Funny though, that in the end, the groups which provided the forged Ku’e petitions would become patriotic Americans, and would fight valiantly for statehood. Our first two congressional representatives actually *fought* against the Republic of Hawaii (Robert Wilcox and Prince Kuhio), and were ardent royalists in 1898, but with wisdom and an open heart, they embraced the promise of democracy and Statehood, which we eventually achieved in 1959.

As for the difference between a treaty and a joint resolution, you’ll note that the Republic of Hawaii, one of the two participants in Annexation, *did* use a treaty. The fact that the US decided to use a joint resolution is a matter of *US* law, and subject to the decision of the US Supreme Court to decide if it was or was not constitutional. That being said, a country cannot back out of a treaty in international law simply because they claim that they had some internal constitutional defect – the Republic of Hawaii faithfully executed the terms of the treaty, and the United States has no right to unilaterally dispose of it.

Ironically, this was brought up in the farce “Larsen v. Sai”, where the paid arbitrator stated, “under international law an annexation is valid even though there has been some constitutional defect.”

2) The so-called “Apology Resolution”, which ignored historical fact, was deemed impotent by the Supreme Court on March 31, 2009, which underscored the fact that the sovereign State of Hawaii was not affected by it.

Frankly, there is no illegal occupation, and the attempts by racialists to forge a race-based government in Hawaii, where a multi-racial government has existed since the inception of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is offensive. Our government in Hawaii is the State of Hawaii, a sovereign and co-equal state in the United States. There is no reason to return to a monarchy when we have a democracy already.

The Apology Bill (yes, even the US understood what happened was wrong), but we never wanted an apology, we just want the illegal occupation of Hawaii to end.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Resolution
I say let the US Military stay here, apparently Hawaii is vital to the security of the US, but restore our government without the umbrella of US jurisdiction.

A treaty is an agreement between two or more countries, and as many countries as there are in on the agreement, there are that many treaties, one from each country. Even in an annexation, there must be at least two treaties, one from the annexor and one or more from the annexees, not one treaty (and I will show why Hawaii’s “treaty” was illegal in a second) and one joint resolution.

The Republic of Hawaii voted unanimously for annexation. However the voice of Hawaii’s people, the people the Republic was supposed to represent, cried out in one unified voice to end the US Military Occupation, stop the Treaty of Annexation and restore the Kingdom of Hawaii as proven by the Ku’e Petitions, a number of petitions that gathered over 38,000 signatures, over 90% of the population of Hawaii, telling the US to do all these things. This was submitted by Lili’uokalani to the US Congress in 1898 and would end the second and last time the US would try to legally annex Hawaii.

The big problem you have, though is the international law surrounding the recognition of the de jure Republic of Hawaii. Regardless of how the Provisional Government of the Kingdom of Hawaii got there, once the Republic was declared, and internationally recognized as an independent and sovereign nation, the Kingdom was extinguished. As a sovereign and independent nation, the Republic had every right to pursue and implement annexation with the United States (out waiting a hostile US administration in order to do it).

As for my vision for Hawaii, I generally pursue free market and libertarian reforms. I’d like to see smaller government and more liberty – a socially liberal and fiscally conservative government. Now, as for the royalist vision of Hawaii, I’ve heard a lot about changing governments, but very little said on policy matters. “Non-militarized” is certainly a policy I disagree with (use of force is pretty much the only valid implementation of government), and “pollution free” begs the question of whether or not you consider CO2 “pollution”, and whether or not you’d be willing to abrogate individual property rights in order to enforce your vision of “pollution free”.

I would like to add that you have spent a lot of hours to be an expert on the Morgan report and I feel for you. Yes it is true that the Morgan report does back up your argument of a so-called civil conflict and Dole, Thurston coming out as victors.

I wish I could patiently show you that without the USS Boston, the outcome is completely different. So you can look at that palapala and say this agrees with my thinking, okay what then? With the Boston, whatever the reality one can form about the committee of public safety, it became an American act of aggression.

This simply violates the Supremacy clause and we can look to the US Virgin Islands to see the US trying to enforce this clause to prevent the Virgin Islands from legislating independence. So which is it, if the Hawaiian take over was not a violation of the Supremacy clause then either is the new USVI constitution.

What is your vision for Hawaii? We agree on Akaka and do not seek a race based artificial nation. We work to help our people separate from the US categorizing Hawaiians as a race.

Can you not see the better future of a Hawaiian Nation partnering with other world nations, working for peace, non militarized, pollution free and independent.

Can you and Mr. Conklin see your place in a nation you appear to love and fight for in a way that puzzles us.

I think it is time to set aside Morgan and as we have set aside 1893. We do not live in the past and only use it to understand today. We love America and it has brought us many good things and sometimes those bonds that tie nations together need to be broken.

hui hou

I am the Liaison by way of article 43 of the Hawaiian constitution, that allows for necessity of open offices. I represent my people in upholding their rights until a formal election is held. Our nationals can support or oppose my position once a month in open public meetings. If they desire I can be removed by simple petition.

As you Americans have the right to leadership and representation so have Hawaiians.

Well I am not a racist in my thinking and you may be confusing the American view of my Hawaiian nation. You do not know your Hawaiian history and think of “Conquering” in a western way. I am not a victim and nothing I have said has claimed victim-hood. Perhaps you think my Makua inherited fraudulent land claims, they have not, unlike Twigg-Smith. You assume my relatives engaged in “Victimization” you would have to be specific cause bragh you olelo o okole.

Without the Morgan report what have you got? Why is it that only a few of you guys like you Mr. Krischel claim that it was anything but a justification of an illegal taking.

103-150 does not go to Morgan and say look we were kinda legal.
Anyway Mahalo for your opposition to the Akaka bill, a racist, stupid and unconstitutional [HK and US] law.

Kai Landow
Vice Consul
Hawaiian Embassy

PS it is still a sad book and badly formed argument