Skip navigation.
Home
   Candidate & issue information
Informing Hawaii's voters

Reality Report: Higher Illinois Taxes, More Corruption

Gary S. Franchi, receiver of the political torch from Aaron Russo, heads a program covering more taxes and corruption in Illinois, Barack Obama's meteoric political rise from relative obscurity while in Illinois, Bill Gates' proposal for the high-tech tracking of children worldwide for the purpose of making sure they get their immunization shots, G. Edward Griffin on the nature of the Fed, and more.


Links:

Aaron Russo on the Council on Foreign Relations [HPI]

Report in The Economist on the Council on Foreign Relations & its sister organizations. The editor of The Economist "sometimes attends" the Bilderberg Group meetings. A must-read.

Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon

The Hawaiian language is a great treasure for Hawaii and the world. But it is also used as a political weapon in ways unlike any other language. The worthy goal of preserving Hawaiian language and helping it thrive has been hijacked by using tax dollars to pay for programs whose hidden intention and practical effect is to foster racial pride, racial separatism, and ethnic nationalism, thereby undermining the sovereignty of the State of Hawaii and of the United States.

The public school system provides a Hawaiian studies component in all schools, plus charter schools focusing entirely on Hawaiian culture, plus classrooms and entire schools using Hawaiian language for teaching all subjects.

Aside from the schools, Hawaiian language is used for political purposes in government operations and personal expression. For example, Hawaiian language has been used in both chambers of the legislature for singing Christian hymns and for giving prayers to both the Christian God and the Hawaiian gods as part of official committee hearings on the Akaka bill to establish a race-based government, and also in the opening of each day's proceedings.

Prayers to the Hawaiian gods are always in Hawaiian language, and even prayers to the Christian God are usually in Hawaiian when politically-correct culturally-mandated "blessings" are given for new or rededicated buildings or roads. But it is politically incorrect for people lacking Hawaiian blood (especially Caucasians) to use Hawaiian in that way, especially if they are expressing views in opposition to sovereignty or racial favoritism.

Hawaiian activists assert a right to sovereignty by demanding that street names must be Hawaiian. A Honolulu County ordinance was adopted in 1978 that every new street on Oahu must be given a Hawaiian name. That ordinance was adopted as part of a big Hawaiian sovereignty political push that included the creation of OHA in a 1978 state Constitutional Convention. But aside from requiring Hawaiian names for new streets, there have also been very aggressive moves in Honolulu County Council and the state legislature to force the removal of existing street or place names honoring World War 2 military events, or honoring Caucasian historical figures who were active in the Hawaiian Kingdom and Republic, to be replaced with Hawaiian names.

Politicians and ordinary people giving speeches or writing newspaper commentaries often sprinkle their English with Hawaiian words, or even entire sentences, as a way to create the impression that what they say is both profound and authentically Hawaiian -- sort of like the Catholic church formerly used Latin for the Mass even though nobody knew what the priest was saying.

A large and heavily documented new webpage explores the following topics, at
http://tinyurl.com/668vqyz

(1) Demanding that the names of places and streets must be Hawaiian -- historical background and 4 case studies: Thurston Ave. (Kamakaeha), Barbers Point (Kalaeloa), Dillingham Military Reservation (Kawaihapai), Fort Barrette Road (Kualakai).

(2) Demands that Hawaiian language as an "official language" of Hawaii be taken seriously by requiring that it must be used in government documents and that people must be allowed to use it when filing court documents or giving testimony before boards and commissions, or in court.

(3) How Hawaiian language, and the ancient Hawaiian religion, are used as political weapons in government hearings and political performances.

(4) The essential role of Hawaiian language in Hawaiian religion

(5) Sprinkling Hawaiian words occasionally throughout a speech or essay, to create an appearance of authentic Hawaiian-ness.

(6) The insistence on using Hawaiian grammar or spelling when speaking or writing English. Examples of pluralizing nouns and using 'okinas.

(7) Hawaiian culture and language are used for political indoctrination in the tax-supported public schools -- the Hawaiian Studies component of the general curriculum; the Hawaiian-focus charter schools; the Hawaiian language immersion schools; how Kamehameha Schools has infiltrated the public schools.

(8) Why are there no automated translation programs for Hawaiian, when such programs are easily available for other languages? It appears that Hawaiian language experts want to keep control of the language so it can be used only for "politically correct" purposes, and also to provide job security for a growing cadre of instructors and independent-contractor translators who must be politically correct to keep their jobs.

(9) There are political and emotional implications of using Hawaiian language rather than English, and sometimes those implications depend on the race of the speaker.

(10) How Hawaiian language, culture, and sovereignty are interconnected

(11) The role of the Christian missionaries and their native partners in creating a written Hawaiian language.

(12) A brief history of the dominance of English language in Hawaii -- How English became almost exclusively the outside language whose words were incorporated into Hawaiian, and how English gradually replaced Hawaiian as the dominant language among foreigners and natives alike.

