Big Island Video News (BIVN): Denationalization in the Hawaiian Kingdom

HILO, Hawaii – Kauai’s talk was entitled “Understanding the impact of denationalization in the Hawaiian Kingdom”.

(BIVN) – As a part of the two day La Hoʻihoʻi ʻEa educational seminar held at the Boys & Girls Club in Hilo, Dr. Wille Kauai gives a talk, Understanding the impact of denationalization in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

The presenter delved into the history and issues surrounding nationality, race, and citizenship in the context of the prolonged occupation of Hawaii by the Untied States.

25 thoughts on “Big Island Video News (BIVN): Denationalization in the Hawaiian Kingdom

  1. If Hawaii is ever to return to the Rule of the Kings with a Kingdom we will need to go back to where the original Kings (Alii) left off with Christ Jesus as King of Kings and follow the motto: “The Life Of The LAND, Is Perpetuated in Righteousness.) In Unity under the LORD JESUS CHRIST there is power for change and freedom to restore the Kingdom, good change. Returning to the old gods and ways will only bring slavery. Not writing about traditional Christianity but solid Biblical Jesus Christianity that was submitted to by the Alii of old after King K…. The new Kingdom must also include all those with Aloha Hearts regardless of color or genes.. The primary meaning of Aloha says it all.

    • One of the reasons I rarely go to church any longer is b/c the star spangled banner is a song they seem to think is appropriate to sing. Mass also includes prayers for our soldiers. Personally, I’d like to hear a prayer for ALL those caught in or involved in armed conflicts, worldwide rather than centering around “our soldiers”. The Honolulu Diosces has no reply. It’s troubling. Especially after seeing certain historical documents that point to church involvement in politics during 1893-1898. They’ve always been political, so why so squeamish about this topic?

    • Kalanimoku as Prime Minister was baptized by a catholic priest in 1819 on a French ship in the bay of Pu`u Kohola at Kawaihae, when King Liholiho Kamehameha II received his successorship to the throne, after his father died and Ka`ahumanu became Kuhina Nui to out rank him.

      Never the less – BEING A CHRISTIAN NATION – exempted us from THE DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY:

      Papal Bulls of the 15th century gave Christian explorers the right to claim lands they “discovered” and lay claim to those lands for their Christian Monarchs. Any land that was not inhabited by Christians was available to be “discovered”, claimed, and exploited. If the “pagan” inhabitants could be converted, they might be spared. If not, they could be enslaved or killed.

      The Discovery Doctrine is a concept of public international law expounded by the United States Supreme Court in a series of decisions, intially in Johnson v. M’Intosh in 1823. The doctrine was Chief Justice John Marshall’s explanation of the way in which colonial powers laid claim to newly discovered lands during the Age of Discovery. Under it, title to newly discovered lands lay with the government whose subjects discovered new territory. The doctrine has been primarily used to support decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments.

      http://doctrineofdiscovery.org/

  2. konapilgrim, The monarchy and it’s laws did not discriminate any religion or race and it is evidenced in it’s Constitution, Laws and practice. Discrimination and exclusion was introduced by the hypocritical Christians that violated not only men’s Laws but also God’s law of covitnece to gain power and wealth of a friendly and peaceful nation. Which by the way had an aboriginal population that was about 95% solid biblical Jesus Christians. These hypocrites committed the Sins and had the nerve to force us to Sing God Bless America. Maybe instead of addressing Hawaiian Rulers you should be speaking to these so called Christians in gov’t and Churches to stop using the Lord’s name in vain by preaching the lie that this is America and start preaching the Truth and show us that they are really solid biblical Jesus Christians.

    • E`o, pololei olelo maka`i. I moved home to Maui from California, in 1990 to 2013 and reconnected to our Kupuna Kahiko and Aumakua through men like Anakala Sam Kaai, John Lake, Kekuni Blaisdell, Bill Amona, Papa Kawika Kealakea, The Christians know what happened to our Hawaiian Kingdom and yet they still preach and support the lies that exist even until today. Now, I live in Aschau im Chiemgau Bavaria Germany for 4 years. Akua is the energy of the universe, my father and our Kupuna Kahiko, have this same beliefs which was denied to us., Over 100 million people died for Christianity in the European World Wars. Our Kanaka Maoli are Christianized, Americanized, Colonized and Assimilated and they need to see the truth. He Hawaii Au Mau a Mau. Aloha.

