What Does the “General Welfare” Clause Mean?

Tags

general-welfare-clause, medicare, social security, universal healthcare, US Constitution

These are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution. Some of these are more relevant than others in the 21st century, but each has its place. There is much debate lately, particularly over the first two of these ten amendments: freedom of speech and the right for each American to bear arms, if desired.

Prefacing the Bill of Rights, though, is a “Preamble” which seems to clarify most things.

WHO? ~ We the people of the United States,

WHY? What is the PURPOSE of this document?

in order to form a more perfect union,(to improve our governing system over the Articles of Confederation)

establish justice,(devise a system of Laws that apply to ALL American citizens equally)

insure domestic tranquility,(establish and maintain internal peace between different faiths, races, cultures)

provide for the common defense,(establish, train, and maintain a military might to protect our borders and American interests)

promote the general welfare,

and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,

(what?)do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But …

**DISCLAIMER: I am NOT a legal expert, nor do I claim any legal authority other than Common Sense which is not really so common these days.

* ~ * ~ *

Of all of the clauses contained in the Preamble, none have come under more scrutiny lately than the “general welfare” clause. The others are pretty self-explanatory, but the meaning of “general welfare” has changed over the decades, or has it?

Clearly, when our nation was conceived, none of the Founders foresaw the availability of health insurance or food stamps. Neither would they have ever considered Social Security or Medicare. But are these programs contained within the meaning of “general welfare?”

“The power brokers in Congress and Barrack Obama are hell-bent on convincing the American public that they have the right to enact health care and energy mandates based on the General Welfare reference in the U.S.Constitution … The General Welfare reference in the U.S. Constitution was meant only to provide support for the individual States to have national defense and provide a basis for the States to be able to conduct their own affairs.”

I mean, think about it! If the Founders had intended for the government to provide food, housing, and employment for its citizens, wouldn’t that have begun at the beginning? Wouldn’t President Washington have built stockpile warehouses filled with provisions of food and building supplies to pass out to needy citizens? But they didn’t! WHY? Because they were heartless and cruel? Because they are all independently wealthy and it never occurred to them? NO! They didn’t write it that way because they didn’t intend for government to “take care of” its citizens. The provision within the Constitution simply allows for each individual citizen or family unit to do whatever is necessary, within legal means, to meet their needs.

From the beginning of time, there have been “poor” people, and chances are pretty good that we will always have a segment of our society that is “poor.” People are “poor” for a number of reasons. Some are mentally or physically unable to take care of themselves. These individuals become the responsibility, first, of family. Whether the “differently-abled” person is a child, a senior, or someone in between, if there is family, these have the moral responsibility to provide or care for the individual. This is how history records it.

After the family, if and when the family needs help, there is no family, or the family is unable to carry their family member, morally the “faith community” may be contacted for assistance or the local community. We’re all familiar with the concept of the “Good Samaritan.” (Luke 10:25-37) Early in our nation, people actually LIVED this way. If a “neighbor” needed help, needed a cup of sugar, needed help birthing a baby, needed help repairing their home … it was just assumed neighbors would pitch in both time and supplies. People KNEW their neighbors, and even if they weren’t the best of friends, there was still a common bond that implied a moral responsibility to help.

Our nation faces a serious cultural, moral, & humanitarian issue that is bankrupting us. The establishment of the many social programs created under an exaggerated definition of the “general welfare” clause, may seem at first glance to serve a humanitarian need. Medicare, for example, provides tremendous assistance to Seniors who generally experience increasing health concerns with a fixed income. This seems like a good thing, especially the way it was originally designed – more like a “savings account” working adults deposit into through their career, so it is there when they can no longer work.

Unfortunately, past administrations abused their authority and SPENT the money you and I earned. So now, this adminstration’s answer is to raise taxes on Americans – ALL working Americans – to pay for government’s inability (more accurately, their unwillingness) to reign in unnecessary, and in some cases, un-Constitutional spending. Medicare and Social Security were designed to be special “savings accounts” protected by the government for OUR use. OOOOOOPPPS! And now we want government to totally run our healthcare after squandering OUR money on the port along Alaska’s coast with no land access? or the bridge to no where? or any number of idiotic research projects? Yea … or the government that has bankrupted the Post Office? Or the government that sponsors a public education system that is something like 25th in math in the world while spending more money than ever? Do we really think the government knows our needs and how to meet them BETTER then we do?

