A-Infos (en) Pledge of Allegiance in the Kingdom of Hawai'i

[Beezee Evans <bee3xxx@yahoo.com>]

________________________________________________
     A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
           http://www.ainfos.ca/
________________________________________________


Mandatory Pledge of Allegiance Leads Youth Toward ANARCHY & Rebellion!!!
         Insensitive and Arrogant Legislator Offensive to Native
Hawaiians
***************************************************************

   Rep. Bob McDermott's  proposed legislation before the House
Education Committee (Honolulu Feb. 10),
which would require mandatory recital of the Pledge of Allegiance ("to
the flag of the United States of 
America") by students at all public schools in Hawai'i, seems so out
of touch with the youth of America
and the people of Hawai'i that it makes one wonder where Mr. McDermott
has his head situated, and what 
his real reactionary agenda is.

  "We are all citizens of the United States," said State Rep.
McDermott, R-Salt lake-Aliamanu-Aiea. "We 
benefit greatly from that citizenship and we should pledge allegiance
to this country." McDermott, a retired
US Marine officer who served in the Gulf War, has the support of
several veterans organizations. In 
supporting written testimony, Bill Daves, state Commander for the
American Legion wrote "The Pledge of
Allegiance is vital to the moral upbringing of our children."

  I don't know what country these military people think they are
living in, but I would tend to suspect from
their intentions and attitudes that it is Germany, 1938, and not
Hawai'i, 1998. I would also suspect that this
rather alarmist action by a Rep. of the State of Hawai'i betrays a
sinking feeling among the loyalists of the
United States of America; the realization that they may indeed be
parties to an ongoing illegal occupation
of a sovereign nation, the Kingdom of Hawai'i.  When in doubt,
fascists always march out the flag, and 
when doubt gives way to rebellion, then they will force the flag on
the field of battle by whatever means
necessary. At a time when the status of the United States in Hawai'i
is highly questionable, to say the 
least, a statement such as "We are all citizens of the U.S." is
nothing other than a declaration of conquest
and dominion by a man who feels the very ground he is standing on
slipping out from under him, literally.

   From my own personal experience, as a U.S. military brat who
attended many schools where the Pledge
of Allegiance was mandatory every morning, let me just say that being
forced to cross my heart to a 
blood-soaked flag (I grew up in the "Vietnam theatre") did nothing to
engender my trust or "allegiance"
to the institution of the United States-- in fact, quite the opposite.
Imagine for a moment Bart Simpson,
or Calvin (of "Calvin & Hobbes") being forced to pledge to a
"Republic" which obviously does not 
offer "liberty and justice to all." As for the timing, I can't it
imagine it could be worse for reaching out 
to the youth of America, let alone Hawai'i, what with teachers and
parents scrambling to explain about
"semen-soaked dresses" and "oral sex in the Oval office" and "Bill
didn't inhale but Al did" and all the 
slapstick fit to choke even a loyal citizen. Mr. McDermott, I truly
encourage you to continue with your 
campaign, for I know that, like most fascists, you are tying your own
noose in the eyes of youth, and the 
end result will be an inspiring education for future generations of
anarchists, radicals, and liberationists.

   The main questions I would have for Mr. McDermott and his fellow
imperialists are: "What about Native
Hawaiians, the Kanaka Maoli? What about the Kingdom of Hawai'i? What
flag do you wave over Queen
Lili'uokalani's palace?" 

   What's that reply? "Semper Fi"!?   My, my my.......country 'tis of
Thee, oh sweet Lady Liberty, I whisper 
into the ocean breeze. "...And justice for all," you declare.  Native
Hawaiians are still waiting.


                           
                                                  In Heartfelt
Allegiance to the Living Earth


                                                             Bryan
"Beezee" Evans

                                                             
beezee@earthling.net


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



To:	kanakamaoliallies <kanakamaoliallies-l@hawaii.edu>	
Subject:	Does Hawai`i have a right to assert national independence?	

