter of the children, teenagers and young adults who have a mental health problem receive any treatment whatsoever," said Bernadette Melnyk, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at Ohio State University College of Medicine. "And of those who do get treated, a substantial amount of the treatment is not the best, evidence-based kind."
For instance, a combination of cognitive-behavior therapy and medication is most effective at treating depression. "But very few patients receive the psychotherapy because we have such a severe shortage of mental health providers," said Melnyk.
Trying to get that help can drain a family emotionally.
'SOME SORT OF MONSTER'
"There are no professionals to help us with the tantrums or hysteria at the dentist or getting a haircut," said Lori, the New Jersey mother. "When Mike has a fit or screams obscenities in public, strangers assume he's a spoiled brat or some sort of monster."
"I worry that if he does not take good care of himself . . . well, let's just say that I can empathize with Adam Lanza's (the Newtown shooter's) family, too," she said.
To be sure, protecting the public from crime spurred by mental illness is only one argument for better psychiatric care. Every person who needs such care and doesn't get it is one more individual whose dreams of a full and productive life are shattered.
Virginia's Bonnie saw that firsthand when, after the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting rampage by Seung-Hui Cho, scores of families told him of their struggles to get help for loved ones with mental illness.
One young man, a brilliant college student and athlete, suffered his first psychotic break as an 18-year-old freshman and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Robert was hospitalized nine times over 12 years, but when he attempted suicide after one stay his parents could not get him admitted again: he did not meet the "imminent danger" standard.
Feeling threatened by his "increasing psychotic behaviors," the parents told Bonnie, they called the police, who arrested and jailed Robert for breaking and entering the family home. Without treatment, his psychosis only became worse.
It is all too common for the mentally ill to wind up in the criminal justice system, not the health system, said Bonnie. "Families are suffering the consequences of the lack of mental health treatment all the time," he said. "Every once in a while they explode into public view" with a national tragedy like Newtown. (Reporting by Sharon Begley; Editing by Jilian Mincer and Steve Orlofsky)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/mental-health-services-erode-state-budgets_n_2387413.html
Mental Health Services Erode As States Slash Budgets
Reuters | Posted: 12/31/2012 6:59 am EST
* State mental health budgets slashed since 2009
* 11 mln mentally ill report 'unmet need' for care
* 'Cycling through the system'
By Sharon Begley
NEW YORK, Dec 29 (Reuters) - Lori, a 39-year-old mother in New Jersey, would like to save for the usual things: college, retirement, vacations. But those goals are far down her wish list. For now, she and her husband are putting aside money for a home alarm system. They're not worried about keeping burglars out. They need to keep their son in.
Mike, 7, began seeing a psychiatrist in 2009, after one pre-school kicked him out for being "difficult" and teachers at the public school he later attended were worried about his obsessive thoughts and extreme anxiety. He was eventually diagnosed with bipolar disorder.
As she keeps trying to get help for him, "I am learning firsthand how broken the system is when dealing with mental illness," said Lori. (Surnames of patients and their families have been withheld to protect their privacy.)
"We fight with doctors, our insurance company, educators, each other; the list goes on and on ... It isn't even a system. It's not like there's a call center to help you figure out what to do and how to get help."
Last week, the National Rifle Association blamed mass shootings such as that at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, on the lack of a "national database of the mentally ill," who, it claimed, are especially prone to violence.
Dr. Paul Appelbaum, professor of psychiatry, medicine and law at Columbia University, disagrees, however. "Gun violence is overwhelmingly not about mental illness," he said. "The best estimate is that about 95 percent of gun violence is committed by people who do not have a diagnosis of mental illness."
But experts on mental illness agree with one implication of the NRA's argument: families trying to get help for a loved one with mental illness confront a confusing, dysfunctional system that lacks the capacity to help everyone who needs it - and that shunts many of the mentally ill into the criminal justice system instead of the healthcare system.
"Public mental health services have eroded everywhere, and in some places don't exist at all," said Richard Bonnie, professor of law and medicine at the University of Virginia. "Improving access to mental health services would reduce the distress and social costs of serious mental illness, including violent behavior."
Because mental health care is in such short supply, emergency cases receive priority. If a young man has a psychotic break and threatens his mother with a knife, "you can call the police and initiate an emergency evaluation," said Bonnie.
A psychiatrist called to the local emergency room may agree that the man is an imminent threat to himself or others, or cannot provide for his basic needs - the criteria for involuntary commitment in most states. Anything short of that and even someone with a diagnosis of severe mental illness cannot be involuntarily committed.
