| |  Print This Article

Conklin's Points on Hawaii Sovereignty Not Valid

Dr. Keanu Sai

BY DR. KEANU SAI PHD - This letter is in response to Dr. Ken Conklin’s article printed in the Hawaii Reporter online on September 1, 2011, as well as the July 17, 2011 article by Andrew Walden in another publication. I have always refrained from responding to these types of articles, but I have since changed my mind in order to qualify and clarify a lot of misinformation being presented. As for Walden’s article, I think Br. Christopher Fishkin did a fine job in his response, which can be read at the bottom of the article. But as for Dr. Conklin this response is all him, since he’s been writing diatribes concerning my research and myself. He also tries to portray himself as an expert, which he definitely is not. In other words, he never warranted a response from me until now because there are some people who actually think Dr. Conklin has valid points. He doesn’t.

First, here’s a little background of myself. After I graduated from Kamehameha Schools in 1982, I attended New Mexico Military Institute, a military college, where I graduated in 1984 with a A.A. degree in pre-business and a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the United States Army Reserve’s early commissioning program. I then attended the University of Hawai`i at Manoa and graduated in 1987 with a B.A. in Sociology. While attending the university, I joined the 1/487 Field Artillery Battalion in 1984 to begin fulfilling my six-year obligation as a commissioned officer. I completed my obligation after serving ten years and retired as a Captain in 1994, where I served on both active and reserve status. My commands included Fire Direction Officer, Company Fire Support Officer, Battalion Fire Support Officer, and lastly as Battery Commander.

When I was promoted to Captain in 1990, I began to do research in the Hawai`i archives on my family’s genealogy, and through this research I began to realize, through the actual records, a history of Hawai`i that I was not aware of or taught at either Kamehameha Schools or at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa. From a military perspective it was intelligence or “intel,” as we would call it, which is historical information I never knew. This resulted in delving deeper into the records and processing this information as if I was the Intel Officer for a battalion. In the military, a battle plan is never developed before the intel is processed. It is through this assessment of intel that battle plans arise. As officers, we were trained to view history as if it’s a film of the past, run through the projector of today, on to the screen of tomorrow. The “film” is the intel, the processing of information is the “projector,” and the battle plan presents itself onto the of “screen of tomorrow.”

It became crystal clear that the Hawaiian Kingdom, being a recognized independent and sovereign state since 1843, continued to exist despite the overthrow of its government in 1893. This was a similar case in 1990 when the U.S. military overthrew the Iraqi government. By overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s government, the overthrow did not equate to an overthrow of Iraq as a sovereign state. Governments and Sovereign States are separate and distinct. Governments exercise the sovereignty of the State, it does not constitute the State itself. In the Army, Field Manual 27-10 regulates occupations of foreign states, which succeeded the 1863 Lieber Code. Section 353 of FM 27-10 provides:

“Belligerent occupation in a foreign war, being based upon the possession of enemy territory, necessarily implies that the sovereignty of the occupied territory is not vested in the occupying power. Occupation is essentially provisional.

On the other hand, subjugation or conquest implies a transfer of sovereignty, which generally takes the form of annexation and is normally effected by a treaty of peace. When sovereignty passes, belligerent occupation, as such, of course ceases, although the territory may and usually does, for a period at least, continue to be governed through military agencies.”

There were two occupations of the Hawaiian Islands by the U.S. military, the first between January 16, 1893 and April 1, 1893, and the second from August 12, 1898 to the present. President Cleveland determined the first landing and occupation as “an act of war” and the second occupation was during the Spanish-American war. There is no treaty transferring Hawai`i’s sovereignty to the United States, only congressional legislation (1898 joint resolution of annexation), which has no effect beyond U.S. territory. In other words, the U.S. Congress could no more pass a joint resolution annexing Canada today, than it could annex Hawai`i by joint resolution in 1898.

What has happened over the past 113 years is clear propaganda coupled with a revisionist history. In 1994, I decided to retire from the Army as a Captain and with this irrefutable evidence; I wanted to test the theory that the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. My driving force was that a great wrong was done to my country and it had to be addressed and remedied. To do this would entail being respectful, responsible and accountable, but in doing this I knew full well that I would also be dealing with people who were disrespectful and irresponsible.

From the intel or historical information gathered came the plan to be executed, and this plan was to expose the prolonged occupation of my country by concentrating on real estate. What we were going to expose was that land titles could not be transferred since January 17, 1893, because in order to convey property in the Hawaiian Kingdom a person granting title was required to go before a notary public of the kingdom and thereafter record the deed in the Bureau of Conveyances. As a result of the illegal overthrow of the government, this act prevented land titles from being transferred because there were no lawful notaries and a lawful registrar for the Bureau of Conveyances after January 17, 1893. There was no lawful government since January 17, 1893. A very logical analysis.

On December 10, 1995, myself and Donald Lewis, a retired real estate broker and founder of Locations, Inc. (now Prudential Locations), established Perfect Title Company and the Hawaiian Kingdom Trust Company, both being companies established under the 1880 statute regulating co-partnership firms. Perfect Title exposed that all titles in the islands were defective since January 17, 1893. The effect that this information had was on the local escrow companies, title insurance and the real estate industry. The reason for the profound impact is that before a bank loans money to a borrower, they require the borrower to go to an escrow company to purchase title insurance, called a loan policy, to protect the bank in case there is a defect in the title, which would render the mortgage invalid. The purchase of title insurance is a condition of the loan and if the borrower isn’t able to purchase the title insurance to protect the bank he doesn’t get the loan. The lender’s policy pays off the loan if there is a defect in title.

The escrow companies did not disclose the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government and the limitation of United States law to within United States territory. Absent a treaty, U.S. law has no effect in the Islands. However, title insurance was issued when there were clear defects. Perfect Title Company created havoc in the real estate industry because the title companies could not refute Perfect Title Company’s reports. Somehow the title industry got the State of Hawai`i government involved, which led to a raid on the company by the Honolulu Police Department’s white collar crime unit. Donald, the company’s secretary, and myself were arrested outlandish allegations of racketeering, tax evasion and theft. After a couple months, these outrageous charges were dropped and Donald, one of our clients, and myself were indicted on first-degree attempted theft, a so-called class B felony. The fundamental problem with this indictment is that real property, which is immovable, is not the subject of theft—only personal property, which is movable, is the subject of theft. In fact, the general rule of larceny states:

“Common law larceny is the trespassory taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation) of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the possessor of the property.  Larceny is a specific-intent crime. Real property is not the subject of larceny law. Moreover, only tangible forms of personal property are encompassed in the offense.”

If there were to be any charges filed it should have been conspiracy and fraud, but Perfect Title Reports could not be refuted. This led to my conviction of a manufactured crime, which is the basis of my federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against Secretary of State Clinton, former Secretary of Defense Gates and Admiral Willard of the U.S. Pacific Command for not faithfully executing two executive agreements entered into between President Cleveland and Queen Lili`uokalani. The manufactured conviction also smeared my name and reputation, which is also the basis of the tort injury in the federal lawsuit.

After returning from the Netherlands where I served as lead agent in arbitration proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in December of 2000, I entered the Political Science department at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa and graduated with a M.A degree specializing in international relations in 2004, and in 2008 I graduated with the Ph.D. degree specializing in international relations and public law. While I was a Ph.D. student in the program, I wrote a law journal article published in the Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics (University of Hawai`i at Manoa) in 2004, and I was invited by the editor of the Journal of Law and Social Challenges (University of San Francisco School of Law) to write another law journal article on the executive agreement, which was published in 2008. Both law journal articles were law reviewed, which means they were critiqued for accuracy and appropriate application of law, and Heinonline, being a publisher of law materials, published both journals online.

My doctoral dissertation centered on the legal history of the Hawaiian Islands that stemmed from Kamehameha I to the present. There were six professors on my committee that ranged from political scientists, law professors and a Hawaiian historian. Having successfully defended my doctoral dissertation, the committee’s critique was not only welcomed but also greatly assisted me in refining the narrative and legal arguments I made. I also have two pending books that will be published by the University of Hawai`i Press, which includes my dissertation and a book on land titles.

I am assuming that Ken Conklin, has a Ph.D., only because he says so. I can’t qualify my assumption though. At least for myself, anyone can check the authenticity of my Ph.D. in Political Science and my published articles and doctoral dissertation. I’ve also participated in a multitude of academic conferences throughout the world where I presented my research that can also be authenticated (curriculum vitae). On the other hand, I found no literature that has been “law reviewed” or even a doctoral dissertation that was successfully defended that Dr. Conklin could reference as to qualifying his opinion regarding the legal history of the Hawaiian Islands. From what I’ve heard, Dr. Conklin’s Ph.D. was in Philosophy. Philosophy is not Political Science, and there is no specialty in Philosophy that covers international relations or public law as Political Science does. To say Philosophy is equal to Political Science would be to say Chemistry is equal to Business Administration

While I served as an Army officer, it was required to be qualified as you were being promoted from 2nd Lieutenant, to 1st Lieutenant, to Captain. The military schools under my belt included Field Artillery Officer Basic Course for Lieutenants, U.S. Air Force Air Ground Operation School for combined arms tactics, and Field Artillery Officer Advanced Course for Captains. In civilian life, my M.A. degree, and Ph.D. degree qualifies my expertise in international relations and public law, with particular emphasis on the legal and political history of my country—the Hawaiian Kingdom. I am also able to qualify and explain the actions taken at Perfect Title Company, the arbitration case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, and the complaint filed with the United Nations Security Council.

Independent authors also published articles on the arbitration and complaint filed with the U.N. Security Council in the American Journal of International Law and the Chinese Journal of International Law. These authors are law professors in the United States and Canada. I also have a new history book titled “Ua Mau Ke Ea (Sovereignty Endures): A Political and Legal Overview of the History of the Hawaiian Islands,” which is currently being used in classrooms in High Schools, the Community Colleges, the University of Maui College, and the University of Hawai`i at Manoa.

What can Dr. Conklin claim as qualifying his opinion, a self-published book that was not peer or law reviewed or his thirty commentaries published online?  If I self-published a book and wrote thirty commentaries online, that wouldn’t make me an expert. It merely attests to the fact that I paid for the publication of my own book, and I wrote thirty commentaries giving my opinion. If I were the one to peer review his book, I would rip it to shreds because it is full of assumptions, opinions, misinformation, and misinterpretations. He has no qualified opinion, which is why I never responded to his diatribe in the past.

I was raised in an extended Hawaiian family where my parents, grandparents, uncles and aunties, instilled in me to be respectful and responsible—to be “pono.” Since I chose to walk this path after retiring from the Army, I have seen the ugliness, the disrespect and the irresponsibility of people, but it has not swayed me in my firm conviction and belief in “pono.”

My country, the Hawaiian Kingdom, was and is multi-cultural and multi-ethnic, especially since I am not only aboriginal Hawaiian, but also Caucasian—my great grandfather, being Charles Reeves, is from Tennessee. The Hawaiian Kingdom is also a not so distant past, where my aboriginal Hawaiian great-grandparents were born in the 1880s, which is only two generations ago when Hawai`i was a vibrant country that had a U.S. Legation (embassy) in Honolulu and a Hawaiian Legation (embassy) in Washington, D.C. I also firmly believe in responsible education and that’s why I teach at Windward Community College and also sit as a committee member for Ph.D. candidates at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa. Dr. Conklin seems to believe that if you keep repeating yourself over and over, people will eventually believe you and think you have valid points, especially if you have the letters Ph.D. at the end of your name. This is no scholar, but a self-indulging man who believes in conspiracy theories that center on race politics.

Dr. Conklin, if he really does have a Ph.D., is an angry, bitter and self-centered man, whose diatribe that he spews is neither respectful nor responsible. His opinions are unqualified, and whether he knows it or not he has provided an abundance of evidence that can be used in a lawsuit for libel and slander. If I were Dr. Conklin, I would be very careful what I write, but then again, I’m responding to an angry and bitter man and someone who is angry and bitter usually doesn’t think straight. When I was in the Army, officer’s who don’t think straight would be relieved of their command. The basis for relieving the officer would be because it would place their men, which they lead, in harm’s way. I am assuming Dr. Conklin never served as a commissioned officer in the military, nor would I assume he ever served in the military, so he wouldn’t understand the level of responsibility an officer holds.

Tom Coffman, who was a United Press International Reporter, Government Reporter for the Honolulu Advertiser, and Political Reporter & Bureau Chief for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, published a revised edition in 2009 of his seminal book “Nation Within: The History of the American Occupation of Hawai`i.” His original publication in 1998 was titled “Nation Within: The Story of America’s Annexation of Hawai`i.” In his revised edition, he explains why he dropped “annexation” and replaced it with “occupation.” Coffman states:

“I am compelled to add that the continued relevance of this book reflects a far-reaching political moral and intellectual failure of the United States to recognize and deal with its takeover of Hawai'i. In the book’s subtitle, the word Annexation has been replaced by the word Occupation, referring to America's occupation of Hawai'i. Where annexation connotes legality by mutual agreement, the act was not mutual and therefore not legal. Since by definition of international law there was no annexation, we are left then with the word occupation. In making this change, I have embraced the logical conclusion of my research into the events of 1893 to 1898 in Honolulu and Washington, D.C. I am prompted to take this step by a growing body of historical work by a new generation of Native Hawaiian scholars. Dr. Keanu Sai writes, ‘The challenge for…the fields of political science, history, and law is to distinguish between the rule of law and the politics of power.’ In the history of Hawai'i, the might of the United States does not make it right.”

Tom Coffman restated a sentence of my conclusion in my law journal article published in the Journal of Law and Social Challenges, titled “A Slippery Path Towards Hawaiian Indigeneity,” where I advocate responsible study and research into the ramifications of the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government. I would like to close with rest of the conclusion of my article that followed the stated sentence made by Coffman that sums up why responsible education is needed.

“Rigorous and diligent study into the Hawaiian-American situation is not only warranted by the current legal and political challenges facing Native Hawaiians that the Akaka Bill seeks to quell, it is a matter of what is right and just. The ramifications of this study cannot be underestimated, and its consequences are, no doubt, far-reaching. They span from the political and legal to the social and economic venues situated in both the national and international levels. Therefore, in light of the severity of this needed research, analytical rigor is at the core and must not fall victim to political affiliations, partisanship or just plain bias.”

What appears to drive Dr. Conklin to do what he does is neither responsible nor respectful, but seems to be driven by anger and hate. I don’t even know who he is except for what he writes, so I don’t know why he’s so angry. If there were anyone who should be angry that would be me after what transpired since 1994 as a result of exposing the truth that I can now qualify as a political scientist. But I’m not angry. I have a “kuleana,” a responsibility to continue where my Queen and former countrymen and women left off. I live by my kingdom’s national motto uttered by King Kamehameha III on July 31, 1843 after the government was restored by British Admiral Thomas.

 

“Ua Mau Ke Ea O Ka `Aina I Ka Pono”

(The Life of the Land is Perpetuated in what is Right and Just).

For more information on my research and expertise please visit: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/index.html

Use Facebook to Comment on this Post

Short URL: http://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=39758

134 Comments for “Conklin's Points on Hawaii Sovereignty Not Valid”

  1. Aloha Real Deal
    Nearly Everyone that participated was internal is almost right except some assistance came externally like the United States Marines backing the sugar plantation owners on Jan. 17, 1893. That is why the "Apology Bill" was drawn out because the U.S. said sorry for their part of the overthrow which acknowledged their wrong doing in the whole situation. A revolution is one that happens because an oppressive government needs to be toppled and it is usually done by the people like Fidel Castro's revolution, Ghandi's non-violent revolution, and even the American Revolution. The word revolution would not be appropriate for this circumstance. The Hawaiian subjects and its citizens were not oppressed by their king and queen, it was American business men who wanted to take Hawai'i for their own benefit not the people's. That is why there is this feeling of injustice. The native -Hawaiians do not only feel that injustice was done, but the majority of Hawai'i's population feels the same. If you had Aloha for this place you would feel the injustice too. After acknowledging this then we ask where do we go from here.

    • Realistically our succession from USA is inviting China or Russia to claim us in the name of Liberty?
      No way will UN get involved as your group needs a UN invitation or approval of Congress to be recognized.
      What's more important is the now, the occupation of the homeless from the continent. Example' Loophole found in city laws concerning Waikiki bench

      Read more: http://www.kitv.com/news/loophole-found-in-city-l...
      Also, OHA's plan to destroy Kakaako.

  2. Yes I did and I see that has something to do with your name?

    Remember his dialectical thinking when he went to Mecca and he ate from the same table with Caucasians from different countries?

  3. And that is a different conversation all together.

  4. The Bayonet Constitution set the subsequent Overthrow events on an unrighteous path, but I look to God Almighty to make things right for us all, not to receive...yet another visitor-come-to-stay-forever... to tell us what to think and what, not to do.

    All humans want their beliefs to be respected, even humans who want the return of kanaka sovereignty...as well as humans who need for others to believe that the Overthrow was legal. And even humans who strive to put before us
    the beliefs of the keiki whose kupuna were disenfranchised, negated, and overthrown/annexed.

    So internet advocacy of competing perspectives continue. Such is the democracy in the state of Hawaii, where all
    can speak their views and be allowed to live in peace.

    Me? I know God Almighty is Just and Righteous. He will not be mocked forever. That is the source of my equilibrium.

    Aloha to all, Nuuhiwa Naohiaikamalu III

  5. Dr. Sai,
    Ua Mau Ke Ea Oka Aina I Ka Pono, doesn't it not mean the sovereign(EA) Life of the Land is perpetuated in righteousness?

  6. Brown Eyed Angel

    When I see trolls like Blue Eyed Devil, I assume they are Ken Conklin in disguise.

  7. The incorporation of Hawai'i into the United States without an annexation treaty is the real title scam. The U.S. is supposed to be administering Hawaiian Kingdom law during the ongoing occupation, not U.S. law. It is only within the false context of U.S. law in Hawai'i that you can make your allegation of title scam by Dr. Sai.

  8. "As to voting rights, it extended the vote to non-citizen, foreign
    residents of European and American background (Asians were excluded),
    thereby ending Native Hawaiian majority rule in the legislature. And it required
    that voters and candidates for the legislature meet high property ownership or
    income requirements. This requirement excluded two-thirds of the formerly
    eligible Native Hawaiians from voting. For those who could still vote, they first
    had to swear allegiance to the Bayonet Constitution." Source: http://hawaiianbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09...

    Why do you consider the Apology Resolution (United States Public Law 103-150) to be flawed? It is an admission of guilt by the U.S. for its role in the 1893 overthrow and the subsequent U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, which is still ongoing. It is a joint resolution of the U.S. congress, as is the Newlands Resolution (United States Public Law 55-51), which purportedly annexed Hawai'i to the United States in 1898. If you believe the Apology Resolution is flawed, then surely you also reject the Newlands Resolution.

    The U.S. acquired territories, by treaty, from Spain during the Spanish American war. The U.S. acquired territories (including Texas) from Mexico by treaty of conquest (Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo). The Pacific Northwest was acquired, by treaty, from Great Britain. President McKinley signed a treaty of annexation for Hawai'i in 1898, but it failed in the Senate after the monster petition of 38,000 signatures was submitted, representing the vast majority of the Hawai'i citizenry at the time.

