Posted by Pono Kealoha on December 19, 2008 at 10:26am
The Hawaii FactorA U.S. DilemmaBy Leon SiuDecember 2008Recent developments indicate a rapidly approaching day of reckoning for the long-standingoffense of the illegal occupation of Hawaii by the United States. The consequences will not onlyaffect the U.S. and Hawaii, but will have significant international impact as well.– Part 1 –Obama and Hawaiian SovereigntyPresident-Elect Barack ObamaThe election of Barack Obama as President of the United States adds several more twiststo the already convoluted saga of the illegal U.S. occupation of Hawaii, and Hawaii’squest to restore its independence.Anyone born and raised in Hawaii has acquired a certain Hawaiian-ness in outlook anddemeanor. This will serve Mr. Obama well in the challenges he will face as President intackling America’s enormous problems.There is no doubt that in a single day, Obama’s victory has reinvigorated America withmuch needed optimism and inspired the world with a resounding message ofAmerica’s willingness to institute significant change. But will Obama help to resolve thefestering questions about the U.S. occupation of Hawaii? Directly? No. Indirectly? Yes,and here’s why…Obama and Hawaii IndependenceSome independence advocates think that if Obama can just be convinced of the meritsand moral imperatives of the cause, perhaps as a fair-minded, dark-skinned championof justice he will be inclined to support the restoration of Hawaii as an independentnation. But this is wishful thinking for there is little chance of ever winning him over tosupport independence for Hawaii.These are the reasons:1) Obama would not want to be known as the president to cause the break up of theunion (that’s not the kind of ‘change’ he had in mind),2) Obama is committed to the Akaka Bill’s racial/tribal scheme of continued U.S.land claims and political control of Hawaii, and3) Obama knows that a restored Hawaiian Kingdom would disqualify him fromserving as the President of the United States!2Obama and the Akaka BillBarack Obama has already clearly indicated his support for the Native HawaiianGovernment Reorganization Act (a.k.a. the Akaka Bill), now on a fast track to being passedby Congress. Should Congress pass it, Obama has promised as President, to sign it. Thisis the outcome long hoped for by Senator Akaka, along with the rest of Hawaii’sdelegation to congress and nearly every political leader in the State of Hawaii. But thisis not an outcome desired by the people of Hawaii, particularly those seeking to restoreHawaii as an independent nation.The two factors in Washington that have been preventing the Akaka Bill from beingpassed over the past eight years has been the Republican opposition in the Senate andPresident Bush’s pledge to veto the measure. The Akaka Bill opposition in Hawaii hasbeen so vociferous that no congressional hearings for the bill have ever been held inHawaii. But now, with a Democrat-dominated Congress and the new DemocratPresident, passage of the Akaka Bill seems to be pretty much a done-deal.The Akaka Bill’s purposeThe ultimate, unvarnished purpose of the Akaka Bill is to make sure that Hawaii staysfirmly under the rule of the U.S. The measure seeks to dupe Hawaiians into legitimizingthe State of Hawaii’s fraudulent claims to the so-called “ceded lands.” By enactment ofAkaka, the State of Hawaii hopes to validate its claim to legitimacy.While appearing to be a magnanimous gesture, the Akaka Bill actually seeks topermanently deprive Hawaiians (native and non-native) of their lands. It also hopes toderail the assertions that the Hawaiian Kingdom is the lawful nation in continuity. (Ofcourse, the Akaka Bill will not stop the independence movement, it will just poseanother annoying hurdle to overcome.)Hawaii is still a sovereign nationThe primary motive for asserting Hawaii’s independence is to remove the foreign (U.S.)occupation and restore Hawaii as a sovereign, self-governing nation. Despite the 1893coup d’etat and the long U.S. occupation, Hawaii never relinquished its sovereignty.Thus, though suppressed for many years, the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to be thelawful government for the Hawaiian Islands.The “State of Hawaii,” like its predecessors, the “Republic of Hawaii” and the“Territory of Hawaii,” is an unlawful entity; the end result of the 1893 acts of treasonthat seized control of Hawaii. The State of Hawaii is built upon a shaky stack of stolenjurisdiction and stolen property. It therefore, cannot possibly be lawful.How does this affect Obama?Obama claims he was born in Hawaii. The assumption is that, if he was born in Hawaii,he was born in the U.S.A. But it’s a wrong assumption. The Hawaiian Islands never was3and is not today, lawfully a part of the United States! Any claim of U.S. jurisdiction inHawaii is patently fraudulent, making the State of Hawaii a fake