July 3, 4 & 5 At `Iolani PalaceFree & Open To The Public - Everyone WelcomeSPECIAL EVENT!O`ahu Premier Of Catherine Bauknight’s Film"Hawai`i – A Voice for Sovereignty"Saturday, July 4th - 1PM, Kana`ina BuildingFor More Info Call (808) 938-9994 or 284-3460Read more…
They were the latest in more than 40 such strikes by the United States against militant targets in the border area since last August. Washington does not directly acknowledge being responsible for the attacks, which kill civilians as well as militants.MSNBC.comU.S. missile strikes in Pakistan kill 15Dozens wounded as alleged Taliban training site, hide-out are targetedThe Associated Pressupdated 8:45 p.m. HT, Thurs., July 2, 2009ISLAMABAD - U.S. missiles struck a training facility allegedly operated by Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud and a militant hide-out Friday, killing 15 people and wounding 27 others, intelligence officials said.The two attacks took place in South Waziristan, a Mehsud stronghold close to the Afghan border, two officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.They were the latest in more than 40 such strikes by the United States against militant targets in the border area since last August. Washington does not directly acknowledge being responsible for the attacks, which kill civilians as well as militants.The strikes came as the Pakistani military prepares for its own offensive in South Waziristan to eliminate Mehsud, who has been blamed for a string of deadly suicide attacks across the country that have killed more than 100 people in the past month.One attack targeted an abandoned seminary in the village of Mantoi that was allegedly being used by militants from Mehsud's group for training, the officials said. The other struck a hide-out in the nearby village of Kokat Khel, they said.In total, 15 people were killed and 27 others were wounded, they said.Also Friday, Pakistani warplanes bombed suspected militant hide-outs in neighboring North Waziristan, killing at least four insurgents and wounding seven others, intelligence officials said.Those airstrikes hit targets where Taliban fighters killed 16 government troops in an ambush earlier this week, two more intelligence officials said, also speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.Washington strongly supports Islamabad's campaign against militants along the Afghan border, which it says cross into Afghanistan and attack US and NATO troops.On Thursday, some 4,000 U.S. Marines launched a fresh offensive in southern Afghanistan against the Taliban. Friday's missile strikes were not related to that operation.More on Pakistan | Baitullah MehsudCopyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31719183/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Read more…
hi i am tina matldo raymonds daughter of rinaldi family of peurtorico and also of where my matldo line is from bethelehem kind of funny my lne is kapeka fern and matildo line to so the story of jesus is told from betheleham he was born and ahidden princess in oahu kapeka to a gilman tht is a american founder of the nation very intresting people peace the real holy grail. you folks ever seen the movie of genovia princess daiaries well matildo is back to attack that fleewod mac a hawaii nei the real thing is here peace to you all.
Read more…
I'm still alive and well still researching. Have a safe 4th of July Week End. Keep Akua in your hearts as we search in unity to understand our self and purpose in life.Mahalo to all the wonderful po'e I've met and to those we renew friendships and others that are eager to meet.namaka'eha
Read more…
I have heard for years that Israel controls the US. My uncle who is now retired from the movie business said that they control the motion picture industry. Certainly, the inhumanity against Jews in the Holocaust are unforgivable. Once you understand the pains of War, and the struggle for Justice, you'd think that you'd have a respect for others. Guess not.Donna-------------------------------------------------The “Spirit of HumanityBy Paul Craig RobertsJuly 01, 2009 "Information Clearing House" --- On June 30, the government of Israel committed an act of piracy when the Israeli Navy in international waters illegally boarded the “Spirit of Humanity,” kidnapped its 21-person crew from 11 countries, including former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney and Nobel Laureate Mairead MaGuire, and confiscated the cargo of medical supplies, olive trees, reconstruction materials, and children’s toys that were on the way to the Mediterranean coast of Gaza. The “Spirit of Humanity,” along with the kidnapped 21 persons, is being towed to Israel as I write.Gaza has been described as the “world’s largest concentration camp.” It is home to 1.5 million Palestinians who were driven by force of American-supplied Israeli arms out of their homes, off their farms, and out of their villages so that Israel could steal their land and make the Palestinian land available to Israeli settlers.What we have been witnessing for 60 years is a replay in modern times, despite the United Nations and laws strictly preventing Israel’s theft of Palestine, of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century theft of American Indian lands by US settlers. An Israeli government spokesman recently rebuked the President of the United States, a country, the Israeli said, who stole all of its land from Indians, for complaining about Israel’s theft of Palestine.I knew the “Spirit of Humanity” would fall to Israeli piracy the minute I received on June 25 from an official of an Israeli peace organization a “public advisory” that the government of Cyprus had withheld permission for the “Spirit of Humanity” to leave for Gaza. The US State Department had advised that “The Israeli Foreign Ministry informed U.S. officials at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israel still considers Gaza an area of conflict and that any boats attempting to sail to Gaza will not be permitted to reach its destination.” The “Spirit of Humanity” obtained permission to leave Cyprus when all aboard signed a waiver absolving Cyprus of all responsibility for the crew’s safety at the hands of the Israelis.As President Obama has called for humanitarian aid to be sent to Gaza, and as the International Red Cross has damned the inhumanity of Israel’s blockade of Gaza, the question that immediately comes to mind is why did not the United States send sufficient US Navy escort to see the “Spirit of Humanity” safely through international waters to Gaza? We send ships against Somalian pirates, why not against Israeli ones?We all know the answer. The US talks a good “human rights” game, but never delivers--especially if the human rights abuser is Israel. After all, Israel owns the US Congress and President Obama. Israel even has an Israeli citizen and former member of the Israeli Defense Forces as the Chief-of-Staff in Obama’s White House. Israel owns millions of American “Christian Zionists” and “rapture evangelicans.” When it comes to Israel, the American government is a puppet state. It does what it is told.Macho Americans might stand tall, but not when Israel snaps its fingers.Israel, of course, will get away with a mere act of piracy. After all, Israel has been getting away with its war crimes and violations of international law for 60 years. If the UN tries to do anything, the US will veto it, as the US has done for decades.What will happen to the kidnapped foreign nationals? Most likely they will be released and sent back to their respective countries. Israel, of course, will keep the stolen “Spirit of Humanity” to foreclose any further attempts by human rights activists to run Israel’s inhumane blockade of Gaza.On the other hand, Israel might declare its captives to be terrorists on the ground that the Gazans elected in a free election Hamas as their government. Hamas, unlike Israel, is declared to be a terrorist organization by the puppet American State Department in Washington. Thus the human rights activists onboard the “Spirit of Humanity” are aiding and abetting terrorists by delivering goods to them. The US Department of Justice (sic) prosecutes American citizens and charities for sending aid to Palestinians on the grounds that Palestinians, if not everyone a terrorist, are governed by terrorists.I wouldn’t be surprised if a Nobel Laureate and a former member of the US House of Representatives, along with the rest of the crew, are handed over to the Americans for indefinite detention and for torturing and waterboarding in the American torture facility at Bagram. I am certain that “Homeland Security” and the US Government are desperate to be rid of all of critics, and knocking off a Nobel Laureate and a member of the House sets a precedent for getting rid of the rest of us.Meanwhile, California, which has become a failed state, has been denied bailout money from Washington. Israel, which has been a failed state for 60 years, can, unlike the American state of California, always count of Washington to deliver the money and the weapons to keep Israel going.The same week that “our” government in Washington told the Governor of California “not one red cent,” President Barak Obama handed over $2.775 billion to Israel.Online Journal (June 29) reported that the handover to Israel of the unemployed Americans’ tax dollars took place in a “tiny Capitol room” to which members of the press were denied access. I mean, really, who wants the media writing about US taxpayer dollars for Israel’s nuclear weapons while Americans are being kicked out of their homes. Not that, of course, the “Christian” supporters of Israel would mind.Unlike every other recipient of US military largesse, Israel is permitted to bypass the Pentagon and to deal directly with US suppliers. Consequently, the Israel Lobby’s influence multiplies, because military suppliers fight for Israel in congressional committees in order to get Israel’s business. This lets Israel turn the screws on Iran. According to Grant F. Smith writing in Online Journal, Republican US Representative Mark Steven from Illinois has received $221,000 in campaign contributions from Israel political action committees (PACs). Therefore, it was a sure thing that he would introduce legislation preventing the Import-Export bank from providing loan guarantees to countries doing business with Iran. http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4853.shtmlAmericans think that they are a superpower, but in fact they are a stupor-power. A puppet state if truth be known.There is a great deal of evidence, even in Time magazine that Israel is a child abuser. “God’s Chosen People” routinely abuses captured Palestinian children. The Israelis also abuse Palestinian children by shooting them down in the streets.Don’t take my word for it. The Geneva-based Defense for Children International says, according to Time Magazine, that “the ill-treatment and torture of Palestinian child prisoners appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized, suggesting complicity at all levels of the political and military chain of command.”According to Time Magazine, “Often, children suffer lasting traumas from jail. Says Saleh Nazzal from the Palestinian Ministry of Prisoner Affairs, ‘When soldiers burst into a house and drag away a child, he loses his feeling of being protected by his family. He comes back from prison alienated from his family, his friends. They don’t like going back to school or even leaving the house. They start wetting their beds.’ Says Mona Zaghrout, a YMCA counselor who helps kids returning from prison: ‘They come out of prison thinking and acting like they are men. Their childhood is gone.’ And they often turn to another father figure--the armed militant groups fighting the Israeli occupation.’”And so it goes. There’s no money for California, or for Americans’ health care, or for the several million Americans who have lost their homes and are homeless, because Israel needs it. Israel needs the American taxpayers’ money to that it can create even more enemies, and, therefore, need more American money to spend with the American armament industries to oppress more Palestinians and to make more enemies, requiring more American money to protect Israel from its folly and its evil.And the brainwashed American public goes along year after year
