WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 (UPI) — Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated Monday that Pakistan will remain on the list of the countries whose citizens are considered a security threat in the United States.

Pakistan was placed on the list on Dec. 18, 2002.

Longtime Pakistani visitors and non-permanent residents in the United States are required to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service between Jan. 13 and Feb. 21.

Talking to journalists after addressing the U.N. Security Council in New York, Powell said while the United States recognizes Pakistan’s contribution to the war against terror, it cannot be removed from the INS list.

“I have discussed this with (Pakistani) President (Pervez) Musharraf and Foreign Minister (Khurshid Mahmud) Kasuri … I think one has to appreciate that the United States has an obligation to secure our borders and the purpose of these procedures is not to target anyone or to intimidate anyone,” said Powell.

However, he acknowledged that registration program was “having a negative effect” on Washington’s relationship with Pakistan.

On the first anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration introduced new restrictions on immigrants visiting the United States. These require citizens from 25 mainly Muslim countries to be registered, photographed and fingerprinted while in America.

The program has stirred angry protests by immigrants and human rights groups who describe it as biased against Muslims and have urged the Bush administration to revoke it.

The Pakistani foreign minister, who is expected to arrive in Washington next week after attending the U.N. Security Council, has said he would urge U.S. officials to remove Pakistan from the list.

The foreign minister is scheduled to meet Powell, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and other senior officials in Washington next week.

“Nobody should see this as something targeted against Pakistan,” said Powell while addressing the issue at his briefing in New York. “It’s an effort to know who is in our country and to secure our borders.”

“Those individuals who are … here legally with proper documentation have nothing to fear from these registration procedures.”

He said some people do have concerns but he encouraged them to “step forward, register and resolve whatever out of status situation they may be in.”

Powell said there’s “a certain risk” for those who do not have proper documents but “nobody should see this as something targeted against Pakistan.”

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 (UPI) — Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated Monday that Pakistan will remain on the list of the countries whose citizens are considered a security threat in the United States. Pakistan was placed on the list on Dec. 18, 2002. Longtime Pakistani visitors and non-permanent residents in the United States are required to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service between Jan. 13 and Feb. 21. Talking to journalists after addressing the U.N. Security Council in New York, Powell said while the United States recognizes Pakistan’s contribution to the war against terror, it cannot be removed from the INS list. “I have discussed this with (Pakistani) President (Pervez) Musharraf and Foreign Minister (Khurshid Mahmud) Kasuri … I think one has to appreciate that the United States has an obligation to secure our borders and the purpose of these procedures is not to target anyone or to intimidate anyone,” said Powell. However, he acknowledged that registration program was “having a negative effect” on Washington’s relationship with Pakistan. On the first anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Bush administration introduced new restrictions on immigrants visiting the United States. These require citizens from 25 mainly Muslim countries to be registered, photographed and fingerprinted while in America. The program has stirred angry protests by immigrants and human rights groups who describe it as biased against Muslims and have urged the Bush administration to revoke it. The Pakistani foreign minister, who is expected to arrive in Washington next week after attending the U.N. Security Council, has said he would urge U.S. officials to remove Pakistan from the list. The foreign minister is scheduled to meet Powell, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and other senior officials in Washington next week. “Nobody should see this as something targeted against Pakistan,” said Powell while addressing the issue at his briefing in New York. “It’s an effort to know who is in our country and to secure our borders.” “Those individuals who are … here legally with proper documentation have nothing to fear from these registration procedures.” He said some people do have concerns but he encouraged them to “step forward, register and resolve whatever out of status situation they may be in.” Powell said there’s “a certain risk” for those who do not have proper documents but “nobody should see this as something targeted against Pakistan.” Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

“Lingle Right Before State – State Centered”

”State of the State Offers Surprises, Controversy, New Beginning for Hawaii”

Gov. Linda Lingle addressed both Houses of the state Legislature yesterday, offering lawmakers, members of the public and the media a review of her plans beginning in 2003 through 2007. She focused primarily on measures to boost the economy, restore trust in government and strengthen public education, though she did propose solutions to Hawaii’s increasing drug problem.

In audience were state Legislators, former Governors George Ariyoshi and John Waihee, former first lady Lynn Waihee, Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona, Congressman Neil Abercrombie, Congressman Ed Case and his wife Audrey, and three county mayors. Conspicuously absent was former Gov. Benjamin Cayetano, the Democrat who defeated Lingle in the General Election in 1998, but is blamed by many in his party for essentially sealing Lingle’s 2002 win because of his hostile and dictator-like leadership style.

While the audience was enthusiastic giving Lingle a standing ovation at the conclusion of her speech, many of the Democrats, including Abercrombie, sat stone faced without offering applause. However, the county mayors, including Democrat Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris, clapped enthusiastically when Lingle, who is a former mayor, proposed giving 100 percent of the revenue from unadjudicated traffic fines back to the counties, something the mayors have long fought for. Senate President Bobby Bunda also was pleased that Lingle supported one of his most controversial proposals introduced during his speech on the opening day of the Legislative session to mandate the drug testing of public school students.

Some of the more surprising ideas that Lingle debuted included weakening the hold Hawaii’s public unions have over Hawaii’s public education system by exempting school principals from the public union and by giving charter schools more autonomy and double the funding they currently are authorized. Also surprising was Lingle’s backing of Bunda’s proposal to drug test children in public school. Though in her speech she called the testing “optional,” she and her lieutenant governor later explained the testing is mandatory for all students unless parents opt out their children. They say if children test positive for drugs, they will be sent to mandatory counseling, though no criminal charges will be filed against them. Saying the concept is new to Hawaii and needs to be studied further, Lingle and Aiona could not yet answer questions about how the information would be collected, where it would be stored, who would have access and who would run the testing.

Predictably Lingle continued to plug her concept of breaking up Hawaii’s single, statewide, centralized school district into seven districts, a measure that will require changing Hawaii’s state Constitution through a constitutional amendment presented to the public during the 2004 General Election.

“The people of Hawaii want better schools, with real alternatives for children who have not been able to thrive in a one-size-fits-all statewide system. They want a system that puts the interests of the children above those of anyone else, including union leaders and politicians. They want schools that prepare their children for a better life,” Lingle said.

