When the U.S. occupied Iraq, it was obligated to administer Iraqi laws not American.
When the U.S. military assisted in taking down Saddam's statute they were about to
place the American flag over its face, but remembered the laws of occupation and stopped!
Same is true here in Hawaii, when the occupation is over the U.S. military will hold a ceremony
to officially turn control back to the Hawaiian Kingdom!
It absolutely matters on who are the first nations people, for only they can ascend the Throne according
to the 1864 Hawaiian constitution, Art 22. Must be an Alii.
People have been placing their names to orginizations without knowing about the 1897 Ku'e petition
against annexing the Hawaiian Islands, if we take part in Kau Inoa it would be going against what
our kupunas did, it would be hurtful.
But every one has a choice, which brings me to right and wrong, if you know your kupuna took part to save our nation would you just say, well that was the past & we got to look forward, the U.S. will never give up Hawaii, or would you support what our kupuna did? I stand with our kupuna!
As far as a Hawaiian national is concerned, they were made up of mix race, the first nations people were
the Kanaka Maoli of first nation full blood people or Kanaka of first nation people with part blood.
Even Alii would be considered a Hawaiian as their nationality.
What is the race of an American? What is the race of a Hawaiian?
As far as the United States, they are clearly occupying the Hawaiian Kingdom.
James Blount appointed to investigate why the Queen turned over her limited authority to the U.S.
President Grover Cleveland in which he concluded that the diplomatic and military representatives
abused their authority that caused the change in government, talking about the event that occurred
on January 17, 1893.
So as a condition to restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom, U.S. President Cleveland requested that the
Queen grant amnesty to those within the Hawaiian Kingdom (interfering with internal affairs of another nation)
she didn't want to at first but the Queen agreed and signed to on December 18, 1893. This completes the continuity for the existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
The State of Hawaii existence comes by way of the Republic of Hawaii who got it from the Provisional Government whose members James Blount also concluded took part in the insurection against the Hawaiian Kingdom and in which the U.S. President asked the Hawaiian Queen to grant amnesty for. There can be no validity found in that chain of authority.
In the opinion of the Supreme Court in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197(1903)relying on the descission of U.S. Supreme Court for guidence in which reference was made to the Republic of Hawaii and the 1898 HJR annexation of Hawaii, having no further need to examine or to qualify the authority of the Republic of Hawaii or the 1898 annexation of Hawaii. As explained above, the Republic of Hawaii had no authority from the Hawaiian Kingdom as you know from above.
Alii blood lines are still around, we know some for sure, in fact one of our ohana was the first diplomatic envoy for the Kingdom who gained the recognition of independence of the Hawaiian nation on November 28, 1843, his name was Timoteo Haalilio.
Hawaii had laws under a constitutional government, these laws must be honored by the U.S. for Hawaii just as they did for Iraq.
Hawaii needs a fair shake in this process. Hawaiian nationals including Kanaka Maoli, Kanaka and Alii have need of a resolve.
I have family and friends who work for the State of Hawaii and I have nothing against them, but as to the creation of State of Hawaii there is a huge problem. If anyone can show me that the Queen gave up Hawaii with a willing heart and not under duress and she had a huge celebration to mark that event then I'll give up my support of the kupunas and their 1897 Ku'e petition. Until then I'll resist against the illegal occupation of the U.S. upon Hawaiian soil!
One more thing to think about, if the Queen gave up her authority on January 17, 1893 to the U.S. President and the U.S. failed to honor the December 18, 1893 Executive Agreement of Restoration and that the Provisional Government were made up of members who caused the illegal insurection against the Hawaiian Kingdom, how was any documents notarized in the Kingdom legally?
Take a look at some deeds after that date, some seals are drawn in like a flower, perhaps retroactively made good by the treasonous government after firmly taking control away from the Queen.
Courts are made up of human beings that are subject to making mistakes, I'd like to think all this was a big 118 year mistake, but until they mean sorry from their heart we need to take a stand against the U.S.
If they were really apologetic to the native Hawaiians they would put it into a treaty, not in a House Joint Resolution 103-150 made only Native Hawaiians, and not native Hawaiians, Kanaka Moli, Kanaka, Alii or Hawaiian nationals.
