All Posts (6512)

Sort by

I Am Sovereign With My Creator

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERNI, Richard Pomakai Kinney, 919 4th Street, Pearl City, Honolulu, Hawaii 96782 a Native Hawaiian descendant, do hereby declare myself SOVEREIGN unto GOD the CREATOR.I, further declare my autonomous right, as a Native Hawaiian descendant, to uphold with body and soul, the autonomous right of all Native Hawaiian descenants and their Ohana.July 16, 1984 "HANA LIKE KOKOU"Date of NOTARY Richard Pomaikai KinneySTATE OF HAWAIICity and County of HonoluluOn this 16th day July, 1984 before me personally appeard Richard Pomaikai Kinney, to me know to be the person described in and who exucted the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he excuted the same as his free act and deed.M Commission expieres July 31, 1986 NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF HAWAII
Read more…

I Am Not An American...............

STATE OF HAWAIICity and Countyof HonoluluI, Henry Richard Kinney, Jr. a Native Hawaiian descendant and Sovereign, born on December 26, 1938 at Queen's Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, do hereby renouce my citizenship to the United States of America as of 6 PM Hawaiian Standard Time on January 17, 1993I protest against any and all acts done against my native country, the Hawaiian Kindom and its constitutional sovereign, Queen Liliuokalani by the United States troups on January 17, 1893.Now, to avoid any collision of arrest from agents of the United States, and perhaps the losss of my life and freedom, I seek the full independence of the Hawaiian Islands as an independant nation of the Free World.Henry R. Kinney, Jr.Subscribed and sworn to before me this15th day of Janaury, 1993.Notary Public, First Judical CircuitState of HawaiiKU I KA PONO Dec. 26, 2008 Washington Place
Read more…

FREE HAWAI`I TV - "SHOW YOUR TRUE COLORS"

FREEHAWAII.INFO PRESENTSFREE HAWAI`I TVTHE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK "SHOW YOUR TRUE COLORS" What Occurred At Yet Another Secret Ceded Lands Meeting Recently?Why Does Gov. Lingle Want These Stolen Lands So Bad?What Could They Be Planning They Don't Want You To Know About?Watch & Find Out.
Read more…

SUPEREFRRY MODEL RUNS AGROUND

If a single situation could be held up as a model to discourage enterprise and investment in the state, it is that of the Hawai`i Superferry. The Lingle administration and an equally culpable state Legislature did no one -- not taxpayers, the visitor industry, businesses or public or environmental interests -- any favors in their bungling of the ferry issue.Had officials simply adhered to legal requirements from the get-go, the harm imposed and that could yet be brought to the ferry company and others, and the community divisiveness their mistakes have generated would not have occurred.A report by the state auditor criticizing special legislation tailored to benefit the ferry company served as a prelude this week to arguments before the Supreme Court on constitutional challenges of the law.The audit concluded that the legislation -- known as Act 2, passed after the court ruled that the state should not have exempted the ferry from environmental reviews -- "compromised" the law and "set a precedent for future government intervention that puts the interests of a single business before the state's environmental, fiduciary and public safety responsibilities."
Read more…
Is Hawaii is still an independent nation‏ , or an Occupied Nation under distress?The U.S., France and the U.K. recognized the Republic of Texasduring 1836 and eventually became a territory of the USAby 1840. The Joint Resolution to annex Texas during 1845 was annexingTexas as a State. Texas was not an independent nation at that time.Although Texas was an independent nation at one time during1845 it was a territory of the USA and all thecitizens voted for the annexation resolution to make Texas a state.Native Americans and Mexicans were not allowed to vote in the Texaselections only whites could vote.The native americans were and still are the rightfulowners of the land of Texas and all of the USA.Unlike the Republic of Texas the USA did not recognize the Republicof Hawaii infact they considered The Republic of Hawaii a selfdeclared republic with no legal standing.So that makes the Hawaii annexation resolution worthless becauseHawaii was an independent nation and not a territory of the USAand the Hawaiians and Hawaiian nationals were not allowed to vote forthe annexation resolution during 1898.Because the Republic of Hawaii was never formally recognized by thecongress of the USA the State of Hawaii is null and void.The framers of the Akaka bill are using the Hawaiian sovereigntystruggle to validate the illegal State of Hawaii.The U.S. supreme court has no jurisdiction over Hawaii becausetechnically Hawaii is still an independent nation becausecongress never formaly recognized the republic of Hawaii asa territory of the USA making the Hawaii annexation resolutionnull and void. A treaty of annexation was never ratified bythe senate of the U.S. congress. It was introduced to thesenate twice and twice it failed.If the U.S. supreme court rules against the Hawaiians and forselling of the Crown lands and acknowledges the claim that the Hawaiianapology law is just a resolution and not an act of congressthen the Newlands Hawaii annexation resolution becomes void and thethe state of Hawaii becomes invalid. If the U.S. supreme courtrules infavor of the Hawaiians and the Akaka Bill passesand they acknowledge that the Hawaiian apology has standingthat will invalidate the State of Hawaii once again.The Akaka bill is the only way that the U.S. congress can attemptto validate the illegal state of Hawaii by recognizing the selfdeclard Republic of Hawaii also known as the State of Hawaii until then Hawaii is and will always be an independent nation.Its important for Hawaiians to block the Akaka Bill from passage.Dan Akaka and OHA are the paramount traitors to the Hawaiian people andthe aumakua of the Independent Nation of Hawaii.The native Hawaiians were and still are the rightful owners of Hawaii.Brandish the Banner of Hawaiian Independence!Eric Po'ohinapobox 744kailua hi 96734ph# 261-1814aumakua@aloha.netLike they say, "Show me the money!"; Show me the treaty that was ratified! The normal procedure is two countries come together to negotiate a treaty. It then goes to the respective governments and their congress or legislator approve and ratify it into law. For the U.S. all treaties become the Supreme Law of the Land. We already know that the U.S. broke its treaties regarding Hawaii as perpetual friendship and comity, neutral, of commerce, of navigation, and Postal Union. There is no treaty of annexation; there never was one. Both the U.S. and the Kingdom of Hawai'i are sovereign, independent states and there cannot be a merger or annexation without a ratified treaty of annexation whereby the people freely give up their sovereignty and national dominium to another state. The Belligerent Occupation was protested by the Queen and some of her close supporters and the overwhelming majority of her subjects protested the annexation and pushed for the restoration of the Queen and her government. All these actions counter the U.S. validity of annexation and statehood. Without the pertinent documents, the issues lay fatuous and fraudulent, null and void; no matter what the U.S. does, the U.S. will be compelled to de-occupy in the end.Tanetane_1@msn.comSince January 16, 1893 the Hawaiian Kingdom has been an Occupied Nation. No nation can be an Independent Nation when Occupied by another nation. No Independent Nation allows its National Flag to fly below another nation's flag for over 115 years.Yes, the Hawaiian Kingdom nation is out there, but is out there as an Occupied Nation under distress.I believe it's time Kanaka Maoli Hawaii stop playing with words.KUE,Richard Pomaika'iokalani KinneyHIAHAWAII@aol.com
Read more…

