I was reading Hawaii Reporter this morning when I came up on this commentary about the Hawaii ceded lands case.I had thought OHA’s position on this issue was bad enough. But that was until I read this latter commentary by Leon Siu.Which gets my award for the most outlandish commentary about the Hawaii ceded lands litigation
John Powell wrote up an excellent blog entry here chastising Charles & Joan Coupe for blocking the completion of the Hokulia bypass.
The reader comments to this WHT article say that the Ane Keohokalole highway is not needed. I completely disagree because of the massive amount of development planned in this area by the DHHL and the State of Hawaii.On top of that, it is my understanding this road will eventually go as far as the Palamanui development north of Kona Palisades. Thus this highway will ease the traffic burden on Queen Kaahumanu highway.
I can understand Reed Flickinger’s frustration with the slow pace of roadway construction here in West Hawaii. However, like in the case of Alii Parkway, it is best that they get all the loose ends resolved or this project will be added to the never ending list of roadway projects delayed by litigation (Hokulia bypass, Lako Street extension).
Lastly, I’m happy to see that Hawaiian Telcom’s bankruptcy proceedings are moving forward.
March 14th, 2009 at 8:26 AM
Could you perhaps provide us with a few more insights into the “guidelines” or rules you applied by which you label a view (OHA’s or anyone else’s for that matter) “outlandish”? Does this “outlandish” label mean you believe these views/positions are false, not based in facts — facts that you have researched and can presumably substaintiate? We are all trying to understand the validity of the various arguments and you’ve done little to help by simply smacking a label of “outlandish” on the commentary.
There are many aspects related to the question of the validity of Hawaii statehood that find their source in the “foreign or bizarre” nature under which statehood was acquired — so in that respect alone you may be on to something — but you may be pointing your disparaging remark in the wrong direction.
The primary aspects of the meaning of “outlandish” connotates ideas/actions of a nature that is “not native” — in this context (questioning statehood or ceded lands issues) this may be viewed as not native to Hawaii, or not native to generally accepted regulation of government processes where these governments utilize “consitutional” processes of checks and balances to maintain the legality of claims. The United States and the state(?) of Hawaii are assumed to operate under these consitutional processes.
So please… enlighten us as to the basis of the label you have applied so casually to the positions/views held by OHA and Mr. Siu. Perhaps before you do you, may want to verify your “usage” of the term. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/outlandish It may help us UNDERSTAND the validity of your application of the label… OR… help you apply the label with a more “refined” accuracy.
Mahalo for helping continue the discussions either way!
Aaron- I’ve read OHA’s position on this matter. It is like comparing night and day to Mr. Siu’s commentary, which was simply outlandish.On that note, of all the commentary I’ve read about the oral arguments none have been so off the wall and have failed to back out their claims as Mr. Siu’s commentary has.
March 14th, 2009 at 3:04 PM
The vast majority of Hawaii’s people correctly understand the ceded
(stolen/seized) lands issue as being a State of Hawaii issue. I want
to again encourage those in the service of our community to also remember
the US CONSTITUTIONAL basis and authority with which this case
ultimately turns upon.
The US Constitution makes very clear that all international treaties
CARRY THE SAME FORCE OF LAW as the Constitution itself. At the time of
the overthrow, “Hawaii had full and complete diplomatic recognition
with the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and
conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and
navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887.
(from PUBLIC LAW 103-150 aka Hawaiian Apology Bill)
Queen Liliuokalani understood clearly that the illegal overthrow of
the Kingdom of Hawaii was not only a violent breach of treaties in
good standing, but more fundamentally…a blatent transgression of US
CONTSTITUTIONAL LAW. She wisely chose to avoid needless bloodshed in
the face of this treason, because she believed the US Congress and
President Grover Cleveland would follow their own Constitution, and
take all necessary steps to reinstate the Kingdom of Hawaii
immediately.
Here we are 116 years later (over five generations), and the proper
enforcement of America’s highest law awaits us all.
