It's your ConCon. What do you want to do with it? Learn - Discuss - Decide
About time we got rid of Hawaiian Entitlements
This idea of giving Hawaiians special privileges is unamerican. Abolishing them is first on my list of important things to do when we rewrite the constitution.
We've got the numbers to get this done now. So let's do it.
We've got the numbers to get this done now. So let's do it.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dan L. on -
I think it’s odd how people come to a place and then want to change it to resemble the place they left. If you want to see what Hawai‘i might look like without the Hawai‘ian culture, study Southern California and Florida. What makes Hawai‘i such a marvelous place is the culture of aloha and pono which we get from the Hawai‘ian culture.
“Hawai‘ian” is not nonsense; it is Hawai‘i. America is made up of many strains, and ours is one of them.
And just what is “progress”? Closing the beaches to the public so a few millionaires can wallow in their wealth privately? Maybe introducing casino gambling would be a good thing, too. And by all means let’s forget this nonsense about taking care of the old, the young, and the unfortunate; that costs money that could better be spent on a Hummer for every millionaire in the state.
Why is it such a marvelous thing to “bring Hawai‘i into the 21st century”? If that means destroying everything -- such as open beach access and care for those who need help -- which makes Hawai‘i great, then I’m all in favor of staying in the last century.
Some people came here to live, because they love Hawai‘i now. Others came to make a fortune, because they love the money they can make by exploiting this place for personal gain. I am totally opposed to accommodating the latter view. If a place driven by wealth and power is what one seeks, then one should look somewhere else. Don’t try to destroy what we have here.
-
Permalink Reply by Willy on -
Good idea the State of Hawaii can write its own constitution. Hawaiians can call a hawaiianconcon have a Hawaiian Government of Unity, call the legislature in to session and the rest will be history. End OHA. No special privileges, no more shame for the theft of the Hawaiian Kingdom (1993 Apology Bill ). No more lies.
-
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Blake on -
Aloha Bradduh!
Yes! I believe that such was reported but do I believe that it took place - aha! as much as I believe that we found weapons of mass destruction.
I can appreciate that you have found records of the United States Government that collude to the facts that you have represented as history. We are all aware that the US Government has NEVER used military force to overturn the established government of another nation - EVER! The Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, The US Virgin Islands, The Iroquois Nation, The Navajo Nation, Hopi Nation, The Lakota Nation, etc. would all agree with you that the US has NEVER overthrown an established nation. Nor has the military EVER been supported by private business in its activities. We also know where the WMDs are that Queen Lilli'uokalani hid from the sugar cane farmers! We are also aware of the sole purpose of the "peace keepers" fully armed and ready for battle was to keep the WMD's out of the hands of the local fishermen!
If you were in her shoes, what would your choice have been? Let your people be slaughtered or abdicate? Your statement of "26 sworn testimony including testimony by Native Hawaiians supporting the overthrow and annexation compared to the 29,000 signatures opposing annexations.
Here is a history lesson for you from a source of history outside of the military records:
In Dec. 18, 1893, President Cleveland made an eloquent speech to Congress on the Hawaiian situation.
He had harsh words for the landing of American troops at the revolutionaries' request:
"This military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu was of itself an act of war; unless made either with the consent of the government of Hawai`i or for the bona fide purpose of protecting the imperiled lives and property of citizens of the United States. But there is no pretense of any such consent on the part of the government of the queen ... the existing government, instead of requesting the presence of an armed force, protested against it. There is as little basis for the pretense that forces were landed for the security of American life and property. If so, they would have been stationed in the vicinity of such property and so as to protect it, instead of at a distance and so as to command the Hawaiian Government Building and palace. ... When these armed men were landed, the city of Honolulu was in its customary orderly and peaceful condition... "
The president continues:
"But for the notorious predilections of the United States minister for annexation, the Committee of Safety, which should have been called the Committee of Annexation, would never have existed.
"But for the landing of the United States forces upon false pretexts respecting the danger to life and property, the committee would never have exposed themselves to the plans and penalties of treason by undertaking the subversion of the queen's government.
"But for the presence of the United States forces in the immediate vicinity and in position to accord all needed protection and support, the committee would not have proclaimed the provisional government from the steps of the Government Building.
"And, finally, but for the lawless occupation of Honolulu under false pretexts by the United States forces, and but for Minister Stevens' recognition of the provisional government when the United States forces were its sole support and constituted its only military strength, the queen and her government would never have yielded to the provisional government, even for a time and for the sole purpose of submitting her case to the enlightened justice of the United States. ... "
He further stated,
"... if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States cannot fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation." President Cleveland concluded by placing the matt
-
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Blake on
-
(cont'd) ...ter in the hands of Congress.
Ultimately, the annexationists won, and Grover Cleveland wrote: "I am ashamed of the whole affair."
-
Permalink Reply by esteban on -
To Jimmy Kuroiwa. Your spin on Hawaii's history is interesting, well seasoned, and justifies your own presence here in Hawaii. Why do you feel you need to do this? Your analysis conveniently leaves out the findings of US Public Law 103-150 that was recently upheld of the Supreme Court of Hawaii. It also leaves out the Anti Annexation Petitions of 1898 signed by most Hawaiians. You also forget to add that President Cleveland, who was US President at the time of the "illegal overthrow", said that the overthrow was a "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress". As you know, the "Republic of Hawaii" was self declared and no democratic process brought it to life. This fake entity was only supported by those who would profit by the downfall of the Kingdom. And they have to this day. If you are really for a just solution, you would be calling for this issue to be resolved in International Court and not in the courts of the accused. Since this is not the case I can only believe that you ,and those in your cabal, can only have self interest in mind.