Critics argue that this emphasis on civil liberties lets dangerous people roam the streets, and cite numerous cases where it has been fatal. In October, for instance, a Tacoma, Washington, man who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was in and out of mental hospitals for years confessed to killing his father with a hatchet.
One lesson of such tragedies, experts say, is that psychiatrists' ability to predict who will be violent "is better than chance, but not much better," said Dr. Marvin Swartz, professor of psychiatry at Duke University.
Another is that the shortage of in-patient treatment has led everyone from judges to mental health professionals to look for any excuse to avoid committing someone involuntarily. There is often no place to put them, and admitting one patient means discharging another who might be equally ill.
"Getting people into hospitals is extremely difficult because of the shortage of beds," said Columbia University's Appelbaum.
The shortage extends to out-patient services, too, largely as a result of continuing budget cuts. Since 2009, states have cut more than $1.6 billion from such spending, found a 2011 report by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), a nonprofit education and advocacy group. The result is "significant reductions in both hospital and community services," it said.
Connecticut, where Newtown is, is an exception. Its mental health budget rose from $676 million in 2009 to $715 million in 2012.
'THEY'RE ALL PSYCHOTIC'
More typical are Illinois (a reduction in spending on mental health of $187 million in that period), Ohio (down $26 million) and Massachusetts (down $55.6 million). "There's a waiting list for our program (in Boston) and it's hard to get in," said psychiatrist and NAMI medical director Ken Duckworth, who treats mentally ill patients.
There is room in his program for 60 people. The waiting list has 20, he said, "and they're all psychotic."
It wasn't supposed to be this way. The Community Mental Health Center Act, passed in 1963, called for federal funding of outpatient psychiatric facilities in towns and cities "so people would at least know where to start" when they or a family member needed a mental health evaluation or treatment, said Appelbaum. "It was supposed to be a single point of entry." But only about 650 of the 1,500 centers were built, and federal funding for staffing tailed off after four years when Congress did not appropriate more.
As a result, of the estimated 45.9 million U.S. adults 18 or older who had mental illness in 2010, some 11 million had "an unmet need for mental health care," estimates the Alliance for Health Reform, a nonprofit advocacy group.
One of those 11 million is Joseph. Even though he became violent, tried to jump out of a moving car, hit his wife and threatened to burn down their house, it was not enough to keep him in the psychiatric unit of their local New Jersey hospital.
He "cycled through the system," said his daughter. He went to the local emergency room five times, was arrested four times, went to the psychiatric unit three times, and spent 25 nonconsecutive days in a psychiatric hospital - all in three months in 2010.
Joseph's psychiatrist and family believed he should be in a state mental hospital, but his doctor did not show up to testify at a commitment hearing and the main evidence presented was a threatening letter Joseph had written to his wife. He was not deemed a danger to himself or others, and was released.
He did, however, cycle between jail and the psychiatric ward, making him one of many cases that "wind up in the criminal justice system instead of the healthcare system," said the University of Virginia's Bonnie. "Families watch their loved one unravel and can't get assistance, and then they get ensnared in the criminal justice system and can't get them out."
The difficulty getting outpatient care for the mentally ill is particularly widespread because most psychiatric hospitals were closed during the "de-institutionalization" of the 1960s and 1970s, an effort to provide more humane care than in the sometimes nightmarish wards.
One facility that closed was Fairfield Hills State Hospital, which opened in 1933, housed just over 4,000 mentally ill, long-term patients at its peak in the 1960s, and closed in 1995. It was located in Newtown.
"It's a metaphor for what we've done about mental health treatment in this country," said Duckworth. "A town that had a major treatment facility for 60 years has a mass shooting by someone who was mentally ill. We don't have a coordinated system of screening for, let alone treating, mental illness."
Even a diagnosis of mental illness with a possibility of harming oneself or others is no guarantee of help, even for young people.
"We estimate that fewer than one-quarter of the children, teenagers and young adults who have a mental health problem receive any treatment whatsoever," said Bernadette Melnyk, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at Ohio State University College of Medicine. "And of those who do get treated, a substantial amount of the treatment is not the best, evidence-based kind."
For instance, a combination of cognitive-behavior therapy and medication is most effective at treating depression. "But very few patients receive the psychotherapy because we have such a severe shortage of mental health providers," said Melnyk.
Trying to get that help can drain a family emotionally.
'SOME SORT OF MONSTER'
"There are no professionals to help us with the tantrums or hysteria at the dentist or getting a haircut," said Lori, the New Jersey mother. "When Mike has a fit or screams obscenities in public, strangers assume he's a spoiled brat or some sort of monster."
