In the brouhaha over whether President Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or not, few seem to realize, that in the eyes of many historians and legal scholars, Hawaii is not a legitimate state of the United States of America. If the government of Hawaii had not been illegally overthrown in 1893 by the U.S. Marines through a classic act of Manifest Destiny and American-style gunboat diplomacy, Hawaii would still be an independent, sovereign nation today.
Notwithstanding a series of clever illegal moves by the U.S. government, Hawaii cannot be considered a legally bona fide state of the United States. In 1898 the United States unilaterally abrogated all of Hawaii's existing treaties and purported to annex it on the basis of a Congressional resolution. Two years later the U.S. illegally established the so-called Territory of Hawaii on the basis of the spurious Organic Act. After a period of prolonged belligerent occupation by the U.S., Hawaii was placed under United Nations Charter, Article 73, as a "non-self-governing territory" under the administrative authority of the United States. Then in 1959 the U.S. falsely informed the U.N. that Hawaii had become the 50th state of the United States after an illegal plebiscite. Among those allowed to vote in this invalid election were members of the U.S. military and their dependents stationed in Hawaii. In other words, Hawaii's occupiers were permitted to vote on its future.
In November 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 103-150 apologizing to the 140,000 Native Hawaiians, who call themselves Kanaka Maoli, for the January 17, 1893, invasion of Hawaii deposing Queen Liliuokalani which led to Hawaii's illegal annexation by the United States and eventually to statehood in 1959. This apology implicitly recognized the unrelinquished inherent sovereignty and right of self-determination of the Native Hawaiian people.
Whether it was his intention or not, President Bill Clinton clearly raised the expectations of the Kanaka Maoli that one day Hawaii might once again be viewed as an independent nation-state. The downtrodden Kanaka Maoli, who make up less than 12 percent of Hawaii's population, "die younger, earn less, go to jail more frequently, and are more likely to be homeless than any other ethnic group in the islands," according to the Honolulu Weekly.
If Barack Obama were born in Hawaii, and his birth certificate says that he was, then why has he shown so little interest in the plight of Native Hawaiians? Bill Clinton has done a lot more for the Kanaka Maoli than Barack Obama, even though Obama pretends to be a compassionate liberal.
At one level, it matters not whether President Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, Indonesia, or Saudi Arabia. The real issue is how does he behave. Therein lies the rub. Not unlike his friend Donald Trump, Obama has a very strong predisposition towards violence and war, caters almost exclusively to the rich and powerful, and palls around with the right wing government of Israel.
Hawaii became an alleged state of the United States as a result of a foreign policy based on full spectrum dominance and imperial overstretch -- the same foreign policy employed by Obama over a century later in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, and Palestine.
President Obama's benign neglect of the Hawaiian victims of American nineteenth century imperialism says more about who he is than the name of the country on his birth certificate.
Thomas H. Naylor is Founder of the Second Vermont Republic and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Duke University. His books include: Downsizing the U.S.A., Affluenza, The Search for Meaning and The Abandoned Generation: Rethinking Higher Education
**************************************************
1993 - Admission of some of the criminal acts were made and signed into law by U.S. President William Clinton as P.L. 103-150.
International Attorneys documented the wrongs:
1. Dr. Boyle
http://www.alohaquest.com/archive/boyle_excerpts.htmThe United States of America is "...admitting that the invasion, overthrow, occupation, annexation, starting in 1893, on up, violated all the treaties, violated basic norms of international law, and the United States Constitution... the overthrow of a lawful government... Under international law when you have a violation of treaties of this magnitude, the World Court has ruled that the only appropriate remedy is restitution."
"...now the United States government, after one hundred years, has finally and officially conceded, as a matter of United States law, that Native Hawaiian people have the right to restore the Independent Nation State that you had in 1893 when the United States government came and destroyed it. And also then that as a matter of international law the Native Hawaiian people have the right to go out now and certainly proclaim the restoration of that State... this resolution clears up all these matters... You don't need to petition Congress to do it. Congress has given you everything you need right here to do it, if that's what you want to do. The United Nations Charter provides the rest of the authority to do it."