  9. All your highlighting is moot after 1959. Haunani Kay-Trask's grandfather was a member of the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii for the Democrat party, and was a key proponent of Hawaii Statehood.

  10. What is the Newlands Resolution? Me thinks you are omitting precious factoids.

  11. Statehood is moot because it is an illegal entity created during the occupation.

  12. The omission is you not knowing what the Newlands Resolution is. It is United States Public Law 55-51, the joint resolution of U.S. congress used to seize Hawai'i as a war measure during the Spanish American war. It followed the two failed attempts to annex Hawai'i by treaty.

  13. Queen Lili'oukalani eventually saw the annexation of Hawaii to the United States as the best thing that ever happened to the Native Hawaiians. She was a true American patriot before her death, giving orders that the U.S. flag should fly permanently over her residence at Washington Place in honor of Hawaiians lost in U.S. military service in World War I. The U.S. flag still flies there today

  14. The 1893 Revolution was an internal one. The US was neutral. The majority of the leaders who organized the Revolution were native born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom. Many of the revolutions political leaders and militia men had no American ancestry.

  15. That has to be the biggest lie on this discussion thread. She opposed both the overthrow and annexation, and travelled to Washington D.C. to do so. You're obviously an American imperialist, opposed to Hawaiian independence, and hellbent on rationalizing the ongoing unlawful U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Get back to me when you can find an annexation treaty. Until then, I've said all that needs to be said.

  16. Read Hawai'i's Story by Hawai'i's Queen, Lili'uokalani, to get educated on the Truth (the 'real deal') of Hawai'i history; and the Ku'e Petition proves the lie in your post.

  17. Then why weren't these 13 treasonous individuals able to get a majority of Hawaii's population and Congress to go along with their annexation treaty? Why was their annexation treaty defeated in Congress? I wouldn't call that a revolution.

  18. American is not an ancestry or ethnicity. America is a corporation. Check the official USA seal. Sheesh! get educated.

  19. The Hawaiian Kingdom lasted for 98 years before the overthrow. The so-called "Provisional Republic" and "Republic of Hawai'i" barely lasted for 5 years. That's how long they desperately waited to be rescued by U.S. imperialism.

  20. Majority of the 13-member Committee of Safety (leaders who organized the Hawaiian revolution) were native-born or naturalized subjects of the Kingdom. Furthermore, many of the revolution's political leaders and militia-men had no American ancestry. In 1893, President Grover Cleveland's "fact finder" to Hawai'i, James H. Blount, wrote in his report that the 5,500 members of Honolulu's Annexation Club at that time included 1,218 Americans (22 percent of the club); 1,022 Native Hawaiians (19 percent); 251 Englishmen (5 percent); 2,261 Portuguese (41 percent); 69 Norwegians (1 percent); 351 Germans (6 percent), along with 328 persons unclassified but making up the balance.
    http://wiki.grassrootinstitute.org/mediawiki/inde...

  21. According to your logic so far, Obama is an illegitimate President isn't he?

  22. There was never a treaty cession. That is an historical fact, not logic. Consequently, Obama was born in the Hawaiian Kingdom, not the United States.

    By this point, you're being unreasonable and I'm effectively responding to a troll. So, no need for us to continue.

  23. You are right there with the birthers. But thank you for that last reply. I now know what color the sky is in your world.

  24. Read this and weep. You probably voted for Abercrombie too.
    http://governor.hawaii.gov/about/historic-washing...

  25. Haoles were intrumental in setting up the Hawaiian Kingdom with Kamehameha I. King Kamehameha killed lots of Hawaiians during is blood lust to conquer (like every other person that has advanced technology over others). Hundreds of Oahu warriors were forced over the cliff in the battle of Nuuanu. Kamehameha's attack on Oahu was a two pronged attack learned to Kamehameha by Isaac Davis and John Young, who provided their military expertise in return for land, slaves, and women. Kamehameha's forces use the cannons provided to him by Haoles. Scores of other Hawaiians were killed brutally during Kamehameha's unification conquest.