      • As factual as all the presenters were/are, it is interesting that there are those that want to put in a religious perspective in to a factual conversation and at the same ignoring the history of their religion

      • What I find interesting is how people will insert religious comments based on beliefs and opinion into a factual historical discussion ignoring the facts of history in their religion as you have pointed out and much more – Discovery Doctrine and Colonization, US history of mass murder, genocide and slavery.

  3. Dr Kauai’s and Dr Sai desire to educate is refreshing, no politics, opinions and emotion. I will say emotion comes into play, when the facts are known.

  4. The thing I find interesting for both Dr Kauai and Sai, even in their desire to be factual, is they comment about Obama in reference to his supposed non US citizenship – “The birthers are right for the wrong reasons”, because, they seem to be ignoring language procedure in interpreting Article. II. Section. 1. Paragraph 5 of the Constitution:

    “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

    When did “or” become “and”? It says: “… natural born citizen, OR a Citizen of the United States,” There is a comma after “or” to emphasize the “or”.

    • Maybe, it’s more about the “at the time of the adoption of this constitution”, that is the answer? That time has long since passed, leaving only “no person except a natural born citizen”.🤔 Just a thought.

        • Okay, so the 13 colonies were Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.

          The 13 colonies gained independence in 1783, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris with Britain.

          Now, let us look back at the U.S. Constitution. It states that, “[n]o person except a natural born Citizen, or A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the Office of President”

          So, each of the 13 colonies ratified the constitution on the following dates:
          Delaware – December 7, 1787

          Pennsylvania – December 12, 1787

          New Jersey – December 18, 1787

          Georgia – January 2, 1788

          Connecticut – January 9, 1788

          Massachusetts – February 6, 1788

          Maryland – April 28, 1788

          South Carolina – May 23, 1788

          New Hampshire – June 21, 1788

          Virginia – June 25, 1788

          New York – July 26, 1788

          North Carolina – November 21, 1789

          Rhode Island – May 29, 1790

          Birthplaces of each President:
          1) George Washington was born in Virginia.
          2) John Adams was born in Massachusetts.
          3) Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia.
          4) James Madison was born in Virginia.
          5) James Monroe was born in Virginia.
          6) John Quincy Adams was born in Massachusetts.
          7) Andrew Jackson was born in South/North Carolina.
          8) Martin Van Buren was born in New York.
          9) William Henry Harrison was born in Virginia.

          Each of the 13 colonies were recognized as 13 independent states.
          Then each of them gave up their independence to form one Union. When each ratified the Constitution that means they adopted it at that time.

          Presidency:
          1) George Washington was President from April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797
          2) John Adams was President from March 4, 1797 – March 4, 1801
          3) Thomas Jefferson was President from March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809
          4) James Madison was President from March 4, 1809 – March 4, 1817
          5) James Monroe was President from March 4, 1817 – March 4, 1825
          6) John Quincy Adams was President from March 4, 1825 – March 4, 1829
          7) Andrew Jackson was President from March 4, 1829 – March 4, 1837
          8) Martin Van Buren was President from March 4, 1837 – March 4, 1841
          9) William Henry Harrison was President from March 4, 1841 – April 4, 1841

          By comparing the dates of ratification for each of the colonies, it will show that the 9 Presidents were U.S. Citizens. This means that the 9 Presidents that you listed are legitimate Presidents.

          Here is a shorter explanation: George Washington was born in Virginia. Virginia became a U.S. state on June 25, 1788. George Washington is now considered a “natural-born” citizen. He then became President on April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797.

          • It seems you verified my statement by referencing the 13 Colonies. The Colonies were colonies of Britain. The USA was not in existence yet, as such they were born as citizens of Britain. There is something else to note the Treaty of Paris references the USA and the US. When referencing the US the king acknowledged the 13 Colonies as “free sovereign and independent states.” States creates confusion because we reference states in the context of the states of the US, however in the the international arena states mean independent countries. The term USA in the treaty is similar to the European Union = independent countries/states working together in a common union.This is not a modern concept. Europe operated that way in the 1700’s with the king of England being the supreme king over all other European kings. It was the defined as Suzerainty.The US country/state came into existence when the 13 independent states gave up their sovereignty in the Constitution and replaced the USA. “We the People of the US” – the 39 men who signed the Constitution, “…to form a more perfect union..” for themselves and their “Posterity” and “for the USA”.