Also surprising was Lingle’s timid proposal for tax cuts. During her campaign for governor, she pledged not to raise taxes and to fight for tax cuts on food and medical services. Yesterday, she said the state could not yet afford to take the expected $240 million tax cut, and proposed instead a more modest reporting change for low income residents, a move expected to cost the state between $20 million and $50 million. Republicans in both the House and Senate earlier announced in their legislative packages their steadfast support to remove the excise tax on the sale of food and medical.

Lingle stressed she will look for more ways to cut waste in government and is auditing every department as promised during her campaign and early days in office. She again pledged not to touch the state’s Hurricane Relief Fund, a $180 million fund former Gov. Benjamin Cayetano earmarked before he left office to balance the 2003 state budget, a move that will immediately create a $180 million shortfall. She promised to make up the state’s $3 billion unfunded liability in the state retirement system and give $10.3 million owed to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Under Lingle’s leadership, there will be more scrutiny of Hawaii’s procurement system and more openness in the bidding process. Lingle says her administration will make the government bidding system more transparent through a “reverse eBay” system earlier proposed to her by a state worker.

But the state will need to find a way to make up for the $3 billion, both because of the obvious legal obligation, and because it would be “morally wrong to push this debt onto the shoulders of the next generation,” she says.

Overall her speech did propose many groundbreaking concepts for Hawaii in the areas of education, economic reform and government accountability. However Lingle will surely face criticism from public unions, whose leaders will feel threatened by her proposals, by Democrats who will remain partisan, and by conservative Republicans who will feel Lingle’s proposals were not strong enough in the area of tax reform and economic stimulus.

To see her complete speech, go to: “State of the State – Jan. 21, 2003”

”Reforming the Election, Campaign Processes Might Finally Happen”

Gov. Linda Lingle also called for reforms in Hawaii’s election, campaign spending and procurement laws.

The Democrats and Chief Elections Officer Dwayne Yoshina have flatly refused for all the years they’ve been in power to post the election results of each poll at each poll before the results are delivered to the central counting center at the Hawaii State Capitol. The argument by Yoshina and others who support him is the media would run from poll place to poll place (including those on the neighbor islands), frantically add up the results from each one, and incorrectly add up results, leading to misinformation disseminated to the public on election days.

However, Lingle and the majority of Republicans disagree, saying it is necessary to post the results to prevent fraud in the election system. Lingle is proposing mandatory posting of election results at each precinct, and mandatory recounts in especially close elections.

She says the public also is rightly concerned about the large amounts of money contributed to political campaigns by businesses that then get millions of dollars in non-bid contracts. “Accordingly, I ask that you enact a law prohibiting political contributions by anyone benefiting from non-bid contracts,” she says. Lingle is reinforcing the position of the state Campaign Spending Commission and several lawmakers who passed legislation last year to this effect, but was vetoed by the former governor who himself benefited from this exchange of government contracts for campaign donations.

“Randy Roth and Lenny Klompus S – S 2003 Centered”

”Appointee May Face Rocky Road to Confirmation”

The majority of Gov. Linda Lingle’s appointees should be confirmed without delay or hassle by the Hawaii State Senate, largely because many of the appointees are business people from the private sector with little or no state government experience and little exposure to Hawaii politics.

However that may not be the case for at least one appointee –

“Lingle Right Before State – State Centered”

”State of the State Offers Surprises, Controversy, New Beginning for Hawaii”

Gov. Linda Lingle addressed both Houses of the state Legislature yesterday, offering lawmakers, members of the public and the media a review of her plans beginning in 2003 through 2007. She focused primarily on measures to boost the economy, restore trust in government and strengthen public education, though she did propose solutions to Hawaii’s increasing drug problem.

In audience were state Legislators, former Governors George Ariyoshi and John Waihee, former first lady Lynn Waihee, Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona, Congressman Neil Abercrombie, Congressman Ed Case and his wife Audrey, and three county mayors. Conspicuously absent was former Gov. Benjamin Cayetano, the Democrat who defeated Lingle in the General Election in 1998, but is blamed by many in his party for essentially sealing Lingle’s 2002 win because of his hostile and dictator-like leadership style.

While the audience was enthusiastic giving Lingle a standing ovation at the conclusion of her speech, many of the Democrats, including Abercrombie, sat stone faced without offering applause. However, the county mayors, including Democrat Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris, clapped enthusiastically when Lingle, who is a former mayor, proposed giving 100 percent of the revenue from unadjudicated traffic fines back to the counties, something the mayors have long fought for. Senate President Bobby Bunda also was pleased that Lingle supported one of his most controversial proposals introduced during his speech on the opening day of the Legislative session to mandate the drug testing of public school students.

Some of the more surprising ideas that Lingle debuted included weakening the hold Hawaii’s public unions have over Hawaii’s public education system by exempting school principals from the public union and by giving charter schools more autonomy and double the funding they currently are authorized. Also surprising was Lingle’s backing of Bunda’s proposal to drug test children in public school. Though in her speech she called the testing “optional,” she and her lieutenant governor later explained the testing is mandatory for all students unless parents opt out their children. They say if children test positive for drugs, they will be sent to mandatory counseling, though no criminal charges will be filed against them. Saying the concept is new to Hawaii and needs to be studied further, Lingle and Aiona could not yet answer questions about how the information would be collected, where it would be stored, who would have access and who would run the testing.

Predictably Lingle continued to plug her concept of breaking up Hawaii’s single, statewide, centralized school district into seven districts, a measure that will require changing Hawaii’s state Constitution through a constitutional amendment presented to the public during the 2004 General Election.

“The people of Hawaii want better schools, with real alternatives for children who have not been able to thrive in a one-size-fits-all statewide system. They want a system that puts the interests of the children above those of anyone else, including union leaders and politicians. They want schools that prepare their children for a better life,” Lingle said.

Also surprising was Lingle’s timid proposal for tax cuts. During her campaign for governor, she pledged not to raise taxes and to fight for tax cuts on food and medical services. Yesterday, she said the state could not yet afford to take the expected $240 million tax cut, and proposed instead a more modest reporting change for low income residents, a move expected to cost the state between $20 million and $50 million. Republicans in both the House and Senate earlier announced in their legislative packages their steadfast support to remove the excise tax on the sale of food and medical.

