Showing posts with label Occupation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Occupation. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 05, 2019
FREE HAWAI`I TV
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"WHO ARE THE PREDATORS COMING AFTER YOU?"
Did You Know Youʻʻre Living In The End Game Of The Fake State Of Hawai`i?
Itʻs Not Only About Winners & Losers Coming Into Sharper Focus.
Itʻs Also About Whoʻs In Control & What Theyʻre Planning Next.
Watch This To See Who They Are & What Theyʻre Selling Next.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"WHO ARE THE PREDATORS COMING AFTER YOU?"
Did You Know Youʻʻre Living In The End Game Of The Fake State Of Hawai`i?
Itʻs Not Only About Winners & Losers Coming Into Sharper Focus.
Itʻs Also About Whoʻs In Control & What Theyʻre Planning Next.
Watch This To See Who They Are & What Theyʻre Selling Next.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
Thursday, November 08, 2018
HEREʻS THE ARTICLE MENTIONED ON FREE HAWAI`I TV YESTERDAY
NEA Today - October 1, 2018 - By Chris Santomauro
In his message to the Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland acknowledged that the Hawaiian Kingdom was unlawfully invaded by United States marines on January 16, 1893, which led to an illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government the following day. The President told the Congress that he “instructed Minister Willis to advise the Queen and her supporters of [his] desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing before the lawless landing of the United States forces at Honolulu on the 16th of January last, if such restoration could be effected upon terms providing for clemency as well as justice to all parties concerned (U.S House of Representatives, 53d Cong., Executive Documents on Affairs in Hawaii: 1894-95, p. 458).”
What the President didn’t know at the time he gave his message was that Minister Willis succeeded in securing an agreement with the Queen that committed the United States to restore her as the Executive Monarch, and, thereafter, the Queen committed to granting amnesty to the insurgents. International law recognizes this executive agreement as a treaty. The President, however, did not carry out his duty under the treaty to restore the Queen, and, consequently, the Queen did not grant amnesty to the insurgents. The state of war continued.
On July 3, 1894, the insurgents renamed themselves the Republic of Hawai‘i and continued to seek annexation with the United States. Article 32 of its so-called constitution states, “The President, with the approval of the Cabinet, is hereby expressly authorized and empowered to make a Treaty of Political or Commercial Union between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of the Senate.” The insurgents always sought to be annexed by the United States.
After President William McKinley succeeded President Cleveland in office he entered into a treaty of annexation with the insurgents on June 16, 1897, in Washington, D.C. The following day, Queen Lili‘uokalani, who was also in Washington, submitted a formal protest with the State Department. Her protest stated:
Additional protests were filed with the State Department by two Hawaiian political organizations—the Men and Women’s Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha ‘Aina), and the Hawaiian Political Association (Hui Kalai‘aina). President McKinley ignored these protests and was preparing to submit the so-called treaty for ratification by the Senate when the Congress would reconvene in December of 1897.
This prompted the Hawaiian Patriotic League to gather of 21,169 signatures from the Hawaiian citizenry and residents throughout the islands opposing annexation. On December 9, 1897, Senator George Hoar of Massachusetts entered the petition into the Senate record.
Under the Queen’s instructions, the delegates from the two Hawaiian political organizations who were in Washington began to meet with Senators who supported ratifying the so-called treaty. Sixty votes were necessary to accomplish ratification and there were already fifty-eight commitments. By the time the Hawaiian delegation left Washington on February 27, 1897, they had successfully chiseled the fifty-eight
Senators in support of annexation down to forty-six.
Unable to garner the necessary sixty votes, the so-called treaty was dead by March, yet war with Spain was looming over the horizon, and Hawai‘i would have to face the belligerency of the United States once again. American military interest would be the driving forces to fortify the islands as an outpost to protect the United States from foreign invasion.
Three days later in Washington, D.C., Congressman Francis Newlands submitted a joint resolution for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 4. On May 17, the joint resolution was reported out of the committee and headed to the floor of the House of Representatives.
On June 15, 1898, Congressman Thomas H. Ball from Texas emphatically stated, “The annexation of Hawai‘i by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unwise. …Why, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully (31 Cong. Rec. 5975).”
When the resolution reached the Senate, Senator Augustus Bacon from Georgia sarcastically remarked that, the “friends of annexation, seeing that it was not possible to make this treaty in the manner pointed out by the Constitution, attempted then to nullify the provision of in the Constitution by putting that treaty in the form of a statute, and here we have embodied the provisions of the treaty in the joint resolution which comes to us from the House (31 Cong. Rec. 6150).” Senator Bacon further explained, “That a joint resolution for the annexation of foreign territory was necessarily and essentially the subject matter of a treaty, and that it could not be accomplished legally and constitutionally by a statute or joint resolution (31 Cong. Rec. 6148).”
