Keokani Kipona Kapahua-Kaʻilikea
  • Heahea
    • Palapalaʻāina Kahua
    • Nā Nīnau Pinepine
    • Hoʻokaʻaʻike
  • No Aʻu
    • Pāheona
    • Nā Puke Punahele
    • Nā Līpine Punahele
    • Nā Kumu Hoʻohālike
    • ʻOihana
  • ʻOhana
    • Moʻolelo ʻAi
    • Kaʻilikea-Marciel
    • No Kuʻu Mākua
  • Nā Hana Punahele
    • Lāʻau Ola >
      • Papa Hana ʻAi
      • ʻAoʻao ʻAi
      • Kumu Waiwai Kūloko >
        • Palapalaʻāina
      • Kānela Wikiō
      • NutritionFacts.org
    • Kolepa Pōpō Pālānai >
      • Kānela Wikiō
    • Pia Hana Lima >
      • Nā ʻAno
      • ʻAoʻao Pia
      • Kānela Wikiō
    • Nā Palapalaʻāina
    • Nā Kānela Wikiō
    • ʻAoʻao Meetup
  • ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Mua ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Nā Wikiō ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Puke Wehewehe ʻŌlelo
    • Wehewehe Wikiwiki
    • ʻAoʻao ʻŌlelo
  • Aloha ʻĀina
    • Ka Paio Hanohano
    • Hana ʻImi Naʻauao >
      • Hoʻolilo ʻana Kelikoli
      • Kānāwai Hoʻomalu
      • Kumukānāwai Aupuni
      • Lōkahi Aupuni Hawaiʻi >
        • He Hui Manaʻo Lōkahi
      • Meaʻai Maoli
      • Mōʻaukala Lāhui
    • Nā Mele Aloha ʻĀina
    • Noho Hewa
  • Hāʻawi Wale
    • Cash App
    • PayPal
    • Venmo

KA PAIO HANOHANO
The Honorable Struggle

​Kānāwai Hoʻomalu: Is Parliamentary Law a Blind Spot in the Modern Lāhui?

11/24/2019

0 Comments

 

Na Keokani Kipona Marciel, Loea Lula Hoʻomalu


In the Lāhui today, we're familiar with terms like "international law" and "the rule of law,"
​but what about "parliamentary law"?

What Is Parliamentary Law and How is It Relevant to the Lāhui?

Hawaiian patriotic societies and political parties were commonplace in the Lāhui during the Hawaiian Kingdom era. In fact, the proposed foreign—albeit illegal—annexation of the Hawaiian Islands was prevented from ever succeeding due to the efforts of the three largest Hawaiian patriotic societies at the close of the 19th century. These deliberative assemblies conducted their affairs according to the common parliamentary law. In other words: the generally accepted customs and best practices of voluntary organizations designed to ensure effective meetings and democratic decisions.
​​​​ʻO nā hana o nā hālāwai a pau o ka Hui a me ka ʻAha Hoʻokō e alakaʻi ʻia nō ia e nā rula o nā anaina maikaʻi, a me nā rula maʻa mau o nā ʻAhaʻōlelo.
—Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina.
(4 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 8, Helu 3).
Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina
Parliamentary law is a branch of common law governing the conduct of deliberative assemblies. Democratic procedure, i.e., parliamentary law, is derived from the legislative assemblies of the national and local governments under whose jurisdiction an organization is located. Although the procedure of voluntary organizations was originally modeled after the procedure of their respective legislative bodies, over time the non-legislative procedure has been adapted to the needs of ordinary societies in general. This body of meeting procedures has become known as common parliamentary law, also known as general parliamentary law.
​All proceedings of meetings of the League and of the Executive Council shall be governed by the usual decorum and rules of Parliamentary Usage.
—Hawaiian Patriotic League.
(4 March 1893). Constitution (Article 8, Section 3).
​Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiian Islands
The common parliamentary law applies to all deliberative assemblies, including legislative bodies, in cases where their own adopted rules are silent. The operative word, "law," means that parliamentary law is not a switch that can be turned on or off. Hence, it is not an optional tool for deliberative assemblies. Instead, a deliberative assembly may only deviate from the common parliamentary law by adopting a procedural manual (parliamentary authority), standing rules of order, or long-standing customs, which supersede particular rules of common parliamentary law. However, an organization can only adopt its own standing rules of order or long-standing customs to the extent that they do not conflict with any applicable procedural rules prescribed by law or statutes in the jurisdiction where the organization is located.

What Is a Deliberative Assembly?

A deliberative assembly is a group of people sharing a common interest who have a meeting of the minds to democratically adopt decisions expressing their general will. Types of deliberative assemblies include:
​
  • Legislative Body
  • Mass Meeting
  • Voluntary Organization
  • Board of Directors
  • Convention of Delegates

The formation of a permanently ​organized deliberative assembly entails the adoption of governing documents, enrollment of members, election of officers, holding of regular meetings, and appointment of committees as needed. The meetings of a deliberative assembly entail adequate prior notice to all members, the presence of a quorum, an agreed-upon agenda that follows a prescribed order of business, a presiding officer to conduct the meetings, and a secretary to keep a legal record of the proceedings. If the organization collects membership dues or otherwise handles money, then a treasurer should be elected to maintain the funds of the organization, report the current balance at regular meetings, and provide an annual financial report to be audited by the organization.

What is a Parliamentary Authority?

Deliberative assemblies may adopt a published procedural manual, formally known as a parliamentary authority. Such a manual is a codification of common parliamentary law which contains standardized rules of order for meetings. The way that a procedural manual is adopted by a permanent organization is by including an article in its bylaws that references the manual. Additionally, an organization may adopt standing rules of order that supersede or supplement its adopted procedural manual.

What Gave Rise to Parliamentary Procedure Throughout the World?

Athens had its assembly, Ancient Rome its Senate and Councils, the Ancient Israelites the Great Sanhedrin, England its early Parliaments, and the Iroquois League its Grand Council.
—Keesey, R. E. (2018). Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed., §​2, p. 19). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Democratic procedure for group decisions is rooted in antiquity. The House of Commons in the United Kingdom—considered the mother of all parliamentary democracies—has formally conducted its business in democratic meetings for over seven centuries. The Speaker of the House of Commons serves as the impartial referee of its proceedings. Likewise, the Hawaiian Kingdom had a Speaker for its House of Representatives.

When Was Parliamentary Law Established in the Hawaiian Islands?

In 1840, the Hawaiian Kingdom became a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. In 1854, each house of the Hawaiian Kingdom legislature adopted a procedural manual to govern the proceedings of their respective meetings. In turn, this established a basis for development of the common parliamentary law followed by ordinary societies and mass meetings in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

To What Extent Did Our Ancestors Know Parliamentary Law?

The Petition Against Annexation of 1897 defeated a proposed treaty in the United States Senate that would have illegally annexed the Hawaiian Islands if it had been adopted in 1898. Beloved by the Lāhui today, the significance of the monster petition—which we proudly refer to as the Kūʻē Petition--constitutes an unsurpassed historical feat. It was but one example of many petitions organized by Hawaiian patriotic societies in response to the insurgency that began in 1887, followed by the ongoing belligerent occupation that began in 1893.
​​​​ʻO nā hālāwai a pau a ka Hui a me ke Kōmite Hoʻoponopono, e alakaʻi ʻia nō ia e nā rula o nā anaina maikaʻi a me nā rula maʻa mau o nā ʻAhaʻōlelo.
—​Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina a Hoʻomau Kūʻokoʻa a nā Lede.
(27 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 7, Helu 3).
​Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina
During that time, our Aloha ʻĀina ancestors commonly organized themselves into deliberative assemblies. They did this by adopting governing documents, enrolling members, electing officers, holding meetings, authorizing boards, appointing committees, adopting resolutions, conducting mass meetings, participating in delegate conventions, and organizing petition efforts. The Hawaiian language newspapers of that era provide an historical record today that is full of examples demonstrating the commonality of, and familiarity with, parliamentary law in the Lāhui.
​​​All proceedings of meetings of the Association and of the Managing Committee shall be governed by the usual quorum and rules of similar associations.
—Ladies Hawaiian Patriotic Association.
(27 March 1893). Constitution (Article 7, Section 3).
​Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiian Islands

To What Extent Today Are We Familiar with Parliamentary Law?

During the Hawaiian Kingdom era, the Lāhui had no shortage of patriotic societies and political parties. Can the same be said about the Lāhui today? Of all the Aloha ʻĀina groups that we are familiar with today, how many can you identify with having any of the following items characteristic of a deliberative assembly?
  • Governing Documents
  • Members
  • Officers
  • Meetings
  • Board of Directors
  • Committees
  • Procedural Manual
  • ​Resolutions
  • Association with Local Chapters
  • Convention of Delegates

kiko makapō - blind spot

an area or subject about which one is uninformed, prejudiced, or unappreciative
—Dictionary.com

What Do the Governing Documents Include?

The governing documents of an organization are sometimes referred to instead as the documents of authority, or the documentary authority. An organized permanent society may adopt any of the following documents of authority as needed:
  • Bylaws
  • Standing Rules of Order
  • Standing Administrative Rules
  • Strategic Plan
  • Code of Ethics
  • Operations Manual
Bylaws are the only governing document on the list that a voluntary permanent organization is required to adopt as a deliberative assembly. When drafting bylaws, it is advisable for an organization to consult with a credentialed parliamentarian for assistance.

Additionally, if an organization chooses to incorporate, then a corporate charter would be required as prescribed by applicable statutes. When drafting articles of incorporation, it is advisable for an organization to consult with an attorney for assistance.

Bylaws Are for Organizations and Constitutions Are for Governments

The practice of an organization adopting a constitution—with or without bylaws to go with it—is long since obsolete. The main reason is for simplification, since there are no provisions of an organizational constitution that cannot function the same way in the bylaws. Therefore, it is the recommended practice to combine the two into a single instrument called the bylaws. Furthermore, bylaws are to an organization as a constitution is to a government. That is another good reason why the term, "constitution," has been dropped from the governing documents of contemporary ordinary societies. This removes any potential for someone getting confused about the context in which the term, "constitution," is being used.

Which Procedural Manual is Best?

As suggested above, it is a best practice for voluntary organizations to adopt a procedural manual through a provision in the bylaws. The procedural manual that I generally recommend for voluntary organizations is Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed., 2018) by Ray Keesey. It offers the most radical simplification of procedure of all the parliamentary authorities ever published. Hence, it is the most concise, user-friendly, and practical choice available for the average meeting. For the Lāhui, I also recommend Nā Lula Hālāwai: A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian (2014), by William Puette and Keao NeSmith.
Picture
​With a simplified procedure, it is not too much to expect that members be familiar with the ordinary motions used to amend, refer, postpone, limit and close debate, recess and adjourn. These procedures are more than will be required in most meetings.
—Keesey, R. E. (2018). Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed., §​ 7, p. 127). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Current Parliamentary Authorities

United Kingdom
  • Citrine, W., Citrine N. & Cannell, M. (2016). The ABC of Chairmanship. London, UK: Fabian Society.
  • May, E., Hutton, M., Natzler, D., Hamlyn, M., Lee, C., Mawson, C., ... Lawrence, K. (2019) Parliamentary Practice (25th ed.). London, UK: LexisNexis

United States
  • American Institute of Parliamentarians. (2012). Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  • Keesey, R. E. (2018). Modern Parliamentary Procedure (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Mason, P. (2010). Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.
  • Robert, H. M., III, Honemann, D. H., Balch, T. J., Seabold, D. E., & Gerber, S. (2011). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
​In the interest of orderly procedure, and of self-education in the rules of order in a great democratic nation which abounds in organizations and societies, a parliamentary law book which is authoritative and easy to comprehend and apply at meetings and conventions should be in every club member's home.
—Demeter, G. (1969). Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure
​
(blue book ed., p. 3 ). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Older Parliamentary Authorities

  • Cannon, H. (1992). Cannon's Concise Guide to Rules of Order. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Demeter, G. (1969). Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure (Blue Book Edition). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
  • Lochrie, J. (2003). Meeting Procedures. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press.
  • Riddick, F. M. & Butcher M. H. (1985). Riddick's Rules of Procedure. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
  • Robert, H. M. (2001). Parliamentary Law. New York, NY: Irvington Publishers. (Original work published 1923) [To purchase: new from NAP; used from Amazon]

Historic Parliamentary Authorities

  • Cushing, L. S. (1845). Manual of Parliamentary Practice.
  • Jefferson, T. (1801). A Manual of Parliamentary Practice.
  • Hatsell, J. (1776-1796). Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons.

Additional Parliamentary References

  • Lindley, M. S. & King, R. (2012). Bylaws Workbook (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Federation of Genealogical Societies
  • Puette, W. J., NeSmith, R. K. (2014). Nā Lula Hālāwai. Honolulu, HI: Hawaiʻi State Association of Parliamentarians.
  • Robert, H. M., III, Honemann, D. H., Balch, T. J., Seabold, D. E., & Gerber, S. (2011). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Da Capo Press.
  • Rosenthal, H. S. (2015). Parliamentary Law and Practice for Nonprofit Organizations (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Parliamentary Services Publishing.

Parliamentary Organizations

Hawaiian Islands
  • Hawaiʻi State Association of Parliamentarians

United States
  • American College of Parliamentary Lawyers
  • American Institute of Parliamentarians
  • National Association of Parliamentarians

Hawaiian Patriotic Societies in the Lāhui: From Lost Art to Potential Renaissance


0 Comments

Mauna Kea as a Catalyst for De-Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom from the Inside-Out

8/23/2019

3 Comments

 

Na Keokani Kipona Kaʻilikea, Loea Lula Hoʻomalu


The presumption of state continuity is like the presumption of innocence. A person is presumed innocent unless and until there is enough evidence to the contrary, beyond a reasonable doubt. Likewise, the sovereignty and independence of a state is presumed to continue unless there is contrary evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The Hawaiian Kingdom achieved international recognition as a sovereign and independent state in 1843.

A person does not carry the burden to prove his or her innocence. Rather, the burden is on the accuser to provide enough evidence to reject that presumption. What evidence is there that the continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom has been terminated?

Did the joint resolution of 1898 terminate the Hawaiian Kingdom? Can a congressional resolution unilaterally terminate another country? If the U.S. Congress adopted a joint resolution to unilaterally annex France tomorrow, would that terminate the continuity of France as a sovereign and independent state? Or would it set the stage for a belligerent occupation?

The Hawaiian Kingdom government was seized rather than terminated. Consequently, the governmental infrastructure of the State of Hawaiʻi is actually that of the Hawaiian Kingdom. However, the occupying power is not allowing the Hawaiian Kingdom government to reestablish itself via the laws of occupation. This has gone on now for 126 years and counting. So, is it any surprise that skeptics might perceive a lack of a Hawaiian government in waiting? Is it fair to blame the Lāhui for this?

Any perceived lack of a Hawaiian government in waiting does not absolve the occupying power of its failure to produce a bilateral treaty of cession to substantiate its alleged (illegal) annexation of the Hawaiian Kingdom territory.

What we are seeing on Mauna Kea is a nucleus of the Hawaiian national body reconstituting itself organically. It is providing a catalyst for revitalization of the Hawaiian national language and heritage. In other words, de-occupation is unfolding from the inside out—as we all know that it won't happen from the outside-in. Eventually, that will grow into de-occupation of the entire country. Of course, that doesn't happen overnight, especially when confronted with the longest belligerent occupation in modern history. In the meantime, there is going to be cognitive dissonance to be resolved through civil discourse—and civil "disobedience" when necessary.

​In my opinion, the genie is out of the bottle and de-occupation of Hawaiʻi is only a matter of time. How long that will take is anyone's guess. It took 89 years for the British empire to leave India, which is on the same order of magnitude as 126 years (at the time of this writing) of occupation in Hawaiʻi. The reason I think it is only a matter of time is because the evidence that Hawaiʻi is occupied without a treaty of cession is too strong to be overcome. The question is, how much more time can the occupying power continue to buy for itself, especially now that the Lāhui has been awoken by the TMT initiative?

Customary International Law for Territorial Cession


3 Comments

Customary International Law for Territorial Cession

8/21/2019

0 Comments

 

By Keokani Kipona Marciel


Pakuhi - Chart


Picture

Hōʻike Pōkole - Summary


From 1783 to 1867 (84 years), the U.S. entered 6 bilateral treaties of cession for the territory of its capital and 49 states (50 possessions). ​ The U.S. Constitution explicitly delegates treaty-making power jointly to the President and Senate, not both houses of Congress. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 completed the territorial annexation of Texas, ratifying its statehood admission by joint resolution in 1845. Unlike Texas in 1845, Hawaiʻi in 1898 was not admitted as a state by the U.S. Instead, it was allegedly annexed as an unincorporated territory.

​The Newlands Resolution followed two failed attempts, in 1893 and 1897, to ratify a bilateral treaty of cession for Hawaiʻi in the U.S. Senate. Five months after the Newlands Resolution in 1898, the U.S. resumed the custom of bilateral treaties of cession for territorial annexation. From 1898 to 1951 (53 years), the U.S. entered 5 more bilateral treaties of cession for the territory of 8 additional possessions, excluding Hawaiʻi.

The Indian Appropriation Act (1871) and Island of Palmas arbitration (1925) required a joint resolution to ratify the treaties of cession for American Sāmoa. Since the cession of American Sāmoa was by chiefs rather than conventional nation-states, it wasn't eligible for an annexation treaty in the U.S. Senate. American Sāmoa has been on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories since its inception in 1964.

From 1783 to 1951 (168 years), the U.S. has entered at total of 11 bilateral treaties of cession for the territory of its 58 possessions, excluding Hawaiʻi. 98.3% (58 out of 59) of territorial possessions claimed by the United States were annexed with 11 bilateral treaties of cession over a period of 168 years. ​ Bilateral treaties of cession between countries other than the United States occur before (Lagos to Great Britain in 1861) and after (France to India in 1956) the Newlands Resolution in 1898.

Nā Manaʻo Pani - Conclusions


​Customary international law for territorial cession is prescribed by the self-evident pattern emerging from the complete data set. ​ A congressional joint resolution is a domestic statute incapable of reaching across borders to unilaterally annex a foreign country under international law. The enumerated constitutional power of the U.S. Congress to admit states is limited to U.S. territory acquired by annexation treaty.

Statehood admission of Texas by joint resolution in 1845 is not a valid precedent for alleged territorial annexation of Hawaiʻi by joint resolution in 1898. The U.S. claim of territorial annexation of Hawaiʻi by a congressional joint resolution (unilateral declaration) is an unprecedented historical anomaly. The Newlands Resolution has never been followed by the U.S. or other countries as a new precedent set for territorial cession (annexation).

Since at least 1783, a bilateral treaty of cession remains a necessary instrument for territorial annexation under customary international law. Crimea was unilaterally seized by Russia in 2014 without a bilateral treaty of cession. The annual War Report published by the Geneva Academy classifies Crimea as a state under belligerent occupation by Russia since 2014.

The Hawaiian Kingdom government was compromised by insurgents on 7/1/1887, and remains unlawfully seized since 1/17/1893. The landing of United States troops in Honolulu on August 12, 1898, as a result of the Spanish-American War, violated the neutrality of the Hawaiian Kingdom by using the islands as a base of military operations. ​

​The continuity of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign, independent State is presumed under international law, despite ongoing unlawful seizure of its government under prolonged occupation by the United States.

Nā Kūmole - References


  • Marciel, K. K. (2015, April 15). News media misses real story in reporting on TMT protest. Honolulu Civil Beat.
  • Marciel, K. K. (2015, April 26). U.S. constitutional law and customary international law for territorial annexation. Hawaiian Kingdom Blog.

Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono

94% or 35% for Statehood?
Exploding the Myth of the "50th State"

0 Comments

Exploding the Myth that 94% of Hawaiʻi Voted for American Statehood in 1959

8/16/2019

1 Comment

 
Picture

By Keokani Kipona Marciel

35% of Those Eligible Voted for American Statehood

The number of those eligible to vote who voted for statehood in 1959 was 132,773. When this number is divided by the 140,744 who voted on the statehood question, the percentage is 94%. When divided by the voter turnout of 171,383, the percentage drops to 77%. When divided by the 183,118 registered voters, the percentage drops to 73%. When divided by the 381,859 people eligible to vote in Hawaiʻi, the percentage drops to 35%.

35% Does Not Constitute a Mandate for a Plebiscite

While a 35% yes vote (from a 45% turnout) would be acceptable in a domestic election, it does not constitute a mandate for a plebiscite under customary international practice.

65% of Those Eligible Did Not Vote for American Statehood

Why did 65% of those eligible not vote for statehood in 1959? For some, it could have been a way to boycott the prolonged belligerent occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the US. Others, perceiving correctly that Hawaiʻi would remain occupied regardless of the outcome of the statehood vote, may have decided that it was therefore meaningless to vote on the question. Another possible line of reasoning would be that the actions of registering to vote, then voting in the general election, conducted by an unlawful government during prolonged occupation, would justify its presence. These potential reasons why 65% did not choose statehood are not unlikely given the voter disfranchisement that the Hawaiian population had endured for 72 years since the insurgency began in 1887 (with the so-called "bayonet constitution").

63% Nonparticipation Does Not Speak Well for the Occupying Power

Notwithstanding the fraudulence of the American statehood vote during belligerent occupation in 1959, under the pretense of a plebiscite, the occupying power cannot absolve itself of responsibility for the 63% nonparticipation by transferring that responsibility to the population of the occupied territory. The 63% nonparticipation reflects adversely—not on the inhabitants of the occupied territory—but on the occupying power for its ineffectiveness in persuading that 63% to register and vote in its unlawful plebiscite. That ineffectiveness, it stands to reason, has everything to do with 72 years of insurgency and belligerent occupation up to that time, stemming from the failure to produce a bilateral treaty of cession between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States. Worse, there were two failed attempts by the puppet regime (in 1893 and 1897) to enter a treaty of (illegal) annexation with its parent—they couldn't even achieve that! The result is an untrustworthiness that is accurately reflected in the 63% nonparticipation, which can more appropriately be interpreted as a boycott at the collective gut level, rather than voter apathy.

Pretense of a Plebiscite During Prolonged Occupation

The 1959 vote for US statehood purported to be a plebiscite. This is invalid because there were only two choices: become a US state (by voting "yes"); or remain a US territory (by voting "no"). In either case, Hawaiʻi would remain under belligerent occupation by the US​​ due to the absence of a bilateral treaty of cession between the US and the Hawaiian Kingdom. So, with no other choice, the majority of those who voted on the question chose the lesser of the two evils. After 66 years of being prohibited from choosing the top official in control of Hawaiʻi's government, they could now elect the governor.

Not included as options on the plebiscite were de-occupation, or the choices for decolonization: independence, free association, and commonwealth. If the organizers of the statehood question were confident that a majority would vote for US statehood (albeit under occupation without a treaty), there would be no need to exclude the aforementioned continuum of options for greater autonomy than joining a federation (US statehood).

Why is Hawaiʻi Under Belligerent Occupation?

On January 16, 1893, a company of US Marines from the USS Boston, under a false pretext of public safety for American nationals, unlawfully invaded the Hawaiian Kingdom, a neutral nation-state. On the next day, January 17, 1893, the US Marines provided a protectorate for thirteen haole insurgents to unlawfully seize the Hawaiian Kingdom government through a fake revolution, installing a puppet regime calling themselves the "Provisional Government." This insurgent militia immediately submitted a proposed annexation treaty to the United States, but US President Grover Cleveland withdrew it from the US Senate after learning about the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government.

​Having failed to obtain an (illegal) annexation treaty with the US, the insurgent militia renamed itself to the "Republic of Hawaii," on July 4, 1894.


After a proposed annexation treaty failed for the second time, in 1898, the US Congress enacted a joint resolution to unilaterally seize the Hawaiian Islands, using the Spanish-American War as a pretext. A joint resolution is an agreement between both houses of the legislature in one nation, not between the legislative and executive branches of two nations. Therefore, a congressional joint resolution enacted within a nation is confined to its  domestic borders, having no legal force and effect in a foreign nation. This is true under both international law and US constitutional law (as interpreted through customary practice).

On June 14, 1900, US Congress passed an organic act, renaming its puppet regime, the "Republic of Hawaiʻi," to the "Territory of Hawaiʻi." However, it was no less a domestic law than the joint resolution of 1898. Therefore, it too did not annex the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, nor did it claim to. Instead, it defined its territory as the islands acquired by the joint resolution, which is legally impossible in lieu of a bilateral treaty of cession.

Third Name Change for the Occupation in 1959

On August 21, 1959, following the fraudulent plebiscite held on June 27, 1959, ​US President Dwight Eisenhower signed into law the congressional act, purporting to admit the occupied "Territory of Hawaiʻi" as the "50th State." Hence, the belligerent occupation changed its name for the third time in 67 years, this time to the "State of Hawaiʻi," which is an armed force of the US, pretending to be a lawful government.

1959 Statehood Admission Does Not Claim to Annex the Hawaiian Islands

The act by which the US government allegedly admitted Hawaiʻi as its "50th State" in 1959 is congressional legislation, domestic in its operation, with no legal force and effect beyond the borders of the 49 US states—all of which were acquired by treaties of cession, unlike Hawaiʻi. Therefore, the statehood admission act of 1959 could no more annex Hawaiʻi than could the joint resolution of 1898 or the organic act of 1900. Nor does the 1959 statehood act claim to annex the Hawaiian Islands.

Instead, the "State of Hawaiʻi" defines its territory as that which was in the "Territory of Hawaiʻi." In turn, the "Territory of Hawaiʻi" defined its territory as those islands acquired by the joint resolution. Therefore, due to the impossibility of annexing foreign territory with a joint resolution, the so-called "State of Hawaiʻi" never acquired any territory, nor did any of its three previous incarnations. Consequently, this fake state—as it is accurately referred to today in the Hawaiian Kingdom under belligerent occupation—does not legally exist beyond the borders of the 49 states of the US. With an alleged territory inherited from the joint resolution of 1898, which had no ability to annex the Hawaiian territory, the so-called "50th State" admittedly has no territory. By analogy, one can say that an empty container exists, but it is empty nonetheless.
The boundaries of the State of Hawaii shall be as prescribed in the Act of Congress approved March 18, 1959 ...
—U.S. Territory of Hawaii. (1959, June 27). General election  (Official ballot, statehood admission, proposition 2).
​The State of Hawaii shall consist of all the islands, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters, included in the Territory of Hawaii on the date of enactment of this Act, except the atoll known as Palmyra Island, together with its appurtenant reefs and territorial waters, but said State shall not be deemed to include the Midway Islands, Johnston Island, Sand Island (off-shore from Johnston Island), or Kingman Reef, together with their appurtenant reefs and territorial waters.
—U.S. Congress. (1959, March 18). Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union (Public Law 86–3, 73 Stat. 4, § 2).
That the islands acquired by the United States of America under an Act of Congress entitled "Joint resolution to provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States," approved July seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, shall be known as the Territory of Hawaii.
—U.S. Congress. (1900, April 30). Chap. 339.--An act to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii (Sec. 2).

Texas Not a Valid Precedent for Hawaiʻi

Under the US Constitution, the power of Congress is clearly domestic in scope, with no enumerated power to engage directly in foreign affairs. The power to enter treaties is vested jointly in the President and Senate. Therefore, while Congress does have the constitutional power to admit states, it can only do so from territory already annexed through a bilateral international instrument.

When Congress adopted a joint resolution to acquire Texas in 1845, it did so as a statehood admission and not as a territorial annexation. The territory of Texas was not annexed until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ratifying the premature admission of Texas as a state three years earlier.

In 1898, US Congress did not adopt a joint resolution to admit Hawaiʻi as a state, as it had done with Texas in 1845. Instead, the joint resolution adopted by Congress in 1898 purported to annex Hawaiʻi as an unincorporated territory, which was without precedent. Nor did it set a new precedent for subsequent territorial annexations by the US and other world powers.

Consecutive Domestic Laws and Name Changes Do Not Equal a Treaty

While a single congressional act of one nation cannot unilaterally acquire the territory of another nation, neither can a series, or sum, of consecutive domestic laws. In the case of Hawaiʻi, the joint resolution of 1898, the organic act of 1900, and the statehood admission act of 1959, cannot be construed by summation as equivalent to a bilateral treaty of cession between the US and the Hawaiian Kingdom, which has never been produced. This is especially true after the two failures to annex Hawaiʻi through a senate treaty for (illegal) annexation in 1893 and 1898. 

Just as consecutive domestic laws cannot add up to a treaty, neither can the four successive names of the ongoing belligerent occupation of the Hawaiian Islands since January 17, 1893: "Provisional Government," "Republic of Hawaiʻi," "Territory of Hawaiʻi," and "State of Hawaiʻi."

Hawaiʻi  Already Achieved Statehood in 1843

The Hawaiian Kingdom achieved formal recognition of its independence as a sovereign state, on November 28, 1843, through joint proclamation by Great Britain and France. On July 6, 1844, the US formally recognized the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent state. Having secured this international recognition from the three major naval powers of the world at the time, the Hawaiian Kingdom became the first non-European country to enter the Family of Nations. Since that time, a bilateral treaty of cession has never been produced to terminate the Hawaiian Kingdom as a sovereign and independent state. The unlawful seizure of the government, and prolonged occupation of the country, since January 17, 1893, is not a recognized mode of state extinction under international law.

Since Hawaiʻi already achieved international statehood in 1843, which has never been lost to a treaty of cession, said statehood of the Hawaiian Kingdom has never ceased to exist. International statehood does not have an expiration date, and therefore does not need to be renewed after a lapse of time. Nor did the 1959 statehood act by the US supersede or replace the statehood already achieved by Hawaiʻi in 1843, since the 1959 statehood admission is merely congressional legislation of the US confined in its operation to the borders of its 49 states.

Time Elapsed During Occupation Has Not Extinguished the Hawaiian Kingdom

Under international law, there is a recognized mode of state extinction through the passage of time, called prescription or acquiescence. The Hawaiian Kingdom government, through both its legislative and executive branches, never acquiesced to being succeeded by another government. Furthermore, due to the abundant history of protest since the insurgency began in 1887, and since the occupation began in 1893, a prescription claim by the US to the sovereignty and territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom cannot be substantiated under international law. Nor has the US ever made such a claim. The only official claim that the US has ever made for acquiring the sovereignty and territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom, is through the joint resolution of 1898. However, annexation of a foreign country by unilateral declaration, in the form of a congressional joint resolution, has been thoroughly refuted by simple logic and by the foremost scholars on the subject.

The pretense of statehood in 1959 occurred 72 years after the insurgency began in 1887, 66 years since the belligerent occupation began in 1893, and 61 years after the pretense of annexation by joint resolution in 1898. This gave the US more than 6 decades to transfer portions of its military and civilian populations into the occupied Hawaiian territory, and to denationalize the national population of the occupied territory through propaganda—actions that are considered war crimes under international law. This process, tantamount to stuffing the ballot box for the statehood vote in 1959, further negate any potential claim by the US to Hawaiian sovereignty and territory through prescription.

References

  • Beers, A. (2019, May 24). Hawai‘i: The fake state – Dr. David Keanu Sai talks to the Maui County Council about the ongoing American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Retrieved from https://mauitime.com/news/politics/hawaii-the-fake-state-dr-david-keanu-sai-talks-to-the-maui-county-council-about-the-ongoing-american-occupation-of-the-hawaiian-kingdom/
  • Cardwell, E. K. [Free Hawaiʻi Broadcasting Network]. (2015, May 31). 50th State fraud: A visit with Williamson Chang [Video file].  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIOh5KMqXfA
  • PBS Hawaiʻi. (2013, July 19). Insights: Native Hawaiian sovereignty [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViQWXH-nVtA
  • Saiki, A. (2009, May 12). The Statehood plebiscite. Retrieved from http://imipono.org/2009/05/12/the-statehood-plebiscite/
  • State of Hawaiʻi, Office of Elections. Registration & turnout statistics. Retrieved from https://elections.hawaii.gov/resources/registration-voter-turnout-statistics/
  • Think Tech Hawaiʻi. (2014, September 3). The ongoing fight for Justice in Hawaii [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC4v0k0wd0Y

Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono

Territorial Cession
Customary International Law
Legal Status of Hawaiʻi
Deciding the Question

1 Comment

Hauʻoli Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea! 176th Anniversary 2019

7/31/2019

1 Comment

 

Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea - Restoration Day

On Tuesday, July 30, 2019, I gave a presentation to the Las Vegas Hawaiian Civic Club. The first part was an historical presentation of Hawaiʻi's first holiday, Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea—Sovereignty Restoration Day. In 1843, a five-month occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, by British Lord George Paulet, was brought to an end on July 31 by British Admiral Richard Thomas after completing his investigation ordered by Queen Victoria. This was followed by a grand ceremony that became the first holiday of the Hawaiian Kingdom. This year, 2019, is the 176th anniversary of this holiday, which is related to the second holiday born on November 28, 1843, Lā Kūʻokoʻa—Hawaiian Independence Day. 

Pilina Aloha ʻĀina Kauʻāina - International Hawaiian Patriotic Union

The second part of the presentation was an overview of the organizing efforts since 2015, culminating in the formation of Pilina Aloha ʻĀina Kauʻāina - International Hawaiian Patriotic Union (abbreviated, "PAʻA Kauʻāina").

​The motto of PAʻA Kauʻāina:
​Revitalizing the National Language and Heritage of the Hawaiian Islands
The purpose of PAʻA Kauʻāina: ​
The objectives of PAʻA Kauʻāina are to serve the dispersed Hawaiian community through education and cultural resources; to revitalize the national language of the Hawaiian Islands; to affirm the continuity of Hawaiian nationality in the absence of a bilateral treaty of cession; and to celebrate Hawaiian nationality and heritage indivisibly.

Hāʻawiʻana - Handout and Slides of the Presentation

Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea - 176th Anniversary
Slide Presentation 2019 - Las Vegas

Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono

Lā Kūʻokoʻa - 175th Anniversary
Hawaiian Independence Day 2018 - Las Vegas

1 Comment

My Submitted Testimony Regarding Mauna Kea

7/24/2019

0 Comments

 
​The Hawaiian Kingdom is a neutral nation-state that was unlawfully invaded by a military force of the United States on January 16, 1893. This established an unlawful protectorate for a handful of insurgents to implement a regime change one day later, on January 17, 1893. This unlawful seizure of the Hawaiian Kingdom government by the installed puppet regime did not terminate the Hawaiian Kingdom as a nation-state and a subject of international law.

To this day, there is no bilateral treaty of cession that gives the United States and its agent, the armed-force, self-declared "State of Hawaiʻi," jurisdiction over the territory of the Hawaiian Kingdom. The joint resolution of 1898 is a domestic statute and unilateral declaration, which, under customary international law, has no force and effect outside of the continental borders of the U.S., across 2,467 miles of ocean, and in the foreign country called the Hawaiian Kingdom. The joint resolution is an agreement between both chambers of the legislature in one country, not an agreement between the legislative and executive branches of the two countries involved: Hawaiian Kingdom and United States. Consequently, the Hawaiian Kingdom remains under a belligerent occupation prolonged illegally since January 17, 1893.

​Therefore, until this military occupation is brought to an end, there should be a moratorium on all construction projects on Hawaiian Kingdom lands. The proposal to build a multinational Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) on Mauna Kea is no exception. A permit for such construction could only be approved by the Hawaiian Kingdom government following U.S. de-occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Submit Your Comments on Mauna Kea

Insurgent Governor
There is No Treaty of Cession
Change.org Petition
Prevent TMT Construction

Protect Mauna Kea

Puʻuhonua o Puʻuhuluhulu

0 Comments

Common Parliamentary Law in the Hawaiian Kingdom

5/18/2019

0 Comments

 

Ke Kānāwai Hoʻomalu Maʻamau (Nā Papa Hana Hālāwai)
​Common Parliamentary Law (Meeting Procedures)


Picture

​​ʻO nā hana o nā hālāwai a pau o ka Hui a me ka ʻAha Hoʻokō e alakaʻi ʻia nō ia e nā rula o nā anaina maikaʻi, a me nā rula maʻa mau o nā ʻAhaʻōlelo.
—Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina. (4 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 8, Helu 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina
All proceedings of meetings of the League and of the Executive Council shall be governed by the usual decorum and rules of Parliamentary Usage.
—Hawaiian Patriotic League. (4 March 1893). Constitution (Article 8, Section 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiian Islands

​​ʻO nā hālāwai a pau a ka Hui a me ke Kōmite Hoʻoponopono, e alakaʻi ʻia nō ia e nā rula o nā anaina maikaʻi a me nā rula maʻa mau o nā ʻAhaʻōlelo.
—Ka Hui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina a Hoʻomau Kūʻokoʻa a nā Lede. (27 Malaki 1893). Kumukānāwai (Paukū 7, Helu 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina
​All proceedings of meetings of the Association and of the Managing Committee shall be governed by the usual quorum and rules of similar associations.
—Ladies Hawaiian Patriotic Association. (27 March 1893). Constitution (Article 7, Section 3). Honolulu, Oʻahu, Hawaiian Islands

​The "usual decorum and rules of Parliamentary Usage," and, "the usual quorum and rules of similar associations," as prescribed by the original Hui Aloha ʻĀina—Hawaiian Patriotic League—in its founding documents in 1893, was a reference to what is known today as common parliamentary law. This is a branch of common law that applies to meeting procedures of voluntary organizations. Rules of order enable a group to make more decisions in less time during meetings while also protecting the rights of the membership, including the majority, minority, individual members, absent members, and all of them together. Decorum during debate is a form of kapu aloha that helps us have vigorous discussion on controversial questions without burning bridges between members. These are democratic principles in action, well within the grasp of the average person open to learning them, empowering ordinary groups to take them into their own hands for pono governance.

Nā Lula Hālāwai
A Parliamentary Guide to Conducting Meetings in Hawaiian

0 Comments

Hawaiian Renationalization vs. Denationalization

4/8/2019

3 Comments

 
Picture
​ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi (and Hawaiian culture generally) is the only row in the table where the two columns overlap. Otherwise, the columns are mutually exclusive: a person of Hawaiʻi either falls in the left column (Aloha ʻĀina) or the right column (Americanized Hawaiian). By default, part-time Hawaiians, because of assimilation, step foot into the right column. If you call yourself Hawaiian, which column are you in?

​To revitalize the Hawaiian language is to revitalize the national language of the Hawaiian Kingdom, a Country never terminated without a treaty of cession. To regain fluency in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi is to de-occupy Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina from the inside out.

Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono

ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
Hawaiian Language

3 Comments

Hauʻoli Lā Kūʻokoʻa! 175th Anniversary 2018

12/1/2018

0 Comments

 

Lā Kūʻokoʻa - Hawaiian Independence Day

On Saturday, December 1, 2018, I gave an historical presentation at the Green Valley Library in Henderson, Nevada. The event was part of the series, "Around the World at Henderson Libraries," a celebration of countries and cultures. The subject of the presentation was Lā Kūʻokoʻa—Hawaiian Independence Day—the most important holiday in the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Hāʻawiʻana - Handout and Slides of the Presentation

Lā Kūʻokoʻa - 175th Anniversary
Slide Presentation 2018 - Las Vegas

Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono

Lā Hoʻihoʻi Ea - 176th Anniversary
Restoration Day 2019 - Las Vegas

0 Comments

Deciding the Question of Hawaiʻi's Legal Status

4/20/2018

1 Comment

 
Belligerent occupation is the most common form of international armed conflict, abbreviated, "IAC." According to The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights:
... an IAC includes any situation in which one state invades another and occupies it, even if there is no armed resistance at all. This is set down in Article 2 common to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions.​
 (War Report 2017, p. 20)

​That is exactly what took place in the Hawaiian Islands beginning on January 16, 1893, and again on August 12, 1898.

The self-proclaimed "Republic of Hawaiʻi" (ROH) was an insurgent militia and puppet regime installed by the US on January 17, 1893, which US President Grover Cleveland correctly diagnosed as "neither de facto nor de jure." Hence, it was an armed force of the US by way of proxy. Therefore, it was neither a government nor a state. Consequently, it had no ability under customary international law to convey Hawaiian sovereignty and cede Hawaiian territory to the United States.

Even if ROH was a legitimate government, transfer of Hawaiian sovereignty to the USA would require bilateral approval by both the head of state and legislature in each country. However, neither legislature approved it. The US Senate failed to ratify the proposed annexation treaty in 1898, as required by the US Constitution and defined by customary practice: the territories of all 49 US states were acquired through bilateral treaties of cession negotiated by the US President and ratified by the US Senate.

There is no historical precedent where a law enacted by US Congress can be used in lieu of a Senate treaty to acquire the territory of a foreign country, especially after two failed attempts to ratify such an annexation treaty. The power of US Congress to admit states was used prematurely for Texas in 1845, but undisputed annexation of the territory did not occur until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.

Texas was being admitted as a state by US Congress in 1845. Hawaiʻi was not being admitted as a state by US Congress in 1898. Rather, it was purportedly being annexed as an unincorporated territory by unilateral declaration via a joint resolution, using the Spanish-American War as a pretext. Therefore, the premature statehood admission of Texas in 1845 is an invalid precedent for the alleged territorial annexation of Hawaiʻi in 1898.

There is abundant history of opposition to the insurgency in Hawaiʻi nei, both before and after the unlawful seizure of the Hawaiian Kingdom government on January 17, 1893. This includes petitions by Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, submitted during the respective reigns of both Kalākaua and Liliʻuokalani, to replace the unlawful "bayonet constitution." The Queen herself submitted a protest against the illegal overthrow, to the US.

The Hawaiian Patriotic League submitted a formal protest against annexation that became part of the Blount Report, which resulted in US President Grover Cleveland withdrawing the proposed annexation treaty of 1893, submitted by the puppet regime of insurgents to the US Senate.

There were the three armed revolts against the insurgency, led by Robert Kalanihiapo Wilcox, in 1888, 1889, and 1895.

There were the two mass signature petitions, submitted respectively by the two largest Hawaiian patriotic societies in 1897. One called for restoration of the monarchy, and the other successfully defeated annexation in 1898.

Consequently, with plenty of examples of protest against illegal takeover of the Hawaiian government, prescription cannot be claimed by the US as a mode for acquisition of the Hawaiian territory. This holds true even after the lapse of 6 decades between the false territorial annexation in 1898 and the pretense of statehood admission in 1959. Both were laws enacted by US Congress, i.e., domestic statutes incapable of acquiring a foreign country.

After 61 years of transferring portions of its military and civilian populations into the occupied territory, an implicit claim could not be made to the Hawaiian territory by the congressional act of statehood admission in 1959. As a domestic statute, it had no ability to annex the Hawaiian territory, nor did it even claim to. Instead, it stated the false premise that the Hawaiian Islands were acquired by the congressional joint resolution of 1898.

Nor could the 1959 statehood admission ballot be considered a valid plebiscite under international law, since it excluded any independence options.

Nor did the 1959 statehood vote carry the weight of a mandate with only 35% of the "eligible" voting population, as defined by the U.S. puppet government, which included US nationals transferred into the occupied territory—a war crime under international humanitarian law—during the prior 61 years.

The turnout for the 1959 statehood vote was 45% of "eligible" voters as defined by the US puppet government. When Americans claim that 97% voted for statehood, this is out of the 45% turnout, which actually equals 35% of the occupier-defined voting population. While the turnout percentage may be overlooked in a domestic election, it cannot be overlooked in an international plebiscite, or one that pretends to be. A turnout of less than 50% is not considered a mandate under customary international practice for sovereignty transfer (territorial acquisition). In any case, the vote did not change the fact that the statehood admission was an act of US Congress, like the joint resolution of 1898, neither of which could reach across US borders--and nearly 2,500 miles of ocean--to acquire the Hawaiian Islands.

In summary, no matter how the legal history of Hawaiian sovereignty is analyzed, there is insufficient evidence to support a claim to Hawaiian sovereignty by the United States, and ample evidence against any such claim.

In conclusion, the question of correctly diagnosing the current legal status of Hawaiʻi belongs to the living descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom subjects alive prior to January 17, 1898. The question cannot be decided for this national body—the Lāhui Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina—by any other country or its nationals. It cannot be decided by an organization outside of the Lāhui.

There are no persons or organizations in the world today more qualified to diagnose the history and legal status of Hawaiʻi nei than its true nationals, the descendants of those alive prior to January 17, 1893. Especially, those of us who embrace Hawaiian nationality, the continued existence of which is presumed in the absence of a bilateral treaty of cession, between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States, necessary to overcome that presumption.
​The occupant does not acquire sovereignty over the territory.
--International Committee of the Red Cross


Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ʻĀina i ka Pono

Territorial Cession
International Law
35% for 50th State
Exploding the Myth of 94%
Occupied Since 1893
Noho Hewa

1 Comment

    KA PAIO HANOHANO
    THE HONORABLE STRUGGLE


    NO KA MEA KĀKAU
    ABOUT THE AUTHOR

    Picture
    He Hawaiʻi Aloha ʻĀina au, mau a mau, he mamo haʻaheo a kuʻu tūtū wahine nui ʻelua, Loke Kaʻilikea, no Kaupō, Maui, Ko Hawaiʻi Pae ʻĀina
    Keokani Kipona Marciel is a great-great grandson of Loke Kaʻilikea (1857-1914), of Kaupō, Maui, who signed the historic Petition Against Annexation in 1897, which defeated the proposed treaty of illegal annexation of the Hawaiian Islands by a foreign country in 1898. Inspired by that legacy, Keokani is a founding member of Pilina Aloha ʻĀina Kauʻāina (International Hawaiian Patriotic Union).

    Keokani is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian accredited by the National Association of Parliamentarians, and is a member of the American Institute of Parliamentarians. He currently serves as the Parliamentarian for the National Education Association of Southern Nevada.

    Hana ʻImi Naʻauao
    Scholarship
    Hāʻawi Wale
    Support My Work

    Nā Papaʻa - Archives

    December 2020
    May 2020
    November 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    December 2018
    April 2018
    October 2017
    January 2016

    Nā Mahele - Categories

    All
    Americanized Hawaiians
    Belligerent Occupation
    Denationalization
    Deoccupaton
    Hawaiian Kingdom
    Hawaiian Patriotic Societies
    Ko Hawaii Pae Aina
    La Hoihoi Ea
    Lahui Hawaii Aloha Aina
    La Kuokoa
    Mauna Kea
    No Treaty Of Cession
    Olelo Hawaii
    Organizational Procedure
    Renationalization

    RSS Feed

Heahea | No Aʻu | ʻOhana | Nā Hana Punahele | ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi | Aloha ʻĀina​ | Hāʻawi Wale

Kulia i ka Nuʻu!

​Kuleana kope 2016-2021 Keokani Kipona Kapahua-Kaʻilikea
  • Heahea
    • Palapalaʻāina Kahua
    • Nā Nīnau Pinepine
    • Hoʻokaʻaʻike
  • No Aʻu
    • Pāheona
    • Nā Puke Punahele
    • Nā Līpine Punahele
    • Nā Kumu Hoʻohālike
    • ʻOihana
  • ʻOhana
    • Moʻolelo ʻAi
    • Kaʻilikea-Marciel
    • No Kuʻu Mākua
  • Nā Hana Punahele
    • Lāʻau Ola >
      • Papa Hana ʻAi
      • ʻAoʻao ʻAi
      • Kumu Waiwai Kūloko >
        • Palapalaʻāina
      • Kānela Wikiō
      • NutritionFacts.org
    • Kolepa Pōpō Pālānai >
      • Kānela Wikiō
    • Pia Hana Lima >
      • Nā ʻAno
      • ʻAoʻao Pia
      • Kānela Wikiō
    • Nā Palapalaʻāina
    • Nā Kānela Wikiō
    • ʻAoʻao Meetup
  • ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Mua ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Nā Wikiō ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi
    • Puke Wehewehe ʻŌlelo
    • Wehewehe Wikiwiki
    • ʻAoʻao ʻŌlelo
  • Aloha ʻĀina
    • Ka Paio Hanohano
    • Hana ʻImi Naʻauao >
      • Hoʻolilo ʻana Kelikoli
      • Kānāwai Hoʻomalu
      • Kumukānāwai Aupuni
      • Lōkahi Aupuni Hawaiʻi >
        • He Hui Manaʻo Lōkahi
      • Meaʻai Maoli
      • Mōʻaukala Lāhui
    • Nā Mele Aloha ʻĀina
    • Noho Hewa
  • Hāʻawi Wale
    • Cash App
    • PayPal
    • Venmo