Lingle stressed she will look for more ways to cut waste in government and is auditing every department as promised during her campaign and early days in office. She again pledged not to touch the state’s Hurricane Relief Fund, a $180 million fund former Gov. Benjamin Cayetano earmarked before he left office to balance the 2003 state budget, a move that will immediately create a $180 million shortfall. She promised to make up the state’s $3 billion unfunded liability in the state retirement system and give $10.3 million owed to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Under Lingle’s leadership, there will be more scrutiny of Hawaii’s procurement system and more openness in the bidding process. Lingle says her administration will make the government bidding system more transparent through a “reverse eBay” system earlier proposed to her by a state worker.

But the state will need to find a way to make up for the $3 billion, both because of the obvious legal obligation, and because it would be “morally wrong to push this debt onto the shoulders of the next generation,” she says.

Overall her speech did propose many groundbreaking concepts for Hawaii in the areas of education, economic reform and government accountability. However Lingle will surely face criticism from public unions, whose leaders will feel threatened by her proposals, by Democrats who will remain partisan, and by conservative Republicans who will feel Lingle’s proposals were not strong enough in the area of tax reform and economic stimulus.

To see her complete speech, go to: “State of the State – Jan. 21, 2003”

”Reforming the Election, Campaign Processes Might Finally Happen”

Gov. Linda Lingle also called for reforms in Hawaii’s election, campaign spending and procurement laws.

The Democrats and Chief Elections Officer Dwayne Yoshina have flatly refused for all the years they’ve been in power to post the election results of each poll at each poll before the results are delivered to the central counting center at the Hawaii State Capitol. The argument by Yoshina and others who support him is the media would run from poll place to poll place (including those on the neighbor islands), frantically add up the results from each one, and incorrectly add up results, leading to misinformation disseminated to the public on election days.

However, Lingle and the majority of Republicans disagree, saying it is necessary to post the results to prevent fraud in the election system. Lingle is proposing mandatory posting of election results at each precinct, and mandatory recounts in especially close elections.

She says the public also is rightly concerned about the large amounts of money contributed to political campaigns by businesses that then get millions of dollars in non-bid contracts. “Accordingly, I ask that you enact a law prohibiting political contributions by anyone benefiting from non-bid contracts,” she says. Lingle is reinforcing the position of the state Campaign Spending Commission and several lawmakers who passed legislation last year to this effect, but was vetoed by the former governor who himself benefited from this exchange of government contracts for campaign donations.

“Randy Roth and Lenny Klompus S – S 2003 Centered”

”Appointee May Face Rocky Road to Confirmation”

The majority of Gov. Linda Lingle’s appointees should be confirmed without delay or hassle by the Hawaii State Senate, largely because many of the appointees are business people from the private sector with little or no state government experience and little exposure to Hawaii politics.

