That being said, it’s time to bring them home. ALL of them.

We have armed forces personnel deployed to over 130 countries world wide. The US spends 54% of the total world wide military spending, six times the amount of the next most China. Who are we defending ourselves from? What country is capable, never mind willing to attack the US militarily? Seriously, we can reach out and strike anywhere at any time, and we can do it from the US. Our enemies aren’t what our military is built for. That should be obvious from Afghanistan and to a somewhat lesser degree Iraq. Even our friends are getting tired of our “help”. How much of our peace keeping efforts are making matters worse rather than better? Suicide, PTSD, divorce and abuse rates are up across the board in our military families. What are we getting for the cost both financially and in human terms? Are we really that much safer to justify the cost? I don’t think so.

The problem is we can’t just pull everyone out and bring them home. We have long term strategic relationships with friends around the world that count on our military presence, like Israel for example. They need time to adjust to the fact we are drawing down our forces for their support. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan we have people that have been our friends that would be in danger if we simply abandoned them, so time will be needed to remove them from potential danger. As unlikely as it may seem, if there is any chance for some kind of democratic self rule in these countries, then we should conduct our pull out in such a way that it allows for that possibility. Regardless what we think is best for a country, we have to respect their choice, even if it’s not democracy. If they want our help, they can ask for it.

We have to change our mindset about our culture of war. We need to examine EVERY deployed unit outside of the United States and specifically identify EXACTLY what that deployment means in terms of security for the American people. Some can remain deployed as part of a United Nations or North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but those deployments should be greatly reduced to no more than 20% of the total deployed. We have to reject the normalcy of overseas deployments and the permanent state of war.

Three babies were born, and two deaths had occurred-about the statistical average for a city of half a million. But a city of that size also would have had a predictable number of violent crimes in a three-day period, and this simply didn’t happen.

Also consider the amount of drugs used and it’s even more remarkable. It stands in stark contrast to people that contend that drugs are the cause of violence in our society. It’s not drugs that cause violence, it’s our war on drugs that cause violence.

In many ways Woodstock represents the very best of America. A standing testimony to true individual freedom and liberty. Not the faux freedom and liberty of Conservatives and Tea Party, who can only equate those values as it applies to their pocketbook. Woodstock also serves as an example of people reaching out to help one another, generosity of spirit and acceptance. Something I would like to see much more of not only from individuals, and groups of individuals, but from our Government as well.

It would be disingenuous of me not to acknowledge that during this time protesters against the war in Viet Nam treated our military men and women with a great deal of disrespect and hostility – undeservedly so. They were right about the war, but very wrong about their misguided anger at individual returning Viet Nam veterans. Thankfully, since that time, we as a country have honored those veterans and expressed our gratitude for their service.

Once again, we find ourselves deeply divided as a country about wars without end, civil rights and economic justice. A schism deeper and wider than anytime perhaps since 1969. But at the end of the day, we are all still Americans. It’s OUR country. It’s nobody’s country to “take back”, despite the rhetoric of those that wish to advance an agenda of hate, bigotry and greed.

Here is my salute to fellow Americans. Also a thank you to our veterans and those that are serving in the military here at home and abroad.

First of all, something everyone needs to be aware of is that SB1070 doesn’t apply to just illegal immigrants. It empowers law enforcement officers with “reasonable suspicion” to demand identification or proof of legal immigration from ANYONE. Even if they have done nothing wrong. They don’t have to place them under arrest.

This is almost identical to the arguments over the US Patriot Act with warrant-less wiretaps. Those in favor of giving the government unlimited power to spy on citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment said “If you don’t have anything to hide then it shouldn’t matter if they are listening.” Yes it does matter. Because every time we give up one of our rights, whether it’s to protect us from terrorists, illegal immigrants or drug dealers, it just makes it that much easier for more to be taken.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~ Benjamin Franklin

In addition to many people not knowing their rights, how to apply them and why they are important there are some that think we should not be taught or learned. Teachers Suspended for Showing Flex Your Rights Video

The guys at FlexYourRights.Org have done a great job putting together video’s not only explaining our rights but how to exercise them properly. I’ve included their “10 Rules For Dealing with Police” video below in four parts. Also, a couple of additional links from the Washington Post and Cato Institute.

