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

Ed Snowden Appearing via Video Link at Hawaii Convention Center

ACLU of Hawaii Foundation

January 16, 2015

Screening of the award-winning documentary “Citizenfour” followed by a live conversation with Edward Snowden (via video link from Moscow, Russia) and his attorney Ben Wizner will be held next month in Honolulu. The ACLU of Hawaii Foundation is presenting the Davis Levin First Amendment Conference featuring the topic Can Democracy Survive Secrecy?

  • Sat., 2/14/15, Hawai‘i Convention Center, Kal?kaua Ballroom A, 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

  • $5.00 entry fee (student scholarships available)

  • Program: 9:00 a.m. Registration

  • 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.: Screening of Snowden documentary, Citizenfour

  • Noon to 1:30 p.m.: Live conversation with Edward Snowden, Ben Wizner

HONOLULU – Can democracy survive secrecy? What is the future of the First Amendment in a surveillance society? These questions will be the focus of a rare and provocative public discussion at the Davis Levin First Amendment Conference (“Conference”) happening Saturday, February 14th in Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

Edward Snowden’s release of documents detailing massive government surveillance sparked a raging global debate which continues to this day. Choosing not remain anonymous, Snowden traded home and career for a life in exile, fleeing the U.S., and eventually taking residence in Russia.

A high-level intelligence analyst based in Hawai‘i, in 2013, Snowden provided documents to the press proving the existence (previously shrouded by government as highly sensitive state secrets) of multiple NSA programs that even today collect and use data on ordinary Americans on an extraordinary scale.

The program will also feature Snowden’s attorney and Director of the national ACLU Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, Ben Wizner. Speakers will share their views on whistleblowing, balancing government secrecy in wartime against the public’s right to know, and the possible futures facing free speech in America. Moderated by Aviam Soifer, Dean of the University of Hawai‘i William S. Richardson School of Law.

Seating is limited. Tickets are $5.00. RSVPs are requested no later than Tuesday, 2/10/15. Pay by check to the ACLU of Hawai‘i Foundation, or via Visa or Mastercard by phone. To reserve, call (808) 522-5906, neighbor islands call toll-free, 1-877-544-5906. Email office(at)acluhawaii(dot)org, or mail reservations to First Amendment Conference/P.O. Box 3410, Hon., HI 96801. Parking at the Hawai‘i Convention Center is $10.00, also served by major bus lines. Please visit for more information.

The Hawai‘i Convention Center is ADA-accessible. Request special accommodation no later than Tuesday, 2/10/15. The ACLU of Hawai‘i will always try to meet requests.

The Davis Levin First Amendment Conference is a lively, civil discussion between prominent constitutional thinkers fostering awareness & dialogue about the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, underwritten by the Davis Levin Livingston Charitable Foundation. Established as a public education project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Hawai‘i Foundation in 1997 with grants from the Robert M. Rees Trust & the law firm of Davis Levin Livingston, the Conference is named for attorneys Mark S. Davis & Stanley E. Levin for their work defending the First Amendment in Hawai‘i. Prior speakers: Daniel Ellsberg, Kenneth Starr, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Ralph Reed, Nadine Strossen, and Jay Sekulow.

More Fodder for the Gullible: Latest FBI Claim of Disrupted Terror Plot

By Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Fishman

January 16, 2015

The Justice Department on Wednesday issued a press release trumpeting its latest success in disrupting a domestic terrorism plot, announcing that “the Joint Terrorism Task Force has arrested a Cincinnati-area man for a plot to attack the U.S. Capitol and kill government officials.” The alleged would-be terrorist is 20-year-old Christopher Cornell (above), who is unemployed, lives at home, spends most of his time playing video games in his bedroom, still addresses his mother as “Mommy” and regards his cat as his best friend; he was described as “a typical student” and “quiet but not overly reserved” by the principal of the local high school he graduated in 2012.

The affidavit filed by an FBI investigative agent alleges Cornell had “posted comments and information supportive of [ISIS] through Twitter accounts.” The FBI learned about Cornell from an unnamed informant who, as the FBI put it, “began cooperating with the FBI in order to obtain favorable treatment with respect to his criminal exposure on an unrelated case.” Acting under the FBI’s direction, the informant arranged two in-person meetings with Cornell where they allegedly discussed an attack on the Capitol, and the FBI says it arrested Cornell to prevent him from carrying out the attack.

Family members say Cornell converted to Islam just six months ago and claimed he began attending a small local mosque. Yet The Cincinnati Enquirer could not find a single person at that mosque who had ever seen him before, and noted that a young, white, recent convert would have been quite conspicuous at a mosque largely populated by “immigrants from West Africa,” many of whom “speak little or no English.”

Read more . . .