My best friend in the whole wide world

For my family and friends who going spock dis out:My best friend in the whole wide world is from Kauai with Ni'ihau roots. He is oiwi and haole like me except I have Portuguese, Popolo, and Chinese too. He is super smart and sometimes he can be very arrogant LMAOSorry I can't mention his name.Once in awhile we fight like cat and dog. Lately we got into an argument so what did I tell him? I told him NOT to write to me using the email for my family and friends. I told him to use my BUSINESS email LMAOThat's how he and I are though and yes some people mistakenly think that oiwi just argue argue argue. Once in awhile yes we may argue but our iwi keeps us connected. Always. AS usual though some people only focus on the negative. If I focused on the negative then I would never be able to walk LOL I mean... some doctors told my mother all bad kine stuff that I will never walk again. Do people think I LISTENED? NO LOL So negative. Some people ONLY see the negative. Instead of seeing the GOOD they see the bad but yeah I focus on the good. If I didn't I would not be able to walk again hahaYes I always state the obvious :PAnyway I may post newer pics soon when I have time.


Read more…
A'ole !!!!The akaka bill is pure HEWA ,OHA is a USA Program to keep the Hawaiian Nationals away from exercising our sovereign Rights , being illegally occupied and manipulated by the USA.This is the Final Straw in Stealing OUR SOVEREIGN NATION & ROBBING OUR RIGHTS AS SOVEREIGN NATIONALS.With Over 115 YEARS of CULTURECIDE and GENOCIDE BY THE USA and US MILITARY!http://stopakakabill.comhttp://hawaiiankindom.orgLEARN!hau.gifAkaka Bill backers like the new oddsThe U.S. Senate's 58 Democrats should lift the measure's chancesBy B.J. Reyeshttp://www.starbulletin.com/news/20081222_akaka_bill_backers_like_the_new_odds.htmlPOSTED: 01:30 a.m. HST, Dec 22, 2008The arrival of a new Democratic administration in Washington, coupled with Democratic control of Congress, has given renewed hope to supporters of federal recognition for native Hawaiians."The results of the presidential and congressional elections open a window of opportunity for native Hawaiian initiatives and Hawaii initiatives," Office of Hawaiian Affairs Chairwoman Haunani Apoliona said in her recent State of OHA speech. "Based on previous expressed support for the Akaka Bill by President-elect (Barack) Obama, a smoother and timely passage and enactment of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act is anticipated."During his campaign, Obama said he would support native Hawaiian recognition if a bill were to reach his desk.The legislation would allow for the formation of a governing body for native Hawaiians, similar to that of American Indians, that would negotiate with state and federal governments over land and other resources.Opponents say the measure is racially discriminatory and divisive. Native Hawaiian sovereignty groups also oppose the legislation, saying it does not go far enough to grant Hawaii independence from the U.S. government.To date, no version of the Akaka Bill -- named after its primary sponsor, U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka (D, Hawaii) -- has made it out of Congress.Although the U.S. House this year approved a version of the bill, it stalled in the Senate, where Republicans have stalled the measure time and again. Additionally, President Bush has opposed the legislation.Two years ago, Akaka attempted to bring the bill to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote by the full chamber. The motion fell four votes shy of the 60 needed to force a vote.But Nov. 4 brought change to Capitol Hill. In addition to Obama's victory, Democrats also will control at least 58 of the 100 seats when the next Congress opens."I am looking forward to working with President-elect Obama and meeting with my newly elected Senate colleagues to discuss my bill and the many other important matters that will come before the upcoming Congress," Akaka said in a statement provided by his office. "The U.S. has formally recognized American Indians and Alaska natives and should provide parity for Hawaii's indigenous people."Jon Van Dyke, a constitutional law professor at the University of Hawaii who supports the Akaka Bill, said "the stars seem to be aligned" in the bill's favor. "With the increase in Democrats in the Senate, plus some of the key Republicans that have always supported it ... still there, it seems like the votes should be there to pass it," he said.Because of the new Congress, the legislation would have to be reintroduced and go through the formal hearing process again in both chambers. Akaka said he plans to introduce a bill .At least one opponent said he does not expect the Akaka Bill to be a priority for lawmakers when they convene the next Congress. Given the country's financial troubles and the focus likely to be paid to an economic stimulus plan, any discussion of the Akaka Bill would be best left for several months down the road, said Richard Rowland, president of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii."I don't think that Mr. Obama and his administration want to use any of their capital on this," Rowland said. "Why should they? From their standpoint it looks like they've got it as a slam dunk."So why wouldn't they wait till next September or October, or even 2010?"In the meantime, the institute, which opposes racially based preferences, will continue to inform the public about the bill, he said."My feeling is that with some more education -- education on what the implications are -- that rational people can all look at it and say, 'This is just not very healthy,'" Rowland said.................................................................................................................Keep the Door Open!!We support those who support protecting the ‘entitlements’ programs, but Keep the Door Open!But foreclosing the options available to us by our right of self-determination – specifically, our native right to be an independent nation, we cannot support!We have the doctrine of consent in our favor - in addition to our prior recognition as an independent government.We have never consented to a political accommodation with the United States.If we consent by agreeing to go along with this bill that limits our right to self-determination to the confines of domestic federal law - we will have given consent, and we will no longer be able to argue that point.Right now we can argue that our right is being violated under several conventions, such as the one on civil and political rights.If we go along with the bill as is, we will not be able to do that. We will become a dependent population within the nation state. We will be more than the "ethnic group" they are trying to categorize us as now, but we will not be a "peoples" within the general international norms.And finally, if we become a dependent nation within a nation, we will not be able to utilize the principle of intervention – that is, other countries will not interfere with the internal squabbles we have with the nation of the U.S.A.(This has been the case with the Lakota and the Navajo.)Bottom line…MEANINGFUL RECONCILIATIONWe want to save the entitlement programs, but his can be done as part of the Reconciliation process.We should not have to go so far as to give up our right to be independent, to restore our status.Real reconciliation vs. the Akaka billThe nation of Hawai'i was:* Recognized as an independent sovereign state.* Recognized as a member of the world family of nations.* Recognized as an equal party to more than 25 treaties, including treaties with the United States.* Recognized as an independent nation with over 90 consulates worldwide.Apologies can be very powerful, and within the Native Hawaiian culture they are treated with great respect and promise. It has been a decade (15 years) since the United Church of Christ and the United States apologized to the Native Hawaiian people for complicity in the overthrow of the nation of Hawai'i.The potential for genuine reconciliation between Native Hawaiians and the United States exists. The importance of Native Hawaiians achieving economic independence cannot be underestimated as an essential aspect of reconciliation.Reconciliation is a process. The process that we have been using in thinking about reconciliation involves at least four levels or stages: recognition, responsibility, reconstruction and reparationILLUSION OF REALITYWe are not mere "artifacts." The United States and the state of Hawai'i relegate our inherent rights to the past, constrain our development and allow only those activities that support their own necessary illusion: that we, na 'oiwi o Hawai'i today, do not present a challenge to their legitimacy.State sovereignty in Hawai'i is built on illusions. To claim that the state's legitimacy is based on the rule of law is hypocritical and contradicted by history. The laws and the legal system of the United States purport to create "domestic dependent nations," but even that is truly only an illusion.We must reject assumptions that legitimatize our subjugation, and be allowed to evolve. These are necessary steps to achieving self-determination and building a sound native-governed community.As George Jarrett Helm determined, we are in a "revolution of consciousness ... What we (are) looking for is the truth." The facts do matter! In our case, the facts are being misused to support the illusion of reality.What do we hope to protect? What have the co-opted ones forsaken? The answer is, the heart and soul of our nation, our queen, and our kupuna (elders) and aloha I ke kahi I ke kahi, a respectful and peaceful co-existence.by:KuleanaWaipahu, HIINOUYE4.jpgakaka.jpghome1.gif
Read more…

