Aloha mai ia kakou:Haunani did a good job in referencing the opposition of the settlement (KWO-Mei2008/pg 29). However, the dynamics of the opposition is not clearly defined when naming the individuals. The list is incomplete and could have filled the page many times. For expedience she listed the more vocal individual objectors and safely eliminated the groups that objected.Habitually, they (OHA, media, US Congress) have lumped together all objectors regardless of their arguments and stance on the general issues. There are two other factions in these scenarios that need to be identified properly to visualize the real dynamics at play. This is why it seems it cannot be resolved until all parties end up on the same page where truth and facts are revealed. From that point only, can there be a resolution to the situation.On one hand, we have the Hawaii nationals and the US government with the facts and the US refusing to accept it because it will lose a very strategic position in the Pacific. On the other hand, we have those that are ignorant of the real status of Hawaii with some in denial for they fear they may lose what they invested or afraid of uncertainty. There are those that suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome; not wanting to face the truth and facts; while many are brainwashed by the propaganda and conditioning that whatever is revealed, they will not believe the truth when it hits them in the face.Let's uncover the two factions that have been lumped together and see what the two stand for; Their concept, perspective and interpretation of the issues. This is a good time to use critical thinking to determine where you stand in all this and do you feel confident with your decision. Weigh in the facts; then you will know which path to take and what is just.One group being the Hawaii nationals whose primary objections are the wording and intentions of the Akaka Bill and OHA's intervening actions; the suppression and blocking of Hawaii Nationals' voices who urges the de-occupation of the USA from the Hawai'i Kingdom; shunning the international issue and embracing the US tribal system; OHA being a state agency and the question of conflict of interests in some issues; the sponsorship of creating a tribal governing entity to usurp the jurisdiction of the legitimate existing Kingdom of Hawai'i while ignoring the other non-Hawaiian multi-ethnic Hawaii nationals; perverted justice to preserve the ipso facto State of Hawai'i in its corruption in reneging its self-imposed obligations. Add to that, the fact that OHA does not represent us but the community-at-large who has elected them into office.And the other group being, the US Americans who cite racism and question the constitutionality of OHA, Kau Inoa, and the Akaka Bill; those who disregard USA's liability and trust obligations; the same ones who resent Hawaiians as indigenous to Hawaii who have an official recognized nation-state under US belligerent occupation; those feeling threatened of being in Hawai'i as US Americans (that have vested interests in Hawai'i under the fraud perpetuated by their country). These antagonists are the ones who would like to see OHA disbanded and the obligatory responsibilities and trust eliminated. They insist on the status quo of being U.S. American citizens in Hawai'i and it being part of the USA. They claim there is no Hawaii nation nor any "real Hawaiians" left and that all residents are Hawaiians of the State of Hawaii, USA.They profile all native Hawaiians as being on welfare, lazy, thuggish terrorists, racists who want special privileges for themselves. These haole (foreign) settlers want the same privileges and advantages they are accustomed to as it is when they were on the US mainland. They're tactic is reverse-racism and to revise Hawaiian history. This has been primarily headed by a group that have openly declared war against the Hawaiians and seek support from small and big businesses, and their clubs in Hawai'i. The most vocal has been Ken Conklin, Senator Slom, Maria (Malia) Zimmerman, William Burgess and his wife Sandra, Thurston Twigg-Smith, Earl Arakaki, and others.OHA sees fit to ignore the Hawaii nationals and lump them together with the US Americans connected with the Federalist Society along with those that also decry racism and un-constitutionality of the Akaka Bill. This is scurrilously done to make it appear that all native Hawaiians are for the Akaka Bill. This concludes the two-sided argument for and against based on racism and unconstitutionality versus a political native American-indigenous group of Hawaii with its governing entity/organization. It conveniently eliminates the third faction of this issue, the Hawai'i Nationals of the still existing Kingdom of Hawai'i, albeit under the ongoing US belligerent occupation. This is the unresolved issues related to the so-called "ceded" lands known as the Public Land Trust. In fact, this is an international issue rather than a USA domestic or internal issue.The growing educated awareness of the Hawai'i nationals have forced the courts to take a look at our legitimate complaints and they have responded that this is a lawful and legal issue that needs resolving. Thus the ruling on the land settlement and the reasoning why we rebuke OHA's attempt to create a new governing entity and the push for the Akaka Bill."OHA trustees do not believe that they are the entity that could ever release the claim because it's part of the state," Scheuer said when explaining the settlement. "It would have to be a Native Hawaiian entity elected by Native Hawaiians."Scheuer is quite correct in his statements. Now connect the dots. OHA would have to intiate or sponsor a native governing entity using the Kau Inoa registry and advancing the Akaka Bill to accomplish this claim. That was their strategy from the beginning; to herd the Hawaiians into one organization under the ruse of being a tribe the Akaka Bill would create as a "Reorganized Hawaiian government", an entity the USA - State of Hawai'i would recognize as the legitimate representative of the Hawaiians, to secure the claim of the so-called "ceded" lands to negotiate among themselves to completely steal the lands of the Hawaii Nationals while maintaining the status quo we now experience. History does repeat itself!Has OHA done any good for the native Hawaiians? Yes, they have in some cases; but that's for another discussion.Tane
Better Politics for a Better World wrote:
"There are certainly precedents for large degrees of autonomy for Hawaii."
