Today the California Supreme Court issued its ruling to uphold the hateful Proposition 8 banning same sex marriage. The Court also held that the 18,000 marriages that occurred between the time of Court’s ruling that gay marriage was protected under the California Constitution and when the electorate voted to amend the Constitution to ban same sex marriages. My marriage occurred in September 2008 and thus will remain legal. However after Prop 8 was successful in the election, my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters cannot marry. That makes me feel very odd and rather uncomfortable.

But today’s decision isn’t the end of this issue and I don’t believe that the discrimination inherent in the bigoted and homophobic Prop 8 is the Court’s doing. The Court was bound by the Constitution which allows for easily amending the Constitution. It is the people of California that voted to take away the rights of gays and lesbian and it is up to those of us in the gay and lesbian community to educate Californians about this issue. We should not focus our anger on the court , but instead on educating our fellow Californians. Were those that voted for Prop 8 bigoted, homophobic or ill educated about the issue? It’s probably a mix of all three. We’ll never be able to change the bigots or the homophobes but we can educate the ill educated.

Californians voted for Prop 8. It is those people who voted for Prop 8 that voted to discriminate.

The Court was painstaking in addressing the fact that they believe that same sex couples should have the right to marry, but the question before them was about the process- is a proposition that requires a simple majority enough to amend the Constitution as Prop 8 did.

In their decision the Court stated “The principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state constitution itself through the initiative process,” the court wrote, “not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound.”

The Majority Opinion stated: “In addressing the issues now presented in the third chapter of this narrative, it is important at the outset to emphasize a number of significant points. First, as explained in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at page 780, our task in the present proceeding is not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals, believe it should be a part of the California Constitution. Regardless of our views as individuals on this question of policy, we recognize as judges and as a court our responsibility to confine our consideration to a determination of the constitutional validity and legal effect of the measure in question. It bears emphasis in this regard that our role is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values. “

The Court said they felt that the basic argument is that the California Constitution is just too easy to amend. They are right. The Court said “it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it. If the process for amending the Constitution is to be restricted — perhaps in the manner it was explicitly limited in an earlier version of our state Constitution (— this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake through the process of amending their Constitution in order to impose further limitations upon their own power of initiative.”

In 1911 California law added “The first power reserved to the people shall be known as the initiative. Upon the presentation to the secretary of state of a petition . . . signed by [the requisite number of] qualified electors, . . . proposing a law or amendment to the constitution, . . . the secretary of state shall submit the said proposed law or amendment to the constitution to the electors at the next succeeding general election . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] Any act, law or amendment to the constitution submitted to the people by . . . initiative . . . petition and approved by a majority of votes cast thereon, at any election, shall take effect five days after the date of the official declaration of the vote by the secretary of state.” (Italics added.) By virtue of this provision, an amendment to the California Constitution could be proposed either by legislative action or by the people directly through the initiative process.” The Court listed the amendment process of some of California’s sister states and the much more onerous process that they require. This Court’s argument makes sense to me as a matter of structural analysis: the California Constitution allocates the California People large powers of self-governance, and (as opposed to the federal constitution) they have a large and powerful role to play in an ongoing conversation with the courts, the legislature and the Governor in the shape of constitutional governance.

The whole point of having rights safeguarded by a Constitution interpreted by an independent judiciary is that some things are so fundamental that they ought not be left to the caprice of a fleeting majority vote — if the People wants to amend the Constitution (at least, insofar as most of us understand what a “constitution” is supposed to do), it ought to be a more serious and onerous process than a one-day 50%-plus-one vote.  One wonders what makes it a constitution if it is so easily amendable.

As was asked in an excellent post on the Daily Kos: Would the Miranda decision have survived a citizen initiative vote in its wake?  Brown v. Board of Education? I despise the impact of today’s decision, but what is flawed is California’s amendment process. Same sex marriage will eventually come to California- it will take some effort and money and tenacity. But California’s Constitution is as broken as its budget.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, is also disputing the CIA’s version of the briefings that he received at the time. Graham was then chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, while Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Graham is known as a meticulous note-taker and has maintained a daily log that fills hundreds of spiral notebooks, which now reside at the University of Florida Library of Florida History.