Thanksgiving Day National Holiday on 25 December

Kamehameha IV proclaimed 25th of December, the National Day of Thanksgiving in 1856. This allowed people of all religions to celebrate that day together. Two years later, Santa Claus made his first appearance in Hawaii, arriving at Washington Place (now the governor’s residence) to deliver gifts for the children. That was the home of John Dominus and is wife, the future Queen Lili'uokalani.The first Christmas celebration in Hawaii is believed to have occurred in 1786, when Captain George Dixon, docked aboard the Queen Charlotte in Waimea Bay on Kauai, commanded his crew to prepare a Christmas dinner that included roasted pig, pie and grog mixed with coconut milk. The English navigator then led his men in toasts to their families and friends back home.The Calvinists/Congregationalists were not inclined to observe that day with festoons and celebration; but other Christians like the Catholics, other Protestants, and Mormons did celebrate it great zeal. Those that weren't Christians could still celebrate that day in thanksgiving; and that they did. It was also a part of the Makahiki season and conducive to revelry and celebration; which of course, fit the lifestyle of the kanaka maoli regardless of what religion they practiced.The Americans celebrated their thanksgiving on the same day as we celebrate La Ku'oko'a, Independence Day on November 28th. To shroud that glorious day, they enforced their celebration of Thanksgiving Day on that date.Hawaiian National Memorial Observation, following in the path of Hawaiian ancestors who marked the 30th day of December as the Hawaiian Memorial day. This was the anniversary of our beloved Princess Nahi'ena'ena who passed away on this date in 1836, at the age of 21 years in Lahaina, Mau'i. She gave birth to a son in October 1836 and never recovered from childbirth.It's an opportunity given to members of the public who may wish to remember and memorialize Hawaiian national leaders and noteables who have passed away, both pre-American conspired invasion and occupation, and in more contemporary times of today. We should take the time to celebrate and memorialize these national holidays with great pride, nationalism, and as noble patriots of the Kingdom of Hawai'i.
Read more…

What OHA can and cannot do!

