FAQ
Didn't the people of Hawaii vote to become the 50th state of the United States?
Hawaii's vote for statehood was illegal and fraudulent for several reasons:
-
With no treaty of annexation, the U.S. never legally acquired the territory of Hawaii to begin with, making all subsequent actions, including the vote for statehood, null and void.
-
The U.S. had moved thousands of American settlers to the Hawaiian Islands during the twentieth century, forming the bulk of those who voted for statehood. The moving of settlers into an occupied territory is a war crime according to the Geneva Convention.
-
Under international law, only nationals of the sovereign country have the right to vote to give up their sovereignty and join another nation-state. Thus, only Hawaiian nationals have the legally right to vote on whether or not to join the United States. Hawaiians, though, already declared their refusal to join the United States in the Kuʻe Petitions of 1897-1898, in which over 90% of Hawaiians voted against U.S. annexation.
The U.S. vote for statehood in 1959 included many members of the U.S. military, who do not have the right to vote on behalf of Hawaii. -
The U.S. had indoctrinated and brainwashed many of the people of Hawaii into forgetting their history, culture, language, and identity, and into believing they were U.S. citizens. Thus, the people of Hawaii were unable to give informed consent.
-
There was no choice on the ballot to vote for independence. The only options were a yes or no vote on statehood.
"60 years after statehood, activists continue to question legality of the process." KITV4 ABC News. August 16, 2019.
https://www.kitv.com/story/40929287/60-years-after-statehood-activists-continue-to-question-legality-of-the-process
Didn't the Queen give Hawaii to the United States?
No, this is a common myth, particularly among some locals in Hawaii. Queen Liliʻuokalani, or any other Hawaiian leader, never ʻgaveʻ any part of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. Rather, the Queen, under protest, temporarily assigned her power as chief executive of the Hawaiian Kingdom over to the chief executive of the United States, who at the time was President Grover Cleveland, until such a time that the U.S. could properly re-install her as chief executive. Under international law, this is a binding agreement that must be fulfilled and remains in perpetuity until it is rightfully completed. Thus, the duty to fulfill such agreement is passed on to the Queen's successors (the Hawaiian Kingdom Council of Regency) and Grover Cleveland's successors (the current U.S. President).
Do you want to go back to a monarchy?
Some people ask with derision, “You want to go back to a monarchy?” The answer is …”Yes”… and “No”... depending on what kind of monarchy is in question. If they are referring to a constitutional monarchy, the answer is “Yes.” If they are referring to an absolute monarchy, the answer is “No.”
Most people do not know that Hawaii ceased being an absolute monarchy in 1840 when it became a constitutional monarchy. Thus, by the time of the illegal usurpation of 1893, Hawaii had already been functioning as a progressive constitutional monarchy for over fifty years. Under Hawaiian Kingdom law, the monarch is the Head of State and Chief Executive (administrator) of the nation, backed by his or her cabinet of ministers. In the event of a vacancy the monarch was elected by members of the legislature.
There is a significant difference between the two types of “monarchies,” absolute and constitutional. When most people hear “monarchy” they envision a ruler (king, queen, czar, emperor, etc.) with absolute power over the people and operations of his realm. He is sovereign and in him is vested the power to make laws or change them according to his liking.
Furthermore, since the monarch “owns” everything in his realm, he can give or take away at his pleasure. An absolute monarch is actually a dictator — sometimes kind and benevolent, many times not.
Customarily, in an absolute monarchy, the monarch is the sovereign and the people are subjected to him. In a democratic form of government, sovereign rights are embodied in the people who collectively agree to pool their efforts for the good of the country, while still maintaining their individual rights, which even the monarch cannot lawfully override.
Hawaii’s constitutional monarchy, like other present-day constitutional monarchies, is a form of representative democracy. The monarch’s duties and powers are specifically defined and limited by a written constitution and other laws of the land. His powers are not absolute. They are both given by and restrained by the constitution, incorporating the concept of "separation of powers” and “checks and balances.” In a constitutional monarchy, the monarch either is the head of the executive branch (as in Hawaii) or simply has a ceremonial role (as in England).
Countries that still maintain some form of monarchy are: Great Britain and the entire British Commonwealth (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Canada, Jamaica, Australia, New Zealand, etc.), Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Lichtenstein, Morocco, Japan, Thailand, Nepal, Tonga, Jordan, Swaziland, Brunei, Bhutan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and so forth.
A restoration of Hawaii as a monarchy would be neither uncommon nor backward. Many of the most successful and progressive nations in the world today are constitutional monarchies, a governing system that the Hawaiian Kingdom helped to pioneer over a hundred and seventy years ago.