“Several weeks ago, when this issue started to bubble up, I called the CIA and asked for the dates in which I had been briefed,” Graham tells Robert Siegel. “They gave me four: two in April of ‘02, two in September.”

Graham says he consulted his logs “and determined that on three of the four dates there was no briefing held.”

He adds: “On one date, Sept. 27, ‘02, there was a briefing held and, according to my notes, it was on the topic of detainee interrogation.”

Graham says the CIA was initially reticent when he told the agency what he had found in his notes.
“They said, ‘We will check and call back,’” Graham recalled. “When they finally did a few days later, they indicated that I was correct. Their information was in error. There was no briefing on the first three of four dates.”

Graham says the agency offered no explanation regarding how it came up with the other dates.

The Sept. 27, 2002, briefing occurred about three weeks after the briefing in which the CIA says it told Pelosi about the use of waterboarding, a technique also described as simulated drowning. Graham, like Pelosi, says waterboarding was not mentioned during his briefing.

“There was no discussion of waterboarding, other excessive techniques or that they had applied these against any particular detainees,” he says.

Pelosi has charged that she was misled by the CIA. Graham puts it another way.

“Nothing that I can recall being said surprised me or has subsequently proven to be incorrect,” he says. “It was a matter of omission, not commission.” Graham says he is not surprised at the CIA’s claims, noting that within a week of its Sept. 27 briefing, the agency presented to the Senate Intelligence Committee its National Intelligence Estimate of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which was later shown to be flawed.

“I’m not impressed with the credibility of the CIA as it was being led in 2002,” Graham says. “I think it had become an agency that instead of following the admonition to speak truth to power, it was trying to speak what it thought power wanted to hear.”

Speaker Pelosi’s House colleagues are standing behind her as she takes incoming fire from the CIA and Republicans on the interrogation briefings flap and are ready to fight back.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman, Rep. John Larson (D-CT), said Friday that he agrees with Pelosi’s assertion that the CIA misled Congress and Democrats will stand with the leader.

“I will stand by her integrity any day of the week,” Larson said, casting the dispute with the CIA as more of a debate between the Speaker and Bush administration officials.

“Nancy Pelosi has more integrity in her pinky than Karl Rove and Dick Cheney possess in their entire body,” he said.

Larson called the question of what Pelosi learned at a September 2002 intelligence briefing on interrogations a “distraction” created by Republicans who want to deter Congress from investigating whether the Bush administration condoned and used torture.

“It’s clear what the other side is up to. They are saying no. They are providing subterfuge and they are not working to get what’s in the best interest of the American people accomplished,” Larson said in an interview with Fox News Channel.

Additionally, in addressing Pelosi’s argument that the CIA misled Congress, Larson tried to draw a distinction and added that what she is talking about is the “Bush-era CIA,” which he says President Obama has since tried to reform.

Larson said that while he is not sure whether a truth commission exposing intelligence community action during the Bush administration is in the best interest of the country, he is confident it will show Pelosi did nothing wrong.

“Anytime you want to shine the bright light of character…we will welcome that test,” he added.

I’ve personally worked with Speaker Pelosi’s office since the mid 1990s and I can unequivocally say that this woman is not a liar and she is a woman of high integrity. Yes she is a fierce and astute politician and she is a staunch Democrat. When Mrs. Pelosi says something she means it and she doesn’t make it up.

She is a woman of great passion and insight – she spoke against the war in Iraq early and has been an unyielding advocate for a free Tibet- to the consternation of many an administration not wanting to ruffle Beijing’s feathers.

My own experience with the Speaker is on HIV/AIDS issues. She is loyal, she is committed and she is fierce. Speaker Pelosi’s first words from the floor of the House were that she came to the House to solve the problem of AIDS. Her colleagues were mortified that she would make this statement as a freshman in the late 1980’s when politicians didn’t talk about AIDS. Well she did.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi may be accused of many things – not being terribly articulate at times, saying too much when her ire is up, being a partisan, and being a strong woman that threatens many of those milk toast white guys in Congress, but she is not someone given to lying and she is a woman with high integrity.  Plain and simple- the Speaker is a loyal American who loves her country and has dedicated her life to its service.