However that may not be the case for at least one appointee –

State Centered ‘State of the State Offers Surprises, Controversy, New Beginning for Hawaii’ Gov. Linda Lingle addressed both Houses of the state Legislature yesterday, offering lawmakers, members of the public and the media a review of her plans beginning in 2003 through 2007. She focused primarily on measures to boost the economy, restore trust in government and strengthen public education, though she did propose solutions to Hawaii’s increasing drug problem. In audience were state Legislators, former Governors George Ariyoshi and John Waihee, former first lady Lynn Waihee, Lt. Gov. James “Duke” Aiona, Congressman Neil Abercrombie, Congressman Ed Case and his wife Audrey, and three county mayors. Conspicuously absent was former Gov. Benjamin Cayetano, the Democrat who defeated Lingle in the General Election in 1998, but is blamed by many in his party for essentially sealing Lingle’s 2002 win because of his hostile and dictator-like leadership style. While the audience was enthusiastic giving Lingle a standing ovation at the conclusion of her speech, many of the Democrats, including Abercrombie, sat stone faced without offering applause. However, the county mayors, including Democrat Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris, clapped enthusiastically when Lingle, who is a former mayor, proposed giving 100 percent of the revenue from unadjudicated traffic fines back to the counties, something the mayors have long fought for. Senate President Bobby Bunda also was pleased that Lingle supported one of his most controversial proposals introduced during his speech on the opening day of the Legislative session to mandate the drug testing of public school students. Some of the more surprising ideas that Lingle debuted included weakening the hold Hawaii’s public unions have over Hawaii’s public education system by exempting school principals from the public union and by giving charter schools more autonomy and double the funding they currently are authorized. Also surprising was Lingle’s backing of Bunda’s proposal to drug test children in public school. Though in her speech she called the testing “optional,” she and her lieutenant governor later explained the testing is mandatory for all students unless parents opt out their children. They say if children test positive for drugs, they will be sent to mandatory counseling, though no criminal charges will be filed against them. Saying the concept is new to Hawaii and needs to be studied further, Lingle and Aiona could not yet answer questions about how the information would be collected, where it would be stored, who would have access and who would run the testing. Predictably Lingle continued to plug her concept of breaking up Hawaii’s single, statewide, centralized school district into seven districts, a measure that will require changing Hawaii’s state Constitution through a constitutional amendment presented to the public during the 2004 General Election. “The people of Hawaii want better schools, with real alternatives for children who have not been able to thrive in a one-size-fits-all statewide system. They want a system that puts the interests of the children above those of anyone else, including union leaders and politicians. They want schools that prepare their children for a better life,” Lingle said. Also surprising was Lingle’s timid proposal for tax cuts. During her campaign for governor, she pledged not to raise taxes and to fight for tax cuts on food and medical services. Yesterday, she said the state could not yet afford to take the expected $240 million tax cut, and proposed instead a more modest reporting change for low income residents, a move expected to cost the state between $20 million and $50 million. Republicans in both the House and Senate earlier announced in their legislative packages their steadfast support to remove the excise tax on the sale of food and medical. Lingle stressed she will look for more ways to cut waste in government and is auditing every department as promised during her campaign and early days in office. She again pledged not to touch the state’s Hurricane Relief Fund, a $180 million fund former Gov. Benjamin Cayetano earmarked before he left office to balance the 2003 state budget, a move that will immediately create a $180 million shortfall. She promised to make up the state’s $3 billion unfunded liability in the state retirement system and give $10.3 million owed to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Under Lingle’s leadership, there will be more scrutiny of Hawaii’s procurement system and more openness in the bidding process. Lingle says her administration will make the government bidding system more transparent through a “reverse eBay” system earlier proposed to her by a state worker. But the state will need to find a way to make up for the $3 billion, both because of the obvious legal obligation, and because it would be “morally wrong to push this debt onto the shoulders of the next generation,” she says. Overall her speech did propose many groundbreaking concepts for Hawaii in the areas of education, economic reform and government accountability. However Lingle will surely face criticism from public unions, whose leaders will feel threatened by her proposals, by Democrats who will remain partisan, and by conservative Republicans who will feel Lingle’s proposals were not strong enough in the area of tax reform and economic stimulus. To see her complete speech, go to: “State of the State – Jan. 21, 2003” ‘Reforming the Election, Campaign Processes Might Finally Happen’ Gov. Linda Lingle also called for reforms in Hawaii’s election, campaign spending and procurement laws. The Democrats and Chief Elections Officer Dwayne Yoshina have flatly refused for all the years they’ve been in power to post the election results of each poll at each poll before the results are delivered to the central counting center at the Hawaii State Capitol. The argument by Yoshina and others who support him is the media would run from poll place to poll place (including those on the neighbor islands), frantically add up the results from each one, and incorrectly add up results, leading to misinformation disseminated to the public on election days. However, Lingle and the majority of Republicans disagree, saying it is necessary to post the results to prevent fraud in the election system. Lingle is proposing mandatory posting of election results at each precinct, and mandatory recounts in especially close elections. She says the public also is rightly concerned about the large amounts of money contributed to political campaigns by businesses that then get millions of dollars in non-bid contracts. “Accordingly, I ask that you enact a law prohibiting political contributions by anyone benefiting from non-bid contracts,” she says. Lingle is reinforcing the position of the state Campaign Spending Commission and several lawmakers who passed legislation last year to this effect, but was vetoed by the former governor who himself benefited from this exchange of government contracts for campaign donations. “Randy Roth and Lenny Klompus S – S 2003 Centered” ‘Appointee May Face Rocky Road to Confirmation’ The majority of Gov. Linda Lingle’s appointees should be confirmed without delay or hassle by the Hawaii State Senate, largely because many of the appointees are business people from the private sector with little or no state government experience and little exposure to Hawaii politics. However that may not be the case for at least one appointee -? State Attorney General Mark Bennett -? for three main reasons. Many of the state Senators are attorneys who do not like the private law firm Bennett came from ?- McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinn. That is in part because the firm is defending current Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris, leader of a different and competing faction of the Democrat party, and his appointees and campaign managers against possible criminal charges that may be filed against them by the Honolulu City Prosecutor. Bennett has not been involved in the Harris defense, but is a litigation partner with the firm. Bennett also was appointed by the federal court to defend Felix consultants Ivor Groves and Judith Shrag from subpoenas issued by the state House-Senate Felix Investigative Committee looking into the $1.4 billion spent on Felix related services since 1994. Shrag and Groves refused to appear before the legislative committee to discuss how they have profited from their involvement in Felix and about some of the decisions they’ve made as appointees for the court, something that greatly upset the committee. In addition, Bennett, who will face a state Senate with 20 Democrats and 5 Republicans, was the legal counsel for the Republican Party of Hawaii in 2002. Bennett will surely face an uphill battle to confirmation with these potential three strikes against him. ‘Taxi System to be Revisited by New Task Force; Contract Temporarily Procured to One of Three Bidders’ One of the most contentious procurement situations currently under way is at the Honolulu International Airport, where the current monopoly taxi operator -? SIDA of Hawaii -? has fallen more than $680,000 behind in rent payments to the state over the last 16 months. The state Attorney General recently tried to negotiate an aggressive repayment schedule with SIDA, which included an increase in what the company has been paying monthly from $15,000 to $35,000. But SIDA has not attempted to repay the debt, nor is the company willing to pay the $35,000 per month, as it did two years ago. “Lingle and Awana 2003 S – S Image” According to Bob Awana, chief of staff for Lingle, that led the state to consider bringing in a new company to operate the taxi system on a temporary basis until April of 2003, giving the administration time to study the taxi system at the airport. The contract has not yet been signed. But Awana confirmed in an interview last night with HawaiiReporter.com that the company, which will likely take on the contract, is The Cab, one of three companies that expressed interest in operating the taxi airport system by submitting an intent to bid notice in December 2002. Two other companies submitted intents to bid, including VIP and Roberts Hawaii, though Roberts currently operates the bus and shuttle system at the airport, leading other taxi operators to claim Roberts would have monopoly on airport transportation if selected. The Cab is willing to operate the system on a temporary basis until the state can construct a new system and pay the state $35,000 per month, Awana says. Meanwhile, the Lingle administration is convening a taxi taskforce tomorrow to determine the kind of system that should be in place at the airport ?- closed or open. They will have to decide if one company should operate the service, allowing only its cabs to provide transportation from the airport, or if the system should be open to all qualified and licensed taxi drivers. In the past, SIDA of Hawaii operated the cab system for 40 years, with just a 2-year exception when a company called OTM took over. Competing companies claimed SIDA treated their drivers unfairly thereby violating its contract with the state -? a position that was supported in a 1998 lawsuit filed in First Circuit Court, Harris vs. SIDA of Hawaii. The court’s ruling was never enforced by the state and SIDA of Hawaii continued its anti-competitive practices, according to several sources in the industry, which they say ultimately led to poor service for airport customers. ‘Taxi Procurement Change May Come at Bad Time for Oahu’ When the contract to operate the taxi system at the Honolulu International Airport briefly changed hands from SIDA of Hawaii to OTM in 1994, SIDA’s operators did not go quietly into the night. The company had the contract for nearly four decades, and its operators were not pleased when the contract was let to another company. In fact, according to those cab drivers working at the airport during the change over, SIDA was down right mad. In retaliation for losing the contract, SIDA personnel reportedly vandalized state property, ripping out toilets from the facility the company vacated, cutting communication lines and ordering the electric power be turned off. When OTM took over, the new operators could not communicate with cabs, use the bathroom in the facility or even turn on the lights. There was a brief interruption in taxi service at the airport, but the experienced operators and other cab drivers in the industry pulled together to make the system work until everything could be repaired. According to state airport directors, no action was taken against SIDA for the severe vandalism, and in fact, the company was later rewarded by again winning the contract from 1996 to 2002. Those in the industry now fear history will repeat itself when The Cab takes over SIDA’s operations. They say they already are hearing that the company has plans to once again not go quietly into the night. Unfortunately for the state, the timing could not be worse as more than 16,000 people are expected to pour into the state for the ProBowl, scheduled for a week and a half from now, right in the heart of the transition. ‘Doing Hard Time With a Diet for the Rich and Famous’ No, the testimony by Dept. of Public Safety directors in a Senate Ways and Means hearing yesterday was not about how to feed the rich and famous in Hawaii. Rather about the way the state feeds its prison inmates. In addition to allowing for special religious practices and providing educational materials, entertainment facilities, exercise equipment and $13 million in excellent health care annually (better than most children, single moms and low-income children in Hawaii) the state also is careful of the meals the prisoners are fed. Apparently the food services department spends $10 million annually for prisoners in order to provide multiple therapeutic diets including vegetarian, bland, diabetic, reduced fat, low fat, low cholesterol, low sodium, renal, liquid and aids/HIV. And still the department is requesting more money to make sure that all of the nutritional needs of all 4,000 convicted prisoners in Hawaii are met. ‘Public Safety Director Finds New Home ? Back in Prison’ Ted Sakai, former director of the state Department of Public Safety, has left his post because he was not reappointed by Gov. Linda Lingle, according to his own statement yesterday in the Senate Ways and Means Hearing. However, Sakai will not be released from the prison system yet -? he will manage Hawaii’s most troubled prison ?- OCCC -? which is extremely overcrowded and has been the site from which many prisoners have escaped. He voluntarily took the position and will start in two weeks. Senators jokingly questioned Sakai as to whether he’d be living in the prison, or managing it. ‘New Hero or Scoundrel Voting Feature a Hit, Kawamoto Not’ Sen. Cal Kawamoto, D-Waipahu, was the first legislator to be put on an unofficial trial as a hero or scoundrel for his proposals to raise Hawaii’s gasoline taxes by 2 cents to fund a rapid transit or light rail system. Hawaii’s gasoline taxes already are the highest in the nation. Ironically, Kawamoto signed a pledge with the Americans for Tax Reform that says he will not introduce, support or vote for a tax increase. Breaking his pledge did not sit too well with HawaiiReporter.com readers. The results ?- 155 people voted Kawamoto a scoundrel, while 11 people voted him as a hero. ‘Vote Lingle – Hero or Scoundrel – For Education Reform Proposals’ Today Gov. Linda Lingle is on trial for her controversial education reform proposals offered yesterday in her state of the state address. Make sure to vote. The system is set so no one can vote more than once and so that results will be forwarded to the person featured. Regularly, a new person and their proposal will be featured, giving people a chance to voice their opinions on issues important to Hawaii and to send a message to the leaders of the state.

