Viewers of the Hawaiian Kingdom Weblog from 45 Countries and Territories

Screen Shot 2013-01-31 at 11.33.05 AM

As of today, viewers of the Hawaiian Kingdom Weblog are from the following countries. The listing of countries is by priority of number of views and not by alphabetical order.

United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Italy, Philippines, Germany, India, France, Austria, Switzerland, Turkey, Netherlands, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Denmark, Côte d’Ivoire, Qatar, Iceland, Timor-Leste, Sweden, Puerto Rico, Singapore, United States Minor Outlying Islands, Nigeria, Belgium, French Polynesia, Uganda, Luxembourg, Indonesia, Kuwait, Czech Republic, Chile, Saint Lucia, Portugal, Fiji, Russian Federation, Mexico, Brunei Darussalam, Pakistan, Virgin Islands, and Hong Kong.

Swiss General Secretariat Receives the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Accession to the Fourth Geneva Convention

Ambassador BattigOn January 14, 2013, Ambassador Benno Bättig, General Secretariat of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), received at his office in Berne, Switzerland, the Hawaiian Kingdom’s Instrument of Accession to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Along with the Instrument of Accession, Ambassador Bättig also received a copy of the Hawaiian Protest and Demand deposited with the President of the United Nations General Assembly, August 10, 2012; and a DVD package of the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom arbitration case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands, 2001.


The FDFA is responsible for maintaining the foreign relations of Switzerland and serves as the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The department is headed by Federal Councillor Didier Burkhalter. The FDFA is composed of a General Secretariat and the State Secretariat, to which the department’s directorates and agencies are subordinate. Ambassador Bättig was appointed General Secretariat January 11, 2012.

CLARIFICATION: Article 156  of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that accessions shall be notified in writing to the Swiss Federal Council and the Swiss Federal Council shall communicate the accessions to all the Powers in whose name the Convention has been signed, or whose accession has been notified. The Swiss Federal Council receives accessions through the FDFA. And according to Article 159, the Swiss Federal Council also informs the Secretary-General of the United Nations of all ratifications, accessions and denunciations received by them.

War Crime: “Americanization” of the Hawaiian Islands

Statehood Photo

Usurpation of sovereignty is the unlawful exercise of the sovereignty of another country by a foreign government during the occupation of occupied territory. Usurpation of sovereignty is the means by which a foreign government denationalizes the inhabitants of an occupied territory through political, cultural, social and economic means. The intent of denationalizing the inhabitants is to obliterate the national character of the occupied state.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

Usurpation of sovereignty and attempts to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territory were listed as “war crimes” after World War I by the 1919 Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties. In the Nuremburg trials after World War II, Germany’s usurpation of sovereignty and their attempt to denationalize the inhabitants of occupied territories was categorized under Count III of the Nuremburg Indictment, “GERMANIZATION OF OCCUPIED TERRITORIES.”



Like the Nazis during World War II, United States President McKinley’s administration during the Spanish-American War in 1898 purported to annex the Hawaiian Islands and put into operation a plan that endeavored to assimilate Hawaiian subjects and residents of the islands politically, culturally, socially and economically into the United States of America. Their goal was to obliterate the national character of the Hawaiian Kingdom and to fortify the Hawaiian Islands as a military outpost to protect the west coast of the United States from foreign invasion. To do this, the administration enlisted the assistance of insurgents such as Sanford Dole who was appointed by McKinley as governor of the puppet government called the Territory of Hawai‘i. Dole headed the insurgency of businessmen whose leadership comprised of:

  • Charles Reed Bishop, Hawaiian subject
  • Henry Ernest Cooper, American citizen
  • Crister Bolte, Hawaiian subject
  • Andrew Brown, British subject
  • William Richards Castle, Hawaiian subject
  • John Emmeluth, American citizen
  • Theodore F. Lansing, American citizen
  • John A. McCandless, Hawaiian subject
  • Frederick W. McChesney, American citizen
  • William Owen Smith, Hawaiian subject
  • Lorrin A. Thurston, Hawaiian subject
  • Edward Suhr, German citizen
  • Henry Waterhouse, Hawaiian subject
  • William C. Wilder, Hawaiian subject
  • Charles L. Carter, Hawaiian subject
  • Samuel Mills Damon, Hawaiian subject
  • Peter Cushman Jones, Hawaiian subject
  • James A. King, British subject

