BY JERE HIROSHI KRISHEL – Present on the Great Seal of the United States since 1782, its meaning is both simple and profound – “Out of many, one.”
Originally it may have been but a literal acknowledgement of the Union of the thirteen colonies, but as the years have gone by it has become a philosophical premise which we apply as a standard of morality.
It is today a clarion call for the respect of diversity, an acknowledgement that while we may have our differences, we are one people, under one law. Each citizen of the United States takes for granted that regardless of their racial background, cultural background, or family history, they are endowed by their Creator, the same unalienable rights as all their other fellow citizens.
The startling truth, however, is that we have a lot further to go before our laws and our country are aligned with this noble motto. Just as the institution of slavery stood as a stain against the noble ideals upon which our constitution was based, today we live under a government which has yet to make good on the motto, ‘E Pluribus Unum.’
While our constitution expressly prohibits denying people equal treatment under the law with the fourteenth amendment, our government has often both willfully and woefully ignored this basic guarantee.
The race-based quota system of affirmative action is perhaps the most visible example of this violation of constitutional rights (with a low point in Grutter v. Bollinger, and some progress recently with Ricci v. DeStefano).
The idea of treating people differently because of their racial background is anathema to the concept of civil rights, and the “fighting fire with fire” philosophy of fixing racial discrimination by using more racial discrimination is hypocrisy at its worst.
However, an even more egregious violation of the principle of equal treatment exists in current Indian law, and an even greater danger is presented to us with the Akaka Bill that has been proposed in various forms for the past ten years.
As it stands today, we have three distinct classes of citizenry in the United States – tribal leaders, tribal members, and non-tribal citizens. Tribal leaders stand generally above the law, with no constitutional checks on their power.
The Supreme Court in its Nevada v. Hicks (2001) case stated, “it has been understood for more than a century that the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment do not of their own force apply to Indian tribes.”
This exemption from the basic protections afforded to other citizens places tribal members in the most disparaged class of the three, leaving them at the whim of their tribal governments.
While under tribal jurisdiction, non-tribal citizens fare just as poorly, but they at least have the wherewithal to escape from the reservation, while tribal members face the threat of tribal expulsion, confiscation of the lands their family may have lived on for generations, and even loss of custody of their own children.
Today, there are 565 federally recognized tribes which may freely violate the constitutional rights of their members. The Shinnecock Nation, backed by Gateway Casino Resorts, with only 1,292 members, became number 565 on October 1, 2010, after all appeals to their recognition (including objections from other already established casino tribes) were exhausted.
The Shinnecock, and the other 564 federally recognized tribes, are granted exemptions from state and local jurisdictions, creating a special class of citizenry not subject to the rights and laws of their peers.
These federally recognized tribes also have access to lucrative federal assistance programs (regardless of any tribal casino income), funded by non-tribal taxpayers and controlled exclusively by tribal leaders. So instead of ‘E Pluribus Unum,’ the truth is that today we live in a country governed by ‘E Pluribus Pluribus,’ with a constant, yet often overlooked, division of people into different strata of citizenship.
The Akaka Bill serves as yet another continuation of that deplorable trend, promising to “reorganize” everyone with the smallest drop of native Hawaiian blood into an Indian tribe, with all the equal protection problems that come with it.
Specifically constructed to protect current race-based programs targeted at native Hawaiians, the Akaka Bill is a headlong dive into the constitutional loophole provided by Indian Law, and promises to divide the State of Hawaii in the most wrongheaded manner imaginable.
From a purely self-interested point of view, it’s no wonder that future Akaka Tribe leaders want to get in on the Indian Tribe game – between the casino money, and the federal dollars appropriated (regardless of whether or not a tribe is economically self-sufficient), even the most reasonable and rational person might be sorely tempted.
An investigation into recent native Hawaiian grants handed out by the government at https://4hawaiiansonly.com has already identified over 766 grants totaling over $273 million.
While only a drop in the bucket compared to the more than 4 billion spent on Indian tribes every year (the BIA is unable to give any exact number), there is no question that we’re talking a lot of money, and a lot of temptation. It will be a long road for our country, to repair the self-inflicted wounds of ‘E Pluribus Pluribus.’