It is also possible that Hawaii, after restoring its de facto independence, may choose to make major reforms to its political system, including a possible abolishing of the monarchy. These are questions that will have to be addressed after independence is restored, allowing Hawaiians the right to self-determination.
Does the Hawaiian Kingdom still exist?
The truth is, despite outward appearances, according to established international standards, the lawful, sovereign entity -- the Hawaiian Kingdom — still exists!
Over the centuries, certain criteria have developed regarding the nature and character of nation-states, so that once a nation-state* has been lawfully established, it is extremely difficult to extinguish.
There are only two ways a nation-state can be extinguished:
1) by Conquest: involving the military defeat and subjugation of its people, along with the physical seizure of its territory by the victor; or 2) by Consent: the un-coerced, free-will choice of its people to surrender and merge their country’s sovereignty to another.
Even the unconditional surrender of Japan and Germany after World War II, did not extinguish their sovereignty. They became occupied states but still retained their national identity. They were still Japan and Germany and the occupying forces administered and enforced the laws of Japan and Germany respectively.
Even the incorporation of the Eastern European states into the Soviet Union after World War II did not extinguish their sovereignty. Despite complete domination by the USSR during the “cold war,” when the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s states like Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Czechoslovakia, and so forth, reemerged as sovereign and independent countries in continuity.
In the case of Hawaii, after the illegal seizure and fake annexation, the status of the Hawaiian people (referring to nationals, not aboriginals) remained inviolate. Neither a vote or plebiscite was ever conducted to gain the consent of the Hawaiian people to dissolve their country, the Hawaiian Kingdom. At no time did the Hawaiian Kingdom or Hawaiian nationals surrender their sovereignty or consent to a merger with the United States. On the contrary, there was fiercely vociferous opposition to the initial seizure and to both efforts at annexation, as evidenced by the massive petitions and the prodigious protests and resistance recorded in the press.
The hearing of the case of Lance Larsen vs. the Hawaiian Kingdom at the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, Netherlands in 2000, positively affirmed the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The acceptance of this case by this body of the World Court was based on a determination that the Hawaiian Kingdom did still exist and that both the Hawaiian Kingdom and the Hawaiian Kingdom national (Larsen), had standing in the World Court.
The fact-finding recommended after the proceedings at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, produced a study by professor of international law, Matthew Craven titled, The Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Craven concluded that, according to standards set by international law, the Hawaiian Kingdom is essentially intact and in continuity. The Hawaiian Kingdom continues to exist. It did not expire. It survives even having been buried alive under the layers of U.S. deception and fraud.
* In international legal terminology, the word “state” is used to refer a nation-state, a recognized nation, a country.
Further reading: Continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by Dr. Matthew Craven
Don't you have to create a new government for the country?
There is no need to create a new government when a perfectly good and lawful one — the Hawaiian Kingdom — continues to exist. Although it has been greatly impaired by unlawful suppression and layers of fraud, the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom was never lawfully extinguished.
Therefore, there is no justification to contrive a new government to replace the Hawaiian Kingdom unless the people, the lawful subjects/citizens, called Hawaiian Nationals, decide they want to alter or change their government.
No one other than Hawaiian Nationals can make that determination — not the U.S. government or foreign U.S. citizens residing in Hawaii, or the State of Hawaii, or the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, or the Akaka Bill’s Native Hawaiian Governing Entity, or even well intentioned sovereignty or independence factions.
Because the Hawaiian Kingdom is in continuity, there is no lawful way to alter or replace that existing government except through the processes provided in the existing lawful constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Prior to the Hawaiian Kingdom being taken over by insurgents during the illegal U.S. invasion in 1893, Hawaii had already been functioning for decades as a nation-state under one of the best constitutions in the world. As a result, Hawaii developed laws that created one of the most progressive and enlightened countries in the world, fully Hawaiian, yet of an international stature, engaged in relations and discourse with many other nations.
The United States’ prolonged occupation does not change the fact that the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the one in place from 1840 to 1893, is still the one and only lawful and indisputable government for the Hawaiian Islands. The United States is a usurper, and has no lawful jurisdiction in Hawaii.
Since the Hawaiian Kingdom was never extinguished, its constitution, laws, statutes and policies are still intact. Hawaii needs only to assemble the people (the Hawaiian Nationals) and revive the mechanisms of government to assert its proper independent status as a sovereign country.
Therefore, any attempt to create a new constitution, new laws or a new government for the Hawaiian Islands, contrary to the lawful Hawaiian Kingdom, would literally be an act of treason — just as treasonous as the self-proclaimed “Republic of Hawaii” in 1894, the fake annexation in 1897, the Territory of Hawaii in 1900, and the current so-called “State of Hawaii” of 1959.
