Donald Trump MAGA Repubican cult now victims of cruel racist policies and tariff taxes

Dear Editor, The Pine Bluff Commercial news in Arkansas:


What follows is my personal opinion. I have been reading of the poor abused farmers lately. It seems the markets for their crops have been damaged again by Trump. My checking shows that 79% of farmers voted for him. He's a pathological liar, and they knew that at the time!

The reports show that 83% of the white evangelicals voted for Trump who is shutting down USAID and any foreign aid dispensed through them. Thousands of children are now starving becuse that farm produce raised here used to feed them. Way to go hypocrites.

Trump is forbidding truthful history of America to be taught using any federal funds. White folks wrote that history the way they wanted it taught. Trump and his cabal couldn't care less what American Indians consider to be genocide committed against them.

Hundreds of years of enslaved Black folks❓ Careful what you say in class about that. Some delicate white😳😧😥 kids feelings might be hurt❗

A complete cabinet of the least competent candidates imaginable were approved by the most gutless, integrity deprived, Trump servile specimens that the electorate were offered.

Trump is running rampant over the rights and duties of the Congress. Few of the repulsive specimens have the decency to insist that the Constitution they each swore to uphold will be followed. Trump continues to degrade and disparage our military at all levels, both active and veterans. 

Congress, which has three Arkansas veterans, hasn't the courage or integrity to put a hard and fast stop to that. 

As Liz Cheney said, "Trump, whom you adore and cater to, will die. But your dishonor will endure forever on the pages of history."

From Karl Hansen, in Hensley, Pulaski County Arkansas

Six months memorial about Lewiston Maine shooting and the shooters traumatic brain injury

Echo news from Senator Angus King of Maine:

April 25th marked the six-month anniversary of the Lewiston mass shooting on October 25, 2023, that took the lives of 18 innocent people and shattered all of us. However, even in the darkest of times, Maine people have shown unwavering strength and resiliency — coming together to support one another and help forge a path forward.

As we learn more about the events that occurred that night, we must determine the likely causes and address them responsibly. A recent analysis of the shooter's brain showed evidence of a severe traumatic brain injury. As an Army reservist, he worked as an instructor at a hand grenade training range where it is believed he was repeatedly exposed to low-level blasts.

Traumatic brain injuries (TBI) from explosive weapons — used both in the field and in training exercises — are affecting the health and quality of life of our service members and veterans.

So, together with my colleagues, we introduced the bipartisan Blast Overpressure Safety Act, a bill that will ramp up efforts to measure and treat the harm resulting from repeated exposure to blasts. This bill is a long overdue, common-sense step forward to expand access to care for those with traumatic brain injuries caused by their time in service.

Days after that bill’s introduction, I asked the Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth about the Army’s plans to better protect servicemembers from TBI at a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing.

Lewiston Maine shrine of names at Schemengees Bar & Grille Restaurant

We owe it to the Lewiston victims and their families to expand research, provide care for TBI injuries, and follow the data and science of preventable brain damage. It’s the least we can do, and I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle for their work to address this critical and preventable issue.

Sad subject during any season - Suicide: a Montana point of view

"A group of local mental health advocates is urging state lawmakers to establish a statewide strategy for behavioral health services."

Mental health often a victim of budgets- Rapid City Journal

Echo opinion: Montana has the highest suicide rate in the nation.

Full stop.

In 2016 — the most recent year for which numbers are available — 26 of every 100,000 Montanans took their own lives. That's five times the suicide rate in the District of Columbia (5.1) and more than three time rates in New Jersey (7.2) and New York (8.1).

One in 10 of Montanans is a veteran — one of the three highest per capita rates in the nation. And there's a connection between these numbers. Nationally, 30 of every 100,000 veterans commit suicide each year — more than twice the general population rate of 14.

A group of local mental health advocates is urging state lawmakers to establish a statewide strategy for behavioral health services.

And those lawmakers need to listen.

Access to behavioral health services in this state has been very uneven geographically. Some larger cities offer more in the way of these services than others and much more than what's available in rural areas. And Bozeman and Gallatin County have historically been lacking. The Gallatin County sheriff says his deputies spend 700 hours a year driving emotionally distressed individuals to the state hospital at Warm Springs, cutting them off from lifelines of friends and family.

Adding to the problem is that when legislators go looking for ways to cut spending, these services are among the first items on chopping block.

When budget cuts were triggered by revenue shortfalls last year, Gallatin County lost all six of its behavioral health case workers and the only facility in Livingston was forced to close its doors. Cuts like those meant that many who were suffering from depression and other emotional issues were left without care. 