state.Therefore, contrary to what he claims, Obama, though born in Hawaii, was not born inthe United States. He was really born in the Hawaiian Kingdom, a sovereign countrythat, despite appearances and U.S. propaganda, has always been foreign to the U.S.Why does this threaten Obama’s presidency?The U.S. Constitution requires the President to be a “natural born citizen.” That is, bornwithin the physical boundaries of the United States. Since Hawaii has never been a partof the U.S., then Obama was born on foreign soil, not on American soil. That wouldautomatically disqualify him from being the U.S. President!In direct violation of the U.S. Constitution, the people of America have a president-electwho is actually not a “natural-born” U.S. citizen!Even if Obama was to somehow be persuaded that the quest to liberate Hawaii was justand true, it would be pure suicide for him to support Hawaiian independence becauseto do so would lead to the automatic forfeiture of his position as U.S. President! Thevery factors that would serve to free Hawaii would cause Obama to lose his job.Assuming he wants to keep his job, this leaves Obama with only one option with regardto Hawaii: maintain the farce and sign the Akaka Bill — and hope no one notices theserious contradictions in law and the discrepancy of his being foreign born.– Part 2 –Supreme Court’s Apology Law v. Congress’ Akaka BillThe Apology LawThe 1993 “Apology Law” (USPL 103-150) passed by the U.S. Congress and signed byPresident William J. Clinton, apologized for the United States’ role in the 1893 wrongfuloverthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.In essence, the statements of fact contained in the Apology Law provide the details thatshow the takeover of Hawaii was highly improper, from which one could readilydeduce that the resultant State of Hawaii’s claim to lands in Hawaii is fraudulent, or, atthe very best, unclear.State Supreme Court injunctionOn January 31, 2008, the Supreme Court for the State of Hawaii cited the Apology Lawas the basis for issuing an injunction to stop the State of Hawaii from selling or4otherwise dispensing of any “ceded lands” until the question of title to those lands issettled. (Again, the term “ceded lands” refers to those lands claimed by the State ofHawaii, but were never lawfully conveyed to the state by the people or the governmentof the Hawaiian Kingdom.)The Akaka BillSome of the key items contained in that 1993 Apology Law are reiterated in the NativeHawaiian Government Reorganization Act (commonly called the Akaka Bill), now on a fasttrack to being passed by Congress.What the State of Hawaii doesn’t seem to realize is that the two actions that they areseeking in Washington, D.C. (the U.S. Supreme Court decision and passage of the AkakaBill by Congress) are not only contradictory, they are mutually exclusive. They canceleach other out.Statement of fact: no sovereignty or lands conveyedThe Apology Law contains this key statement of fact: “Whereas, the indigenous Hawaiianpeople never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or overtheir national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebisciteor referendum;…” The Akaka Bill contains essentially the same statement.The fact that the people of Hawaii did not convey their sovereignty or their lands begsthe question, How then can the State of Hawaii claim the so-called “ceded lands” is theirs whenthere is an obvious cloud on title embedded in the Apology Law? This dichotomy is at theheart of the State Supreme Court’s injunction against the State of Hawaii.State’s reactionIn reaction to the State Supreme Court’s injunction, the State of Hawaii has appealedState of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs to the U.S. Supreme Court essentially askingthe court to overturn the State Supreme Court’s decision. The problem is that in order todo so, the U.S. Supreme Court would have to somehow invalidate the Apology Law, torender it as simply a sentimental gesture but without the force of law.Unwittingly, the State of Hawaii is placing itself in a major quandary, for whatever theoutcome, this case will trigger serious repercussions on many levels for the State ofHawaii and the United States.Full-court pressNevertheless, the State of Hawaii is engaged in a ‘full-court press’ to convince the U.S.Supreme Court to invalidate the Apology Law, and thus invalidate the statements of factcontained therein, namely, that the “… indigenous Hawaiian people never directlyrelinquished their inherent sovereignty over their national lands…”!5The State of Hawaii has also been engaged in a ‘full-court press’ in another arena acrossthe street, to get Congress to pass the Akaka Bill. Only this time, the State and the bill’sother proponents are asking Congress to pass this bill based on a nearly identicalstatement of fact: “…Native Hawaiians never directly relinquished to the United