Book Review: Captive Paradise by James L. Haley

The book was published in November 2014, and copies are available at various branches of the Hawaii Public Library.

The title "Captive Paradise" is a red flag that this book has a strongly-held viewpoint and is not a fair and balanced history of Hawaii. But it is very well written and provides numerous fascinating tidbits that will probably be new information even for readers who are quite knowledgeable about the subject. What's below is a short summary of a much more detailed chapter-by-chapter book review on my website which includes lengthy quotes from the book, my comments, and related internet links.

I give this book 2 stars instead of only 1, because it is very well written, filled with fascinating and little-known but important details, and has some valuable footnotes. I give this book 2 stars instead of 5, because the author began the project with the all-too-common academic prejudice already firmly in place that Hawaiian sovereignty was stolen by an imperialist United States which used religious and cultural indoctrination to colonize the minds of the natives and then used force to invade, overthrow the monarchy, and illegally annex Hawaii -- and then the author selected those facts which bolstered his prejudice while ignoring facts that would discredit it. Like Keanu Sai or Tom Coffman, James Haley has written a piece of propaganda whose nasty conclusion is couched in an appearance of scholarly inquiry.

Author James Haley is honest to describe his book as a narrative history, meaning it is a story told for a purpose and not a dry, neutral scholarly or academic footnote-studded recitation of facts. It's more accurate than pure fiction, and also more accurate than the mix of fact and allegorical storytelling found in what Hawaiians call "mo'olelo." But it's far from a straightforward scholarly history. It's not a pseudo-historical novel with made-up characters like James Michener's "Hawaii", but it's also not a thoroughly documented academic work like the three-volume book by Ralph S. Kuykendal, "The Hawaiian Kingdom." Haley's book is more detailed on many topics than "Shoal of Time" by Gavan Daws, and makes more interesting reading on those topics; but is less fair to the annexationists than Daws overall. There's a lot to learn from this book, but also plenty of caution to keep in mind that important parts of the story are going untold when they are contrary to the author's bias.

Fair warning to readers: When it comes to discussion of current controversies about Hawaiian sovereignty, this book is strongly biased in favor of the independence movement. The bias comes not in the form of bombastic rhetoric, but rather in the manner of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, by selecting which events and publications to report on while ignoring things from a different perspective. The first portions of the book describing history from 1778 to perhaps 1850 are reasonably balanced; but as history moves more toward the preliminary revolution of 1887 (Bayonet Constitution), the final revolution of 1893, and annexation of 1898, the book becomes ever-more biased in a low-key but insistent and increasingly strident way.

A more appropriate title for this book would be "How Hawaii Became Americanized" -- such a title would be more dispassionate and neutral, leaving open the possibility that Americanization happened in ways that were pono (righteous) even if controversial. But that was not a conclusion the author was willing to consider; and of course the title "Captive Paradise" fits the prejudices of most professors and students and is a more flamboyant title to bolster book sales.

In an introductory section Haley is honest to admit that he was warned by a "distinguished history professor friend" not to be overly critical of precontact Hawaiian cultural practices such as human sacrifice and infanticide, and not to criticize today's sovereignty movement; because then he would have trouble getting into graduate school where political correctness rules. Haley implies that he has written a fair and balanced book because, on the one hand he does display the courage to expose and criticize elements of the ancient culture, while on the other hand he pushes the conclusion about the sovereignty movement being well justified, as demanded by academia and by street activists. But balancing halfway between disappointing political activists on a minor point about the past and pleasing them on a major point about Hawaii's future is not the way a history book should be written.

In the first paragraph of the book's preface Haley shows his prejudice as well as his penchant for twisting the facts by writing such phrases as "the needs of American imperialism" and "how the United States got its hands on the Kingdom of Hawaii." Right there is a direct falsehood because what was annexed was not the Kingdom of Hawaii but rather the Republic of Hawaii five years after the Kingdom government was overthrown; and there is also an indirect falsehood of implying that the U.S. "got its hands" on Hawaii as though it was an act of reaching out and illicitly grabbing rather than an act of agreeing to accept an offer to be annexed that was initiated by Hawaii. On page 299 Haley actually uses more colorful language to describe "how the United States got its hands on the Kingdom of Hawaii." Discussing ex-queen Lili'uokalani's letter of protest and surrender, Haley says "By alleging American collusion in surrendering power, she had in effect slammed the lid down on the cookie jar with the American hand still inside it." With rhetoric like that, Haley need not worry about getting accepted into graduate school, especially at the University of Hawaii Political Science Department, or the Center for Hawaiian Studies -- they will love him!

