The Undoing of America?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com ^ | Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

[manny613]

The U.S. Senate is scheduled today to decide whether to clear the way for the most odious, anti-American piece of legislation in memory: S.147, the "Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act." Incredibly, as things stand now, more than 61 Senators are expected to vote to begin a process that would ineluctably unravel the United States as a nation.

[Andy from Beaverton]

While they are at it, give Califonia back to Mexico.

[claudiustg]

We're keepin' Montana!

[w1andsodidwe]

While they are at it, give Califonia back to Mexico.

Then you had better get off of Free Republic. It is located in the state that you want to destroy.

[Rokurota]

This type of legislation doesn't surprise me, but 61 votes does. That means at least a dozenplus Republicans are voting for this garbage.

Will Bush veto? If not, this has to go to the Supreme Court.

[sergeantdave]

Wow, great news. Always wanted to start up the Sovereign Kingdom of sergeantdave on my property. The problem is I've never heard of a dictatorship run by a lowly sergeant. Guess I'll need to promote myself and take the title of Supreme Generalissimo Dave.

Does this mean I can load up on medals from a Russian surplus military store?

[Fishrrman]

Andy from Beaverton writes:
While they are at it, give Califonia back to Mexico.

Stop joking. This is happening as we speak.

Not only California, but also Arizona, New Mexico, and possibly Texas (or parts of it) are being slowly "reclaimed" by Mexicans/Hispanics.

In Hawaii, the transformation will be "de jure": by act of Congress. In the Southwest, the transformation will be de facto, by demographics and the lack of Euro-American resistance.

Sans a border wall and draconian efforts to identify and remove illegals, in time, the Reconquista _will_ succeed.

Of course, a wall isn't going to be built.

And also of course, no one is going to send the illegals back. If anything we will continue to provide millions upon millions upon millions upon millions upon millions (ok, is that enough?) with succor once they arrive.

Euro-America has the power to end - and to reverse - the Reconquista. But having the power isn't enough. What we lack is the _will_ to _use_ the power we have. There is simply no stomach, no collective constitution to recognize what must be done, and then to _do_ it.

As California once was, so it will be again!

- John

[Andy from Beaverton]

It is located in the state that you want to destroy.
You mean it isn't destroyed already???

[putupjob]

There was a war back in 1860 that was centered around this topic. People might want to refer back to that in their future considerations of this question.

[Polycarp1]

The history of our relationship with Hawaii is simply a blight. A coup engineered by American landowners in a sovereign country leads to annexation under circumstances
that stretch the definition "legal" like silly putty.

And now the chickens are coming home to roost, as it were, as native Hawaiians are attempting to take back through legal channels that which was stolen from them. While the particulars of this law may need some work the truth it is based on is clear. Hawaii was taken from its people and fraudulently and forcibly annexed to the US. We may not like to hear that but simply check the history and you will discover how shameful our actions were in this regard.

We are going to have to face up to some things in this country if we really mean what we say about our ideals. And one of them is that in certain cases, and sometimes many cases, we have gotten what we have by force and fraud when dealing with native peoples.

Don't bother to post the exceptions because the history of our frauds in this regard are preserved in the many broken treaties and government records describing our actions in detail. It is not a pretty picture and it is a very large bit of unfinished business that undermines our moral claims on other nations to abide by the rule of law and honor agreements.

I'm waiting, of course, for the heaps of posts describing me as some leftist blankety blank and so forth. I am hardly that. But if you believe that the rule of law matters and that we have legal and moral obligations to observe our own rules and those we agree to in treaties then we have to face up to the fact that in dealing with native peoples, including Hawaiians, we have fallen very short.

[RadioAstronomer]

bttt for later read

[SMARTY]

Yup! Then give Mexico back to Spain!

[Safrguns]

Sounds to me like an issue for the Hawaiians to vote on, before our politicians jump the gun with some stupid legislation that sounds like a response to some special interest group or minority opinion.

[headsonpikes]

Always wanted to start up the Sovereign Kingdom of sergeantdave on my property.

Thirty some-odd years ago I lived near Vern Towdy's spread, which he called 'Towdystan'. The name stuck. ;^)

http://uk.multimap.com/wi/60530.htm

[gridlock]

Wow, great news. Always wanted to start up the Sovereign Kingdom of sergeantdave on my property. The problem is I've never heard of a dictatorship run by a lowly sergeant. Guess I'll need to promote myself and take the title of Supreme Generalissimo Dave.

