Hawaii & Iraq are Birds of a Feather

[Guest guest]

http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0590_leis_lies

_why_hawaii_iraq_birds_feather.html

 

"...Hawaii is not legally a US

state and never has been. It was conquered

clandestinely by a group of sugar peddlers

looking to eliminate their export tariff, and

passed into America's hands illegally. That

problem has never been rectified."

 

The Simon

April 5, 2004

 

Canon Fodder

 

Leis and Lies: Why Hawaii and Iraq are Birds of a Feather

 

By Matt Hutaff

 

The notion that a group of wealthy industrialists

would topple a nation's government for their own

selfish interests is hardly surprising given the

"corporate sponsorship" of the current

presidential administration. Dick Cheney's ties

to Halliburton aside, companies such as Enron and

Clear Channel show that big business works best

when it calls the shots in the White House.

 

I'm not talking about Iraq and its vast

resources, though. I'm talking about Hawaii, our

50th state.

 

The story of how Hawaii was overthrown and passed

to the American government like a two-dollar

whore is one of the saddest ongoing acts in

modern history. In truth, Hawaiian independence

is something few Americans know little about. The

truth is disturbing, and many would prefer to

keep Hawaii's image one of tourism, of hula

dances and coconut milk.

 

However, the fact is, Hawaii is not legally a

state and never has been. It was conquered

clandestinely by a group of sugar peddlers

looking to eliminate their export tariff, and

passed into America's hands illegally. That

problem has never been rectified.

 

It's time to change that.

 

Hawaii's primary importance was twofold - its

climate allowed vast sugar plantations to corner

the market, and its location in the Pacific

allowed friendly nations to maintain a naval

advantage in the region. However, as Hawaii was a

recognized sovereign nation under its own right

(a sentiment echoed by the United States in

1826), American businessmen found themselves

paying to import their goods to North America. A

shadow organization called the Hawaiian League

was set up by lawyer Lorrin Thurston with the

goal of eliminating the tariffsŠ which meant

controlling the tiny kingdom.

 

Hawaiian king Kalakaua - an elected monarch, not

a hereditary ruler - was forced by these men into

signing what is known as the Bayonet

Constitution, which installed the League as

Cabinet members with all the power and forcing

the king into a figurehead position. This group

of 400 men then restricted the ability to vote to

all but the wealthiest people on the islands, a

limitation that coincidentally robbed practically

all natives of the right of self-government.

 

When Kalakaua died and his sister Lili`uokalani'

assumed the throne, Thurston formed an Annexation

Club with the express purpose of overthrowing the

queen and installing Americans in power. As if

the idea of a group of rich white guys taking

over a country wasn't disturbing enough,

Thurston's communiqués with Washington, D.C.

found a supportive ear in no less than President

Benjamin Harrison. "You will find an exceedingly

sympathetic administration here," he wrote.

 

Lili`uokalani' attempted to revoke the

restrictive constitution put in play by the

Hawaiian League Cabinet members, which, in a

bitterly ironic move, they condemned as fostering

"a revolutionary act." Thurston then called upon

American minister (and avowed annexationist) John

Stevens to unload American troops illegally from

the warship USS Boston, then in port, to quell

any dissent and prop up a new provisional

government. In doing so, Stevens approved the

American invasion of a foreign nation, an act of

war by any other name. To further the point of

the illegal nature of the operation, Stevens had

no authority to order the troops anywhere!

 

With the queen under the control of the provision

authority, Sanford Dole (of the Dole Pineapple

dynasty) took over the duties of ushering in

annexation legislation to the U.S. government.

Grover Cleveland's personal attempts to restore

Lili`uokalani' to her throne met with failure,

his eloquent speeches to Congress declaring

"military demonstration upon the soil of Honolulu

was of itself an act of war" only staving off

annexation until his successor, William McKinley,

took office. Two attempts by the people of Hawaii

to restore their rightful government to power met

only with death and fines for the insurgents.

 

29,000 native Hawaiians signed petitions

denouncing annexation. They were never seen by

the Senate, the issue never put to a popular

vote. Even though Congress had no legal authority

to do so (having no legal standing in a foreign

country, which is what Hawaii was, even under the

provisional government), that's what it did in

1898. The will of the people had been overturned

in the interests of profit and strategic military

operations.

 

61 years later, Hawaiian was a non self-governing

territory under Article 73 of the United Nations

charter. Under the charter, such territories were

supposed to be given three options for governance

- remain a territory, become part of its trustee

nation (a state in the U.S.) or become

independent. Hawaii's vote was missing the third

option in 1959, denying the people the chance to

self-govern again.

 

The UN stated that Hawaii's statehood is in

violation of its charter. The United States

Justice Department has confirmed that Hawaii's

1898 annexation wasn't under the authority of

Congress and is therefore illegal. The United

States government even signed into law Public Law

103-150 acknowledging not only its illegal

overthrow of the Hawaiian government but that

Hawaiians never surrendered their sovereignty.

 

Hawaii is, by the United States' own admission,

an independent nation. So why aren't Hawaiians

given the chance to determine for themselves

whether they want to truly be a member state in

this nation? Is the status quo so important that

people be denied their right to choose their

government in the process?

 

Looking at the "provisional authority" in Iraq,

it's fairly obvious that the United States

doesn't want to take any chances. It certainly

won't with a state that brings in major tourism

revenues. How big of a black eye would it be on

the international scene to have a state leave the

union, after all?

 

Organizations like the Nation of Hawaii have been

promoting the idea of Hawaiian independence for

years. In the light of the overwhelming evidence

(and admission) that Hawaii is part of the U.S.

illegally, shouldn't they be given the

opportunity to choose for themselves?

 

Or will the United States grant more rights in

the end to war-torn Iraq than to a nation that

has literally spent two centuries bending over

backwards for American interests?

 

Let Hawaii decide its own fate.

 

Mahalo.

 

Canon Fodder is a biweekly analysis of politics and society.

 

1998-2004 The Simon.com

 

 

 

 

<<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>><<<>>>

Note: the content of forwarded messages reflects the opinion of

the authors, not necessarily that of the list maintainers.

_______________

This list is provided as a free service. Donations may be made to:

Aloha First, PO Box 701, Waimanalo, Hawaii 96795

_______________

Hawai`i - Independent & Sovereign

info http://hawaii-nation.org

_______________

"The cause of Hawaii and independence is larger and dearer than

the life of any man connected with it. Love of country is deep-

seated in the breast of every Hawaiian, whatever his station."

- Queen Lili`uokalani