States theirinherent sovereignty over their national lands…”!The dichotomyWhat a contradiction, what a dichotomy! On one hand, with regard to the Apology Law,the State of Hawaii’s position is that these statements of fact are not compelling enough tobe considered as having the ‘force of law.’On the other hand, with regard to the Akaka Bill, the position of the State of Hawaii andthe bill’s proponents is that this nearly identical statement of fact is so compelling thatCongress (and President Obama) should pass the Akaka Bill and make it into law!Get this. The State of Hawaii is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate one law, andacross the street, using the same statements of fact, the State is lobbying and insistingthe U.S. Congress validate and create another law, and have the new President (Obama)sign off on it.The irony is that if the State is successful in getting the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidatethe Apology Law, they will inadvertently provide the perfect legal basis to invalidatethe Akaka Bill. That would be a classic example of unintended consequence.The State is about to learn you can’t have it both ways. Advocating two diametricallyopposed positions at the same time will utterly destroy all of the State’s claim oflegitimacy. No matter which way the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the “ceded lands”case, it will become inexorably evident that the State of Hawaii is a fraud.The end of the StateThe facade of lies and deception maintained by the U.S. and the State of Hawaii asperpetrators of fraud, is about to collapse. The mistake they are making is that in theirarrogance, they think they can continue indefinitely to use the U.S. legal system to coverup their crimes. Sooner or later, under the scrutiny of the law, the facts will becomeknown, the contradictions exposed and the crime revealed.Conditions are such that neither the U.S. Courts, nor the Congress nor the President,will be able to maintain the deception much longer.All the State of Hawaii can do to forestall their demise for a little while, is toimmediately withdraw their petition of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, abandonthe Akaka Bill, and begin to negotiate in good faith for the peaceful, orderly transfer ofauthority and administration to the still-existing, lawful Hawaiian Kingdom.This would be the right and wise thing to do.6– Part 3 –Other Implications and RamificationsThe State of Hawaii has the most to loseAlthough they don’t see it as such, the State of Hawaii’s efforts to win a favorableoutcome from the U.S. Supreme Court in the so-called “ceded lands” case is really anact of desperation. This case not only threatens the State’s ability to administer thealleged “ceded lands,” it threatens the very existence of the State of Hawaii!The fact is, in the long run it doesn’t really matter which way the court decides, eitherway will spell the demise of the State of Hawaii. The only difference will be, sooner orlater?If the U.S. Supreme Court finds that the Apology Law (USPL 103-150) indeed has “theforce of law,” as the Hawaii State Supreme Court has ruled (and as Congress apparentlyintended when they passed it), then the State is surely undone. The narrative andlanguage contained in the law makes it very clear that no sovereignty or lands wereever transferred from the Hawaiian Kingdom to any other governing entity.If on the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court finds that the State Supreme Court’sruling was in error and the Apology Law does not have “the force of law,” then everylaw passed by Congress (at least those regarding Hawaii) becomes suspect andvulnerable to annulment. This includes the major legislations such as the 1959Statehood Act, the 1920 Hawaiian Homes Act, the 1900 Organic Act, and in particular,the 1898 Newlands Resolution that illegally “annexed” Hawaii in the first place!It is not the Apology Law per se that will determine Hawaii’s status, it is the examinationof the veracity of those statements of facts contained in the historical record that willexpose the truth. It is the close scrutiny of the facts (if it is an honest inquiry) that willreveal the truth that no lands were actually transferred from the Hawaiian Kingdom tothe State of Hawaii, either directly or through any lawful chain of conveyed title.The inevitable outcome is that the State of Hawaii would be exposed to have no lawfulbasis, an illegitimate entity, a clumsy con, a flagrant fraud! This revelation would causeany legal basis for the State of Hawaii to evaporate; and the entire HawaiianArchipelago, its lands, resources, infrastructure operations and political jurisdictionwould be found to remain in the still-existing, still-lawful Hawaiian Kingdom and itspeople (subjects, nationals). The State of Hawaii would have no lands or people overwhich it can exert any