Despite the objections from Senators and Representatives, it managed to get a majority vote and President McKinley signed the joint resolution into law on July 7, 1898. The military buildup began in August of 1898 with the first army base in Waikiki called Camp McKinley. Today there are 118 military sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands and it serves as the headquarters for the United States Indo-Pacific Command.
Many government officials and constitutional scholars could not explain how a joint resolution could have the extra-territorial force and effect of a treaty in annexing Hawai‘i, a foreign and sovereign state. During the 19th century, Born states, “American courts, commentators, and other authorities understood international law as imposing strict territorial limits on national assertions of legislative jurisdiction (Gary Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, p. 493).”
In 1824, the United Supreme Court explained that, “the legislation of every country is territorial,” and that the “laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territory (Rose v. Himely, 8 U.S. 241, p. 279),” for it would be “at variance with the independence and sovereignty of foreign nations (The Apollon, 22 U.S. 362, p. 370).”
In violation of international law and the treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom, the United States maintained the insurgents’ control until the Congress could reorganize the insurgency so that it would look like a government. On April 30, 1900, the U.S. Congress changed the name of the Republic of Hawai‘i to the Territory of Hawai‘i. Later, on March 18, 1959, the U.S. Congress, again by statute, changed the name of the Territory of Hawai‘i to the State of Hawai‘i.
In 1988, Acting Assistant United States Attorney General, Douglas W. Kmiec, drew attention to this American dilemma in a memorandum opinion written for the Legal Advisor for the Department of State regarding legal issues raised by the proposed Presidential proclamation to extend the territorial sea from a three-mile limit to twelve (Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, vol. 12, p. 238-263). After concluding that only the President and not the Congress possesses “the constitutional authority to assert either sovereignty over an extended territorial sea or jurisdiction over it under international law on behalf of the United States (Id., p. 242),” Kmiec also concluded that it was “unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea (Id., p. 262).”
Kmiec cited United States constitutional scholar Westel Woodbury Willoughby, who wrote in 1929, “The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act. …Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature enacted it (Id., p. 252).”
In 1910, Willoughby wrote, “The incorporation of one sovereign State, such as was Hawaii prior to annexation, in the territory of another, is…essentially a matter falling within the domain of international relations, and, therefore, beyond the reach of legislative acts (Willoughby, The Constitutional Law of the United States, vol. 1, p. 345).”
“As a professor of international law, the former Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee, co-author of book, The United Nations Human Rights Committee Case Law 1977-2008, and currently serving as the UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and a fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (the Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of the laws of the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom), not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States).”
A state of peace between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States was transformed to a state of war when United States troops invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 16, 1893, and illegally overthrew the Hawaiian government the following day. Only by way of a treaty of peace can the state of affairs be transformed back to a state of peace. The 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, mentioned by the UN official regulate the occupying State during a state of war.
NEA Today - October 1, 2018 - By Chris Santomauro
In his message to the Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland acknowledged that the Hawaiian Kingdom was unlawfully invaded by United States marines on January 16, 1893, which led to an illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government the following day. The President told the Congress that he “instructed Minister Willis to advise the Queen and her supporters of [his] desire to aid in the restoration of the status existing before the lawless landing of the United States forces at Honolulu on the 16th of January last, if such restoration could be effected upon terms providing for clemency as well as justice to all parties concerned (U.S House of Representatives, 53d Cong., Executive Documents on Affairs in Hawaii: 1894-95, p. 458).”
What the President didn’t know at the time he gave his message was that Minister Willis succeeded in securing an agreement with the Queen that committed the United States to restore her as the Executive Monarch, and, thereafter, the Queen committed to granting amnesty to the insurgents. International law recognizes this executive agreement as a treaty. The President, however, did not carry out his duty under the treaty to restore the Queen, and, consequently, the Queen did not grant amnesty to the insurgents. The state of war continued.
Insurgency Continues to Seek Annexation to the United States
President Cleveland acknowledged that those individuals who he sought the Queen’s consent to grant amnesty were not a government at all. In fact, he stated they were “neither a government de facto nor de jure (p. 453).” Instead, the President referred to these individuals as “insurgents (Id.),” which by definition are rebels who revolt against an established government. Under Chapter VI of the Hawaiian Penal Code a revolt against the government is treason, which carries the punishment of death and property of the convicted is seized by the Hawaiian government.On July 3, 1894, the insurgents renamed themselves the Republic of Hawai‘i and continued to seek annexation with the United States. Article 32 of its so-called constitution states, “The President, with the approval of the Cabinet, is hereby expressly authorized and empowered to make a Treaty of Political or Commercial Union between the Republic of Hawaii and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of the Senate.” The insurgents always sought to be annexed by the United States.