How do you suppose Ben Franklin (a scientifically minded man) would respond to Obamacare or the backing of foreign governments that seek our harm?

What this debate comes down to is the definition of “promote the general welfare.” It doesn’t say “provide.” It says to “promote.” There is a huge difference between the promotion of something and the provision of it. The CONSTITUTION clearly states the objective is to “promote the general welfare.” It is not the government’s responsibility to be our “brother’s keeper. Its OURS! The government is only called upon to promote volunteerism, to promote community, to promote free trade, to promote intrastate commerce.

Feel free to explain the administration’s justification for these grievous infringements on OUR rights. See, if we sit back and expect the government to do what we, as citizens, are morally and socially obligated to do, not only does the government overstep its boundaries and incur outrageous debt, but it also robs you and me of the blessings, the gratification, and the sense of community that binds us together as a people who cares for one another. Open the competition for health insurance so they can vie for our business. This will improve service and lower prices all the way around. It is government regulation, price fixing, and union interests that distort the free market system.

READ the Preamble again. It is WE-the-PEOPLE who define the purpose of government. WE-the-PEOPLE must choose whether

• to be free to make decisions for ourselves or
• PAY to allow others with zero motivation to really care, make our decisions for us.

It really has become an either/or situation.

Election 2012, whichever side you took, lost! This administration believes we are not intelligent enough to make our own decisions. They believe every American must pay for the abortions of those with no morals or who cannot afford another child rather than expecting American adults to take responsibility for their own behavior. They believe every women is unable to pay for her contraception, so we all must pay for it. They believe every working American must pay for universal health care for those who choose not to work. (No debate over those unable to work!)

I submit we expect far too much from our government. They can’t even come up with a workable budget, let alone manage all we have abdicated to government control. Government is supposed to facilitate not manage.

I submit, we are robbing ourselves, and more importantly, our children and theirs, of the rich rewards of self-reliance.

I submit, WE-the-PEOPLE can still rise to the occasion and make America work again while we restore her freedoms.

The Liberal Delusion

The problem isn’t religious conservatives and their abiding faith in God; it’s mainstream liberals and their blind confidence in government.

The Rio Norte Line

Michael Medved has a very good column up at the Daily Beast:

The problem isn’t religious conservatives and their abiding faith in God; it’s mainstream liberals and their blind confidence in government.

Consider the current dispute over the right response to gun violence. At its core, this argument comes down to a visceral disagreement between relying on self-defense or on government protection. Gun-rights enthusiasts insist that the best security for law-abiding citizens comes from placing formidable firearms into their hands; gun-control advocates believe we can protect the public far more effectively by taking guns away from as many Americans as possible. In other words, conservatives want to address the threat of gun violence by giving individuals more power while liberals seek to improve the situation by concentrating more power in the hands of the government. The right preaches self-reliance while the left places its trust in the higher power of government.

Read…

View original post 3 more words

Indefinite Military Detention Of US Citizens To Be Signed Into Law By Obama

The day the Constitution died …

The Story of Liberty

We’ve been trying to keep you aware of what has been taking place with the talks concerning the 2013 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). We’ve covered the Feinstein amendment, which effectively did nothing, except to empower Congress to authorize the military at their whim to violate people’s 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights. But now the talks are all done and the legislation is headed for Barack Obama’s desk to be signed into law soon, just as it was nearly one year ago today, including provision to use the military to indefinitely detain US citizens.

Previously, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) voted for the Feinstein amendment to the NDAA. But then there came the hashing out of language in the bill and Paul blasted Senator John McCain (R-AZ) for stripping away the amendment.

“We had protection in this bill. We passed an amendment that specifically said if…

View original post 80 more words

What Should We Make of the Benghazi Bamboozle?

