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.

18 thoughts on “President Obama was Born in the Hawaiian Kingdom not the United States of America

  1. Suggestion: It would have been clearer to add a few words of clarification after the highlighted phrase THERE IS NO TREATY BY HAWAII, ONLY THE PROPAGANDA OF A TREATY, for example
    and then list the propaganda material.
    It could just be me reading hurriedly. I had to pause, reflect, go back, re-read until I finally grasped the intent of the different items listed.

  2. In this statement of your last paragraph. “The international laws of occupation prevents those born within the territory of an occupied State from acquiring the occupied State’s nationality/citizenship.” Does this mean after the December 1893 Restoration Agreement are all births in Hawaii invalid?

    • There are two instances where the international laws of occupation would be applied to Hawai‘i. The first occupation by United States troops took place from January 16, 1893 to April 1, 1893. The second occupation began on August 12, 1898 and continues until today.

      Since the Agreement of Restoration was concluded on December 18, 1893, President Cleveland needed Congressional approval and the appropriation of funds to re-deploy the troops back to Hawai‘i to carry out the Agreement of Restoration. Congress refused to authorize the redeployment. U.S. troops were re-deployed to Hawai‘i under President McKinley during the Spanish-American War on August 12, 1898.

      So under the laws of occupation nationality/citizenship could only be acquired through jus sanguinis (parentage) from January 16, 1893 – April 1, 1893, and since August 12, 1898 to the present.

      • Wouldn’t President Barack Obama be faced with the same task as President Clevelend and that is to get congressional approval and the appropriation of funds to carry out the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom?
        What if the U.S. congress refuse talks for the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom?
        Isn’t this similar to what the State of Hawaii courts have used against some of us by the implementation of the non-justiciable doctrine issue?

        • President Obama is not faced with the same situation President Cleveland was faced with. When Special Commissioner James Blount arrived in Honolulu in April 1893 he immediately lowered the American flag and ordered the U.S. troops back on the ship and they departed the islands. Cleveland needed to re-deploy the troops back to the islands in order to implement the executive agreements. Congress refused to authorize the redeployment and appropriate monies.

          McKinley redeployed U.S. troops to Hawai‘i during the Spanish-American War in August 1898 and they’ve been in the islands ever since. So Congress is not a necessary party anymore to authorize deployment.

          The U.S. Pacific Command commander is the direct extension to the President as the highest ranking U.S. official from the executive branch and is responsible for faithfully executing U.S. treaties, executive agreements, and international laws of occupation.

          State of Hawai‘i courts are illegal in the Hawaiian Islands because the 1959 Statehood Act that created the courts is a Congressional Act limited to U.S. territory. And when this congressional is implemented in a foreign territory under occupation it’s a “war crime.” So Congress and the State of Hawai‘i are not relevant to the occupation, but serve as the evidence of the violation of Hawai‘i’s sovereignty as a independent state and the ongoing commission of war crimes.

          • Mahalo!

            Must the Pacific Command commander wait for a direct order from the President or must he immediately take steps to comply with field manual 27-10?
            There are some concerns that the U.S. is not in a stable financial situation, how will this effect the restoration process?
            Some say that if the U.S. military pulls out of Hawaii it will have a direct impact on the economy some rely on as their source of income, is there any plan in place to keep the economy stable?

          • But isn’t it true that the Republic of Hawaii after being recognized as the de facto entity in place had invited the U.S military on to hawaiian soil and gave them land to boot, thus no war thus no military occupation esp since blount ended it when the provisional government was in power?

  3. The Supreme Court has ruled on the matter of citizenship status of children before. It does not matter where the child was physically born. It is the status of the parents, primarily the father, that determines the citizenship status of the child. B. Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya. B. As a result, B. Obama is a “natural born citizen of Kenya”, not the United States.

    Conclusion. B. Obama is a foreign citizen and a usurper in the Office of President.

    • The term natural born is by definition “native born.” Native born is by definition “born in the place or country indicated.” So in order for Barack Obama to be a “natural born citizen of Kenya” he would have to have been born in Kenya. The international laws of occupation, however, would prevent natural born citizenship, if the country is under a foreign occupation. This is why Obama is not a natural born subject of the Hawaiian Kingdom because he was born during a foreign occupation. He is an American citizen by jus sanguinis from his mother, who is a natural born citizen of the United States because she was born in Wichita, Kansas.

      • Tell that to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. Those standards for citizenship existed when the Constitution was established. Those standards were also recognized by other countries. Those standards remain.

        • Dear Kealii,
          Please clarify, of whos constitution and supreme court are you refering to? I’m not altogether sure if your refering to U.S. Domestic Laws or H.K. Law.

          If I may be so bold, I believe you still labor under the misconception that U.S. Domestic have power and effect in the realm of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

  4. Since the U.S. Pacific Command is the highest ranking U.S. official from the executive branch and is responsible for faithfully executing U.S. treaties, executive agreements, and international laws of occupation. Will the ICC investigate this matter to ensure the U.S.Pacific Command execute his responsibilities?

  5. US law in 1961 stated Ann could not pass her US citizenship to her child until after she was 19 years old.

    If I understand you about Hawaii being occupation by the US. Ann is outside the US so Obama is not even an US Citizen.

  6. I guess Im in the same boat as Barry Obama. I was born at Tripler General Hospital 6/17/61. My parents were born in American Samoa. My ancestors are German/Chinese/ Filipino/Samoan. My children are 4th Generation Americans. My wife is Japanese/Hawaiian/Filipino/Haole born in Oceanside,Ca ( Camp Pendleton). My kids are all Chop Suey…Lol. Aloha & Mahalo my braddahs & sistas

  7. at the end of the day i guess it’s irrelevant because the US government *considers* hawaii to be internal/sovereign territory, so obama will always be considered a sovereign territory until it recognises that it is occupying hawaii, which i doubt will ever happen

Leave a Reply