"I worry that if he does not take good care of himself . . . well, let's just say that I can empathize with Adam Lanza's (the Newtown shooter's) family, too," she said.
To be sure, protecting the public from crime spurred by mental illness is only one argument for better psychiatric care. Every person who needs such care and doesn't get it is one more individual whose dreams of a full and productive life are shattered.
Virginia's Bonnie saw that firsthand when, after the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting rampage by Seung-Hui Cho, scores of families told him of their struggles to get help for loved ones with mental illness.
One young man, a brilliant college student and athlete, suffered his first psychotic break as an 18-year-old freshman and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Robert was hospitalized nine times over 12 years, but when he attempted suicide after one stay his parents could not get him admitted again: he did not meet the "imminent danger" standard.
Feeling threatened by his "increasing psychotic behaviors," the parents told Bonnie, they called the police, who arrested and jailed Robert for breaking and entering the family home. Without treatment, his psychosis only became worse.
It is all too common for the mentally ill to wind up in the criminal justice system, not the health system, said Bonnie. "Families are suffering the consequences of the lack of mental health treatment all the time," he said. "Every once in a while they explode into public view" with a national tragedy like Newtown. (Reporting by Sharon Begley; Editing by Jilian Mincer and Steve Orlofsky)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/31/mental-health-services-erode-state-budgets_n_2387413.html
New Year, New Low for Republicans
Posted: 12/30/2012 10:30 pm
Four years ago Barack Obama prepared to take the oath of office as a Democratic president, at a moment when free market ideology and Republican incumbency were disgraced by events. But a year that should have marked the end of the laissez-faire fantasy and the resurgence of effective government instead began an era of muddle through.
I have often quoted the British historian A. J. P. Taylor. Speaking of the revolutionary year in Europe, 1848, when democratic revolutions broke out only to be crushed, Taylor observed, "It was a turning point of history, but history didn't turn." In many respects, that also describes 2008.
The Republicans were voted out, but the big banks that caused the collapse were propped up rather than broken up. Their basic business model was allowed to continue, with taxpayers guaranteeing billion dollar paydays for corporate moguls. The economic rules of the game continued to tilt against regular working families, who are more precarious than ever. Obama took most of his economic advice from the very people whose belief in complete license for finance caused the collapse.
The administration played softball with a Republican opposition determined to wreck the recovery rather than allow Obama any victories. Democrats were almost as thoroughly in bed with Wall Street as Republicans. The mantle of populist frustration, absurdly, passed to the tea parties. Democrats, in the 2010 mid-term, suffered the worst defeat since 1938, a year when President Roosevelt listened to the Wall Street deficit hawks of that era.
But two years later, even muddle-through managed to beat muddled thinking. Mitt Romney divided his own party, committed one mistake after another; and despite one decent debate performance, he couldn't beat the incumbent even in a weak economy.
Now the political gods have granted President Obama a do-over. It remains to seen whether he will use it to maximum advantage.
If anything, circumstances at the start of Obama's second term are even more auspicious for the president and the Democrats than they were at the beginning of his first term, after Wall Street crashed the economy.
How far are Republicans out of touch with public sentiment? Let us count the ways.
The president, sensibly, has jettisoned the bad idea of a grand budget bargain that would result in serious cuts to Social Security and Medicare. He is trying to enlist Republicans to support a small bargain that will avert a contrived fiscal contraction -- no tax hikes on 98 percent of Americans, and the continuation of benefits for upwards of two million long-term unemployed.
The White House and Congress, having avoided the worst of the fiscal cliff, could then continue to debate other budget issues, like how to avoid the "sequester" of devastating automatic cuts and how to arrest the inflation in medical costs without cutting into medical care.
Most Americans oppose a tax increase on the middle class and support one for the rich. Obama was very effective on Meet the Press, reducing the budget debate to that simple essential issue.
But the Republicans in Congress are so dysfunctional that they may not be able to avert bearing responsibility for a tax hike that nobody wants. Even after President Obama tentatively offered to raise the income cut-off for a tax increase from $250,000 a year to $400,000 a year - limiting tax hikes to the top one percent, neither House Speaker John Boehner not Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell could bring himself to support it. Both prisoners of legislative caucuses even more extreme than they are.
Earlier in the negotiations, Obama had opened the door to adjusting the cost of living adjustment formula -- the so-called chained CPI -- as a backdoor way of cutting Social Security, in the context of a bigger budget deal. This was both a tactical and a policy mistake, and it gave Senate Republican Leader McConnell a basis for demanding more concessions from Democrats in return for agreeing to higher taxes on the rich. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, sensibly, wants nothing to do with any kind of cuts in Social Security, back door or front door.