And, as the numbers indicate, that can be deadly.

Legislators of every stripe should find the state of these services very troubling. Establishing a statewide strategy for making behavioral health services more accessible and funding more stable is a moral obligation they must not ignore. Spreading these services more evenly around the state and providing stable funding for them should be a minimum.

Victims of emotional distress often go wanting for strong advocacy. They can be wrongly regarded as weak and victims of their own poor judgment. That has to stop. The stigma of emotional distress must be lifted and services must be enhanced.

Otherwise the troubling numbers are only going to get worse.

Homelessness in America is unexplained and unresolved

"...will require an increased investment in services and housing to give the homeless a credible chance of moving off the streets..."

"...level and pervasiveness of homelessness...is a disgrace...."

The reduction of homelessness to the extent humanly possible must be America's priority. Homeless people should not exist in America, where the government spends trillions on defense and people throw millions of dollars to politicians, who do not provide any solutions to the homeless population.  In fact, a high percentage of the homeless are veterans and politicians receive many millions in campaign donations, without creating any ideas to create services to help Americans in need of affordable housing.

EDITORIAL echo originally published in the San Francisco Chronicle July 3, 2016, but the scourge is as current today and still unresolved. As America is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, the homelessness tragedy is, frankly, inexcusable. I post this editorial because, rather than throwing money at homelessness without evaluating the results, the narrative, instead, calls for matching resources with needs.

Homelessness in America is a national embarrassment. 

It persists on the streets of San Francisco through boom times and downturns. It is alternately an incubator and a destroyer of political will, as elected representatives eventually discover that their pledges to address it become their undoing when it doesn’t go away. It takes a heavy toll on the ambiance of our neighborhoods, the cost of doing business for many enterprises and the experience of visitors who are stunned to encounter such deprivation in a city of profound prosperity.

It frustrates and polarizes San Francisco like nothing else. There are those who see it as a social-services challenge, those who reduce it to a law-enforcement matter, and a few who think the problem would simply go away if only there were more affordable housing in the city.

On one point we must all agree: The level and pervasiveness of homelessness in San Francisco is a disgrace. It is simply not acceptable to allow people to stay in the squalor of tent encampments or sleep in doorways, parks and freeway underpasses without attention to the underlying issues that prevent them from attaining shelter and stability in their lives. It’s bad for public safety, bad for public health, and bad as a matter of basic humanity.

Reduction to homelessness, to the extent humanly possible, should be a national "No. 1" priority.

The ultimate goal must be to eliminate, not manage, homelessness.

No mayor, no member of the Board of Supervisors — no resident with heart and a love for this city — should accept the status quo.

San Francisco spends $241 million a year on programs and still confronts human misery. This problem suggests those dollars are not being spent with anything close to optimal effectiveness. 

Homelessness in America is a national embarrassment 

Eight city departments and 76 private and nonprofit organizations draw from those funds in 400 contracts, yet the degree of accountability is highly suspect. There is no system in place to rigorously determine which of those endeavors might be duplicative or less effective. In Houston, for example, the city was able to realize considerable savings by shutting down a homeless-specific job training program and sending participants to other existing similar programs covered by state and federal dollars.

San Francisco has an entrenched Homeless Industrial Complex that is as difficult to track and control as it is to count people living on the streets.

Yes, it surely will require an increased investment in services and housing to give the homeless a credible chance of moving off the streets. It could require bond measures or general-fund spending that will need public support. That assent will be far more attainable if accompanied by confidence that dollars are being well spent.

Programs that are under-performing should be eliminated to free up dollars for those that are showing results.

One of the recurring themes has been the frustration felt from those on the front lines, in government and nonprofit services, that the available programs do not match all the essential needs of people trying to emerge from homelessness. That would include people who have made progress in substance-abuse or mental health treatment who could be in less structured settings — at much lower cost — and people stuck in the austere shelters who could benefit greatly from the array of support services available in the Navigation Centers.

America must find a methodology to evaluate and track people in homeless programs to assure that they are put in the most suitable settings for both effective use of taxpayer dollars and availability of services that will give individuals the support for moving beyond homelessness. Houston and Salt Lake City have established such tracking systems.

The SF Chronicle’s extensive reporting on the state of homelessness has offered a compelling template for solutions. Again, there are lessons to be learned from other cities. New York City’s FUSE (Frequent Users Service Enhancement) program identifies people most likely to end up in jail or emergency rooms, and directs them to housing and services. A 2014 report showed that 86 percent remained in housing two years after entering the program — more than double the rate in a comparison group.