valid governing authority.What then happens to the State of Hawaii? It will have to hand the reigns over to thelegitimate governing entity and to the people of the Hawaiian nation. Eventually theState of Hawaii is transitioned out and disappears.Win or lose the so-called “ceded lands” case, the days of the State of Hawaii and theU.S. occupation are numbered.7Office of Hawaiian AffairsThe State of Hawaii’s legal adversary in this “ceded lands” case is the Office ofHawaiian Affairs (along with a few individuals). The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA)is a construct and department of the State of Hawaii. According to state law, OHA ischarged with administering a portion of the proceeds from the state’s land-base, the socalled“ceded lands” (lands actually stolen from the Hawaiian Kingdom) for the benefitof “Native Hawaiians” (a term for an ethnic group fabricated by domestic U.S. laws).Since its inception, OHA has been in a dispute with the State over what portion and towhat extent they are each to administer the so-called “ceded lands.” It is OHA (andseveral other individuals) that sued the State of Hawaii to prevent the State from sellingthe so-called “ceded lands.” This is the case that is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.The fact is, neither OHA nor the State have lawful claim to those lands as these so-called“ceded lands” were lands seized (taken, stolen) from the Hawaiian Kingdom, andthrough a series of illegal transactions, eventually passed off to the State of Hawaii.Thus, today’s dispute between OHA and the State is akin to two thieves squabblingover how to divvy up the loot, and both claiming that they are Robin Hoods with onlythe good of the people at heart. Never mind that it is stolen property in the first place.The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has been the driving force behind the Native HawaiianGovernment Reorganization Act, commonly called the Akaka Bill. OHA has expendedyears of planning, organizing and millions of dollars in propagandizing and lobbying toget the Akaka Bill passed. With the recent election results, they are thiiis close!Basically the Akaka Bill says that the U.S. feels so badly about stealing Hawaiian lands,that they are willing to negotiate to give Hawaiians the right to govern the use of part ofthe proceeds derived from those lands. In exchange, Hawaiians agree to drop all legalclaims to the lands.But if the State gets the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in their favor regarding the ApologyLaw, the ruling will pull the rug from under the Akaka Bill and OHA. The State will nolonger have to keep up the pretense of making concessions for stolen lands. They willsimply say they own it outright…Period…End of discussion. And OHA will haveexpended all that effort (and squandered millions of beneficiaries’ dollars) for a stab inthe back.But there is some poetic justice. OHA’s existence and its land interest are inextricablytied to the existence of the State of Hawaii. Since the premises that under gird the Stateof Hawaii are faulty and will soon cause the State to collapse, the state agency OHA,will likewise crumble. It cannot exist without the State of Hawaii.That means, all of the other programs, agreements and “settlements” OHA has workedout with the fake State; the Akaka Bill and its plan to build a Native Hawaiiangovernment; the infamous Kau Inoa registry; and so on, will all come to an ignoble end.8Everything the State and OHA claim, their authority, their land base, etc. will devolveto the lawful Hawaiian Kingdom.U.S. citizens in HawaiiThe outcome of the State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs “ceded lands” case at theU.S. Supreme Court will eventually lead to the collapse of the State of Hawaii and thewithdrawal of the United States. This will definitely affect the status of all U.S. citizensresiding in Hawaii, whether they are newcomers or lifelong residents.In essence, anyone living in the Hawaiian Islands who is not already a declared subject(citizen) of the Hawaiian Kingdom will be considered a resident alien (foreigner) untilsuch time as he/she chooses to lawfully become a subject of the Hawaiian Kingdom.Those who choose to remain foreigners while dwelling in the Hawaii would be issuedthe equivalence of ‘green cards,’ be allowed to work and pay taxes (to the HawaiianKingdom treasury) and have all the rights of any other resident — except the right tovote in Hawaii elections.Land titles in HawaiiThe outcome of the State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs “ceded lands” case willeventually have a dramatic effect on land titles throughout Hawaii, both public andprivate. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in the State’s favor that the Apology Lawdoes not have the force of law, it will cast doubt on the veracity of the NewlandsResolution of 1898 that allegedly “annexed” Hawaii to the U.S. This in turn will exposethe fatal flaw in the chain of title, vital to sustaining the State’s claim to the so-called“ceded lands” and of State/U.S. jurisdiction in the Hawaiian Islands.The fact that the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom did not expire, renders everycontract, law, statute or executive order enacted by the usurpers (the Republic ofHawaii, the United States, the Territory of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii) as invalidand illegal. That means land transactions that were registered through the bureausunder those false governing entities are invalid and illegal. Most of the small “landowners” in Hawaii today have been the victims of over 100 years of land fraud.Land titles in 29 other statesTwenty-nine states of the U.S. have filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the Stateof Hawaii’s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate the Apology Law, and bydefault, secure the state’s claim over the national lands of the Hawaiian Kingdom.Those 29 states obviously believe that the State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs“ceded lands” case will have serious ramifications regarding the legality of statejurisdiction over similarly “ceded” Native American lands.Should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the Hawaii State Supreme Court’s ruling thatthe State of Hawaii’s does not have clear authority to dispense the so-called “ceded9lands,” the titles of other states over Native American lands would be likewise cloudedand liable to dispute.This will escalate active challenges by Native Americans to at least those 29 states’jurisdictions over their equivalency of “ceded lands.” The U.S. Supreme Court is aboutto open a virtual Pandora’s Box. A ruling against the State of Hawaii will unwittinglycause the Federal courts and the courts of at least 29 states to be inundated with landlitigations. The states will be literally paralyzed for years with questions on title.The U.S. Supreme CourtThe State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs “ceded lands” case has placed the U.S.Supreme Court in an extremely awkward position. They are being asked to decide onwhether or not the State of Hawaii can sell or otherwise dispose of stolen property,euphemistically called “ceded lands.” And they are being asked to do so whilecompletely ignoring the rightful owner of record, the Hawaiian Kingdom. Will thecourts rule on the basis of law or political expediency? This case will tax the wisdomand integrity of the court.The Supreme Court’s dilemma — how can it strike down the Apology Law withoutdoing harm to any other law? How can it devise a ruling that will not fatally damagethe United States’ claim to Hawaii? How can they contain their ruling so it affirmsstates’ rights over native lands and still make it appear lawful? How can they save theunion from breaking up and still appear to uphold justice and the rule of law?Or will the court be honest and decide that there is no lawful basis for the State ofHawaii, and all the political authority and lands of the Hawaiian Archipelago stillreside with the sovereign nation, the Hawaiian Kingdom?Obama and the PresidencyThe State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs “ceded lands” case in the U.S. SupremeCourt could bring down the U.S. presidency and plunge that country into aconstitutional crisis and leadership crisis.Besides the embarrassment to him personally, the revelation of Obama as a foreignborn,who illegally pursued the office of President of the United States, would triggeran immediate vacancy in the presidency. This vacancy, the result of using fraud toattain the office (not misconduct, as was the case of Richard Nixon), would cause anunprecedented state of national (U.S.) emergency.If the President Elect is retroactively deemed as constitutionally ineligible to hold theoffice, then his election as president would be invalidated. Indeed, the entirepresidential election would probably be invalidated, and there would need to be a doover.Meanwhile who is president?10If President Elect Obama is deemed ineligible, then Vice President Elect Joseph Bidenwould also be ineligible because he was elected on the same fraudulent ticket asObama. Therefore, Biden could not be Vice President and subsequently could not stepin to fill the presidential vacancy. So who is president?The next in the chain of succession would be the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.But since the Democrat Party would be implicated for running a fraudulent candidate,it is likely that Pelosi would be disqualified as she would be implicated along with allthe prominent leaders of the Democrat Party, for conspiracy to commit fraud on theAmerican people.But, get this… if Obama’s ineligibility is exposed before inauguration day January 20,2009, this would