The Democrats have the strongest hand when they keep the basic issues clear and simple. Eventually, the budget deal being offered by President Obama or something very much like it will be made. The only question is how much damage the Republicans do to themselves and the economy in the meantime. If no deal is struck before January 1 and taxes briefly go up on everybody while financial markets swoon, the pressure on Republicans only increases.
And that isn't all. In the new Congress, the Republicans will find themselves on the wrong side of other high-profile issues, ranging from gun control to immigration reform to same-sex marriage, as well as protecting Social Security and Medicare from cuts that are less about "saving" these programs than about saving tax breaks for the rich.
On all these issues, there is no question that President Obama will be on the right side of public opinion. The only question is whether he will lead public opinion.
Over the pre-New Years weekend, President Obama was sounding like a partisan, albeit a reluctant one. He should not be so reluctant. A radical, obstructionist, and dysfunctional Republican opposition in the House and Senate stands between the country and the policies that the economy needs and that the majority of Americans want.
The president was right to call the Republicans on taxes. As the New Year wears on, he should do the same on gun control, immigration reform, and gay and lesbian rights.
Obama wanted to be the president who would change the tone in Washington, meaning a more collaborative relationship with the Republicans. That was not to be. The Republicans would not allow it. Now, history invites Obama to change the tone in Washington by dispatching an extremist Republican Party to the far fringes of public discourse where it belongs.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a Senior Fellow at Demos.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/fiscal-cliff_b_2386291.html
New Year, New Low for Republicans
Posted: 12/30/2012 10:30 pm
Four years ago Barack Obama prepared to take the oath of office as a Democratic president, at a moment when free market ideology and Republican incumbency were disgraced by events. But a year that should have marked the end of the laissez-faire fantasy and the resurgence of effective government instead began an era of muddle through.
I have often quoted the British historian A. J. P. Taylor. Speaking of the revolutionary year in Europe, 1848, when democratic revolutions broke out only to be crushed, Taylor observed, "It was a turning point of history, but history didn't turn." In many respects, that also describes 2008.
The Republicans were voted out, but the big banks that caused the collapse were propped up rather than broken up. Their basic business model was allowed to continue, with taxpayers guaranteeing billion dollar paydays for corporate moguls. The economic rules of the game continued to tilt against regular working families, who are more precarious than ever. Obama took most of his economic advice from the very people whose belief in complete license for finance caused the collapse.
The administration played softball with a Republican opposition determined to wreck the recovery rather than allow Obama any victories. Democrats were almost as thoroughly in bed with Wall Street as Republicans. The mantle of populist frustration, absurdly, passed to the tea parties. Democrats, in the 2010 mid-term, suffered the worst defeat since 1938, a year when President Roosevelt listened to the Wall Street deficit hawks of that era.
But two years later, even muddle-through managed to beat muddled thinking. Mitt Romney divided his own party, committed one mistake after another; and despite one decent debate performance, he couldn't beat the incumbent even in a weak economy.
Now the political gods have granted President Obama a do-over. It remains to seen whether he will use it to maximum advantage.
If anything, circumstances at the start of Obama's second term are even more auspicious for the president and the Democrats than they were at the beginning of his first term, after Wall Street crashed the economy.
How far are Republicans out of touch with public sentiment? Let us count the ways.
The president, sensibly, has jettisoned the bad idea of a grand budget bargain that would result in serious cuts to Social Security and Medicare. He is trying to enlist Republicans to support a small bargain that will avert a contrived fiscal contraction -- no tax hikes on 98 percent of Americans, and the continuation of benefits for upwards of two million long-term unemployed.
The White House and Congress, having avoided the worst of the fiscal cliff, could then continue to debate other budget issues, like how to avoid the "sequester" of devastating automatic cuts and how to arrest the inflation in medical costs without cutting into medical care.
Most Americans oppose a tax increase on the middle class and support one for the rich. Obama was very effective on Meet the Press, reducing the budget debate to that simple essential issue.
But the Republicans in Congress are so dysfunctional that they may not be able to avert bearing responsibility for a tax hike that nobody wants. Even after President Obama tentatively offered to raise the income cut-off for a tax increase from $250,000 a year to $400,000 a year - limiting tax hikes to the top one percent, neither House Speaker John Boehner not Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell could bring himself to support it. Both prisoners of legislative caucuses even more extreme than they are.