Ending the second and third class citizenship status of existing Tribal Law, and preventing the enactment of further injustices like the Akaka Bill will not be easy – the forces arrayed against a nation of one people, under one law, have resources common citizens simply cannot match.
But in the end, no matter how long or difficult the struggle, the United States will one day live up to its noble ideals of its founding – E Pluribus Unum.
“That process was totally illegal as was everything the Republic did.”
How can you assert that, Noa? Look, you might not have liked what happened, and there were people then who didn’t like what happened, but you can’t just say something is “totally illegal” without clearly identifying the judiciary with jurisdiction, the body of law being applied, and a trial for adjudication. When someone gets caught drunk driving in California, it’s “totally illegal” because we have a system of state courts with jurisdiction, a state code which defines drunk driving as an infraction, and an adversarial trial system under which the legal facts can be determined.
So in 1894, when the Republic of Hawaii was declared, what judiciary had jurisdiction? There was no United Nations at the time, so the only real proxy we have for that would have been international recognition – which was universally given to the sovereign, independent Republic of Hawaii. Even that proxy is not sufficient, since there was no body of law which would have applied – in 1894, there was no “International Code Of Law” which stated in section 3.3 “It is illegal to declare a Republic.” And of course, without a body of law, or an arbiter, how can you have a trial to determine whether or not something is legal or illegal?
One could just as easily say that everything Kamehameha I did was “totally illegal”. You could say that everything the Tahitian conquerors in the 1300s was “totally illegal”. You could even say the original colonization of the islands by the Marquesans was “totally illegal”. But none of those declarations is anything more than hyperbole.
Now, for the question of annexation and statehood, I would assert that the judiciary with jurisdiction over any US constitutional question is the Supreme Court of the United States. The US constitution is not adjudicable by foreign powers, so if we’re asking a question about legality according to the US constitution, you must present the question in US court. Over the past 100 years of jurisprudence by the US courts has accepted the legality and legitimacy of annexation and statehood. If you’d like to challenge that in US court, great.
However, even if you do manage to challenge it in court, and the SCOTUS decides that the Newlands Resolution was invalid because it wasn’t ratified by 2/3 of the Senate, would you accept it today if the Senate convened an emergency session to ratify it? And here is the real problem – my bet is, you wouldn’t. Regardless if all the legal objections and technicalities you bring up were remediated, you’d still have a problem with the status quo.
So in essence, your position is not one based on legality, it’s one based on emotion, that will brook no contradiction.
You must be a lawyer cuz you appear to be trying to fit an 2000 pound elephant into a sandwich bad, which only a skilled lawyer would try to do! Your Emerson in legal language, and your excuses for not wanting to consider what was going on the floor of Congress is telling. What if we had an actual tribunal as the constitution appears to allow (not this emergency session), where the facts were presented and where each of your contentions about the Republic being totally legal could be subject to a cross and jury? I suspect you would try to ignore all the relevant facts in-favor of your clients counter assertions just as any good lawyer would. I would of course reject any attempt by proven thieves and liars to repackage a theft even if this appeared to be legal on the surface. The high Courts officers would first of all need to its due diligence (homework) before it just decided that the Newlands Resolution was invalid. Applying what otherwise would have been a legal tribunal, it would find not just annexation to be invalid, but it would also reject the idea that the U.S. Senate had constitutional authority to convene such a session in the first place. The constitutional questions you say are for the Supreme court alone to define ignores the fact that for as long as this issue has been debated the ordinary citizen who need only read the law once to see that America had no authority to promulgate laws upon a foreign people, would easily agree with me that the Republic was unlawfully created and that a significant harm had been done both to Americans as well as Hawaiian nationals who never provoked war as the conspirators (committee of safety) and you appear to insinuate. Grover Cleveland had brilliantly and pointedly summarized the problem in demanding that the Monarch be restored, noting then that a great American tradition was grossly violated. Any tribunal that was worth anything would be forced to reject your argument since the plaintiff (America) couldn’t get its story straight. All of the arguments Cleveland made against the provisional government (which morphed into the Republic of Hawaii), were constantly stated before a increasingly wayward Congress both before and well after the revolution. This history is