Honorable Nick J. Rahall (D-WV)
Chair
The House Natural Resources Committee
Re: Hearing on H.R. 2314
June 11, 2009
10:00 A.M.
Chairman Rahall and Members of the Committee,
I am a Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) and go on record to OPPOSE H.R. 2314.
According to historical fact, truth and rule of law, Native Hawaiians are not American Indians.
And I - along with many, many others - do not want that distinction.
If anything, we are Hawaiian, subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii, whose government has been placed into some kind of limbo by the imperialistic forces of the u.s. - in 1893 - in conflict with the highest law of the (u.s.) land - its (the u.s.'s) treaties.
As international law states: One nation-state cannot (on its own) discontinue the existence of another nation-state.
The Kingdom of Hawaii was an "international" nation-state - recognized by all members of the "Family of Nations" - but its history was interrupted in a coups d'etat in which u.s. military troops were complicit and necessary (to pull off). In other words - the u.s. was a major player in an illegal coups d'etat.
The end of u.s. occuption of Hawai'i is overdue.
To enact H..R. 2314 would continue the abuse of the u.s. constitution - and support the unconscionable illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Moreso - the passage of H.R. 2314 would whitewash all of the mistakes of the u.s. in its most imperialistic period - as it pertains to Hawai'i.
Such a whitewash would tend to stifle Hawaiians' right to justice, a "real" reconciliation, and their right of self-determination (among other things, as promulgated in the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples).
Actually - the u.s. supreme court decided recently (March 31, 2009) - that "resolutions" are not the law of the land - in the case of OHA vs. State of Hawaii.
However, the supreme court did not go one step further - Which is to find that the "Resolution of Annexation" (of Hawai'i to the u.s.) is also NOT the law of the land.
Hawai'i IS NOT part of the u.s. It (Hawai'i) is merely being subject to belligerant occupation - of which international laws - aren't being complied with by the u.s.
In reference to the March 31, 2009, supreme court case, I wrote - as it pertains to the so-called "ceded lands" ---
Deeded? No way.
Ceded? By Whom? Tried to by the Republic of Hawaii. Where did it get its title? It didn't have any.
Annexation? It never happened. The myth continues, for instance, on the McKinley statue at McKinley H.S., which labels the document he holds as "Treaty!" There was NO treaty. A resolution is domestic and only has the force of law, if any, within the boundaries of the sponsoring nation. The "Resolution of Annexation" was powerless in Hawai'i.
While treaties are "the supreme law of the land" - the u.s. does not live by its treaties.
Never fear, the Supreme Court will find a way to continue the myth.
However, if the so-called "ceded lands trust" is found to be unconstitutional - Should the Statehood Act also be found unconstitutional?
Or can the Court - as in Pearl Harbor - support cancellation of the treaty - yet allow the u.s. to not only keep the "use" of it, but allow the u.s. to claim good title?
Manifest Destiny is alive!
Unfortunately, this appeal gives the u.s. supreme court the wherewithal to make legal what all the misrepresentation, deception and fraud wreaked upon the subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Kingdom - by the illegal Overthrow, the Annexation that never took place, and the cession, by an entity without interest or title, of the so-called "ceded" lands (the stolen Hawaiian Kingdom lands.
A possible outcome of this appeal, based on racial equality - for me - may cancel one of my major reasons for opposing the so-called "Akaka" Bill - to keep the stolen lands out of the hands of the u.s. and the so-called state of Hawai`i.
Again - Justice is elusive. But - I suppose - this is how dastardly folks can steal a Kingdom, its lands, and unconstitutionally make americans out of hawaiians.
But - holdouts like me - refuse to play this game. Onipa'a!!!!
______
Therefore, sir, I am violently opposed to H.R. 2314 - for the above reasons AND many more ... and I recommend that you and your committee reject the bill.
Clarence Ching
64-823 Mamalahoa Highway
Kamuela, Kingdom of Hawaii 96743
You need to be a member of maoliworld to add comments!
Replies