be a cause to declare a national emergency, and President Bush couldhave to remain in office until a new election is conducted (with, hopefully, properlyvetted candidates).Obama and the Democrats are betting big-time that his ineligibility won’t surface andthat the scam will be swept under the proverbial rug. If not, this scandal wouldabsolutely shred the Democrat Party, having spent an obscene $670 million to buy andcon millions of voters into electing their candidate, without first bothering to determinewhether he was even eligible for the office.The United StatesThe election of Barach Obama as President has bolstered — indeed rescued — theflagging confidence of Americans in their system of governance. For many, just the factthat Obama was elected, restored hope in the American system.But if Obama gets disqualified from being President on what would be seen by many asa technicality, all hell will break loose. There will be a serious backlash of anger andrage, not against Obama, but against the system. The rioting and civil disobedience willbe many times worse than anything the U.S. has witnessed since the Civil War.Imagine the disappointment and outrage of the 250,000 who ecstatically celebratedObama’s victory on election night at Grant Park in Chicago. Imagine thedisappointment and outrage of hundreds of thousands that attended his rallies alongthe campaign trail. Imagine the disappointment and outrage of the contributors of $670million to get him elected! And imagine the frustration of the millions of Americanswho eagerly cast their votes for Obama.To avert this political disaster, the U.S. justice system will receive enormous pressurefrom ‘people power’ and ‘money power’ interests who will urge the court to ignore therules (subvert the U.S. Constitution) rather than have their favorite son disqualified.Add this to the rampant greed behind the economic meltdown, the astronomical debt,irresponsible trade policies and the incredible stress those factors are exerting on thenation. Then add the failure of government to provide reasonable oversight, the moralbreakdown of American society, the compromised legal process, the coming food and11energy crisis — and the U.S. is about to experience a systemic implosion of monumentalproportions.The collapse of the United States and the confusion, disruption and hardships that itwill unleash will make the restoration of Hawaii as an independent nation all the moreplausible. After all, the many occupied countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asiaemerged as sovereign nations when the rotten core of the Soviet Union imploded.The International CommunityAmazingly, the entire world could be profoundly affected by how this Hawaiiindependence scenario plays out. Remember that this is not being caused by Hawaii,but by the unlawful actions perpetrated by the U.S. against Hawaii since 1893. Thebacklash of this unresolved offense will be disastrous to the already battered reputationof the U.S.The election of Barack Obama is being hailed by the entire world community, frompolitical leaders to the man-in-the-street, as a long awaited glimmer of hope for positivechange in international relationships. Overnight, the festering dissatisfaction in U.S.global leadership has been replaced with euphoric hope and optimism. Obama’selection has suddenly reclaimed the world’s faith in America.But what will happen if Obama’s birth in Hawaii were to disqualify him from servingas the President? From the world’s standpoint, to have their hopes raised so high, andthen dashed, would be a cruel joke. It will not sit well with the international communityand will destroy in them any lingering belief in the ability of the U.S. to provideleadership on a global scale. This political disaster, coupled with the global economicmeltdown, will cause scorn for the U.S. that would last for a long, long time.That means the onus for world leadership will fall primarily upon the European Union,Russia and China.The Bottom LineWhether it is aware of it or not, the U.S. is in a quandary. In order for the U.S. to keepthe union of fifty states together and hold on to its position of leadership in theinternational arena, the U.S. has to deal with the Hawaii dilemma: What to do about thestill existing Hawaiian Kingdom and what to do about Barack Obama’s Hawaiian birth?The tendency of the U.S. will be to ‘hold the union together,’ by abandoning allpretenses of law and justice, and coming down hard to quash Hawaii’s assertion ofindependence. At the same time, in order to save itself from a severe political crisis, theU.S. will have to quash all efforts that threaten to disqualify Barack Obama from beingthe President of the United States.Fortunately, in this age of instant global communications, those kinds of bully tacticswon’t work anymore and will only serve to further tarnish the U.S.’ flagging image.12
Comments