-
Permalink Reply by esteban on
-
Why is it that the only people you quote supporting the "illegal overthrow" are amerikans or departments of the US?? Are you trying to have us believe that the overthrow was OK because the overthrower said it was??!! You try to make us believe that the Queen "brought it on herself". Is this what the great majority of her people said? If so please show us the proof of this.
-
Permalink Reply by esteban on
-
Mr. Kuroiwa, you make some startling contentions claiming them to be facts. 1. You claim 103-150 "does not have standing of law". The Hawaii State Supreme Court says otherwise in its recent decision. The simple fact is that its called a "law" and nothing less. If it really "does not have standing of law", then, why is the attorney general of the state of hawaii opposing it at the US Supreme Court? The AG is not disputing the fact that it is law, only its findings concerning the so called "ceded" lands. He is not saying that the overthrow wasnt "illegal"or that the Republic of Hawaii was a legal entity. 2. You claim that there was no hearing for this law. Im not so sure of this contention. Never the less it passed by vote of the Congress of the United States, and was signed into law by President Clinton. 3. You call the law a "resolution" trying to lessen its force but it was a resolution that made Hawaii a part of the US. Newlands Resolution. (new to whom?) 4. You try to lessen the impact of the Anti Annexation petitions by making assumptions about just who signed it but again, the US congress would not pass a treaty of annexation (twice) because of this petition. 5. You continue to insist this issue but resolved in US court when it is the US being accused of high crimes against the Hawaiian people and their "sovereign" government. The accused does not get to judge itself. This is a matter between two sovereign nations with violations of treaties, international Laws and Conventions, US and Kingdom laws. 6. You and your cabal try to strike fear into the hearts of non Hawaiians by insisting that this is a racial issue. It is NOT. It is a political issue. One that concerns the illegal taking of a sovereign and lawful government. If it really were a simple matter of race your ohana would not have been here "from the reign of King Kalakaua". Non Hawaiians had voting, and civil rights more than a century before the US passed their civil and voting rights acts in the mid 1960's. Hawaii has never had a history of racial exclusion. The US has a long ongoing history of Racism. "All the pilikia began with the 1978 con con"? You are off by more than a century. Thats very convenient but no longer fools us.
-
Permalink Reply by esteban on
-
Mr. Kuroiwa, Again you only use the accused laws and decisions to make your case. Why are you afraid to take it to a neutral court? You must ask your own government why the case is not in international court. We went to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague (where the case was heard) but the US refused to participate. Why? The next logical step is the International Court of Justice. Why not? You, the USA, and your cabal can end this issue forever. Just get a neutral court to say that we are wrong and have no standing. Easy as that, and the whole Independence movement would be over. I have NEVER said, nor do I advocate a native Hawaiian only government. Nor does the group I am with or any other that I know of. Your fear tactics have no basis. Im not sure why you add the date of the HSC decision, or what that has to do with the courts recognition that 103-150 is law. I have see your name as one of the plaintives against Hawaiian rights and entitlements. Now that I have heard your arguements first hand I can see why you and your cabal have lost in your own courts so many times and do not want to go to a neutral court. If you truly "love" Hawaii as you claim, why not advocatew this case be taken to a neutral court? Its the only Pono way our side of the issue will ever be satisfied.
-
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Blake on
-
You preempt all your posts with a statement that the Hawaiian issues can only be resolved in the federal courts. Do you think that is fair to the Hawaiian people, to leave it up to those who perpetrated, denied any wrong doing and approved the annexation? It is like going before a judge who raped you, only to have him state that no such rape occurred.
Why not the International courts?
By the way, in the kingdom of Hawaii, every man, woman and child had a voice in the decision-making process therefore their signatures should have had traction. So, the 29,000 signatures were not legitimized based on the US law of 1898 where back then only men in the US were allowed to vote.
Some one once said that "A lot of history is just dirty politics cleaned up for the consumption of children and other innocents," which brings me to my next point, history should be learned with the source in mind.
It does not matter how you slice it, the overthrow was illegal and wrong.
-
Permalink Reply by Peter Kay on -
Folks,
I think we're getting way, way off the subject here. The debate over Hawaiian history is an important one, but I don't think we're talking about ConCon here in any substantive way.
I'm disappointed that this conversation has gone off track. I would like to see you folks return to a conversation about what the ConCon can do to help Hawaiian Issues.
-
Permalink Reply by Elizabeth Blake on
-
Right you are, Peter. We have gone the long way around on this hot issue. Thank you for dragging us back.
This site was meant for discussions on how the ConCon can benefit all those who reside here.
I have a question regarding public beach access:
There should most definitely be beach access for the public, but there is a small sub-division in the Hawaii Kai area where the beach lane has a gate and the gate is locked. Only the residents in that little neighborhood gets the key to the gate. Is this legal for a sub-division to stake claim to the beach for its own residents only?
© 2008 Created by Peter Kay on Ning. Create your own social network