Tags

Accountability Review Board, Amb. Chris Stevens, Benghazi-gate, Gen. Allan, Gen. Petraeus, Glen Dougherty, Military leaders, President Obama, Sean Smith, Secretary Clinton, Tyrone Woods

They knew, yet they let the battle rage for hours while Marines awaited the green light. They knew, and they let Americans die … WHY? So YOU might think al-Qaeda wasn’t involved, so the President would look good. So, how’s that workin’ for you, Mr President?

Much has been said or written about the massacre that sordid night in Benghazi, but many, many questions remain unanswered. Things like … What was Amb Stevens doing in Benghazi in the first place – no really? Could this have been one of those hypothetical “black ops” with deniability, because the powers at the top are certainly denying!!! What is behind the mass of military “retirements” of those in the know? Why is Hillary still silent? And on, and on …

Predictably, since the mainstream media isn’t covering the story or asking ANY questions, the public has pretty much forgotten the whole nasty affair and written it off as just another sex scandal with fall out. But there are hundreds of thousands of active military that serve under the same government … the same Commander-in-Chief who insists the investigation continues. What are they investigating? What is it they do not yet know? WE know. WE know who is responsible. WE know who ultimately gave the grievous order to “STAND DOWN!” We know, but continue to wait for a hint of accountability, a hint of real character … but I fear we wait in vain! I remain dissatisfied with the administration’s lack of response, lack of action toward those responsible, lack of explanation to US – the people of the United States!

• Where are the OTHER military men and women who KNOW what happened that fateful night?
• Is there not one man or woman with a shred of integrity involved?

The lessons of Benghazi

By Sen. Marco Rubio
Published December 26, 2012
FoxNews.com

The report of the Accountability Review Board investigating the terrorist attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi concisely lays out much that we already knew: this was the premeditated work of terrorists, not a protest about a YouTube video that spun out of control; the attackers employed military tactics and used rocket-propelled grenades and other heavy weapons; they also used simple weapons of opportunity, such as gasoline used to set the fire that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith.

The report also confirmed that the Libyan government was totally incapable of providing security for U.S. facilities in Benghazi and was barely even in control of much of that city and its environs. The State Department’s naïve reliance on local militias of questionable capacity and uncertain loyalty was, in retrospect, a grave mistake. This was especially true given the recent history of high-profile anti-Western attacks in Benghazi, including one against the U.S. compound, as well as a vast body of intelligence that pointed to deteriorating security conditions in eastern Libya.

That we operated with a skeleton staff in such a precarious environment is clear evidence that we failed to connect the dots. That is a mistake we simply can’t afford to make again – in Libya or anywhere else with an American diplomatic presence. The State Department must adjust the security posture of diplomatic facilities in high-risk regions based on responsible, timely analysis of the best information available. We can no longer expect to rely primarily on host nations to protect American diplomats in all parts of the world.

Conducting U.S. diplomacy abroad is not without risks, and I strongly believe we must continue to represent the interests of the United States in difficult regions. In strategically important but volatile countries like Pakistan – or potentially a post-Assad Syria – it is crucial that the U.S. have an active diplomatic presence. We must be clear-eyed, however, about the dangers our people face in these places and, as the Accountability Review Board notes, we must be able to protect our own people. We can do this by reforming the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to ensure that it is agile, responsive and accountable.

Perhaps most concerning is that the report points to specific failures in the State Department’s chain of command. The Board’s co-chairs have assured us that Secretary Clinton supports their findings and recommendations, and informed us that four senior officials have resigned following the release of the Board’s report. However, questions still remain about why higher level officials in the Department, who were actively overseeing America’s relationship with the new Libyan government less than a year after the death of Muammar Qaddafi, could have been unaware about the security situation in Benghazi and not done more to protect U.S. personnel and facilities there.

Read more

A Constitutional Battle: Shari’ah’s Uphill Climb

Tags

America's sexual revolution, Muslim family law, Shari'ah law

Shari’ah’s Uphill Climb

by John Witte Jr.

