Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Hawaii divided against itself, part 2


This page is a sequel to another page that was published on the same day.  Sometimes, when I have a lot of material for a page, I put it all on one page, but this time, I decided to make two pages.  Here is a link to the first page, which can also be found in the archives on the right.

The attack on American unity

This is the first sentence of a page on the website of the Department of Interior's Office of Native Hawaiian Relations.

The U.S. Department of the Interior is proposing to create an administrative procedure and criteria that the Secretary of the Interior would apply if the Native Hawaiian community forms a unified government that then seeks a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States.


This is the rest of that paragraph.
Under the proposal, the Native Hawaiian community — not the Federal government — would decide whether to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government, what form that government would take, and whether it would seek a government-to-government relationship with the United States.
The U.S. Department of the Interior held meetings with the group of people they called "native Hawaiians".

Below are links to seven YouTube videos of these typically divisive meetings.

The Hawaii State Capitol building, recorded June 23, 2014 a high school in Kauai, June 23, 2014
an elementary school in Waianae, June 23, 2014 an elementary school in kaneohe, June 25, 2014
an elementary school in Kapolei, June 26, 2015 a high school on Kauai, June 30, 2014
an elementary school on Kauai, July 1, 2014

Any "community" is welcome to organize themselves in a semi-governmental fashion, by choosing a President, a Vice-President, a Treasurer, and so forth, but the land that these "communities" are based on is still an integral part of the United States.


A legal battle was won in the courts in 2000

These are the first five paragraphs of a February 24, 2000 New York Times article.
Declaring that ''it demeans the dignity and worth of a person to be judged by ancestry instead of by his or her own merit,'' the Supreme Court today overturned a provision of Hawaii's Constitution under which only descendants of the original Hawaiians may vote for the leadership of a state agency that administers programs and millions of dollars in public money on their behalf.

The vote was a surprisingly lopsided 7 to 2 to reject the arguments put forward by Hawaii and the Clinton administration that the voting limitation was not essentially about race but about Hawaii's unique history and the historical obligations that flow from it.  The limitation on voting for the nine trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was challenged by a Caucasian rancher whose ancestors arrived in Hawaii in 1831.

About 20 percent of the state's residents claim descent from the people living in the islands when Capt. James Cook and his crew became the first Westerners to make landfall there in 1778, an event that led in little more than a century to the end of the independent Hawaiian kingdom.

"Ancestry can be a proxy for race," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said in the majority opinion.

"The ancestral inquiry mandated by the state implicates the same grave concerns as a classification specifying a particular race by name," he said, adding that "the use of racial classifications is corruptive of the whole legal order democratic elections seek to preserve."
Link to a similar article in the Washington Post, written by George Will, dated March 2, 2000.

The same author also published the same article, with the same headline, in the Jewish World Review on the same day.  Link to that story.

Link to the text of the legal case, Rice vs. Cayetano, decided February 23, 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court.


Another victory in the courts in 2009

These are the first four paragraphs of an April 1, 2009 article in the Los Angeles Times.
The United States may have apologized in 1993 for the "illegal overthrow" of Hawaii's native monarch a century earlier, but that congressional expression of regret did not give native Hawaiians a legal claim to state lands, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The 9-0 decision leaves it to the state of Hawaii to decide how to manage the 1.2 million acres in dispute.

The title to this land transferred to the state in 1959, when it was admitted to the Union.  But the historic and moral claims of native Hawaiians were not entirely resolved -- then or now.

In 1893, a group of American businessmen, with the aid of the U.S. armed forces, took power, replaced the Hawaiian monarch and sought annexation by the U.S. government.  Five years later, President McKinley signed an order that annexed Hawaii as a U.S. territory.

This unanimous legal decision has been the basis for healing any fading hurt feelings since Hawaii became a state in 1959.

The people who lived on that group of islands have many similarities.  As a group, they are all descended from other countries that were able to travel across the largest ocean in the world.  Some came from Japan, some came from the islands in the South Pacific, and some came from other places.

Small tropical islands are an environment that makes shared intimacy (and shared D.N.A.) not only possible but likely.  It is a very different situation than the fact that Russia and Alaska are located physically close to each other across the Bering Strait, pictured below.