Earlier in the negotiations, Obama had opened the door to adjusting the cost of living adjustment formula -- the so-called chained CPI -- as a backdoor way of cutting Social Security, in the context of a bigger budget deal. This was both a tactical and a policy mistake, and it gave Senate Republican Leader McConnell a basis for demanding more concessions from Democrats in return for agreeing to higher taxes on the rich. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, sensibly, wants nothing to do with any kind of cuts in Social Security, back door or front door.
The Democrats have the strongest hand when they keep the basic issues clear and simple. Eventually, the budget deal being offered by President Obama or something very much like it will be made. The only question is how much damage the Republicans do to themselves and the economy in the meantime. If no deal is struck before January 1 and taxes briefly go up on everybody while financial markets swoon, the pressure on Republicans only increases.
And that isn't all. In the new Congress, the Republicans will find themselves on the wrong side of other high-profile issues, ranging from gun control to immigration reform to same-sex marriage, as well as protecting Social Security and Medicare from cuts that are less about "saving" these programs than about saving tax breaks for the rich.
On all these issues, there is no question that President Obama will be on the right side of public opinion. The only question is whether he will lead public opinion.
Over the pre-New Years weekend, President Obama was sounding like a partisan, albeit a reluctant one. He should not be so reluctant. A radical, obstructionist, and dysfunctional Republican opposition in the House and Senate stands between the country and the policies that the economy needs and that the majority of Americans want.
The president was right to call the Republicans on taxes. As the New Year wears on, he should do the same on gun control, immigration reform, and gay and lesbian rights.
Obama wanted to be the president who would change the tone in Washington, meaning a more collaborative relationship with the Republicans. That was not to be. The Republicans would not allow it. Now, history invites Obama to change the tone in Washington by dispatching an extremist Republican Party to the far fringes of public discourse where it belongs.
Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and a Senior Fellow at Demos.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/fiscal-cliff_b_2386291.html
Republicans Fulfill Their Destiny of Creating the Worst Congress in Nearly 70 Years
By: RmuseDec. 30th, 2012
Most people are proud of an accomplishment that sets them apart as extraordinary, and for millions of Americans, the idea that they overcame challenges and, with perseverance, achieved something incredibly noteworthy and special is little more than a pipe dream. In some cases, a person, or group is distinguished for unfavorable accomplishments and it is not always the case that the group is embarrassed that they set themselves apart for a record of failure, but that is precisely the circumstance the Republicans in Congress find themselves in as the 112th Congress winds down.
One has to wonder why Republicans would spend inordinate amounts of money to win elections to serve as legislators when their intention was doing nothing, but that is the Republicans’ modus operandi since Barack Obama was elected President. Subsequently, Republicans are on pace, and appear pleased, to hold the distinction as the most unproductive Congress since the 1940s, and it looks as if that was their intention all along.
So far during the 112th Congress, Republican obstruction produced only 219 bills President Obama signed into law, and with just two days to go, the GOP and their teabagger caucus will go down in the historical record as worthless obstructionists.
One may be tempted to point the finger at both parties for the pathetic record of the 112th Congress, but it is clearly the Republicans who have made governing nearly impossible as two longtime political observers commented on back in April. Left leaning Thomas Mann and conservative Norm Ornstein published an op-ed identifying the GOP as the blame for the dysfunctional Congress and remarked that “We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted, today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.” It is little wonder this Congress’ approval rating hovers around 18 percent.
The Republicans have held meaningless votes such as repealing the Affordable Care Act 30 times, passing the Draconian Heritage Foundation budget with Paul Ryan’s name on it twice, and attempted to legislate the Catholic prohibition on birth control; all bills that had no chance of getting past the Democratically-controlled Senate or President Obama’s veto pen. The travesty with this Congress and the Republican efforts to subvert its ability to govern is that they completely ignored a wealth of bills that would have helped the economy, created jobs, and saved the nation from another GOP recession. One cannot just look at the past year to find unprecedented damage Republicans instigated, because the greatest amount of damage occurred in 2011 and it is a direct reflection on the GOP’s embrace of extremists in their caucus.
It is true Republicans plotted to subvert the economy on Inauguration night in 2009, but the main source of devastation was their dalliance over raising the debt ceiling that led to the nation’s first credit downgrade, a near credit default, and the current “fiscal cliff” they are refusing to act on. Perhaps extremist teabaggers who swept into Congress during the 2010 midterm elections failed to see the gravity of their extremism on the nation’s economy, but it seems just the opposite is true. Last week, a variety of Republicans and teabaggers made insane comments such as “Let’s go over the cliff and see what’s on the other side,” “If we have to endure the pain of the cliff then so be it, and while it may spell the end of the Republican Party, and at least we will force the government to cut and cut deep,” but House Republicans could not even support John Boehner’s severe deep domestic cuts in his absurd Plan B to avoid the fiscal cliff, so their reason is ideologically driven subversion of the United States government.