all permissible evidence which I’m sure as lawyer you would be forced to try to have suppressed by the court. If the U.S. Senate does attempted this after the fact or back words ratification as you say they would need to do it in a political vacuum just as you are with these excuses (equivocations about Kamehameha). I could easily use your arguments against America since among other things it has much more blood on its hands. Imagine trying to convince a grand Jury or Int. tribunal that America destroyed the Hawaiian Monarchy (A Christian and peaceful nation at the time) because it’s founding was illegal or because it former King had killed to unify the Islands. I could use the same doctrine of Abdication to also make the case that American diplomates not only acted without authority of Congress, but that war was waged against the native government so that sugar barons could escape paying high export tariffs. The high court is not the venue for redressing high crimes or violations of International laws, I know you know that! Any sort of emergency session to ratify annexation would only compound the original crimes and make a mockery of the principles outlined in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights contains principles of justice that any individual or nation can use to sue for damages because as the founders understood it, a higher law can and must be appealed to where men use raw power in framing mischief against the innocent and weak. By your surmising the plaintiff or defendant depending on how this unfolded, would immediately contradict itself. You would be saying nothing illegal happened here, and I would bring the entire Congressional record to prove that in fact America had used a false crisis about abdication to justify the overthrow. In other words Abdication works both ways!! Any sane Judge would be asking how U.S. diplomates could use the doctrine of abdication as a pretext for forcefully removing the Queen??? Especially since those same rouge diplomates had not properly consulted Congress. These were high crimes right? You are totally wrong to suggest that I have failed to understand or cite a particular body of laws in rejecting your thesis. What you are saying in essence is that the law was universally ignored in order to sanitize a crime. I can just hear you standing before your courts saying that Grover Cleveland was just being emotional about what had happened. Perhaps you would even try to argue that Hawaiian nationals had influenced the president and caused him to mischaracterize the events surrounding the overthrow and annexation. So whereas Cleveland called on Congress to undo the actions of American diplomates, you would be trying to argue that nothing whatsoever was amiss in terms of both the Constitution and how Cleveland described these events. Nice try but you lose again!
Noa, you make a passionate argument, but you have to remember the whole point of an adversarial trial system is that both side get to present their case, and an arbiter gets the final say. You can only say “nice try but you lose again” once you find standing in court, make your arguments and counter arguments in front of the Supreme Court, and get a decision that goes your way. Otherwise, you’re just dreaming about the future.
Now, when you finally get standing in front of the Supreme Court to argue your case, perhaps your arguments will have enough merit to win for your side. But until then, simply asserting that “the ordinary citizen…need only read the law” is a complete misunderstanding of how legal questions are actually decided. Any ordinary citizen can read the law, and know that the Commerce Clause doesn’t give the federal government to force people to buy health insurance – but that *legal* question doesn’t get definitively answered until the cases against it work their way through the courts.
I look forward to any case you finally get to the Supreme Court, and hope that if and when you lose that case (or if you simply are found not to have any legal standing for bringing that case), that you can reconcile yourself to the idea of ‘E Pluribus Unum’ once and for all, and realize that the people of Hawaii have been blessed to be a State of the Union.
Hi Noa, You might remember we talked on the telephone several times back in October 2003. Glad to see you are still seeking the truth. At that time, as I recall, you had watched Jade Danner’s powerpoint presentation but were still skeptical and opposed the Akaka bill.
Since then the State and OHA managed to dodge the Arakaka v. Lingle bullet on standing grounds. But I still have two suits pending which can undo the invidious racial discrimination that has become the accepted norm among those in Hawaii who benefit from keeping Hawaiians in a state of dependency. Stay tuned and don’t bet your future on becoming a chief in a new Akaka tribe.
Jere’s right. Hawaii’s history books, including those written by Hawaiians, show that the foul deeds done to your (and my wife’s) Hawaiian ancestors were done mostly by other Hawaiians.
America’s acceptance in 1898 of the Republic of Hawaii’s offered Treaty of Annexation and Statehood for Hawaii in 1959 were the natural culmination of the friendly and mutually beneficial trading relationship between the two countries. The United States was and is Hawaii’s closest large neighbor, even more so after 1850 when California became a state.