AmericanizeIntimidation and propaganda in the early part of the 20th century was used by the insurgents and U.S. Armed Forces to “Americanize” the Hawaiian Islands. Hawai‘i’s history books were revised and used to “Americanize” the children in the schools throughout the islands. The Hawaiian language was shunned and replaced with English, and mass migration of United States citizens to the islands took place on a grand scale, which included people from U.S. territories and possessions. According to the 1890 Hawaiian Kingdom government census, United States citizens numbered a mere 1,928 out of a population of 89,980. Within 60 years, the number of U.S. citizens grew exponentially to 423,174 out of 499,794 by 1950 according to the U.S. Census Reports. For more information see law article: American Occupation of the Hawaiian State: A Century Unchecked. Also conscription or the drafting of Hawaiian subjects into the United States Armed Forces took place during the First World War (1914-1918), the Second World War (1939-1945), the Korean War (1950-1953) and the Vietnam War (1965-1975).

People today that have no knowledge of the Hawaiian Kingdom being an independent and sovereign State since 1843; with over 90 embassies and consulates though out the world; with 46 treaty partners in 1893; a progressive government with a limited and constitutional monarchy; a multi-ethnic national population; and international agreements settling the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian government in 1893 that remain binding agreements today, speaks volumes as to the success of the propaganda and plan to assimilate the population into the belief that Hawaiian subjects are United States citizens and that Hawai‘i is the 50th State of the American Federal Union.

Because Germany was held to account by the international community for their illegal actions during the Second World War, Norway, France, Luxembourg, the former Soviet Union, Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands are not politically, culturally, socially and economically tied to Germany and they are not speaking German. But if Germany was not held accountable, these countries would no more be German through “Germanization,” than the Hawaiian Kingdom would be American through “Americanization.” Both “Germanization” and “Americanization” are War Crimes, and the situation would be regulated by the international laws of occupation and humanitarian law.

Since the Spanish-American War, the Hawaiian Islands have been under an illegal and prolong occupation by the United States, and through an effective plan of “Americanization” it has been able to conceal its occupation for over a century. Today, over 20% of the islands are under the direct control of the United States Armed Forces Pacific Command and, as a result, the islands are presently targeted for nuclear attack by China, Russia and any other adversary of the United States who are threatened by the military presence in the Hawaiian Islands.

The war criminals who set this in motion are dead, but their legacy has effectively replaced the memory of Hawai‘i’s people of the national character of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The fact that the public has no recollection of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent State and that it is currently under occupation is the evidence of the war crime of “Americanization.”

1949 Geneva Convention, IV, Took Effect Over the Hawaiian Islands January 14, 2013

SWITZERLAND GENEVA CONVENTIONS 60th ANNIVERSARYIn the aftermath of World War II, countries met in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1949 to draft four treaties (conventions) and three additional protocols that establish standards for the humanitarian treatment during war. The Fourth Geneva Convention, in particular, would also “apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. (Article 2).” The Convention also provides protection to “those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals (Article 4).”

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

Nationals who are “protected persons” under the Convention are protected from, “willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or willfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly (Article 147).” Violation of these rights of “protected persons” constitute a “war crimes.”

There are currently 194 countries who are High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention. Of the High Contracting Parties, 193 comprise all of the member States of the United Nations, and 1 is a non-member State of the United Nations, Cook Islands.

On November 28, 2012, the acting government of the Hawaiian Kingdom signed the instrument of accession acceding to the Fourth Geneva Convention for the protection of the civilian population during Hawai‘i’s occupation, and on January 14, 2013, the instrument was deposited with the Swiss Federal Council in Berne, Switzerland. Pursuant to Article 157, the Convention took immediate effect from the date of the deposit because Hawai‘i is currently under occupation.