Read more…
After Call From Senator's Office, Small Hawaii Bank Got U.S. AidAbout This StoryThis article was reported jointly with Paul Kiel of ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. ProPublica is supported entirely by philanthropy and provides the articles it produces, free of charge, both through its own Web site and to leading news organizations.-----------------------By Paul Kiel and Binyamin AppelbaumProPublica and Washington Post Staff WriterWednesday, July 1, 2009After Call From Senator's Office, Small Hawaii Bank Got U.S. AidSen. Daniel K. Inouye's staff contacted federal regulators last fall to ask about the bailout application of an ailing Hawaii bank that he had helped to establish and where he has invested the bulk of his personal wealth.The bank, Central Pacific Financial, was an unlikely candidate for a program designed by the Treasury Department to bolster healthy banks. The firm's losses were depleting its capital reserves. Its primary regulator, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., already had decided that it didn't meet the criteria for receiving a favorable recommendation and had forwarded the application to a council that reviewed marginal cases, according to agency documents.Two weeks after the inquiry from Inouye's office, Central Pacific announced that the Treasury would inject $135 million.Many lawmakers have worked to help home-state banks get federal money since the Treasury announced in October that it would invest up to $250 billion in healthy financial firms. But the Inouye inquiry stands apart because of the senator's ties to Central Pacific. While at least 33 senators own shares in banks that got federal aid, a review of financial disclosures and records obtained from regulatory agencies shows no other instance of the office of a senator intervening on behalf of a bank in which he owned shares.Inouye (D-Hawaii) declined a request for an interview but acknowledged in a statement that an aide had called the FDIC to ask about Central Pacific's application. Inouye said he was not attempting to influence the outcome. The statement did not address Inouye's personal role in the inquiry, including whether he directed the aide to make the call or knew at the time that it had been made.Even if Inouye were directly involved, it would not violate the rules the Senate sets for itself, experts said.Both the FDIC and the Treasury said the decision was not affected by the involvement of Inouye's office.Inouye reported ownership of Central Pacific shares worth $350,000 to $700,000, some held by his wife, at the end of 2007. The shares represented at least two-thirds of Inouye's total reported assets. Inouye has requested a delay in filing his annual financial disclosure for 2008, which was due this spring, and he declined to provide the current value of his investment. Since the end of 2007, the bank's stock has lost 79 percent of its value.Central Pacific was founded in 1954 by a group of World War II veterans including Inouye who were emerging leaders in Hawaii's Japanese American community."The time had come to fund a bank that could provide equitable service not only to the Japanese, but to all communities," Inouye is quoted as saying in an exhibit in the lobby of one of the company's Honolulu branches. Inouye, who became the bank's first secretary, said that he initially invested $3,000, the minimum amount possible.Central Pacific is Hawaii's fourth-largest bank, holding about 15 percent of the state's deposits. In recent years, it increasingly used the money to make loans in California, funding several large residential developments. By last year, the bank was facing the consequences of California's collapsing housing market. In July , Central Pacific reported a quarterly loss of $146 million, matching its total profit in the previous three years.In October, shortly after the government announced that it would invest billions of dollars in banks to spur new lending, Central Pacific submitted an application under the initiative, called the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP.The bank faced long odds. More than 1,600 banks submitted applications to the FDIC in the three months after the program was announced, according to a report by the FDIC's inspector general's office. The agency forwarded 408 applications to Treasury, which approved only 267, or roughly 16 percent of the total.Central Pacific's situation was even bleaker because it was in trouble with the FDIC. Regulators had raised concerns about the bank earlier in the year. The bank would soon sign an agreement with its state regulator and the FDIC requiring it to raise an additional $40 million in capital and to improve its management practices.After the bank applied for bailout funds, weeks passed. Andrew Rosen, a spokesman for Central Pacific, said that regulators had told the bank that the process would take "some time" because of the glut of applications.In late November, still waiting for an answer, the bank's government-affairs officer called Inouye's office to ask that it check on the status of the application, according to Rosen. (Rosen said in an initial interview that the bank had not contacted Inouye's office about the application. After Inouye was contacted for this story, Rosen said that he'd been mistaken, that the bank had called Inouye's office.)One day after the bank's request, an Inouye aide called the FDIC's regional office in San Francisco, which regulates Central Pacific. Inouye said in a statement that the staffer, Van Luong, "simply left a voicemail message seeking to clarify whether Central Pacific Bank's application for TARP funds had actually been received by the FDIC." The statement said that the bank was soon notified that the application had been received, "and that closed the matter.""This single phone call was the entire extent of my staff's contact with regard to Central Pacific Bank, to any outside agency," Inouye said.Internal FDIC e-mails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that Luong's question was referred from San Francisco to FDIC headquarters in Washington. A few days later, Alice Goodman, who heads the FDIC's office of legislative affairs -- and whose office is typically the point of contact for congressional inquiries -- called Luong to say that the application "was still under process."The internal e-mails show that the application had been forwarded to an inter-agency council headed by the Treasury Department that reviews cases in which a bank did not meet the criteria for a federal investment. Those criteria require banks to demonstrate their viability without the benefit of federal funding.Shortly after the Inouye staffer's phone call, the council approved Central Pacific's application.So far, more than 600 banks have received federal investments. While some recipients have started to repay aid, the Obama administration announced this spring that it would continue to accept applications from community banks until November. The crush of calls from Capitol Hill on behalf of specific applicants led the Treasury to announce earlier year that it would start releasing a weekly list of congressional inquiries. It has yet to do so.The question of what role members of Congress have played in influencing the Treasury's decisions is under review by the special inspector general appointed to oversee the financial rescue program. A spokesman for the special inspector general said a report is expected later this summer.Such contacts by members and their staff do not violate the rules Congress has established to govern itself. "Congress has never been willing to adopt strong conflict-of-interest rules for its members, but for the most part, has left it up to each member to decide for themselves whether they have a potential conflict of interest," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.The most similar known case comes from the House. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) arranged a meeting between regulators and OneUnited of Massachusetts, a bank in which her husband held shares. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who did not own shares in the company, subsequently inserted language into the bailout bill that effectively directed the Treasury to give special consideration to that bank.The report by the FDIC inspector general found that 26 of the 408 companies whose applications were sent to the Treasury faced enforcement actions as severe as those against Central Pacific. Because the FDIC inspector general did not name these 26 banks, it is unclear how many ultimately won the Treasury's approval. Nor is it clear whether any other bank used the Treasury money -- as Central Pacific did -- to address a capital shortfall identified by regulators.Several financial analysts said they know of no other instances in which Treasury money was used this way. But they said it was impossible to be sure because banks are not required to disclose such regulatory actions, for instance those requiring that firms raise additional capital. Central Pacific had made this disclosure voluntarily.Andrew Gray, an FDIC spokesman, said the Central Pacific decision was not unique, but he declined to name other banks, citing a policy against commenting on specific institutions.ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest.
