Category Archives: Constitution

Trading “Terrorists” For A “Deserter.”

Posted on by

The US, Israel and other countries have long said, “We don’t negotiate with terrorists.” But that’s not exactly true. After all, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. And there have been many exceptions to that rule. For example, Israel once exchanged more than a thousand “terrorists” for one of its soldiers. And, of course, there is the most recent exception in which the US exchanged five Taliban leaders for US Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.

Where this case gets murky is the fact that the Taliban is considered a military enemy, not a terrorist organization. The US has recognized the role of the Afghan Taliban since the Clinton administration and has negotiated with the Taliban going back to the early days of the Bush administration. Officially, Taliban captives at Guantanamo are POWs. Not terrorists.

Further complicating the issue is that the Taliban prisoners had a “sell by date.” Once the US ceases the combat role of our military in Afghanistan beginning in 2015, the prisoners will have to be released under the Geneva Conventions anyway. If we were ever to get anything in return for the prisoners, we would have to do it this year. It’s clear that the administration engineered the best deal for Bergdahl’s return that it could get. The prisoners we exchanged will be monitored closely by the Qatar government and they will not be allowed to leave Qatar or participate in any military planning for one year. By that time, our combat role in Afghanistan will have ended.

Of course, the president is once again being accused of being an imperialist and a lawless dictator for authorizing the deal without consulting Congress. Yes, Congress had passed a law requiring the president to seek permission for releasing prisoners from Guantanamo at least 30 days in advance. The law was pushed by conservatives in order to prevent President Obama from following through on his campaign promise of closing Gitmo (an internationally-despised prison on land claimed by the US in a country with which we have no formal relations). But that law is clearly unconstitutional. It violates the separation of powers and the president’s authority as Commander-In-Chief. While Congress has sole authority for declaring war, once we send our troops into battle, the president has final authority over any military decisions. That has been true since George Washington was president.

Then there is the controversy over the actions of Bergdahl. No one knows why then Private Bergdahl had walked away from his unit the night of his capture, but it wasn’t the first time he had done so. As a result, he was not guilty of desertion or treason. He was AWOL. A military investigation into the matter following his disappearance never mentioned desertion. In fact, the report raised many questions about the lack of discipline in his unit.

Further adding to the confusion are charges that the search for Bergdahl resulted in the deaths of six American soldiers. Those charges are in dispute. Once the evidence revealed that no one was killed as a direct result of the search, those making the claim changed their story to say that, had Bergdahl not disappeared, the soldiers killed would no longer have been in the area. Only the military command knows the truth and we’re unlikely to learn the facts until later.

So here’s the conundrum: Those who hate this president…who suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome…are certain that our administration traded dangerous terrorists for a deserter. They not only believe that Bergdahl should have been left to rot in Taliban captivity. They believe that his parents are Taliban sympathizers and Muslims simply because Bergdahl’s father grew a long beard and learned the Pashto language in hopes of obtaining the release of his son. The Bergdahls have received death threats as a result. And the Bergdahls’ hometown has been forced to call off an event celebrating Bowe Bergdahl’s release.

So that’s what defines treason and patriotism in the minds of the far right these days?

If growing a long beard makes one a terrorist and a Taliban sympathizer, then why haven’t Phil Robertson and the entire cast of Duck Dynasty received death threats? Why haven’t the stars of Mountain Men been vilified? More to the point, why haven’t the very real terrorists who populate the Hells Angels, Mongols and other biker gangs not been labeled Muslims and Islamist fanatics?

In reality, the exchange of prisoners for Bergdahl was some necessary housekeeping in preparation for the end of combat in Afghanistan. The deal had been under consideration since 2011 and, for years, conservatives had been accusing the president of dragging his feet in attempts to free an American soldier. Indeed, there have been unconfirmed reports that 500,000 protest signs were found by sanitation workers next to dumpsters behind Republican National Committee headquarters. The signs read, “Impeach Obama For Leaving An American Behind In Afghanistan.”

Tea Party Is Just Another Version Of Posse Comitatus.

Posted on by

Posse Comitatus is from Latin, meaning “power of the community.” As you might expect, the modern organization by that name rejects the authority of the federal government and any form of taxes. Its roots go back to the origins of our country and it blossomed briefly during the Great Depression. After fading into oblivion for decades, the group was given new life in 1970 by William Porter Gale who combined his anti-government beliefs with Christian Identity and racism. This modern version believes that blacks are subhuman and that Jews are children of Satan.