The Bering Strait
Russia and Alaska
There is a very small piece of ocean that separates Russia and Alaska, yet Russia and America are two different countries, with two different presidents, two different currencies, two different languages, and two different histories.

The U.S. Department of the Interior is trying to declare the "native Hawaiian people" to be a different racial group than all of the other people who live on any of those islands.

They are the same people.  DNA proves it.


A Heritage Foundation activist called out the racism

These are the first five paragraphs of a November 13, 2015 commentary on the Daily Signal.
It’s bad enough having a state hold an election that is racially discriminatory.  Now we have a judge willing to allow it to move forward.

That would be federal district court Judge J. Michael Seabright (a George W. Bush appointee, surprisingly enough).  He’s refused to issue an injunction to stop an election in Hawaii to set up a separate government that excludes anyone who doesn’t meet the state’s definition of “Native Hawaiian.”

Seabright’s deplorable decision in Akina v. State of Hawaii is on an emergency appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—which, unfortunately, doesn’t always seem to believe in following Supreme Court precedent.

Meanwhile, voting has already started in Hawaii.  The election is intended to select delegates to a convention, which will draw up “governance documents” for a Native Hawaiian government. Registration to vote was restricted to “Native Hawaiians,” who are defined as only those whose ancestors lived on the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778—and even then only to those willing to confirm a statement affirming “the unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people.”  Voting by mail started on November 1 and runs through the end of the month.

The lawsuit was filed by Judicial Watch on behalf of six residents of Hawaii, several of whom actually meet the ancestry requirement.  However, they could not register to vote because they refused to agree to the prerequisite for registering—agreeing with the statement about the “unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people.”  Two of the plaintiffs are also native Hawaiians who were registered without their knowledge or consent.

Divisiveness is ruled illegal

These are the first five paragraphs of a November 28, 2015 article in The Hill.  The link in the first paragraph was in their story.  This story doesn't state the legal reason for this decision, but other stories, linked after these quoted paragraphs, do show the basis for this court action.  There is a hint of the justice's reasoning process in the last sentence in these paragraphs.
The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily halted a controversial election of Native Hawaiian leadership, The Huffington Post is reporting.

The month-long selection of delegates for a constitutional convention is seen by some as a key step forward for Native Hawaiian self-determination, and by others as a racially exclusive and unconstitutional exercise.

The elected delegates would recommend a form of self-government for Native Hawaiians and determine what relationship that government should have with the United States.

Election results were due Dec. 1, with more than 100,000 Native Hawaiians eligible to vote.

A federal judge in October ruled that the election could go forward because it is a private poll conducted by a nonprofit, not one held by the state.  A lawsuit filed by native and non-native residents in August argued that it is unconstitutional for the state to be involved in a race-based election.
"A lawsuit filed by native and non-native residents in August argued that it is unconstitutional for the state to be involved in a race-based election."


These are similar stories (in chronological order, oldest first)

The Huffington Post, November 27, 2015, linked by the first paragraph of the story in The Hill.

The Wall Street Journal, November 27, 2015

The New York Times, November 27, 2015

NBC News, November 27, 2015

Fox News, November 30, 2015

These paragraphs are part of an Associated Press story.  It appears on the ABC News website, and it is dated November 27, 2015.
One of the Native Hawaiians who sued to stop an election that would be a significant step toward Native Hawaiian self-governance says he's pleased a Supreme Court justice is blocking votes from being counted.

Kelii Akina is part of a group of Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians challenging the election. They say it's racially exclusive and unconstitutional.

The ruling is a victory for Native Hawaiians who don't want to be turned into a "government-recognized tribe," Akina said.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's order on Friday also stops the certification of any winners pending further direction from him or the entire court.

This "election" is an unconstitutional process because the U.S. Department of Interior, which arranged for this vote, considers "native Hawaiians", the only group of people who are eligible to vote, to be a racial group.


This is the reason why the Hawaiian vote is illegal

This is the complete text of the 15th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The phrase "citizens of the United States" includes people who live in the State of Hawaii, which has been the 50th state, and thus part of the United States, since August 21, 1959.  Link to that page on the History Channel website.

Justice Kennedy fulfilled his duty by protecting the right of the "non-native Hawaiians" to vote in that election.  These people cannot legally be denied the right to vote in any election "on account of race", which is precisely the qualification that was used to determine whether people could vote or not in this election.  Being a "native Hawaiian" meant, to the U.S. Department of the Interior, being a member of a separate race, and so, it is a status that cannot be used to deny voting rights under this Constitutional amendment.