OHA CANNOT represent the Native Hawaiians or speak for the Kanaka Maoli. They are a STATE AGENCY elected by the community-at-Large. The native Hawaiians do not vote them into office. OHA can create programs and work towards the betterment of the native Hawaiians but NEVER can they be the spokespeople for the native Hawaiians.Their purpose is to be the receivership of 20% of the revenues of lands entrusted to the State by the U.S. federal government. The funds are to be used for the betterment of native Hawaiians through programs, grants, and other areas that are for the interest of the native Hawaiians. They do not speak for the Hawaiians; they disseminate funds to support those programs for them. They establish the criteria of which the native Hawaiian receives fundings and support programs that are in the best interest for the native Hawaiians in improving their conditions. Other issues are beyond their jurisdiction.They are NOT leaders of the Hawaiian community; just trustees of the monies appropriated by the State as a State Agency. That holds the same for the Bishop Estate Kamehameha Schools. They are trustees of the monies expended to the schools; they don't dictate the curriculum as that is in the hands of the president of the schools. The trustees only insure that the president will perform his duties as entrusted in parity of education for the Hawaiians with the rest of the community. Those trustees are not spokespeople for the Hawaiians nor do they represent the Hawaiian community as trustees are appointed through the State courts. They are responsible to maintain the trust and to preserve its ability to carry out the instructions of the will.The same goes for the Akaka Bill. They cannot construct an agency governing entity to represent the Native Hawaiians as a nation, especially the Hawai'i nationals with its multi-ethnic citizenry. It's their (U.S.) formation and NOT ours. They already refuse to acknowledge that and want things their own way and have the last say over the native Hawaiians as wards of the U.S.A.; regardless of our true sovereign-national status. It's the U.S. that has established racial lines and want to establish for us a governing entity to replace the still existing Kingdom of Hawai'i. It can't be done.
Read more…
And the spin goes on, eh? He would have a case if the Newlands Resolutions and the Admission Act of 1959 were legitimate and valid; but we know it's not. Racism is reverse racism since they were the ones to institute it. As a nation, we did have multi-ethnic citizenship and the U.S. barred Asians and discouraged asians from being admitted into the country. How easily they forget that. Aside from that the kanaka maoli is victimized more so because Hawai'i is their homeland and sovereign nation that interacted with over 25 nations which is more than the native Americans did; proving that Hawai'i was internationally participating as peer with the U.S. and not tribal.The other factor is they are taking apart the Apology Resolution and dissecting it, but not the Newlands Resolution. They won't touch that with a ten-foot pole! It would demolish their case as would the Statehood Act which is greatly flawed.TaneSent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 10:15 AMSubject: CATO joins in accusing us Kanaka of racism in our homeland: "Hawaii's Race Case"Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 6:38 PMSubject: Hawaii's Race Case - Dec 19, 2008CATO InstituteHawaii's Race Caseby Ilya ShapiroIlya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.Added to cato.org on December 19, 2008This article appeared in the Washington Times on December 19, 2008While it may be good for the country that this Supreme Court term mainly involves technical statutory issues (at least they can't do more harm to the Constitution!), it's a bit of a let down for those of us who follow the machinations of One First Street. One such obscure case, however, merits watching for its ramifications on the constitutional principle that all citizens should be treated equally under the law. The central issue in Hawaii v. OHA - whether Hawaii can sell certain state lands without accommodating a racialist commission called the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) - is idiosyncratic, but the case threatens to set a terrible precedent for a state that has otherwise been a model of racial harmony.In the 2000 case of Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court held that a race-based scheme allowing only statutorily defined "Hawaiians" to vote for OHA's trustees was unconstitutional. Despite Rice, and despite Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissenting statement in Plessy v. Ferguson 112 years ago that "[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," OHA continues to view Hawaiian citizens through racial lenses. This practice has spawned numerous lawsuits, including the present legal crisis in which the state's authority to manage its land for the good of all of its citizens has been replaced with a court-imposed duty to hold the land for the benefit of one racial class.Specifically, after nearly 15 years of litigation, the Hawaii Supreme Court blocked the sale of 1.2 million acres of land (29 percent of the state's total area) based on a mistaken interpretation of a joint resolution that Congress passed in 1993 to apologize for the 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. While the Apology Resolution was itself based on a slanted view of history - the propagation of which may yet lead to the creation of race-based state government (see the Akaka Bill, a subject for a different article) - the larger point is that the court rewrote the terms by which Hawaii became the 50th state.But nothing in the Apology Resolution remotely supports the idea that somehow Congress impaired (retroactively!) the property rights in question; the Resolution does not address either Hawaii's sovereign powers or its title to state lands. Further, the Newlands Resolution of 1898 (the law annexing Hawaii to the United States), as well as the Admission Act of 1959 and subsequent federal legislation, foreclose the premise that "Native Hawaiians" may have valid claims that an injunction against land sales preserve.That is, the United States obtained full sovereignty over the disputed lands when it annexed Hawaii, and the new state government assumed that sovereignty when Hawaii joined the Union. The Hawaii Supreme Court's decision, committed in the name of federal law, thus violates both state sovereignty and federal law! Moreover, the proposition that OHA gets a veto over the transfer of state lands merely because it purports to represent the interests of those who make race-based claims to those lands is an affront to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Some argue that "Native Hawaiians" are a special class who, like Indian tribes, are allowed special treatment based on racial classification. But Hawaiians are not American Indians in the constitutional sense. The term "Indian tribes" has a fixed meaning, limited to "dependent nations" at the time of the Founding. Such tribes must have an independent existence and "community" apart from the rest of American society, and a separate government structure for at least the past century.Hawaii, by contrast, is the most integrated and blended society in America. Only ten percent of "Native Hawaiians" have at least fifty percent Hawaiian blood - and only two of the nine OHA trustees have Hawaiian surnames. No, Indian law is a unique compromise with pre-constitutional realities - one based on political rather than racial classifications - that is inapplicable to Hawaii.In short, the Apology Resolution neither amended nor rescinded the federal laws that gave Hawaii full control over the disputed lands. But even if it did, race-based claims to those lands should be dismissed as unconstitutional.The Supreme Court announced in Rice the unwavering principle that "[t]he Constitution of the United States ... has become the heritage of all the citizens of Hawaii." Let's hope that it builds on that sentiment in Hawaii v. OHA. Hawaii should be allowed to transfer state lands for the benefit of all its citizens - thus eroding racial divisions and treating all Hawaiians with the legal equality to which they are entitled.Cato Supreme Court Review: 2007-2008Published every September, the Cato Supreme Court Review analyzes key cases from the Court's most recent term.
Read more…
Secret meetings about Hawai`i’s stolen (ceded) lands continued again this week.The Free Hawai`i Broadcasting Network has received word of shocking new developments. It’s disgusting and sure to make you mad, but we’ll tell you exactly what’s going on this coming Wednesday on Free Hawai`i TV. Don’t miss our stunning report.We have a brand new Voices Of Truth show this week featuring Big Island activist and Hui Pu founder Skippy Ioane.Skippy’s the kind of guy who never disappoints in his powerful insights about a Free Hawai`i and it’s people.During our visit with Skippy the most amazing things happen – see for yourself this week on Voices Of Truth – One-On-One With Hawai`i’s Future.MONDAY, December 22nd At 6:30 PM Maui – Akaku, Channel 53SATURDAY, December 27th At 8:00 PM O`ahu, `Olelo, Channel 53“Vanity & Insanity – A Visit With Skippy Ioane”You never know what’s going to happen around Hawai`i Island activist and Hui Pu founder Skippy Ioane. Thrown off the steps of `Iolani Palace during our interview when he attempts to claim it as sovereign territory, Skippy offers his own unique insights about the illegal overthrow and US occupation, and tells us the single most important thing we can do today with ceded lands. Watch It Here.MONDAY, December 22nd At 7:00 PM & FRIDAY, December 26th At 5:30 PM - Hawai`i Island – Na Leo, Channel 53“Enough For Tomorrow – A Visit With Foster Ampong”What do future economic realities say about Hawai`i? Will there be enough for everyone or will you be one of many left out? Hear what Foster says about creating a sustainable future in Hawai`i that includes everyone. Watch It Here.THURSDAY, December 25th At 8:30 PM & FRIDAY, December 26th At 8:30 AM Kaua`i – Ho`ike, Channel 52“Where Has The Water Gone? – A Visit With Johanna Kamaunu”With less and less water available for her family’s taro patch, Johanna knew something was up. Little did she realize that like drops of the missing water, what she discovered was all connected – rights to land her family was unaware they owned, previously unknown relatives, and of course where the water was going. Find out why what Johanna found opened her eyes to a new reality and changed her life forever. 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.You can watch Voices Of Truth anytime on the web.And for news and issues that affect you, watch Free Hawai`i TV, a part of the Free Hawai`i Broadcasting Network.
Read more…

Kanaka Maoli Has Its Day At UH! E Ho'omaika'i! HOLOMUA!

Yesterday, my niece, Kealohaku'ualohaku'upoki'i Balaz received her bachelor's degree in nursing. How proud we are of her personal accomplishment, fortitude, tenacity and leadership. This caused me to think of my years at the same campus.During my time, there were few Kanaka Maoli that graduated from UH; most opted to attend colleges and universities on the U.S. continent and other places in the world. At that time, the University was concerned about Kanaka Maoli attending their institution as the statistics were dismal of our people attending and advancing their careers through their education system.Back then, I was in the College of Fine Arts and my Dean formulated a three year program for me to get my degree because of the credits I achieved at my high school. My third year I had to forgo college and join the workforce and never went back to finish to get my degree. This was a disappointment and regret; but my life wasn't ruined for it. I depended on my other skills. Hawaiians are survivors and make the best of everything. LOL...There I was, sitting in the Stan Sheriff Center anticipating my niece's commencement in receiving her well-earned diploma. The keynote speaker was tolerantly listened to but we wanted to get to the graduates in honoring them. For me the impatience to see my niece up on stage receiving her diploma was all that I was there for. What else would one expect from a very proud uncle!The names recited by the announcer as they went up to receive their honors were called out one by one followed by cheers, applause instilled with great pride by the audience and fellow graduates. Excitement filled the air as the whole place electrified with anticipation. As the names were called out, I began to notice many of them had Hawaiian names. Was I imagining this or was there actually a good many Hawaiians graduating from this revered institution of ours. Did the UH fulfill its goal of incorporating as many kanaka maoli to its roster of students?With some doubt, I thought there were those who were not kanaka maoli who had Hawaiian names or names that sounded Hawaiian. The more I heard the names; the more it was revealed that they were more Hawaiians graduating than I had suspected. I magined that it was the Hawaiian Studies program that was responsible for the increase; but names were called out in other colleges within the university' various schools within its institution.A wave of sense of pride overwhelmed me as the names were mentioned. I found out that I knew some of them or their families. An honorarium of lifetime achievement pothumously given and received by her son was awarded to Winona Beamer. There was a spontaneous standing ovation to a great Hawaiian Lady, a personal friend and a woman of accomplishment we all loved her for being.Dr. Keanu Sai, at last achieved his political science goal through arduous work and research. The same goes to Ikaika Hussey, the creator of Maoliworld for his well-earned degree in the field of his study. There were other familiar graduates of whom I knew, were related to or were aware of, that I heard their names announced in the exercise that was taking place. What a great feeling it is to witness and what a day of reckoning; an awareness that the Kanaka Maoli has had its day at the University of Hawai'i and continues to have it. E ho'omaita'i ia 'outou me te aroha a pau! Holomua i loko o ta wa mahope.Tane
Read more…
CounterPunch