The economy of the young United States soon intertwined with Hawaii’s as merchant ships carrying furs from Alaska and the Pacific Northwest to China began taking on sandalwood from Hawaii, as well as provisions. Then, as the ships carrying off the sandalwood of Hawaii disappeared, a new kind of vessel began arriving at the ports of the kingdom, the New Englanders hunting whales to light the lamps of America.
By 1830 the United States had replaced Great Britain as the accepted friend and most likely protector of the little kingdom.
Manufactured goods destined for California and Oregon were distributed from Honolulu and exports from those territories were sent to Honolulu for transshipments to Europe or to the United States. The trade which linked Honolulu, Monterey, and the mouth of the Columbia in an economic interdependence was carried almost exclusively in American vessels and was controlled by American merchants, many of whom resided either in Honolulu or in California.
As Stanford University Professor Harold Bradley concluded, in reference to the time period 1789 – 1843, this development of a Polynesian kingdom with Western institutions was, in part, the result of the location of the Hawaiian Islands astride the principal trade routes of the northern and central Pacific.
It had been possible only because of the ready amiability with which the Hawaiian chiefs and commoners had welcomed all classes of foreigners to the Islands. The principal forces in the creation of the new Hawaiian kingdom, however, had been the few score of American traders and missionaries who had made the Islands their home and whose energy in the introduction of the political, religious, and economic ideals of their native land had established an American frontier in Hawaii
In Hawaii, like everywhere, the good old days were not all that good.
Many features of the Hawaiian society of old were abhorrent and should never be revived by Hawaiians or anyone else.
Interwoven with the religion of Hawaii (and of all Polynesia) and with governmental and social organization, was the kapu system. This was the feature of the Hawaiian culture which made the deepest impression upon most of the early foreign visitors, who saw only the outer manifestations of the system and who, in their descriptions emphasize its bizarre restrictions and cruel sanctions.
The condition of the common people was that of subjection to the chiefs, compelled to do their heavy tasks, burdened and oppressed, some even to death. The life of the people was one of patient endurance, of yielding to the chiefs to purchase their favor. The plain man (kanaka) must not complain.
If the people were slack in doing the chief’s work they were expelled from their lands, or even put to death. For such reasons as this and because of the oppressive exactions made upon them, the people held the chiefs in great dread and looked upon them as gods.
Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii by S.M. Kamakau details the hardships endured by the poorer classes in the old days. “It was not for a commoner to do as he liked as if what he had was his own.”
If a chief saw that a man was becoming affluent, was a man of importance in the back country, had built him a good house, and had several men under him, the chief would take everything away from him and seize the land, leaving the man only with the clothes on his back. (p. 229) Wars were frequent in the old days and entailed robbery and murder of the common people. (p. 230) Revenge was another great cause of strife in old days. (p. 232) The constant wars of old were another cause of depopulation. Among the noncombatants even women were cut down and little children killed. (p. 233) Infanticide was practiced for various reasons: Age, poverty, pleasure-seeking, illicit relations, jealousy, slavery, dislike of children, and shame.
Noa, Ask yourself whether that is the culture you would like to restore.
1). We are never going to conceded the venue to the Supreme Court!( I’m surprised you don’t know that by now?)
2). It is precisely because of my long held commitment to the idea of E Pluribus Unum, that I have the upper hand over you in this debate Jere! We are talking here not about EPU, but about the scope of Congress’ power and how it was misused to dismantle the Hawaiian government.
3). The religious leaders who rejected Christ thought they knew Gods law but like you they had replaced their traditions in Torah for “traditions of men,” thereby pitting their traditions against the Lord who gave them over to their devices.
4). Your insistence that we must stand before your evil courts is a straight jacket approach to our plight, similar to the way the Jewish leaders rejected the very justice they thought they held in high regard.