If I and a small group of my friends, acting privately, voted for our favorite movies, our favorite foods, or our favorite music, by talking about those choices and even by writing those choices down on paper, those private votes would not violate any law.  In contrast, the outcome of the "native Hawaiian" vote could result in the loss of American sovereignty over land that is currently part of the State of Hawaii.

That outcome would require the participation of many more people besides anyone who calls himself a "native Hawaiian".

That outcome would require, at the very least, the participation of the United States Congress, which voted to accept Hawaii as our 50th state in the first place.

This is part of the first sentence in the November 28, 2015 story in The Hill, quoted and linked above.

"The month-long selection of delegates for a constitutional convention ...."

If a Constitutional Convention is held that has the legal authority to change the State Constitution of the State of Hawaii, then every legal resident of the State of Hawaii must be eligible to vote in that process.  The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits any racial group from being excluded from this vote.

This vote, whose only eligible participants are called "native Hawaiians" by the U.S. Department of the Interior, is a threat to a free and fair political process.


Other editorials on this topic

In chronological order, oldest first:
Link to a Declaration of Independence which was mailed to President George W. Bush at the White House address on June 23, 2003.  This web page was signed by someone who calls himself the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

Note: The words of America's Declaration of Independence were discussed and composed by a community of highly-educated men who met and talked for days before Thomas Jefferson put a single word on paper.  They had read scholarly works about political science.  They knew a lot about history, judging by the many historical references in the Federalist Papers.


Reasons why the Hawaiian vote is a real threat

This is the first paragraph of a page on the website of the U.S. Department of State.
America's annexation of Hawaii in 1898 extended U.S. territory into the Pacific and highlighted resulted from economic integration and the rise of the United States as a Pacific power.  For most of the 1800s, leaders in Washington were concerned that Hawaii might become part of a European nation's empire.  During the 1830s, Britain and France forced Hawaii to accept treaties giving them economic privileges.  In 1842, Secretary of State Daniel Webster sent a letter to Hawaiian agents in Washington affirming U.S. interests in Hawaii and opposing annexation by any other nation.  He also proposed to Great Britain and France that no nation should seek special privileges or engage in further colonization of the islands.  In 1849, the United States and Hawaii concluded a treaty of friendship that served as the basis of official relations between the parties.
America's 50th state gives it tremendous military and political benefits.  Any action that is taken, including the actions that are being taken in 2015 by the U.S. Department of the Interior to reduce those benefits, is a threat to America.


Still more reasons why the Hawaiian vote is a threat

Hawaii is a popular travel destination for people from all over the United States.  It is also a popular travel destination for people from Japan.

That means America receives an economic benefit (income from tourism) by having Hawaii be our 50th state.



First Friday Hawaii
(clickable link)

However, there is another reason to keep our sovereignty over Hawaii.  If the United States lost control over the naval base at Honolulu, we would have much less ability to protect the American mainland against an attack.

In December 1941, Japan showed its' military muscle by attacking the naval base in Honolulu.  They didn't attack the California coastline, not even any of the military bases in California.  They attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Honolulu.

This may be the only color film of the attack in existence.
Link to the Pearl Harbor attack on

The History Channel

Encyclopedia Brittanica

U.S. History.com

America's Library (This website
is apparently operated by
the Library of Congress.)

Wikipedia

If we lose control over Pearl Harbor, the next attack from an emperor in Asia will be made in California.

That emperor could put his own navy and his own air force in Honolulu.



December 7, 2015 update.  Today is the 74th anniversary of the 1941 attack at Pearl Harbor.  This is the complete text of an article dated December 2, 2015 in the New York Times.  The two links in this paragraph were in their article.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered officials in Hawaii not to count ballots or name the winners in an election there until a federal appeals court rules on whether it was constitutional to limit voting to people of native Hawaiian ancestry.  The Supreme Court’s order, over the objections of its four more liberal members, was a response to an emergency application from Hawaii residents who said the election violated the 15th Amendment, which bars race discrimination in voting.  The election, which was to end on Monday, was extended for three weeks after Justice Anthony M. Kennedy issued an interim order on Friday to stop the vote count.  The election is for delegates to a convention that would prepare a document on self-governance by Native Hawaiians.
"... a document on self-governance by Native Hawaiians."

