Barack Obama was, in fact, not legally born in the United States.

No, this will not be yet another allegation that Barack Obama was born in Kenya — he most certainly was not. There is not solid evidence, in fact, that he was born anywhere else but Honolulu, Hawai’i. The question which is necessary to pose for this blog is one of the actual legal status of the State of Hawai’i. Hawai’i, for those who do not know, was an independent kingdom until 1893 when a group of American business men decided to relieved the internationally-recognised queen, Lili’uokalani, of her throne and form a “provisional” government of the Republic of Hawai’i. These men, lead by Sanford Dole, yes, of the Dole Corporation, would be the ones who would eventually annex Hawai’i to the United States in 1900. This is where it starts to get interesting — the Republic of Hawai’i was never the legitimate government of Hawai’i so it was never in the position to sign Hawai’i up to anything. It is unconstitutional for the US government to sign a treaty with an illegitimate government. It is also unconstitutional for the US to simply seize and occupy the territory of another nation. In the case of Hawai’i, the United States has and continues to do so. Thus, the statehood of Hawai’i is itself unconstitutional. So was Barack Obama born in the United States? No, he was not. But for “birthers” to accept the real reason why would be far too much to bear.

Advertisements

14 Responses to “Barack Obama was, in fact, not legally born in the United States.”

  1. Ike Jakson Says:

    Hi Christopher

    I read your similar Blog in the other place [DNM”cuppa”T – Chuckle chuckle} and had a few smiles about the comments.

    The lack of interest did not surprise me because they all have their own little problems; the sniping at each other continues; but the complete lack of knowledge did surprise me.

    I would have thought that any history student would know something of Hawaii, even if it is only because it is one of the “57” States of America and I chuckled when one of them who is supposed to have a major in History admitted complete ignorance of this very important situation.

    My knowledge goes back to when I started to read James Michener in the very early sixties until I owned all his works, of which Hawaii was his first “epic” and later picked up some more detail from references in Hawaii. I found his attention to the role of the missionary the best that I have ever read on the subject.

    But do you think anyone will ever return to the “legal” position with Hawaii? I somehow doubt it. There is also the matter of how many kings/queens they had in those islands way back then. Do many of their descendants know much of their history and will they be able to form one cohesive unit? But I am personally interested and you may send me any links that you come across.

    Have you read ‘The Source’ by Michener, and BTW are you aware that you have two Posts here on the same matter with only a small difference in the headlines?

    PS: I am pleased to find an entirely different and fresh approach on the birth of the man in question. Please note that I am not saying that the old Hawaii/Kenya story is a dead horse now, but it is certainly on the back burner for a while. It will surface again, mark my words, but that is another story as you rightly explained.

    Good luck.

  2. Ike Jakson Says:

    I forgot to tick the box for follow-up comments. Sorry.

  3. christophertrier Says:

    The Hawai’ian people know their history very well. Most Hawai’ians also are well aware of the constitutional laws of the Kingdom of Hawai’i. The Hawai’ian kingdom was unified at last in 1810 under the rule of Kamehameha Akahi — or Kamehameha the First. The name “Hawai’i” comes from his home island, Hawai’i. One by one he conquered all rival chiefdoms. The first was on the eastern side of Hawai’i, then the islands of Maui Nui (Maui, Lana’i, Kaho’olawe, and Moloka’i) After that he had the bloodiest battle on O’ahu, later to become the main island and seat of the national capital based on the port at Honolulu. Anyway… The last chiefdom to fall was Kau’i and its dependent island, Ni’ihau. That was in 1810. The war on O’ahu was so bloody that the chief of Kau’i was too terrified to fight but Kamehameha’s forces were also badly depleted. They would complete a pact in which upon his death, Kau’i would unite with the other Hawai’ian islands. Kamehameha Akahi was also the last of the traditional Hawai’ian rulers, his son, Kamehameha II would become a Christian and rule in the manner of a European king rather than a tribal ruler. In time Hawai’i would become increasingly Anglicised and would, in turn, be seen as a kingdom equal to that of any in Europe. What is the relevance of that? The point is that Hawai’i had, by 1893, developed a strong sense of unity and common reverence to the monarch — something which remains to-day. The Hawai’ian people are slowly starting to unite under the banner of home-rule. This I learnt from living there as I did for a time until just about a year ago. I do not think that Hawai’i will revert to its legal status any time soon. The movement, however, is solidifying. Most, even if they support eventual independence, remain content with a gradual process as they are well aware that years of government policy to make Hawai’i completely dependent on the mainland will be hard to reverse. There is also a difficult question of what to do with the people who live there. Hawai’i has been so mixed for so long that it is really impossible to determine, outwardly at least, who is and who isn’t of Hawai’ian descent — hence the “one drop rule”. But would the USA withdraw? That is another difficult question. If the United States does not sort its house out soon it may have to withdraw as there is not much that they could do if independence was declared as it may not truly be strong enough to refuse its own legal obligations.