Author Haley's bias is easily recognizable when he uses the ugly word "coup" to label the surprisingly non-violent revolution of 1893; and when he consistently and repeatedly uses the very ugly word "junta" to label the revolutionary Provisional Government and its internationally recognized successor, the Republic of Hawaii. Both of those governments were extraordinarily gentle in their treatment of the ex-queen and her royalist supporters even when they staged a violent attempted counterrevolution two years later. None of the rebels or their leaders got executed and nobody spent more than a year in prison. The royal family was not gathered together and shot like the Russian Tsar, and their supporters were not executed by guillotine as in the French revolution. Even the royalist newspapers were suspended only for about six weeks and then allowed to resume publishing royalist propaganda and personal attacks against the leaders of the revolutionary government. What "junta" has ever behaved so generously toward the people it ousted in a "coup"?

There are numerous references to the Blount Report including links to the internet. The Blount Report was written by one man with royalist sympathies at the request of royalist supporter President Grover Cleveland. Blount spent his time in Honolulu living at the royalist hotel next door to the Palace, conducting only informal private interviews mostly with royalists and not under oath. But Haley's book treats the Blount report like dogma, whereas his book has only a couple of dismissive disparaging brief mentions of the Morgan Report even though it mostly contains testimony under oath before a committee of the U.S. Senate in open session with severe cross-examination of witnesses by Senators on opposite sides of the issue. The Morgan Report directly discredits the Blount Report, including sworn testimony from witnesses who said that Blount had falsely reported things which the witnesses said they had never said to Blount when Blount had interviewed them privately in Honolulu. The 808-page Morgan Report should have been given at least equal weight with the Blount Report in Haley's book; the pros and cons should have been discussed; and readers should have been provided with the internet link to the Morgan Report

Jon Kamakawiwo'ole Osorio's book "Dismembering Lahui" and Michael Dougherty's book "To Steal a Kingdom" are references, but Haley never mentions Thurston Twigg-Smith's book defending the 1893 revolution and 1898 annexation: "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?" now out of print but available in pdf format at

Haley's bibliography mentions two scholarly journal articles by William A. Russ dealing with Hawaii immigration, labor, and the sugar industry in the 1890s. But Haley does not include the two very important major scholarly books by Russ which would provide strong rebuttal to some of Haley's writing: "The Hawaiian Revolution 1893-1894" (302 pages); and "The Hawaiian Republic (1894-98): And Its Struggle to Win Annexation" (398 pages).

The book follows a roughly chronological order from a time somewhat before Captain Cook's "discovery" until annexation; with a final chapter of 16 pages briefly outlining the Territorial period and statehood focusing mostly on Caucasian racism (but not Hawaiian racism), the native renaissance, and native quest for self-determination. Throughout the book certain themes are emphasized where Haley clearly displays why his book is a historical narrative, i.e. storytelling, rather than a scholarly recounting of facts.

The book contains several flat-out falsehoods and many half-truths, along with biased selections of what to report, and slanted interpretations.

Perhaps the most outrageous falsehood, stated in its most blatant form, is on the book's dust jacket flap: "But the success of the ruthless American sugar barons sealed their fate, and in 1893 the American Marines overthrew Lili'uokalani, the last queen of Hawaii." Anyone who has studied the events of January 1893 knows that the American Marines did NOT overthrow Lili'uokalani. They marched past the palace on their way out of town to where their officers hoped the troops could spend the night, and dipped the U.S. flag in respectful salute to the Queen who watched them from her palace balcony. They returned to a building located down a side street away from the palace, and stayed in that building for the rest of their time in town except for two small groups who went to guard the American legation and the home of the diplomat Minister Stevens. They never patrolled the streets, did not point their guns at the palace or any person, did not take over any buildings, did not enter the palace grounds, and gave no food or weapons or ammunition to the revolutionaries. They were there as peacekeepers in case rioting or arson threatened American lives or property; but those things never happened and they were not needed. Testimony under oath and cross examination, before a Senate committee, confirms these facts as can be seen in the Morgan Report.

Another obvious falsehood on page 320 says "The Morgan Report held the provisional government blameless in the coup and laid all the fault on the queen, without ever sailing to Hawai'i or interviewing a single witness who was not partial to the revolution." The most obvious falsehood is the statement that the Morgan committee did not interview any witness who was not a supporter of the revolution. Minister Blount himself, author of the infamous Blount report highly favorable to the royalists, gave lengthy testimony in person before the committee (and other witnesses testified under oath that Blount had lied in the Blount report about what they had said to Blount in Honolulu). The most lengthy and detailed testimony before the Senate committee was from W.D. Alexander, a scholar and administrator who had held high positions under several kings. There were democrat Senators on the committee who opposed annexation and severely cross-examined pro-annexation witnesses, and men from the USS Boston, under oath.