As long as this document doesn't make any changes to the Hawaii State Constitution, I'm not opposed to it or to any other document that is written by any group of people who live in Hawaii.

Any document that does make changes to the Hawaii State Constitution must, of course, be approved by the Hawaii State Legislature, under the terms and conditions of their current State Constitution.

My home state of Massachusetts has a constitution that has been amended more than 100 times since it was ratified in January 1788, half a year before the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.



April 1, 2016 update. The organizers of the racist "Native Hawaiian" vote cancelled the election of "Hawaiian only" delegates to a convention.  Link to a December 16, 2015 article in Al-Jazeera, the only news article I could find on this decision.  The article mentions a convention that would allow delegates who could be any citizen of the State of Hawaii.  The scheduled starting date of this four-week convention was an unannounced day in February, but as of April 1, 2016, it hasn't started.



April 13, 2016 update.  A convention was held for every Hawaiian resident.  They adopted a compromise document that, if ratified, would be a new Constitution for the State of Hawaii.  Link to a short February 26, 2016 article in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.  It is noteworthy that according to the unratified document, citizenship in any new nation would depend on proof of a bloodline from people who lived on those islands before 1778.  This is an impossible standard of proof of citizenship, and it is a statement that a radical racist would make.  Expect this document to fail in every ratification attempt.

The website for the Native Hawaiian Convention hasn't been updated since 2010.

Hawaii divided against itself, part 1


"If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand."
- Mark 3:25

link to this verse on the Bible Hub website.  Words that are very similar to these can be found in the other two synoptic gospels.

Link to my essay A house divided against itself cannot stand, published January 6, 2015 on this blog.  It praised Abraham Lincoln for doing so much to keep America united.  He fought and died for our unity.

These words, when translated from Latin into English, mean

"Out of many, one."
America is one nation that was formed from the union of many people.

After we became a nation founded on religious liberty and a citizen government in 1776, we grew through immigration, hard work, the blessing of good farmland, and our political principles.
Copied from a page on the History Channel website.

The United States experienced major waves of immigration during the colonial era, the first part of the 19th century and from the 1880s to 1920.

Many immigrants came to America seeking greater economic opportunity, while some, such as the Pilgrims in the early 1600s, arrived in search of religious freedom.
This is the next sentence on that page.

From the 17th to 19th centuries, hundreds of thousands of African slaves came to America against their will.


This is a link to my November 2012 essay America grew with the help of craftsmen.  We grew because many of those immigrants brought usable skills with them and the willingness to use those skills to help others.  The mere presence of immigrants wasn't sufficient.  Houses were built, furniture was carved out of wood, farmers gave us wheat, millers ground the wheat and produced flour, and bakers took the flour and baked bread.  Later, other farmers gave us milk, which could be turned into butter to put on the bread.  Other craftsmen made our clothes, our shoes, and barrels that allowed large quantities of liquids to be transported from place to place.

Regardless of what country anyone came from, and regardless of anyone's means of transportation or their willingness to be here, we became one nation under God.

One of the most important sources of our strength is our unity, which President Lincoln knew because he read his Bible often.  President Obama also knows the importance of our unity, but because he hates America, he considers our unity to be a place where he must attack us.

Any action that increases our unity will also increase our strength.

Lincoln knew it and cherished it.

Obama knows it and looks forward to America's destruction.


A divided house, 1858

The Bible verse quoted above was quoted by President Abraham Lincoln.  This is the first paragraph of the introduction to this speech on the website Abraham Lincoln online.
On June 16, 1858 more than 1,000 delegates met in the Springfield, Illinois, statehouse for the Republican State Convention. At 5:00 p.m. they chose Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the U.S. Senate, running against Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. At 8:00 p.m. Lincoln delivered this address to his Republican colleagues in the Hall of Representatives. The title reflects part of the speech's introduction, "A house divided against itself cannot stand," a concept familiar to Lincoln's audience as a statement by Jesus recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).

These are the first sentences of that speech, quoted from the same page of Abraham Lincoln Online.
Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.