5). Obama HC must be reversed or the country will never be the same. All that you hold dear including ‘E pluribus unum, will be dismantled and replaced with by “of the Government, by the Government” power politics. Americans are seeing their freedoms subordinated to the same straight jacket you are trying to put us into by insisting we conceded our identity and preclude what should otherwise be a state to state negotiation not a court trial in your evil (divided) courts. The way this plays out will be way different than you suggest it must or will. Given your unwillingness to see any wrong in what happened you play this trick with words trying to say we must have standing etc. I have Firm reliance on the Divine providence of God, not firm reliance on your so called Supreme Court! The same way you’ve tried to corner me against the truth here, is the same way your government will corner you into a box. In the Bible this is called oppression and God almighty hates oppression. Say what you will about standing and EPU, its all cliche and condescension where you see no way out for us. You have no grounding in reality when you cannot see any rawness or unilateralism in the way the Unites States worked to undo our government. Remember the Jews who said we have Abraham as our father? According to Christ they had simply made “a show” of legality whereas they really had no commitment to justice or Abrahamic faith at all. American involvement in the Island’s can be summarized this way. Large powerful country eyes resources of small weak country. Uses insurgents, U.S. Navy ships, diplomats, conspirators etc., to force a winner take all battle for the Islands! Large powerful country takes over small fledgeling Christian nation for its own perverted ends!! To this I say let my people go or your country will suffer the same fate you wish upon us! Obama HC will undermine your national sovereignty the same way you did ours where the tyrants you claim to loath will have trapped you against your will. So whereas your country used raw might to destroy our government, soon you will be at the other end of that same raw political power! Your refusal to “DO justice” belies your commitment to EPU! I’m not just dreaming about the future, I’m fallowing Ezra’s example of reform, which I admonish you to look at very closely. Your litigious culture is yours alone to answer for! We are people of good will because we are Christian. The language you use and the condescension I see in your tone reveals that you don’t know what I mean by good will at all. As A Christian jurist I cannot and will not concede to your framing of things. To do so would mean the end of my calling as a Christian statesmen, reformer, jurist etc.
ps repealing Omama HC will be a political process that bypasses the high Court. If not your are so screwed!!!
1). We are never going to conceded the venue to the Supreme Court!( I’m surprised you don’t know that by now?)
2). It is precisely because of my long held commitment to the idea of E Pluribus Unum, that I have the upper hand over you in this debate Jere! We are talking here not about EPU, but about the scope of Congress’ power and how it was misused to dismantle the Hawaiian government.
3). The religious leaders who rejected Christ thought they knew Gods law but like you they had replaced their traditions in Torah for “traditions of men,” thereby pitting their traditions against the Lord who gave them over to their devices.
4). Your insistence that we must stand before your evil courts is a straight jacket approach to our plight, similar to the way the Jewish leaders rejected the very justice they thought they held in high regard.
5). Obama HC must be reversed or the country will never be the same. All that you hold dear including ‘E pluribus unum, will be dismantled and replaced with by “of the Government, by the Government” power politics. Americans are seeing their freedoms subordinated to the same straight jacket you are trying to put us into by insisting we conceded our identity and preclude what should otherwise be a state to state negotiation not a court trial in your evil (divided) courts. The way this plays out will be way different than you suggest it must or will. Given your unwillingness to see any wrong in what happened you play this trick with words trying to say we must have standing etc. I have Firm reliance on the Divine providence of God, not firm reliance on your so called Supreme Court! The same way you’ve tried to corner me against the truth here, is the same way your government will corner you into a box. In the Bible this is called oppression and God almighty hates oppression. Say what you will about standing and EPU, its all cliche and condescension where you see no way out for us. You have no grounding in reality when you cannot see any rawness or unilateralism in the way the Unites States worked to undo our government. Remember the Jews who said we have Abraham as our father? According to Christ they had simply made “a show” of legality whereas they really had no commitment to justice or Abrahamic faith at all. American involvement in the Island’s can be summarized this way. Large powerful country eyes resources of small weak country. Uses insurgents, U.S. Navy ships, diplomats, conspirators etc., to force a winner take all battle for the Islands! Large powerful country takes over small fledgeling Christian nation for its own perverted ends!! To this I say let my people go or your country will suffer the same fate you wish upon us! Obama HC will undermine your national sovereignty the same way you did ours where the tyrants you claim to loath will have trapped you against your will. So whereas your country used raw might to destroy our government, soon you will be at the other end of that same raw political power! Your refusal to “DO justice” belies your commitment to EPU! I’m not just dreaming about the future, I’m fallowing Ezra’s example of reform, which I admonish you to look at very closely. Your litigious culture is yours alone to answer for! We are people of good will because we are Christian. The language you use and the condescension I see in your tone reveals that you don’t know what I mean by good will at all. As A Christian jurist I cannot and will not concede to your framing of things. To do so would mean the end of my calling as a Christian statesmen, reformer, jurist etc.
ps repealing Omama HC will be a political process that bypasses the high Court. If not you are so screwed!!!