Posse Comitatus operated largely beneath the radar until Posse Comitatus follower, Gordon Kahl, murdered two federal marshals in North Dakota in 1983. Following that, the movement once again faded from public view. But those who share the group’s anti-government beliefs spawned numerous offshoots following the financial crisis of 2008.

Those include the Sovereign Citizens movement, various “Patriot” groups, and the Tea Party.

That fact was made abundantly clear by Tea Party support for Cliven Bundy’s confrontation with the Bureau of Land Management. Not only did the Tea Party’s greatest apologists – from Sean Hannity to Rush Limbaugh – use the incident to attack the federal government. Numerous Tea Party-backed militias (including military veterans) and politicians raced to Bundy’s side for photo ops and media statements. They turned Bundy into a poster child for their ideology.

Like Posse Comitatus, the Tea Party isn’t out to merely change our government. It’s out to destroy it!

For example, both the Tea Party and Posse Comitatus believe that all of the lands within a state’s borders should be under state control. They do not recognize federal authority over national parks, national forests and other government lands. They despise the Federal Reserve, and they believe we should return to the gold standard. They believe that the federal government has no authority to impose income taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes or any other kind of taxes. In fact, they don’t recognize the federal government at all.

They believe in the nullification of all federal laws. They believe county sheriffs are the only legitimate law. They collect large stores of weapons and ammunition. They refuse to comply with any court orders. And they threaten to exercise their Second Amendment rights to prevent the government from enforcing those orders.

All the while they wave the American flag and call themselves “patriots.”

The good news is that most Americans are finally beginning to recognize the Tea Party for what it really is…a hate group. In fact, a recent Gallup poll found that the Tea Party’s favorability rating has dropped to an all-time low of just 22 percent. That may explain why Tea Party candidates were soundly thrashed in this past week’s Republican primaries. Of course, it has become increasingly difficult to tell a Republican from a Tea Party candidate. Nevertheless, it appears the influence of these nitwits is finally waning.

Good riddance!

IRS Did Not Unfairly Target Tea Party.

Posted on by

In 2013, it was alleged that the IRS had subjected Tea Party groups that applied for nonprofit status to extra scrutiny. Led by Fox News, hate radio and Rep. Darrell Issa’s House Oversight committee, the right howled with indignity. The IRS Director was removed from office. IRS agent, Lois Lerner was vilified. There were even charges that President Obama ordered the IRS to deny right wing groups nonprofit status.

It made for a sensational story. Unfortunately, it was based on a lie.

Recently, ThinkProgress offered proof. The organization reviewed IRS documents it received as a result of the Freedom of Information Act. The documents requested are lists of words that would trigger IRS agents to give extra scrutiny to organizations that requested 501(c)(3) charitable status. According to Josh Israel, the author of a ThinkProgress report, “The 22 ‘Be On the Look Out’ key words list distributed to staff reviewing applications between August 12, 2010 and April 19, 2013, included more explicit references to progressive groups, ACORN successors, and medical marijuana organizations than to Tea Party entities.” You can read the entire report by clicking here.

Nevertheless, the real problem isn’t whether nonprofit groups representing one side of our political spectrum are targeted more than others. The real problem is that 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) nonprofits are allowed to engage in politics at all. By applying for nonprofit status, these groups purport to be primarily charitable or educational in nature (the language of the IRS rule governing nonprofits was changed from “exclusively” to “primarily” in 1959.) Yet one nonprofit after another has been found to spend most of its time and money sponsoring political ads targeting specific candidates than educating the public.

No one has abused nonprofit status more than the Koch brothers. The “Kochtopus” of non-profits used to influence elections is both extensive and unprecedented. In 2012 alone, they spent $383 million to help conservative candidates. And they were just getting organized. Since then, they have expanded their complex network of nonprofit “social welfare” groups and trade associations to allow them to spend even more money to influence elections.

They rely on nonprofits in order to take advantage of tax loopholes that allow them to hide the list of donors.

More recently, they have embraced the use of “disregarded entities” – Limited Liability Corporations (LLCs) that are “owned” by nonprofit organizations and considered part of them for tax purposes. So far, this is a political tactic used exclusively by the Kochs to disguise their political spending. Unlike their more famous shill groups such as Americans for Prosperity and 60 Plus, the names of these groups are often just a jumble of letters such as PRDIST, RION, TOHE, ORRA, TRGN, SLAH, POFN, RGSN, TDNA, DAS MGR, and STN. Although these organizations are prohibited from engaging in politics, that is clearly their primary focus. And the amount of money spent by these groups is staggering.