After President William McKinley succeeded President Cleveland in office he entered into a treaty of annexation with the insurgents on June 16, 1897, in Washington, D.C. The following day, Queen Lili‘uokalani, who was also in Washington, submitted a formal protest with the State Department. Her protest stated:
“I, Liliuokalani of Hawaii, by the will of God named heir apparent on the tenth day of April, A.D. 1877, and by the grace of God Queen of the Hawaiian Islands on the seventeenth day of January, A.D. 1893, do hereby protest against the ratification of a certain treaty, which, so I am informed, has been signed at Washington by Messrs. Hatch, Thurston, and Kinney, purporting to cede those Islands to the territory and dominion of the United States. I declare such a treaty to be an act of wrong toward the native and part-native people of Hawaii, an invasion of the rights of the ruling chiefs, in violation of international rights both toward my people and toward friendly nations with whom they have made treaties, the perpetuation of the fraud whereby the constitutional government was overthrown, and, finally, an act of gross injustice to me.”
Additional protests were filed with the State Department by two Hawaiian political organizations—the Men and Women’s Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha ‘Aina), and the Hawaiian Political Association (Hui Kalai‘aina). President McKinley ignored these protests and was preparing to submit the so-called treaty for ratification by the Senate when the Congress would reconvene in December of 1897.
This prompted the Hawaiian Patriotic League to gather of 21,169 signatures from the Hawaiian citizenry and residents throughout the islands opposing annexation. On December 9, 1897, Senator George Hoar of Massachusetts entered the petition into the Senate record.
Under the Queen’s instructions, the delegates from the two Hawaiian political organizations who were in Washington began to meet with Senators who supported ratifying the so-called treaty. Sixty votes were necessary to accomplish ratification and there were already fifty-eight commitments. By the time the Hawaiian delegation left Washington on February 27, 1897, they had successfully chiseled the fifty-eight
Senators in support of annexation down to forty-six.
Unable to garner the necessary sixty votes, the so-called treaty was dead by March, yet war with Spain was looming over the horizon, and Hawai‘i would have to face the belligerency of the United States once again. American military interest would be the driving forces to fortify the islands as an outpost to protect the United States from foreign invasion.
Annexation by Legislation
On April 25, 1897, one month after the treaty was killed, Congress declared war on Spain. The Spanish-American War was not waged in Spain, but rather in the Spanish colonies of Puerto Rico and Cuba in the Caribbean, and in the colonies of the Philippines and Guam in the Pacific. On May 1, 1898, Commodore George Dewey defeated the Spanish fleet at Manila Bay in the Philippines.Three days later in Washington, D.C., Congressman Francis Newlands submitted a joint resolution for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to House Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 4. On May 17, the joint resolution was reported out of the committee and headed to the floor of the House of Representatives.
On June 15, 1898, Congressman Thomas H. Ball from Texas emphatically stated, “The annexation of Hawai‘i by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unwise. …Why, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully (31 Cong. Rec. 5975).”
Despite the objections from Senators and Representatives, it managed to get a majority vote and President McKinley signed the joint resolution into law on July 7, 1898. The military buildup began in August of 1898 with the first army base in Waikiki called Camp McKinley. Today there are 118 military sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands and it serves as the headquarters for the United States Indo-Pacific Command.
Many government officials and constitutional scholars could not explain how a joint resolution could have the extra-territorial force and effect of a treaty in annexing Hawai‘i, a foreign and sovereign state. During the 19th century, Born states, “American courts, commentators, and other authorities understood international law as imposing strict territorial limits on national assertions of legislative jurisdiction (Gary Born, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, p. 493).”
In 1824, the United Supreme Court explained that, “the legislation of every country is territorial,” and that the “laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territory (Rose v. Himely, 8 U.S. 241, p. 279),” for it would be “at variance with the independence and sovereignty of foreign nations (The Apollon, 22 U.S. 362, p. 370).”
In violation of international law and the treaties with the Hawaiian Kingdom, the United States maintained the insurgents’ control until the Congress could reorganize the insurgency so that it would look like a government. On April 30, 1900, the U.S. Congress changed the name of the Republic of Hawai‘i to the Territory of Hawai‘i. Later, on March 18, 1959, the U.S. Congress, again by statute, changed the name of the Territory of Hawai‘i to the State of Hawai‘i.
In 1988, Acting Assistant United States Attorney General, Douglas W. Kmiec, drew attention to this American dilemma in a memorandum opinion written for the Legal Advisor for the Department of State regarding legal issues raised by the proposed Presidential proclamation to extend the territorial sea from a three-mile limit to twelve (Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, vol. 12, p. 238-263). After concluding that only the President and not the Congress possesses “the constitutional authority to assert either sovereignty over an extended territorial sea or jurisdiction over it under international law on behalf of the United States (Id., p. 242),” Kmiec also concluded that it was “unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution. Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawaii can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea (Id., p. 262).”
