Anchorage Equal Rights Initiative Fatally Flawed

After reading the Anchorage Equal Rights Initiative,the changes to Anchorage code seem pretty straight forward.
The initiative adds the language “sexual orientation and transgender identity” to existing municipal code, with a few notable exceptions for public restrooms and employer dress codes.
An objective decision on whether to approve this initiative or not, requires that a few questions be asked and answered.

1. Under State or Federal Law does sexual orientation or transgender identity fit the criteria for admission into protected class status?

The Answer is No. The criteria is, (1) a long history of discrimination, (2) economic disadvantages, and (3) immutable characteristics. Since sexual orientation as defined in the initiative encompasses most if not all of humanity, it cannot fit any of this criteria.

2. If passed who would enforce the code?

The Anchorage Equal Right Commission would enforce the code but non-compliance would wind up in state court.

3. With no corresponding state or federal laws,would penalties be enforceable?

I am not a lawyer but my guess is, probably not. The state court would have no guidance in state or federal law to judge the merits of the case, rendering true enforcement moot.

4. Would their be an objective criteria for measuring a persons sexual orientation?

This would be unnecessary since a majority if not all of humanity fits the category of sexual orientation as defined by the initiative.

5. Since it covers all sexual orientation does it provide protected class status for all orientations including bestiality,necrophilia, pedophilia?

No the initiative defines sexual orientation as homosexual,heterosexual and bisexual. In my opinion it leaves the door open for all other sexual orientations to argue for inclusion.

6. Why exceptions for Dress code and public restrooms?

Most likely for public support. These exceptions acknowledge that individuals have the right to set standards of acceptable display of one's sexual orientation on one's property or on the commons, it undermines the principal promoted by the initiative.

As you judge my reasoning, you may properly conclude that I am against the Anchorage Equal Rights Initiative. The measure is just too broad.
Our human rights laws need to be clear and give a compelling reason for a group's entrance into protected class status. We must not tread on an individuals rights without just cause.
In my view One Anchorage has failed to make a clear and compelling case for adding sexual orientation as a protected class.

For Your consideration

Since the ADN recently quoted snippets of an old post, I thought I would make it easy for folks to find the original by reposting it upfront.I encourage you to read through all my old post,You judge for yourself.

Wayne Ross, fighting the good fight

My support of Wayne Ross for attorney general is based on his strong defense of the second amendment. This issue like the canary in the coal mine it indicates whether a person has a strong knowledge of and is faithful to the rule of law. Clearly this man would support and defend our constitutions.

Three groups seem to be emerging in opposition to Wayne Ross nomination for attorney general.
These are 1. Native leaders 2. Radical Feminist 3.Democrat party operatives.

Lets dissect this opposition.
Native leaders do not like Alaska's constitution pertaining to equal access to fish and game for all Alaskans. They want the state constitution changed. Attempts in the past have failed because a majority of Alaskans do not want hunting and fishing rights to become privileges, reserved only for select groups. Wayne has been outspoken on equal access for all Alaskans hence he has drawn their opposition.

It's a shame their opposition is based solely on Wayne Ross's defense of the Constitution.

Radical Feminist Are in opposition to Wayne, because of his body of work in family law. Representing his clients interest, Wayne has fought to keep families together.
This is counter to the Radical Feminist agenda of diminishing the role of men in the world. Yes folks, elements of this group actually belief men have no value and through science they can eliminate men from the face of the earth.
Wayne Ross is a double threat to these radical feminist. He is an man and he has worked with the damage these feminist have created in our families.
He know their game plan and stand in opposition to it. If you have an anti-male bias you will probably stand with these nut jobs.

Democrat party operatives opposition is self evident. Not only does Wayne not share their ideas on guns,god and families but he is a strong defender of our constitutions. These constitutions represent obstacles to their demand for a bigger government with more power. They also do not wish this governor to have effective counsel to defend against their blatant attacks.

I find the opposition of Wayne Ross's nomination for Attorney General as an attack on what is right.
Please join me in calling your legislators,writing letters to the editor and asking you friends to do the same. We have six days before the final vote.

Lets make sure the good folks win this one.

Renewed Interest

The words on this Blog are my own and I take full credit and responsibility for them.
I do not believe the public is best served by anonymous posts.
If it cost me personally so be it.

With My new home completed and a probability of more leisure time coming my way, There is a good chance this Blog will become once again active.
So stay tuned, hope to see you soon.

Mark<><

Arizona Shooting, Perspectives from Alaska

Here is what “the gloves are off” ,” fighting for Alaska “ Lisa Murkowski had to say about this weeks tragic events.