The House is not the sole cause of inactivity in Congress, or the source of damage to the economy and the people. One of the Republican tactics to stop governance has been the obscene overuse of the filibuster and requirement that 60 votes is needed to get any legislation out of a committee for no other reason than obstructing Democrats and the President. Most notable in just the past year was Senate Republicans who blocked a Veterans jobs bill and the UN treaty on the rights of the disabled. What is worse is that on the rare occasion the Senate does pass legislation, John Boehner refuses to even bring them up for a vote, such as the Farm Bill, Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and prescient to avoiding the fiscal cliff; tax cuts for 98% of taxpayers and 97% of small businesses. Earlier in the year, the Senate passed a bipartisan Transportation Bill creating 3 million jobs that languished on John Boehner’s desk for the simple reason of obstruction regardless the money was already appropriated.
What is pathetic beyond belief is Republicans take pride in bringing governance to a halt and their phony concern for their fabricated fiscal cliff is their latest effort to avoid working with the President or for the American people who elected them govern. At times it seems their only regard is for the wealthiest Americans and protecting them from a minute tax rate increase, but it does not explain the obstruction of jobs bills, Veteran’s benefits, farm bill, or any other legislation regardless of the cost. At one time in America, the United States Congress was the place for compromise to conduct the nation’s business, but Republicans have refused to accomplish anything that may help the people or the economy and their sole reason for going to Washington was to say no; no to compromise, no to governing, and no to progress.
It is troubling that as the 112th Congress comes to an end, Republicans are already plotting their obstruction in the 113th Congress in spite of their dismal record over the past two years. There is no possible way any Republican can claim they are not working diligently to bring the government to a halt whether it is refusing to confirm the President’s appointees or holding the debt ceiling hostage. Many pundits blame the poor leadership skills of House Speaker Boehner, but he has been leading the charge to hold up progress by not even allowing already-passed Senate bills to come up for a vote or discussion. No, Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, and the rest of the Republicans in Congress have made a conscientious effort to bring the government to a halt, first to prevent President Obama from winning a second term, and now to hold the economy hostage again.
It is entirely reasonable that Republicans running on an anti-government agenda are in Congress to eliminate the government’s effectiveness and not solely to punish the poor, middle class, and elderly, although the result of their inaction has harmed millions and millions of Americans who are not members of the wealthy class.
There is some hope for the 113th Congress because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is set to stop the Republicans’ ability to demand a super-majority (60 votes) to discuss or pass any piece of legislation, but the House will continue to be a major problem. It must be reiterated though, the 112th Congress inaction is the fault of both parties; Republicans and teabaggers whose only purpose for serving is shrinking the government by starving it of resources necessary to function, and in that context, the Republicans’ inaction is deliberate. One would think that Republicans would be ashamed of their miserable record in the 112th Congress, but when considering their intent is bring the government to a halt, they are most likely congratulating themselves for being the most ineffectual Congress in history.
http://www.politicususa.com/republicans-fulfill-destiny-leading-worst-congress-70-years.html
David Brooks: Fiscal Cliff Blame Should Largely Go To Republicans
The Huffington Post | By Mollie Reilly & Ryan Grim
Posted: 12/30/2012 11:37 am EST | Updated: 12/30/2012 1:58 pm EST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/30/david-brooks-fiscal-cliff_n_2384756.html
New York Times columnist David Brooks said Sunday that Republicans should shoulder most of the blame if lawmakers do not reach an agreement on the fiscal cliff ahead of Tuesday's deadline.
"What's happening in Washington right now is pathetic. When you think about what the revolutionary generation did, what the civil war generation did, what the World War II generation did -- we're asking not to bankrupt our children and we've got a shambolic, dysfunctional process," Brooks said during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"Most of the blame still has to go to the Republicans," he continued. "They've had a brain freeze since the election. They have no strategy. They don't know what they want. They haven't decided what they want."
Brooks' comments echoed a similar assessment from President Obama, who sat down with "Meet the Press" for an interview that aired Sunday morning.
"We have been talking to the Republicans ever since the election was over. They have had trouble saying yes to a number of repeated offers," Obama said. "[S]o far, at least, Congress has not been able to get this stuff done. Not because Democrats in Congress don't want to go ahead and cooperate, but because I think it's been very hard for Speaker Boehner and Republican Leader McConnell to accept the fact that taxes on the wealthiest Americans should go up a little bit, as part of an overall deficit reduction package."
