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: https://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/index.html
Hello BED, yes I suspect you are right. I'm not sure If I could buy something at Walmart today, and have someone unrelated to me 120 years in the future return it for a refund.
And yes, that is a great site, the topics discussed there are ones I usually am concerned with.
Not a good analogy. Purchasing something normally implies a lawful activity. Incorporating Hawai'i into the United States without an annexation treaty was not a lawful act, and the ongoing U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is not a lawful activity.
When does the statute of limitations run out.
And it's doubtful that Hawaii without an Army or a Navy would have remained to itself for very long. Many Empires would have easily swallowed up Hawaii. Hawaii being a territory of England, Russia, and Japan was a real possibility in the 1890s.
In lieu of an annexation treaty, you keep fantasizing about what might have been, to legitimate the ongoing U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It's also possible that a meteor could have wiped out the United States before the 1893 overthrow.
Again, you keep fantasizing about what might have been—in lieu of an annexation treaty—to legitimate the ongoing U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It's also possible that a meteor could have wiped out the United States before the 1893 overthrow.
The United States did not overthrow anything in 1893. Homegrown rebellion did. Read the Morgan report.
Huge lie. 13 individuals with the aid of U.S. Marines who Minister Stevens landed for the purpose of participating in the overthrow, which the 13 individuals could have never done by themselves. Read the Blount report. Read United States Public Law 103-150. Show me a treaty of annexation—a topic which you have so far avoided. The Kūʻē Petitions, with 38,000 signatures against annexation, represented the vast majority of Hawaii's population at the time. That is what you call homegrown.
Ignorance is bliss; you take great pride in being ignorant. The U.S. is made up of what they made up; and you believe them.
Majority of Hawaii voted to become a State in 1959. Does that have any effect on your fantasy time machine's ability to go back and forth in history?
I have demonstrated that Hawaii, without an Army or a Navy, would not have remained in the possession of only itself for very long, in the age of imperialism practiced by the world at the time. France, The Dutch, British, Russia, Japan. Hawaii would have surrendered to any one of them without a fight. Hawaii was easy pickings militarily. I conclude that if a major world power was to get it, that was best the United States got it. It was only a matter of time, time before these nations would wrest control of Hawaii for their own use, as these countries often did in that same time period. This is not an outrageous claim, as you make it out to be.
You're repeating the same stuff that I have already responded to more than once. You're hypothetical "what if" speculations about alternative historical scenarios are fantasies that don't demonstrate anything. They're merely a smokescreen to distract attention away from the current legal status of Hawai'i as an occupied state. There is nothing noble about U.S. possession of Hawai'i without an annexation treaty. The fact that your comments have studiously avoided this fact demonstrates that it is something even you are not proud of. Otherwise, you would bring it up every chance you get.
Territory of Hawaiʻi: 1959 General Election: Proposition 1: “Shall Hawaiʻi immediately be granted into the Union as a State?”
381,859 / 632,772 = 60% of the population was eligible to vote.
171,383 / 381,859 = 45% turnout of eligible voters.
140,534 / 171,383 = 82% of voter turnout did not abstain from statehood question.
132,773 / 140,534 = 94% of voter turnout that did not abstain from statehood question and voted "yes."
132,773 / 171,383 = 77% of voter turnout that voted "yes" for the statehood question.
132,773 / 381,859 = 35% of eligible voters voted for statehood.
Conclusion: majority of Hawaiʻi did not vote to become a state in 1959.
The United States waited until 61 years after it purportedly "annexed" Hawaiʻi, before administering its fraudulent "statehood" vote in 1959. The "statehood" vote would have failed if it was held on the same day that Hawaiʻi was "annexed," because a majority of the subjects were opposed, as demonstrated by the Kūʻē Petitions. Instead, the U.S. spent the next 6 decades transferring portions of its civilian and military population into the occupied territory—which is considered a war crime under international law—and Americanizing the territory through indoctrination and propaganda—which is also a war crime under international law (denationalizing the inhabitants of an occupied territory)—until it could get enough of the population to vote in favor of becoming the "50th State." Despite 61 years of occupation, however, only 35% of eligible voters voted for statehood. Since independence was not provided as an option for this vote, furthermore, it was not a plebiscite, as verified by U.S. Public Law 103-150.
Your remarks keep getting sillier. The Statehood act which was unlawful and irregular, did not list So, he sales and marketing scheme you believe in created it like majority of the residents voted for statehood. It's a far cr from the truth.
Well, I want to say I have enjoyed the correspondence with you. You advanced your arguments and I advanced mine. But I also have some observations about you too. You never have anything positive to say about the United States of America. It's always guilt guilt guilt that you heave upon the USA. I suspect it's to guilt them into paying you money or benefits.
Your Cherry Picking is second to none. 1893 is only 1 year in the 200+ years of historical record in Hawaii. You cannot even fathom that anything else occurred before or since that year!
And I often think when I read what you wrote previously, you resent the fact that Hawaii was discovered by the outside world. And you have a big chip on your shoulder because of it. How long did you think Hawaii would remain a land populated with only Hawaiians? Unless Hawaiians had a policy of killing every foreigner who landed ashore (like Japan did for 300 years) international travel and migration was inevitable. The rest of the world had learned to sail and navigate the oceans.
If you truly are mad about foreigners coming to Hawaii, I think you should direct some of that anger at King Kalakaua. He signed on behalf of the Hawaiian Kingdom "The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875", a free trade agreement made with America, which lead to large American investments in the sugar cane industry. Kalakaua must have prospered nicely from selling sugar to America, and probably spent it on building Iolani Palace. I'm not sure about the financing of the Palace that he built, but it was extravagant, and put the Hawaiian Kingdom into serious debt. Kalakaua also sold large swaths of land for money and loans.
So I will just leave it that there are many internal events to blame for the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, that was not the direct fault of the United States.
The article is clearly focused on the last 120 years, and my preceding comment clearly shows that I did not limit my comments to the year 1893. Your comments about Hawaiian history before 1893 disparage the Hawaiian Kingdom, and your comments about Hawai'i since 1893 use hypothetical speculation that conquest or occupation by a foreign country was inevitable. Presumably, this is your way of reconciling the unlawful U.S. occupation of Hawai'i with your conscience.
1893 overthrow aside, there has never been a treaty of annexation to rightfully incorporate Hawai'i into the United States. If the Hawaiian Kingdom was as corrupt as you make it out to be, and the U.S. was so morally superior by comparison, as you imply, then it should not have had any problem obtaining the treaty of annexation that it initially pursued.
Instead, the treaty of annexation of Hawai'i to the U.S. failed twice because a majority of Hawai'i citizens opposed it at the time. Then the unprecedented and unlawful move of annexation by joint resolution of U.S. congress was used instead. That is not something for Americans to be proud of. If annexation by joint resolution was legitimate, that would have been the procedure used to begin with.
You may not be in favor of ending the ongoing U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but you cannot deny that is exactly what it is. Let us agree on that, and we can agree to disagree on everything else.
"Your comments about Hawaiian history before 1893 disparage the Hawaiian Kingdom"
You can color them how you want to, my comments are backed up by historical record.
"and your comments about Hawai'i since 1893 use hypothetical speculation that conquest or occupation by a foreign country was inevitable."
By 1890, 40% of the population of Hawaii was Japanese. Their was a serious possibility that Hawaii would become a territory of Japan.
Read: https://www.pacificgibraltar.com
Not true. According to the last census report done in the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1890, it listed the population of Hawaiian subjects at 48,117. Of this population the census listed the aboriginal Hawaiian at 40,622 (84.4%) and those Hawaiian subjects of foreign ancestry at 7,495 (15.6%).
Over 38,000 of the 40,622 Hawaiian subjects signed the Kūʻē Petitions which defeated the annexation treaty in the U.S. Congress. That represented the vast majority of the population at the time.
I have already replied to this exact same comment in a preceding post, which has apparently been posted again here by accident.
The underlying problem with U.S reconciliation is possessing/protecting lands to satisfy American needs, but is not intentional genocide as compared to British 200 years of colonization.
Newsweek magazine August 24-31, 2009 issue; Back Story; Did Britain Wreck the World?,
Most of today’s world conflicts originate from unnecessary colonial era changes on 5 developing territories; India/Pakistan, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Nigeria, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Sudan. From the magazine’s article focus on devastating effects, the amount of violence/cultural genocide of these current conflicts make Hawaii’s situation with America negotiable.
An underlying fact that Hawaii's continued influx of immigrants from Samoa, Tonga, Philippines, Japan, Vietnam, Korea. Hawaii is not the US made concentration camp that separatists would have the world believe. Residents of India/Pakistan, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Nigeria, Somalia, Sri Lanka, and Sudan would gladly move here permanently at the drop of a hat. No need to think twice.
Ending the U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom is not separatism; it is de-occupation.
what next, then you or others will want the US to de-occupy North America. Maybe return to the way the world looked before 1492 I guess. I suppose that's really possible in your world.
When an independent nation-state is taken over, it is occupied. When an indigenous territory is taken over, it is colonized. The former requires de-occupation. The latter requires decolonization.
The U.S. Marines were landed under false pretexts, and aimed their weapons at the palace in support of the illegal overthrow. The insurgents—backed by the Honolulu Rifles—did not have enough confidence to do it on their own, because they knew they would never have succeeded without that protection. Afterward, they landed the U.S. Marines again to again establish a protectorate, because they were too weak to maintain their "Provisional Government" on their own.
If annexation by congressional joint resolution was legal, then the United States would have used that for the preceding 49 U.S. states instead of a treaty of cession. Annexation has to be bilateral, which requires a treaty. The Newlands Resolution was unilateral. Only through its own legal fiction does the United States self-proclaim that it annexed Hawaiʻi by joint resolution, which is domestic legislation limited to the borders of its country. Furthermore, the Organic Act of 1900 does not define any of the islands as being part of the Territory of Hawaiʻi. This also negates annexation, which requires a defined territory. By the way, the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law now officially classifies the Hawaiian Islands as an occupied state.
The revisionist history of Hawaiʻi has been taught by the United States for the past 121 years, not the other way around.
The Kūʻē Petitions occurred after 1893. Unilateral seizure of the Hawaiian Islands by a congressional joint resolution of the United States—instead of a bilateral treaty of cession—occurred after 1893. The U.S. occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom that began on August 12, 1898, occurred after 1893. U.S. Public Law 103-150 occurred after 1893.
Mr. Conklin has never published any of his arguments against Hawaiian sovereignty in a peer-reviewed law or political science journal. All of his work is self-published.
U.S. Public Law 103-150 validates the Blount Report. This means that a majority of U.S. Congress put credence it it. If you have no problem accepting the Newlands Resolution in 1898, then be consistent and accept the Apology Resolution in 1993. The converse is not true, because a congressional joint resolution is not a customary instrument for the cession of territory from one country to another. This is proven by the first 49 U.S. states over the course of the first 176 years of U.S. history. It is also proven by dictionary definitions of cession. Show me one dictionary definition of cession which says that it is customarily accomplished through a congressional joint resolution.
Just as marriage is a prerequisite for divorce, cession of territory from the Hawaiian Kingdom to the United States would be the prerequisite for nationalism, secession, or separatism. However, there is no instrument of cession, as verified by U.S. Public Law 103-150 and the Organic Act of 1900. What was overthrown in 1893 was the Hawaiian Kingdom government, not its sovereignty as a country, nor its independence as a multi-ethnic nation-state. Since the Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist as a subject of international law, its descendants today are nationals (not nationalists, secessionists, nor separatists).
there was a regime change in hawaiiback then,that's for sure. president McKinley wanted the annexation of Hawaii.president Cleveland did not. anyway,Mckinley was a corporatist.and got what he wanted.and the plantation owners.
All the people who are against the historical truth are afraid. Afraid that the truth will reveal them to be monsters and not the good hearted people they consider themselves to be. "You can pay the man, you can take the land, but you can take the truth away." -Bruddah IZ.