(13) The false claim that Hawaiian language was made illegal by the Republic of Hawaii after the monarchy was overthrown, and that this was done for the purpose of destroying Hawaiian culture. How this false claim is used for political purposes, to evoke anger and solidarity among ethnic Hawaiians and sympathy among non-ethnic Hawaiians to support demands for sovereignty.

(14) The Honolulu Star-Advertiser (and its predecessor the Honolulu Star-Bulletin) publishes a column every Saturday in Hawaiian language with no English translation. Often the topics are twisted versions of Hawaiian history intended to stir up anti-American or anti-Caucasian hostility.

For details on all these topics please see
http://tinyurl.com/668vqyz

Dem: Do as I Say and Not as I Do

If you're a Republican.

Democrats were busily blaming Republicans and their supporters, although the R word mostly did not escape their lips, for the mass murder in Tucson last week — based on no evidence whatsoever. And if that shooting spree could not be blamed on Democratic critics, then the next mass murder, which hasn't happened yet, could be, said prominent congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) without blushing.

On the floor of the House this week, Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) compared ObamaCare opponents to top Nazi propagandist Goebbels and the infamous mass murder called the Holocaust. But just last week, after the Tucson shooting, he called on fellow lawmakers to tone down their rhetoric.

Hypocrite? Uh-uh, not according to the unapologetic Cohen. Watching his well-oiled obfuscation tactics is fascinating.


Breaking

Later . . .

Well, on second thought . . . . Cohen apologizes. "I've learned my lesson."

Laser and Aircraft Incidents Increasing

Hand-held lasers are blinding pilots flying aircraft. The first laser-caused crash is feared to be just a question of time.


Link:

Lasers a danger to pilots [Honolulu Star-Advertiser]

Honolulu Airport recorded 47 laser strikes on aircraft last year [Honolulu Star-Advertiser]

Ralph Nader and Ron Paul Interviewed Together

Socialist Ralph Nader and conservative Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) actually find much to agree on.

Did WikiLeaks Cause Revolution in Tunisia?


Links:

Tunisa and Us [LewRockwell.com]

Map of North Africa and the Middle East   Tunisia is across the Mediterranean from Italy

Another Civil War False Tariff History

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Recently by Thomas DiLorenzo: The Latest New York Times Nonsense About Lincoln

The only thing worse than a historian who calls himself a "Lincoln scholar" is a sociologist who does the same. This truth was on display recently in a January 9 Washington Post article entitled "Five Myths about Why the South Seceded" by one James W. Loewen.

In discussing the role of federal tariff policy in precipitating the War to Prevent Southern Independence Loewen is either grossly ignorant, or he is dishonest. He begins by referring to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations, which led to South Carolina’s Ordinance of Nullification, whereby the state rightly condemned the 48 percent average tariff rate as a blatant act of plunder (mostly at the South’s expense) and refused to collect it at Charleston Harbor. Loewen writes that "when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede to protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force." That much is true. "No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down," Loewen then writes. This is all false. It is not true that "no state joined the movement." As historian Chauncy Boucher wrote in The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama joined South Carolina in publicly denouncing the Tariff of Abominations, while the Yankee bastions of Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Indiana, and New York responded with their own resolutions in support of political plunder through extortionate tariff rates.

Nor is it true to say that "South Carolina backed down." South Carolina and the Jackson administration reached a compromise in 1833: Jackson "backed down" by not following through with his threats to use force to collect the tariff, and South Carolina agreed to collect tariffs at a much lower rate. Jackson "backed down" as much (or more) as South Carolina did, but the Official Court Historian’s History of the War, as expressed by Loewen, holds that only South Carolina retreated. The reason for this distortion of history is to spread the lie that tax protesters such as the South Carolina nullifiers, or the Whiskey Rebels of an earlier generation, have never successfully challenged the federal government’s taxing "authority." But of course they have succeeded; The Whiskey Rebels ended up not paying the federal whisky tax, and the Tariff of Abominations was sharply reduced over a ten-year period.

Loewen next spreads an egregious falsehood about the tariff: "Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them," he writes. "Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816." Every bit of this narrative is false.

Tariffs certainly were an issue in 1860. Lincoln’s official campaign poster featured mug shots of himself and vice presidential candidate Hannibal Hamlin, above the campaign slogan, "Protection for Home Industry." (That is, high tariff rates to "protect home industry" from international competition). In a speech in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("Steeltown, U.S.A."), a hotbed of protectionist sentiment, Lincoln announced that no other issue was as important as raising the tariff rate. It is well known that Lincoln made skillful use of his lifelong protectionist credentials to win the support of the Pennsylvania delegation at the Republican convention of 1860, and he did sign ten tariff-increasing bills while in office. When he announced a naval blockade of the Southern ports during the first months of the war, he gave only one reason for the blockade: tariff collection.