Read more…
FREEHAWAII.INFO PRESENTSFREE HAWAI`I TVTHEFREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK"DID YOU CATCH IT?"The Office Of Hawaiian Affairs Snuck Something Past Most People Recently That Could Have A Huge Impact On Your Future.Did You Miss It?Want To Know What It Is?Watch & Find Out.Read more…
...the way others are treated on the International scene, give us much information as to HOW we will be treated here.This article follows my earlier post, and it appears that Obama and Clinton are taking a stronger postition than I previously thought. At least it is more than "serious concern".Donna--------------------Obama says coup in Honduras is illegalMon Jun 29, 2009 7:26pm EDT Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]By Arshad Mohammed and David AlexanderWASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama said on Monday the coup that ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was illegal and would set a "terrible precedent" of transition by military force unless it was reversed."We believe that the coup was not legal and that President Zelaya remains the president of Honduras, the democratically elected president there," Obama told reporters after an Oval Office meeting with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.Zelaya, in office since 2006, was overthrown in a dawn coup on Sunday after he angered the judiciary, Congress and the army by seeking constitutional changes that would allow presidents to seek re-election beyond a four-year term.The Honduran Congress named an interim president, Roberto Micheletti, and the country's Supreme Court said it had ordered the army to remove Zelaya.The European Union and a string of foreign governments have voiced support for Zelaya, who was snatched by troops from his residence and whisked away by plane to Costa Rica in his pajamas.Obama said he would work with the Organization of American States and other international institutions to restore Zelaya to power and "see if we can resolve this in a peaceful way.""TERRIBLE PRECEDENT""It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition, rather than democratic elections," Obama said, noting the region's progress in establishing democratic traditions in the past 20 years.Despite Obama's comments, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the administration was not formally designating the ouster as a military coup for now, a step that would force a cut-off of most U.S. aid to Honduras.Under U.S. law, no aid -- other than for the promotion of democracy -- may be provided to a country whose elected head of government has been toppled in a military coup."We do think that this has evolved into a coup," Clinton told reporters, adding the administration was withholding that determination for now.Asked if the United States was currently considering cutting off aid, Clinton shook her head no.The State Department said it was unable to immediately say how much assistance the United States gives Honduras.The State Department has requested $68.2 million in aid for fiscal year 2010, which begins on October 1, up from $43.2 million. This covers funds for development, Honduran purchases of U.S. arms, military training, counter-narcotics and health care but does not include Defense Department aid, a U.S. official said.White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he did not believe Obama had spoken to Zelaya since the ouster.He said the administration had worked in recent days to try to prevent the coup from happening, and "our goal now is on restoring democratic order in Honduras."OBAMA CRITICISMAnalysts said quick criticism of the coup by Obama and Clinton on Sunday pleased Latin American countries bitter about the long history of U.S. intervention in the region.The Obama administration's stance contrasted with the equivocal position taken in 2002 by former President George W. Bush's administration, which was seen as tacitly accepting a coup against Venezuela's leftist President Hugo Chavez.A senior U.S. official who spoke on condition he not be named said that by holding off on a legal determination that a coup has taken place, Washington was trying to provide space for a negotiated settlement."If we were able to get to a ... status quo that returned to the rule of law and constitutional order within a relatively short period of time, I think that would be a good outcome," Clinton said.(Additional reporting by Doug Palmer; Editing by Xavier Briand)
Read more…
What They Say About Themselves, Their Country & The US -"The most common sense thing is for total independence.We were a progressive modern nation of our time and recognized as a friendly, neutral nation within the Family of Nations, the predecessor of the League of Nations and the United Nations.We had a democratic form of government, a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral legislative assembly.The works and legacies of our monarchs are legendary and noteworthy.Today under the American system, we are concerned about our lands, culture, people and lifestyle which has been under attack for over a hundred years.The Kingdom of Hawai`i is not only Native Hawaiians but subjects of non-Hawaiian blood who were legitimate subjects of the Kingdom.This racial argument is an American thing and not a Hawaiian thing.So our concerns are well within our scope to protect all subjects of the Kingdom.We do expect reparations and restitution from the US for the injurious damages to our nation, land and people.The US government is well aware of this and is attempting a piecemeal settlement.If the tables were turned around; which would you do? I'm sure it wouldn't be a hard decision.Remember, Hawaiians never hated Americans; but only those that did harm to us and the US government for its complicity and deceit.We were never afraid that another country would take us over; we had over twenty-four treaties with various countries but the US is the only country that broke their treaties with us."Read more…
Think about it. If President Obama had been captured (by force)and exiled ...say...to Mexico, I doubt that the reaction of other world leaders would be..."deep concern". There would be OUTRAGE! Think about it.Ask yourself why. It is NO surprise, nor secret that a country who alligns itself with other INDEPENDENT Nations who don't play into the US hands...that they will either be punished....or at least...marginalized. Sound familiar?Either the US stands for Peace, for Justice, for Equality....or they DON'T. Be ever conscious of HOW a country reacts...which will tell you WHY they do so.Donna-------------------------------Chavez Threatens to Invade as Honduran Army Stages CoupVenezuelan leader vows to 'act militarily' after leftist ally Manuel Zelaya is overthrown and exiled to Costa RicaBy David UsborneJune 29, 2009 "The Independent" -- Honduras was plunged into a political crisis that threatened to spill across the region hours after President Manuel Zelaya was thrown out by the army and exiled to Costa Rica prompting his leftist ally in Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, to threaten military intervention.In the first successful military coup in Central America since the end of the Cold War, the army sent masked soldiers into the presidential palace before dawn. The President, who was in dispute with his military about a planned constitutional referendum, was then escorted to a military plane which took him into exile.Mr Chavez went on state television later in the day claiming that the coup leaders had taken away the Cuban ambassador to Honduras and left the Venezuelan ambassador by the road in the capital, Tegucigalpa, after beating him. He said that if troops enter his embassy "that military junta would be entering a de facto state of war," and "we would have to act militarily".The Congress in Honduras said later that it had received a letter of resignation from Mr Zelaya, purportedly signed on Friday. In a show of hands, representatives accepted that he had stepped down from office.The country's Supreme Court said it supported the coup. The court had been opposed to the non-binding referendum which was an effort to legitimise a re-writing of the constitution to allow Mr Zelaya to overcome term limits and seek re-election as president. Mr Chavez and the leaders of Bolivia and Ecuador have similarly moved to end restrictions on how long they can stay in office.The Honduran ambassador to the Organisation of American States said the military was planning to swear in the Congressional President, Roberto Micheletti, next in line to the presidency according to the constitution, to replace Mr Zelaya, who came into office in 2006 and would have had to stand down in 2010 under the existing constitution.Speaking from Costa Rica, Mr Zelaya denied he had written a resignation letter calling it "totally false". Insisting he was still the president, he said there was "no way to justify an interruption of democracy, a coup d'etat." He added: "This kidnapping is an extortion of the Honduran democratic system."Under the government of Mr Zelaya, Honduras was member of Alba, a coalition of leftist Latin American countries that includes Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua and which is led by Mr Chavez. The organisation was rushing to arrange a summit in Nicaragua to discuss what action to take after the coup."We will bring them down. We will bring them down, I tell you," Mr Chavez vowed during yesterday's broadcast, saying, "I have put the armed forces in Venezuela on high alert".Experts noted, however, that Mr Chavez has a track record of threatening military action but not following through with it. He deployed troops to his border with Colombia last year after that country took action against terrorist bases just inside Ecuador. That crisis eased after a few days, however.Mr Zelaya said he first realised a coup was under way when he was woken by gunshots inside his palace grounds. He described leaping from his bed and avoiding bullets by hiding, still in his pyjamas, behind an air conditioning unit. He said the palace guard held the soldiers off for more than 20 minutes before he was taken into custody and escorted by eight or nine masked soldiers to the waiting plane.The streets of Tegucigalpa were reportedly mostly calm last night although main avenues were filled with army tanks in a strong show of force. Roughly 100 supporters of Mr Zelaya had gathered by mid-morning outside the gates to the palace. Some threw stones at hundreds of soldiers surrounding the palace and shouted "Traitors! Traitors!" in protest."They kidnapped him like cowards" yelled Melissa Gaitan, 21, who works at the government television station. "We have to rally the people to defend our president."In Washington, President Barack Obama said he was "deeply concerned" by news of the coup while the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said his expulsion from the country should be condemned. "I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter," Mr Obama said in a statement released by the White House.Manuel Zelaya: President in exile*With his moustache and taste for cowboy hats, Manuel Zelaya won the 2005 presidential election in Honduras by a margin of barely 70,000 votes, as a long-time member of the centre-right Liberal Party.Once in office, however, Zelaya tracked left and moved the country away from its traditional close alliance with the US, forging links instead with Hugo Chavez, the leftist president of Venezuela.Though he had campaigned on a law-and-order ticket, his country has increasingly been seen as a transit point for drugs to the US, with rising criminal violence and street gangs. He has urged Washington to legalise drugs as the best solution to the problem.Two years ago, in a dispute with the US about imported Honduran melons that were deemed unsafe, Zelaya went on CNN and ate one on air.Frustrated by what he considered unfair coverage of his government by Honduran television and radio, he issued an order in 2007 that all stations should carry two hours of government propaganda every day.