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

I realize that Justice Souter is still on the bench so I feel like this article is a little like saying “The King is dead, long live the King” while the aforementioned King is still on the throne, but a Supreme Court appointment is always important so it isn’t completely irreverent to weigh in on this issue now.

Before making the case for Sonia Sotomayor, I want to ruminate a bit about Justice Souter. Justice David H. Souter – an appointment by George H.W. Bush has clearly been a disappointment for conservatives because he isn’t an ideologue.

Souter has been a complete enigma to court observers and fellow judges alike. He was nominated by a Republican president but after the first couple of terms turned out to be one of the more liberal voices on the Rehnquist Court and the Roberts Court. He told the committee that he was opposed to using original intent as a method of constitutional jurisprudence (Grazia 1997).

Souter has described himself as an “interpretationist,” who embraces a strict construction of the Constitution’s language but reads its words “in light of contemporary conditions, and is not bound by [the framers’] original meaning (Yarbrough 2005).” I take this to mean that Souter agrees with the way that the framers’ built the Constitution but that one had to take into account present factors and that the framers’ could not have foreseen some of the things that would challenge this country in the future. Imagine- the Constitution as a living document

Before the Senate hearings, Souter was described as being impersonal and being out of touch with the problems of the average American. In his opening statement he addressed these concerns to try and dispel this theory. It is a very telling quote and typifies his personality and ideology; he says “[W]hatever court we are in, whatever we are doing, whether we are on a trial court or an appellate court, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed in some way (Yarbrough 2005).” This gives a very significant look into Souter’s predilection for individual rights.

During the confirmation hearings Senator Strom Thurmond was the first to question the nominee. He wondered what Souter thought about the senator’s major Warren Court thorn, Miranda v. Arizona. It would be a mistake, the nominee replied, for any court “to be unwilling ever to reexamine the wisdom of” its decisions. But he also insisted that the Court should never be swayed “by the politics of the moment (Yarbrough 2005). He was also described by friends as one hardly to yield to public pressure, “the kind of guy who could take it; he thought the law trumped public outcry (Grazia 1997).” He also described himself as undogmatic and middle-of-the-road in judicial temperament and frustrated liberals and conservatives alike by refusing to endorse a traditional conservative philosophy (Holland 2004).

Souter also holds a commitment to an essentially common law jurisprudence and its emphasis on stare decisis (Yarbrough 2005). The force of precedent is also a major part of common law tradition. And whatever Souter’s personal political preferences, the civil liberties precedents he confronted on the Supreme Court were essentially the expansive rulings of the Warren and Burger eras (Yarbrough 2005). Unlike some others on the Court, Souter has been unwilling to tear down existing precedents without significant justification

Justice Souter is a thoughtful justice unmoved by political bias and who understood the framer’s original intent was to ensure that the Constitution is a living document that needs to be true to the intent of the law within the reality of a world that the framer’s could not have imagined.

Justice Souter will be missed; but now my case for Judge Sotomayor.

President Obama has expressed an interest in appointing a justice who has empathy for the people of this nation that are often victims of a judicial system, those without a voice or an advocate. The President said, “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.”

Judge Sotomayor is an exact match for President Obama’s criteria. Judge Sotomayor grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx. She was diagnosed with diabetes at age 8. Her father, a tool-and-die worker with a third-grade education, died the following year. Her mother, a nurse, raised Sotomayor and her younger brother, who is now a doctor, on a modest salary.

Urged by a high school friend to attend an Ivy League college, Judge Sotomayor enrolled at Princeton University, finding it a “very foreign experience for someone from the South Bronx.” She refers to her years there as “the single most growing event of my life” and succeeded in graduating summa cum laude in 1976. She went on to Yale Law School where she was the editor of the law journal and received her J.D. degree in 1979. Judge Sotomayor began her career as an assistant district attorney, working in the New York County District Attorney’s Office from 1979 – 1984 with Robert Morgenthau.