"Congress is effectively conceding now that the (1959 statehood) vote is meaningless, as a matter of international law and United States domestic law. So you're not bound by it. Rather I'm suggesting you're now free to determine your own fate pursuant to the principal of self-determination."
"The State of Hawai'i, the federal government, are... the civilian arms of the military occupation authority, and... do not have sovereign powers. The sovereignty resides in the people."
"Who's land is it? Well, from what Congress seems to be saying, it's the land of the Native Hawaiians. The Native Hawaiian people still have sovereignty... You can't trespass on your own land. The trespassers then become the State of Hawai'i, and the land developers, and the golf courses, and the resorts. You are simply the Native Hawaiians asserting your rights under international law... this reversal of positions, between who is the criminal and who is the victim, who is asserting their rights and who is violating their rights, has been effectively conceded by Congress."
"... these are official findings of fact and law, by the Congress of the United States. These findings bind all state and federal courts here in Hawai'i."
"As a litigator before the International Court of Justice, I would be able to take this law to the World Court, and say, 'The United States government has now officially conceded that it illegally invaded and occupied the Kingdom of Hawai'i, and for this reason the native people of Hawai'i would be entitled to a restoration of their independent status as a sovereign nation state.'"
"I could not predict how long this would take, what would be the consequences, how many states will recognize you, but I take it that the plight of the Hawaiian people is generally well known in the world, and there's a great deal sympathy ...it might be that you would be able to obtain recognition quickly. And especially if you pursue this process in accordance with principals of peaceful, non-violent struggle. And I submit that's the most effective technique you have today... Gandhi threw the mighty British Empire out of India without using force. People power, what we call it today. And I submit that the Native Hawaiian people would be able to do the same thing, moving in this direction and adopting the techniques of peaceful, non-violent action, which is what Gandhi called for."
"I would certainly caution you against trying to seek the same type of treatment that the federal government has doled out to the Native Americans. Moreover, on the basis of this statute, you're entitled to a lot more..."
"...an Independent Sovereign Nation State is one way a people who are threatened with extermination by means of genocide can attempt to protect themselves... What is the best way to protect the existence of your people, as a people? ...to proclaim your own State, and then ultimately seek international recognition and finally UN membership..."
"...it's your future and that of your children and your children's children that is at stake."
What are the Criteria ... How can it be done?
Territory
"First, a fixed territory, and clearly we have the Hawaiian Archipelago... Who's land is it? Well, from what congress seems to be saying, it's the land of the Native Hawaiians. The Native Hawaiian people still have sovereignty. The sovereignty inheres in you. And now it is for you to decide what to do with this sovereignty... the title to the land rested and still rests, under international law, with the Native Hawaiian people."
Population
"Second, a population, a distinguishable population of people, the Native Hawaiians, those who would trace their ancestry back before the appearance of Europeans on these lands... Certainly the Hawaiian state could take the position that you'll set up a procedure to provide citizenship to all people who are habitual residents of the new State of Hawaii as of a certain date... on a level of equality with everyone else."
Government
"Third, a government, and here you have ... the Kupuna (Elders) Council, that you've traditionally had. You don't need a government along the lines of the federal government of the United States or the State of Hawai'i to have a government. Rather what you need is a way to organize your people to govern your relations among each other, and clearly you have that."
International Relations
"And fourth, the capacity to enter into international relations, to deal with other states, and to keep your commitments. As I understand it, there are already states in the Western Pacific region that support the Native Hawaiian people and probably would be prepared to give you diplomatic recognition as an independent state... You would probably obtain recognition in that capacity from a fairly large number of states."
See Full text of Boyle's testimony
2. Dr. Matthew Craven
http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Continuity_Hawn_Kingdom.pdf1998 - In Williamson B. C. Chang's brief in Civ. No. 98-0559-02 (Condemnation) dated July 29, 1998 on page 2 with Affidavit:
" Hawaii and the United States were separate and independent nations prior to July 7 , 1898. This Court may take judicial notice of that fact. No act of Congress, no Act of the Congress of the United States, no act of any Congress in the world can, without more, result in the incorporation of the territory of another nation." 1
1 See Exchange of remarks, Senators Allen and Stewart, 55th Cong. 2 d Session. 31 Cong. Rec. 6369 (Senator Stewart taking the position that the resolution was mere "puffing," in that the United States can "annex the world" if Congress so chose.) No nation has that power and not nation ever will have that power. Equally true, no nation can suffer the loss of its lands by " joint resolution ." It is not simply an illegal act - it is an impossible act. See Statement of Senator Foraker admitting Joint Resolution cannot annex Hawaii. 55th Cong. 2d Sess. 31 Cong. Rec. 6585.