An example of a very important misleading half-truth is this quote from page 300: "At the new government headquarters [Ali'iolani Hale] Sanford Dole endorsed the queen's provisional cession of authority. He could have rejected it and insisted on an abdication, but it didn't occur to him that by accepting her wording, he was submitting the revolution to American approval and setting in motion another year's controversy." Really? Did President Dole actually sign the document? (Haley provides no evidence or citation.) Did he merely "endorse" it meaning only that he acknowledged receiving it? Haley seems to be saying that by signing it Dole agreed to what it said, meaning that he agreed that the U.S. would have the authority to reinstate Lili'uokalani as queen. Clearly that is not what Dole had in mind; but it is Haley's wishful thinking and Haley's attempt to spin the story so the reader will believe that Dole agreed to a U.S. binding arbitration of the revolution as though it was a dispute to be settled rather than an accomplished fact. Neither Kuykendall nor Daws reported anything other than the fact that Lili'uokalani had her surrender/protest delivered to the Provisional Government at Ali'iolani Hale where it was time-stamped [but it was not delivered to any U.S. representative despite her assertion in the document that she was surrendering to the U.S.].

An example of Haley portraying something as an injustice when it was actually normal practice still observed today: Haley complains that the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention to write a Constitution for the Republic of Hawaii required voters to be Hawaii-born or naturalized citizens of Hawaii [thus disenfranchising nearly all Asians], and to affirm allegiance to the government [something native royalists refused to do]. But there's nothing wrong with such requirements for voting. The U.S. today, like most nations, allows only native-born or naturalized citizens to vote [not illegal Mexicans, for example]. And when someone is "sworn in" to become a government official, even as low as a one-day clerk handing out or collecting ballots in an election, he/she must raise the right hand and swear "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States [and of the State of Hawaii] ..."

Haley makes many attempts to sway readers' opinions not by the concepts or facts he describes but by the use of pejorative language. A minor example is his persistent use of the word "coup" to refer to the revolution of 1893. A more nasty example is his persistent use of the word "junta" to refer to the revolutionary Provisional Government and his continued use of "junta" to refer to the permanent, internationally recognized government of the Republic of Hawaii, whose leaders had never been military officers (except in the way President Obama has authority over the U.S. military -- would we describe the U.S. government as a "junta"?). At least 20 nations on 4 continents formally recognized the Republic of Hawaii as the de jure (legitimate) government, as can be seen in letters personally signed by their Emperors, Kings, Queens, or Presidents in 11 languages. The letters are in the Hawaii archives. Photos of those letters and accompanying documents (most also have English translations) can be seen at

In conclusion: I'm awarding this book two stars out of a possible five. It deserves credit for being well written and providing fascinating information which most readers probably didn't know. However, it has a strong bias in portraying the initial revolution of 1887 (Bayonet Constitution) and the final revolution of 1893 (overthrow of the monarchy) as being legally and morally wrong and the work of Americans hell-bent on annexation. That bias pervasively shapes the way Haley tells about earlier periods of Hawaii's history where Haley over-emphasizes facts or opinions which help build to his final conclusion while ignoring or downplaying others that would lead to a different conclusion.

I have no problem recommending the book for people who have already read other books on Hawaii's history and are familiar with arguments favorable to the view that the revolution and annexation were historically, legally, and morally justified. But it would be very unfortunate if this were the first or only book someone reads about Hawaii's history. The independence movement, along with efforts to create a fake Indian tribe and give it federal recognition, are so virulent in today's Hawaii, and so pregnant with evil for our current dialog and hope for a future of unity and equality, that we do not need a book like this one to pollute the minds of people who read it when they are uninformed or innocently suggestible. The universities, public schools, and news media are already fully cranked up as propaganda machines even without this book. To understand the danger, read my own book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State."

Marine Colonel's Ex-Wife Dishes on the Service and Her Ex-Husband

(7 hours 44 minutes)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this video or on this site are not necessarily those of management. Information is put up on HPI for the consideration of visitors. Read and consider for yourself whether or not what you read or watch on HPI is 1) true, 2) false, 3) a case of "the jury is still out," 4) information that bears further investigation by you or 5) some other possibility or mixture of possibilities.

Defense Contractor Pleads Guilty in US Navy Bribery Case

The Washington Post

By Craig Whitlock

A Malaysian defense contractor pleaded guilty Thursday in a corruption scandal of epic proportions, admitting that he bribed “scores” of U.S. Navy officials with $500,000 in cash, six figures’ worth of sex from prostitutes, lavish hotel stays, spa treatments, Cuban cigars, Kobe beef, Spanish suckling pigs and an array of other luxury goods.