But Brooks also reserved some of his criticism for the president, stating that Obama has at times "governed like a visitor from a morally superior civilization," appearing to undermine the very point he'd made about the value of the high moral fiber of previous generations just seconds earlier.
"He comes in here and he'll talk to [John] Boehner, he won't talk to the other Republicans," Brooks said. "He hasn't built the trust. Boehner actually made a pretty serious concession, $800 billion in tax revenues, probably willing to go up on rates. But the trust wasn't there. If the president wants to get stuff done over the next four years, it's got to be about a lot more than just making the intellectual concessions."
I predicted Obama's re-election landslide when the people of this board did not.
I predicted Obamacare will pass the supreme court when the people of this board did not.
I now predict assault gun control legislation WILL PASS, and I also predict the same people of this board will say it will not.... LMFAO... too funny....
The people of this board are hopelessly stuck in a privileged white racist bigoted supremacist past while the country is changing and is moving forward.
So either get on board or GTF out of the way. Either way, the country is going to move forward with you or without you.
These are the just the same gun happy wacko morons that are buying them. Just more guns for the same gun happy wackos.
Gun control: Surge in support, new poll shows
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-poll-gun-control-surge-20121227,0,6224756.story
POLL: 75% of Americans support raising taxes for those making $250,000 or more
This is NOT the land where the right wing wackos and mentally unstable can go on a shooting spree with automatic guns whose whole purpose is to kill people. The constitution was written at a time that single fire guns took a minute to reload. You don't want universal health care and you don't want gun control. You may want to look for another country, as both are coming.
Specifically, the president and Congress must take up the question of whether assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have a place on our streets and in our homes.
NRA can't keep me quiet anymore
Ed Tinsley
12:54p.m. EST December 30, 2012
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/30/nra-politicians-gun-control-newtown/1794931/
While in politics, I allowed myself to be bullied by the NRA. No more.
I am a lifelong hunter, a veteran of the United States Army, and a former elected official here in my home state of Montana. But above all I consider myself a parent, and so I will be forever haunted by the slaughter of those 20 innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
The day after the massacre, I took my own son on his first goose-hunting trip. I hoped it would be a special experience for him, though I couldn't stop thinking about the previous day's events and all of the mothers and fathers in Newtown, Conn., whose sons and daughters were so heinously murdered. They were utterly helpless against a madman and his assault rifle.
Though I live more than 2,000 miles away from Newtown, I cannot help but feel like there is something I could have done to prevent this calamity. During my tenure in politics, I allowed myself to be bullied by those in the National Rifle Association and other extremist gun-rights organizations. I feared that if I didn't follow their dictates I would expose myself to ridicule and, worse yet, to their wrath in my next election.
I am regretful about my acquiescence now more than ever. But I will not bow down to their pressure tactics again.
I am a proud gun owner and, as such, I call on our nation to stand up and demand that our leaders tackle gun violence in this country. Specifically, the president and Congress must take up the question of whether assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have a place on our streets and in our homes.
This conversation will no doubt raise the hackles of those who disavow even the most minor regulations on their guns or ammunition. They'll say the government is infringing on their rights yet again.
Let them tell that to the grieving parents in Newtown who just buried their children.
The government regulates the amount of shells I can have in my shotgun when hunting waterfowl. It regulates the number of beers I can have at a local microbrewery. It determines whether or not I can talk on my cell phone while operating a 4,000-pound vehicle on public streets.
We need certain laws in place to protect our health, safety and the welfare of our citizens. Why then is it so difficult to reduce the number of assault weapons that pose a threat to Americans everywhere?
During my service to my country, I was trained to use a rifle not unlike that used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Military-style firearms like these belong in combat, not in communities like Helena or Newtown.
To some in this country, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. But as someone who has been around guns his whole life, I can confidently say that most gun owners are sensible people who believe that support for the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with ensuring the safety of our family, friends and neighbors. We have a right to bear arms, yes. Though we also have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't need an assault weapon to go hunting with my son, and I certainly don't want him to grow up believing that gun regulations are in any way a threat to his rights as an American.
More than anything, I pray that my family lives in a country where they need not fear for their lives at movie theaters, shopping malls, houses of worship or school. They deserve better.
We can no longer be scared silent by the NRA and we can no longer rattle off excuses for inaction. The time is now. If those brave teachers and administrators in Newtown could stand up and face certain death to protect the schoolchildren of Sandy Hook, then surely we can stand up to honor their memory and do what is best for our country.
Ed Tinsley is the former commissioner of Lewis and Clark County in Montana.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions
from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.