Washington Post: ‘10 Rules for Dealing with Police’ seeks to teach constitutional rights

Cato @ Liberty: Immigration Law — Up Close

Cato Institute: 10 Rules for Dealing with Police – A film produced by Flex Your Rights With comments from William “Billy” Murphy, Attorney and 10 Rules Narrator and Neill Franklin, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. Moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute.

Part One

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part Two

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part Three

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part Four

Click here to view the embedded video.

Out of nowhere our beautiful Sunday was interrupted by the unmistakable sound of small arms fire. I looked up to see a man running straight at us about thirty yards away as several shots hit the ground around him, then a couple of more and the man was down, bleeding from his torso, shot in the back. Then I heard the screams, saw people running away and running to the action. Tires squealing in the parking lot as the assailants sped away in two vehicles.

What I missed before the gunshots was that it started with a confrontation out in the parking lot between two groups that moved our way, until someone decided to escalate the conflict pulling a weapon. It was apparent that this was gang related, which since has been confirmed.

At this point you may think I’m going to launch into a rant about the evils of guns in society. I’m not. In fact, I wish I had been armed because if the conflict had moved closer to endanger myself and others I would have taken out the assailant myself.

You may think this is going to be a rant about needing to crack down on “Gang Bangers” with draconian solutions like “stop and frisk”, mandatory sentencing or military style boot camps. It’s not. In fact, I think those types of things just exasperate the problem by further alienating a whole generation.

No, this is about the interaction between people and the police. We watched the police systematically take care of the victim, secure the crime scene, and begin interviewing witnesses. They moved quickly, but thoroughly and with professionalism. When they came to me they asked for my name, address, birth date and phone number which I gave them (even though there is no legal requirement for me to do so). Everyone in my group did. Then asked me what I saw, which wasn’t very helpful since I only saw the end and not the shooter. What they didn’t do is ask me for any kind of identification. In fact, they didn’t ask to see anyone’s ID that I’m aware of, certainly no one among my group.

This made me wonder what would have happened had this event occurred in Arizona with the new Immigration law. Would police be required to ask for everyone’s ID? Would everyone be required to prove they are legally in the US. Certainly this would qualify as a “lawful contact”. Perhaps witnesses that could positively identify the assailant would leave without speaking to the police in fear of being asked for their papers. This is one of the reasons law enforcement officials in Arizona and around the United States are speaking out against this atrocious law.

B. For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

1) What is a lawful “lawful contact stop, detention”? A witness to a traffic accident? Simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Does anyone think that an officer can’t find an excuse to make a “lawful contact” any time they wish?

2) What is “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States”? Is being brown and speaking with an accent constitute “reasonable suspicion”? If you’re looking for day labor work outside of Home Depot is that grounds for reasonable suspicion that you are unlawfully present in the United States?

3)”Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” So basically you can be held indefinitely unless you can prove you are lawfully in the US. So you better have your papers on you or you’ll sit in jail until the authorities prove your innocence.

If you’re a young Hispanic man, in the wrong place at the wrong time could be detained indefinitely if you fail to provide proper documentation even if you are natural born American citizen. If you think this can’t or won’t happen, you’re wrong, it will and already has. If you think this isn’t about race, you’re wrong it is. A middle aged white guy without ID is not going to be treated the same way as that young Hispanic man.

Do we really want to live in a country where you better be caring your documents or risk being subjected to indefinite detention? Do you understand now why even some Arizona law enforcement officials are against this law?

This law violates both the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the US Constitution.

As far as boycotting States go, it’s just another form a free speech. Alaska has been a target of it for shooting wolves from helicopters, I’d say Arizona being boycotted for violating the US Constitution and basic human rights should be fair. They have the same choice Alaska does, change the policy or live with the consequences.

Candidates may only accept donations, of any kind, from individual registered voters, eligible to vote for that candidate.

If you can’t vote, you can’t donate. It’s really that simple.

In political campaigns, money is more akin to a vote than it is to speech.

Corporations can’t vote. Unions can’t vote. Political Parties can’t vote. All the various groups, committees, foundations, think tanks, etc can’t vote. Foreigners can’t vote. Non-citizens can’t vote. Lobbyist can only vote where they are registered and eligible.