By acceding to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hawaiian Kingdom, as a State, became a High Contracting Party and its territory now comes under the Fourth Geneva Convention and Hawaiian nationals are presently considered “protected persons.” The International Criminal Court prosecutes perpetrators who commit war crimes that violate the rights of “protected persons” as defined by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

UPDATE: This posting was withheld for the past two weeks until confirmation of the receipt of the instrument of accession could be obtained. It is confirmed that the deposit of the instrument of accession took place on January 14, 2013.

U.S. Pacific Command Admits to Police Officer “No Treaty of Annexation”

PACOM insigniaOn January 17, 2013 a hearing was held in a foreclosure case, Bank of Hawai‘i v. Keli‘iho‘omalu, in the Circuit Court of Second Circuit in Wailuku, Island of Maui. The Keli‘iho‘omalus filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court does not legally exist and if the case was not dismissed the actions taken by the Court and the Plaintiff would constitute war crimes and they will be reported to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Switzerland.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

In their motion, the Keli‘iho‘omalus provided clear evidence of an illegal occupation by the United States and that without a treaty of annexation, the State of Hawai‘i government and its courts are illegal. The Keli‘iho‘malus argued, “This Court cannot claim the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit has subject matter jurisdiction in light of the evidence to the contrary, and if this court disregards the evidence it will be in direct violation of Article 147 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, by willfully depriving the Defendants a fair and regular trial, which is a grave breach and a war crime.”

Attorney Dexter Kaiama provided special appearance for the Keli‘iho‘omalus at the hearing. In addition to the evidence already submitted, Kaiama read into the record a “Declaration of Leland Pa,” a Hawai‘i County police officer that inquired into war crimes committed by Hawai‘i Island Circuit Court Judges Greg Nakamura and Glen S. Hara, and District Court Judge Barbara Takase.

The complaints were filed by Kaiama with the U.S. Pacific Command and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland, and alleged these judges deprived his clients of their right to a fair and regular trial during occupation, being a war crime under the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV. The basis of the complaints were the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10.

According to the declaration, Pa initiated the inquiry in September 2012 as part of his “duty to identify potentially serious law enforcement and government problems” after obtaining “copies of war crime complaints from the Law Office of Dexter K. Kaiama.” He stated he began the inquiry to see how he would be affected as a police officer and “if it would pose potential problems for law enforcement and government officials.”

At 10:30 p.m., November 6, 2012, Pa called the “Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Council Branch-Complaint Procedure Unit, United Nations Office at Geneva” and that a spokesperson confirmed they are in receipt of the complaints but could not provide any more assistance. Pa stated the spokesperson recommended that he “contact U.S. departments that deal with war crime complaints.”

On November 8, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., Pa called the headquarters of the U.S. Pacific Command at Camp Smith, Island of O‘ahu, and spoke with Ronald Winfrey, Principal Deputy Staff Judge Advocate. Pa informed Winfrey of his concerns and how these complaints could affect his duties as a police officer. When asked about the complaints from Kaiama, Winfrey stated “he knows those complaints because out of all the complaints he has read those are the most precise and clear.”

Pa stated that as he “began discussing the basis of the complaints such as no treaty of annexation, Mr. Winfrey candidly and without hesitation said, ‘Oh yes, there is no treaty.’” According to Pa, Winfrey attempted to ease Pa’s concerns about the implications of war crimes by stating that U.S. Courts will not hear these cases because they would be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Pa then asked Winfrey to respond to his questions.

  • “Since there is no treaty, can the unresolved issues of the executive agreements and Hawaii’s occupation get resolved by a U.S. Court in the future?” Winfrey “stated that is possible.”
  • “If a U.S. Court should find in favor of plaintiff’s claim regarding the executive agreements and Hawai‘i’s occupation, then the prosecution of said War Crimes would come into play?” Winfrey “stated that is possible.”
  • “Since there is no treaty, the plaintiff does not need a U.S. court ruling? The Plaintiff could get these issues resolved in an International venue and then prosecution of war crimes would come into play?” Winfrey “stated that is possible.”