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 20 (UPI) — Foreign ministers in the U.N. Security Council Monday unanimously approved a resolution calling on all nations to move urgently against terrorism while in adjacent hallways, talk about Iraq underscored the British-U.S. rush vs. the “give-the-inspectors-more-time” stance of nearly all others.

The ministerial-level meeting of the 15-member panel — only two foreign ministers failed to show — approved a draft hammered out by the permanent representatives late Friday calling for all countries to take urgent action to prevent and suppress all active and passive support of terrorism and to comply fully with Security Council resolutions dealing with it.

The permanent U.N. representatives of Chile and Syria represented their respective nations.

The meeting was called by France, this month’s rotating president of the council, and chaired by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.

The ministers called on states to take a number of steps to fight the menace, including becoming a party to all international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism; helping each other in the prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism, wherever they occurred; and cooperating closely to implement fully the sanctions against terrorists and their associates — in particular, al Qaida and the Taliban and their associates.

The panel said its British-chaired Counter-Terrorism Committee must intensify its efforts to promote implementation by U.N. members of all aspects of Resolution 1373, adopted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, by reviewing their reports and facilitating international assistance and cooperation.

Germany’s Joschka Fischer, by luck of the draw, was the first foreign minister to speak, and the first to tie-in Baghdad. Berlin’s opposition to military action against Iraq has been well voiced.

“The issue we are dealing with today is a top international priority,” he said, “since the Sword of Damocles of international terrorism is hanging over all of us. Terrorism kills innocent people and is a crime. It threatens peace and security, it threatens democracy, development and freedom, it scorns national and international law and brutally attacks human rights.”

None of the subsequent speakers disagreed.

But later in his remarks, he introduced Iraq into the debate.

“We are greatly concerned that a military strike against the regime in Baghdad would involve considerable and unpredictable risks for the global fight against terrorism,” Fischer said. “We have no illusion about the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Therefore, we all demand that Baghdad implement the relevant U.N. resolutions in full and without any exceptions.

“However, in addition to disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability, we also fear possible negative repercussions for the joint fight against terrorism,” the foreign minister said. “These are fundamental reasons for our rejection of military action.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw followed shortly afterward with his say, reiterating the necessity for unity against terrorists.

“The world must be in no doubt. If the terrorists can, they will,” he said. “If they can get their hands on nerve gases, or killer viruses, or, nuclear bombs, they will use them.”

He went on to say “action to stop rogue states’ proliferation is as urgent as action to stop terrorism. Yes, wherever we can, we should use diplomatic means to get proliferators to comply, as we are with North Korea, patiently. But there comes a moment when our patience must run out.”

“We are near that point with Iraq,” Straw said. “So the moment of choice for Saddam (Hussein) is close. He must either resolve this crisis peacefully, by the full and active compliance with his Security Council obligations and full cooperation with inspectors, or face the “serious consequences” — the use of force — which this council warned would follow when it passed (on Nov. 8, Resolution) 1441.”