Already, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Manhattan) on Friday wrote Obama to recommend her and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who declined to state his top choice, said she meets his criteria of excellence, political moderation and diversity.

“She is considered one of the brightest judges on the court,” said Jamal Green, a Columbia law professor who clerked with another 2nd Circuit judge. But he said she also is one of the circuit’s most liberal judges.

During her nearly two decades as a judge – six as a district judge and 11 as an appellate judge – she has had some high-profile roles.

She ruled for the special prosecutor in a Watergate case, against team owners in a case that ended the 1994 baseball strike and upheld a police prison sentence in the Abner Louima brutality case.

More recently, in a controversial case, she voted against hearing an appeal in a reverse discrimination lawsuit brought by white firefighters. The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in that case.

But Judge Sotomayor’s best credential is that the right wing doesn’t like her and they don’t like her for the very reasons I want to see her on the Supreme Court. In a memo from a conservative likely to work on the coming judicial nomination battle circulating on the right, targets three likely Obama nominees: Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Diane Wood, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

In regard to Judge Sotomayor, the memo states:

Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decision making, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

Well Mr. Conservative Memo Writer. You just gave me one of the very best reasons I have to support Judge Sotomayor. Considering his judicial philosophy I think that Justice Souter would agree.  Besides, isn’t it time to have an Hispanic on the Court?

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

PRIORITY FOR OBAMA”S HIV POLICY AGENDA: NEEDLE EXCHANGE

President Obama has vowed a renewed focus on the domestic HIV epidemic. The only thing that I can give President Bush is establishing the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to address HIV/AIDS globally but he failed miserably at addressing the epidemic in this country. President Obama’s pledge is critical to the 1.1 million people living with HIV in the country.

President Obama has already made some progress towards that pledge. He signed a budget for FY 2009 that had some much needed funding increases for key federal programs – the first increases seen by some programs in many years. On April 7^th the CDC launched a new $45 million media campaign is set to target African-American groups, including teens, gay and bisexual men, and heterosexual women, about the risk of HIV infection and the value of testing for the virus. About one-fifth of the estimated 1.1 million Americans infected with HIV don’t know they have the virus, putting them at high risk for spreading the infection or progressing to AIDS themselves, according to the CDC.

He also appointed Jeffrey S. Crowley, MPH as the Director of National AIDS Policy in the White House. Crowley has deep roots in the HIV/AIDS advocacy community and was a choice roundly applauded.

The White House is expected to develop a national HIV/AIDS strategy that will include input from government, medical researchers, medical providers, social scientists, experts in HIV care and prevention and representatives of the community including consumers.

Crowley has said the strategy will back up President Obama’s pledge to base national science policy on “sound science.” That is likely to include controversial efforts promoting needle exchange programs, he says. Such programs have been shown to cut HIV infections rates among injection drug users, but they’re also politically charged because some believe they tacitly promote illegal drug use.

“The president believes that syringe exchange programs should play a role,” Crowley told Web MD “Certainly those types of issues will be considered.”

I personally would reword Jeff’s remarks. I would say,”syringe exchange programs MUST play a role.”

At an event I attended this week, Speaker Pelosi, who has long supported lifting the ban on federal funds for syringe exchange re-committed herself to this effort

There is overwhelming evidence that syringe exchange programs (SEPs) work: they prevent the

Transmission of HIV and do not promote substance use. Since 1989, Congress has banned the use of

federal funds for Syringe Exchange Programs. In 1998, Secretary of Health and Human Services

(HHS) Donna Shalala certified that based on extensive scientific research, syringe exchange

programs are an effective component of a comprehensive strategy to reduce HIV transmission and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs, but the Clinton administration did not remove the ban.

Shalala reaffirmed this position in 2000. In June 2007, the House voted to lift a ban on local funding

for SEPs in Washington, DC. The Senate has also voted to lift the local ban in past years.