Kmiec cited United States constitutional scholar Westel Woodbury Willoughby, who wrote in 1929, “The constitutionality of the annexation of Hawaii, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act. …Only by means of treaties, it was asserted, can the relations between States be governed, for a legislative act is necessarily without extraterritorial force—confined in its operation to the territory of the State by whose legislature enacted it (Id., p. 252).”
In 1910, Willoughby wrote, “The incorporation of one sovereign State, such as was Hawaii prior to annexation, in the territory of another, is…essentially a matter falling within the domain of international relations, and, therefore, beyond the reach of legislative acts (Willoughby, The Constitutional Law of the United States, vol. 1, p. 345).”
United Nations Acknowledges the Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom
In a communication to the State of Hawai‘i dated February 25, 2018 from Dr. Alfred M. deZayas, a United Nations Independent Expert, the UN official acknowledged the prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. He wrote:“As a professor of international law, the former Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee, co-author of book, The United Nations Human Rights Committee Case Law 1977-2008, and currently serving as the UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, I have come to understand that the lawful political status of the Hawaiian Islands is that of a sovereign nation-state that is under a strange form of occupation by the United States resulting from an illegal military occupation and a fraudulent annexation. As such, international laws (the Hague and Geneva Conventions) require that governance and legal matters within the occupied territory of the Hawaiian Islands must be administered by the application of the laws of the occupied state (in this case, the Hawaiian Kingdom), not the domestic laws of the occupier (the United States).”
A state of peace between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States was transformed to a state of war when United States troops invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom on January 16, 1893, and illegally overthrew the Hawaiian government the following day. Only by way of a treaty of peace can the state of affairs be transformed back to a state of peace. The 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, mentioned by the UN official regulate the occupying State during a state of war.
Wednesday, November 07, 2018
FREE HAWAI`I TV
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"THEY SEE THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL"
Itʻs Getting Harder & Harder To Avoid & Cover Up.
Recently A US National Education Group Published An Article About It.
Now Theyʻre Making Sure Itʻs Taught In Schools Across The US.
Watch This To See What It Is & Why More Every Day Are Seeing The Handwriting On The Wall.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"THEY SEE THE HANDWRITING ON THE WALL"
Itʻs Getting Harder & Harder To Avoid & Cover Up.
Recently A US National Education Group Published An Article About It.
Now Theyʻre Making Sure Itʻs Taught In Schools Across The US.
Watch This To See What It Is & Why More Every Day Are Seeing The Handwriting On The Wall.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
FREE HAWAI`I TV
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"IS IT TREASON TO VOTE IN OHA ELECTIONS?"
Why Would Someone Who Opposes The US Occupation Of Hawai`i Vote In Office Of Hawaiian Affairs Elections?
Wouldnʻt Voting Acknowledge The Overthrow & Occupation As Legitimate?
Couldnʻt It Even Be Considered An Act Of Treason?
Watch This For Answers & See How Voting In The Upcoming OHA Election Might Be Something Very Different Instead.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"IS IT TREASON TO VOTE IN OHA ELECTIONS?"
Why Would Someone Who Opposes The US Occupation Of Hawai`i Vote In Office Of Hawaiian Affairs Elections?
Wouldnʻt Voting Acknowledge The Overthrow & Occupation As Legitimate?
Couldnʻt It Even Be Considered An Act Of Treason?
Watch This For Answers & See How Voting In The Upcoming OHA Election Might Be Something Very Different Instead.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
FREE HAWAI`I TV
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"WHO IS SUCKING HAWAI`I DRY?"
Billions Of Dollars From Crude Oil Sales Pour Into Middle Eastern Countries Every Year.
Poverty Has Been Eradicated In Those Countries & Citizens Are Very Well Off.
Billions Of Tourist Dollars Also Pour Into Hawai`i Each Year With Very Different Results.
Watch This To See Why With All Those Billions, Itʻs Still So Hard To Make Ends Meet In Hawai`i.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"WHO IS SUCKING HAWAI`I DRY?"
Billions Of Dollars From Crude Oil Sales Pour Into Middle Eastern Countries Every Year.
Poverty Has Been Eradicated In Those Countries & Citizens Are Very Well Off.
Billions Of Tourist Dollars Also Pour Into Hawai`i Each Year With Very Different Results.
Watch This To See Why With All Those Billions, Itʻs Still So Hard To Make Ends Meet In Hawai`i.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
Wednesday, November 01, 2017
FREE HAWAI`I TV
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"CAN HAWAI`I AFFORD THE US?"
What Would Hawai`i Do Without The US?
Would Hawai`i Be Better Off With Or Without It?
