Tu, Nov 8, 2016, Hawaii general election. Details
by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
Last week I was both surprised and pleased when the Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions requiring the Federal Reserve Bank to comply with requests for information made by Bloomberg under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). Bloomberg simply wanted to know who received loans from the Fed's discount window in the aftermath of the 2008 financial market crisis, and how much each entity received. Surely this is basic information that should be available to every American taxpayer. But the Fed fought tooth and nail all the way to the Supreme Court to preserve their privileged secrecy. However, transparency and openness won the day. There are some 29,000 pages to decipher, but a few points stand out initially.
The Fed lent huge sums of our money to foreign banks. This in itself was not surprising, but the actual amount is staggering! In one week at the height of the crisis, about 70% of the money doled out went to foreign banks. We were told that bailing out banks was going to stave off a massive depression. Depression for whom? We now know that the Fed's bailout had nothing to do with helping the American people, who have gotten their depression anyway with continued job losses and foreclosures. But now we learn that a good deal of the money did not even help American banks!
In light of recent world events, perhaps the most staggering revelation is that quite a bit of money went to the Arab Banking Corp., in which the Libyan Central Bank owned about a third of its stock. This occurred while Libya, a declared state sponsor of terrorism, was under strict economic sanctions! How erratic the US must appear when we shower a dictator alternately with dollars and bombs! Also, we must consider the possibility that those loans are inadvertently financing weapons Gaddaffi is using against his own people and western militaries. This would not be the first time the covert activities of the Fed have undermined not only our economy and the value of the dollar, but our foreign policy as well.
Of course I can't say I'm surprised by the poor quality of the data provided by the Fed. The category of each loan made, whether from the "Primary Discount Window", the "Secondary Discount Window," or "Other Extensions of Credit," is redacted. Thus, we don't know with certainty how much discount window lending was provided to foreign banks and how much was merely "other extensions of credit". Also, some of the numbers simply do not seem to add up. We are of course still wading through the massive document dump, but it does seem as though several billions of dollars are unaccounted for.
As the world economy continues to falter in spite of - or rather because of - cheap money doled out by the Federal Reserve, its ability to deceive financial markets and American taxpayers is coming to an end. People are beginning to realize that when the fed in effect doubles the worldwide supply of US dollars in a relatively short time, it has the effect of stealing half your money through reduced purchasing power. Rapid inflation will continue as trillions in new money and credit recently created by the Fed flood into the commodity markets.
It is becoming more and more obvious that the Fed operates for the benefit of a few privileged banks, banks that never suffer for bad decisions they make. Quite the opposite - as we have seen since October 2008, under our current monetary system politically-connected banks are paid to make bad decisions.
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.
I have recently been asked by a number of different people if I think that the President of the United States, Barack Obama, has committed any offenses that subject him to being impeached by the Congress of the United States. The answer is without a doubt yes because he is repeatedly breached his oath of office. The oath of office of the President of the United States the simple and concise. It reads:
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Instead of living up to that oath, President Obama has actively attempted to subvert, ignore, and completely destroy large parts of the Constitution. I believe the President of the United States is well aware of what he is doing, and it is completely intentional. Listed below are what I believe are impeachable offenses and the list continues to grow.
1. President Obama has appointed numerous people to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Constitution. These individuals are given extraordinary power and independent funding, and are not under the scrutiny of Congress. The fact that Obama calls them Czars does not make them legal.
2. The push by Pres. Obama to pass health care legislation in the Congress of the United States that he was fully aware was unconstitutional. He has continued to use his powers and executive branch of government to implement this legislation despite the fact that a federal judge has declared the entire law unconstitutional, and ordered that it not be implemented.
3. Despite the fact that the United States Senate refused to pass the Cap and Trade bill, the President has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to use regulations to implement key portions of the bill, including those regulating so-called greenhouse gases. Obama himself has acknowledged that this will force energy prices in this country to skyrocket. He is taking these actions in direct defiance of the will of the people of the United States, the will of Congress, and the Constitution.
4. Through the Department of the Interior Obama has placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling or exploration off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. He is also prohibited new drilling exploration in any states in the United States. These actions by the Department of Interior have continued in direct defiance of several court orders issued by a federal judge in New Orleans, Louisiana the declared that the department had no authority to issue such a moratorium. In fact the Secretary of the Department of the Interior has been held in contempt by the same judge.
5. Instead of allowing American companies to drill for oil domestically, Obama has betrayed the American people and authorized loans of billions of dollars to countries like Brazil and Mexico so that they can drill for oil, and then sell that oil to the United States. This will dramatically increase our dependence on foreign nations such as Venezuela, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and even Libya that do not serve the interest of America or the American people.