The severe effects of chronic homelessness on the city budget and life on the streets is no secret in San Francisco. Those with the most acute dysfunction due to substance abuse or mental illness represent a disproportionate strain on the budget. They too often become caught in a brutal cycle of jail stays, ambulance rides and emergency care. Some 1,500 chronically homeless people cost the city about $80,000 a year each; the figure rises to $150,000 for the 338 considered the most needy in the city’s public-health database.

It’s a waste of money, and a waste of lives.

A focus on chronic homelessness will require a considerable public investment — perhaps starting with a bond measure of $200 million just for new housing — but the long-term savings would be worth it. It also will require a summoning of public will to overcome the inevitable neighborhood resistance to construction of supportive housing for the homeless in available spaces.

Pursuit of solutions to homelessness in San Francisco also demands a change of mind-set in significant ways. One: This is not just a San Francisco problem; it needs to be approached regionally, statewide, even nationally. State Sen. Holly Mitchell, a Los Angeles Democrat, is on the right track with SB1380, which would create a state Interagency Council on Homelessness to identify and share best practices around the state. The Legislature needs to pass SB1380 and move ahead with a proposed $2 billion homeless housing bond. San Francisco needs to work together with Oakland and San Jose, which are experiencing their own struggles with homelessness, to assure that they are not merely shifting the burden to one another.

Also, San Francisco, gets an influx of about 450 chronically homeless people a year. Obviously, the city needs to shed any perception that it is a sanctuary for people who are unwilling to participate in programs designed to get them off, and keep them off, a life in the streets. It is neither inhumane nor “criminalizing poverty” to enforce laws against aggressive panhandling, tent encampments or defecation and urination in public places. 

It would be a colossal waste of money to make the necessary investments in supportive housing and other services without a commensurate commitment to assure that the people who are offered this array of assistance are no longer afforded the option to flout the law with impunity.

This is San Francisco’s challenge of the times. There could be no greater legacy to this era of unprecedented prosperity than to accompany the resources and ingenuity it is bringing to the city with the will to solve this untenable predicament of the human condition before our eyes every day.

On any given day there are an estimated 6,686 homeless adults in San Francisco, according to a point-in-time count conducted by volunteers at the end of January 2015. While that figure is the most widely circulated estimate on the number of people living without shelter in the city, other databases show as many as 10,000 people experienced homelessness over the course the 2015-16 fiscal year. The true figure is most likely even higher. 

See past Chronicle coverage for more on the how many people are homeless, and the costs associated with the population.

Hospice is the choice - physician assisted suicide brings toxic drugs to a compassionate choice

Appreciate The Times Record response to my Letter to the Editor- published today April 7, 2017

No Need for Physician Assisted Suicide when Hospice Available

After submitting testimony in opposition to the physician assisted suicide legislation proposed by Sen. Roger Katz, I heard compelling testimony from both sides of this emotional issue from people who care deeply about their personal and professional opinions regarding quality care, at the end-of-life.

Both sides of the physician assisted suicide debate acknowledged how hospice care is the compassionate choice for the dying, because the benefit provides for appropriate pain management, as well as extraordinary family support through the death and bereavement of the terminally ill patient. Ironically, in other State House legislative committee rooms, the terrible epidemic of opioid drug overdose deaths was discussed, while proponents of physician assisted suicide were advocating for dangerous compounded drugs in capsules to be available for the terminally ill, to ingest in the prescribed procedure. There is no need for physician assisted suicide, when access to hospice is made available, especially if end-of-life palliative care and hospice are compensated by health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid and veterans benefits. Thank you to Maine's hospice providers and volunteers, for providing compassionate and quality care to our families, neighbors and veterans at the end of their lives. Support for hospice is the preferred choice for end of life care, acknowledged by both sides of those who testified in Augusta on the physician assisted suicide proposals. There is no need for physician assisted suicide when hospice care is accessible to everyone who is facing the end of life.

Juliana L'Heureux, Topsham

Five Republican Senate Votes Because "Why?"- And Disabled Veterans Witnessed a Snub

Disabled Veterans Senator Robert Dole and Senator John McCain- Unable to Sway Five of of their Republican Colleagues!