Page 5: "No one claimed that Congress had power beyond the boundaries of the United States".
The following is regarding "The legislative history is more than clear: Congress deliberately sought to deny the Courts of the State of hawaii in rem jurisdiction."3 " Public Law 86-3 is the sole basis by which this Court derives its very existence, let alone its powers."
"3 Leaders of both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States were well aware of this fact. See Correspondence of Sanford Dole, President of Hawaii to A. Hartwell, dated November 15 , 1899 from the State Archives of Hawaii ("A reference to the joint resolution of annexation and the treaty shows clearly the untenable position of the President's order in that it attempts to affect land transfers made between July 7, and August 12 , 1898; for the treaty by Article 1st agrees that the Hawaiian Islands be annexed to the united States under the name of the Territory of Hawaii ;") the joint resolution changes this in a most radical way in the first paragraph by annexing the Hawaiian islands "as a part of the territory of the United States." The Treaty agreement having been departed from in this important particular by the joint resolution, it cannot be of course contended that the letter has an authority in relations to the Hawaiian Islalnds until it was accepted by us which acceptance took place on the 12th of August 1898." The protracted debate over the Joint Resolution had brought this fact to public attention. No one claimed that Congress had power beyond the boundaries of the United States."
Professor Williamson Chang under penalty of perjury stated the following:
He is licensed to practice in the State of Hawaii and before the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and that he is now the attorney for Rachel B. Painter and appears on her behalf in the above entitled matter.
That he as filed a complaint in the United States District court for the District of Columbia that relates to this case.
Said action is titled, Painter v. The United States of America , LCIV98001737 and was filed on July 10, 1998.
That said action is related in that it seeks declaratory relief as to the scope and meaning of the Act of Admission, Section Two.
That Section Two of the Act of Admission excludes the Island of Palmyra from the State of Hawaii. That such was the intent of section two.
That the same section two also excludes the island of Oahu , on which the property here is located. That the legislative history of section two supports this plain reading of section two.
That said section two states that:
"The State of Hawaii hall consist of all the islands, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters , included in the Territory of Hawaii, except the atoll known as Palmyra Island, together with its appurtenant waters and territorial reefs, but said State shall not be deemed to include the Midway Islands, San Island (offshore of Johnston Island) or Kingman Reef , together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters."
That the area within the Territory of Hawaii was set by section two of the Act of april 30, 1900, which states:
"That the islands acquired by the United States of America under an Act of Congress entitled "Joint Resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States,' approved July seventh eighteen hundred and ninety eight, shall be known as the Territory of Hawaii."
That he is aProfessor of Law at the University of Hawaii , William s. Richardson School of Law.
That among his duties as a Professor of Law he has been required to develop courses in Native Hawaiian Rights and Legal History.
That he received a grant from the National Science foundation to study the evolution of property rights in Hawaii.
14. That he shall attach, when certified by the Library of Congress , copies of various documents relating to this motion. That said certified documents should be available within two weeks.
That in the course of fulfilling the terms of the above grant, and in the course of his duties as a Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii, assigned to Native Hawaiian Rights and Legal History that the following documents have come to his attention:
The records of the debates on the Joint Resolution to Provide for Annexing the Hawaiian Islands, from the debates on that resolution of the United States Senate , particularly those pages of the Congressional Record, volume 31 pages 6331-6369, 6634-6634 and 6585-6572 chich contain statements of numerous senators that the Joing Resolution was not a treaty, and could not have any effect on Hawaii.
Records of the debates on the Act of april 30, 1900, which show that the Joint Resolution, as viewed by the Senate two years later did not incorporate Hawaii as territory of the United States. Those statements are on various pages of volume 33 of the Congressional Record , such as 2385-2391.