            Regardless of this explanation, language procedure is very important in contracts. and this clause in the Constitution = a contract, says “or” not “and”. One more thing understanding language procedure of capitonyms will let you know that in the Constitution you are not one of the “People or the “Posterity”.

  5. E kalamai for adding more, don’t know how to expand comment box so can post full comment.

    Another thing, the first 9 presidents were not born in the US. They were born in British Colonies making them English Citizens. John Tyler (1841-1845) was the First US born president. He was born in March 29, 1790, in the State of Virginia in US.

    Was this section of the Constitution delayed until 1841? Or, is it a “yeah but” section subject to interpretation?

    • FRANKLIN JOHNSON, If I understand you correctly, because Hawaii is occupied you agree that Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen. However, you claim he is still eligible to be President because he is a U.S. citizen by virtue of (jus sanguinis) or parentage. If that is the case then why did the White House stress the fact that he was natural born in Hawaii (jus soli) and not just say he is a U.S. citizen by virtue of parentage (jus sanguinis) This begs to question if you can provide proof that one of his parents is a U.S. citizen. Obama’s birth certificate shows his father was born in Kenya and his mother in Kansas but it does not provide their citizenship. Is he or she a U.S. citizen?

        • I did not want to make that assumption since she could have changed her U.S. citizenship to that of her husband. Are you making an assumption because she was born in Kansas or do you have documentation of her citizen status?

          • Yes I am. However, the question of Obama’s citizenship has never been questioned. He would not been able to get a US passport or run for president without proof of citizenship.

            But, I go back to my original premise. Does language procedure and definition of words have purpose and meaning, especially in a contract – a legal document, which the Constitution is? I cannot find any evidence procedurally or by definition where “or” means “and”. Even the 14th Amendment, Section 1, Clause 1 uses “or”.

            “”All persons born OR naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

            I heard a saying once. “The meaning of word can be the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.” What has been the most important factor in proving Hawai’i is still a nation? Language procedure and definitions in International Law, which all governments are supposed to adhere to.

            The truth be known, the Constitution was not written for the “people” it was written by the “People” – the 39 men who signed it, for themselves and their “Posterity” and US citizen/subject/debtor/slaves are not one of the People or Posterity.

        • I agree that language procedure and word definitions are important especially in contracts. It does appear to me that the language in the U.S. constitution only applies to those individuals that signed it. But that is not my problem it is a U.S. citizen’s problem. Getting back to my previous question you indicated that you are making an assumption on his mothers citizenship. Here is why I don’t like assumptions. They never qualified him by claiming he was a child of a U.S. citizen. They pressed the fact that he was born in Hawaii. Here is my next question for you. Could a married couple of non-U.S. citizenship give birth to a child on U.S. soil (jus soli) and that child is able to obtain U.S. citizenship and qualify him/her for all benefits that U.S. citizens are entitled to such as a passport? If the answer is yes then you can see where this is going.

          • Yes. Similar to Hawaiian Kingdom law as well as many other countries jus soli applies. Many rich Chinese do this in the US. I do know that Tonga changed this in their constitution because their are many East Indians living there.

            “Generally speaking, a person can become a U.S. citizen in one of four ways. First, by being born in the United States or one of its territories. Second, if you were born to parents who are U.S. citizens, then you may be a U.S. citizen yourself. This process is called “acquisition” of citizenship. Third, you can be a citizen through the naturalization process, which generally involves applying for, and passing, a citizenship test. Lastly, you may be a citizen if one or both of your parents have been naturalized. This is called “derivation” of citizenship.”

            What I see the only question is: Is Obama a citizen regardless of what process he became a citizen. Not sure what the process is for a newly formed country, I assume an aspect of naturalization by swearing an oath of allegiance is what qualified the first 9 presidents.

  6. Mahalo for the response. Here are two scenarios, the first is that Obama’s mama is a U.S. citizen which would make him a U.S. citizen, no problem there. The second scenario is that his mama took on the citizenship of his father which disqualifies him from claiming U.S. citizenship via acquisition and also being born in the Hawaiian Kingdom would disqualify him from claiming U.S. citizenship since he was not born in the U.S. or one of it’s territories. Since they kept insisting his citizenship was qualified by being born in Hawaii and not being a child of a U.S. citizen I am leaning toward the second scenario. This mystery can be solved if someone provides documentation of his mother’s U.S. citizenship. Funny how the media or the gov’t never went there but instead insisted he was born in Hawaii to qualify him.

Leave a Reply