Informing Hawaii's voters
Submitted by Guest on Fri, 08/27/2010 - 18:26
by Michael Connelly
Mr. Connelly teaches law, including constitutional law, through Education to Go, an online company that provides courses to numerous universities. The author of three books and publisher of a website, he resides in Carrollton, Texas, and can be reached by email.
It seems that every two years the politicians from both the Republican and Democrat parties declare that the upcoming election will be a defining moment for America. Yet, until now, I have never believed that. However, the elections that will take place in November 2010 will decide whether the United States of America will survive as a democratic republican form of government where the rights of individuals are paramount, or become a socialist form of government where the rights of the people are abolished in favor of an all powerful government where individuals are now subjects of an elitist group.
Our forefathers had all experienced this type of elitist form of government in Europe and they specifically rejected it in 1776 when they adopted the Declaration of Independence and in 1787 when they wrote the U.S. Constitution. This lead us to create a country that for over 200 years has been the most prosperous nation on the planet and served as a shining example of liberty to the rest of the world. Yet, now it is in the process of being destroyed by so-called progressives who believe that most Americans are too stupid to control their own destiny and must be led by those who are more enlightened.
So, who am I that rejects this concept? That’s simple, I am an American. Note that I am not a hyphenated American. I am not an Irish - American, an African - American, or a Mexican - American. I am just an American. My family arrived in this country in 1756 and we have fought in every war since the American Revolution. My father landed on Utah Beach during the invasion of Normandy, I am a former officer in the U.S. Army, and I have four sons, two of them are veterans and two others are currently on active duty with the Army.
Yet, while they and their fellow soldiers, sailors, marines, and air force personnel risk their lives to defend the Constitution of the United States from terrorists who would destroy our nation, they have to deal with the fact that our Constitution and our freedoms are being taken away by the very people who have ordered them to fight.
We are led by a President of the United States who has never served in the military and openly shows his disdain for the limitations placed on him by the Constitution. He is backed up by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the leaders in Congress who continue to ram through legislation that is clearly unconstitutional and limits our rights as free Americans despite the fact that most of what they are doing is opposed by the majority of us.
I track every piece of legislation being introduced into Congress and what I see is appalling. All ten of the first amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, are under attack, if not by Congress than by left wing Federal judges and the so-called Czars illegally appointed by Obama in violation of the Constitution.
However, when we raise our voices as a free people against what is happening we are attacked as bigots or racists even though none of our concerns have anything to do with race, religion, or ethnicity. These attacks are echoed by the so-called mainstream news media who no longer provide news coverage, but have instead become propaganda organs for the Obama administration. In fact, a group of these left wing news members have actually been exchanging emails about ways to get the government to shut down news organizations such as Fox News that report what is really happening.
Everyone needs to understand what is occurring here. If this November we do not elect enough people who support our Constitution to the House of Representatives and Senate the fight may be lost. The elections in 2012 may occur too late to save our Republic. The bottom line is this: we must turn out the votes in November to save our freedom. If we don’t then our free market economy will be destroyed and our liberties as a free people under our Constitution will be destroyed. Contact your friends, neighbors, and family members and let them know what is at stake this November. We owe this to our children and grandchildren.
God Bless you all and God Bless the United States.
Submitted by HPI on Fri, 08/27/2010 - 17:00
The full-body x-ray scanner technology in use at airports is already being used in roving vans deployed in the U.S. and around the world.
August 24, 2010
by Andy Greenberg
As the privacy controversy around full-body security scans begins to simmer, it’s worth noting that courthouses and airport security checkpoints aren’t the only places where backscatter x-ray vision is being deployed. The same technology, capable of seeing through clothes and walls, has also been rolling out on U.S. streets.
Read more . . .
Submitted by Ken Conklin on Fri, 08/27/2010 - 16:25
A major historical and legal analysis of the Akaka bill has just been published in a well-respected scholarly law journal. The 78-page article appears in the current issue of the Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal published by the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii.
The article analyzes the Akaka bill in light of federal Indian policy for tribal recognition, the history of the Kingdom of Hawaii as a multiracial government, the issue whether Congress can convert an ethnic group into a political entity, etc. As often happens with articles in scholarly legal journals, the footnotes probably take up more space than the body of text; however, the article is understandable for non-lawyers and extremely interesting for anyone who has been following the controversy over the Akaka bill.