Those that propose to form a new government disregard the fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists. To create a new constitution or any other form of government other than that proscribed in the still existing Constitution for the Hawaiian Islands, no matter how well-intentioned, would be in direct violation of the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and in breach of international laws.
Again, there is no lawful basis to create a new government for the Hawaiian Islands and to do so would be an act of treason against the government and people of the Hawaiian Kingdom continuing to exist as a sovereign, independent, neutral country.
Has the U.S. occupation done anything good for Hawaii?
This is a difficult question to answer, since it requires playing "what if's" and examining hypothetical situations. What would Hawaii have been like had the U.S. never occupied the country? Would Hawaii have been better off? Would Hawaii have been worse off?
The Hawaiian Kingdom was a peaceful, prosperous, and technologically-advanced nation in which poverty and homelessness was nearly non-existent, the literacy rate was the highest in the world, the use of illegal drugs was very low, universal healthcare was implemented for all native Hawaiians, and the country had little national debt.
Since the start of U.S. occupation, Hawaiians have experienced a dramatic drop in prosperity. Though the Hawaiian Islands are a first-world country with a relatively high standard of living compared to the rest of the world, Hawaiians are one of the poorest people groups in Hawaii today, and have been since the beginning of U.S. occupation. In fact, the poverty rate of Hawaii in general (including both Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians) is higher than the U.S. national average. As of 2019, some 200,000 people in Hawaii are living in poverty, or a rate of 13.7% of the population, which is higher than the U.S. average.
(Source: Hawaii News Now, Census: Nearly 200,000 Hawaii residents are living in poverty. 11 September 2019. https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/09/11/census-nearly-hawaii-residents-are-living-poverty/#:~:targetText=The%20estimate%20puts%20Hawaii's%20average,highest%20rate%20in%20the%20country.&targetText=Under%20the%20official%20poverty%20measure,to%20be%20living%20in%20poverty.)
The U.S. government, particularly liberals, have encouraged Hawaiians to use abortion as a means for dealing with poverty and being unable to afford having children, resulting in the deaths of thousands of unborn Hawaiian babies, which has had the effect of suppressing the growth of the Hawaiian population.
Some say that the U.S. has had a positive impact on Hawaii in terms of development and infrastructure. There may be some truth to this. However, U.S. development and infrastructure in the Hawaiian Islands is flawed and does not necessarily meet the unique needs of the people of Hawaii or of the Hawaiian environment and topography. For instance, the building of U.S. interstate highways on the island of Oahu has caused huge traffic problems. Whereas many island nations around the world, as well as Asian countries, effectively rely on public transit, the American focus on streets and automobiles has been detrimental to small islands such as in the Hawaiian archipelago. American-style development is not necessarily good for Hawaii and prevents Hawaiians from making our own developmental choices.
The hypothetical question of "if America hadn't invaded Hawaii, would some other country have?" is addressed in another article.
How Large is the Hawaiian Kingdom?
In terms of population, there are tens of thousands of Hawaiians who consider themselves Hawaiian nationals living both in the Hawaiian Islands, as well as abroad. An exact number is difficult to determine due to the ongoing illegal U.S. occupation, which hampers the ability of the Hawaiian Kingdom government to adequately function. But the number is estimated to be over 40,000.
The number of Hawaiian nationals is quickly growing as more and more people learn the truth about Hawaii's history and current situation.
In terms of territory, the Hawaiian Kingdom is the sole legal governing body over the entirety of the Hawaiian Islands, which includes the eight main islands, as well as the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands known as Papahanaumokuakea.
If Hawaii secedes from the United States won't other states be allowed to also secede?
Hawaii does not need to secede from the U.S., since it was never legally part of the U.S. to begin with. Rather, the U.S. needs to de-occupy the Hawaiian Islands, which it has been illegally occupying with no treaty of annexation.
Some people in parts of the continental United States have been talking about secession, particularly in recent years, though this is unrelated to Hawaii's movement.
With that being said the United States should restore Native Americans as the rightful rulers of the continental United States.
Is Hawaii Going to Revert to Grass Shacks?
What this question (and others like it) implies is that when the U.S. exits from Hawaii, all the improvements in infrastructure, businesses, social services, public safety, culture and the arts that developed under the U.S. occupation of Hawaii over the past 120 years will suddenly disappear and Hawaii will fall back into the stone age! Of course it will not, but people seem to have this immediate reaction.
This type of question reveals a prejudicial attitude — the idea that Hawaii cannot possibly be an independent nation (insinuating that Hawaiians are incapable of operating our own country) and that Hawaii cannot possibly survive without the patronage of the United States.
Think of the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a ‘change of management.’ Everything in the Hawaiian Islands would operate as before, only it would be under the lawful jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom instead of the fraudulent State of Hawaii. All infrastructure and capital improvements would come under the jurisdiction (“new management”) of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This will provide Hawaiians agency to make our own decisions, and to run Hawaii as we see fit.
Recent examples of this type of peaceful, orderly ‘change of management’ transitions are: Hong Kong (from Great Britain to China), the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (from USSR to independence), the Trust Territories of the Pacific (Micronesia) (from US trusteeship to independence), and so forth. Today, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are engaged in “self-determination” where independence from the US would be an option.
The reality is that Hawaii, under U.S. management, has experienced many societal problems, including with our infrastructure. American-style management does not necessarily fit the unique needs of Hawaii. For instance, the over-reliance on tourism puts tremendous stress on vital natural resources, as well as on the locals of Hawaii. Rampant land "development" (speculation) raises housing costs, making it difficult for locals to continue living in Hawaii. Rezoning of farmlands is severely hampering local food production. The ongoing Honolulu Rail Transit project is an utter disaster, with endless delays and over five-time it's original budget. Hawaiians need to take the reins to steer Hawaii in the direction that is best suited for Hawaii, not the United States.
There are many nations smaller than Hawaii that are not only surviving, but thriving without being dependent upon a larger nation. In Hawaii’s case, enormous revenues can be generated from businesses such as tourism and international banking and financial services. Expanded food production and renewable energy production will greatly reduce costs and dependence on imports.
Here’s another direct benefit for the people: Not having to pay U.S. taxes! For many in Hawaii, this would immediately translate into a 30% increase in take-home pay. It would also free generations of Hawaii’s people from having to pay the enormous (trillions of dollars) debts of the U.S.
Then there are the tremendous assets of the former military bases: housing, industrial facilities, operations buildings, communications, shipyards, hangers, and so forth. Then there is the restitution and reparations owed by the U.S. for 125 years of illegal intervention and occupation; pillaging; theft, displacement; economic hardship; social injustices; human rights violations; environmental damage, etc. of Hawaii. With these assessments for wrong-doing, Hawaii will not be reverting to grass shacks.
The point is a peaceful, orderly, lawful transition can occur if the United States is willing to cooperate.
Isn't Hawaii Part of the United States?
Recommended Reading:
Coffman, Tom A Nation Within: The History of the American Occupation of Hawaiʻi
Sai, Keanu. "American Occupation of the Hawaiian State: A Century Unchecked," Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics, vol. 1 (Summer 2004), Heinonline.
Sai, Keanu. The American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. University of Hawaii at Manoa. PhD Dissertation.
Sai, Keanu. "Experts Validate Legitimacy of International Law Case." Ka Wai Ola o OHA Newspaper, Office of Hawaiian Affairs, August 2004.
Shouldn't Hawaiians be first 'united' before their nation can be restored?
While this concept of “unity” sounds nice, it is not practical or necessary or realistic as a prerequisite to reclaim a nation.
How “unified” is the United States? In America’s “two-party system,” aren’t those two parties diametrically opposed over nearly every issue? And what about the subdivisions of the many factions? Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservative Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Conservative Republicans, Liberal Republicans, Independents, Socialists, etc. If unification is the ideal criteria, shouldn’t all these American factions be in “unity” or in “agreement” before the U.S. makes any important decision or takes any action or conducts its operations? Have you ever watched Congress or the British Parliament in session? Do they exemplify unity?
If you really think about it, democracy is the antithesis of unity, while dictatorship is the epitome of unity. How ironic!
Otto von Bismark, chancellor of Germany once stated: “There are two things you should not watch being made — sausages and laws.” The operations of lawmaking is more often than not, a messy, distasteful, divisive process.
Why should Hawaii have to conform to a standard that no other nation, not even the U.S., is required to uphold? In fact, aren’t we told that dissent, differences of opinion — what one could construe as disunity — is what makes democracy great? In reality what makes democracy work is not unified thought or agendas or behavior, but an agreement to function in a civil manner despite our disagreements…warts and all.
To require Hawaiians to jump through hoops and conform to unrealistic standards that no one else has to maintain, is the epitome of a double standard. It is hypocritical, manipulative and a deadly trap. The U.S. is leading the mantra, unity first, unity first, unity first! And many Hawaiians have become mesmerized by it. The U.S. knows full well that if it can get us to believe that we have to achieve unity first, as we fail to achieve that standard, they can use it as an excuse to avoid the responsibility of restoring Hawaii as an independent country.
Freedom is the unifying cause. The various factions are actually united in what matters most — the burning desire to see Hawaii restored as an independent, sovereign country. Exactly how to make that happen is a matter open for discussion, creativity, prodding, poking and the testing of different approaches. In terms of Freedom, the only ones in “disunity” are those who prefer to live under the bondage of the illegal occupation of the United States.
In restoring Hawaii as an independent country, the concept of harmony is way more important than unity.
What religion will Hawaii practice?
Spirituality in Hawaii is a complex and diverse subject.
It is believed that the Polynesians who first settled the islands of Hawaii were monotheistic and had brought with them the worship of the one supreme creator named ‘Io who was unalterably righteous and benevolent.
Eventually, around the 14th Century, the worship of ‘Io was supplanted by a political-religious system that today is referred to as the “Kapu System.” It included the worship of many gods and a complex system of laws governing every aspect of human activity. It kept social order, often through harsh enforcement including swift executions and ritualistic human sacrifice.
The kapu was the religious/socio-political system in place when Captain James Cook came into contact with the Hawaiian Islands in 1778. Cook was amazed by the highly sophisticated society he encountered in Hawaii, and subsequent Western adventurers and traders were likewise impressed.
But according to European standards, Hawaii was considered a “heathen” (non-Christian) nation and, therefore, open game for the doctrines and policies of conquest being practiced by the colonizing nations of Europe. In spite of this, except for a few minor incidents, Hawaii avoided being overtly “colonized” by the Euro/American powers.
Western contact brought many profound shifts in Hawaiian society, including the erosion of the Kapu System until it was officially renounced and abandoned in October of 1819 by Kamehameha II. Six months later, Protestant missionaries arrived from New England (America) and were welcomed by the king. Within 25 years, Hawaii transitioned from “heathen” to Christian. In fact, with the conversion of over 90% of the people, Hawaii became the most Christian nation on Earth. In the process, Hawaii also became the most literate nation on Earth with over 90% of the people proficient in reading the Hawaiian language. The Christian Bible was translated into the Hawaiian language, as were songs and other materials, many of which remain popular to this day.
As Hawaii transformed spiritually into a Christian nation it was also transformed politically, changing from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy with legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Hawaii was quick to embrace the principles embodied in Biblical law, the Law of Nations, the U.S. Constitution and other progressive ideologies and political systems blending them with the Aloha ‘Āina customs and traditions of Hawaii as can be seen in the Hawaiian Kingdom constitutions.
The Western world order of the 19th century was based in Christian tradition, and the adaptation of Christianity helped Hawaii gain international respect from the West. Largely because of this, in 1843 Hawaii became recognized by the Western powers as a sovereign nation.
Since the 15th Century, European imperialism and colonialism had been given “license” by edicts (now collectively called the Doctrine of Discovery) from the Roman Catholic Church, that provided official justification and irresistible financial incentives for Christian (European) nations to conquer, possess and take dominion over lands already being occupied by “heathens.” Colonialism was not so much driven by religious fervor or cultural curiosity, but by church-sanctioned incentives to amass great wealth. In other words, greed.
Had Hawaii still been regarded as a “heathen” (non-Christian) nation, the American and European governments would have most likely applied the Doctrine of Discovery and not recognized Hawaii’s sovereignty. By having become a strongly Christian nation in a short amount of time, Hawaii avoided being swallowed up in the rampant and often brutal, genocidal colonization being conducted by so-called “Christian” European nations.
The Hawaiian Kingdom applied Christian biblical principles through its laws, while providing freedom of religion. Article 2 of the 1864 constitution states "All men are free to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences; but this sacred privilege hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to justify acts of licentiousness, or practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the Kingdom."
During the late 19th century American missionaries and their descendants played major roles in the illegal overthrow of the lawful Hawaiian government. In 1993 the United Church of Christ issued an official apology for its role in this, though they have not provided any reparations.
Today Hawaiians practice a diverse array of spiritual beliefs. Many dislike Christianity due to the shameful roles that some Christians have played in oppressing Hawaiians as well as many other non-Western peoples around the world. Others maintain their Christian faith while also being proud Hawaiian patriots. A restored Hawaiian Kingdom will provide religious freedom for all. Rather than allow religious diversity to divide us, Hawaiians should unite around our shared love of Hawaii, and unite to restore Hawaii's independence so that we may all freely practice, or not practice, our own chosen form of spirituality.
"Oh, honest Americans, as Christians hear me for my downtrodden people! Their form of government is as dear to them as yours is as precious to you. Quite warmly as you love your country, so they love theirs. With all your goodly possessions, covering a territory so immense that there yet remain parts unexplored, possessing islands that, although new at hand, had to be neutral ground in time of war, do not covet the little vineyard of Naboth's,* so far from your shores, lest the punishment of Ahab fall upon you, if not in your day, in that of your children, for"be not deceived, God is not mocked." The people to whom your fathers told of the living God, and taught to call "Father," and now whom the sons now seek to despoil and destroy, are crying aloud to Him in their time of trouble; and He will keep His promise, and will listen to the voices of His Hawaiian children lamenting for their homes."
- The Prophecy of Queen Liliuokalani
* Bible I Kings 21:1-24
Weren't native Hawaiians the only ones wronged?
In the late 19th Century, the Hawaiian Kingdom was a progressive, literate, flourishing, peaceful independent country and an active, full-fledged participant in the Family of Nations. Hawaii conducted trade and enjoyed diplomatic relations with all the leading nations of the world — including the United States.
Domestically, Hawaii had a constitution, a bi-cameral legislative body, a judicial system, session laws, penal codes, a police force, immigration laws, an excellent public education system and all the departments necessary to govern and provide services for the people of this country.
The forceful takeover of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, adversely affected the country’s government, its lands and its citizens, not only the members of a single ethnic group. It was the Hawaiian Kingdom — a country — that was taken, not the aboriginal people, the kanaka maoli (what the U.S. and the State of Hawaii insist on calling, “Native Hawaiians”). Yes, kanaka maoli were harmed by the loss of their country, but so were many non-aboriginal subjects/nationals of the Hawaiian Kingdom: Asians, Caucasian, Polynesians and so forth. This is a crucial point. When a country is stolen, all the people of that country suffer from being deprived of their country — not only the aboriginal people.
Both occupying governments, the U.S. Federal and its puppet, the STATE OF HAWAII, imply in their laws and policies, that the takeover of 1893 affected only “Native Hawaiians.” By purposefully limiting their culpability to “Native Hawaiians,” the U.S. carefully conceals the true scope of the offense, presenting it as a domestic, localized, ethnic or racially defined problem, rather than the violation of the unalienable rights of the citizens of a recognized sovereign foreign nation.
As long as people accept this fraudulent “Native Hawaiian” scenario, their perception of the situation (and whatever quest for remedy) will be skewed along ethnic/racial lines rather than that of national imperatives. This tactic, used deliberately by the U.S. and the State of Hawaii, creates confusion and division among the people of Hawaii (“divide and conquer”). Race-based programs divert attention from the real issue of a stolen nation and foster insincere, token remedies, doomed to failure.
As an example: the Office of Hawaiian Affairs was created in 1978 by the State of Hawaii under this false premise. While it is laudable to want to help native Hawaiians who have been wronged by the takeover, it is a mistake to exclude from recourse and redress, other Hawaiian nationals who were also injured by the loss of their country.
If you were of Japanese ancestry and was born in Canada your nationality would be Canadian. If you were Chinese and born in California, you would be an American national. One’s nationality is determined by the nation of birth or of choice, by a willful act of naturalization. Nationality is not determined by one’s race, ethnic background or bloodline.
At the time of the takeover, there were many people from different origins and ethnic groups who called Hawaii home. Many of them were naturalized subjects and enjoyed the benefits and responsibilities as citizens/subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom. All who were subjects of Hawaii in 1893 were injured when their country was summarily taken and eventually occupied by a foreign government, without the consent of the people and, in fact, over their vociferous protests.
The descendants of these Hawaiian subjects — should they choose to assert their lawful birthrights — have a legitimate stake in the return of their country and Hawaiian Kingdom citizenship and a legitimate claim in matters of reconciliation, redress and restitution involving the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Who is Hawaiian?
The definition of "Hawaiian" is often misunderstood due to intentional abuses by the United States. Today many people around the world think "Hawaiian" means someone who lives in Hawaii, though this is not true.
As recognized by the Hawaiian Kingdom during the 19th century, "Hawaiian" refers to Hawaiian nationals, or subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom. "Native Hawaiian" refers to a native-born subject of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as well as to those born to a Hawaiian parent while traveling temporarily overseas. Thus "Hawaiian" is a nationality, and does not refer to one's place of residence. Not everyone who lives in Hawaii is Hawaiian, and not all Hawaiians live in Hawaii.
Similar to most countries, during the 19th century the Hawaiian Kingdom recognized three ways a person could obtain Hawaiian nationality:
-
Jus sanguinis: acquisition of citizenship from one's parents
-
Jus solis: acquisition of citizenship via place of birth (as in the Hawaiian Islands)
-
Naturalization: government granting of citizenship to a foreigner
However, children born to foreign diplomats in Hawaiian territory do not gain Hawaiian nationality, but gain the nationality of their parents. Likewise, children born to enemy aliens (such as U.S. soldiers) while in Hawaiian territory also do not gain Hawaiian nationality.
Hawaiians are those whose allegiance is to the nation of Hawaii.*
During the 19th century, there were many proud Hawaiian patriots of various ethnicities who defended Hawaii's sovereignty, including those who signed the Kuʻe petitions opposing U.S. annexation.
The United States distorted this definition of Hawaiian in order significantly reduce the number of people who identify as Hawaiian and annihilate Hawaii's independence movement. The U.S. has turned the definition of "Native Hawaiian" into one of blood-quantum, similar to what they did to Native Americans. We do not recognize the United States definition of "Hawaiian" as legal, and maintain the Hawaiian Kingdom's definition as the only true definition.
During the 20th and 21st centuries the United States has purposely implemented propaganda, particularly via the education system, to confuse people and to mislead Hawaiians into believing they are American citizens. This was done in an attempt to strengthen U.S. rule over Hawaii and prevent a restoration of Hawaii's independence. As an increasing number of Hawaiians learn the truth of Hawaiian history and our legal claim to independence, many are renouncing U.S. citizenship and repatriating to the Hawaiian Kingdom.
* Some Hawaiians ask about the possibility of dual citizenship. Under Hawaiian Kingdom law, dual citizenship is generally not allowed. In order to become a naturalized Hawaiian subject, an individual is usually required renounce any previous citizenship. The only exception would be if an individual received permission from the executive branch to maintain dual citizenship; this, however, was historically rare. So while some Hawaiians may desire to maintain both Hawaiian and American citizenship, this is not possible, particularly given the conflict of interest in light of the ongoing illegal occupation of Hawaii by the United States.
Will the U.S. let Hawaii secede?
This is a tricky question. Technically, the U.S. will not let a state “secede” from the union. Technically, the U.S. cannot let a state “secede” from the union.
Yet, Hawaii can rightfully assert that it is independent from the U.S. How is this so?
The fact is, Hawaii is not, and has never been a state of the United States! The Hawaiian Islands is not in or a part of the United States!
“Secede” is the key operating term we need to look at.
In the United States of America, states are forbidden to withdraw or “secede” from the union. The bloody U.S. Civil War was fought to stop the southern states from seceding from the ‘union of states’ to which they had been lawfully and contractually joined. In this epic “War Between the States,” the North prevailed and settled the issue: there can be no unilateral secession from the union. It established that those states that joined the union are permanently bound to the union.
But what if you were never part of the union? By definition, secession is an action that only applies to the states that actually joined the union in the first place. That is where Hawaii is different. Believe it or not, Hawaii never lawfully joined the United States in the first place! That means Hawaii has no need to secede or ‘withdraw’ from non ‘membership’ in the United States. You cannot quit something you didn’t join. You cannot resign from something to which you don’t belong. You cannot get divorced from someone to whom you were never married.
Hawaii regaining its independent status is not a matter of secession, it is a matter of reinstatement; of putting something back into its rightful place. Since Hawaii has never lawfully been a part of the United States, it is by rights, still a sovereign, independent country.
In Hawaii’s case, since 1893 all the steps that were imposed by the United States (provisional government, Republic of Hawaii, Territory of Hawaii, State of Hawaii) were fraudulent actions. Contracts or agreements or transactions derived from fraud cannot be lawful. Since there is no binding contract or treaty or any form of lawful agreement binding the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, there is no ʻunionʻ from which to secede. Thus, the Hawaiian Kingdom today is actually a nation in captivity.
The Hawaii independence movement is not seeking to secede from the United States, it is seeking freedom from captivity. The object is not secession; it is emancipation. It is to regain the freedom to resume operation as a sovereign and independent nation.
We, the sons and daughters of Hawaii are simply asserting our freedom and demanding that the U.S. let our people go.
Won't another country invade Hawaii if the U.S. military leaves?
Americans often say that if the U.S. leaves Hawaii another country, such as China, Russia, or North Korea, will invade. This is a scare tactic used in an attempt to "justify" the U.S. occupation of Hawaii, as well as other Pacific Island nations such as Guam and Okinawa. In actuality, the United States is the only 'threat' to Hawaii. The U.S. military presence in Hawaii makes us a target of attack from America's enemies, as was experienced by the attack on Pearl Harbor of 1941 and the false ballistic missile alert of 2018 which both proved that the U.S. military is unable to protect the people of Hawaii.
If the roles were reversed, and a foreign country maintained hundreds of military bases near U.S. borders, Americans would feel threatened. Likewise, other countries around the world often feel threatened by the presence of overseas U.S. military bases near their borders.
The U.S. government itself has admitted via Wikileaks that Okinawans do not see China as a military threat. Okinawa shares an ocean border with China, so if Okinawans do not consider China a threat, certainly Hawaiians do not need to be concerned either.
Won't everyone in Hawaii have to vote for Hawaii to become independent?
Actually, NO. Because Hawaii already is a sovereign and independent country in continuity, there is no need to have a referendum on whether to become an independent country. The task at hand is not to create a new country, it is to reawaken the country that has been in limbo since 1894.
The only voting required would be for the lawful subjects (Hawaiian nationals), according to the still existing lawful constitution, to elect the initial government positions: the House of Nobles and the House of Representatives. Once seated, the House of Nobles would select the monarch from a field of hereditarily qualified candidates. Then the monarch appoints the cabinet heads and other key officials of the executive branch. Then the judicial branch is duly appointed. The procedures and mechanics are relatively simple and are already proscribed under existing law.
Once the legislature is seated it can implement the proper lawful procedures for a full discussion, involving all Hawaiian nationals, to update the laws, or revise the constitution or adopt a new one all together.
Most people in Hawaii today have difficulty understanding that the Hawaiian Kingdom is by definition, a sovereign country being illegally occupied by the U.S. It is not part of the United States.
Under Hawaiian Kingdom law and the standards set by international laws, only citizen/subjects of Hawaii (Hawaiian nationals) can vote in a Hawaiian Kingdom election. Voting privileges are not extended to foreigners or resident aliens, those living in a country but not citizens of that country; and certainly not illegal aliens. This is the standard applied by every independent country that holds elections. Only citizens (nationals, subjects) vote.
Simply being a long-time or even lifelong resident of Hawaii does not necessarily mean one would be qualified to vote in a Hawaiian national election. You would have to be a resident and a Hawaiian national. Today, the majority of Hawaii residents (even those born in Hawaii) are identified as U.S. citizens, not Hawaiian nationals. A U.S. citizen residing in Hawaii is technically a resident alien to Hawaii, just as a Mexican national residing in the U.S. is a resident alien to the U.S. By domestic as well as international standards, aliens cannot vote in an election of a host country.
Thus, an election that allows all Hawaii residents to vote, regardless of citizenship, would be clearly illegitimate. It would be similar to the sham “statehood plebiscite” of 1959, where all those who voted were U.S. citizens. In addition, it allowed voting by those who were explicitly ineligible, like the U.S. military personnel stationed in Hawaii and their dependents.
In an election concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom, only Hawaiian nationals would be eligible to vote. If only a few thousand or a few hundred or even a handful of eligible voters participated in an election conducted according to Hawaiian Kingdom and international laws, their votes and that election would be lawful and binding.
Who will be king / queen of Hawaii?
The question of who will be king or queen of Hawaii after independence is restored is not the most important factor right now. Instead, the priority should be on restoring Hawaii's de facto independence. This will require leadership and hard work from many different groups and individuals.
A transitional government will be necessary to oversee the transition from U.S. rule to Hawaiian rule, likely over a period of five years. During this time Hawaiians will be able to vote on leaders for the Hawaiian government.
There are many Hawaiians who are descendants of Hawaiian royalty, however, this in itself does not necessarily mean they are entitled to assume the throne. Under Hawaiian Kingdom law there were several requirements before an individual was allowed to assume the throne. Hawaiian law also requires a monarch to be elected by parliament. Thus, lineage alone does not justify one to assume the throne. Hawaiian law also stipulates that no one who is "an idiot" may assume the throne, requiring a monarch to be highly intelligent and with good leadership skills.
As a constitutional monarchy, Hawaiian law stipulates that the monarch is the chief executive of the Kingdom, while his or her cabinet ministers are there to advise and assist. In the absence of a monarch, the ministers act as a Council of Regency to carry out the duties of the executive branch. Thus, a monarch is not absolutely necessary to run the government, particularly considering the current situation of Hawaii.
After Hawaii's independence is restored, Hawaiians will be able to make necessary adjustments to Hawaii's socio-political structure, which may possibly include changes in the executive branch. This could theoretically even include the abolishing of the monarchy in favor of a republic form of chief executive. These are questions that Hawaiians will have to consider at a later date.