6. President Obama has abdicated his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States against illegal immigration. He has virtually declared our southern border an open border by declaring certain areas of federal land in states like Arizona as off-limits to federal, state, and local authorities. This is despite the fact that these areas are being used to bring in thousands of illegal immigrants, massive amounts of drugs, and also being used by foreign terrorists to infiltrate the United States. He has also ordered the border patrol not to arrest most illegal immigrants entering the country, and has stopped deportation proceedings against thousands of people in this country illegally. He is bypassing the Congress of the United States which has sole authority over immigration matters.
7. The President and his Atty. Gen. Eric Holder have clearly violated their oath of office by joining with foreign countries in a lawsuit against the sovereign state of Arizona to stop it from enforcing the federal immigration laws.
8. President Obama has ordered the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations giving the federal government control of the Internet and its contents, including providing Obama with a kill switch that gives him authority to shut down the Internet if he sees fit. This is in direct violation of a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the FCC has no Constitutional authority to control the Internet.
9. One of the paramount responsibilities of the President of the United States and his executive branch of government is to enforce and defend laws adopted by Congress unless they are declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Obama has decided that he should ignore this Constitutional mandate, and that as President he is more powerful than either the Congress of the United States or the Supreme Court. He has unilaterally declared that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress is unconstitutional, and further declared that he will not have the Justice Department defend it against lawsuits. He has essentially said that he is the supreme ruler of the United States, and that the Congress and the Federal Judiciary are irrelevant.
10. It has recently been learned that acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Obama administration has been involved for the past several months in getting legitimate and law-abiding gun store owners along our southern border to supply weapons to straw buyers that the government knew would deliver them to the drug cartels in Mexico. This was billed as a sting operation against the cartels when in fact it was designed to produce fraudulent data showing that large numbers of weapons were going from the United States to the Mexican drug dealers. This data was then to be used, and is being used, to try to justify new gun control regulations to limit the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with arresting members of the drug operations. The administration has, in effect, armed our enemies, and one border patrol agent has already been killed by one of these weapons. Now, he intends to impose gun control laws by Executive order so he will not have to deal with Congress.
11. The President of the United States is not authorized by the Constitution to take our nation to war without the consent of the Congress of the United States. The only exception to this is the authority granted to the President by Congress under the War Powers Act. This law allows the President to take immediate action without the consent of Congress if there is an imminent threat to the security of the United States, or its citizens. Although there was clearly no such imminent threat caused by the Civil War in Libya, the President committed members of the United States military to combat missions in a foreign country without the consent of Congress. He based his authority on a United Nations resolution, and a resolution by the Arab League.
12. Last but not the least, of my dirty dozen of impeachable offenses, is the fact that since taking office the President has used executive orders, laws pushed through Congress in the dark of night, and administrative actions by his departments to nationalize and control automobile manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, and portions of the healthcare industry. This is designed to take our country from a free enterprise economy to a socialist economy. There is absolutely no authority in the Constitution of te United States that allows the President to do this.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
I contend that among those high crimes and misdemeanors is the intentional violation of the oath of office administered to the President and all other federal officials. In fact, federal law at 5 U.S.C. 7311 specifically provides that violation of the oath of office includes advocating the overthrowing of our constitutional form of government. This is specifically declared a criminal offense in 18 U.S.C. 1918 and is punishable by both a fine and imprisonment.
In the 12 areas I mentioned in the paragraphs above I firmly believe that Obama, Eric Holder, and numerous other members of his administration have gone beyond just advocating the overthrow of our constitutional form of government. They are actually engaged in making it happen, and as a result should be impeached and convicted.
Will there be an impeachment and conviction in the current Congress? Probably not, since it takes a two thirds vote in the House of Representatives to impeach, and a two thirds vote in the Senate to convict. With Harry Reid and the progressives still in control of the Senate, and many of them guilty of some of the same impeachable offenses, they will resist it.
However, we are the American people and we still have a right to control our government, and the people elected to represent us. Therefore, I am personally calling on the conservative members the House of Representatives to bring this action based on the grounds I have enumerated so that the American people can understand what is really at stake here. Then “we the people,” can make our voices heard.
Japan says it will dump 11,500 tons of radioactive water into the ocean. The government describes it as "low level" without getting specific.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
As more and more Americans face mortgage foreclosure, banks' crucial ownership documents for the properties are often unclear and are sometimes even bogus, a condition that's causing lawsuits and hampering an already weak housing market. Scott Pelley reports.
60 Minutes Overtime: Mortgage mess: who really owns your mortgage?
Have you contacted your mortgage servicing company to find out whether your mortgage has been bundled and sold? Did you get a clear answer and a copy of your mortgage paperwork to back it up? Share your experience with other homeowners.