“We are never going to conceded the venue to the Supreme Court!( I’m surprised you don’t know that by now?) ”
Then what venue would you argue has jurisdiction over US constitutional law? You? Legal fact simply isn’t defined by your arbitrary desires – there is a process, and if you’re going to argue that the Newlands Resolution was unconstitutional as per US law, then obviously the SCOTUS has authority.
“We are talking here not about EPU, but about the scope of Congress’ power and how it was misused to dismantle the Hawaiian government.”
The Republic of Hawaii was not created by the US congress. It was an internationally recognized, sovereign and independent nation. It’s pursuit of annexation to the United States was also universally internationally recognized, and still is today. How can you assert that Congress dismantled the Republic of Hawaii, when in fact the Legislature of the Republic of Hawaii ratified the Newlands Treaty by their own hand?
“In the Bible this is called oppression and God almighty hates oppression.”
https://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm
“As A Christian jurist I cannot and will not concede to your framing of things.”
So you’re asserting that a religious tribunal should have jurisdiction over US constitutional law? Like having Shariah law?
Sounds dubious, at best.
Yes, I recall those conversations thank you. I remain opposed the Akaka bill, but I, unlike most who advocate for independence, have no interest in a top down style process where a so called reinstated Hawaiian government might try to mix the old with the new (some call this syncretism). Moreover I’m totally against International Law because I love American sovereignty and it’s libertarian traditions most of all. Liberty might be a fleeting thing were elements of the very old are mixed with the new, same as it is now with your Congress who seems hell bent on fundamentally changing the American system from the top down. Much of what you describe above regarding old Hawaii looks exactly like America does today where State agencies and the Feds arbitrarily and routinely pillage the resources of hard working Americans. They do this in a variety of ways, one of which is taxing its citizens way beyond what might have once been a reasonable tax. The State of Hawaii, almost from its inception, had used eminent domain to gobble up public hordes of public lands eventually forcing the Supreme Court (Sandra O’Connor) to call Hawaii an oligarchy, in essence giving Hawaii the green light to steal land with impunity. And you guys are worried about EPU and the negative effects of the Akaka bill? We call this situational ethics where you end up straining at a nat and swallowing a very fat camel! State agencies routinely ignore the public land trust doctrine in how they disposes of public lands, and legislative oversight committees stand idly by and pretend to care about public trust lands! The way I see it, you have the advantage over those like myself who believe in Hawaiian independence because your country has preempted what should have otherwise been a constitutional tribunal, where you and those like you would need to argue before the fact not as you do now after the fact (after the damage is done). For now you argue in a legal vacuum since the State and your military are still here and since most have no clue about what really went down in Hawaii. What you should be advocating is for Congress not the courts to allow a time for native Hawaiians to reform their government structure. Once we reorganize then and only then might you have the chance to make your points about why America should rule over the Islands. That way there’s no way we can say this was all forced on us like it has been. Doing it this way we prevent Congress from creating the racial institutions we agree are unconstitutional and divisive. The Akaka Bill you should know is a tacit admission that Kanaka Maoli are still a separate and distinct people. All of the Arguments Jere makes about the Republic being universally recognized is defective and dishonest for this reason. The price for this dishonesty will manifest when your own Congress does to you what it did to us in adopting harmful measures that Americans cannot repeal. My guess is you will be strapped to Obama HC for exactly the same amount of time we have been fighting for redress. That is if your country is around at all after Obama gets done with you. As I write I’m watching Fox interview the Rep for Freedomworks. This Org claims to be attempting to repeal Obama HC, while but citing some Congressmen who is swearing they will never be able to repeal it! Your Congress is divided on Constitutional issues which means the end of American liberty. Say what you will about EPU, Americans are systematically conceding their liberties for protection (government hand outs)! So as I see it, you really have only two choices here. Either let my people go or suffer horrible (divine) calamity! The same is true for us by the way, which is why I challenge Hawaiian leaders the way I do. We need more Jeremiah’s and Ezra’s who are not afraid to call a spade a spade even if its your own countrymen doing the bad! Actually I get attacked by pro-Akaka types as much as I do radical liberals who say the Constitution is a “evolving document” which must “adapt to modernity.” Which they really mean, rejecting America’s traditions (religion etc.) and replacing it with enlightenment thinking /Euro-economics (socialism). I won’t bother to open the link Jere sent me because he failed to show good will with the topic we started on. I’m much more familiar with the subject of America’s religious past than I am with Hawaiian sovereignty issues. You guys are not conservative or Christian which explains everything!