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, nearly three-quarters of the way through the debate had his turn.

“Iraq was given a last chance with Resolution 1441,” he said. “I’m pleased that it was President (George) Bush who brought this situation to the attention of the council in the most forceful way last September to give them this one last chance. We must not shrink from our duties and our responsibilities when the material comes before us next week, and as we consider Iraq’s response to 1441.

“We cannot fail to take the action that may be necessary because we are afraid of what others might do. We cannot be shocked into impotence because we’re afraid of the difficult choices that are ahead of us,” said the former officer. “We’ll have much work to do, difficult work, in the days ahead. But we cannot shrink from the responsibilities of dealing with a regime that has gone about development, acquiring, stocking of weapons of mass destruction, that has committed terrorist acts against its neighbors and against its own people, trampled human rights of its own people and its neighbors.”

Said Powell, “If Iraq does not come into full compliance, we must not shrink from the responsibilities that we set before ourselves when we adopted 1441 on a unanimous basis and so many other nations expressed their support for 1441.

“Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists or states that support terrorists would represent a mortal danger to us all,” he told the council. “We must make the United Nations even more effective. And we must build even closer international cooperation to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists.”

Later, speaking with reporters, Powell said, “I wanted there to be no mistake about this — time is running out,” adding, “If the will of the United Nations is going to be relevant, it has to take a firm stand with regard to Iraq’s continuing disregard of its obligations.”

As for the recent declaration of additional warheads by Baghdad, the secretary of state said, “They know what they have. It is their obligation to come forward, and we cannot let them to dribble this information and dribble these items out for as long as they choose to, in an effort to thwart the will of the international community.”

The Security Council counter-terror measure also said states must ensure that any resolution adopted to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. This was to counter claims that states were short-circuiting human rights in their zeal to catch and prosecute terrorists.

“The United Nations has an indispensable role to play in providing the legal and organizational framework within which the international campaign against terrorism can unfold,” said Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his opening statement. “But we must never lose sight of the fact that any sacrifice of freedom or the rule of law within states — or any generation of new tensions between states in the name of anti-terrorism — is to hand the terrorists a victory that no act of theirs alone could possibly bring.”

He added, “important and urgent questions are being asked about what might be called the ‘collateral damage’ of the war of terrorism — damage to the presumption of innocence, to precious human rights, to the rule of law, and to the very fabric of democratic governance.”

Domestically, he said, the danger is that in pursuit of security, crucial liberties could be sacrificed — weakening rather than strengthening common security. “Internationally, the world is seeing an increasing use of what I call the ‘T-word’ — terrorism — to demonize political opponents, to throttle freedom of speech and the press, and to de-legitimize legitimate political grievances.”

Similarly, states fighting various forms of unrest or insurgency are finding it tempting to abandon the sometimes slow process of political negotiation for the deceptively easy option of military action.

He said the world organization had to do whatever it could to deny terrorists the opportunity to commit their crimes. But, he said, that just as terrorism must never be excused, so must genuine grievances never be ignored. He urged determination to solve political disputes and long-standing conflicts, which underpinned, fueled and generated support for terrorism.

The adopted text encouraged international organizations to evaluate ways in which they could enhance the effectiveness of their action against terrorism, including by establishing dialogue and information exchange with each other and with other international participants.

It also emphasized the role of regional and sub-regional organizations in working with the CTC, established by Resolution 1373, and other international organizations.

The council said that continuing international efforts to enhance dialogue and broadening the understanding among civilizations “will contribute to international cooperation and collaboration, which by themselves are necessary to sustain the broadest possible fight against terrorism.”

Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 20 (UPI) — Foreign ministers in the U.N. Security Council Monday unanimously approved a resolution calling on all nations to move urgently against terrorism while in adjacent hallways, talk about Iraq underscored the British-U.S. rush vs. the “give-the-inspectors-more-time” stance of nearly all others. The ministerial-level meeting of the 15-member panel — only two foreign ministers failed to show — approved a draft hammered out by the permanent representatives late Friday calling for all countries to take urgent action to prevent and suppress all active and passive support of terrorism and to comply fully with Security Council resolutions dealing with it. The permanent U.N. representatives of Chile and Syria represented their respective nations. The meeting was called by France, this month’s rotating president of the council, and chaired by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin. The ministers called on states to take a number of steps to fight the menace, including becoming a party to all international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism; helping each other in the prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of acts of terrorism, wherever they occurred; and cooperating closely to implement fully the sanctions against terrorists and their associates — in particular, al Qaida and the Taliban and their associates. The panel said its British-chaired Counter-Terrorism Committee must intensify its efforts to promote implementation by U.N. members of all aspects of Resolution 1373, adopted in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, by reviewing their reports and facilitating international assistance and cooperation. Germany’s Joschka Fischer, by luck of the draw, was the first foreign minister to speak, and the first to tie-in Baghdad. Berlin’s opposition to military action against Iraq has been well voiced. “The issue we are dealing with today is a top international priority,” he said, “since the Sword of Damocles of international terrorism is hanging over all of us. Terrorism kills innocent people and is a crime. It threatens peace and security, it threatens democracy, development and freedom, it scorns national and international law and brutally attacks human rights.” None of the subsequent speakers disagreed. But later in his remarks, he introduced Iraq into the debate. “We are greatly concerned that a military strike against the regime in Baghdad would involve considerable and unpredictable risks for the global fight against terrorism,” Fischer said. “We have no illusion about the nature of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Therefore, we all demand that Baghdad implement the relevant U.N. resolutions in full and without any exceptions. “However, in addition to disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability, we also fear possible negative repercussions for the joint fight against terrorism,” the foreign minister said. “These are fundamental reasons for our rejection of military action.” British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw followed shortly afterward with his say, reiterating the necessity for unity against terrorists. “The world must be in no doubt. If the terrorists can, they will,” he said. “If they can get their hands on nerve gases, or killer viruses, or, nuclear bombs, they will use them.” He went on to say “action to stop rogue states’ proliferation is as urgent as action to stop terrorism. Yes, wherever we can, we should use diplomatic means to get proliferators to comply, as we are with North Korea, patiently. But there comes a moment when our patience must run out.” “We are near that point with Iraq,” Straw said. “So the moment of choice for Saddam (Hussein) is close. He must either resolve this crisis peacefully, by the full and active compliance with his Security Council obligations and full cooperation with inspectors, or face the “serious consequences” — the use of force — which this council warned would follow when it passed (on Nov. 8, Resolution) 1441.” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, nearly three-quarters of the way through the debate had his turn. “Iraq was given a last chance with Resolution 1441,” he said. “I’m pleased that it was President (George) Bush who brought this situation to the attention of the council in the most forceful way last September to give them this one last chance. We must not shrink from our duties and our responsibilities when the material comes before us next week, and as we consider Iraq’s response to 1441. “We cannot fail to take the action that may be necessary because we are afraid of what others might do. We cannot be shocked into impotence because we’re afraid of the difficult choices that are ahead of us,” said the former officer. “We’ll have much work to do, difficult work, in the days ahead. But we cannot shrink from the responsibilities of dealing with a regime that has gone about development, acquiring, stocking of weapons of mass destruction, that has committed terrorist acts against its neighbors and against its own people, trampled human rights of its own people and its neighbors.” Said Powell, “If Iraq does not come into full compliance, we must not shrink from the responsibilities that we set before ourselves when we adopted 1441 on a unanimous basis and so many other nations expressed their support for 1441. “Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists or states that support terrorists would represent a mortal danger to us all,” he told the council. “We must make the United Nations even more effective. And we must build even closer international cooperation to keep these weapons out of the hands of terrorists.” Later, speaking with reporters, Powell said, “I wanted there to be no mistake about this — time is running out,” adding, “If the will of the United Nations is going to be relevant, it has to take a firm stand with regard to Iraq’s continuing disregard of its obligations.” As for the recent declaration of additional warheads by Baghdad, the secretary of state said, “They know what they have. It is their obligation to come forward, and we cannot let them to dribble this information and dribble these items out for as long as they choose to, in an effort to thwart the will of the international community.” The Security Council counter-terror measure also said states must ensure that any resolution adopted to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. This was to counter claims that states were short-circuiting human rights in their zeal to catch and prosecute terrorists. “The United Nations has an indispensable role to play in providing the legal and organizational framework within which the international campaign against terrorism can unfold,” said Secretary-General Kofi Annan in his opening statement. “But we must never lose sight of the fact that any sacrifice of freedom or the rule of law within states — or any generation of new tensions between states in the name of anti-terrorism — is to hand the terrorists a victory that no act of theirs alone could possibly bring.” He added, “important and urgent questions are being asked about what might be called the ‘collateral damage’ of the war of terrorism — damage to the presumption of innocence, to precious human rights, to the rule of law, and to the very fabric of democratic governance.” Domestically, he said, the danger is that in pursuit of security, crucial liberties could be sacrificed — weakening rather than strengthening common security. “Internationally, the world is seeing an increasing use of what I call the ‘T-word’ — terrorism — to demonize political opponents, to throttle freedom of speech and the press, and to de-legitimize legitimate political grievances.” Similarly, states fighting various forms of unrest or insurgency are finding it tempting to abandon the sometimes slow process of political negotiation for the deceptively easy option of military action. He said the world organization had to do whatever it could to deny terrorists the opportunity to commit their crimes. But, he said, that just as terrorism must never be excused, so must genuine grievances never be ignored. He urged determination to solve political disputes and long-standing conflicts, which underpinned, fueled and generated support for terrorism. The adopted text encouraged international organizations to evaluate ways in which they could enhance the effectiveness of their action against terrorism, including by establishing dialogue and information exchange with each other and with other international participants. It also emphasized the role of regional and sub-regional organizations in working with the CTC, established by Resolution 1373, and other international organizations. The council said that continuing international efforts to enhance dialogue and broadening the understanding among civilizations “will contribute to international cooperation and collaboration, which by themselves are necessary to sustain the broadest possible fight against terrorism.” Copyright 2003 by United Press International. All rights reserved.

“Dick Rowland Image”

”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

– Don’t Worry About Over-rated Hazards

Despite living healthier and longer lives, and enjoying more pleasures and conveniences than ever before, Americans are often prey to unwarranted worries, observers note. Many of these worries spring from environmental warnings, say observers, and being scared affects their ability to think realistically and use good judgment.

Often all the worrying turns out to be for naught, researchers say.

It took an $8 million federal study to calm fears that breast cancer
could be linked to environmental causes among women in Long Island, N.Y. — and, indeed, no scientific study has ever actually confirmed such a link.

For a detailed discussion of how best to evaluate environmental threats, there is a new book: “How Much Risk? A Guide to Understanding Environmental Health Hazards,” by Inge F. Goldstein and Martin Goldstein, published by the Oxford University Press.

Source: Jane E. Brody, “Risks and Realities: In a world of Hazards,
Worries Are Often Misplaced,” New York Times, August 20, 2002

For text https://www/nytimes.com/2002/08/20/health/20BROD.html

For more on Human Health Risks https://www.ncpa.org/iss/env

– Dixiecrats Triumphant

Woodrow Wilson’s historical reputation is that of a far-sighted
progressive. But Reason Senior Editor Charles Paul Freund explains that Wilson was a racist retrograde, one who attempted to engineer the diminution of both justice and democracy for American blacks — who were enjoying little of either to begin with. See: https://reason.com/links/links121802.shtml

– Forest Fights

Just before leaving office, Bill Clinton issued a rule prohibiting the
building of roads on untouched parcels of federal forest that applies to some 58.5 million acres of national forests. Reason Science
Correspondent Ronald Bailey points out that the national forests were
created as timber reserves, and says the courts should overturn that
rule. See: https://www.reason.com/rb/rb121802.shtml

– Hit & Run

Be sure to check out Hit & Run, Reason’s new group blog which officially launched last week, featuring continuously updated news, views and abuse by the Reason staff — and comments by visitors. Join the debate. See: https://www.reason.com/hitandrun/

”Roots (Food for Thought)”

Freedom, Not Voting, Makes America Great

By Alex Epstein

Every Election Day politicians, intellectuals, and activists
propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly un-American idea: the notion that our most important right-and the source of America’s greatness-is the right to vote. According to former President Bill Clinton, the right to vote is “the most fundamental right of citizenship”; it is “the heart and soul of our democracy,” says Senator John McCain.