Extra: "Save the Dream" events
Bruce Marks, founder and CEO of the nonprofit Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America talks to Scott Pelley about his "Save the Dream" events and how foreclosures are causing a crisis in America.
Extra: Eviction reprieve
Judge Napolitano of Fox Business interviews Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX) and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).
Randall Roth, law professor at the University of Hawaii, who ruefully acknowledges that he is no stranger to controversial issues, speaks about the state's budget, the issues of government accountability and transparency, the GET (general excise tax) rate's hidden high costs and more.
Roth is co-author of Broken Trust: Greed, Mismanagement, And Political Manipulation at America's Largest Charitable Trust (about the Bishop Trust, since renamed Kamehameha Schools) and The Price of Paradise: Lucky We Live Hawaii?
Malia Zimmerman, co-founder of Hawaii Reporter, is the interviewer.
Public Education in Hawai‘i: Past, Present & Future (pdf) by Randall W. Roth, Esq.
Legislators say let's erase "Treaty of Annexation" from century-old President McKinley statue
The State of Hawaii House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs has entertained many absurd bills and resolutions this year. Every one of them has passed, usually with zero votes in opposition.
Some items they passed are flagrantly racist -- at least two bills to establish an entity with governmental powers whose main requirement for membership is Hawaiian native blood; and a resolution calling on the University of Hawaii to give free tuition to all students who have Hawaiian native blood (A few other students of other races might get free tuition because they are needy, but only after all ethnic Hawaiians get free tuition based solely on race).
Some items are blatant attempts to rewrite history, reminiscent of how the Soviet Union declared some important historical figures to be "non-persons" and removed all references to their names from books about history and culture.
The latest effort to twist history is House resolution HR258, and its companion House Concurrent Resolution HCR293. It calls for the removal of the words "Treaty of Annexation" from a document held in the right hand of President McKinley's bronze statue that has been in front of McKinley High School for a century. The resolution says there never was a Treaty of Annexation, and "these inaccuracies, when incorporated into public displays such as statues, have been harmful to everyone including not only students at McKinley High School but all young people in the public school system because these public displays perpetuate and promote lies as truths, leaving Hawai‘i's youth unprepared to engage in meaningful dialogue on Hawai‘i's history."
Text of HR258 is at
A file containing the testimony submitted on this resolution can be downloaded at
But of course there was a Treaty of Annexation.
The first attempt at a treaty was offered by the Provisional Government of Hawaii in January 1893 but later withdrawn from the U.S. Senate by President Grover Cleveland when Cleveland took office in March 1893.
A new treaty was offered by the Republic of Hawaii in 1897, when William McKinley was President. At first it was rejected by the U.S. Senate. But upon further consideration and in light of world events, it was then accepted by joint resolution of the entire Congress in 1898. The vote was 42-21 in the Senate (exactly 2/3) and by 209-91 in the House (more than 2/3).
Hawaiian sovereignty activists like to say there never was a Treaty of Annexation. That's because they dislike the way the United States chose to exercise its sovereignty to accept the treaty. The extreme zealousness of the "No Treaty of Annexation" folks is described in a Star-Advertiser news report on September 6, 2010.
At various public events the activists now display about 1500 tiny lawn signs. Each says "No treaty of annexation" on one side,
http://tinyurl.com/5w27xht while the other side shows the name of one of the signers of the anti-annexation petition of 1897. http://tinyurl.com/4r3hrnn
The activists claim that the U.S. can only ratify a treaty by a 2/3 vote of the Senate. But how any nation chooses to ratify a treaty is entirely up to that nation to decide for itself. The U.S. chose to ratify the treaty by means of a joint resolution, just as had been done 50 years previously in the annexation of Texas (which also was an independent nation at the time it was annexed). It is not a matter of international law, and certainly not a matter for the Hawaiian activists, to decide the method whereby the U.S. internally exercises its sovereignty to accept and ratify a treaty offered by another nation. Those members of the U.S. Senate who opposed the treaty could have filed a complaint with the U.S. Supreme Court, but chose not to do so and acquiesced in the use of the joint resolution. The Treaty of Annexation is now settled law; governed by the principles of "stare decisis" and "laches."
But even the Hawaiian sovereignty activists must acknowledge that the Republic of Hawaii did indeed offer a Treaty of Annexation to President McKinley, and that he accepted it and submitted it first to the Senate and later to both the House and Senate. The McKinley statue is correct in showing President McKinley holding a document entitled "Treaty of Annexation." Hawaii held out the Treaty of Annexation to President McKinley, who accepted it into his hand, just as the statue portrays.
See this webpage: "Treaty of Annexation between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America (1898). Full text of the treaty, and of the resolutions whereby the Republic of Hawaii legislature and the U.S. Congress ratified it. The politics surrounding the treaty, then and now."