I do hope that as we move forward from this terrible tragedy, that as Americans, we look to those things that are causing the frustration and anger and bitterness and really try to come together to tone down some of the rhetoric that may be fostering some of what we're seeing. --Lisa Murkowski, Jan. 8, 2011


Now here is what a friend,Tea party activist and fellow Joe Miller volunteer ,Greg Stoddard wrote the next day:

Tragic events in Tucson AZ (a perspective)

To place perspective on the tragic events in Tucson, we must first realize a few things.

1. Many people are suffering the loss of a loved one, family member or friend.

2. Survivors endure the pain of their own injuries, at least one of which I know having also lost a loved one, her husband, Dorwan Stoddard.

3. Although tragedy has occurred at a ''Congress on the corner'' held by a duly elected representative of the people, it was not the result of politics, but instead appears to be due to the acts of a deranged single individual.

4. Unfortunately, emotion has led some folks to unjustly place blame for this tragedy on innocent people including those in the ''Tea Party'' movement.

5. I withhold placing blame, which is contrary to that of the vitriolic rhetoric coming from Sheriff Dupnik of Pima County Arizona. He should be ashamed of his comments. He speaks for few.

6. My Father's cousin Dorwan Stoddard was killed as he bravely shielded his wife, Mavy, from the shooter. Dorwan, I am so proud of you for your acts of love, especially of the final act.

7. I watched as Congress Representative Giffords read the first amendment of the US Constitution kicking off the 112th US Congress. She has been a shining example of what she read before the people on that day and so many other days. God bless her, her family and her doctors as she regains her ability to participate in her elected role as well as all else in her personal life.

8. I, as a ''Tea Party'' member will always cherish the US Constitution and those who defend it. A senseless act by a deranged individual will not cause a knee jerk reaction by those who are of sound mind.

9. Truth be told, the shooter will likely prove to lean left not right, although likely confused generally. You won't find me or any other conservative blaming liberals for his actions though.

10. We must remember the brave acts and innocence of loved ones victimized at the tragic event in Tucson Arizona.
Greg Stoddard

No need for me to opine, you can compare for yourself the statements of our Senator and a local Tea Party activist and tell which one is adding fuel to the fire for political gain.

All I can add is, it is a Shame

Death of a Republic

Although I have been absent from my blogging duties,It is my intent to refocus my efforts and give regular posting on subjects and points of view not well covered elsewhere. The following is such a subject.

The Implications of Miller Vs. Treadwell, is far reaching.
The Alaska supreme court decision in rejecting Joe Miller's arguments gave reasonable responses to his reasonable arguments, with one glaring exception. In it's decision, the court declared, “Voter Intent Is Paramount,” later, in their reasoning, they focus on individual voter intent in stating “ Our prior decisions clearly hold that a voter’s intention is paramount ” but that does not discount there original declaration.
Lets look at the word Paramount as defined;
Paramount- Having the highest rank or jurisdiction; superior to all others; chief; supreme; pre["e]minent; as, a paramount duty.
[1913 Webster]

It seems the court is saying our government is, at it's core,a democracy. In their decision they affirm this sentiment with the following statements.
“ The right to vote “is fundamental to our concept of democratic government””
I suppose we can forgive them for this one since the people do vote for a portion of their government you can say we do have a element of “democratic Government” within our Constitutions, but there is more, the also stated,
“As we have recognized, “a true democracy must seek to make each citizen’s vote as meaningful as every other vote to ensure the equality of all people under the law.”

A “True Democracy”?
How does the above reasoning correspond with the Alaska statehood act that says; “The constitution of the State of Alaska shall always be republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence."” Is not the term “under the Law “ contrary to a true democracy?
So now that the court has affirmed voter intent paramount, meaning it is Superior to the legislature, courts and even the constitution, lets look at some of the implications.

In the Alaska constitution,
Article 2 section 12 “”each (senate and house)is the judge of the election and qualifications of it's members and may expel a member with the concurrence of two thirds of it's members.
If voters intent is paramount, this section cannot be applied since voters elected, only voters could remove an individual.

The same reasoning can be applied to Article 2 section 20, the legislature could not impeach an elected official they could only be recalled. Also Under the Voter Intent being Paramount ruling there could be no restriction on what could be put in an initiative as this limits voter intent Article 11 section 7 is at risk as well.

The most startling impact of this ruling is the effect it would have on the initiative process (Article 11 section 6 in particular).
Since The court has ruled, voter intent is paramount. (Superior to all others) a law passed by voters through the initiative process, could not be modified or deleted by the legislature or courts, only by a vote of the people.

It seems to me in the Alaska Supreme court zeal to dismiss Miller's case the opened the door for litigation on the last vestiges of the Republican form of government in our constitution that we the people created at Statehood.

On the bright side the parental consent law should be upheld in it's entirety as it represents the voters intent as passed.
A hollow victory when you consider the death of the republic and the instigation of mob rule.