Precedents were set by the USA in their laws and constitution regarding Texas and Hawaii. Just the fact that after destabilizing the Hawai'i Kingdom's government, US invasion, belligerent occupation, they then set up a puppet government to push for annexation. The precedent with Texas was statehood through a resolution without a treaty. With Hawaii, the US invasion, "fake revolution", belligerent occupation, ignoring the Ku'e petition (our plebiscite) whereby 96% of Hawaii subjects protested the invasion and annexation created a precedent and breaching its treaties. Add to that, the admittance of Hawaii through a resolution without a treaty as a territory rather than a state and violating extra-territorial international law. The US declared the Hawaiian Nationals as US citizens against their will.
"... It is conceivable that Hawaii could retain statehood representation and rights, while becoming more devolved to regain more of its lost soveriegnty. ..."
Statehood was unlawful and procedures filled with irregularities that deem it null and void under international laws. So there's nothing to retain other than de-occupation and honoring our neutrality status and treaties. Remember, Hawaii was the first non-European/Anglo-American nation-state to join the Family of Nations (frontrunner of the League of Nations and the United Nations). It took Turkey much later to be accepted by the League of Nations as the first non-Christian country to join the recognized nation-states. As confirmed by the Hague, the Hawaiian Kingdom still retains its sovereignty (external and internal) albeit under US belligerent occupation.
"Even in the other states, there exist varying degrees of de jure and de facto sovereignty."
Under US Constitution, all states in the union retain their sovereignty as de facto and dejure. It is the education system and media that is teaching US Citizens that the Federal Government has that right; but it never had sufficient states to ratify it. This is why Vermont and a few others are considering secession from the Federal government as is their Constitutional right and privilege.
"For example while Scotland has scope over its own affairs, it also has representation in the UK Parliament (to which some English probably see as a double standard, since they are not similarly devolved)."
There is a movement for Scotland to restore its sovereign total independence. This movement is gaining some popularity and in the future, we may see them doing it.
So have at it my new friends, critique away :)))
Mahalo for your input. As many facts are re-revealed the people are getting bolder and the US is frantically trying to thwart justice and obfuscate the facts.
Comments
"There are certainly precedents for large degrees of autonomy for Hawaii."
Precedents were set by the USA in their laws and constitution regarding Texas and Hawaii. Just the fact that after destabilizing the Hawai'i Kingdom's government, US invasion, belligerent occupation, they then set up a puppet government to push for annexation. The precedent with Texas was statehood through a resolution without a treaty. With Hawaii, the US invasion, "fake revolution", belligerent occupation, ignoring the Ku'e petition (our plebiscite) whereby 96% of Hawaii subjects protested the invasion and annexation created a precedent and breaching its treaties. Add to that, the admittance of Hawaii through a resolution without a treaty as a territory rather than a state and violating extra-territorial international law. The US declared the Hawaiian Nationals as US citizens against their will.
"... It is conceivable that Hawaii could retain statehood representation and rights, while becoming more devolved to regain more of its lost soveriegnty. ..."
Statehood was unlawful and procedures filled with irregularities that deem it null and void under international laws. So there's nothing to retain other than de-occupation and honoring our neutrality status and treaties. Remember, Hawaii was the first non-European/Anglo-American nation-state to join the Family of Nations (frontrunner of the League of Nations and the United Nations). It took Turkey much later to be accepted by the League of Nations as the first non-Christian country to join the recognized nation-states. As confirmed by the Hague, the Hawaiian Kingdom still retains its sovereignty (external and internal) albeit under US belligerent occupation.
"Even in the other states, there exist varying degrees of de jure and de facto sovereignty."
Under US Constitution, all states in the union retain their sovereignty as de facto and dejure. It is the education system and media that is teaching US Citizens that the Federal Government has that right; but it never had sufficient states to ratify it. This is why Vermont and a few others are considering secession from the Federal government as is their Constitutional right and privilege.
"For example while Scotland has scope over its own affairs, it also has representation in the UK Parliament (to which some English probably see as a double standard, since they are not similarly devolved)."
There is a movement for Scotland to restore its sovereign total independence. This movement is gaining some popularity and in the future, we may see them doing it.
So have at it my new friends, critique away :)))
Mahalo for your input. As many facts are re-revealed the people are getting bolder and the US is frantically trying to thwart justice and obfuscate the facts.