Read more…
Coup d'Etat Underway in Honduras: OBAMA'S FIRST COUP D'ETATBy Eva GolingerURL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14152Global Research, June 29, 2009chavezcode.comPresident Zelaya of Honduras has just been kidnapped[Note: As of 11:15am, Caracas time, President Zelaya is speaking live on Telesur from San Jose, Costa Rica. He has verified the soldiers entered his residence in the early morning hours, firing guns and threatening to kill him and his family if he resisted the coup. He was forced to go with the soldiers who took him to the air base and flew him to Costa Rica. He has requested the U.S. Government make a public statement condemning the coup, otherwise, it will indicate their compliance.]Caracas, Venezuela - The text message that beeped on my cell phone this morning read “Alert, Zelaya has been kidnapped, coup d'etat underway in Honduras, spread the word.” It's a rude awakening for a Sunday morning, especially for the millions of Hondurans that were preparing to exercise their sacred right to vote today for the first time on a consultative referendum concerning the future convening of a constitutional assembly to reform the constitution. Supposedly at the center of the controversary is today's scheduled referendum, which is not a binding vote but merely an opinion poll to determine whether or not a majority of Hondurans desire to eventually enter into a process to modify their constitution.Such an initiative has never taken place in the Central American nation, which has a very limited constitution that allows minimal participation by the people of Honduras in their political processes. The current constitution, written in 1982 during the height of the Reagan Administration's dirty war in Central America, was designed to ensure those in power, both economic and political, would retain it with little interference from the people. Zelaya, elected in November 2005 on the platform of Honduras' Liberal Party, had proposed the opinion poll be conducted to determine if a majority of citizens agreed that constitutional reform was necessary. He was backed by a majority of labor unions and social movements in the country. If the poll had occured, depending on the results, a referendum would have been conducted during the upcoming elections in November to vote on convening a constitutional assembly. Nevertheless, today's scheduled poll was not binding by law.In fact, several days before the poll was to occur, Honduras' Supreme Court ruled it illegal, upon request by the Congress, both of which are led by anti-Zelaya majorities and members of the ultra-conservative party, National Party of Honduras (PNH). This move led to massive protests in the streets in favor of President Zelaya. On June 24, the president fired the head of the high military command, General Romeo Vásquez, after he refused to allow the military to distribute the electoral material for Sunday's elections. General Romeo Vásquez held the material under tight military control, refusing to release it even to the president's followers, stating that the scheduled referendum had been determined illegal by the Supreme Court and therefore he could not comply with the president's order. As in the Unted States, the president of Honduras is Commander in Chief and has the final say on the military's actions, and so he ordered the General's removal. The Minister of Defense, Angel Edmundo Orellana, also resigned in response to this increasingly tense situation.But the following day, Honduras' Supreme Court reinstated General Romeo Vásquez to the high military command, ruling his firing as “unconstitutional'. Thousands poured into the streets of Honduras' capital, Tegucigalpa, showing support for President Zelaya and evidencing their determination to ensure Sunday's non-binding referendum would take place. On Friday, the president and a group of hundreds of supporters, marched to the nearby air base to collect the electoral material that had been previously held by the military. That evening, Zelaya gave a national press conference along with a group of politicians from different political parties and social movements, calling for unity and peace in the country.As of Saturday, the situation in Honduras was reported as calm. But early Sunday morning, a group of approximately 60 armed soldiers entered the presidential residence and took Zelaya hostage. After several hours of confusion, reports surfaced claiming the president had been taken to a nearby air force base and flown to neighboring Costa Rica. No images have been seen of the president so far and it is unknown whether or not his life is still endangered.President Zelaya's wife, Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, speaking live on Telesur at approximately 10:00am Caracas time, denounced that in early hours of Sunday morning, the soldiers stormed their residence, firing shots throughout the house, beating and then taking the president. “It was an act of cowardness”, said the first lady, referring to the illegal kidnapping occuring during a time when no one would know or react until it was all over. Casto de Zelaya also called for the “preservation” of her husband's life, indicating that she herself is unaware of his whereabouts. She claimed their lives are all still in “serious danger” and made a call for the international community to denounce this illegal coup d'etat and to act rapidly to reinstate constitutional order in the country, which includes the rescue and return of the democratically elected Zelaya.Presidents Evo Morales of Bolivia and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela have both made public statements on Sunday morning condeming the coup d'etat in Honduras and calling on the international community to react to ensure democracy is restored and the constitutional president is reinstated. Last Wednesday, June 24, an extraordinary meeting of the member nations of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), of which Honduras is a member, was convened in Venezuela to welcome Ecuador, Antigua & Barbados and St. Vincent to its ranks. During the meeting, which was attended by Honduras' Foreign Minister, Patricia Rodas, a statement was read supporting President Zelaya and condenming any attempts to undermine his mandate and Honduras' democratic processes.Reports coming out of Honduras have informed that the public television channel, Canal 8, has been shut down by the coup forces. Just minutes ago, Telesur announced that the military in Honduras is shutting down all electricity throughout the country. Those television and radio stations still transmitting are not reporting the coup d'etat or the kidnapping of President Zelaya, according to Foreign Minister Patricia Rodas. “Telephones and electricity are being cut off”, confirmed Rodas just minutes ago via Telesur. “The media are showing cartoons and soap operas and are not informing the people of Honduras about what is happening”. The situation is eerily reminiscent of the April 2002 coup d'etat against President Chávez in Venezuela, when the media played a key role by first manipulating information to support the coup and then later blacking out all information when the people began protesting and eventually overcame and defeated the coup forces, rescuing Chávez (who had also been kidnapped by the military) and restoring constitutional order.Honduras is a nation that has been the victim of dictatorships and massive U.S. intervention during the past century, including several military invasions. The last major U.S. government intervention in Honduras occured during the 1980s, when the Reagain Administration funded death squads and paramilitaries to eliminate any potential “communist threats” in Central America. At the time, John Negroponte, was the U.S. Ambassador in Honduras and was responsible for directly funding and training Honduran death squads that were responsable for thousands of disappeared and assassinated throughout the region.On Friday, the Organization of American States (OAS), convened a special meeting to discuss the crisis in Honduras, later issuing a statement condeming the threats to democracy and authorizing a convoy of representatives to travel to OAS to investigate further. Nevertheless, on Friday, Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, Phillip J. Crowley, refused to clarify the U.S. government's position in reference to the potential coup against President Zelaya, and instead issued a more ambiguous statement that implied Washington's support for the opposition to the Honduran president. While most other Latin American governments had clearly indicated their adamant condemnation of the coup plans underway in Honduras and their solid support for Honduras' constitutionally elected president, Manual Zelaya, the U.S. spokesman stated the following, “We are concerned about the breakdown in the political dialogue among Honduran politicians over the proposed June 28 poll on constitutional reform. We urge all sides to seek a consensual democratic resolution in the current political impasse that adheres to the Honduran constitution and to Honduran laws consistent with the principles of the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”As of 10:30am, Sunday morning, no further statements have been issued by the Washington concerning the military coup in Honduras. The Central American nation is highly dependent on the U.S. economy, which ensures one of its top sources of income, the monies sent from Hondurans working in the U.S. under the “temporary protected status” program that was implemented during Washington's dirty war in the 1980s as a result of massive immigration to U.S. territory to escape the war zone. Another major source of funding in Honduras is USAID, providing over US$ 50 millon annually for “democracy promotion” programs, which generally supports NGOs and political parties favorable to U.S. interests, as has been the case in Venezuela, Bolivia and other nations in the region. The Pentagon also maintains a military base in Honduras in Soto Cano, equipped with approximately 500 troops and numerous air force combat planes and helicopters.Foreign Minister Rodas has stated that she has repeatedly tried to make contact with the U.S. Ambassador in Honduras, Hugo Llorens, who has not responded to any of her calls thus far. The modus operandi of the coup makes clear that Washington is involved. Neither the Honduran military, which is majority trained by U.S. forces, nor the political and economic elite, would act to oust a democratically elected president without the backing and support of the U.S. government. President Zelaya has increasingly come under attack by the conservative forces in Honduras for his growing relationship with the ALBA countries, and particularly Venezuela and President Chávez. Many believe the coup has been executed as a method of ensuring Honduras does not continue to unify with the more leftist and socialist countries in Latin America.evagolinger@hotmail.com or evagolinger@gmail.com)Please support Global ResearchGlobal Research relies on the financial support of its readers.