With that as a the standard, anything that promotes a candidate would be considered a contribution to the candidate and can only be done, paid for, provided by, a registered voter eligible to vote for the candidate. Individual rights to free speech are protected, playing field is level, and the rules are uniform across the board.

The result of this single one line change would be:

• Lower cost of campaigns
• Less TV, Radio and Print advertising
• Encourage more debates and town halls
• More use of the Internet
• Reduced lobbyist influence
• Improved quality of candidates
• More citizen involvement
• More accountability to voters
• Reduced interference from outsiders
• Increase voter registration and voting

Makes sense. Sounds good. But like a lot of sensible, good ideas, probably won’t happen. Because nobody wants to give up their exception to the rule. The power brokers would lose their power. Control would revert to the people and thats the last thing that anyone vested in the current system wants.

Want to test my theory that this idea will be attacked from all sides? Click the link below to post it to your Twitter status

Candidates may only accept donations, of any kind, from individual registered voters, eligible to vote for that candidate. http://bit.ly/cHOPYV

There is no question that there are naturally occurring climate change cycles. We also know that there have been naturally occurring cataclysmic climatic changes in the history of the world. Whether it’s intense volcanic eruptions or meteor strikes. So we know that it is possible for the atmosphere to be severly impacted by conditions on earth.

So if we take what we know as facts about the climate, it’s reasonable to believe that humans are having an impact on the atmosphere, and that in combination with a natural cycle we are accelerating the changes in severity and speed.

The fossil fuel industry is acting much like the tobacco industry did. I believe they are lying and funding “research” that contradicts the majority of climatologists in an attempt to maintain the status quo while diversifying into other businesses. It doesn’t help that environmentalists have been largely marginalized over the years, which makes it easier to discredit the research in support of human impact on climate change. Of course the recent email flap isn’t helping at all either. I wouldn’t be surprised if the hack job was funded by someone with a stake in discrediting the climate research, particularly since it was so close to the Copenhagen summit.

Bottom line for me is I believe we are contributing significantly to climate change. That we have to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, move quickly to alternative renewable, sustainable sources of energy. I also think we need to find alternatives to other petroleum based products. I don’t know if we can do this fast enough. I don’t know if we can afford it. I don’t know if we can afford not to. Understanding this is just one of many challenges we are facing today, we have to at least put out the effort to do what we can

BILL MOYERS: Why is the industry so powerful on both sides of the aisle?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, money and relationships, ideology. The relationships– an insurance company can hire and does hire many different lobbying firms. And they hire firms that are predominantly Republican and predominantly Democrat. And they do this because they know they need to reach influential members of Congress like Max Baucus. So there are people who used to work for Max Baucus who are in lobbying firms or on the staff of companies like Cigna or the association itself.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, I just read the other day, in THE WASHINGTON POST, that Max Baucus’s staff met with a group of lobbyists. Two of them had been Baucus’s former chiefs of staff.

WENDELL POTTER: Right.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, they left the government. They go to work for the industry. Now they’re back with an insider status. They get an access, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Oh, they do, they do. And these lobbyists’ ability to raise money for these folks also is very important as well.

Lobbyists, many of the big lobbyists contributed a lot of money themselves. One of the lobbyists for one of the big health insurance company is Heather Podesta, the Podesta Group, and she’s married to Tony Podesta, who’s a brother of John Podesta.

BILL MOYERS: Who used to be the White House chief of staff.

WENDELL POTTER: Right. Right. And they’re Democrats. And my executives wanted to meet with — and when I say my, the people I used to work for–

BILL MOYERS: At Cigna.

WENDELL POTTER: Yeah, wanted to meet with Hillary Clinton, when she was still in the Senate and still a candidate for president. Well, that’s hard to do. That’s hard to pull off, but she did. That just shows you that you can, through the relationships that are formed and that the insurance industry pays for, by hiring these lobbyists, you can your foot in the door. You can get your messages across to these people, in ways that the average American couldn’t possibly.

BILL MOYERS: So it’s money that can buy access to have their arguments heard, right?

WENDELL POTTER: That’s right.

BILL MOYERS: When ordinary citizens cannot be heard.