The Huffington Post’s Paul Blumenthal and the Sunlight Foundation studied the spending of such groups since January 2013. Contrary to IRS rules, these groups spent at least $24.6 million on ads that named specific candidates. And that was in an off year for elections! Koch-funded groups have even spent money to influence local elections, such as school board elections.

Clearly, billionaires are trying to subvert our democracy. But they can be stopped. We don’t even need a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court ruling to stop them. All we need is for the IRS to act; to change its rules prohibiting nonprofits from engaging in politics – even political “education.”

An Act Of Sedition.

Posted on by

After watching videos of the armed confrontation between Cliven Bundy and federal agents executing a legal court order, I realized that I was watching more than a political demonstration or civil disobenience. When Bundy’s crowd of armed milita threatened government officials by drawing their weapons and taking aim from sniper positions, they crossed a very clear line into the realm of sedition. Incredibly, they were supported by Nevada Governor Sandoval, U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar and dozens of state legislators from Arizona and Nevada.

Look up the definition of sedition yourself.

To save you the trouble, 18 U.S. Code 2384 reads, “If two or more persons…conspire to oppose by force the authority…or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States…they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” Not only were the actions of Bundy and his friends in violation of that code, so, too, were the actions of the conservative media hosts and politicians who applauded and encouraged them.

Imagine if a group of drug dealers challenged federal authority to interrupt a smuggling operation. Imagine if a city neighborhood took up arms to prevent the arrest of a suspected murderer. Would anyone support and encourage them? If not, where do we draw the line?

I’d suggest that the line is crossed when someone, anyone, takes aim at government officials or incites someone else to do so.

T.G.F.M. (Thank God For Mississippi!)

Posted on by

Last month, Arizona made national and international headlines for SB 1062, the highly discriminatory bill that would allow businesses to refuse service based on religious beliefs. In the short time between the legislature passing the bill and Governor Brewer’s veto, the state lost tens of thousands in convention and tourism business.The state also received threats from businesses considering expansion or new factories in the state. All of that put pressure on the governor. But what really forced her hand was the NFL’s threat to move next year’s Super Bowl out of the City of Glendale.

However, because the bill was being pushed by a national stink tank, Alliance Defending Freedom, it never died. Indeed, it has been sponsored in legislatures across the country. Before it was vetoed in Arizona, it was defeated in Kansas, Maine, South Dakota, and Tennessee.  Most recently, it was passed by the Mississippi state legislature and signed into law by the state’s right wing governor, Phil Bryant, making it possible for the state’s many bigots to discriminate against anyone based on so-called “religious freedom.”

Yet the media and corporations have remained largely silent about the Mississippi law. There have been no calls for boycotts. No threats from corporations. No loss of tourism.

What accounts for the muted reaction? Maybe it’s because the rest of the nation assumes that Mississippi is full of bigots. Maybe it’s because no one wants to vacation there. Maybe it’s because the potential workforce is so uneducated that no corporations want to relocate there. Face it, the expectations for Mississippi are incredibly low. The state always seems to rank near the bottom for such things as education and personal income. And it’s always near the top for welfare, food stamps, unemployment, unwanted pregnancies, discrimination and religion.

By Teapublican definition, Mississippi is the ultimate “taker” state. Yet, like most other states that rely on the largess of the federal government, it’s a reliably red state.

In fact, Mississippi is so reliably backwards, the name is often invoked in other backward states such as Arizona, where people who decry our lack of funding for education, our over-crowded prisons and our right-wing state government are often quick to say, “At least we’re not the worst state in the nation. Thank God for Mississippi!”

Supreme Injustice.

Posted on by

The Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon et al v Federal Election Commission is the next step in our march from democracy to plutocracy allowing the rich to dominate our political system even more than they already have. In a series of 5-4 decisions with “conservatives” in the majority, the Court has ruled that money equals free speech; that corporations are people (at least with regard to political contributions); and that there can be no limits on the amount of money the ruling class can spend on elections.

For many years, wealthy individuals and large corporations have enjoyed greater influence and access to elected representatives than ordinary citizens. With this ruling, the wealthy will be able to literally buy them. The Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelman are already spending billions through a complex network of Political Action Committees and Super PACs in order to sway our elections. Now they and other billionaires will be unleashed to spend monumental sums to elect candidates that will allow them to control Congress.

