Hawaiian political scientist Kuhio Vogeler has come to Lithuania to find out how the Baltic states’ example can help his islands gain independence from U.S. ‘occupation’, as he calls it.

Hawaii became the 50th state of the U.S. on August 21, 1959. According to Vogeler, they were occupied by the U.S. just like, as he believes, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were illegally subsumed within the Soviet Union territorial borders after World War II. The scientist thinks that Lithuania’s experience of restoring the state system just confirms the fact that Hawaii was occupied and can now gain sovereignty, writes Delfi.lt

The 43-year-old wants to prove the fact of Hawaii occupation in his doctoral thesis and compare their history with that of the Baltic states.

A Native Hawaiian organization this morning is blocking entry into the Iolani Palace with no-trespassing signs, saying the grounds are the property of the "Hawaiian Kingdom."

About 70 people with the "Hawaiian Kingdom Government" gathered on palace grounds beginning at 5:30 a.m. today.

Signs are posted on the gates and only kanaka — those with Hawaiian bloodlines — along with media are being allowed entrance to the grounds.

The organization says it is the rightful owner of the palace and it is time to assume and resume its official state seat on Iolani grounds.

Security guards representing the Kingdom have been posted at each gate and they are giving out applications to those wanting to be recognized by the organization.

A group calling itself the Kingdom of Hawaii chained and locked all gates to Iolani Palace this morning, barring the public, tourists and government workers from the area.

Two men at the gate fronting the state Capitol, Harris Fuller and Kimo Kamakeeaina said they were sheriffs in the Hawaiian Kingdom government and would not let non-Hawaiians nor people who were not “citizens of the kingdom” enter.

The gates had large yellow signs claiming that entering the area would be considered “Criminal Trespass” by the Hawaiian Kingdom government.

Laura Thielen, chairwoman of the state’s board of Land and Natural Resources, said the property is controlled by the state’s land department and officials were talking to the protesters.

Thielen said about 35 people barred the public from entering the grounds, claiming sovereign rights over the area.

“The Department of Land and Natural Resources, state parks, which manages the palace with the Friends of Iolani Palace is closing the area,” Thielen said in a statement. “DLNR enforcement officers are working to fully assess the situation and are talking without the protesters to peacefully end the protest. We will continue to update the public as we get more information.”

i just sent around pono's photos. we pretty much covered the same ground, except for the students in front of the flag! those were great photos, pono! mostly we were both videotaping. that footage probably won't be ready to send around until tomorrow or friday.

mahealani asing mentioned that chief of police boise correa was advised by others not to enter the gate into the palace grounds because 'they might hold you hostage'. and his response was 'that's ridiculous! these people aren't terrorists or violent. besides, she's my cousin.' i thought that was funny. so he came onto the grounds next to the archives and behind the queen's statue and sat with mahealani for 10 minutes or so. they talked. he leaned over and gave her a hug. then he stood up and hugged or shook hands with the members of mahealani's group. then he left. i asked mahea what the outcome of the meeting was. she said he told her that the police wouldn't arrest them. since this was considered a state park, the state (not the city) had jurisdiction so he would direct the police to leave. she mentioned, too, that state law enforcement would probably come and try to arrest them. 

they might get arrested, or if they were offered the opportunity to leave, the group would leave rather than be arrested. but they would make sure that state law enforcement knew they would be back tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, until the issue was resolved. they don't want to occupy the palace, itself, nor did they try to.  the newspapers have it wrong.  the hawaiian kingdom government has entered into dialogue with kippen chu, ED of the friends of iolani palace, about use of the kanaina building. he, apparently, has to confer with the board of the friends.

we got all this down on tape, so you can see it later. i thought the whole thing was rather well done.

Mr. FYFE, Kaoni Foundation, who spoke on behalf of the Hawaii Caucus, said that Hawaii rightfully belonged on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Indeed, a public law had been signed by United States President Clinton in 1993 -- the so-called “apology bill” –- that seemed to signify an acknowledgement that the indigenous peoples of Hawaii had never relinquished their sovereignty, and that the statehood plebiscite of 1959 had been fraudulent. He noted that, in 2008, the Supreme Court of Hawaii had barred the State from obtaining lands from the public land trust until the question had been resolved. Also, in 2008, the representative of the Russian Federation had asked the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination why Alaska and Hawaii had been excluded from the decolonization list. The representative of Romania had asked what steps were being taken to facilitate the self-determination of the Hawaiian people.