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely right. It’s the way the American system has evolved, the political system. But it does offend me, that the vested special interests, who are so profitable and so powerful, are able to influence public policy in the way that they have, and the way that they’ve done over the years. And the insurance industry has been one of the most successful, in beating back any kinds of legislation that would hinder or affect the profitability of the companies.

BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry?

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn’t want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don’t want any more competition period. They certainly don’t want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry’s–

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don’t want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

The need for radical reform of our campaign finance and election laws is a recurring theme for this blog. I’ve posted many times about the need to eliminate the undue influence that special interest groups, lobbyists and political action groups have on legislation and policy. This candid interview is a perfect example of the kinds of things that happen routinely at every level of government from all kinds of different groups. None are any better or worse than any other in my view. The only people that should be able to influence our elected officials are the ones that can vote for them. Period. If a group wants to state their case, they can do so publicly at hearings. There is no need or justification for any group to have a private audience with any elected official at any level. (That includes Prevo and our local assembly members and mayor.)

This interview also points out why Health Insurance Reform and Health Care Reform MUST include regulation of the health insurance industry and a public option. The industry can’t and won’t regulate themselves. That is the rightful place for government intervention. They’re not going to change their practices until and unless they are forced to. That means regulation and competition. The government is the only entity capable of competing with the insurance industry.

Everything we are hearing from the obstructionists to reform is part of a well thought out and executed game plan. Down to the very words and phrases that we hear repeated ad nauseum.

During the interview, Bill Moyers read from confidential documents drafted by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) in May and June of 2007. The documents outline a unified strategy for AHIP members to prepare for the release of Michael Moore’s documentary, SICKO on June 29, 2007.

You can download and read the full AHIP documents by clicking here and here (PDFs).

The Language of Health Care 2009 (PDF)
The Frank Luntz memo strategizing opposition to health care reform Bill Moyers mentions in the interview.

GOP Health Care Strategy (PDF)
Strategy memo by Alex Castellanos dated July 7, 2009.

These are evil people who don’t care about the average American. They will do anything to make a buck and to remain, regain, expand their political power. They are lying and manipulating the system to further their selfish goals at the expense of Americans. The sad and disturbing part is that there are so many Americans that sincerely believe that these people and entities actually have our collective best interest at heart. They don’t. In fact they are actively working against our best interests.

Watch the video or read the whole transcript between Bill Moyers and Wendell Potter here.

Read more on Wendell Potter and Profits Before Patients here.

Read the Testimony of Wendell Potter, Philadelphia, PA Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation June 24, 2009 here. Or view it online here.

Trace campaign contributions, ad spending and the revolving door between industry and government here.

We can defeat the lies, the misrepresentation and the willful ignorance of the obstructionists on the right. We can do it by not giving in, not giving up, and shining a bright light on those that are pulling their strings. Now is the time.

The current health care debate in Congress has nothing to do with death panels or public options or socialized medicine. The real debate, the only one that counts, is how much money our blood-sucking insurance, pharmaceutical and for-profit health services are going to be able to siphon off from new health care legislation. The proposed plans rattling around Congress all ensure that the profits for these corporations will increase and the misery for ordinary Americans will be compounded. The corporate state, enabled by both Democrats and Republicans, is yet again cannibalizing the Treasury. It is yet again pushing Americans, especially the poor and the working class, into levels of despair and rage that will continue to fuel the violent, proto-fascist movements leaping up around the edges of American society. And the traditional watchdogs—those in public office, the press and citizens groups—are as useless as the perfumed fops of another era who busied their days with court intrigue at Versailles. Canada never looked so good.

As bad as that sounds, at this point just about ANYTHING would be better than doing nothing at all.

The fact of the matter is that the insurance/pharmaceutical industry and trial lawyers are too invested in the status quo and have put most of the current leadership of congress into office. Change is a scary thing for most people, and the vested interests in the status quo are using that fear to their advantage. They lie, distort, deflect and demean others to protect their greedy self interests.

This is a recurring rant, but until and unless we radically change the manner that political campaigns are financed and elections are conducted we are doomed to have the best government that money can buy.

