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

And do you take any responsibility for any of your white or non-white ancestors who may have conquered and colonized Hawaii, such as the Tahitians who displaced the original Marquesans? Or do you apply the “One-Drop” rule to yourself and only consider yourself eligible for the victimhood you claim, rather than any victimization your ancestors surely engaged in as well?

Did you actually read his book?