January 16, 2003

Hawai'i, January 16, 1893

The Rosy Dawn of US Imperialism

by GARY LEUPP

On this day 110 years ago, U.S. Marines, acting at the invitation of wealthy haole (white) sugar planters, invaded the Kingdom of Hawai'i and overthrew Queen Lili'uokalani, eighth monarch in the line of King Kamehameha I. A day, to coin a phrase, that lives in infamy. Five years later, Hawai'i was formally annexed by the U.S.; it became a U.S. "territory" in 1900, and the fiftieth state in 1959.

The inception of U.S. imperialism is generally traced to 1898, and the acquisition of an overseas empire (Puerto Rico, the Philippines) as spoils of the Spanish-American War. From that point, there was a vigorous debate in the U.S. about the pros and cons of imperialism (usually conceptualized as a policy that the government might or might not pursue, rather than as a system constituting, in Lenin's phrase, the "highest stage of capitalism"). Globally, the "new imperialism" is usually dated to the 1870s and 1880s. It's distinguished from the empire-building in the Americas and parts of Asia during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries by the fact that it was based on direct investment feeding capitalist-industrial economies (rather than the quest for gold, silver, slaves, etc.) From the 1870s, the "scramble for Africa" partitioned nearly the whole of that continent among the European powers. In Polynesia (a region generally neglected by historians, even "world historians"), Fiji, Tahiti, Hawai'i, Samoa, and Tonga were all colonized between 1870 and 1900. The last major Maori uprising in Aotearoa (New Zealand, the southwest limit of Polynesia) was suppressed by the British in 1870.

It seems to me, though, that one can trace the rosy dawn of U.S. imperialism at the very least to 1893 and the Marines' criminal action in Hawai'i, or maybe to the gunboat diplomacy of Commodore Perry's mission to Japan in 1853-4, or maybe even to the actions of American nationals in Hawai'i from the arrival of Protestant missionaries from Massachusetts in 1820. In both Hawai'i and Japan, the U.S. sought to impose what today is lauded in mainstream political and journalistic discourse as "globalization." Encouragement or creation of "free" market economies welcoming exports and foreign investment. Privatization, allowing for foreign acquisition of local resources. "Free flow" of (Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman, western) ideas. Hospitality to foreign military presence---to insure "freedom" for the right sort of people. This was the agenda of western imperialists throughout Polynesia.

The Hawaiian monarchs, one must grant, abetted the process. In 1821 Kamehameha II, fearing he would burn in hell otherwise, embraced the missionaries' fundamentalist teachings and bowed to their advice. Thereafter missionary families (usually holding both U.S. and Hawaiian citizenship, the latter graciously and foolishly conferred) came to dominate both the Hawaiian economy and its politics. (As they say in Hawai'i, in the beginning the missionaries had the Bible, and the people had the land; now the people have the Bible, and the missionaries, the land.) Submitting to missionary and sugar planter pressure, Kamehameha III agreed to discard the prior system of feudal land tenure (which insured that the maka'aina or commoners could engage in subsistence agriculture-very productive and healthy agriculture at that) with a system of private property that in short order dispossessed the great majority of Hawaiians, whose ranks were being horrifically decimated by diseases introduced from abroad. He allowed resident foreigners to vote in elections for the newly formed legislature, on a par with native Hawaiians. Fearing the mounting influence of Americans, he even began negotiating with them about the annexation of his nation on terms that would at least allow for Hawaiians' survival.

This king was succeeded by two rulers, both his nephews, who terminated discussion of annexation, sought to diminish Americans' influence over the polity, and strove to build ties with Japan (recently "opened," and an up-and-coming, soon to be imperialist power) as a counterweight to that influence. King Kalakaua (r. 1874-91) traveled the world, seeking to boost Hawai'i's prestige and insure its independence, in part through a proposed alliance with Japan. He promoted a renaissance of indigenous culture, most notably reviving the hula tradition of dance, which the missionaries had banned. (They were oh, so consternated that they couldn't crush this pagan, vile, and lewd native boogie.) On the other hand, he traded a reciprocity treaty maintaining Hawai'i's favored access to the U.S. sugar market for U.S. use of Pearl Harbor as a naval base. Worse, he bowed to the pressure of the sugar planters and agreed to a new constitution (called "the Bayonet Constitution" as it was dictated by the missionaries and planters and accompanied by the threat of his overthrow), which disenfranchised three-fourths of what had been the native Hawaiian voting population.

Kalakaua's sister Lili'uokalani succeeded him after his death. Her efforts, in response to overwhelming popular sentiment, to promulgate a new constitution restoring native rights and limiting the foreigners' influence, met with fierce resistance from members of the American business community. The latter actively plotted to arrange U.S. annexation. Their ally, U.S. Minister plenipotentiary John L. Stevens, wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State in March 1892, seeking instructions on how to proceed. "The golden hour," he declared, "is near at hand." The following January, thirteen top haole capitalists met to plan a coup, organizing a paramilitary force to lay the groundwork. Its name? Why, The Committee of Public Safety, of course. Stevens, well informed of the conspiracy, assured them that the marines aboard USS Boston in Honolulu Harbor were "ready to land at any moment" to assist their worthy civilizing annexationist goals. On January 13, the Committee of Public Safety informed the queen it planned to announce that the throne had been vacated. Shocked (as you'd be if you were her), she appealed for support to Minister Stevens, supposing that the U.S., which she had visited and much admired, and with which her government had excellent relations, would oppose the overthrow of her constitutional government. Lili'uokalani was a brilliant, highly articulate lady, composer of over a hundred songs, including the immortal Aloha Oe (and even more moving ones written during her subsequent imprisonment). But alas, so naïve.