The supreme Court Record as found in the Library of Congress, the Law Library thereof,for the case Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903). The decision itself, together with the record of briefs of appellee and appellant in that matter show 1) that the Supreme Court ruled that the Joing Resolution did not incorporate the Hawaiian Islands as territory of the United States and that 2) the Appellee, then Territory of Hwaii took the position that the Joint Resolution did not make Hawaiii part of the United Sttes. (See brief of appellant Edmund Dole, Attorney General of the Territory of Hawaii.)
Other documents, such as volume 23 of the Opinions of the Attorney General of the United States, numerous opinions of the Attorney General state that the Joint Resolution did not incorporate Hawaii as part of the United States. In particular, Hawaii remained separate and independent for numerous purposes identified only with the rights of a sovereign and independent nation: to wit Hawaii was permitted to lay a tonnage tax on shipping between Hawaii and the United States, Hawaii was deemed separate and sovereign for the purposes of claims by British subjects arising from torts allegedly committed against them by the Provisional Government of Hawaii and Hawaii was not "the United States" for the purposes of the existing laws of the United States excluding Chinese.
House Report 305 pf the 55th Congress which shows that the ceremonies held on August 12 , 1898, in Honolulu, Hawaii had no legal effect. That is also the opinion of the United States Attorney General as stated in volume 23, relating to the "Public Lands" See pages 628 et seq.
Documents that show the intent behind section two of the Admission Act: That in the deliberations on the Statehood bill, S.49 in 1953-54, the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee rejected the language defining the boundaries for the future state of Hawaii, as then proposed in the draft of the State Constitution approved by the people of Hawaii November 7, 1950.
That the reasons for such rejection are partly stated in a "confidential memo" of Clark Clifford to Senator Earle Clements. That such memo notes that the definition of the State, as proposed by the people would differ from the definition of the State as set forth by the Senate in S. 49. That the Senate must reject the definition as proposed by the State Constitution. That the people of Hawaii must affirm the changes as demanded by the Senate. That, according to Clark, if the Constitution is not amended, either by reassembling the Constitutional Convention , or by a vote specially held prior to statehood, then Hawaii should not be admitted as a state.
That numerous proposed alternatives to the present boundaries of the State were considered by the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and that such alternatives would have included the Palmyra Islands as well as the Island of Oahu. That such alternatives were rejected in favor of the present language. That the present language is identical to Committee Print 6 of S.49. Committee Print 6 adopts the approach of Committee Print 5. Committee Print 5 differs substantially from all earlier versions as committee Print 5 states that the area of the State shall consist of that of the Territory, except the atoll known as Palmyra. That Print 4 and earlier prints, contained such language that would have included all islands within a certain designated parallelogram as defined by reference to longitude and attitude. That such approach was recommended by the Department of Justice , in a letter of J. Lee Rankin of January 11, 1954. Those approached would have affirmatively included islands within the new state. Thus, the adoption of the prsent language displays conscious intent to exclude all islands.
That said approach continued the existing policy of Congress whereby the Territory was defined by reference to the legal effect of the Joint Resolution.
That certain Senators on the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee were well aware that the Joint Resolution did not acquire for the United States either the island of Palmyra or the Island of Oahu. That such knowledge can be imputed from the transcripts of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs committee, as to a non-public hearing of March 17, 1953. Such knowledge can be imputed to Senator Clinton Anderson who was so informed that the Joint Resolution did not incorporate the Hawaiian Islands by memorandum in April of 1954.
That the plain meaning of section two is supported by the available legislative history.
That this motion is brought arising from counsel's duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility to zealously represent his clients. That said grounds for this motion are basic and elementary. The boundaries of the State are within the knowledge of those who practice beforee the Bar of the Courts of this State. That said counsel is not bringing this motion for the purposes of delay or harassment. Rather, the failure to raise this issue, in the course of representation would be possible grounds for incompetent representation.
Under Pentaly of Perjury, I, Williamson Chang states that such are true and correct, the documentary evidence referred to does exist and was found and examined by myself, in various archives and libraries, including the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.
AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.
(Signed)
Williamson B. C. Chang
Subscribed and Sworn to Before Me:
This Wed . Day of 29 July, 1998.
(signed)
NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF HAWAII
My Commission Expires: 9-5-99
L.S.
.jpg)