Ryan William Nohea Garcia, "Who Is Hawaiian, What Begets Federal Recognition, and How Much Blood Matters." Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2010, pp. 85-162.
The entire article can be downloaded here:
Here are the abstract and the conclusion as published in the article.
The Akaka bill proposes to federally recognize a Hawaiian governing entity similar to those of federally recognized Indian tribes. As the Akaka bill will institutionalize a political difference between Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, who is Hawaiian is a timely, and controversial, issue. Also controversial is whether Congress possesses the authority to federally recognize a Hawaiian governing entity. This article addresses three questions that probe the heart of the controversy surrounding the Akaka bill: who is Hawaiian, what begets federal recognition, and how much blood matters. After analyzing relevant Indian jurisprudence, this article demonstrates that political history, not indegeneity, begets federal recognition. As such, it is the political-historical, not racial, definition of Hawaiian that is legally significant to the Akaka bill. Since, however, the Akaka bill utilizes an ethnic Hawaiian blood eligibility criterion, another important question – and one Justice Breyer raised in Rice v. Cayetano – is how much blood is necessary to distinguish ideological self-identification from legitimate racial identity. To the extent racial preferences may coexist with the equal protection components of the Constitution, this article contends that a preponderance of preferred blood is the logical quantum, but a fifty percent requirement is the most practicable.
The Akaka bill is novel in that it is the first Congressional attempt to federally recognize a non-Indian entity, and to do so in a fashion inconsistent with the political history of the former governing entity it is ostensibly recognizing. Under a different view, the Akaka bill is novel in that it endeavors to federally recognize a government to collectively represent an entire ethnic group based upon shared indigeneity, rather than political history. But political history, not indegeneity, begets federal recognition. As a result the Akaka bill faces invalidation because its political-historical inconsistencies – most of all with regard to who is Hawaiian – raise a number of cognizable legal issues potentially fatal to the bill. Its blood-based eligibility criterion further raises the question of how much ethnic blood is necessary to distinguish legitimate racial identification from ideological association. To the extent that racial preferences may coexist with the equal protection components of the Constitution, a preponderance of blood is the logical quantum, but a fifty percent requirement is the most practicable.
Submitted by HPI on Fri, 08/27/2010 - 16:11
Hawaii has come under the national spotlight, along with some other states, for sending out its ballots to military voters later than the 45 days prior to election day mandated by the MOVE Act, signed into law by the President in October 2009. Because the military tends to vote Republican, partisanship in our heavily Democratic state is suspected to be behind the tardy mailings.
Today Hawaii, along with three other states, has been denied its request to ignore the new law. The U.S. Department of Justice has said that it will sue if Hawaii does not voluntarily comply.
by Associated Press and Star-Advertiser staff
Aug 27, 2010
Hawaii is one of four states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands that were denied requests today to ignore a new federal law meant to protect the voting rights of deployed troops and other Americans overseas.
Five states were granted the waiver.?? Not getting the waiver calls into question how the affected states -- including Wisconsin, Alaska and Colorado -- will comply with deadlines for counting all votes cast by members of the military and other Americans living overseas.
Under the new federal law, ballots to members of the military and others living overseas have to be sent 45 days before the Nov. 2 election.??
But Hawaii's Sept. 18 primary election is exactly 45 days before the general. That leaves too little time to certify the primary results and send out general election ballots.
Chief Elections Officer Scott Nago issued a statement today saying that his office continued to work with federal authorities to be in compliance with the law and to change election rules to allow for electronic transmission of ballots and ballot requests.
Read more . . .
Legislative Alert: Military Voting Rights [HPI]
DOD denies 4 states military ballot law waiver [AP]
Military Voting Waivers Denied For Colorado, 3 Other States [Huffington Post]
Submitted by HPI on Fri, 08/27/2010 - 00:58
Hermann Wilhelm Göring
“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Hermann Wilhelm Göring
Verified by Snopes
Going to War: Unraveling the Tangled Web of American Pretext Stratagems (1846-1989)
War Is a Racket by U.S. Major General Smedley Butler
Mossad Did 9/11 Says Former War College Director [HPI]
FDR Deliberately Provoked Japan to Attack (full-length documentary)
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article or on this site are not necessarily those of management.