On January 16, the Committee of Public Safety sent a letter to Stevens claiming that the queen was attempting "with armed force and threats of bloodshed" to impose a new constitution. "We are unable to protect ourselves without aid," whined the sugar barons, "and, therefore, pray for the protection of the United States forces." (Shades of Grenada, 1983, when Reagan invaded to protect the lives of U.S. medical students. We should commemorate that anniversary too.) Sure enough, boatloads of bluejackets, America's finest, were soon storming down Nuuanu Street to Stevens' office as Sanford B. Dole, son of missionaries, sugar magnate, and Supreme Court Justice, proclaimed a provisional republic "until terms of union with the United States have been negotiated." Dole became the first president of the Hawaiian Republic. (Compare Texas, 1836.)

Thus Lili'uokalani was shunted aside, and in an effort to avoid bloodshed, she agreed to "yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shallundo the action of its representative" But sympathy for her remained strong, and while authorities in Washington debated the pros and cons of annexing Hawai'i, supporters of the queen led by Robert Wilcox (formally an anti-monarchist but now inclined to support the queen's cause against foreign aggression) quite reasonably plotted an insurrection. (Meanwhile racism pervaded the entire discourse about annexation in the U.S. The pro side said, "Let's expand into the Pacific in accordance with God's plan, make money and civilize those South Sea savages." The con side said, "We don't want or need any more dangerous, lascivious negro citizens in this country." Newly elected President Grover Cleveland for his part strongly condemned Lili'uokalani's overthrow and called for her restoration to the throne. In response, thug Dole---who has streets named after him---criticized Washington's "interference in the internal affairs" of Hawai'i!)

Wilcox's pro-Queen rebellion was aborted in January 1894, and on January 16, a year after her overthrow, the queen was arrested. Officials of the republic found a respectable cache of arms at her residence, including 21 bombs (some made with coconut shells), as well as 30 rifles.

[Digression about coconuts and their usage. Many consider the production of pottery a hallmark of cultural advance. Historically, the potter's wheel and ceramic production tend to accompany the beginnings of agriculture; grains and other foodstuffs are stored in and served on dishes. But while Polynesian peoples on the Bismarck Peninsula pioneered in ceramic production some 3500 years ago (the Lapita culture), pottery did not become generally diffused throughout Polynesia. Why? Because intelligent people decided it was easier to use gourds, koa wood, coconuts etc. to serve the same purpose as pottery. Now, the coconut (Cocos nucifera) includes a thick hardy grenade of fibrous husk. It contains a fruit easy to remove, and "milk" from which I recommend you prepare haupia pudding (there are recipes on the net) before proceeding. Then you can use the shell to serve or store macadamia nuts, coffee beans, ohelo berries, pickled plums, dried squid, explosive materials, and so on. Creative, practical minds around Lili'uokalani contrived coconut bombs. I don't know what happened to them; perhaps there is one on display in the Bishop Museum in Honolulu.]

Potential terror-bomber Lili'uokalani was charged with treason, of all things, and placed under house arrest. After nine months, and the sentencing of five of her supporters to death, she acceded to another "forced abdication" in part to win clemency for her supporters. Justice was served; she was sentenced to five years at hard labor and fined five thousand dollars.

The sentence was not carried out, but a fine United Press correspondent, one Reverend Sereno Bishop of the prestigious Bishop missionary family (which founded the aforementioned Bishop Museum, a big Honolulu tourist attraction), a man who had earlier described the queen to the world as a pious Christian lady (which she was, actually) now eagerly endeavored to tarnish her reputation and thereby justify her removal. The queen had been manipulated, he revealed, by sorcerers (kahunas or native priests). She had made sacrifices to the native volcano goddess Pele, and promoted the salacious hula. Worst of all, she was really the bastard daughter of a "negro blackboot." Pure disinformation, of course, of a type that people who watch CNN and read the New York Times may be familiar with. Queen Lili'uokalani died peacefully at age 79, in November 1917 (that most decisive and hopeful of months in modern history), accorded the priceless gift of U.S. citizenship, and grieving for her colonized people, who'd owned all the land in 1800, 10% of the land in 1893, and almost none of it at her death.

So this is the edifying tale of the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom. Greed, arrogance, bigotry, racism, lies, terror, treachery, deceit. The U.S. Congress pretty much conceded that ten years ago, offering a formal apology (Joint Resolution 19; see Congressional Record, vol. 139). "But wasn't it all worth it in the end?" you might ask. "I mean, isn't anybody better off being part of the U.S.A.?" Indeed, being a citizen of an imperialist country has its advantages, unevenly distributed though they may be. Having lived in Hawai'i during eleven of my most formative years, I can attest that life can be very, very pleasant even on islands dominated physically and economically by the U.S. military, a tourist industry that degrades and prostitutes the local people and culture, and a declining tropical agriculture. (Sugar operations finally collapsed during the last decade, just not competitive in the global economy anymore. The sugar capital's gone to real estate, finance, tourism, macademia nuts, Kona coffee, etc.) I fervently believe that Hawai'i no ka oi (There's no better place than Hawai'i.) But that's despite the fact that the system sucks. It's because the land, sky, sea and most of all the multiethnic people are so beautiful.

The seizure of the Hawaiian nation, in any case, wasn't about improving the lot of a people systematically dispossessed and disenfranchised by the annexationists, any more than the de facto U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is about helping Afghans, or the coming war with Iraq about liberating that nation's people. It was about more fully empowering the already powerful, and making the wealthy wealthier, squeezing profits out of coolie labor like you squeeze sweet sap out of sugarcane stalks. It was an early instance of U.S. imperialism, supported ideologically by religious fundamentalism and racism, and justified by bald-faced lies. Unfortunately, it's not even one of the ugliest examples, and probably nowhere near the last.

But best to have faith that someday, imperialism will be all over. The past holds lessons we can build upon, striving towards that end. So here's to anti-imperialist Queen Lili'uokalani, to rebel Wilcox, and to any well-considered use of Cocos nucifera, or other tropical agricultural products, to abet the cause of human liberation, in Polynesia or elsewhere.

Gary Leupp is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts University and coordinator, Asian Studies Program.

He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu

..KU I KA PONO Dec. 26, 2008 Washington Place ..