    If history was taught by others like yourself, you would leave all that out and say that the US overnight just came ashore and stole Hawaii. There were many event's that lead up to 1893, but that truth doesn't suit you or your agenda.

  26. Hello BED. It is a very cordial and polite discussion with KKM so far, and I salute him for his civility over a subject that usually degrades to pure emotion, where historical record becomes obliterated.

    I believe KKM's motives are pure and innocent, to a very high degree. But it appears he has not been exposed to any other event in Hawaii's history before 1893, or after. Do you have the same observation?

  27. It's understandable that you have no expertise on the Hawaiian Kingdom's history and being very selective in your spin. It's obvious the U.S. is made up of what it made up and taught that to you in school. Facts are facts which cannot be denied. Resources from the Library of Congress can be an opener for your mindset. Blind patriotism is not a good stance for you to take. When you use have-truths or outright disinformation, you become incredible. No matter how you try to spin it; you are incorrect with the facts. Best not put your foot deeper into it.

  28. So Dr. Sai's great grandfather, being Charles Reeves, (who) is from Tennessee" is from a corporation?
    If so, then why did Dr. Sai state his ancestry?

  29. Yes and the violence was brought by the Tahitians. Before that it was the `ohana system and Hawaiian people were flourishing. After Kamehameha unified the islands under one rule which was a prophecy fulfilled, he made the Law of the Splintered Paddle so people could sleep by the roadside without fear of harm. The ruling chiefs and chiefesses, fine tuned the Kingdom to be progressive which is why `Iolani Palace and the White House had electricity before the White House in British Columbia.

  30. By your logic, the United Kingdom does not deserve to exist either, because of despotism if you go back far enough in its history. You could use that logic with any human society. Rewinding back to Kamehameha I, past the relevant historical period of the Hawaiian Kingdom having its independence formally recognized by all the major countries of the world, is a red herring, which shows that you are unable to find an instrument of cession to show that the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom was legally transferred to the United States.

  31. The reference that you provided does not contain evidence to support your assertion that Queen Liliʻuokalani eventually favored annexation. Furthermore, the source is not credible because it is the website of the governor of the illegal State of Hawaiʻi, who is an employee of the occupier, United States. As such, there is an inherent conflict of interest which is biased against de-occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

  32. It was a fake revolution because it could not be completed without protection of the U.S. Marines, landed under false pretexts. Who Were These Insurgents Calling Themselves the Committee of Safety? http://bit.ly/TOT7Cb

  33. What I pointed out is why the "birthers" are right for all the wrong reasons. Still no evidence of a treaty of cession in your replies, and there never will be.

  34. What does that have to do with the fact that there is no treaty of cession to transfer Hawaiian sovereignty to the United States?

  35. You have the revisionist history backwards. Show the treaty of cession? Show the chain of title that transfers Hawaiian sovereignty to the United States? Show a U.S. law which lists the names of the Hawaiian Islands as the defined territory for a "50th State"? Show in the U.S. Constitution where it says that Congress can unilaterally annex another country by a joint resolution? Show a legal opinion from the Office of Legal Consel (OLC) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which was able to find such a provision in the U.S. Constitution? Show a reply from the U.S. Secretary of State or the U.S. Attorney General in 2014, in response to the legal questions formally submitted to them, on the whether the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist under international law?

  36. Resources from the Library of Congress always write of "the Indian nation" . Esp. the US Calvary files.
    So white man occupies north America?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

News Cycle on The Rick Hamada Show








Recently Commented

  • Darline May: The main problem for the students who finds themselves a good sportsmen is to succeed in both sport and...
  • Olivia: The connector has been tormented with specialized and authoritative issues since it opened in October and has...
  • Guest: The state's only athletic department?! Hello!! Chaminade, HPU and BYU-Hawaii all have intercollegiate...
  • Lienzos baratos: I went to Hawaii to make incredible pics and then printing in lienzos. I love this paradise in...
  • davidjohn051: ilm but this post is kick in the butt to go and watch it. used textile machinery