Leonard Glenn Francis, a businessman who charmed a generation of Navy officers while resupplying their ships in Asia, admitted in federal court in San Diego to presiding over a decade-long corruption scheme involving his Singapore-based firm, Glenn Defense Marine Asia.

The investigation has steadily escalated into the biggest corruption case in the Navy’s history, with Francis admitting that he bilked the service out of tens of millions of dollars by overcharging for food, fuel and basic services. Five current and former Navy officials have pleaded guilty so far, and prosecutors have made it clear they are targeting others.

Read more . . .

Charlie Hebdo Missing 'Graphic' Video Segment

Paris Attack Smacks of Mossad False Flag

Real Jew News

By Brother Nathanael Kapner

Brother Nathanael grew up in the U.S. as a Jew and converted to Christianity as a young man. He is now a member of the Russian Orthodox Church and lives in Colorado.

January 8, 2015

HOW MANY MOSSAD AGENTS does it take to pull off a false flag?

Just enough to have a getaway car ready at a Kosher Restaurant two miles from the Charlie Hebdo scene in Paris.

The perpetrators’ first car, a black Citroen, was abandoned at the restaurant while a grey Renault was provided for the murderers to flee in, reportedly “carjacked” as per the French police.

One look at how carefully the getaway car was parked in front of the Kosher Restaurant suggests that the attackers were in no hurry to escape since they knew that a safe haven and another car was ready for them for the second leg of their getaway.

Read more . . .

Additional Army Downsizing Listening Session Scheduled for Oahu

Schofield Barracks

The Department of the Army is now conducting two, rather than just one, Community Listening Sessions in Hawaii regarding proposed Army personnel reductions. The U.S. Marines, Air Force and Navy are unaffected. The public is invited to attend, provide input, and learn more about the process that will be used to make Army stationing decisions.

Why Downsizing Is Good for Oahu

To learn more about how Army downsizing is a once-in-a-century opportunity for Hawaii and why the Army and its soldiers will benefit considerably from the reduction of forces, see the Oahu Council for Army Downsizing website.

Time & Location of Listening Sessions

The sessions will be at the originally scheduled location, the military's Hale Koa Hotel, DeRussy Hall, from 6:30 p.m.-9 p.m., Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2015. The Hale Koa's address is 2055 Kalia Road, Waikiki. Validated parking in the hotel's parking structure is available at $5 for up to 10 hours.

The newly added session will be the next evening at the same time, 6:30 p.m.-9 p.m., Wednesday, January 28, 2015, at the Leilehua High School cafeteria, 1515 California Ave., Wahiawa (Oahu).

Both sessions will be hosted by Department of the Army leaders from Washington, D.C. and Maj. Gen. Charles Flynn, Commander, U.S. Army Hawaii.

Additional Information

No stationing decisions have been made yet, but Army leadership anticipates that an overall reduction of soldiers will impact most every Army post nationwide. The listening sessions give Oahu residents the opportunity to make make their voices heard on Oahu Army downsizing and how it will affect Oahu. The Army says RSVPs are appreciated, but not required.

In November 2014, the Army completed an analysis of impacts of potential force reductions on communities surrounding 30 Army installations, to include Fort Shafter and Schofield Barracks. The results are published in a final Army 2020 Force Structure Realignment, Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Assessment (SPEA) Finding of No Significant Impact (FNSI) document, which can be found online at:

The document is also available at the following libraries: Hawaii State Library, Mililani Public Library, Kalihi-Palama Public Library, Salt Lake-Moanalua Public Library, and Wahiawa Public Library.

For further information regarding the Community Listening Sessions, contact the U.S. Army Hawaii Public Affairs Office at 808-656-3158/3159/3160 or via email.


Oahu Council for Army Downsizing website

Sign the petition in favor of Army downsizing

The History of Opium and How Pharmaceutical Companies Deliberately Create Addictions

The Health Wyze Report

By Sarah C. Corriher

Opium has been used medicinally and recreationally for centuries. Fifteenth century China doctors used opium for medicine, with some using it recreationally. It was the first effective antidepressant, sedative, and pain reliever. However, opium addictions only began in the eighteenth century, when the British began to monopolize the sale of opium. It is no coincidence that when the British, with their chemical industry, began selling opium that these chemically altered opiums began creating addictions. Completely natural, unadulterated plants are not addictive until they have been "refined" and concentrated. As a result of what the British did, opium eventually became illegal under Chinese law, but the sale from the British continued.

In 1839, the Emperor, Tao Kwang, ordered his minister Lin Tse-hsu to deal with the opium problem. Lin requested help from Queen Victoria, but was ignored. As a result, the Emperor confiscated 20,000 barrels of opium and detained some foreign traders, many of whom were British. The Chinese believed that because their ceramics and silk technologies were superior to their British counterparts that their naval ships would also be. They were wrong. The British retaliated to this interference with their drug ("medical") trade by attacking the port-city of Canton.