A divided house, 2015

In 2015, the Executive Branch of the United States Government, led by a man who passionately believes in the principles of Marxism, is trying to make this great nation, with the most powerful military in the world, a divided house again.


These are the first seven paragraphs of a April 7, 2013 article on World Net Daily.
Weatherman domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is now confirming what the White House has previously denied – that he held a fundraiser in his living room for Barack Obama.

That 1995 meeting was said to have launched Obama’s political career.

In an October 2008 interview on MSNBC host Chris Matthews’ show, Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, categorically denied the fundraiser was ever held.

Matthews asked Gibbs: “Did [Ayers] have a fundraiser for [Obama], or not?”

Gibbs, who would become the White House spokesman, replied: “No, he did not have a fundraiser for our candidate as he said ten seconds ago.”

However, in an interview last week with the Daily Beast, Ayers recalled that fundraiser.

Stated Ayers of his relationship with Obama: "We were friendly, that was true; we served on a couple of boards together, that was true; he held a fundraiser in our living room, that was true; Michelle [Obama] and Bernardine were at the law firm together, that was true. Hyde Park in Chicago is a tiny neighborhood, so when he said I was 'a guy around the neighborhood,' that was true."

Watch me show how President Obama, as the man who is most responsible (and thus accountable) for the actions of all of the Executive Branch agencies, is polarizing his favorite issue - race.

Link to my September 2014 essay Presidents must be accountable to their people.  One of the biggest reasons for accountability is the fact that any man, even the President of the United States, can develop a mental illness which makes him incapable of performing his official duties.

The essay also mentions a Constitutional (and thus legal) method of removing the President from the White House if he is unable to perform those duties, in the opinion of certain very high-ranking members of Congress.



Divisiveness begins even before Obama is sworn-in

This is the home page for the U.S. Department of the Interior.
This is the home page for its' Office of Native Hawaiian Relations.

This is part of what you will see if you click "About us".
The Office of Native Hawaiian Relations was authorized by Congress in Public Law 108-199 on January 23, 2004, and in Public Law 104-42 on November 2, 1995.
Creeping divisiveness
No, it wasn't.  That statement is a lie.

This is a link to the text of Public Law 108-199 on the website of the U.S. Government Printing Office.

This law is divided into eight divisions, Division A through Division H.  Each division applies to certain named U.S. Government agencies.  Each division is further divided into titles, starting in each case with Title 1 (using Roman numerals).  The Table of Contents for this law mentions, for example, money that is appropriated by this law for 2004 for the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce, the Department of State, and the Judiciary (all within Division B)  Appropriations for the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education are all in Division E of this law.

There is no mention of the Department of the Interior anywhere in the Table of Contents.

This law appropriates (gives) money to states, and as the 50th state, Hawaii is eligible for some of this money, but any money that is appropriated for the State of Hawaii cannot be used for the purpose of a secession from that state or from the United States.  Congress would not and did not add that feature into any appropriations legislation.

Secession is the subject of Part 2b of this two-part essay.  Part 2b was published two hours after Part 2a (this page).


The 1995 law

The formal title of Public Law 104-42 is "An ACT To establish the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode Island".

Link to the Senate Report on this law in the 104th session of Congress (1995-1996) on the website of the Library of Congress.

There is obviously no relevance to any group of "native Hawaiians" in this law, but the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government still treats them as if they are a separate race with a big space in between them and the rest of the people who live in our 50th state.

On the right is a photo of the Berlin Wall, which divided Germans who lived in Berlin, Germany from other Germans who lived in Berlin, Germany.

Part 2b of this essay documents a determined effort by the President to attack our unity, reduce our sovereignty, and make us extremely vulnerable to a military attack.

This is treason, my friend.

Treason is one of the only two crimes that were considered so serious by America's Founding Fathers, they are mentioned by name in the U.S. Constitution.

Link to the second page of this two-part essay.  That page will document an effort by a U.S. Government agency, under the traitorous leadership of Barak Hussein Obama, to force Hawaii to secede from the United States and thus deprive America of
  • a popular travel destination for people in the United States and Japan (and the associated economic benefit of tourism)

  • 3,600 crop farms and 1,100 livestock farms that include cattle, hogs, milk, eggs and honey Link to my source.

  • a joint military base that includes the Pearl Harbor Navy Base and the Hickam Air Force Base.  Link to their combined home page.