Clearly, you never heard of this guy:

Master Sargeant Samuel K. Doe
"President" of Liberia - 1980-1990

[theFIRMbss]

>The Undoing of America?

Relax. Hawaii
is like a big nature park
anyway. Who cares

if the "natives" make
Michelle Wie their goddess queen?!
It's not like the Feds

were signing over
all Chicago back to the
Potawatomi!

[Bear_Slayer]

As long as you share it with the rest of us.

[Bear_Slayer]

I've never heard of a dictatorship run by a lowly sergeant

How about a Corporal?

[Oatka]

Can you spell C-A-S-I-N-O-S children?

Those folks have spotted the golden nugget in all ths "Native American" b/s.

All those "native Hawaiians" came from Polynesia and now play the White Guilt routine. Watch for a casino building boom over there if this goes through.

What's the Latin phrase for "Out of One, Many"?

[Polycarp1]

I think that's a good point and some day the issue may come to Hawaiians for a vote. We may not like the outcome but at least they would have a voice.

I'm not sure, though, how this law is different from any other giving a native group recognition and sovereignty.
There is still a legal process by which the government recognizes a group of people as a "tribe" and gives them certain rights in light of that. There are still groups of native peoples seeking that recognition.

That all being said I think that Hawaiians may opt out of the union but the ties are such that it would be hard for them to survive without a US presence in some form. They probably don't have the resources for long term sustenance as an independent nation unless they decide for a dramatically lower standard of living or to be a set of islands totally preoccupied with commerce like a Polynesian version of Hong Kong.

Regardless this all is going to bring some issues that many would like to forget and perhaps change what we mean by the term "United" States. I have never, just my opinion, believed that once a state opts into the Union that the decision is irrevocable (and I live in the North). How can something be a true "union" if it is forced? So some day a place like Hawaii may opt out. There is much to be lost if they do but if that's their choice I believe they have that right.

[KC_Conspirator]

I know this is secession, plain and simple. Hawaii voted to become a state and has benefitted from US money for more than a century.

[GingisK]

...begin a process that would ineluctably unravel the United States as a nation...

Nonsense! That process started even before our southern border was purposefully left open to invasion.

[SAJ]

Hey, Chavez and Hitler were only corporals. You've got it knocked!

;^)

[SAJ]

Ex uno, plures

[sasafras]

Remember that this will pass when we had republicans in charge of the house, senate and president - for all you RINOs I hope that you are starting to realize that Republicans are giving it away faster than dems ever did. Time to start voting for real conservatives not republicans. Diversity in all forms is meant to divide.

[sasafras]

Remember that this will pass when we had republicans in charge of the house, senate and president - for all you RINOs I hope that you are starting to realize that Republicans are giving it away faster than dems ever did. Time to start voting for real conservatives not republicans. Diversity programs/rules/requirements in all forms are meant to divide.

[Polycarp1]

That Hawaii has been given federal money means nothing. Egypt and a hundred other placed have also benefited from the federal trough.

The big questions remain, in my mind, "Was the annexation of Hawaii on the late 1800's legal?" and "Do states have the right to leave the union?" To date I have found no one willing to defend the forced entry of Hawaii into the United States as an act consistent with US or international law. As to the ability of states to secede I believe that they can. States voluntarily joined the union (some like Texas and California were briefly nations)and they can opt out whenever they want. While slavery was definitely wrong so was Mr. Lincoln when he determined that the federal government has the right to coerce states into continuing to be part of the United States.

[KC_Conspirator]

Yes it does. They voted for statehood in what year? 1949 or something like that? This is no different than South Carolina in 1860.

[Polycarp1]

They voted for statehood in 1959 but in the late 1800's they were a sovereign nation whose government was forcibly overthrown by American landowners and a provincial government was set up by these same planters to request assistance and annexation.

Now native Hawaiians are finally getting their legs underneath them after having often been second class citizens in their own land and many are desiring to learn their language, understand their culture, and have some sort of sovereignty of the kind they used to enjoy before they were illegally dragged into the United States.

This has the potential to be terribly embarassing to the United States because it brings back memories of a time when we acted well outside the scope of our own laws and just plain decency and we may have to face some things we would rather just brush aside. It's also part of a larger issue of native peoples attempting to legally reclaim things owed them by treaty or taken from them by fraud or force.