If you are a true Christian you love your enemies as Queen Liliʻuokalani did. Martin Luther King Jr. as he fought to end oppression said "God wants us to love our enemy, but he did not say we have to like them." Especially when people threaten your life and your loved ones or have mean things to say about people who are searching for justice and the truth. Conklin I feel sorry for you when you do things like these you against teaching of the Dalai Lama, Mahatma Ghandi and Jesus Christ. If that is your destiny so shall it be!
Dr Sai's claims about there being no treaty of annexation may be true. What I have a serious (moral issue) problem with is HOW he and others (Laulima Title) seek to assert this point: They take anywhere from $1500 to $3900 from people (mainly Hawaiians) who are in serious foreclosure danger to tell them there titles are invalid so they don't have to pay their mortgages. They do this to quote "to be pono"? And then these people most likely lose their homes and Dr Sai happily moves on with $600,000 they paid him (he was convicted [of fraud] and DID not have to pay the 1500 people back) and now Laulima Title is charging folks $3900 to give them the same argument? If your purpose is "to help people facing foreclosure" then WHY NOT GIVE THEM YOUR THOUGHTS on the invalidity of their titles FOR FREE???????? And when they lose their homes will you too keep the more than 1 million dollars you have taken from people (to help them)????
I suppose you have truth to your statements or are you parroting what someone has said without specific facts? Don't confuse him with someone else. You are being fool-hearty and libelous. Loose lips sinks ships, as they say. Get your facts straight before opening your mouth. Ask Dr. Sai what the real story is and then you can speak from facts. If what you say is true; he would have been in prison, don't you think? Show us the proof instead of your rantings.
Are you one of those (lupo) who have gone to Dr. Sai and was directly affected? I am sure Dr. Sai and his colleague had the best intentions and used their research to fortify their position. The courts could not really acknowledge his research because if it did then that would be admitting guilt like the "Apology Bill' so they make up something just to show that they have power subjecting Dr. Sai to some fines and other things. Like they made up with the "Newlands Resolution" long a go. The higher ups who run the state? of Hawai'i and the United States would like to forget about the past and now because of the past it is haunting the state and country and will continue until "right" (pono) is restored. People like Dr. Sai put their own freedom and even lives on the line for others in the search for truth and justice. Malcom X and Hawai'i's George Helm lost their own lives pre-maturely because they held those in power accountable for the oppression of a people and the 'aina (land). Where is Keanu Sai's Mansion, fancy cars, and private jet? I see those who make decisions that inherited illegal lands living in these very houses, driving these very cars, and riding in these very plains. Like they did similarly to the Native American Indians. If they did charge money it was probably to do more research to try and protect the people they are serving. I am sure if the courts did admit their wrong doings and mistakes you would be singing a different song. To be superficial you will never learn how to swim and that is fine, however, in depth you will know how precious life is and you would want to share with the rest of the world. "Freedom is never given freely by the oppressor, it has to be demanded by the oppressed." Martin Luther King Jr.
The revolution that occured in 1893 was an internal one. Nearly everyone participating in it were subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Some of them were trustees of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, apointed by herself in 1884
You keep spinning the facts and distorting it. There are documents that say otherwise. You neglected U.S. Secretary of State James G. Blaine, President Benjamin Harrison, Lorrin Thurston, General Schofield, and the Committee of Safety which amounts to 13 men and other players in this operation. It's all documented. There were only a few Hawaiian subjects of American parentage and a couple if any, of Hawaiian blood; so you are being disingenuous to fabricate your statements. Check out what U.S. Representative Wm Springer had to say. He surmised that the U.S.-backed Provisional Government would not be able to control the Hawaiian Kingdom and its government for more than a half-hour without the U.S. troops protecting them. It's all stated in U.S. records. Don't try to keep rewriting history with dismal information you may have gathered from whosever book you're reading it from.
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: https://www.kitv.com/news/loophole-found-in-city-l…
Also, OHA's plan to destroy Kakaako.
Comments are closed.