For the first time ever, the legal question of whether or not Hawai`i
has a
right to assert national independence is now being considered at the
Highest
Court in America. We cannot emphasize enough the magnitude of what this
petition portends. For the first time ever, the constitutionality as to
the
annexation of Hawai`i, to the United States, will be dissected and
scrutinized
by the finest legal minds in America.

Learn about the issue and what you can do about it.

http://kingdom.org/hawaii/

Whatever befalls the earth, befalls the children of the earth. We did
not
weave the web of life, we are merely a strand in it. Whatever we do to
the
web, we do to ourselves.
~Chief Seattle


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


To:	kanakamaoliallies-l@hawaii.edu	
Subject:	HT: Hawaiian Annexation was Compounded by Phony Votes	

Hawaiian Annexation was Compounded by Phony Votes

Commentary By: Kioni Kaumuali'i Crabbe

The Haleakala Times  (http://www.maui.net/~haltimes)
February 4th to February 17 1998
Page 4 - Letters

     In June of 1897, Queen Lili'uokalani boarded a train in San
Francisco
leaving for Washington DC with this letter of protest to the American
President.

     "I, Lili'uokalani of Hawai'i, by the grace of God Queen of the
Hawai'i[an] Islands on the seventeenth day of January, A.D. 1893, do
hereby
protest against the ratification of certain treaty, which, so I am
informed, has been signed at Washington by Messrs., Hatch Thruston, and
Kinney, purporting to cede those Islands to the territory and dominion
of
the United States.

     "I declare such a treaty to be an act of wrong toward my people and
toward 'friendly nations' with whom they have made treaties, the
perpetuation of the fraud whereby the constitutional government was
'overthrown,' and finally, an act of gross injustice to me.

     "I yielded my authority to the forces of the United States in
order to
avoid bloodshed, and because I recognized the futility of a conflict
with
so formidable a power, my government was unlawfully coerced by the
forces,
diplomatic and naval, of the United States, because said treaty
perpetual
amity and good former treaties with the people, but all treaties made by
those so ignores, not only all professions of faith made by the United
States in sovereigns representing the Hawai'i[an] people, but all
treaties
made by those sovereigns with other and friendly power, and it is
thereby
in violation of 'International Law.'

     "Therefore, I, Lili'uokalani of Hawai'i, do hereby call upon the
President of that nation, to withdraw said treaty (ceding said Islands)
from further consideration."

     It was during this trip that she observed the vast expanse and
beauty
of America and never understood why a country that had so much could
covet
her tiny kingdom. Just a few months later, on August 12, 1898, President
McKinley signed a bill annexing the Kingdom of Hawai'i to the United
States.

     In 1842, 45 years earlier, the government of the United States
recognized the independent status of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. A
friendship
treaty was signed and the United States swore to "protect and uphold"
the
sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawai'i Secretary of State Daniel Webster
proclaimed "as the sense of government of the United States, that the
government of Hawai'i ought to be respected; that no power ought to take
possession of the Islands, either as a conquest or for the purpose of
colonization; and that no power ought to see for any undue control over
the
existing government, or any exclusive privileges or preferences in the
matter of commerce."

     Many Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i have dreaded the coming of this
particular
year, 1998, which marks the centennial of the signing of the illegal
document of annexation and extortion by the U.S. government. Americans
will
celebrate this act of oppression and genocide while somber-spirited
warriors laden with broken heartedness from annexation will walk with
lowered heads. There will be no celebration; just the acknowledgment
that
we were ever loyal to our Queen and that we would gladly eat stones
rather
than betray her.

     "How, from the essence of humanity, did the president extract the
right to steal?" (Morrison I. Swift) Only Congress can approve
annexation.
The annexation issue was brought to a vote, and McKinley never got the
two-thirds majority he needed. He still signed the bill and in 1900
signed
the Organic Act, which officially ceded Hawai'i as a territory to the
Union. Congress admits the "Indigenous Hawai'i[an] people never directly
relinquished their claims to inherent sovereignty through a plebiscite
or a
referendum." In 1959, a plebiscite was held in the territory of Hawai'i
which eventually led to the first state primary. Congress, acutely
conscious of the historic opportunity it was tendering then, had asked
the
people of Hawai'i (Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i excluded) for a final and
conclusive referendum on the question of statehood. On June 27, voters
were
handed a separate ballot requiring a simple [Yes] or [No] vote on the
question. The box for independence was conveniently left off.

     Plebiscite is an expression of the people's will by direct ballot
on a
political issue, as in choosing between independent nationhood or
affiliation with another nation. Congress has stated that the particular
plebiscite ordered by President Eisenhower in 1959 is now absolutely
"meaningless" because the vote was not authorized and conducted by the
United Nations Organization. This is a direct requirement under Article
73
of the UN Charter. The United States did not do that. The vote was
clearly
in violation of International Law and of United States domestic law.

     In 1939 the Territory of Hawai'i legislature passed Act 243, to
provide for a plebiscite at the November 5, 1940 election. Only one
question appeared on the ballot. "Do you favor statehood for Hawai'i?"
Sixty-seven percent of the 68,602 voters were in favor of statehood. For
statehood opponents the 1940 census was another opportunity to question
the
Americanism of Hawai'i.

     The territory then had a population of almost four hundred
twenty-five
thousand. Hawai'i[ans] and part-Hawai'i[ans] comprised 15.2 percent of
this
total; Caucasians - 24.5 percent and Japanese - 37.3 percent. The
result of
the June 27, 1959 plebiscite was a landslide ratio of seventeen to one
in
favor of statehood. A straw poll was taken among students of the
Kamehameha
Schools on the issue of statehood. Sixty percent voted for an
independent
nation.

     Several elements go into the plebiscite process. According to
Article
73 of the UN Charter, a specific ethnic group must request a plebiscite,
and only they can participate in the this process. It is solely up to
them
to decide what form of government they wish to establish. In the case of
the previous plebiscites held in Hawai'i, everyone who resided in the
territory voted on the statehood issue, including military personnel.
The
proper way to conduct a plebiscite is clearly outlined in the UN
Charter.
During a twenty-four hour period, UN officials must uphold martial law,
oversee the voting process, tally the votes then finally proclaim the
results.

     Whatever the results of the vote, it is final. In 1993, the state
of
Hawai'i legislature, through an act, requested that the Kanaka Maoli
Hawai'i conduct a plebiscite and the state was going to fund this
process.
The state of Hawai'i can not order a plebiscite, nor can the US
government
nor any governing body.

     Congress has stated that only they can approve annexation,
territorialism or statehood. They admit that the overthrow and
annexation
were illegal acts and that the Kanaka Maoli Hawai'i have the right of
restoration, of restitution, and the right to proclaim their own form of
government. AND that they do not need the permission of Congress.
Congress
might not like it, but they're kind of stuck with their own law! Are
they
not?

     "There is still time to save our heritage. Never cease to act
because
you fear you may fail. The way to lose an earthly kingdom is to be
inflexible, intolerant and prejudicial. Another way is to be too
flexible,
tolerant of too many wrongs and without judgment at all. It is a razor's
edge. It is the width of a blade of pili grass. To gain the Kingdom of
Heaven is to hear what is not said, to see what cannot be seen and to
know
the unknowable that is aloha. All things in this world are two; in
heaven
there is but one." Lili'uokalani, Queen of Hawai'i.

     Perhaps the Kingdom of Heaven she was referring to is Ha (breath
from
God), Wai (water from God) and I (God).