566 Years: The reason responsible Alaskans voted for Joe Miller.

566 Years. The year 2585. That's how long it will take to retire our massive national debt, projected through 2019.

566 years assumes that we can stop deficit spending by 2019. It also assumes that we pay down the debt by $100 million per day. Yes, $100 million per day. 566 years also assumes the optimistic assumptions of economic growth by the Office of Management and Budget come true and our national debt is only $20.67 trillion in 2019.

$100 million per day is also a pretty large number to comprehend, so let's give it some context: According to Reed Construction Data figures for 2008, the average cost of building a 130,000 square foot high school in the US was $18.5 million.

In simple terms, in order to retire our national debt in just 566 years, we would first have to stop deficit spending. Then we would need to find a way to collect enough taxes to pay the interest on our huge debt and also pay all the other costs of government and pay for our many "sacred cow" government programs . Finally, we need to come up with additional surplus tax revenue equivalent to the costs of building five highs schools every day. Again, for just 566 years.

We've encouraged, the government to spend beyond its means for the things we "want" for far too long. The colossal generational-theft that we are currently committing will come to an end, like it or not. The choice is whether we do something to end it in a responsible , orderly manner; or we allow it collapse under its own enormous weight. The problems in Greece would pale in comparison. We will not have someone "sweep in" and rescue us like Greece.

Responsible Alaskans voted for Joe Miller because he's the first candidate who has come along with the intestinal fortitude to address head-on, the 20 trillion pound gorilla sitting in the corner. As a fourth generation Alaskan, I'm very proud to see the responsible, self-reliant, spirit is still alive and well in the last frontier. Well done Alaska. Choosing responsibility over more "free stuff". It's the adult thing to do, for the sake of the class of 2585.

A Couple of Silver Spoons

I hesitate to bring any attention to Andrew Halcro's absurd blog post, but given his attacks on the Tea Party movement I feel compelled to come to the defense of not only myself, but many of my friends in the movement.

This ones for you Andrew.

The very first sentence of his June 18th blog denigrates my Tea Party friends and I by calling us delusional.

Really Andrew?
Perhaps you are not aware of an exhaustive study of the Tea Party Movement conducted by the Sam Adams Alliance, located Here
Of course you're not. If you were, you would have to concede these Tea Party folks are more concerned about their country than they are angry. Your charges that these folks are an angry mob is laughable to anyone who has actually witnessed any of their events first hand. They are quite sociable actually.
You would also have to concede that Sarah Palin, while more popular than most within the Tea Party, only has the support of 36 percent of it's members.

I am sure you won't let these facts get in the way of your spewing hatred of all things Sarah Palin after all, she did beat you pretty badly.
Remember? You ran as an independent for governor in 06 and received about eight percent of the vote, you of all people, have the nerve call the Tea Partiers delusional.

If you are truly concerned about outside influence in the Senate Primary , Why do you not object to the fact that over 70 percent of Murkowski's campaign funds are from out of state?

When you quote Emerson you tell a great deal about yourself, if this is the type Intellectual you hold dear, you really have no idea of Republican philosophy. The bisexual Emerson, (apparently he could not make his mind up on a lot of things), believed all things were divine (therefore nothing is). You and Timothy Leary have much in common. Andrew, I did not know you where a closet hippie.

You call Joe Miller a right wing lunatic.
Really Andrew, do Lunatics graduate West Point with honors?
Are lunatics awarded Bronze star's for action in defense of their country? Hold masters degree in economics? I will not however, argue that Yale does not graduate lunatics. By the way where did you go to school Andrew and who paid for that?

As to the Tea Party offering no solution, this is simply not true. This assertion shows you have not researched the facts.
The common sense solutions the Tea Party offers is in the Austrian school of economics and found in our nation founding principals. Ever hear of Von Mises or Hayek? How about John Locke or Thomas Paine.
The fact is, the average Tea Partier know more about on the ground free markets and constitutional republics than you and all your crony capitalist, pseudo-intellectual friends combined.

Go ahead Andrew, just try to associate the most extreme view of the fringe element of a group as being the dominate part of the group as a whole. Drink the mainstream Kool-Aid Andrew.

The evidence is clear and cannot be hidden, Murkowski voted against her party 300 times. At best she is a C student in Republicanism. If Lisa is so smart how about we compare GPA's . If she is so accomplished how about we compare service records and work histories?
Alaskans can do much better with Joe Miller.

You should have listened to your good friend Lisa's advice that she gave you on the above photo but now, all you have shown us is your hatred of all things Palin and your absolute loyalty to your good friend and fellow silver-spooner Lisa Murkowski.
The last idea I remember you supporting is a state income tax. If you had others they where lost in your constant flow of sour grapes.

So blog away Andrew, continue to use Anlisky's fifth rule ridicule, as a player who was benched for lack of performance, it is all you have left.

You have my sympathy.