Three political leaders: Senator John Kerry, a former Democratic Presidential Candidate, Senator John McCain is a Republican former Presidential Candidate, likewise Senator John Dole. All three men have one common story - they are war heroes. John Kerry and John McCain are decorated Viet Nam War Veterans while Senator Dole is a disabled World War II survivor. All three championed a Senate bill today.  If it had passed, the bill would have improved the human condition of all people who are disabled.  It's unthinkable, but the three men watched, emotional, while their bill failed to obtain 66 votes, held up by five Republicans who would not budge in spite of their colleagues watching their vote on the Senate floor.
WASHINGTON — Former Republican Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas appeared the Senate floor in a wheelchair today, to make a last minute appeal for senators to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, but his appearance did not sway enough Republicans to support the treaty.

Joint efforts led by Senator John Kerry and Senator John McCain, failed by a vote of 61-38, falling short of the super majority needed for passage.

The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities would declare that all citizens, regardless of ability, deserve to live in dignity, safety and equality under the law. If it had been voted through, the United States would have been added as a party to the convention.  This sad Senate vote was negated by just five Senators who were motivated by a conspiracy concept that the United Nations would be given undue credibility if the disabilities bill passed.   Do these five "nay" Senators think Senator Robert Dole enjoyed watching his own Republican colleagues vote against a bill he supports?  It was painful to watch the World War II veteran hero and former GOP presidential candidate, while the bill was defeated.

What kind of people are these five obstinate Senators? Obviously, they put political interest before their own compassion for improving the human condition.  Politics run sadly amok!  

Politicians who relentlessly put politics before their responsibilities to improve the plights of human beings are no better than puppets. They might as well be evil marionettes engaged in an attention getting Punch and Judy show. Except, today wasn't a rehearsal, it was real. Disabled people left the US Capitol Building in tears.

Disabled people everywhere were failed by the US Senate. Those attending the vote were visibly distressed, while the five "nay" Senators must now deal with their own distorted human values in the wake of their negative votes.

Memorial Day and Paul Ryan's Republican Budget

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-showing-small-shifts-on-taxes/2012/05/25/gJQAQ5I0pU_story.html?hpid=z1&wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

America's Memorial Day is important and fundamentally means tax payers get what we pay for when we fund our US military with tax money.  


Today's Washington Post story indicates there may be hope for Republicans who might finally "get" his connection.


Yet, budget austerity, supported by right wing extremists like Congressman Paul Ryan and Tea Party colleagues, risks funding the quality of health, welfare and retirement programs for the brave military people who secure his own pay check. 


Worthwhile expenses to protect our nation's freedom and safety aren't isolated to the cost of funding an excellent military. There's associated financial and ethical responsibilities to care for the quality of lives for veterans who have contributed their youth to ensuring our National Security. 


Military men and women enter service at a young age and thereby contribute their youth to protecting our National Security. They deserve more than tributes, flag waving and medals. They also deserve well earned benefits.


Our nation's young men and women volunteer to serve in foreign conflicts, they respond to national emergencies like the "war on terrorism" and provide humanitarian assistance during natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans or the cluster tornado outbreaks in Joplin, Missouri.


But, if Congressman Ryan and his budget hacking colleagues have their way, the veterans benefits assured to today's military will be cut.  If Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge survives, the GOP will continue to cut tax funded programs like health services veterans receive through the Veteran's Administration and Medicare.


Budget hackers in Congress should cut their own salaries and staff expenses before reducing any veterans benefits.


Except, there's a win-win solution called "income" from tax revenues. This seems like a "no-brainer" solution to funding the federal budget. (In my opinion, those who don't support raising the income part of the budget may, indeed, need to find a brain.) 


Increasing income is especially doable when raising the percentage of taxes paid by the rich and super wealthy only takes one majority vote by the US Congress.


Congressman Paul Ryan and the selfish tax hawk Grover Norquist should volunteer to serve for 3 months in the US military - they can even have junior officer status.  Ryan deserves to be a Navy Ensign for three months.  Norquist should be a Marine Second Lieutenant.


After Ryan and Norquist serve in the military, they can evaluate how their austerity measures impact the quality of life for Veterans. After the 3 months voluntary service, these two prominent individuals can assume they have the credibility to ask Americans to cut services to Veterans, without first looking to raise sensible revenues by asking the rich, like both of them, to pay more of their fair share.


Ryan and Norquist likely respond, like most Americans, with pride, when we stand for the tribute to Veterans and the performance of the Star Spangled Banner national anthem.  Both of them might need a historical reminder that the anthem was written during the War of 1812, when we defended our freedom, a second time, against Great Britain.  


Surely, Ryan and Norquist know and believe that "Freedom is not Free".