Read more…
While the illegal State of Hawaii evicts those unfortunate in our society from their last stronghold of stability, a country like Venezuela cares not only for their own citizens, but also those who are visiting. And for free.Something wrong with this picture? As long as you have a government/system based on profits...and not the welfare of its citizens...you will have those who fall through the cracks.Donna------------------------------Health Care and Democracy: A Look at the VenezuelanHealthcare SystemBy Caitlin McNultyUpsidedownWorldJune 25, 20009http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1925/35/The right to health care is guaranteed in theVenezuelan Constitution, which was written and ratifiedby the people in 1999. Through implementing a state-funded social program called Barrio Adentro, or insidethe barrio, free comprehensive health care is availableto all Venezuelans. Beginning in June 2003 through atrade pact with Cuba, Venezuela began to bring Cubandoctors, medical technology, and medications into ruraland urban communities free of charge in exchange forlow-cost oil. The 1.5 million dollar per year programexpanded to provide a broad network of smallneighborhood clinics, larger regional clinics, andhospitals which aim to serve the entire Venezuelanpopulation. (1) Chavez has referred to this new healthcare system as the "democratization of health care"stating that "health care has become a fundamentalsocial right and the state will assume the principalrole in the construction of a participatory system fornational public health." (2) In Venezuela, not only ishealth care a right; it is recognized as an essentialfor true participatory democracy.Some of what characterizes this movement towards healthcare for all includes popular participation,preventative medicine, and evaluation of communityhealth issues. Western medicine typically operates in atop-down fashion. Doctors treat symptoms, and oftenfail to evaluate the larger picture of community healthissues or teach prevention. (3) In a private for-profitsystem, there is little incentive to prevent costlyillnesses. In Venezuela, however, Barrio Adentro beganconstructing clinics within neighborhoods where manyhad never been to a doctor. Through this program, acommunity can organize to receive funding to build aclinic and bring in doctors. The community isresponsible for creating health committees, the membersof which go door to door to assess the specific healthissues of their community. Doctors who live in thecommunities also make house calls. (4) Peopleparticipate in the process of serving the health needsof the entire population.The extensive health program is also being used totrain a new generation of Venezuelan doctors. Thetraining program takes place within the clinic systemitself and relies heavily on experiential learning. Theprogram seeks to build a new relationship betweendoctor and patient based on the values of service,solidarity and compassion. Doctors participating in thetraining program are coming from the communities theyare learning in and serving, building on their intimateknowledge of the communities to provide trulycompassionate and personalized care. Using popularforums, medical professionals are able to respond tothe needs of the community and offer education,treatment and consultation addressing unique publichealth issues.(6)Although the system began by focusing exclusively onpreventative health, it has expanded to includeemergency health services, mental health services,surgeries, cancer treatment, dental care, access tooptometrists as well as free glasses and contactlenses, support systems for those with disabilities andtheir families, as well as access to a large variety ofmedical specialists. They have succeeded in taking anunder funded, corrupt public health care system andchanging not only the quality and accessibility butalso the mentality of those working there. Instead of afor-profit industry systematically denying access tolarge sectors of the population, health care inVenezuela is seen as a basic human right. No one isturned away, and no one is denied care. In Venezuela,they treat whole person, not simply their illness, andmoney stays where it belongs- outside of the healthcare system.(7)During my time in Venezuela, I developed a cough thatwent on for three weeks and progressively worsened.Finally, after I had become incredibly congested anddeveloped a fever, I decided to attend a Barrio Adentroclinic. The closest one available was a Barrio AdentroII Centro de Diagonostico Integral (CDI) and I headedin without my medical records or calling to make anappointment. Immediately, I was ushered into a smallroom where Carmen, a friendly Cuban doctor, beganquestioning me about my symptoms. She listened to mylungs and walked me over to another examination roomwhere, again without waiting, I had x-rays taken.Afterwards, the technician walked me to a chair andapologized profusely that I had to wait for the x-raysto be developed, promising that it would take no morethan five minutes. Sure enough, five minutes later hereturned with both x-rays developed. Carmen studied thex-rays and informed me that I had pneumonia, showing methe telltale shadows. She sent me away with my x-rays,three medications to treat my pneumonia, congestion,and fever, and made me promise to come back if myconditioned failed to improve or worsened within threedays. I walked out of the clinic with a diagnosis andtreatment within twenty-five minutes of entering,without paying a dime. There was no wait, no paperwork,and no questions about my ability to pay, mynationality, or whether, as a foreigner, I was entitledto free comprehensive health care. There was nomonetary value connected with my physical well-being;the care I received was not contingent upon my abilityto pay. I was treated with dignity, respect, andcompassion, my illness was cured and I was able tocontinue with my journey in Venezuela.This past year, a family friend was not so lucky. Atthe age of 56, she was going back to school and wasuninsured. She came down with what she thought was asevere case of the flu, and as her condition worsenedshe decided not to see a doctor because of the cost.She died at home in bed, losing her life to a systemthat did not respect her basic human right to survive.Her death is not an isolated incident. Over 18,000United States residents die every year because of theirlack of prohibitively expensive health insurance. TheUnited States has the distinct honor of being the "onlywealthy industrialized nation that does not ensure thatall citizens have coverage".(8) Instead, we havecommodified the public health and well being of thoselive in the US, leaving them on their own to obtaininsurance. Those whose jobs do not provide insurance,can't get enough hours to qualify for health carecoverage through their workplace, are unemployed, orhave "previously existing conditions" that exclude themfrom coverage are forced to choose between thepotentially fatal decision of refusing medical care andaccumulating medical bills that trap them in aninescapable cycle of debt. And sometimes, that decisionis made for them. Doctors often ask that dreadedquestion; "do you have insurance?" before schedulingcritical tests, procedures, or treatments. When theanswer is no, treatments that were deemed necessarybefore are suddenly canceled as the ability to paybecomes more important than the patient's health.(9)It is estimated that there are over fifty millionUnited States residents currently living without healthinsurance, a number that will skyrocket as unemploymentrates increase and people lose their work-based healthcare coverage in this time of international financialcrisis.(10) Already this year, 7.5 million people havelost work-related coverage. Budget cuts for the stateof Washington this year will remove over forty thousandpeople from Washington Basic Health, a subsidizedprogram which already has a waiting list of seventeenthousand people.(11) As I returned to the US fromVenezuela, I was faced with the realization that as asociety, the United States places a monetary value onlife. That we make life and death judgments based on anindividual's ability to pay. And that someone with thesame condition I had recently recovered from had diedbecause, according to our system, her life wasn'tinsured.Many in the United States fear that people would abusea free health care system, causing overcrowding and acompromised level of care. Others claim that a singlepayer system would limit the freedoms of both doctorand patient. These claims, propagated by the corporatemedia in the United States, are a hollow attempt tokeep those in the US from organizing to demand singlepayer health care. Primary care and preventativemedicine are seen as the first steps towardssustainable universal health care, keeping people outof costly hospital stays, tests, and treatments downthe road. Socializing the costs of medicine keepscosts low by preventing expensive treatments and healthproblems. It is difficult to understand how muchquality, free health care means until you find yourselfin a position of vulnerability and need. I felt a senseof security traveling in Venezuela that I do not feelin the United States; in Venezuela, there is a safetynet ready to catch you when you fall. People in the USmust ask themselves, as a country, where our values lieand how we have not only let people slip through thecracks but worked to systematically exclude them. Do webelieve that insurance corporations and the medicalindustrial complex should be profiting from denyingcare and keeping sick people from receiving treatment?Or do we believe that care should be separate from anindividual's ability to pay? As a nation, we mustembrace our humanity and value life over profits.