Right now everyone in DC is most concerned about whether they will get re-elected. Even staff members are worried about if their boss gets re-elected or not, because their job depends on it. In that environment EVERYTHING gets measured by how much something hurts or helps the chances of re-election. For the really ambitious, it gets measured by whether it hurts or helps the possibility of moving up in the political food chain. Moving up could mean higher office, or it could mean a position on a high profile committee. That’s just human nature and believing any differently is simply naive. Re-election depends on contributions, and you don’t stay in office long if you piss off the wrong people. Constituents can be bought off fairly cheaply with some hunks of pork, glad handing, and pandering. Get on the wrong side of deep pockets though and you’re doomed.

So the reality of the situation is we have to gain as much ground as we can in this battle. Understanding that the war is far from over, and any ground taken today may be lost tomorrow. We are battling inertia, and if we quit pushing the rock up hill, it can roll back over the top of us. We have a little momentum on our side, we just have to keep pushing, gaining ground inch by inch, step by step, day by day until we overcome inertia (resistance to change) and momentum takes over.

Let’s not let the fact we aren’t getting everything we want stop us from getting what we can.

So here is the oath of office that the mayor took.

I solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Alaska and the Charter of the Municipality of Anchorage, and that I will faithfully perform the duties of Mayor to the best of my ability.

Seems pretty simple and straight forward. How is vetoing an ordinance that would protect people from discrimination performing the duties set forth in his oath of office?

The United States Constitution

Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Permitting people to be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation would be a classic example of denying those people the equal protection under the law.

The Constitution of the State of Alaska

Article 1 – Declaration of Rights

§ 1. Inherent Rights

This constitution is dedicated to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the rewards of their own industry; that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law; and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the State.

There it is again, “equal protection under the law”. How can we have equal protection under the law when we are free to discriminate against anyone simply because of their sexual orientation.

The Home Rule Charter For The Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska

Article II The Bill Of Rights

(7) The right to opportunities in housing, public accommodations, employment, and education without regard to race, religion, sex, color, national origin, marital status or physical handicap; and the right to an Equal Rights Commission at the municipal level in the aid thereof.

While perhaps not as clear as the US and State Constitutions, the Home Rule Charter in spirit of the law is pretty clear that discrimination in “housing, public accommodations, employment, and education” is generally unacceptable.

When it comes to education the Anchorage School Board policy states:

Appendix A — Statement of Rights and Responsibilities:

Non-Discrimination

This Statement of Rights and Responsibilities will be enforced fairly and uniformly without regard to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex or gender, sexual orientation, or disability.

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office. ASD Statement of Nondiscrimination

Individual and/or groups are in violation of this policy if they:

* Make demeaning remarks directly or indirectly, such as name-calling, racial slurs or “jokes”; or
* Physically threaten or harm an individual; or
* Display visual or written materials or deface, damage, or destroy property or materials; or
* Perform any other act that is clearly discriminatory or harassing in nature;

because of the person’s race, creed, gender, national origin, age, language spoken, ability, disability, martial status, political or religious beliefs, physical or mental condition, family, social, or cultural background, or sexual orientation.

So apparently government at every level, even in our own Anchorage School District, recognizes the need to protect people from discrimination based on sexual orientation. But in the infinite wisdom of our Mayor he has found “clearly a lack of quantifiable evidence necessitating this ordinance”. Or perhaps this was just the payoff to Prevo and his cult members for their campaign support?

The majority of the Anchorage Assembly, representing the majority of Anchorage residents, voted for the ordinance. The Mayor ignored the obligations he undertook in his oath of office. It is now up to the Assembly to have the courage to do the right thing. Protecting the fundamental rights of every Anchorage resident. Giving them equal protection under the law, and access to the “Equal Rights Commission at the municipal level in the aid thereof.”

From what I’ve been told, only an Assembly member can call for a vote to override the veto. I appreciate those members that supported the ordinance in the past, but now is not the time to quiver in the face of bigotry. Anchorage needs you to stand up and stand tall to what is blatant bigotry. We need to have it on public record who supports the rule of law and equality for everyone. We also have a right to know who supports denying equal rights of some based simply on religious dogma and political expediency.

Anchorage is waiting and watching. We won’t forget when it comes to election time which side you stood with.