Jere!! The Republic of Hawaii had no authority to ratify the unconstitutional illegal Newlands Resolution in the first place so your arguments are totally misleading. This process corrupted both the self appointed Republic and the United States. This by the way is why President Mckinley suffered a medical blunder that resulted in him getting Gangrene! He suffered for eight days before finally succumbing to his wounds in 1901. Do you believe in the law of reaping and sowing? Also, to Jere’s point where he seems to lay everything on the de facto Republic, totally contradicts Public 103-150, where Congress admits to a crime and where it outlines both the motives and the stages of usurpation beginning with the committee of safety, which morphed into the de facto Republic. The way I see it, you and Jere are the Jews who thought they carried the torch for Jewish customs in Christ’s day. Failing to really understand those customs, they called for, and got, a unlawful trial and death. The Bible says the Jews stumbled at the corner stone. Which is, they really had no clue what they were talking about when they accused Christ of Blasphemy. Some Jews said Christ had a devil etc. So you guys try to deal in legal language using motto’s like EPU, while you stumble at my words!! Perhaps you are not prepared for someone like me? Actually I’m unlike anyone you have ever encountered because I speak from a pure place with regard to U.S. Constitutional traditions. I have long advocated that Cleveland’s appeal to Congress was the proper way to undo the mess the committee of safety created, despite what some will say about sovereign immunity, which is a myth. If America did to Iraq what it did to us there would be pandaemonium in the streets all across America!!!! The difference you ask? Internet!!! Read Annexation Hawaii and you be enlightened about the libertarian traditions I speak of. Hawaii is the reason why your courts engage in judicial activism. This states obsession with equality for gays has given you Civil Unions!!!!
Watching Beck on Fox this week, I think your country is being systematically dismantled by cynical forces you cannot combat. Wow that sounds so much like what happened in Hawaii!!!! Live my money die by money!
Jere, to suggest one law, and divers cultures, is a contradiction. Actually its part of the curse I was describing from Deuteronomy chapters 27 and 28.
It isn’t a contradiction at all – from diversity, we gain strength, but in order to keep diverse people together, they must be treated equally under the law. To assert that we should treat different cultures with different laws is the root of racism, oppression and evil in this world.
I’m not even sure how you’re translating Dueteronomy – the passage 27:17 is here:
““Cursed is anyone who moves their neighbor’s boundary stone.”
Then all the people shall say, “Amen!””
This is an admonition against stealing from one’s neighbor – not an assertion that we should treat people differently based on their culture.
Insofar as Dueteronomy 28, that’s just your basic “listen to me, and good stuff happens, don’t listen to me then bad stuff happens” – again, nothing about treating people differently based on their racial background.
I’ll point you back to the first constitution of the sovereign, independent and internationally recognized Hawaiian Kingdom – it started with this line:
“Ua hana mai ke Akua i na lahuikanaka a pau i ke koko hookahi, e noho like lakou ma ka honua nei me ke kuikahi, a me ka pomaikai.”
In english:
“God hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the earth in unity and blessedness.”
The truth of the matter, Noa, is that we are all of one blood, we are all one people, and our kupuna knew this back in 1840. Don’t tear down what they worked so hard to build up.
Comments are closed.