Read more…
There’s plenty of outrage and disgust at the Akaka bill, a blatant US attempt to seal the theft of the Hawaiian Nation and turn native Hawaiians into American Indians, an idea Hawai`i’s people testified overwhelmingly against nine years ago.Since then, no hearings have been held in Hawai`i – the people’s voice has not been heard.Many have asked what they can do to express their opposition, since the bill is being considered once again in the US congress.Starting this Wednesday you’ll have your chance. You’ll not only be able to express your own opposition, we’ll tell you how you can help others declare their independence too.Watch Free Hawai`i TV this coming Wednesday for details - we’ll tell you how you can say no to the Akaka bill and yes to a Free Hawai`i.We feature this week just that - people seeking to determine their own future on Voices Of Truth – One-On-One With Hawai`i's Future.MONDAY, June 29th At 6:30 PM –Maui – Akaku, Channel 53SATURDAY, July 4th At 8:00 PM –O`ahu, `Olelo, Channel 53“Can Of Worms – A Visit With Chris Kauwe”Long-time Kaua`i resident Chris Kauwe is never one to leave something alone that needs resolving, whether it’s fish-pond preservation or stopping the Superferry. A cultural activist, practitioner and accomplished media producer, Chris thinks nothing of opening a can of worms and diving straight in. You’ll see what we mean - and become hooked on his message yourself. Watch It Here.MONDAY, June 29th At 7:00 PM & FRIDAY, July 3rd At 5:30 PM –Hawai`i Island – Na Leo, Channel 53“To Restore Our Kingdom – A Visit With Pomaikaiokalani Kinney”His country never went away no matter what the history books say. You’d be hard pressed to find anyone more loyal to Hawai`i and its people than Pomai Kinney. A long-time activist Pomai movingly speaks of what his grandmother taught him about the coming changes, his own awakening, and years of resistance against the illegal US occupation. He reminds us all the Hawaiian Kingdom is very much alive right now. Watch It Here.THURSDAY, July 2nd At 8:30 PM & FRIDAY, July 3rd At 8:30 AM -Kaua`i – Ho`ike, Channel 52“24-Hour Volunteer – A Visit With U`ilani Kapu”It's one thing to see a need and fill it. But U`ilani Kapu isn't your average volunteer. She dedicates all her time to the people of Maui. Dealing with more issues in a single day than many do in a month, U`ilani is a tireless advocate for the `aina and its people. Need a dose of inspiration? Look no further. We promise you'll have all you need. Watch It Here.Voices Of Truth interviews those creating a better future for Hawai`i to discover what made them go from armchair observers to active participants. We hope you'll be inspired to do the same.If you support our issues on the Free Hawai`i Broadcasting Network, please email this to a friend to help us continue. A donation today helps further our work. Every single penny counts.Donating is easy on our Voices Of Truth website via PayPal where you can watch Voices Of Truth anytime.And for news and issues that affect you, watch Free Hawai`i TV, a part of the Free Hawai`i Broadcasting Network.Read more…
-6/19/09 - West Hawaii Today / EditorialRESTRICTED ACCESSHeiau Access QuestionedRarely have I experienced the warm welcome that I did on a recent10-day visit to the Big Island. Everywhere I went, I was in completeawe of the unique beauty of the island and its people. I had only oneunpleasant experience and it was such a shocking anomaly that I felt Ihad to share it.My friend and I visited the Ahuena Heiau behind the King Kamehameha'sKona Beach Hotel at sunset on our only afternoon in Kailua-Kona. Wewere surprised to find that access to the heiau was restricted in theevening - unless one purchased a $70.00 ticket to a luau that used itas the backdrop for their performance and changing room for theirperformers. Apparently even reading the interpretative sign was anintrusion and we were forcefully escorted off the site after rudelybeing told we should swim to the heiau if we really wished to see it.I have no problem with restricting tourist access to sensitive andspiritual sites. In fact, I support it. There is only one Hawsaii andit is much too precious to be run over by tourists who can't possiblyunderstand or appreciate the natural resources of the island as thosewho live there do.However, appropriating the Ahuena Heiau for a tourist luau andcharging for entry is not just prohibitive for visitors and the localresidents, it is completely disrepectful of the spiritual meaning ofthe site and the traditional native practitioners to whom itrightfully belongs.Why does the community allow a site of such cultural, historical andspiritual value to be appropriated for private profit?Lara Cushing, Oakland CA.KAMAKAHONU, CRUCIBLE OF TRUTH (Unedited)Letter to the Editor submitted to West Hawaii Today, Hawaii TribuneHerald, New York Times, Kahea Action Alliance, Melissa Block AllThings Considered, Life of the Land Hawaii, The Hawaii People's FundI’d like to thank Ms. Lara Cushing of Oakland CA. for her succinct andpurposeful letter posted last week in WHT. I applaud her for takingthe time to write this effective summary of life at Kamakahonu –today.Kamakahonu, yesterday in time, is a snapshot of a country’s capital,the residence of the Ruler of the Kingdom, in this case, Kamehamehathe Great. Working to promote a flourishing society, as rulers hadbefore him, Ahu’ena Heiau was where the King honored the faith of hisancestors and people, presented his Kingdom's first flag, and departedhis earthly domain on May 8,1819.There were at least 15 sacred components clustered to compose hisenclosure. Jeweled by at least two Heiau, each with its own Lana Nu’uMamao (Oracles), these temples were among eleven temples of Hawaiiisland of that significance (the highest) of Kamehameha’s time(1736-1819).Kamehameha erected the “House-to-see-the-Garden” (Hale Nana Mahina’ai,54’ X 131’) upon a house foundation built centuries earlier by hisancestor, King ‘Umi-A-Liloa.. From that vantage point, Kamehamehacould overlook his fishing grounds (ko’a) and his planting fieldsespecially his Garden of Kuahewa, upland.Located near Ahu’ena Heiau, was the house foundation of the chiefKeawe-A-Mahi whose residence Kamakahonu was until Kamehameha acquiredit. This, on his return from O’ahu following the unification of theislands with the exception of Kaua’i, ceded to the Kingdom later.Kalaku was the name of the fishing shrine there (ku’ula). When aschool of fish such as akule or ‘opelu was seen, the priest and chiefwould hold a ritual of thanksgiving in this shrine.House foundations for the Hale Mua, prayer houses of Ka Mo’iKamehameha Kunuiakea, Chief Hoapili and Kalanimoku and the famedAlanai’o fishponds of Kamehameha are other features located on theland now occupied by King Kamehameha’s Kona Beach Hotel and - as ofthe late nineties - the residence of world philanthropist, Paul Allen.There, too, are many other foundations such as the Hale Noa and Hale‘Aina of the families of the King.Big Surf Trust purchased this land from the family whose members arenoted in island history. Asa Thurston, born in Fitchburg,Massachusetts, led the first company of Calvinist missionaries to theislands setting sail from the east coast just 5 months after thepassing of Kamehameha. Landing in Tai’erua (Kailua) Bay in 1820, hebecame a part of the work in the unified Kingdom, while hisdescendant, Lorrin A. Thurston led a group of American businessmen inan overthrow of that Kingdom 73 years later.As Lara Cushing asks, “why does the community allow a site of suchcultural, historical and spiritual value to be appropriated forprivate profit?” There’s more to the abbreviated answer I offer here.What is happening to Kamakahonu is a metaphor for what’s happening toall of Hawaii. Commercial interests and businessmen protected by thede facto State of Hawaii (SHPD) seek to make artifacts / "historicalsites" of the living faith of Hawaii. This is the same as creating astatue of the living Pope and no longer allowing people to worship inhis church because his faith is "of the past". Is this done toChristianity? Why is it done to the faith of the lands of Hawaii?Ahu'ena Heiau was restored by 'Oiwi in 1975 and rededicated to Lono by'Oiwi in 2007. Ahu'ena Heiau lives as surely as 'Oiwi of Hawaii live.America is trying to “own” and guide God’s spiritual home, Hawaii.Hawaii belongs to Hawaii of the Pacific. God’s spirit is what bringspeople to our shores. Healing is the quest of the family of man.Sacred sites in Hawaii still serve their purposes. They await thereturn of their first people from the slumber of consciousness. It’s amovement from the inside – out. Awakening comes from inside and actionbegins to take place on the outside. Such is the truth of the HawaiianRenaissance that continued into the early seventies and moves throughthe present with strong resistance to the Akaka Bill. In that period,many ‘Oiwi gathered together to weave the fabric of the true unity.Hokule’a journeyed to Tahiti proving the Pacific was the highwaytraversed constantly by Pacific people. In those years, Ahu’ena Heiauwas restored by ‘Oiwi in the traditions of ‘Oiwi. I know the subjectwell, it was my father, David Kahelemauna Roy, Jr. who led the firstcrew of ‘Oiwi to restore the temple of Hawaii’s King Kamehameha theGreat.The overthrow was illegal and is a myth – occupation is not ownership.Where title of the Hawaiian Islands is questioned, the title ofKamakahonu lands is questioned. Both Jewels referred to as Ahu’enaHeiau are submerged in the sea daily. Submerged lands are ceded lands- the same as the whole of Mauna Kea. Clouded is the discussion of“ceded” lands. The whole of the islands are “stolen” lands. In the ageof information, people of the world are finally becoming clear thatthe territory of Hawaii emerged based upon an illegal overthrow. Whyhas this truth been concealed for so long?One answer brings us back to Kamakahonu. Lorrin A. Thurston, leader ofthe overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, was the grandson of Asa andLucy Thurston. He published the Pacific Commercial Advertiser(forerunner of the present-day Honolulu Advertiser), and was thegrandfather of Thurston Twigg-Smith.Born in 1921 Twigg-Smith worked for the Advertiser / Star Bulletin in1947 and in 1961 took control of the newspaper with others. In 1993 hesold the business to a regional subsidiary of the Gannett Company for$250 million. Are you familiar with the web of influence that thenewspapers of America wield? I observe that the truth about Hawaii hasnot left our shores or our households. Why would Hawaii residentsinvolve themselves in such controversy? And why would ‘Oiwi strugglingto stay alive – landless and dependent on foreign supplies, spend anyof the vitality needed for their families to contest the publiclyhushed subject?The Queen never expected an overthrow. Even more, she never expectedthe failure of America to restore her to her throne. Persons close tothe day-to-day affairs at Kamakahonu never expected this landholder,H.T. Hayashi to shun the community that has supported the success ofKamakahonu and their own success since they purchased the propertyfrom Amfac (Amfac financed the restoration of Ahu'ena Heiau).H.T. Hayashi and newly formed IWF-KKH have broken their promise touphold the care of Ahu’ena Heiau and Kamakahonu for the community. Mr.Paul Allen presents deaf ears to the population who would be his kindneighbors at Kamakahonu. How is this different from the response ofMr. Joseph Brescia at Naue? And where the U.S. claims they DO ownHawaii, how is the state of Hawaii protecting the civil liberties ofall persons to exercise their traditional religious heritage at Naue -at Kamakahonu and throughout Hawaii?The words to sum up the status quo at Kamakahonu resemble magma risingin a volcano. They only begin with “deplorable” and “unacceptable”.But what power do these descriptive words hold compared to thosedescribing the illegal seizure of all of Hawaii of which Kamakahonu isthe significant part?‘O Kamakahonu Kahi ‘Ula Waiwai, Kahe Ka Wai a Kane, Kani Ka Pahu OLono. Kamakahonu abides, the place of the Royal Wealth; the flow ofthe waters of Kane – the sounds of the drums of Lono.Mikahala RoyMikahala Roy