    • Ike Jakson Says:

      Christopher

      I think it will be easy to Google for most of the Kings of Europe but I am intrigued by and interested when ‘Kings first became Kings” in Africa and elsewhere in the “Old World”. I am looking at the African History right now. The point is; please note no injury or slant intended that they did not have a word for it.

      It struck me that you may help on more detail about Hawaii and I will look into Africa. Personally I would like the Middle East history as well for my research.

      Would you like to help?

      PS: There is an easy way to remove the “unwanted Post” from your Blog. Let me know if you need help.

      • christophertrier Says:

        Hello Ike,
        if you would like help on Hawai’i and the Amerindian nations I would be more than happy to help.
        Just let me know what you want to know and I will reply as well as I can.
        Cheers,
        Christopher.
        I figured out how to take care of the duplicate posts. I’ll get to it eventually.
        — in the background Frank Sinatra’s Domani starts to play. “Let’s forget about domani, let’s forget about domani, let’s forget about domani because to-morrow never comes”.

  4. christophertrier Says:

    As for the duplicate posts… That was a result of trying to figure out how to post a blog on the other forum.

  5. Ike Jakson Says:

    Christopher

    We discussed my research and the intended purpose for it last year and I am now starting to spend time on the book though I still have a few loose ends.

    Your Post about the legality of Hawaii as a State and the status of their old leaders [kings/queens] caught my attention because we have an almost exact analogy [with some added local ramifications] of what you describe in Hawaii. You may know that South Africa [and much of Southern Africa] went through periods of annexation by the various “Colonial Masters” as it suited them before it became the Union of South Africa in 1910 [by the grand design of Britain] and later on the Republic in 1961 [against the wishes of Britain this time].

    We don’t know what authority or “tiles” the old African Kings had and who first called their descendants Kings because the black written language came much later and is still in its early development but there is a large area of land that is included in the current RSA where no black people ever lived [a fact that is pretty much universally accepted today] but the blacks have the majority over the last remnants of the original inhabitants in that area nowadays over those who were found there when the whites first arrived because present Government simply settled and overcrowded the area with “its own” in recent years.

    The purpose of my writing is “dialogue between ordinary people” and where we are going given the many anomalies of the past. I don’t want to go into United Nations style legal wrangling; all I want to present to the reader are the perceptions of the local working class and how we are getting along.

    Who were Kings when, and what they were called before they became Kings and what became of their descendants will add the color in the picture if you follow what I mean. I will therefore, take more or as much as you can locate in your reading, of any snippets of relevant information as you already handled in your Post.

    Someone else remarked to me once that I want to record folklore and wasn’t far out. The stories of Kings and Generals have been recorded with nauseous regularity. I want to record the stories of the guy who pays for, while having to live with, the extravagances of the Rulers.

  6. christophertrier Says:

    I need to leave early to-day so I will give you a quick response on the Kings and Queens of Hawai’i.

