Senator Dante Bartolomeo Has "Lapse of Memory" at Candidate Forum

Wayne Winsley, 2012
Congressional Candidate

Last night, at a Candidate's Forum held at the Westfield Resident's Association annual meeting, Sen. Bartolomeo denied having said in a press release from February 13, 2013, that she had called for mandatory psychiatric evaluations for ALL students in early 2012.

She demanded the questioner "prove it"; cocksure that he wouldn't have a twenty one month old press release in his pocket.  Which he didn't.

Well, last year I wrote an open letter to the senator, in which I cited, verbatim, a portion of her press release; "Students should be able to receive mental health evaluations/treatment, and districts need some recourse if parents and students refuse to participate."

It seems pretty clear, that the threat of recourse against parents and students, removes any semblance of a voluntary evaluation.

(See my full post, here;http://www.middletowninsider.com/2013/06/letter-to-editor-open-letter-to-sen.html)

Former congressional candidate, author and patriot, Wayne Winsley, also wrote an article on the subject, in which he cites the entire statute that would make these mandatory evaluations a reality; Proposed Bill No. 374; AN ACT REQUIRING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS FOR CHILDREN and addresses the issue better than I did.

In Wayne’s article, he says, “The proposal is Dangerous, because the government has now created a small, “big brother” that will follow my child around for the rest of her days.”

Read Wayne's full article, here;http://waynewinsley.blogspot.com/2013/02/your-kid-gets-checkup-from-neck-up-need.html.  http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00374-R00-SB.htm

Senator Dante Bartolomeo is a dangerous person; an advocate for big government intrusion into the personal, private lives of children and families.  She is also a liar. She must be voted out of office.

Letter to the Editor: Open Letter to Sen. Bartolomeo : Mandatory Mental Health Evaluations for Children Unlawful

Below is a essay by  citizen author author William Boylan. All opinions expressed are that of the author and not necessarily that of the Insider staff. Proposed Connecticut  Bill SB374 if passed by would mandate behavior assessments of all  children whether enrolled in public schools or not. Senator of the 13th District with includes parts of Middletown, Middlefield, and Meriden has been a strong supporter of this type of screening for children, likening it to in her words "diabetics and insulin."Former Congressional candidate Wayne Winsley wrote about the consequences of this in his article A Check up from the Neck up.  

--------------------------------------------------

Dear Sen. Bartolomeo,

In your press release of Feb. 13 regarding school safety, you say, "Students should be able to receive mental health evaluations/treatment, and districts need some recourse if parents and students refuse to participate."

The last part of the sentence contradicts the first part. The first part says, students "should be able to receive mental health evaluations," implying a choice. The second part says, "districts need . . . recourse if parents and students refuse. . .  That changes the first part, "should be able receive evaluations", to "must receive evaluations." It makes them mandatory and implies sanctions against anyone who refuses.

This is a dangerous precedent.  It forces something on parents and students that they may not want or need for whatever reason which is no one else's business without probable cause, reasonable suspicion or judicial review.  It places the state above the parents and usurps the parent's rights, responsibilities and authority.

Nowhere in the CT or federal Constitutions does the state have the authority to order mandatory psychological evaluations.  No, not even the "General Welfare" clause.

It is blatantly in violation of an individuals right to be free from unwarranted searches and violates the individuals rights to privacy.  Children are persons under the Constitution and are afforded equal protection rights, too.

The best and most efficient way to save lives under such circumstances as that in Newtown is to have armed guards in the schools and eliminate so called "gun free" zones.  The only ones in them, free of guns, are the victims and it is proven that such mass murderers as Lanza deliberately seek out "gun free" zones because they know they can act there with impunity.  It is foolish to require pistol permitted parents to disarm themselves before entering a school.

Allowing teachers and staff the opportunity to volunteer to receive training and carry a firearm, (with perhaps a small stipend), would work to protect students because the evil and mentally deranged would know they would be met with a resolved spirit of resistance.

Permit qualified volunteers to receive the same training as teachers and patrol the schools, acting as "resource" personnel.  By qualified I mean retired military and police veterans and others.  The idea that children would be "frightened" by having armed guards around is absurd! 

These volunteer would be members of the community and known as the grandparents, uncles, aunts and neighbors of the students.  Trust me, what grandchild would not be quite happy and proud to know her grandfather was keeping her and her classmates safe at school.

As far as the current "gun control" proposals go, I have yet to see anything that even closely resembles "common sense".  For "Common Sense", I suggest reading Thomas Payne.  I also urge you to re-read some of my past emails to you on the subject and listen to the testimony I delivered before the Gun Violence Task Force, in January.

No government can be all thing to all people at all times.  Nor should it try to be.  A government that governs best, governs least.  And that is as it should be.

Very truly yours,
Bill Boylan, Middletown

Letter to the Editor: Response to Mayor Drew's Stance on Gun Control

   This was originally published in January and it being republished in light of the vote taking place today at the state capital to limit 2nd Amendment rights.