How Have Hawaiians Fared For Over A Century Under US Control?
Watch This & Youʻll See Why Some Are Re-Thinking Their Long Held Assumptions.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"CAN HAWAI`I AFFORD THE US?"
What Would Hawai`i Do Without The US?
Would Hawai`i Be Better Off With Or Without It?
How Have Hawaiians Fared For Over A Century Under US Control?
Watch This & Youʻll See Why Some Are Re-Thinking Their Long Held Assumptions.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
Wednesday, June 14, 2017
FREE HAWAI`I TV
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"WOULD YOU EAT SOMETHING THAT KILLS YOU?"
No One Would Eat Something That Would Kill Them, Right?
Yet Hawaiians Are Forced To Do That Every Single Day.
Why Would They Do This You Ask?
Watch Our Report To Discover What It Is, Why They Do It & How It Can Be Stopped.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
THE FREE HAWAI`I BROADCASTING NETWORK
"WOULD YOU EAT SOMETHING THAT KILLS YOU?"
No One Would Eat Something That Would Kill Them, Right?
Yet Hawaiians Are Forced To Do That Every Single Day.
Why Would They Do This You Ask?
Watch Our Report To Discover What It Is, Why They Do It & How It Can Be Stopped.
Then Share This Video Today With Your Family & Everyone You Know.
Tuesday, June 06, 2017
AN ISLAND IN THE PACIFIC -
WAS JEFF SESSIONS RIGHT?
They also overlooked one crucial thing: he had a point.
His misunderstanding of the basic structure of our government, real or fabricated for media consumption, was ridiculous at best. His comments, however, reflected an instinct shared by many advocates for Hawaiian sovereignty: that the United States’ continued claim to “an island in the Pacific,” obtained through the illegal overthrow of a peaceful monarchy, smacks of empire and deserves rethinking.
The United States’ occupation of Hawai`i has been disastrous from the start. Engineered by White American sugar plantation owners seeking to remove import taxes on their product, the 1893 overthrow wrested power from Queen Lili`uokalani, who surrendered in order to avoid violence against her people.
Instead of admonishing the sugar barons for their scare tactics, Congress followed up with a joint resolution proclaiming the annexation of Hawai`i, an act ordinarily requiring a treaty with a sovereign nation such as the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Over Native Hawaiians’ unwavering objections to the United States’ takeover, in 1959, Congress recognized the island nation as the 50th state, a move that many Hawaiians hoped would grant them more autonomy. In 1993, Congress issued another joint resolution concerning the islands, this time apologizing for the illegal overthrow of the kingdom.
Despite this formal recognition of the illegal foundation for Hawaiian statehood, the U.S. government has not made any move to restore the island to its rightful owners, the Native Hawaiians. Instead, it has reneged on many of its promises, including one that Native Hawaiians would have access to the university built on their land.
Contrary to this guarantee, Native Hawaiians make up a fraction (13.8 percent) of the university’s students and even fewer of its faculty (6.3 percent), with Native Hawaiian studies relegated primarily to specialized centers instead of imbuing the education of all the students occupying the land.
Last year, the Department of the Interior offered Native Hawaiians an opportunity to craft a vision of their relationship with the US government, presumably modeled after existing arrangements with indigenous tribes, who have also suffered from the occupation of their land and erasure of their culture through racist stereotyping, commodification, and laws that erode their basic rights. The endeavor to respond to the department’s request led to deep divides within the community, with many members objecting to collusion or compromise with the occupying power.
In light of this troubled history, instead of correcting Sessions’ misguided criticism of separation of powers, we should take this opportunity to reevaluate the United States’ claim over Hawai`i. Instead of asking why a judge in the Pacific can tell the President what he can or cannot do, we should be asking why a country in North America can tell the indigenous people of an island in the Pacific how to run their schools and courts.
Federal policies are responsible for the fact that an elementary school with a thriving organic garden must serve their students tater tots and corn dogs in the cafeteria while donating their fresh vegetables to restaurants. American occupiers criminalized the Hawaiian language in 1896, leaving most Hawaiians unable to speak it today, despite the law’s repeal in 1965.
The dispossession of Native Hawaiian land and the imposed western ideal of private ownership make Native Hawaiians
The United States’ strong military interests in this “island in the Pacific” make it unlikely that it will relinquish the islands any time soon, if ever. Its continued investment in and exploitation of the islands, however, comes with some costs. One of those costs is the inclusion of diverse perspectives in the federal bench, informed by a history of witnessing the federal government engage, at times, in unlawful and unconstitutional acts.
If Jeff Sessions truly believes that judges in the federal District of Hawai`i have no proper role in the federal judiciary, perhaps he should consider offering to give Hawai`i back to the Native Hawaiians in return for their exit from the federal system. At this particular point in history, they are more likely than ever to agree to the exchange.