This was the beginning of what would become known as the 'First Opium War'. It was launched by the biggest, richest drug cartel that the world has ever known; the British Empire. When the Chinese were defeated, they had no choice but to sign the Treaty of Nanjing in 1842. They were required to allow the trade of opium, to make large payments to the British, and even to open five new ports to the foreign drug ("medical") trade. They were also forced to give Hong Kong to Britain. Opium was, technically, still an illegal substance in China, but the Chinese were forced to accept British imports.

Read more . . .

Where We're Headed in 2015

Chuck Baldwin

By Chuck Baldwin

Dr. Baldwin is a Baptist minister in Montana. He was a Constitution Party presidential candidate in 2008.

January 1, 2015

Every year about this time, we are inundated with self-proclaimed prognosticators telling us (with great certainty) what the New Year will bring. The vast majority of the time they are wrong; but, somehow, that doesn’t keep people from listening to these pseudo-prophets or from buying their publications and videos. So, let me say upfront: I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet. I have no crystal ball; and the Almighty has not privileged me with special revelation regarding future events. However, I can predict with confidence that most of the predictions WON’T come to pass--especially the ones that deal with eschatology.

However, what I can report is the things that are ALREADY happening and the momentum that is driving them. It is an immutable law that, absent a significant force to the contrary, things in motion tend to stay in motion. Therefore, here are a few things that are already in motion as we go into 2015.

*Amnesty For Illegals And Obamacare

Let’s take Obamacare first: It is here to stay. Both major parties in Washington, D.C., overwhelmingly support national health insurance. Had Mitt Romney been elected in 2012, we would be calling it Romneycare instead of Obamacare. In fact, Mitt Romney’s state health insurance plan was the model for what we now call Obamacare. So, if any of you are still harboring any hope that somehow the new GOP Congress will pull a rabbit out of the hat and reverse Obamacare, it’s time to admit reality. Obamacare isn’t going anywhere. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who was selected by President G.W. Bush, forever sealed Obamacare into the legal and political bone marrow of America.

And, like Obamacare, both major parties in Washington, D.C., support amnesty for illegals. Oh, I know that the vast majority of grassroots Republicans oppose amnesty, but since when has that mattered to a tinker’s dam to the GOP ruling class? John Boehner and Company has already orchestrated the funding for amnesty with the $1.1 trillion “Cromnibus” bill that recently passed. Another vote that could potentially defund amnesty is expected in Congress by February. But already the GOP leadership is positioning the new Republican majority to provide amnesty with permanent status. The fact that it was mostly anti-amnesty anger that swept Republicans into the majority in both houses of Congress means nothing to the GOP leadership. NOTHING!

Here is the most concise summary I’ve seen to date on what GOP leaders are doing regarding solidifying Obama’s (unconstitutional) amnesty order:

“The plan by GOP leaders to sell out and back up Obama’s executive amnesty is already coming together.

“‘Here’s the architecture of the coming sellout: there will be a show vote on defunding exec amnesty--either as a stand alone or part of the DHS bill,’ a congressional GOP aide told Breitbart News:

“‘But once they’ve let members vote on it, it will fall away. Instead, they’ll attach the McCaul “border securit” bill--what we’ll call free rides for illegal aliens to a city near you. The McCaul bill will follow the Pete Sessions’ rule: no illegal aliens will be deported. No e-verify, no welfare stoppage, a free pass for the 12 million here to stay here. It will just be more money for King Obama to use to help illegals enter the country and get a free education. The White House will play along, pretend it’s a tough bill, and then eagerly sign it--locking in the amnesty and taking real enforcement off the table (they’ll say it’s all done now). Then will come the gifts for the corporate sponsors.’”

The report also quotes George Rasley, the executive editor of Richard Viguerie’s ConservativeHQ, as correctly saying, “Looking at what the Republican Party’s Capitol Hill leaders did in the CRomnibus it’s hard for conservatives to figure out who’s worse: Obama or the GOP leaders who apparently plan to overturn the results of the 2014 midterms by allowing the president’s unconstitutional amnesty to stand and, adding insult to injury, passing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wishlist of more spending and more visas to displace American workers.”

See the report at:

‘Rain Dance’: GOP Leadership May Be Developing Plan To Solidify Obama’s Executive Amnesty

Folks, please understand that GOP leaders in Congress are not GOING to solidify Obama’s amnesty deal, they are ALREADY solidifying it. Therefore, this is not a prediction; it is simply an accurate reporting of what is already taking place. Republican leaders in Washington, D.C., are going to do what they always do: give grassroots conservative Republicans the royal shaft. But since conservatives seem to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome every election year, it is doubtful that much of anything will change in 2016 either.