Whereas: The Senate and House of Representatives of the United States have passed a Joint Resolution for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, and such Joint Resolution has not been passed upon by the people of Hawaii, nor by their Representatives in Legislature assembled; and

Whereas: By memorial the people of Hawaii have protested against the consummation of an invasion of their political rights, and have fervently appealed to the President, the Congress and the People of the United States, to refrain from further participation in the wrongful annexation of Hawaii; and

Whereas: The Declaration of American Independence expresses that Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed:

Therefore, be it Resolved: That the representatives of a large and influential body of native Hawaiians, we solemnly pray that the constitutional government of the 16th day of January, A.D. 1893, be restored, under the protection of the United States of America.

April 16, 2008

I am responding to Mr. Ken Conklin’s assertions in the Maui News that De Jure recognition was given to the self-proclaimed republic in 1894. He cites as evidence letters written by heads of states including Great Britain, France and the United States formally recognizing the Republic that were sent to Sanford Dole.

Keanu Sai who has done a significant research in the area confirms that these letters do exist. What is not so clear is what the existence of these letters actually mean. Ken Conklin insists that foreign recognition of the Republic legalizes the actions of the United States and signifies the legal replacement of the Kingdom. But they actually signify nothing more than the willingness of these states to do business with the Republic—not a recognition of the Republic’s sovereignty. The sovereign Hawaiian nation was recognized by Britain, France and the United States in 1843. Thousands of people have seen that document. Regardless of what government these nations were willing to acknowledge in 1894, the nation’s essential sovereignty was already well-established. The question then becomes, did that sovereignty come to an end with the passage of the Newlands Resolution in 1898?

In terms of law the answer is clear. Only a treaty of annexation could actually extinguish Hawaiian sovereignty and transfer that sovereignty to the United States. As the United States was unable to ratify such a treaty, it settled for a joint resolution accepting the cession of the Republic. But could the Republic actually cede the governing authority of Hawai`i and the public and crown lands whose ownership was legally vested in the Kingdom? Perhaps the Republic could cede its willingness to govern and its control over the lands but it could not give away what it did not possess—sovereignty and title.

This is consistent with practically every published history. Even the haole historians: Allen; Dougherty; Russ and Coffman point out the Republic was not formed to be sovereign, it existed only to seek annexation. If the Republic was not sovereign, then what was? The lahui—the people who made their will known in the petitions sent to the Senate in 1897. There is a vast difference between the political reality of Hawaii’s occupation and a legal transferal of authority and sovereignty. This is what Keanu has been saying for the past fifteen years and nothing in Conklin’s latest foolishness challenges this.

Aloha ‘ina
Jon Osorio

I recently read a story in the Maui News at by Ken Conklin. Although he provides that same jiberish he does provide a very interesting link. His contention is that the overthrow of the Hawaiian government was legalized by the international recognition of the republic by the Queen and other States.

Firstly, other countries, as third parties, cannot legitimize an illegal situation between two States. And secondly, the investigation done by the U.S. President found that the provisional government was neither de facto (successful revolution) nor de jure (lawful by constitutional means), but self-proclaimed (criminal). This is what prompted the President to negotiate with the Queen, through U.S. Minister Albert Willis, to grant amnesty to those involved once restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom government was complete. You don't ask for amnesty, which means "a general pardon for offenders by a government," if they weren't criminals and the Queen didn't represent the Hawaiian Government. So how did these roles reverse whereby the criminals miraculously became the lawful Government and the representative of the lawful Government somehow became the criminal?

Visitors to Iolani Palace can now walk through the home of Hawaii's last monarch while listening to an audio tour in the Hawaiian language.
[...]
The palace has offered self-guided tours in English since 2006 and added Japanese last year. The latest addition is the first Hawaiian-language tour ever produced for a museum, palace officials said.
[...]
The audio tours are available Tuesday through Saturday from 11:45 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Admission is $12 for adults. Children 5 to 12 years old pay $5.

More information is available by calling 522-0822 or online at www.iolanipalace.org.

A movie about the life of Princess Kaiulani is being criticized as historically inaccurate and culturally insensitive by Democratic and Republican members of the state Senate.

In a letter circulated yesterday by Sen. Clayton Hee and signed by 16 senators, "The Last Princess" was questioned for taking state tax credits.

"Many members of the community wish to be assured that Princess Kaiulani and Iolani Palace will not be tarnished and exploited," said the senators' letter, addressed to Donne Dawson, state film commissioner.

Some Native Hawaiians think Hawai'i-born Barack Obama can't be president of the United States because he was born in an independent sovereign nation: the Kingdom of Hawai'i.

A few independence advocates claim that Hawai'i legally remains a country today, making Obama and hundreds of thousands of others born in the Islands over the past 50 years not "natural-born" citizens or eligible to be president.
[...]
"Obama was born in the Hawaiian kingdom," said Leon Siu, a Native Hawaiian and musician who brought up the issue in a column he wrote on a news Web site. "Not only was the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom illegal, it was admitted to be illegal by the United States."

Siu was referring to the "apology resolution" passed by Congress in 1993 acknowledging wrongdoing in the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy 100 years before and recognizing the inherent sovereignty of the indigenous Islanders over their land.

Why would Obama, a Democrat, be so keenly interested in making sure that his likely opponent is not disqualified by the “natural-born Citizen” requirement stipulated in the U.S. Constitution? What’s in it for him?

Here’s the answer: Obama was also born in a foreign country — Hawaii.

Numerous actions and admissions by the U.S. government since 1893 indicate that Hawaii is not a lawful territory or state of the U.S. and that Hawaii is actually a foreign country under hostile occupation by the U.S. Therefore, the claim that Hawaii is a state of the U.S. is fraudulent.

In recent years, the fraud began to unravel and in recent months, the pace has accelerated considerably. Court decisions and public policy making in Hawaii are running into the brick wall of the inconvenient truth: the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists!

Though severely impaired by the illegal occupation by the U.S., the sovereignty of the independent, neutral nation, the Hawaiian Kingdom, was never extinguished. Therefore, the Hawaiian Kingdom has existed in continuity since its founding in 1810 as a self-governing, independent nation.

That means Obama was born not in the U.S., but on the foreign soil of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Obama shares McCain’s predicament of constitutional ambiguity with regard to the citizenship qualification for the presidency. Obama, like McCain is foreign born.

Obama’s co-sponsoring of the bill to accommodate McCain’s citizenship qualifications for U.S. president is not an outpouring of magnanimity toward McCain. It is a calculated, self-serving, pre-emptive measure to ensure that his own (Obama’s) foreign-born status would be likewise accommodated, should the question arise of his Hawaiian birth.

Obama’s sponsorship of the bill reveals that there are those in his camp, and perhaps Obama himself, who know that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists as a nation foreign to the U.S.

Most likely the bill will pass to allow McCain’s citizenship quirk to qualify him for president; it would likewise ensure Obama’s candidacy.

Nevertheless, Obama’s curious co-sponsorship (possibly instigation) of the “natural-born Citizen” bill indicates that he takes the implications of Hawaii’s stature as an independent nation seriously enough to cover his bases.

The bid of Native Hawaiians for resolution in (c) [integration], while providing a safety net as a special, identifiable group having a measure of autonomy under United States prescription in the Department of the Interior, will nevertheless, result in gains falling far short of those actually owed them by history. The goals sought under (a) [independence] through face to face conference with the U. S. State Department, while calling for enormous reserves of mind and will and the support of the international community to bear pressure on the occupier, will ultimately lead to freedom to turn for guidance to a heritage already established, and bring up a vision of possibilities for today with its accompanying rights and responsibilities. The lesson to be learned may well be that respect for Hawaii's authentic credentials is the way to move the giant.

"Which way, Hawaii? We are who we were. We are the Hawaiian Nation." I propose that Hawaii's national integrity is inclusive of (1) ancient ancestral protocol, (2) the form of government that later emerged as a constitutional monarchy, and (3) international nation- state position. (With reference to a constitutional monarchy, models of government may legitimately be exchanged for another.) As a physical country of land and water resources and a nation of people, Hawaii stands on its own. At the same time, it has a tri- fold heritage of sovereignty and jurisdiction already established to draw from as it directs itself forward in the present day.

Unless the three influences that make up its identity are acknowledged and in balance, who has the right to say "This is Hawaii"? The trick is for Hawaiians to find their way home. Just as `aha councils on each island in olden times were aligned to each other to form one Hawaii in the manner of strands of fiber braided together to make a strong rope, so braiding the three strands of historical sovereignty together into one unity may be the most important task ahead.

State Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, a Clinton supporter, predicted that Chelsea Clinton's visit "is going to remind people of what the Clintons have done for Hawaii and what Hawaii means to them."

As an example, Hanabusa pointed to the apology resolution signed by former President Clinton, which she said paved the way for the Native Hawaiian sovereignty bill sponsored by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii.

The legislation would give Native Hawaiians the right to form a governing entity similar to those of Native Americans that could negotiate with state and federal governments over control of natural resources, lands and assets.

Both Obama and Clinton support the legislation. Clinton also said she would like to continue military spending in the state and would support Honolulu's mass transit funding application.

No person except a natural born citizen [...] shall be eligible to the office of President

One side of the argument interprets the Constitution as meaning that a person either is born in the United States or is a naturalized citizen. Thus, to be a "natural born citizen," a person must be born in the United States; otherwise, they are citizens by law and are naturalized.[4] Current State Department policy reads: "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."[5] To others, the statute that grants citizenship to American children born overseas exempts them from the term "naturalized" and thus, as with the 1790 law, they are to be considered "natural born citizens" eligible for the Presidency.[6] Examples of persons who become citizens at birth (whether "naturalized" or "natural born") would include: birth to Americans overseas, or birth on U.S. soil, territories, or military bases overseas.[7]

John McCain, who ran in 2000 and is running in 2008, was born at the US military base Coco Solo in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. parents. The Panama Canal Zone was under United States sovereignty between 1903 and 1979 but was unincorporated.[9]
None of the candidates was elected, so it has never been fully addressed whether children born to Americans overseas are "natural-born citizens" and thus eligible for the Presidency. [8]

But is he constitutionally qualified to become president? McCain was indeed born in the Canal Zone, and Article II of the Constitution plainly states that "no person except a natural born Citizen... shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some might define the term "natural-born citizen" as one who was born on United States soil. But the First Congress, on March 26, 1790, approved an act that declared, "The children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens of the United States." That would seem to include McCain, whose parents were both citizens and whose father was a Navy officer stationed at the U.S. naval base in Panama at the time of John's birth in 1936.

At last! The Hawaii Supreme Court issued a decision that the state cannot sell portions of the so-called “ceded lands” because it is unclear whether the State actually owns those lands.

The court cites U.S. PL 103-150 (the Apology Law) as the basis for their decision. This 1993 Apology Law is essentially an admission by the U.S. that it knowingly received stolen goods when it was “ceded” (“fenced”) the Hawaiian Kingdom lands by the rebel Republic of Hawaii government in 1898. The U.S. Virtually admitted to stealing the Hawaiian Islands. The thief confessed to the theft!

Although it has taken this long to sink in to the state’s legal minds, now the ‘cat’s out of the bag.’ The court’s premise is that the Apology Law amounts to a confession of the illegality of the state’s ownership of “ceded lands.” It follows then, that the same apology law is also a confession of the illegality of the U.S. and State of Hawaii’s jurisdictional claims over these Hawaiian Islands. That means the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom could not have been (and never was) lawfully extinguished. Thus, though impaired and overwhelmed by a U.S. invasion, the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists! Now isn’t that awkward.
[...]
It is not the Apology that has the force of law, it is the admission that many laws were broken and the sovereignty of a nation was continually violated in the usurpation and prolonged occupation of the Hawaiian Islands.

Therefore, in light of the court’s new revelations on the Apology, the state’s announced “settlement” with the state/federal puppet agency, called the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, is laughable. Given the circumstances, the only just and righteous “settlement” is to return the lands and governing authority to the lawful Hawaiian Kingdom and its national citizens, not to OHA and its wanna-be Hawaii-Indian Tribe.

In 1993, when Congress (or rather, about five members of an otherwise fairly uninterested U.S. Senate) debated the so-called "Apology bill" for Native Hawaiians, Sen. Daniel Inouye argued it was merely a "simple apology" designed to set the nation's historical facts in order.

What Inouye was focused on were arguments that the Apology bill was the first step toward independence for Hawai'i. Nothing, he said, could be further from the truth.

That may be so. But it is now abundantly clear the Apology bill is far more than a mere token of remorse. It is, according to the state Supreme Court in its Jan. 31 opinion on a lawsuit involving ceded lands, the very law of the land.