WAS JEFF SESSIONS RIGHT?
They also overlooked one crucial thing: he had a point.
His misunderstanding of the basic structure of our government, real or fabricated for media consumption, was ridiculous at best. His comments, however, reflected an instinct shared by many advocates for Hawaiian sovereignty: that the United States’ continued claim to “an island in the Pacific,” obtained through the illegal overthrow of a peaceful monarchy, smacks of empire and deserves rethinking.
The United States’ occupation of Hawai`i has been disastrous from the start. Engineered by White American sugar plantation owners seeking to remove import taxes on their product, the 1893 overthrow wrested power from Queen Lili`uokalani, who surrendered in order to avoid violence against her people.
Instead of admonishing the sugar barons for their scare tactics, Congress followed up with a joint resolution proclaiming the annexation of Hawai`i, an act ordinarily requiring a treaty with a sovereign nation such as the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Over Native Hawaiians’ unwavering objections to the United States’ takeover, in 1959, Congress recognized the island nation as the 50th state, a move that many Hawaiians hoped would grant them more autonomy. In 1993, Congress issued another joint resolution concerning the islands, this time apologizing for the illegal overthrow of the kingdom.
Despite this formal recognition of the illegal foundation for Hawaiian statehood, the U.S. government has not made any move to restore the island to its rightful owners, the Native Hawaiians. Instead, it has reneged on many of its promises, including one that Native Hawaiians would have access to the university built on their land.
Contrary to this guarantee, Native Hawaiians make up a fraction (13.8 percent) of the university’s students and even fewer of its faculty (6.3 percent), with Native Hawaiian studies relegated primarily to specialized centers instead of imbuing the education of all the students occupying the land.
Last year, the Department of the Interior offered Native Hawaiians an opportunity to craft a vision of their relationship with the US government, presumably modeled after existing arrangements with indigenous tribes, who have also suffered from the occupation of their land and erasure of their culture through racist stereotyping, commodification, and laws that erode their basic rights. The endeavor to respond to the department’s request led to deep divides within the community, with many members objecting to collusion or compromise with the occupying power.
In light of this troubled history, instead of correcting Sessions’ misguided criticism of separation of powers, we should take this opportunity to reevaluate the United States’ claim over Hawai`i. Instead of asking why a judge in the Pacific can tell the President what he can or cannot do, we should be asking why a country in North America can tell the indigenous people of an island in the Pacific how to run their schools and courts.
Federal policies are responsible for the fact that an elementary school with a thriving organic garden must serve their students tater tots and corn dogs in the cafeteria while donating their fresh vegetables to restaurants. American occupiers criminalized the Hawaiian language in 1896, leaving most Hawaiians unable to speak it today, despite the law’s repeal in 1965.
The dispossession of Native Hawaiian land and the imposed western ideal of private ownership make Native Hawaiians
The United States’ strong military interests in this “island in the Pacific” make it unlikely that it will relinquish the islands any time soon, if ever. Its continued investment in and exploitation of the islands, however, comes with some costs. One of those costs is the inclusion of diverse perspectives in the federal bench, informed by a history of witnessing the federal government engage, at times, in unlawful and unconstitutional acts.
If Jeff Sessions truly believes that judges in the federal District of Hawai`i have no proper role in the federal judiciary, perhaps he should consider offering to give Hawai`i back to the Native Hawaiians in return for their exit from the federal system. At this particular point in history, they are more likely than ever to agree to the exchange.
Friday, April 28, 2017
HAWAI`I AT RISK OF ATTACK DUE TO US OCCUPATION
US Military Says North Korea Can Hit Hawai`i With Ballistic Missiles
Washington Post - April 26, 2017
The top US military officer in the Pacific said Wednesday that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is “clearly in a position to threaten Hawai`i today” with a ballistic missile attack and that the Pentagon is considering adding new ballistic missile interceptors and defensive radar there to counter that possibility.
Navy Adm. Harry Harris, the chief of US Pacific Command, told the House Armed Services Committee there are already “sufficient” ballistic missile interceptors protecting the United States at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But he added there is a possibility that not every missile would be stopped in an attack. Hawai`i, about 2,500 miles to California’s southwest, could benefit from having new equipment to protect itself, he said.
“I believe that our ballistic missile architecture is sufficient to protect Hawai`i today, but it can be overwhelmed,” Harris said. “Somewhere, we would have to make a decision about which missiles to take out, and that’s a hard decision....”
US Military Says North Korea Can Hit Hawai`i With Ballistic Missiles
Washington Post - April 26, 2017
The top US military officer in the Pacific said Wednesday that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is “clearly in a position to threaten Hawai`i today” with a ballistic missile attack and that the Pentagon is considering adding new ballistic missile interceptors and defensive radar there to counter that possibility.