A constitutional battle over Muslim family law has begun. In November 2010, Oklahoma voters approved a state constitutional amendment banning the use of Muslim Shari’ah and other international laws in its state courts. This was a direct rejoinder to other Western nations allowing Muslim citizens to enforce Muslim marriage contracts in state courts and to resolve family law issues before Shari’ah tribunals without state interference. Oklahoma’s citizens wanted none of it, and they voted to ban the use of Shari’ah altogether. Twelve other states are discussing comparable measures.

In January 2012, however, a federal appeals court upheld a lower federal court injunction of Oklahoma’s amendment. Singling out a specific religious law for special prohibition, the court of appeals concluded, violated the First Amendment Establishment Clause and unjustifiably injured Oklahoma’s Muslim citizens. This leaves Oklahoma courts with a stark choice: allow Muslims to use Shari’ah to govern internal religious affairs and the private lives of voluntary members, or equally prohibit all religious groups from exercising comparable authority through organs of internal mediation, ecclesiastical discipline, and canon law.

Oklahoma can likely escape this choice by crafting a more neutrally-phrased constitutional amendment. But deft legal drafting will not end the matter. As American Muslims grow stronger and anti-Muslim sentiment in America goes deeper, constitutional and cultural battles over Muslim laws and tribunals will likely escalate.

Many Shari’ah advocates reject America’s sexual revolution of the past half century, built on cultural and constitutional ideals of sexual privacy, equality, and autonomy. They reject the easy-in/easy-out system of American family law that has brought ruin to so many women and children. They reject America’s legal protections for nonmarital sex, sodomy, abortion, and same-sex marriage. Distrusting the modern liberal state’s capacity to reform its laws of sexuality, marriage, and family life, Shari’ah advocates want out.

They have two main objectives: to give Muslims the right to opt out of the state’s liberal family law into their own religious community’s morally rigorous system; and to give Muslim religious officials the right to operate that system for voluntary members without undue state interference or review.

…. PLEASE CONTINUE

Is Shari’ah “religion” or “politics” …
or BOTH?

What about the US CONSTITUTION?

President & Mrs Obama get OWNED by 95 Yr Old VET!

Tags

obama, Veteran

I think this Veteran deserves our time to read this letter to President Barack Obama
OH! Wait! And before the liberals say this is a fake, even your favorite “fact checkers” Snopes has posted this to be true. Check it out…

* ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *

“Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can’t figure out what country you are the president of.
You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

“We’re no longer a Christian nation”
“America is arrogant”

– (Your wife even
announced to the world,” America is mean-spirited. ” Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.
You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now.
And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle…

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

JOY to the WORLD

Tags

Christmas, Darkness, individual freedom, Jesus Christ, joy, light

There is no shortage of bad and ugly news in our sad world, but CHRISTMAS is an exercise in BALANCE! If there is one thing we can learn from Christmas, it is that Christ left heaven – a place of perfection, peace, and love – to enter our corrupt world … made corrupt by us, sinful beings. Yes, God could have made us perfect little puppets that obeyed his every wish, but in his opinion, individual freedom was more important, more valuable. Since he created us each special, different, and unique, he comprehends the value of uniqueness and potential. He birthed into each of us a unique blend of talents and abilities intended for the betterment of humankind. It is our corrupt nature that ruined everything and perverted these gifts and abilities to selfish gain. Individual freedom is God’s idea, and we can only hope to live freely as we seek and serve him.

Christmas reminds us that we really should work to use our own personal freedoms, gifts and abilities to help our neighbors. God understood our predicament and gave his very one Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus gave up his place in heaven and came to this dark earth as a helpless infant to endure the same torments of earth that you and I endure daily. The difference? He endured without sin, without anger, without jealousy, without greed … without petty frustrations, without coveting the neighbor’s Caddy or 55 inch plasma.

So amidst the bad and ugly news, JOY comes. LIGHT comes to our dark world, though many do not perceive it. Darkness tries to cover our nakedness, but Light uncovers and exposes TRUTH. This is our mission always, but we must be careful that the darkness does not overtake us. With the volume of dark deceptions in our nation, in this administration, in our world, we must guard our own perspective, our own hearts, lest the darkness take over our own hearts. We can face the darkness only as we stand in the Light.