Submitted by HPI on Fri, 08/27/2010 - 00:27
Submitted by HPI on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 23:09
Mistaken polls are not much of a surprise to those of us in Hawaii who've been following them. The following ABC News article covers some of the reasons why they can go wrong.
Polls Miss the Mark in Several Key Primary Races; Experts Cite Difficulties
by Devin Dwyer
WASHINGTON, Aug. 26, 2010—
Everybody loves a good horse race. And with primary season in full swing, political enthusiasts have no trouble getting their fill.
Pollsters across the country track the ins and outs of the most hotly contested races, putting out daily predictions for who will come out ahead. And poll aggregating websites, like Pollster.com and RealClearPolitics.com, have become an election buff's dream come true.
But a number of primary election polls this season have been notably off the mark in their predictions, raising questions about their reliability.
Read more . . .
Submitted by HPI on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 18:19
Links to full-length mayoral forums & gubernatorial debates viewable on the Internet. State house, state senate, Honolulu city council candidates. Pro-rail and pro-same-sex civil unions programs.
Full mayoral debate, Hawaii Public Radio. Candidates Kirk Caldwell, Peter Carlisle and Panos Prevedouros, with Rod Tam a no-show. 1 hr. 27 min. Posted on Olelo on Aug 19, 2010.
Salt Lake Board Mayoral Debate (nonpartisan office). Kirk Caldwell, Panos Prevedouros and Rod Tam present with Peter Carlisle a last-minute no-show. [Olelo] 53 min. Held Aug 14, 2010.
Salt Lake Board [Hawaii state] House Debate, Districts 31 & 32 District 31: Moanalua Valley, Moanalua, Salt Lake. District 32: Lower Pearlridge, Aiea, Halawa, Hickam, Pearl Harbor, Moanalua Gardens. [Olelo] 1 hr. 8 min. Posted Aug 16, 2010.
Larry Fenton City Council District 6 — A portion of Makiki, Downtown Honolulu, Punchbowl, Liliha, Pauoa Valley, Nuuanu, Alewa Heights, Papakolea, Kalihi Valley, and a portion of Kalihi. [Olelo] 26 min. Posted Aug 16, 2010.
Pro-rail transit presentation [Olelo] 20 min. Posted Aug 12, 2010.
Hawaii Publishers Association Governor Candidate Debate [Olelo] 1 hr 2 min. Posted Aug 12, 2010.
Neil Abercrombie (D) Birthday [Olelo] 1 hr 53 min. Neil Abercrombie is running for governor of Hawaii. Posted Aug 11, 2010.
Listen Story with Sen. Mike Gabbard [D]: Ep - 5 [Olelo] 1 hr 1 min. Gabbard is running for re-election for Hawaii state senator, District 19 - Waikele, Village Park, Royal Kunia, Makakilo, Kapolei, Kalaeloa, Honokai Hale, portions of Waipahu and Ko 'Olina. Posted Aug 2, 2010.
HB 444 Ep - 1 [Olelo] Homosexual crowd supports HB444, same-sex civil unions. 19 min. Posted Aug 2, 2010.
Hawaii Now with Neil Abercrombie: Ep - 44 'A Citizen's Perspective' [Olelo video] Abercrombie (D) is running for governor of Hawaii. 26 min. Posted Aug 2, 2010.
Submitted by HPI on Wed, 08/25/2010 - 00:26
Le Bateau-atelier by Claude Monet, part of the Barnes Foundation collection, Lincoln University, Merion, Pennsylvania/Click photo for enlargement
The movie The Art of the Steal is available for instant play on Netflix.
by Steven Woskow
A moving story of the greatest theft of private property by the state and its powerful allies in the civic and charitable community.