###################################################################################


Hi Larry, I forwarded the article unedited but actually I am not sure
ifthis is accurate. Maybe Francis can shed more light on this, if he
isnottoo busy with other things. But I don't think a plebiscite
isnecessarilyconfined to one ethnic group.At
http://hawaii-nation.org/pleb.html#letter you will find
Francis'letterdefining what a plebiscite is under int'l law, and it
does say that "Itmust be guaranteed before the process begins that the
will of the NativeHawaiian People is determinative and will be honored
and respectedwhatever the results of such a plebiscite might be,
including independence."However, this was written specifically in the
context of the HSEC vote,which had already defined the voters as
Kanaka Maoli only, and so I'mnotsure if this statement comes just from
that context, and if the essenceisthat the will of the voters must be
honored, but not that the votersmustbe of one ethnic group. I'm sure
there have been other plebiscites intheworld in which a whole
population voted, not just one ethnic group.One inaccuracy in Keoni's
description of this vote is that "Kanaka MaoliHawai'i [were]
excluded]. As Poka Laenui writes, " ... those who daredtodeclare
themselves Hawaiian citizens, refusing to accept the imposedAmerican
citizenship, could not vote." But Kanaka Maoli who were
Americancitizens were allowed to vote (I know several kupuna who
proudly state today that they voted NO). Whether ONLY Kanaka Maoli
should have beenallowed to vote, I'm not sure, but the "self" is this
vote ofself-determination was fraudulent for many other reasons, and
most ofthosewho voted had no right to say what Hawaii's political
status should be: The qualified voters in this process were U.S.
citizens who hadresided in Hawai`i for at least one year. Since the
American invasion andannexation and during its watch, thousands had
migrated to Hawai`i, coming fromthe U.S., Europe, Asia and other
Pacific Islands. Many were associatedwith the U.S. military's presence
in Hawai`i. Others came for employment,education, opportunities or
escape. These people who were or took up U.S.citizenship were all
permitted to vote. (Poka Laenui, Statehood: A Second Glance,1992
http://hawaii-nation.org/statehood2.html)Another more fundamental
question is the fact that Hawaii should neverhavebeen placed on the
list of non-self-governing territories in the firstplace. It was
distinct from all other territories on the list in that itwas once a
fully independent internationally recognized country withmanytreaties.
Because of this, it is not actually necessary to have aplebiscite AT
ALL for Hawaii's independence to be restored. Actually,legally, Hawaii
still is independent, de jure, and a plebiscite wouldhaveto be held in
order for the illegal de facto US/state government tobecomevalid. We
have to reverse the conventional thinking. Hawaii already
isindependent by fact of law, and no vote is needed to affirm
that.Keoni stated in the article that "Only Congress can approve
annexation.The annexation issue was brought to a vote, and McKinley
never got thetwo-thirds majority he needed. He still signed the bill
and in 1900signedthe Organic Act, which officially ceded Hawai'i as a
territory to theUnion." While this is true, he is missing another I
think more importantpoint about the illegality of this act, which
Keanu has brought out inhiswritings, the fact that territory can only
be ceded by conquest ortreaty,and neither happened in the case of
Hawaii. So even if McKinley HADgottenthe 2/3 vote he needed, the
annexation would still have been illegal. Thefact that they couldn't
get the votes and violated this process justtopsoff the fact that it
was a violation of international law and the USConstitution to begin
with.In that context, the Kingdom of Hawaii was multiracial with all
ethnicgroups able to vote, participate in government, etc., so it is
only thelater colonization which placed the racial divisions on the
process.Scott







==
   May the Power of Mother Earth be with Us
   Love and Blessings of Many Hearts embrace Us 
   And Wisdom of Ancestors light Our every day
{{{MUTANEX}}}http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Dimension/8875/
  "Society is like a stew. If you don't keep it stirred,
you get alot of scum on top." Edward Abbey
=-=-=EarthMotherShip=-=-=<http://www.earthwisdom.com/>=-=-=
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


     ****** A-Infos News Service *****
  News about and of interest to anarchists

Subscribe -> email MAJORDOMO@TAO.CA
             with the message SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS
Info      -> http://www.ainfos.ca/
Reproduce -> please include this section