Christmas is a time for the LIGHT to shine. Even in our sterilized secular society, the BRIGHTNESS of this season shines. We mourn the babies slain; we mourn our freedoms lost, we mourn the direction of our nation; we mourn the choice America has made … Yet in our time of mourning, LIGHT SHINES.

“In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made;
without him nothing was made that has been made.
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
John 1: 1 – 5

Share this:

Ready or not, they’re on their way to come and take our guns away!

The Story of Liberty

And it begins…

Breitbart.com reported: In San Francisco and Oakland on Saturday, citizens brought their guns to sell to the police in return for cash. Every volunteer who returned a gun was $200 richer walking away. The line was so long in San Francisco that there was no cash left after lunchtime and I.O.U.s were substituted instead.

Oakland’s citizens gave even more guns back, including assault weapons and Ak-47s; the line of people returning guns, which was comprised of those standing and those in cars, was almost two miles long. A limit of three per person was imposed.

Oakland’s police chief, Howard Jordan, said, “When we remove guns off our streets that could be used in a crime, we reduce the possibility of our youth and community being a victim.”

There’s only one problem with this scenario: in all likelihood, it’s the law-abiding citizens returning guns. The criminals are not about…

View original post 282 more words

Thinking the Unthinkable: Another Side of the Story

Tags

ADHD, Aurora, Autism spectrum, Columbine, Intermittent Explosive Disorder, mental illness, Oppositional Defiant, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech

GUNS are not the issue that needs to be addressed! MENTAL ILLNESS is! The statistics are overwhelming. The numbers of mentally ill Americans is rapidly increasing, and whether it is that diagnostic techniques are better or our culture is sicker is not the point of this article. Disposition of those affected is!

Thinking the Unthinkable

In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

“They are navy blue,” I told him. “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only.”

“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”

“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he’s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He’s in a good mood most of the time. But when he’s not, watch out. And it’s impossible to predict what will set him off.

Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district’s most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can’t function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.

The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, “Look, Mom, I’m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?”

“No way,” I told him. “You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.”

His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. “I’m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.”

That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.

“Where are you taking me?” he said, suddenly worried. “Where are we going?”

“You know where we are going,” I replied.

“No! You can’t do that to me! You’re sending me to hell! You’re sending me straight to hell!”

I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waiving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. “Call the police,” I said. “Hurry.”

Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn’t escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I’m still stronger than he is, but I won’t be for much longer.

The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork—“Were there any difficulties with….at what age did your child….were there any problems with…has your child ever experienced…does your child have….”

At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You’ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.

For days, my son insisted that I was lying—that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, “I hate you. And I’m going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.”

By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I’ve heard those promises for years. I don’t believe them anymore.

On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”

And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.



In 2009, 1,224 soldiers with a mental illness, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, received a medical discharge. That was an increase from 745 soldiers in 2005 or about 7% of medical discharges that year, according to personnel statistics provided to USA TODAY.

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am Jason Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.

PLEASE READ MORE

The links below are not necessarily positions I endorse, but they raise important questions about mental illness and the care of those affected. The subject has been TABOO long enough – too long, and the longer we, as a society, refuse to deal with it, the more tragedies like Virginia Tech, like Columbine, like Aurora, and like Sandy Hook we will endure. Can we be “grownups” long enough to deal with mental illness as the epidemic it is yet, or must more suffer?

Additional Reading:

Mental Health Care Benefits Under Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)

Mental illness costing military soldiers

The Numbers Count: Mental Disorders in America

Epidemic? Half of US teens ‘meet criteria for mental disorder’

DRUGS R US

Jeff Gerritt: Deinstitutionalizing Michigan’s mentally ill has been an underfunded disaster

The Neglect of Mental Illness Exacts a Huge Toll, Human and Economic

Confronting our spiritual bankruptcy… “What should we expect from a nation of men and women who for years and even generations have demanded and subsequently celebrated the successful eviction of God from our lives, our national institutions and country as a whole? All of this is the name of tolerance, of equality, of the perversity of…………”