About time we got rid of Hawaiian Entitlements

[Rick M.]

This idea of giving Hawaiians special privileges is unamerican. Abolishing them is first on my list of important things to do when we rewrite the constitution.

We've got the numbers to get this done now. So let's do it.

[Willy]

Good idea the State of Hawaii can write its own constitution. Hawaiians can call a hawaiianconcon have a Hawaiian Government of Unity, call the legislature in to session and the rest will be history. End OHA. No special privileges, no more shame for the theft of the Hawaiian Kingdom (1993 Apology Bill ). No more lies.

[esteban]

To Jimmy Kuroiwa. Your spin on Hawaii's history is interesting, well seasoned, and justifies your own presence here in Hawaii. Why do you feel you need to do this? Your analysis conveniently leaves out the findings of US Public Law 103-150 that was recently upheld of the Supreme Court of Hawaii. It also leaves out the Anti Annexation Petitions of 1898 signed by most Hawaiians. You also forget to add that President Cleveland, who was US President at the time of the "illegal overthrow", said that the overthrow was a "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress". As you know, the "Republic of Hawaii" was self declared and no democratic process brought it to life. This fake entity was only supported by those who would profit by the downfall of the Kingdom. And they have to this day. If you are really for a just solution, you would be calling for this issue to be resolved in International Court and not in the courts of the accused. Since this is not the case I can only believe that you ,and those in your cabal, can only have self interest in mind.

[esteban]

Why is it that the only people you quote supporting the "illegal overthrow" are amerikans or departments of the US?? Are you trying to have us believe that the overthrow was OK because the overthrower said it was??!! You try to make us believe that the Queen "brought it on herself". Is this what the great majority of her people said? If so please show us the proof of this.

[esteban]

Mr. Kuroiwa, you make some startling contentions claiming them to be facts. 1. You claim 103-150 "does not have standing of law". The Hawaii State Supreme Court says otherwise in its recent decision. The simple fact is that its called a "law" and nothing less. If it really "does not have standing of law", then, why is the attorney general of the state of hawaii opposing it at the US Supreme Court? The AG is not disputing the fact that it is law, only its findings concerning the so called "ceded" lands. He is not saying that the overthrow wasnt "illegal"or that the Republic of Hawaii was a legal entity. 2. You claim that there was no hearing for this law. Im not so sure of this contention. Never the less it passed by vote of the Congress of the United States, and was signed into law by President Clinton. 3. You call the law a "resolution" trying to lessen its force but it was a resolution that made Hawaii a part of the US. Newlands Resolution. (new to whom?) 4. You try to lessen the impact of the Anti Annexation petitions by making assumptions about just who signed it but again, the US congress would not pass a treaty of annexation (twice) because of this petition. 5. You continue to insist this issue but resolved in US court when it is the US being accused of high crimes against the Hawaiian people and their "sovereign" government. The accused does not get to judge itself. This is a matter between two sovereign nations with violations of treaties, international Laws and Conventions, US and Kingdom laws. 6. You and your cabal try to strike fear into the hearts of non Hawaiians by insisting that this is a racial issue. It is NOT. It is a political issue. One that concerns the illegal taking of a sovereign and lawful government. If it really were a simple matter of race your ohana would not have been here "from the reign of King Kalakaua". Non Hawaiians had voting, and civil rights more than a century before the US passed their civil and voting rights acts in the mid 1960's. Hawaii has never had a history of racial exclusion. The US has a long ongoing history of Racism. "All the pilikia began with the 1978 con con"? You are off by more than a century. Thats very convenient but no longer fools us.

[esteban]

Mr. Kuroiwa, Again you only use the accused laws and decisions to make your case. Why are you afraid to take it to a neutral court? You must ask your own government why the case is not in international court. We went to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague (where the case was heard) but the US refused to participate. Why? The next logical step is the International Court of Justice. Why not? You, the USA, and your cabal can end this issue forever. Just get a neutral court to say that we are wrong and have no standing. Easy as that, and the whole Independence movement would be over. I have NEVER said, nor do I advocate a native Hawaiian only government. Nor does the group I am with or any other that I know of. Your fear tactics have no basis. Im not sure why you add the date of the HSC decision, or what that has to do with the courts recognition that 103-150 is law. I have see your name as one of the plaintives against Hawaiian rights and entitlements. Now that I have heard your arguements first hand I can see why you and your cabal have lost in your own courts so many times and do not want to go to a neutral court. If you truly "love" Hawaii as you claim, why not advocatew this case be taken to a neutral court? Its the only Pono way our side of the issue will ever be satisfied.

[Peter Kay]

Folks,

I think we're getting way, way off the subject here. The debate over Hawaiian history is an important one, but I don't think we're talking about ConCon here in any substantive way.

I'm disappointed that this conversation has gone off track. I would like to see you folks return to a conversation about what the ConCon can do to help Hawaiian Issues.

[esteban]

Mr. Kuroiwa, Geez your statements are so self serving! Others try to avoid historical facts admitted to by their own government. Jus wanna stick to your CON. Right. I will simply stick to the facts that lead up to this attempt (CON CON) to continue the con.

[Willy]

I think a U.S. legation with Ken Conklin, William Burgess some on this list. should go to the Hague and show them how Hawaii became the 50th State. End the argument. End the rhetoric. End of semantics. End the shame for American. Step up and be proud

[Peter Kay]

I think land uses issues are a very big deal and is something I'd love to see a discussion on.

[Peter Kay]

Mr. Stewart,

As you can see, this site is all about free speech. Folks can talk about whatever they wish, including this one. I'm just pointing out that we're going nowhere on an issue that is way off the Constitution, not the title thread of this post.

[Peter Kay]

Thanks Jimmy. I honestly feel we can pick much larger scope issues (as you have mentioned elsewhere: Education) that most can agree are problems that need adjustment.

[Rick M.]

Kenneth Conklin will most likely be a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. We'll settle this question here and now by eliminating Article XII and then you Hawaiians can go have your arguments about which came first the chicken or the egg outside the venue of any governmental agency.