    The first “king” of Hawai’i was Kamehameha Akahi. He was originally a “chief” in western parlance of West Hawai’i, the Kona side of the island. He was also the last “traditional” ruler of Hawai’i. He never converted to Christianity and, after his death, was given the traditional funerary rites.
    The next 4 rulers, all men, would take his name — Kamehameha II was born Liholiho, Kamehameha III Kauikeaouli, Kamehameha IV Alexander ‘Iolani, and Kamehameha V was born Lot. What I left out last time was King Lunalilo who ruled only for about a year so he left little impact on Hawai’ian history and is often skipped. After the battle of wills on Honolulu came David Kalakaua who named his sister, Lydia or Lili’uokalani has is successor. Now this is when it gets interesting. Lili’uokalani’s husband was John Owens Dominis — a New England-born American of Italian ancestry who would become a loyal Hawai’ian subject and governor of several islands, Maui included. Lili’uokalani would name Princess Ka’iulani has her successor. And what was Ka’iulani’s surname? Cleghorn. Her father was a Scotsman. The Meiji Emperor tried to arrange a marriage between one of his sons and the princess which she politely declined. Hawai’i’s history would likely have been a happier one if she would have accepted as, despite the trauma of WWII, the Japanese were kinder than the Americans to their colonies in general with the exception of Korea which was far more the most difficult to govern.

    Before that there was constant warfare between the different islands.
    The system was based on a highly hierarchical system based on bloodlines. It was not unheard of for member’s of the “aristocracy” or Ali’i in Hawai’ian to marry and have children with their siblings or parents in order to keep bloodlines pure. Marriages would also be conducted with powerful ali’i on other islands. If a woman, however, would become pregnant with the child of a man too far above or below her in social status the child would be sent away for adoption as soon as it was born as it would be put to death otherwise.

    More on kings and queens later with more detail, this will just get you started.

    • Ike Jakson Says:

      Thanks Christopher

      This is good stuff for my intended project. Take your time but I am looking for whatever you can dig up. Some dates will help too in order to build a time frame of events.

  7. Ike Jakson Says:

    Hi Christopher

    Gee thanks for all the info on Hawaii in my other Post. I am going to try to “transfer” your comment to this Blog where we started on that matter and will further comment from here. It’s just a habit; if I don’t keep all in the same place I lose my way.

    That is unless you maybe when you get the time post it here, the one with all the Kings and Queens of Hawaii and the dates.

    • christophertrier Says:

      More on the Kings and Queens of Hawai’i:

      Kamehameha Akahi: 1795-1819
      Kamehameha II: 1819-1824
      Kamehameha III: 1825-1854
      Kamehameha IV: 1854-1863
      Kamehameha V: 1863-1872
      Lunalilo: 1872-1873
      Kalakaua: 1874-1891
      Lili’uokalani: 1891-1893

      Hawai’ian history is generally divided into three segments; Ancient Hawai’i (from pre-history to 1810), the Kingdom of Hawai’i (1810-1893), and various ways of phrasing American occupation (1893-present)
      The Republic of Hawai’i is usually classified with the American era since Americans made up the government and had loyalties only to the USA.

      In 1839 France attacked Hawai’i in order to protect Catholic interests and would attack again in 1849.
      In 1843 Admiral Paulet attempted to turn Hawai’i into a British colony and launched an invasion. This, however, was not backed in London and was ultimately called-off.

      The island of Hawai’i was unified in 1791 after Kamehameha had killed the last ruler of another district on the island.
      Maui Nui would fall in 1795. These islands were lightly defended and had already been weakened after a war of succession. O’ahu would fall in 1795 after a bloody battle in which Kamehameha was betrayed by one of his confidantes. He did not show much mercy. In 1803, seeing that Kamehameha had only been delayed and realising that he was better off negotiating the king of Kau’i agreed to cede his realm to Kamehameha upon his death — that would happen in 1810.

  8. Ike Jakson Says:

    Thanks Christopher

    I now have it all nicely in one place and will study it with comment to you as soon as I have done that.

    You are being most helpful.

    • christophertrier Says:

      No worries Ike, the only thing I ask is that you review my comprehensive history of Rhodesia when I write it.

      • Ike Jakson Says:

        Hi Christopher

        I would sure like to read your manuscript. There will probably be a small overlap with my work in the events since the Rhodesia UDI.

        In fact something else came up in my mind that made me realize that we probably met at the right time, and maybe tortuously for both of us. I will write separately about that.

        Main thing: let us not lose touch.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: