Obama Cannot be President Because Hawaii Not a State of the Union

reply to post by youdidntseeme


You are only correct in so far as the ones that voted were the people moved there to work for DOLE and from the 1890's until said vote. This would of never passed any earlier say even 30 years from what I have seen. Doesnt mainland American history show the same thing to you?...sure Kentucky and Ohio voted for statehood once enough American colonists moved there displacing the Shawnee, Wyandottes and Cherokee. Your argument is one sided in this regard and totally biased towards the USA's imperiliast agenda. Hawaii was coveted by Dole enterprises as well as for military interests..its pretty darned black and white if you could shed your bias and narrow scope of view.

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Are you certain of that? I would have assumed Hawaii was a US territory and its residents were US citizens before it was granted statehood, much in the same manner as Puerto Rico and other US territories' residents.

I was just splitting hairs there.
The residents in Hawaii were considered US Nationals, not citizens.
Until that is the Hawaiian people voted for statehood.
At that point they became citizens.

The residents of Uerto Rico are citizens because of the Jones-Shafroth Act of 1917, but the act only included residents of Puerto Rico.

edit on 21-1-2011 by youdidntseeme because: (no reason given)

Thanks for answering. I wasn't sure and I was still unsure about those in all other US territories. Puerto Ricans are US citizens, I was fairly certain, but then Puerto Rico is a US commonwealth. Apparently that status is somewhere in-between statehood and territory. My curiosity is now piqued to look into that but I would miss much of this discussion if I took the time now to pursue those answers. I hope you understand I was being respectful when I asked that earlier, I truly wanted to know.

Puerto Ricans have some very strong opinions regarding statehood. It is a heated topic and one that is best not discussed by visitors there.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro
Thanks for answering. I wasn't sure and I am still unsure about those in other US territories. Puerto Ricans are US citizens, I am fairly sure, but then Puerto Rico is a US commonwealth. Apparently that status is somewhere in-between statehood and territory. My curiosity is now piqued to look into that but I would miss much of this discussion if I took the time now to pursue those answers. I hope you understand I was being respectful when I asked that earlier, I truly wanted to know.

Puerto Ricans have some very strong opinions regarding statehood. It is a heated topic and one that is best not discussed by visitors there.

edit on 21-1-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

i have since updated these facts a few posts below the one in question...

A person born in Hawaii on or after August 12, 1898, and before April 30, 1900, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900. A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth. A person who was a citizen of the Republic of Hawaii on August 12, 1898, is declared to be a citizen of the United States as of April 30, 1900.

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

I have read all your posts here and I'd like to submit this one for you to consider.
From: statehoodhawaii.org...
As we look at the July 27th 1959 plebiscite, and consider its importance in the statehood process, we should consider that of the 132,773 who voted for Proposition 1—“Shall Hawaii immediately be admitted into the Union as a State?”—7,971 voted against it. In this 17-1 mandate by those voting in Hawaii’s 1959 primary election for governor, a total of 140,744 votes were cast in this plebiscite.

Now this I think supports my last statement in my above post. From the same source.

What this suggests is that those who did not participate in the primary election either did not care about the statehood results, or were not informed about the process enough to participate in the vote. The underwhelming turnout for something so important is of concern. Considering that the State of Hawaii cites this plebiscite vote as determinate proof of public support for statehood creates what Daniel Elazar, Professor of Political Science at Temple University in Philadelphia describes as an ersatz legitimacy of a democratic technique to the political decision making process.

Again the source is: statehoodhawaii.org...
Here is the Ballot I understand that they used for the vote.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7315b02bf2d2.jpg[/atsimg]

I'm sorry but the entire ballot did not post, you can view here: statehoodhawaii.org...

edit on 21-1-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)

Yes the 1959 statehood document does exists. But is there a "TREATY OF ANNEXATION" between the US and the Hawaiian Kingdom that allows this document to be legal? We were taught in the public schools that it did exist. Research by scholars such as Sai, had proved that it doesn't exist. So how can the jurisdiction of the US pass its borders into Hawaii unless it is done illegally?

Originally posted by Shadowfoot
reply to post by youdidntseeme

 

You are only correct in so far as the ones that voted were the people moved there to work for DOLE and from the 1890's until said vote. This would of never passed any earlier say even 30 years from what I have seen. Doesnt mainland American history show the same thing to you?...sure Kentucky and Ohio voted for statehood once enough American colonists moved there displacing the Shawnee, Wyandottes and Cherokee. Your argument is one sided in this regard and totally biased towards the USA's imperiliast agenda. Hawaii was coveted by Dole enterprises as well as for military interests..its pretty darned black and white if you could shed your bias and narrow scope of view.

Did American imperialism have alot to do with this, of course it did! Just as European imperialism brought the white people to this continent to begin with, that is not the issue here, and you would be hard pressed to find me saying that imperialism was not the root of all of this, or course it is, that much is simple.

Imperialism is a historic fact, occuring in just about every culture in history. To ignore that is to ignore history, but to use imperialism's inherent negative attributes in an argument brings all of imperialist history into the fray, and that would take us majorly off topic.

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
Yes the 1959 statehood document does exists. But is there a "TREATY OF ANNEXATION" between the US and the Hawaiian Kingdom that allows this document to be legal? We were taught in the public schools that it did exist. Research by scholars such as Sai, had proved that it doesn't exist. So how can the jurisdiction of the US pass its borders into Hawaii unless it is done illegally?

So are you arguing that the Hawaiian people never agreed to an annexation?

reply to post by UluaHuntah808


You might try: historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org... -a-webpage/

Hawaiian independence (secession) activists keep saying “There was never a treaty of annexation between Hawaii and the U.S.” If that were true, then Hawaii would still rightfully be the independent nation it once was. And that would make the secessionists very happy. If there was never any cession, then there doesn’t need to be any secession. Just get the U.S., or the United Nations, or the World Court to recognize it.

But indeed there was a treaty. Annexation was well and truly done. A new webpage provides the full text of the Treaty of Annexation, and the resolutions whereby both the government of Hawaii and the government of the U.S. agreed to it. There’s also a discussion about the politics of annexation in 1898 and 2010.
So find out the truth. Go see the treaty for yourself, at :
www.angelfire.com...

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION -- the politics of the Treaty of Annexation, then and now

TREATY OF ANNEXATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF HAWAII RATIFYING THE TREATY OF ANNEXATION.

JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE U.S. SENATE AND U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SIGNED BY PRESIDENT MCKINLEY, TO ACCEPT THE TREATY OF ANNEXATION OFFERED BY THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII (also known as the "Newlands Resolution" named after the Congressman who introduced it)

EXCERPT FROM PRESIDENT MCKINLEY'S STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE OF DECEMBER 6, 1897. The length of this excerpt indicates the importance he placed on ratifying the Treaty of Annexation.

Go here to read it if you really want to: www.angelfire.com...

reply to post by guohua


Here is a copy of the treaty without weeding through everything.

source

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
Yes the 1959 statehood document does exists. But is there a "TREATY OF ANNEXATION" between the US and the Hawaiian Kingdom that allows this document to be legal? We were taught in the public schools that it did exist. Research by scholars such as Sai, had proved that it doesn't exist. So how can the jurisdiction of the US pass its borders into Hawaii unless it is done illegally?

So are you arguing that the Hawaiian people never agreed to an annexation?

Yes they actively protested annexation. Hawaiian nationals (native hawaiians and non-native hawaiian subjects) protested 2 attempted treaties of annexation between the US puppet government (republic of hawaii) and the united states. That is why the 2 attempts to annex hawaii failed in congress. Over 80% of Hawaiian Kingdom citizens were against annexation. More on link below.

hawaiiankingdom.org...

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
reply to post by guohua

 

Here is a copy of the treaty without weeding through everything.

source

No, that is a joint resolution. Not a treaty.

Originally posted by SonOfTheLawOfOne
I think this has a lot more ground to stand on than some of you are giving credit to...

Read the whole OP and then take a look at the site he references. If they are teaching this at the Universities there, then there could very well be strong merit to it.

By the time a legal decision is made, we'll be past Obama's time as President. If this argument holds up in court, it will create blowback for Hawaii the likes of which I don't think they have ever seen.

S&F OP for at the very least, putting a new spin on the birth validity.

~Namaste

SonOfTheLawOfOne, I agree. When I first saw the thread title, I thought this has to be by some real nutter. But then I read the OP and the topic is worth some attention.

I had read somewhere else (maybe a couple of years back), that Obama actually gave some verbal support to the movement for Hawaiian autonomy. I hope this was just another empty campaign promise. Hawaiian autonomy would create an INCREDIBLY complicated mess for both the US & the new Hawaiian "sovereign nation."

Yes, Hawaii was stolen from its people by greedy White people. How many US citizens are NOT aware of this? The US simply took over Hawaii and annexed it as a Territory. But then the citizens of Hawaii wanted US Statehood -- for the benefits of US statehood.

UluaHunta needs to be careful what he and his people ask for. Hawaii is a looong way from anywhere else. Hawaii alone as a "sovereign nation" would be such a disaster for the Islanders, it's inconceivable that anyone would seriously want this.

As of 1959 (when Hawaii became the 50th State), there were only an estimated 2,000 people left (in all of the islands) of PURE Hawaiian ancestry. How many are there now? There are plenty of people who are part Hawaiian. What part Hawaiian do you have to be able to prove -- to qualify for the"Hawaiian" label in the new sovereign nation of Hawaii?

How would you treat the astronomical amounts of money invested into the Hawaiian Islands by non-Hawaiians? Would you do a "Hugo Chavez" and simply "nationalize" everything in the Islands? Would you issue your own currency? Cowrie shells?

Seriously, this is NOT going to happen. Even if the US were to collapse entirely as a world power, the ethnic Hawaiians are OUTNUMBERED by non-Hawaiians living in the Islands.

So what are the Hawaiians seeking from this movement? Monetary compensation? An apology from Congress?

SeaWind

Originally posted by youdidntseeme
reply to post by guohua

 

Here is a copy of the treaty without weeding through everything.

source

Thank You youdidntseeme, That is Great, I didn't know how to do the single link, but I also wanted others to do a little reading here, I don't truly believe some people actually use the links we provide for them, unless of-course it up holds their way of thinking.

By this logic, nobody is American since the US was illegally occupied from the natives.
Second line.

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by UluaHuntah808

 

You might try: historymystery.grassrootinstitute.org... -a-webpage/

Hawaiian independence (secession) activists keep saying “There was never a treaty of annexation between Hawaii and the U.S.” If that were true, then Hawaii would still rightfully be the independent nation it once was. And that would make the secessionists very happy. If there was never any cession, then there doesn’t need to be any secession. Just get the U.S., or the United Nations, or the World Court to recognize it.

But indeed there was a treaty. Annexation was well and truly done. A new webpage provides the full text of the Treaty of Annexation, and the resolutions whereby both the government of Hawaii and the government of the U.S. agreed to it. There’s also a discussion about the politics of annexation in 1898 and 2010.
So find out the truth. Go see the treaty for yourself, at :
www.angelfire.com...

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION -- the politics of the Treaty of Annexation, then and now

TREATY OF ANNEXATION BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE OF HAWAII RATIFYING THE TREATY OF ANNEXATION.

JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE U.S. SENATE AND U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SIGNED BY PRESIDENT MCKINLEY, TO ACCEPT THE TREATY OF ANNEXATION OFFERED BY THE REPUBLIC OF HAWAII (also known as the "Newlands Resolution" named after the Congressman who introduced it)

EXCERPT FROM PRESIDENT MCKINLEY'S STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE OF DECEMBER 6, 1897. The length of this excerpt indicates the importance he placed on ratifying the Treaty of Annexation.