It’s fitting that this Supreme Court ruling comes on the heels of the death of Charles Keating, Jr. A financier and developer who was a friend of Ronald Reagan, Keating was indicted in the savings and loan scandal that cost the federal government billions. Prior to the failure of his Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, he contributed $1.3 million to the election campaigns of five US Senators in order to buy their influence to help fend off federal regulators. After Lincoln eventually failed, Keating was charged and convicted of 73 counts of fraud, racketeering and conspiracy. Although his conviction was later overturned, he eventually admitted to four counts of wire and bankruptcy fraud.

Given this latest Supreme Court ruling, there are likely to be many more Charles Keatings – those who will use their money to control tax laws; to fend off federal regulators; to eliminate regulations altogether; to scam the government and ordinary people; and to buy their way out of any legal challenges.

It has often been said that elections have consequences. It’s true. I think it’s no exaggeration to say that our democracy is now suffering the consequences of a Supreme Court majority hell-bent on unraveling our Constitution and placing us at the mercy of a government run by a privileged few…a majority given lifetime appointments by Republican presidents.

Does Freedom Of Religion Include Freedom To Discriminate?

Posted on by

As you know, the First Amendment of our Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Unfortunately, there is a segment of our society that believes those words give them the right to infringe on others’ civil rights. Some of that segment are members of the Arizona legislature.

They’re called Republicans.

As proof, I direct you to SB 1062, a Teapublican-sponsored bill which if signed into law would allow businesses to refuse service to anyone based on the business owners’ religious beliefs. The bill is intended to target the LGBT community. But, as you will see, it impacts everyone. The bill reads: “Exercise of religion: means the practice or observance of religion, including the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.”

In other words, Teapublicans in the Arizona legislature believe that the exercise of religion includes the ability to deny civil rights to others.

We’ve seen this play out before. If SB 1062 is signed into law by our finger-wagging governor, it will be almost immediately challenged as unconsitutional. Like the ill-conceived racist law known as SB 1070, it will cost the state tens of millions in lost tourism and wasted legal fees. Indeed, Arizona is just now beginning to recover from that fiasco.

Worse, if the bill is somehow found constitutional by the constitutionally-illiterate majority of the US Supreme Court, it will open the door to more discrimination. We’ve already seen business owners file lawsuits to allow them to impose their religious beliefs on employees by refusing to pay for health insurance plans that include contraceptives for women while, at the same time, paying for men’s “boner” pills.

If business owners can arbitrarily refuse service to the LGBT community, what’s to prevent business owners from refusing service or employment to African-Americans, Asians, Latinos or Native Americans for supposed religious reasons? What if a business owner claims religious objections to refuse service to liberals, Democrats, Teapublicans, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, Mormons, military veterans, children, seniors, homeless, poor people, rich people, men or women?

As I’ve often said, there is no such thing as partial equality. The concept of equality is absolute. We either have equal rights or we don’t. Whatever god or gods one chooses to worship does not change that.

Given that this is an election year, and the fact that the same law is being proposed in other Teapublican-controlled states, I don’t think the bill’s sponsors seriously believe that SB 1062 will ever go into effect. As with all of the party’s previous “social issues,” I believe the real intent is to divide and distract; to rile the mouth-breathing Teapublican base into a religious fervor in order to ensure high voter turn-out. Meanwhile, it’s likely to serve as a distraction for Democrats and independents, causing them to spend precious time and resources on the issue instead of on candidates who can repeal such idiocy.

Similar strategies have worked many times in the past.

A Case For Renaming The Department Of Defense.

Posted on by

Until 1947, the United States military operated under the name Department of War.  At that time, it split into the Department of the Army, the Department of the Air Force and the Department of the Navy. Then, in 1949, the service branches were brought together under a new name – the Department of Defense (DoD). Tired of war, our representative government apparently intended the new name to reflect a change of philosophy; one that would prioritize the defense of our homelands so that we would never again experience a Pearl Harbor.

If that truly was the case, the name has long since become a misnomer;

Since the name change, the US has been involved in dozens of wars on foreign soil (Korea, Vietnam, El Salvador, Libya, Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and more). Not one of these wars involved military actions in defense of our homeland. Indeed, the Department of Defense is no longer tasked with defending our borders. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002, that task has been left to DHS, the Border Patrol, US Customs, the US Coast Guard and the National Guard.

The Department of Defense has, instead, been given the task of projecting our military power to lands far from our shores in support of our corporations and allies. The DoD currently has more than 700 bases of operations in 59 nations around the world. Most are merely anachronistic reminders of World War II, the Korean War, and the Cold War. So, too, is the name.

Why does the name matter?

It’s not merely a matter of accuracy. Calling the War Department a Defense Department is a form of propaganda. It engenders blind loyalty. After all, which would you more likely support? A military devoted to defense? Or a military devoted to war? Are you more likely to thank a soldier who is serving in defense of our country? Or a mercenary who is waging war in another land on behalf of greedy corporations?

Names matter. Truth matters.

If we are ever going to end our endless participation in wars, we must first be honest with ourselves. We must understand exactly who and what we are fighting for. We must be certain that our military has the right assets for the defense of our nation and its citizens. We must be certain that our military budget is well-spent. We must be certain that we are fighting for the ideals our nation was founded upon. We must be certain that we are fighting for personal freedom and liberty.

Not merely imposing our will on other people.

Let’s Try To Become The Nation Our Founders Imagined.

Posted on by

In reading The Untold History Of The United States by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick (a gut-wrenching, powerful and well-documented book), it’s clear that, contrary to what we were taught in history classes, the US has long been a cruel and greedy empire.

For more than 200 years, we have engaged in wars of choice with no other purpose than to capture territory and extract resources. We have brutally murdered, tortured and subjugated indigenous peoples, all the while patting ourselves on the back for bringing them “Christianity” and “civilization.” We perfected mass murder and water boarding in the Philippines. We forced China, Japan and Korea to bow to our wishes for trade. We exerted our will in the Caribbean and South America in order to claim their resources and protect the interests of our corporations.

We occupied Cuba, Dominica, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama and the Philippines. After World War II, we occupied Germany, Italy and Japan. We have sent our troops to every corner of the Earth and have long ruled the air and the seas. According to Stone and Kuznick, “by 2002, we had some form of military presence in 132 of the UN’s then 190 member nations.” And, by my best estimates, we have been at war for all but 33 years of our history.

Why? It mostly has to do with business.

We forced our will upon nations in order to control their gold, silver, copper, aluminum, rubber, sugar, fruit, land, even drugs. More recently, on behalf of our industries, we have pursued oil in the Middle East. We helped to overthrow democratically-elected governments in Chile, Iran, Iraq and elsewhere. We supported and trained death squads in El Salvador and Nicaragua. And we have bullied almost everyone else.

All the while, we celebrated our victories along with our good intentions.

Is it any wonder, then, that our people have long admired the Romans? In reality, we are them; a power-hungry nation of avarice and cruelty. Like the Romans, we believed that the gods or, in our case, God was on our side. We called it Manifest Destiny; the God-given right and responsibility to govern all those people we considered incapable of governing themselves. Of course, “those people” just happened to be people of color.

We have become the kind of empire our forefathers fought to escape. The Founding Fathers had high ideals; that all people are equal and have a right to life, liberty and happiness. Yes, many held slaves, but many wrestled with that fact and sought a way to end slavery while holding the states together. For example, although he was a slave holder, Thomas Jefferson wanted to bring slavery to an end. In recognition of the complex politics of the issue, he likened slavery “to having a wolf by the ears. You can neither hang on nor let go.”

We can’t change the past, but we can change the future. We must strive to be better; to lift people the world over out of poverty; to support and restore freedom; to end hunger; to rein in greed; to help educate children; to create jobs; to increase the sustainability of our all-too-fragile planet.

We may never be able to end wars, but we should make them increasingly rare. We should have a strong defense, but we cannot and should not be the self-appointed police of the planet. That was never the intention of the Framers. Rather, they believed that we should be an example to others; a model of liberty and justice for all.

We haven’t been, but we still can be.

“A Holocaust In Slow Motion.”

Posted on by

That’s how one interview subject described our War on Drugs and mandatory sentencing in Eugene Jarecki ‘s film, The House I Live In. The film won the Grand Jury Prize for Best Documentary at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival, but I only recently had the opportunity to see it, and I can tell you I left the screening feeling as though I had been eviscerated.

Seeing the reality of how our nation deals with issues such as poverty and race will not only shake your belief in our justice system. It will make you question the ideals of our nation.

As the film shows, our justice system has long been used to oppress certain groups by separating them, confiscating their property and concentrating (incarcerating) them. From our nation’s very beginnings, the group most notably affected by the system is African-Americans. But the system has been used against other groups, as well. For example, laws against opiates were created to punish Chinese laborers who began taking manual labor jobs away from whites in the 1800’s. Laws against cocaine were created to punish African-Americans who began taking jobs away from whites in the early 1900’s. Laws against marijuana were created to punish both African-Americans and Mexican-Americans who were taking jobs away from whites in the 1900’s.

