1) regardless if it was by treaty or resolution, the U.S. and the Republic of Hawaii agreed to and enacted annexation, and this annexation was universally recognized by the international community;

2) Just as King Kalakaua and Liliuokalani were recognized as the heads of state of the Kingdom of Hawaii by the international community, so was the Provisional Government (which was recognized unanimously within 48 hours after the Hawaiian Revolution), as well as the Republic of Hawaii. If you are going to argue that international recognition gave Kalakaua the right to rule, then you have to agree that both the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii also enjoyed that right;

3) The Republic of Hawaii took over the rights and treaty responsibilities of the Kingdom of Hawaii in regards to the United States, and even went so far as to consult with the United States when such a treaty was possibly in question. See the Blount Report p.1375;

4) PL103-150 contained whereas clauses that are not legally binding, nor an accurate portrayal of history. See http://tinyurl.com/2mydyk

As one of the most diverse nations on the planet, with a long history of immigration and assimilation (epitomized by the experience of Hawaii), it is hard to make the claim that the U.S. is the most racist country in the world. But even if that were so, it would be less racist if it deemed race-based admissions and benefits illegal and unconstitutional.

That day is coming, and I welcome it with open arms.

Factual History has shown the world on how the United States became who they are and their place in this world today. From the slaughtering of their own people in the civil war becaue the south wanted to break away and form their own nation, to the bringing of slaves from Africa, to the millions of murderous genocide committed by the American Government of Native American Indian Tribes because the indians refused to give up their rightful lands, to the illegal conquest of the Hawaiian Kingdom and so forth and so on….

1. First of all, SJ Resolution 52, which is the Treaty of Annexation for Hawaii, never passed. Because Congress could not get the 2/3rd constitutionally mandated votes needed to annex Hawaii, however, in the case of Texas, they did…Hawai`i is the only State in the union that they couldnt get a treaty of annexation signed….

2. King David Kalakaua was recognized by the World Court/World Council, as such, the World Court internationally recognizes Hawai`i as a Sovereign and Independant National State…

3. The Hawaiian Kingdom enters treaties of friendship and navigation with the United States, therefore, upon their signatures, the United States recognizes the Hawaiian Kingdom as a Sovereign and Independant National State…

4. All of your comments you mentioned above became null and void due to the passage of United States Public Law 103-150. The United States fully confessed to the world their crimes committed against the Hawaiian Kingdom, therefore making any and all theories, comments and or remarks concerning Hawai`i null and void…

5. Recent Supreme Court ruling slapped the faces of their own government from State and Federal levels which ruled that title to lands in Hawai`i are clouded…

6. Your own United States Constitution Article VI, clause 2 states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, so in esscence, the treaties made between Hawai`i and the United States must be followed and upheld in accordance to international law….

I can go on and on legally, and internationally but the end result is that finally, the United States own courts upheld USPL 103-150 and found that the Hawaiian Kingdom has no need to follow the United States Governments hold on their own country. Senator Daniel Inouye even quoted that sovereignty is inherent in the people….its about damn time.

On another note, back to rascism. The United States is the most rasicist country in the World consumed by greed and power, history has shown the true factual evidence to the contrary. I know that for a fact.

United States Dept. of Labor/ Office of Contract Compliance
Paralegal& Legal Advocate
United States Historian

1) Regarding “annexation not done properly”, the United States also annexed Texas by joint resolution, but furthermore, U.S. law notwithstanding, the treaty of annexation negotiated and adopted by both the Republic of Hawaii and the United States can be seen as legally binding under international law. From the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom transcript:

Over 100 years of jurisprudence in the United States, and within the international community, has recognized the annexation of Hawaii as legitimate and binding. You are more than welcome to try and file a suit in U.S. courts to get the annexation of Hawaii (or Texas) nullified, but my bet is that even if you took that all the way up to the Supreme Court, you would not get the decision you desire.

2) Regarding thriving and flourishing, what makes sense is for us to help those people in need thrive and flourish, regardless of their racial background. A poor, homeless portuguese lady has just as much right to aid and comfort as a poor, homeless 1/64th native Hawaiian lady who is 63/64ths white.

3) Private institutions cannot violate civil rights law in the name of “preserving” a specific ethnicity. See the supreme court case regarding Girard college for an example.

4) We are all of the same race, the human race. Asserting that somehow racism is benign so long as it is used to help people who suffered during historical times is a slippery slope. If I opened a restaurant, and offered free admission to white people, but charged anyone who wasn’t part-white $10.00 at the door to enter, it would be a violation of non-white civil rights. You may see free admission to white people as simply a “gift”, but certainly you can understand why such a policy would be racism, can’t you?

and furthermore what scares me more is not OHA’s desire for the kanaka maoli to thrive, but rather your interpretation of OHA’s meaning. they do not want the hawaiian people to thrive in the sense they grow so strong that they overshadow the seedlings of other races, blocking them from the sun and leaving them to shrivel, OHA wants hawaiians to thrive in relation to the current state of hawaiians.

the percentage of native hawaiians that make up the population of hawaii is alarmingly low. all OHA wants to do is allow the hawaiian population to catch up to those who are already thriving. doesn’t it make sense for the native people of a land to desire that their people flourish?

as far as the acts of the Kamehameha schools, i disagree with what ms. Kanui. I do not believe the actions of the Kamehameha schools to be pono ‘ole. The definition of racism is: a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another.

Kamehameha does not discriminate against races. they keep no races OUT, they simply state that to reap the benefits of the school a student is PREFERRED to possess a part of the ethnicity that the institute was CREATED TO PRESERVE. furthermore they do not believe that the hawaiian race is superior to others. there is no element of hate in their mission, theirs is a mission of love. i do not see why Kamehameha is under attack when there are schools for boys and schools for girls, or why the same lawyers do not cry out against affirmative action.

some may say that affirmative action is based on the situation. income, grades, sat scores, ethnicity, area. but that is how Kamehameha works also. the education they offer is equaled by other schools, what is so hard about students who do not get into Kamehameha because they do not meet the kanaka maoli preferrence to going to another school? Kamehameha is strict on grades and recommendations, they don’t just blindly accept students based purely on ethnicity. and the scholarship granted to certain students is because those students need it.

Kamehameha does not HURT anyone, they simply seek to help the hawaiians as a race so that they may survive and flourish in a modern world, especially after the effects of the original contact with western civilization. they offer a gift to hawaiians and now others want to come and take it away? how is this different than you offering your friend a gift and a stranger comes to claim that they should receive one as well?

1) The Republic of Hawaii was universally recognized by all nations who ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii. As such, it was by any measure, the rightful international heir to the Kingdom of Hawaii.

2) The Republic of Hawaii was annexed to the United States by the Newlands Resolution. Those same groups who listed names on so called “petitions” disbanded in 1900 and formed the “Home Rule Party”. On June 6, 1900, Robert Wilcox, upon his return from the mainland advocating for native Hawaiian rights in the Organic Act, spoke to a rally sponsored by Aloha ‘Aina and Hui Kalai’aina, the two main Hawaiian political clubs. In his speech, he said, “The question of the restoration of the Monarchy is gone from us forever. We are now a people, however, who can vote. You all know we have two-thirds of the votes in this country.” He also advised against racial loyalties, saying, “We are all Americans. We should not consider personality.” On June 7, 1900, Aloha ‘Aina and Hui Kalai’aina were disbanded, and the Hawaiian Independent Party was established, its motto being, “Equal Rights for the People”.

3) Just as Texas was annexed by resolution, Hawaii was annexed by resolution. Over 114 years of jurisprudence, both U.S. and international, have regularly accepted the fact of Hawaii’s annexation. Your novel opinion of the fact of annexation is simply a creative interpretation with no basis in law. Please note U.N. resolution 1469 (XIV) was passed on December 12, 1959 - In this resolution, the U.N. noted, as a matter of international law, that the people of Alaska and Hawai’i have effectively exercised their right to self-determination and have freely chosen their present status.

Insofar as your opinion that only those people with ancestors in Hawaii before January 17, 1893 (or July 4, 1894, if you count the declaration of the Republic the true end of the Kingdom) are somehow not Hawaiian, I suggest you learn about jus soli. Those born in Hawaii have every right to claim citizenship in whatever “nation” you wish to assert exists.

Your assertion that because Pauahi’s will was written under a different set of laws that somehow it can ignore improvements to civil rights law applicable in Hawaii is simply laughable. It is repudiated by both the Girard College decision, as well as common sense -> just because a will enacted in the 1880s demanded a specific religion of teachers and administrators, does not make it immune to equal rights protection.

Similarly, your claims of “clouded title” are simply unfounded. Please cite the specific “international law” statute that the U.S. government has not followed, and any judgements from the International Court of Justice which may apply. I’m afraid you’re just giving us your own novel interpretation of Vattel’s “Law of Nations”, a philosophical work which although it inspired many tenets of international law, is not in fact a body of law enforceable or adjudicatable in any real sense.

It is my hope that despite your racist rhetoric, that you learn the same lessons of your kupuna in the islands - those who came to accept, celebrate, and join in as patriotic Americans. Prince Kuhio, Robert Wilcox, our first congressional representatives, not to mention Queen Liliuokalani herself, all changed their minds about the overthrow and annexation. Hopefully, one day you will learn the wisdom they learned.

More than that, though, I hope that your students treat your claims with intense skepticism, and ask you to do more than just spout baseless rhetoric. The annexation of Hawaii was accepted by even those who protested it in 1898, and to claim it as “illegal” is simply hyperbole - name me the court that declared it illegal, and the judgement that was rendered! Name me the Hawaiian Kingdom law that predicated any sort of vested rights dependent on blood! Show me something that abrogates the Kuleana Act! The Hawaiian Kingdom was one of all races, and your assertion that only those with immigrant roots pre-1778 had special rights during the Kingdom period is simply wrong.

Suggested reading for your students, and yourself:

• Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand

• Ernest Andrade, Unconquerable Rebel

• Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the facts matter?

• Gavan Daws, Shoal of Time

• Ken Conklin

• The Morgan Report

• Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report
• The Rest of the Rest of the Story

P.S.: Regarding “money from 114 years”, what say you to the 4 million dollars of debt racked up by the corrupt regimes of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani that were paid in full by the U.S. upon annexation? By relative share of GDP, that’s $3,220,633,484.16 today. What would you do to pay that back? Not to mention all the improvements and money invested in the islands since then? Would you pay the U.S. back for all the federal dollars poured into the islands over the past 114 years?

As we (my students and I in home school class) read in disbelief what someone of supposed educated background we couldn’t let you and the readers of this paper go blind, ignorant and mad.

First of all, you should do more research on website address: “hawaiiankingdom.org” to read and educate yourself before making statements that sound racist, idiotic and ignorant.

As you claim that your grand parents were also born in Hawai’i yet you fail to understand the true (not mystery) history of Hawai’i before making dumb statements. Let my students share their thoughts.

First of all the biggest five myths in Hawai’i:

l.) Hawai’i was a constitutional monarcy before the purported overthrow in 1893, that had over 24 treaties with many of the super powers today and lesser in power, with other countries.

2.) Hawai’i was never annexed to the United States of America.
Our ancestors, praise the Lord organized the Aha Hui O Ke Aloha Aina (Hawaiian Women’s Patriotic League) petitioned the
voting Hawaiians and got 38,000 signatures that stopped the purported Annexation Treaty from being heard in the U.S. Congress by your President Grover Cleveland who call the purported overthrow, “An Act of War.”

3.) The Newlands Resolution was passed later and since then “the taking” of Hawai’i continues and will be stopped, since a resolution cannot transfer lands. It’s no secret that the imposition of American laws on Hawaiian lands needs to be removed and that the usurpation of our laws by U.S. occupation will end and paid in full and the decision of the Hawaiian people to make that pono will be fulfilled according to international law, not by the people of America but it’s government.

4.) As Hawaiians we are not Americans and this is not America.
5.) All the lands in Hawai’i have clouded title because of the continual denial by the U.S. Government to follow international law.

As for Pauahi, who is my direct relative. She was a true and beautiful person, who believed in God to spiritually protect her lands and assets for her people. She was neither a radical or racist…like yourself, we gathered…if not for her, many people including your grandparents would not have had the privelege of living in Hawai’i. Her Will was written during the period of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government filed in the Hawaiian Supreme Court, laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom; Declaration of Rights 1839, Hawaiian Constitution 1864, Compiled Laws of 1884, Penal and Civil Laws 1886, Treaty of 1850 between the Hawaiian Kingdom and your government as well as International Law. What Kamehameha schools is doing today is not Pono, but that is for us to resolve…not Americans who want to put their noses in our business and not grounded in our aina. Like yourself while complaining, moves to California…you are not a keiki o ka aina…maybe your grand parents were but unfortunately, if your family did not have ancestors living in Hawai’i during the Kingdom era or before that they can prove nationality in Hawai’i…they were not Hawaiian…they were Americans…like my students who can show that their ancestors were connected to Papa and Wakea in the creation chant and to ‘Io. That is how you get connected in Hawai’i. One hundred years is not enough! Nationality is the key here…like the Mexicans, in America they have to be naturalized, know the American constitution and speak English…it is similar here in Hawai’i. In a nut shell it comes down to the blood…unless you have one drop Hawaiian you don’t have vested rights in our lands, according to the law
of the Hawaiian Kingdom that continues “to operate under the radar” and building bridges with people of like mind.

We the native Hawaiians do not support the Akaka bill for completely different reasons from this newspaper and we working it out amongst native Hawaiians and doing a good job of it without interference by niele haoles who have no breath or vested interest in any lands in Hawai’i. The same for OHA.

Hawaiians are quite capable of running our country ourselves.
With the money from 114 years of occupation, we won’t need anybody here to run our business, we will hire those who understand the true history of Hawai’i and feel as we do about the land and how to malama ka aina.

In closing your writing got the lowest rating by my students who are studying website address: “hawaiiankingdom.org” and learning more than the education system will ever teach and they like the challenge because it deals with truth and real people to prepare them for what is out there in the world they will one day travel. We will pray for this newspaper and you in particular because we saw from your writing that you are in pain and in need of healing. We say, stay close to God and love your children as you love yourself for God is not mocked!

Rita Kanui, President
Aha Hui O Ke Aloha Aina
Waimanalo, Hawai’i