More info here:Oiwi Maoli- Hawaiian National Issues And Sovereignty
Comments
A "claim" is one thing; the deed is something else. Keanu Sai's fantasy is that it's just a matter of a judge banging with a gavel. Or just reviewing a stack of submitted genealogies. The real world does NOT work that way ! The Successor will carve a destiny like Alexander the Great like Caesar like Napoleon. Hawaiians underestimate what they envision. All these princes and pretenders will kneel at the real King's feet. All the petty "rights" will evaporate.
"and the Successor so elected shall become a new Stirps for a Royal Family;"
The young man who does the deed will probably end up with a "patch and painted" genealogy which is how things are done in the real world. And forget about "electing" Him. These kind of people are NOT elected ! And Our new King might decide to govern WITHOUT any Constitution at all. History shows that Justice and Happiness CAN exist with no constitution at all.
Aloha, e Kaohi, ali'ilani e,
"If one is going to compare the situation of Hawaii with Iraq, and screw up along the way--it's going to be a problematic. As in Attica or Addiction to yadayada!"
When Magellan crossed the Pacific and landed in the Phillipines, who were the original inhabitants of the Pacific ?? Answer: black birds only ! How can one compare Hawai'i to Iraq ?? The Iraqi people are real human beings. The Pacific Islanders are mere blackbirds suitable for testing nuclear weapons on, not much else.
Me ka aloha pumehana, Ali'ilani e,
Long Live The Hawaiian Kingdom, o Kukuna o ka la
If one is going to compare the situation of Hawaii with Iraq, and screw up along the way--it's going to be a problematic. As in Attica or Addiction to yadayada!
However, if one wants to join the front on occupation, then cool! I say are new to this for reasons of being held down by the academics and the winnable Queens and politicians. I strongly believe like you the US military (or maybe not for you) are the foe.
Given a name and face to the foe (US military) I step into my great(s) grandparents concerns for the people of Hawaii on mom's side. And on dad's side I step into the 'niaupio' problem from its point of origin the first battle at Kuamo'o. Mom's side was always concern with nuclear isotopes and testing on the Marshall Islands. Dad's side oh well that is strictly occupying at gun point to my dad's head martial law at my dad's place and having to battle in courts for the return of the land at 1845 Maunawili Road. Dad still lives in the kitchen he was born in, but getting close.
Okay now that we got that out of the way--personal stuff.
Let's move on to your different forum setting and place names:
Iraq and Hawaii
People First Nation and their Na Alii, I suppose. Question, I know first people, but are one's Ali'i fictitious (bird, spirit, pig, pohaku, mountain top, Jesus) whom are we talking about? Like I say I know First People and their visitors. Mauian's need to take responsibility for the Kau Inoa for it was the Murdock corporations that created that fictitious tribal roll.
Okay cool, my Ku'e petition is 308 on mom's and dad's around the Mahoe ...etc side Kailua, Oahu on the Ku'e. I'm not much on data mining the information. My grandfather's father Alexander Auld argued before congress-thus the Joint Resolution. Secondly, there were different houses on Oahu, (Auld, 'Niaupio-Manumanu, Tutu Kaleo' and more) that continued the gathering and discussions on the reasoning of the Ku'e petitions. Places of these houses, Kailua, Kalihi and Kapahulu. These were the children of the original signatures carrying on their parents Ku'e. Thank you for standing with my ohana, I appreciate your standing(s). As a broke mask Na Kanaka warrior, or are we talking about the Don Quixote that is striking at windmills with his childish sword, and riding on a horse’s ass?
Race(s) of the Americans and their slaves and Native people and their land have 300 year old history. The Na Kanaka Scholars over laid that 300 year old history over us guys (DHHL) and called us racist and whatever else to strengthened their arguments. The scholars removed Ni'ihau from their 300 year time line because the Ni'ihau scholars fought the shit out of them at UH Manoa and Hilo. We didn't--those of us from DHHL, our battle with these scholars at UH Manoa was over our tuition waivers and our scholarships, which they stole and laughed in our faces as they were doing it! We have weathered through those battles and are slowly regaining our education and having meetings to cooperate with our Na Kupuna for preservation of our culture practices.
I'll buy into your 'continuity' because of the need to content the situation for knowledge gathering of sources for the Department of Education History Standard(Standard 1: Historical Understanding: CHANGE, CONTINUITY, AND CAUSALITY-Understand change and/or continuity and cause and/or effect in history) and its Benchmark (SS.9MHH.1.1) and here is the Rubric (Describe, with clear and precise detail, the multiple social, political, and economic causes and effects of change in modern Hawaii, making significant connections, insights, generalizations, and predictions)
Just curious, if not, then is the authority in the hands of the people and if so, is it the First People? Or, are we talking about the citizens of the U.S., and their Hawaiian Nationals from the Hawaiian Club? I'm being critical of your assertion of 'validity' and wondering where it applies, sounds more like aliens from Mars. Sorry, I just don't get the sequencing of that 'authority' even with the word 'amnesty' and Liliu needs looking into.
Wasn't the Republic of Hawaii Hawaiian Nationals too? In truth need to I need to rethink what one just said here and discusses in ones expressions need to be made clearer for full meaning and understanding. Looking over there up above making me dizzy, which is the life of a critic and sometimes too pessimistic, I believe.
Uncle Sam Keleileiki was very adamant over Ha'alilio and his journey, and I did watch the documentary and sat for questions and answers at UH Manoa. Good learning, huh? And your outcome are the results we (including myself) today: "recognition of independence of the Hawaiian nation on November 28, 1843" I caution the word 'recognition' from the Akaka Bill and their tie into the US recognition. Do you recognize the US as your governing entity of the Hawaiian Islands? Just checking!
You said: and my thoughts were, "you sound like a whining women houseless on the side of the road."
"Hawaii had laws under a constitutional government; these laws must be honored by the U.S. for Hawaii just as they did for Iraq.
Hawaii needs a fair shake in this process. Hawaiian nationals including Kanaka Maoli, Kanaka and Alii have need of a resolve."
Māmalahoe Kānāwai:
E nā kānaka,
E mālama ‘oukou i ke akua
A e mālama ho‘i ke kanaka nui a me kanaka iki;
E hele ka ‘elemakule, ka luahine, a me ke kama
A moe i ke ala
‘A‘ohe mea nāna e ho‘opilikia.
Hewa nō, make.
—Kamehameha I
It's cool to rise up and take a stand on the lawn of the Iolani Palace for our Hawaiian Kingdom and our majesty the Queen Liliuokalani and her people, I so aprreciate your aloha for our people.
Much aloha January 17, 2011
Aloha, John Kenolio,
The "military occupation" seems a little too simplified. Blount and Cleveland had control of
the U.S. armed forces. What they did NOT have control of was pirates, advance men, from
all over the world. The so- called Amnesty was the fact that Cleveland would not give Our
Queen the POWER to deport any of Her enemies. With a forked- tongue Cleveland could
point out the Justice of Our Queen's Restoration, while with the other half of his tongue he
fully supported the American black- birding pirates whom She sought to justfully DEPORT
or behead ! This made Cleveland an unqualified criminal.
These "civilian" occupiers are still here today. In Rice vs. Cayetano the United States Supreme Court did just what Cleveland did. Concerning Hawaiian Affairs in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs elections, any rotten, genocidal enemy of the Hawaiian people has an inalienable "right" to vote, on an equal footing, along side any ali'i. The Hawaiian people are not allowed to get their enemies "at arm's length" so they can defend themselves. On the morning of November 13th, 1893 Cleveland asked Our Queen to be "Queen of all the people".
Rice vs. Cayetano is the same poison. Why would Hawaiians want to Deport anyone at all ?? Why would Hawaiians want to Behead anyone at all ?? There are a lot of very sound reasons to Behead any genocidal maniac that we can catch spreading disease or kidnapping innocent people off Pacific atolls ! And these bastards do NOT where any uniforms. So the Office of Hawaiian Affairs goes happily along with genocidal maniacs on their very own voting rolls.
Me ka aloha pumehana,
E hana me ka ha`aha`a.