Frankly all the federal money in the world does not make the original injustice right. Simple morality indicates that we have an obligation to right wrongs and honoring our treaties and allowing people whose sovereignty was stolen from them to have a voice in their own affairs is a good start. If we were the ones in these people's shoes we would expect nothing less.

[Polycarp1]

http://www.hawaii-nation.org/congrec-house.html

One WWW link to the official apology of the United States for the illegal annexation of Hawaii.

[Polycarp1]

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/overthrow.html

Here's a link with a view supporting the overthrow of the Hawaiian government. Just to show that I've read both sides and recommend others do the same.

[w1andsodidwe]

You mean it isn't destroyed already???

Obviously when you think of California, you think of LA or SF. The Great Central Valley, where I live and where Free Republic is located, is a very conservative farming area, except for the large cities.

[Oatka]

What's the Latin phrase for "Out of One, Many"?

Ex uno, plures

Thanks - "e pluribus unum" kept coming up on the search engines no matter how I phrased the question.

[Safrguns]

There is much to be lost if they do but if that's their choice I believe they have that right.

I can see their right to establish native groups rights much like has been done with mainland tribes, but going down the road to withdrawal from the union is totally ludicrous, not to mention utterly stupid. Also, their location in the Pacific is simply too strategic for us to just let them go their own way. Following this path takes us back to the way much of this country came into existence. If Hawaii has that right, then so does every other state in the union.... It wont happen.

[mdmathis6]

The reality unfortunately for our generation is that were we suddenly to start honoring all treaties involving indigeonous peoples made from the 1700's thru the early 1900's...our nation, in order to be considered a moralistic nation would actually cease to be a functioning moralistic nation.
But as for Hawaii, I don't see her loss as any great one for the US...she is a loss leader for the economics of the nation. If we allow her to secede...then we can pull our military bases from her and all the revenue that goes into propping them up! (also get rid of 2 perennially democratic senators and some dem congressmen as well).

[Polycarp1]

I do believe that we can honor our treaties and that we must.

It will mean that we need to relocate some people and it will also mean that we have some hard negotiations to undertake but we will not be without land and we will not be as devastated as people may think. For example here in Minnesota we have had to change fishing and hunting limits to accomodate our agreements because these treaty rights gave the native people hunting and fishing priviledges. To date, though, we have not had to give up large swaths of land although some land probably will need to be returned.

In some cases the whole tribe with which we made the agreements will be gone and the issue will be moot. Others may opt for other arrangements like cash or land use priviledges. Some will ask for all the land they were entitled too and if they do we are duty bound to to do something about it.

It will all have to be done on a case by case basis and the claims of native Hawaiians will have to be part of the deal.

[Polycarp1]

I simply believe that States do have an option to peacefully and with the consent of their citizens leave the union. When they do they bear the consequences, good or bad.

[Safrguns]

I simply believe that States do have an option to peacefully and with the consent of their citizens leave the union. When they do they bear the consequences, good or bad.

So did several southern states over the issue of slavery.

[Chances Are]

What if, in 1956, the Hungarian Revolt had gotten at least a little traction before Andropov moved in with the tanks, and we'd given help, both overt and covert, to the rebels, and they'd succeeded.

Would that have been legal?

CA....

[John Lenin]

The south can declare independence again and the rust bowl can go pound salt now that the jobs are all gone. Be careful what you wish for.

[JOE43270]

I'm keeping America. One hundred senators will not take HER away from me.

[SAJ]

'E pluribus unum' is of course the famous reverse sentiment to what you asked.

I should dearly love to see AlGork's discussion of this topic, especially given his well-publicsed (and deservedly so) mangling of 'E pluribus unum' some few years ago.

BTW, if you care (and you may very well not give a kwap), this famous phrase is just one of thousands of examples why Latin, in its time, was such an efficient language in terms of conveying ideas.

Today, but I suspect for a very limited time, the English language performs the same function.

Unfortunately, given the Gramscian a$$holes who permeate government, and the deconstructionists, and the illiterates who infest the LSM, AND, especially, the absolute abandonment of instruction in the English language in government ''schools'' (usually calleed ''public schools'', which term was ever a misnomer), the formerly happy situation of language being a disciplined means of communication will continue to decline into a sorry pastiche.