It is my dream to create an art which is filled with balance, purity and calmness, freed from a subject matter that is disconcerting or too attention-seeking. In my paintings, I wish to create a spiritual remedy, similar to a comfortable armchair which provides rest from physical expectation for the spiritually working, the businessman as well as the artist. — Henri-Matist
The dream of the artist Henri-Matist was embodied in the art collection of Dr. Albert C. Barnes and the Barnes Foundation. The Barnes Foundation (founded in 1922) located in Merion Pennsylvania about 5 miles outside Philadelphia is home (and I literally mean home) to some of the greatest art treasures in the modern world, Matisse, Renoir, Cézzane, Picaso, van Gogh, Monet to name just a few. It is estimated to be worth $25–$35 billion and considered the world's greatest collection of Impressionist, Post-Impressionist and Early Modern art. The collection includes such great works as The Portrait of the Postman Joseph Roulin (van Gogh), The Card Players (Cézanne) and The Joy of Life (Matisse). Dr. Barnes was one of the few collectors that viewed African Art not as primitive cultural artifacts but as works of art equal to the great works of Europe. To think of Dr. Barnes as simply an art lover or collector does not do him justice. Dr Barnes understood what Matist was searching for in his dreams – balance, purity, calmness, a spiritual remedy for businessman as well as the artist. Dr. Barnes built his Foundation and displayed his art (and it was his art) in his house organized not by artist or subject but by the aesthetic and spiritual connection between the pieces. A van Gogh is hung next to a door lock, a piece of furniture or an African sculpture. The rooms are comfortable so one can pause for any length and contemplate the great works. The site is adorned with beautiful gardens and located in a serene neighborhood in Lower Merion, PA. Unfortunately, by 2012 it will all be gone. The Art Of The Steal is a riveting movie that shows how the state and its powerful allies in the art and charitable establishment trample the private property rights of the individual who in the words of the great artist Henri-Matist created "the only sane place to see art in America."
Dr. Barnes himself is a classic example of the power of free markets. He was born into poverty and grew up in the low income neighborhoods around Philadelphia. He financed his college education by boxing professionally. He became a chemist and physician, invented and patented Argyrol a substitute for Silver Nitrate which, at the time, was put in the eyes of every baby born in the USA to prevent venereal disease (an unintended consequence of war). He made his fortune in pharmaceuticals and used his fortune to gather the world’s greatest collection of early and postmodern art. In 1923 he displayed seventy-five paintings including works of Soutine, Picasso, Chirico, and Matisse at the Philadelphia Academy of the Fine Arts. The art and Dr. Barnes were excoriated by the Philadelphia art establishment, mainly the powerful Philadelphia Enquirer owned by Moses Annenberg (the father of Walter Annenberg who later in life established the "The Annenberg Foundation" one of the key players in the state confiscation of Dr. Barnes private property). His experience left him bitter and hostile towards the Philadelphia art establishment and the Philadelphia Enquirer. Another event had a great influence on Barnes decision to move the art out of Philadelphia. John G. Johnson an attorney to some of the most powerful men in the world including J.P. Morgan and Andrew Carnegie was the owner of a substantial art collection himself. He died on April 14, 1917 and donated his collection to the citizens of Philadelphia but directed that the art be preserved in his home on S. Broadstreet in Philadelphia.
A few years later The Philadelphia Museum of Art opened a new neoclassical wing and needed art to fill it. By 1933 the museum came up with an "extraordinary reason" to move the collection. They convinced Philadelphia’s "Orphans Court" (with the full backing of the Philadelphia Enquirer) that the paintings were threatened because Johnson’s home was not fireproof. The home was condemned and the art moved to the museum under the stipulation the museum honor the remaining provisions of the will to keep the collection together (in 1989 the museum convinced the court to allow them to break up the collection for a "more unified presentation"). Barnes witnessed this in 1933 and vowed they (the Philadelphia art establishment, socialites and politicians of Philadelphia) would never get a hold of his collection – unfortunately Dr. Barnes underestimated the power of the state.