Go here to read it if you really want to: www.angelfire.com...

edit on 21-1-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2011 by guohua because: (no reason given)

BTW, be careful who you get your information from. There are some individuals and organizations in hawaii who make it their lifes goal in trying to deceive people who trying to find out the truth about hawaiian history. Grassroots of hawaii and its members are one of those! Those that are new to Hawaiian history are most vulnerable.

I say do the research yourself and you will be able to distinguish disinformation from truth.

reply to post by UluaHuntah808


I thought you were fueling the Obama birth fire.

The Hawaii state argument has been here before:
ats thread

I thought that you were bringing a new wrinkle to this preexisting thread.

At the end of the day, Hawaii is a state.
One can make any historical arguments they like, but it will not change this fact.

If you want Hawaii to secede from the Union, I wish you luck there.

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
BTW, be careful who you get your information from. There are some individuals and organizations in hawaii who make it their lifes goal in trying to deceive people who trying to find out the truth about hawaiian history. Grassroots of hawaii and its members are one of those! Those that are new to Hawaiian history are most vulnerable.

I say do the research yourself and you will be able to distinguish disinformation from truth.

Just as there are some on the other side as well.
Every point will have its supporters and dissenters.
Grassroots of Hawaii are on one side, and you are on another.
So we should be skeptical of both, until we are educated enough to distinguish.

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by UluaHuntah808
BTW, be careful who you get your information from. There are some individuals and organizations in hawaii who make it their lifes goal in trying to deceive people who trying to find out the truth about hawaiian history. Grassroots of hawaii and its members are one of those! Those that are new to Hawaiian history are most vulnerable.

I say do the research yourself and you will be able to distinguish disinformation from truth.

Just as there are some on the other side as well.
Every point will have its supporters and dissenters.
Grassroots of Hawaii are on one side, and you are on another.
So we should be skeptical of both, until we are educated enough to distinguish.

Yes exactly!

Obama's legitimacy as President because of this controversy I believe is without question. Nice hype for the OP in bringing attention to this matter though. His citizenship would have been granted long before Hawaii's statehood if that were a concern.

As regards US citizenship of those inhabitants of the US Virgin Islands:
en.wikipedia.org...

The U.S. took possession of the islands on March 31, 1917 and the territory was renamed the Virgin Islands of the United States.[citation needed] U.S. citizenship was granted to the inhabitants of the islands in 1927.

The eligibility to serve as POTUS is based on more than citizenship but also being born on US soil. Are there any exclusions regarding those born on US territorial possessions?

reply to post by UluaHuntah808

That is why the 2 attempts to annex hawaii failed in congress.

I just thought that I'd throw out there that, according to the Wikipedia page for the Hawaiian Admission Act, two attempts to annex Hawai'i failed in Congress, not because of protests in Hawai'i, but because of the racial prejudices of many members of Congress during that time.

I guess one has got to take it for what they think it's worth though. I must say that that reason sounds infinitely more plausible than the United States Congress backing away because of a few people's disagreements.

ETA: I remember being taught in high school that the Hawaiian government was overthrown and that's how Hawaii became part of the US. If that is the case, an annexation isn't really required I would think, as the government was disposed and the land conquered. At that point, I guess one would just have to accept what happens, happens. Sure, that might not sit right with some nationalists, but those are the breaks of the game sometimes.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by UluaHuntah808

 

That is why the 2 attempts to annex hawaii failed in congress.

I just thought that I'd throw out there that, according to the Wikipedia page for the Hawaiian Admission Act, two attempts to annex Hawai'i failed in Congress, not because of protests in Hawai'i, but because of the racial prejudices of many members of Congress during that time.

I guess one has got to take it for what they think it's worth though. I must say that that reason sounds infinitely more plausible than the United States Congress backing away because of a few people's disagreements.

A few peoples disagreements? Try almost the whole kingdoms disagreements.

libweb.hawaii.edu...