Read more…
This is an articulate, thorough, and impressive look at just what the Akaka Bill will mean...if it passes. Please read...and share.Donna------------------S. 1011, NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2009 (Introduced in the U.S. Senate) - J. KEHAULANI KAUANUITO: Kekuni Blaisdell, Mililani Trask, Terri Keko`olani, Donna Burns, Jon Osorio, Andre Perez, Kelii Collier, Ikaika HusseyFROM: J. Kehaulani KauanuiDATE: June 11th, 2009SUBJECT: S. 1011, Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 (Introduced in the U.S. Senate).This analysis of the legislation is limited to the fundamental legal distinction between “Indian tribes” and a “foreign nations” under the US constitution and federal law with specific regard to the un-extinguished sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom.Re: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLEThe name of this proposed legislation alone represents that which is problematic for Hawaiian sovereignty and nationhood under international law. The bill is titled the “Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009.” Embedded in this name is a fundamental historical lie; there is no attempt to reorganize a Native Hawaiian Government because the Hawaiian Kingdom was a 19th Century internationally recognized State that afforded citizenship status to more than just the indigenous Hawaiian people. To name this legislation in this way is to misconstrue the government to government relationship the United States had with the Kingdom, which was distinctly different from the nation-to-nation relationship between the United States and tribal nations within what are now known as the 48 contiguous states. The bill should more accurately be named “The Native Hawaiian Government Formation Act.”Re: SEC. 2. FINDINGS(1) Here the bill asserts that “the Constitution vests Congress with the authority to address the conditions of the indigenous, native people of the United States.” This refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution that reads, “Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, which states: “The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled time and time again that this clause (also known as “the “Commerce Clause”) means the US federal government has total and complete power over tribal nations. The SCOTUS has not ruled that the US federal government has total and complete power over foreign nations. This is a very important distinction because this bill tries to assert that Native Hawaiians – formed into a Native Hawaiian governing entity – should be treated like a tribal nation.This is what is meant by the wording in part (3) of this same section of the bill where it says “the United States has a special political and legal relationship to promote the welfare of the native people of the United States, including Native Hawaiians.” In other words, the US government calls it “special” because it regards tribal nations as internal nations that are both domestic and dependent because they are forced within the broader legal boundary of the USA. The US government never legally regarded the Hawaiian Kingdom as domestic or dependent.Under the US Constitution, the Hawaiian Kingdom was regarded as a foreign nation, an independent sovereign state. The bill offensively refers to the treaties between the USA and the Hawaiian Kingdom to try and claim Native Hawaiians as a Native Nation with the special political and legal relationship to the USA like the relationship the US government asserts over tribal nations.None of the treaties between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the USA were treaties of cession. None of them ceded any sovereignty or territory to the US government. The treaties between the two independent States only negotiated the terms of friendship, commerce, and navigation. Even the treaty allowing the USA favored nation status to use Pearl Harbor was not about ceding territory; it only gave the US government use rights (not ownership).In (5) the bill refers to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 without any acknowledgement that the lands the US government “set aside” were 203,500 acres of the stolen 1. 8 million acres of Kingdom Crown and Government Lands. This part, and other parts throughout the bill, assert that all of these lands now belong to the USA or the State of Hawai`i, and therefore the bill masks the ongoing theft and illegitimate means by which the USA took Hawai`i. This is repeated throughout in all reference to Hawai`i becoming a state, references to the Kingdom and Crown lands as a “public trust,” and naming this land base “ceded lands.”Also note that in part (19) the bill states: “this Act provides a process within the framework of Federal law for the Native Hawaiian people to exercise their inherent rights as a distinct, indigenous, native community to reorganize a single Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purpose of giving expression to their rights as native people to self-determination and self-governance;”. In other words, this legislation is an attempt to maintain that there is no Hawaiian Kingdom, nor any claims to an independent nation. If passed, this is the part of the legislation that it the most troublesome when it comes to the legal concept of reorganization: that the will of the Hawaiian people will be (mis) represented as one of supporting the reorganization of the Hawaiian Kingdom into a Native Hawaiian governing entity.Re: SEC. 3. DEFINITIONSIn part (10)(A)(i)(I), the bill includes a definition of “Native Hawaiian” meaning an individual who is a direct lineal descendant of the “aboriginal, indigenous, native people” who: “resided in the islands that now comprise the State of Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893;”. It is important to note that this date chosen for this language pre-dates the US-backed overthrow of January 17, 1893. We need to draw attention to this in our communities, especially when proponents of the bill try to argue that this legislation would be a “first step” to Hawaiian sovereignty. It would be the last step precisely because it attempts to graft our genealogy of independence onto a different political lineage with regard to how the USA treats “Indian tribes” and “foreign nations” differently under US law. This is the part of “reorganization” that is most troublesome.This problem is also evident in part (15), which states: “The term ‘special political and legal relationship’ shall refer, except where differences are specifically indicated elsewhere in the Act, to the type of and nature of relationship the United States has with the several federally recognized Indian tribes.”Re: SEC. 4. UNITED STATES POLICY AND PURPOSE.This part explicitly states that the bill affirms that “Native Hawaiians are a unique and distinct, indigenous, native people with whom the United States has a special political and legal relationship;” and that “the United States has a special political and legal relationship with the Native Hawaiian people which includes promoting the welfare of Native Hawaiians.” Furthermore, it restates the earlier finding regarding congressional plenary power (3): “Congress possesses the authority under the Constitution, including but not limited to Article I, section 8, clause 3, to enact legislation to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians…” It should also be noted that the US Congress (the legislative branch of the federal government) has repeatedly delegated its authority to the executive branch of the US government. With regard to Indian tribes, it delegates its authority specifically to the US Department of the Interior. This matters for the purposes of the bill since the legislation proposes to empower the US Office for Native Hawaiian Relations, which falls within the US Department of the Interior, to coordinate the “special political and legal relationship between the United States and that Native Hawaiian governing entity.”Foreign nations do not have any relationship to the US Department of the Interior precisely because that department is about areas considered by the US government as “internal” to the USA (Indians tribes, US Island Territories, and National Parks). Foreign nations relate to the US Department of State.To underscore the point about the Native Hawaiian governing entity being limited to the interior (domestic) dependent nation, see part (5) here, which states that “Native Hawaiians have—(A) an inherent right to autonomy in their internal affairs; (B) an inherent right of self-determination and self-governance; (C) the right to reorganize a Native Hawaiian governing entity; and (D) the right to become economically self-sufficient” (underline added).Part (b) finally details the purpose of the bill: “to provide a process for the reorganization of the single Native Hawaiian governing entity and the reaffirmation of the special political and legal relationship between the United States and that Native Hawaiian governing entity for purposes of continuing a government-to-government relationship.” This bill only provides for an internal (domestic) dependent nation within the confines of the USA, not a “first step” towards sovereignty for anyone committed to restoring an independent Hawaiian nation.Re: SEC. 5. UNITED STATES OFFICE FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN RELATIONSThis section details how the bill would provide a framework for the US Office for Native Hawaiian Relations to relation to the Native Hawaiian governing entity. The duties of the Office would include: continuing the process of reconciliation with the Native Hawaiian people in furtherance of the Apology Resolution according to US policy and coordinate the “special political and legal relationship” between the Native Hawaiian governing entity and the United States through the Secretary, and with all other Federal agencies and entities through the creation of an Interagency Coordinating Group, which is further explained in Sec. 6.The language of this part of the bill also requires the Office to consult with the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity “before taking any actions that may have the potential to significantly affect Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands,” except for anything having to do with the needs, wants and desires of the US Department of Defense. Part (c) states, “This section shall have no applicability to the Department of Defense or to any agency or component of the Department of Defense…” This means that US militarism in and from