As I have written numerous times, in his first inaugural address Lincoln announced that it was his duty "to collect the duties and imposts," and then threatened "force," "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. He was not going to "back down" to tax protesters in South Carolina or anywhere else, as Andrew Jackson had done.

The most egregious falsehood spread by Loewen is to say that the tariff that was in existence in 1860 was the 1857 tariff rate, which was in fact the lowest tariff rate of the entire nineteenth century. In his famous Tariff History of the United States economist Frank Taussig called the 1857 tariff the high water mark of free trade during that century. The Big Lie here is that Loewen makes no mention at all of the fact that the notorious Morrill Tariff, which more than doubled the average tariff rate (from 15% to 32.6% initially), was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives during the 1859–60 session of Congress, and was the cornerstone of the Republican Party’s economic policy. It then passed the U.S. Senate, and was signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, where he threatened war on any state that failed to collect the new tax. At the time, the tariff accounted for at least 90 percent of all federal tax revenues. The Morrill Tariff therefore represented a more than doubling of the rate of federal taxation!

This threat to use "force" and "invasion" against sovereign states, by the way, was a threat to commit treason. Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as follows: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" (emphasis added). Lincoln followed through with his threat; his invasion of the Southern states was the very definition of treason under the Constitution.

The words "Morrill Tariff" do not appear anywhere in Loewen’s Washington Post article despite the fact that he portrays himself as some kind of "Keeper of The Truth" regarding "Civil War" history. (And where were the Washington Post’s "fact checkers?!) It was the Morrill Tariff that Lincoln referred to in his first inaugural address, not the much lower 1857 tariff, as Loewen falsely claims.

Abraham Lincoln was not the only American president who believed that the tariff was an important political issue in 1860. Contrary to Loewen’s false claims, Jefferson Davis, like Lincoln, highlighted the tariff issue in his February 18, 1861 inaugural address, delivered in Montgomery, Alabama (From The Papers of Jefferson Davis, vol. 7, pp. 45–51). After announcing that the Confederate government was "anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations" Davis said the following:

An agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade, which our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northeastern States of the American Union. It must follow, therefore, that a mutual interest would invite good will and kind offices. If, however, passion or the lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those States, we must prepare to meet the emergency . . .

Thus, Loewen’s statement that the Southern states said "nothing" about tariff policy is unequivocally false. Jefferson Davis proclaimed here that the economy of the Confederacy would be based on free trade. Indeed, the Confederate Constitution of 1861 outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether, and only allowed for a modest "revenue tariff."

When Davis spoke of a "passion or the lust for dominion," he was referring to the constant attempts, for some seventy years, of the Northern Whig and Republican parties to plunder the South with the instrument of protectionist tariffs, as was attempted with the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. In other words, he declared here that, in his opinion, Lincoln was deadly serious (pun intended) about enforcing the newly-doubled rate of federal tariff taxation with a military invasion of the Southern states, and was preparing for war as a result. Contrary to Loewen’s ignorant diatribe, both Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis announced to the world in 1861 that tariff policy was indeed a paramount political issue: In their respective inaugural addresses, Lincoln threatened "invasion" of any state(s) that failed to collect his tariff, while Davis promised to defend against any such invasion.

Before the war, Northern newspapers associated with the Republican Party were editorializing in favor of naval bombardments of the Southern ports because they knew that the South was adopting free trade, while the North was moving in the direction of a 50% average tariff rate (which did in fact exist, more or less, from 1863 to 1913, when the federal income tax was adopted). These Republican party propagandists correctly understood that much of the trade of the world would enter the U.S. through Southern ports under such a scenario. Rather than adopting reasonable tariff rates themselves, they agitated for war on the South.

The tariff controversy was not the only cause of the war, and I have never argued that it was (despite lies to the contrary told about me by such people as historian Jeffrey Hummel). But it was obviously an important cause of the decades-long conflict between North and South.

The rest of Loewen’s Washington Post article is about as accurate as his uninformed rantings about tariff policy. This was the Post’s second attempt to "correct the record" of the "Civil War," which began 150 years ago this year, in the first nine days of 2011. The government’s company newspaper is apparently terrified that the public will get wind of the truth and begin questioning the foundational myth of the federal Leviathan state.

January 18, 2011

Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland and the author of The Real Lincoln; and How Capitalism Saved America. His latest book is Hamilton’s Curse: How Jefferson’s Archenemy Betrayed the American Revolution – And What It Means for America Today.

Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com

Elderly Women Humiliated by Canadian Airport Security

Now the Canadians are doing it!

WikiLeaks to Reveal Secret Bank Accounts

Politicians, celebrities and corporations soon to have their Swiss secret accounts made public. They include 2,000 high-net-worth individuals and corporations, along with 40 politicians. They are said to be using secrecy to avoid paying taxes.

Some names: Apple, Safeway, FedEx, McDonald's.

Syndicate content