Former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher, the American Medical Association, the American Bar

Association, the American Public Health Association and the National Conference of Mayors

all support lifting the federal ban on funding syringe exchange programs. Support for SEPs also

comes from the U.S. public. In 2001, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported that 58% of Americans favor syringe exchange. In 2003 the International Journal of Drug Policy reported that as many as 66% of Americans favor syringe exchange programs.

Numerous studies in the United States and abroad have determined that SEPs are effective in reducing HIV transmission among substance users.

A 2005 study published in The Lancet found that in cities with syringe exchange programs HIV infection rates decreased by 5.8%per year, as compared to a national increase of 5.9%per year. In New Haven Connecticut, the SEP not only cut down on syringe sharing and HIV infections,

but also led to fewer syringes being discarded, decreasing the public health hazard of accidental

infection from needle sticks with contaminated syringes.

A December 2005 CDC Fact Sheet reports that the National Institutes of Health (NIH)and the Institute of Medicine(IOM) concluded that syringe exchange programs contribute to 80% reductions in risk

behaviors in injecting drug users and a 30% or greater reduction of HIV transmission.11 NIH also concluded that there is a preponderance of evidence to show that syringe exchange programs do not

encourage increased substance abuse.

Syringe exchange programs save lives and are an integral part of combating the spread of HIV/AIDS.

SEPs do not increase drug use, but instead encourage education, teach safer injection practices,

and refer IDUs to treatment programs. Addiction should not be a death sentence, and SEPs provide

the best way to reach an ostracized at risk population. It is undeniable that we can lower HIV

rates through SEPs without increasing substance abuse.

We cannot wait- the ban must be lifted NOW!

Let’s look at a timeline of just some of the more horrific events over the last year:
April 2009
5 Pittsburgh Police Officers Shot & 3 Killed when responding to a domestic dispute call
April 2009
13 people were shot dead in a murderous three-minute shooting rampage inside an Binghamton NY civic association building that caters to immigrants, according to federal and state authorities.
March, 2009
Four Oakland, California police officers were shot to death in two separate incidents involving one suspect near the Eastmont police substation Saturday afternoon, law enforcement sources said.
March , 2009
At least 10 people were killed in a shooting spree in southern Alabama.
December 2008
A gunman dressed as Santa Claus kills nine guests at a Christmas Eve party before taking his own life in Covina, a suburb of Los Angeles in California.
July 2008
2 people killed and 7 injured when a gunman opens fire in a Knoxville TN Unitarian Church

A few others in recent years-
December 2007
A gunman kills eight people and wounds five at a shopping mall in Omaha, Nebraska, before killing himself.
April 2007
Cho Seung-hui kills 32 people and wounds many more at the Virginia Tech college in Blacksburg, Virginia, in two separate incidents on the same day. Cho had been diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder.
October 2006
A gunman shoots five young girls in an Amish school house.
March 2005
Jeff Weise, a student at Red Lake high school in Minnesota kills five students, a teacher, a security guard, and then himself. Before school, he had shot dead his grandfather and grandfather’s companion.

And of course the one that put mass shootings in high schools on the map-
April 1999
Two students at Columbine high school in Littleton, Colorado, kill 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves.

Here is the propaganda rhetoric from the NRA- “Over the last two decades, many “gun control” laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive at the federal, state, and local levels. Numbers of privately-owned guns and Right-to-Carry states have risen to all-time highs. Every step of the way, “gun control” groups predicted violent crime would increase. Instead, violent crime decreased dramatically.”

My response is:  Bull!

In 2007, Bill Marsh from the New York Times wrote that in 2004, the most recent years where there are statistics that 29,569 Americans were killed by fire arms- that is about 81 per day. 64,389 were injured- 176 per day. These statistics come from the CDC- the agency that keeps track of these things.

8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

Since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century.

Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

Murder rates in LA, NY and Chicago were approaching the highest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)

According to “Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996”, Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology at the University of Ottawa wrote “Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate”

Just look at the comparison of the US with other major nations. The US has the weakest gun control laws.