Pa informed Winfrey that as a police officer he swore “an oath to uphold the laws and constitution of the United States. Article 6, clause 2 of the U.S. constitution declares that treaties, which includes executive agreements, are the supreme law of the land. Because there is no treaty of annexation we are faced with a difficult situation, which needs clarification and I find it necessary to notify my superiors.”

Pa’s telephone conversation with Winfrey took place before the Hawaiian Kingdom acceded to the International Criminal Court (ICC) on December 10, 2012 and beginning on March 4, 2013 the ICC can begin the investigation of war crimes committed within Hawaiian territory. After March 4, 2013, the U.S. Pacific Command will also be subject to investigation and prosecution by the ICC.

The Maui News Admits No Treaty of Annexation (October 20, 1900)

Maui NewsOn October 20, 1900, the Maui News published a commentary by its editor, George B. Robertson, that focused on Thomas Clark’s candidacy for Territorial senator from Maui. Thomas Clark was a British subject who applied for naturalization with the Minister of the Interior and was granted Hawaiian citizenship on December 23, 1867.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

The editorial reads: “Thomas Clark, a candidate for Territorial senator from Maui, holds that it was an unconstitutional proceeding on the part of the United States to annex the Islands without a treaty, and that as a matter of fact, the Island[s] are not annexed, and cannot be, and that if the democrats come into power they will show the thing up in its true light and demonstrate that…the Islands are de facto independent at the present time. Thomas, necessity knows no law, and it was absolutely necessary to annex the Islands at the time it was done. And further, Thomas, if it becomes to annex Cuba, it will be quicker tha[n] a wink. It is but fair to give you credit for being honest in your views, Thomas, but you don’t quite understand the American people just yet, hence you are very misleading.”

Thomas Clark was from Wailuku, Maui, and he was a signatory on the 1897 Hawaiian Patriotic League’s Petition against Annexation. He was 42 years of age when he signed the petition on page 245, September 11, 1897. You will notice next to his signature is written “Hawaiian” because Thomas Clark, although formerly British, was a Hawaiian subject.

Clark_PetitionThe reason for the petition was because on June 16, 1897, President William McKinley signed a treaty of annexation with insurgents from Hawai‘i and was preparing to submit it to the United States Senate for approval when it reconvenes in December 1897. McKinley ignored the June 17, 1897 diplomatic protest from Queen Lili‘uokalani, and the July 24, 1897 protests from the Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha ‘Aina) and the Hawaiian Political Association (Hui Kalai‘aina). This resulted in activating the Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hawaiian Political Association in order to gather signatures from the people. According to the 1890 government census, the national citizenry numbered 48, 107. The Patriotic League gathered 21,269 signatures and the Political Association gathered 17,000. The two organizations agreed to only submit the Patriotic League’s petition because the Political Association’s petition could be viewed by the Senate as too pro-monarchy.

The Patriotic League’s Petition was entered into the record of the United States Senate by Massachusetts Senator George Fisbie Hoar when it convened in December of 1897. As a result of these signature petitions, the Senate could not garner 2/3’s of the Senators to ratify the McKinley treaty. By March the treaty was dead. On July 7, 1898, a joint resolution of annexation was signed by President McKinley purporting to annex the Hawaiian Islands justified as a war measure, but Congressional legislation has no force and effect beyond the borders of the United States. (See U.S. State of Hawai‘i is a War Crime under International Law). Thomas Clark knew this.

Propaganda was effectively used to disguise the occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom as if the Hawaiian Islands were annexed by a treaty and made a part of the United States.  Thomas Clark knew the Hawaiian Kingdom was still independent, but propaganda did not spare the generations after.

D’Souza’s 2012 Book “Obama’s America” Interviews Ph.D. Candidate Willy Kauai on President Obama

D'Souza CoverAmerican right-wing author Dinesh D’Souza interviewed Willy Kauai, a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa, for his book “Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream” that was released in August of 2012. Kauai’s doctoral research centers on Hawaiian nationality/citizenship since the 18th century to the present.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

On page 73 of “Obama’s America: Unmaking the American Dream,” D’Souza writes:

“At the University of Hawaii I also interviewed Willy Kauai, a graduate student who recently gave a talk on ‘Why the Birthers Are Right for All the Wrong Reasons.’ Kauai’s argument is very interesting. He says that of course Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but he is still ineligible to be president. That’s because the Constitution specifies not only that the president must be a U.S. citizen but also that the president must be ‘natural born.’ The president, in other words, must be born in the United States. But Kauai’s argument is that Hawaii is not legally part of the United States because U.S. forces illegally annexed Hawaii in the late nineteenth century. So from Kauai’s point of view the birthers are right not because Obama was born in Kenya, but because Hawaii, where Obama was born, is actually a foreign country. The only difference between Hawaii and Kenya is that Hawaii is under direct U.S. occupation. Kauai said he would like to see a restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom, what he calls ‘independence for Hawaii.’ I asked him if this would amount to Hawaii seceding from the United States. He said no. ‘Seceding would imply that Hawaii was ever part of the United States.’”

Kauai’s presentation referenced by D’Souza, titled “Why the Birthers Are Right for All the Wrong Reasons: Re-centering Law and De-centering Race in Hawai‘i,” at the University of Hawai‘i Political Science Department, can be viewed on YouTube in 6 parts. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.

President Obama was Born in the Hawaiian Kingdom not the United States of America


On August 4, 1961, Stanley Ann Dunham, a United States citizen from Wichita, Kansas, gave birth to Barack Hussein Obama, II, at Kapi‘olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in the city of Honolulu, Island of O‘ahu, Hawaiian Kingdom. His father, Barack Hussein Obama, was a British subject from Kenya, East Africa. Kapi‘olani Hospital was established in 1890 by Queen Kapi‘olani, husband to the Head of State, King David Kalakaua.

President Barack Obama was elected as the 44th President of the United States and took office on January 20, 2009 and in 2012 was reelected for a second term to begin on January 20, 2013. Article II of the United States Constitution states “No person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President.” President Obama was born in the Hawaiian Kingdom not the United States.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

The Birthers claim that President Barrack Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. In Steve Ankeny and Bill Kruse v. Governor of the State of Indiana, a Birther case that was appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Court concluded on November 12, 2009: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [ ] natural-born citizens.” The Court concluded the President was a natural born citizen because he was born in the State of Hawai‘i, which is within the borders of the United States.

The borders of the United States was established by international treaties and the States of the Union, including the State of Indiana wherein the Appellate Court is situated, all originate from international treaties by Great Britain, France, Spain, Mexico, Russia, Germany and Denmark. Here follows the treaties that formed the United States of America with the States of the Union and territories that are directly linked.

  • Treaty by Great Britain (1783): States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, parts of Minnesota, Illinois, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, North Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina.
  • Treaty by France (1803): States of Montana, parts of North Dakota, parts of Minnesota, parts of Wyoming, South Dakota, parts of Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, parts of Kansas, Missouri, parts of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and parts of Louisiana
  • Treaty by Great Britain (1818): Parts of the States of North Dakota, parts of South Dakota, and parts of Minnesota.
  • Treaty by Spain (1819): States of Florida, parts of Mississippi, parts of Louisiana and parts of Colorado.
  • Treaty by Great Britain (1846): States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, parts of Montana, and parts of Wyoming.
  • Treaty by Mexico (1848): States of California, Nevada, Utah, parts of Wyoming, parts of Colorado, parts of Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, parts of Oklahoma, and Texas (the 1845 Congressional joint resolution admitting Texas as a State into the Union did not incorporate Texas territory, but rather sparked the Mexican-American War where Texan territory was acquired by the 1848 treaty that ended the war).
  • Treaty by Mexico (1853): Parts of the States of Arizona, and parts of New Mexico.
  • Treaty by Russia (1867): State of Alaska.
  • Treaty by Spain (1898): Territories of Puerto Rico, and Guam
  • Treaty by Germany (1899): Territory of Samoa
  • Treaty by Denmark (1917): Territory of Virgin Islands

The decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals assumes that Hawai‘i is “within the borders of the United States.” The evidence relied on to support this assumption is An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai‘i into the Union (March 18, 1959) and the Joint Resolution To provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States (July 7, 1898). The 1959 Statehood Act and the 1898 Joint Resolution are both Congressional laws that have no force and effect beyond the borders of the United States. (See U.S. State of Hawai‘i is a War Crime under International Law).

For the Hawaiian Islands to be within the borders of the United States there needs to be a treaty of cession. THERE IS NO TREATY BY HAWAI‘I, ONLY THE PROPAGANDA OF A TREATY. Here are some examples of the propaganda.

  • “President McKinley, June 16, 1897, signed another annexation, which was submitted to the Senate and ratified July 6, 1898—after Dewey’s victory at Manila had made ratification imperative.” Caspar Whitney, Hawaiian America, p. 4 (1899).
  • “A treaty was negotiated by Secretary Foster, agreed upon by both parties, and sent to the Senate by President Harrison February 14, 1893. The treaty was withdrawn by President Cleveland. President McKinley revived the question, and a treaty was ratified by both parties, and annexation consummated September 16, 1898, which effected the absorption of the Sandwich Islands into the domain of the United States.” U.S. State Department, History of the Department of State of the United States, page 38 (1901).
  • “…the property described in the petition having been transferred and ceded to the United States by the treaty of annexation of July 7, 1898.” United States Supreme Court, Lowrey v. Hawaii, 206 U.S. 206 (1907)
  • The McKinley statue that fronts William McKinley High School in the city of Honolulu was dedicated by Sanford Dole, lead insurgent, on February 23, 1911. The High School was originally named Honolulu High School, but was changed to William McKinley High School in order to promote the propaganda. Inscribed on the document held in the right hand of the statue is “Treaty of Annexation.”

The Hawaiian Kingdom, a sovereign and independent State since November 28, 1843, has been under an illegal and prolonged occupation by the United States since August 12, 1898 during the Spanish-American War. View Dr. Sai’s interview at the United Nations news agency South-South News in New York City, also visit

The international laws of occupation prevents those born within the territory of an occupied State from acquiring the occupied State’s nationality/citizenship. Acquisition of nationality/citizenship in an occupied State is by jus sanguinis (nationality of the parents). Barack Obama was born a dual-citizen—American citizenship from his mother and British citizenship from his father. He is not a natural-born citizen because he was not “born within the borders of the United States.” Barack Obama is an American citizen by parentage, but not natural born.

The Birthers are right, but for the wrong reason.

New Hawaiian Kingdom History Book

CoverIn 2011, David Keanu Sai, Ph.D., Hawaiian Ambassador-at-large, has written a new Hawaiian history book, Ua Mau Ke Ea: Sovereignty Endures, covering the legal and political history of the Hawaiian Kingdom that spans from the 18th century to the present. The textbook also comes with an accompanying DVD. Dr. Sai has a Ph.D. in political science specializing in international relations and public law. The textbook and DVD can be purchased online.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

Ua Mau Ke Ea: Sovereignty Endures is required reading for classes at the University of Hawai’i Colleges and High Schools throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Here are some comments from High School and College instructors:

  • “Secondary educators in Hawai‘i are extremely fortunate to be able to access the rarest of pedagogical materials for the required Hawai‘i DOE Modern Hawaiian History course: an academically sound and well-written textbook.”—Amy Perruso, Mililani High School, Teacher – Pre-AP Modern Hawaiian History/Participation in Democracy, A.P. Government and Politics.
  • “A concise, yet detailed account of the legal and political history of Hawai‘i for advanced students…Heavily dependent on primary sources and contextualization, this book is a radical departure from ‘conventional’ histories with some truly fresh insights on the Hawaiian Kingdom and Hawai‘i’s current legal status. By focusing on Hawai‘i’s often-neglected legal infrastructure, Sai shows its problematic—and ultimately occupied—nature.”—Umi Perkins, Ph.D. candidate, Kamehameha Schools Kapalama, Teacher, High School Honors Hawaiian History.
  • “Breakthrough! Sai has produced the most insightful work to date on the foundations of the political and legal history of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i and it’s relevance to Hawaiian political life today.”—Peter Kalawai‘a Moore, Ph.D., Windward Community College, Instructor and Coordinator, Hawaiian Studies.

(United States) State of Hawai‘i Government is a War Crime under International Law

State of HI Seal

After two failed attempts to acquire the Hawaiian Islands by a treaty of cession as required by international law, the U.S. Congress “unilaterally” enacted a Joint Resolution purporting to annex the Hawaiian Islands, which was signed into law by President McKinley on July 7, 1898 during the Spanish-American War as a war measure.

-Follow Hawaiian Kingdom news and updates on Twitter: @HKSpokesperson

On June 15, 1898, during debates over the joint resolution annexing Hawai‘i in the House of Representatives, Congressman Thomas H. Ball (D-Texas) stated, “The annexation of Hawai‘i by joint resolution is unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unwise. If the first proposition be true, sworn to support the Constitution, we should inquire no further. I challenge not the advocates of Hawaiian annexation, but those who advocate annexation in the form now presented, to show warrant or authority in our organic law for such acquisition of territory. To do so will be not only to subvert the supreme law of the land but to strike down every precedent in our history. …Why, sir, the very presence of this measure here is the result of a deliberate attempt to do unlawfully that which can not be done lawfully.”

And on June 20, 1898, during Senate debates over the joint resolution annexing Hawai‘i, Senator Augustus Bacon (D-Georgia) stated, “That a joint resolution for the annexation of foreign territory was necessarily and essentially the subject matter of a treaty, and that it could not be accomplished legally and constitutionally by a statute or joint resolution. If Hawaii was to be annexed, it ought certainly to be annexed by a constitutional method; and if by a constitutional method it can not be annexed, no Senator ought to desire its annexation sufficiently to induce him to give his support to an unconstitutional measure.” Senator Bacon further explained, “Now, a statute is this: A Statute is a rule of conduct laid down by the legislative department, which has its effect upon all of those within the jurisdiction. In other words, a statute passed by the Congress of the United States is obligatory upon every person who is a citizen of the United States or a resident therein. A statute can not go outside the jurisdiction of the United States and be binding upon the subjects of another power. It takes the consent of the subjects of the other power, speaking or giving their consent through their duly authorized government, to be bound by a certain thing which is enacted in this country; and therein comes the necessity for a treaty. ”

The United States Congress was fully aware that a joint resolution is not a cession of territory by treaty, but only an opinion or will of the U.S. Congress limited in authority to territory of the United States. The Hawaiian Kingdom was not annexed to the United States and remained an independent, but occupied State.

Usurping Hawaiian sovereignty, U.S. President McKinley signed into United States law An Act To provide a government for the Territory of Hawai’i on April 30, 1900; and on March 18, 1959, U.S. President Eisenhower signed into United States law An Act To provide for the admission of the State of Hawai’i into the Union.

According to the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., (1936), “Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens; and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law…. [T]he court recognized, and in each of the cases cited [involving the exercise of the sovereign power of the United States] found, the warrant for its conclusions not in the provisions of the Constitution, but in the law of nations”.

United States laws are not only limited to United States territory, but the 1898 joint resolution of annexation, the 1900 Territorial Act, and the 1959 Hawai‘i Statehood Act stand in direct violation of the 1893 Lili`uokalani assignment and the Restoration Agreement, being international compacts, the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, and the 1949 Geneva Convention, IV.

According to the United Nations War Crimes Commission “war crimes” include:

  • Usurpation of sovereignty during occupation;
  • Deportation of civilians;
  • Compulsory enlistment of soldiers among the inhabitants of occupied territory;
  • Denationalizing the inhabitants of occupied territory;
  • Confiscation of property;
  • Exaction of illegitimate or of exorbitant contributions and requisitions;
  • Wanton devastation and destruction of religious, charitable, educational and historical buildings and monuments.

Usurpation of sovereignty is to illegally take by force the sovereignty of another country. International tribunals and national tribunals prosecuted both military and civilians after World War I and World War II for these war crimes. The State of Hawai’i government, established by an Act of Congress in 1959, is a usurpation of sovereignty during occupation and therefore not only illegal but also constitutes a war crime.