Navy Adm. Harry Harris, the chief of US Pacific Command, told the House Armed Services Committee there are already “sufficient” ballistic missile interceptors protecting the United States at Fort Greely in Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But he added there is a possibility that not every missile would be stopped in an attack. Hawai`i, about 2,500 miles to California’s southwest, could benefit from having new equipment to protect itself, he said.
“I believe that our ballistic missile architecture is sufficient to protect Hawai`i today, but it can be overwhelmed,” Harris said. “Somewhere, we would have to make a decision about which missiles to take out, and that’s a hard decision....”
Saturday, December 31, 2016
TAKING IT TO THE STREETS
Sign Of Oppression Soon To Go?
HawaiiNewsNow - December 22, 2016
Before Dole Street became Dole Street it was called by its Hawaiian name -- Kapa`akea Street.
University of Hawaii graduate student Kepoo Keliipaakaua found it on an 1882 survey map of the Manoa area. Kapa`akea means coral bedrock or limestone.
"This is the type you'll see a lot in the leeward side, and especially around Ewa or the Honouliuli area," Keliipaakaua said.
In the 1950s, though, Hawaii's territorial government changed the name to Dole Street to honor Sanford Dole's family.
Dole was a lawyer and Hawaii's first territorial governor. But many consider him an enemy of Hawaiian royalty and friend of the elite immigrant community.
"The name Dole perpetuates this legacy of what occurred during the illegal overthrow, the occupation of Hawaii," Keliipaakaua said.
Given that, the University of Hawaii Graduate Student Organization is trying to spur the city to restore Dole Street to its Hawaiian name.
"We're going door to door down Dole Street to talk to folks, seeing if they'll be supportive of the name change. We have to get at least over 50 percent of the residents on board," GSO president Amy McKee said.
Some will view it as an inconvenience. Residents would have to change the street name on their IDs and all personal documents.
But Dole Street resident Coline Aiu supports the idea.
"Mango trees are gone. Plum trees are gone. So many things are gone. And I think within the street names you can recall the history. We want a positive history," she said.
Besides community support, the city Department of Land Utilization, the Honolulu Fire Department, Honolulu Police Department and the post office have to all agree to the name change.
"It's for all the right reasons," McKee said. "We're doing our best to call it Kapa`akea Street now. But we'll catch each other saying Dole and gently correct each other."
The Manoa Neighborhood Board drafted a resolution for the name change. Board members will vote on it at their February meeting.
Sign Of Oppression Soon To Go?
HawaiiNewsNow - December 22, 2016
Before Dole Street became Dole Street it was called by its Hawaiian name -- Kapa`akea Street.
University of Hawaii graduate student Kepoo Keliipaakaua found it on an 1882 survey map of the Manoa area. Kapa`akea means coral bedrock or limestone.
"This is the type you'll see a lot in the leeward side, and especially around Ewa or the Honouliuli area," Keliipaakaua said.
In the 1950s, though, Hawaii's territorial government changed the name to Dole Street to honor Sanford Dole's family.
Dole was a lawyer and Hawaii's first territorial governor. But many consider him an enemy of Hawaiian royalty and friend of the elite immigrant community.
"The name Dole perpetuates this legacy of what occurred during the illegal overthrow, the occupation of Hawaii," Keliipaakaua said.
Given that, the University of Hawaii Graduate Student Organization is trying to spur the city to restore Dole Street to its Hawaiian name.
"We're going door to door down Dole Street to talk to folks, seeing if they'll be supportive of the name change. We have to get at least over 50 percent of the residents on board," GSO president Amy McKee said.
Some will view it as an inconvenience. Residents would have to change the street name on their IDs and all personal documents.
But Dole Street resident Coline Aiu supports the idea.
"Mango trees are gone. Plum trees are gone. So many things are gone. And I think within the street names you can recall the history. We want a positive history," she said.
Besides community support, the city Department of Land Utilization, the Honolulu Fire Department, Honolulu Police Department and the post office have to all agree to the name change.
"It's for all the right reasons," McKee said. "We're doing our best to call it Kapa`akea Street now. But we'll catch each other saying Dole and gently correct each other."
The Manoa Neighborhood Board drafted a resolution for the name change. Board members will vote on it at their February meeting.
Friday, December 30, 2016
FREE HAWAI`I OBSERVES
NAHI`ENA`ENA DAY
Princess Nahi`ena`ena, whose name means "stirring the fires," daughter of Kamehameha I, was born approximately in the year 1815, although the exact date isn't known.
Living through a period of great change in Hawai`i, her life was tragically cut short.
Defying the customs of the time, her mother, Keopuolani, kept her infant daughter by her side.