Put it this way: The Apology resolution is the controlling law when it comes to ongoing questions about whether the overthrow of the monarchy was illegal, whether Hawaiians are due restitution for that overthrow and whether ceded lands (property that went from the Hawaiian government and crown to the U.S. and then to the state of Hawai'i) should be held in impregnable trust until that restitution debate is settled.

To each point, the legal answer, as declared by our highest court, is "yes."

...it's important when reading through this act, the so-called whereas clauses: these are official findings of fact and law, by the Congress of the United States. These findings bind all state and federal courts here in Hawai'i.

Jan. 25 the 2nd Circuit Court will continue to deliberate on the Lawful (Reinstated) Hawaiian Government. Despite the pending decision to be rendered by the court, the Lawful Hawaiian Government will pursue lawful claims of reinstatement.

Jan. 26, a Saturday, everyone who agrees with and supports Hawaiian sovereignty should gather for a peaceful vigil under the Banyan Tree on Front Street in Lahaina. The Lawful Hawaiian Government will reclaim the ceded lands of Banyan Tree Park as government lands.

Today we remember one of Hawai`i’s greatest patriots – Joseph Kaho`oluhi Nawahi who along with his wife, Emma owned and operated the Hawaiian language independence newspaper, Ke Aloha `Aina.

Born January 13, 1842 in Puna, Joseph Nawahi attended Hilo boarding school, Lahainaluna seminary and Royal school.

A self-taught practicing attorney, he served in the Hawai`i Kingdom legislature, the Queen’s cabinet and championed her efforts to replace the Bayonet Constitution forced on King Kalakaua in 1887.

After the illegal provisional government declared themselves in power in 1893, Joseph Nawahi founded a native resistance group, Hui Aloha `Aina to protest Hawai`i’s illegal annexation in 1898 and to restore the Queen to power.

Their newspaper, Ke Aloha `Aina, challenged the unlawful government and later the illegal republic of Hawai`i.

For these activities, Joseph Nawahi was jailed twice - in 1894 and 1895.

Sadly, Joseph Nawahi contracted tuberculosis upon his release and died at the age of 54 in September of 1896.
[...]
Joseph and Emma Nawahi were two of Hawai`i’s greatest patriots.

Severe mismanagement at the state Bureau of Conveyances has hindered property recordings, led to lost revenue for the state and left the bureau vulnerable to potential exploitation by outside interests, according to a preliminary report released yesterday by a state House and Senate investigative committee.

Thurston Twigg-Smith tries to argue that the residents of Hawaii accepted the so-called republic (Letters, Dec. 13).

That must be why Twigg-Smith’s grandfather, Lorin Thurston, who played a key role, wrote at the time:

“I hope that those who are drafting the constitution will not allow the fine theories of free government to predominate over the necessities of the present situation” and “I do not think under the existing conditions we are safe in leaving election of the president to a popular vote” – P. 155, “Nation Within” by Tom Coffman.

The provisional government, in forming itself into a so-called republic, never submitted their constitution to ratification by popular vote and severely restricted the franchise of Native Hawaiians.

No, the truth is clear regardless of Twigg-Smith’s revisionism to obscure the misdeeds and strongly anti-democratic sentiments of his kupuna. The truth is that the provisional government, the so-called republic, and the U.S. occupation were forced upon the people of Hawaii against their will and without their consent.

HWST 297 is an introductory course focusing on the Hawaiian Kingdom from its inception, recognition as a Nation-State, and continuance into the 21st century. An introduction to the history and philosophy of the law will become a foundation for understanding certain basic legal tenets as they apply to and reflect the import of decisions made during this era. Focus will also be given to the Ali'i Nui from the perspective of both traditional genealogical hierarchies as well as civil/political ones and how the confluence of these two seemingly divergent factors play a significant role in understanding the events of the time. This course will survey the various Hawaiian constitutions, the process of international recognition, the Māhele, the overthrow and occupation, subsequent legal actions taken, and how all of these factors effect the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom today.

Understanding terminology will play a crucial role in this course and will ultimately provide the impetus for unraveling the various mysteries and misconceptions associated with terms like: 'sovereignty,' 'indigenous,' 'native,' 'nationality,' 'colonization,' 'state,' 'nation,' 'independence,' and more. Present and future applications of this body of knowledge will also be explored.