NRA can't keep me quiet anymore
Ed Tinsley
12:54p.m. EST December 30, 2012
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/30/nra-politicians-gun-control-newtown/1794931/
While in politics, I allowed myself to be bullied by the NRA. No more.
I am a lifelong hunter, a veteran of the United States Army, and a former elected official here in my home state of Montana. But above all I consider myself a parent, and so I will be forever haunted by the slaughter of those 20 innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
The day after the massacre, I took my own son on his first goose-hunting trip. I hoped it would be a special experience for him, though I couldn't stop thinking about the previous day's events and all of the mothers and fathers in Newtown, Conn., whose sons and daughters were so heinously murdered. They were utterly helpless against a madman and his assault rifle.
Though I live more than 2,000 miles away from Newtown, I cannot help but feel like there is something I could have done to prevent this calamity. During my tenure in politics, I allowed myself to be bullied by those in the National Rifle Association and other extremist gun-rights organizations. I feared that if I didn't follow their dictates I would expose myself to ridicule and, worse yet, to their wrath in my next election.
I am regretful about my acquiescence now more than ever. But I will not bow down to their pressure tactics again.
I am a proud gun owner and, as such, I call on our nation to stand up and demand that our leaders tackle gun violence in this country. Specifically, the president and Congress must take up the question of whether assault weapons and high-capacity magazines have a place on our streets and in our homes.
This conversation will no doubt raise the hackles of those who disavow even the most minor regulations on their guns or ammunition. They'll say the government is infringing on their rights yet again.
Let them tell that to the grieving parents in Newtown who just buried their children.
The government regulates the amount of shells I can have in my shotgun when hunting waterfowl. It regulates the number of beers I can have at a local microbrewery. It determines whether or not I can talk on my cell phone while operating a 4,000-pound vehicle on public streets.
We need certain laws in place to protect our health, safety and the welfare of our citizens. Why then is it so difficult to reduce the number of assault weapons that pose a threat to Americans everywhere?
During my service to my country, I was trained to use a rifle not unlike that used in the Sandy Hook massacre. Military-style firearms like these belong in combat, not in communities like Helena or Newtown.
To some in this country, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. But as someone who has been around guns his whole life, I can confidently say that most gun owners are sensible people who believe that support for the Second Amendment goes hand-in-hand with ensuring the safety of our family, friends and neighbors. We have a right to bear arms, yes. Though we also have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't need an assault weapon to go hunting with my son, and I certainly don't want him to grow up believing that gun regulations are in any way a threat to his rights as an American.
More than anything, I pray that my family lives in a country where they need not fear for their lives at movie theaters, shopping malls, houses of worship or school. They deserve better.
We can no longer be scared silent by the NRA and we can no longer rattle off excuses for inaction. The time is now. If those brave teachers and administrators in Newtown could stand up and face certain death to protect the schoolchildren of Sandy Hook, then surely we can stand up to honor their memory and do what is best for our country.
Ed Tinsley is the former commissioner of Lewis and Clark County in Montana.
In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions
from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.
The NRA isn't as they want more spending and bigger government, with a cop in every school. I'll make sure they send you the bill. ROTFLMFAO... too funny...
But you are all for higher taxes and for bigger government to pay for a cop in every school eh?... ROTFLMFAO... too funny...
BREAKING..Killer Of 2 New York Firemen, Had Bushmaster Semiautomatic Rifle
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/25/william-spengler-had-semiautomatic-rifle_n_2362646.html
BREAKING..Killer Of 2 New York Firemen, Had Bushmaster Semiautomatic Rifle
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/25/william-spengler-had-semiautomatic-rifle_n_2362646.html
Western nations are not just european. Also Japan, Australia, New Zealand etc... if you'd rather call them industrialized, be my guest. And before you forget, we are talking about assault guns and the death they cause here versus other western countries, where the same violent video games exist, that the moron NRA LaPierre used as an excuse. And maybe I need to remind you that europe is in a deep recession with 15%+ unemployment and high poverty. So back to your drawing board.
BTW, NRA's solution was for BIGGER government (cops in every school), with HIGHER taxes to pay for them. And he still didn't tell us what to do with the mental illness in this country. How about universal health care for all?? Maybe NRA's LaPierre is a liberal???... LMFAO... too funny...
Again you completely miss the mark. It is not JUST Great Britain. It is every other western nation, except the U.S.A. And they all have universal health care and gun control laws. All the wackos are right here in the U.S.A. And they are called right wing wackos. I say eradicate all of those wackos in a pre-preemptive strike and you will save lives over the long term... LMFAO... too funny...