Nahi`ena`ena grew up constantly aware about her high ranking in a changing Hawai`i. This was a source of her conflicted life.
The last years of her life were one of illness and dejection. She gave birth to a son on September 1836. The baby lived for only a few hours.
Nahi`ena`ena never recovered from child birth. She died on December 30, 1836.
Nahi`ena`ena's death, at age 21, was observed for the first time in modern times on December 30, 2001 with traditional Kanaka Maoli (native Hawaiian) protocols at `Iolani Palace Grounds in Honolulu.
Today we remember and honor this descendant of Kamehameha the Great as another fallen warrior - casualty of the invasion and occupation of a foreign culture and military power.
NAHI`ENA`ENA DAY
Princess Nahi`ena`ena, whose name means "stirring the fires," daughter of Kamehameha I, was born approximately in the year 1815, although the exact date isn't known.
Living through a period of great change in Hawai`i, her life was tragically cut short.
Defying the customs of the time, her mother, Keopuolani, kept her infant daughter by her side.
Nahi`ena`ena grew up constantly aware about her high ranking in a changing Hawai`i. This was a source of her conflicted life.
The last years of her life were one of illness and dejection. She gave birth to a son on September 1836. The baby lived for only a few hours.
Nahi`ena`ena never recovered from child birth. She died on December 30, 1836.
Nahi`ena`ena's death, at age 21, was observed for the first time in modern times on December 30, 2001 with traditional Kanaka Maoli (native Hawaiian) protocols at `Iolani Palace Grounds in Honolulu.
Today we remember and honor this descendant of Kamehameha the Great as another fallen warrior - casualty of the invasion and occupation of a foreign culture and military power.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
HAS THE U.S. OCCUPATION OF HAWAI`I WORKED?
Hawai`i News Now - December 21st, 2016
Over the last year, 10,000 more people left Hawai`i for the mainland than moved in from another state.
In 2014-15, Hawai`i's net out-migration totaled about 6,700, while the figure was just 941 in 2010.
Altogether from 2010 to 2016, about 30,000 more people left Hawai`i than moved in from the mainland. The population loss was made up with local births and in-migration from foreign countries.
With the high mainland out-migration tallies, Hawai`i's population grew by an anemic 0.2 percent from 2015 to 2016, the Census estimates show. Put in raw numbers, that means Hawai`i added about 3,400 people over the one-year period ending July 1 to end with a population of 1,428,557.
In previous years, Hawai`i's population growth has been at about 1 percent, though the figure was .6 percent from 2014 to 2015, revised Census figures show....
Hawai`i News Now - December 21st, 2016
Over the last year, 10,000 more people left Hawai`i for the mainland than moved in from another state.
In 2014-15, Hawai`i's net out-migration totaled about 6,700, while the figure was just 941 in 2010.
Altogether from 2010 to 2016, about 30,000 more people left Hawai`i than moved in from the mainland. The population loss was made up with local births and in-migration from foreign countries.
With the high mainland out-migration tallies, Hawai`i's population grew by an anemic 0.2 percent from 2015 to 2016, the Census estimates show. Put in raw numbers, that means Hawai`i added about 3,400 people over the one-year period ending July 1 to end with a population of 1,428,557.
In previous years, Hawai`i's population growth has been at about 1 percent, though the figure was .6 percent from 2014 to 2015, revised Census figures show....
Friday, December 11, 2015
HAS THE US OCCUPATION OF HAWAI`I WORKED?
Native Hawaiian Socio-Economic Markers -
1. Native Hawaiian families in Hawai`i have the lowest mean family income of all major ethnic groups in the state.
2. Native Hawaiian families tend to be larger than average, meaning that their comparatively low income must support a higher number of individuals.
3. Per capita income calculations confirm that Native Hawaiians are socioeconomically disadvantaged.
4. The cost of living in the fake state of Hawai`i is among the highest in the United States.
5. When we adjust for differences in the cost of living, the median and per capita income of the national Native Hawaiian population is substantially lower than comparable national figures.
6. Poverty rates consistently show the high socioeconomic need among Native Hawaiians in the state of Hawai`i.
Native Hawaiian Socio-Economic Markers -
1. Native Hawaiian families in Hawai`i have the lowest mean family income of all major ethnic groups in the state.
2. Native Hawaiian families tend to be larger than average, meaning that their comparatively low income must support a higher number of individuals.
3. Per capita income calculations confirm that Native Hawaiians are socioeconomically disadvantaged.
4. The cost of living in the fake state of Hawai`i is among the highest in the United States.
5. When we adjust for differences in the cost of living, the median and per capita income of the national Native Hawaiian population is substantially lower than comparable national figures.
6. Poverty rates consistently show the high socioeconomic need among Native Hawaiians in the state of Hawai`i.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