Things actually got worse for these communities in the 1970’s.

That was when President Nixon announced the War on Drugs and directed all levels of law enforcement to attack drug use. Nixon’s war also included substantial resources for drug treatment. But that changed in the 1980’s under President Reagan. Reagan cut funding for treatment and pushed Congress to institute mandatory sentencing guidelines which forced judges to hand down draconian sentences for minor offenses. In other words, he took the ability to judge out of the hands of judges and allowed the system to more easily target African-Americans who were increasingly being displaced by layoffs in large manufacturing plants.

With the introduction of cheap crack cocaine, the laws were changed to include the so-called 100 to 1 rule – it took 100 times more powder cocaine to be charged with felony possession than crack cocaine. You see, since crack cocaine is cheaper, it tends to be used by poor African-Americans, while powder cocaine tends to be the drug of choice for upper middle-class white people. Of course, this rule led to our prisons being disproportionately filled with African-Americans. (The laws have recently been changed to a standard of 18 to 1 under the Obama administration.)

Law enforcement agencies were further encouraged to focus on drugs through laws that permitted them to confiscate property – cash, vehicles, even buildings – used in drug crimes. As a result, many police departments have begun to rely on this property in order to finance their operations. That, in turn, led to even more focus on drug crimes.

When President Clinton pushed for the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law, judges were bound to level draconian sentences against people convicted of three offenses, no matter how minor the crimes. This led to so much prison overcrowding, it opened the opportunity for corporations to build and operate prison complexes at substantial profits.

Our white population was relatively unaffected by the War on Drugs, other than the occasional interruption of drug supplies and exposure to the scare tactics used by politicians to get elected. That changed with the introduction of methamphetamine. Suddenly, a large number of poor, unemployed white people became drug users and were eventually sent to prison. This created yet another source of revenue for the prison industry.

Most of the prisoners now languishing in prison on drug charges are non-violent drug users and small-time dealers. They are disproportionately minorities, even though drug use for minorities is about the same as that for white people. (According to Michelle Alexander who wrote The New Jim Crow, as many African-Americans are now in some stage of our “justice” system as there were slaves at the beginning of the Civil War!) Most prisoners come from poverty. Most grew up in deplorable circumstances. Many were unable to find jobs that would allow them to support their families. Most sought to escape their misery by resorting to the use and sale of drugs. Many have had their families torn apart, leaving children without mothers and fathers, and likely perpetuating the problem and creating future sources of income for the prison industry.

As one law enforcement officer said, “We may as well make it illegal to be poor.”

What are the consequences of our failed War on Drugs? Taxpayers are forced to pay enormous sums to house, feed and care for our prisoners. At the end of 2012, we had 1,571,013 prisoners in the US, more than any other country. We have 176 prisoners for every 100,000 of our population, surpassing every other nation on Earth, including China, Cuba and Russia.

And how much has the War on Drugs reduced drug use in the US? Zero, zip, zilch, naught, nada!

Meanwhile, we have painted ourselves into a corner. We have built entire industries upon the War on Drugs. We have police, judges, attorneys, prison guards, and corporations that rely on a steady stream of offenders to fill our courts and our prison beds. We have manufacturers dedicated to designing, developing and building weapons systems for the drug war. Even if we can elect politicians with the will to change the system, a large portion of our economy has become dependent on the system. It’s much the same as our war culture. If we ever decide to quit outspending other nations by a hundred, a thousand or a million to one to feed our bloated war machine, our economy could be devastated.

Give into our better nature and we will not only return thousands of people to their families. We will put thousands of people out of work. And what will become of those prisoners who are rightfully returned to society? Many of those who were non-violent when they entered prison have been forced to become violent in order to survive prison. How will they support themselves? Many have little education and few desirable skills. Many will be forced back into the same environment that led to their problems in the first place. Most will be unable to find a job, especially when unemployment is already high.

In order to fully address the problem, we will have to create jobs that pay a livable wage. We will have to fund treatment programs, along with education and training programs. We will have to reduce or eliminate poverty. We will have to rebuild entire communities. We will have to improve public transportation to expand the area in which these people can seek jobs. We will have to change the way we police those communities. And we will have to give judges the latitude to mete out justice…real justice.

America, land of the free? Not yet.