Latest episode of Kanaka Express hosted by Kale Gumapac with guests Dextor Kaiama and Dr. Keanu Sai, discussing the recent PBS Insights show on the Hawaiian Roll Commission, among other topics.
|
||||||
|
Kanaka Express with Dextor Kaiama and Dr. Keanu Sai discusses Insights show6 comments to Kanaka Express with Dextor Kaiama and Dr. Keanu Sai discusses Insights showLeave a ReplyYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2024 Hawaiian Kingdom Independence Blog - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
||||||
There were only two positions represented in the panel debate that I can tell. Gov Waihee and Sen Hee represent the State of Hawaii, and “nation within a nation” assuming that state legislators can make policy on behalf Kananaka Maoli. Those who prefer a political process are doing so knowing or believing that a legal process would adversely effect non-nationals. Clayton Hee, and John Waihee, are life long democrats, who in the tradition of their national party, have made no attempt to square Hawaii with the US Constitution (constitutional law). Such politicians demonstrate their contempt for the rule of law when they try to force everything into a political process, where they know America will in the end be in control of the state. Dexter Kaiama works for independence seeking redress in international law in a similar vacuum albeit a very compelling one. The reason there are always only two camps debating these issues is because the Hawaiian community cannot and will not wrap their arms around certain terms that they deem foreign to their culture.
The idea of limited government, capitalism, or private property, are terms deeply resented by native Hawaiians, particularly with Hawaiian politicians who for what ever reasons fall in line with national democrats on all social issues. You will never find in any state policy towards so called native Hawaiians, any reference to liberty, or the law of the land. A true Libertarian is just as determined to undo Congressional fiats regarding Hawaii as Hawaiian nationals are with the one exception being that so called libertarians, those who believe that American liberty is threatened by increasing Executive over-reach, appeal almost entirely to original intent in framing nullification arguments, something progressive (liberal) Democrats like Waihee and Hee cannot comprehend. As a libertarian who is also Hawaiian Iʻm against not only Annexation and Statehood, but any and all laws that Congress created subsequent to these, which include OHA, DHHL, and the Akaka Bill should it pass. All of these entitlement laws have one thing in common. Well many things in common actually but none more destructive of liberty than to flout the law, showing complete disregard not only for the nation to nation treaties that America agreed to honor, but for the law of the land, which they “feel” they must replace with “political solutions,” even while such solutions have proven to result in stalemate.
What did the Trayvon Martin trail have in common with Hawaiian justice?
I believe MLKJ would roll over in his grave to know what has happened to the civil rights movement in America!
Native Hawaiians, like so many African Americans, I believe, are dismantling their rights by advocating self determination in racist domestic terms rather than legal terms like Dexter did here using International law. The division Dexter was able to draw between the two approaches to me is the difference between justice and fraud, not legal vs political approaches. Especially when the so called ʻpolitical approachʻ seek to “extinguish the Kingdom.”
Perhaps an example of this was how State Prosecutors, in the Zimmerman trial, appeared torn between making a full blown racial profiling case and 1st degree murder, and the lesser charge of manslaughter, which might have had a better chance for conviction. In the end I think prosicuters were right not to hang the case on racial profiling but it did not stop the activists and their media allies from turning this case into a political gimmick. I guess my point is donʻt put all your eggs in one basket, and donʻt expect to win using gimmicks because, it will come back to bite you!
Iʻm not sure I agree that the US or State governments cannot pass laws that effect Kanaka Maoli one way or another. Must all laws be rejected on the basis that the State of Hawaii “doesn’t exist” or that it does not have jurisdiction? If average Americans cause legislation to be created that undoes Statehood and re-established a reconciliation process based on the law (not a political process) would we, or should we reject it completely? If America, and Americans, want justice to prevail between the two countries, would we reject a restart based on strictly legal international terms or would we “work it out” between ourselves, in good faith?
Just because liberal Democrats insist on extra constitutional fiats or as I like to call it, “manufactured justice” to deal with Hawaiian rights does not mean their process is the only way the US can fix this. Nor thus is Keanuʻs strictly legal approach in International law the only way to mitigate the fraud that is prolonged military occupation. International law is not a religion or philosophy (world view) from which we draw ideals for governing, nor does taking a stand for total “independence” define a form of government. It seems more a tool designed for one thing, protecting prior status we had in the Family of Nations. This means doing so in terms of what is required in International law, and thus rendering to Caesar what is Caesarʻs (playing by Caesars rules) and forgetting Godʻs commandments completely.
Internally Hawaii was built on a political philosophy that is based on the Ten Commandments and English Common law, which means any political or legal process we follow must square with “the spirit of Gods law” per the Hawaiian Kingdom Preambles. So when Kanaka Maoli discuss among themselves how they want to be governed, the function or idea of international law, and or the need to be part of the family of nations again, becomes moot, if not a total distraction. International law, if my thesis is correct, has only a small role in the overall scheme of things. I believe the idea of getting recognized again by the Family of nations should not be something we obsess over to the detriment of sound internal governing philosophy. It is, after all, unlawful and seditious to seek to be part of a family of nations where most of the nations we will re-join have proven themselves to be ungodly. Its called unholy alliance, or entangling alliance for a Christian nation like Hawaii to strap themselves to nations that do not and never will share their vision.
The Nation of Israel, for example, did have always have a King, this happened because Israel was pressured from surrounding nations to conform to what other nations were doing. The internal consequence of this, as Samuel points out, would result in oppression by what he predicted would become a military state. Iʻm always reminding myself that International law is a recent development. How did the nations resolve their problems before International law?
oops, I meant to say Israel “did NOT always have a king.”
It would be nice if you could host a show explaining how de-occupation would take place and what it would look like; what would be expected of each person, etc.