Dr. Barnes was killed in 1951 in a car crash (was it an accident?). This left the Barnes Foundation in the hands of Violette de Mazia who was Director of Education. During her life the Barnes Foundation stayed true to Dr. Barnes's Will and Testament, it stayed in Merion and was used primarily to educate. The public could view the collection but only during limited hours. Unfortunately, Barnes had no children so when Mrs. de Mazia died the Barnes Trust was put in the hands of Liberty College a small, private all black college located in Pennsylvania and placed under the control of a 5 member board (as per Dr. Barnes will). Later Liberty College becomes a state school which is chronically underfunded. Yet, under the direction of Franklin Williams (the Lincoln Trustee), and an outside advisory board of art experts, the conditions of the Barnes Trust were honored. Around 1990 Williams dies of cancer. Now the question becomes who appoints board members (or as Lenin put it "who whom"). This is when the wheels were set in motion by powerful forces in Philadelphia, the art establishment and the state of Pennsylvania to steal the collection from the Barnes Foundation "for the public good" and move it out of Merion to Philadelphia. At this point the movie plays out like a great Hollywood crime mystery with state institutions and individual politicians playing the villains. The movie chronicles in great detail the chain of events that lead to a complete and udder disregard for private property rights. I am no Constitutional lawyer, but this may be the most extreme and egregious case in American history of state violation of private property rights.
The movie was directed and produced by Don Argott and Sheena Joyce. It was funded by Lenny Feinberg (a student of The Barnes Foundation and wealthy real estate investor). Mr. Fienberg said he "stewed" when he heard the foundation's collection was being moved to Philadelphia which explicitly goes against Dr. Barnes 1951 will, which stated that "the foundation shall always be an educational institute, and the paintings shall never be removed, sold or loaned." Other students of the Barnes Foundation appear in the movie including Nick Tinari (A Barnes attorney) who is interviewed between shouts of "Philistines" and "have fun now – wait until it’s your will" at people attending a museum event celebrating the move of the Barnes collection to Philadelphia.
My only criticism of the movie is that it does not verbally make a stronger use of the constitutional argument for private property rights and often comes off as critical of capitalism when it shouldn't. After all, it was capitalism that provided the means for Dr. Barnes to acquire the wealth used to purchase these great art pieces. But, this is a minor criticism. The story itself is a powerful reminder of the corruption of the state. From the abuse of civil rights laws (the powerful interests sued the neighbors of the Barnes Foundation using the Federal Ku Klux Clan Act), the unholy alliance between the state and powerful "public charitable" trusts headed by the Pew Foundation, power seeking individuals and corrupt politicians (including the "dishonorable" Governor Edward G. Rendell who does his pathetic best to defend the state).
This is a story that every freedom loving Libertarian needs to know. There are so many lessons to be learned from this event that a short review simply cannot do justice to it. The movie is well done and the story is riveting. I can think of no better vehicle for teaching why the framers of the Constitution were so adamant that a free and just society respects private property rights and coercive tyrants don't. The dream of Matist was realized in the art collected by a private individual and destroyed by the nightmare of state abuse.
August 25, 2010
Steven Woskow [send him mail] received his B.S. from California State University Chico, Masters from Utah State University and Ph.D. from Iowa State University in Food Science and Nutrition. He is the co-founder of a Biotechnology company that developed microbiological based products for animal agriculture (alternatives to antibiotics and biological solutions for the treatment of animal waste). In 2008 the company was sold and now Dr. Woskow works as a private consultant. He is a native Californian and lives with his wife Susan, 2 horses and 4 dogs in Simi Valley CA.
Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com.
Submitted by HPI on Tue, 08/24/2010 - 22:39
Oahu's trash being processed at one the specialized locations in leeward Oahu
Oahu's trash woes are making the national news. The Drudge Report had a link to the following story today.
HONOLULU (AP) - Gigantic piles of shrink-wrapped garbage have been moldering in the heat of a Hawaii industrial park for more than five months, waiting for a place to be shipped.
That wait appeared to end Monday when city officials inked a deal to dispose of the 40 million-pound pile of odious rubbish over the next six months by mostly burning it in an existing waste-to-power plant.
But bigger problems remain for Honolulu as the state's largest city struggles to find a home for all its waste.
With its lone dump filling up fast, officials had been counting on a plan to ship at least 100,000 tons of blue, plastic-wrapped garbage bales each year to a landfill near an Indian reservation in Washington state.
Read more . . . [My Way]