Such statements are regarded as uncontroversial-but consider
their implications. If voting is truly our most fundamental right, then all other rights-including free speech, property, even life-are
contingent on and revocable by the whims of the voting public (or their elected officials). America, on this view, is a society based not on individual rights, but on unlimited majority rule-like Ancient Athens, where the populace, exercising “the most fundamental right of citizenship,” elected to kill Socrates for voicing unpopular ideas-or
modern-day Zimbabwe, where the democratically elected Robert Mugabe has seized the property of the nation’s white farmers and brought the nation to the verge of starvation-or Germany in 1932, when the people democratically elected the Nazi Party, including future Chancellor Adolph Hitler. Would anyone dare claim that America is thus fundamentally similar to these regimes, and that it is perfectly acceptable to kill controversial philosophers or to exterminate 6 million Jews, so long as it is done by popular vote?

Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a
“democracy,” but as a constitutional republic-a political structure
under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy” does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.”

The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an
autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen.

What makes America unique is not that it has elections-even
dictatorships hold elections-but that its elections take place in a
country limited by the absolute principle of individual freedom. From our Declaration of Independence, which upholds the “unalienable rights” of every individual, among which are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” to our Constitution, whose Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom of private property, respect for individual liberty is the essence of America-and the root of her greatness.

Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many
Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today’s politicians want subsidies for farmers — by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly — by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless — by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more “democratic” our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.

This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to
reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.

Alex Epstein is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Above article is from
https://www.aynrand.org/medialink/meaningoftherighttovote.shtml

”Roots (Food for Thought)”

U.S. Government Continues to Stiff Montana

By William Perry Pendley

Published: The Heartland Institute 04/01/2002

In the summer of 1996, President Bill Clinton traveled to Yellowstone
National Park to announce that his administration, in concert with
environmental groups, had killed hundreds of jobs in southern Montana and northern Wyoming.

The New World Mine, a world-class ($650 million) deposit of gold,
silver, and copper in an area heavily mined since Europeans came west, would never open. Crown Butte Mines agreed to ensure the reclamation of the land, which had experienced decades of mining activity by other companies. In exchange, Crown Butte was promised $65 million worth of federal property.

But federal officials could not identify any such property, so Congress appropriated the funds to pay Crown Butte instead. Recognizing that Montana, the nation’s poorest state, had been dealt a severe economic blow by the mine’s failure to open, Congress mandated some recompense. The Secretary of the Interior was to give Montana either $10 million in federal mineral rights as agreed to by the Secretary and Montana’s Governor, or all rights in 533 million tons of federal coal in the “Otter Creek tracts.”

Then-Governor Marc Racicot told then-Secretary Bruce Babbitt that
Montana wanted the Otter Creek tracts within Powder River County, one of the nation’s most productive coal mining regions. Babbitt refused, saying the congressional mandate created a “windfall” for Montana. Undeterred, Racicot pressed for transfer of the Otter Creek tracts.

Attorneys Promise He’ll Comply

In 1998, landowners near Ashland, in Montana’s poorest region, sued to force Babbitt to comply with federal law by transferring the Otter Creek tracts. They argued that Babbitt’s well-publicized characterization of the coal transfer (Babbitt told a U.S. Senate committee what he told Racicot) proved Babbitt had no intention of complying with the law.

Federal attorneys asserted that negotiations had begun, that
negotiations were continuing, and that Babbitt would comply with federal law on or before New Year’s Day 2001. Given these assertions, a Washington, DC federal district court, in September 1999, dismissed the case as not ripe; that is, Babbitt had not yet violated the law and had indicated he would comply.

On Dec. 22, 2000, Secretary Babbitt wrote to Gov. Racicot
advising him, once again, that Babbitt had no intention of transferring the Otter Creek tracts to Montana and would not, under any circumstances, do so. The letter did not arrive in Montana until after Inauguration Day 2001. By then, Montana had a new governor, Judy Martz, who went to Washington, DC for President George W. Bush’s swearing in.

While there, Gov. Martz met with Gale Norton, Secretary of the
Department of Interior, to whom she communicated Montana’s request for immediate transfer of the Otter Creek tracts. Governor Martz repeated that request in a letter dated Feb. 1, 2001. A year after that letter was signed, Secretary Norton has yet to transfer the Otter Creek tracts to Montana, a year and a month after the transfer was to have taken place.

Blackmail in the Courts

Meanwhile, on Jan. 25, 2002, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe filed a
lawsuit in Washington, DC to prevent Norton from doing what Babbitt
should have done in 1998, or 1999, or 2000, and what Norton should have done days after being sworn-in, given as how the deadline was Jan. 1, 2001.

Although the tribe is seeking an order compelling Norton to conduct a lengthy environmental review before transferring the coal, the tribe’s attorney stated the real reason for the lawsuit is to force Montana to meet the tribe’s demands for employment and contracting guarantees. If the attorney’s statement is accurate, and for a host of other reasons, the lawsuit should be dismissed. Whether federal lawyers will file a motion to dismiss is unknown.

In 1996, when Clinton stood before the media and smiling
environmentalists to announce the death of hundreds of high-paying jobs, he enthused, “What a happy day.” It has not been a happy day
economically in southeastern Montana for many years. Worse yet, the happy day envisioned by Congress when it mandated the coal transfer appears far away.

William Perry Pendley is president and chief legal officer of the
Mountain States Legal Foundation.

Above article is from https://www.heartland.org Environment & Climate News April 2002.

GRIH Comment: If they are big & strong enough to successfully tax you, they are all too able to hand you an empty sack full of promises. What they can do to Montana, they can do to Hawaii, or New Hampshire etc.

”Evergreen (Today’s Quote)”

There are two ways to slide easily through life; to believe everything or to doubt everything. Both will save us from thinking.

– Alfred Korsybski

”’See Web site”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org ”’for further information. Join its efforts at “Nurturing the rights and responsibilities of the individual in a civil society. …” or email or call Grassroot of Hawaii Institute President Richard O. Rowland at mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com or (808) 487-4959.”’