Conklin’s Points on Hawaii Sovereignty Not Valid

138
14333
article top
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: https://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/index.html

Comments

comments

138 COMMENTS

  1. People who cast aspersions on the academic credentials of others should tread carefully. I have no dog in this fight, but recent submissions to Hawaii Reporter by Mr. Conklin reflect a much better command of the written language and logical thinking than this clumsy and poorly argued screed. Mr. Sai may have earned a PhD from the University of Hawaii, but that speaks more to the institution’s rather weak standing relative to its peers than to his own self-proclaimed expertise.

    • Not sure what article (s) you read but I have to concurr with sai, Concklin states that there was a revolution and that Dole and his cohorts were “revolutionist” there was no revolution it was a pure overthrow by gready business owners who used the United States military to back their attack on this nation and the Queen, just because you have a Hawaiian sounding name does not make you Hawaiian………………………. as far as the letters “Queens Assignment” and Agreement of Restoration” they are still an open discussion and just because some one can ” logical” infuse their opinion it does not make factual.

    • “…cast aspersions”~~~Unfounded. “I have no dog in this fight.”~~~Disingenuous, at best. The rest of your posted comments is absurd and lacking a single kernel of truth to leaving you alone with “your opinions.”

  2. Reply to Keanu Sai’s September 12 diatribe

    BY KENNETH R. CONKLIN, PH.D. —

    In his September 12 Hawaii Reporter diatribe at
    https://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=39758
    Keanu Sai repeatedly uses the words “angry”, “bitter”, and “hate” to describe me and my writing. But there’s lots of evidence to the contrary. To see/hear my charming demeanor on display, look for videos and audio files linked on my autobiography webpage at
    https://tinyurl.com/5c8xcy
    One reason I felt compelled to create that webpage was because of a few sovereignty activists who, like Sai, were trying to do character assassination against me rather than engaging in serious discussion using facts and logic.

    The Hawaii Reporter article I published on September 1
    https://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=39228
    has not one angry word. Dear readers, please read it again to confirm that. It attacks Sai’s ideas, not his personality; except perhaps for the word “scam” which is indeed a perjorative, but accurate, description of his activities (especially the Perfect Title scam as documented in dozens of newspaper articles and in his felony conviction).

    Anyone who compares the tone of my essays against the tone of Keanu Sai’s September 12 article will see that it is Keanu Sai who is bitter and angry. I suspect the reason for his demeanor is because for more than two decades he he’s been cruising along giving speeches to admirers who never challenge his assertions. I’m guessing that even the UH Professors on his Ph.D. committee never seriously cross-examined him on what’s in his dissertation and what’s missing from it that might refute it. Now he’s angry and bitter because this Ken Conklin fellow comes along and dares to publicly challenge him with facts and logic. Thus we are treated to Sai’s personal attacks, and his lengthy mere reassertion of propaganda rather than counter-arguments against my facts and logic.

    There is nothing whatsoever in his article posted September 12 which even tries to refute any of the substantive points I made in my article of September 1 regarding Sai’s claims about “executive agreements.” In particular, Sai repeated his usual stump speech about history, but said not one word to argue against my very clear and logical debunking of what he calls the “Liliuokalani Assignment” and the “Agreement of Restoration.” I urge readers to examine carefully what I wrote in Hawaii Reporter on September 1, at
    https://www.hawaiireporter.com/?p=39228
    and in the extended version referenced in that essay, at
    https://tinyurl.com/3vdttyp

    In his diatribe Sai repeatedly tried to smear me by questioning whether I truly have a Ph.D. Hawaiian sovereignty zealots love to make totally false personal attacks against their opponents in an effort to discredit them. The same smear Sai is trying was also tried eight years ago by the now-disgraced President of the University of Hawaii, Evan Dobelle, who said publicly that Conklin’s Ph.D. was bogus. But independent reporter Bob Rees verified that the degree is real, and that the proof of its legitimacy was on file at Windward Community College in the form of Conklin’s official transcripts from the University of Illinois, required before Conklin could be given a teaching position at Windward. Those records would have been easily available to the President of the University if he had bothered to check. Rees also took note that Dobelle and other UH officials were still dodging any discussion about or admission of the flagrant violation of academic freedom when UH gave zero support to Conklin a year previously when intimidation and threats of violence were directed against Conklin’s pro-bono short-course on Hawaiian sovereignty. See “VERITAS AT THE UH” — article by reporter Bob Rees published in The Honolulu Weekly newspaper for October 15-21, 2003 and copied, with the Weekly’s cartoon now missing from the Weekly’s archives, at:
    https://tinyurl.com/44kcu

    Further proof of my Ph.D., and background as a professor, can be found in approximately 45 scholarly articles I published in refereed academic journals focusing on the three areas of expertise I had before coming to Hawaii: philosophy, educational theory, and mathematics. Unfortunately that was before Al Gore invented the internet. But 14 of those articles have been scanned and are now on the internet. Several of those publications include a footnote where the journal’s editor includes the Ph.D. with my name, and the name of the university where I was teaching at that time. The collection of 14 articles is at
    https://tinyurl.com/pv8fx

    Finally, Sai should know that people who have a Ph.D., especially in Philosophy, often branch out to acquire expertise in other subjects through research, analysis, and writing. For example, at the UH Center for Hawaiian Studies (now Hawai’inuiākea School of Hawaiian Knowledge), very few professors have a Ph.D. in Hawaiian Studies or “Hawaiian Knowledge” — their degrees are typically in Political Science, History, Sociology, Anthropology, or even Women’s Studies. Sai’s own Ph.D. is in Political Science, so what’s he doing speaking and writing about history, and the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and international law, and all his other favorite topics?

    Just to make it very clear: my field of greatest expertise is now Hawaiian sovereignty. I have used my skills as a researcher, thinker, and writer to spend the last 19 years in full-time study of Hawaiian sovereignty issues including Hawaiian history, culture, language, and the sovereignty “movement” itself (including attending hundreds of sovereignty rallies, lectures, conversations, etc.) My expertise on Hawaiian sovereignty is far greater than it ever was in the fields of my B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.

    • Mr. Conklin wrote: “Just to make it very clear: my field of greatest expertise is now Hawaiian sovereignty. I have used my skills as a researcher, thinker, and writer to spend the last 19 years in full-time study of Hawaiian sovereignty issues including Hawaiian history, culture, language, and the sovereignty “movement” itself (including attending hundreds of sovereignty rallies, lectures, conversations, etc.) My expertise on Hawaiian sovereignty is far greater than it ever was in the fields of my B.S., M.S., and Ph.D.”

      So Mr. Conklin. You claim to be a so-called “expert” on Hawaiian history, sovereignty issues, “Hawaiian Sovereignty” yada, yada, yada… – Anointing yourself an “expert” only makes you a wanna-be

      You have yet to successfully and compellingly refute academically and/or in any legal context Dr. David “Keanu” Sai’s Doctorial Dissertation. Your conduct and behavior shows illusions-of-grandeur. Some humility would not hurt yoly.u at all. In fact, it would benefit us all greatly.

  3. The problem David Sai has (besides around issues of morality and taking advantage of people who buy into his pseudo-intellectual scams), can be summed up in four words: The Republic of Hawaii. The internationally recognized, sovereign and independent nation which followed the Kingdom of Hawaii, is always glossed over in David’s narrative as an inconvenient truth. LIke it or not, the entire international community, every nation which ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom (including Queen Liliuokalani herself), recognized the Republic of Hawaii as the lawful successor to the Kingdom. Once that was done, there was never going to be a return to the Kingdom.

    As a sovereign and independent nation, the Republic of Hawaii, regardless of its origin, had every right to sue for Annexation after surviving for four years under a hostile US Administration. This annexation was internationally recognized, and our Statehood was also internationally recognized by the UN when Hawaii was removed from the list of non-self-governing territories.

    What David Sai sells is a compelling narrative of blame, and his victims buy his DVDs, his fake deeds, his t-shirts, and only give him more incentive to continue his deceitful ways.

    • The US military and US government did not overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii, members of the Kingdom of Hawaii overthrew the Queen and then ran the government. The US government did not initially recognize the overthrow and instructed the “new” government to reinstate the Queen. The question that needs to be asked is why would the US government us it’s military to overthrow the queen and then not accept that new government? The answer is that the US military was used to protect life and property of US citizens residing in the Kingdom of Hawaii just like had been done several times in the past.

      • “the US military was used to protect life and property of US citizens residing in the Kingdom of Hawaii”…huh? Then why did the US Marines set up their camp & Gatlin Guns across of Iolani Palace? The closes “American property” was about 15 miles away. Unfounded and irresponsible to maintain such a discredited claim.

        And yes, members (e.g. Hawaiian Kingdom Citizens) of the Hawaiian government committed “Treason” against Queen and Country…therefore were/are “INSURGENTS” much like the ones your country’s military are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

        Now that Dr. David “Keanu” Sai, Ph.D. has his work published and in the hands/classrooms of Hawaii’s educators the nonsensical and unfounded prapaganda can be refutted absolutely.

    • Mr Krischel’s has unwittingly broken a magicians cardinal rule…he has revealed his magician’s trick – The art of deception e.g. The Republic of Hawaii, FRAUD and Mr. Krischel’s choir-leading fails to qualify him and/or his claims to the level of experience and expertise as Dr. David “Keanu” Sai, Ph.D.. Surely, Mr. Krischel, the public is cognizant of these facts!

      In simpler terms, Dr. David “Keanu” Sai, Ph.D. or as Mr. Krischel writes “David Sai” has earned his credentials. But more importantly, Dr. Sai has earned the respect and consideration of entire generations. A success that cannot be diminished or disqualified by Mr. Krischel’s and Mr. Conklin’s desperate ploys.

      Gentleman…resistance is futile.

  4. If we are going to revisit history why just go back to 1893? Kamehameha was not the original ruler of anything until he took it by force in 1810. I’m sure King Kalanikupule would have liked that overthrow reversed. And if Kamehamehas victory made him a legitimate ruler why doesn’t Sanford Doles?

    • Chronology: Era + Rule of Law = Relevence. Sanford Dole broke laws and knew it! The only way he could rule was by/through Force of Arms eg. US Military. Prapaganda is a Weapon of Mass Destruction…it destroys/enslaves/corrupts millions and/or billions of minds!

      • Cherry picking a point in time that you find advantageous doesn’t seem to me to be a honest claim to the legitimacy of a government. If Doles overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy is to be reversed then why not continue the quest for justice and reverse Kamehamehas overthrow of the rulers he subjugated?

  5. Keanu, you and your family are my Hero’s.Nothing but Truth has passed your lips regarding our country. What you have on your side is God,our Kupuna’s who were there, and the truth. There is much evil out there being conjured up by those who constantly attack you, but your Truth outshines and pierces thru their veil of darkness,confusion,lies and deceit…..We love you and May god continue to bless you and all that you do.

  6. Dr. David “Keanu” Sai, Ph.D. has presented a well researched, factual and compelling doctorial dissertation. His thorough research into Hawaiian Society of Law & Politics penetrates the barriers of racism and prapaganda inflicted upon whole societies, here and abroad. Dr. Sai’s work speaks for itself. It (Doctorial Dissertation) invites discussion and inquiries. The cruel, vicious and unfounded comments directed at Dr. Sai are not only unwarrented, they are socially divisive and reek of early American Colonialism and Eurocentric arrogance. One can only conclude (rationally that is) such comments are motivated by the fear, greed and loathing found in racism. Now, lets all work to end racism!

    • Try using spellcheck next time, Puukukui. I forgot that logic and reason are Western concepts, so I guess Mr. Sai is exempted from their use, and his critics must be racist colonialists.

Comments are closed.