I will continue, absolutely, to hope that I am inaccurate in this view, but the empirical evidence is becoming increasingly difficult to dismiss as an aberration.

FReegards to you!

[Diplomat]

How can something be a true "union" if it is forced?

Tell that to the entire South. If Lincoln didn't force them to stay, it's hard to guess what would have ultimately happened here. I suspect Europe would all be speaking German. And Hawaii might well be being ruled by a totalitarian Japan.

Call this what it is, a desire to get casinos in Hawaii, since their socialistic policies have killed off all non-tourist, non-military business in the state. Casinos mean more tourists, and more tax dollars to support the bloated government largess. The other poster nailed it.

[DaiHuy]

Cool, that means I could live and work in Hawaii, although it would be lonely being a Republican there.

[Polycarp1]

I'm not from the South (I live in Minnesota) but the principle remains. I believe that people should be able to
enter and exit the union voluntarily. If the Hawaiians one day do that then the priviledges and the consequences are theirs.

[Polycarp1]

Since you yourself can't say what would have happened to the South you can't use your inability to forecast as an argument to prove a point.

What happened in Europe is also not part of the issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether a state of the United States can secede or not.

Would Hawaii, had it remained an independent country, been taken over by the Japanese? Again you argue from your inability to forecast. Perhaps it would have been conquered, perhaps it would signed a treaty with another power for protection and never had that happen. Either way it would have been their choice.

[Polycarp1]

You are making a comparison between dissimilars.
The monarchy of Hawaii and Hungary under Soviet oppression are not the same.

[Diplomat]

It has absolutely nothing to do with whether a state of the United States can secede or not.

You're being quite disengenuous to suggest that this is about succession. I'd be happy to let Hawaii go and be their own country and get off the U.S. payroll. This bill doesn't do that. This about having it both ways. This is not about becoming their own nation. They just want more freebies at the rest of America's expense.

I'll tell the Hawaiians the same thing I tell my Egyptian friend and my Mexican friends I work with. "If you want to dictate the terms of your nations existance, then win your next war! Otherwise you should be thankful the United States annexed you guys and not Japan.

Perhaps it would have been conquered, perhaps it would signed a treaty with another power for protection and never had that happen. Either way it would have been their choice.

Signing a treaty would have protected them as well as it did France, Poland, Russia and a host of others during WWII. The weak get preyed upon by the strong, it's just the way that it is.

If they put together a bill mandating Hawaiian succession, I'll support it. They won't, because they'll choose to be wards to a larger state, because this is how socialists behave.

[Polycarp1]

No, you actually took a quote out of context. I used the words you quoted in the context of your previous remark about all of Europe speaking German. That comment had nothing to do with anything in the thread that had been emerging and it would be good for you to read you prior posts before accusing someone of being disingenuous.

The topic of the "tribal" recognition has, within this thread, a sub topic regarding the illegal annexation of Hawaii by the United States, an annexation that a resolution of Congress in 1993 apologized for and the link to that has been posted among these threads.

Native Hawaiians seeking recognition for their status are, in my opinion, no different than Native Americans in that they were sovereign nations absorbed into the United States often by force and fraud. That's not a conservative / liberal thing it simply is what it is. Currently native Hawaiians are attempting to use legal measures to have some of that which was stolen from them returned.

If you have been following the threads and the broader story on this topic you will notice that there is a subtext of Hawaiian succession in all of this. There are currently activists who desire a return to a sovereign Hawaiian nation and this recognition of native Hawaiians as, for want of a better word, a "tribe" is something they consider part of this movement. That brings up the question whether such a thing is possible and I simply argued in the affirmative especially in the case of Hawaii where the original attachment to the union was so full of illegalities that President Cleveland declared a national day of mourning over our conduct in the matter.

What I find sad is your "if you want things your way win the next war" attitude and you throwing the word "socialist" around. The first is just boorish and and reflects a standard of conduct you would find reprehensible if it was you among the conquered. The second is, pardon the pun, a red herring as if one can simply throw the word "socialist" out there and that explains everything and wins the argument. That's an odd way of arguing for someone who identifies themselves as "diplomat".

[Chances Are]

The issue is not one of sameness in governmental types. The issue, as you have so loudly portrayed it and proclaimed it, is one of "legality".

The question stands - unanswered at present.

CA....