The newest NAFTA-style trade agreement, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), has been in the works for some time. However, with the Democrats in charge of the Senate, President Obama was not able to push the jobs-killing agreement through Congress. But with the GOP now in charge of both houses of Congress, passage of TPP will be a breeze.

As Rasley observed, Republican congressional leaders are mostly in the pocket of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the TPP trade agreement is perhaps priority number one for the Chamber--and they are already pushing hard for its passage.

The Washington Post noted that “President Obama is preparing a major push on a vast free-trade zone that seeks to enlist Republicans as partners.”

See the report here:

Obama Hopes To Enlist GOP In Push For Trade Pact, Despite Democratic Resistance

With the GOP controlling Congress, globalist-minded Barack Obama is now able to bypass his own party and partner with internationalist-business-friendly Republicans to pass TPP. Like amnesty, the TPP trade agreement is ALREADY being positioned for passage within the GOP Congress.

The Chamber of Commerce spent millions in this last election helping to elect pro-Big Business Republicans to office. They expect payback.

A report begins, “Not only does the U.S. Chamber of Commerce think it is the only reason the GOP won in November, it is now threatening Republicans with opposition next go round if they don’t lay down and give the Chamber precisely what it wants, including on immigration, increased spending on transportation, and economic deals that sweeten the pot for big business.”

See the report here:

US Chamber Of Commerce Threatens GOP On Immigration, Spending

*The American Police State

The American Police State saw a banner year in 2014. The militarization of local and State police, along with the instances of police-bullying, grew to record heights last year--and there is absolutely no sign of a let-up.

Excerpts from Joel Skousen’s December 26, 2014 World Affairs Brief (WAB) are relevant:

“This year we saw government further arrogate to itself broad new power through executive action that went unchecked thanks to a Congress coopted by globalist republican leaders and a neutered Supreme Court, which refuses to declare any of the president’s unilateral actions unconstitutional.”

Skousen continues, “We now live in a surveillance state and its purpose has nothing to do with terrorism: Domestic dissidents are the target; terrorism is just the excuse. The NSA records every type of electronic communication. Despite the initial public outrage over Edward Snowden’s revelation, government hasn’t stopped anything. They’ve made deceptive legislative proposals that claim to limit government’s ability to see content, but those claims are as much a sham and a lie as the government insistence that they only collect metadata. The content comes right along with the metadata, so there’s no way to collect only the metadata.”

Pertaining specifically to domestic police abuse, Skousen notes, “Police aggressiveness and brutality . . . is a precursor to a Police state. It reached a head this year with the Ferguson riots, but sadly the issue was falsely framed as one of racial prejudice and profiling, rather than the danger to all of us from thuggish police behavior. There is a steady increase in the percentage of macho, pushy law enforcement personnel, many of which have a military background. They bring with them their foul-mouthed habits and thuggish behavior. Coupled with police training that talks incessantly about ‘getting killed if you don’t react fast enough’ police are developing a shoot-first-and-ask-question-later mentality.

“Just as bad is their attitude that ‘you need to do what I say, no questions asked.’ This is not right. Police are not allowed by law to demand the public follow their every order. It has to be a lawful order. Sadly, neither the police chiefs nor the courts are willing to sanction police with strong penalties when they abuse this power.”

To subscribe (paid only) to Skousen’s excellent WAB, go here:


Unfortunately, there are only a precious few who seem to understand this burgeoning Police State and who actively oppose it. A majority of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, unbelievers and Christians, all seem to, not only tolerate the police-state mentality, but enthusiastically support it. And there is no momentum whatsoever to stopping it. It will only get worse in 2015.

*Christ And Caesar

True Christianity has never been associated with, supported by, or underneath Caesar’s (civil government’s) auspices or benevolence. For most of the 2,000+ years of Church history, true believers met in non-state-sanctioned or even underground churches and fellowships. In fact, the Early Church was birthed in a baptism of persecution from both the civil government (Rome) and established religion (Judaism) at the time. Not until the unholy union of the Church and State under Theodosius I (almost 400 years after Christ) did Christians accept official sanction from government. And for many centuries to follow, the official merger of Church and state led to the persecutions and deaths of untold thousands of believers deemed heretics and outlaws because their religious beliefs contradicted those of the official state-sanctioned church.

Even in early America, state-approved denominations and churches were guilty of horrific persecutions against independent-minded Christians who refused to submit to the doctrines and liturgies of state-sanctioned churches. These state-church persecutions ultimately led Roger Williams to found the colony of Rhode Island and John Leland to convince James Madison that religious liberty must be the first in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.