history4.jpg
Read more…
CounterPunchJanuary 16, 2003Hawai'i, January 16, 1893The Rosy Dawn of US Imperialismby GARY LEUPPOn this day 110 years ago, U.S. Marines, acting at the invitation of wealthy haole (white) sugar planters, invaded the Kingdom of Hawai'i and overthrew Queen Lili'uokalani, eighth monarch in the line of King Kamehameha I. A day, to coin a phrase, that lives in infamy. Five years later, Hawai'i was formally annexed by the U.S.; it became a U.S. "territory" in 1900, and the fiftieth state in 1959.The inception of U.S. imperialism is generally traced to 1898, and the acquisition of an overseas empire (Puerto Rico, the Philippines) as spoils of the Spanish-American War. From that point, there was a vigorous debate in the U.S. about the pros and cons of imperialism (usually conceptualized as a policy that the government might or might not pursue, rather than as a system constituting, in Lenin's phrase, the "highest stage of capitalism"). Globally, the "new imperialism" is usually dated to the 1870s and 1880s. It's distinguished from the empire-building in the Americas and parts of Asia during the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries by the fact that it was based on direct investment feeding capitalist-industrial economies (rather than the quest for gold, silver, slaves, etc.) From the 1870s, the "scramble for Africa" partitioned nearly the whole of that continent among the European powers. In Polynesia (a region generally neglected by historians, even "world historians"), Fiji, Tahiti, Hawai'i, Samoa, and Tonga were all colonized between 1870 and 1900. The last major Maori uprising in Aotearoa (New Zealand, the southwest limit of Polynesia) was suppressed by the British in 1870.It seems to me, though, that one can trace the rosy dawn of U.S. imperialism at the very least to 1893 and the Marines' criminal action in Hawai'i, or maybe to the gunboat diplomacy of Commodore Perry's mission to Japan in 1853-4, or maybe even to the actions of American nationals in Hawai'i from the arrival of Protestant missionaries from Massachusetts in 1820. In both Hawai'i and Japan, the U.S. sought to impose what today is lauded in mainstream political and journalistic discourse as "globalization." Encouragement or creation of "free" market economies welcoming exports and foreign investment. Privatization, allowing for foreign acquisition of local resources. "Free flow" of (Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman, western) ideas. Hospitality to foreign military presence---to insure "freedom" for the right sort of people. This was the agenda of western imperialists throughout Polynesia.The Hawaiian monarchs, one must grant, abetted the process. In 1821 Kamehameha II, fearing he would burn in hell otherwise, embraced the missionaries' fundamentalist teachings and bowed to their advice. Thereafter missionary families (usually holding both U.S. and Hawaiian citizenship, the latter graciously and foolishly conferred) came to dominate both the Hawaiian economy and its politics. (As they say in Hawai'i, in the beginning the missionaries had the Bible, and the people had the land; now the people have the Bible, and the missionaries, the land.) Submitting to missionary and sugar planter pressure, Kamehameha III agreed to discard the prior system of feudal land tenure (which insured that the maka'aina or commoners could engage in subsistence agriculture-very productive and healthy agriculture at that) with a system of private property that in short order dispossessed the great majority of Hawaiians, whose ranks were being horrifically decimated by diseases introduced from abroad. He allowed resident foreigners to vote in elections for the newly formed legislature, on a par with native Hawaiians. Fearing the mounting influence of Americans, he even began negotiating with them about the annexation of his nation on terms that would at least allow for Hawaiians' survival.This king was succeeded by two rulers, both his nephews, who terminated discussion of annexation, sought to diminish Americans' influence over the polity, and strove to build ties with Japan (recently "opened," and an up-and-coming, soon to be imperialist power) as a counterweight to that influence. King Kalakaua (r. 1874-91) traveled the world, seeking to boost Hawai'i's prestige and insure its independence, in part through a proposed alliance with Japan. He promoted a renaissance of indigenous culture, most notably reviving the hula tradition of dance, which the missionaries had banned. (They were oh, so consternated that they couldn't crush this pagan, vile, and lewd native boogie.) On the other hand, he traded a reciprocity treaty maintaining Hawai'i's favored access to the U.S. sugar market for U.S. use of Pearl Harbor as a naval base. Worse, he bowed to the pressure of the sugar planters and agreed to a new constitution (called "the Bayonet Constitution" as it was dictated by the missionaries and planters and accompanied by the threat of his overthrow), which disenfranchised three-fourths of what had been the native Hawaiian voting population.Kalakaua's sister Lili'uokalani succeeded him after his death. Her efforts, in response to overwhelming popular sentiment, to promulgate a new constitution restoring native rights and limiting the foreigners' influence, met with fierce resistance from members of the American business community. The latter actively plotted to arrange U.S. annexation. Their ally, U.S. Minister plenipotentiary John L. Stevens, wrote to the U.S. Secretary of State in March 1892, seeking instructions on how to proceed. "The golden hour," he declared, "is near at hand." The following January, thirteen top haole capitalists met to plan a coup, organizing a paramilitary force to lay the groundwork. Its name? Why, The Committee of Public Safety, of course. Stevens, well informed of the conspiracy, assured them that the marines aboard USS Boston in Honolulu Harbor were "ready to land at any moment" to assist their worthy civilizing annexationist goals. On January 13, the Committee of Public Safety informed the queen it planned to announce that the throne had been vacated. Shocked (as you'd be if you were her), she appealed for support to Minister Stevens, supposing that the U.S., which she had visited and much admired, and with which her government had excellent relations, would oppose the overthrow of her constitutional government. Lili'uokalani was a brilliant, highly articulate lady, composer of over a hundred songs, including the immortal Aloha Oe (and even more moving ones written during her subsequent imprisonment). But alas, so naïve.On January 16, the Committee of Public Safety sent a letter to Stevens claiming that the queen was attempting "with armed force and threats of bloodshed" to impose a new constitution. "We are unable to protect ourselves without aid," whined the sugar barons, "and, therefore, pray for the protection of the United States forces." (Shades of Grenada, 1983, when Reagan invaded to protect the lives of U.S. medical students. We should commemorate that anniversary too.) Sure enough, boatloads of bluejackets, America's finest, were soon storming down Nuuanu Street to Stevens' office as Sanford B. Dole, son of missionaries, sugar magnate, and Supreme Court Justice, proclaimed a provisional republic "until terms of union with the United States have been negotiated." Dole became the first president of the Hawaiian Republic. (Compare Texas, 1836.)Thus Lili'uokalani was shunted aside, and in an effort to avoid bloodshed, she agreed to "yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shallundo the action of its representative" But sympathy for her remained strong, and while authorities in Washington debated the pros and cons of annexing Hawai'i, supporters of the queen led by Robert Wilcox (formally an anti-monarchist but now inclined to support the queen's cause against foreign aggression) quite reasonably plotted an insurrection. (Meanwhile racism pervaded the entire discourse about annexation in the U.S. The pro side said, "Let's expand into the Pacific in accordance with God's plan, make money and civilize those South Sea savages." The con side said, "We don't want or need any more dangerous, lascivious negro citizens in this country." Newly elected President Grover Cleveland for his part strongly condemned Lili'uokalani's overthrow and called for her restoration to the throne. In response, thug Dole---who has streets named after him---criticized Washington's "interference in the internal affairs" of Hawai'i!)Wilcox's pro-Queen rebellion was aborted in January 1894, and on January 16, a year after her overthrow, the queen was arrested. Officials of the republic found a respectable cache of arms at her residence, including 21 bombs (some made with coconut shells), as well as 30 rifles.[Digression about coconuts and their usage. Many consider the production of pottery a hallmark of cultural advance. Historically, the potter's wheel and ceramic production tend to accompany the beginnings of agriculture; grains and other foodstuffs are stored in and served on dishes. But while Polynesian peoples on the Bismarck Peninsula pioneered in ceramic production some 3500 years ago (the Lapita culture), pottery did not become generally diffused throughout Polynesia. Why? Because intelligent people decided it was easier to use gourds, koa wood, coconuts etc. to serve the same purpose as pottery. Now, the coconut (Cocos nucifera) includes a thick hardy grenade of fibrous husk. It contains a fruit easy to remove, and "milk" from which I recommend you prepare haupia pudding (there are recipes on the net) before proceeding. Then you can use the shell to serve or store macadamia nuts, coffee beans, ohelo berries, pickled plums, dried squid, explosive materials, and so on. Creative, practical minds around Lili'uokalani contrived coconut bombs. I don't know what happened to them; perhaps there is one on display in the Bishop Museum in Honolulu.]Potential terror-bomber Lili'uokalani was charged with treason, of all things, and placed under house arrest. After nine months, and the sentencing of five of her supporters to death, she acceded to another "forced abdication" in part to win clemency for her supporters. Justice was served; she was sentenced to five years at hard labor and fined five thousand dollars.The sentence was not carried out, but a fine United Press correspondent, one Reverend Sereno Bishop of the prestigious Bishop missionary family (which founded the aforementioned Bishop Museum, a big Honolulu tourist attraction), a man who had earlier described the queen to the world as a pious Christian lady (which she was, actually) now eagerly endeavored to tarnish her reputation and thereby justify her removal. The queen had been manipulated, he revealed, by sorcerers (kahunas or native priests). She had made sacrifices to the native volcano goddess Pele, and promoted the salacious hula. Worst of all, she was really the bastard daughter of a "negro blackboot." Pure disinformation, of course, of a type that people who watch CNN and read the New York Times may be familiar with. Queen Lili'uokalani died peacefully at age 79, in November 1917 (that most decisive and hopeful of months in modern history), accorded the priceless gift of U.S. citizenship, and grieving for her colonized people, who'd owned all the land in 1800, 10% of the land in 1893, and almost none of it at her death.So this is the edifying tale of the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom. Greed, arrogance, bigotry, racism, lies, terror, treachery, deceit. The U.S. Congress pretty much conceded that ten years ago, offering a formal apology (Joint Resolution 19; see Congressional Record, vol. 139). "But wasn't it all worth it in the end?" you might ask. "I mean, isn't anybody better off being part of the U.S.A.?" Indeed, being a citizen of an imperialist country has its advantages, unevenly distributed though they may be. Having lived in Hawai'i during eleven of my most formative years, I can attest that life can be very, very pleasant even on islands dominated physically and economically by the U.S. military, a tourist industry that degrades and prostitutes the local people and culture, and a declining tropical agriculture. (Sugar operations finally collapsed during the last decade, just not competitive in the global economy anymore. The sugar capital's gone to real estate, finance, tourism, macademia nuts, Kona coffee, etc.) I fervently believe that Hawai'i no ka oi (There's no better place than Hawai'i.) But that's despite the fact that the system sucks. It's because the land, sky, sea and most of all the multiethnic people are so beautiful.The seizure of the Hawaiian nation, in any case, wasn't about improving the lot of a people systematically dispossessed and disenfranchised by the annexationists, any more than the de facto U.S. occupation of Afghanistan is about helping Afghans, or the coming war with Iraq about liberating that nation's people. It was about more fully empowering the already powerful, and making the wealthy wealthier, squeezing profits out of coolie labor like you squeeze sweet sap out of sugarcane stalks. It was an early instance of U.S. imperialism, supported ideologically by religious fundamentalism and racism, and justified by bald-faced lies. Unfortunately, it's not even one of the ugliest examples, and probably nowhere near the last.But best to have faith that someday, imperialism will be all over. The past holds lessons we can build upon, striving towards that end. So here's to anti-imperialist Queen Lili'uokalani, to rebel Wilcox, and to any well-considered use of Cocos nucifera, or other tropical agricultural products, to abet the cause of human liberation, in Polynesia or elsewhere.Gary Leupp is an an associate professor, Department of History, Tufts University and coordinator, Asian Studies Program.He can be reached at: gleupp@tufts.edu
Read more…
Free Hawai`i means returning the Hawaiian Islands back to an independent nation status, as it was before it was illegally overthrown by US marines and rich sugar barons in 1893. In 1993, President Clinton formally apologized for that act and publicly acknowledged the illegality of the overthrow.DID YOU KNOW -98% of all Hawaiians living at the time opposed the illegal overthrow!Today, less than 20% of all land in Hawai`i is in Hawaiian hands. Over 60% today is in non-Hawaiian hands!A few individuals, who are non-Hawaiian, lease an amount of land in Hawai`i that is greater than all land leased to all Native Hawaiians! Currently, only 72 landowners control 95% of all land in Hawai`i.Native Hawaiians make up the largest percentage of homeless in Hawai`i today.Native Hawaiians have the worst social, educational and economic indicators compared to any ethnic group in the US.Native Hawaiians currently have the worst health profile compared to any ethnic group in the US.Descendants of the Hawaiian Nation want their country and land back so they can grow their own foods, become healthy once again, and control their own destiny.Hawai`i Was A Free Nation - But Never Free For The Taking!
Read more…