Hawaiian waters and lands can continue without end and that neither the Office nor the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity could do anything to stop it according to US law.Re: SEC. 6. NATIVE HAWAIIAN INTERAGENCY COORDINATING GROUP.This section outlines the composition and duties of the Interagency Coordinating Group in order to coordinate federal programs authorized to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians are administered by Federal agencies other than the Department of the Interior.This section reiterates the provision that “This section shall have no applicability to the Department of Defense or to any agency or component of the Department of Defense…” This means that US militarism in and from Hawaiian waters and lands can continue without end and that neither the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity nor the Interagency Coordinating Group could do anything to stop it according to US law.Re: SEC. 7. PROCESS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNING ENTITY AND THE REAFFIRMATION OF THE SPECIAL POLITICAL AND LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNING ENTITY.This section outlines the process for the “reorganization” of a Native Hawaiian governing entity, which would be done through a Commission composed of 9 members appointed by the US Secretary of the Interior of who would prepare and maintain a roll of the adult members of the Native Hawaiian community (probably using Kau Inoa as the basis) who elect to participate in the “reorganization” of the single Native Hawaiian governing entity and certify that the adult members of the “Native Hawaiian” community proposed for inclusion on the roll. The members of the Commission would be required to make sure that all individuals on the roll meet the definition of Native Hawaiian in section 3(10): “an individual who is 1 of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii and who is a direct lineal descendant of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who--(I) resided in the islands that now comprise the State of Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893; and(II) occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian archipelago, including the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii; or (ii) an individual who is 1 of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii and who was eligible in 1921 for the programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.”Although this section states that each of the 9 individuals to be appointed by the US Secretary of the Interior must have: “(i) not less than 10 years of experience in the study and determination of Native Hawaiian genealogy; and (ii) an ability to read and translate into English documents written in the Hawaiian language,” it does not specify that the members of the Commission must be Native Hawaiian.This roll of individual, adult Native Hawaiians would eventually be published in the US federal register. It would serve as the basis for the eligibility of members of the Native Hawaiian community to determine participation in the formation of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.The adult members of the Native Hawaiian community listed on the roll published and approved roll are then empowered by the bill to “(i) develop criteria for candidates to be elected to serve on the Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council; (ii) determine the structure of the Council; and (iii) elect members from individuals listed on the roll published under this subsection to the Council.”The Council would then represent those listed on the roll, conduct a referendum among those listed on the roll published for the purpose of determining the proposed elements of the organic governing documents of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. This would include setting the proposed criteria for citizenship of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity, the proposed powers and authorities to be exercised by the Native Hawaiian governing entity (within US law), and the proposed privileges and immunities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity. This would also include the proposed civil rights and protection of the rights of the citizens of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and all persons affected by the exercise of governmental powers and authorities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity” and other issues determines appropriate by the Council. The language here says “proposed” because they all of these elements are subject to the approval of the US Secretary of the Department of the Interior.The Council would then submit the organizing governing documents of the proposed Native Hawaiian governing entity to the Secretary who then can approve or disapprove of them using the criteria listed in part (4)(A). All elements must be consistent with applicable Federal law.Re: SEC. 8. REAFFIRMATION OF DELEGATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY; NEGOTIATIONS; CLAIMSThis section reaffirms the US government’s position that it delegates US authority to the State of Hawai`i to address condition of Native Hawaiians under the Hawai`i state admissions act. With regard to negotiations, this section specifies that after the Native Hawaiian governing entity is created, both the United States and the State of Hawaii may enter into negotiations with the Native Hawaiian governing entity. This sets the bill apart from other forms of federal recognition of Native Nations, which do not typically allow the state into any part of the negotiations with the exception of matters related to Indian gaming.In this bill, the state of Hawai`i is allowed to sit at the table to negotiate over matters including: the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other assets, and the protection of existing rights related to such lands or resources; the exercise of governmental authority over any transferred lands, natural resources, and other assets, including land use; the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction; the delegation of governmental powers and authorities to the Native Hawaiian governing entity by the United States and the State of Hawaii; any residual responsibilities of the United States and the State of Hawaii; and grievances regarding assertions of historical wrongs committed against Native Hawaiians by the United States or by the State of Hawaii. Notice that none of these things are guaranteed in the bill—no land, no jurisdiction, no assets, no governmental power. They are all up for negotiation once representatives of a Native Hawaiian governing entity sit down with the federal and state agents. There is no equal footing here. All negotiations must take place within the framework of US federal law and policy with regard to Indian tribes and under US plenary power, where the USA asserts total and complete power.This section of the bill also includes a disclaimer that states that nothing in the Act cancreate a cause of action against the United States or any other entity or person, nor alter “existing law, including existing case law, regarding obligations on the part of the United States or the State of Hawaii with regard to Native Hawaiians or any Native Hawaiian entity.” Further more, it states that nothing in the bill can create any new obligation to Native Hawaiians under federal law. It also specifically outlines and protects the federal government through sovereign immunity to prevent lawsuits for breach of trust, land claims, resource-protection or resource-management claims, or similar types of claims brought by or on behalf of Native Hawaiians or the Native Hawaiian governing entity.It also protects the state of Hawai`i by asserting that it “retains its sovereign immunity, unless waived in accord with State law, to any claim, established under any source of law, regarding Native Hawaiians, that existed prior to the enactment of this Act.”Re: SEC. 9. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAWSThis section clarifies that certain laws pertaining to federally recognized Indian tribes would not apply to the Native Hawaiian governing entity. Note that all of these laws that exclude the Native Hawaiian governing entity happen to be laws that greatly benefit tribal nations. The Native Hawaiian governing entity would not be allowed to claim rights under Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Native Hawaiian governing entity would not be allowed to have the Secretary of the Interior shall not take land into trust on behalf of the native Hawaiian governing entity. This is important because only land held in trust by the federal government on behalf of Native Nations is allowed to be used by Indian tribes as part of their sovereign land base where they can assert jurisdiction. The Native Hawaiian governing entity would not be allowed to reply on The Indian Trade and Intercourse Act to challenge how the State of Hawaii acquired the Hawaiian Kingdom Crown and Government Lands. No other Native Hawaiian group would be eligible for recognition under the Federal Acknowledgment Process. The Native Hawaiian governing entity would not be eligible for Indian Programs and ServicesMost notably, this section of the bill (e) states that “Nothing in this Act alters the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the United States or the State of Hawaii over lands and persons within the State of Hawaii.” It further states that “The status quo of Federal and State jurisdiction can change only as a result of further legislation, if any, enacted after the conclusion, in relevant part, of the negotiation process established in section 8(b).” In other words, when the representatives of the Native Hawaiian governing entity sit at the table to negotiate with the federal and state agents, they cannot negotiate for and civil or criminal jurisdiction over any land. In order to do so, there would need to be more legislation passed.Re: SEC. 10. SEVERABILITYThis section merely states that if any US courts find any section of the Act invalid, that Congress intends for the remaining sections to still have force and effect.Re: SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONSThis section specifics that if the bill passes, that there be funds appropriated so that the legislation can be properly enacted to form the Commission, the roll, the organic governing documents, and other activities relating to the formation of a Native Hawaiian governing entity.By Terrilee Kekoolani at 06/12/2009 - 08:15 Add new comment
Read more…
We're in search for a narrator. It doesn't matter wether you're a professional or not. As long as you have a good microphone and is familiar with the Hawaiian language.Imua Hawaii Films is working on a short documentary about George Helm.IN RETURN:- Narrator will be mentioned in beginning and end credits- Appear on Maoli World Live (Must have a Webcam/ Microphone)WE COULD USE ANOTHER HAND...If you enjoy taking video, we will be needing footage from different islands. Check in from time to time. We'll post another blog when we could use a hand or two...LOOKING AHEAD:Imua Hawaii Films is planning a documentary about the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom.imuahawaii808@yahoo.comOur YouTube ChannelRead more…
It's Fast & Easy - Go Here
SEE DETAILS & HOW TO ORDER HEREHawaiiFakeState.com