After the acceptance of our Bill of Rights, America’s churches enjoyed complete independent status, being answerable only to their Creator and their own conscience. All of that changed in 1954 when then-Senator Lyndon Johnson (D-Texas) successfully introduced the Johnson Amendment to the code of the Internal Revenue Service: the now-infamous 501c3 nonprofit organization status for churches. This designation made churches a creature of the state--answerable to the direct dictates of government--even regarding speech and activity.

By accepting 501c3 status, America’s churches have effectively become state-licensed or state-sanctioned organizations. In much the same way that churches in Communist China risk vindictive state sanctions for not complying to state control, so, too, churches in the United States risk vindictive IRS sanctions for not complying to state control.

What is more than interesting is the comparison between the churches in China and the churches in America. In China, Christianity is growing exponentially. In fact, there are now more Christians in China than there are communists. Please carefully read this report:

“Though the Chinese Communist Party is the largest explicitly atheist organization in the world, with 85 million official members, it is now overshadowed by an estimated 100 million Christians in China. It is no wonder Beijing is nervous and authorities are cracking down on Christian groups.

“Christianity is growing so fast in China that some predict that it will be the most Christian nation in the world in only another 15 years. By far, the greatest growth is coming outside the official state-sanctioned churches, which are rightly considered subservient to the Communist Party. Numbers are increasing, rather, in unofficial Protestant ‘house churches’ and in the underground Catholic church.”

See the report here:

Christians Now Outnumber Communists In China

Did you get that? Let me repeat it: “By far, the greatest growth is coming OUTSIDE [emphasis added] the official state-sanctioned churches, which are rightly considered subservient to the Communist Party [state]. Numbers are increasing, rather, in UNOFFICIAL [emphasis added] Protestant ‘house churches’ and in the UNDERGROUND [emphasis added] Catholic church.”

But what do we see happening in the United States? Christianity is waning BIG TIME. On the whole, churches are in steep decline. For the most part, only the entertainment-oriented, circus variety churches are growing. The numbers of Americans professing Christianity in general and expressing loyalty to a specific church or denomination are at historic lows. And the trend for 2015 and beyond is more of the same.

So, what is the difference? Why is Christianity proliferating in China and declining in America? China has an openly atheistic government. For all intents and purposes, the government in Washington, D.C., is equally atheistic. The federal government in D.C. is responsible for virtually every single attack against the expression of the Christian faith at every level of society. It is the federal government that attacks Christian expression in our local public schools. It is the federal government that attacks Christian expression in local governing bodies. It is the federal government that has all but permanently dismantled the expression of Christianity throughout our country’s public institutions. But so does the government in Beijing. Yet, in China, the Church is mushrooming, while in America, the Church is dying. What’s the difference?

The difference is, in China, Christians understand that to be loyal to Christ, they MUST NOT SUBMIT to state-sanction or license. And they are willing to defy Beijing authorities in order to be faithful to that conviction. However, in America, pastors and churches insist that they MUST SUBMIT to state control--even using Romans 13 to justify this preposterous position. Bottom line: state-sanctioned churches in America are withering, while non-state-sanctioned churches in China are mushrooming. There is no doubt that the trend in both countries will continue into and beyond 2015.

Until America’s pastors and churches “see the light” and consciously withdraw themselves from Caesar’s grasp (at whatever cost), Christianity in this country will continue to evaporate.

Toward the end of 2014, I launched the Liberty Church Project, in which I am traveling the country helping pastors and churches withdraw from the tentacles of 501c3 government sanction and/or helping people start brand new non-501c3 churches and fellowships. So far, we are batting a perfect five-for-five. And I believe that the momentum of establishing “unofficial” or “underground” churches in this country has only begun.

I am absolutely convinced that very soon every pastor and Christian in America will have to make the conscious decision to either deny Christ and remain part of the apostate government-church or be faithful to Christ and become part of the “unofficial” or “underground” church--just as Christians have had to do in China. One will not be able to do both.

I also believe that what we are seeing happening via the Liberty Church Project is just the beginning raindrops of what will one day be a deluge. I am quite confident that I will be very busy in 2015 as we continue to help believers establish non-501c3 churches and fellowships. To learn more about the Liberty Church Project, go here:

Liberty Church Project

Let me say it plainly: the ONLY way America’s Christians and churches are going to experience a true spiritual renewal is to withdraw themselves from state sanction. For all intents and purposes, the establishment Church in America is DEAD. It has forgotten the lessons of history. It would rather please Caesar; it relishes the endorsement of Caesar. By action, our church leaders are saying the same thing Jewish leaders said at the time of Christ: “We have no king but Caesar.”

So, while I am not a prognosticator or a prophet, I can easily see the trends listed above. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that these trends will continue into 2015 and beyond.

© Chuck Baldwin

Syndicate content