Gun Deaths – International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

	Homicide	Suicide	Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001)	3.98	5.92	0.36
Italy (1997)	0.81	1.1	0.07
Switzerland (1998)	0.50	5.8	0.10
Canada (2002)	0.4	2.0	0.04
Finland (2003)	0.35	4.45	0.10
Australia (2001)	0.24	1.34	0.10
France (2001)	0.21	3.4	0.49
England/Wales (2002)	0.15	0.2	0.03
Scotland (2002)	0.06	0.2	0.02
Japan (2002)	0.02	0.04	0

Data taken from Cukier and Sidel (2006) The Global Gun Epidemic. Praeger Security International. Westport.

And here is what the CDC has reported about shooting deaths of children:

In the 1994 World Development Report, 208 nations were classified by gross national product; from that list, the United States and all 26 of the other countries in the high-income group and with populations of greater than or equal to 1 million were selected because of their economic comparability and the likelihood that those countries maintained vital records most accurately. In January and February 1996, the ministry of health or the national statistics institute in each of the 26 countries were asked to provide denominator data and counts by sex and by 5-year age groups for the most recent year data were available for the number of suicides (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision {ICD-9}, codes E950.0-E959), homicides (E960.0-E969), suicides by firearm (E955.0-E955.4), homicides by firearm (E965.0-E965.4), unintentional deaths caused by firearm (E922.0-E922.9), and firearm-related deaths for which intention was undetermined (E985.0-E985.4); 26 (96%) countries, including the United States, provided complete data .

Twenty (77%) countries provided data for 1993 or 1994; the remaining countries provided data for 1990, 1991, 1992, or 1995. Cause-specific rates per 100,000 population were calculated for three groups (children aged 0-4 years, 5-14 years, and 0-14 years). The rates for homicide and suicide by means other than firearms were calculated by subtracting the firearm-related homicide and firearm-related suicide rates from the overall homicide and suicide rates. Rates for the United States were compared with rates based on pooled data for the other 25 countries. Of the 161 million children aged less than 15 years during the 1 year for which data were provided, 57 million (35%) were in the United States and 104 million (65%) were in the other 25 countries.

Overall, the data provided by the 26 countries included a total of 2872 deaths among children aged less than 15 years for a period of 1 year. Homicides accounted for 1995 deaths, including 1177 (59%) in boys and 818 (41%) in girls. Of the homicides, 1464 (73%) occurred among U.S. children. The homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher than that for children in the other 25 countries combined (2.57 per 100,000 compared with 0.51).

Suicide accounted for the deaths of 599 children, including 431 (72%) in boys and 168 (28%) in girls. Of the suicides, 321 (54%) occurred among U.S. children. The suicide rate for children in the United States was two times higher than that in the other 25 countries combined (0.55 compared with 0.27) .

No suicides were reported among children aged less than 5 years. A firearm was reported to have been involved in the deaths of 1107 children; 957 (86%) of those occurred in the United States.

Secretary of State Clinton recently and accurately spoke about the guns that the Mexican drug cartels have in their civil war against the Mexican government – they come from the USA!

What more evidence does the NRA need? Their rhetoric and propaganda is shamefully irresponsible. I’m not a hunter or a sports shooter and I don’t understand the thrill- but I am not about to say people shouldn’t have the ability to possess guns for sport. But gun control is critical. Why on earth would the NRA fight tooth and nail against gun control? They are irresponsible and they are ultimately accountable for the gun deaths in the United States.

Many of my liberal friends are focused on our governments appalling breach of international law and eviscerating the Geneva Convention. We should be angry about what Bush and Company did- they are war crimes. But what about the NRA? They are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and are arming drug cartels in Mexico with American guns in what amounts to a civil war that is spilling over the border into our country

It is time for Congress and the Obama administration to say “NO MORE!” and send the NRA lobbyists packing- and I don’t mean packing heat!

The NRA is nothing but a domestic terrorist organization and they must be stopped – once and for all!

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts