• Opinion - The Telegraph
  • Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia
  • Racial Justice – Page 2 – Applying the Analysis

Special Book: About Neutral Nation Hawaii/Hawaiian Kingdom

The best opinions, comments and analysis from The Telegraph.

Take the only tree that’s left, Stuff it up the hole in your culture

In the tradition of Jim Wolfe's "A Man about Missouri" 04-14-65
I got it!
The U.S. Congress, armed with the Morgan Report and the May 31, 1894 Turpie Resolution prevented President Grover Cleveland from restoring the Queen’s authority and under pressure, President Cleveland recognized the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894. That however does not allow the U.S. to de-recognize Hawaiian Kingdom sovereignty! I can now see how the U.S. Supremacy clause will serve to obligate the U.S. to address a claim from a Hawaiian National!
No doubt, this subject is not easy to comprehend. Each individual is responsible for the information they receive. Qualification of information is vital to avoid demoralization and reliance on others without due diligence is a recipe for disaster! It appears that Dr. Sai has been aware of this information for a while now it’s me who is just now coming to an understanding. I may not be a fast learner, but I try my best in order to address this subject matter with sincerity! As an old saying goes: when the student is ready the teacher will appear! I wasn’t ready before! If the law suit initiated by Dr. Sai failed, then we learn from that failure and move forward!
In order for me to learn from his failure, I must first bring myself up to par!
I appreciate not only Dr. Sai, but all those who made or are making an effort to restore our Kingdom!
Nuff said!

—Leonard Cohen Retreat to the desert, and fight

Jane’s noble path to marriage. | Dalrock| Dalrock">
If the two executive agreements were not valid, I promise you there wouldn’t be an Apology Bill by the U.S., but that apology wasn’t made to native Hawaiians, it was made to Native Hawaiians. BTW: The Hawaiian Kingdom is a nation state and not a State.
I can see how you could conclude that I come from camp sai as the facts Dr. Sai works with are the same that I work with, does he determine what information I sould be bound to? No!
I think you would agree that there is no treaty of cession between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the U.S., I think you would also agree that annexation of the Hawaiian Islands in 1898 by a U.S. resolution has no affect over the sovereign Hawaiian Kingdom, yet I wouldn’t conclude you came from camp sai, our history is what it is!
If everyone was to rely on the factual events of history all the groups would go away! But groups help to kick start ones thinking process on the historical events that took place in Hawaii. For the new ones, just because you heard someone say there is no treaty of cession don’t believe it, check it out and then conclude your finding. Now you can defend your position!
I purchased many books on Hawaiian history only to find out later that some authors had no idea what actually happened in Hawaii! What if I chose to stop my qualification process at the end of that book, I would be inaccurate! Now if someone notice that I’m off they would counter with supporting evidence and upon my qualification of the new information I would have the option to accept or deny.


Thinking Outside the Box: A Misguided Idea | Psychology …

And thus Cleveland notes this;“By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair.”
“The provisional government has not assumed a republican or other constitutional form, but has remained a mere executive council or oligarchy, set up without the assent of the people. It has not sought to find a permanent basis of popular support and has given no evidence of an intention to do so. Indeed, the representatives of that government assert that the people of Hawaii are unfit for popular government and frankly avow that they can be best ruled by arbitrary or despotic power.
”On that ground it can not allow itself to refuse to redress an injury inflicted through an abuse of power by officers clothed with its authority and wearing its uniform; and on the same ground, if a feeble but friendly state is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States can not fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest effort to make all possible reparation.”

You can also see that Turpie Resolution terminated President Cleveland’s efforts to restore the Queen and he eventually gave in and recognized the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894. By recognizing the Republic of Hawaii the U.S. automatically de-recognize the legitimate Hawaiian Kingdom, but it does not take away our sovereign independent status since November 28, 1843 to date. The U.S. has told other nations to recognize their authority over the Hawaiian Islands, but that does not take away from the fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom never entered into to a bi-lateral (two party) treaty of cession with the U.S. nor can they show a treaty of conquest against Hawaii by the U.S. as history tells us that only a U.S. internal policy, Newlands Resolution that came nearly four and a half years after the December 18, 1893 Agreement of Restoration is what they have to stand on! I guess author Sara Vowell is accurate when she referred to the U.S. annexation of Hawaii in 1898 like what New Jersey would proclaim a day like a Bon Jovi day.


The deliberate failure by the United States to administer Hawaiian Kingdom law has led to the unlawful imposition of American laws in the Hawaiian Kingdom that formed the basis of the dispute between Lance Larsen, a Hawaiian subject, and the Provisional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom in at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands. The unlawful imposition of American laws within Hawaiian territory is the war crime of “usurpation of sovereignty” of the occupied State. And the failure to comply with the law of occupation in the administration of Hawaiian Law according to Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Convention, IV, is a war crime as well.

1 Corinthians Devotionals | Precept Austin

The fundamental issue on appeal will center on whether or not a U.S. President can withdraw recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty after a previous U.S. President afforded explicit recognition of Hawaiian state sovereignty on July 6, 1844, thereby creating, as the U.S. District determined, a political question until Hawaiian state sovereignty is re-recognized by a subsquent U.S. President. The Plaintiff maintains that international law prevents a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s sovereignty, because recognition of state sovereignty is a political act with legal consquences. International law, however, does not prevent a recognizing state from de-recognizing another state’s government, which is often referred to as diplomatic recognition. Example: The United States recognized Cuba’s state sovereignty in 1925, but derecognized the Castro government in 1961. The withdrawal of the recognition of Castro’s government was not a withdrawal of the United States’ recognition of Cuban state sovereignty. Cuba continued to exist as a sovereign state, despite the derecognition of the Castro government.