  Below is a letter to the editors of the Insider in response to Mayor Dan Drew's statements in the Middletown Patch regarding his feelings on gun control in regards to the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy. Read Drew's statements here: http://middletown-ct.patch.com/articles/mayor-drew-it-s-time-for-ban-on-semiautomatic-weapons 
All letters to the editor are published as a courtesy to readers, and opinions expressed/ claims made may or may not be shared by Middletown Insider editors.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     This reply is written in response to Mayor Drew's position points in supporting a ban on semiautomatic weapons as a deterrent to future heinous crimes.I applaud his interest in joining other Mayor's,nationally,I believe the argument is best supported by using a multi-pronged approached,not just weapons restrictions.I am referring to the lack of institutions to care for the mentally disturbed,as well as a revision of senseless violent video and computer games coming from Hollywood,etc.This country has many gun restriction laws on the books, as evidenced by assault weapons legislation written by Vice President Biden that has gone unenforced as of 2004!

As to Newtown.......In my opinion what averted further bloodshed was the fact that armed law enforcement was closing in on Adam and that is when he took his own life,because they were armed!

The NRA can easily make the case for semiautomatic weapons as being mandatory for small business owners in high crime areas.

A Comprehensive Corrective Plan of action has to include:
1.better enforcement of existing gun laws,2.Mental Institutions have to be allowed to keep violent offenders,as well as those who "threaten society" longer than a three-week observation period!!,and 3.impose controls over violent video games,etc,and not only by adopting ratings.

Please do not fall into the trap of more gun control Laws that cannot be enforced.

Paul Dodge
Middletown

Letter to the Editor: Review Civil Commitment Laws In the Wake of Sandy Hook Tragedy

Letters to the Editor are published as a courtesy and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Insider staff.
Letter to the Editor:

The dialogue in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings has focused on regulating guns. There are other issues associated with Sandy Hook that have received no attention, but are equally important. There is no dialogue regarding the fact that had the shooter, Adam Lanza, lived he would not have faced the death penalty for killing twenty children and six adults because Connecticut repealed its death penalty last year. It could be argued that Lanza was mentally unstable, but there is no discussion about the impact of changes in the laws with respect to civil commitments. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1979 decision in Addington v. Texas raised the bar for civil commitments from a fair preponderance of the evidence to a clear and convincing standard thereby making it extremely difficult to commit mentally unstable persons. In fact, the homeless epidemic of the 1980’s coincided with the ruling in Addington. It is not unfair to wonder whether Addington set the bar for civil commitments too high. James Holmes, who killed twelve people in Colorado, was also mentally disturbed. Yet, dialogue on dealing with people who are dangerously mentally ill seems to be off the table just as much as the death penalty.

Wyatt Kopp, CT Resident

Your Kid Gets a Checkup from the Neck Up Need it or Not

The following entry is an opinion piece written by Wayne Winsley * former candidate for Senate 2012. It was originally published here: http://waynewinsley.blogspot.com/2013/02/your-kid-gets-checkup-from-neck-up-need.html and passed on with permission.

General Assembly		Proposed Bill No. 374
January Session, 2013		LCO No. 2001
Referred to Committee on PUBLIC HEALTH
Introduced by:
SEN. HARP, 10th Dist. REP. WALKER, 93rd Dist.

AN ACT REQUIRING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS FOR CHILDREN.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
That section 10-206 of the general statutes be amended to require (1) each pupil enrolled in public school at grades 6, 8, 10 and 12 and each home-schooled child at ages 12, 14 and 17 to have a confidential behavioral health assessment, the results of which shall be disclosed only to the child's parent or guardian, and (2) each health care provider performing a child's behavioral health assessment to complete the appropriate form supplied by the State Board of Education verifying that the child has received the assessment.
Statement of Purpose: 
To provide behavioral health assessments to children. 
Spotting a mental health problem early and preventing another tragedy like the recent one in Sandy Hook is important.

But as the parent of a school aged child, I find the above proposal dangerous, invasive, and outrageous. 

Our well-meaning legislators want to ensure that every child whether in public school or home school, is given periodic behavioral health assessments, whether they need them or not, whether they have shown any signs of having a problem or not.

These assessments are usually given to children who have already been determined to be in need.  Now even the most well behaved child would be given these tests.  

The proposal is Dangerous, because the government has now created a small, “big brother” that will follow my child around for the rest of her days. 

You may say that they are just children and this record won’t follow them. But if your insurance company requires records, it may or may not affect their quality of care (pre-existing condition) in the future. If your child has gone through a stressor that would affect their assessment (divorce, family job loss, housing change etc…) they may now test as an “in need child” or “problem child” as mental health professional would tell us. 

The proposal is invasive because unlike health vaccinations which are administered to prevent contagious diseases, this testing requirement now goes not only into our public schools which is invasive enough, but in the case of home schoolers it is even more frightening. Homeschooling parents have chosen to have freedom of religion, freedom of nutritional choice, and freedom of educational choices, but now the government has found a way to burst through those freedoms and into their child’s life.

The proposal is outrageous because the eight simple lines are so open to interpretation on so many levels that the potential for abuse and mismanagement are huge.  

This proposed piece of legislation should never leave the committee room. Call or email your representative whether they are on the public health committee or not and urge them to stop this proposal in its tracks.

*Award winning Speaker, Author, and Broadcaster Former News Anchor WNLK/WSTC WICC 600AM Host of The Wayne Winsley Program WINE 940AM