Sincerely and with heartfelt Aloha,
Gene Tamashiro
Honolulu, Hawaii
March 14th, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Again… “outlandish”… what specifically do you find outlandish about Mr. Siu’s commentary? Maybe if we’d all try to use less “trash talk” and provide more substance – or is it the substance that generates the kind of fear that makes it easier to throw down a label than make a concerted effort to improve everyone’s understanding of the issues?
As far as OHA’s position being as different as night and day from Mr. Siu’s… Could you explain why you would expect their arguments to be similar? OHA is an organization intended to protect the interests of their “beneficiaries” (lately I’m wondering if they see their beneficiaries as the native Hawaiian population they are intended to serve, or if they have come to see themselves and the perpetuation of their own little corner of the investment banking and real estate market as their “beneficiary”), whichever it may be the fact remains that their very existence relies on continued funding from the state – and now of course… from all the “investments” they have made “on behalf of” their beneficiaries.
While most would expect OHA to operate in a manner that at the very least provides the impression that they are acting in the interest of their beneficiaries, to the extent that they act to oppose the state’s attempts to usurp the rights or inheritance of the beneficiaries they nevertheless must at some point consider the source of their OWN existence/funding — weighing the risk of biting the hand that feeds them. This will presumably become less of an issue when “investment” revenues ultimately outpace state funding, but OHA remains a state entity.
Mr. Siu’s position, as with the position of others interested in questions of sovereignty, appear to at least be attempting to remove some ignorance behind much of the statehood propaganda the Hawaiian population has been spoon-fed for so long — I’d compare this propaganda to the false rationalizations the Bush Administration offered for invading Iraq as well as the manner in which our previous administration manipulated the media. These same misconceptions continue to be perpetuated through the propaganda the state is currently offering at: http://statehood.hawaii.gov/. The deliberately misleading, clandestine and fundamentally illegal actions that eventually led to “statehood” have already been acknowledge by “official” FEDERAL government organizations and resulted in the Apology Resolution. Since the illegality of the actions have already been acknowledge why would the state, or OHA (who relies on state funding) be inclined to support full disclosure on the issue of the validity of Mr. Bennett’s claim of “perfect title”… what becomes of statehood if the state’s claim to perfect title is a lie? If you read the court transcript you may note that several of the Justices appear to be deeply aware of these potential ramifications.
I too have read the Supreme Court transcript. I’ve also read Mr. Siu’s commentary. While it may be premature and presumptive to offer interpretations of the meaning of some of the questions and comments made by the Justices during the proceedings, I see very little to take exception with between Mr. Siu’s commentary and the contents of the transcript as compared with what has already been confirmed through historical records and at least a rudimentary understanding of the processes related to property rights and constitutional law. So I still have difficulty with the “outlandish” label… unless you’re implying that the truths of what we now know of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai’i through research of official state and federal records are fraudulent.
As for OHA and their views… however noble they make their efforts appear, as long as OHA remains a succor at the mercy of the state and continues to operate without full accountability, free of the requirement for full 360-degree accounting of where they spend the funding they are charged with managing for the “benefit” of those they serve I will evaluate their asserted position with critical suspicion. When trustees cruise in luxury cars while beneficiaries still sleep in tarp tents on the beach it generates some serious doubts in my mind regarding their loyalties.
There will be inevitable biases with each organizations position but at least with those among the sovereignty movement we can evaluate them critically without the added insult of realizing the bias and propaganda is being financed duplicitously through waste, fraud and abuse of OHAs funding sources where these funds seem to perpetually be channeled away from those they were intended to serve.
plenny food fo thought but
March 15th, 2009 at 5:02 AM
aloha Mr. Stene
I notice you have removed my commentary and have not answered my questions or any else who would like to know specifics. You started this blog by making unfounded assertion against my friend and colleague. So are you just running away from you statement to fight to prevent Hawaiians from ending the Slavery you country puts them in?
I suggest you apologize yourself and remove this blog. If you want to declare war on Hawaiians that’s your kiuleana, but I think you should stay out of our business if you are unwilling to stand up for your position.
Kai Landow
Aaron- You can do what you wish, but I’m not retracting what I wrote. I’ve stood up for my position (with supporting URL links). But all you can say is they are not creditable. The latter is your problem, not mine. Thus, I consider this discussion closed.