The HAWAIIAN FACTOR by: Leon Siu

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
Read more…

WILL HAWAI`I HIGH COURT GROUND THE SUPERFERRY?

Illegal Operation Without Environmental Impact Statement Is FocusAn attorney for three Maui groups told the Hawai`i Supreme Court Thursday that a law permitting the Hawai`i Superferry to operate while an environmental impact study is conducted is unconstitutional.Isaac Hall’s arguments came as the high court heard a legal challenge to special legislation passed by the Hawai`i Legislature in October 2007.Hall, representing the Sierra Club, Maui Tomorrow and the Kahului Harbor Coalition, said the legislation, called Act 2, benefited only a single entity.“Act 2 was conceived, cut and tailored for Hawai`i Superferry alone,” he said. “That’s what this [case] is about.”
Read more…

Why we are caught up in this economic dilemma...

In order to be in business one should have products and services reasonably priced and employees paid decent, liveable wages. Thus for consumers, their earnings should be liveable to afford the prices that are demanded. It's a cycle and when one goes out of order, it breaks that cycle. The parity of earning power and costs of living has widened over the scores of years and has come to a head that everything fails. This formula was broken a long time ago when the businesses got greedy for more profits and price gouging and not raising employees' wages. So, let's not be surprised with the ultimate outcome.
Read more…
The Hawaii State Auditor today released a report finding the Hawai`i Superferry legislation compromised the state's environmental laws and set a worrisome precedent that put the interests of a single company ahead of state responsibilities.The auditor also found that $40 million in state harbor improvements for the Superferry project could be in question if Superferry configures both of its high-speed catamarans with on-board ramps that could used as alternatives to the state's ramps and barges.The Hawaii Supreme Court will hear arguments on the Superferry case this morning. At issue is whether the Superferry can continue to operate without an environmental impact statement being completed first, as well as the validity of legislation written to benefit a single company.
Read more…