If there had not been a Treaty of Annexation then Hawaii would not have become a Territory or State. That's the whole idea of this resolution -- to put the legislature on record as saying Hawaii should not be part of the United States because an "illegal overthrow" was followed by an "illegal annexation" (not to mention an "illegal Statehood vote" in 1959).
That same idea was also the essence of another resolution HCR107 passed the previous week by the same committee, with no dissenting votes. That resolution calls for convening an investigative committee with powers of subpoena and contempt, to investigate an alleged "executive agreement" between (ex) Queen Liliuokalani and President Cleveland, to restore Liliuokalani to the throne. If there had actually been such an executive agreement, and if it continued in force and effectiveness today, that would mean the U.S. must disgorge Hawaii and restore the monarchial government. For detailed analysis of HCR107 see
The Committee on Hawaiian Affairs is not merely wasting time and taxpayer dollars. It is deliberately and eagerly stirring up feelings of victimhood, anti-Americanism, secession and treason. No good can come of it. The members of this committee should be held up to ridicule. Citizens should speak to these representatives in angry denunciation. Make them social outcasts. Let them know we will never vote for them again. Their names are: Faye P. Hanohano, Chris Lee, Della Au Belatti, Jo Jordan, John M. Mizuno, Dee Morikawa, Jessica Wooley, Ryan I. Yamane, Kymberly Marcos Pine, Gene Ward.
However sweet and lovely they might be in private life, whatever good things they might accomplish on other committees, is overwhelmingly outweighed by their support for the dangerous legislation they vote for in the Hawaiian Affairs committee.
The resolution to remove "Treaty of Annexation" from President McKinley's statue passed without amendment and with no dissent. Republican Representatives Pine and Ward voted "Yes with reservations." Their votes still count as "Yes." Their "reservations" are of no consequence except to try to make us think they have a conscience. They lack the guts to stand up for what's right and deserve all the outrage directed to the other members. A killer who hesitates before plunging in the knife is nevertheless fully guilty of murder. In this case, what is contemplated is the murder of the State of Hawaii as part of the United States, and these politicians are accomplices.
HR258 status [State capitol website]
Governor Neil Abercrombie (D) tells us about his "new day" plan for Hawaii.
Saturday, March 27, 2011
60 Minutes Overtime
More on corporate tax havens
by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
Last week the Obama Administration took the United States to war against Libya without bothering to notify Congress, much less obtain a Constitutionally-mandated declaration of war. In the midst of our severe economic downturn, this misadventure has already cost us hundreds of millions of dollars and we can be sure the final price tag will be several times higher.
Why did the US intervene in a civil war in a country that has neither attacked us nor poses a threat? We are told this was another humanitarian intervention, like Clinton’s 1999 war against Serbia. But as civilian victims of the US-led coalition bombing continue to add up, it is getting difficult to determine whether the problem we are creating on the ground is worse than the one we were trying to solve.
Though the administration seems to be playing with semantics, calling this a “kinetic military action,” let’s be clear: this is a US act of war on Libya. Imposing a no-fly zone over the air space of a sovereign nation is an act of war, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pointed out before the bombing began. That the administration hesitates to call this war, possibly due to the troubling Constitutional implications, does not mean that it is not one. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution could not be clearer: the power and obligation to declare war resides solely in the US Congress.
There was ample time and opportunity for the administration to consult the UN, NATO and the Arab League before going to war, but not the US Congress.
Aside from the manner in which the administration took us to war, it is also troubling that our government has taken a decisive stand for one side of an internal conflict in another sovereign country. The administration speaks out of both sides of its mouth on this, claiming that the US is not attempting to overthrow the Gaddafi regime while clearly benefitting the rebels and stating that Gaddafi must leave. Does this make any sense? Gaddafi may well be every bit the “bad guy” we are told he is, but who are the rebels we are assisting? Do we have any clue? Will they bring freedom and prosperity to Libya if they are victorious? We might like to hope so, but the fact is, we don’t know. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, explained in a recent article that there is plausible reason to believe the rebels are current or former Islamist mujahedin, eager to engage in jihad. Indeed, Gaddafi has fought against Libyan Islamists for years and is seen by them as a bitter enemy. Astoundingly, it may well be that we are assisting al Qaeda in this new war!
The costs of this terrible mistake cannot be ignored. Congress has been locked in battles over budget cuts and agonizing over ways to save money. Recent proposed spending cuts have by now been completely wiped out with this new war! Will we be rebuilding Libya ten years from now? Will Congress simply roll over and rubber stamp more emergency spending bills for this new war as they have done in the past? We must end our participation in any attack on Libya immediately and I have signed on to legislation that would do exactly that. Congress must assert its Constitutional authority and rein in an administration clearly out of control.